Marx, Romanticism and the Importance of Superstructure in Evaluating Progress

ABSTRACT

Marx’s development and deployment of a teleological account of history derived, in part, from Hegelian tenets has been central to modern notions of progress. This stands in contrast to Rousseau’s romanticism, which holds that human well-being declines as technology advances. In this article, I challenge these two positions through engagement with the case of Aboriginal Australian societies. I explore the possibility that an appreciation of the intricacies of societies demeaned as “primitive,” can lead Marxian and Rousseauian tenets to affirm those societies, but for reasons that Marx and Rousseau may not have originally appreciated. In light of the cultural or superstructural problems caused by modes of production, there may be grounds to appreciate the achievements of societies, which have actively rejected apparently essential means of progress, such as agriculture.

KEYWORDS:

• Marx
• romanticism
• progress
• development

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on Contributor

Matthew Johnson is a lecturer in politics at Lancaster University. His research interests lie in examining the possibility of making cross-cultural judgements (Evaluating Culture, Palgrave, 2013), exploring the notion of “good culture” through “A Cross-Cultural Working Group on ‘Good Culture’ and Precariousness,” a collaborative project between academics and non-academic community co-researchers from Ashington, Northumberland, and Aboriginal communities around Brisbane, South East Queensland, aimed at identifying and fostering cultural responses to precariousness capable of promoting well-being. He is the editor of Global Discourse: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Current Affairs and Applied Contemporary Thought.