Base and superstructure

The project is to read 'Base and superstructure', part of Marxist Media Theory by Daniel Chandler, then answer the following:

What is meant by 'base' and 'superstructure'

The base is the economic method of producing goods. It includes the way the four factors of production - labour, capital, property, and enterprise are organised. Marx believed this was the socio-economic fundamental that determined the superstructure: the culture, rituals, political organisation an institutions. 

The relevance for this course is that this materialism (specifically historical materialism in the original Marxist theory) means that media and cultural activities  are a result of the prevailing economic relations, they are subservient to the economic model and there is no feedback mechanism between the two.

Of the different ways of looking at the subject outlined by Chandler, which makes most sense to you and why?

Chandler expounds the above view, noting that the effect is that commercial media organisations are the servant to the economic landscape. In a capitalist society, this means that resources are directed towards media activities that expand markets (e.g. pornography) and that the system itself tends towards the media being owned and controlled by the capitalist class while activities that are politically controlled and funded will gravitate towards a middle ground. What Chandler omits here is that media activities in controlled societies are themselves controlled with little or no freedom to interpret information in any way other than that which enhances the interests of the controlling class. In causality terms, the nature of the base makes no difference as the superstructure will reflect the attributes of the base.

He then points out that critics regard this economism (synonymous with materialism for the purposes of this article) as effectively too simplistic, there is reciprocity between the base and superstructure.

So, is it determinism or reciprocity? My answer would actually be both, as can be observed in practice. We can see on the one hand that media institutions are typically controlled by substantial capitalist empires - the 'media moguls' such as Rupert Murdoch and Northcliffe media - and that considerable sums are expended to draw custom in by, for example, the car companies. On the other hand, there is feedback: a classic example is the rebirth of Apple Inc, a company that was on the brink of going out of business as the leviathan Microsoft grew, but fought back with outstanding product design and slick marketing and branding, eventually overtaking Microsoft. The relationship was reversed: the superstructure redefined the base economic model. New media and social networking are now so closely integrated with the economic effort as to be effectively one for most forward thinking enterprises. Marx was preoccupied with tangible production; his model is too simplistic for contemporary society.

Does your understanding of base and superstructure vary depending on whether you are looking at society in general or the media and the arts?

I am not sure why it would. It could only be different if we believed that media and arts somehow could move in directions that are materially distinct from those in society in general. I believe media and arts for the large part are reflective of society, so I would contend that understanding would be consistent between the two.

Conclusion

I have come across  Marxist theories before, albeit a long time ago, so could understand this article. It seems to me that Marx provides a theory which is too simplistic for modern mixed economies.