Yaar Dildaar Tujhe Kaisa Chaahiye? Pyaar Chahiye Ke Paisa Chaahiye?

Aniruddh Patil

SYBA

https://pin.it/4994GIh

Rajesh Khanna and Zeenat Aman frolic in the typical tribal appropriation of Bollywood, singing these lines: 'Yaar Dildaar Tujhe Kaisa Chaahiye? Pyaar Chaahiye ke Paisa Chaahiye?' (meaning ‘What kind of beloved do you want? Do you want money or love?’). Little did they know, they were raising an important sociological question. The dichotomy between money and love has been a bone of contention in many pop culture love stories. Building on this contention, I have chosen “love” as a topic to critically examine in the context of Karl Marx’s theory on base and superstructure. Love as a philosophical concept has so many explanations, theories, and definitions that it is epistemologically difficult for me to pinpoint a particular idea that I like about it. In the mainstream context – love is an emotion or feeling beyond our comprehension which causes affection, care and longingness for something or someone. I am well aware that this understanding is very incomplete, however, it traces back to the epistemological explanation and conceptualization of love. I will also be particularly focusing on romantic love and not platonic love.

The influence of Marx on polity, economics, sociology and even history is undeniable. His writings, theories and ideas have produced shockwaves throughout the world and the relevance of Marx seems to have increased in the modern context. Generally, Marx is often vilified for his radicalism and his excessive critique of capitalism. He is also often termed as a reductionist who only looks at material aspects and materialism when critiquing or analysing anything. But his theory on base and superstructure provides an important perspective on social institutions and structures. The base and superstructure theory attempts to capture the essence of all the structures and systems and through this attempt, Marx wishes to further the idea of dialectic materialism, another idea which has roots in his fundamental idea of materialism.

Marx argues that social processes, institutions and structures are constructed on the foundation of a base. In simpler words, the base is the foundation from which these social structures and systems are derived. These processes, systems and structures are called the superstructure.  Here, the term “superstructure” means various other aspects of society and societal life such as law, polity, art, culture, science, technology, education, and more. According to Marx, the base of society is nothing but the modes of production, relations of production, division of labour, and employer-employee relationships. In simpler words, the economic system and material setup and distribution in turn affect the superstructure. In this vertical setup where the base is on the bottom and the superstructure is at the top, both aspects exercise some sort of influence on each other. However, Marx argues that this influence is majorly unidirectional as the superstructure is generally dominated by the base and the superstructure seldom affects the base.

In order to understand Marx’s positionality on this particular aspect of society, we have to first look at aspects, systems and larger interpretations of what constitutes modern day love that he would focus on. Identifying and locating this would not be too difficult, especially in the 21st century context – The commercialization of love is predominant – Valentine’s Day is celebrated as a day of expression of love, more so by the corporations who wish to sell their products which are symbols of “love and affection”. A narrative has been built around the concept of economic expenditure and it is hugely associated with love. Valentine’s day gifts, ridiculously expensive anniversary gifts, occasional dates at fancy restaurants to keep the relationship “happening” are all subtle injections of capitalism and consumerism. A quick look around the world will clearly indicate that it is working. Viewed purely from an economic standpoint, love is an expensive affair.

Another structure of modern day love that Marx would focus on is the association of class with love. Popular belief argues for the spontaneous and natural beginning of love – love can never be planned or executed; it just happens. It comes as no surprise that Bollywood today supports and propagates this argument to a great extent. However, it is necessary to note that for the spontaneous conceptualization of love to happen, there needs to be interaction between the said individuals. But society, especially in the modern context, has been stratified on the basis of class. In this literal and social stratification of society on the basis of class, spontaneous love between individuals belonging to different classes almost seems fictional. I would like to cite an example that is very personal to me – This might appear very cold and calculated, but I always used to analyse my romantic prospects on the basis of three criteria; proximity, compatibility and the third one being economic standing and more particularly, purchasing power parity. It is an important precursor for me to fall in love (even subconsciously) as an analysis of our future also mandates the inclusion of economics; there should be similarity in terms of personal expenditure. 

Looking at all these aspects of modern-day love, Marx would certainly get animated and most definitely place “love” in the superstructure with the base of modes of production being the same. Marx would see love as an instrument of exploitation used by the capitalists to increase consumerism among the customers by associating and attaching products, objects and practices to symbols denoting and showing love – And who would not want to show love? The commercialization of love is strategically done by the bourgeoisie to reap profits off of love, something integral to probably every human being. As our comrade Rajesh Khanna succinctly puts it - “Pyaar ke liye bhi paisa chahiye” (you need money for love too). Marx would also argue that since class plays a major factor in love, it also reinforces the class hierarchy and consciousness and maintains the status quo. It is imperative to understand the time, context and space he was writing in – Living in abject poverty in 19th century London and Paris where the Industrial Revolution is at the peak of its power. Marx’s positionality would definitely make him question everything, even love.

Political ideologies, religious stance, values, and beliefs also play a major role in future prospects. We require some sort of similarity that serves as a source of commonality and belongingness. Even in terms of the purchasing power parity example, my anti- consumerism and subsequently anti-establishment (anti-capitalist stance) might not sit well with someone who thinks spending money is therapeutic for them. Conversely, the disassociation and subsequent enmity that I have against someone who is diametrically opposed to my ideas, beliefs and values is detrimental to “potential” love between us. Love has another prerequisite which is as important as materialism in any form: ‘compatibility’. This is another one of my criteria in analysing the future of my romantic prospects. The impediments to the development of love due to the conflicts mentioned above prove that compatibility is also an important precursor and determinant of love.

Citing my example to explain an aspect of Marx’s view would automatically indicate my affiliation with Marx, at least to some extent. Although this is partially true, I believe the foundations of love as we see it in modern society and context, consist of a lot more complexities and influences that deserve a mention. I would like to cite another contentious example in order to elaborate on a certain aspect – Gold diggers. The mainstream narrative around gold diggers is that these individuals (mostly females) use relationships, which are based on love, to gain access to material wealth of the males. These individuals are severely ostracised in society for their downplaying and betrayal of “love” for something like money and resources. However, Marx would see it as a completely rational and individual choice by them in order to gain access to resources as staying in the bottom of the hierarchy is certainly the last thing they would do.

However, I believe there is more to this concept than just a bid for materialism. It is important to note that the modern world is still largely patriarchal and this gender dynamic is still persistent. Women are expected to choose spouses with material wealth in order to gain access to it and assert their power through this since they have very few chances of earning it themselves. This is because even though opportunities for women in the workforce have increased considerably, it is still women that must compromise for the greater good (mainly of the man) when it comes to it. This subordination is internalised through beliefs and practices, and this power dynamic of men over women translates into women making rational choices (very high probability of it being subconscious) that give them some sort of agency, some sort of power. So, for me, “gold digging” has roots in the patriarchal setup as well as in materialism.

Marriage as an institution is celebrated as the declaration of love and commitment to an individual. However, marriage in the sociological sense has a lot more implications and factors. The precursor to marriage, which is a long-term commitment, ensures that certain needs or requirements are fulfilled. Undoubtedly, financial security is one of the major influences. However, it is imperative to look at the fact that social acceptance for love and procreation, emotional support of a partner, and societal pressure for marriage are also important precursors for marriage. Many times, we see these aspects taking precedence over economic stability – Many people marry for love, while some marry for the sake of social acceptance. Since marriage and love are closely tied together, it is also safe to say that love, to some extent, has these precursors as well. This makes emotional support along with other social forces such as normative culture, social acceptance an important influence in love.

Social groups and institutions also play an important role in love – A sense of commonality with the other individual, a common culture and way of living, and shared values enhance love in a way. This source of similar origins avoids exposure to change, something that individuals as well as societies are fearful of. Another reason for the enhancement of love through commonality is to reproduce the culture and traditions that have been imbibed (again a high probability of it being subconscious). This probably explains why endogamy is practised in a lot of communities and why exposure to the outside world is kept limited – So that you fall in love with your own people.

Through the examples, it would seem like a lot of factors affect the superstructure, thus placating all the things in the base. However, the degree of influence of anything on love entirely depends on the context of the situation and this is where I’d like to critique Marx. For example, inter-caste marriages in rural India would be prohibited by the Khap Panchayat (seldom such a case arises due to low inter-caste interaction) irrespective of their economic standing and class background. Thus, it is also important to contextualise our analysis to see what influences love – economy, social institutions and structures, emotions, compatibility, etc. In my opinion, keeping the base only economic in nature extensively limits love – It has been shaped and influenced by many factors and negating them would not help in understanding love. It can be dependent on class, caste, political ideologies, ethnicity, societal norms, and institutions, etc. Or it can be nothing and just love. But then again, have we really understood love in the truest of sense?

References

Dillon, M. (2019, September 16). Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.