Infrastructure as the Supporter of Superstructure: How the Myth of My High Schools years Turns Upside Down.

I used to think that in critical theory, we would have a certain issue for each meeting. Thus, since the issue in each meeting is different, I needed to grasp eleven issues during fourteen meetings of the course. I thought it would be such a waste to focus on all of them because the issues that seemed to resemble to my final project might be only a few. However, I am now getting confused by how each of the issues works to build my comprehension towards literature. Not until the class discussed on class and economic was I aware of this relation, to which definitely objected my previous thought on the separation amongst the issues being discussed within the class.

I finally realize that it would be possible for me to understand the discourse of the class and economy without having a context of Aristotelian which have been built most of the myth on nowadays daily life, a problem of representation, a matter of structure and an awareness of desire and self o forming text. I am still amazed on the fact that the further discussion on literature basically builds my comprehension about the surface of the society where I belong. Infrastructure and superstructure that Marx explained were the instances of it.

I had studied economy for 6 years and I felt that I only understand a few simple things like there were Marxist as an opposing party of liberalist view in conducting the economic activities, or the price depended on the scarcity of the commodity. Talking about economy was only about the money flowing from one hand to another throughout the market.

Nevertheless, those simple things I saw as the simple things in the surface of the economy were actually the fundamental elements, if this economy is considered as the structure, which build culture and society. My comprehension becomes upside down. What actually viewed as the surface of the economy is actually the infrastructure of the society, and the society, which I assumed to be the founder of the economy, is the superstructure: the structure produced by the support of the infrastructure or base structure. Thus, Marxist critic on humanist as the ones taking the infrastructure for granted is reasonable by this sense.

It comes to my mind that when we define the infrastructure, we will penetrate to superstructure layer since any movements towards understanding is in superstructure. It will be troublesome since I have mentioned earlier that the infrastructure is the support system of the superstructure while I define this support in the superstructure: I specify the relation as the supporting and the supported.

Eventually, at the end, the myth of seeing the economy surface only has been banished. It is a must for me to be aware of the society and the culture is built up from the matter of the lack of self, the desire of self that turn into exchange activities as we are aware that the text is constructed by a lot of discourse as its infrastructure. After all, the society, the culture, and the text are all in superstructure, which will always be parallel with the level I am on when I try to understand the base structure.