How far does Roland Barthes rely on a Marxist interpretation of

Capitalism in Mythologies?

!
!

Roland Barthes work on the power of cultural myth can be interpreted in many ways.
Writing in an age of mass consumerism, it is clear that his interpretation of Capitalism
plays a key role in how he views the world and how he views the function of myth in
propagating that world. There is much evidence to suggest that Barthes view of capitalism
was indeed marxist, at least in a purely economic sense. Yet, it is as important not to view
Marxism as purely an economic dichotomy as it is to view Barthes as not simply a Marxist
theorist. Barthes use of marxism in his writings often allows him to explain the motivation
of the Bourgeoisie, but more often his mythologies explore his assertion that the
Bourgeoisies overriding aim is to maintain the doxa or status quo. Barthes does not
subscribe to the notion that capitalism will be inevitably toppled by violent revolution from
below; but he does view capitalism as an imperfect system that makes it effortless for the
Bourgeoisie to maintain their cultural dominance. This essay will attempt to show, through
the study of the work Mythologies, how Barthes view of Capitalism began but did not end
with Marxist theory.!

!
We shall begin by examining some of the more overt examples of Barthes awareness of
capitalist exploitation. In Le vin et le lait, Barthes discusses French societys relationship
with wine, its influence on the individual and its universality as the accepted national
drink. He uses wine as a metaphor for the nobleness of French society arguing that,
generally speaking, the French do not drink to get drunk (Barthes, 2009: 66). But insofar
as he starts painting an innocent portrait of wine and its role, he argues that wine, like all
things, exists as the physical embodiment of capitalist exploitation. Barthes states: The
private distillers impose on the muslims, a crop of which they have no need, while they
1 of 6

lack even bread. (Barthes, 2007: 83) Barthes wants to demonstrate how something so
leisurely as a glass of wine can act to displace populations and perpetuate poverty. Whilst
Barthes is not marxist in relation to his audience (the French population), he does not, for
example, suggest that wine can be used by the Bourgeoisie to subjugate the French
proletariat; it is clear that Barthes sees capitalism as an exploitative and self-serving
system. Barthes continues his use of symbolism in the extract Le bifteck et les frites.
Similarly to Le vin et le lait, Barthes suggests that steak and chips are the gastronomic
embodiment of French culture. However, rather than overtly referring to capitalism as
before, Barthes chooses to focus on the way that the democratic notion of steak and chips
is used by the establishment to create the illusion that every frenchman is equal and
united. It is a part of all the rhythms, that of the comfortable bourgeois meal and that of the
bachelors bohemian snack. (Barthes, 2007: 70) Barthes makes a subtle reference to the
way the Bourgeoisie use myth to reduce the perceived disparity between the classes. A
largely economic disparity stemming from capitalist inequality. It is clear then that Barthes
takes a marxist view of capitalism in the sense that he understands how it could exploit,
not just a certain class within society, but also the citizens of a less economically
developed country. Moreover, he sees capitalisms creation of economic disparity as part
of the reason that the Bourgeoisie use myth. Rather than reducing the inequality, which
would in turn reduce their power, the Bourgeoisie use myth to reduce the scope of
inequality in the eyes of the working classes. In this sense, his view of capitalism is not
exclusively marxist.!

!
So far, we have considered that the definition of marxist capitalism exists only in economic
terms. We have dismissed the social myths exposed by Barthes as being unrelated to his
interpretation of marxism. Yet, as Hawkes argues it would be erroneous to dismiss
Marxism as a purely economic philosophy (Hawkes, 2003: 89). Therefore, neither should
2 of 6

we restrict our interpretation of Barthes view on capitalism to the purely economic. It is

already clear that in many ways Barthes saw Capitalism as a method of myth
transmission. Indeed, Thompson argues that Marx certainly linked the production and
diffusion of ideas to the relation between classes.. Marx himself recognised that those that
controlled the material (or economic) force of society also controlled its intellectual force
(Thompson, 1990: 36, 38). Barthes takes a similar view of society and of how Capitalism
helps to maintain the dominance of the ruling class. Le Pauvre et le Proltaire represent
ons of Barthes most overt acknowledgements of Marxism. In it he references Charlie
Chaplins film Modern Times. He praises Chaplin for creating an image of the proletarian
masses that are unaware of their collective plight because they are too consumed by their
own individual struggles. Trapped by his own poverty and oppressed by the hands of his
masters (Barthes 2009: 35), the peasant worker never achieves political awareness.
Barthes clearly recognises how Capitalism and Capitalist society could exist to subvert
and control the population. Le Pauvre et le Proltaire uses Chaplins character in Modern
Times as a prophetic example of what happens when the bourgeois myth surrounding
capitalism and equality successfully permeates down to the subjugated working classes.
This you could argue, is a marxist interpretation of how ideology functions, yet Barthes is
very subtle and does not explicitly state this.!

!
As previously mentioned, Barthes does not have a uniquely marxist view of Capitalism
and its function. He seeks to interlink the economic elements of his argument with the
Bourgeoisies penchant for social control through myth. Whilst he certainly does not see
cause to advocate any sort violent socialist revolution, he does attempt to pick holes in the
ruling classs legitimacy (Tager, 1986: 8). Instead, he also views Capitalism as a method of
myth distribution. This can be seen in his mythology Jouets where he shows how the
Bourgeoisie manipulate capitalism into producing objects which perpetuate established
3 of 6

roles in society. Whether that is the soldier, the judge, the hairdresser or the homemaker,
Barthes argues that the Bourgeoisie successfully maintain society as a largely static entity
by using toys to condition the youth into accepted and established roles. He suggests that
these objects are bought and consumed by the population at large and therefore cause
people to be users rather than creators (Barthes, 2009: 58). In this way, it can be argued
that Barthes sees capitalism as the system of distribution and toys as the mechanism by
which the Bourgeoisie control both the pace and type of development in society. !

!
Barthes develops these ideas further in Romans et Enfants. Writing at a time when
contemporary commentators thought of a society undergoing great change: the first wave
of feminism, rising living standards under les trentes annes glorieuses and growing
social freedoms; Barthes argues that often these new found freedoms resulted in only
superficial social progress. According to him, whilst a woman can write novels, become
famous and be considered generally successful, something that was becoming more and
more common; her traditional role as a mother and a wife had not disappeared. It ran
alongside her new found success, and as such indicated that the ideas of social freedom
and independence were illusions rather than realities. Here, Barthes is forced to concede
that progress is not completely at a standstill; the Bourgeoisie have allowed some change
in societys structure. Yet, just as he argues that the French myth surrounding wine exists
in order to increase to create a false sense of equality, with Romans et Enfants he is
arguing that the Bourgeoisie create myths around social progress in order to ensure the
very opposite, the maintenance of the social doxa. With these two mythologies, we see
how Barthes is not concerned solely with a marxist, exploitative view of economic
capitalism but also with how capitalism can be used a method of distribution and how the
Bourgeoisie use myth in order to control the social aspects of society. !

!
4 of 6

Overall then, Barthes interpretation of capitalism in Mythologies is multi-faceted, complex

and developed. His view of Capitalism never becomes fully clear, although it is evident that
he sees it as a system which distorts equality through skewed economics for the benefit of
the Bourgeoisie. As Barthes moulds his argument to include social and cultural aspects of
society; he progressively moves further away from a purely Marxist interpretation of
Capitalism. Yet, it is clear that a Marxist view of Capitalism as an exploitative system that
allows the continued subjugation of the working classes (or according to Barthes, those
unable to see through myth) is a view that Barthes shares. However, we cannot draw the
conclusion that he advocates overthrowing Capitalism through violent revolution.!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5 of 6

Bibliography"
Barthes, R. (2007). Mythologies. Paris: Editions du Seuil.!
Barthes, R. (2009). Mythologies. London: Vintage.!
Hawkes, D. (2003). Ideology. London: Routledge.!
Thompson, J.B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of
Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press.!
Tager, M. (1986). Myth and Politics in the Works of Sorel and Barthes [Journal Article]!
!
Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press!
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709722>!
Oct. 1986

6 of 6