Based on Marxist historical materialism, this paper systematically critiques contemporary symbolic cultural theories represented by Clifford Geertz, and proposes an ontological framework of "cultural duality". It points out that there exists a theoretical overreach in the current field of cultural studies, which equates culture entirely with symbolic systems and neglects the more fundamental practical foundation of culture. The author argues that culture consists of two heterogeneous forces: first, practical culture, which refers to human beings’ active practical activities of transforming the subjective and objective worlds. It is revolutionary, progressive and fundamental, and constitutes the ontological basis of all cultures. Second, symbolic (intellectual) culture, which emerges from the need to abstract and disseminate practical experience, is a derivative and subsystem of practical culture, and is inherently conservative and lagging.
The paper further reveals the rupture and inversion of cultural duality in class society: by monopolizing symbolic systems and educational apparatuses, the ruling class places symbolic culture above practical culture, resulting in the "aphasia" of working people in the symbolic world and cultural oppression. Finally, the paper extends the theory to the era of artificial intelligence. It points out that large language models are essentially probabilistic recombinations of existing human symbolic corpora, and they are systematically taking over the production of symbolic culture, thus dissolving the symbolic privileges of intellectual elites. This historical process provides a solid foundation in productive forces for "setting things right" in practical culture. Once the symbolic barriers are broken, working people will regain cultural dominance through their "consciousness as labor power" — including value judgment, aesthetic creation and practical decision-making — which cannot be replaced by algorithms, and realize the return of "the primacy of practical culture". The paper also emphasizes that technology is only a condition for liberation rather than a decisive factor, and true liberation still depends on the active struggle of the working people.
Comments