Marxist theory foregrounds the material conditions and class relations that underpin social life, viewing human solidarity not as an abstract sentiment but as a collective outcome of struggles within society. In moments of crisis—whether economic collapse, political upheaval, or ecological disaster—media institutions become pivotal arenas where the coherence or fragmentation of solidarity is contested. Unlike liberal‐pluralist accounts of the press as a neutral conveyor of information, Marxist media theorists contend that capitalist media function as part of the ideological superstructure, reproducing class interests and often obstructing genuine solidarity. Drawing principally on Louis Althusser’s theory of Ideological State Apparatuses, Antonio Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony, and Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s critique of the culture industry, this essay examines how, in crises, media can both erode and potentially reforge the solidaristic bonds necessary for collective emancipation.
The Marxist Base–Superstructure Framework and Media
At the heart of Marxist analysis lies the distinction between the economic “base” (the mode of production and class relations) and the ideological “superstructure” (institutions, culture, law, and media). For Marx and Engels, the superstructure derives from—and in turn helps reproduce—the material realities of the base. In capitalist societies, media outlets, as part of this superstructure, operate within and reinforce the logic of private ownership, profit maximization, and the preservation of ruling‐class dominance. Consequently, in times of crisis, media texts rarely offer neutral accounts of unfolding events; rather, they frame crises as discrete failures of individuals or distant policy mistakes, thereby diverting attention away from systemic contradictions inherent to capitalism itself. By promoting narratives that isolate responsibility—whether via sensational headlines blaming “irresponsible consumers” or “foreign criminals”—media serve to deflect collective scrutiny away from class structures.
Althusser’s Ideological State Apparatuses and Crisis Narratives
Louis Althusser’s concept of the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) provides a powerful lens for understanding how media shape subjectivities in moments of crisis. Unlike Repressive State Apparatuses—such as the police or military—that rely overtly on coercion, ISAs function primarily through ideology. The mass media, in this schema, interpolate individuals as subjects who consent to their social positions. In a crisis scenario, media outlets intensify their ideological role by circulating narratives that obscure the capitalist roots of systemic breakdowns. For instance, during an economic downturn, mainstream coverage might emphasize personal failings (lack of “financial literacy”) or the irrationality of market participants, rather than tracing the crisis to speculative finance, overaccumulation of capital, or neoliberal deregulation. Such framing not only individualizes structural problems but also cultivates a sense of fatalism, discouraging collective action and solidarity among workers. By depicting crises as exceptional anomalies caused by individual malfeasance or state mismanagement—rather than as endemic features of capitalist dynamics—media ISAs forestall the emergence of class consciousness necessary for solidarity.
Moreover, Althusser emphasizes that ISAs do not simply broadcast ruling‐class ideology; they “hail” subjects into predefined roles. In crisis reporting, this hailing process can be observed when media outlets exhort citizens to adopt the identity of “resilient consumers” or “patriotic citizens” rather than “collective agents.” For example, during a public health emergency, headlines urging “stay calm and shop local” or “do your part for the economy” redirect attention from systemic inequities in healthcare or the precarity of low‐wage workers. By prescribing these identities, media reinforce capitalist imperatives and inhibit solidaristic bonds that might arise from recognizing shared vulnerability. As a result, individuals are interpellated not as members of a collective body seeking systemic transformation but as isolated subjects whose primary duties are to consume responsibly and maintain social order.
Gramsci’s Cultural Hegemony: Dividing the Working Class
Antonio Gramsci’s notion of cultural hegemony extends this analysis by demonstrating how ruling‐class dominance is secured not only through coercion or overt propaganda but through the articulation of common sense—the taken‐for‐granted worldview that justifies existing social arrangements. Media, as central vehicles of this hegemonic process, produce and circulate images, narratives, and ideas that naturalize capitalist relations. In a crisis, such as a widespread economic collapse or an urgent environmental catastrophe, media intensify the production of hegemonic discourses. They present austerity measures as “shared sacrifices,” demonize strike actions as “selfish,” or frame ecological protests as “anti‐growth.” By shaping the common sense of large audiences, mainstream outlets divide potential allies along axes of race, gender, nationality, or region, thereby undermining the possibility of cross‐class or transnational solidarity.
For instance, during a national economic crisis, media may accentuate tensions between urban and rural populations by emphasizing rural “dependence” on urban industry or urban “elitism” in policymaking. Such framings encourage workers in different sectors or regions to view one another as competitors rather than collaborators. Gramsci argues that hegemonic consent is secured when subordinate groups internalize bourgeois values as normative. Through repeated exposure to news clips, talk‐show debates, and editorial commentary that valorise individual entrepreneurship, privatization, and consumer choice, media cultivate a mindset that forecloses solidarity based on collective class interests. Consequently, in moments of crisis, when solidarity could serve as a bulwark against capitalist exploitation, the hegemonic machinery of media fosters fragmentation and resignation.
Adorno and Horkheimer’s Culture Industry: Pacification and Commodification
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer further illuminate how culture, under late capitalism, becomes a tool of pacification. In “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” (1944), they argue that cultural products—films, popular music, news programming—are standardized to meet market demands, replacing genuine critical engagement with passive consumption. When a crisis unfolds, the culture industry commodifies it: dramatic news segments become entertainment spectacles, talk‐show hosts reduce complex issues to individual anecdotes, and blockbuster films offer escapist fantasies that divert attention from systemic forces. This process of commodification dulls critical consciousness, ensuring that citizens remain docile consumers rather than active participants in solidarity movements.
For example, during an ecological disaster, major media conglomerates may produce sensational documentaries emphasizing personal heroism—“one family’s journey to rebuild”—rather than collective efforts to hold polluters accountable. By foregrounding individual narratives or offering superficial solutions (such as “green” consumer goods), media entertainment prevents audiences from apprehending the structural causes of environmental degradation—namely, the drive for profit and the commodification of nature. Adorno and Horkheimer assert that this pacifying function of the culture industry intensifies in moments of crisis: rather than facilitating public deliberation or collective mobilization, media channels offer a steady stream of spectacle and reassurance that the status quo, due to its commercial logic, can ultimately absorb or neutralize dissent. In doing so, the culture industry suppresses the very solidarity that might challenge capitalist relations.
The Fragmentation and Reconstitution of Solidarity in Crisis
Although Marxist theorists demonstrate how capitalist media erode solidarity, they also emphasize that crises can expose the contradictions of hegemony and create openings for counter‐hegemonic forces. According to Gramsci, hegemonic consent falters when subordinate classes recognize the limits and injustices of the prevailing order. Crises—by revealing glaring inequalities and systemic failures—can catalyse such recognition, provided that alternative voices and networks exist to articulate these contradictions. In this context, media outlets aligned with working‐class movements, grassroots organizations, or radical intellectuals become essential sites for reconstituting solidarity.
Alternative media collectives—worker‐run newspapers, community radio stations, independent digital platforms—serve as counterpoint to the hegemonic ISA. They produce analyses that trace crises back to capitalist overaccumulation, exploitative labour practices, or colonial legacies. For instance, during a housing crisis precipitated by financial speculation, a grassroots newsletter might publish investigative reports on how international capital flows generated mass foreclosures, linking local struggles to global patterns of dispossession. By situating individual hardships within a broader critique of capitalist dynamics, such media foster a sense of shared class identity and collective experience. Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual” is instructive here: these are thinkers or activists deeply rooted in their communities who translate lived experiences into coherent critiques, offering both intellectual clarity and practical organizing guidance. Through their leadership, solidarity emerges not merely as an abstract notion but as a practical project: organizing tenants’ unions, coordinating mutual‐aid networks, and staging mass demonstrations that bridge disparate neighbourhoods.
Althusser’s insights on interpellation underscore that alternative media must also challenge the subject positions imposed by capitalist outlets. Rather than “hailing” individuals as passive consumers or obedient citizens, counter‐hegemonic media seek to interpolate subjects as agents of transformation. A community radio program, for example, might frame listeners as active “participants in democracy,” inviting them to contribute testimonies of workplace injustices or to collaborate on local policy proposals. Such initiatives cultivate an ethos of collective responsibility that counters the ideology of individual blame perpetuated by mainstream outlets.
Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of commodification likewise suggests that reconstituting solidarity requires reclaiming culture from the culture industry. When artists, filmmakers, musicians, or podcasters produce works that foreground collective struggle rather than individual escapism, they create affective bonds among audiences. A documentary co‐produced by a workers’ cooperative, documenting ten years of factory closures and community resistance, can serve as a counter‐commodity: it does not simply entertain but educates, forging an empathetic connection that transcends narrow identity differences. In this way, culture becomes a vehicle for solidarity rather than a commodifying force.
Case Illustration: An Economic Crisis and the Contestation of Solidarity
Consider a severe economic crisis that stems from speculative banking practices, resulting in mass layoffs, skyrocketing rents, and overwhelmed social services. Mainstream media, functioning as ISAs, might frame the crisis through a lens of individual responsibility: op‐ed columns decry “lazy workers,” nightly news segments emphasize “consumer hysteria,” and political talk‐shows pit “hardworking taxpayers” against “fraudulent claimants.” Such framings reinforce a divide‐and‐rule logic, as citizens perceive one another as competing for scarce resources. Meanwhile, the “culture industry” offers melodramatic films about lone entrepreneurs who “beat the odds”—stories that subtly endorse neoliberal myths of meritocracy even amid systemic collapse.
In contrast, a network of alternative media initiatives could emerge. A coalition of labour unions, social movements, and community organizations might launch a digital news platform that aggregates worker testimonies, exposes the complicity of banks in regulatory capture, and provides practical guides for organizing tenant strikes and workplace assemblies. Podcasts featuring organic intellectuals—journalists who themselves have been laid off—might analyse how deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy precipitated the crisis. These counter‐hegemonic media forms redirect the narrative from “individual misfortune” to “systemic exploitation,” thereby nurturing solidarity rooted in a shared diagnosis of injustice.
Through online solidarity committees, local chapters coordinate fundraising for rent relief and food distribution, bridging divides between urban and suburban working‐class communities. A traveling documentary film festival, organized by a cooperative of filmmakers, screens testimonies of foreclosed families and unemployed factory workers, traveling from city to city to spark conversations about collective strategies. In these ways, solidarity is reconstituted not by reaffirming abstract moral values but by linking material struggles across occupations, regions, and identities. By foregrounding class as the primary axis of analysis, these media initiatives counter the hegemonic logic that would otherwise keep workers atomized and powerless.
Conclusion
Marxist media theory elucidates how, in a state of crisis, capitalist media institutions often function to undermine human solidarity by reproducing ruling‐class ideology, fragmenting the working class, and commodifying culture. Through Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses, Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, and Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of the culture industry, one sees that media serve not as neutral platforms but as battlegrounds where competing class interests vie for dominance. However, Marxist analysis also offers a pathway for reconstituting solidarity: by creating alternative media spaces, nurturing organic intellectual leadership, and fostering counter‐hegemonic culture, subaltern groups can transform crises into moments of collective agency. In this dialectical process, solidarity emerges not as a given but as a practical achievement—one that depends on both the exposure of capitalist contradictions and the construction of new, participatory media forms. Only through this rigorous integration of theory and practice can human solidarity survive, and indeed flourish, in times of crisis.