I think that Marxism would consider Liberal Humanism an excellent cause for a fist fight--hopefully one that would spark spontaneous complete revolution (To be clear, although Marx and Engels believed in the ability of their theories to change the world, rather than just understand it, it is my understanding that that is not necessarily a given with Marxist theory and criticism. Some forms of Marxism attempt to correct oppression, while other forms are not necessarily concerned with social activism).
However, I do think that Marxism and Liberal Humanism are very much at odds with each other. Primarily, it is essential to the liberal humanist that good literature transcends the cultural and historical moment in which it was written, as well as transcending any cultural, historical, or economic biases or assumptions which the author may have personally held. This concept of the purity of the text--as a Teflon entity to which nothing sticks--is in direct opposition to one of the fundamental, and perhaps the most important, tenets of Marxist criticism. That is, Marxism maintains that literature is inevitably a product of the social, cultural, and historical context in which it is written. Marxism does not allow for the concept of an ideal world or set of forces beyond the material, which seems necessary to follow the Liberal Humanist line of thinking about literature's ability to transcend cultural-historical context and authors' ideological predispositions. Instead, in Marxist thought, because literature is a part of the superstructure which is shaped or at least influenced by the economic system (base) by which it is produced, it cannot escape influence of an author's ideology shaped by her or his class membership.
I find that the Marxist point of view is in some ways much easier to accept and understand than the Liberal Humanist point of view, because it seems logical that an author's assumptions and biases will influence what she or he writes (although I know that will be challenged as we continue on in the semester), and it also seems logical that the historical, cultural moment in which an author lives will influence her or his point of view. I think partly this is due to the fact that I have been raised and educated during the reign of theory (or perhaps even the post-theory world), rather than in a time still dictated by the Liberal Humanist-only regime, which dominated the study of literature for so long. I think this is also because I have grown up in a time skeptical of an ideal world, in which it has become at least more acceptable to distrust anything which claims to be pure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that that marxist point is rather easy to accept, that the context of the author, the biases they have, does effect the outcome of their literarture of their art. And in that case, i guess we as readers are conformed, are structured by what we read as a result of the products that we choose to take in...keeping in mind the educational boundaries We are, i guess, a product of our products...we, the authors, as the marxist say (which i am not totally sure of my thoughts on), have a predtermined form of art that is stuck to and that is published for a particular group...that is most likely off topic, but there you go.
No, that is not off topic. In re-reading my post I realize how much I am focusing on the author creating the text, rather than the structures producing literature as a product--which,as we talked about in class, often has little to do with the author.
I like your statement "we are...a product of our products." I am still working on this idea of how much we participate in our own production of ourselves as products.. it is difficult to get away from looking at things on the basis of individuals.
Thanks much Ms. B.
Post a Comment