What I continue to chew on:
What is most interesting and most frustrating about Marxism--indeed what is frustrating about theory in general, I suppose--is that it is not at all a fixed entity. Instead, Marxists are on a sliding scale from the strict to the more liberal interpretations of the theory. This is seen easily in the juxtaposition of Marxists who focused on social activism and those who don't consider that the purpose of literature, or at least not something of their concern. It is also seen in the various sections of Marxism and their level of belief in determinism.
--Another thing I am learning about theory and theorists is it's/their habit of compartmentalizing topics which "are not my concern at this moment," which can be an incredibly frustrating thing. Part of the frustration is with coming to terms with the seeming contradiction of a set of ideas which believes in the significance of the historical and cultural context of a text, but at times refuses to discuss practical implications of that text or believe that it can effect change in a practical way. I feel like this statement is sometimes true and sometimes not--just as I feel as though I sometimes understand and agree with it and sometimes I don't--
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I strongly suspect that this hesitance to actually provide any concrete rationale to demonstrate the legitimacy of any particular argument springs, at least in part, from the un-willingness to draw, as I would say, that line in the sand. It seems that when theorists really set their feet down on any particular point, make any sort of assumption, or try to clearly delineate some of the more puzzling and elusive aspects of their philosophies (I assure anyone who reads this, I use the word loosely - I surely don't intend to cross-implicate :) ) they inevitably run into trouble. It's almost as though taking a stand ruins the theoretical momentum and opens the door for theoretical antagonists to jump in screaming, "Ah ha! This is where you are most assuredly in the wrong, my good man!" It's almost as if these great and powerful scholars are playing a defensive game at times. They pick their battles and therby avoid making serious misteps. And they only tackle the issue(s) that they are prepared to take on, rather than risk grasping at straws and weaking the rest of their arguments by association.
Post a Comment