The Marxist Dossier

I think I’ve picked up the trail again with Marxism—after having temporarily lost it over the weekend! This time last week, I thought I had a handle on this slippery character, but Marxist Theory eluded me once again during last Thursday’s class, when I realized that I had underestimated him.
Back to square one, then (almost). Two posts ago, when I began writing this blog, I said that I was interested in the practical application of literary theories and their relevance to our everyday lives. The guest lecture by Dr. Craig helped me out in this regard, through his wonderful example of the display table in a clothing store. By situating the Manifesto—and communism—in its historical context, he helped me to see how a Marxist critic might actually apply the theory to a concrete text. Further reflection on this helped shed some light on my initial perhaps oversimplified understanding of Marxism.
Now don’t let me confuse you, but originally, I would have thought you’d approach the display table to understand what kind of political statement the merchandiser was trying to make. I might have looked at his/her wider context, etc., but my focus would have been on the person who created the text and on the text itself. Dr. Craig’s approach, instead, cast a much wider net by beginning by contextualizing communism, symbolized by the Manifesto on the jeans display, within American history (McCarthyism, the Cold War, etc.). So we’re able to see how communism, a frightening threat in the not-so-distant past, has been absorbed into our society—with the result that it can be perceived as a less of a threat than it once was. Only after we’ve explored this wider context can we move to understanding how this particular display table acts as a text and analyze it more specifically.
If I got this right then, I think that I now have a little better grasp of what we’re trying to do with Marxist criticism. Whereas liberal humanism has its nose glued to the text—and only the text—Marxist criticism not only takes a step back to look at the author’s immediate context and the political implications of the thing itself, but really backs away from the text to see how it came to be in the first place: What social/political factors made it possible for those symbols to be placed on that display table in order to create the desired marketing meaning? Based on our Tuesday class this week, it seems to me this is what we refer to as the “production” of the text.
So, what do you think? Did I really pick up the trail again? Or am I setting off on a wild goose chase? Perhaps only the midterm can tell, and in the meantime, it seems to me I need to pull out the files on our next suspect, Structuralism….
Until next time,
H.

Mystery of the Human Person

Since the first day of this class, I have been fascinated by the worldviews represented by the theories that we will be studying. Although we are specifically interested in understanding literature on a deeper level, each of these theories are based on beliefs about the world and who we are as human persons.
One striking difference between Marxist critical theory and liberal humanism is their approach to the human person. This difference has pretty far-reaching consequences. Bear with me while I try to unravel this and see how it applies to our study of literature….
According to Barry, one of the tenets of liberal humanism is that each human person possesses a unique individual essence that transcends his/her material environment. In other words, we are not determined by our surroundings. We are able to grow, evolve, and mature—although we can’t radically change who we are, since this is rooted in our essence. From a literary perspective, this reinforces liberal humanism’s view of literature as presenting timeless truths about human nature.
Marxism differs from this by holding that human persons are formed by their environment. This is based on the concept of “materialism,” in which reality consists of our tangible surroundings. Whereas, in liberal humanism, we are determined by our individual essences, in Marxism we are determined by the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Literature, then, is inescapably conditioned by the political and social reality in which it was created.
Marxist literary theory does succeed in acknowledging something that liberal humanism misses: the influence that our physical realities and material circumstances inevitably have on literature. These influences necessarily affect our worldviews, values, etc., and being aware of this adds another layer of meaning to any text. Marxist literary theory also helps us to see the ways in which the material environment is at work within a text and how social position and power play out.
At the same time, it seems to me that Marxist literary theory sees only one aspect of the complexity of literature, and thus, of the human person. In offering hope to the oppressed only through the possibility of revolution (cf. The German Ideology), Marx does not allow for the possibility that human persons are able to transcend—or go beyond—their limited circumstances. While I agree that we are influenced and formed by our social positions and material circumstances, this seems to explain only a piece of our realities.
I am reminded of the work of Viktor Frankl, who studied (during World War II) the ways people made meaning out of unthinkable circumstances. Their ability to find purpose and meaning beyond their surroundings and the extreme oppression they experienced played a large part, he discovered, in their survival. The following is a great quote from Frankl: “We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a [person] but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

It was Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the....?

As any decent private investigator, fan of mystery literature, or board game enthusiast* could tell you, these are the raw materials of all good mysteries: who, where, what. As I have long suspected, you can learn a lot from reading your favorite novels, because I find that this is also just the way to begin an academic blog on critical theory....
And so, allow me to welcome you to Inquest, the ongoing investigation into matters critical and theoretical, pertaining to English 3703. My “name” is Harriet Vane, and it will be my pleasure to conduct you through this blog. Throughout the course of these postings, I will be commenting on essential points covered in this course, raising questions, and following up on clues to elusive concepts.
Using the genre of mystery literature as my backdrop, I also hope to particularly explore the value and relevance of applying academic theories to popular culture and entertainment: the books, films, music and other texts with which we interact everyday. If the many theoretical viewpoints we will be studying can serve as tools to becoming more actively engaged with a text, then the application of literary theory to popular culture and entertainment seems to be of great importance. And of course, if it is true that “life imitates art,” and not the reverse, then this active, critical engagement becomes even more necessary for us as individuals and as a society.
Enjoy, and best wishes for the semester!
H.

*Clue, anyone?