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.