One of the basic tenets of liberal humanism maintains that the literary text contains it own meaning within itself. It does not require any elaborate process of placing it within a context, whether that be socio-political, literary-historical, or autobiographical. Basically a liberal humanist would remove the text from all of these contexts and commit themselves to the study of the words on the page and see the text for what it presumably really is. I was interested in this particular tenet precisely because a Marxist critic would indeed have a strong reaction to this mode of thinking.
The very nature of Marxist criticism is that the nature of literature is influenced by the social and political circumstances in which it was produced. Rather than take a determinist position and argue that literature is the passive product of socio economic forces, I personally think along the lines of a liberal who sees the socio economic influence as distant and subtle. This liberal stance reinforces the tenet of Marxist criticism in which the assumption is made that the author is unaware of precisely what he or she is saying or revealing in the text. That being said, Marxist critics are committed to relating the context of a work to the social-class status of the author which is in direction opposition to the tenet of liberal humanism that is devoted to separating the text from any autobiographical context. Marxist critics simply cannot ignore (because of what they strongly believe) the weight and influence that the author's social class and its prevailing ideology have on what is then produced by a member of that class.
A Marxist critic would be very interested in the autobiography of the author in order to flesh out how exactly that individual was formed by their social context and how this influences the content of their work. Social class and the ideologies put forth by society are of central importance to all Marxists, Althusser himself speaks of it as a system of representation at the heart of a given society. These systems of representation reveal values and assumptions which are subtly ingrained in the minds of individuals and play a part in the creation of the text whether it is known to the author or not. A Marxist critic would definitely not limit him or herself to simply the words on the page, such as a liberal humanist would when undertaking a 'on-sight close reading'.
The very nature of Marxist criticism is that the nature of literature is influenced by the social and political circumstances in which it was produced. Rather than take a determinist position and argue that literature is the passive product of socio economic forces, I personally think along the lines of a liberal who sees the socio economic influence as distant and subtle. This liberal stance reinforces the tenet of Marxist criticism in which the assumption is made that the author is unaware of precisely what he or she is saying or revealing in the text. That being said, Marxist critics are committed to relating the context of a work to the social-class status of the author which is in direction opposition to the tenet of liberal humanism that is devoted to separating the text from any autobiographical context. Marxist critics simply cannot ignore (because of what they strongly believe) the weight and influence that the author's social class and its prevailing ideology have on what is then produced by a member of that class.
A Marxist critic would be very interested in the autobiography of the author in order to flesh out how exactly that individual was formed by their social context and how this influences the content of their work. Social class and the ideologies put forth by society are of central importance to all Marxists, Althusser himself speaks of it as a system of representation at the heart of a given society. These systems of representation reveal values and assumptions which are subtly ingrained in the minds of individuals and play a part in the creation of the text whether it is known to the author or not. A Marxist critic would definitely not limit him or herself to simply the words on the page, such as a liberal humanist would when undertaking a 'on-sight close reading'.
posted by L.C. Gendall at
7:48 PM
2 Comments:
I think you have an interesting discussion going here.
I wonder at the degree a Marxist would be interested in the autobiography of an author--would a Marxist indeed be interested in the specifics of an author's autobiography or maybe just the more distant view of an author's class standing and social/cultural place--
I am thinking of the Barry's description of Marxist concern with history, which is from a more distant view, rather than examining specific historic events. Would Marxists critics then view autobiography the same way, from the big-picture, rather than a more in-depth study? (It varies perhaps?)
I had thought the same thing, about the author's life taking on a role in writing literature. I just recently read the Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath and wonder what a Marxist reading of a lower-class yet educationally privilged girl with constant mental breakdowns would look like vis a vis an author with very similar personal characteristics. Is it just a literary device, the form overwhelming what little "intent" the author may have? Or can Marxists believe in the cathartic powers of writing?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home