Dr. Craig's post brings up many different and interesting points about Marxism, how it operates and some examples of how ideology potentially effects us everyday. The first interesting observation is the example of the copy of The Communist Manifesto on a table in a trendy clothing store. I find it intriguing that it was placed not only in this store, but also next to a replica of Rodin's Il Penser, almost an example of man thinking about his subjugation. As Dr. Craig points out the book at once invites the consumer to subscribe to the thought that they are willingly being different by purchasing these trendy jeans yet they are truly falling further into the consumer culture they are trying to fight. The next example of the commodification of Che Guevara's image also brings up a very good point, the idea that even people who think they are being "revolutionary" by expressing their views on their t-shirt are just victims of the ruling class as well. Without really knowing it these people are participating in hegemony, thinking they are spreading their "unique" message when really they are most likely purchasing t-shirts made in sweat shops and sold at inflated prices.

I also agree with Dr. Craig's example of professional sports as a way for the masses to be distracted from their conditions. While an avid sports fan myself, it is very easy to recognize the overall ludicrousy that is professional or major college sports. One goes to an event, often paying a good deal of money earned from hard work, to watch millionaires (players) play a game to make more money for billionaires (owners), yet people leave feeling entertained, their minds off of their everyday lives. This feeling of satisfaction is exactly how the owners, or the ruling class, want us to feel, oblivious or simply apathetic to the overall poor, relatively speaking, conditions that they have to return to work to. Yet sports is not the only institution that serves that purpose and I think this is where literature can also come into the picture.

A work of literature can serve the same purpose as the sporting event, that of a distraction. People can get caught up in the fantasy world of a novel, forgetting about their lives for a brief period of time and thinking they are in power for choosing which book they want to read or what author they enjoy. This is not to say that enjoying a novel is inherently a bad thing, as I said before I am a big sports fan, but the problem arises when you don't think a little more deeply about what you are doing. The literature you are reading has become a commodity, something for you to consume, and also serves as a way for people to turn a blind eye to their subjugation. By analyzing a novel or play through the Marxist eye, you not only get a better insight into the world in the novel or the time in which the author wrote it, but also into the world you are living in. Looking at something with Marxist Criticism allows you to begin to see the ideology of your own time as well as in the work of literature you are reading.

X Marx the Spot

Karl Marx's thoughts and specifically the literary criticism that spawned off of them provide a very different way to look at literature than liberal humanism, the "theory" we discussed last week. While liberal humanism strictly looked at the work of literature, completely ignoring the societal factors that influenced its creation, Marxist criticism looks directly at the factors, particularly the economic structure in which the author was living in during writing.

As we talked about, liberal humanism is made of ten tenets, many of which Marxist criticism fundamentally disagrees with. Two I will discuss specifically are the idea that human nature is unchanging and that all people have one true self, an essential identity. The idea of an unchanging human nature is an impossibility in Marxist theory, since all people are characterized by the time they live in, and most importantly by the economic system they are participating in. This idea might seem cynical but personally I find it much easier to believe in than a universal, timeless human identity that outside factors have no effect on.

The second tenet, the idea that a human has an essential identity, that each human is born and their true self resides somewhere within them is also opposed by Marxism. Similar to how there can be no one true human nature, Marxists argue that people are shaped by their economic situation, influenced by the superstructure, and that they never reach a true self as who they become is heavily determined by outside factors, not an internal essence.

Personally I find Marxist criticism to be a more realistic way to look at literature in comparison to liberal humanism. While I may not agree with all of the Marxist ideas, I think that looking at literature in a cultural vacuum is impossible, and the ideas of an essential self and an unchanging human nature to be crazy.

The Inauguration

Welcome to I Might Be Wrong, a blog predominantly dedicated to the discussion and confusion of literary theory. For the most part I'm anticipating this blog to simply deal with subjects of academia however there does remain the possibility that as things catch my interest they appear as well.

Yet this initial post will remain on topic, specifically my initial thoughts on literary theory and its applications in the world of literature studies. I feel that theory is a necessary evil when it comes to reading and attempting to dissect works of literature. Theory is a way to make literature more systematic yet it also opens it up to be intellectually analyzed in great depths.

As mentioned I feel it gives the analysis and study of literature some structure in that it provides people with specific ways to look at works. Rather than read a novel and be overwhelmed by all of its complexities, one can look at it, if they choose, from a strictly Marxist perspective or a structuralist perspective, or another type of theory. This specificity allows the reader to focus in on certain dynamics of the text and reach conclusions that they may not have seen or even had known were within the work prior to the theory approach. The preceding statement is what I mean when I refer to theory broadening the scope of literary analysis while also systematizing it. By looking at a work from a certain perspective you think differently about the text, and enable yourself to see aspects within a novel that, without theory, you would have never noticed.

However I did describe theory as a necessary evil, and as of now I'll stick by that description. Personally I think that at times people seem to dig too deep into works of literature while using theory, at times finding messages that may not actually be in the text. Theory seems as though it can be used to get across an agenda; a critic looks over a text with a particular message and through the use of deep theoretical analysis is able to find their point within a classic work. This somewhat pessimistic view is one of a theory rookie, and maybe over the semester you'll see a different impression of theory in the postings of this blog.