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.
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.
2 comments:
"...and the ideas of an essential self and an unchanging human nature to be crazy."
I'd call it crazy too, and more so unfair to say that we're all basically the same. And, after all, don't we pride ourselves/other individuals on being "unique" ?
But doesn't the idea of "an essential self" coincide with our "unique" identity. Doesn't marxism eliminate the individual by saying we are all shaped by our common environment? Or is this dependent on my definition of "individual"?
Post a Comment