POESÍA
INGLESA DE LOS SIGLOS XI Y XX
LORENA
RAMOS
MARXIST CRITICISM
In
order to explain Marxist Criticism, it is necessary some background on Karl
Marx, the nineteenth-century German philosopher who introduced Marxism and who was
also the first Marxist literary critic, writing critical essays in the 1s on
writers such as Goethe and Shakespeare. We also will need some basic concepts
of the political and economic theories by Karl Marx to understand Marxist
Criticism. (bedfordstmartins)
The
way in which the working class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie)
interact affects our economy. The understood guide for an economy is its mode
of production. Our economic system and the beliefs that create it are what Marx
referred to as base. The base supports and determines the superstructure which
consists of law, politics, philosophy, religion, art. All these elements create
the shared beliefs and values of a determined population, in other words, a
common ideology is the fruit of it. For
Marxists, ideology is determined by economics which means, ideology depends on
the social class that individuals belong. (wsu, bedforstmartins,
Literature,
as a cultural production, is a form of ideology, and a powerful “gun” used by the
ruling English class during the eighteenth century, both to express and
transmit the dominant value systems to the lower classes. Therefore literature
is very powerful as it can express the dominant values but it can also rebel
against them and cause changes in ideology. In fact, “many critics of
literature believe that literature is a major stimulus towards the evolution of
societal opinions and attitudes” (northern). As literature is superstructure,
literature affects the way the proletariat and the bourgeoisie interact.
Literature can either support the current base and ideologies or inspire change.(wsu, northern)
Along
with psychoanalytical, feminist and cultural criticism; Marxist literary
criticism exemplifies what the French philosopher Paul Ricouer
terms a “hermeneutics of suspicion. ".(assumption)
These are the approaches that concern themselves not with what the texts says
but what it hides. What Marxist literary critics do with texts is to explore
whether they express the dominant ideology or on the contrary, they introduce a
change. In other words, they investigate the ways in which the texts express
ideological oppression of a dominant economic class over subordinate classes.
Marxist
literary critics and theorists are interested in asking a range of questions
about how literature functions as a site for ideology, as part of the
superstructure. First, they want to examine how the economic base of any
culture (and particularly of capitalist cultures) influences or determines the
form and/or content of literature, both in general terms and in specific works
of literature. They also want to look at how literature functions in relation
to other aspects of the superstructure, particularly other articulations of
ideology. They want to know if the text reflects or resists the dominant
ideology or both. They are concerned about what role does class play in the
work; what is the author’s analysis of class relations. Marxist literary
critics are interested in what ways the literary work serves as propaganda for
the status quo or, on the contrary if it tries to undermine it. Finally it is
also important to take into account if the literary work proposes some form of
utopian vision as a solution to the current political or social situation. (
Let's
take as examples the poems "England in 1819" and" To the men of
England" by Shelley (poems which I analysed in a previous essay). In these two poems Shelley demonstrates his support for
the English working class. In the first poem “England
in 1819”, Shelley hardly criticises the oppressive power, that is to say, the
bourgeoisie and the monarchy. Shelley talks about the injustice upon the
proletariat, however in the end the poet seems to have many hopes for
the working classes as he thinks someday the situation will change. In the
second poem, Shelley directly addresses the men of England, the masses. Shelley
encourages the masses to take action, even using arms, only in their defence
though, as the rewards of their hard work are being stolen by the rich. Both poems reflect and resist the dominant ideology as they
describe the current social situation, "England in 1819" describes
the monarchy attitude towards the proletariat in a very depictive way. “To the
men of England" mainly promotes a revolution from part of the proletariat
to change the current political and social situation. Therefore, Shelley is
contributing with his poetry (superstructure) to change ideology of society
which can change the bases, the mode of production and the superstructure
itself.
Marxist
literary criticism often shares with feminist criticism a desire to challenge
the power structures in contemporary society. For feminist, the issue is a
marginalized gender; for Marxist, the issue is not gender but economic power, leading
to political power. Marxist literary criticism can also be viewed as a type of
cultural criticism, in that it seeks to analyse a discourse that makes up one
of the discourses that determine a text’s historical meaning. (Assumption)
Marxist
literary criticism may be thought of as a reaction to many of the rigid
theories of the New Critics. Unlike the New Critics, who saw the text as a
self-contained whole, Marxists generally focus upon the unresolved tensions
within works of literature. Similarly, although Marxist criticism has both
influenced and been influenced by structuralist criticism and post-
structuralist criticism, it greatly differs from them in its refusal to
separate literature and language from society. Marxist criticism is
materialist, so it has more in common with theories that focus upon how
literature functions within social, political, and economic structures, than it
does with theories that focus only upon the text. Marxist criticism has had an
enormous influence on feminism, new historicism, and most recently, cultural
studies .As a system that looks for causes beneath the surface of society,
Marxist criticism has much in common with psychoanalytic criticism. In fact, it
is possible to make a rough comparison between the Marxist model of base and
superstructure and the Freudian model of unconscious and conscious. (Lawrence)
Sources:
Academic year
2005/2006
a.r.e.a./Dr.Vicente
Forés López
©Lorena Ramos Jiménez
Universitat de València Press
loraji@alumni.uv.es