Karl Marx - what a guy. To him, there was no such thing as class. Every single person was on the same playing field no matter where you techinically stood on the "economic ladder." But, while to some his theories about society may have been considered to be "genius", Marxist theory and liberal humanism seem to be at odds.
In one corner you have Marxist criticism - all power must be balanced, and wealth should be spread out rather than some having all of it.
In the other corner, awaiting patiently is liberal humanism - an idea that we read literature to futher understand the ideas of human nature, because it ".. transcends... " (Barry 17).
Round after round, theorists can duel debating the pros and cons of each form of criticism with no result in sight. So I took it upon my liberties to make a small contribution in the ongoing battle.
Engelsian marxism states that there is a freedom to writing whatever it is that you want to write -there does not need to be a direct relationship between the economic system and art/literature, only relatively. Literature does not necessarilly need to be connected to economics and social class when reading closely because "language of literature has its own characteristics procedures and effects" - never mind all this silly nonsense about class from the "ordinary language." (Barry 161) Liberal humanism sees it differently. It sees that language - more specifically "form and content" are placed together in a natural way because one "grows from another" (which would explain why when writing a paper, content and form are like two peas in a pod.. but I digress).
Yet, as I look at this from my own personal experience, the liberal humanism aspect is what sucks me into a book. All of the fluffy and descriptive language - regardless of the plot -help me enjoy the plot because it hides (temporarily) the ideas of the economic or political systems as I sit and ponder what is going to happen next to the main character of the story without thinking about how his character could change because of his social class standing, etc.
The bell has rung - this match/round is over.
Until next time....
pelipuff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I concur, Karl Marx, what a guy.
I find it very interesting that you used your own life experience for this debate. I was reading the text, using the ideas of liberal humanism and marxism, not so much my own ideas. Thinking of it in your terms, it is very true that the "fluff" sucks you in.
Why invest so much time in reading when you cannot have the option of getting lost, leaving your own life for a bit to experience life through a different character? Literature, in that matter does seem to prove the point that it will transcend through time based on human values.
If thinking at it through Marxist terms, what is the point of literature? Why use your imagination if there is no thinking outside of the box? Everyone will always be equal, so why dream to differ?
Good points, interesting blog.
Post a Comment