The Marxist Lens

The Marxist Lens The Marxist approach to literature is based on the philosophy of Karl Marx, a German philosopher and economist. His major argument was that whoever controlled the means of production in society controlled the society—whoever owned the factories “owned” the culture. This idea is called “dialectical materialism,” and Marx felt that the history of the world was leading toward a communist society. From his point of view, the means of production (i.e., the basis of power in society) would be placed in the hands of the masses, who actually operated them, not in the hands of those few who owned them. It was a perverted version of this philosophy that was at the heart of the Soviet Union. Marxism was also the rallying cry of the poor and oppressed all over the world. To read a work from a Marxist perspective, one must understand that Marxism asserts that literature is a reflection of culture, and that culture can be affected by literature (Marxists believed literature could instigate revolution). Marxism is linked to Freudian theory by its concentration on the subconscious—Freud dealt with the individual subconscious, while Marx dealt with the political subconscious. Marx believed that oppression exists in the political subconscious of a society—social pecking orders are inherent to any group of people. Four main areas of study: • economic power • materialism versus spirituality • class conflict • art, literature, and ideologies 1. Economic Power • A society is shaped by its forces of production. Those who own the means of production dictate what type of society it is. • Two main classes of society according to the Marxist framework are the bourgeoisie (the people who control the means of production and wealth) and the proletariat (the people who operate the means of production and are controlled by the bourgeoisie). • Since the bourgeoisie own the means of production—and, therefore, control the money—in a society, they can manipulate the politics, government, education, art, and media. • Capitalism is flawed in that it makes people want things, so they shop due to commodification (wanting things not for their innate usefulness, but for their social value). When one has money, one shows it by buying things—jewelry, large houses, luxury cars, etc. • Commodification is one way the bourgeoisie keep the proletariat oppressed. When the proletariat manage to acquire some sort of status symbol, the bourgeoisie buy something newer and better, thus making the proletariat struggle more. 2. Materialism versus Spirituality • Society is not based on ideals or abstractions, but on things. • The material world shows us reality. The material world is the only non-subjective element in a society. Money and material possessions are the same by every measure within a society, whereas spirituality is completely subjective. • People are not destroyed by spiritual failure, only material failure. 3. Class Conflict • A Capitalist society will inevitability experience conflict between its social classes. • The owners and the workers will have different ideas about the division of the wealth generated, and the owners will ultimately make the decision. • This constant conflict, or dialectical materialism, is what instigates change. • The bourgeoisie make their system seem like the only logical one, so the proletariat are trapped. They are led to have pride in their station, thus preventing them from wanting to overthrow their oppressors (the smaller and actually less—powerful group). • The only real division in society is between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Divisions of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion are artificial divisions, which keep the proletariat from unifying against their actual oppressor. • Marx called on the proletariat to reject the social structure of the bourgeoisie, the rules that would keep them subservient forever, and form their own values. Such a course would be the only way to escape the oppression, for the proletariat could never defeat the bourgeoisie on its own terms. For the workers to win, they would have to establish new terms. 4. Art, Literature, and Ideologies • Art and literature are vehicles by which the bourgeoisie impose their value system on the proletariat. The arts can make the current system look attractive and logical, thus lulling the workers into complacency. • Works of art and literature are enjoyable to experience, so the audience is unaware of being manipulated. • The bourgeoisie can easily take control of artistic output because they are the entity that is funding it. Since the bourgeoisie are bankrolling the writers and the painters by publishing the books and buying the art, the artist must take pains not to offend them. Anything that is offensive to the bourgeoisie will simply not be published or sold. • Any artist who wishes to criticize the bourgeoisie must do so in a subtle way (satire, irony, etc.). Essential Questions for A Marxist Reading Who are the powerful people in the text? Who are the powerless? Who receives the most attention? Why do the powerful have the power ? Why are the powerless powerless ? Is there class conflict and struggle? Is there alienation and fragmentation evident in any of the characters? If so, in whom? The powerful? The powerless? Do the powerful in the text suppress the powerless? How? (Ex: via n ews or other m edia? r eligion? l iterature? something else?) What can you infer from the setting about the distribution of wealth? What does the society value? Are possessions acquired for their usefulness or for their social value? Is the text itself a product of the society in which it was created? How do you know? (If the answer is “yes,” you’ll want to engage in a New Historicist reading of the text, which studies works within the context of both the author and the critic.) Is the work consistent in its ideologies, or is there an inner conflict? Does taking other types of criticism—feminist, psychoanalytic, New Historicist, or others— give us further insight into the issues raised by the Marxis t lens ? After reading this text, do we notice any system of oppression that we have accepted? If so, what system, and how do we think you came to accept it? Remember that, as with all critical lenses, this is a way that we as readers and critics LOOK AT TEXTS; it is NOT something that a writer has in mind while WRITING a text. For that reason, we are able to “put on” and “take off” various lenses and see different aspects of a piece of literature, based on our interests or purposes at the time. While the words on the page don’t change, our understanding of it grows with the addition of these critical lenses. For this reason, we DO NOT REFER TO A WRITER USING A LENS.