Monday, November 29, 2004

Marxist Criticism

In the cyclical evolution of man, art prevails as one of the most insightful tools of reviewing history. Marxist criticism allows us to analyze this art in a more specific and causal method, looking at, not only the work, but the ideological world’s literary influence. In Terry Eagleton’s “Marxist Criticism,” we are shown a specific process of literary analysis. To understand this complex process, it is vital to grasp the basic principles of Marxist theory.

In its simplest forms, Marxist criticism is concerned with not only the text of an article, but the ideology surrounding it. Critics tend to focus on the method of publication, the form, style and meaning, as well as the exposure of the lower class. It is here that the true nature of Marxism begins to reveal itself. The process begins here, with the framework of mankind, or man, in specific.

The creation of ideas, concepts and consciousness are all intertwined with the material intercourse, or physical interaction, of man. These interactions, or relations, are void of any connection to mind or spirit. By looking at what men conceive and imagine, or through descriptions of their thought process, it is impossible to arrive at a model of the “corporeal” man. This model must be obtained strictly from material interactions. Once this model is obtained, it is then possible to determine man’s thoughts, imagination and visualizations. “Consciousness does not determine life; life determines consciousness.” (Marx, Engels. The German Ideology.)

Once the model of man has been created, it is then necessary, to observe his actions in society. According to Marxist theory, the relations of men are natural, fixed and independent of man’s will. These interactions relate to a certain stage of development in their naturalistic influences, or forces. In other words, man is subjected to necessary, predetermined actions that shape his consciousness. It is these “relations of production” that form the economic structure of society, or the economic “base.” From here the “superstructure” is built, which sociological aspects consist of the legal, political, religious, aesthetic, and so forth.

It is also important to acknowledge the process of how these actions are performed. The conditions of their material lives shape their political, intellectual and social processes. This reinforces the earlier idea, by stating; their being determines their consciousness (Marx. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.). This means that their actions produce their interactions with the rest of society. An example of the constant rebuilding of relations is evident through the different ideologies of history. During the middle ages, the feudal system was developed as one of the prominent ideals, where serfs were given land in exchange for their labour. For new developments to arise, the previous developments must be taken into account. This resulted in the production of the capital system, where the aristocratic owned the means of production, and paid the proletariats in funds, instead of land. These are prime examples of the forces of man. It is these forces, and relations, between classes, that form the base. This base gives root to a new superstructure and new ideals, which in turn, works towards another force, and consequently, a new society.

It is in this superstructure that Marxist theory is relevant. Critics of Marxism are concerned with not only the elements of this superstructure, but the exact combination. This combination leads to a particular ideology, which not only delegates the power of the ruling class, but can create conflict within society, leading to new forces.

One of these elements is aesthetics, or art. As a staple in the complex structure of society and the social perception of society, it can shed light on the ruling of one class over another, or it can deny it. Whether they support or deflate the ideology of the time, they are relevant to the dominant perception, or social mentality. This is where art breaks free from the rest of the group, for only art can depict a society free of boundaries. Politics and law can describe a certain time, but art allows us to experience that point in history without any restraints. Religious documents must abide by the church’s ordain or else they won’t be accepted by the clergy. Political documents tend to mimic the current ideals, and legal documents simply support the ideas of the time.

Marx stated that art was one of the few elements that could develop, independent, of the others, including the base. He noted, that at certain times, the production of art was not relative to the production of society, and that certain “highlights” in artistic history were only possible at certain historical points. For this theory, he chose the Greeks as his example. For an undeveloped society, they were able to produce some of the most important pieces of aesthetic history. He believed that to understand this anomaly, one must research more than the art itself, but the ideology of the time.

In Marx’s Grundrisse, he stated that man is fascinated with historical art not because they were able to produce such art in a primitive society, but that their society was the cause. Marx’s Grundrisse was written between The Communist Manifesto and the first volume of Capital. Before the influences of labour driven ideology’s, such as capitalism, feudalism and socialism, Greek society was more concerned with quality as opposed to quantity. These ideal conditions are also what lend to the appreciation of such art. Since these conditions are in the past, it is impossible to revisit them. This led Marx to believe that mankind’s love for ancient art was simply nostalgic. Critics were only interested in historic works, because it paralleled a return to humanity's childhood. This theory was, needless to say, severely criticized by many. Yet, it does hold realistic principles. These works were necessary in the production of mankind’s present development. Every work that is examined has evident roots in some prior text. Many revolutionary works are based on prior works. Virginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse, was based on Homer’s Odyssey, but focused on the idea of a mother as the hero in a battle. Marx, himself, was inspired by the works of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which eventually led him to collaborate with Friedrich Engels. Also, while Terry Eagleton was studying at Cambridge, he became a student of Raymond Williams, who was a Marxist literary critic. The two bonded through their rural working-class upbringing, and after reading Williams articles, Eagleton too became a Marxist critic.

By examining the past, Marxist critics began to apply the analysis of history into their analysis of current media. This is the basis of Eagleton’s method of analysis, where the material’s symbols, meaning, form, style and structure, are compared with such elements as: the author’s class position, the ideological forms, spirituality, philosophy, techniques of literary production and aesthetic theory. While all of these points are necessary, Eagleton emphasizes that the link between text and ideology is a crucial factor. One example used in Marxist Criticism, was T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land. Eagleton stated that to say The Waste Land was about the spiritual emptiness of the middle class after the First World War is not enough. To truly understand T.S. Eliot’s poem, in the Marxist literary sense, it is necessary to take into account: Eliot as an American aristocrat in England, the fact that he was an avant-garde poet, his beliefs in Buddhism and Christianity, and a long list of other variables.

Marxists consider the term ideology to signify “the way men live out their roles in class-society, the values, ideas and images which tie them to their social functions and so prevent them from a true knowledge of society as a whole.” (Eagleton, Marxist Criticism.) Eagleton mentions that there are two, extreme ways to relate art to ideology.
The dominant ideals can either be reflected in the art, or challenged. If it is challenged, it gives the work a sense of eternal meaning, as future readers can reflect on the conflicts. One such example occurred during the mid 19th century, when romanticism began to offend certain artists, and eventually led to the dawn of the realist movement. These two poles lead the critic to assume a middle ground where we turn to ideology for scientific, or conceptual knowledge, and to art for experience, as we feel the nature of the work.

This unique method of analysis enables critics to perceive art with more accuracy, involving the sociological and historical causes. Once these agents are understood, the work can be analyzed through literary means, to achieve a fuller understanding and appreciation for the work, and all of the contributing factors.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home