Although Marxists share the same baseline of thought when it comes to literary criticism, “that a writer’s class and prevailing ideology have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class”, I was unaware of the division between Determinist Marxism and Liberal Marxism in the context of gauging how much social, political, and economic variables influence writers. (Barry 152) Determinists, according to Barry, believe that art is a passive product of socio-economic forces while the “liberal-line” believes that these forces are much more distant and subtle. Jameson argues that political interpretation of literary texts are not “some supplementary method [. . .] but rather [functions] as the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation” (On Interpretation 181).
This hermeneutic view of cultural literature made me reevaluate readings of some canonized texts that are taught in the secondary classroom, and I came to realize that, in some degree, this rings true. Almost all science fiction can be seen as social criticisms (Fahrenheit 451, 1984, even the commercialized Halo series), Shakespeare wrote his plays in response to political, social, and economic commentary (Macbeth, The Merchant of Venice, Julius Caesar), the Beats rebelled against the country’s ideology and literary practices of the time (broke away from traditional conventions of subject matter, religion, syntax and prescriptive grammar). I bring up these specific pieces up only because they are on the curriculum I teach at the high school level.
Although poetry seems to be autonomous from this hermeneutic view (a genre that is popularly thought of as individualized expression) inspiration for such pieces can be traced back to socio-economic or political strife if the reader digs deep enough.
Now, I understand that this is a huge generalization, and I know that many will refute this, but I believe if we put enough effort and research behind any major literary piece, we could find some degree of social, political or economic context. So, I can agree to some extent with Jameson on his “On Interpretation”, that “[t]he only effective liberation from such constraints begins with the recognition that there is nothing that is not social and historical” to some degree. (183) So, depending on the text, I can rationalized taking a determinist stance on some works (like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle) or the liberal-line approach (Ezra Pound’s “In a Station of the Metro”) depending on genre and piece that is being interpreted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think we would need to put much effort at all into finding political, cultural, and economic context in any literary work.
ReplyDeleteThough I don't take a hard-line view of "all writers [being] irrevocably trapped" in their social context (Barry 154), I also don't believe authors (artists, philosophers, etc) create in a vacuum.
Complete objectivity is always impossible, which means that everything has to be political.
I agree with Althusser that our ideological "values and assumptions...suffuse all the artefacts (sic) and all the culture of a given time" (157), making everything political
Ah, yes - 'the social is political' as is art, music, science, etc. Context is one of my major focus points when I teach - even when we explored deconstruction we needed to explore the context in which it was introduced and ways in which it could be used. What I love it the idea that as writers we are invariably trapped by our class - our context - and that even the finest writers who appear above the fray (and who are they, exactly?) can be scrutinized to reveal their true orientations. It seems that even writers are bound by the illusion that "we are freely choosing what is in fact being imposed upon us" (Barry 158).
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Williams "Country and City,"poetry turns out not to be exempt either. The idealization of the country in the pastoral form is an example of where writers wrote without seeing the truth of the oppressive struggle of the laborers and middle class in the country.
ReplyDeleteonce the eyes are opened to a marxist interpretation of history/literature/politics, etc. it is difficult to run away from that light
ReplyDeleteE.J. is dead on. I didnt really believe the comment about poetry being out of the loop, but after "The Country and the City" I see economics all over the place!
ReplyDeleteBut does the inevitability of that political/economic/social context inevitably lead to Marxism? It's there, Rhonda's right you don't have to look very hard, even at poetry, but that means that we jump in and get in line? Can't do it.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like we didn't all already know before reading this stuff that everything has context, that nothing is entirely unbiased, etc. So we jump in and negate the individual agreeing that in the "last analysis" we're all economic products? That all creativity is? ugh. If that "light" is my only alternative I'd rather be blind and let the matrix have me.