Response to Dr. Christopher Craig Online Lecture

Before we move any further ahead, I'd like to clarify the parts of Marxist Theory that I was somewhat confused about. This will serve as a reminder more than anything for the inevitable event that everything I felt I understood so well slips away from me.

Perhaps it was because I was stuck (subconsciously) in the liberal humanist mindset of the artist having a large part in the work itself, and tried to correlate that into Marxist Theory. But Marxism, as I seem to understand it now, is the analysis of a work of art (specifically literature, in our case) after it has been released from the grasp of the artist and enters the public. Once it is being consumed, the artist has nothing to do with it anymore. The author is dead. The art is shaped by the society, who see it as they do based on their own perceptions, which is largely influenced by respective social position.

With that said, lets move on.

In Dr. Craig's lecture, he spoke of a popular clothing store fashionably carrying Marx's Communist Manifesto. The product has an obvious appeal to those dissatisfied with their culture's ideology, who look for an alternative to mindless consumerism. The store is effectively advertising revolution, how could it be so blind the irony? Turns out, by commodifying revolution, you are effectively reinstating capitalism and the power of the ruling class. We believe we have free choice, but ideas made into a product will forever be the building blocks of a capitalist society. Dr. Craig brings up an unsettling point that even if a purchase is influenced by a rejection of the American status quo, it often does not take into consideration the exploitation necessary in producing that item (such as a pair of wicked punk rock jeans).

Mention the commodification of revolutionary ideas, and the first thing I tend to think of is Che Guevara. His image is literally everywhere, especially on the t-shirts, backpacks, and pins of America's dissatisfied youth. I'm willing to bet most people know his face better than his name (or his cause for that matter), which is another way capitalism disempowers or potentially eliminates these ideas of activism. Somewhere down the line, the context of a revolutionary like Guevara is lost and it becomes nothing more than an image. As Dr. Craig pointed out, wearing the shirt is activism enough to some people, which explains why we're kind of stuck, doesn't it?

The lecture also goes into the idea that literature is necessarily relational, meaning that even if it attempts to uphold an oppositional point of view regarding a society's ideology, it is inevitably tied to that same ideology it opposes. So basically we are unable to disconnect from our dominant ideology, regardless of how hard we kick and how loud we scream. We are completely, hopelessly trapped. I believe this means (rather simply) that opposition can't exist without something to oppose against, so actively opposing anything means that the 'anything' you're opposing is emphasized just as much, if not more than the idea that is opposing it. It becomes a model of what not to be, and is therefore highlighted. If that is off, I would much appreciate someone helping me understand it more accurately.

Thank you, Dr. Craig. I'd be lost (or MORE lost) without you.

Marxism and Me

As compared to the tenaciously idiotic liberal humanism, Marxist criticism is looking pretty good right about now. I know (or hope) everyone has a pretty basic understanding of Marxist theory already, so please just humor me while I review for a moment.

Marxism (or Communism) was a school of thought formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels which focused on progress as a result of economic struggle and considered a classless society a utopian society. In Marxist criticism, everything essentially ties to one's political/social position. In other words, their environment, their society, their external world holds some kind of weight in who they are and extends to the art they create. This is in direct opposition of the liberal humanist idea that an individual has an essence that both never changes and is distinct from their physical surroundings.

Marxism actually puts quite a bit of emphasis on change and progress. Specifically, it focuses in on the shifting of power. That is, of course, how progress is made - the power moves from one class to another, the oppressed take what is rightfully theirs. Liberal humanists, of course, don't want this. Why shake things up? Aren't things fine the way they are? Aren't we fine the way we are? Can't we get better at being fine the way we are by adhering to gazillion year old traditions and just being NATURALLY good humans? Liberal humanists actually fear when a character in literature undergoes dramatic change due to circumstance, specifically citing Dickens' work as portraying such. The subject is expected to 'transcend' their social position, as if we could possibly help being shaped by our external world.

One term I found especially intriguing was hegemony, which is described in our text as an 'internalised from of social control'. Basically, its the proposition of certain things being 'natural', or 'just the way things are'. Sound familiar? Fundamental human nature is like, sort of a recurring theme in liberal humanism. We are the way we are, some things about us never change. 'Hegemony' gives that notion a (much needed) negative context, in that it acknowledges that things that 'just are' become that way because they are unquestioned. Needless to say, if theory should be anything, its inquisitive.

I think its pretty clear that I find Marxism to be an appealing concept. I appreciated that even Engels himself expressed a sort of malleability in social position and its effect on art. He didn't believe in ultra rigid rules or guidelines in reading a text, but rather that, to a degree, art could be independent of economic situation. In this respect, he seemed to admire art for art's sake (whatever the hell that means). Its been said a million times, but the idea that art, or a person for that matter, can exist as something seperate from the conditions in which it entered and inhabited this world is prepostorous. Realistically, 90% (at the very least) of the factors that make a person a person are due to what surrounds him (or her). Without outside influence, are you really anything at all? If you're surrounded by nothing, what's to separate you from that nothingness. How do you learn? How do you choose? Liberal humanism is basically like having amnesia between every book you read - no preconceptions, no context, no biases, nothing that indicates any shread of being a real person. I'll pass.

(something of) a proper introduction

Let's backtrack a little bit. My name is Marcus, I am 21 years old and attend Emmanuel College in Boston. Pleased to meet me! Through my own little corner of the cyberworld, I hope to make some sense of critical theory. For the moment, I've not committed to any theory in particular, and feel I only really have the most basic understanding of some of the big ones (Marxism, feminism, and so on). It seems that while many, if not most, explore certain concepts with which I find myself in agreement, as a whole I cannot quite fully connect with any of them. In other words, I have not yet found a theory that I feel wholly represents that which I believe or see the world. Maybe thats not the point either, but I guess I'll figure this out in quietness and time.

world without words

So what have we learned folks? Liberal Humanism in itself is a pretty faulty concept, because it not only rejects context as indicative of good literature, but also perpetuates this idea of a 'fixed human nature'. Human nature is essentially unchanging, the liberal humanist argues, but I'm not so sure I agree. Isn't the natural course of everything living to mutate and evolve? The book even goes as far as to say that a major point of liberal humanism is that "..continuity in literature is more important and significant than innovation." This clearly isn't very forward thinking. Innovation is what keeps any artistic medium alive and kicking.

In our class discussion we talked about language and its correspondence to reality - does it construct it or represent it? We talked about our experiences and how we express them later through our language, and how it is (in some cases) not until you put an experience into words that the experience really clicks. Language is a method of making sense of the world. I think we're to a point where our dependence on words is so great that without them we lose the ability to make sense of anything. Without consciously finding a way to express something real, you find yourself on autopilot, missing all those details that make everything that happens so meaningful. Reality doesn't feel REALLY real until we put it in words. But I think its also true that words are meaningless without experience. Example: every so often there will be a song that maybe I grew up listening to, which i'd always been attracted to for its tune or the singer. The event that is portrayed in the lyrics is completely lost on me. But one day I go back having experienced something like the story the song is telling, or the emotion its portraying, and its meaning is elevated and I find myself really within the words. So this idea of life imitating art and vice versa, I think it can go both ways. Its like two sides of the same coin or something cheesy like that.