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.