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.