UNIT 1 MARXISM AND LITERATURE

Structure

. 1.0 0bjes.tives
1.1 Introduciion
1.2 What is Marxism?
1.3 Marxism as a Way of Looking at Social Developments
1.4 Marxism as Opposed both to Religious-Moral Idealism and Mechanical
Materialism
1.5 Relevance of Marxism to literature
1.6 Marxism and Literary Criticism
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
8.8 Questions
1.9 Glossary

1.0 OBJECTIVES

1 After reading this unit hopefully you will be able to

define Marxism as a political, social and cultural ideology

explain how Marxism can help us to understand literature and
distinguish how Marxism as a literary critical approach is different from
other approaches to our study of literature.
I
I 1.1 INTRODUCTION
Marxism has been defined variously: as an approach, a world outlook, a theory and a
philosophy of action. Marxism is all these, depending upon the context in which we
talk about it. For instance, if we have to consider a question linked with a political
development, Marxism as an approach would be more suitable for us. In literature,
we use marxism as essentially a world outlook, something that tells us about the
author's mind and the nature of his thought. Marxism as a theory would be more
appropriately explained as a critical method with whose help we raise pertinent
questions about the actual practice of an author, when we examine hisher ideology
(another loaded word that we discuss in the later pages of this block) to find out how
much of it is real, rational and, therefore, acceptable. This last definition is more
pertinent to the study of life and behaviour under 'social sciences.' The concept of
action separates Marxism from all earlier philosophies, which only interpret the
world, "while the point is to change it." This means that Marxism's central point is to
change the world through collective social action.

Definitions do not end here. Still more descriptions and definitions can be added to
the ones we have given here so that the vast range of meanings associated with the
term can be highlighted. However, let us go into the reason why Marxism is still so
debated today. Difficulty about how to comprehend Marxism in our time has largely
arisen because of different applications of this approach to concrete conditions in
socialist and other societies in the twentieth century. What we have seen happening in
Russia since the October Revolution is totally at variance with events in China.
Similarly, upheavals violently rocking the societies in Eastern Europe have pointed
towards an altogether new kind of politics. M m i s t practice in the twentieth century
has been a combination of state control, democracy, and bourgeois tendencies in
politics and individualism among people in general. In all this, Marxist leadership has
been found wanting in many respects, thus giving rise to a number of revolts against
the very system. The state in Socialist Russia as well as a number of other countries
in Eastern Europe has been turned upside down. We cannot make head or tail of the
Marxist View 4 events that have overtaken our world in the name of radical change under a
Literature preconceived Marxist framework. In fact, our language falters ("preconceived
Marxist framework" is one example!) as we poilder over the political and
philosophical-cultural issues that our world confronts today. That is what we see in
the name of Marxist practice in socialist countries. At the same time, we cannot
overlook the attack on Marxism launched by those centres of power, which support
racism, religious intolerance and social injustice. These power centres are capitalist.
To them, Marxism appears to be a dangerous opponent who is out to put an end to
their control and supremacy in the world. Also look at the philosophies these centres
propagate - individualism, consumerism and abstract spiritualism are some of the
strategic philosophic devices they use to distract attention from the relevance of
Marxism.

Most of the recent criticism of Marxism by its opponents lacks substance. It is

narrow, shrill and motivated. Those who have no positive alternative to offer - who
would be content to prove Marxism as another liberal-bourgeois or sectarian-
fundamentalist theory, which they can discuss and discard, make it. In earlier periods,
particularly around World War I, thinkers have felt so weak, uncertain and helpless in
the face of the supporters of commitment that at the first sign of contradiction (there
is no doubt that these contradictions are serious, violent and daunting, as stated
above), emerging out of Marxist practice, they have tended to react with excessive
vehemence. It appears that the situation prevailing in Russia and Eastern European
socialist countries today has presented an opportunity to many antagonists of
Marxism to raise the issue of individual identity in a new way. If one thought
objectively, the biggest threat to such an identity could be seen as coming straight
from the forces of market and finance in the modem world. It means that 'identity'
has been a new catch phrase used by vested interests to defend capitalism. Who can
deny that capitalism stifles the growth of the individual and reduces hirn or her to the
level of a mere consumer without real choice and initiative. As we have noticed, it
eliminates the human being in society by turning people into objects and
commodities that are available in the market for sale. Things have become so bad that
even yiters and artist, let alone ordinary people, opt for nothing better than a job,
which should actually be seen as a mere venture for earning bread. This obviously is
not what writers in particular and others in general should look for. The number of
those writers is growing who are sensitive enough to see the deleterious effect of
capitalism on the human psyche and sensibility. They critique capitalism in their
poems, plays and novels and exhibit their clear disgust with its narrow self-centred
ways.

1.2 WHAT IS MARXISM?

Marxism sees different phenomena in the environment as a part of the larger social
reality. This sounds rather simple. From this we infer that since we live in a society,
whatever we think, feel or believe in, would necessarily be a part of our society and,
therefore, reflect upon the social reality surrounding us. Organised under a specific
system of production and distribution, a society exerts immense amount of pressure
on its members. At the same time, according to Marxism, individuals or groups in a
society, moulded as they are by the forces of production and distribution, are not
totally helpless in their environment. In fact, classes of people, the haves and have-
nots, remain in constant clash with one another and strive to establish or retain their
supremacy in the structure they operate in. Marxism tells us that class struggle is the
essence of a society andnothing happening in society can be adequately explained
without reference to this fact. At the philosophical level, Marxism provides
investigative-analytical methods, superior, objective and scientific, to' study and
assess the phenomena of history. Through an application of these methods, various
historical phenomena can be probed and comprehended in their fullness and
interconnection. The Marxist method of enquiry and analysis is called the dialectical
method under which the contending and opposing elements of a phenomenon are
seen as linked to each other in an ever-changing process. This means that when two Marxism and
elements clash, they should be studied and judged with reference to the structure that Literature
produced them. At the same time, the clash is a positive and productive clash in
which a struggle for resolving the conflict may also be noticed. The dialectical
method shows how the very survival of a structure rests on its different conflicting
elements. Seen dialectically, a historical phenomenon is both a product of one
particular phenomenon and the producer of the other. For this reason, Marxism
assigns a deeper significance to terms such as "society" and "social reality" and
makes us aware of the fact that society is a living and changing reality subject to the
laws of history, such as the class struggle, the role and function of the state and
radical restructuring of society by actual political formations. Growth and
development are the outcome of important conflicts taking place between groups,
sections and classes of people. To repeat, social reality is more than mere information
about the various components of a society, which we cannot grasp unless the "facts"
and aspects of a society are seen in their interconnection. What I mean is that there is
something in sqciety, which can explain for us the reasons behind a phenomenon.
The writer of literature is supposed, therefore, to have a fairly intimate knowledge of
his society.

1.3 MARXISM AS A WAY OF LOOKING AT SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENTS
As I have said above, this theory insists that society or the social organisation of a
particular time be viewed as part of a whole series of changes taking place in history.
Our notice is drawn many a time to the fact that the process of economic production
and distribution is a vital constituent ofiorganised human life. But do we realise to
what extent these influence or determine the way we live in society? My answer is
that a social organisation is largely deterministic with its different agencies 'telling'
its members what to do and think. But looked at in another way, new happenings
quite frequently burst forth on the scene and give the lie to the dictates of a system.
This points to the veiled and hidden forces of change that are always active in
society.

So far, we have talked of the deterministic aspect of society. Here, we can take up the
idea of people as agents of change that sooner or later transform the way people act
and think. To illustrate this point of relationship between social changes and human
life, let us take the example of two important happenings in Europe - the French
Revolution towards the end of the eighteenth century and the Industrial Revolution in
England in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century. These two left a
lasting impression on the society of France and England respectively. The French
Revolution made the doctrine of equality among human beings acceptable as never
before, something for the cause of which people would stake their lives. The notion
of equality among people was new and inspiring. It also violated the prevailing norms
of hierarchy. As is common knowledge, the upsurge of the French masses against the
feudal yoke unleashed forces of progress in a big way, which established a regime of
free enterprise and democracy. Hitherto oppressed, the common people of France
moved inexorably towards the centre-stage. Literature did not remain untouched by
this development. The energy and passion in the French fiction of the nineteenth
century can be clearly linked up with the social upheaval in France in the last decade
of the eighteenth century. Who is the central figure in the French novels of the period
if not an ordinary villager or city dweller, a middle class individual, a small trader, a
clerk or a poet? The basic concern of the writer in France became the behaviour of
the common people v i s - h i s the vast changes that had swept the nation. We should
mark the language of these novels, which the ordinary French used at the market
place. It is a vehicle of expression of day-to-day experiences, vibrant with the
common idiom.
Marxist View of I do not say that all writers adopted a particular attitude towards social happenings
Literature and considered them sympathetically,or that all of them were radical. Some of them
retained a conservative approach in their lives. However, the point to emphasise 1s
that all of them took no$ of the new relationships based on equality, honest
endeavour and collective enterprise. They also appreciated the changed perceptions
of people. Their writing gave a sharp focus to these developments and interpreted
them as important aspects of French life.

Coming to the Industrial Revolution in England, we can say that it did not appear as
spectacular as the French Revolution. It had no heroes and villains. Nor did it hav-e
contending armies in its midst that fought for political changes. It is called
'revolution' in the sense that it changed the social landscape of England by decisively
shifting the movement of life in the direction of industrialism. The rural production
and life dependent on age-old use of land ceased to be the dominant mode of
existence as more and more people flocked to the cities in search of bread and butter.
The oity also opened up new avenues of progress. Can we forget that because of
large-scale production under capitalism, life in England began to be governed more
and more by new democratic laws that were framed by the English parliament?

Historically, no doubt, the trehd went back to the seventeenth century, but the
Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century gave a decisively sharper edge to the
phenomenon. Keep this in mind note that the novels of Dickens and George Eliot
capture an England that has an entirely new set of questions confronting it.
Descriptions of poverty and inequality are so stark in Dickens's novels and their link
with the expansion of industry is so strong that the reader cannot link the
representation with anything written before. The novels of Dickens are clearly rooted
in the reality of mid-nineteenth century England. In the same way, we come across
such protagonists in George Eliot's novels as are closely identifiable - middle-class
individuals with a new kind of sksitivity and inner life. Undeniably, the
development of industrial production in England inspired this poperful fictional
trend. Once again, we do not see in this fiction a simple reflection of society but a
treatment of issues fiom so many different points of view in a society that is caught in
the process of change. We should also notice that under the impact of the Industrial
Revolution, most of the writers of the day became sympathetic towards the common
masses and picked up characters fiom among them for projecting deep human urges
and interests. Characters from the upper classes represented in nineteenth century
fiction look insipid and lifeless in comparison. The point is that looked at from the
angle of important historical devdopments, literary works put forward an altogether
new idea. From the Marxist point of view, literary works are not myths or fables
retold or characters caught in a plot-structure but instead representations of important
trends. In this sense, fiction and poetry become areas in which the processes of
change live a crystallised existence.

1.4 MARXISM AS OPPOSED TO BOTH IDEALISM AND

MECHANICAL MATERIALISM
It is common knowledge that almost all religious philosophies are critical of the
narrow self-seeking tendencies in man's behaviour and stress upon the importance of
people moving out of the worldly domain of existence. When we look at our world
from the view of idealism we always judge things as approximating to the idea, the
perfect idea, which precedes the material phenomenon. What idealism does not notice
is that idea, the very core of all natural and social phenomenon, being perfect, is
static, it does not have change as its integral part. According to idealism, what
changes is the environment, which is supposed to approximate to the perfect idea,
which is there as a permanent factor. The permanent, unchanging idea remaining ever
the same over and above the constraints of time and space, is something that cannot
grasp the factors of change, growth and progress, all essential features of human
history and society. In fact, in all historical phenomena, complexities of social,
 'ideological and cultural,structures, psychological-spiritual ambiguities and paradoxes Marxism and
remain outside the reach of religious idealism. To religious idealism, these would at Literature
I best be a simple manifestatiqn &fi the human effbit to reach-theperfect idea of
Godliness. At the same time4 religioiis idealism rnay place the entire spectrum of
'worldly experiences' under the negative category of falsdaad illusory practices
(T.S.EliotYs"unreal city," for instance) that come in theway of the progress of the
soul. If such a view criticises the modem ways of social life, its utilitarianism and
consumerism as unsatisfying and non-fulfilling, it does so by entirely diluting the
dynamism and vigour of human and social intercourse.
i
The opoosite of idealism is mechanical materialism. Marxism is critical of this view
for its excessive emphasis on a particular enviroment to understand human behaviour.
There are accounts and descriptions of human conduct in fiction where characters are
captured through mundane and trivial details and in which vital connections between
the infinity of facts are hard to find (in George Eliot's novels, for example). Marxism
rejects this view as negative and pessimistic since 'mind' or 'spirit' as an integral part
of material existence are absent in it. In fact, Marxism radically critiques the duality
of mind and matter and lays a great deal of emphasis on mind being "a specific mode
of matter," not outside or independent of matter.

The mind-matter controversy is resolved in Marxism, therefore, in a dialectical way -

the two are not separate and separable but live in interconnection - mind in fact is
I
1
only a distinct mode of existence of matter. If we see any growth and development in
thought, culture, science and ideology, it is only a broad reflection of the socio-
historical phenomenon, the concrete world of matter in the human mind, which like
everything else is also a product of human endeavour in history. The complexity and
richness of the cultural-literary, spiritual-religious or psychological-sociological
discourses can thus be examined and understood if they are seen in relation to the
historical phenomenon outside their respective domains. This philosophical view
informs and marks behind all discussions of literary trends and develoPments in this
block. However, I explain it a bit further in the following section.

1.5 RELEVANCE OF MARXISM TO LITERATURE

Since Marxism lays stress upon the importance of history within which various social
and cultural trends emerge, it gives a new dimefision to the study of literature. It is
with the help of Marxism that we comprehend the relationship between a writer and
hisher society. This relationship is that of a sensitive individual w t h hisher
environment. This individual is deeply concerned with the conditions of people
around himher. S h e recognises the existence of not merely pain and anguish but also
anger and a sense of resistance in their lives. At the same time, the writer notices
among people the great urge to enjoy celebrate and be happy. This makes him/her
combine within their writing the different human emotions of melancholy, disquiet as
well as anger and joy. On the surface, these appear to be expressions of an
individual's response. However, the writer's response has its roots in the society to
which s h e belongs and, therefore, reflects upon the nature of hisher surroundings.
Marxism does not stop at this point but takes the consideration further to the specific
mode of production, the governing economic structure, which regulates the activity of
men and women in a decisive way. Marxism also pinpoints the role of human beings
in shaping their society through sharp questioning and active mobilisatior~.

How do other theories relate to literature and what h c t i o n do they perform? Do they
'
not exclusively stress upon the social background to reach the conclusion that
literature is wholly determined by its environment (mechanical materialism), and say
that the individual will operates unhindered by anything whatsoever and is, according
to them, not subject to the laws of history and society? In the first case, literature is
seen as an exact replica of its times because according to the theory of determination
by society, it could not be anything better or different. Thus, characters, voices or
,!Iarxist View of attitudes in a literary work are interpreted as the fill and final pictures of the society
Literature that produced it with no scope for an alternative set of representation in it. In the
second case, the individuals will becomes free from all social constraints and the
criticism using the concept sees the work as operating on a much higher universal
plane. For instance, this kind of criticism may separate the reference to myths in a
particular work from the other things present in it and relate them in an arbitrary
manner to other myths that existed in the past. Much of the anarchy in modernist
criticism owes its existence to this tendency. In either case.lhthe significance of
literature as a powerful cultural endeavour is seriously mdermined. By restoring to
literature its ability to critique and oppose certain tendencies as also to project the
creative interests of the larger masses, Marxism places this most fulfilling and
meaningful human endeavour within the parametres of society and history.

To illustrate this, I briefly refer to a trend in early twentieth century writing. In this
writing, one can see two clear and distinct streams of writers. To the former .+ream
belong poets such as W.H. Auden, C. Day Lewis and Luis Macniece and to t r ~ latter t
belong W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot. The critical intelligence and vigour of
the former stems from their intense hatred for the philistinism and superficiality of
culture in their time. They clearly recognised the source of this philistinism in money
and privilege. On the other hand, Yeats, Pound and Eliot distrusted the common
masses. These poets were unable to notice the potentiality of change in the collective
action of people. In fact, they looked for inspiration towards the privileged and the
elite who in their opinion were capable of transcending the lay uninformed masses.
The powerful voice of overall rejection in their poetry cannot be separated from their
acquiescence in, if not open approval of the existing system. An interesting aspect of
this trend is that it forms the basis of cynical rootless writing that emerged in the
post-Second World War period. We may ask as to why a playwright like Beckett use
two tramps, floating rootless idlers and do-nothings as symbols of humanity in
modern times. Without relating these trends to the class reality of the day, we cannot
adequately comprehend the way in which the writers in question interpreted their
environment and expressed their concrete responses to it. In this context, we cannot
overlook the sharp contrast that Bertolt Brecht's plays offer to the works of Samuel
Beckett. While Beckett's plays fall in the category of the drama of the absurd, not in
the sense that they lack meaning and significance but that they reveal and emphasise
absurdity as the central principle in modem-day human existence, Brecht's plays are
characterised as heroic drama. Brecht is remarkable in his portrayal of courage and
perseverance in ordinary people. The heroism, the spirit to withstand pressures in
Brecht's characters is largely owing to the writer's adoption of the Marxist outlook
because of which common people appear to him as carriers of a definite revolutionarq
fervour. Both Beckett and Brecht belong to the period around the Second World War.
It could be expected that because of their sensitivity and intelligence, the two would
exhibit identical social concerns. However, the fact is that Beckett concentrates upon
what can be called human fate and human destiny in modem times while Brecht
endeavours to bring out the creative, the noble and the heroic in the common masses
of the day.

1.6 MARXISM AND LITERARY CRITICISM

In the study of literature, Marxism has influenced a host of critics in the twentieth
century and has helped in the development of a cogent and full-fledged literary
theory. The emergence in the nineteen thirties of the radical critical trend in England
which also left its distinct mark on Leavis and his disciples bears testimony to the
wider appeal and authenticity of a theory owing allegiance to materialism. Under the '
influence of the materialistic outlook, most of the English critics in the thirties, forties
and later were constrained to take note of the importance of the historical context in
literature. In our times,it is because of the growing influence of Marxism on literary
criticism that the great nineteenth century fiction writers have been pulled out of an
abstract appreciation and their writings have been placed in a concrete context. If the
great nineteenth century fiction writers appear to us as uncompromising crusaders, a Marxism and
large part of the credit should go to the historicist principle made popular by Marxist Literature
literary criticism. We have to take note of the fact that the Marxist viewpoint i s at the
centre of discourses contending for acceptance today. Whether it is structuralism,
poststructuralism, deconstruction or end of history theory, the target invariably is the
idea that common working masses can change the face of history. Marxism has
compelled the contemporary thinker and critic to reconsider his narrow individual-
centred stand of helplessness or the abstract moralist notion of decay in the modem
world. As we are aware, structuralism swore by the concept of strongly resistant
structures in language, society and culture. However, the structuralist theory was
essentially deterministic in that it ignored the basic principle of human initiative (a
key concept of Marxism). Marxism challenges the restraining social environment
through empowerment of the working masses. It was no doubt an attempt on the part
of modern bourgeois interests to negate the Marxist idea of change. Deconslmction
was an attack on ~ a r x i s mfrom a different direction. It attacked the idea of existence
of the author or the narrator - the central governing principle of a representation -
and rejected the notion of a centre in the text: At the same time, deconstmction's
exclusive emphasis on the text (not the author or work) specifically targeted the
revolutionary role of literarture.

In the face of these theories, Marxist criticism has evolved still more sophisticated
arguments to address fresh questions. This is manifest in the writings of Marxist
critics such as Raymond Williams, Frederic Jameson and Teny Eagleton who
usefully link the literary work with its author. Marxism has also helped literary
criticism in evolving new materialist concepts of culture, ideology, realism,
modernism, political unconscious, etc, with which to effectively counter the
onslaught of bourgeois theorists. Marxist criticism also tells us about the need to
combine the efforts of the writer and the reader around a literary work. It is a
daunting critical task that requires of us to actively construct the meaning of the work
to suit the positive humanist requirements of our age.

How should Marxist literary criticism go about the job of analysing and interpreting a
work? For an answer to this question, we refer to Frederic Jameson who says that "In
an area of culture, . .. we are ... confronted with a choice between the study of the
nature of the "objective structures" of a given cultural text (the historicity of its forms
and of its content, the historical moment of emergence of its linguistic possibilities,
the situation-specific function of the aesthetic) and something rather different which
would instead foreground the interpretive categories or codes through which we read
and receive the text in question." The question is well posed. What is of interest here
is that Marxist criticism goes to both points of time irrespective of whether the
author-text or the reader-text is chosen for foregrounding, whether the time and
context of the author is used to understand the text or that of the reader to interpret it.
Actually, Jameson's emphasis on interpretation is for the reason that a work for
Marxist criticism belongs both to the past and the present (if it is written earlier) and
should be made to serve those needs of the present which are linkdd up with the idea
of radical change. This should give us an insight into the function of that criticism
which is driven by the urge to give a new radical direction to the historical
circumstance.

1.7 LET US SUM UP

Unlike most philosophies which consider a transcendental force or which is called
idea, mind, spirit, supreme being, etc. to be at the centre of human and natural
existence, Marxism asserts that it is matter which is of prime significance and whose
different manifestation are ~dea,mind, spirit, etc. While earlier philosophies can be
termed idealistic, spiritualistic and other-worldly, Marxism claims to be materialistic
and this-worldly. Materialism should not be confused with utilitarianism,
consumerism or hedonism. All of us know that utilitarianism and consumerism,
bereft as they are of any human value, serve only those of our needs and requirements
which are physical. These tendencies, developed as they have been in the modem
capitalist era, reflect merely the n m w , self-serving and opportunistic distortions of
human character, which actually is social, collectivist, creative and noble. As we
become aware of the limitations of consum~smtoday, we gradually cease to be the
slaves of that world of irrational production and distribution whose chief driving
force is the profit motive, not the satisfaction of physical and mental requirements of
all members of society in an equitable way. If irrational production-distributionand
profit motive are what consumerism manifests, how can Marxism take them as the
central core of its conception. It is in this sense that Marxist materialism and the
capitalist doctrine of individual-centred profit motive should be seen as two entirely
different and antagonistic modes of thought.

1.8 QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the connections that exist between a literary trend and the society of
its time.
2. "Marxism pinpoints the role of human beings in shaping their society." How
does this idea influence the approach of a literary writer in the twentieth
century?

1.9 GLOSSARY
Conservative approach: Drawing inspiration from past tendencies and values
and resisting those of the present &d future.

Deconstruction: A critical doctrine of the nineteen eighties. It rejects

the notion of form in a literary work as arbitrary and
suggests that the reader should look for the hidden
clues that are submerged in the text.

End of ideology theory: A new critical trend that negates the validity of
ideology in present-day discussions. The reason
behind the trend may be that the bourgeois outlook
today has lost all hope of succ~ssfullyopposing
Marxism, an ideology of the,working class.
Mechanical Materialism: According to this view, ordinary happenings of life
are directly related to prevailing social forces. As
mere products of society, people seem to live a life
of bondage in their surroundings. Also, individuals
are considered slaves to their instincts and, therefore,
react to the circumstances on the basis of knowledge
gained through senses.
Philosophic devices: Concepts and arguments handled as tools to prove or
disprove the efficacyof a trend. A word from critical
theory. Critics and commentators have always an
inkling of which argument or concept (philosophic
devices) is going to deliveruthegoods.

Strategic: From strategy. Useful in implementing a plan and

for a specific purpose.