Quick Response to Post-Marxist Marxism
Ryan mentions a problem I have dealt repeatedly with over the last several years when he talks about the "historical inevitability" of communism, and the role of ideology or people to "make" a revolution. Stated neatly, it is the problem of the relationship between base/structure and superstructures and is a problem that is not unique to our website. I have said on several occasions that I feel Gramsci has taken the best first step to dealing with this problem with his explanation of the base-superstructure relationship. He suggests a kind of reciprocol relationship where superstructures are "relatively autonomous." In the last instance I am sure he would give primacy to economic structures, but it is considerably more complex than the hard determinists or economists suggested. I think that ultimately Gramsci's view is even a bit too reductionist in that it only recognizes a one-way linear distribution of power.
Briefly addressing the role of Marxist criticism in literature I will suggest that some aspects of Marxism are still valuable critical tools in an academic setting. We can all concede that the Marxist view is too myopic to deal with the complexities of contemporary western societies, this is one of the key reasons it has not been able to construct a healthy socialist state in the west (leaving the east out temporarily because its a different situation). The use of Marxist class-based or economic criticism is still useful though in confronting certain aspects that reveal themselves in art, if you wish to engage in art criticism at all. It would have to be supplemented by many other perspectives, but this is one of the late trends in literary criticism. The postmodern impact on literary criticism, and much else, has been to make it reasonable (forgive the un-postmodern word) to engage in criticism without an end in mind. Deconstruction is a perfect example of a tool that takes apart mostly for its own sake. The postmodern view is too shun altogether the modernist ideas that means need to progress in a linear fashion toward ends. When a one takes a Marxist view to get at one element in a work of literature the old modernist may ask, "now what?" The current strain of thought sweeping across academia is that the that something needs to be constructive is exactly the problem. In any case, this was a very quick reply in more stream of thought fashion...I suggest two problems with the way Ryan approaches Marx: 1) although he knows that good Marxism is not economistic he still has trouble not leaning on that strawman at times...historical inevitabilities are rhetoric and bad marxism...2) he is not accounting for the postmodern influence in criticism where the need to work toward ends itself has been deconstructed as a modernist western "grand narrative."
Briefly addressing the role of Marxist criticism in literature I will suggest that some aspects of Marxism are still valuable critical tools in an academic setting. We can all concede that the Marxist view is too myopic to deal with the complexities of contemporary western societies, this is one of the key reasons it has not been able to construct a healthy socialist state in the west (leaving the east out temporarily because its a different situation). The use of Marxist class-based or economic criticism is still useful though in confronting certain aspects that reveal themselves in art, if you wish to engage in art criticism at all. It would have to be supplemented by many other perspectives, but this is one of the late trends in literary criticism. The postmodern impact on literary criticism, and much else, has been to make it reasonable (forgive the un-postmodern word) to engage in criticism without an end in mind. Deconstruction is a perfect example of a tool that takes apart mostly for its own sake. The postmodern view is too shun altogether the modernist ideas that means need to progress in a linear fashion toward ends. When a one takes a Marxist view to get at one element in a work of literature the old modernist may ask, "now what?" The current strain of thought sweeping across academia is that the that something needs to be constructive is exactly the problem. In any case, this was a very quick reply in more stream of thought fashion...I suggest two problems with the way Ryan approaches Marx: 1) although he knows that good Marxism is not economistic he still has trouble not leaning on that strawman at times...historical inevitabilities are rhetoric and bad marxism...2) he is not accounting for the postmodern influence in criticism where the need to work toward ends itself has been deconstructed as a modernist western "grand narrative."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home