Hello! This is my first post on Lemmygrad.
I have a lesson from my Literature Theory class in college about Marxist analysis. It has some stuff about “British Cultural Materialism”, “American New Historicism” and calls Simone de Beauvoir a Marxist among other things. I have a basic understanding of ML theory, though not enough to properly counter what is being said here.
The lesson is in PDF form, but I formatted it to Markdown and uploaded it to PrivateBin, here. I will also attach a screenshot showing the final questions regarding the lesson.
What points are there to be made against what is written there? It often feels like idealism and the lesson itself is filled with pseudo-Marxists.
Thank you comrades!
I wouldn’t try to approach this course material as something to debunk before I really understood what was being said. I went through the part about Marxist thought and it doesn’t actually sound like your professor is trying to negatively portray Marxism or anything… Just putting it in context of other movements and not putting Marxism on a pedestal.
They are also focused more on what Marxism means for literary criticism rather than how Marxism can be used to affect society. Which is a valid way of approaching the topic.
Yeah, this is giving off vibes of OP trying to show off that they think they are smarter than the professor.
Marxist literary critique is just one vantage point of literary criticism.
I would recommend Terry Eagleton’s “Literary Theory - An Introduction”. I was a comp lit university teacher and eagleton always came in handy to explain criticism.
That’s a good book. Well worth a read. If OP is really pushed for time, the first 3–4 pages of the conclusion provide a good summary of some key points.
My intentions was to find out if this is accurate to Marxist theory, as educational institutions only show Marxism as a very negative ideology, from what I heard. It had basic mentions of dialectical materialism and kind of felt accurate when it came to basic Marxist terms, but I just felt skeptical about it.
Sometimes it’s better to just wait and observe for a bit. In most subjects, if Marx is even brought up, it is in a pluralistic but not necessarily negative light. This also works as a means of undermining it, but that’s as a biproduct of liberal ideology rather than an agenda as such.
Red bashing is a thing in philosophy, history, and poli-sci. Econ just ignores him and literary and sociological courses tend to have a positive view.
That’s a great way to explain it. (I can’t open the link, though.) I’ve never thought of it in those terms but I get inordinately annoyed when I see it. I describe it as ‘using Marx as if he were just another thinker’. But historical materialism offers a total worldview. You can’t just chop and change. Well, you can and they do, in the east that you describe.
Often, it’s: Foucault said X, Weber said Y, and Marx said Z, and here’s how, together, they can help us understand ABC. Usually something relating to societal ills, colonialism, exploitation, etc – the authors’ hearts tend to be in the right place.
But that’s a big problem because if Marx is right (he is), he’s incompatible with most of the ‘critical’ Western canon. He can’t be synthesised with e.g. Weber or Foucault because their central assumptions are at odds with each others’.
Huh, looks like I linked it incorrectly. Here is the link plainly:
http://www.abstraktdergi.net/this-ruthless-criticism-of-all-that-exists-marxism-as-science/
It’s an essay by J Moufawad-Paul on how Marxism’s status as an attempt at a scientific understanding of political-economy is its very foundation and must be defended, both from self-professed “Marxists” who disparage this element as well as liberal academics who do just as you describe, treating it as merely another “lens” and functionally as a sort of rhetorical flavor and roleplay rather than a method to understand the world:
My position, however, which is the position of multiple revolutionary movements and the great world historical revolutions, is that we cannot be ecumenical. Whereas today’s chic critical theorists uphold a variety of post-Marxist European theoretical tendencies so as to dismiss and castigate Marx, I uphold Marxism to castigate these theoretical tendencies. I am not claiming, to be clear, that we cannot borrow from some of the insights of these tendencies but only that, as tendencies, they are theoretically inferior to Marxism regardless of the latter’s purported flaws. Weheliye [a “post-Marxist” academic] reduces every European theoretical tendency to the same state of “white European thinkers [who] are granted a carte blanche” but, in this reduction, misses a key point: it is only the Marxist tendency that can account for and surmount this carte blanche, thus necessarily generating theoretical offspring critical of its erroneous aspects, because of what it is: a science.
That is, the reason why those of us who are committed to Marxism can and should uphold this commitment in the face of other theoretical tendencies is because the theoretical trajectory initiated by Marx and Engels, which goes by the name of historical materialism, was one that was scientific. Unlike the so-called “radical” theories generated by or drawn upon its discontents, historical materialism is not a mere quirk of the humanities based on some academic’s thoughts about reality translated into an intriguing terminological set. Rather it is a natural explanation of natural phenomena that has generated a truth procedure and thus falls within the gamut of science. And it is precisely this claim that has made Marxism the scapegoat of those theories that, from their very inception, have also sought to destabilize and usurp the very conception of a historical/social science.
I do think Weber and Foucault are quite interesting and can be useful, but they do not hold the same ground that Marx and his successors do.
Thanks for this. I quite like JMP but I haven’t read this essay. If that quote is anything to go by, I’ll enjoy this one, too. I agree about Weber and Foucault; they can be useful, especially if they’re read in light of a Marxist perspective.
A wise advise. Most people do not follow it, they are driven by their prejudices and beliefs with no corrections by observation. I fail to follow it frequently. But this is human nature, since it is more mentally economical (i.e., lazy).
Welcome to the 'grad.
I’ll make a few points to be helpful, but I think it would be more useful for you to answer your question yourself as it will make you a stronger Marxist critic. Why don’t you pick a couple of points from the text, then (1) summarise it, (2) explain a/the relevant Marxist concept (this may involve some additional reading or you could stick with what you know), (3) applying the Marxist concept to the summarised point, and (4) deciding (concluding) whether it is pseudo-Marxist/idealist. There are worse ways to make notes. You could do that here and see what others say.
Simone de Beauvoir does have a chapter on historical materialism in The Second Sex. That may be worth reading to see what she thought of Marxism.
The screenshot you posted above includes some good questions. The statement/implication that Marxists are deterministic is open to challenge. This may come from the view that Marxists say revolution is ‘inevitable’. If so, the statement is based on a misunderstanding.
‘Inevitability’ is not used in a teleological sense, as if history is marching towards a single goal of communism. Instead, it is an optimistic catchphrase that accepts that change is driven by the struggle between interconnected opposites. With the knowledge we have available, that struggle could lead to socialism/communism or barbarism and we hope for the former. Once there, new possible futures will be revealed.
Alternatively, it could be a reference to Marxists like GA Cohen and to the ‘vulgar’ view of Marxism as technological determinism. If that’s the case, Cohen doesn’t represent all Marxists. So a full analysis must consider the Marxists who disagree with Cohen before implying that they’re all determinists. Personally, I think dialectical/historical materialism and determinism are incompatible, but that could be a good discussion to have.
In general, if you’re interested in Marxist literary theory, you might enjoy Terry Eagleton. I disagree with some of what he says, but he’s a good place to start.
PS I’d be careful uploading course materials, wholesale. There’s almost certainly something in your student charter that prohibits it and it could make you liable for some kind of academic misconduct.
If it’s being used to criticize Marxism by suggesting just wanting and talking about things is plenty enough (which I have dealt with irl many times), the simplest response is to point to the zero postmodernist revolutions and that the places where it became in any way popular are colonizer countries currently being stripped for parts through neoliberalization.
But only if it’s being used that way. Postmodernism as a fun little academic exercise is fine.
Yeah I mean, in that regard, just look at the entire weight of history. There are vanishingly few instances where people merely communicating was able to bring about what could reasonably be described as revolutionary change, with the Velvet Revolution being something of an ironic counterexample.
