MARXISM AND LITERATURE
INTODUCTION
Edmund Wilson is an American critic who has made extensive and brilliant use of Freudian and Marxist concepts in literary analysis. The essay Marxism and Literature is taken from The Triple Thinkers, which reflects his disillusionment with Marxist literature.
MARXISM AND LITERATURE
Edmund Wilson begins the essay by examining the role assigned to art and literature in Marxism. According to him the structural organizations of society evolves from the methods of production in the society and from these structural forms evolve higher activities such as politics, law, religion, philosophy, literature and art. These higher activities are made possible by social arrangement and their nature may vary from society to society. The exponents of these higher activities constitute groups with their own standards and values which divide the society into different classes. During the periods of intense artistic activity art influences economic and social organization out of which it grows. Thus the relation between art and society is reciprocal.
Then Edmund Wilson refers to some of the responses of Marx and Engels to literature. According to him they never believed that art and literature are conditioned and determined by social and economic standards. They considered art as an independent activity. Engels raised his voice against the dangers of literature written with a specific political inclination. Both Marx and Engels were susceptive to the emotional appeal of art and literature. They loved great writers like Shakespeare and Goethe.
Marx and Engels never considered art as a weapon of social change. They believed in the Renaissance ideal of the complete man, the different aspects of man which accomplishes perfection through participation in varied activities. But Lenin was a Marxist who believed that art is a suitable weapon for social change.
With the passing of time, the Marxists wanted to face many questions about the ''carry-over value'' of literature: whether the literature which was created during the old bourgeois society could be of any use in proletarian set up, or whether the new socio- economic organization would need a new art and literature of its own. Trotsky, who was a literary man, had to face many problems. He had to combat with problems which had not bothered Marx and Engels.
Young proletarians wanted to monopolize art and literature and to use them to promote the socio-economic set-up. But Lenin opposed it very strongly and told that art could be produced only by natural evolution. Trotsky did not encourage the idea of proletarian culture and proletarian literature. He said that both proletarian culture and proletarian literature would be dangerous things because they would incorrectly compress the culture of future into the narrow limits of the present day.
When Stalin came to power the liberalism was choked out of existence and he destroyed the followers of liberalism. Art and literature were degenerated into mere weapons of communist propaganda. Trotsky was exiled and Lenin died during this period.
In Marxist Russia cultural values were destroyed rapidly. Marxism can tell us nothing about the goodness or badness of art and literature. A Marxist cannot judge a work of art purely on the basis of its artistic value. Marxists believe that a work of art written on the Marxist perspective is considered a good work and all other works are bad. Its aesthetic appeal is subordinated to its pragmatic political value. Marxism can throw valuable light on the social origins and social significance of a work of art or literature. But the new Marxist followers did not understand literature from this perspective. So their attempt for the interpretation of works of art is wrong. There are various reasons for this. In great works of art is much more implied than what is explicitly stated. A work of art is not a simple expression of a social or moral message; it is a complex vision of life and this complexity has to be appreciated before one can arrive at its real meaning. The Marxists who fail to understand this complexity can not interpret the real meaning of the text. The real intention of a great writer may be different from the surface meaning of the work. Those who fail to realize this truth go wrong and are guilty of misinterpretation and misreading.
Marxist critics without any knowledge in literature try to lay down rules and formulas according to which works of literature should be written. Their actual aim is to transform literature into an effective tool for protecting communist ideologies. They forget the fact that great works of art were written not on the basis of any order. Great works were first produced and the rules and principles were formulated later. Granville Hicks is a famous Marxist thinker who formulated some rules for an ideal Marxist work. According to Hicks, the primary function of such works must be to lead the proletarian reader to recognize his role in the class struggle; the author must be able to make the reader feel that he is participating in the struggle. Marxist critics try to make literature as an effective tool in the class struggle. A great writer will never create any work on the basis of certain ideologies, it may unconsciously happen.
Marxist thinkers believe that revolutionary and pre-Revolutionary periods are the most suitable time for the literary work. Edmund Wilson opposes this view; he says that it is wrong because literature and art are peace time activities. So the periods of sudden and violent changes never help the writer for his literary creation.
Edmund Wilson discusses whether proletarian literature grows along with social revolution. According to him, it is only an imagination because eighty percent of the people are illiterate and the writer has no means to communicate with them. Great classical literary works are not created as examples of bourgeois decay but as medium of great educational value. Marxist thinkers, with the help of Trotsky try to find Marxist elements in the great classical works of other countries. Wilson says that it is wrong because the country which has produced the Leaves of Grass and Huckleberry Finn has no influence of Marxism they were created during their pioneering periods. So the works created in different countries have no elements of Marxism. These Marxist elements are attributed to it by Marxist thinkers for the purpose of developing their ideas or ideology.
Marxist thinkers argue that writers should use common language for the creation of literary work. According to Wilson, the democratization of literature was a process which started much earlier in the U.S than the period of the communist revolution. In other words, democratic values are not the monopolies of Marxism; they are a world-wide phenomenon in this age of the common man.
After telling everything about the Marxist literature, Edmund Wilson says that Marxism still remains as a great force in this world. It is not merely a philosophical and political theory, it is a great force of social change.
INTODUCTION
Edmund Wilson is an American critic who has made extensive and brilliant use of Freudian and Marxist concepts in literary analysis. The essay Marxism and Literature is taken from The Triple Thinkers, which reflects his disillusionment with Marxist literature.
MARXISM AND LITERATURE
Edmund Wilson begins the essay by examining the role assigned to art and literature in Marxism. According to him the structural organizations of society evolves from the methods of production in the society and from these structural forms evolve higher activities such as politics, law, religion, philosophy, literature and art. These higher activities are made possible by social arrangement and their nature may vary from society to society. The exponents of these higher activities constitute groups with their own standards and values which divide the society into different classes. During the periods of intense artistic activity art influences economic and social organization out of which it grows. Thus the relation between art and society is reciprocal.
Then Edmund Wilson refers to some of the responses of Marx and Engels to literature. According to him they never believed that art and literature are conditioned and determined by social and economic standards. They considered art as an independent activity. Engels raised his voice against the dangers of literature written with a specific political inclination. Both Marx and Engels were susceptive to the emotional appeal of art and literature. They loved great writers like Shakespeare and Goethe.
Marx and Engels never considered art as a weapon of social change. They believed in the Renaissance ideal of the complete man, the different aspects of man which accomplishes perfection through participation in varied activities. But Lenin was a Marxist who believed that art is a suitable weapon for social change.
With the passing of time, the Marxists wanted to face many questions about the ''carry-over value'' of literature: whether the literature which was created during the old bourgeois society could be of any use in proletarian set up, or whether the new socio- economic organization would need a new art and literature of its own. Trotsky, who was a literary man, had to face many problems. He had to combat with problems which had not bothered Marx and Engels.
Young proletarians wanted to monopolize art and literature and to use them to promote the socio-economic set-up. But Lenin opposed it very strongly and told that art could be produced only by natural evolution. Trotsky did not encourage the idea of proletarian culture and proletarian literature. He said that both proletarian culture and proletarian literature would be dangerous things because they would incorrectly compress the culture of future into the narrow limits of the present day.
When Stalin came to power the liberalism was choked out of existence and he destroyed the followers of liberalism. Art and literature were degenerated into mere weapons of communist propaganda. Trotsky was exiled and Lenin died during this period.
In Marxist Russia cultural values were destroyed rapidly. Marxism can tell us nothing about the goodness or badness of art and literature. A Marxist cannot judge a work of art purely on the basis of its artistic value. Marxists believe that a work of art written on the Marxist perspective is considered a good work and all other works are bad. Its aesthetic appeal is subordinated to its pragmatic political value. Marxism can throw valuable light on the social origins and social significance of a work of art or literature. But the new Marxist followers did not understand literature from this perspective. So their attempt for the interpretation of works of art is wrong. There are various reasons for this. In great works of art is much more implied than what is explicitly stated. A work of art is not a simple expression of a social or moral message; it is a complex vision of life and this complexity has to be appreciated before one can arrive at its real meaning. The Marxists who fail to understand this complexity can not interpret the real meaning of the text. The real intention of a great writer may be different from the surface meaning of the work. Those who fail to realize this truth go wrong and are guilty of misinterpretation and misreading.
Marxist critics without any knowledge in literature try to lay down rules and formulas according to which works of literature should be written. Their actual aim is to transform literature into an effective tool for protecting communist ideologies. They forget the fact that great works of art were written not on the basis of any order. Great works were first produced and the rules and principles were formulated later. Granville Hicks is a famous Marxist thinker who formulated some rules for an ideal Marxist work. According to Hicks, the primary function of such works must be to lead the proletarian reader to recognize his role in the class struggle; the author must be able to make the reader feel that he is participating in the struggle. Marxist critics try to make literature as an effective tool in the class struggle. A great writer will never create any work on the basis of certain ideologies, it may unconsciously happen.
Marxist thinkers believe that revolutionary and pre-Revolutionary periods are the most suitable time for the literary work. Edmund Wilson opposes this view; he says that it is wrong because literature and art are peace time activities. So the periods of sudden and violent changes never help the writer for his literary creation.
Edmund Wilson discusses whether proletarian literature grows along with social revolution. According to him, it is only an imagination because eighty percent of the people are illiterate and the writer has no means to communicate with them. Great classical literary works are not created as examples of bourgeois decay but as medium of great educational value. Marxist thinkers, with the help of Trotsky try to find Marxist elements in the great classical works of other countries. Wilson says that it is wrong because the country which has produced the Leaves of Grass and Huckleberry Finn has no influence of Marxism they were created during their pioneering periods. So the works created in different countries have no elements of Marxism. These Marxist elements are attributed to it by Marxist thinkers for the purpose of developing their ideas or ideology.
Marxist thinkers argue that writers should use common language for the creation of literary work. According to Wilson, the democratization of literature was a process which started much earlier in the U.S than the period of the communist revolution. In other words, democratic values are not the monopolies of Marxism; they are a world-wide phenomenon in this age of the common man.
After telling everything about the Marxist literature, Edmund Wilson says that Marxism still remains as a great force in this world. It is not merely a philosophical and political theory, it is a great force of social change.
No it is not true that great literal work has only created in peace time..it was happened in class struggle periods too
ReplyDelete