The following entry discusses Marxist criticism, which is based on the socialist theories of Karl Marx and examines literature as a reflection of the social institutions from which it arises.
Based on the socialist and dialectical theories of Karl Marx, Marxist criticism views literary works as reflections of the social institutions out of which they are born. According to Marxists, even literature itself is a social institution and has a specific ideological function, based on the background and ideology of the author. In essence, Marxists believe that a work of literature is not a result of divine inspiration or pure artistic endeavor, but that it arises out of the economic and ideological circumstances surrounding its creation. For Marxist critics, works of literature often mirror the creator's own place in society, and they interpret most texts in relation to their relevance regarding issues of class struggle as depicted in a work of fiction. Although Marx did not write extensively on literature and its place in society, he did detail the relationship between economic determinism and the social superstructure in various texts, including Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie (1859), where he stated: “The mode of production of material life determines altogether the social, political, and intellectual life process. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary their social being, that determines their consciousness.” Thus, although he did not expound in detail on the connections between literature and society, it is agreed among most scholars that Marx did view the relationship between literary activity and the economic center of society as an interactive process.
Although Marx and Friedrich Engels detailed theories of Socialism early in the twentieth century, it was not until the 1920s that Marxist literary theory was systematized. The greatest impetus for this standardization came after the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. The resulting socialist form of government and society, although uncertain about the length of time it would take for the new economic standards to create a new culture, believed that such a change was imminent. In the meantime, Socialist Realism was accepted as the highest form of literature, guiding both literary creation and official literary criticism in Russia. In the years since then, Russian literary theory has modified its extreme socialist stance to acknowledge that literary creation is a result of both subjective inspiration and the objective influence of the writer's surroundings. Outside of the Soviet Union, one of the most influential Marxist critics was Georg Lukács. Born in Hungary, Lukács joined the Communist Party in 1918 and later migrated to Russia. He has defined his Marxist theories of literature and criticism in such works as Die Eigenart des Asthetischen (1963), and remains central to the study of Marxist criticism today.
In addition to being the guiding principle behind most literary works in communist and socialist Russia, Marxism also greatly influenced Western writers. Many writers, including Richard Wright, Claude McKay, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and James Joyce, were deeply influenced with Marxist and socialist theories of the day, and much of this reflection is evident in their writings of the time. In stories such as “Long Black Song” and “Down by the Riverside,” Wright explores fundamental Marxist ideas. In the case of Claude McKay, Marxist theory provided a framework for issues of racial inequality and justice that were often addressed in his works. Following the failure of the Communist revolution, Marxist critics and writers were faced with the realization that Socialism had failed as a practical ideology. This sense of failure is reflected in such works as Mavis Gallant's What Is to Be Done? (1983) and Earle Birney's Down the Long Table (1955). Both texts explore the failure of Marxist philosophy in the modern world, and in his essay discussing these writers, Christian Bök notes that while both stories are about people yearning for a socially responsible society, the writing is permeated with a sense of failure regarding the effectiveness of this vision.
In recent years, literary criticism has expanded in scope to address issues of social and political significance. Marxist critics such as Raymond Williams and Fredric Jameson have expanded their realm of study to include cultural and political studies in their interpretations of literature. In this regard, Marxist critics, along with feminists, have begun studying literary criticism as an aspect of cultural sciences, notes Michael Ryan in his essay on the state of contemporary cultural and literary studies.
Dialektik der Aufklärung [Dialectic of Enlightenment] (nonfiction) 1944
Prisem: Kulturkritik und Geselschaft [Prisms] (philosophy) 1957
Pour Marx [For Marx] (nonfiction) 1965
Elements d'autocritique (nonfiction) 1974
The Dialogic Imagination [translation] (nonfiction) 1981
Down the Long Table (novel) 1955
What Is to Be Done? (play) 1983
Knowledge and Human Interests (nonfiction) 1971
Theory and Practice (essays) 1973
Philosophical-Political Profiles (essays) 1983
Marxism and Form: Twentieth-Century Dialectical Theories of Literature (essays) 1972
The Political Unconscious, Narrative as Socially Symbolic Art (essays) 1981
The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971-1986 (essays) 1988
Late Marxism: Adorno, or, the Persistence of the Dialectic (nonfiction) 1990
Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein: Studien über Marxistische Dialektik [History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics] (nonfiction) 1923
Über die Besonderheit als Kategorie der Ästhetik (nonfiction) 1956
Die Eigenart des Ästhetischen (essays) 1963
Der achtzehnt Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte [Particulars in Theory and Practice: 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte] (essays) 1852
Zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie [A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy] (essays) 1859
Reading and Criticism (essays) 1950
Culture and Society, 1780-1950 (essays) 1958
Marxism and Literature (essays) 1977
What I Came to Say (nonfiction) 1989
SOURCE: Birchall, Ian H. “Marxism and Literature.” In The Sociology of Literature: Theoretical Approaches, edited by Jane Routh and Janet Wolff, pp. 92-108. Keele, Staffordshire: University of Keele, 1977.
[In the following essay, Birchall sketches out a brief history of the Marxist theory of literature and its main deviants.]
Marxism is a body of ideas which sees all human history as the history of class struggle. In particular, it is concerned to analyse the dynamics and contradictions of the capitalist system, and to show how the working class has the historical potential to overthrow capitalism and establish a classless, socialist society. Marxism stands or...
(The entire section is 6755 words.)
SOURCE: Fokkema, Douwe, and Elrud Ibsch. “Marxist Theories of Literature.” In Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics, pp. 81-135. London: C. Hurst & Company/New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978.
[In the following essay, Fokkema and Ibsch analyze Marxist literary theory from a metatheoretical point of view.]
Marxism is a philosophy of contradictions, and any attempt to explain Marxist theory in a rational way will encounter apparent inconsistencies. The belief in the primacy of material conditions and the simultaneous effort to emphasize the human role in changing these conditions is one of the...
(The entire section is 25044 words.)
SOURCE: Eagleton, Terry. “Marxism and the Future of Criticism.” In Writing the Future, edited by David Wood, pp. 177-80. London and New York: Routledge, 1990.
[In the following essay, Eagleton discusses the difficulty of dealing with the future in terms of Marxist literary theory.]
Marxists differ from most other theorists in that for them the future is at once the most crucial and most neglected historical tense. A Marxist is only secondarily enthused by the current hermeneutical or deconstructive wrangles over the knowability or otherwise of the past, and the relation of past to present, since for Marxism there is no important knowledge of either past or present...
(The entire section is 1513 words.)