Marxism and Literary Criticism
In Marxist Criticism Raymond Williams is described as having,
brought to his readings of literature a proletarian background highly unusual in a Marxist critic, few of whom have had any close acquaintance with hard manual labor. [That] his thought about the industrial revolution is filtered through his personal sense of what alienation from the countryside might have meant to the poets of the generation…Williams found poetry exhibit homologies with elements in the nonasthetic segments of the superstructure or the relations of production in base. (Richter, 560)
Williams ability to look at Marxist Theory from the perspective of the working class shapes much of his interpretation of the value of literature and how literary theory is interpreted in Capitalist and Communist societies.
In “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory” Williams compares the value of literature in contemporary USSR and a capitalist state,
…the Soviet state is much very much sharper in investigating areas where different versions of practice, different meanings and values, are being attempted and expressed. In capitalist practice, if the thing is not making a profit, or if it is not being widely circulated then it can for some time overlooked… (Williams 462)
Here, Williams romanticizes the Soviet Union’s ability to evaluate and appreciate a work for the value it may have to society as opposed to how much money it can make which is the way he describes the value of literature in a capitalist society.
I can understand why the Soviet way of evaluating literature may seem superior to someone from a working class background: if you’re poor and lack the clout and or education of your wealthier writers than you may not get the backing needed to make your book a financial success but if the monetary value of the book is taken off the table then the book can be evaluated equally with anyone else who may have written a book regardless of class or status.
The problem with this way of thinking however is Williams doesn’t take into consideration the USSR or other communists societies penchant for censorship. Books that are deemed dangerous or not fitting communist ideology never have the opportunity to reach the public or be fairly evaluated for its merit or social value. So whether if it is by censorship or lack of profitability literature can find it never reaches its intended audience in either society.
Later in the essay Williams tackles the different ways literary criticism is viewed. Williams is struck at how, “nearly all forms of contemporary critical theory are theories of consumption…” (Williams, 463) or in other words the theories are concerned with how the reader reacts to a particular work, or “what effect does this work have on me?” (Williams, 464) instead of focusing on how the work was produced.
Williams suggests that how a work was produced or the components that go into the production of that work, the relationship between the components and the objects itself, is more important than the affect the object has on a reader.
The components/production view works well with Marxists theory because the production aspect of creating a work would be considered the base and then one could look at how the production of the work plays in the larger society or the superstructure.
Williams ability to look at the work that goes into producing an object is important because it keeps that work in context with where, how and why it was made. Many times when you take a piece of art out of the context of how it was made its value can be lost or not fully appreciated. Marxist Theory, at least Williams interpretation of that theory, allows one to look at the artistic value of a piece of literature or art in general in a way that consumption theory overlooks.
T.S. Johnson is a freelance writer and owner of PrologueReviews.com. Visit prologuezine.com prologuezine.com for all of your writing needs or prologuereviews.com prologuereviews.com to have your music, movie or book reviewed.
