Welcome back to NPTEL the national program
on technology enhanced learning as you are
aware these lectures are being brought to
you by the Indian institutes of technology,
and the Indian institute of science we are
in module 4 of these series of lectures, and
you are aware that the 4th module is devoted
entirely to literary criticism. We have several
schools of criticisms here which we are going
to talk about to discuss and we have already
been through 2 of these and today.
The topic is marxist literary criticism in
the last 2 lectures we saw you know we looked
at some of the important postulations given
by classical literary criticism and by liberal
humanism. And we are now today moving into
a very important, if not the most important
school of literary criticism which has had
a rich tradition and a long history before
we go to marxist literary criticism proper,
it is very important for us to know what marxism
as an approach as an ideology well as a critical
tool as an analytical tool, entails right
some of you we are sure are aware of main
postulate the main theatrical you say you
could say the main propositions of marxism
as a whole, but let us at the beginning of
today’s lecture first look at what the main
points in marxism are right you are aware
that the 2 most important figures in marxism
are karl marx and his collaborator friedrich
engels and you also aware that the most perhaps
the most famous treaties by then written by
them is entitled the communist manifesto.
Now what exactly is marxism or as in approach
and as said as tool as an analytical tool
studying society politics philosophy literature
right what are the most important things that
we as students of language or literature ought
to know right. So, let us come to the first
slide here.
Generally their approach is known as historical
materialism now we need to look at first these
2 terms historical and materialism or history,
and matter before we ask the important questions
within historical materialism. We need know
what materialism is materialism does not mean
materialistic or somebody who you know somebody
for whom material things or say luxury goods
or consumer goods are you know are very dear
or are you know somebody who lives a life
that is knows as a materialistic quote unquote
materialistic life here, it is different materialism
is usually understood versus another term
in philosophy namely idealism.
Now, I obviously I cannot go you know into
detail about these, but suffices for us here
to know that idealism is an approach is a
school of thought is an ideology. So, to speak
that looks you know or that considers the
idea or the spirit as the most, you know as
a source of whether it is life or the source
of meaning or the source of our destinies
the one of the most important proponents of
idealism was the German philosopher g w f
hegel right hegel believed in what is what
he called the absolute spirit he believed
in a platonic sort of way when we know that
plato believed in forms that are eternal and
the world being only mere reflection of those
eternal forms right likewise hegel believed
in the idea that everything emanated from
an eternal idea with a capital I idea, and
that we are a mere reflection of that eternal
idea or god or absolute spirit right on the
other hand materialism completely rejects
the idea or you know the idea or you know
forms or god or absolute spirit as the source
of our life our meaning and our movement in
history
materialism holds that matter is supreme that
own meaning own life all social arrangements
are destiny. So, to speak now here by destiny
I do not mean the way we understand destiny
in you know pre audience sort of or religious
sort of ways that destiny how our lives are
going to work themselves out the source of
our all this is matter more about that awhile.
So, suffices it for us to understand here
at this stage simply these 2 terms historical
materialism that the source of all meaning
the source of our life the source of all our
arrangements social economical political is
matter and it has a historical you know it
has a history behind it right the kind of
lives that we are leading here today is a
result of history looked at from a material
sense. So, you understand what materialism
is that is not being materialistic in the
sense of liking you know have fancy cars etcetera
right.
So, let us look at this slide here what would
historical materialism seek to study historical
materialism seeks to study things like the
organization and structure of societies. So,
it would ask questions like how our societies
organize and structured and 2nd how do these
societies develop and change. So, in the first
case is really the structure and the organization
of society, and the second is society emotion
what leads to social change why do societies
change we know that societies do not remain
the same social arrangements rules regulation
norms etcetera the kind of lives that we lead
are you know these are never the same these
change. So, marxism through historical materialist
approach seeks to give us answers right. So,
here we see in this slide that the structure
of societies and the causes of change of societies
the movement of societies the nature of their
movement; these are you know basically speaking
these are the things that are sort to be understood
by marxism as a whole as we know we have not
yet moved into marxist literary criticism.
Next again the two very important terms in
marxism. So, we know that we are we study
socio cultural change a structure organization,
and change we ask the question how why do
societies change and what are the causes of
social change right.
So, marx helped that among other things the
forces of production these productive forces
which contribute toward the production our
material lives right, and the relations of
production that is the relations between you
know or among people in the in the production
process right among people are sorry are determined
by or are related to...
So, to speak to the forces of production these
together we understand as what we what they
called what marx called the mode of production
that is every historical epoch is going to
be characterized by a certain mode a certain
mode of production certain mode of production
or you could say a certain way of production
right. Now, let me give you a few examples
what are these modes of production modes of
production are as we know these are you know
this really, it is interesting that marxism
is both the micro and the macro theory.
So, if you look at history history is explained
marxism as you know marked by different ways
of production production of what production
of essentially our material lives. Now examples
here would be for instance ancient slavery
in ancient slavery you had a certain way of
production in feudalism you had a certain
way of production, where land was a most important
factor and the relations of productions essential,
where you know maybe
characterized by 2 sort of binary opposite
social state our life for instance the landlord
and on the other hand the tenants who works
on the land and on the landlords firm firms
sorry, now these are relations of production
which are sort of corresponding to the to
the mode of production that is there in the
time the social change is explained as you
know a crisis.
So, to speak happening in history during certain
times when the forces of production are you
know the forces of production are not sort
of in sync with the relation of production,
when the forces of production are they develop
such a what the forces production forces of
production you know are different factors
that go into the production process technology
could be 1 science and technology for instance,
and these the social organization is such
that they the social relations of production
act as marx says act as change or fetters
on the forces of production the forces of
production eventually sort of are free or
free themselves from the social relations
of production and society moves into you know
if you want to understand this is the understand
the source of why society changes is, because
of forces or production and relations of production
are sort of at odds right and the forces of
production you know sort of are free from
the social relations of production and society
moves onto another epoch.
Then the next important terms are the base
and the superstructure marx argued that every
in every society and every mode of production
every epoch there is what we called we
can have a 2 tier almost in architectural
sort of metaphors use here a 2 tier structure
of you know and sort of an infrastructural
base and the superstructure the base, if you
look at this slide here the base comprises
again the forces of production and the relations
of production the base is an economic base
to put, it very simply here of course, the
base is an economic base.
Now, marx says that according to right this
is very important according to the nature
of the economic base, there would arise corresponding
super structural elements, now in the superstructure
he says these are essentially to put you know
to use 1 term only for it is these are cultural
elements for instance corresponding to…
Now remember we were using word like corresponding
to we are marx never meant that these are
deterministic that the base is completely
going to determine he kept it more you know
he give it more space really and he understood
the enormous complexity of the super structural
elements.
So, he says that these are determined by or
these correspond to right the economic base
and here we find the legal system for instance,
then social very important social initiation
like the family the religion education and
eventually our consciousness. Now when we
study marxist literary criticism what are
we going to do where are we going to place
the literary text, it is obvious to us that
literary text would be in the superstructure
am I correct here the products art for instance
the products of our consciousness right like
art will also be related to the economic base
that is forces of production, and the relations
of production or what may we call the mode
of production this is very important for us
to understand before we go to study what marxist
literary criticism is again to quickly recapitulate
marxism studies or marxism the aim of marxism
is to study the organization and structure
of society second to study how societies and
why societies change how they develop from
1 epoch to another we called it historical
materialism because we understand the past
in terms of or in relation to very important
relation to history or to the you know the
present to history that is the present is
always determined by history.
And you know we do away with the idealist
hegelian way of looking at idea is the most
important source of everything and here the
idea is replaced by matter. So, our material
economic arrangements right give rise which
is base give rise to the superstructural elements
in our culture among among which we find art
also or being a very important part. So, marx
lay great importance on social consciousness
right for instance as we will find later on
he said that our consciousness does not determine
you know our
consciousness or does not determine you know
the kind of societies we have, but this is
the kind of societies we have that eventually
or that will always determine. The kind consciousness
that we have here when we say consciousness
we do not mean simply you know aware you know
as being conscious or as being aware these
things right we mean by consciousness here
we mean really are everything our mental consciousness
our emotional consciousness our intellectual
consciousness our moral consciousness right.
So, all are norms or. So, called virtues or.
So, called you know evil aspects or you know
everything that is part of our consciousness
our ideas of good and bad ideas of for instance
best social and the best economic or the best
political arrangement ideas of the best literary
text for instance these are all to be understood
in the term consciousness theory it is not
just being like I am conscious or I am aware
of my surroundings you know it is of cognitive
sort of way.
Let us read from this slide which will make
this 1st point clear to us when we talk about
historical materialism we have to remember
these words from marxism that men make their
own history, but they do not make it just
as they please they do not make it under circumstances
chosen by themselves, but under circumstances
directly found given and transmitted from
the past the tradition of all dead generations
weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the
living now obviously these words are beautifully
put this says that we there’s no doubt we
make our history or we make our own destinies,
but the
past plays a most important part in sort of
the carving out of our destinies or of our
history.
Now we are going to move into marxist literary
criticism proper and what I have done in this
lecture is; obviously, there are several ways
you know in which you can or we could talk
about a marxist literary criticism sometimes
we can just refer to 1 book for instance terry
eagleton’s very important book on on the
marxist literary criticism what I have d 1
here; however, is I have try you know try
to bring to you some of the important formulations
comments and pronouncements on marxist literary
criticism from a couple of sources.
So, in a bit to enrich our understanding of
Marxism, and in that with that view in mind
we have first a quotation from plekhanov right
who says that the social mentality of an age
is Conditioned by that age’s social relations,
this is nowhere quite as evident as in the
history of art and literature we talked about
social relations of production just a while
ago when we referred to the 2 very important
terms the forces of production and and the
social relations of production in Marxism.
Now this is how we moved into literary criticism
for marxism and one of the better ways to
put it through plekhanov for instance what
does he say he says here that the social mentality
of any age is conditioned or determined by
the social relations of that age this is a
point also when we saw when we talked about
the you know the base and the superstructure
the base now here plekhanov
lays more importance on the social relations
of production he says that the social relations
of production. Now again what is the social
relations of production simply put for instance
in a capitalist system the worker right the
worker, and you know the owner of the means
of production the capitalist that is a relation
a social relation of production the relation
between or among workers that also is a relation
of production, which is determined by the
way the production process is arranged is
very important and the economic mode of production,
that is all and the forces the nature of the
forces of production even the degree of development
of the forces of production. Now the social
relations condition the kind of mentality
now this mentality is also related to the
word consciousness that we found a while ago.
So, plekhanov says that you know how are we
to gauge how are we to understand the nature
even the complexities of the social mentality
of any age he says you will you only need
to look at the art ,particular the literature
of a certain period is more or less going
to tell you or the social mentality of that
particular epoch was lied right that; obviously,
it is not. So, simple as that you know that
the all the literary texts of a certain age
is going to be reflective of its social relation
it is of course, far more complex and it should
be, so but if we have the theorize on the
nature of the literary text in relation to
the mentality social collective mentality
of a particular period then we can safely
say that the literature of a period shows
us the social mentality in all again qualifying.
It in all its complexities in all its different
hues right in all its you know all its probably
problematic of that arises from the social
relations of the particular epoch, and go
back where does the social relations come
from where do the social relations of a particular
age come from they eventually come from the
mode of production or the economic arrangement
do you understand. Now if I am from this slide
really what we have done is we have begun
to relate the literary text to marxist propositions
or to marxist statements do you follow I hope
this is this is an important point here important
juncture in our lecture today right. So, we
talked about historical materialism base and
superstructure forces of production relations
of production and we come to the we have come
to the literary text as being you know as
being a complex indicator. So, speak of the
social mentality that arises from the social
relations and the economic relations of an
age. So, this really is one of the you know
the part of the theorizing of the literary
text in relation to the Marxism.
Now, we will go straight to a quotation from
karl marx himself from the grundrisse now
many say that marx and also engels did not
really you know talks. So, much about the
literary text about literature whatever you
find are more or less a sort of sporadic there
are collections on marx and engels on literature
and art for instance, but it is said that
there their main focus was not; obviously,
the literary text, but you know there are
some brilliant insights we get particularly
from karl marx and friedrich Engels when we
look at some whenever or wherever they do
talk about literature art and its relation
you know the relation to show you know to
social relations and forces of production
the modes of production we find some brilliant
insights that are given which are then taken
up by other scholars who practice criticism
or theory from a marxist perspective 1 such
quotation and on just something that is oft
quoted is from the grundrisse. Now let us
read from here marx asked this question is
achilles possible when powder and shot have
been invented and is the iliad possible at
all when the printing press and even printing
machines exist. So, here 1st we find that
marx is through you know asking these questions
actually he is making a statement.
That in a time when there was a printing machines
and the printing press epics like the iliad
or by homer or would not have been possible
in a way what did he saying he is seeing a
time the literary text, and epic to the material
realities of its time by contrasting it the
material realities of the time of homer to
the material realities of England for instance
during the time of the printing press of the
time of Cassin he is proposing this
that an epic like the Iliad would not have
been written in a time of the printing press
you the time of the printing press is also
the time of the beginning of you know the
rise of the middle class, the which is again
important for the rise of the novel. So, the
epic now takes a new form which is the novel
in a time which is you know in a time which
is very different not just you know just as
you know not not from the point of view of
the ideas that were you know extant during
the time, but also from the point of view
of the material conditions lets read this
again is achilles possible when powder and
gunshot have been invented and is the Iliad
possible at all when the printing press, and
even printing machines exist is it.
Now, he asked is it not inevitable that with
the emergence of the press bar the singing
and the telling the muse cease, that is the
conditions necessary look at this the conditions
necessary for epic poetry disappear in this
base on really he is being given us a statement
that the way of the epic the nature of the
epic is bound to disappear with the changes
that are or with the disappearance of a certain
material way of life do you understand it
is a singing the telling and the muse the
cease to exist the though these factors of
the epic the cease to exist you know with
the emergence of the press. So, now, again
this is yet another example of how material
how materialism is then in this sense understood
as a source of what even or of even the genre
right, how material changes in materialize
can also change or in material conditions
can also change. So, change very genre of
literary text.
Then it is often argued that you know with
marxism a way of writing which is a realist
mode is simply entwined right now marx's and
engels’ demands on the artist most of what
I am reading here are is from terry eagleton
marx’s and engels’ demands on the artist
include truthfulness of depiction right almost
the very similitude truthfulness of depiction
a concrete historical approach to events described,
and personages with live and individual traits
reflecting typical aspects of the character
and psychology of class milieu to which they
belong there.
So, there is a certain not a mere reflectionism
not a simplistic reflectionism, but you know
from marx’s point of view we would expect
right you would expect that the characters,
that are depicted in a novel for instance
right which is again which is again constrained
by time and space you know where we know from
which social milieu these characters come
from or the time during which the time of
the setting of a novel for instance marx,
and engels required or marxism requires that
the artist be faithful in his depiction is
his whole depiction of the characters he says
the characters were even the individual right
the individual traits or individual characters
have to correspond to a certain type that
was you know that was characteristic of a
certain time.
Now let us quickly read the 2nd marx's and
engels’ demands on the artist include truthfulness
of depiction a concrete historical approach
to the events described and personages with
live and individual traits reflecting typical
aspects of the character and psychology of
the class milieu to which they belong the
author of genuinely realistic works communicates
his ideas to the reader not by didactic philosophizing
right, but by vivid images which affect the
reader’s consciousness and feelings by their
artistic expressiveness this word is very
important here didactic there are many you
know many scholars who are hoarsely put it,
who are who are anti marxist or who do not
who are argue against the marxist literary
criticism importantly by saying that marxist
literary marxist literary criticism is didactic
right. So, in the sense it is as it says too
ideological right that it is almost again
propagandist.
But as eagleton says marxist literary criticism
expects right a that the artist when he or
she is you know sketching his characters delineating
events for instance a) be true to the actualities
of those times and instant instead of philosophizing
in a didactic or even in a doctrinaire fashion
right would with vivid realist or realistic
images right express their ideas or you know
have their literary piece come out as an artistic
expression which is far above the you know
the didactic or moralizing philosophy that
one would expect this is very important what
the what this also. Suggest that marxist literary
criticism was not looking for propagandist
kind of literature, it only asks that there
be a connection there be not simply a connection,
but there be a faithful you know depiction
of the time and the types of characters that
that were or are there in a particular in
a particular a stretch of time or space.
Now, let me quote from hans jauss his essay
literary history as a challenge to literary
theory, because here he makes an important
distinction, he talks about marxism by making
an important distinction between another school
of thought that you many of us are here are
aware of that is a formalism particular of
the Russian school now he says that the formalist
school needs the reader only as a perceiving
subject. Right who follows the directions
in the text inorder to perceive its form or
discover its techniques or of procedure as
you know form was enormously important in
Russian formalism that is why the word formalism
right form and he says that it is only enough
for the reader to a kind of discover you know
the techniques or the formal aspects take
joy and pleasure in sort of unraveling the
you know identifying the formalist nature
of you know a formalist elements in a text
it assumes that reader has the theoretical
knowledge of a philologist sufficiently versed
in the tools of literature to be able to reflect
on them.
So, one expects the reader should be in formalism
should be well acquainted with you know the
various tools of analyzing literary text and
should be able to discover. So, to speak the
beauty of the formal elements on the other
hand he says the marxist school on the other
hand actually equates the spontaneous experience
this is important where here the reader is
assumed to be you know as he is sufficiently
well versed or well trained in understanding
the literary text, but on the other hand he
says on the marxist school actually equates
look at this word the spontaneous experience
of the reader with the scholarly interest
of historical materialism now by spontaneous
we are not stopping as simply the spontaneously
experiencing a literary text along with one’s
spontaneous response will literary text one
also expects the reader to bring in his or
her the scholarly interest of historical materialism
which again lets read which seeks to discover
relationships between now this is the most
important discover here you discover the form
or the technique and take sort of you know
take pleasure out of you know discovering.
You know the nuances of techniques and procedure,
on the other hand marxist you know approach
what we do is we see we discover not the formal
elements, but let us look at this here seeks
to discover the relationships between the
economic basis of production and the literary
work as part of the intellectual superstructure
this I need you to really look at very carefully,
because really I think he strikes a right
code by saying that it is there it is not
that the marxist literary criticism engages
itself only with kind of an archival work
or almost you could say archict even an architectural
sort of work where you are trying to dig out
history and trying to make you know a correlation
between the text and you know the or the text
position in history in space and time.
So, no there is great a joy, this great spontaneity
of the reader and when the reader is equipped
right with understanding the historical realities
of the text then the pleasure the… So, called
readerly pleasure of you know or the pleasure
reading a text comes when you discover as
he says the relationship here between the
economic basis of a particular age of you
know and in this production process, and the
literary work as remember part of the part
of what part of the conscious culture consciousness
of a time or what he calls here the intellectual
part of the intellectual production of the
superstructure this is very important for
us to understand again who are the 3 scholars,
we saw here a plekhanov a of course, marx
himself and he asks the question right would
the iliad have been possible or why you know
on the other hand why is an epic not the most
important.
genre during say for during say the say 8eenth
century England right it is because the material
conditions have changed 2nd we looked at georgy
plekhanov who said that the social mentality
of an age is related to a social relations,
and we also know that the social relations
are related to the forces of production the
economic arrangements and he claim that nowhere
is this relation most well you know sort of
demonstrated than in the art and literature
of a time.
Then we found the through terry eagleton when
he talks you know when he talks about the
literary text here when he talks about when
he talks about realism and he talks about
the importance of even the expectation in
marxist literary criticism that there has
there should be you know a faithful depiction
of characters you know of setting right according
to the historical time in which the text is
set then we came to hans jauss who talks about
who compares marxist literary criticism and
the formalist schools and says that where
as in the formalist a school we try to unravel
you know which are to get pleasure you know
in the reading process by unraveling the formal
structures of a text by unraveling you know
the procedures that have been used in contrast
to that in marxist literary criticism.
We have you know the spontaneous reading of
a text tied to an understanding of the historical
realities of that text and understanding a
text a writer as you know part of the superstructural
elements of any age as he says here to discover
the relationship between the economic base
of production and the literary work as part
of the intellectual superstructure these are
immensely important formulations I would really
say these are the core formulations that those
of you who beginning marxist literary criticism,
we know this lecture is really a basic level
a lecture in a basic level course that has
been designed for students particularly in
engineering colleges who have a first exposure
to language and literature it is important
for us to understand this systematically right
to find out what marxism says a) about society
about social change in the organization and
b) where the literary text lies as far as
more entire marxist framework is concern what
according to them is the function of the literary
text. And secondly, you know how is a
reader to approach a literary text how is
a reader to understand or perceive a literary
text and we saw this in contrast to the formalist
school then coming back to terry eagleton.
And again quoting from marxism and literary
criticism eagleton says art and literature
were part of the very air marx breathed as
a formidably cultured german intellectual
in the great classical tradition of his society
right marx. In fact, some of you may not know
marx also had written poetry right and he
had he had great he great admiration for you
know for the greatest of the writers.
Like shakespeare for instance, and if you
read Dus Kapital and some of his other works
you be surprise to find excuse me the literary
allusions that you find in his text we find
here evidence of an absolutely fine mind who
was not simply looking only you know you know
only to make certain theoretical formulations
on economics on culture on, you know culture
in the sense of material lives that we lead,
but we find here a person who was also you
know also. So, well verse in literature and
some of his writings really read like we saw
in the for the example from grundrisse really
you know read. So, you know read. So, beautifully
when we looked at them from aesthetic point
of view now eagleton therefore, says that
art and literature he describes the milieu
in which marx was writing art and literature
were part of the very air marx breathed as
a formidably cultured german intellectual
in the great classical tradition of his society
his acquaintance with literature from sophocles
to the Spanish novel lucretius to parboiling
English fiction was
staggering in its scope the German workers
circle he founded in brussels devoted an evening
a week to discussing the arts and marx himself
was an inveterate theatre-goer declaimer of
poetry devourer of every species of literary
art from augustan pores to industrial ballads,
this is eagleton giving us the background
of how marx was also steeped among other things
in literature right then we come to trotsky
here.
Because here we find you know how should I
put a variant of marxist literary criticism
that was you know that many feel was deeply
a deeply polemical almost. So, to speak you
know propagandist right. So, what I want to
do here is you know bring to you what bring
to you what trotsky kind of argued for in
his seminal book literature and revolution
published in 1924. So, this kind of trotsky’s
variant of marxist literary criticism comes
in for quite some flag from you know people
who are who do not really follow the marxist
school of sort. Now let us look at this slide
here trotsky in literature and revolution
says that you know when one practices literary
criticism one needs to one needs to lay focus
on not in other formal aspects not on you
know the didactic aspects of the philosophy
in the philosophy in there not on.
So, called spiritual aspects of a text he
says that our job is to be polemical right
to be problematic to be interventionist. So,
that when we perform literary criticism on
a text right we are not simply looking at
certainly not just the description of what
the text is saying we are not looking at this
formal aspect we need be in interventionist
literary
critic needs to intervene in the text in order
to show the inequalities that are there in
the society in order to foreground the exploitation
that is there in society hence he calls polemical
or interventionist. So, he says that it lets
look at this slide again literary criticism
should be polemical should be interventionist
or the literary critic should be eventually
help in giving shape to cultural policy the
social policy and 1 should declare, this is
very important with trotsky and one should
declare what one’s stands on art and sorry
culture is one should also declare one’s
intellectual position right. So, trotsky here
was very clear on the job, so to speak of
the function of a writer or of the critic.
Trotsky says that culture feeds on the sap
of economics and the material surplus is necessary.
So, that culture may grew develop and become
sublet he says in the social roots, and the
social function of literature that our marxist
conception of the objective social dependence,
and social utility of art when translated
into the language of politics does not at
all mean a desire to dominate art by means
of decrees and orders here is trotsky seeking
to defend his view of what a marxist criticism
ought to be like he says we just, because
we want to study the objective social dependence
and the social utility of art does not make
does mean that it is propagandist right. So,
we will stop here indeed there’s. So, much
else to talk about I could only bring just
a few critics here. We should have also look
at lucatch and his theory of the novel and
we could have also looked at some of you know
another way in which some of the text maybe.
Looked at from actual text would have been
decoded from marxist perspective what I have
wanted to do is first to bring to you some
of the you know the very core very elementary
things, that we should know about Marxism,
because we cannot go straight to marxist literary
criticism without knowing what marx had to
say about society about the organization structural
society. And the and why you know social you
know social change happens in the 1st place.
And we therefore, saw well what let me let
me now you know pose some questions right.
So, that we can we do this recap by opposing
some questions for instance, if I ask you
a question like this. How did marx look at
social structure and social change how we’re
going to answer that question one of the ways
in which to answer obvious this question;
obviously, is to say that marxism is an approach
which is historical which is materialist then
we go on to say the importance, talk about
the importance of history in marxism in general
in marxist general theory in particular, and
we say that this source the source of meaning
the source you know understanding a literary
text the source of our social lives our cultural
arrangements the source of kind of the nature
of our social relations that we have and eventually
the source of the literary text is not you
know is not something that is our, you know
that is that is sort of outside of the material
world that we live in if the sources not the
idea, we have to go beyond the idea, and say
that our social consciousness our literary
consciousness comes from matter that is the
most important
thing matter in the sense of the way our material
lives are arranged right the ways in which
the economic base works right.
The rules and regulations which determined
the production the distribution and consumption
of material goods that leads to as we understood
a superstructure right that base leads to
a superstructure and the superstructure is
conditioned though of course, in a very complex
ways by the economic base, and what was what
is entailed in the superstructure in the superstructure,
we have found our entails social institutions
like the family like religion like education
and consciousness art literature second.
If you know we if we ask how is sort of how
is the literary text the social mentality
of an age and 3rd the social relations of
an age how are these related then we take
recourse to plekhanov’s work words for instance
and we say that a marxist literary text looks
at the social mentality a marxist literary
criticism looks at the social mentality of
an age as being based demonstrated or indicative.
So, to speak by art and literature art and
literature are the vest best vehicles. So,
to speak of the social mentality of an age
now that social mentality is again related
to the social relations of productions that
are there at the certain given point of time,
and finally the social relations of productions
are determined by what the way the economic
arrangement is done in society do you follow.
Then next we may ask a question like what
is you know you can ask what is you know the
mode of writing that is most a conducive.
So, to speak to marxist literary criticism
or that is expected from a writer and we say
that the realist mode is the mode of writing
that is a most conducive to an artist according
to marxist literary criticism, and the realist
mode demands this from an artist that he or
she does not sort of go away from the type
the type of characters that are you can say
possible in a certain age or in a certain
given a socio cultural milieu right we cannot
move away from that if we have to be faithful
to our depiction you know or in our depiction
of characters and setting this setting should
also reflect.
So, to speak in however, problematic and complex
away should be reflective of the actual material
conditions that one extant in that time. So,
this is demanded from in this case it is really
perhaps the realist novel the realist novel
that you know it is a best example of what
marxist literary criticism expects a writer
to do right. So, we that was what and we also
remember marx saying in grundrisse that the
epic is not sort of
possible of course, 1 can self consciously
write you know take and say that well I am
in the twenty first century and I am going
to write an epic we are not talking about
that the epic is in a different sense not
possible in a time where for instance there
is a printing press and where material conditions
are very different from say ancient Greece
for instance and then in there we saw he says
that Iliad is not possible you know the characters
like achilles are not possible in a time when
the material conditions are very different
is very important for us.
You know there are many critics of what of
what is called vulgar school of marxist criticism
in the sense that in the sense that one always
expects one always expects a propagandist
kind of writing while we are always you know
for instance of worker is you know of the
worker shown to be to be in a very simplistic
way the finest of characters whereas, the
for instance of the capitalist is shown to
be you know the way the characters are not
flesh so there are no complexities that is
the vulgar kind of marxist criticism that
many have perhaps slightly.
So, attacked we also looked at trotsky and
literature and revolution a 1 of you know
the the classic pieces in marxist literary
criticism and 1 that has been attacked also
a lot by scholars who are against marxist
literary criticism by pointing to the fact
that he always asks for interventionist you
know an interventionist mode by the literary
critic and by the artist and for polemics
for you know eventually shaping cultural policy
right, but trotsky himself says that well
just, because we want to find out the you
know and sort of a scientific systematic objective
we want to carry at an objective inquiry through
the literary text into the socio cultural
relations of production into the economic
base does not mean that we are doing it in
a doctrinarian sort of way, right.
So, there is perhaps sort a balance between
you know the pleasure of reading a text for
its own sake and of course bringing in social
change by showing the way the text willingly
or unwillingly reveals the social inequalities
and realities of exploitation of a certain
age. So, these are some of the questions that
are important that may come up well there
is indeed. So, much else to talk about as
far as marxist literary sorry criticism is
concerned, but stay with this it is enough
for us at this juncture to simply look at
this these important points these say foundational
points that we have raised in our lecture
and in the next lecture we shall move on with
another school of criticism thank you for
now see you next time.
