Christopher Craig’s Super Marxist Essay!

Today after class I read Prof. Craig’s piece on Marxist theory . His piece started off by explaining examples of Marxism incorrectly interpreted, like the backwards logic of the McCarthy hearings and the placement of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in a trendy clothing store. Not being able to tell whether the store put the book on display as a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke, or as a symbol of capitalist triumph, he eventually deduced that it was actually there because the book was still a legitimate threat. And in a typical capitalist fashion, such threats are in a position where, “It commodifies them and mystifies their meaning, while also potentially taming the subversive behaviors that might result from them.” Craig goes on to explain how the Manifesto, as well as other cultural icons of communism like the image of Che Guevara, have been twisted by the evil that is capitalism to not only diffuse their original threat, but actually work for the benefit of capitalist endeavours. Craig goes even further to compare the Communist Manifesto to the stylish jeans it is next to by saying that the juxtaposition of these two images not only makes the jeans look more edgy and radical like the book, the book is almost self-destructively used to remove the idea of the actual plighted workers who no doubt made the jeans. I, on the other hand, would probably look at the display of trendy jeans with the Communist Manifesto and immediately think of it as ironic in that the retail store is clearly not practicing what it preaches (which brings up the question again of why is the book in the store in the first place?). In class today, when we first started talking about the article together, the idea of whether or not the advertising people who decided to put the book on display with the “edgy” jeans was brought up. According to Craig, who says in his essay, “For most of us, learning to read texts this way helps us to see through the ever-present ruling class ideology that exists in everything from the literature we read to displays in trendy clothing stores to the nightly news,” the answer is probably yes. But that may not be so; he may argue that the advertisers for the clothing store (who I would bet none of which had ever read the book nor will they even in the future) are subconsciously reinforcing the ideologies of the dominant class that they are a part of, maintaining their level of control even if they don’t necessarily know what they’re doing. It brings up a lot of questions as to the motives of people, specifically in relation to the creation and interpretation of texts. Craig also comments that, “American ruling class ideology continuously spins narratives that attempt to limit the working class’s ability to recognize and respond to its own subjugation,” which in my opinion, is true.

10 Tenants of Liberal Humanism

Having just posted my blog entry for the week on my thoughts and feelings on the Helena Echlin/ Tenured Radical articles as well as my two cents on Marxist Theory, I suddenly remembered that I was supposed to be writing about one of the ten tenants of liberal humanism. So here we go, sorry if this one's late,

The first thing that really caught my eye when I was reading the list in the Barry book was #4, the idea that, "Continuity in literature is more important and significant than innovation." This is a terrible idea, but before we get to that, let's start at the beginning. First, this tenet starts off with "Human nature is essentially unchanging," which when you break it down doesn't actually work. Human nature is based on the idea that there is an essence to all people, than there is something deep down inside, at least part of which happens to be the same for everyone. Lots of people don't believe this is true, and there is no definitive evidence to prove its existence anyway.

Evolution has proven that the experience of any species changes over time, including the brain functioning of human beings. Humans 100,000 years from now will probably be very different than we are, and that human nature we don't really know much about will be different too, if it ever existed at all. And even if you don't believe that evolution is real, you can't deny that a primitive human just wasn't capable of the same thoughts and experiences that we are, because he/she was dumber than we are. And if you don't believe that cave men and fossils and science are real either, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Anyhow, the part of this tenet that really bothered me was the idea that the purpose of literature is to reinforce continuity over innovation. As I understand this, it means that texts are meant to recreate what is all ready in the world, and the texts that recreate reality the best are considered better texts. This means that the purpose of literature is to always keep the world the same, to maintain a status quo and never invent anything new and cool ever. If everyone believed in this kind of conservative mindset, we'd still be scribbling in the dirt with sticks because no one ever made the crazy innovation of paper. Literature has a seemingly infinite potential for innovation and creativity, and to leave that potential unused would be a horrible waste. Nobody cares about texts than make us think the same way we used to, we care about texts that opened our eyes to new ways of thinking. Creativity and innovation should be considered as important as recounting reality, arguably even considered higher. How are people ever supposed to make texts that make their audience think in new ways if they can't think in new ways themselves? Also, things written by uncreative people are boring.

Marxism and Helena Echlin (9-19-07)

For the last week or so I've been trying to iron out all the details about literary theories and how they work. Going over Marxist theory first is like a good start, as Marxist theory seems easier to wrap one’s head around. I do think of the historic and social contexts in which texts are written, but financial and/or economic factors that effect texts have always seemed to bear more weight than other factors. Through a Marxist lens, as I understand it, all texts can be thought of as either reinforcing or deviating from the capitalist system that texts are created in. All forms of literature and art are compromised by economics in some way, and no work of art is truly and completely separated from the bounds of money. I’m fascinated by the idea that all texts and other works of art are directly affected in both form and content by the economic situation of the society they are created in on a large scale. While I never agreed with the Marxist idea that all history is the history of class struggle, I think it’s a very interesting way of looking at the world.

Also, I'm still not sure what to make of the article written by Helena Echlin. While I agree with her opposition to literary critics who are so wrapped up in what they do that they may have lost the meaning of their work, specifically those who claim "I don't read literature for pleasure anymore, " there's still a lot in the article I disagree with. Her anti-intellectual attitude did in fact, after talking about the article in class, seem very out of place for a woman who's supposed to be getting her masters degree in English from Yale. Even though the article was published in a magazine, it reads more like an angry livejournal entry, picking at specific people and using petty examples instead of staying focused and proving a point in a well organized professional way. I don’t know if she was intending the work to feel informal and sub-professional, more accessible to non-academics, but if it was then I think she did a good job. No that there’s anything wrong with writing in the vernacular, especially when the nature of your argument goes against doing as such, but the article is definitely below the level of a professional scholar. The kind that goes to Yale.

The article by tenured radical, which arguably could be thought of as being on the same level as an angry livejournal, was a better read because it was more entertaining and more insightful. Also, as a philosophy minor, reading that philosophy professors and students can get away with using theories in an academic setting in which other fields of study can’t was nice.

Liberal Humanism (9-11-07)

I'm glad that we read about liberal humanism at the very beginning of our class, because I don't really like it and I don't want to deal with it again. I can see why English was at first taught as an academic subject through the "lens" of liberal humanism, but you can really only go so far with that mindset. Teaching English without applying any kinds of theories (though technically liberal humanism is in fact a theory in its own right) or taking into consideration historical context and knowledge of the author(s) is like purposefully blinding yourself from the full meaning of a text. There is so much a person can gain from looking at a text from many different perspectives; I'd like to think that that's kind of why we're here (at Emmanuel).