Readings for March 24
March 22, 2008
Marxist Lit Theory, Feminist Lit Theory, and Shakespeare
This weeks readings cover two topics: different kinds of literary theory, and teaching Shakespeare. I’d like to tackle these subjects one at a time:Marxist and Feminist =Literary= Theory: Notice that I highlighted “literary,” as opposed to calling this “Marxist and Feminist Theory.” My understanding suggests that you don’t have to be a Marxist or feminist — and you don’t even have to sympathize with those points of view — in order to use those theories as a lense with which to read literature.Or do you?As a white male, I identify with white males. Because my family is upper-middle class (even though I personally am but a poor teacher!), I sympathize with the upper-middle class. And don’t feminism and Marxism bash white, upper-middle class males?I have to admit some concern, particularly around Marxist theory. Hasn’t Marxist theory been discredited by the collapse of the former Soviet Union? If so, why is it so important to study?My initial sense is that Marxism and feminism — and Marxism in particular — are given credence only by effete academics, people who’ve never had to get their hands dirty in the real world.I’m open to being told I’m wrong. In fact, I’d =like= to be proven wrong. Everybody, let me know what you think!The second part of our reading — about teaching Shakespeare — is much less controversial, praise the Lord. There’s nothing to argue with here. My only quibble is with the chapter on “active methods.” Moving people around the class to teach Shakespeare … well, maybe I’m slow, but I’m not sure how it’s supposed to work. I guess anything that gets a student on his feet and out of his seat is a good thing, but I’m confused as to how and why that’s supposed to work. Again, any thoughts?Signed,Reactionary Jim
<
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I don’t believe that you do have to necessarily agree with a perspective in order to try to see through a different lens. I think that the point of teaching students to analyze texts through using contrasting perspectives is so that students understand how the text changes depending on the context that the reader puts it in. By looking through multiple lenses, students can stretch their understanding and be able to look at situations in texts and in life experiences from a variety of standpoints. Teaching theory is not so different from having students approach writing from the stances of differing audiences or look at a problem/situation from different sides. For instance, a child may want to stay over at a friend’s house without any parental supervision. The child and the child’s parents probably have different viewpoints on this situation. We are teaching the child to look at the situation from the parents’ point of view, the friend’s point of view, the friend’s parents’ point of view, etc. The child may not agree with his/her parents’ point of view, but perhaps they will better understand where the parents are coming from.
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:41 pm
You’re right; you don’t have to be a Marxist or a feminist to use them as a litery lens. However, using them as a literary lens will help students and readers understand other people and learn where they are coming from, an idea the previous post explains well.
My response to you is yes, these theories can bash upper-middle class white males. However, their ideas about upper-middle class white males provide an interesting prompt for users of these literary theories: Do upper-middle class white males deserve the criticism? Is their criticism valid? The lens of both theories allows a reader the opportunity to ask and evaluate these questions.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hi gb packers,
Great blog and great questions. I agree with you when you say the fall of the Soviet Union and many other issues the world is currently dealing with result directly from the application of Marxism as a political theory. This would seem to justify a closer examination as to why and how we are teaching children to use a Marxist literary lense. Maybe we need to rename this theory? Does Marx really have ultimate say in anything dealing with class and social injustice? Why does he get all the credit?
I do confess to using this lense all the time in terms of pointing out social injustice and/or blatant class differences. A good example of this would be that the servant in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet’s inability to read starts the chain of events that leads to a double suicide and the deaths of four other people (Mercutio, Tybalt, Lady Montague, and Paris) Act 1, scene ii, line 58. Ignorace is bliss?? I think not.
How about considering the fact that Capulets and the Montagues were “two households both alike in dignity in fair Verona where we lay our scene.” (The Prologue, Lines 1 – 2) Could these families have gotten away with the crimes and disturbances they committed if they had not been from such “dignified households?”
Who could forget the scene with the Apothecary being paid because of his poverty and not his conscious? If he were a more successful pharmacist, do you really think he would have accepted Romeo’s money? He, theoretically, could have saved Romeo’s life had he provided more resistance and followed the law.
Marxist Literary Theory gives us a lense to examin these injustices. What else would we use to do this? Is there an alternative?
Am I a marxist or a communist? No way. Maybe we need to make sure our students realize the fiasco that communism resulted in when it was applied as a theory to politics before teaching it as a literary theory. I am afraid I would offend some of the parents if I said this though. I am sure I have already offended a classmate or two with those words. This is a really tough spot to be in. I am not sure I have an answer for you.
Sorry to not answer your question directly, for all the ramblings, and thanks again for the very thought provoking blog.
Tragalibro
March 24th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
No offense taken, Tragalibro. I’m all for debating these issues, but at the end of the day we all ought to shake hands. But — as I mentioned, I think, on your blog — there should be some balance in naming literary theories. Why not a “conservative” point of view? Or “libertarian”? Or “progressive”? I’m not sure I understand why Marxism gets its own literary theory when none of the other points of view get one of their own.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Tragalibro asks if Marx should get all the credit, but I’m not sure if debating the name of the theory really matters. I’m also not sure if Marx Political Theory and Marx Literary Theory go hand-in-hand. Someone correct me if I’m wrong…but, I think the point is that Marx was one of the first people to really question class structure. So when we are reading through a Marxist lens, we are questioning the power structures…who has it and who doesn’t? I’m not sure if the rise or fall of the Soviet Union should affect how we use the lens. Regardless of whether the political theory worked in practice, we can still analyze a text by considering class, power, prestige, and money. Just like Tragalibro said, class structure greatly affected character choices in _Romeo and Juliet_. And I think the same is true for Feminist Literary Theory; regardless of whether you are a feminist or a woman, you can still consider how gender affects characters and their choices. Also, just as a side note, true feminism is not about bashing males; it is about equality of opportunities for all men and all women.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Packerbacker–your post raises a number of questions for me. First off, I am a big fan of Marxist literary criticism. The important thing to remember about Marxist literary theory is that what it really addresses is the concept of how social class affects the actions and biases of society; when you stop and consider that every aspect of how we interpret a text is a social construct, it only makes sense that we analyze how we respond to a text and what influences that response.(I am with you, iltrgb. You are exactly right.) As far as the use of Marxist literary theory by those other than effete academics, this interpreter of social class and hierarchy understands how work and labor cast the mold of interpretation by those in power. If you have been there, there is an inherent honesty to your interpretations of social class; students recognize that there is truth in recognizing how class and race are all part of the same lens of criticism. Regardless of how you shape your analysis, Marxist critical theory speaks to students in a very real way.
-Ludlow