Packerbacker

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