Marxism in Literature in General

49-
-

Chapter - II
Marxism in Literature in General
Marxism is understood as a philosophy of history. It is an attempt to
formulate a scientific theory of human societies. It suggests a programme of
political action for bringing about the expected change in society by making
free the society from exploitation and tyranny. In fact, the founders of this
theory, Karl Marx and Engels did not relate their economic and political
theories to problems of aesthetics. However, it should be remembered that
Marx himself was a man of letters and a scientific critic. Before Marx
attempts had been made to account for literary works in terms of the
political and social conditions. These, political and social conditions had
produced literary works.

In order to understand the Marxist view of literature, it is necessary to'

take into account the relationship between literature and life, literature and
society and literature and social, political and economic conditions. In this
regard, the terms like 'base and superstructure', 'ideology' and 'socialist
realism' are of a greater help here for having a clearer sense of the
relationship between Marxism and literature. From this point of view, in
this chapter, I propose to analyse these concepts and the literary views of
different Marxist thinkers in connection with these concepts. It will help us
to know the reflection of Marxist philosophy in literature. Hence the chapter
is divided into three parts - [A] Different Marxist concepts, [B] Marxist
views of literature and [C] Marxism in literature.

[A] Different Marxist concepts :

1) The base and superstructure model:

Marx held a view that the social relations between men are bound up
with the way they produce their material life. In the middle age certain
productive forces had the social relations of villein to lord. It is known as
feudalism. Afterwards, we see the development of new modes of productive
organization. It is based on a changed set of social relations. It gave rise to
the capitalist class and the proletarian class. The capitalistic class owns
means of production and the proletarian class whose labour-power the
capitalist buys for his own profit. In the opinion of Marx, these 'forces' and^
'relations of production' form 'the economic structure of society.' The
Marxist philosophy recognizes it as the economic- 'base' or 'infrastructure'.
The base is the economic system on which the superstructure rests. In every
period, we come across the emergence of this superstructure from the
economic base. Thus, in the words of an Indian critic Mr. Seturaman,
"Early Marxists used the term 'base1 to refer the economic system prevailing

$
 -50-

r
in a given society at a given time and the term 'superstructure' refers to its
politics, religion, art and philosophy." (Seturaman : 1989, 28). In the
category of ’superstructure1 Mr. Terry Eagleton includes some more
concepts such as ’certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of state,
whose essential function is to legitimate the power of the social class which
owns the means of economic production. Ahead to this, he argues:
But the superstructure contains more than this; it also consists
of certain 'definite forms of social consciousness' (political,
religious, ethical, aesthetic and so on) which is what Marxism
designates as 'ideology'. The function of ideology, also, is to
legitimate the power of the ruling class in society; in the last
analysis, the dominant ideas of a society are the ideas of its
ruling class.
(Eagleton : 1983, 5 ).
For Marxist critics, the economic base of society determines the interests
and styles of its literature. In the words of the researchers of 1993 Project
:Marxist Criticism, "It is the relationship between determining base and
determined superstructure that is the main pdrt of interest for Marxist
critics." (PMC : 1993, 5 ).

2) Ideology :
Generally, we construe ideology as the way of men’s living, their
notions, values and ideas which bind them to their social functions. Marx
believes that since the superstructure is determined by the base, it inevitably
supports the ideologies of the base. Ideologies are the changing ideas,
values and feelings through which individuals experience their society.
Ideology includes dominant ideas and values of the beliefs of society as a
whole. It prevents individuals from seeing how society actually functions.
Literature is a cultural production. As a cultural production, it is a form of
ideology. It legitimizes the power and dominance of the ruling class. Mr.
Terry Eagleton supports the view in his argument when he remarks that
literaiy works are not merely parts of mysterious inspiration or author's
- psychology. On the contrary, they are forms of perception. They are
particular ways of seeing the world. They have a relation to that dominant
way of seeing the world. He further opines that such a dominant way of
seeing the world is the 'social mentality' or 'ideology' of an age. Ideology is
the product of the concrete social relations into which men enter at a
particular time and place. It is the way which makes to experience those
class relations. It also legitimizes and perpetuates those class relations. Men
are not free to choose their social relations. They are restricted into these
 51-
-

social relations by material necessity or by the nature of their mode of

economic production.

While explaining the meaning of ideology at a wide level, Terry

Eagleton expresses his view that we understand the texts like 'King Lear',
'The Dunciad' and 'Ulysses' not only by the way of interpreting their
symbolism, studying their literary history and adding footnotes about
sociological facts which enter into those texts of literature. At first, we have
to understand the complete indirect relations between those works and the
ideological world they inhabit. Their indirect relations emerge not only in
themes and preoccupations but in style, rhythm, quality and, form also. For
us it is not possible .to understand ideology without grasping the part it plays
in the society as a whole. We have to understand how this ideology consists
of a definite, historically relative structure of perception which underpins
the power of a particular social class. This task is not easy. Because
ideology is never a simple reflection of a ruling class's ideas. On the
contrary, it is always a complex phenomenon and it may incorporate
conflicting or even contradictory views of the world. Thus, for
understanding ideology, it is necessary to analyse the precise relations
between different classes in a society and also know where those classes
stand in relation to the mode of production. Thus, literature, ideology or art
is supposed to reject or mirror dominant ideologies. In the eighteenth
century, literature was used by the upper English classes for expressing and
transmitting the dominant value systems to the lower classes.

After the publication of the book 'The German Ideology' (published

jointly by Marx and Engels) ideology was not much discussed by Marx and
Engels. However, this term has become a key concept in Marxist criticism
of literature and the other arts. Before Marx, the term 'ideology' has been
used by French philosophers of the late eighteenth century. They used this
term to designate the study of the way that all general concepts develop
from sense perceptions. In this regard, Mr. M.H. Abrams gives a clear
analysis of the term. He says;

In the present era 'ideology' is used in a variety, of non

Marxist ways, ranging from a derogatory name for any set ,of
political ideas that .are held dogmatically and applied
rigorously to a neutral name for ways of perceiving and
thinking that are .specific to an individual's race, or sex, or
education, or ethnic group. In its distinctively Marxist use, the
reigning ideology in any era is conceived to be, ultimately, the

4
 -52-

product of its economic structure and the resulting class

relations and class-interests.In a famed architectural
metaphor, Marx represented ideology as a "superstructure" of
which the~ concurrent socio-economic system is the 'base'.
Friedrich Engels described ideology as "a false consciousness"
and many later Marxists consider it to be constituted largely by
unconscious prepossessions that are illusory, in contrast to the
"scientific" (that is, Marxist) knowledge of the economic
determinants, historical evolution and present constitution of
the social world.
(Abrams : 1999, 48 ).
Abrams further expresses his view that in the present era of capitalist
economic organization that emerged during the 18th century, the reigning
ideology incorporates the interests of the dominant and exploitative class.
They are the 'bourgeoisie', the owners of the means of production and
distribution. They are opposed to the 'proletariat class' or 'wage-earning
working class'. It is believed that the people who live in this ideology and
with it, like it as a natural way of seeing, explaining and dealing with the
surrounding world. However, this ideology has the hidden function of
legitimizing and maintaining the position, power and economic interests of
the ruling class. Thus, bourgeois ideology produces and permeates the
social and cultural institutions and practices of the present era. It includes
religion, morality, philosophy, politics, law as well as literature and the
other arts.

3) Socialist realism :
In accordance with these views expressed about ideology, some
critics look upon literature in any historical era- as 'production of the
economic and ideological determinants specific to that era. They don’t take
literature any more as works created in accordance with timeless artistic
criteria. Some Marxist critics use the term 'vulgar Marxism’ for analysing 'a
bourgeois literary work' as in direct correlation with the present stage of the
class structure. They expect that such work should be replaced by a 'social
realism' that will represent the true reality and progressive forces of our
time. In this regard, Terry Eagleton says, "Ideology is not in the first place a
set of doctrines; it signifies the way men live out their roles in class-society,
the values, ideas and images which tie them to their social functions and so
prevent them from a true knowledge of society as a whole." ( Eagleton :
1983, 16-17). Here, Eagleton points out that works of literature are just
 53-
-

expressions of the ideologies of their time. He agrees with the view of

Plekhanov that all art springs from an ideological conception of the world
and there is no work of art which is entirely far away (devoid of) from the
content of ideology. In this sense, the works of literature are, in the words of
Eagleton 'prisoners' of 'false consciousness' unable to reach beyond it to
arrive at the truth. The concept of 'vulgar Marxist criticism' sees literary
works as reflections of dominant ideologies. However, it can't explain why
literature actually challenges the ideological assumptions of its time. It is a
fact that so much literature challenges the ideology it confronts and makes
this a part of the definition of literary art itself. In his book 'Art Against
Ideology' (1969) Ernst Fischer gives his view about authentic art. He says
that true art or authentic art always transcends the ideological limits of time.
It takes us into the realities which ideology hides from us.
* i

Thus, some Marxist critics look upon ideology as cut off from
socialist realism or truth. What is socialist realism ? In order to understand
clearly the Marxist view of literature, like the concept of ideology, it is
essential to comprehend the term 'socialist realism' because most of the
Marxist's critics have taken for granted social realism as the basis of
literature or the very foundation of literature. In the book 'Marxists on
Literature', David Craig expresses his view about social realism. In the
opinion of Craig, for western readers, 'socialist realism' means little more
than the novels and plays which Soviet writers produce to the orders of the
.government. It is a type of art which highlights the good features of Soviet
life and neglects the malignant ones. David Craig is of the view that
Marxists have always tried to show that the workers of the world are
instrumental in overthrowing existing social systems. So, for writers, it is
necessary to describe the working class people, their language and idiom,
their views, emotions and typical experiences, their life style etc. which
have been hitherto neglected in literature due to the preference of the writers
or the concentration of the writers on the reflection of ideology in literature.
Socialist realism must draw upon the culture of the workers and peasants in
order to rise to its historical task and make a new sort of art which will
create a new way of life. For the inclusion of the working class in literature,
Craig agrees with the view of Mao-Tse-Tung, the Chinese communist
leader who comments that the artists must know and understand the people,
the masses of the people and their language. They must go into the midst of
the masses, the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers. Tung further says
that our writers and artists must go into fiery struggles. They must study and
analyse all men, all classes, all kinds of people, all the vivid patterns of life
and all raw material of art and literature before they undertake their
creation. Otherwise, they will be simply empty-headed artists and writers.
The famous Marxist critics Bertolt Brecht and George Lukacs have
expressed their views of social realism which are in close agreement with
the views of Mao-Tse-Tung and other Marxist critics.

4
 -54-

(B)The different Marxist critics and their views of literature:

1) George Lukacs and the Social Realists :

Different Marxist critics have expressed their views on the
relationship between ideology and literature. However, there is a great deal
of difference in the views expressed by them concerning the relationship
between ideology and literature. Since the times of the own writing of
Marx, we come across a number of Marxist critics, namely the Soviet
socialist realists, George Lukacs and Louis Althusser who have
modified the original concepts of Marx. The Soviet socialist realists believe
that since ideology is a part of the superstructure, it must correspond to the
economic base of society. They further opine that literature inevitably
reflects the economic base. It cannot function outside the base and
superstructure model. It has no way for working outside this model.

George Lukacs was a German Marxist critic. He represents a flexible

view of the role of ideology. In his opinion each great work of literature
creates its own world which is unique and seemingly distinct from everyday
reality-. However, the great novelists like Balzac or Tolstoy who are called
as 'masters of realism' ( Abrams : 1999, 14 ) bring to life the greatest
possible richness of the objective conditions of life and create typical
characters who manifest to an extreme the essential tendencies and
determinants of their epoch. These novelists become successful in
producing a fictional world which is a 'reflection of life' in the greatest
concreteness and clarity and with all its motivating contradictions. They
produce this world often in opposition to (the author's) own conscious
ideology. Thus, the fictional world of such writers becomes harmonious
with the Marxist conception of the real world which is formulated by class-
conflict, economic and social contradictions, and the alienation of the
individual under capitalism. This view of Lukacs is summarised in the 1993
Project: Marxist Criticism' as follows :

Like the social realists, the critic George Lukacs feels

that only realistic forms of fiction are artistically and
politically valid. But Lukacs and the social realists have a
limited perspective. They both fail to recognize that there are
v legitimate works which fall outside such a literal reading ofthe
base /superstructure model. (PMC : 1993,2 ).
 55-
-

In the opinion of Lukacs, the greatest artists are those who recapture
and recreate a harmonious totality of human life. He further says that in a
society where the general and the particular, the conceptual and the
sensuous, the social and the individual are torn apart by the 'alienation' of
capitalism, the great writer draws these dialectically together into a complex
reality. In a sense, the fiction of such a great writer mirrors the complex
totality of society itself. While doing this, great art struggles against the
alienation and fragmentation of capitalist society and throws light on a rich,
many sided image of human wholeness. Lukacs calls such art as 'realism'. In
this concept of art of realism, he includes the Greeks, Shakespeare, Balzac
and Tolstoy. He further remarks that the three great periods of historical
'realism' are ancient Greece, the Renaissance and France in the early 19th
century. He takes a 'realist' work as rich in a complex and comprehensive
set of relations between man, Nature and histoiy. These relations embody
and unfold what for Marxism is most 'typical' about a particular phase of
history. Lukacs uses the term 'typical' for noting down those latent or
hidden forces in any society which are historically significant and
progressive from Marxist point of view and which lay bare the inner
structure and dynamic of the society. Here, the responsibility of the realist
writer is to flesh out these 'typical' trends and forces in sensuously realized
individuals and actions. In an attempt of doing so the realist writer links the
individual to the social whole. He informs each concrete particular of social
life with the power of the 'world-historical' - the significant movements of
history.

Lukacs has made use of the major critical concepts like 'totality',
'typicality and world-historical.' These concepts are essentially Hegelian
rattier than Marxist. Thus, for Lukacs, the realist writer penetrates through
the accidental phenomena of social life for making open the essences or
essentials of a condition by selecting and combining them into a total form
and putting them in concrete experience. He further remarks that the rise of
the great realist writers takes place from a history which is visibly in the .
making. For example, the rise of the historical novel as a genre at a point
when there was revolutionary turbulence in the early 19th century. At that
point of time, it was possible for the writers to depict their own present as
histoiy. Here, Lukacs sees past history as 'the pre-history of the present'.
(Eagleton :1983, 29). He says that the writers like Scott, Balzac and Tolstoy
can produce major realist art because they are present at the tumultuous
birth of an historical epoch. They are dramatically engaged with the vividly
exposed 'typical' conflicts and dynamics of their societies. Here, the basis
of their formal achievement is 'the historical content. Lukacs is of the view
that the richness and profundity of created characters is dependent upon the
richness and profundity of the total social process.

I
 -56 -

2) Louis Althusser:
Louis Althusser was a French Marxist structuralist. He gave his views
on the relationship between literature and ideology. In the opinion of
Althusser art cannot be reduced to ideology. It has, rather, a particular
relationship to it. Ideology stands for the imaginary ways in which men
experience the real world. Of course, literature also gives us the same kind
of experience. Ideology makes you feel like to live particular conditions
rather than giving a conceptual analysis of those conditions. But, in the
opinion of Althusser, art has a greater function than just passively reflecting
that experience. Art is held within ideology. However, it manages to
distance itself from ideology. It takes us to the point where it allows us to
'feel' and 'perceive' the ideology from which it springs. While doing this, art
does not make us to know the truth which ideology hides .Because for
Althusser, ‘knowledge’ means 'scientific knowledge'. It is the knowledge of
capitalism that we get by reading Marx's 'Capital' and not the one that we
acquire by reading Dickens' 'Hard Times.' Althusser further comments that
the difference between science and art is not that they deal with different
objects. But the difference is that they deal with the same objects in
different ways. Science imparts conceptual knowledge of a situation. Art
gives an experience of that situation. This experience is equivalent to
ideology. It makes us to 'see' the nature of that ideology. And thus, it begins
to move us towards the full understanding which is called as 'scientific
knowledge'.

The elucidation of the thoughts of Althusser on literature can be seen

in the views of the research students who have worked for the Project 1993
: 'Marxist Criticism'. These students have summarized the views of
Althusser on literature as follows :

Althusser suggests that ideology and hegemony, like

literature, present a constructed version of reality, one which
does not necessarily reflect the actual conditions of life. Thus,
literature neither merely reflects ideology, nor can be it
reduced to it. Literature may be situated within ideology, but it
can also distance itselffrom ideology - thereby allowing the
reader to gain awareness of the ideology on which it is based.
For example, a novel may present the world in a way that
seems to support dominant ideologies, but as a work offiction
it also reveals those ideologies. So once again, although
 -57-

literature itself can not change society, it can be an active part

ofsuch changes. (PMC : 1993,3 ).

3) Pierre Macherey :
Pierre Macherey develops further the theory of literature discussed by
Althusser. In the book 'Theory of Literary Production' he argues that a
literary text not only distances itself from its ideology by its fiction and
form, it also exposes the 'contradictions' that are inherent in that ideology by
its 'silences' and 'gaps'. It means that because of these 'silences and gaps' the.
text fails to say and the reason for this is that its ideology makes it
impossible to say it.. He calls them as 'textual absences'. ( Abrams : 1999,
151 ). He further says that such types of textual absences are symptoms of
ideological repressions of the contents in the own 'unconscious' of the text.
In his view the aim of Marxist criticism is to make these silences speak and
to reveal (what the author has decided to say consciously) 'the unconscious
content of the text.' Here, by the use of the term 'the unconscious' content of
the text, Macherey means, the repressed awareness of the flaws, stresses and
incoherence of the text represented in the very ideology that we come across
within it.

In other words, Macherey points out how the artist works on the
ideological experience of men and transforms that ideological experience by
giving a form to it. He tries to prove how the work is tied to ideology. In
his opinion the work and ideology are not organically related. For him 'the
text is a production' in which the writer doesn’t fabricate the material that he
uses for working out that text. He is simply a creator and we cannot find
any organic unity in his work. His work has and must have a good number
of meanings. This diversity of meaning and the incompleteness make the
text real. Here, the function of the writer is to explain why and how the text
is incomplete. Thus, Macherey rejects any system of aesthetics. He also
denies to believe that literature exists as a transcendent object, eternal and
immutable. In expressing these views, he is close to post-structuralist
thinkers. He further says that works of art are produced by historical
conditions and in each epoch these works are reproduced in different
historical conditions. There is a shift in perspective. In his opinion, the true
or real reading of literature means an examination of the language and
discovery of the contradictions between the languages of dominating and
dominated ideologies.

4) Terry Eagleton :
Terry Eagleton is one of the major Marxist critics who deals directly
wjt:h the problem of literary value. He continued the Althusser-Macherey

4
 - 58-

tradition. In his book 'Criticism and Ideology' he regarded the notion of

literature as 'production'. In this book he argued the need for a science of the
text. He also discussed widely the 'problematic mechanism of ideological
production in the text'. ( Raina : 2002, 74 ). In his opinion, the exclusive
emphasis upon literary production divorced from a materialist analysis of its
consumption, leads to difficulties when the problem of 'aesthetic value' is
taken into account. He further argues "the task of Marxist criticism is to
provide a materialist explanation of the bases of literary value." (Eagleton
: 1976, 162 ). He gives stress on materialist analysis of literary texts.
However, he doesn't specify any value of such an analysis. In his opinion,
"The valuable reader" is constituted as valuable by the texts, which he
constitutes as such ideological value, is projected into the Tradition to re­
enter the present as metaphysical confirmation or critique. The name of this
tautology is Literature ". ( Eagleton : 1976, 164). "However, here he does
not discuss whether we should give up the concept of literature altogether or
build our own tradition. He is quite right when he argues that literary value
is a relational value resulting out of an ideological production of the
ideology. However, he fails to lay emphasis on the need of justifying
progressive ideologies.

For Eagleton," the value of a text, then, is determined by its double

mode of insertion into an ideological formation and into the available
lineages of literary discourse( Eagleton : 1976, 186 ). He further states
that the distinction between the 'aesthetic' and 'ideological' elements of a
text is a part of methodology rather than that of reality.

Eagleton also asserts that literary genius or greatness is exemplified

in writers who relate to or challenge or transform the ideologies of their
time in certain ways than later generations of readers perceive to be
valuable. He further argues that since values and .interests change,
valuations also get changed as per the changing cultural conditions.

Id'the book 'Criticism and Ideology' Eagleton expresses his views of

art under the influences of Althusser and Macherey. However, afterwards
we find him to be shifting away from Althusser. He shows his
dissatisfaction with the role of the academic Marxist and the entire
institutionalization of literary studies.

In the book, 'Literary Theory' Eagleton argues that there is a need of

rhetorical criticism which will deal with the 'how' and 'why' of the effects of
a literary work. This is but his call for linking the value of literature to the
needs of cultural politics. In the words of Mr. Raina, it is "a step in the right
direction". (Raina : 2002,75 ).
 -59-
t t
In his book'The Illusions of Pbst Modernism' Eagleton argues for
hierarchy as against elitism. He looks upon hierarchy as an inescapable
ordering of priorities.

5) Antonio Gramsci:
. Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist thinker. During the
period 1929-1935, he was impressed by the Fascist government. While in
prison, he wrote books on political, social and cultural subjects. These
documents are known as 'Prison notebooks'. Gramsci shows his agreement
with the original Marxist distinction between the economic base and the
culture superstructure. However, he doesn’t accept the older notion that
culture is a disguised reflection of the material base. Instead, he says that
the relationship between 'culture' and the material base is a reciprocal one or
it has interactive influence. He gives special stress on the popular. It
includes folklore, popular music and cinema. He takes for granted the
popular as opposed to the elite elements of culture.

Gramsci's concept of hegemony:

Now-a-days, Gramsci is mostly remembered for his concept of
hegemony. He believes that a social class achieves a predominant influence
and power not by direct and overt means. On the contrary, this class makes
itself successful in spreading widely its ideological view of society as a
result of which the subordinated classes accept and participate in their own
oppression without thinking over it too much. Gramsci's view of hegemony
has been made much simpler by the project students. They argue:
In a way, Gramsci's notion ofhegemony is a continuation of
the concepts behind ideology. Hegemony is a sort of deception
in which the individual forgets his own desires and accepts
dominant values as their own. For example, someone might
think that going to college is. the right and necessary step in
every life, when in reality their belief is socially constructed.
Literature, then, may be seen as something that both reinforce
dominant values and occasionally calls them into question. For
example, nineteenth century women writers of sentimental
fiction 'used certain narrative conventions merely to reinforce
dominant values, whereas a writer like Jane Austen used many
of the same conventions to undermine the same dominant
values. (PMC : 1993,2 )

i
 - 60-

6) Mikhail Bakhtin;
Mikhail Bakhtin is called as an exponent of'Post-1925 Formalism'.
( Raina : 2002, 75 ). In contrast to the structuralist emphasis on 'langue',
Bakhtin emphasizes the 'parole' of language. He breaks the language of a
literary narrative down into different types of utterances. He believes that
each of these utterances is more or less a form of dialogue.

Bakhtin looks at language as a material medium of social

intervention. He takes the 'word' as a two-sided act. For him, 'dialogue' is
the basic unit of language. Here, the concept 'dialogue' doesn't include an
individual speech or the components of sentences. He looks upon literature
as a distinct 'form' of ideology, reflecting another ideology, which in turn
reflects reality. In a sense, for Bakhtin, literature is a 'staggered' reflection of
reality. Bakhtin's view of literature is made clear by David Forgacs as
follows : "It is not so much what the work reflects, either about the author
or the objective shape of the world, that matters for Bakhtin, but what the
work is as a practice in language". (Jefferson & Robey (ed.): 1982, 165 ).
Bakhtin further argues that the language of a literary work can involve us in
the subverting of stability, authority and convention. It brings literature a
social significance. Bakhtin analyses the literature of Dostoevsky and
Rabelais. While analyzing their works, he gives preference for "polyphony'
and 'heterogeneity' as values to be admired. He gives more importance to
the celebration of the body rather than the spirit. • In this regard, the example
of carnival is fit here.

In his views of literature, Bakhtin stresses 'the materialism of

production' as well as 'the materialism of consumption'. In his opinion,
changes in the effects and functions which it is possible to attribute to a text
do not 'just happen' but these changes are a product of the concrete
ideological and political determinations which, through the mediations of
criticism, operate on the text so as to condition its consumption. Such a
theoiy is important for us because it implies the historical nature of literary
value and its link with socio-political determinations.

7) Walter Benjamin :
Walter Benjamin regarded art as a form of social production. In his
opinion, art is first of all a social practice rather than an object to be
academically dissected. We look upon literature as a text. We can also look
upon it as a social activity. Literature is a form of social and economic
production which exists alongside and is interrelated with other such forms.
We come across this view of Benjamin expressed in his essay 'The Author
as producer'. In this essay Benjamin asks a question concerned with a
literary work. What is the position and place of literary work within the
 -61-- /

relations of production of its time ? Here, by asking this question Benjamin

implies that art like any other form of production depends upon certain
techniques of production i.e. certain modes of painting, publishing,
theatrical presentation etc. Ahead to this, he argues that these techniques are
part of the productive forces of art, the stage of development of artistic
production. They involve a set of social relations between the artistic
producer and his audience. The exponents of Matxism believe that the stage
of development of a mode of production involves certain'social relations of
production. This stage is set for revolution when productive forces and
productive relations enter into contradiction with each other. The Marxist
critic, Terry Eagleton, analyses and explains this view of Benjamin by
giving one example as follows:
The social relations of feudalism, for example, become an
obstacle to capitalism’s development of the productive forces,
and are burst asunder by it; the social relations of capitalism
in turn impede the full development and proper distribution, of
the wealth of industrial society, and will be destroyed by
socialism. (Eagleton : 1983, 61 ) '

Benjamin applies the above theory to art. He argues that the

revolutionary artist should not uncritically accept the existing forces of
artistic production but he should develop and revolutionize those forces.
While the artist follows this at that time he creates new social relations
between artist and audience. He overcomes the contradiction which limits
artistic forces potentially available to everyone to the private property of a
few, e.g. cinema, radio, photography, musical recording. In Benjamin's
opinion the work of the revolutionary artist is to develop these new media.
While doing this the artist should transform the older modes of artistic
production as well. This does not mean to send a revolutionary message
through existing media but it means to revolutionize the media themselves.
For example, for Benjamin, the newspaper dissolves conventional
separations between literary genres, between writer and poet, scholar and
popularizer, even between author and reader. He further says that
gramophone records, cinema, photography etc. are changing traditional
modes of perception, traditional techniques and relations of artistic
production. For him, the truly revolutionary artist is never concerned with
the art object alone but he is also concerned with the means of its
production. In short, the artist reconstructs the artistic forms at his disposal
by turning authors, readers and spectators into collaborations. Mr. M.H.
Abrams elucidates the Marxist criticism of Benjamin in relation to the work
of art as follows:

4
 -62-

Benjamin proposes that modem technical innovations

such as photography, the phonograph, the radio, and
especially the cinema, have transformed the very concept and
status of a work of art. Formerly an artist or author produced
a work which was a single object, regarded as the special
preserve of the bourgeois elite, around which developed a
quasi-religious "aura" of uniqueness, autonomy and aesthetic
value independent of any social function - an aura which
invited in the spectator a passive attitude of absorbed
contemplation in the object itself The new media not only
make possible the infinite and precise reproducibility of the
object of art, but effects the production of works, which like
motion pictures, are specifically designed to Fe reproduced in
multiple copies. Such modes of art, Benjamin argues, by
destroying the mystique of the unique work of art as a subject
for pure contemplation, make possible a radical role for works
of art by opening the way to "the formulation of revolutionary
demands in the politics ofart. ( Abrams : 1999, 150 ).

8) Bertolt Brecht:
Bertolt Brecht was a German Marxist critic. He was a close friend of
, Walter Benjamin and like Benjamin, he also believed that art is a form of
social production which is grouped as a fact which closely determines the
nature of art itself. Like Benjamin, he didn't regard art as an object
discussed for academic purpose but he took art, at first, as a social practice.
Brecht launched the theory of experimental theatre. This theory is
known as the theory of 'epic theatre'. Benjamin took this model of 'epic
theatre' for changing not only the political content of art but its very
productive apparatus. Brecht altered the functional relations between stage
and audience, text and producer, producer and actor. He pointed out the
illusion of reality in the traditional materialistic theatre. He also produced a
new kind of drama which was based on the critical theory of the ideological
assumptions of bourgeois theatre. Brecht's view of 'alienation effect' is an
- important part of this critical theory.
 63-
-

In the opinion of Brecht bourgeois theatre is based on illusionism. It

assumes that the dramatic performance should directly reproduce the world.
The aim of bourgeois theatre is to draw an audience, by the power of this
illusion of reality, to take it as real and get impressed by it. He further
argues that the audience in bourgeois theatre is the passive consumer of a
finished, unchangeable art- object presented before them as 'real'. The
drama doesn’t make them to think, in a constructive manner, how it
presents its characteristics and events or how they might have been
different. The reasons for this, in the words of Terry Eagleton is that "the
dramatic illusion is a seamless whole which conceals the fact that it is
constructed, it prevents an audience from reflecting critically on both the
mode of representation and the actions represented." (Eagleton : 1983, 64)

Behind this aesthetic, Brecht found one ideological belief. This belief
was - the world was fixed and unchangeable and the function of the theatre
was to give escapist entertainment for the audience who are caught up in
that assumption. He gave view against it. This view is "reality is a
changing, discontinuous process, produced by men and so transformable by
them." ( Eagleton : 1983, 65 ). In Brecht's opinion, the work of theatre is not
to 'reflect' a fixed, reality but to show how character and action are
historically produced. The theatre should also display how character and
action would have been different or how still they can be different. Thus,
the play itself becomes a model of that process of production. It is less a
reflection of social reality than a reflection on social reality. Here, the play
doesn’t appear as a seamless whole suggesting that entire action is fixed
from the outset. Instead, it (the play) presents itself as discontinuous, open-
ended, internally contradictory, developing 'a complex' seeing 'in the
audience' which is alert to several conflicting possibilities at any particular
point. The actors are not made to identify with their roles. Instead, they are
made to go away from these roles. The purpose of doing it is to make clear
that they are actors in a theatre rather than individuals in real life. In the
words of Eagleton, the Brechtian actor "communicates a critical reflection
on it in the act ofperformance."
( Eagleton :1983, 65 ).

For Brecht, the play is formally uneven, interrupted and

discontinuous. It juxtaposes its scenes in ways, which disrupt conventional
expectations and force the audience into critical speculation on the
dialectical relations between the episodes. In this way, the play doesn’t
merely form an organic unity by carrying the audience hypnotically through
from beginning to end. It disrupts organic unity. The use of different art
forms - film, back-projection, and song choreography disrupts this organic
unity. Thus, the audience is constrained into a multiple awareness of several
conflicting modes of representation. These are but alienation effects. The
results of these effects are to alienate the audience from the performance. It

I
 -64-

prevents the audience from emotionally identifying with the play in a way
which paralyses its powers of critical judgement. In short, the 'alienation
effect' shows familiar experience in an unfamiliar light. It forces the
audience to question attitudes and-behaviour which it regards as natural. It
is opposite to the bourgeois theatre. The bourgeois theatre naturalizes the
most unfamiliar events. It does so for the audience's undisturbed
consumption. When the audience passes judgements on the performance
and the action, it becomes an expert collaborator in an open-ended practice
rather than becoming the consumer of a finished object. Brecht takes the
play as an experiment which tests its own presuppositions by feedback from
the effects of performance. He further argues that the play is incomplete in
itself and it becomes complete only after it is received by the audience.
Thus, the theatre becomes no more a breeding ground of fantasy. It comes
to resemble a cross between a laboratory, circus, music hall, sports arena
and public discussion hall. In the words of Eagleton. "It is a scientific
theatre appropriate to a scientific age." (Eagleton :1983, 66). However,
Brecht stressed the need for. an audience to enjoy itself, the need to respond
with sensuousness and humour. He further opined that the audience must
think above the action. He must think of it (action) critically. But while
- doing this, the emotional response should not be neglected. The thoughts
must express feelings and feelings must express thoughts.

Brecht's 'epic theatre' theory is a theory of revolutionary art which

transforms the modes, rather than merely the contents, of artistic
production.

Mr. L. Abercrombie has analyzed Brecht's theory of literature as

follows:
Bertolt Brecht rejected what he called the \Aristotelian'
concept that a tragic play is an imitation of reality with a
unified plot and a universal theme which establishes an
identification of the audience with the hero and produces a
catharsis of the spectator's emotions. Brecht proposed instead
that the illusion of reality should be deliberately shattered by
an episodic plot, by protagonists who do not attract the
audience's sympathy, by a striking theatricality in staging and
acting, and by other ways of baring the artifice ofdrama so as
to produce an "alienation effect". The result ofsuch alienation
will be to jar audience out of their passive acceptance of
 - 65-

modern capitalist society as a* natural way of life, into an

attitude not only (as in Adorno) of critical understanding of
capitalist shortcomings, but of active engagement with the
forces of change,
• (Abrams: 1999, 150).

9) Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels :

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels are well-known all over the world for
their political and economic writings. However, it does not mean that they
did not express any views on literature. In the words of Terry Eagleton, "
The writings of Karl Marx ................................. are laced with literary
concepts and allusions." (Eagleton :''1983, 1). Marx himself had composed
lyrical poetiy in his period of youth. He also wrote a fragment of verse-
drama. He was influenced by the 18th century English novelist Laurence
Sterne, under whose influence he attempted one incomplete comic novel.
He wrote one manuscript on art and religion. He had also decided to work
out a journal of dramatic criticism. He studied the French writer Balzac in
detail. He also published one thesis of Aesthetics. Art and Literature were
subjects of close concern for Marx like his political and economic writings.
He had a close contact with literature. He studied literature from the days of
Sophocles to the period of the Spanish novel. At Brussels, he had formed
one circle of German workers which would come together once in a week
for discussing arts. Besides these things, Marx was also an ardent theatre-
visitor, an enthusiastic reader of eveiy form of literary art from Augustan
prose to industrial ballads. In a letter written to Engels, he called his own
writing as a work, which is an ’artistic whole’. ( Eagleton : 1983, 1 ). He was
very sensitive to questions of literary style. In his early articles on
journalism, we come across his argument on freedom of artistic expression.
Alongwith his economic & political views, simultaneously he refers to
aesthetic concepts as well.

The comments of Marx and Engels on art and literature are scattered
in fragments. Most of their comments are in allusions rather than developed
positions. In this regard, Terry Eagleton remarks :
This is one reason why Marxist criticism involves more than
merely restating cases set out by the founders of Marxism. It
also involves more than what has become known in the West as
the sociology of literature'. 'The sociology of literature
concerns itself chiefly with what might be called the means of

0.
.laJVA,1'
 -66-

literary production, distribution and exchange in a particular

society - how books are published, the social composition of
their authors and audiences, levels of literacy, the social
determinants of'taste'. It also examines literary texts for their
1sociological' relevance, raiding literary works to abstract
from them themes of interest to the social historian. There has
been some excellent work in this field and it forms one aspect
of Marxist criticism as a whole; but taken by itself it is neither
particularly Marxist nor particularly critical. It is, indeed, for
the most part a suitably tamed, degutted version of Marxist
criticism, appropriate for Western consumption.
(Eagleton : 1983,2-3 ).
Ahead to this remark, Eagleton expresses his view that Marxist criticism is
not merely 'a sociology of literature' concerned with how novels get
published and whether they mention,the working class. In his opinion, the
aim of Marxist criticism is to explain fully the literary work and this means
a sensitive attention to its form, styles and meanings. It also means grasping
those forms, styles and meanings as the products of a particular history.
Many thinkers before Marx had tried to account for literary works in terms
of history which produced those literary works. In this sense, one German
idealist philosopher G.W.F. Hegel has left a deep influence on the aesthetic
view of Marx. In a sense, the originality of Marxist criticism lies not in its
historical approach to literature, but in its revolutionary understanding of
history itself. In one of the famous passages in the book 'The German
Ideology' Karl Marx and Engels throw light on the needs of revolutionary
understanding of history as follows :

The production of ideas, concepts and consciousness is first of

all directly interwoven with the material intercourse of man,
the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the spiritual
intercourse of men, appears here as the direct efflux of men's
• material behaviour,----------------------- we do not proceed from what
. men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as described,
thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at
corporeal man; rather we proceed from the really active man -
 -67-

-----------Consciousness does not determine life : life

determines consciousness.(Eagleton: 1983,4).

A clearer meaning of this has been given by Marx and Engels in the
Treface to A Contribution to the Critique Political Economy' as follows :
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite
relations that are indispensable and independent of their will,
I '

relations ofproduction which correspond to a definite stage of

development of their material productive forces. The sum total
of these relations of production constitutes the economic
structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal
and political superstructure and to which correspond definite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of
material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life
process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being
that determines their consciousness. (Eagleton : 1983,4)

In short, according to Marx, the social relations between men are

bound up with the way they produce their material life. For example, the
productive forces like organization of labour in the middle ages - contain
within them the social relations of feudal serfs to lord and we call it as
feudalism. In the next stage, the development of new modes of production
organization is based on a changed set of social relations between the
capitalist class (the owners of means of production) and the proletarian class
(whose labour power the capitalist buys for profit). In the opinion of Marx,
these 'forces' and 'relations' of production form 1the economic structure of
society' or 'the economic base' or 'infrastructure'. From this economic base,
the emergence of'superstructure' takes place in every period. Here, the term
'superstructure' means certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of
state. The essential function of this superstructure is to bring legitimacy and
righteousness to the power of social class which is the owner of the means
of economic production. The superstructure also consists of certain definite
forms of social consciousness which are political, religious, ethical,
aesthetic etc. Marxist philosophy labels it as 'ideology'. Marx further
argues that the function of ideology also is to bring legitimacy to the power

4
 -68-

of the ruling class in society. He takes the dominant ideas of a society as the
ideas of its ruling class.
For Marxist philosophy, 'art is the part of superstructure of society'. It
i§ the part of a society's ideology. Here, 'ideology' is an element in that
complex structure of social perception which believes that the situation in
which one social class has power over the others, is either not seen by the
members of the society or seen as 'natural'. Hence, in order to understand
literature, we have to understand the total social process, of which that
literature is a part. This view of Marx has been supported by the Russian
Marxist critic George Plekhanov when he argues that the social mentality of
an age is conditioned by the social relations of that age. He further says that
we can observe this clearly in the history of art and literature. Terry
Eagleton expands this view when he opines that literary works are forms of
perception. They are particular ways of seeing the world. These literary
works have a relation to that dominant way of seeing the world which is the
social mentality or ideology of an age. Eagleton further argues:

That ideology in turn, is the product of the concrete social

relations into which men enter at a particular time and place;
it is the way those class-relations are experienced, legitimized
and perpetuated. Moreover, men are not free to choose their
social relations; they are constrained into them by material
necessity - by the nature and stage of development of their
mode of economic production. (Eagleton:19S3,6)

While talking of arts in relation to society, Marx and Engels closely

followed materialism. In order to understand the changing nature of art,
they found that the philosophy of historical materialism was very essential.
Marx believed that until and unless we understand clearly the nature of
materialistic method (system) of production during a particular historical
. period, then it is not possible for us to analyze and understand clearly the
•■work of intellectual creativity during that historical period. This is a basic
argument of Marx about the relationship between art and society. Ahead to
this, Marx also argued that the forces of production generally shape our
social, political and intellectual life. Like Marx, Engels also pointed out that
the history of literature is concerned with the history of society'or with the
economic development of society. In this regard, he quoted the examples of
the European countries like France and Germany. Engels further opined
that the economic development is the basis of the development of politics,
judiciary, philosophy, religion, art and literature. He also propagated that
 - 69 -

the progress in economic relationship is responsible for the progress in all

fields.

Marx established a closer link between the particular type of social

development and the development of particular type of art during that
period of social development. In this regard, he gave the example of Greek
art and expressed his view that the Greek art is bom out of the then attitude
of society towards Nature and social relationship. He further expresses his
view that in this age of industrial development, the rise of old art forms is
not possible.

In this way, both Marx and Engels opined that during a certain period
or the period of production relationship, a certain art emerges. The art and
literature during the period of capitalism is a good example of this. They
clarified that art bom during the period of capitalism was selfish because
during this period selfishness and exploitation had reached to the summit.

In the opinion of Marx, during the period of faulty production

relationship, die emergence of narrow-minded art takes place. On the
contrary where there is no faulty production relationship and no division of
labour to an extreme, in such a communistic society such a narrow art does
not have any place.

Marx and Engels analysed literature and art from social point of
view. In their criticism of their works of literature, they had a social
purpose. They analysed the works of Shakespeare, Balzac, Dante, Goethe,
and Margaret Harkness on the basis of their sociological role. In their
criticism of art and literature, they always tried to highlight contemporary
social and economic relationship reflected through a specific work of art
and literature. This was, in fact, a major feature of their literary and art
criticism. In his famous book - 'Das Capital', Karl Marx himself made use
of some works of art and literature as historical documents. In order to
determine the superiority or inferiority of a work of art, Marx followed the
criterion of the reflection of contemporary, social and economic
development in the work of art. It is for the sheer reflection of
contemporary social development in their works of novels, Marx admired
the 18th century English novelists with mouthful words.

Marx loved the works of Shakespeare from social point of view. In

the works of Shakespeare, he was attracted especially towards the picture of
the history of contemporary conflict and the period during which the old
values were getting destroyed. In Shakespeare's play 'Timon of Athens’
Marx concentrated his attention on the description of powerful influence of
money during the period of the rise of capitalism.

4
 -70-

Marx's attraction for the novels of Balzac, the French novelist in

18th century was also with a social purpose. In Balzac's well-known novel -
'The Peasant' Marx saw the depiction of the realistic relationship between
the landlords and land-labourers during the contemporary capitalistic mode
of production. Even in the second novel of Balzac, 'The Village Curate'
Marx and Engels came across one sentence in uplifting and supporting the
famous Marxist theory of'surplus value'.

Engels displayed his interest in the works of the German poet, Goethe
only because Goethe's writing was humanistic and it had no touch with
religiousness or theism.
Marx and Engels always believed strongly in the realistic
representation of society in a work of art. They admired the novels of
Margaret Harkness and Mina Kautsky for a close depiction of contemporary
reality. He expressed his two views of Harkness’ The City Girl' and
Kautsky's 'Old and New' as follows :

He says, "Realism, to my mind, implies, besides truth of detail, the

truthful reproduction of typical characters under typical circumstances
(C.B.H. : 1956, 36). Secondly, he opined that the novels attempted during
the contemporary situation are concentrating mainly upon capitalistic
society who are not concerned with the common people at all. At this time,
he felt, it is necessary to strike out the established customs and illusions of
this society by writing the novels of socialistic purpose. He pointed out that
the novels of Kautsky and Harkness are novels of socialistic purpose
reflecting the real values of the contemporary society by demanding and
destroying the false optimism of the capitalistic world.

Marx and Engels always hoped for the depiction of historical

materialism in the realistic work of art. They also expected that it is
necessary to depict the portrayal of revolutionaries, revolters and mutineers
in a bold and strong manner in the present works of literature. Such
revolutionaries should not be presented to the reader in a pitiable manner by
making them martyrs. It is but a betrayal of the contemporary reality in not
depicting their revolutionaries in a realistic manner and in highlighting them
in a more romantic and imaginative image of a martyr. This is but an act of
being disloyal to reality.

Engels has expressed his views about the novel 'The City Girl' of
Mrs. Margaret Harkness that the novel doesn’t reflect the optimistic view
and the tendency of the working class. In short, in the analysis of literature
done by both Marx and Engels, we see the seeds of 'socialistic realism4 - one
of the important aspects of Marxist Criticism.
 71.-
‘ -

Marx was an advocate of freedom of writing. We can observe his

view of freedom of writing when he talks about the restrictions laid down
by the Prussian censor. Marx was against the literature of escapist nature or
false literature. Regarding such type of literature, he argues :

The law allows me to write, but on this condition that 1

write in a style other than my ,own. I have the right to show the
face of my spirit, but I must first set it in the prescribed
expression. What man of honour would not blush at such
presumption and prefer to his head under his toga ? The
prescribed expression only means putting a good face on a bad
solution.
(CBH: 1956,52)

While expressing his views on literature, we see that Marx has not
paid much attention to literaiy structure. Similarly he has not paid much
attention to the’ literariness5 of literaiy works. We don’t find his literaiy
criticism tied only to the canon of literature but in his criticism of literature
he includes the whole body of written and printed material as its field, hi
his literaiy criticism, Marx has rejected art for art's sake. He has also
rejected 'banal didacticism, formalism. Besides this, he also denied
literature which did not express Shakespearean richness. He had dislike for
idyll and romance eventhough he himself was a romantic poet. He was in
favour of realistic, satirical and in the words of Mr. Anil Raina, 'this worldly
fiction'. ( Raina : 2002, 48 ). In the opinion of Raina, for Mane ,folk
literature was a noble and meaningful literature created by the common
people. For example, Marx had admired the well-known ballad of the
'Silesian weavers'. (Raina: 2002,48 )

Both Marx and Engels had deep respect for art. As lovers of art, they
believed strongly in the art created and developed especially for the mass
society. They admire all such works of art which are but the reflections of
the collective society. They also admire all such writers who did not remain
merely writers of imaginative nature but who closely followed realism in
their works of art and who wrote for the mass society. In his book, 'Art and
Society', Mr. A.S. Vazquez represents the love and respect of Marx and
Engels for art and literature as follows :

Marx (and Engels) showed the highest respect for art as

cultured, individual and professional creation, as

*
 -72 -

demonstrated by their profound admiration for the outstanding

exponents of such art (Asechylus, Cervantes, Shakespeare,
Goethe, Heine, Balzac, etc.). But without questioning the
fundamental importance of these individual zeniths of artistic
creation, they descended from the heights to observe and
admire the fruits of the collective creative of the people.
(Vazquez: 1979, 278).

In his 'Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte' Marx points out the

relationship between political representatives and literary representatives of
a class. He thinks that both of these representatives belong to a class in
which the political representatives are driven theoretically to the same
problems and solutions to which material interests and social position drive
to the literary representatives practically. He further opines that while in a
minor writer, the false ideological perspective adversely affects the artistic
truth and the aesthetic merit of a work in a great writer, artistic truth
triumphs over a false ideological outlook. According to-Marx, the literature
of common people and the literature of the educated and privileged may
both enrich life and increase understanding eventhough there are some
works of imaginative literature which are more fit for confusing the unwary
reader's understanding and for perverting his emotional life than enriching
either of them. To prove this, he gives an example of the novels of 'Eugene
Sue'. Even though Marx had deep respect for the literature of the common
people, he never neglected the hierarchy of literary merit. He was of the
view that literature can remind us of a health we have lost (Aeschylus), it
can diagnose our corruption (Shakespeare's Timon of Athens) and it can
also play a part in curing us. In his book 'Marxism and Art' Maynord
Solomon talks of the 'consciousness altering essence' of art. ( Solomon :
1974, 118 ). Solomon further says that Marx looks upon the artist as a
thinker, as an educator, as an unfolder of social truths, as a person who
reveals the inner workings of society and as an ideologist who team off the
veil of false consciousness.

Marx had high regard for realistic writers. In his literary criticism, he
valued highly freshness of character and event. He. also valued highly
originality in all areas of art and literature. In case of the writers like
Aeschylus and Shakespeare, he admires their sturdy and robust sensuality,
indomitable will, resilient enthusiasm and their passionate intellectual
powers. At the same time, he also praises equally Charles Dickens for
sketching a ditto picture of the affected ignorant and tyrannical bourgeoisie.
All these examples show here that Marx had a high respect for realistic
 -73 -

literature and realistic writers or for what Mr. Anil Raina calls as "literary
realism ". (Raina : 2002,51)

In fact, Marx used the word 'Literature' in a very broad sense. It

covers up all imaginative writing. Within the ambit of this term he searches
for both artistic talent and intellectual' and moral insight in a literary work of
art. A famous Marxist critic, Mr. Morawski thinks that Marx and Engels
looked for fundamentally human cognitive and formal values in a work of
art. For Marx, intellectual truths mean political and social truth. These are
but realistic truths which link up literature with life. In the opinion of Marx:
i

Our predilections, our 'personal1 tastes are directed and

circumscribed, by our position, in the, socio-economic order.
Marx was a product of bourgeois civilization. He had great
admiration for this civilization. He was against any abstract
negation of the entire world of culture and civilization. In fact,
he wanted to extend the world of culture and civilization. His
desire was to arouse in the working class a need for 'cultural
experience'. He was also aware on the existence of distinct
working class cultural products. He was definitely against that
part of the bourgeois culture, which was for the enormous
majority, a mere training to act as a machine.
(McLellan : 1977,234 ). 1

To summarize the views of Marx and Engels on literature, we can say

that their views of literature are different from those of the contemporary
thinkers. Marx and Engels argued that during a certain period certain type
of literature gets evolved. They also gave the reasons for the creation of
such type of literature during a certain social, economic and political
condition. They believed that the nature of literature gets changed in
different ways when changes take place in social structure in respect of
politics, economy and society. For them, the society free from exploitation
was, in a real sense, the best form of society among all societies and
ultimately the literature and art produced in such an exploitation free society
is the best literature and art among all literature and arts. Really, this is a
highly invaluable conclusion of Marx and Engels about literature and art
which later on encouraged many a thinker to look upon literature as an
inseparable part of society. In their analysis of literature, they never cut off
literature from society. They believed that the values of literature are no

I
 -74-

more different from the values of society. They do not consider literature
anymore as something different from society but they found literature and
society as a single entity.

C) Marxism in literature :
The concept of literature has been widely discussed by different
critics of different times. The Marxist critics and philosophers have also
deliberated upon literature at:. a wider level. From the days of the early
socialists (in the 16th century) till our time, various socialist philosophers
and thinkers have expressed their views on literature. These include the
16th centuiy British socialist thinkers, the 18th and 19th century German,
Italian and other European socialist and communist thinkers and the 20th
century Russian, Chinese, Cuban and many other European, Asian,
Australian and American socialist and communist thinkers as well. Even
though the term 'Marxism' came, into rise after Karl Marx, before Marx,
there were philosophers and thinkers of Marxist attitude and their views and
attitude towards literature are also a part of the 'Marxist interpretation of
literature.' And hence, in order to understand the relationship between
Marxism and literature, we have to take into account the views of art and
literature expressed by socialist philosophers and thinkers before Karl Marx
and Engels and socialist philosophers and thinkers after Karl Marx and
Engels.

When we look upon the views of literature expressed by different

Socialist critics and thinkers from 16th century till the 20th century, we find
that those views are, no doubt, rich and varied. Their thoughts of literature
don’t give one single unified view or idea of literature. Different Marxist
critics have given different interpretations of literature in a scattered way.
Just as Marxist philosophers have given their thoughts together and
systematically in the fields of economics, politics, history and philosophy,
we don’t come across the Marxist views of literature in almost all works of
Marxist philosophers together in systematic works. In this regard, we can
look upon the works of Caudwell and Ernest Fischer as exceptions.
Otherwise the whole Marxist literary criticism is expressed in a helter
skelter manner by all theorists and philosophers. Eventhough the Marxist
philosophers have different views of literature, we have to bear one thing in
mind that all those views have the support of one important theory behind
them and that theory is Marxist'theory. While talking of literature, these
critics have expressed their view of literature in the light of Marxism. Thus,
Marxism is the very backbone of Marxist literary theory. In the words of
David Craig, "it is a nucleus of Marxist cultural theory which readers
should have at the back of their, minds" (Craig : 1975, 10). In short, the
views of literature expressed by ^different Marxist theorists have the
background of Marxism. In this regard, Marxist critics argue that literature
is a socio-economic and political product. It has close connection with
 -75 '-

human life and different movements in politics, economy and society. Here,
Marx's views of'base' and 'superstructure' model and 'Bertolt Brecht's views
of 'socialist realism' in particular, are worth recalling. Bertolt Brecht reveals
the relationship between literature and Marxism in the following remark.:

A Socialist Realist work df art lays bare the dialectical ,

laws of movement of the social mechanism, whose revelation
makes the mastering of man's fate easier. A Socialist Realist
work of art shows characters and events as historical and
alterable and as contradictory. The Socialist Realist
performance of old classical works is based on the view that
' h •

mankind has preserved those works which gave artistic

expression to advance towards a continually stronger, bolder
and more delicate humanity.
(Willet (ed.): 1964,269 ).

Marxism : its central concepts :

Marxism has been interpreted, differently by different critics.
Eventhough we find different interpretations of it given by different critics,
among all those interpretations exists a fabric of common ideas. We can
call these common Marxist ideas as central Marxist concepts. The concepts
like 'Marx's materialistic interpretation of history, the concept of dialectical
materialism, the base - 'superstructure model, the concept of revolution and
struggle, the concept of hegemony’ etc. form the theory of Marxism. This
view is supported in the comment of 1993 Project : Marxist Criticism, as
follows : " Although Marxist critics have interpreted Marx's theories in
several different ways, as Marxists they eventually return to a few central
Marxist concepts : the dialectical model of history, the notion that social
being determines consciousness; and. the base/superstructure model. For
instance, the English critic, Raymond Williams uses such terms as residual
and emergent cultures to modify the base /.superstructure model, not to
question it. Similarly, terms like hegemony, which are not a part of Marx's
theories, are used by critics to allow a greater application of Marxist
concepts. " (PMC : 1993, 3 ).

The base - superstructure model and Marxist literary

interpretation :
Marx's dialectical model of history is one of the central concepts of
Marxism. In the dialectical model of history, Marx expresses one idea.

J
 -76-

That idea is that the social being of an individual is determined by larger,

political and economic forces. In this regard, Marx says, "It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their
social being that determines consciousness( Eagleton : 1983, 4). This
means the outlook and viewpoints (consciousness) of a person are
determined by the social class (social being) in which that person is bom.

Marx has expanded this concept of determination of man's

consciousness by his 'social being' into the well-known base and
superstructure model. As per this model the base is the economic system
and the superstructure rests on it. In short, according to Marxist critics, the
economic base of society determines the interests and styles of its literature.
Therefore, the relationship between 'determining base' and 'determined
superstructure' is a major point of interest for Marxist critics. Thus, the
Marxist view of literature is based on the socio-economic and political set
up during a certain period. The Marxist critics believe that literature is a
social product. They further hold a view that a certain literary work has
connections with a certain socio-economic and political period. On the basis
of this view of the Marxist critics we can say that Marxism has a good deal
of connection with literature. Regarding the relationship between Marxism
and literature, we get a clear view in the analysis of 1993 Project on Marxist
Criticism:

Marxist literary critics tend, to look for tensions and

contradictions within literary works. This is inappropriate
because Marxism was originally formulated to analyze just
such tensions and contradictions within society. Marxist
literary critics also see literature as intimately linked to social
power, and thus their analysis of literature is linked to larger
social questions. Since Marxism is a belief system which can
be used to analyze society at the grandest or most detailed
level, Marxist literary criticism is ultimately part of a much
. larger effort to uncover the inner workings ofsociety.
(PMC: 1993, 3 )

Literature is a record of life. The famous critic Mr. W.H. Hudson

defines literature as a 'mirror to society'. Even Mathew Arnold defines
poetry as 'criticism of life'. The definition of tragedy given by Aristotle also
throws light on the relationship between literature and life. When Aristotle1
 - 77 -

says, ”Tragedy is an imitation of action" the word 'action' represents

'incidents and events from the life of a hero who is an entity of society, who
is bom and brought up in society and whose history of life is but a part of
the contemporary historical, economic, political -and moral events. Like
these critics, the views of literature expressed by Marxist philosophers and
critics are generally the views throwing light on the relationship between
literature and society. However, it does not mean that the Marxist
philosophers throw an utter light on each and every aspect of human life or
society and look upon all those aspects as Marxism. While looking at
literature, they pinpoint the various aspects of Marxism which are hitherto
considered by them as Marxist philosophy. The features of Marxism for
them are reflected in literature and art from time to time. In their opinion,
the literature of every time is bound up to depict any of the aspects of
Marxist theory. Only then, in their opinion, that literature has its stand of
survivability. They further argue that literature is not only a record of
historical or political events but it is a reflection of the reactions of a
particular society of a particular period against the contemporary - social,
political, economic conditions. These reactions may be positive or negative.
Thus, for understanding the relationship between Marxism and literature, it
is necessary to analyze the various aspects of Marxism reflected in
literature.

The different aspects of Marxism in literature :

1) The element of class-struggle in literature :

Marxism is best known for the theory which has, at first, been
expressed in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ : "The history of all hitherto
existing society is the history of class struggles." ( Marx & Engels : 1952,
419 ). When we take into account the basic philosophy put forth by Marx
and Engels in the Manifesto we come to know that they have tried to point
out that the creative ability of man or the creative history of man has its
concern with the contemporary economic history. In a sense, Marx's theory
of class struggle is a central part of Marxism, which has certain link with
the power of creativity of man. In this regard they argue :

" In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic

production and exchange and the social organization
necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is
built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political
and intellectual history of that epoch.
(Marx and Engels : 1957, 46 ).

4
 -78-

From the above argument of Marx and Engels, we can understand their
view of literature. In their opinion, in the history of human civilization,
there are deeply-rooted forces which have been acting. It means in every
epoch of human history, we come across struggle between two sections of
society. This struggle is for the means of living subsistence. Such forces of
struggle acting for the means of living transform the way of life. In a sense,
such forces transform people's relation^as they work together for the sake of
subsistence or livelihood. Here, the concept of subsistence includes
psychological well-being of man, his sexual satisfaction, food, clothing and
shelter. Marx and Engels further argue that this transformation gives rise to
new networks of communication in the form of oral performance for one
class audience or printed work for a mixed class audience. And here we see
the birth of literature. Literature depicts new, pressing life-concerns of
people in a particular place and time in the form of words. This expression
in words is as per the style and the media available in the community at that
time.

Thus, the concept of class-struggle occupies a central-most place in

literature. In the opinion of Engels and many other Marxist thinkers
literature from the very beginning has been a close record of class-struggles
that have taken place from time to time in human society. The production
system in every society of every time has given rise to class-system. In their
interpretation of historical materialism, Marx and Engels have also pointed
out that the methods of production, the production relations and the class
struggle etc. have given rise to certain social systems in human society.
They classified those systems as - 1) The primitive society, 2) The slave
society, 3) The feudal system, 4) The capitalist system and 5) The
communistic system (expected to rise).

Out of the above mentioned social systems, the primitive social

system was a classless social system. The means of production during the
primitive age were owned completely by the whole primitive community
and hence there were no classes as a result of which there was no struggle
or conflict. On the other hand, in all other social systems, we see the
existence of two classes - the class of workers and the class of owners.
These two classes existing in every social system gave rise to class conflict
and the literature produced during every period (oral and written), naturally
became a record of the then class-conflict.

In short, since literature is an expression of life, literature from the

very beginning recorded life which was abound with class-conflicts. In this
way, class-struggle is a very important aspect of literature.
 -79-

2) The aspect of revolution in literature:

Revolution is one of the most important aspects of literature. In the
opinion of Karl Marx and Engels when the working class men find that they
are unable to get what they are entitled to get in the form of profit from the
capitalists, the working class people get united and raise their voice against
the repressive policies adopted by the capitalists. In order to struggle against
the well-established capitalists, the working class people take the weapon of
revolution in their hands, and they fight unitedly tooth and nail and enable
the capitalists to approve their demands. The weapon of revolution has been
used by the poor class against the rich. It has been used by the lower,
neglected and under-privileged people against the upper class, the well-
established aristocrats and the bourgeoisies. It has also been used by the
farm-labourers, landless labourers against the landlords. Even the slaves are
no exception to it. They have also undertaken revolution and have attacked
upon the noble class people.

The revolution in China under the leadership of Mao-Tse-Tung, the

Russian revolution under the leadership of Lenin mid many other
revolutions have been depicted in literature. In the literature of a certain
time, we observe the blood situation or the bloodless situation aroused due
to revolution. Literature has a social purpose and that purpose lies in
focussing the attempts of common people, the poor, and the neglected for
establishing equality in society through revolution. These oppressed classes
also expect their natural rights and hence they fight against their oppressors.
A number of books of literature throw light on the revolutionary aspect of
the oppressed class. Maxim Gorky's 'Mother', the struggles of the heroes in
1he novels of Charles Dickens etc. are, in fact, books which depict the sense
of revolution. Even the revolution of Chinese farmers under the leadership
of Mao has been closely depicted in literature.

3) The aspects of man's struggle against exploitation and

injustice in literature:
The division of society in class system gave rise to two different
classes : the upper class and the lower class or the rich and the poor. The
upper class people, the aristocrats and the rich have always tried to exercise
their control over the poor and the neglected class. Since the means of
production have been in the hands of landlords, feudal lords, industrialists
and capitalists, the workers and fanners' class has become merely a tool in
the hands of these well-established people. In the system of production,
these upper classmen have always tried to care for their own interests in
selfish manner. They have made the labourers to work more and produce
more. However, the income and profit which they would get at file cost of
the labourers' physical and mental labour in producing a thing, was never
distributed among the workers. In fact, the profit was expected to go into

*
 - 80-

the pocket of the workers class. But-they were deprived of their due income
and profit. It was but an exploitation of the working class. It was a greater
injustice done upon them by the established class people. The workers,
farmers and labourers got aware of their economic and social exploitation
and they raised their voice against exploitation, injustice and oppression in
order to make the society free from exploitation, injustice and oppression.
These classes resorted to the weapons of struggle and revolution in the
forms of war, morcha, demonstration, lock-ups, strike etc. All these
movements and struggles of the oppressed class against the oppressors'
class have been recorded in the books of different times and places, hi fact,
literature is a record of social, political and economic happenings. The
different rebellions and movements have always become main topies of
discussion in literature. The works of Leo Tolstoy, the novels of Henry
Fielding, the social plays of G.B. Shaw and some plays of Shakespeare
represent the rebellious nature of man for his escape from exploitation,
injustice and oppression.

4) The aspects of liberty, equality & fraternity reflected in

literature:
In literature, we see the expression of man's love for liberty, equality
and freedom. The struggle and revolution undertaken by the oppressed class
people has the purpose of attaining natural human rights. These human
rights include the liberty of man from the shackles of age old burden of
slavery, oppression and harassment. The mass society anticipates for
equality among all people in this world. It has a dream of establishing
society on egalitarian basis. It also wants to extirpate inequality among all
classes existing in society. The common people think that all men in this
world should live as brothers. They should have a sense of brotherhood.
This voice of common man for liberty, equality and brotherhood has always
been expressed in literature of all times. The reflection of these ideas in
literature shows the closer relationship between Marxism and literature.

5) The sense of humanism reflected in literature:

From the beginning of human civilization, the oppressed class people
have struggled for the emancipation of man from the clutches of
exploitation, injustice and oppression. They have also struggled a lot for
ending the class-system in every social system through revolution and
struggle. They have hoped for the betterment of human society. They have
always aimed at the welfare of all. They have felt the sorrow and misery of
their fellow-brothers. They have observed die wretched living and working
conditions of workers, labourers and farmers. They have also witnessed the
physical, mental and social harassment of the lower class people. As a
human being, they have felt sorry for the miserable condition of their
fellow-brothers. The writers, artists, sculptors, historians and other
 -81 -

intellectuals have sympathized the poor, the depressed and the oppressed
people. They have shown a sense of. pity and kindness towards the whole
suffering humanity. They have depicted the miserable and pitiable
conditions of their lives in literature with the sense of pity. They have
shown their attachment with the mass society. In their poetry, novels,
dramas, short stories etc. they have expressed their awareness of the
problems with a sense of humanism. It is but the humanitarian attitude of
the writers and artists to highlight the social, political, economic,
educational, moral problems faced by the mass community. The tendency
of the writers to express their sense of man's liberation and the thought of
welfare of all human beings in literature definitely reveals the relationship
between literature and Marxism. Humanism is a feature of Marxism and the
reflection of it in literature shows the relationship between literature and
Marxism. All literature must be humanitarian in attitude. It should be the
ultimate goal of every writer. Because the purpose of every book is to
improve men and their manners, to
improve man morally, socially intellectually and emotionally. It is but a
humanitarian aspect of literature to think good of all humanity. The poetry
of Spender, Mr. Surve, the novels of H.G. Wells have this sense of
humanism.

6) The aspect of socialist realism in literature :

The novelists of the first modem stages like Dickens, Tolstoy,
Conrad etc. worked out novels of realism in society. In the words of David
A. Craig, they were 'critical realists'. ( Craig : 1975, 12 ). In the words of
Lukacs, these novelists were able to 'raise the reasonable question but not
to envisage a perspective in answers might arise'. ( Lukacs : 1963, 69). For
example, the British novelists like Dickens and Conrad were good in
presenting the divisions between people in aristocratic and poor classes, the
capitalists and the workers' class. They also became successful in
highlighting the basis of unequal access to the means of life. However, in
their novels, these writers avoided to focus the lower-class-people or the
oppressed society rising and claiming their own rights.

Around the year 1910, we see the emergence of the school of

socialists realism in the novels of Gorky, Robert Tressell and Sinclair.
These writers tried to describe the forces working towards socialism from
the inside. The purpose of their writing was to point out those human
qualities which are helping for the creation of a new social order. The
Marxists have always believed that the working class in the world is always
instrumental in overthrowing existing social systems. The human qualities
like liberty, equality and fraternity etc. show the socialistic tendency of
these working class men. They have expressed their socialistic feelings and
thoughts in their language and idioms. Here, the concept of socialist realism
throws light on the culture and life-style of the working and peasants' class.
 82-

This aspect of socialist realism has been used by a number of poets,

novelists and dramatists in their writings and their purpose was to create a
newr way of life. The famous Marxist Philosopher Mao-Tse-Tung believed
that the artists and writers can take part in the struggle to change the world.
He aimed at the reflection of socialist realism in literature. He expected that
all working community and its applications, styles and desires constitute
'socialist attitude' and the writers must focus this attitude of the working
class in their writing. In this regard, Mao-Tse-Tung says: • -

Our artists and writers should work in their own field, which
is art and literature, but their first and foremost duty is to
understand and know the people well How did they stand in
this regard in the past ? —----— They failed to understand
language, i.e. they lacked on adequate knowledge of the rich
and lively languages of the masses of the people. Many artists
and writers, withdrawing themselves from the people into a
void, art of course unfamiliar with the people's language, and
thus their works are not only written in a language without
savour or sap but often contain awkward expressions of their
own coinage which are opposed to popular usage - all artists
and writers of high promise must, for long periods of time,
unreservedly and whole-heartedly go into the midst of the
masses, the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers; they
must go into fiery struggles, go to the only, the broadest, the
richest source to observe, learn, study and analyze all mm, all
classes, all kinds of people, all the vivid patterns of life and
struggle and all raw material of art and literature, before they
can proceed to creation. Otherwise, for all your labour, you
will have nothing to work on and will become the kind of
'empty-headed artists or writers' against whom Lu Hsun, in his
testament, so earnestly cautioned his son.
(Tung: 1956,46).
 83-
-

This argument of Mao throws light on the reflection of the aspect of

socialist realism in literature. Like Mao-Tse-Tung, Mr. K.L. Gopalkrishnan
also has expressed his view of socialist realism in literature in his article -
Marxist Interpretation of literature. In his opinion, literature not only
records a single person from the oppressed class separately or in isolation
but it encompasses within its orbit the whole larger humanity and its misery,
poverty and frustrations presented realistically. It expresses the voice of the
common majority of people. It presents the ambitions not of any single man
or woman but of all peasants, farmers and labourers who form the mass
society. In this regard, the following remark expressed by Mr.-
Gopalkrishnan throws light on the relationship between social reality and
literature : " literature is a particular reflection of social reality. Since
Politics or Economics is a most important factor of social reality, Marxists
contend that the divorce of art from politics or economics is as absurd as
the divorce ofart from words themselves. " (Gopalkrishnan : 1952, 65).

In short, here we have to bear one thing in mind that Marxism is the
scientific study of society and literature is a particular reflection of it. >
Therefore, Marxism has everything to do with literature. Literature is an
outcome of the active participation of the writers in the socio-political, and
economic life of the people. After all, a writer is. a human being who has
compassion and love for people. He gets moved by the sufferings of other
men and reflects class-struggle, revolt, humanism, social realism, sense of
optimism for the rise of a new, happy world as the common feelings of
mass society.

References :

• A. Jefferson and D.Robey (ed.) . 1982. Modern Literary

Theory.London: Batsford Academic and Education.

• Anil C. Raina .2002. Marxism and Literary Criticism.3/28, East

Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110 018: Prestige Books.

• A.S .Vazquez. . 1979. Art and Society, Essays in Marxist

Aesthetics. London: Merlin Press.

I
Clemens Dutt(trans.& ed. ). 1961. Fundamentals of Marxism and

Leninism. Second Impression.Moscow:Foreign Language

Publishing House,

Current Book House (ed,). 1956 . Literature and Art. Bombay 1:

Current Book House.

David Craig (ed.) . 1975. Marxists on Literature : An Anthology.

Harmondsworth,Middlesex,England: Penguin Books Limited

David McLellan. 1977. Karl Marx : Selected Writings. Oxford :

OUP.

George Lukacs.1963 .TheMeaning of Contemporary

Realism. London: Merlin Press.

John Willet (ed.). 1979 . Brecht on Theatref Methuen 1964): New

Delhi: Radha Krishna.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. 1971. The Preface to a

Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. London

:Lawerence and Wishert. '

K. L Gopalkrishnan, Winter 1952 . Marxist Interpretation of

Literature from 'The Literary Criterion' (ed.) by P.L. Surya,

S.Rao and Narasimhaiah. Vol.l. Mysore: Maharaja's College,

Mysore University.

Mao Tse Tung. 1956. Manifesto of the Communist Party . Moscow

(ed.) 1957, Bombay: Preface to English edition of 1888, in

 -85 -

Manifesto. Talks at the Yenan Forum on Art and Literature,

IV.

• M.H. Abrams . Seventh Edition, 1999. A Glossary ofLiterary Terms.

Bangalore - 560 070: Prism Book Pvt. Ltd.

• Solomon Maynard (ed.) . 1974. Marxism and Art. New York:

Vintage Books.

• Terry Eagleton. 1916.Criticism and Ideology.LondoniN&w Left

Books(NLB). ■

• Terry Eagleton.First published inl976and reprinted ini983.Marxism

and Literary Criticism.London:Methuenand Co.Ltd.

• V.S. Seturaman (ed.) . First Published 1989. Contemporary Criticism

: An Anthology. Madras 600 041: Macmillan India Limited.

• www.google.com : 1993 Project Marxist Criticism.