Marxist Critism

Thinking Activity

This blog is written in response to the thinking activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad sir, Department of English, MKBU. In this blog, I am going to apply Marxist criticism to 'Animal Farm' and 'Naya Daur'.

What is Marxism?

      Karl Marx, a German philosopher, and Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist were the joint founders of this school of thought. Marx and Engels announced the advent of Communism in their jointly-written 'Communist Manifesto of 1848'.

 

        Marxist criticism is founded on the economic and cultural theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, addressing the evolving history of humanity, its social structures, institutions, and ways of thinking are largely determined by changes in the mode of material production. Marxism talks about the following points: It deals with the evolving history of humanity, its social structures, institutions, and ways of thinking are largely determined by changes in the mode of material production, Changes in the fundamental mode of material production affect changes in the class structure of a society, establishing the dominant and subordinate classes. And finally, it talks about ideology which is constituted by human consciousness. Human consciousness is shaped by ideology, representing the beliefs and values of a particular class. The dominant ideology in any era serves to legitimise and perpetuate the interests of the ruling class.

         This identity is the product of its structure resulting in class relations and interest. Marx considers ideology as Superstructure, as he says, 'Infrastructure(economy)' is 'Superstructure(society or structure)'. Engel considers it a false consciousness, which means ideology is an illusion.

          Marxist literary criticism interprets literature within this framework, viewing it as a product of specific historical and economic conditions rather than timeless artistic criteria. Some Marxist critics analyze literary works in direct correlation with the present stage of class struggle, calling for the replacement of bourgeois literature with "social realism." More flexible Marxists acknowledge the autonomy of traditional literary works, allowing them to transcend prevailing bourgeois ideology and represent aspects of objective reality.

Material production determines the history, Class structure, and struggle, ideology, and class interests,

Georg Lukács argued that great literary works create their own worlds, reflecting essential tendencies and determinants of their epoch. Realist novels, in particular, reveal class conflict, economic contradictions, and individual alienation.

Bertolt Brecht Rejected Aristotelian concepts of tragedy and advocated for an "alienation effect" in literature. He believed that literature should disrupt the passive acceptance of capitalist society and encourage active cooperation with forces of change.

Walter Benjamin explored the effects of changing material conditions on the arts, emphasising the transformative impact of mass media on the concept and status of works of art.

Louis Althusser Incorporated structuralism into Marxist theory, arguing that the structure of society is constituted by diverse "ideological state apparatuses" with relative autonomy. He redefined ideology as a multifaceted force in the struggle for cultural power.

Antonio Gramsci Introduced the concept of hegemony, emphasising the role of culture, including folklore and popular media, in maintaining social power. Hegemony involves the pervasive acceptance of ideological views by subordinate classes.

Stuart Hall Expanded on Gramsci's ideas, viewing ideology as a multifaceted force in the production of meaning and emphasising the role of discourse in shaping individual subject positions.

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe Grounded society in language and argued for a view of society open to innovation, transformation, and self-invention. Their adaptation of Saussurean language theory challenged strict economic determinism.

Raymond Williams Adapted Marxist concepts to a humanistic concern with the texture of individuals' lived experiences.

Terry Eagleton Expanded Althusser's and Macherey's concepts, integrating poststructuralist analyses into Marxist criticism to undermine prevailing beliefs and certainties.

Fredric Jameson, An eclectic Marxist critic who synthesised various critical viewpoints. He proposed a "political interpretation" of literary texts, exposing the hidden role of the "political unconscious" and rewriting texts in an allegorical mode to reveal their repressed historical and ideological subtext.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, Marxist criticism became more open to other critical perspectives, acknowledging its own evolution as a historical process and emphasising the role of non-ideological and artistic determinants in literary structures and values.

Influential Marxist critics include Georg Lukács, who argued that great literary works create their own worlds reflecting essential tendencies of their epoch; Bertolt Brecht, who advocated for an "alienation effect" in literature to disrupt passive acceptance of capitalist society; and Walter Benjamin, who explored the transformative impact of mass media on the concept and status of works of art.

Louis Althusser incorporated structuralism into Marxist theory, redefining ideology as a multifaceted force in the struggle for cultural power. Antonio Gramsci introduced the concept of hegemony, emphasising the role of culture in maintaining social power. Stuart Hall expanded on Gramsci's ideas, viewing ideology as a multifaceted force in the production of meaning. Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe grounded society in language, challenging strict economic determinism.

Raymond Williams adapted Marxist concepts to a humanistic concern with individuals' lived experiences. Terry Eagleton expanded on Althusser's and Macherey's concepts, integrating poststructuralist analyses into Marxist criticism. Fredric Jameson synthesised various critical viewpoints, proposing a "political interpretation" of literary texts that exposes the hidden role of the "political unconscious" and rewrites texts in an allegorical mode to reveal their repressed historical and ideological subtext.

       In the latter half of the twentieth century, Marxist criticism became more open to other critical perspectives, acknowledging its own evolution as a historical process and emphasising the role of non-ideological and artistic determinants in literary structures and values.

What Marxist Critics do?

2. Marxist critics a division between what is obvious in a story (overt content) and what's hidden or implied (covert content). It connects this hidden content to basic Marxist ideas, like class struggle or the changes societies go through over time. Thus, the conflicts in King Lear might be read as being 'really' about the conflict of class interest between the rising class (the bourgeoisie) and the falling class (the feudal overlords).

2. They also consider the social class of the author and how it might unconsciously influence what they write. This is similar to how psychoanalytic critics think authors might reveal things in their work without realising it.

3. A third Marxist method is to explain the nature of a whole literary genre in terms of the social period which 'produced' it. This means critics link entire literary genres (like novels, tragedies, or ballads) to the social periods that gave rise to them, For instance, The Rise of the Novel, by Ian Watt, that might say that novels in the 18th century represented the interests of the expanding middle class.

4. They connect a literary work to the social beliefs of the time when people are reading or consuming it. This is especially true in a later form of Marxist criticism called cultural materialism.

5. Some Marxist critics argue that the way a story is written (its literary form) is influenced by political circumstances. For example, they might say that certain writing styles support or validate existing social structures.

       Marxist critics explore how a story, its author, and its genre are connected to social and political ideas, especially those related to class and societal changes.

Now let’s read ‘Animal Farm’ through the lens of Marxist criticism:

Animal Farm by George Orwell

Animal Farm is a beast fable, in the form of a satirical allegorical novella, by George Orwell, first published in England on 17 August 1945. It tells the story of a group of anthropomorphic farm animals who rebel against their human farmer, hoping to create a society where the animals can be equal, free, and happy.

All the Marxist reading of te text can be applied to this literary work. Animal farm makes a clear difference between Overt and covert content. The overt content id that The story is about a group of farm animals that rebel against their human farmer. But after getting rid of their farmers Napoleon rules over which gain is the concern of communalism. The Covert Content is The power struggle among the animals which indicates the class struggle between the proletariat (working class) and the bourgeoisie (ruling class). The working class sufferers while the ruling class is not having a bit of the concern about it.

While talking about the second aspect of Marxist reading, it is clear that George Orwell, the author, was critical of totalitarian regimes and identified as a democratic socialist. He was not the Marxist but rather was believing in liberalism. Thus, His views on class struggle and disdain for oppressive systems align with Marxist ideas. Most of his works are characterized by lucid prose, social criticism, opposition to totalitarianism, and support of democratic socialism. His works like Animal Farm, The Road to Wigan Pier and 1984 deals with the idea of class struggle.

"Animal Farm" can be seen as a satirical allegory for the Russian Revolution and the rise of communism. The novella reflects the social and political context of Orwell's time, particularly the criticism of authoritarian regimes.

Readers in Orwell's time (mid-20th century) could have related the events in "Animal Farm" to the political dynamics of the Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes.

The simple and accessible fable-like structure of "Animal Farm" serves as a powerful tool to convey political messages. The form of the novella is crafted to criticize political corruption and abuse of power.

"Animal Farm" can be analyzed through a Marxist lens by examining its portrayal of class struggle, the author's own political stance, its connection to the historical period, and the political messages embedded in its literary form.

In a nutshell, Marxist critics explore how a story, its author, and its genre are connected to social and political ideas, especially those related to class and societal changes.

'Naya Daur'

"Naya Daur," a classic Bollywood film directed by B.R. Chopra and released in 1957, canbe analyzed through a Marxist lens. Only by examining the poster of the film, one can get an idea about the Marxist ideology in the film.

  The film tells the story of a traditional village that faces economic challenges due to the introduction of a bus service, which threatens the livelihood of the local bullock cart drivers. The conflict between the bullock cart drivers(Shankar) and the bus service(Kundan -bus driver) can be seen as representing the broader struggle between traditional, agrarian communities (often associated with the working class) and the modern, industrialized world. The film was released at a time when India was grappling with questions of economic development and social change. Viewers would have connected with the challenges faced by the characters, reflecting the larger social and economic shifts happening in the country.  The film highlights the impact of industrialization on rural communities and the exploitation associated with modernization.

   In the context of Indian cinema in the 1950s, the filmmakers, including B.R. Chopra, often had social and political perspectives. While not explicitly Marxist, the film does reflect concerns about societal changes and the impact on traditional ways of life.

  "Naya Daur" can be seen in the context of the social changes in post-independence India, where industrialization and modernization were affecting traditional livelihoods. The film could be seen as a commentary on the clash between rural and urban life, echoing broader debates about progress and development.

In summary, "Naya Daur" can be examined through a Marxist lens by considering its portrayal of economic change, the clash between traditional and modern ways of life, and the broader societal shifts in post-colonial India. The analysis would focus on class dynamics, economic transformations, and the film's stance on the consequences of progress.

(Note: I have taken help from ChatGPT to modify the grammatical errors and language)

Thanks for visiting..