इफ यू दोन'टी बेलिएवे इन थे इम्पोर्तांस ऑफ़ कांटेक्स्ट, यू प्रोबब्ल्य शौल्दं'टी रीड थिस पोस्ट...

Yet again, I missed the bus with this blog business. I apologize for my, now, late entry.

The most obvious (and because of that most conflicting) contradiction between a liberal humanist perspective and a Marxist perspective would be tenet number two (Barry 17). The liberal humanist would pick up any piece of literature and isolate it from any sort of social, political, or historical context. This autonomy is laughable from the point of view of a Marxist critic. And quite frankly, I'm laughing too. Sincerely, there is a certain discredit to an author's work if there is no consideration of the context of that individual, whether it be personal or social. How is it even done? How could someone take Night by Elie Wiesel out of context? Maybe, I just don't get the no-contest-there-is-no-context all that much

In Marxist criticism a piece of literature is wholly shaped by the socio-political context in which it was written; more importantly relating to any character is dependent on knowing and understanding the social class, economic standing, and historical events of the time (time of the character as well as the author). If we paid no attention to context in literary analysis then everyone would believe that Swift was a baby-eater. I know, some people did believe that, but I've often laughed about this notion. Aside from the understanding of a character, Leninist Marxism suggests that literature should be directly driven by social issues and political agenda whereas liberal humanism would deem these factors irrelevant.

Another point of contention between the two theories lies in the purpose of literature as an expose of human nature. Riotous laughter from the Marxist critic ensues. Liberal humanism suggests that we read to learn (since it also suggests that human nature is a constant, I suppose its more of a review) the different facets of human nature. On the other hand, ideas and beliefs- the superstructure- are not universal. The intangible and immaterial are, in fact, a sham to some extent because they are created by the economic structure of a time. What is valued materially dictates what is valued immaterially. How can a constant exist if it is continually molded by social and political shifts in history?

As much as I may laugh at the notion of the constancy and universality of human nature as well as the complete disbelief in the role of cultural and social context, there is something to be said for the way readers of any time can find a way to relate to characters who existed in a incredibly different time and place...but I suppose that comes from recognizing the importance of the social and historical context. My apologies to the liberal humanist readers for being a bit rude; I guess I've just got a little Marxist in me.

Peace,
Priscilla