I find it had to wrap my brain around liberal-humanism. In essence, liberal-humanism challenges many of my preconceived notions about literature and how to deconstruct it.
Liberal humanism tells me that human nature us unchanging- I think to my self, “how can this be?” How can human nature not evolve and change with humans over time? I cannot help but wonder if I am a product of my surroundings or some biological basis of behavior?
However, if I stop and think about pieces of literature that are “timeless,” it all starts making sense. There will always be a common threat woven into pieces if literature that really matter and have value to society. This means that, if literature is a reflection of society, our nature is fairly consistent.
Through this perspective, literature is separate from all that surrounds it. In essence, literature should not be studied through historical, political, or even an autobiographical lens. Liberal humanism strictly enforces the belief that a text is separate from the author’s bias. Essentially, this is one of the areas were liberal humanism and Marxist theory conflict.
Marxism, steeped in communist ideals, places strong emphasis on the background of literature. It is the experience, social class, and bias of an individual that create great works of literature.
I whole-heartedly agree with this assessment of literature. I do not believe text can stand alone without contextual/historical analysis. I could never attempt to understand George Orwell without understanding the political complexities of his life or the time period. Since I am not from this time, I will consume Orwell’s message in my own context. Therefore, I must understand background to consume in a more complete manner.
I do not believe that good writing is classless or blind to circumstance as liberal humanism suggest. I would write a paper about loss and suffering completely different that someone who has never lost anyone in their life. I do not believe that an author is unaware of what he or she is saying. Granted, we are all products of our environment but I believe we all know the message we wish to convey in our prose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey, I think you are doing a great job of sorting through the differences between Liberal-humanism and Marxism. And I agree that a "text can stand alone without contextual/historical analysis." But I think I am learning now, which I'm sure you have picked up on in class since you posted this, is that Marxism is less about the historical context and more about answering why was this written then? What did it do for the economy and culture? And why do we still read it today? Another point you mention is that you do not believe "that an author is unaware of what he or she is saying" which I understand, but I think Marxism is saying that it does not really matter what the author is saying, it matters why the culture is reading the book. I know it’s a funny example, but that artist in the cave that we always talk about in class kind of makes sense now. It doesn't matter that he says he is painting because of some divine right or whatever, it matters why he thinks the people of his culture will appreciate and buy a painting that has been divinely inspired. I am still having a lot of trouble understanding Marxism myself, so I'm just throwing around ideas. But hopefully you know what I mean. Good luck in the future posting!
Post a Comment