November 1st LT Readings

The three readings in our literary theory texts center on questions of individual identity in literature, the nature of history and ideological point of views, and Marxist criticism and its various revisions.  In Culler’s “Identity, Identification, and the Subject” chapter, he outlines four strands of modern thought regarding individual identity, delineating the self as either something that is given or something that is made.  He notes that modern literary tradition treats the self either as a given/individual who expresses his or her uniqueness through word and deed or as a given/social self shaped by one’s origins and social attributes. Theory contests this given view of the self and instead sees self as either a made/individual that becomes what it is through acts or as a made/social self formed solely by outside forces. In my view, the psychoanalytic, Marxist, feminist, and Queer Theory models ask the question “What am I?” because they regard the individual as a “product” of culture, a “subject” of social construction while the traditional literary model offers an answer to the question “Who am I?” because it see the self as a unique and largely autonomous being with the ability to develop personal qualities in response to life’s difficulties.  Culler cites an example of this ethic in the American western novel where the notion of the essential self emerges from the struggles which bring one’s character into relief, where identity is both the basis and result of individual actions.  Culler also discusses how literature makes identity a central theme and can provide readers with models of how others struggle with inner psychological forces (like Hamlet) and how others can overcome constraining external social forces (like Jane Eyre.)  It seems to me that fairy tales also serve this purpose for children and adults as they identify with a hero or heroine’s quest for love, social acceptance, and individual achievement.

Nealon and Giroux present the nature of history as one that is always subject to interpretation in Theory Toolbox, explaining that history is a narrative told from a particular, ideological point of view.  From this they deduce that history is therefore a constructed vision of the past rather than a reconstruction of it.  They discuss how an author’s point of view reflects deep, ideological presuppositions and that these produce context rather than discover it.  I find it ironic that Nealon and Giroux advocate an engagement with “multiple historical narratives” while branding the American ideology of “Manifest Destiny” as “bunk,” despite the significant place it occupies among historical perspectives.  Shouldn’t a reader of history be able to access and consider all views?

In our third reading, Barry describes Marxist criticism and the changes it has experienced through the decades as it transitioned from Marxist to Leninist to Engelsian and then to the most recent New Criticism model.  As envisioned by Marx and Engels, communism is a materialist philosophy which explains society in terms of the natural world only, a closed system which does not allow for the existence of a supernatural world.  The Marxist model of society is based on state-owned means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and atop this base sits the superstructure of cultural ideas, law, art, and even religion, all determined by the nature of the economic base.  Leninist Marxist criticism initially encouraged modern forms of art, but soon exerted direct control over literature and the arts, outlawing liberal views and imposing a “socialist realism” framework which supported party philosophy.  Barry explains that René Welleck and Roman Jakobson then imported a revised form of Engelsian Marxist criticism known as Russian Formalism to America and some western European countries.  Louis Althusser was also a proponent of the Marxist “New Criticism” movement which promotes a more subtle view of how society works than traditional Marxism provides.  In this revision of Marxist criticism, the concession of a “relative autonomy” of the arts” avoids the more rigid “economics as central” argument of Leninist criticism.  I found it striking that Althusser accuses capitalism of thriving on the “trick” of interpellation by making us feel as though we’re making choices when there actually are no choices available (political parties, for instance,) while in Marxist societies the possibility of political choice is, without question, non-existent.