Help me debunk post-modernist Marxism in a college course
Help me debunk post-modernist Marxism in a college course
Hello! This is my first post on Lemmygrad.
I have a lesson from my Literature Theory class in college about Marxist analysis. It has some stuff about "British Cultural Materialism", "American New Historicism" and calls Simone de Beauvoir a Marxist among other things. I have a basic understanding of ML theory, though not enough to properly counter what is being said here.
The lesson is in PDF form, but I formatted it to Markdown and uploaded it to PrivateBin, here. I will also attach a screenshot showing the final questions regarding the lesson.
What points are there to be made against what is written there? It often feels like idealism and the lesson itself is filled with pseudo-Marxists.
Thank you comrades!
I wouldn't try to approach this course material as something to debunk before I really understood what was being said. I went through the part about Marxist thought and it doesn't actually sound like your professor is trying to negatively portray Marxism or anything... Just putting it in context of other movements and not putting Marxism on a pedestal.
They are also focused more on what Marxism means for literary criticism rather than how Marxism can be used to affect society. Which is a valid way of approaching the topic.
Yeah, this is giving off vibes of OP trying to show off that they think they are smarter than the professor.
Marxist literary critique is just one vantage point of literary criticism.
I would recommend Terry Eagleton's "Literary Theory - An Introduction". I was a comp lit university teacher and eagleton always came in handy to explain criticism.
That's a good book. Well worth a read. If OP is really pushed for time, the first 3–4 pages of the conclusion provide a good summary of some key points.
My intentions was to find out if this is accurate to Marxist theory, as educational institutions only show Marxism as a very negative ideology, from what I heard. It had basic mentions of dialectical materialism and kind of felt accurate when it came to basic Marxist terms, but I just felt skeptical about it.
Welcome to the 'grad.
I'll make a few points to be helpful, but I think it would be more useful for you to answer your question yourself as it will make you a stronger Marxist critic. Why don't you pick a couple of points from the text, then (1) summarise it, (2) explain a/the relevant Marxist concept (this may involve some additional reading or you could stick with what you know), (3) applying the Marxist concept to the summarised point, and (4) deciding (concluding) whether it is pseudo-Marxist/idealist. There are worse ways to make notes. You could do that here and see what others say.
Simone de Beauvoir does have a chapter on historical materialism in The Second Sex. That may be worth reading to see what she thought of Marxism.
The screenshot you posted above includes some good questions. The statement/implication that Marxists are deterministic is open to challenge. This may come from the view that Marxists say revolution is 'inevitable'. If so, the statement is based on a misunderstanding.
'Inevitability' is not used in a teleological sense, as if history is marching towards a single goal of communism. Instead, it is an optimistic catchphrase that accepts that change is driven by the struggle between interconnected opposites. With the knowledge we have available, that struggle could lead to socialism/communism or barbarism and we hope for the former. Once there, new possible futures will be revealed.
Alternatively, it could be a reference to Marxists like GA Cohen and to the 'vulgar' view of Marxism as technological determinism. If that's the case, Cohen doesn't represent all Marxists. So a full analysis must consider the Marxists who disagree with Cohen before implying that they're all determinists. Personally, I think dialectical/historical materialism and determinism are incompatible, but that could be a good discussion to have.
In general, if you're interested in Marxist literary theory, you might enjoy Terry Eagleton. I disagree with some of what he says, but he's a good place to start.
PS I'd be careful uploading course materials, wholesale. There's almost certainly something in your student charter that prohibits it and it could make you liable for some kind of academic misconduct.
If it's being used to criticize Marxism by suggesting just wanting and talking about things is plenty enough (which I have dealt with irl many times), the simplest response is to point to the zero postmodernist revolutions and that the places where it became in any way popular are colonizer countries currently being stripped for parts through neoliberalization.
But only if it's being used that way. Postmodernism as a fun little academic exercise is fine.
Yeah I mean, in that regard, just look at the entire weight of history. There are vanishingly few instances where people merely communicating was able to bring about what could reasonably be described as revolutionary change, with the Velvet Revolution being something of an ironic counterexample.