'It ain't what we don't know that hurts us. What hurts us is what we think we know that ain't so' (18th century educator, Artemus Ward, cited Bobbitt & Sullivan 2005 p. 55).
This essay will discuss, in contemporary literary critical practice, culture as being both a means of domination in terms of one class or group 'ruling' another, and resistance to such domination through the producing of oppositional viewpoints to those in dominance. Although domination can occur is many respects in the areas of race, gender, and ethnicity, this essay will specifically focus on class domination from the period of 'Romantics' through to the present day. One theorist who analysed and hypothesised class domination was Enlightenment sociologist, Karl Marx (Barry 2002; Fuery & Mansfield 2000; Rivkin & Ryan 1998). .
Marx (and Engels) had no clear theory regarding literary criticism. However, they did hypothesise that literature and literary works are vehicles which carry social exchanges amongst citizens, as well as define cultural and social links, such as values and attitudes, through their circulation (Barry 2002; Fuery & Mansfield 2000; Rivkin & Ryan 1998). Fundamentally, Marx's theoretical argument is that '... a writers social class, and its prevailing ideology... have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class... this is true not just of the content of their work but even the formal aspects of their writing' (Barry 2002 p. 158). Furthermore, Rivkin and Ryan (1998) support this notion by postulating that 'literature reflects unproblematically the values and ideals of the class in dominance' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 238), and that 'literature is... a social phenomenon... (that) cannot be studied independently of the social relations, the economic forms, and the political realities of the time in which it was written' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 234). There are three primary dimensions of Marxist literary criticism these being, 'reflectionist', and 'structuralist' frameworks (Rivkin & Ryan 1998) and the early stages of this analysis will involve a combination of these two theoretical approaches. The third approach, 'cultural materialism', will be utilised in the latter stages by incorporating the 'modern' neo-Marxism concepts of cultural materialist, Raymond Williams (Barry 2002; Fuery & Mansfield 2000; Rivkin & Ryan 1998).
British Cultural Theory Professor, Terry Eagleton's 1996 work, The Rise of English, is heavily influenced Althussian concepts, combining an effective formalist elaboration of the main elements of the Marxist theory of literature ('ideology' and 'mode of production' concepts), and as a structuralist 'science of the text', concerned with how literature produces, and in the sense, performs 'ideology' (Moriarty 2006; Eagleton 1996). Eagleton (1996) states 'literature... is an ideology. It has the most intimate relations to questions of social power' (Eagleton 1996 p. 5 of 9). Eagleton argues that it is impractical to uphold a clearly defined concept of literature, other than being texts that are historically constructed by educational institutions as objects of study or value. Such constructions, Eagleton claims, have constantly been steeped with ideology and that the rise of English as a discipline/subject is directly related to the 'failure of religion' in the late 19th century. For all intents and purposes, its was in the Capitalists best interest to have members of the working class to be educated enough to be able to read and write i.e. book keeping and instructional communications, such education increased the workers 'worth'. However, English elitists were not only governed by greed, they were also governed by fear. Greek and Latin 'classics' were rewritten in order to be understood by the 'masses' and as religions function declined is teaching the masses about the 'road to salvation', the Victorian novel became the 'moral' guide to social relations (Eagleton 1996). Eagleton further argues that Victorian literature fundamentally maintained the function of producing 'subjectivity' - a 'subjectivity' that reinforces dominant ideas, beliefs and attitudes; to disable this function is to damage the hegemonic formation of contemporary society (Boulter 2007; Eagleton 1996). Moreover, in the Medieval and early 17th century - the 'Romantic' period of Pope, Chaucer and Shelley -, literature became a vehicle to enrich the ruling class elite and to bolster a nations cultural sensitivities (nation building). Literature became institutionalised by creating texts that produced 'reason', 'nature', 'order', 'humanism', and 'prosperity'. In addition, literature became a means of controlling imaginative and intellectual energies that may otherwise have been directed towards testing a capitalist regime that produced expansive impoverishment. Fundamentally, literature was more than escapism, it also relates to the '... controlling and incorporating of the working class' (Eagleton 1996 p. 6 of 9).
Matthew Arnold claimed '... if the masses are not thrown a few novels, they may react by throwing up a few barricades' (Arnold n.d. cited Eagleton 1996 p.6 of 9), and it was this type of 'barricade' the elitists feared.
However, one group, the Chartists, did resist English class domination within literary through the writings of oppositional viewpoints to those in dominance. Chartist literature is quint-essentially the site of political debate, deserving of cultural and literary studies as Chartist's are considered the Victorian '...pioneers of all subsequent self-organisation on behalf of (the) proletarian interest in Britain', and that the works essence, '... represents a cultural assertion of politic ability' (Loose 2006 p. 8 of 209). Furthermore, Chartists regarded '... stylistic accomplishment as a powerful validation... of their class... (whilst) demonstrating an intellectual sophistication which entitled them to equal participation in self-government' (Loose 2006 p. 8 of 209). Loose (2006) reviews Thomas Martin Wheeler's graphically portrayed 'social problem' novel, Sunshine and Shadow (1848); especially Wheeler's conscience' choices that examines how societal unrest and educational aims attached themselves to social 'facts' such as religion and class which consequently guides the structure of literary works i.e. fictional settings, character development, grammar, and choices of verse. This analyses supports Marx's theory that literature '...cannot be studied independently of the social relations, the economic forms, and the political realities of the time in which it was written' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 234).
Additionally, Loose (2006) says despite the illusory delineation of the plight of the working class and the authoritarian stance for modernisation,
'That a Victorian working-class man or woman should find the time and energy for the additional labour of novel-writing is remarkable. That the result should differ so markedly from the available models generated by popular middle-class in the social-problem novel genre is a tribute to the capacity for innovation and the sheer creative stamina of labouring people' (Loose 2006 p. 95 of 209).
Furthermore, Loose (2006) postulates literary historians have overlooked the sway of the working class novelist, instead limiting their scope to the middle class 'social problem' fictions of Kingsley, Elliott, Dickens, Gaskell, and Disraeli (Loose 2006).
Wheeler's novel is essential in not only balancing an understanding of the conventions of the 'social problem' sub-genre but also in gaining an inclusive view of how Victorian 'classic realism' literature attempted to remedy social evils in much the same guiding way as religion once had (Loose 2006).
Additionally, other literary critics believe that revolutionary writings against those in cultural domination occurred during the earlier 'Romantics' period, some 100 years prior to the era Eagleton discusses. For instance, Crockett (2007) supports the argument in referring to Chateaubriand's The Genius of Christianity (1802) which claims that '... religion had been widely discredited by the philosophes for decades and actively persecuted for a decade' (Crockett 2007 p. 43). In addition, McDowell (2004) argues that in 15th century language usage was central to ideas of class, status and politics. Radical politicists, coined the Levellers, endured the class divisions of English citizens into two divisions. On one hand, there was the literate elite, capable of rational judgement and so qualified to participate in public life group. On the other, and the irrational, illiterate "masses", denied political access due to their lack of linguistic learning, demanding democratisation of English society and universal male suffrage rights to partake in the decision making processes within the political state (MacDowell 2004). McDowell (2004) backs this claim by stating that public petitions between 1790 and 1820 to Parliament, particularly from low socio-economic groups, were repeatedly denied due to 'impolite' language usage. Authors supporting the plight of "the masses" published works such as John Withal's Shorte Dictionairie for Younge Begynners (1553), and Thomas Spencer's The Art of Logik (1628). Cambridge-educated Presbyterial cleric, Thomas Edwards, discovered the Leveller Party whilst compiling his work, Gangraena (1646), analysing the writings of Walwyn, Overton, and Leveller leader John Lilburne.
Basically, Lilburne drew ideas from the Protestant Marian martyrs who opposed the 'formality' of the church, written in Foxe's Acts and Monuments (first edition, 1563). Primarily, Leveller leadership enlisted those who were,
'…on the lower fringes of the social and educational elite, with enough in common with the poorer classes and small businessmen to act as their spokesmen, but at the same time with the social and educational confidence which would make them potential leaders. These were men who had both worn leather or woollen aprons and sat at school desks. Perhaps half of them could read Latin and half could not, half were the sons of gentlemen and half were not. In this respect they straddled the major social and educational divides of the nation' (Wootton n.d., Leveller Democracy and the Puritan Revolution, p. 413, cited McDowell 2004 p. 45).
Obviously, the group possessed a decent measure of bourgeoisie membership for those in power to take note. Edward's, further analysed the connection between religious language usage and class domination by contrasting the Leveller's social struggle whilst the educated elitists postulated about the involvement of the illiterate "masses" in public affairs using religious terms such as blasphemy and heresy (MacDowell 2004). William Blake's Doctor Thornton's Tory Translation' of the Lords Prayer (1827) illustrates Levellist's criticism towards the blending of such political and religious ideology. In addition, William Cobbett demanded equality and defied the claim the only the literate ruling classes could partake in public affairs. In 1817 Cobbett claimed the '...very use of this appellation ['learned'] is a cheat; a trick, intended to impose upon the mass of mankind, and to keep them in a state of unnecessary, and, therefore, unjust subjection' (Cobbett 1817, Political Register, vol. 32, p. 1067, cited McDowell 2004 p. 40). A year later Cobbett published Grammar of the English Language (1818), analysing
the use of language central to arguments about status, class, and the political environment. Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791) and Burke's Pigs Meat: Lessons for the Swinish Multitude (1793-96) are also examples of revolutionist literature. The texts of Cobbett and others emphasise radical 'Leveller' confidence from 1790 and the capabilities of the intellectually unlettered within this period (McDowell 2004).
Additionally Crockett (2007) writes the Romantics developed '...such despairing melancholy into a certain cult (think Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Wherther) but on the whole the solemn-admonitory was transmuted... (into) the "venerable-regressive" ' (Crockett 2007 p.43). Domination of a culture and the importance of language usage is evident in the earlier literary works of the 'Romantic' period.
This condition of cultural domination was not only evident in Great Britain. In 1848, the same year Marx published the Communist Manifesto, European monarchies were overthrown by proletariat ideologies of democracy and independence (Barry 2002). Revolutions only occur when a form of excess domination exists (Loose 2004). In 1870-71 Paris witnessed the proletariat seize power with the Commune held egalitarian power briefly before facing execution and defeat by military force (Rivkin & Ryan 1998; Carroll et al. 1996). Additionally, the overturn of the Russian Tsarist rule supports Marx's idea that literature reflects class struggle. Marxist-Leninist dialectic materialism attempts to advance the struggle against exploitation by supporting a scientifically unjustifiable sense of certainty about the future. However, the same sense of certainty gives additional opportunities for exploitative activities by the new elite classes by providing elaborate ideologies for justifying the self-serving aspects of the state systems they control (Harris 1988). Historically evidence notes that during Tsarist reign publications and texts which did not support 'state' ideologies were destroyed in much the same way the German Nazi state did during the Second World War. In the 1920's, following the political revolution, Russian literature became experimental and enlightened however these conditions ceased in the 1930's when Lenin gained state control and 'socialist realism' i.e. Lenin's Party Literature (1905) became the dominant ideological texts (Barry 2002). Additionally, the culturally acceptable rise and fall of 'experimental' literature is apparent in the 1934 historical account of the first "Soviet Writers' Congress" in which an authors liberal viewpoints were condemned. Intellectuals such as Proust, George Steiner (refer Marxism and Literary Criticism: Language and Silence), James Joyce and others supporting the 'Engelsian' belief of the '...necessary freedom of art from direct political determinism' (Barry 2002 p. 160) were ousted, with Joyce's Ulysses' being targeted as a '...heap of dung crawling with worms' (Barry 2002 p. 160). However, many authors and literary theorists, through their 'excluded' status, such as Mikhail Baktin and Roman Jakobson (Prague Linguistic Circle), Rene Welleck (U.S. 'new criticism'), Walter Benjamin (persecuted by the Nazi's in 1940), Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned nine years for challenging Mussolini's fascism), have since become applauded within cultural and literary studies as the greatest critics of that time (Barry 2002). Globally, as popular literature began emerging so too did authors who reflected their class struggle not only in the '...content of their work but even (in) the formal aspects of their writing' (Barry 2002 p. 158).
Another example, Harriet Stowe's 1852 novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin,
the moralistic parable of the 'means of production' plantation owners the Shelby's and Legree's interactions with slaves, clearly underscores the economic and political environment of the era in which is was written, thus supporting Marx's reflective concepts. Moreover, Rivkin and Ryan (1998) claim the '...ideas that prevail in a culture tend...to be ones that certify as legitimate the shape of that society and to reinforce the hegemony of the ruling elite' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 237), and that Marx once postulated 'What is a negro slave? A man of the black race... a negro is a negro. He only becomes a slave in certain relations' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 553). In relation to the 'Peculiar Institution' of slavery (Stowe 1978), '...powerlessness combined with paternalism ...influence(d) the slave's consciousness in ways that reinforced the master's hegemony...' (Jackson Lears 1985 p.574). This type of hegemonic ideology is noted in Allsop's (1978 cited Stowe 1978) critique of this text that '...changed mans thinking' (Stowe 1978 p. xi). Firstly, Allsop (1978 cited Stowe 1978) comments on practices of patriarchal and paternal dominance through an analysis of an English elitists correspondence which informed the British reader that the Georgian slaves were fairly treated with much the same respect as a plantation owner treats his 'capital' i.e. livestock, thus reinforcing a common ideology held and supported by many English and European capitalists (Allsop 1978 cited Stowe 1978). Fundamentally though, the African's reworked the class struggle of master-slave to that of patriarchal and paternal dominance in order to gain 'rights'; however, this strongly reinforced hegemonic practice in that it reduced the social struggle to one of master-slave not between the subordinated slave and the socio-political (Jackson Lears 1985). Uncle Tom's Cabin exposed ideological myths, creating audience pathos by stereotypical humanising her elitist and slave characters and narratively positioning them to portray their true subordinated struggle (refer appendix a). Although abolitionist publications were printing short anti-slavery pieces at this time (Uncle Tom's Cabin began as such a piece, also titled The Life of the Lowly), this is the first American 'story' presented in novel format. Portrayals, such as the flogging death of Uncle Tom by plantation capitalist Legree because he refused to betray the whereabouts of escapee slaves, moved a 'liberal' global audience (the book sold 100 000 in its first year) in supporting the Negroes plight to the point of national revolt, the American Civil War (Allsop 1978, cited Stowe 1978). American poet, Longfellow (1853) wrote 'How she is shaking the world with UTC... never has there been such a literary coup-de-main as this' (Stowe 1978 p. xi). Allsop also claims this text is as socially powerful as Marx's Das Capital and, when first meeting Stowe, President Lincoln commented 'So this the little lady who made this big war' (Stowe 1978 p. xi). These statements meticulously reflect the power that literature carries in both reflecting and effecting cultural, political and economic domination and the revolt against cultural dominance.
In modern literary and culture studies, the cultural materialism theoretical viewpoint attracts a post-Marxist character in claiming that the elimination of exploitation will never be achieved in a society that subverts the empirical and operational integrity of social science for reasons of political expediency. According to Milliband (1969; cited Macionis & Plummer 2002), 'For Marxists, political equality is "one of the great myths of our time" ' (Milliband 1969, cited Macionis & Plummer 2002 p. 388). Cultural materialists maintain the moral ethic and material base of Marxism but do not subscribe to this teleological aim as it opposes dialectical materialism as a political ideology, further claiming that without the ongoing support of empiricist and operational critique, "the masses" shall never know if what some call democracy is a unique form of freedom or slavery (Harris 1988). The culture of Marx's capitalism '... changes meaning as one moves across its field of variation from freedom to domination. Culture is capitalism's way of getting people to construe domination as freedom' (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 232). Key cultural materialist, Raymond Williams, viewed culture as a 'productive process', part of the means of production, relying heavily on Althussian, Marxist and Gramscian (hegemony/rule) concepts in identifying areas such as 'residual', 'emergent' and 'oppositional' cultural elements concepts in his analytical work, Marxism and Literature (1977; particularly p. 101). Williams moves beyond orthodox Marxism, being more radical and subversive in his focus on marginalised perspective's rather than solely on class conflict (Moriarty 2006; Fuery & Mansfield 2000). 'Culturalism' is defined in opposition to Marx's structuralism; as Richard Johnson (1970) wrote, on the one hand there appears a degree of Anglo-Marxist culturalism clearly defined by literary critic Williams and historian E.P. Thompson, whilst on the other there is the representation of Francophone structuralist Marxism established by the philosopher, Louis Althusser. Johnson (1970) further states that within both approaches, the concept of culture is understood as combining a specifically 'literary' sense of culture as 'art' with an 'anthropological' sense of culture as a 'way of life'. In each case, the claims of culture are counterpoised to those of material civilisation (Johnson 1979, pp. 51-52). In addition, Williams emphasised Gramsci's extension of Marx's 'cultural hegemony' in that it was not the economic revolt of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie that would ensure democracy but rather the education of "organic intellectuals" that would liberate a subordinated group from a powerful hegemonic environment. Fundamentally, Gramsci believed that the education of "the masses" is definitive in how subordinated groups can confront and challenge cultural hegemony. Also, Gramsci embraced the beliefs of philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who claimed '...political rebellion is often centred in universities' (Macionis & Plummer 2002 p. 390). This notion holds significance when compared to the 'communist' anxiety of the 1950's whereby many U.S. academics were relieved of their employment if they supported socialist ideology and disagreed with capitalism (Rivkin & Ryan 1998), the 1960's boycotts and sit-ins at American universities during the Human Rights movement, as well as the recent violent bloodshed of Chinese students (Macionis & Plummer 2002). However, Latin America provides concise empirical evidence of culture as being both a means of domination in terms of one class or group 'ruling' another, and resistance to such domination through the producing of oppositional viewpoints to those in dominance within these terms.
Class conflict for Latin American citizens is reflected in Robert Wild's 15th century ballad (1641), Alas poore Scholler, whither wilt thou goe (McDowell 2004). In terms of the socio-economic struggle and political turbulence regarding Latin language study in the 1640's, the lyricist recalls the uselessness of his linguistic education in an environment disrupted by civil war, being unable to gain employment amidst the instabilities of universities, the church and the court. Predominantly, the ballads tone is paradoxically bitter and is a graphic illustration of the subordinated position of Latin literacy during the re-establishment of pre-revolutionary English power structures (McDowell 2004). Through cultural materialism's insistence on engaging with anthropological and sociological issues such as race and class, literary and cultural analysts have opened up alternate theoretical approaches such as comparing and contrasting the literary concepts of post-colonialism with the social science theories of globalisation (Krishnaswarmy 2002). Moreover, German Romanticism key figure, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749-1832), stated that the '...increasing communication between nations would produce "world literature" superseding individual national literatures' (Goethe 1973, p. 7). This appears evident in this 'new criticism'-like methodology as it continues to emphasise the domination of one racial and/or class group over another in terms of contemporary global economics and politics (Krishnaswarmy 2002; Millner & Brown 2002; Jameson 1991). Within these contemporary terms, Levine (1994) reflects that U.S. is declining in it capacity to educate "the masses", citing Adrienne Rich's (1986, p. 174) comment about residing in a '... technologically advanced society where 40 percent of the people can barely read and 20 percent are functionally illiterate' (Rich 1986 p. 174, cited in Levine 1994 p. 278). Whilst in Latin America, literacy education has had positive affects for its working-class citizens in more recent times. Levine (1994) argues that during a six-month period in 1980 the Nicaraguan state launched a 'National Literacy Campaign' teaching the subordinated Campesino's to read and write. In developing the '...conditions for all the peoples civic participation', illiteracy was reduced from 60 per cent to 13 per cent (Levine 1994 p. 277). Additionally, Levine (1994) assesses Eduardo Galeano's (1983) definition of 'the abyss', a 19th century terminology used to describe the cultural and social divide between proletariat and bourgeoisie students - within his own Leninist socio-economic environment. In contemporary terms, Galeano (1983) believes the '...primordial function of Latin America literature ...is the rescue of the word', further claiming that 'Latin America(n)...literature is taking shape and acquiring strength... (as it) refuses to stir the ashes but rather attempts to light the fire' (Galeano 1983 p.193, cited Levine 1994 p. 278). In these circumstances, it would appear that education of Gramsci's "organic intellectuals" have indeed liberated a subordinated group from a powerfully hegemonic culture. However, ideological, culturally materialistic, and literary patterns such as Galeano's have gained strength to the point whereby, '...those with economic power (have) resorted to more overt forms of violence (Rivkin & Ryan 1998 p. 231; see also Anzoategui 2000).
Much the same though, it appears that through focusing on the past 500 years that culture, as a means of domination, the rule of one class or group over another, and a means of resistance to such domination in articulating oppositional viewpoints in the way of literature and literary works have come full circle. Although Marx had no clear theory regarding literary criticism, he did believe that literature was both a means of reflecting and affecting cultural domination. By using Marx's 'reflectionist' and 'structural', and William's 'cultural materialism' idea's it is evident that an author's social class does have a major bearing on what is written, not just of the content of their work, but also in the structural aspects of their writing. Literature also reflects the ideals and values of a dominating class and cannot be studied independently of social, economic or political relations. Literary works are vehicles that function within the realm of social exchange and define cultural and social links, such as beliefs and 'ideologies', through their circulation.
Appendix a - Excerpt from Uncle Tom's Cabin
"Come here Tom," said Legree.
"I told you I didn't buy you for common work. Take this girl and whip her; you've seen enough to know how."
"I beg you pardon," said Tom. " I hope you won't give me that job. It's something I have never done - never did - and can't do, no way possible."
"You learn pretty fast with those things you never did before," said Legree, taking up a whip and striking Tom a blow across the cheek, and following this up with a number of blows.
"There!" he said, as he stopped to rest. "Now will you tell me you can't do it?"
"Yes master," said Tom putting up his hand to wipe the blood that trickled down his face. "I'm willing to work night and day, and work while there's life and breath in me, but this thing a can't feel it's right to do; and master I shall never do it never - never."
Legree burst forth: "You blasted black beast! Tell me you don't think it's right to do what I tell you! What have any of you blasted cattle got to do with thinking whats right, I'll put a stop to it! Why, what do you think you are, a gentleman, Master Tom, to be telling your Master what's right and what isn't? So you pretend it's wrong to flog the girl!"
"I think so, Master," said Tom.
"The poor critter is sick and feeble. It would be downright cruel, and it's what I will never do, Master. If you mean to kill me, kill me, but as to my raising my hand against anyone here, I never shall - I'll die first." (Eshuys, Guest & Lawrence P. 251).
No comments:
Post a Comment