Marxism in Literature in General

Marxism in Literature in General

-49- Chapter - II Marxism in Literature in General Marxism is understood as a philosophy of history. It is an attempt to formulate a scientific theory of human societies. It suggests a programme of political action for bringing about the expected change in society by making free the society from exploitation and tyranny. In fact, the founders of this theory, Karl Marx and Engels did not relate their economic and political theories to problems of aesthetics. However, it should be remembered that Marx himself was a man of letters and a scientific critic. Before Marx attempts had been made to account for literary works in terms of the political and social conditions. These, political and social conditions had produced literary works. In order to understand the Marxist view of literature, it is necessary to' take into account the relationship between literature and life, literature and society and literature and social, political and economic conditions. In this regard, the terms like 'base and superstructure', 'ideology' and 'socialist realism' are of a greater help here for having a clearer sense of the relationship between Marxism and literature. From this point of view, in this chapter, I propose to analyse these concepts and the literary views of different Marxist thinkers in connection with these concepts. It will help us to know the reflection of Marxist philosophy in literature. Hence the chapter is divided into three parts - [A] Different Marxist concepts, [B] Marxist views of literature and [C] Marxism in literature. [A] Different Marxist concepts : 1) The base and superstructure model: Marx held a view that the social relations between men are bound up with the way they produce their material life. In the middle age certain productive forces had the social relations of villein to lord. It is known as feudalism. Afterwards, we see the development of new modes of productive organization. It is based on a changed set of social relations. It gave rise to the capitalist class and the proletarian class. The capitalistic class owns means of production and the proletarian class whose labour-power the capitalist buys for his own profit. In the opinion of Marx, these 'forces' and^ 'relations of production' form 'the economic structure of society.' The Marxist philosophy recognizes it as the economic- 'base' or 'infrastructure'. The base is the economic system on which the superstructure rests. In every period, we come across the emergence of this superstructure from the economic base. Thus, in the words of an Indian critic Mr. Seturaman, "Early Marxists used the term 'base1 to refer the economic system prevailing $

-50- r in a given society at a given time and the term 'superstructure' refers to its politics, religion, art and philosophy." (Seturaman : 1989, 28). In the category of superstructure1 Mr. Terry Eagleton includes some more concepts such as certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of state, whose essential function is to legitimate the power of the social class which owns the means of economic production. Ahead to this, he argues: But the superstructure contains more than this; it also consists of certain 'definite forms of social consciousness' (political, religious, ethical, aesthetic and so on) which is what Marxism designates as 'ideology'. The function of ideology, also, is to legitimate the power of the ruling class in society; in the last analysis, the dominant ideas of a society are the ideas of its ruling class. (Eagleton : 1983, 5 ). For Marxist critics, the economic base of society determines the interests and styles of its literature. In the words of the researchers of 1993 Project :Marxist Criticism, "It is the relationship between determining base and determined superstructure that is the main pdrt of interest for Marxist critics." (PMC : 1993, 5 ). 2) Ideology : Generally, we construe ideology as the way of men s living, their notions, values and ideas which bind them to their social functions. Marx believes that since the superstructure is determined by the base, it inevitably supports the ideologies of the base. Ideologies are the changing ideas, values and feelings through which individuals experience their society. Ideology includes dominant ideas and values of the beliefs of society as a whole. It prevents individuals from seeing how society actually functions. Literature is a cultural production. As a cultural production, it is a form of ideology. It legitimizes the power and dominance of the ruling class. Mr. Terry Eagleton supports the view in his argument when he remarks that literaiy works are not merely parts of mysterious inspiration or author's - psychology. On the contrary, they are forms of perception. They are particular ways of seeing the world. They have a relation to that dominant way of seeing the world. He further opines that such a dominant way of seeing the world is the 'social mentality' or 'ideology' of an age. Ideology is the product of the concrete social relations into which men enter at a particular time and place. It is the way which makes to experience those class relations. It also legitimizes and perpetuates those class relations. Men are not free to choose their social relations. They are restricted into these

-51- social relations by material necessity or by the nature of their mode of economic production. While explaining the meaning of ideology at a wide level, Terry Eagleton expresses his view that we understand the texts like 'King Lear', 'The Dunciad' and 'Ulysses' not only by the way of interpreting their symbolism, studying their literary history and adding footnotes about sociological facts which enter into those texts of literature. At first, we have to understand the complete indirect relations between those works and the ideological world they inhabit. Their indirect relations emerge not only in themes and preoccupations but in style, rhythm, quality and, form also. For us it is not possible.to understand ideology without grasping the part it plays in the society as a whole. We have to understand how this ideology consists of a definite, historically relative structure of perception which underpins the power of a particular social class. This task is not easy. Because ideology is never a simple reflection of a ruling class's ideas. On the contrary, it is always a complex phenomenon and it may incorporate conflicting or even contradictory views of the world. Thus, for understanding ideology, it is necessary to analyse the precise relations between different classes in a society and also know where those classes stand in relation to the mode of production. Thus, literature, ideology or art is supposed to reject or mirror dominant ideologies. In the eighteenth century, literature was used by the upper English classes for expressing and transmitting the dominant value systems to the lower classes. After the publication of the book 'The German Ideology' (published jointly by Marx and Engels) ideology was not much discussed by Marx and Engels. However, this term has become a key concept in Marxist criticism of literature and the other arts. Before Marx, the term 'ideology' has been used by French philosophers of the late eighteenth century. They used this term to designate the study of the way that all general concepts develop from sense perceptions. In this regard, Mr. M.H. Abrams gives a clear analysis of the term. He says; In the present era 'ideology' is used in a variety, of non Marxist ways, ranging from a derogatory name for any set,of political ideas that.are held dogmatically and applied rigorously to a neutral name for ways of perceiving and thinking that are.specific to an individual's race, or sex, or education, or ethnic group. In its distinctively Marxist use, the reigning ideology in any era is conceived to be, ultimately, the 4

-52- product of its economic structure and the resulting class relations and class-interests.in a famed architectural metaphor, Marx represented ideology as a "superstructure" of which the~ concurrent socio-economic system is the 'base'. Friedrich Engels described ideology as "a false consciousness" and many later Marxists consider it to be constituted largely by unconscious prepossessions that are illusory, in contrast to the "scientific" (that is, Marxist) knowledge of the economic determinants, historical evolution and present constitution of the social world. (Abrams : 1999, 48 ). Abrams further expresses his view that in the present era of capitalist economic organization that emerged during the 18th century, the reigning ideology incorporates the interests of the dominant and exploitative class. They are the 'bourgeoisie', the owners of the means of production and distribution. They are opposed to the 'proletariat class' or 'wage-earning working class'. It is believed that the people who live in this ideology and with it, like it as a natural way of seeing, explaining and dealing with the surrounding world. However, this ideology has the hidden function of legitimizing and maintaining the position, power and economic interests of the ruling class. Thus, bourgeois ideology produces and permeates the social and cultural institutions and practices of the present era. It includes religion, morality, philosophy, politics, law as well as literature and the other arts. 3) Socialist realism : In accordance with these views expressed about ideology, some critics look upon literature in any historical era- as 'production of the economic and ideological determinants specific to that era. They don t take literature any more as works created in accordance with timeless artistic criteria. Some Marxist critics use the term 'vulgar Marxism for analysing 'a bourgeois literary work' as in direct correlation with the present stage of the class structure. They expect that such work should be replaced by a 'social realism' that will represent the true reality and progressive forces of our time. In this regard, Terry Eagleton says, "Ideology is not in the first place a set of doctrines; it signifies the way men live out their roles in class-society, the values, ideas and images which tie them to their social functions and so prevent them from a true knowledge of society as a whole." ( Eagleton : 1983, 16-17). Here, Eagleton points out that works of literature are just

-53- expressions of the ideologies of their time. He agrees with the view of Plekhanov that all art springs from an ideological conception of the world and there is no work of art which is entirely far away (devoid of) from the content of ideology. In this sense, the works of literature are, in the words of Eagleton 'prisoners' of 'false consciousness' unable to reach beyond it to arrive at the truth. The concept of 'vulgar Marxist criticism' sees literary works as reflections of dominant ideologies. However, it can't explain why literature actually challenges the ideological assumptions of its time. It is a fact that so much literature challenges the ideology it confronts and makes this a part of the definition of literary art itself. In his book 'Art Against Ideology' (1969) Ernst Fischer gives his view about authentic art. He says that true art or authentic art always transcends the ideological limits of time. It takes us into the realities which ideology hides from us. * i Thus, some Marxist critics look upon ideology as cut off from socialist realism or truth. What is socialist realism? In order to understand clearly the Marxist view of literature, like the concept of ideology, it is essential to comprehend the term 'socialist realism' because most of the Marxist's critics have taken for granted social realism as the basis of literature or the very foundation of literature. In the book 'Marxists on Literature', David Craig expresses his view about social realism. In the opinion of Craig, for western readers, 'socialist realism' means little more than the novels and plays which Soviet writers produce to the orders of the.government. It is a type of art which highlights the good features of Soviet life and neglects the malignant ones. David Craig is of the view that Marxists have always tried to show that the workers of the world are instrumental in overthrowing existing social systems. So, for writers, it is necessary to describe the working class people, their language and idiom, their views, emotions and typical experiences, their life style etc. which have been hitherto neglected in literature due to the preference of the writers or the concentration of the writers on the reflection of ideology in literature. Socialist realism must draw upon the culture of the workers and peasants in order to rise to its historical task and make a new sort of art which will create a new way of life. For the inclusion of the working class in literature, Craig agrees with the view of Mao-Tse-Tung, the Chinese communist leader who comments that the artists must know and understand the people, the masses of the people and their language. They must go into the midst of the masses, the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers. Tung further says that our writers and artists must go into fiery struggles. They must study and analyse all men, all classes, all kinds of people, all the vivid patterns of life and all raw material of art and literature before they undertake their creation. Otherwise, they will be simply empty-headed artists and writers. The famous Marxist critics Bertolt Brecht and George Lukacs have expressed their views of social realism which are in close agreement with the views of Mao-Tse-Tung and other Marxist critics. 4

-54- (B)The different Marxist critics and their views of literature: 1) George Lukacs and the Social Realists : Different Marxist critics have expressed their views on the relationship between ideology and literature. However, there is a great deal of difference in the views expressed by them concerning the relationship between ideology and literature. Since the times of the own writing of Marx, we come across a number of Marxist critics, namely the Soviet socialist realists, George Lukacs and Louis Althusser who have modified the original concepts of Marx. The Soviet socialist realists believe that since ideology is a part of the superstructure, it must correspond to the economic base of society. They further opine that literature inevitably reflects the economic base. It cannot function outside the base and superstructure model. It has no way for working outside this model. George Lukacs was a German Marxist critic. He represents a flexible view of the role of ideology. In his opinion each great work of literature creates its own world which is unique and seemingly distinct from everyday reality-. However, the great novelists like Balzac or Tolstoy who are called as 'masters of realism' ( Abrams : 1999, 14 ) bring to life the greatest possible richness of the objective conditions of life and create typical characters who manifest to an extreme the essential tendencies and determinants of their epoch. These novelists become successful in producing a fictional world which is a 'reflection of life' in the greatest concreteness and clarity and with all its motivating contradictions. They produce this world often in opposition to (the author's) own conscious ideology. Thus, the fictional world of such writers becomes harmonious with the Marxist conception of the real world which is formulated by classconflict, economic and social contradictions, and the alienation of the individual under capitalism. This view of Lukacs is summarised in the 1993 Project: Marxist Criticism' as follows : r v Like the social realists, the critic George Lukacs feels that only realistic forms of fiction are artistically and politically valid. But Lukacs and the social realists have a limited perspective. They both fail to recognize that there are legitimate works which fall outside such a literal reading of the base /superstructure model. (PMC : 1993,2 ).

-55- In the opinion of Lukacs, the greatest artists are those who recapture and recreate a harmonious totality of human life. He further says that in a society where the general and the particular, the conceptual and the sensuous, the social and the individual are torn apart by the 'alienation' of capitalism, the great writer draws these dialectically together into a complex reality. In a sense, the fiction of such a great writer mirrors the complex totality of society itself. While doing this, great art struggles against the alienation and fragmentation of capitalist society and throws light on a rich, many sided image of human wholeness. Lukacs calls such art as 'realism'. In this concept of art of realism, he includes the Greeks, Shakespeare, Balzac and Tolstoy. He further remarks that the three great periods of historical 'realism' are ancient Greece, the Renaissance and France in the early 19th century. He takes a 'realist' work as rich in a complex and comprehensive set of relations between man, Nature and histoiy. These relations embody and unfold what for Marxism is most 'typical' about a particular phase of history. Lukacs uses the term 'typical' for noting down those latent or hidden forces in any society which are historically significant and progressive from Marxist point of view and which lay bare the inner structure and dynamic of the society. Here, the responsibility of the realist writer is to flesh out these 'typical' trends and forces in sensuously realized individuals and actions. In an attempt of doing so the realist writer links the individual to the social whole. He informs each concrete particular of social life with the power of the 'world-historical' - the significant movements of history. Lukacs has made use of the major critical concepts like 'totality', 'typicality and world-historical.' These concepts are essentially Hegelian rattier than Marxist. Thus, for Lukacs, the realist writer penetrates through the accidental phenomena of social life for making open the essences or essentials of a condition by selecting and combining them into a total form and putting them in concrete experience. He further remarks that the rise of the great realist writers takes place from a history which is visibly in the. making. For example, the rise of the historical novel as a genre at a point when there was revolutionary turbulence in the early 19th century. At that point of time, it was possible for the writers to depict their own present as histoiy. Here, Lukacs sees past history as 'the pre-history of the present'. (Eagleton :1983, 29). He says that the writers like Scott, Balzac and Tolstoy can produce major realist art because they are present at the tumultuous birth of an historical epoch. They are dramatically engaged with the vividly exposed 'typical' conflicts and dynamics of their societies. Here, the basis of their formal achievement is 'the historical content. Lukacs is of the view that the richness and profundity of created characters is dependent upon the richness and profundity of the total social process. I

-56-2) Louis Althusser: Louis Althusser was a French Marxist structuralist. He gave his views on the relationship between literature and ideology. In the opinion of Althusser art cannot be reduced to ideology. It has, rather, a particular relationship to it. Ideology stands for the imaginary ways in which men experience the real world. Of course, literature also gives us the same kind of experience. Ideology makes you feel like to live particular conditions rather than giving a conceptual analysis of those conditions. But, in the opinion of Althusser, art has a greater function than just passively reflecting that experience. Art is held within ideology. However, it manages to distance itself from ideology. It takes us to the point where it allows us to 'feel' and 'perceive' the ideology from which it springs. While doing this, art does not make us to know the truth which ideology hides.because for Althusser, knowledge means 'scientific knowledge'. It is the knowledge of capitalism that we get by reading Marx's 'Capital' and not the one that we acquire by reading Dickens' 'Hard Times.' Althusser further comments that the difference between science and art is not that they deal with different objects. But the difference is that they deal with the same objects in different ways. Science imparts conceptual knowledge of a situation. Art gives an experience of that situation. This experience is equivalent to ideology. It makes us to 'see' the nature of that ideology. And thus, it begins to move us towards the full understanding which is called as 'scientific knowledge'. The elucidation of the thoughts of Althusser on literature can be seen in the views of the research students who have worked for the Project 1993 : 'Marxist Criticism'. These students have summarized the views of Althusser on literature as follows : Althusser suggests that ideology and hegemony, like literature, present a constructed version of reality, one which does not necessarily reflect the actual conditions of life. Thus, literature neither merely reflects ideology, nor can be it reduced to it. Literature may be situated within ideology, but it can also distance itself from ideology - thereby allowing the reader to gain awareness of the ideology on which it is based. For example, a novel may present the world in a way that seems to support dominant ideologies, but as a work of fiction it also reveals those ideologies. So once again, although

-57- literature itself can not change society, it can be an active part of such changes. (PMC : 1993,3 ). 3) Pierre Macherey : Pierre Macherey develops further the theory of literature discussed by Althusser. In the book 'Theory of Literary Production' he argues that a literary text not only distances itself from its ideology by its fiction and form, it also exposes the 'contradictions' that are inherent in that ideology by its 'silences' and 'gaps'. It means that because of these 'silences and gaps' the. text fails to say and the reason for this is that its ideology makes it impossible to say it.. He calls them as 'textual absences'. ( Abrams : 1999, 151 ). He further says that such types of textual absences are symptoms of ideological repressions of the contents in the own 'unconscious' of the text. In his view the aim of Marxist criticism is to make these silences speak and to reveal (what the author has decided to say consciously) 'the unconscious content of the text.' Here, by the use of the term 'the unconscious' content of the text, Macherey means, the repressed awareness of the flaws, stresses and incoherence of the text represented in the very ideology that we come across within it. In other words, Macherey points out how the artist works on the ideological experience of men and transforms that ideological experience by giving a form to it. He tries to prove how the work is tied to ideology. In his opinion the work and ideology are not organically related. For him 'the text is a production' in which the writer doesn t fabricate the material that he uses for working out that text. He is simply a creator and we cannot find any organic unity in his work. His work has and must have a good number of meanings. This diversity of meaning and the incompleteness make the text real. Here, the function of the writer is to explain why and how the text is incomplete. Thus, Macherey rejects any system of aesthetics. He also denies to believe that literature exists as a transcendent object, eternal and immutable. In expressing these views, he is close to post-structuralist thinkers. He further says that works of art are produced by historical conditions and in each epoch these works are reproduced in different historical conditions. There is a shift in perspective. In his opinion, the true or real reading of literature means an examination of the language and discovery of the contradictions between the languages of dominating and dominated ideologies. 4) Terry Eagleton : Terry Eagleton is one of the major Marxist critics who deals directly wjt:h the problem of literary value. He continued the Althusser-Macherey 4

-58- tradition. In his book 'Criticism and Ideology' he regarded the notion of literature as 'production'. In this book he argued the need for a science of the text. He also discussed widely the 'problematic mechanism of ideological production in the text'. ( Raina : 2002, 74 ). In his opinion, the exclusive emphasis upon literary production divorced from a materialist analysis of its consumption, leads to difficulties when the problem of 'aesthetic value' is taken into account. He further argues "the task of Marxist criticism is to provide a materialist explanation of the bases of literary value." (Eagleton : 1976, 162 ). He gives stress on materialist analysis of literary texts. However, he doesn't specify any value of such an analysis. In his opinion, "The valuable reader" is constituted as valuable by the texts, which he constitutes as such ideological value, is projected into the Tradition to reenter the present as metaphysical confirmation or critique. The name of this tautology is Literature ". ( Eagleton : 1976, 164). "However, here he does not discuss whether we should give up the concept of literature altogether or build our own tradition. He is quite right when he argues that literary value is a relational value resulting out of an ideological production of the ideology. However, he fails to lay emphasis on the need of justifying progressive ideologies. For Eagleton," the value of a text, then, is determined by its double mode of insertion into an ideological formation and into the available lineages of literary discourse( Eagleton : 1976, 186 ). He further states that the distinction between the 'aesthetic' and 'ideological' elements of a text is a part of methodology rather than that of reality. Eagleton also asserts that literary genius or greatness is exemplified in writers who relate to or challenge or transform the ideologies of their time in certain ways than later generations of readers perceive to be valuable. He further argues that since values and.interests change, valuations also get changed as per the changing cultural conditions. Id'the book 'Criticism and Ideology' Eagleton expresses his views of art under the influences of Althusser and Macherey. However, afterwards we find him to be shifting away from Althusser. He shows his dissatisfaction with the role of the academic Marxist and the entire institutionalization of literary studies. In the book, 'Literary Theory' Eagleton argues that there is a need of rhetorical criticism which will deal with the 'how' and 'why' of the effects of a literary work. This is but his call for linking the value of literature to the needs of cultural politics. In the words of Mr. Raina, it is "a step in the right direction". (Raina : 2002,75 ).

-59- t t In his book'the Illusions of Pbst Modernism' Eagleton argues for hierarchy as against elitism. He looks upon hierarchy as an inescapable ordering of priorities. 5) Antonio Gramsci:.. Antonio Gramsci was an Italian communist thinker. During the period 1929-1935, he was impressed by the Fascist government. While in prison, he wrote books on political, social and cultural subjects. These documents are known as 'Prison notebooks'. Gramsci shows his agreement with the original Marxist distinction between the economic base and the culture superstructure. However, he doesn t accept the older notion that culture is a disguised reflection of the material base. Instead, he says that the relationship between 'culture' and the material base is a reciprocal one or it has interactive influence. He gives special stress on the popular. It includes folklore, popular music and cinema. He takes for granted the popular as opposed to the elite elements of culture. Gramsci's concept of hegemony: Now-a-days, Gramsci is mostly remembered for his concept of hegemony. He believes that a social class achieves a predominant influence and power not by direct and overt means. On the contrary, this class makes itself successful in spreading widely its ideological view of society as a result of which the subordinated classes accept and participate in their own oppression without thinking over it too much. Gramsci's view of hegemony has been made much simpler by the project students. They argue: In a way, Gramsci's notion of hegemony is a continuation of the concepts behind ideology. Hegemony is a sort of deception in which the individual forgets his own desires and accepts dominant values as their own. For example, someone might think that going to college is. the right and necessary step in every life, when in reality their belief is socially constructed. Literature, then, may be seen as something that both reinforce dominant values and occasionally calls them into question. For example, nineteenth century women writers of sentimental fiction 'used certain narrative conventions merely to reinforce dominant values, whereas a writer like Jane Austen used many of the same conventions to undermine the same dominant values. (PMC : 1993,2 ) i

-60-6) Mikhail Bakhtin; Mikhail Bakhtin is called as an exponent of'post-1925 Formalism'. ( Raina : 2002, 75 ). In contrast to the structuralist emphasis on 'langue', Bakhtin emphasizes the 'parole' of language. He breaks the language of a literary narrative down into different types of utterances. He believes that each of these utterances is more or less a form of dialogue. Bakhtin looks at language as a material medium of social intervention. He takes the 'word' as a two-sided act. For him, 'dialogue' is the basic unit of language. Here, the concept 'dialogue' doesn't include an individual speech or the components of sentences. He looks upon literature as a distinct 'form' of ideology, reflecting another ideology, which in turn reflects reality. In a sense, for Bakhtin, literature is a 'staggered' reflection of reality. Bakhtin's view of literature is made clear by David Forgacs as follows : "It is not so much what the work reflects, either about the author or the objective shape of the world, that matters for Bakhtin, but what the work is as a practice in language". (Jefferson & Robey (ed.): 1982, 165 ). Bakhtin further argues that the language of a literary work can involve us in the subverting of stability, authority and convention. It brings literature a social significance. Bakhtin analyses the literature of Dostoevsky and Rabelais. While analyzing their works, he gives preference for "polyphony' and 'heterogeneity' as values to be admired. He gives more importance to the celebration of the body rather than the spirit. In this regard, the example of carnival is fit here. In his views of literature, Bakhtin stresses 'the materialism of production' as well as 'the materialism of consumption'. In his opinion, changes in the effects and functions which it is possible to attribute to a text do not 'just happen' but these changes are a product of the concrete ideological and political determinations which, through the mediations of criticism, operate on the text so as to condition its consumption. Such a theoiy is important for us because it implies the historical nature of literary value and its link with socio-political determinations. 7) Walter Benjamin : Walter Benjamin regarded art as a form of social production. In his opinion, art is first of all a social practice rather than an object to be academically dissected. We look upon literature as a text. We can also look upon it as a social activity. Literature is a form of social and economic production which exists alongside and is interrelated with other such forms. We come across this view of Benjamin expressed in his essay 'The Author as producer'. In this essay Benjamin asks a question concerned with a literary work. What is the position and place of literary work within the

-61-- / relations of production of its time? Here, by asking this question Benjamin implies that art like any other form of production depends upon certain techniques of production i.e. certain modes of painting, publishing, theatrical presentation etc. Ahead to this, he argues that these techniques are part of the productive forces of art, the stage of development of artistic production. They involve a set of social relations between the artistic producer and his audience. The exponents of Matxism believe that the stage of development of a mode of production involves certain'social relations of production. This stage is set for revolution when productive forces and productive relations enter into contradiction with each other. The Marxist critic, Terry Eagleton, analyses and explains this view of Benjamin by giving one example as follows: The social relations of feudalism, for example, become an obstacle to capitalism s development of the productive forces, and are burst asunder by it; the social relations of capitalism in turn impede the full development and proper distribution, of the wealth of industrial society, and will be destroyed by socialism. (Eagleton : 1983, 61 ) ' Benjamin applies the above theory to art. He argues that the revolutionary artist should not uncritically accept the existing forces of artistic production but he should develop and revolutionize those forces. While the artist follows this at that time he creates new social relations between artist and audience. He overcomes the contradiction which limits artistic forces potentially available to everyone to the private property of a few, e.g. cinema, radio, photography, musical recording. In Benjamin's opinion the work of the revolutionary artist is to develop these new media. While doing this the artist should transform the older modes of artistic production as well. This does not mean to send a revolutionary message through existing media but it means to revolutionize the media themselves. For example, for Benjamin, the newspaper dissolves conventional separations between literary genres, between writer and poet, scholar and popularizer, even between author and reader. He further says that gramophone records, cinema, photography etc. are changing traditional modes of perception, traditional techniques and relations of artistic production. For him, the truly revolutionary artist is never concerned with the art object alone but he is also concerned with the means of its production. In short, the artist reconstructs the artistic forms at his disposal by turning authors, readers and spectators into collaborations. Mr. M.H. Abrams elucidates the Marxist criticism of Benjamin in relation to the work of art as follows: 4

-62- Benjamin proposes that modem technical innovations such as photography, the phonograph, the radio, and especially the cinema, have transformed the very concept and status of a work of art. Formerly an artist or author produced a work which was a single object, regarded as the special preserve of the bourgeois elite, around which developed a quasi-religious "aura" of uniqueness, autonomy and aesthetic value independent of any social function - an aura which invited in the spectator a passive attitude of absorbed contemplation in the object itself The new media not only make possible the infinite and precise reproducibility of the object of art, but effects the production of works, which like motion pictures, are specifically designed to Fe reproduced in multiple copies. Such modes of art, Benjamin argues, by destroying the mystique of the unique work of art as a subject for pure contemplation, make possible a radical role for works of art by opening the way to "the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art. ( Abrams : 1999, 150 ). 8) Bertolt Brecht: Bertolt Brecht was a German Marxist critic. He was a close friend of, Walter Benjamin and like Benjamin, he also believed that art is a form of social production which is grouped as a fact which closely determines the nature of art itself. Like Benjamin, he didn't regard art as an object discussed for academic purpose but he took art, at first, as a social practice. Brecht launched the theory of experimental theatre. This theory is known as the theory of 'epic theatre'. Benjamin took this model of 'epic theatre' for changing not only the political content of art but its very productive apparatus. Brecht altered the functional relations between stage and audience, text and producer, producer and actor. He pointed out the illusion of reality in the traditional materialistic theatre. He also produced a new kind of drama which was based on the critical theory of the ideological assumptions of bourgeois theatre. Brecht's view of 'alienation effect' is an - important part of this critical theory.

-63- In the opinion of Brecht bourgeois theatre is based on illusionism. It assumes that the dramatic performance should directly reproduce the world. The aim of bourgeois theatre is to draw an audience, by the power of this illusion of reality, to take it as real and get impressed by it. He further argues that the audience in bourgeois theatre is the passive consumer of a finished, unchangeable art- object presented before them as 'real'. The drama doesn t make them to think, in a constructive manner, how it presents its characteristics and events or how they might have been different. The reasons for this, in the words of Terry Eagleton is that "the dramatic illusion is a seamless whole which conceals the fact that it is constructed, it prevents an audience from reflecting critically on both the mode of representation and the actions represented." (Eagleton : 1983, 64) Behind this aesthetic, Brecht found one ideological belief. This belief was - the world was fixed and unchangeable and the function of the theatre was to give escapist entertainment for the audience who are caught up in that assumption. He gave view against it. This view is "reality is a changing, discontinuous process, produced by men and so transformable by them." ( Eagleton : 1983, 65 ). In Brecht's opinion, the work of theatre is not to 'reflect' a fixed, reality but to show how character and action are historically produced. The theatre should also display how character and action would have been different or how still they can be different. Thus, the play itself becomes a model of that process of production. It is less a reflection of social reality than a reflection on social reality. Here, the play doesn t appear as a seamless whole suggesting that entire action is fixed from the outset. Instead, it (the play) presents itself as discontinuous, openended, internally contradictory, developing 'a complex' seeing 'in the audience' which is alert to several conflicting possibilities at any particular point. The actors are not made to identify with their roles. Instead, they are made to go away from these roles. The purpose of doing it is to make clear that they are actors in a theatre rather than individuals in real life. In the words of Eagleton, the Brechtian actor "communicates a critical reflection on it in the act of performance." ( Eagleton :1983, 65 ). For Brecht, the play is formally uneven, interrupted and discontinuous. It juxtaposes its scenes in ways, which disrupt conventional expectations and force the audience into critical speculation on the dialectical relations between the episodes. In this way, the play doesn t merely form an organic unity by carrying the audience hypnotically through from beginning to end. It disrupts organic unity. The use of different art forms - film, back-projection, and song choreography disrupts this organic unity. Thus, the audience is constrained into a multiple awareness of several conflicting modes of representation. These are but alienation effects. The results of these effects are to alienate the audience from the performance. It I

-64- prevents the audience from emotionally identifying with the play in a way which paralyses its powers of critical judgement. In short, the 'alienation effect' shows familiar experience in an unfamiliar light. It forces the audience to question attitudes and-behaviour which it regards as natural. It is opposite to the bourgeois theatre. The bourgeois theatre naturalizes the most unfamiliar events. It does so for the audience's undisturbed consumption. When the audience passes judgements on the performance and the action, it becomes an expert collaborator in an open-ended practice rather than becoming the consumer of a finished object. Brecht takes the play as an experiment which tests its own presuppositions by feedback from the effects of performance. He further argues that the play is incomplete in itself and it becomes complete only after it is received by the audience. Thus, the theatre becomes no more a breeding ground of fantasy. It comes to resemble a cross between a laboratory, circus, music hall, sports arena and public discussion hall. In the words of Eagleton. "It is a scientific theatre appropriate to a scientific age." (Eagleton :1983, 66). However, Brecht stressed the need for. an audience to enjoy itself, the need to respond with sensuousness and humour. He further opined that the audience must think above the action. He must think of it (action) critically. But while - doing this, the emotional response should not be neglected. The thoughts must express feelings and feelings must express thoughts. Brecht's 'epic theatre' theory is a theory of revolutionary art which transforms the modes, rather than merely the contents, of artistic production. Mr. L. Abercrombie has analyzed Brecht's theory of literature as follows: Bertolt Brecht rejected what he called the \Aristotelian' concept that a tragic play is an imitation of reality with a unified plot and a universal theme which establishes an identification of the audience with the hero and produces a catharsis of the spectator's emotions. Brecht proposed instead that the illusion of reality should be deliberately shattered by an episodic plot, by protagonists who do not attract the audience's sympathy, by a striking theatricality in staging and acting, and by other ways of baring the artifice of drama so as to produce an "alienation effect". The result of such alienation will be to jar audience out of their passive acceptance of

-65- modern capitalist society as a* natural way of life, into an attitude not only (as in Adorno) of critical understanding of capitalist shortcomings, but of active engagement with the forces of change, (Abrams: 1999, 150). 9) Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels : Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels are well-known all over the world for their political and economic writings. However, it does not mean that they did not express any views on literature. In the words of Terry Eagleton, " The writings of Karl Marx... are laced with literary concepts and allusions." (Eagleton :''1983, 1). Marx himself had composed lyrical poetiy in his period of youth. He also wrote a fragment of versedrama. He was influenced by the 18th century English novelist Laurence Sterne, under whose influence he attempted one incomplete comic novel. He wrote one manuscript on art and religion. He had also decided to work out a journal of dramatic criticism. He studied the French writer Balzac in detail. He also published one thesis of Aesthetics. Art and Literature were subjects of close concern for Marx like his political and economic writings. He had a close contact with literature. He studied literature from the days of Sophocles to the period of the Spanish novel. At Brussels, he had formed one circle of German workers which would come together once in a week for discussing arts. Besides these things, Marx was also an ardent theatrevisitor, an enthusiastic reader of eveiy form of literary art from Augustan prose to industrial ballads. In a letter written to Engels, he called his own writing as a work, which is an artistic whole. ( Eagleton : 1983, 1 ). He was very sensitive to questions of literary style. In his early articles on journalism, we come across his argument on freedom of artistic expression. Alongwith his economic & political views, simultaneously he refers to aesthetic concepts as well. The comments of Marx and Engels on art and literature are scattered in fragments. Most of their comments are in allusions rather than developed positions. In this regard, Terry Eagleton remarks : This is one reason why Marxist criticism involves more than merely restating cases set out by the founders of Marxism. It also involves more than what has become known in the West as the sociology of literature'. 'The sociology of literature concerns itself chiefly with what might be called the means of.lajva,1' 0.

-66- literary production, distribution and exchange in a particular society - how books are published, the social composition of their authors and audiences, levels of literacy, the social determinants of'taste'. It also examines literary texts for their 1sociological' relevance, raiding literary works to abstract from them themes of interest to the social historian. There has been some excellent work in this field and it forms one aspect of Marxist criticism as a whole; but taken by itself it is neither particularly Marxist nor particularly critical. It is, indeed, for the most part a suitably tamed, degutted version of Marxist criticism, appropriate for Western consumption. (Eagleton : 1983,2-3 ). Ahead to this remark, Eagleton expresses his view that Marxist criticism is not merely 'a sociology of literature' concerned with how novels get published and whether they mention,the working class. In his opinion, the aim of Marxist criticism is to explain fully the literary work and this means a sensitive attention to its form, styles and meanings. It also means grasping those forms, styles and meanings as the products of a particular history. Many thinkers before Marx had tried to account for literary works in terms of history which produced those literary works. In this sense, one German idealist philosopher G.W.F. Hegel has left a deep influence on the aesthetic view of Marx. In a sense, the originality of Marxist criticism lies not in its historical approach to literature, but in its revolutionary understanding of history itself. In one of the famous passages in the book 'The German Ideology' Karl Marx and Engels throw light on the needs of revolutionary understanding of history as follows : The production of ideas, concepts and consciousness is first of all directly interwoven with the material intercourse of man, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the spiritual intercourse of men, appears here as the direct efflux of men's material behaviour,----------------------- we do not proceed from what. men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as described, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at corporeal man; rather we proceed from the really active man -

-67- -----------Consciousness does not determine life : life determines consciousness.(eagleton: 1983,4). A clearer meaning of this has been given by Marx and Engels in the Treface to A Contribution to the Critique Political Economy' as follows : In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, I ' relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. (Eagleton : 1983,4) In short, according to Marx, the social relations between men are bound up with the way they produce their material life. For example, the productive forces like organization of labour in the middle ages - contain within them the social relations of feudal serfs to lord and we call it as feudalism. In the next stage, the development of new modes of production organization is based on a changed set of social relations between the capitalist class (the owners of means of production) and the proletarian class (whose labour power the capitalist buys for profit). In the opinion of Marx, these 'forces' and 'relations' of production form 1the economic structure of society' or 'the economic base' or 'infrastructure'. From this economic base, the emergence of'superstructure' takes place in every period. Here, the term 'superstructure' means certain forms of law and politics, a certain kind of state. The essential function of this superstructure is to bring legitimacy and righteousness to the power of social class which is the owner of the means of economic production. The superstructure also consists of certain definite forms of social consciousness which are political, religious, ethical, aesthetic etc. Marxist philosophy labels it as 'ideology'. Marx further argues that the function of ideology also is to bring legitimacy to the power 4

-68- of the ruling class in society. He takes the dominant ideas of a society as the ideas of its ruling class. For Marxist philosophy, 'art is the part of superstructure of society'. It i the part of a society's ideology. Here, 'ideology' is an element in that complex structure of social perception which believes that the situation in which one social class has power over the others, is either not seen by the members of the society or seen as 'natural'. Hence, in order to understand literature, we have to understand the total social process, of which that literature is a part. This view of Marx has been supported by the Russian Marxist critic George Plekhanov when he argues that the social mentality of an age is conditioned by the social relations of that age. He further says that we can observe this clearly in the history of art and literature. Terry Eagleton expands this view when he opines that literary works are forms of perception. They are particular ways of seeing the world. These literary works have a relation to that dominant way of seeing the world which is the social mentality or ideology of an age. Eagleton further argues: That ideology in turn, is the product of the concrete social relations into which men enter at a particular time and place; it is the way those class-relations are experienced, legitimized and perpetuated. Moreover, men are not free to choose their social relations; they are constrained into them by material necessity - by the nature and stage of development of their mode of economic production. (Eagleton:19S3,6) While talking of arts in relation to society, Marx and Engels closely followed materialism. In order to understand the changing nature of art, they found that the philosophy of historical materialism was very essential. Marx believed that until and unless we understand clearly the nature of materialistic method (system) of production during a particular historical. period, then it is not possible for us to analyze and understand clearly the work of intellectual creativity during that historical period. This is a basic argument of Marx about the relationship between art and society. Ahead to this, Marx also argued that the forces of production generally shape our social, political and intellectual life. Like Marx, Engels also pointed out that the history of literature is concerned with the history of society'or with the economic development of society. In this regard, he quoted the examples of the European countries like France and Germany. Engels further opined that the economic development is the basis of the development of politics, judiciary, philosophy, religion, art and literature. He also propagated that