[the] ENGLISH-BLOG [.com]

Kristin Brittain

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

3/24/2009

Marxist Short Answer Questions

1. For Marxist what is the motive behind all social and political activities?
A. Getting and keeping economic power is behind every motive because economics is the base of every superstructure on which social and political ideological realities are built on (54).

2. How is a commodity’s value differ between capitalism and Marxism?
A. For Marxism, a commodity’s value lies in its exchange value, what it can be traded for, and not its use value, what it can do, like capitalism.

Liz H

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

March 24, 2009

Reading/Discussion Questions

1. According to Tyson, what does Marxism say about the American dream?

The American dream is an ideology, not a real way of seeing the world and that is why it is so difficult to obtain (54).

2. What does “colonize the consciousness of subordinate peoples” mean (Tyson 60)?

To colonize the consciousness of subordinate peoples means to convince them that they are indeed lesser or inferior to the dominate culture or class in some way, and they will be better off following the rules set by the dominant culture.
Discussion

Do you see an attempt by any of our authors to reinforce a class system within the text of a novel?

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 340
3/24/09

Marxist Criticism

Short Answer Question: (p. 54)

Q: What is the base on which social, political, and ideological ideas stem off from?

A: Economics

Discussion Question: (p. 53)

Q: Why is it not important to the validity of Marxist criticism that the Communist Bloc in Europe failed?

A: In history, there has never been a true Marxist society. Even if the societies with Marxist tendencies were true and did fail, the theory would still be important to help one understand the past.

Travis R
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
24 March 2009

Marxism Quiz Questions

Q: What is meant by the term ideology? (Tyson 56)
A: An ideology is a belief system defined by (shaped) by cultural conditioning.

Q: “What is the ideology that blinds the middle class to the socioeconomic inequities in contemporary America?” (Tyson 57)
A: The American Dream

According to Tyson, what is the problem that some students have initially when dealing with Marxist criticism? They think the failure of Communism is proves the defunctness of the criticism.

What does Tyson cite as the reason for the failure for the "homeless" to rise up and shift culture? They are barely surviving with no time to cause social change.

Ava Littlefield
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
25 March 2009
Reading Check Questions on Marxist Criticism
1.Why do Marxists refer to socioeconomics instead of economic class when they are discussing class structure?
A.Economics is the base on which the superstructure of social/political ideological realities are built.
2.What are Marxists referring to when they use the word material circumstances?
A.They are referring to economic circumstances.
3.What do Marxists analyses of human events and productions focus on?
A.They focus on the relationships that exist within socioeconomic classes.
4.Describe the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes?
A.Bourgeoisie is the class that controls the world’s natural, economic, and human resources. The proletariat is the class who live in substandard conditions, perform manual labor, and have very little control over resources.

Ava Littlefield
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
28 March 2009
Meeting in the Middle
G.W.F. Hegel’s 1816 essay on “Dialectics” explains the way society continues to compromise on issues that are not universally accepted. Hegel invented the process of taking the particulars of a designated issue including politics, law, art, and history, and adapting those particulars to make it universal. Marx adopted Hegel’s method and applied it to economic history and the structure of a capitalist economy (Hegel 647). Hegel’s concept is based on the idea that any and all attempts to reach a universal acceptance are completely dependent upon the two opposites attempting to negate each other in order to find a happy medium. The idea is that unity requires the constant opposition of two negatives in order to achieve a universal. Hegel addresses the fact that there is always something negative to find in the positive and always something positive to find in the negative. This back and forth tug-of-war results in the constant movement forward to find a universally accepted idea. Hegel states that “all opposition that are assumed fixed such as infinite and finite and universal and individual are not in contradiction with each other” (Hegel 647). What they do instead is re-invent an idea that eventually is torn down to allow room for recreation of the idea. The new idea is a meshing of the two original oppositions that attempted to negate each other. The first opposition is contained within the second opposition and results in the third idea being comprised of both. The third idea is met with opposition and results in a new idea that is dependent upon the original opposition. It is a system of breakdown and building that requires ideas to oppose each other in order to form a new idea. The first and second ideas of opposition are retained in the third idea and so on. Hegel states that the “relationship of the negative to itself is to be regarded as the second premiss of the whole syllogism, just as the first premiss is the moment of universality and communication”, so the second is determined by the first (Hegel 649). This pattern of negatives opposing each other results in a new idea which encompasses a portion of both negatives. The new idea is the universally accepted one until a new opposition is proposed, resulting in the re-evaluation of the idea. This concept continues to repeat itself until a true universally accepted idea can be achieved. In all likeliness this approach is impossible because there is always a negative waiting to oppose the idea.

Works Cited
Hegel, G.W.F. “Dialectics.” 1816. Literary Theory: An Anthology 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1998.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
March 29, 2009
Human Commodities and Labor
Karl Marx’ essay, “Wage Labor and Capital,” details what constitutes wage labor and capital. Although he approaches these two topics, separately both seem to have a unified goal. Obviously, this essay seems intent upon proving the inherent inequality arising from the ideals of wage labor and capital. Also, he illuminates how these two aspects of the communist system commodify workers.
Marx sets up initially what is meant by the term “wages.” Basically, he is referencing the common notion that wages are the payment for one’s production of a thing. For Marx, the problem of this definition is that workers neglect the fact that they have a power. This he terms “labor power” (Marx 659). This definition, the power of a worker to produce a good, labor, produces the notion of a commodified worker. If she produces something with her own power, she is a tool of labor. After this, Marx makes another important point. He sets out to show that inequality is in the technique by which the worker is paid; the worker is not even paid with money gathered from the selling of the workers product. In fact, the wage of the worker comes from monetary reserves from the capitalist employer.
One might ask, why does the employee work if he is getting ripped off? Karl Marx’ response, the worker is trying to live. But, to further illustrate the inequity of wage labor, under capitalism, the worker is forced to use his time for work simply so he can subsist. The employer simply rides the coat tails of the worker. He exploits the employee without wasting any time to produce things.
Ultimately, Marx finishes his article on the notion that within the capitalist system, a place in which labor becomes commodified to the point of a worker actually being a thing, inequality is supported. As commodities and their production become the centrally important aspect of capitalism, there is no room for human importance. ‘Things’ become the northern most aspect of the western metaphysical grid. People are simply not important if the consumption and maintenance of monetary gain is the penultimate reason for capitalism.

Work Cited
Marx, Karl. “Wage Labor and Capital.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 659-664.

Travis R
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
29 March 2009

Forms of Ownership: The German Ideology

In Karl Marx’s socioeconomic essay, “The German Ideology,” he succinctly delves into different aspects of ownership and successfully composes a history of labor. Marx begins by stating that humans distinguish themselves from animals when they begin producing their own means of existence, and it is not only what they produce but how they produce it that defines their mode of life. Different stages in the division of labor determine individuals’ interactions with one another and are dependent upon the material, instrument, and product of labor.

The first form of ownership is found in tribal societies. The main mode of existence for people in this form is fishing, hunting, or agriculture, and the division of labor is rudimentary and confined to members of the family: Paternal, fatherly figures are at the top of the familial division of labor and are followed by members of the tribe and finally slaves (collected either through conflict or trade). The second form of ownership is communal and State ownership, which is birthed out of the union of multiple tribes into a city-state. This form is accompanied by slaves and the development of private property slightly removed from communal ownership. In addition, citizens had control of their slaves only in their community and were thus bound to communal ownership. Finally, the third form of ownership is found in feudal or estate property. This form of ownership, like the second, is one based on community. However, instead of slaves, enserfed small peasantry is the producing class. The hierarchical structure of landownership is also a product of this form and gives the nobility power over the serfs.

Work Cited
Marx, Karl. "The German Ideology." 1846. Literary Theory: An Anthology, 2nd Ed.
Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 653 - 658.

Cecilia B
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
30th March 2009
Précis on Karl Marx’s “Capital”
From this brief section on Marx’s critique of economic systems, a discussion on commodities and the fetish that accompanies them is revealed in “Capital.” As Marx explains it, commodities or “objects outside us that by their properties satisfy human want” (665) are mistakenly believed by society to be producers of wealth. Consequently, society does fetishize these objects that are appealing, and thus overlook the true relations of production that “give rise to those objects” (665). Marx cautions that the way the economy operates is the opposite of how society views it. For example, a commodity such as iron possesses a “use-value” and an “exchange-value” or quality and quantity, respectively (666). Using the exchange-value, Marx argues that “an hundred pounds of iron is as of great value as an hundred pounds of gold,” but the use-values are different since their worth is determined by their individual utility for society (667). As a result, the same occurs with human labor and the fetishism of commodities. “Labor,” Marx contends, “has taken on the form of commodities” (667) and therein lies the false system of value that has been ascribed to each individual. Essentially, Marx insists that the social-exchange between people has been governed by their fascination with objects, and therefore, abstract human labor has been reduced to the same. However, as Marx believes, labor should be looked at as a social function which operates to support a community rather than exclusive individuals who create personal standards of value.
Work Cited
Marx, Karl. “Capital.” 1867. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and
Michael Ryan. New York: Blackwell Pub., 1998. 665-672.

Liz H

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

March 29, 2009

Précis of “Rabelais and His Word”

In Mikhail Bakhtin’s article, “Rabelais and His Word” (1965), Bakhtin studies the event known as Carnival, or a feast day for the masses where normal rules of society are suspended and behavior like drunkenness is encouraged.

Carnival comes from the Middle Ages where the Church dictated the lives of its followers. Bakhtin delves into the root meaning of the word carnival and he emphasizes the fact that it means “second life” (686) or a departure from normal or ordinary behaviors and where laughter ensued.
Bakhtin explains Carnival’s Marxist leanings when he explains the structure of such an event. Everyone had to dress according to his or her station in life. Bakhtin explains that the costumes allowed “a consecration of inequality” (686). Bakhtin further examines Carnival from a Renaissance author, Rabelais’ perspective. Rabelais explains the scientific and philosophical groundings of Carnival. For Rabelais, Carnival is a time where “form and symbols” abound (687). Carnival is a rich, vibrant festival where color and other symbols become ways for people to express themselves. A term that helps to explain why Carnival was so popular for the people of the Renaissance is “grotesque realism” or rather, “the folk culture…differs sharply from the aesthetic concepts” of the prevalent age (687). Furthermore, to Bakhtin, the “essential principle of grotesque realism is degradation, that is, the lowering of all that is high, spiritual, ideal, abstract” (688). When this degradation occurs in Carnival, it offers the masses a chance to shed their old ways of life and bad habits when the festival ends. It is a ritualistic way to purge oneself of less than stellar impulses and habits.

Essential for the Renaissance author Rabelais’ depiction of Carnival is his explanation of how the marketplace is the center for life. In the marketplace, people were able to be true to their nature. For Rabelais, a different kind of speech was heard here, too (689). This speech is unrefined and sometimes grotesque; the Church’s walls and rules do not shelter it. Rabelais, Bakhtin notes, also emphasizes scatological details within his work because it is a topic that would be so disdainful to the world of the Church and ruling powers, but it is necessary because it is realistic and true to everyday life.

Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail. "Rabelais and His Word." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie
Rivkin and Michael Ryan. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 686-92.

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
30 March 2009
Ideologies: Materialistic or Real?
In 1968, Louis Altheusser wrote a ground breaking essay in the field of Marxism entitled “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”. In this essay he discusses the state of ideologies by exploring its structure and its societal and personal functions. It is through this examination that he is able to come to the conclusion of two different theses concerning the state of one ideology.
The first thesis argues the concept that an ideology is a representation of an imaginary form. It is the representation of a shared outlook of a specific idea; one example being religion and the belief in God. These commonly accepted outlooks are imaginary and do not correspond to reality; however, Althusser states that the imaginary ideology can be used to interpret a world’s reality because it is an “imaginary representation” of a real world belief (693). Althusser applies this to Marxism by explaining that the ideology represents the imaginary relationship people form to the relations of production and the relationships that are produced from it.
The second thesis presented by Althusser is “ideology has a material existence” (695). One might wonder how this can be because the typical idea of something material is an item that can be held such as a brick. However, there are different modalities to existence and this is what the material existence of an ideology is. The best explanation to this thesis is through the example of religion and one’s belief in God. If one has a close relationship to the ideology of God and faith then it will be exemplified through their way of life. This person would practice and demonstrate their belief. It is through the practice of their belief that the material existence of the religious ideology can be found.

Work Cited
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 693-702.

Kristin Brittain
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
3/27/2009
Précis of “For a Theory of Literary Production”
“For a Theory of Literary Production” written by Pierre Macherey provided insight into the meaning of texts. Macherey supposed that criticism begins with an incompletion of speech within the work. The speech within a work comes from what the text does not say but still proclaims. “The book is not self-sufficient; it is primarily accompanied by a certain absence, without which it would not exist” (705). Macherey utilized Freud’s concept of the “absence of words” and the unconscious (705). “Speech eventually has nothing more to tell us: we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking” (705).
Due to the absence of speech questions arise. Macherey cites Nietzsche “Hinterfrage” questions and view the question as an “interrogation” that breaks through the text’s diversion and hiding techniques (706). “The work is revealed to itself and to others on two different levels: it makes visible, and it makes invisible. Not because something has to be hidden in order to show something else; but because attention is diverted from the very thing which is shown” (706-707).
Critics dissect the text by asking questions and the form of the text “takes or changes shape” by different ideas. The new ideas proposed by critics changes the “path of ideological history” (709). According to Marx “the ideological is the economic in another form” and ideological history is present in the work (709). The ideological history influences the work and provides its position. “This history, […] entirely determines the work: gives this work its reality, but also what which it is not” (710).
Work Cited
Macherey, Pierre. “For a Theory of Literary Production.” Literary Theory: An Anthology 2nd Ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998.
703-711.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
3/28/09

Précis of Discourse in the Novel

Mikhail Yachting wrote an article, Discourse in the Novel, which states that literary discourse is constructed together from different sources. Further, he created a theory which states that all words exist in dialogue with other words. Composed of literary language, Yachting defines novels as a diversity of social speech types which are artistically organized.

Both spoken and written, literary language is formed by social life and historical settings. Language is further split into genres. Thus, language is classified into different categories such as oratorical, newspaper, journalistic, etc. In different situations, different types of language are used. Language is constructed through social situations where verbs like slogan words, curse words, and praise words are formed. Each generation at each social level creates their own language. Yachting further states that language is a living, socio-ideological concrete thing which represents the ideologies of culture.

Prose writers and Novelists take these different languages and use them to construct their stories. The basic condition that makes a novel a novel is the speaking person and his discourse. In comic novels, comic discourse from all different styles of language is used. Further, in novels, one finds hybrid construction of language where utterances belong to a single speaker but contains two separate speech styles. Additionally, one will find pseudo-objective motivation which is a form for concealing another’s speech. Discourse, from which novels are constructed, can be split into both authoritative discourse and internally persuasive discourse. Yachting concludes his article with ending that the semantic structure of language is not finite but an open dialogue that can continually change.

Works Cited
Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel”. 1934-35. 1900. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 674-685.