State few assumptions of Feminist Literary Theory?

Ans:  

Feminist literary theory is a complex, dynamic area of study that draws from a wide range of critical theories, including psychoanalysis, Marxism, cultural materialism, anthropology, and structuralism.

Although feminist literary theory is often described simply as the use of feminist principles and techniques to analyze the textual constructions of gendered meaning, feminists’ definitions of gender and of feminism have undergone a number of significant alterations since the early 1970s. By adopting already existing feminist insights and applying them in new ways, literary theorists transform them, thus creating an increasingly diversified field of study.

Grew out of women’s movement following WW II, this approach analyzes the representation of women in literature. Though the projects of individual critics differ, there is general agreement that interpretation of literature involves critique of patriarchy. Patriarchy = ideology that privileges masculine ways of thinking/points of view and marginalizes women politically, economically and psychologically.
For some (French influence), project of interpretation is to expose patriarchal nature of language itself. This involves usage that denigrates or ignores women. It also includes the deeper view that a masculine style of language has suppressed a feminine one. Women need to assert a feminine language. What would this be like? Some have argued that it would be more fluid, less straightforward and logical, more perceptual, open to ongoing semiosis (For what this may look like, read Virginia Woolf’s short story “The Mark on the Wall.”)
Some authors (American) explore texts in detail, demonstrating patriarchical patterns, or the complex response of women writers to their own authorial status.
Some explore challenges to a literary canon that is so dominated by men. This means the insertion of ignored female writers (e.g. Kate Chopin, Charlotte Perkins Gilman) into the canon. It also entails the study of a literary tradition of women writers.

In the sense that this criticism often explores less what the text overtly says but what it hides (e.g. unquestioning attitude toward ideologically entrenched ideas about women) this criticism counts as an example of a “hermeneutics of suspicion.”

Despite this diversity, most feminist literary theorists share several assumptions. To begin with, they generally agree that hierarchically ordered male-female gender relations impact all aspects of human social existence, including apparently ungendered categories of thought, by establishing a series of binarisms–such as active/passive, presence/absence, and universal/particular–in which the “femininized” term occupies the devalued place.

Because literary representations have concrete, material effects on people’s lives, these nonsymmetrical male-female binaries both illustrate and reinforce the oppression of real-life women. Like feminism, which critically analyzes and attempts to transform contemporary social systems, feminist literary theory entails a twofold movement encompassing both the critique of already existing sociolinguistic structures and the invention of alternative models of reading and writing.

In its earliest phases, this double movement focused almost exclusively on female-gendered issues; however, the increased participation of feminists of color, coupled with the rise in gender studies during the early 1980s, has expanded feminism’s field of study considerably.

Discuss Marxism as a political theory and briefly outline its basic principles.

Ans: “Marxism” is a perspective that involves a number of differing “sub-perspectives” (that is, whilst there tends to be a general agreement about the need to construct a critique of Capitalist society, there are major disagreements between writers working within this perspective). keeping this in mind, we can summarise some of the main Marxist ideas in the following terms:

1. Marxism emphasises the idea that social life is based upon “conflicts of interest”. The most fundamental and important of theses conflicts is that between the Bourgeoisie (those who own and control the means of production in society) and the Proletariat (those who simply sell their labour power in the market place of Capitalism).

2. Unlike the Functionalist version of Structuralist sociology, the concept of social class is more than a descriptive category; social class is used to explain how and why societies change. Class conflict represents a process whereby change comes about through the opposition of social classes as they pursue what they see to be their (different and opposed) collective interests in society.

3. Marxism is a political theory who’s main concern is twofold:

a. To expose the political and economic contradictions inherent in Capitalism (for example, the fact that while people co-operate to produce goods, a Capitalist class appropriates these goods for its private profit).

b. To point the way towards the establishment of a future Communist society.

4. Fundamentally, there are considered to be two great classes in Capitalist society (the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat). However, at any given moment a number of class fractions will exist (that is, subdivisions of each main class). For example, the Bourgeoisie might be subdivided into: •

The Haute (High)

Bourgeoisie (owners of large companies), •

The Petit (Small) Bourgeoisie (owners of small businesses) and •

The Professions (people who, while not owners of the means of production, help to control the day-to-day running of industries).

5. Marx characterised human history in terms of the way in which ownership of the means of production was the most important single variable involved in the characterisation of each distinct period (or epoch) in history. He identified five major epochs: a. Primitive communism – characteristic of early human history where people held everything in common. b. The Ancient epoch (slave society) – societies based upon slavery where the means of production was owned and controlled by an aristocratic elite. c. Feudal society – where land was the most important means of production. This was owned / controlled by an aristocratic class, the majority of people belonging to a peasant class (who had few, if any, political rights). d. Capitalist society – where technological development (machinery etc.) has allowed a bourgeois class to exploit factory forms of production for their private gain. The aristocracy (landowners) have either been marginalized or co-opted into the Bourgeoisie whilst the majority of people are wage-labourers (they own little or no capital). The main relations of production in this epoch are between employers and employees (those who own and use capital and those who exchange their labour power for a wage). An employer does not own his / her employee in this society and various political freedoms and equalities are able to develop. e. Communist society – where the means of production are held “in common” for the benefit of everyone in society (the dictatorship of the Proletariat). In this society class conflict is finally resolved and this represents the “end of history” since no further form of society can ever develop…

6. Marxists tend to divide Capitalist society into two related “spheres of influence”: a. The economic base (or infrastructure) and b. The political and ideological superstructure. Those whose own and control the means of production (the economic infrastructure) are powerful in that society (because they are able to use wealth to enhance and expand their power). However, this economically powerful class has to translate this power into political power (control over the State, machinery of government and so forth) and ideological power (control over how people think about the nature of the social world, capitalist society and so forth).

 7. Marxists use the concept of hegemony (in basic terms, “leadership with the consent of the led”) to express this relationship. According to a Marxist such as Althusser there are two ways in which a ruling class can consolidate its hegemony over other classes: a. Through the use of force (the police and army, for example). Althusser called these “Repressive State Apparatuses” (RSA’s) b. Through the use of ideology / socialisation (the mass media, social workers, teachers and the like – a form of “soft policing”) Althusser called these “Ideological State Apparatuses” (ISA’s). In Capitalist society, hegemonic control will always be a mixture of the above, but in Capitalist democracies the latter will be most important since a ruling class seeks to control and exploit the Proletariat by trying to convince them that this society is the best of all possible worlds…

8. Marxist theory emphasises the total critique of Capitalist society; in order to understand the way things appear we have to understand how social life is produced through a combination of economic, political and ideological conflicts.

9. Individuals are not the focal point of Marxist theories (Marxists are mainly concerned with understanding social structures); “individuals” are only significant when they act together as a class. That is, when people develop a consciousness of themselves as belonging to a particular social class (a “class in itself”) and act upon that awareness to produce social change (a “class for itself”).

10. Some Marxists use the concept of false consciousness to explain how the Proletariat is co-opted by a ruling class into the values of Capitalist society (a member of the working class is falsely conscious of their true class position when they fail to see themselves as a member of an exploited, oppressed, class).

11. The concept of alienation is used to refer to the way in which Capitalist society degrades both the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Proletariat are alienated from society because although they are responsible for producing goods co-operatively (for the potential benefit of society as a whole), the fruits of their labour are appropriated by the Bourgeoisie (in the form of profit) for their private use. The Bourgeoisie are alienated from their fellow human beings because of their exploitation and oppression of the rest of society. This condition of alienation is used to explain why such things as crime occurs in society – the social bonds that should tie people together are fatally weakened by the exploitative relationship between Capital and Labour.

How is Marxist Literary Criticism used in literature? Explain. Or What do Marxist literary critics do with texts?

Ans: Although the once powerful Soviet system is gone, and the western world has declared communism a failure, Marxist literary criticism is still a popular tool in American university classrooms. This is largely because the value of Marxist thought is in its general application, not in relation to a particular regime. Separating Marxism and Leninism is critical for a good round of literary theory.

Step 1 Approach the text with an eye for how the characters interact. Marxist thought relies on relationships between individuals, and even those aspects of relationships that are ‘social’ can be part of a Marxist critique.

Step 2 Evaluate the vocational roles of all characters. The Marxist critique includes a focus on a “class system” where the vocations of characters provide the most direct reference to their place within this system. Look at the level of luxury that each individual has and how much they have to work.

Step 3 Look at how characters use their free time. Part of the Marxist critique is based on the argument that individuals can use free time productively. Examining the free choices of individuals is actually a large part of Marxist literary criticism.

Step 4 Assess the role of government in the piece of literature. Is it draconian? Laissez-faire? Marxist thought relies on government as a model for liberty and also for communalism: look at the tools that government uses. Does the government, in soliciting citizenship, appeal to the capitalist tendencies of individuals or to their innate love of community?

Step 5 Use Marxist writers as a guide. Pick ideas outlined by Marxist writers of past eras and apply them to your particular study.

Critically analyze The Great Gatsby through the lens of Marxist Criticism. Ans: Marxist Criticism is grounded in the economic and cultural theories of Karl Marx. Rather than viewing a text as the product of an individual consciousness, Marxist critics examine a work as the product of an ideology particular to a specific historical period. Such critics judge a text on the basis of its portrayal of social actions and institutions and on its representation of class struggle. The following are key claims of Marxist criticism: • The evolving history of humanity, its institutions, and its ways of thinking are determined by the changing mode of its “material production”—that is, its basic economic organization. • Historical changes in the fundamental mode of production cause essential changes both in the constitution and power relations of social classes and the struggle for economic, political, and social advantage. • Human consciousness in any era is constituted by a set of beliefs, values, and ways of thinking through which human beings perceive what they take to be reality. A Marxist critic attempts to “explain” the literature in any era by examining the relation of the text to the economic and social realities of that time. This school of critical theory focuses on power and money in works of literature. Who has the power and money? Who does not? What happens as a result? For example, viewing The Great Gatsby through the lens of Marxist criticism, we might focus on the power relations between Buchanans and other economically deprived Wilsons family ( people from distinctly different classes). Throughout “The Great Gatsby,” F. Scott Fitzgerald characterizes the citizens of East Egg as careless in some form. This relates to the prominent class issue seen all through “Gatsby.” It seems as though Daisy and Tom almost look down upon others. At one point in the book, Nick says “in a moment she looked at me with an absolute smirk on her lovely face as if she had asserted her membership in a rather distinguished secret society to which she and Tom belonged.” It is because of their belief of superiority that they deem themselves better than other and allows them to live so carelessly. The passage in which Myrtle Wilson is killed exemplifies the recklessness of Daisy and Tom. Daisy sees Myrtle running out into the road and at first swerves toward the other car and seems to change her mind and just collide with Myrtle and continue on. Afterwards, Tom and Daisy just pack up and leave, without even attending Gatsby’s funeral. Nick seems to think they used their position in society to escape any mess they had gotten themselves into. Later on in the book, Nick says, “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness.” That quote supports the way Daisy and Tom acted with the Myrtle incident. In this passage they retreat back into both their money and carelessness by running away. Explicate the following poem On a Tree Fallen Across the Road by Robert Frost through Marxist Approach. On a Tree Fallen Across the Road The tree the tempest with a crash of wood Throws down in front of us is not to bar Our passage to our journey’s end for good But just to ask us who we think we are Insisting always on our own way so. She likes to halt us in our runner tracks, And make us get down in a foot of snow Debating what to do without an axe. And yet she knows obstruction is in vain: We will not be put off the final goal We have it hidden in us to attain, Not though we have to seize earth by the pole And, tired of aimless circling in one place, Steer straight off after something into space. Ans: A Marxist critic could easily see this Frost poem as the relentless push of capitalism, especially for Americans. It is interesting that the tree is referred to as the “tempest”, a word synonymous with hurricanes, thunderstorms and blizzards because those are naturally occurring events, and capitalism is as natural to Americans as weather. “We have it hidden in us to attain” implies that in-born tendency of Americans to possess, by purchase or capture, those material things we want. The “tempest wood” could be viewed as all those elements that have attempted to stand in the way of this capitalistic take-over: from the native Indians that we drove out of their homes and land in order to possess it; to the Africans we brought over in ships to work the land; to the Chinese we used to build our railroads; to the cold war with the Soviet Union, and all other countries who have dared to stand in the way of American imperialism. They may question who we think we are, but certainly do not dare to bar our way from attaining our goal. While we may debate “what to do without an axe”, history has shown that while we may have not readily had on hand that tool needed at that moment, we certainly are capable of producing it, once the barrier is in front of us, be it a need of money to buy our way in, or weapons to force our way in. We have a seemingly endless supply of young men whose lives we are willing to sacrifice and factories to build weapons, and the masses of common labor (even if it is composed of illegal immigrants) to produce them. American capitalism has seemed to “seize earth by the pole”, pushing aside those who might claim earlier right, to force labor through slavery, and mass production to build and stake a claim. American history is a plethora of attainment of land and people and material possessions. The final two lines of Frost’s poem exemplifies this push for the gluttony of capitalism that permeates the American psyche. We tire and grow bored of one place and seek to conquer another, whether it be on earth or in space exploration. There really is no end in sight. It is as infinite as space. Write short notes on a. Commodification in The Great Gatsby Karl Marx believed that money was the force which created the human experience. According to Marxism, “getting and keeping economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities,”. Marx believed that a person’s “material” (economic) condition is fundamentally connected to their “historical” (social and political) condition. Therefore, an individual’s actions and/or creations cannot be understood without understanding their material and historical situations. Capitalism, the fundamental economic structure in America, would be considered one such situation. In a capitalist society it is necessary that objects have value other than the use for which they were designed. If an item did not have an exchange value the system itself would be void. Thus, in order for money to be made, a dollar value must be assigned to an object; in other words, it must be commodified. The culture in America is based on this capitalist ideal. For example, the idea behind the “American Dream,” in which, “financial success is simply the product of initiative and hard work,” is a direct result of capitalism The Marxist take on the “American Dream” is that the intrinsic appeal of its potential “blinds [Americans] to the enormities of its own failure,”. The flaw in this system, according to Marx, is that, since it perpetuates itself by hiding its failure, many hard working people are improving a system that benefits only a few. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby the characters are driven by the inherent values in their commodities. These characters, however, extend their view of what is a commodity to include people and the relationships that are subsequently created. Almost every one of the book’s main characters is guilty of treating people as commodities. Tom and Daisy Buchanan are the best example of this quality; they exchanged marriage vows for social and material security. Therefore, their “love” is a commodified object subject to the materialist or capitalist economic system. b. Class structure in The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald Lois Tyson, author of “Critical Theory Today,” states that “A Marxist reading [of literature] would focus on the ways in which the psychological problems are produced by the material/historical realities within which the” characters of a book operate. This being the case, “The Great Gatsby” could be considered a significant criticism of the upper class. The characters problems all stem from money and their place in society. Daisy is not free to love Gatsby, even once he gains money, because of his social status. Myrtle will never be rescued’ from her life of poverty (lack of money) because of her social status. Jordan’s and Nick’s views of life and psychological problems (fear of intimacy, etc) most likely stem from their upper class, and therefore monetarily skewed upbringing and view of the world. Tom is just a goodie bag of psychological problems, all coming from his privileged life. The text does reveal, as Tyson states, “the dark underbellyof American capitalist culture”. The upper classes, portrayed most notably by Tom and Daisy Buchanan, could hardly be said to be shown in favorable light. Tom is an ego-maniac, controlling bigot whose money has cushioned him from every unpleasant aspect of life. His wife is not much better, also being the product of the class in which she was born. The lower classes, represented by George and Myrtle Wilson, are also depicted in a negative light. However, their flaws could be sympathetically excused by the sheer helplessness of their situation. Each is doing what they feel they must in order to improve their lot in life. The same can not be said for the upper class characters. Gatsby is a strange sort of hybrid of these two classes. While in the novel he is technically, at least financially, part of the upper class, he only got to that position through criminal activities. He generally associates with other upper class criminals or their lower class counterparts. He doesn’t quite belong in either class and his character, as a result, is alternately portrayed in both positive and negative lights. That is to say, that while he may have negative aspects to his character, he is portrayed in a sympathetic way that removes him a bit from the general condemnation of the rest of his class. Had the lower class been shown in a slightly more favorable light, and the upper class as a little less shiny and attractive, this novel could have been a very strong criticism against the evils of excess money. As it is, though, neither side ends up looking very desirable. c. Ideology Marx believes that because 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 societies. They present the dominant ideas and values as the beliefs of society as a whole, thus preventing individuals from seeing how society actually functions. Literature, as a cultural production, is a form of ideology, one that legitimizes the power of the ruling class. In the eighteenth century, for example, literature was used by the English upper classes both to express and transmit the dominant value systems to the lower classes. d. Marxism and literature Marxist literary critics tend to look for tensions and contradictions within literary works. This is appropriate because Marxism was originally formulated to analyze just such tensions and contradictions within society. Marxist literary critics also see literature as intimately linked to social power, and thus their analysis of literature is linked to larger social questions. Since Marxism is a belief system which can be used to analyze society at the grandest or most detailed level, Marxist literary criticism is ultimately part of a much larger effort to uncover the inner workings of society. d. The Frankfurt School The Frankfurt School of Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse went further than Brecht in rejecting social realism altogether and by giving a privileged position to art and literature. These alone can resist the domination of a totalitarian state. Popular art inevitably colludes with the economic system that shapes it, whereas Modernism has the power to question. Art acts as an irritant, a negative knowledge of the real world. Built of Freudian and Marxist elements, their Critical Theory advocates an art that makes the down-trodden masses aware of their exploitation and helplessness. Absurd discontinuities of discourse, the pared-down characterization, the plotless depiction of aimless lives — all these are needed to shake audiences from the comfortable notion that the horrors and degradations of the twentieth century have left the world unchanged. Commercial exploitation of music in advertising and films, for example, forces serious composers like Schoenberg to produce fragmental atonal work. Each note is cut off from harmony with its neighbours and thus proceeds directly from the unconscious, much as individuals are forced to fend for themselves in monolithic free-market systems. Walter Benjamin, though associated with Marxism and Surrealism, adopted various positions at first, most of them subtle, not to say ambiguous. Art, he thought, occupied a fragile place between a regression to a mythic nature and an election to moral grace. After his reading of Lukács and meeting with Brecht, he saw art as a montage of images specifically created for reproducibility. Stripped of mystique and ritual awe, the artist had now to avoid exploitation by revolutionizing the forces of production. Technique was the answer. Innovations arise in response to the asocial and fragmented conditions of urban existence, and mass communications should be harnessed to politicize aesthetics.

Formalism is a general term covering several similar types of literary criticism that arose in the 1920s and 1930s, flourished during the 1940s and 1950s, and are still in evidence today. Formalists see the literary work as an object in its own right. Thus, they tend to devote their attention to its intrinsic nature, concentrating their analyses on the interplay and relationships between the text’s essential verbal elements. They study the form of the work (as opposed to its content), although form to a formalist can connote anything from genre (for example, one may speak of “the sonnet form”) to grammatical or rhetorical structure to the “emotional imperative” that engenders the work’s (more mechanical) structure. No matter which connotation of form pertains, however, formalists seek to be objective in their analysis, focusing on the work itself and eschewing external considerations. They pay particular attention to literary devices used in the work and to the patterns these devices establish.
Formalism developed largely in reaction to the practice of interpreting literary texts by relating them to “extrinsic” issues, such as the historical circumstances and politics of the era in which the work was written, its philosophical or theological milieu, or the experiences and frame of mind of its author. Although the term formalism was coined by critics to disparage the movement, it is now used simply as a descriptive term.
Formalists have generally suggested that everyday language, which serves simply to communicate information, is stale and unimaginative. They argue that “literariness” has the capacity to overturn common and expected patterns (of grammar, of story line), thereby rejuvenating language. Such novel uses of language supposedly enable readers to experience not only language but also the world in an entirely new way.
A number of schools of literary criticism have adopted a formalist orientation, or at least make use of formalist concepts. The New Criticism, an American approach to literature that reached its height in the 1940s and 1950s, is perhaps the most famous type of formalism. But Russian formalism was the first major formalist movement; after the Stalinist regime suppressed it in the early 1930s, the Prague Linguistic Circle adopted its analytical methods. The Chicago School has also been classified as formalist, insofar as the Chicago critics examined and analyzed works on an individual basis; their interest in historical material, on the other hand, was clearly not formalist.

Aesthetic–Approaches a work strictly in terms of beauty, independent from any moral message; examines its form and its ability to embody artistic expression. (Some would call this brand of criticism “structuralism.”)

Biographical/Historical–Seeks to understand each work’s meaning based upon a close examination of the personal life of the author in relation to the text; also compares the epoch portrayed in the work to historical data.

Christian–Interprets literature in terms of theological concerns such as evil, sin, damnation, love, mercy, grace, redemption; there is a variety of Christian approaches to literature, offering as many views as there are denominations.

Deconstructionist–Words of a text are probed for their multiple linguistic significations; because words lack perfect correspondence to objects in the world, no definitive interpretation exists; meaning is something we create.

Existentialist–Perceives literature as a means for the reader to question his existence; looks for evidence of life’s absurdity, alienation, anxiety, and emptiness; since the future is unknown, the present is all we can be sure of.

Feminist–Approaches literature with a special regard to the feminine consciousness; notes how women are portrayed socially, politically, sexually, economically, and religiously, especially in a society with a male hegemony.

Marxist–Interprets literature according to the philosophical and political ideology put forth by Karl Marx, focusing on issues such as class, capitalism, inequality, exploitation, revolution, and the restructuring of society.

New Critical–Argues that a work should be considered as a complete, organic unit, with each part working to support the whole; close analysis of the text itself, without outside information, would reveal the authoritative meaning.

Psychological–Appropriates the profound discoveries of Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic theories as tools to understand an author and/or characters of a work; explores the unconscious in relation to behavior and sexuality.

Rhetorical–Considers the interactions between the work, the author, and the audience; observes what effect a piece of literature has upon its reader, and how that work accomplishes a particular persuasive result.

NOTE: The above critical approaches are seldom found in pure form. It is quite possible, and probable, that a critic will consciously or unconsciously combine two or more as she analyzes a work.