UNIT 1 MARXISM AND LITERATURE

Structure

. 1.0 0bjes.tives
1.1 Introduciion
1.2 What is Marxism?
1.3 Marxism as a Way of Looking at Social Developments
1.4 Marxism as Opposed both to Religious-Moral Idealism and Mechanical
Materialism
1.5 Relevance of Marxism to literature
1.6 Marxism and Literary Criticism
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
8.8 Questions
1.9 Glossary

1.0 OBJECTIVES

1 After reading this unit hopefully you will be able to

define Marxism as a political, social and cultural ideology

explain how Marxism can help us to understand literature and
distinguish how Marxism as a literary critical approach is different from
other approaches to our study of literature.
I
I 1.1 INTRODUCTION
Marxism has been defined variously: as an approach, a world outlook, a theory and a
philosophy of action. Marxism is all these, depending upon the context in which we
talk about it. For instance, if we have to consider a question linked with a political
development, Marxism as an approach would be more suitable for us. In literature,
we use marxism as essentially a world outlook, something that tells us about the
author's mind and the nature of his thought. Marxism as a theory would be more
appropriately explained as a critical method with whose help we raise pertinent
questions about the actual practice of an author, when we examine hisher ideology
(another loaded word that we discuss in the later pages of this block) to find out how
much of it is real, rational and, therefore, acceptable. This last definition is more
pertinent to the study of life and behaviour under 'social sciences.' The concept of
action separates Marxism from all earlier philosophies, which only interpret the
world, "while the point is to change it." This means that Marxism's central point is to
change the world through collective social action.

Definitions do not end here. Still more descriptions and definitions can be added to
the ones we have given here so that the vast range of meanings associated with the
term can be highlighted. However, let us go into the reason why Marxism is still so
debated today. Difficulty about how to comprehend Marxism in our time has largely
arisen because of different applications of this approach to concrete conditions in
socialist and other societies in the twentieth century. What we have seen happening in
Russia since the October Revolution is totally at variance with events in China.
Similarly, upheavals violently rocking the societies in Eastern Europe have pointed
towards an altogether new kind of politics. M m i s t practice in the twentieth century
has been a combination of state control, democracy, and bourgeois tendencies in
politics and individualism among people in general. In all this, Marxist leadership has
been found wanting in many respects, thus giving rise to a number of revolts against
the very system. The state in Socialist Russia as well as a number of other countries
in Eastern Europe has been turned upside down. We cannot make head or tail of the
Marxist View 4 events that have overtaken our world in the name of radical change under a
Literature preconceived Marxist framework. In fact, our language falters ("preconceived
Marxist framework" is one example!) as we poilder over the political and
philosophical-cultural issues that our world confronts today. That is what we see in
the name of Marxist practice in socialist countries. At the same time, we cannot
overlook the attack on Marxism launched by those centres of power, which support
racism, religious intolerance and social injustice. These power centres are capitalist.
To them, Marxism appears to be a dangerous opponent who is out to put an end to
their control and supremacy in the world. Also look at the philosophies these centres
propagate - individualism, consumerism and abstract spiritualism are some of the
strategic philosophic devices they use to distract attention from the relevance of
Marxism.

Most of the recent criticism of Marxism by its opponents lacks substance. It is

narrow, shrill and motivated. Those who have no positive alternative to offer - who
would be content to prove Marxism as another liberal-bourgeois or sectarian-
fundamentalist theory, which they can discuss and discard, make it. In earlier periods,
particularly around World War I, thinkers have felt so weak, uncertain and helpless in
the face of the supporters of commitment that at the first sign of contradiction (there
is no doubt that these contradictions are serious, violent and daunting, as stated
above), emerging out of Marxist practice, they have tended to react with excessive
vehemence. It appears that the situation prevailing in Russia and Eastern European
socialist countries today has presented an opportunity to many antagonists of
Marxism to raise the issue of individual identity in a new way. If one thought
objectively, the biggest threat to such an identity could be seen as coming straight
from the forces of market and finance in the modem world. It means that 'identity'
has been a new catch phrase used by vested interests to defend capitalism. Who can
deny that capitalism stifles the growth of the individual and reduces hirn or her to the
level of a mere consumer without real choice and initiative. As we have noticed, it
eliminates the human being in society by turning people into objects and
commodities that are available in the market for sale. Things have become so bad that
even yiters and artist, let alone ordinary people, opt for nothing better than a job,
which should actually be seen as a mere venture for earning bread. This obviously is
not what writers in particular and others in general should look for. The number of
those writers is growing who are sensitive enough to see the deleterious effect of
capitalism on the human psyche and sensibility. They critique capitalism in their
poems, plays and novels and exhibit their clear disgust with its narrow self-centred
ways.

1.2 WHAT IS MARXISM?

Marxism sees different phenomena in the environment as a part of the larger social
reality. This sounds rather simple. From this we infer that since we live in a society,
whatever we think, feel or believe in, would necessarily be a part of our society and,
therefore, reflect upon the social reality surrounding us. Organised under a specific
system of production and distribution, a society exerts immense amount of pressure
on its members. At the same time, according to Marxism, individuals or groups in a
society, moulded as they are by the forces of production and distribution, are not
totally helpless in their environment. In fact, classes of people, the haves and have-
nots, remain in constant clash with one another and strive to establish or retain their
supremacy in the structure they operate in. Marxism tells us that class struggle is the
essence of a society andnothing happening in society can be adequately explained
without reference to this fact. At the philosophical level, Marxism provides
investigative-analytical methods, superior, objective and scientific, to' study and
assess the phenomena of history. Through an application of these methods, various
historical phenomena can be probed and comprehended in their fullness and
interconnection. The Marxist method of enquiry and analysis is called the dialectical
method under which the contending and opposing elements of a phenomenon are
seen as linked to each other in an ever-changing process. This means that when two Marxism and
elements clash, they should be studied and judged with reference to the structure that Literature
produced them. At the same time, the clash is a positive and productive clash in
which a struggle for resolving the conflict may also be noticed. The dialectical
method shows how the very survival of a structure rests on its different conflicting
elements. Seen dialectically, a historical phenomenon is both a product of one
particular phenomenon and the producer of the other. For this reason, Marxism
assigns a deeper significance to terms such as "society" and "social reality" and
makes us aware of the fact that society is a living and changing reality subject to the
laws of history, such as the class struggle, the role and function of the state and
radical restructuring of society by actual political formations. Growth and
development are the outcome of important conflicts taking place between groups,
sections and classes of people. To repeat, social reality is more than mere information
about the various components of a society, which we cannot grasp unless the "facts"
and aspects of a society are seen in their interconnection. What I mean is that there is
something in sqciety, which can explain for us the reasons behind a phenomenon.
The writer of literature is supposed, therefore, to have a fairly intimate knowledge of
his society.

1.3 MARXISM AS A WAY OF LOOKING AT SOCIAL

DEVELOPMENTS
As I have said above, this theory insists that society or the social organisation of a
particular time be viewed as part of a whole series of changes taking place in history.
Our notice is drawn many a time to the fact that the process of economic production
and distribution is a vital constituent ofiorganised human life. But do we realise to
what extent these influence or determine the way we live in society? My answer is
that a social organisation is largely deterministic with its different agencies 'telling'
its members what to do and think. But looked at in another way, new happenings
quite frequently burst forth on the scene and give the lie to the dictates of a system.
This points to the veiled and hidden forces of change that are always active in
society.

So far, we have talked of the deterministic aspect of society. Here, we can take up the
idea of people as agents of change that sooner or later transform the way people act
and think. To illustrate this point of relationship between social changes and human
life, let us take the example of two important happenings in Europe - the French
Revolution towards the end of the eighteenth century and the Industrial Revolution in
England in the second and third decades of the nineteenth century. These two left a
lasting impression on the society of France and England respectively. The French
Revolution made the doctrine of equality among human beings acceptable as never
before, something for the cause of which people would stake their lives. The notion
of equality among people was new and inspiring. It also violated the prevailing norms
of hierarchy. As is common knowledge, the upsurge of the French masses against the
feudal yoke unleashed forces of progress in a big way, which established a regime of
free enterprise and democracy. Hitherto oppressed, the common people of France
moved inexorably towards the centre-stage. Literature did not remain untouched by
this development. The energy and passion in the French fiction of the nineteenth
century can be clearly linked up with the social upheaval in France in the last decade
of the eighteenth century. Who is the central figure in the French novels of the period
if not an ordinary villager or city dweller, a middle class individual, a small trader, a
clerk or a poet? The basic concern of the writer in France became the behaviour of
the common people v i s - h i s the vast changes that had swept the nation. We should
mark the language of these novels, which the ordinary French used at the market
place. It is a vehicle of expression of day-to-day experiences, vibrant with the
common idiom.
Marxist View of I do not say that all writers adopted a particular attitude towards social happenings
Literature and considered them sympathetically,or that all of them were radical. Some of them
retained a conservative approach in their lives. However, the point to emphasise 1s
that all of them took no$ of the new relationships based on equality, honest
endeavour and collective enterprise. They also appreciated the changed perceptions
of people. Their writing gave a sharp focus to these developments and interpreted
them as important aspects of French life.

Coming to the Industrial Revolution in England, we can say that it did not appear as
spectacular as the French Revolution. It had no heroes and villains. Nor did it hav-e
contending armies in its midst that fought for political changes. It is called
'revolution' in the sense that it changed the social landscape of England by decisively
shifting the movement of life in the direction of industrialism. The rural production
and life dependent on age-old use of land ceased to be the dominant mode of
existence as more and more people flocked to the cities in search of bread and butter.
The oity also opened up new avenues of progress. Can we forget that because of
large-scale production under capitalism, life in England began to be governed more
and more by new democratic laws that were framed by the English parliament?

Historically, no doubt, the trehd went back to the seventeenth century, but the
Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century gave a decisively sharper edge to the
phenomenon. Keep this in mind note that the novels of Dickens and George Eliot
capture an England that has an entirely new set of questions confronting it.
Descriptions of poverty and inequality are so stark in Dickens's novels and their link
with the expansion of industry is so strong that the reader cannot link the
representation with anything written before. The novels of Dickens are clearly rooted
in the reality of mid-nineteenth century England. In the same way, we come across
such protagonists in George Eliot's novels as are closely identifiable - middle-class
individuals with a new kind of sksitivity and inner life. Undeniably, the
development of industrial production in England inspired this poperful fictional
trend. Once again, we do not see in this fiction a simple reflection of society but a
treatment of issues fiom so many different points of view in a society that is caught in
the process of change. We should also notice that under the impact of the Industrial
Revolution, most of the writers of the day became sympathetic towards the common
masses and picked up characters fiom among them for projecting deep human urges
and interests. Characters from the upper classes represented in nineteenth century
fiction look insipid and lifeless in comparison. The point is that looked at from the
angle of important historical devdopments, literary works put forward an altogether
new idea. From the Marxist point of view, literary works are not myths or fables
retold or characters caught in a plot-structure but instead representations of important
trends. In this sense, fiction and poetry become areas in which the processes of
change live a crystallised existence.

1.4 MARXISM AS OPPOSED TO BOTH IDEALISM AND

MECHANICAL MATERIALISM
It is common knowledge that almost all religious philosophies are critical of the
narrow self-seeking tendencies in man's behaviour and stress upon the importance of
people moving out of the worldly domain of existence. When we look at our world
from the view of idealism we always judge things as approximating to the idea, the
perfect idea, which precedes the material phenomenon. What idealism does not notice
is that idea, the very core of all natural and social phenomenon, being perfect, is
static, it does not have change as its integral part. According to idealism, what
changes is the environment, which is supposed to approximate to the perfect idea,
which is there as a permanent factor. The permanent, unchanging idea remaining ever
the same over and above the constraints of time and space, is something that cannot
grasp the factors of change, growth and progress, all essential features of human
history and society. In fact, in all historical phenomena, complexities of social,
 'ideological and cultural,structures, psychological-spiritual ambiguities and paradoxes Marxism and
remain outside the reach of religious idealism. To religious idealism, these would at Literature
I best be a simple manifestatiqn &fi the human effbit to reach-theperfect idea of
Godliness. At the same time4 religioiis idealism rnay place the entire spectrum of
'worldly experiences' under the negative category of falsdaad illusory practices
(T.S.EliotYs"unreal city," for instance) that come in theway of the progress of the
soul. If such a view criticises the modem ways of social life, its utilitarianism and
consumerism as unsatisfying and non-fulfilling, it does so by entirely diluting the
dynamism and vigour of human and social intercourse.
i
The opoosite of idealism is mechanical materialism. Marxism is critical of this view
for its excessive emphasis on a particular enviroment to understand human behaviour.
There are accounts and descriptions of human conduct in fiction where characters are
captured through mundane and trivial details and in which vital connections between
the infinity of facts are hard to find (in George Eliot's novels, for example). Marxism
rejects this view as negative and pessimistic since 'mind' or 'spirit' as an integral part
of material existence are absent in it. In fact, Marxism radically critiques the duality
of mind and matter and lays a great deal of emphasis on mind being "a specific mode
of matter," not outside or independent of matter.

The mind-matter controversy is resolved in Marxism, therefore, in a dialectical way -

the two are not separate and separable but live in interconnection - mind in fact is
I
1
only a distinct mode of existence of matter. If we see any growth and development in
thought, culture, science and ideology, it is only a broad reflection of the socio-
historical phenomenon, the concrete world of matter in the human mind, which like
everything else is also a product of human endeavour in history. The complexity and
richness of the cultural-literary, spiritual-religious or psychological-sociological
discourses can thus be examined and understood if they are seen in relation to the
historical phenomenon outside their respective domains. This philosophical view
informs and marks behind all discussions of literary trends and develoPments in this
block. However, I explain it a bit further in the following section.

1.5 RELEVANCE OF MARXISM TO LITERATURE

Since Marxism lays stress upon the importance of history within which various social
and cultural trends emerge, it gives a new dimefision to the study of literature. It is
with the help of Marxism that we comprehend the relationship between a writer and
hisher society. This relationship is that of a sensitive individual w t h hisher
environment. This individual is deeply concerned with the conditions of people
around himher. S h e recognises the existence of not merely pain and anguish but also
anger and a sense of resistance in their lives. At the same time, the writer notices
among people the great urge to enjoy celebrate and be happy. This makes him/her
combine within their writing the different human emotions of melancholy, disquiet as
well as anger and joy. On the surface, these appear to be expressions of an
individual's response. However, the writer's response has its roots in the society to
which s h e belongs and, therefore, reflects upon the nature of hisher surroundings.
Marxism does not stop at this point but takes the consideration further to the specific
mode of production, the governing economic structure, which regulates the activity of
men and women in a decisive way. Marxism also pinpoints the role of human beings
in shaping their society through sharp questioning and active mobilisatior~.

How do other theories relate to literature and what h c t i o n do they perform? Do they
'
not exclusively stress upon the social background to reach the conclusion that
literature is wholly determined by its environment (mechanical materialism), and say
that the individual will operates unhindered by anything whatsoever and is, according
to them, not subject to the laws of history and society? In the first case, literature is
seen as an exact replica of its times because according to the theory of determination
by society, it could not be anything better or different. Thus, characters, voices or
,!Iarxist View of attitudes in a literary work are interpreted as the fill and final pictures of the society
Literature that produced it with no scope for an alternative set of representation in it. In the
second case, the individuals will becomes free from all social constraints and the
criticism using the concept sees the work as operating on a much higher universal
plane. For instance, this kind of criticism may separate the reference to myths in a
particular work from the other things present in it and relate them in an arbitrary
manner to other myths that existed in the past. Much of the anarchy in modernist
criticism owes its existence to this tendency. In either case.lhthe significance of
literature as a powerful cultural endeavour is seriously mdermined. By restoring to
literature its ability to critique and oppose certain tendencies as also to project the
creative interests of the larger masses, Marxism places this most fulfilling and
meaningful human endeavour within the parametres of society and history.

To illustrate this, I briefly refer to a trend in early twentieth century writing. In this
writing, one can see two clear and distinct streams of writers. To the former .+ream
belong poets such as W.H. Auden, C. Day Lewis and Luis Macniece and to t r ~ latter t
belong W.B. Yeats, Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot. The critical intelligence and vigour of
the former stems from their intense hatred for the philistinism and superficiality of
culture in their time. They clearly recognised the source of this philistinism in money
and privilege. On the other hand, Yeats, Pound and Eliot distrusted the common
masses. These poets were unable to notice the potentiality of change in the collective
action of people. In fact, they looked for inspiration towards the privileged and the
elite who in their opinion were capable of transcending the lay uninformed masses.
The powerful voice of overall rejection in their poetry cannot be separated from their
acquiescence in, if not open approval of the existing system. An interesting aspect of
this trend is that it forms the basis of cynical rootless writing that emerged in the
post-Second World War period. We may ask as to why a playwright like Beckett use
two tramps, floating rootless idlers and do-nothings as symbols of humanity in
modern times. Without relating these trends to the class reality of the day, we cannot
adequately comprehend the way in which the writers in question interpreted their
environment and expressed their concrete responses to it. In this context, we cannot
overlook the sharp contrast that Bertolt Brecht's plays offer to the works of Samuel
Beckett. While Beckett's plays fall in the category of the drama of the absurd, not in
the sense that they lack meaning and significance but that they reveal and emphasise
absurdity as the central principle in modem-day human existence, Brecht's plays are
characterised as heroic drama. Brecht is remarkable in his portrayal of courage and
perseverance in ordinary people. The heroism, the spirit to withstand pressures in
Brecht's characters is largely owing to the writer's adoption of the Marxist outlook
because of which common people appear to him as carriers of a definite revolutionarq
fervour. Both Beckett and Brecht belong to the period around the Second World War.
It could be expected that because of their sensitivity and intelligence, the two would
exhibit identical social concerns. However, the fact is that Beckett concentrates upon
what can be called human fate and human destiny in modem times while Brecht
endeavours to bring out the creative, the noble and the heroic in the common masses
of the day.

1.6 MARXISM AND LITERARY CRITICISM

In the study of literature, Marxism has influenced a host of critics in the twentieth
century and has helped in the development of a cogent and full-fledged literary
theory. The emergence in the nineteen thirties of the radical critical trend in England
which also left its distinct mark on Leavis and his disciples bears testimony to the
wider appeal and authenticity of a theory owing allegiance to materialism. Under the '
influence of the materialistic outlook, most of the English critics in the thirties, forties
and later were constrained to take note of the importance of the historical context in
literature. In our times,it is because of the growing influence of Marxism on literary
criticism that the great nineteenth century fiction writers have been pulled out of an
abstract appreciation and their writings have been placed in a concrete context. If the
great nineteenth century fiction writers appear to us as uncompromising crusaders, a Marxism and
large part of the credit should go to the historicist principle made popular by Marxist Literature
literary criticism. We have to take note of the fact that the Marxist viewpoint i s at the
centre of discourses contending for acceptance today. Whether it is structuralism,
poststructuralism, deconstruction or end of history theory, the target invariably is the
idea that common working masses can change the face of history. Marxism has
compelled the contemporary thinker and critic to reconsider his narrow individual-
centred stand of helplessness or the abstract moralist notion of decay in the modem
world. As we are aware, structuralism swore by the concept of strongly resistant
structures in language, society and culture. However, the structuralist theory was
essentially deterministic in that it ignored the basic principle of human initiative (a
key concept of Marxism). Marxism challenges the restraining social environment
through empowerment of the working masses. It was no doubt an attempt on the part
of modern bourgeois interests to negate the Marxist idea of change. Deconslmction
was an attack on ~ a r x i s mfrom a different direction. It attacked the idea of existence
of the author or the narrator - the central governing principle of a representation -
and rejected the notion of a centre in the text: At the same time, deconstmction's
exclusive emphasis on the text (not the author or work) specifically targeted the
revolutionary role of literarture.

In the face of these theories, Marxist criticism has evolved still more sophisticated
arguments to address fresh questions. This is manifest in the writings of Marxist
critics such as Raymond Williams, Frederic Jameson and Teny Eagleton who
usefully link the literary work with its author. Marxism has also helped literary
criticism in evolving new materialist concepts of culture, ideology, realism,
modernism, political unconscious, etc, with which to effectively counter the
onslaught of bourgeois theorists. Marxist criticism also tells us about the need to
combine the efforts of the writer and the reader around a literary work. It is a
daunting critical task that requires of us to actively construct the meaning of the work
to suit the positive humanist requirements of our age.

How should Marxist literary criticism go about the job of analysing and interpreting a
work? For an answer to this question, we refer to Frederic Jameson who says that "In
an area of culture, . .. we are ... confronted with a choice between the study of the
nature of the "objective structures" of a given cultural text (the historicity of its forms
and of its content, the historical moment of emergence of its linguistic possibilities,
the situation-specific function of the aesthetic) and something rather different which
would instead foreground the interpretive categories or codes through which we read
and receive the text in question." The question is well posed. What is of interest here
is that Marxist criticism goes to both points of time irrespective of whether the
author-text or the reader-text is chosen for foregrounding, whether the time and
context of the author is used to understand the text or that of the reader to interpret it.
Actually, Jameson's emphasis on interpretation is for the reason that a work for
Marxist criticism belongs both to the past and the present (if it is written earlier) and
should be made to serve those needs of the present which are linkdd up with the idea
of radical change. This should give us an insight into the function of that criticism
which is driven by the urge to give a new radical direction to the historical
circumstance.

1.7 LET US SUM UP

Unlike most philosophies which consider a transcendental force or which is called
idea, mind, spirit, supreme being, etc. to be at the centre of human and natural
existence, Marxism asserts that it is matter which is of prime significance and whose
different manifestation are ~dea,mind, spirit, etc. While earlier philosophies can be
termed idealistic, spiritualistic and other-worldly, Marxism claims to be materialistic
and this-worldly. Materialism should not be confused with utilitarianism,
consumerism or hedonism. All of us know that utilitarianism and consumerism,
bereft as they are of any human value, serve only those of our needs and requirements
which are physical. These tendencies, developed as they have been in the modem
capitalist era, reflect merely the n m w , self-serving and opportunistic distortions of
human character, which actually is social, collectivist, creative and noble. As we
become aware of the limitations of consum~smtoday, we gradually cease to be the
slaves of that world of irrational production and distribution whose chief driving
force is the profit motive, not the satisfaction of physical and mental requirements of
all members of society in an equitable way. If irrational production-distributionand
profit motive are what consumerism manifests, how can Marxism take them as the
central core of its conception. It is in this sense that Marxist materialism and the
capitalist doctrine of individual-centred profit motive should be seen as two entirely
different and antagonistic modes of thought.

1.8 QUESTIONS
1. Discuss the connections that exist between a literary trend and the society of
its time.
2. "Marxism pinpoints the role of human beings in shaping their society." How
does this idea influence the approach of a literary writer in the twentieth
century?

1.9 GLOSSARY
Conservative approach: Drawing inspiration from past tendencies and values
and resisting those of the present &d future.

Deconstruction: A critical doctrine of the nineteen eighties. It rejects

the notion of form in a literary work as arbitrary and
suggests that the reader should look for the hidden
clues that are submerged in the text.

End of ideology theory: A new critical trend that negates the validity of
ideology in present-day discussions. The reason
behind the trend may be that the bourgeois outlook
today has lost all hope of succ~ssfullyopposing
Marxism, an ideology of the,working class.
Mechanical Materialism: According to this view, ordinary happenings of life
are directly related to prevailing social forces. As
mere products of society, people seem to live a life
of bondage in their surroundings. Also, individuals
are considered slaves to their instincts and, therefore,
react to the circumstances on the basis of knowledge
gained through senses.
Philosophic devices: Concepts and arguments handled as tools to prove or
disprove the efficacyof a trend. A word from critical
theory. Critics and commentators have always an
inkling of which argument or concept (philosophic
devices) is going to deliveruthegoods.

Strategic: From strategy. Useful in implementing a plan and

for a specific purpose.
UNIT 2 SOCIETY AND HISTORY: MARXIST
VIEW
Structure

2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 View of Society through History
2.3 Interpreting Society: an Altogether New Approach
2.4 What We Understand by Social Reality
2.5 Structure or Mode of Production
2.6 Relations of Production as Essential Part of the Mode
2.7 Social Nature of Mode of Production
2.8 The Idea of Revolution - Change and Transformation in Society
2.9 Let Us Sum Up
2.10 Questions
2.1 1 Glossary

2.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to:

elucidate the basic concept of change in history and

explain how the Marxist idea of the 'mode of production' constitutes the core
of historical materialism.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
What we call the Marxist view of literature has left a lasting impression on twentieth
century criticism and thought because of the strong emphasis it lays on history and
society. The Marxist view interprets history as man-made and suggests that men and
women of a particular time definitively shape their surroundings within the given
historical constraints. Much, however, depends on what human beings wish and
aspire for and what they are capable of. What is certain is that it is the collective will
of actual people, and not any other power outside time that determines the course of
human life. Thus, Marxism brings back the dignity of human endeavour to where it
belongs-actual human beings themselves always engaged in the committed act of
living, struggling, thinking.

2.2 VIEW OF SOCIETY THROUGH HISTORY

History is somewhat different from society. It gives a longer perspective to human
action and behaviour and runs through different epochs of collective life. Marx's
view was that the most vital connection between epochs has been class struggle, and
that class struggle alone can explain adequately the nature of significant changes in
society. It is a constant refrain in Marxism that 'society' by itself cannot enlighten us
about significant changes since it can only refer to the actually present factors that
govern and determine the life of human beings. What I mean is that the concept of
society can merely tell us about the pressures we have to bear in an actual
environment that is constituted of human beings bound in specific relationships. This
idea is static and does not give enough credence to the potentiality of growth and
development in life. We will notice that most of the theoiy and criticism of today +
talks of the importance of context in which a phenomenon is supposed to be
understood. But context is merely a set of social trends and forces operating at a
given time. Does it have a past? Also, could it be different from what it is at a given
 Marxist View.of time? In case our answer to these questions is in the affirmative, we are moving out
I Literature of the boundaries of what I call 'society' and into a territory that is much larger. This
territory is history that provides a 'past' to a society, connects it with those decisive
trends which concretely formed and shaped it. Such a view also opens up the areas of
the present social set up for use by a class of people who would give a different
direction to it than the one into which it may have moved on its own. We will return
again and again to these aspects of theory in this block. Suffice to say that Marxism
concerns itself with both history and society and that while treating them as separate
and specific, it relates the two meaningfully and thus affords us a perspective
radically different from all those perspectives available with us.

2.3 INTERPRETING SOCIETY: AN ALTOGETHER

NEW APPROACIT
- -. . --- .

In the first unit, I called Marxism an approach and a point of view. This indicates a
firm and clearly defined standpoint on the part of thinking individual in hislher
w i e t y and implies that you cannot at the same time say two different and
p@taadictorythings about your environment. However, one sees this happening
.:ryday because most of us are in the habit of shifting our positions rather
frequently, forgetting that the world we live in is divided into two hostile camps, one
dominant and the other dominated, both of which constantly critique and attack each
other. We also tend to overlook the fact that one of the ways devised by the dominan
camp in our world is to encourage a section within itself, one can call it the middle
class, .to take an apparently 'independent' and 'objective' position and question the
validity of both camps, the oppressors and the oppressed - to assert that both can be
equally right and wrong in different situations. In fact, a large part of this section of
the middle class gradually comes to believe a case of self-deception, that an
'independent' and 'objective' position is indeed possible. The dominant camp on its
part does not unnecessarily bother about such independent assertions of the middle
class in society since it knows that the final socio-economic power wielded through
the institution of the state rests safely in its hands. Are we not then surprised to notice
that these'independent' positions lack firmness, they vacillate like a pgndulum
between extremes and serve ultimately the interests of the forces of status quo. On the
other hand, Marxism holds that the social reality of a time is always biased and that
the new productive force, the industrial working class or the proletariat is capable of
changing the unjust nature of social arrangement under capitalism.

This understanding enables the thinking individual, the usually interpreting entity in
society, to look at the society not merely critically but also in deep moral terms. ELen
if we kept the expression 'moral terms' out of our discourse, we would realise that
words such as 'misappropriation,' 'exploitation,' 'injustice,' etc. in Marx seem to lay
great stress on the desirability of change in a society ridden with problems of
inequality, mass hunger, profit-oriented planning, and unemployment. While most
social commentators and analysts talk of these problems as if they were God-given
and, therefore, meant to stay till some power above and beyond them intervened of its
own will, Marx made a fundamental departure from such a stance by stating that
"philosophers have so far merely interpreted the world. The point, however, is to
change it." Mark the word "interpreted" specifically because it signifies the scholar's
stance of standing apart from and above his environment to disinterestedly throw
light on different aspects of life. Mere interpretation has-a h a c k of going silent on
contentious issues or adopting a soft, 'philosophical' attitude towards it. As is
obvious, this ;s compromise at the social level. The individual's act of interpretation
in such a case is not going to influence the governing class one bit. On the other hand,
the exploited sections would not receive from the interpreter the help they require in
their struggle to understand the importance of change. But philosophers interpret.
This is their main job. "Change" on the other hand signifies looking at a process with
the clear purpose of improving and transforming things. Interpretation in this case,
.I4 .
therefore, is an integral part of the desire to change. One can go further than this and
say that there can be an analysis that is radical in its very structure, that questions the Society and History:
basis of a dominant formation. Such an analysis and interpretation would not leave Marxist View
scope for equivocation. I reiterate that Marxism is not merely a rational method to
analyse and interpret but, the very theory of change.

2.4 WHAT WE UNDERSTAND BY SOCIAL REALITY

Let us define social reality which can be understood as the social environment of a
particular time. Our surroundings constitute economic-political and ideological-
cultural aspects. We realise sooner or later in life that the world we live in has its own
rules and regulations. These rules and laws regulate our lives as well as put
constraints on us. Do we have full or even partial awareness of their existence? We
are told often that conditions of life determine our behaviour. It is not a clichC but a
vital fact of reality. But in our world do we feel tied down completely with no
freedomaofour own to work with? My answer is that this is not the case since we take
new and fresh decisions every now and then to fulfil our desires and aspirations. This
we do individually. Such a thing is possible owing to the presence of a wide area in
our society where initiative is allowed to a great extent. To say it in another way, this
area has a number of possibilities, which we can exploit in order to do what we wish
to. However, between possibilities and their actual realisation, there always remains a
large gap. Why? May be, there is something that proves to be an obstruction on our
way - it can be scarcity of funds, absence of facilities or a particular help from an
agency not forthcoming. Thus, we can see the clash between an individual desire and
general social factors. A painful aspect of our existence is that we do not act the way
we please but always bear in mind the consequences of our actions. We seldom have
the courage to work against the governing structure, however unjust and undesirable
it may be. To make it simpler, we know that a stable job immediately after the
completion of education is an essential prerequisite for setting up home. The decision
to do so involves observing rules and regulations that would ensure a steady income.
"Planning for career" by an individual is just another name for the observance of
these regulations, which are well defined in most situations. This comes under 'social
reality. '

2.5 STRUCTURE OR MODE OF PRODUCTION

"Social reality" indicates a palpable and clearly defined structure that points towards
important activities carried on by a sizeable number of people. 'I'hese activities are
closely related to the production and distribution of things. They are so important to
our lives that we take them for granted, like the air and water. But we are generally
oblivious of them while thinking about society. This is bad. We do not realise that
without these activities, the existence and survival of life is impossible. For instance,
factories work continuously to produce goods that we use in daily life and this
production is carried on in accordance with market-demands. Finished goods reach
the retail shop through the whole sale market to be made available to the individual
consumer. In the same way, raw materials are produced through agricultural activity
that goes on round the year. There is a market-segment that works as a bridge
between the agricultural produce (cotton, coal, and petroleum) on the one side and
industry (cloth, oil, petrol and steel) on the other. All this is part of a highly organised
and complex activity, something we can comprehend hlly or sufficiently only after a
great deal of mental effort. This activity also impinges not only upon our social living
but also our psyche and consciousness, morality and ethics. Have we ever thought
consciously about this? Peihaps not. May be, we have left it to economists to ponder
over, which is wrong since economists would not enter areas of politics, law, social.
living, psyche and consciousness.

By now, it should be clear to us that even looked at from a capable individual's point
of view, our world does not present an entirely rosy picture, that it is not an easy
place to live in, sympathetic to our existence and promoting our pterests. In fact, the
I
Marxist View of world around us appears to have a rock-like solidity that resists our efforts to
Literature influence it. secondly, the most important activity in such a world, in any world for
that matter, is production, which entails a long and definite process of organlsed
activity. Marx considered production as the most cmcial aspect of human existence.
In his words, "Men can be distinguished from animals by-consciousness, by religion
or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from
animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is
conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing their means of subs~stence
men are indirectly producing their actual material life.. .. As individuals express their
life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with
;hat they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus
depends on the material conditions determining their production." (Marx's emphasis.
The German Ideology). Notice that Marx's comment is factual and explanatory. What
he has asserted is that production is not outside human beings but between and within
them and that by producing their means of living, human beings in fact produce
themselves. The last sentence in this quotation is a little more difficult to comprehend
since we generally believe, opposite to what Marx has said, that our nature is
independent and does not take influence from material conditions. In fact, Marx's
word is stronger - it is not "influence" but "dependence."

Let us ponder over 'organised activity' -- the production-distribution process. For the
lay person, as stated above, this is quite simple, she or he thinking that it is something
given at any moment and not.worth much attention. However, the market-segment
that we seem to have mentioned just in passing (we have not) is a very intricate
mechanism. It also reflects the nature of people engaged in the production of raw
materials or industrial goods, and industrial production as such. Still more, it dictates
what should be produced. Are we surprised that the market is not a mere agency of
distribution through selling and buying of produced goods? This it can be in a A

different system, not in the capitalist one in which we operate at present.

Thus, production mechanism places the members of the society in a specific

relationship, that of the employer and employee, the employer being the owner of the
means of production (land, raw materials and factory) and the employee who (with
labour-power as his sole resource) is available merely as a purchasable commodity
himself. This sounds crude -how, is it that a full-fledged human being is a
commodity open for sale in the market? But this is true, the same way as slave trade
has been in the past. In the modem context, look at the way the army of unemployed
(their number is increasing alarmingly m our world) wait for jobs and are ready under
social compulsions to carry out any work the employers might demand of them. This
is one aspect of the mode of production.

2.6 RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AS ESSENTIAL

PART OF THE MODE
Let us take help directly from Karl Marx's explanation of the social phenomenon of
which, according to him, human beings are always a part. Marx has called this aspect
of social existence 'production relations' under which he has visualised human beings
as divided into two groups - those who own the means of production and those others
who work on land or in manufacturing units, big and small. This, according to Marx,
is the central condition of human existence in the modem world, bound as people are
under these relations to produce means of subsistence. It will become clear, however,
that what I call means of subsistence are in fact something else over whose choice
only the economically powerful sections have absolute control.

A look at production relations would show flat the agency of the state under modern
capitalism operates to distribute the social surplus in a particular way. Under this
operation, the social surplus flows into the hands of the owning group while the
producers of surplus, the workers get only their 'wages,' a name for the cost of what
Marx calls their labour power. Marx places the whole activity with the social and Soclety and History:
legal sanction that it gets at every point of time in history under 'economic mode of MarxLt View
production. '

An economic mode of production -the combination of methods and means of

production - is a highly complex phenomenon and is, as we have said above, the ,
most vital factor of human existence at a given time. It touches upon every single
aspect of life. Without going into further clarification, we can say that insofar as we
are concerned, the capitalist mode of production,~withexploitation of human labour
at its centre, is the single most governing principle of our time. We can see the
similarity between capitalist countries, all of which have a common attitude towards
their common people. It is rarely, if at all, that people are looked at as human beings
with a sense of dignity in them. There are, of course, differences such as the less or
more availability of resources in individual capitalist countries. The plight of people
is different in rich nations than in the poor qnes. But, as I have said, the attitude of the
governing system in them is the same towakds ordinary human beings. This is the
reality of the whole of capitalist worid today. This can truly be called the social
reality of our time.

2.7 SOCIAL NATURE OF MODE OF PRODUCTION

One deeply philosophical point we can make in this context is that a particular mode
of production always exists prior to the birth of human beings and that it cannot be
ignored or wished away. This means that at every given point in history, a well-
established social system already exists. Need we be told this, knowing well enough
that a mechanism can be seen as given when human beings are born and that it
regulates as well as oppresses their urges, expectations and aspirations? This could
appear something like fate, a wholly determining factor of human existence. We
would see later that "fate" or "wholly determining factor" are wrong expressions,
since they negate and preclude human endeavour as well as initiative, as a highly
creative and progressive enterprise. In this context, the right expression that Marx has
used again and again is "conditions of existence." I talk, ofcourse, keeping in view
mankind's history of the last few thousand years in which one or the other mode of
production has emerged to determine and influence the life of people. Social reality,
therefore, is what we are born to and in which we live as we grow up and operate as
human beings. As I have said, the philosophical dimension of this Marxist view
should not be overlooked. On the one hand, it considers human beings as born in a
given world, which puts constraints on them. On the other hand, it recognises the
growing productive potential, which empowers them to change their surroundings.
Thus, Marxism can be applied to sharply critique the concept of fate or a superior
power on one side and uncontrolled all-powerful human behaviour on the other. This
means that human beings are neither totally helpless before circumstances nor totally
free from the laws and norms of their world. Both concepts falter over the idea of
'conditions of existence' according to which human beings understand and change
their circumstances to the extent possible.

2.8 THE IDEA OF REVOLUTION - CHANGE AND

TRANSFORMATION IN SOCIETY
The owning and the working classes always remain actively engaged in the working
of society. This engagement by the two in a common enterprise causes a great deal of
hostility in them towards each other in spite of the fact that the enterprise is
productive in a meaningful progressive sense. We are relatively clear about
productivity at this stage. What do we mean by saying that human beings' social
productivity is progressive, that it always increases and expands and thereby moves
towards production of bigger and yet bigger amounts of things and facilities? Today,
newer ways of producing things are being invented every moment. No ruling or
Marxist View of owning class can stop this process. In fact, a ruling class survives upon its increasing
Literature productive capacity. This can be explained by referring to the urge in us to invent
new sources of power and new means of production such as the "the hand-mill" and
"the steam engine," to use Man's own examples. Imagine what the steam engine did
to the productive process in nineteenth century Europe. It increased human
productive power manifold and changed the landscape of the whole world. Big
machines would not have been possible without the steam engine and European
nations would not have been all that powerful on the globe without industrialisation.
The basic point I make is that different factors in eighteenth century Europe
necessitated study and research towards expanding the productive base. Could the
eighteenth century merchants, traders and small-scale manufacturers in Europe stop
this process of movement towards greater productivity? My answer is that they could
not, since their existence and stay as manufacturers and traders depended entirely
upon working for and inventing new sources of productive power. Yes, the opponents
of the manufacturing sections in the eighteenth century, the feudal nobility (not the
trading-manufacturing classes) wished to stop this process through political action.
Imagine the fights that took place between the traditionalists and modems in the
English parliament of the time. -That is why one can assert that a mode of production
emerges in human history consequent upon the interplay of social forces and that
large areas of human life are continuously active to sustain and strengthen, or oppose
and destroy, the mode. That is how a new mode emerges by replacing an already
existing one.

What happens when there is a substantial change in the productive forces. The
changed forces introduce a new system of production acd distribution to meet their
requirements, which are different from the ones existing earlier. This implies that the
nineteenth century system of production with the coming in of the steam engine
would require employment of an extremely large number of workers under one big
factory. One can imagine the outcome of such an arrangement in which the
production of goods is split up in small segments for which workers work separately.
This can be called big manufacture, which also indicates huge piles of raw materials
on one side of the factory and an equally huge pile of finished goods on the other.
Since the work has been split up in tiny fragments and workers perform only
specialised repetitive jobs, a new category of employees other than and in addition to
workers is needed to coordinate the whole effort. They constitute the supervisors,
overseers, etc. inside the factory and those others outside the factory to whom the
responsibility of buying raw materials, sending finished goods to the market, along
with maintaining accounts, etc. has been assigned. Please mark what I say. This
arrangement with the attendant numbers of people involved in it under different and
specific categories of work would be unthinkable anywhere in Europe or elsewhere in
the pre-industrial, pre-steam engine phase. And I have talked of only the production
in the big factory, which cannot be an isolated spot in society. The new type of
factory compels the owners and managers of production to see to it that the workers,
who may have been brought from faraway villages to one place where the factory is
situated, are settled in nearby areas. This could result in the emergence of big cities
and markets of a new kind in a matter of decades. Who can stop this entire happening
when new productive forces have been unleashed by human beings at a particular.
juncture in history?

Increased production in the factory means wealth of a new kind, which is different in
form from land, cattle, grain or gold. Earliet, the rich sections of society were named
aristocrats, landowners, gentlemen or merchant-manufacturers since they
"appropriated" the surplus of an old kind. In the industrial phase, there is a different
breed of rich people. Marx called them the industrial bourgeoisie. Would this
situation not have caused a great deal of heartburn among the traditional rich whose
economic power faced continuous erosion? How did they cope with the new
developments? Think of answers to these questions.
 This discussion leads us to the idea of class struggle under which two mutually Society and History:
opposed sections of society remain in a state of constant clash. These sections Marxist View
comprise the haves and have-not, the industrial bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Such
a relationship of clash or antagonism between the two classes is a significant aspect
of movement and progress in history because the clash in society owes its existence
to the distribution of socially produced goods, meaning thereby that even though
goods are socially or collectively produced, their distribution or sharing is not social
in nature. It is individual. The owner of the means of production appropriates, or
misappropriates to himself all that has been produced, which is called surplus
produce by Marx, leaving merely the means of subsistence, the wages paid to the
employees, to the labouring men, women and children.

In the light of what has been said above, let us briefly look at the relationship that
may exist between society and literature. Critics have rightly thought in the past that
literature is a mirror of life and society and that whatever is present in the latter is
reflected in the former. The theory goes back far in time but for us it would be more
pertinent to remember the name of Matthew Arnold who asserted that literature
attains value because of its serious engagement with the moral and spiritual issues of
the time of its writing. Still, most of us rehse :o probe the relationship we are talking
about with a view to creating an awareness of thc spirit of a period through its
literature. Marxism can help us sufficiently well in this direction. How many of us
consider the act of placing a minor before society? Then,would it be correct to call
literature a mirror of society? The question is difficult. Instead, we could approach
the issue of relationship between social reality and literature. Mirror as a reflector is
all right but it may not reflect society the way society actually functions or is actually
constituted. In the first place, if we deal with it in simple terms, much would depend
on where the mirror is placed in society and with what purpose. Mark the word "is
placed" in this sentence and think whether "is placed" is not used to hide the identity
of the subject. We can use the active voice to highlight the fact that the writer places
the minor according to her or his notion and that she or he does this to attain an
objective. I shall analyse the role and function of the writer elsewhere in this block
with which the idea of reflection of society in literature is significantly linked. There,
I shall also consider the usefulness and efficacy of the concept of reflection in a
A discussion about literature.

2.9 LET US SUM UP

Marxism helps us understand society as a part of long human history in whose
growth and development class struggle plays a crucial role. At a given time, a society
should be seen as an organisation that revolves around production. The wrong and
unjust distribution of social surplus is at the root of most social problems today.
Marxism stresses upon the desirability of social justice and a radical reorganisation of
society along revolutionary humanist lines.

2.10 QUESTIONS:
1. What according to Marxism is mode of production? Is it m m l y economic in
nature, a subject to be studied and discussed by an economist and of no
consequence for students of philosophy, social sciences and,humanities?

2. What is the ideological implication of "philosophers have so far interpreted

the world. The point, however, is to change it"?
Matxist V .of 2.11 .GLOSSARY
Literature
6Phtlosophical': A weak word in our context. It stands for 'mere study.,' the
tendency to avoid a clear social stand. Marx demarcated it
ftom 'ghange.'

Produce: Signifies a lot more than making goods in a factory.

According to Man, the tendency to produce is human as
well as creative. The word is further expanded by Marx to
signify 'mode of production' which encompasses the whole
of hitherto known human history.

Production relations: Social relations - as between employer and employee,

master and slave, lord and serf - which determine the way
social surplus would be distributed.
UNIT 3 REPRESENTING AND CRITIQUING
SOCIETY: SUPERSTRUCTURES
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
How to Interpret 'Superstructure'
3.2.1 Law as Superstructure.
3.2.2 Political Superstructure
3.2.3 Religious Superstructure
Actual and Potential Role of Philosophy as Supersbycture
The Realm of Culture and Literature.
The Nature of the Base and its Politics
Some Conceptua) Difficulties.
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

3.0
- p p
OBJECTIVES
In this unit we will: . ,

rn consider the concept of superstructure in general and see its ramifications in

politics, philosophy and literature and. ,
explain the nature of base-superstructure relationship.

3.1 INTRODUCTION
First, let us comprehend the way in which social reality and literature are related to
,each other. In my opinion, the relationship is largely faithfil and realistic. We notice
that the novels written in the eighteenth century tell us a great deal about the way
people lived at the time-one thing that particularly comes to mind is that the
eighteenth century men and women were highly courageous and bold and that they
dared to critique the existing notions of morality and ethics. This would have been
unimaginable in the previous centuries. The very idea of using reason to grasp the
complex questions of human behaviour would ruffle a few feathers. The writers were
courageous enough to comment on the burning issues of the day even if it went
against the interests of the privileged sections. Eighteenth century literature is so
different in nature and content that one is left wondering where all those kings,
-
queens, princes and princesses have gone who so strongly dominated the literary
representation in the earlier centuries. It is a simple question but we should seriously
consider it to know that literature shows to the reader what it sees in. its surroundings
and that the relationship between the two ,,is vital.
-
Does literature also critique the surroundings in which it is produced? I ask this in
somewhat precise terms because words such as "showing," "representing" or
"reflecting" do not necessarily indicate the possible act of critiquing by a literary
work. Critiquing involves a point of view that the writer adopts. In case the writer
does so, from where has s h e received the point of view? Again, how has this point of
view evolved in the course of living and writing? A related question could be: how
'
does it pertain to the reality of the time when the work was composed? Finally, the
work itself makes its specific assertions and emphases and chooses particular
sequences of narration. Do these things also not betray the existence of a point of
Mamist View of view? In the following pages, I plan to acquaint you with these and other aspects of
Literature writing from an angle that has been characterised as Marxist.

3.2 HOW TO INTERPRET SUPERSTRUCTURES

In order to explain social reality, Marx uses the metaphor of 'a building', which has a
base or a structure (foundation, pillars) and a superstructure, something standing upon
or emerging from the foundation. The building can be characterised as wholeness
consisting of highly active parts. In the previous unit, we cast a glance largely at the
base or what can be called the mode of production. This base determined the lives of
people in all aspects and drew lines within which the whole of social existence was
enclosed. Such a structure was useful in that it provided economic sustenance and
organised productive activity for the people. The social structure also compelled
human beings to follow the laws of production, to achieve facility and ease in life. In
this sense, the structure was a "condition of existence" in more ways than one.

What about the superstructure? Did superstructure run parallel to the structure and,
therefore, have an existence independent of organised human production? Some of us
assign such independence to norms of morality, philosophical ideas and literature,
and allow it to emerge in our discourse thought-categories such as 'literary history'
and 'philosophical evolution.' Do we not? But if such a thing as literary history were
possible, there would certainly be a world of superstructure totally unconnected with
the actual conditions of people (structure) in history. What is the case? The Marxist
position on this question is that the superstructure is closely linked to the base in the
final analysis and is determined by it.

According to Marx, superstmcture was totally man-made, unlike the base in which a
strong component of nature (inanimate and animate) existed. Whereas base manifests
the planned collective labour of men and women under a social framework,
superstructure is evolved to interpret, explain and justify the distribution of social
surplus. As people fight for survival in the base, they become conscious of its nature
in their minds, which constitute the area of superstructure. Understandably, a society
formed of and working through contending classes under a mode of production
requires a great deal of conscious explanation as to why a small section of society
should enjoy ownership of wealth and resources and an overwhelmingly large mass
of people live at the subsistence level. This is what everyone would like to know.
Firstly, in spite of an oppressive state machinery - army, police, bureaucracy - to
protect the interests of the privileged few, the owning section needs an acceptable
social argument to say that they have a legitimate claim on the surplus wealth
generated on the strength of human labour through the working of a particular mode
of production. The law most substantially meets this need, or what Marx called 'the
legal superstructure.'

3.2.1 Law as Superstructure

What actually happens is that at every point in history, competent minds work
assiduously to frame laws that would 1egiGmise the misappropriation of socially
generated resources by a few in society. The property owners misappropriate the
surplus 'legally.' In this sense, the existing law at a particular time becomes the
perspective for the state to function under, it provides sufficient ground for the large
bureaucracy (civil, military) and the judiciary to enlarge upon implement and
administer 'justice.' See the irony. Justice is interpreted and explained according to
the requirements of a mode of production and projected on behalf of the privileged
sections as something moral, spiritual and universal! Thus, justice is simply
understood as social sanction for exploitation and misappropriation (the owning
classes, however, describe it not as misappropriation but their right) and is complexly
worked out in high philosophical terms. Notice also how legal luminaries in societies
carry on debates about it all over the world.
 supersuucrure is quite close to the working of the mode of
r x v w = v s l , lcgm
Representing and
Critiquing Society :
production, it directly deals with the rationale of social distribution and persuades'the
Superstructure
working people to believe that they have a right only on what they get as wages.
Religious, philosophical and cultural superstructures have a somewhat tenuous link
with the base, since individuals active in these spheres have the strange notion of
independent operation.

3.2.2 The Political Superstructure

Marx has accorded a most important place to the political realm of human existence.
According to him, it is mainly politics in which people fight their battle for change.
Political formations such as parties play such a vital role in the life of a society that
each formation is supposed to project the view of a distinct class and mobilise masses
on behalf of that class. One can scarcely overlook the role of trade unions in mid-
nineteenth century England and France, which focused popular attention on the
burning issues of the day. Politics has remained so crucial to the ruling bourgeois
classes in England that it has enabled entrepreneurship and industry to decisively
seize economic power and privilege from the feudal nobility and aristocracy in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The lesson to be learnt from the role politics
has played in history is that it should be considered the science of changing society.
The supremacy assigned to the political superstructure by Marx and later radical
thinkers is due to the fact that it acts directly on the base to transform its working.
Politics has also the greatest sense of immediacy and urgency in that it is entirely
present-centred and contemporary. In fact, it is politics that lends an activist edge to
philosophy, ideology, religious beliefs, culture and literature. You would notice that
this entire block on the Marxist idea of literature is permeated, as Marx would have it,
by the desirability of change along humanist lines. It is for this reason that I have
sparingly discussed politics or the role of political superstructures as separate from
other superstructural realms.

3.2.3 The Religious Superstructllre

It may sound odd that the divine and Godly aspect has a tangible link with the social
structure, that the ahistorical and universal-looking religious principles have deep
roots in the society of their times. These principles establish concrete links with the
society in which they exist and play a definite role. They influence change and
modify or strengthen people's views. There is no doubt that at the apparent level,
religion appears to be placed far above people's mundane existence and seems to
guide them from a distant spiritual position. However, we can put a clear stamp of
social pressures and compulsions on religious beliefs as well as practices. If
Christianity has undergone so many changes since the renaissance, the reason could
surely be traced to the developments in the economy and polity of European societies
of the time. We would also notice that the visualisation of God at two points of time
has been done radically differently, that the feudal concept of God is not the same as
the capitalist one, the former being oppressive, overbearing and paternally beneficent
and the latter a relatively friendly, persuasive and sympathetic entity. It would be
fascinating to study religious principles from this angle where the norms and ideas
behind people's general spiritual responses reflect myriad facets of an actual social
belief rooted in time. In this context, we can refer to Milton the poet who captures
distinct forms of the Divine attitude in God and Son in Paradise Lost. Because of the
changes at the base, the idea of God and Christianity acquires an altogether new ring
in the writings of the eighteenth century. What concrete shape does the Christian
dimension of human behaviour assume in the post-Cromwellian era and how do we
appreciate the rationale behind this developme;lt?

The religious superstructure has two clear end-points - the first toucl~ingthe
emotional-spiritual state of ordinary people and the second one compelling religious
thinkers, poets and writers to correlate new repponses to the already established
 notions of spirituality and religiosity. The two coalesce into a new outlook, whlch
7

Marxist View of
Literature attempts answers to fresh social questions. Take the example of Parson Adams in
Fielding's Joseph Andrews. Adams is not a traditional and rigid preacher of
Christianity. Instead, he is a good friend, enjoys fun and is fond of reading as well as
ale. His parametres are Christian, but within them one sees a great deal of the
eighteenth century English response. Adams symbolises the religious superstructure
at its active best and Fielding who captures its working in the novel himself seems to
be enjoying the presence of a strong secular component of it. Adams is the rel'g'1 lOUS
need of the hour in the eighteenth century without whose help the new class of
merchants and traders cannot internalise the old values of Christian tradition. He is a
concrete eighteenth century construction of the religious idea - genuine spirit of
helpfulness, loyalty, learning and optimism.

Philosophical and cultural superstructures work in a still more intricate way. The
reason behind the manner of their peculiar functioning 1s that that they deal wlth
ideas, feelings and emotions. Faith distinguishes religion from philosophy and in the
latter, one has to work out, analyse and explain rather than merely tell or preach.
There is little scope for questioning or doubt in the former (faith does not allow
query) while it is the mainstay of philosophy. In this way, the philosophical
superstructure gains further independence from the base. The two end-points I have
talked of in the case of religious superstructure are absent here, particularly in the
case of philosophy.

While discussing this, one thing that is to be particularly kept in mind is that there is
no one-to-one correlation between these superstructures and the economic mode and
that the economic mode is visible to people more as a distortion than in realistic
proportion. Why? This may be so because the nature of the base is grasped and
comprehended, rightly or wrongly, in the consciousness of people. Let us, therefore,
see how people become conscious of the base in philosophy - the arena of thought.

3.3 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY

AS SUPERSTRUCTURE
Abstractions in philosophy serve the purpose of unifying ordinary details of life into a
coherent pattern. This is an important function from the point of view of society.
Ordinary occurrences in life do not tell us much unless they are seen together as part
of a phenomenon. Helping us to place day-to-day happenings in a general
perspective, philosophy becomes the business of making sense and directs people's
perceptions towards definite attitudes. This act of thought on the part of the ruling
class can be defined as their attempt to harness philosophy for political use. There is,
however, a problem. Philosophy by nature is not passive and can stretch itself to see
beyond the limits set by a governing order. It can so happen, as it does in many a
case, and to the detriment of precise analysis of an existing mode, that when raised to
a higher level, this business of making sense provides the aura of universality to this
'important human endeavour. By the sheer force of abstraction, philosophical activity
makes the occurrences of a period appear timeless. As I have said, this has pitfalls.
But the broadened scope of philosophy has also turned out to be useful in specific
phases of history. This shows how active and autonomous superstructural elements
may be. We do, for instance, identify ourselves with events and people of faraway
countries since, philosophically seen, they appear connected with us in thoughts,
values and aspirations. Geographically and culturally apart, people of different
societies can be knit into an impressive pattern under categories such as race, creed or
broad humanity.

What happens when we question and critique the values and moral preferences of a
time? I raise this question to suggest that philosophical activity, because of its social
potential, is a double-edged weapon. At a particular time, we raise objections to
certain happenings because we do not derive enough satisfaction from the life around
 us. This clash of opposing values in the philosophical superstructure eqables us to Representing a
evolve alternative principles of behaviour. At least, we start looking at the existing Critiquing Soci
norms and principles, which became well entrenched in the past. Suppose we did it in Superstructure
the case of thought-patterns that obtained in the past and questioned their basis in a
new situation. This would be a subversive intellectual activity. The activity would
put us in a different grade of intellectual courage and call upon us to confront the
. vested interests on the strength of our reasoning capability. We would then, to use
M m ' s phrase, be confronting "reality with reason." It is possible that while doing so,
we may have been inspired by developments in another country. See the leap of
philosophy, of thought, from one country and society to another. In this sense, the
scope of philosophical discourse is immense. At the same time, the philosophical
discourse on many an occasion places normative or religious ideas under the gaze of
human rationality and opens up vast areas of useful reflection. In the process, as we
noted above, we may feel that philosophical abstractions help us transcend the
barriers of time and place because of which we could establish meaningful links with
developments in other periods and societies. That is why philosophical ideas and
truths of another time still appeal to us. As I have said, this cannot be explained with
direct reference to the economic mode but has to be studied in its specific evolution.

3.4 THE REALM O F CULTURE AS SUPERSTRUCTURE

We confront this nature of an active and autonomous superstructure still more clearly
in the case of culture and literature. These segments of human life in particular phases
of history project joys, pains and sufferings of human beings existing then in such a
way that they (joys, pains, etc.) appear to be the expressjons of our own feelings and
emotions at present. What is this particular way? Does this suggest that a kind of
intensity and immediacy enters the represented feelings and makes it attractive to a
distant audience? It is for this reason, perhaps, thac literary works produced far away
from our time and place touch deep chords in our heart. It cannot, therefore, be said
that culture and literature bear a direct or immediate connection with a specific base.
They indeed give the impression that they do not at all belong to the realm of
superstructure of a particular epoch, but appeal to humanity as universal and timeless
phenomena.

We can approach this question fiom a different angle also. In spite of some
universalistic features, literature, philosophy and religion bear a close relationship to
their social environment, and in one particular respect - that of playing a role - they
become as concrete a segment of society as economy. These are shaped and
constructed by those active men and women who have been deeply engrossed in the
processes of changing their environment -be they concerning faiths, values, ideals or
norms. Yes, faith, values and ideals are not God-given or universal. They only appear
to be so. Actually, they are constructs, consciously forged ideas to explain specific
trends, which people use in their lives. And since they are constructs, the privileged
sections in society always keep track of them, monitor them for the purpose of
ensuring their own class security and safety in the existing order. Thus, superstructure
is not left untouched or unmediated by the base but in fact is sought to be consciously
tempered to perpetuate the class rule. We cannot deny that processes of intellectual or
emotional life that engage the attention of people at a particular time touch upon their
vital social interests. We cannot ignore the fact that the state or'the powers that be
come out openly in support of religious thinkers, philosophers and writers and
patronise them in modem times. Also note that those philosophers and writers are
chosen for support and patronage by the state that willfully ignore the question of
justice and equality. The point I am making is that the privileged sections take deep
interest in what I call the construction of facts and ideals. We notice almost daily that
certain writers and thinkers make it their mission to, not merely uphold but explain as
well religiosity and spirituality while there are those who courageously subject any
such idea to critical examination fiom the humanist angle. Conversely, the sections
that control society also look unkindly at those writers whose ideas and imaginative
Marxist V i i of representations prove ;monvenient to the existing set-up. History is replete with
Lirerature ' examples of state or social repression of a number of thinkers, writers and artists.
This makes our task of comprehending and judging reality extremely difficult. At the
same time, it is this concrete activity of writers vis-a-vis their environment that
imparts significance to their work. They write to uphold or attack, acquiesce in or
question a trend. What I wish to stress here is that cultural and philosophical
superstructures have a great deal of intimate connection with the structure prevailing
at the time of their emergence. In fact, the close identification of a writer with the
issues of hisher time lends such intensity to their works that the works inspire not
merely contemporary readers but also those of posterity, a point I have touched upon
above.

As is clear, M a n made a distinction between not only the structure and the
superstructurebut also between different superstructures. This was done to suggest
that superstructures do not directly correspond to the social reality of their time and
have in fact a specificity entirely their own. But the concept of specificity should in
no way be used to separate the superstructures from their base or from one another. In
times of intense change, the cultural superstructure, the most distanced from the base,
may assume political overtones and can work almost directly on the base. Let us take'
the example of political and literary superstructures working in unison. In a limited
sense, the political activity of a period is closely related to the governing and
governed classes, the two, standing face-to-face with each other in hostile
confrontation. In this sense, politics may be considered the most active part of
superstructure, so much so that in fact, it could appear a very necessary segment of
the base itself where the employers and employees confront each other physically and
argue about their respective standpoints. Wlat I imply is that particularly working
people become active in the political superstructure to bring about a radical change in
their social environment, which means that they get together under a commonly
conceived programme and hit collectively at vested economic interests. This is done
by the mass of human beings not necessarily in terms of violent subversion of the
state machinery or civil society behind which the ruling class stands organised in any
case, but through winning over the majority of the members of society to their side.
On their part, the governing class is constantly busy in proving to the society through
its political formations that its role is that of a responsible leader. Whatever fissures
occur in the social sphere under this phenomenon require to be assiduously explained
by politics on h t h sides in terms of shifts from accepted norms of propriety, morality
&d tradition.

The governing class also distorts and misinterprets through its political formation the
emerging political alternative. Consider the manner in which the feudal structure in
England fought in so many devious ways with emerging democratic +rends. The fact
was that, as Andrew Milner has stated, "By the seventeenth century the subordinate
capitalist mode of production had developed to the point at which it came into clear
contradiction with the dominant feudal mode" (John Milton and the English
Revolution - London: Macmillan, 1981, p. 66). That it crumbled gradually under
pressure from a new and progressive bourgeois class is not indicative of its weak
social urge or motivation. It was an extremely violent struggle. The process of actille
hostility between the two classes lasted well over a hundred and fifty years and the
eighteenth century witnessed an inexorable march of the new class towards complete
domination of society. Today, we can see this inevitability of historical emergence in
the eighteenth century clearly since we stand at a distance in time from the
phenomenon. But imagine the case of those writers who stood in the thick of things
and bore upon their nerves the pressures of the day. This long and complex process
was well captured by writers such as John Milton, Henry Fielding and William Blake.
See how their writing is marked by the distinction between good and bad, right and
wrong, desirable and undesirable. They were not humanist writers in the usual sense
of the term but were sharp critics of those tendencies that worked against the interests
of the common masses. These writers were intelligent enough not to be taken in by
words such as 'tradition,' 'patriotism,' honour' and 'virtue.' They took it as their job
to approach the reader with the message of change. There is no doubt that their Representing and
literary behaviour involved a great deal of debate, disagreement and even violent Critiquing Society :
exchange of words. And the whole thing corresponded to that which happened in the Superstructure
political sphere of the period. The point to note is that clashes and confrontations in
the political superstructure had a direct impact on what has been called the economic
mode of production and that the political superstructure derived its punch, its
effectiveness from its linkage with the socio-economic reality.

How is the cultural superstructure or more relevantly literature distinct in its

operation from the politics of the period? The question is well asked since there does
exist a clear gap between the two superstructures. Literature, for instance, recognisb,
different parametres of its activity and addresses those issues more sharply, which
relate to the emotional and moral needs of people. It also uses what can be called the
imaginative mode under which focus is provided to vital and central areas of life as
against those, which are'trivial or mundane. The imaginative mode helps the writer
concentrate upon the chosen areas of existence, which can become symbols of
dynamic behaviour in course of time.

3.5 THE NATURE OF THE BASE AND ITS POLITICS

Regarding the base, Marx's observation is that in actual history, it changes through a
great deal of violence. The reason is simple. Marx clearly saw that the owning class
of the day put up stiff resistance to the forces of change. You cannot persuade an
owner to give up his wealth, land and privileges for the benefit of a more progressive
section, the real producers, or for the greater good of society. Under capitalism
particularly, the greater good can wait. What is considered essential is personal profit.
This is in spite of the fact that most religious thinkers, poets, saints and mystics tell
the world about the evil influence of money, power and prestige. There is no doubt
that these people are right in their observation about the society of their time. But the
owning classes pay lip service to them and to the ideals they preach. In reality, the
owners protect their pnvileges with all their might. Hence the question. The example
of the Cromwellian revolution in England comes to mind when a whole society stood
up against the king and by dethroning him, took over the reins of power. It was not a
peaceful transition from monarchy to republicanism by any reckoning. There were a
large number of people, specifically those supporting monarchy and feudal land-
relations, who found the new ideas of equality extremely threatening. This made
them side with the king who with the traditional authority and divinely sanctioned
superiority could sway the mind of the common English people. However, the king
did more than appeal to the sense of tradition of his subjects. He felt greatly
threatened by the emergence of new ideas of equality, justice and human endeavour.
Seeing the potential danger of this new awareness, he decided to ride roughshod on
those who championed new values. The aristocracy stood solidly behind him in this
venture of attack on the forces of change. On the other side were the merchants and
traders of the day who had emerged from the commonalty of English life and still had
deep roots in it. They led the people in their revolt and hit back to capture important
points of power. Of course, unity among them required a good deal of planning,
forethought and vision. These latter were people fired by idealism and high notions of
morality. English criticism of today is not able to give due recognition to this aspect
of the Cromwellian revolution. Why? Try to find an answer to this question. From
my side, I give a clue. Most English criticism today is ill equipped to withstand
pressures of contemporary bourgeois ideology and shows no signs of having a free
and objective outlook. Consequently, it is biased against the idea of change and
dynamic thought. I shall elaborate it later in this block. Coming back to the
antagonism that existed between aristocracy and the common people in seventeenth
century England, one saw a growing idealistic upsurge in the sixteen thieies and
forties. In the process, as we know, King Charles.1was executed and his son ran
away to France. It is true that the newfound power of the people lasted only for a
short while but a mortal blow had been dealt at the prevailing base, which became
&st View of totally different from what it was before the revolution. Land relations were radically
'rature changed and the merchants became more powerful. They could now decisively direct
the path of the parliament. Politics in the parliament could no more be used to the
detriment of the newly emerged sections of trade. In Milner's words, "The English
bourgeoisie had disposed of one recalcitrant king, and it was to prove perfectly
capable of disposing of another in 1688 ... In this manner, the whole structure of the
feudal absolutist state was abolished and replaced by the quite dzffeerent set of
political institutions which composed the constitutional monarchy" (73). That is what
happens at the base when the spirit of change threatens and takes control of the minds
of men.

3.6 'SUPERSTRUCTURES' - SOME CONCEPTUAL

DIFFICULTIES
Great and decisive changes occur at the base - it is there that the two opposing
classes fight unto finish for survival. Such violent clashes do not occur in the
superstructure. Marx has said, "With the change of the economic foundation, the
entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed". The word
"transformed is quite significant since the superstructure, according to Marx,follows
the changes in the base. One important example is of the legal superstructure which
legitimises and facilitates the running of the new system. We notice that in law the
influences of change can be seen first and lawfollows the restructuted base later.
However, the case of philosophy, ideology or culture is not the same. People discern
the possibility of change as well as its negative or positive aspects in philosophy or
ideology much before the occurrence of social upheaval. Also, echoes of
dissatisfaction, grievance and complaint get reflected in literature prior to the
happenings at the base. In this sense, all these superstructures influence the base and
intensify the conflict there rather than be transformed by it. Keeping this in mind,
transformation should not be taken literally. Therefore, we have to interpret Marx's
statement about superstructure in a different manner. The question ought to be: How
do people become conscious within the superstructure of their conditions of existence
if.the change takes place first in the base? To repeat, how do people become active in
the political superstructure and throw away the shackles of the prevailing base, which
has become redundant and needs to be changed so that the productive powers of
humanity are free to flow in a progressive historical direction? I will leave it as a
question for you to ponder over, as to how Marx's view of the base-superstructure
relationship should make sehse to you.

The next issue we can raise is linked with historical conflict. Marx says that we have
to distinctly understand the nature of ideological transformation of "the legal,
political, religious, aesthetic or philosophical - in short ideological forms in which
men become conscious of this conflict (between productive forces and relations of
production) and fight it out."

While commenting generally on the base-superstructure relationship, Marx only

briefly expressed his view. Actually, Marx talked of the base-superstructure
relationship in simple, clear terms with the aim that these two components of social
reality would be understood in theory, in abstraction. He wished to be sure that social
scientists and activists comprehended the crucial existence of a base. Marx's idea of
the base proved that the idealist thinkers, given to wanton flights of fancy, were
wrong in believing that social reality was some kind of clay open for wishful
moulding by human beings. Without presenting the base as a decisive and quite
difficult factor, Marx could not emphasise the importance of social change at the
level of the mode of production. I repeat Marx's basic premise that, "The
philosophers have so far interpreted the world. The point, however, is to change it."
This meant that social reality had to be taken out of the domain of philosophers and
put in the hands of those who were the real producers, the proletariat. Till one did it,
nothing decisive would happen. The concept of base was meant to work totally
against those who as idealists merely "interpreted" the world, while the world with its Representing and
all-goveming and influencing base remained intact to exploit and oppress the Critiquing Society :
working masses of society. Once this was accepted in theory, we can easily recognise Superstructure
that the superstructure as a realm of human thought and creativity interacts in fact
significantly with the base.

3.7 LET US SUM UP

For Marx, it was necessary to emphasise the concept of base since it provided solidity
and materiality to the discourse of change. What I mean is that the discourse of
change operates in the superstructure -politics, philosophy, religion, culture - while
its specific effectiveness and significance is derived from its deep cognisance of the
mode of production. Thus, the discourse of social change becomes from an idealist,
philosophical exercise to one which works as a real palpable force and touches the
vital areas of human existence -how people in a society produced things for the
common good, how they related to one another and how at the same time they
responded to the questions of social acceptability and desirability, conviction and
commitment.

3.8 OUESTIBNS
1. What does superstructure stand for in Marxist criticism? Also consider
whether literature is an important part of superstructure.

2. Owners of the means of production resist social change at all levels -

economic as well as political, ideological and cultural. Do you agree? Give a
reasoned answer.

3.9 GLOSSARY
Ahistorical: Outside of and away from history. The ahistorical
attitude leads to abstraction and arbitrariness in
discussion.

Cromwellian Revolution: The great political assault led by the republican

leader Oliver Cromwell on King Charles I in 1640.
The fight encompassed the whole of English society.
Following the revolution, England came to be ruled
through a parliament by the commonwealth, a
collectivity of modem progressive forces of money
and productive power.

Misappropriation: A loaded word. It indicates the unjust nature of

surplus distribution under which socially produced
surplus is wkongly snatched away by the individual
entrepreneur. Under this arrangement, the actual
producer, the factory worker, merely gets his wages,
not a share in the produce.

Specificity: Concreteness. A specific or concrete phenomenon

has features of an actual happening that cannot be
visualised in other circumstances or situations.
UNIT 4 COMMITMENT 'IN LITERATURE
Structure
Objectives
Introduction
Who is a Committed Writer?
The Committed View of Issues
The Committed and the Other View of the Same Phenomenon
Commitment and Tradition
The Theoretical Base
Literature as Education: Direct Interaction with Public
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit, let us:
define and explain the role of a writer from the Marxist point of view
elucidate, under this perspective, that literary writing assumes an activist political
dimension
and probe the theory behind committed writing.

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Till the middle of the nineteenth century, commitment did not figure as an issue in
discussions about literature. It need not have. Every important writer till that time
showed keen interest in the affairs of society and adopted a clear approach to the
problems of the day. The Romantics, for instance, shared with the readers their
disgust and hatred for the ways of city life which they found artificial and narrow.
Disturbed and anguished as the Romantics remained, they aspired for an existence
that was simple, natural and spontaneous. Their rejection of 'reason,' the faculty that
set much store by planning and conscious effort, and preference for 'imagination'
indicated a sharp sense of critique about the surrounding reality. For them,
'imagination' countered all this and enabled man to see "the life of things," as
Wordsworth put it. No wonder that the established and entrenched interests in culture
as well as society did not take kindly to the Romantics and ignored their assertions.
On their side, the Romantics did not care. See whether modem writers have the same
kind of attitude towards their society.

However, things changed drastically in the latter half of the nineteenth century from
what they were earlier. In the first decade of the twentieth century and later, the
English writer began drawing the line between the social and individual, between that
which could be shared with the reader on the basis of common interests and that
which the writer felt and thought only individually. That the individual thought and
feeling could also typify the thought or feeling of a group in a society remained
outside the purview of the twentieth century writer. The studies of the working of the
human mind done in the latter half of the nineteenth century may have contributed to
this development. Is this a correct guess? In my opinion, it is not merely that
psychology as a new branch of knowledge influenced the writer and made himher
delve deep in the mind and consciousness of people. In the first place, is it not
possible that psychology itself as an independent area of study had its origin in the
way the nineteenth century writers, particularly those who wrote in the thirties, forties
and fifties, understood and interpreted their experience? This is bome by the fact that
a large part of nineteenth century English literature is full of representations with the
psychological dimension as a most determining aspect of behaviour. No, the Commitment in
difficulty with the early twentieth century English literature is that it poses issues in Literature
opposition to society, not as situated within it.

4.2 WHO IS A COMMITTED WRITER?

There are very few committed writers in twentieth century English literature. By
"committed" writers I mean those who consciously and effectively draw the attention
of the reader towards injustice, exploitation and oppression in society through their
writing and provide a rational-critical dimension to their representations in literature.
Committed wnting has the power to involve readers as participants in their own
problem-ridden environment as well. And the few committed writers we have with us
such as Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), for instance, are either kept out of critical
discourse or treated by entrenched interests in the academic world with excessive
scepticism. But, in the first place, what do we understand by a committed writer?

In my view, a committed writer assigns great importance to the historical context and
situates his themes in the middle of significant developments of his time. I know that
"historical context7'and "significant developments" are big words but it is these that
relate meaningfully to the life of the common people. The historical context makes
difficult things comprehensible to the readers and tells them that they are products as
well as producers of history. Again, it is the historical context that adequately
explains the phenomenon of a period by linking up the phenomenon with the way
human beings live in their particular surroundings. Human beings as "products of
circumstances" would be readily accepted as a correct formulation. But how are they
producers? This has been explained earlier in this block as a bdamental point of
Marxism. The writing is committed in the sense that it is informed by a distinctive
historical approach according to which the ordinary people decisively contribute
towards social production because of which they develop a stake in an appropriate
running of the social process. It is history - the changing and evolving (not static)
conditions of existence - that makes us conscious of the importance of ordinary
people in society.

Looked at differently, the ordinary people are in fact not ordinary but the most
productive and, therefore, the most extraordinary. What would happen if we change
our viewpoint so radically? Such a viewpoint is bound to make us rethink our
parameters of criticism. What I mean is that commitment in literature is a question of
attitude to one's society - its structure and organisation. If we place ourselves in
opposition to the forces of our day, our commitment would reflect itself as a distinct
mode of behaviour. This would indicate also a highly conscious act on the writer's
part. Here, the word 'conscious' assumes added significance because the writer
evolves for himselfherself in hisher surroundings a role vis-A-vis the people among
whom s h e lives. Many a time, this induces writers to openly propagate their views
through poems, plays and novels. A clear propensity for propaganda through
literature emerges in times of social turmoil in which the poor exploited masses
agitate to secure social and political rights. At such a time, committed writers decide
to merge their voices with those of the large mobilised masses. In the act of
representing the people's mood, committed writers also use specific literary devices
(comedy, rhetoric) to give a fillip to popular urges. The process may generate a
different kind of popular literature than we notice in ordinary peaceful times.

4.3 THE COMMITTED VIEW OF ISSUES

I reiterate that the question of comm~trnentin literature is closely connected with the
writer's consciousness, hisher conscious attitude towards the society of the time. In
the twentieth century, this conscious adoption of attitude as a guiding principle
threatens a large chunk of writers and critics unlike in the past. For instance, how
should we look upon the fact of World War I? Was it a war that brought out the hero
Marxist View of in man by placing challenges before him and did it inspire a whole society or country
Literature to wage struggle for the preservation or upholding of certain values? Certainly not.
We do not remember it as a war in this old sense. Most thinkers and writers agree that
World War I was fought by the economically powerful sections in each country that
were involved in it for the preservation and prorn~tionof their own limited interests.
As we would see, the primary purpose of these powerful sections was a share in the
world trade that existed and flourished in the colonies. Did they keep in mind the well
being of the people in those countries? It appears that interests of the populace in
colonies were not of any concern for imperialist nations in pursuance of their plans.
In the first place, the deciding authority in the case of each country was the
economically strong section of people whose eye was on the profits that the
imperialistic structure generated on the world scale. Obviously, these sections would
not be swayed by the humanistic consideration of love and fellow feeling among the
people in their country, their sole cotisideration being the narrow profit motive. It is
also clear that the majority of citizens of the warring nations, both men and women,
have no say in the matter of fighting wars that involve destruction of life and .
resources on a vast scale. The interesting thing is that the eventual sufferers in this
tragedy are not only those who join the army and become cannon fodder on the
battlefield or their families and friends but also those countless others who inhabit the
backward and underdeveloped colonised world. That is why the words used about
World War I by even liberal historians and analysts were "senseless destruction,"
"irrational clash of interests," "cynical pursuit of power," etc. However, this
destrwtion, ironically, helped industry and trade flourish still more in the victorious
nations. Needless to assert that this 'progress' and success in economy would work to
the detriment of the colonies in a yet more ruthless manner in the years to come. This
is how the cxnmitted writer may have viewed the phenomenon previous to hisher
activist intervention in society through literature.

4.4 THE COMMITTED AND THE OTHER VIEW OF

THE SAME PHENOMENON
Here, I have presented in brief a version of World War I. I call this version broadly
humanist. The view behind this version is quite sympathetic towards the interests of
the poor and weak in the European nations as well as the whole of what we call the
third world today. In this context, the second question relates to the preservation and
upholding of values by literature in a general way. Most wiiters of the twentieth
century, irrespective of the c l a ~ to
s which they belonged or with which they.
sympathised, found World War I senseless, appalling and worse. This was a sort of
assertion of protest and criticism on their part. Sometimes, it came in the form of
foregrounding intimate love between individuals the Nobel Prize winning American
writer Hemingway, living under the threat of death. Love and death became the
central features of this discourse, which did not know of the actual clashes taking
place in the modern world. Blinded by assaults from all sides, the modern writer
clung to the idea of the individual which had nowhere to look for hope, neither in
spreading a belief or message, in the loyalty to the country of their origin (that in the
past translated into what can be called patriotism) nor the ideal of freedom and
liberation. This could be said of the vision of Hemingway. In the case of D. H.
Lawrence (1885-1930), the critique assumed the form of a wholesale attack on
industrialism as such which to the uncritical eye was a strong factor behind the
malaise among men and women in the modern world. Yet another example of protest
was the sweeping rejection of the world as a place which had become barren, beastly
and vulgar, devoid of faith in and bonding with the will of God (T. S. Eliot, 1888-
1965). As a reaction to the phenomenon of World War I, this writing did make some
sense. But did it go into the real causes of the War and see that certain sections of
society - the upper strata - were directly to blame for the happening of this colossal
destruction? My contention is that such an understanding world War I, as was
reflected in the modernist writing in spite of sounding dramatic and spectacular, was
erroneous since it took its specific stand in abstract, ahistorical terms, its terms of
reference being "mankind," "world," "industrialism," "faith," etc. Nowhere did this Commitment in
critique, if it can truly be called a critique, refer to the actual history that had unfolded Literature
itself after the nineteenth century as an imperialistic dimension of capitalism. That is
why, as far as the typical modernist twentieth century writer is concerned, World War
I was a result of things other than imperialist-capitalist interests.

See what I mean. The nineteenth century writer had finally realised that the norms
and principles cherished by h i d e r were threatened by a structure that was driven by
the laws of capitalism. This explained why nineteenth century English writers were
able to offer a sound critique of the active interests under capitalism and produce
'works of great literary merit. On the other hand, the twentieth century writer did not
relate important social developments to capitalism. The question is, why? My answer
is that a number of twentieth century writers lacked commitment and did not engage
themselves with the issues of the day.

4.5 COMMITMENT AND TRADITION

The comment about twentieth century English writing could go still further, to
suggest that the new writer, who wrote around the World War I, years had
deliberately changed hisher strategy of action in literature, that s h e had resolved not
to point an accusing finger at capitalism in its imperialist phase. Instead, as a carrier
and representative of this new capitalism, s h e decided to oppose all that went in the
name of renaissance humanism, scientific thought and rational outlook. In
consequence, s h e severed all connection with the great realistic tradition of
eighteenth and nineteenth century literature.

Keeping this in view, I wish to make two points about the practice of the twentieth
century writers - one, that they do not meaningfully relate with the development of
values and principles in English literature since the renaissance; and two, that they do
not assign any important cultural role to the writer in the twentieth century, thereby
reducing the writer to the level of an ineffectual entity in society. In fact, the two are
connected since a link with the secular traditions as well as the strong sense of protest
in English literature would inevitably draw the writing in the twentieth century
towards performing a meaningful social role. I also iterate that these two tendencies
push literary activity to the periphery of society and that writing, bereft of a
meaningful linkage with the common reader is allowed to become a commodity
produced by the writer for consumption in the market today. This did not happen in
the particular case I have cited, but on a general plane. Actually, such a phenomenon
encourages impersonal trends in society to influence and determine the nature of
writing.

Let us get our view of the evolution of English writing straight. The development of
literature since the renaissance has been sharply along humanist lines at the core of
which lies secular thought. Whether it is Marlowe, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Milton,
Fielding, Walter Scott or Dickens, we clearly notice in English writing a preference
for analysis, questioning, courageous and honest assessment of trends as well as a
bold and powerful support for the cause of social liberation. English writing in the
last four centuries, and particularly since the Cromwellian revolution, has without
doubt confronted courageously the issues of religion and moral conduct. It has also
not fought shy of fulfilling its responsibility towards the larger masses in society.
Issues such as modernity, learning, morality and adventure have been subjected to
close examination and answers have been evolved in the direction of a sane
pragmatic response. English writing of this period has also projected, particularly in
the nineteenth century, the subject of inequality between the male and female of the
human species under the governing principle of exploitation and patriarchy. Maggie
and Dorothea in George Eliot (in The Mill on the Floss and Middlemarch
respectively) reach the workable realisation that they have to put up with the
challenges and pressures of the time till better conditions emerged. Their predecessor
Marxist View of Catherine Earnshaw in Emily Bronte ( Wuthering Heights) and successor Tess in
Literature Thomas Hardy's novel of the same name symbolise great womanly courage and
resistance. On the whole, we can see these renaissance humanist values of protest,
courageous conduct and individual assertion evolving in the English writing of the
last four centuries. Could we not relate them meaningfully to the historical
development of productive forces and social casses at one end and the will to change
among human beings at the other? A large segment of twentieth century English
writing seems to have lost sight of this strong tradition of progressive humanist
literature in England. An alternative committed paradigm of literature could take
inspiration from this tradition in order to expose and attack a highly restrictive
environment.

4.6 THE THEORETICAL BASE

This is one way of making sense of our past for the purpose of contributing toward
the growth and development in our society. This directly links us to the idea of an
active agent in a given environment. That is how committed writing comes to grasp
its tradition and inheritance. The idea can be raised further to the level of a collective
activie in which a society as a whole is visualised as constructing a past for its
particular use. If there were a strong literary movement in twentieth century England,
it would have looked at its rich and glorious past in a manner different than the
modernist writers did. In this,context, could we not take guidance from the idea of
what a contemporary critic Jerome McGann in Rethinking Historicism, Critical
Readings in Romantic History (Marjourie Levinson, et al., p.106) has called
'Difference' and 'Change.' McGann expects the writer to subvert his literary
environment by placing inconvenient hurdles in the way of accepted norms. To
quote: "When we read, we construct our histories, including our futures. In our day,
poetry's special contribution to that process -poetry's special form of 'reading' -
comes as a set of complicating and undermining procedures. Calling into question all
that is privileged, understood and given including itself, this poetry operates under
the signs of Difference and, most especially, of Change." In this quote, we have only
to replace 'poetry' with literature to internalise the idea of a committed writer's role
in his or her environment as well as in the self-correcting and self-evolving exercise
of a participatory intelligence.

This would obviously have no meaning for the typical modernist English writer who
worked merely to make hisher experience and state of mind known to the reader and
in the process moved inexorably away from where the action was to the margins of
history. This apart, the modernist writer failed entirely in hisher effort to broaden and
universalise that which was narrowly individual, for the simple reason that she
believed history to be impersonal, oppressive and non-changing. This prevented the
modernist writer from forging an alliance with the evolving and developing
consciousness (of writers and writings of the past) and urged them to invent a highly
abstract notion of time. Perhaps, the modernist writer was not adequately equipped to
'read' earlier literature. The activity involved what M c G m has called "complicating
and undermining procedures." We have to think how a new reading of past literature
can be made difficult as well as questioning and inspiringly challenging. Acceptance
of the old as it is gives us the habit of easy thinking. As a result of this, the writer
may simply work with the ordinary tools of common sense. That is why
"complicating procedures" are required so that a different view of things can be
achieved. My contention is that this view is highly profitable and usef~lbecause it
provides us a p l a ~ ein the tradition, which followed the significant rules and norms of
human progress, as well as a role under which we carry that tradition forward. See,
how difficult the task of committed writing is! The early twentieth century writer
chose, in my opinion, the softer option of not putting to use "the complicating and
undermining procedures" of reading, i.e. grasping and interpreting. Thus, she
overlooked the relevance of the great humanist and secular tradition in English
34 writing. Jerome McGann's comment rightly draws our attention to this fact. The
twentieth century modernist writer glossed over this significant connection with Commitment in
tradition and chose to stand alone as an entity outside time and history. That is why Literature
his criticism of events such as World War I lacked substance and solidity. It did not
tell them what to do except that s h e should either fight a lonely battle or bear with
and suffer the ignominy of modem existence. In fact, s h e did worse than this, as I
have said above, when s h e deliberately argued against the idea of progress and
movement in time, which as we know is a euphemism for history.

The second point concerns the role of a writer in society. I have given an explanation
and a rationale at some length of this in the previous paragraph. Is a writer not
supposed to tell hisher reader about the state in which the large masses of people find
themselves, as also about how these people could respond to the prevalent pressures
of economy, society and culture? One answer can be that a writer's job is only to
share with the readei the general mood of helplessness, despondency and disgust and
that s h e should leave the rest of the matter to the reader's own devices. The modern
writer does precisely this. The readers are left to fend for themselves with respect to
solutions that they require to the pressing problems of the day. In fact, the reading of
literature in the twentieth century helps only in duplicating, if not actually
compounding the sense of alienation that people feel in their lives. Another answer
can be that literature could provide a sharp awareness and understanding of the life-
processes of the time when it is produced. While doing so, literary writing may focus
upon the aspect of change in life. To committed writing, change alone would indicate
the relevance of positive thought and intervention in society.

4.7 LITERATURE AS EDUCATION: DIRECT

INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC
The committed writer in our time can locate those areas of existence where struggles
are already taking place to transform the nature and quality of life. Do we not see
people dissatisfied with the way the social structure suppresses their creative urge and
compels them to merely carry out the dictates of the privileged sections in society? If
propgly channelised, this dissatisfaction can assume a strong political form. What I
mean is that a writer can, if s h e is a conscious social entity, help the reader identify
such centres of potential change and infuse in the reader an urge to participate in
collective struggles. Unlike the first answer, which applied to the modem writer, an
agent of individual-centred, apathetic and broadly cynical literary trend, this answer
sheds an altogether different light upon the role and function of writing. Emphasizing
the importance of active intervention, Frank Lentricchia in his book Criticism and
Social Change has said that "I come down on the side of those who believe that our
society is mainly unreasonable and that education should be one of the places where
we can get involved in the process of transforming it" (p. 4). In this quotation, the
reference to education is particularly meaningful since it brings the activity of a
thinking person right into the social arena by placing a whole set of curious and
inquisitive people in front of the interpreting individual in an act of sharing.
Elaborating the Marxist approach, Lentricchia says further that "Knowledge is the
production of classes, institutions, and disciplines, and the mode of production itself,
not of isolated individuals" (p. 5). This is what can ptecisely be said of literature
since insofar as the view of the committed writer is concerned, experiences also get
produced within the ambit of the mode of production and what one has to make of it
in literature should also be based upon a general collective idea of its function as well
as impact. At the same time, the act of the writer has also a close affinity with that of
an educator. The materialist radical politics of such an act alone determines the extent
to which literature attains its humanist appeal and transformative edge.

Let us take a glance at a still more activist view of committed writing. Bertolt
Brecht's role could not but be that of a propagandist whose views were to influence
the course of politics and history. Walter Benjamin rightly remarked that for Brecht,
there was no gap or distinction between the stage and the audience because if we
Marxist View of recognised the gap, we would assign a passive role to the audience. According to
Literature Benjamin, Brecht considered the members of the audience real heroes who actively
interacted with the happenings on the stage. Deeply committed to the cause of
struggle against a mode of existence, the writer had to necessarily present characters
as well as issues in such a way that the audience was compelled to rethink their
ordinary notions about life and behaviour. Walter Benjamin has stated in his book
UnderstandingBrecht that "Epic theatre takes as its starting point the attempt to
introduce fundamental change into ... relationships (between stage and public, text
and performance, producer and actor). For its public, the stage is no longer 'the
planks which signify the world' (in other words, a magic circle), but a convenient
public exhibition area. For its stage, the public is no longer a collection of hypnotised
test subjects, but an assembly of interested persons whose demands it must satisfy.
For its text, the performance is no longer a virtuoso interpretation,but its rigorous
control. For its performance, the text is no longer a basis of that performance, but a
grid on which, in the form of new fmulations the gains of that performance are
marked" (p. 2).

In this quotation, note thk a radically different relationship has been visualised
between the play or theatre and audience, something not as clearly understood in the
past. Why does Benjamin say that the public is usually treated by the producer as "a
collection of hypnotised test subjects"? Perhaps, he says this to disapprove of the
practice under which the public watches a play to be merely offered entertainment as
a commodity. The relationship in such a situation is of the consumer with the
marketed good. In Benjamin'S opinion, Brecht preferred an audience with an active
mind out to interpret the behaviour of actors on stage according to the common
requirements of actual men and women in society. One should apply this idea to the
working of fiction and poetry in an environment and see whether readers of literature
can also be treated with the same sense of equality, respect and importance as
happened in the case of Brecht's theatre vis-5-vis the public. In fact, this is the
essential aspect of committed writing where the producer of literature (wkter) is
bringing back to readers the awareness whose potentiality lies in the life-conditions
of people themselves. Also consider that most of twentieth century English writing
does not conform to this view. Instead, it seems active in the opposite direction where
it pursues the plan of carving an independent path for the non-committed bourgeois
writer. There is no doubt that the work of such a writer gets reduced to an uninvolved
and individual-centred creative practice.

4.8 LET US SUM UP

Commitment in English literature has a long history. However, towards the end of the
nineteenth century, a new writing trend called 'modernism' emerged. This trend is
rooted in modern bourgeois ideology because of which it stood in opposition to
progressive committed literature.

The committed writer recognised the importance of secular-scientificthought in

history and clearly promoted those values in writing which suited the requirements of
common people in a society. It also sought to reverse the relationship that had been
established between the writer and reader in a market situation.

4.9 QUESTIONS
1. Comment on the significance of 'purpose' in literature. How does modeinist
writing look at the idea of purpose?

2. Do you agree that a major function of literature is to educate the public? How
would committed writing defend itself against the charge of lacking in wider
humanist and universalist appeal?
4.10 GLOSSARY Commitment In
Llternture
Modernist: Too rooted in the modern industrial phenomenon. It
counterposes human experience with thought and
lays almost exclusive stress on the fonner.

Participatory intelligence: This is different from merely viewing a condition

and refers to the mental act that aims at critiquing
and changing the condition through active effort.

Intervention: The opposite of this is to see, learn and express. In

the twentieth century, literary works in English have
stayed away from the larger questions confronting
mankind. The act of intervention in literature is
based on the urge to show a clear dissatisfaction with
the reigning trends and point out the basic reasons of
the problems that have emerged.

Difference and Change: Terms of critical theory. These are used by the critic
to infuse a sense of questioning in the reading of a
text with the purpose of disturbing the given order of
ideas or images in the text. Through the use of these,
the critic's job becomes highly challenging and,
therefore, fascinating.
UNIT 5 AUTONOMY IN LITERATURE
Structure

Objectives
Introduction
Materialist Parametres
Total Personality and Distinct Totality
Materiality in Literature
Structuralist Mode of Macherey's View
The General and Particular in Literature
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

5.0 OBJECTIVES
In thisbit we will:

raise questions regarding the distinct 'undefinable' nature of literature and

consider the debate in Marxist criticism on a literary work as product.

What do we mean t;r autonomy in literature? As stated earlier inxtbeblock, literature

as a phenomenon does not necessarily have a direct one-to-one relation with the
economic or political situation of the time in which it is produced. This is to mean
that a severe economic crisis and a totally fantasy-based, fairy tale-like literature can
coexist - the former pressing the writer to take cognizance of mass deprivation and
the latter choosing to create a wholly imaginary work of beauty and wonder. It is also
possible that the literature of a period would depict helplessness or sense of insecurity
among human beings in the midst of prosperity. The reason for this is that
imaginative writing has its own peculiar history and tradition and its own peculiar
uavs to come to terms with them. As a consequence of this, the pressures of a period
do not affect or determine writing in a simple manner. we would have noticed that at
&lielevel of language also, phrases idioms and expressions that writers of the previous
era pioneered constitute a large part of a literary work. Add to this the fact that
writers of a period interact and compete with one another in their own exclusive
literary world (magazines, books, discussions, and seminars), away from the attention
of the common people. All this happens as the writer is engaged in the act of writing.
The ordinary reader is kept out of the purview of these 'behind the scene' practices of
writers who remain divided into different groups, promoting or pulling down one
another. This is one meaning of 'autonomy' in literature under which we take note of
the imaginative phenomenon as a world of its own, away from obvious regulations
and pressures of the environment in which it occurs.

In another sense, autonomy refers to the individual act of writing in which the writer
constructs a poem, a novel or a play through a creative process not h o w n to people
active in philosophy or politics. This creative process sets the writer apart, along with
the painter, sculptor or musician - all connected with fine arts. The creative process
may elevate the writer's imagination to a different level altogether. l'he English
Romantics talked a great deal about this in their critical writing. The writer's
imagination becomes an arena of another kind that frees the creative mind from
constraints of prejudice. Marx used the example of French novelist Balzac to show
how a novelist presented society differently fiom the way he saw it in actual life. The Autonomy in
orthodox Balzac, the supporter of the historically moribund feudal class in real life, Literature
was replaced by an extremely realistic Balzac in works of fiction such as The
Peasants, Old Goriot and Lost Illusions. The obvious pressures of social belief were
set aside in the act of writing where Balzac let the new social forces around him
assume a distinct progressive character. Thus, Balzac's novels enjoyed autonomy
fiom his own beliefs and prejudices to present a world of enormous literary
significance. Marx ascribed the achievement to the honesty of Balzac as a writer. He
used the phrase "triumph of realism" to underline Balzac's objective sense of
appraisal as well as courage to depict reality the way it unfolded'itself before his eyes
at the time of writing. Thus, Mam laid the basis of what we call work-based or
writing-centred critical analysis at the expense of life-based or biographical approach.

The word 'autonomy' signifies independent existence and working. The implication
is that a thing or phenomenon has a life of its own with distinct laws that govern its
functioning. Does the principle of autonomy apply to literature? In this unit, I shall
consider some critical responses to this question. I shall also examine some
manifestations of autonomy in contemporary literary thought. The discussion will
naturally be accompanied by the viewing of a few problems associated with this
question.

5.2 MATERIALIST PARAMETERS

It should be clear to one who has some acquaintance with Marxism that a work of
literature should essentially be considered a product of its times, an expression of the
pain and miseries, joys and celebrations of the period in which it was composed.
However, in our century, this view has not found favour with a large section of
critics. It is believed that art is independent of its immediate social pressures and
transcends the boundaries of time and place. For these critics, it is the sharp and
appealing, in many cases dazzling aspect of a literary work that catches the reader's
attention irrespective of whether the reader belongs to the time in which the work was
written or the ethos to which she or he belonged.

Most of the criticism in our time defines literature in terms of a superior meaning by
consciously overlooking references to what is considered mundane. It is believed that
ordinary details of reality in a situation, as captured in literature, detract fiom the
essence of human conduct which is of a diffeient quality and nature. According to
this view, a representation becomes literature on the strength of the most intense
aspect of the life that it has captured. It is this that is supposed to make it universal.
To my mind, the fault in positing the issue this way lies in the division that is
visualised between the time-linked and the autonomous nature of a work. In fact,
Marxism provided in clear terms the materialist, as opposed to the idealist
parametres to literature through establishing a link between the writing, the writer and
the larger social life a r o y d both. You remove this link and our understanding of
literature would go hfire.
/

5.3 'POTAL PERSONALITYAM) DISTINCT TOTALITY

/

Th;ere is no doubt that the time-linked and independent aspects of literature form what
can be called the "total personality" of a work or writer. In fact, the topicality of a
work is never fully or exclusively topical, since a particular situation, however
limited in scope, has a past as well as a future. The categories, therefore, that we
make such as 'topical' and 'general' should not be taken in an absolute sense.
However, we say that time-linked and independent aspects do not merely coexist in
literature but are inseparable fkom each other. Generally, we miss ou! on the distinct
totality produced by them through a peculiar fusion in a work. Hence, the wrong
positing. Here, let us focus attention on a work's 'distinct totality,' another word for
uniqueness.
' Marxist View of Normally, as we know, a literary work appears unique, something that has no parallel
Literature outside jtself. There is no problem with this except that it implies a mysterious
working of factors within a work. But is the phenomenon actually mysterious? Can
we not define the meaning and scope of a literary work in such a way that we relate
ourselves to it and identify areas of common interest? To use critical theory jargon,
can we not 'untie' a text or work in spite of its totality or total personality? To
understand these, let us take help from a perceptive contemporary critic. To Lionel
Trilling, the totality or total personality of a work "responds within the iron limits of
laws and necessities, that these are formulable and that the artist must often use these
formulations to achieve completeness of his response to the environment" (Speaking
of Literature and Society, p.88). In this quotation, mark the words "iron limits of laws
and necessities." Do they not refer to the social mode of production we have
discussed in the previous pages? What Trilling has underlined here is that the specific
social environment with its laws and other norms cannot be wished away and should,
therefore, be accepted as a given reality. It is this reality in which we live and breathe
This constitutes the conditions of our existence. "Iron limits" is used by Trilling to
indicate tHe discipline that a social structure at the level of laws imposes on literature.
At the same time, "iron limits" are only of laws and necessities. See the dialectic. For
instance, the moment we recognise the disciplining world as a phenomenon worlung
in accordance with certain laws, we get a clue to its inner dynamics. The knowledge
of laws can help us a great deal in understanding the nature of our world. Because of
this &owledge, the iron limits become less restrictive. The world ceases to be what
we call 'Fate,' something whose working is mysterious and, therefore, beyond us.
This is the second point Trilling makes. He iterates that in history, which has its own
dynamics Sssed on human labour, the various phenomena should be seen as
comprehensiljle and amenable to change. Since historical phenomena are
comprehensible, the world of necessities and compulsions is within the realm of our
grasp and should be interpreted as such. In Trilling's opinion, the writer's response
gains in totality and completeness by a serious engagement with the real pressures of
environment. The writer makes an effort to understand hisker world.

According to Trilling, the writer's formulations about the world assist himher in a
big way to make connections between various segments of society and reality.
Through this effort, the writer gains an idea of hisher world as completeness and a
whole. Words such as "totality," "completeness" and "wholeness" in Trilling's
argument underline the artistic effort whose chief motive is to attain a meaningful
response.

5.4 MATERIALITY IN LITERATURE

In what form should we visualise a literary work? Should it be taken as a crystallised
response through language to a period in history, something that is rooted in a
d because of which it has attained a solid and materialised form? I have
7
used the ords "solid" and "materialised" with the purpose of asserting that a literary
work has these because of the.actua1 and specific state in which we encounter it.
There are obvious advantages of accepting this description of a literary work. That is
why we hear critics say;,lg. again and again that a work has a specificity of its own,
that it is itself and nothinr else - not the iron laws of society explained and
exemplified nor cultural or ideological trends commented upon, whether accepted or
refuted. I have in mind the view represented by New Criticism. But one can interpret
this basic tenet of New Criticism from an altogether different approach and assert that
literature enjoys a particular kind of autonomy. Does it not seem to go ~dainst
Trilling's argument? This new view may suggest that most of the criticism, which
talks of the central meaning, or message of a book is actually to do injustice and
damage to the text whose character is inviolible. Instead, according to this view, we
should see the work as it is in its specificity, in the role assigned to it by the author at
the time of writing. Definitely, this is contrary to what New Criticism projected
 where work is tom away fiom its author as well as its time of writing. Explaining the Autonomy in
term 'specificity,' the French Marxist critic Pierre Macherey says: Literature

"What do we mean when we talk of the specificity of the literary work? First,
that it is irreducible, that it cannot be assimilated into what it is not. It is the
product of a specific labour, and consequently cannot be achieved by a
process of a different nature. Furthermore, it is the product of a rupture, it
initiates something new. If we have properly grasped this quality of novelty
we will not confuse the work with what is extrinsic to it, we will want to
distinguish it emphatically fiom what surrounds it.

The specificity of the work is also its autonomy: in so far as it is self-

elaborating it is a law unto itself and acknowledges only an intrinsic standard,
an autonomous necessity. This is why literary works ought to be the object of
a specific science: otherwise they will never be understood. And though
various disciplines such as linguistics, the theory of art, the theory of history,
the theory of ideologies, the theory of unconscious formations, must all .
collaborate in this enterprise - for without them it would remain incomplete
and would perhaps be impossible - yet they can in no sense replace this
specific science of the literary work"(Author's emphasis. A Theory of
Literary Production, pp. 5 1-52).

Note the organisation of this argument. The first three assertions are in the negative
mode - "irreducible," "cannot be assimilated," "what it is not." The third assertion is
extended to a different process happening in a different place or time through which
I the specific labour of a product cannot be achieved. The idea "what it is not" is
further repeated when "something new" (not old), "what is extrinsic" and "what
surrounds it" are brought in. Obviously, Macherey, in total disagreement with the
L way criticism has hitherto conducted itself in the realm of literary discussion, has
launched a full-scale attack on the prevalent critical modes'that swear by essence,
meaning, assimilation into general culture and the surrounding environment. These
latter, in Macherey's opinion, deny to a literary work its very character and appeal.
They force their logic on it to prove that it is a mere example of how life has already
been constituted.

But this also indicates a few positive ideas. For example, Macherey calls the work a
product. What are the theoretical implications of this? In my opinion, a product
should be understood in terms of a conscious action performed to meet a particular
requirement. In this sense, Macherey seems to critique earlier descriptions of
literature, such as reflection, expression and representation. The idea gets fbrther
problematised when Macherey combines 'product' with 'novelty.' What he means is
that the product, in its act of production, becomes something new, a phenomenon that
denotes the active involvement of human creative labour - that of the writer in this
specific case. In Macherey's view, the creative labour of the urriter is not the
aggregate of the materials surrounding himher but something new and different.

5.3 STRUCTURALIST MODE OF MACHEREY'S VIEW

Once Macherey has clarified the negative parametres of the case, he proceeds to lay
down the thesis of a specific science. Here, 'specific' stands for that whch belongs to
literature alone and is useful in that particular area. What does the word 'science'
mean in this context? The question assumes significance since our view has so far
been that science - the precise world of experiment and analysis - should be kept out .
of the literary-critical discourse. Macherey, on the other hand, wishes to exclude the
subjk~tiveelement, the reader's own,preferences that disturb the internal order of a
work. y e critic or readw should see the work as it is, as a reflection through the
working of words of the response the writer gives to hislher environment. In this
sense, the critic should 'consciously' avoid the intrusion of hislher own biases and
Marxist View of presuppositions. This'self-conscious' element in Macherey's argument should be
Literature borne in mind. However, in this part of the statement, Macherey makes a different
kind of reference to the various theories - of linguistics, history, etc. - which he finds
useful for the understanding of a literary work. According to Macherey, these
theories should be applied to the work for the purpose of revealing the unique
meaniw the work embodies. Nonetheless, at the end Macherey returns to the
negative mode to state that theories "can in no.way replace this specific science of the
literary work," their job being to only help the critic gauge the constructed meaning
of the work.

The most important words in the latter part of Macherey's statement are "self-
elaborating," "law unto itself' and "intrinsic standard," What does Macherey mean
by them? Does he suggest that on one side, you are allowed to use whichever theories
you like to understand a work, while on the other you should desist from violating the
laws, which the work has evolved within itself to become what it has become? Yes,
the word is 'violate.' Never e v k violate the intrinsic worth of a work. Macherey, in
fact, suggests this and pinpoints the authenticity as well as validity of critical
enterprise. For him, this does not in any way go against the inner virtue of the literary
work. But the fear is that it might, since it is possible for the critic to expect a priori
the expression or assertion of a particular meaning from the work under
consideration. Thus, we see that Macherey's argument goes totally against the critic's
subjectivity. At the same time, according to Macherery, there is an intrinsic standard
in a work that assigns proportion and value to.its constituents within its totality. In
sum, Macherey advocates the use of different available theories (not subjective,
irrational preferences) to ascertain and recognise the truth of a work that is
inseparable from its wholeness and specificity. Viewed closely, it makes sense
because a literary work is to be given as much respect and independence as enjoyed
by critical endeavour.

How do we intefpret and evaluate Macherey's argument about the autonomy of a

literary work? Is this a general argument useful in literary theory at all times? I am
not sure. My doubt rests on the fact that literary theory or criticism has been seen to
perform different h c t i o n s at different times in history. For instance, there have been
situations, as in eighteenth century England, in which criticism asked writers to
provide works of social use. In other situations, it has ruthlessly attacked those who
failed to adhere to the idea of artistic and aesthetic norms. A whole stream of early
Marxist criticism was prescriptive, telling writers to focus upon what it thought to be
the important themes. Therefore, Macherey, too, should be understood in his specific
cultural context of post-Second World War Europe. I feel that Macherey apprehends
a great threat from the contemporary capitalist world to the intrinsic value of a work
of art. The modem world with its powerful ideological weapons (the newspaper, film,
and television) threatens to reduce any given thing, however distinct, human and
unique, to a commodity. What would happen if this venture was successful?
Secondly, capitalism through this act of reducing art to the status of a thing kills the
vital being and spirit of productive labour. Have I not implied all along that literature
was a form of creative-productive labour? This is the inherent contradiction. You can
understand the result of productive labour in its irreducible, actual aspect. However,
if you impose upon it, the new cultural product, the a priori logic of the already
existing world, you would fail in the effort since the new product with its inherent
standard and life would not be turned into what it is not. In this way, Macherey
expects of literary criticism to protect and preserve the dignity and materiality of art.
Needless to say, in this act a decisive blow is dealt to the bourgeois productive
process of the modem world. By assigning such a vital role to criticism, Macherey
underpins the high aesthetic and political significance of committed literary thought.

Apart from what I have said in the preceding paragraph, what should be our.response,
particularly in terms of theory, to Macherey's standpoint regarding thc inherent
inviolable nature of art? My answer to the question would be that Macherey's view of
the literary work is too deeply entrenched in the structuralist mode which sees
I
literature as a finished product with a shape and form that is final. Under this mode, a Autonomy in
literary work has structures, which are difficult to interfere with, and that the writer Literature
wrestles with these structures in the act of writing. Is this not the inherent suggestion
in 'specificity'?

Macherey would never see a work in active operation with different parts enjoying a
looseness of connection with one another and impacting separately or together
depending on the requirements of a given society. In Macherey's view, a work cannot
be moulded according to one's whims and fancies. There is also the implication that
the solidity of a work is itself political - it refuses to be subsumed by the surrounding
world. Instead, it stands on its own as a comment, a response, a representation.
Macherey has this stubborn nature of art in mind. But great art is also of sound
cultural use for the masses who see in it a crystallisation of their own indomitable
spirit and who construct with the help of such art their own liberationist dreams in the
wider arena of social discourse, as in theatre. Macherey's concept of 'solidity' denies
to the literary work a flexibility and mobility that merges in different ways with the
politics of a time. Works are changed, modified and adapted to suit specific
requirements of another period. Under Macherey's scheme, such a thing is
unthinkable. Would you agree with this criticism of Macherey's viewpoint?

5.6 THE GENERAL AND PARTICULAR IN

LITERATURE

I
At the obvious level, there seems to be a gap, if not a contradiction between the
points made by Trilling and Macherey. Before we take it up, let us have a look at
another view of autonomy. I refer to the view of Georg Lukacs who understands
literature as having a general and particular aspect at the same time. Lukacs is one of
1-
the early Marxist critics equipped with a close and focused study of Marxist thought.
According to him, literature is part of a larger socio-historicalphenomenon and owes
its significance to a particular outlook that it has adopted to interpret its environment.
What this means is that from its superstructural position, literature performs the role
of a realistic representation and that the extent of significance a work has gained lies
in its being more or less realistic. Then, Lukacs unveils the laws of realism in
literature, as distinct from those in history and suggests that literature's realism
constitute deeper humanism, than does the particular situation in history or society
that produced it. The reason given by Lukacs to buttress this point is that literature
steers clear of ordinary naturalist details of life and achieves concentration of
description through the use of imagined or invented devices. Does this violate the
a laws of realism? Lukacs's answer is in the negative since according to him literature
follows its own logic of representation. I emphasise "its own" to indicate that in
Lukacs's view, too, specificity has an important place. But is it the same as put
forward by Macherey? Lukacs's case is moderately stated. To me, it seems that
Lukacs is a votary of the original stand of Marx who used the phrase "relative
autonomy" for superstructures. Consider whether cultural superstructure - the realm
in which, according to Marx, literature moves - also has "relative autonomy." Should
"autonomy" and "relative autonomy" be used interchangeably?

In Trilling's quotation given above, the expression "complete response" was related
to the author who represented in hisher work hisher environment in a
comprehensible way. For the author, this comprehensibility was achieved through the
activity of his highly critical mind. The author sees significant connections and
linkages between people and their surroundings. For instance, an act of atrocity is not
the same for an author. S h e can 'read' the atrocity in context and may come to the
conclusion that the atrocity is in fact not an isolated phenomenon but something that
is symptomatic of the society as a whole. My example is that of a writer's response to
a situation seen as a symptom of something called "society as a whole." Trilling has
asserted that it is the writer's endeavour that has imparted a wholeness or totality to a
literary work. From this, it can be deduced that for Trilling, a literary work is the
Marxist Yiew of response - moral, spiritual or political - of a writer captured in the totality of a work.
Literature If we accept this, we will draw upon the writer's role in hisher society. Keeping this
in mind, a large part of literary theory refers to the times of the author and seeks clues
to the moral or artistic intentions of the work fiom the assistance that such a reference
provides. Trilling's view can also lead us to the idea that the writer's totalised
response may not strike a sympathetic chord in the critic's mind whose own
'totalised' response to the writer's times may be at variance with it. In such a case,
critical discussion would centre on the difference between the two responses, and the
critic's assessment and evaluation of a work.

Does literature mean the same thing to us as it does to the reader in a western
industrialised society? Are we in a position, with meagre cultural resources at hand,
to accept literature as an independent totality, a solid structure and a specific
formation? I am not sure that we can afford to see literature as that kind of
autonomous entity that Trilling or Macherey talk about. In our case, literature may be
considered a subversive cultural activity. To cite an example, it is unthinkable for us
to keep early twentieth century political developments, the different phases of the
Nationalistic Movement in India, away from the considerations of modern 1 n d k
literature. One would be hard put to explain that theatre, fiction and-poetryduring the
National Movement in India merged their identities with the liberationist politics of
the time. It was certainly not a sign of underdevelopment in our culture and society
that literary works sacrificed during the National Movement their specific structures
and totalities. In consequence, they successfully met the requirements of the period.
However, the same cannot be said of literature's role in our post-National Movement
scenario when academic institutions have come forward in a big way to assert the
need of debating literature's artistic and aesthetic aspects. Where has this led? My
suspicion is that our academic institutions have in the process moved away from
where change is taking place. Does this tell us something problematic and disturbing
about the cultural centres in the west? Call it marginalisation of literature, if you like.

5.7 LET US SUM UP

This unit is meant primarily to raise questions pertaining to literature as an
independent art form. Autonomy as an important issue in Marxist literary criticism
has been in debate only in the latter half of the twentieth century. This is in spite of
the fact that the nineteen thirties saw a renewed interest in questions of art, literary .
merit and autonomy in Germany, France and Russia where dissenting critical voices
emerged on a big scale. But the thirties were a period of political turmoil in Europe as
well as the rest of the world. The discovery of Marx's early writings had led to a
different interpretation of ideology, commodity, labour, human endeavour, alienation,
consciousness, etc. at this time. The critical dissent in Marxist literary criticism is
centred around the rather abstract and mechanistic view that literature should be seen
as a reflection of reality than as a product of the creative labour of human beings.
Marx's early writings - Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, German
Ideology and A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy explored the
philosophical dimension of human endeavour in a capitalist environment and
replaced the earlier emphasis on social reality with the writer's creative struggle for
conceiving and construdting an artistic totality. Three distinct linesaf argument have
emerged in this debate on literature's independence and autonomy. However, all
three derive their meaning from the complex formation of circumstances in which a
writer is active and in which hisher work attains a concrete shape. The question is far
fiom resolved even today, particularly in view of the likely intervention of an author
out to consciously work upon and mould the consciousness of the larger masses. We
in the third world cannot make much of this debate because literature for IJS has to be
a vehicle of views, values and responses jn the midst of a world attacked
ideologically by the well-oiled academic machinery of modern bourgeoisie.
 Autonomy in
5.8 QUESTIONS Literature

1. How far do you consider literature independent of the surroundings in which

it is produced? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
2. Discuss the relationship between the author and hidher work in the light of
the argument of autonomy.

5.9 GLOSSARY
A priori: Something given and preconceived. A priori assumptions
remain unaware of the possibilities of change, and fail to
comprehend things in their novelty.

Literary production: Radically different from 'creation' and 'expression.' Under

'literary production,' we can better understand the genesis
and nature of literary writing. The concept can also take the
discussion into the,realm of sociology - factors in a specific
setting that governed the formation of a literary work or
trend.

Necessity: This refers to the constraints of social environment which

have to be accepted as what Marx calls 'conditions of
existence.' The more weknow about the world of necessity,
the better will our chances be of overcoming or changing it.

Relative autonomy: A much-discussed phrase in Marxiit thought. It is supposed

to stand dialectically between 'fate' and idealism, critiquing
both from the materialist standpoint.
-- -

UNIT 6 LITERATURE AND IDEOLOGY

Structure
Objectives
Introduction
What do 'Class Society' and 'Class Ideas' Signify
Generating Ideology through 'Neutral' Apparatuses
Role and Function of Ideology in Literature
How are Most Ideologies Deficient
Ideology in Operation in a Literary Work: Theory
Ideology in Operation in a Literary Work: Example
Let Us Sum Up
Questions
Glossary

6.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit we shall attempt to:
kxplain the class nature of ideas and show how ideas become active in social
zqvironment as more or less organised systems.
consider how an ideology shapes a literary work
conversely, how in the process of writing an ideology evolves and gets
moulded by the pressures of social environment
enunciate ti,at ideology is linked up with the politics of a period.

6.1 INTRODUCTION
In the twentiety century, there has been a great deal of emphasis on 'isms.' These
'isms' are ideologies - the outlooks of different classes in a society -the way
classes or groups of people make sense of or comprehend the reality of their time.

An 'ism' implies consistency in thought under which different perceptions and ideas
of people are not isolated from and independent of one another. They connect and
cohere with one another and fall into a pattern. This means that even when there is a
good deal of variety as well as conflict or antagonism in people's responses, the
element of agreement and sameness emerges as a governing principle under an 'ism'.
By offering a perspective, this sameness compels experiences to move towards a
general totalised view. This is where the concept of class comes in - people may be
individuals as separate identities but under a trend in production and distribution, they
merge into a collective identity called class. Unlike individuals, members of a class
have a general shared outlook. What do we make of an individual-centred, self-
oriented approach, one that thinks of social good as irrelevant? Such an approach
may be characterised as bourgeois since it embodies the sameness of bourgeois
behaviour, the connecting thread between all those members of a class who are driven
by individual profit motive alone.

Each social phenomenon has two aspects to it - of the immediate situation that
compels people to conform so that society can go on in its traditional way and the
broader potential of change that is in-built in the mode of production. As should be
obvious, the immediate situation impels the members of a group to remain passively
acquiescent in the existing arrangement that would prdztote their common sectional
or class interests. If these members fail to adopt that general, time-tested opinion and
decided to act on individual, whims, they would land themselves in trouble. Much of
tkie infight in classes causes this kind of problem and weakens the fabric of the class
involved. Ideology steps in at this stage and tells people to think together
The aspect of potentiality of change is more general and relates to a longer period, Literature and
sometimes spanning decades. In history, there are periods of stagnation and slow Ideology
growth, periods in which the newly emerged class is not strong enough to influence
the course of events to its advantage. On the other side, the ruling group consolidates
itself through various means available to it and thus, envelops the whole society in its
perspective of production. The attempt at consolidation by a class also signifies an
apprehension on its part of a possible threat to its control of society. Or else, why or
against what should it consolidate its hold over society? Surely, the forces of change
in the mode of production being constantly active, the fear of an upheaval are nascent
at all times. In the process of living and operating in a world as ordinary peopl,e,we
become part of an activity that signifies protest and transformation. As explained, the
protest is initially muted. The slower the pace of this movement, the more stifled we
feel by it. Some of us, particularly those among us whose stakes are not high in
movement towards change, gradually fall in line and accept it as our fate. In the
bargain, our critical faculty turns dull. The irony is that our acceptance of
circumstance is deemed mature behaviour, not incapacity to see the elements of
change in our surroundings.To us, a 'mature' and, therefore, wise person would be
one who has imbibed the traditional outlook. Behind the idea of circumstance and the
notion of wisdom can be seen the working of an ideology at a relatively higher level.
Let us consider an assertion of crucial importance here. It relates to the view that all
societies are class societies, that they are constituted of a group which controls the
means of production and rules over the structure and their other which is ruled and
governed in all respects, suppressed and exploited in a multiplicity of ways by the
former. An acceptance of this view would force us to radically rethink our own
positions today as members of the middle class in a former co'lony.

6.2 WHAT DO 'CLASS SOCIETY' AND 'CLASS IDEAS'

SIGNIFY?
According to Marxism, all societies so far have been class societies - societies
dominated by one or the other exploiting class. Centrally, this domination has been
described as economic. Interestingly, a ruling group always considers itself honest
and truthful and, therefore, born to enjoy the luxuries and comforts of life as well
power and privilege that society gives to it. There is a whole set of reasons and
arguments that can be marshalled by it to prove that it is the rightful heir to the
bounties of life. The ruling group may argue that after all, the social arrangement, the
law, the policies, the instruments of state, etc. give equal opportunities to all citizens,
and those who work harder on plans sanctioned by the given structure succeed in
winning benefits. If others do not work hard, so the argument goes, they must be lazy,
less motivated and defunct. According to this way of thought, sustained hard work,
honest endeavour and focused activity pays. Look around and see that ruling classes
in modem societies invariably propagate and actually believe in the fact that they
enjoy the fruits of their own labour in a society that allows equal opportunities to all
to take benefit from hard work and enterprise. With the label of 'hard work' and
'honest dealing' on their souls, the ruling classes of the modem period emphatically
'
preach the gospel of equal opportunity, freedom, human rights and democratic
functioning. With morality on their side, these ruling classes also indulge in religious
preaching, cultural projection and social expansion through a great deal of
manipulative planning - preaching and projection of any kind that requires resources
and organised effort in the modem-day world. Such is the case that preaching as well
as manipulative planning are an essential part of modem enterprise. In specific cases
of social behaviour, the ruling classes of today promote nationa1.chauvinism (my
nation, my culture is superior to yours), racism (whites are civilised unlike the non-
whites who are savages), casteism (upper castes have the capacity to think and fight
while the lower castes are there to produce and serve) and gender inequality
(women's job is to provide a stable home and beautifid environment and set standards
of harmony, sweetness and feminine charm) in the name of faith and belief. Long
treatises and dissertations can be produced by able minds to uphold the veracity of
Marxist View of these myths. Do we not see today the industry of myth-construction flourishing as ,
Literature never before? For the ruling sections, rational merhods and analysis merely become
useful weapons with which to further and uphold the cause of social enterprise. Over
a period of time, the whole process gets unified to Become what we call the ruling
class ideology of today with its set of beliefs, ncrrnative ideas and values.

Do ordinary people in a class society think or feel differently with their own peculiar
notions of morality, ethics and spiritualism? Broadly speaking, the feelings, thougnts
and responses of the ordinary masses are moulded by the ideas of those who wield
social power. We notice all along that in spite of acute frustration in a given
circumstance, ordinary people seldom look towards the r a l cause - the unequal
conditions in society. Instead, they construct the concept of fate as an agency that is
supposed to control their destinies and compel them to live in peniiy. The other
concept of forbearance as a virtue is scarcely useful to comprehend or explain the
tangible conditions of life. The concept of forbearahce, for all one knows, may have
been forged by those who explain their good luck and prosperity not upon the idea of
exploitation (which is the case) but upon that of help and support fmXl a divine
agency. In their opinion, inequality is God-given. Peculiarly, however, the rich and
poor receive their guidance from God in equaLmeasure, particularly with reference to
the abstract capability of love, revenge or hatred, which are present as determining
qualities in all human beings. It is a different matter that the recognition of abstract
love ;: all human beings helps in joining socially unequal sections (it is all very
useful fol h e rulers) and blunts the dissatisfaction of the underprivileged. The spread
and propagation of love is patronised by the ruling agencies for this reason.
Ironicall;., "!e area of culture becomes the chief carrier of love and friendship amcing
all human beings - whether rich or poor. Conversely, hatred blind rage and sense of
revenge also appear as equally shared by all.

6.3 GENERATING IDEOLOGY THROUGH 'NEUTRAL'

APPARATUSES
Even when a dominant economic structure generates an ideology in accordance with
its requirements, it does not always do so in a planned or even visible way. Thus,
ideological phenomena should be seen as specific emergences to be considered and
studied concretely. For instance, love for religion, nation or race at a given time
cannot be directly related to an economic structure even when a few connections exist
between the two. An ideology is a highly active component of life and it partly
produces and enmgises itself through its own inner dynamic. This inner dynamic
makes it appear class-neutral. Therefore, we have to coinprehend its genesis and
operations carefully with an eye upon the way different institutions work in a society.
Althusser has drawn our attention to the'invisible way in which ideology functions in
a society, particularly under state patronage and in areas which are considered safe
and neutral. These ideologies appear in the garb of secular practice and are accepted
by us as the most natural conditions of modemi e~istence.The danger of these
ideologies lies in the fact that none of the people including members of the ruling
class remains -uinfluenced by them. Althusser cautions us about their all-determining
power and demands of us to radically rethink their role and function. In Althusser's
scheme of things, the two contending classes in a society do not oppose each other
face to face. Instead, they carry on their mutually antagonistic activity through
specific agencies. He suggests, therefore, that we should recognise the existence of
neutral-looking structures in society in their actual working and examine their role
from the point of view of human freedom. His argument is that deeply embedded
social structures hide the oppressive face of ideology behind the mask of healthy
rational conventions. His particular reference is to what he calls ideologcal state
apparatuses. Giving an example of the institution of the school in a modem society
(in whose larger pattern other social apparatuses work in tandem), Althusser says:
 It takes children from every class at infant-school age, and then for years, the Literature and
years in which the child is most vulnerable, squeezed between the family the Ideology
state apparatus and the educational State apparatus, it drums into them,
whether it uses new or old methods, a certain amount of 'know-how'
wrapped in the ruling ideology (French arithmetic, natural history, the
sciences, literature) or simply the ruling ideology in its pure state (ethics,
civic instruction, philosophy). Somewhere around the age of sixteen, huge
masses of children are ejected 'into production': these are the workers or
small peasants. Another portion of scholastically adapted youth cames on:
and for better or worse, it goes somewhat further, until it falls by the wayside
and fills the posts of small and mJdle technicians, white collar workers,
small and middle executives, petty bourgeois of all kinds. A last portion
reaches the summit, either to fall into intellectual semi-employment, or to
provide, as well as the 'intellectuals of the collective labourer,' the agents of
exploitation (capitalists, managers), the agents of repression (soldiers,
policemen, politicians, administrators, etc.) and the professional ideologists
(priests of all sorts, most of whom are convinced 'laymen').

Here, ideology is thought of as a conditioning influence on an individual from the day

s h e is born to the time when the individual is considered 'mature.' See how state
apparatuses of a different kind (the school in this case) compel an individual to
construct hidher psyche and mould the responses to meet the requirements of a well-
entrenched invisible authority. Is the picture not homfying that a set of structures
founded and run by a modern state leaves no scope for a human being to think or feel
on hidhe. How are we to freely apply our mind to the various developments
that emerge in society and on whose functioning depend our very existence? There is
a good deal of truth in Althusser's assertion that most members of a developed
society ('developed' should signify a capacity to examine and assess happenings
from the point of view of freedom and dignified existence) are no different than
"convinced lay men."

Of course, our knowledge of these apparatuses and their class links would give us the
capacity to replace them with the ones that ensure freedom from ideological bondage
and enslavement. The point is that a ruling class ideology operates at many levels and
in many forms and people have to be extremely alert to see its real working. Literary
writers deal with such a criss-cross of ideology-behaviour-writing interaction and
become conscious of the many problems attending upon not just the conduct of
ordinary people but also the practice of committed artists and writers. This means that
the writer has to be wary of the pressures and influences operating in hisher society.
At the same time, the realistic presence of ideological apparatuses in a representation
could provide richness and density to the work and make the reader's en eavour of
P
linking up details and envisioning a structure more satiskng and meaningful. Do
many of the insights in Alihusser's statement not get substantiated in our reading of
Dickens's novels which reveal the way in which the nineteenth century English
society suppressed its members cruelly and caused serious distortions in their
behaviour?

6.4 ROLE AND FUNCTION OF IDEOLOGY IN

LITERATURE .
This takes us to the next question. What is the role and function of ideology in
literature? Does it regulate or determine the act of writing so that the writer's
observations and perceptions attain a comprehensible dimension? Also, can ideology
come in the way of and obstruct literary writihg? A common answer to these
questions is that there definitely is an important way in which ideology and literature
are related. The two do not merely coexist in the act of writing but also influence
each other. In one way, an ideology, already formed in the mind of the writer in the
course of living stands constantly challenged by certain new aspects of life that have
Manelst V i m of emerged on the scene. In many a case, these developments call them radical it you
LZrerature like, question the very notion of order and meaning in day-to-day existence. What
should the writer do in such a situation? Should the writer allow the old ideology,
with its grip on hisher consciousness, to oppose and negate the energy of the new
trends by terming them dangerous to conventions? Or should one probe the factors
that produced those trends?

We shall understmd this idea of literature-ideology relationship better when not

literature in general - poetry, drama, fiction or essay - but fiction in particular is
focussed upon and considered. I do not want to go here into the question of why
fiction gets this peculiar emphasis, but rather draw your attention to the fact that a
large number of critics explain their notion of ideology with reference to novels.
There is something in fiction because of which modem novelist Joseph Conrad
(1857-1924)has remarked that "fiction is history, human history, or it is nothing."
See the paradox in Conrad's assertion according to which fiction and history, the
imaginary and real, are identical. Also note that Conrad talks of human history,
something that human beings have produced with their efforts to pursue dynamic and
progressive goals. Here, we see that fiction as human history is not and cannot be an
aesthetic category under which the construction of internal harmony and beauty is
important. Instead, it is a realistic category under which day-to-day occurrences,
perceptions, ideas and beliefs as well as collective life-struggles are important. Of
course, Conrad does not directly point towards ideology here. Still, the use of "human
history" clearly indicates those acts and interventions through which men and women
assert their common interests. A movement in human affairs in pursuit of social goals
necessarily requires a unifying thought-process and ideology.
9

Roland Barthes broadly supports Conrad's paradoxical idea about fiction as history in
his comment on the nature of a literary work. In Barthes's view, "The literary work is
essentially paradoxical. It represents history and at the same time resists it." In this
comment, literary work and history are seen as distinct and inter-active. While the
former stands for the text, the latter signifies a train of events, a process of change in
time as well as those ideas and interpretations which combine seemingly scattered
happenings into a totality. There is no doubt that for Barthes, ideology is an important
component of social life and that in its formation the literary work has a significant
part to play. But in Barthes's statement, too, the word "ideology" has not occurred.
Why? Perhaps Barthes is wary of diluting history in terms of happenings, ideas and
interventions and seeks to illuminate the essential nature of a literary work as
representation and resistance simultaneously. At the same time, representation is a
peculiar ordering, a pattern that a writer gives to hisher work. Also see that
resistance signifies the critiquing of an already existing view of the circumstance. In
either case, whether as pattern giving or resistance, ideology would emerge as an
inescapable category, something that enables the writer to "represent" the world.

Lennard J. Davis, an American critic who has probed the nature of fictior quite
objectively, is more conscious of the role of ideology. He has argued that our view of
fiction woulJ depend a great deal upon how we visualise the working of ideology in
literature. 1'0 quote: "Novels do not depict life, they depict life as it is represented by
ideology. By this, I mean that life is a pretty vast and uncoordinated series of events
and perceptions. But novels are pre-organised systems of experience in which
characters, actions and objects have to mean something in relation to the system of
each novel itself, in relation to the culture in which the novel is written, and in
relation to the readers who are in that culture" (ResistingNovels: Ideology and
Fiction, p. 24). Do you agree that novels are "pre-conceived systems of experience,"
in the sense that their authors have planned to express an opinion in them about the
reality of the time, or at least that individual experiences get connected in the novels
to project a general view of things? Davis has also stated that each novel has an
independent and distinct system of this kind with reference to which each incident or
character begins to represent a meaning or a general trend. Such a "system of
experience" is the ideology of the novel - it is the outcome of clash between an
author's general viewpoint and actual happenings in the arena of an existing culture. .LIteFfttureand
Through the use of "culture," Davis has drawn the reader into the discussion as a Ideology
significant participant because like the writer, the reader, too, has a viewpoint and
ideology which gets conveyed or constructed at hidher level also.

That novels have their peculiar "pe-organised systems of experience" and that each
novel (also in the case of novels of the same author) has distinct systems of
experience might suggest that such a system is open to change and evolution. This
means that an author constantly works out hislher system in the novels. The obvious
implication is that a system or an ideology can be false or true and thus project an
angle not entirely acceptable to another system - in a different novel of the author or
to the reader. Such a system may also have a bearing upon the culture of which the
work, the al-lthor and the reader are a part. This makes Davis consider ideology in a
broader framework, "as a system of beliefs of a particular group or class; as false
ideas or false consciousness; and the general cultural system for the creation of signs
and meanings" (p.5 1).

In Davis's comment, beliefs of "a group or class" fall outside the purview of the
novel as such and have a connection with the work through what he calls culture.
There is also the hint that a "general cultural system" might also be false. But false in
what way and according to which standard or criterion? An answer to this question
wduld inevitably lead us to the consideration of a social system under which justice
vis-a-vis the distribution of surplus may be given or denied to a group of people.
Davis is right in indicating that victims of injustice in a society may not be aware of
this fact and may continue thinking that their world is rationally and justly governed.
The idea of "general cultural system" also clearly indicates a well-regulated
oppressive system that constantly provides false consciousness to the masses living
under it. In quite a few cases, the literary work could reflect such a fact and give an
"ideological" outline of an alternative system, amorphous but holding a clear appeal
to the reader. Literature in history seems to do this all the time.

6.5 HOW ARE MOST IDEOLOGIES DEFICIENT?

Should we confine our discussion of ideology in literature to particular works or
authors and say in consequence that ideology is a false or true consciousness of a
social formation embodied in a literary work? The difficulty in dealing with this
question is that we generally consider literature to be merely a part of the cultural
phenomenon. By virtue of dealing with particular experiences, aspirations, doubts,
sufferings, etc. of people, literature does capture the reality of a period on a cultural
plane. In such a case, literature is seen to bring out the existing cultural trends most
realistically. We have examples of literary works reflecting vast historical changes
and great social antagonisms. In this context, Shakespeare immediately comes to
mind. We see in his plays the process of evolution of various renaissance responses
against the background of medievalism. Be it the history plays or tragedies,
Shakespeare's works open up new vistas of appreciation and reveal to us the process
of emergence of humanist values and rational assessment of trends. At the same time,
we admire the way in which Shakespeare made use of the cultural-literary material
available at the time, as well as the strong nationalistic upsurge among English
masses in the sixteenth century. This constituted the general cultural system that
Shakespeare drew upon to compose those works.

What should our attitude be towards the great writers of the past who are present with
us as luminaries of a glorious heritage? The question would involve a reconsideration
.of the humanist tradition that has come down to us from the renaissance. The problem
with a great and significant tradition is that it presents history only as a sequence of
positive victories even as the more destructive, wasteful and cruel aspects of life are
pushed to the background. Because of such a thing happening, all seems rosy in
Elizabethan England, a place of great turmoils that contributed towards the English
Marxist View of nationalist identity, social consolidation and enlarged productivity. What do we make
Literature of this view? While attempting an answer to this, we should keep in mind that our
view of the past, with its landmarks and bright symbols, is a form of ideology that
constitutes a set of beliefs enabling us to forge a view of the contemporary world.
Frederic Jameson poses this problem by quoting Walter Benjamin from the latter's
'Theses on the Philosophy of history': "As in all previous history, whoever emerges
as victor still participates in that triumph in which today's rulers march over the
prostrate bodies of their victims. As is customary, the spoils are borne aloft in that
triumphal parade. These are generally called the cultural heritage. Thg latter finds a
rather distanced observer in the historical materialist. For such cultural riches, as he
surveys them, everywhere betray an origin which he cannot but contemplate with
horror. They owe their existence, not merely to the toil of the great creators who have
produced them, but to the anonymous forced labour of the latter's contemporaries.
There has never been a document of culture which was not at one and the same time a
document of barbarism." (Frederic Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as
a Socially Symbolic Act (London: Methuen), p. 28 1).

Can we call a "document of culture," such as a Shakespeare play, also a "document

of barbarism"? According to Benjamin, a historical epoch that saw the flowering of
culture and imaginative literature also bore witness to the ordinary toil, misery and
agony of the vast majority of people. Should we view these two aspects of life as
separate from and independent of each other? This is an intensely moral question and
tells us to examine the nature of ideology considered so very useful by the rulers of a
particular time to interpret and appropriate in one specific way the victories and
triumphs of the past. Let us see Frederic Jameson's paraphrase of Benjamin's
statement:

So it is that a Marxian hermeneutic - the decipherment by historical

materialism of the cultural monuments and traces of the past - must come to
terms with the certainty that all the works of class history as they have
survived and been transmitted to people the various museums, canons and
"traditions" of our own time, are all in one way or another profoundly
ideological, have all had a vested interest in and a functional relationship to
social formations based on violence and exploitation; and that, finally, the
restoration of the meaning of the greatest cultural monuments cannot be
separated from a passionate and partisan assessment of everything that is
oppressive in them and that knows complicity with privilege and class
domination, stained with the guilt not merely of culture in particular but of
History itself as one long nightmare (299).

Of course, Jameson's comment does not detract from Shakespeare's creative genius.
What it does is to draw our attention to those ideological attempts of the later rulers
who, unlike the "historical materialist," prefer to inc'orporate a past cultural triumph
as an act of unadulterated excellence.

6.6 IDEOLOGY IN OPERATION IN A LITERARY

WORK: THEORY
Lukacs' view of ideology is precise. For him, ideology consists in the determining
principle of a work, the view that provides unity to the large number of scattered
experiences in a work. The critical reader is supposed to locate ideology and examine
its nature to ascertain the extent to which it lightens up the area of social happenings
and experiences sought to be captured by the writer. For instance, Lukacs sees in the
fiction of James Joyce (1 882-1941) the "perpetually oscillating patterns of sense and
memory data, their powerfUlly charged - but aimless and directionless- fields of
force, (that) give rise to an epic structure which is static, reflecting a belief in the
basically static character of events" (The Meaning of Contemporary Realism, p. 18).
For Lukacs, the view of Joyce is static, a view that accepts things as they are and is
 unable to identify the centres of society where new structures and relationships are Literature and
forged. According to Lukacs, the reason for such a view may be that Joyce intends to Ideology
represent a consciousness as something given, as a being that watches the
phenomenon around it from a distance. Joyce does not seem to follow the connection
between this being and the environment in which it is placed. In him, both exist
simultaneously as well as independent of each other, the former living in it, watching,
interpreting, even critiquing the latter but only in the manner of a deadening and
restricting thing. Does this consciousness grow and change in the process of doing
so? In answer, one can say that there is an obvious process of learning and realisation
within the consciousness but that does not amount to a rational reconstruction of self.
According to Lukacs, such a modemist ideology influences representation. Lukacs
poses the question thus: "What determines the style of a given work of art? How does
the intention determine the form? (We are concerned here, of course, with the
intention realised in the work; it need not coincide with the writer's conscious
intention). The distinctions that concern us are not those between stylistic
'techniques' in the formalistic sense. It is the view of the world, the ideology or
weltanschauung underlying a writer's work, that counts. And it is the writer's attempt
to reproduce this view of the world, which constitutes hidher 'intention', and is the
formative principle underlying the style of a given piece of writing. Looked at in this
way, style ceases to be a formalistic category. Rather, it isrooted in content; it is the
specific form of a specific content" (p.19). In this quotation, mark "the intention
realised in the work." Do we then say that the realised intention in a work is
ideology? However, Lukacs is consistent with his comment on Joyce where he
I refened to the actual "character of events" in Joyce's work. This implies that style is
I
not a matter of some skill that a writer possesses before the act of writing and which
can be shown as separate from representation, but rather that style exists in the
representation itself in the form of realised intention. In such a case, the realised
intention, ideology and style enjoy a close and inseparable identity. Still, Lukacs
makes a clear aistinction between ideology, which is "the formative principle", and
the style which is "specific form of a specific content." In the case of Joyce,
"modernism" (a static world view) would be the ideology while the actual form of
consciousness emerging in the work would be the style.

6.7 IDEOLOGY IN OPERATION IN A LITERARY

WORK: EXAMPLE
In our context, E.M.Forsterls example can be u s e l l in grasping the working of an
ideology in a literary work. Here, I do not particularly adhere to Lukacs's notion of
the authorial intention. Instead, I say that liberal-humanism as a world view has its
own way of determining and shaping an experience irrespective of the author guided
by it. Humanism is broadly understood as the doctrine that not only recognises and
supports humanist causes in the modem world - equality between man and man,
justice, peaceful coexistence, unprejudiced treatment of communities, nationalities
and races other than ones's own, etc. - but also stands in clear opposition to those
tendencies that work against these causes. A humanist, therefore, would fearlessly
critique the forces of inequality and prejudice in our world. If one were a humanist,
for instance, there should not be for him any scope for compromise on this. What
then is liberal humanism? Is it a part of humanism or a decisive and radical "
modification of the original idea? The word 'liberal' in modern discourse stands for
courtesy, integrity, deep and sensitive understanding of issues, dignity and a respect
for the person who may disagree with us. For us, Fielding in A Passage to India is
such a person. A liberal humanist-to the core, Fielding makes no distinction between
an Indian and a European and relates to people on the strength of personal appeal:

By now, he was a hard-bitten, good-tempered, intelligent fellow on the verge

of middle age, with a belief in education ... He was not unpatriotic ... He had
no racial feeling - not because he was superior to his brother civilians, but
Mamist View of because he had matured in a different atmosphere, where the herd-instinct
Literature does not flourish (Penguin, p.61-62).

The large number of negatives ("not unpatriotic," "no racial feeling," "not because,"
"does not flourish") in this description indicate the individualistic nature of liberal
kumanism which stands apart from the "herd-instinct" of callectivity. Mature, "hard-
bitten" and "intelligent," Fielding has come to acquire balance and equanimity in the
process of living through turmoil: "He had been in love, engaged to be mamed, lady
broke it off, memories of her and thoughts about her had kept him from other women
for a time; then indulgence, followed by repentance and equilibrium" (1 15).
Fielding's growing friendship with Dr. Aziz in the novel has this firm basis of

4
personal relationships. In this metaphor of friendship we see a possible closeness
between the two worlds -the eastern and western. is is the extent to which liberal
humanism can go, it can grasp the question only at t e abstract metaphorical level.
However, we should have no quarrel with the metaphor if it were to place the
problematic name of a modem political phenomenon in relief and assist us to focus
upon not just the intolerant and greatly cynical nature of imperialism but also the
constructive and dynamic protest of the community in a colonised society. See if this
happens in A Passage to India. The fact is that for Forster, the protest of the
colonised people is looked at with disgust. As the author turns to portray social unrest
in the novel, he is unable to show any sensitivity in the angry Indians. The imtating
and r a ~ : :mischievous
~ solidarity, as the author sees it, of the Indian masses against
the British bureaucracy does not meet with Fielding's approval. Instead of
recognising the deep potentiality of colonised people's assertion, Forster looks
towards Az;, for a positive bonding at the individual level. Thus the idea of personal
relationship replaces that of a consolidated mass protest against a colonising power.
Of course, the irony is that the author-narrator offers a largely acceptable insight at
the end of the novel where it is suggested that Fielding (west) can have a meaningful
association with Aziz (east) only when the two countries have moved out of the
present imperialist nation-colony relationship. But the metaphor has hrther shifted -
from human individuals to animal kingdom and nature, with the author thoughtfi~lly
presenting the sensitivity of all but the humans: "But the horses didn't want it - they
swerved apart; the earth didn't want it .. . the temples, the tank, the jail, the palace,
the birds ... they didn'twant it." In this way, liberal humanism has widened the scope
to include all forms of the animate and inanimate world and offered a hugely
universalistic alternative. It is another matter though that the doctrine clearly
overlooks the dimension of political bonding of the Indian middle class and working
people for the purpose of fighting imperialism - something that had emerged so very
threateningly for British imperialism also in the post-First World War years. It is our
job as Indian readers to critically note in the novel the absence of (ideology has a
whole range of absences in its working) any tangible reference to or even awareness
of the political movement in India led by Gandhi around the years sought to be
captured by Forster in the novel.

Coming back to the portrayal of mass protest by Indians in A Passage to India, one
cannot fail to-gotice the rather curious equating of the British masters with the Indian
I
educarea and lower classes (bamng the punkahwallah) in the post-molestation
scenario. With profound anguish and helplessness, Fielding disapprovingly observes
the overactive Indian lawyers and others falsely and vulgarly twisting the whole thing
to theadisadvantage of the British. But this is not Fielding's view alone, but also of
the colonising power which has thrived all along on the notion of meanness, stupidiw
and cunning of the native. Is this not a curious blending of liberalism and
imperialism? It seems that another twain has met. Or was it actually a twain in the
first place?
 Literature and
6.8 LET US SUM UP Ideology

Ideology is a more or less coherent set of beliefs and has roots in a class or group of
people at a particular time. A socio-economic system with its neutral-looking
structures (parts and segments of the state) appropriates old beliefs and views and
also generates new ones to perpetuate its stranglehold on people's minds. Religion,
morality and ethical principles form the core of many a ruling class ideology. It is
important for the owners of the means of production to mould as well as forge
people's consciousness with a view to getting their uncritical approbation of the
existing social relationships. A discussion of ideology is greatly helpful in ,
understanding the meaning aria message of a literary work as well as its ae~fheti'c
appeal. One can see a particular ideology influencing and determining a writer's
consciousness as also the way-in which that consciousness shapes characters, voices,
responses and situations in a literary work. An alert reading of literature is sure to
grasp the broadly political function of an ideology.
- ---
6.9 OUESTIONS
1. Explain with reference to a bdok in your course how ideology may influence
and determine a literary work.

2. Would it be correct to say those social structures such as family, community

and caste hide beneath themselves the oppressive face of ideology? Discuss.

6.10 GLOSSARY
Essence: An important Marxist concept. Wrongly interpreted as
abstracted truth. Essence should be seen as the significant
idea or aspect that evolves centrally through the interplay of
happenings in life, as for instance 'class essence' of a social
event.

Liberal humanism: A new individual-centred doctrine that became widely

accepted in capitalist Europe in the early twentieth century.
Liberal humanism swears by individual freedom, sensitivity
and distance from life of the ordinary masses.

Political unconscious: In Fredric Jameson's words, ''that more tangible historicity of

the concepts and categories by which we attempt to
understand ... things" (in history). This implies that concepts
take shape in specific surroundings and the process involved
occurs in the arena of indeterminate biases. These more or
less active biases constitute the political unconscious. Such a
"politicaluttems~s"helps thereader interpret a text in a
unique way. ',

Totality: Lukacs has often used this work. 'Totality' does not negate
multiplicity or variety. It basically emphasises inter-
connectedness of different parts of a phenomenon. .

Weltanschauung: The connecting thbught, the formative principle that also has
a character of its own.
Marxist View of SUGGESTED READING
Literature
Marx, K., Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Moscow), 1969.
Marx, K. and Engels, F., The German Ideology (Moscow), 1969.
Marx, K. and Engels, F., Selected Works (Moscow), 1969.
Gramsci, Antonio, The Modem Prince and Other Essays (New York: International),
1975.
Caudwell, Christopher, Illusion and Reality, (New York: International), 1937.
Benjamin, Walter, Illuminations (Glasgow: Collins), 1977.
Benjamin, Walter, UnderstandingBrecht (London: N.L..R.), 1973.
Lukacs, Georg, The Meaning of Contemporary Realism (London: Merlin), 1972.
Lukacs, Georg, Studies in European Realism (New York: Universal), 1972.
Namboodiripad, EMS, Marxism and Literature (Delhi), 1972.
Williams, Raymond, Marxism and Literature (London: OUP), 1977.
Althusser, Louis, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (London), 1971.
Althusser, Loyis, For Marx (Harmondsworth: Penguin), 1966.
Jameson, Fredric, The Political Unconscious:Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act
(London: Methuen), 1984,
Hill, Christopher, Reformation to Industrial Revolution, (Hannondsworth: Penguin),
'967.
Hill, Christopher,Milton and the English Revolution, (London: Faber), 1967.
Macherey, Pierre, A Theor) of Literary Production, (London: Routlege and Kegan
Paul), 1978.
Eagleton, ;my, Criticism and Ideology (London: Verso). 1976.
David, Lennard J., Resisting Novels: Ideology and Fiction (New York: Methuen),
1987.