Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Marxism and Danielle Steele--Not so strange bedfellows?

As a political philosophy, I think Marxism asks a lot of us capitalist pigs. In direct opposition to the tenets of liberal humanism, it mandates that our ideologies are in fact socially constructed, and that our notions of human nature, independence, and freedom are blatantly untrue. While I agree on most levels that there is no intrinsic human nature, I take issue with the assertion that I am unable to understand my personal freedoms outside of a capitalist context. Sure, ideologies are a product of culture, but that doesn’t validate all of Marxism’s demands. This premise does not warrant the wholesale redefining of already solid concepts like “liberty” and “freedom”. It seems to me that while Marxism tries to deconstruct what we think of self-determinism and freedom, it cannot wholly redefine what those things are. Freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without restraint". Communism/Marxism is in direct opposition to this definition, and asserts that the only true form of liberty can be found within the strict confines of community. That, in my estimation, is the antithesis of autonomy.

Qualms with Marxist political theory aside, its literary component is a bit more fluid, but still fundamentally flawed. Marxist literary criticism in all of its forms inserts class struggle and economics into your favorite books. This Marxist reading can take many forms. Some theorists strictly consider the work’s author and try to find the conscious or unconscious influence of his own social status as reflected in his/her work. Others scrutinize the text more thoroughly and view the relationships between characters, plot, and setting as a direct result of their economic statuses and the dominant political forces present (however minor they may appear).
At first, I assumed that this brand of criticism would fall apart if I took some ostensibly “unpolitical” books and read them through the Marxist filter. But, try as I might, I couldn’t find so much as a trashy romance novel that was completely devoid of fodder for a Marxist critic. Take the complex Danielle Steele classic Bittersweet. Danielle's protaganist India is a disenfranchised ex-journalist who decides to seek some form of self-actualization after she realizes that she is but a useless second fiddle to her working husband. In the process she is swept off her feet by the wealthy and savvy Paul Ward. While he does dazzle her with his masculinity, good looks, and sexual prowess, his wealth and success is as much of factor as his other charms. She contrasts her relative anonymity and lack of riches to his abundance and is spurred towards upward mobility. In fact, this quest for personal betterment is as much of a plot point as her torrid love affair. As she attains a sort of class consciousness, she is affected enough to seek a change. Of course, none of this is explicitly stated by either the brilliant Mrs. Steele or India, but I assume that most texts dissected by Marxist critics contain covert signs of economics and class struggle. (I also assume that most literary critics tend to save their profound insights for more serious literature).

Now that I've not-so-coherently ranted about both Danielle Steele and Marxism in my inaugural blog post, I think I'll give it a rest. This was long enough anyways, right? Next week I'll try to end my posts with something a more memorable. However now, hunger calls.

1 comment:

Adamo said...

Good stuff, Kate. I do think it would be borderline impossible to find something that can't be dissected by a Marxist, as the idea is that everything is influenced by the ideas that Marxism puts forth. Even liberal Marxism still has the economy at its very base, as its last answer. It would be real tough to find a work that is entirely devoid of hints of class struggle if you are keeping an eye out for it. It would also be borderline impossible, I feel, to write such a text.