Gerald R. Lucas

Professor of English · Digital Humanist

Marxist Criticism

How texts reflect, critique, or reinforce socio-economic conditions, class struggles, and dominant ideologies.

September 30, 2013 Teaching

When students hear the word “Marxism,” it might conjure images of old propaganda posters, Cold War rhetoric, or economic systems they’ve been taught to equate with failure. Yet, Marxism, at its heart, is neither an outdated political ideology nor a dogmatic set of beliefs; rather, it is a powerful analytical framework for understanding how material conditions—especially economic structures—shape human experiences, societies, and cultures. Marxist literary criticism applies this framework to literary interpretation, exploring socio-economic contexts and examining how they reflect or challenge the world in which they were produced.

Introduction

At its core, Marxism begins with a simple but profound observation: human life is shaped by the material conditions in which we live. This concept, often referred to as historical materialism, asserts that our ideas, beliefs, and social systems are not abstract or independent forces but are instead deeply rooted in the economic foundations of society. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels famously wrote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness” (Selden 82). In other words, the way societies organize labor, production, and wealth shapes everything else, from politics to culture to personal relationships.

This idea underpins the base-superstructure model, which serves as a key principle of Marxism. The economic “base” (the means of production, such as factories, land, and labor) determines the “superstructure” (societal institutions like law, religion, and art). While this model has been criticized for being overly deterministic, Marxist critics, including later theorists like Raymond Williams, argue for a more nuanced relationship in which the superstructure, though shaped by the base, can also influence and challenge it (75). This dynamic interplay between material conditions and cultural production makes Marxism a valuable tool for interpreting literature.

In the Western world, particularly in the United States, the legacy of anti-communist propaganda has painted Marxism as a rigid, failed ideology irrelevant to modern life. However, such portrayals ignore Marxism’s broader intellectual contributions, especially its focus on critiquing inequality and understanding power dynamics. Marxism is not about prescribing one political system or another, but about asking crucial questions: Who has power in society? How is that power maintained? How are wealth and resources distributed? And how do these dynamics shape culture and human behavior?

When used as a critical framework, Marxism does not require students to “agree” with its political implications. Instead, it encourages them to approach literature as a reflection of the material and ideological conditions of its time. By doing so, students learn to think critically about how class, power, and economics influence human behavior and societal structures—skills that are as relevant today as they were in Marx’s time.

Key Figures

Marxist literary criticism has evolved significantly since Marx and Engels laid its philosophical foundations. György Lukács, one of the first literary theorists to adopt a Marxist approach, emphasized the concept of “historical realism,” which examines how literature reflects socio-economic realities (Selden 83). Lukács argued that great literature does not merely mirror the world but reveals the underlying forces—such as class struggle—that shape it.

Antonio Gramsci introduced the concept of hegemony, which describes how the ruling class maintains power not only through coercion but also by shaping cultural norms and ideologies. This idea is particularly important for understanding how literature can both perpetuate and resist dominant ideologies (Williams 108).

In the 20th century, theorists like Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson expanded Marxist criticism into new areas. Eagleton argued that literature often serves as a site of ideological struggle, where competing worldviews collide (Eagleton 15). Jameson, on the other hand, developed the idea of cognitive mapping, which explores how literature helps individuals make sense of the complex social and economic forces that govern their lives (Jameson 347).

Why It Matters

Marxism remains valuable for interpreting literature because many of the problems it critiques—class inequality, exploitation, and the concentration of wealth—persist in the modern world. As Terry Eagleton points out, Marxism remains relevant not because it provides “pat answers” but because it equips us with tools to “illuminate the conditions under which we live” (Eagleton 71). Literature, as a cultural product, is deeply intertwined with these conditions. It reflects the values, struggles, and ideologies of its time, offering a window into the socio-economic forces shaping society.

For instance, think about the modern gig economy, the rising wealth gap, or debates about healthcare and education. These are all issues rooted in class and economic structures, the very concerns Marxist criticism seeks to explore. When students analyze literature through a Marxist approach, they gain a deeper understanding of how these forces operate—not just in stories but in the real world.

Core Tenets

Marxist literary criticism is built upon several key concepts that form the foundation for its analysis of literature. These tenets—derived from Marxist philosophy—provide the tools for understanding the relationship between material conditions, power dynamics, and cultural production. Each tenet offers a way to critically examine how literature reflects, critiques, or perpetuates societal structures.

Base and Superstructure

At the heart of Marxist thought is the idea of the base and superstructure, an architectural metaphor used by Marx and Engels to describe the relationship between a society’s economic foundation (the base) and its cultural and ideological institutions (the superstructure). The base consists of the means of production (e.g., factories, technology, resources) and the relations of production (e.g., employer-employee relationships, class hierarchies). The superstructure includes everything from politics and law to art, literature, and religion. In this model, the base shapes the superstructure, while the superstructure reinforces the base.

Raymond Williams, a leading Marxist cultural theorist, adds nuance to this idea by arguing that the superstructure is not a passive reflection of the base, but is dynamic and capable of exerting influence in return. Williams describes the relationship as one of “mediation” rather than strict causality (Williams 75). For literary criticism, this means that while literature is shaped by economic and social conditions, it can also challenge or reshape dominant ideologies.

Understanding this interplay allows critics to examine how texts reflect the material conditions of their time. For instance, a novel set during the Industrial Revolution might reveal the dehumanizing effects of factory labor while also promoting individualism, a value that serves capitalist interests.

Class Struggle

A defining feature of Marxism is its emphasis on class struggle—the conflict between different social classes vying for control of resources and power. Marxist criticism views literature as a site where these class tensions are represented, negotiated, or critiqued. Marx himself argued that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Selden 83). This struggle typically occurs between the bourgeoisie (the ruling class that controls the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class that provides labor).

In literature, class struggle can manifest in various ways, such as depictions of inequality, resistance, or exploitation. For example, György Lukács argues that great works of literature often portray these struggles through “historical realism,” a method that reveals the underlying forces shaping society (Selden 87). By analyzing characters, plotlines, and conflicts, Marxist critics uncover how class dynamics drive the narrative and reflect broader societal tensions.

Ideology

Ideology refers to the systems of ideas and beliefs that shape how people perceive and interact with the world. According to Marx and Engels, ideology serves to maintain the dominance of the ruling class by presenting their interests as universal and natural (Selden 82). Eagleton defines ideology as “the ways in which what we say and believe connects with the structure and power-relations of the society we live in” (x–xi). In other words, ideology often obscures inequalities and reinforces existing power structures.

For Marxist critics, literature is a key site where ideology operates. Texts may perpetuate dominant ideologies, subtly reinforcing class hierarchies and social norms, or they may challenge these ideologies, exposing their contradictions and limitations. For instance, a Marxist analysis of The Great Gatsby might explore how the novel critiques the American Dream—an ideology that promises upward mobility but masks systemic inequalities.

Works Cited

ENGL 1101 ENGL 1102 ENGL 2111 ENGL 2122