Marxist literary criticism is...cool?

Marxism as a literary criticism focuses on the cultural, social, and economic conditions that influence literature. Marxist ideas conflict with liberal humanism for these very reasons. As Marxist criticism analyzes literature with cultural, social, and economic circumstances in mind, liberal humanism studies the text independently of all outside events. To examine literature by itself is to get the most meaning out of it (this is also the second and third tenet of liberal humanism).

Another tenet of liberal humanism worth noting due to its conflicting argument with Marxist criticism is that human nature is essentially unchanging (tenet number four and, in some ways, one). Marxist criticism argues that the individual is constantly being affected by changing social, cultural, and economic forces. Therefore, the “timeless significance” of literature is a pretense as well as, perhaps, wishful thinking for the liberal humanist.

On a personal note, I tend to agree with many of the ideas of Marxist literary criticism. I suppose that instead of taking in the general ideas dealing with social, cultural, and economic implications in literature, I like to analyze a text taking into account actual events that may have shaped it. I also enjoy looking at texts and comparing them to events that are happening in the world at the time I am reading it. Perhaps that makes me more of a cultural materialist? I guess I’ll find out when we study the theory. Still, Marxist theory is cool, too.