The class was focused today on the CDA approach of Norman Fairclough. After giving us some background about Fairclough, the professor then outlined the most recent evolution of his methodology in CDA. At one point, she mentioned that his work is clearly influenced by Marxist theories. A moment later, a young man in the back of the classroom raised his hand to ask a question, which went something like this: "Just what implications does Marxist theory have for academic study? Because in my country, Zimbabwe, we view Marxism as a totalitarian theory." The prof's ridiculous answer went something like this: "You have to be sure and differentiate between the theory and the application of Marxism. The theory is not the same as the application, and the theory itself is not necessarily totalitarian."
What tripe! If you've ever read the Communist Manifesto, the basis of Marxism (and note that it was he and not Stalin or Lenin, as the prof further claimed in her little speech today, who termed his ideas 'communism'), you'll know that it is an inherently totalitarian theory. If you disagree, please let me know, because I'd love to hear just how anyone thinks that Marxism -- either communism, or its 'softer' form of socialism -- could possibly be applied without a totalitarian government.
Even moving beyond that claim, though, I'd like to ask what is probably the more pressing question in modern Western academia: What good is a theory, if its application consistently produces bad results?
Today's quote (60 points):
"Rebellion to tryanny is obedience to God."
1 comment:
I did consider the possibility that that's what she meant, but if so, then she failed to make it clear. I find it highly reprehensible for her to have said something like this, without making clear her precise meaning.
That having been said, I also find it difficult and dangerous to claim that Marxism as applied to literature is that different from Marxism as applied to government. They are based on the same thing, a world-view involving (mainly) power and its use by the "bourgeios" (or, as we would say these days, "the rich") to oppress the lower classes. In its fundamental form, that is a very dangerous world-view. And even in the way it's been applied to literature, I have not personally found any of it to be more compelling or useful than other theories I've come across. Although I am admittedly speaking here as a stylistician, and not a literary critic.
Post a Comment