If liberal humanism means to look at a text without any bias and without any deeper meaning, then in my opinion this view of literature differs greatly from that of Marxist Criticism. Within Marxist Criticism literature is seen as a product result of history and culture with economic, political, and social circumstances, and after some class discussion I have found that each point of the "ten tenets of liberal humanism" has a contrasting idea to what is recognized as the general view of a Marxist Critic.
The idea within the third tenet is a good example of this. The idea here is that literature must be studied in isolation, and all that is needed is the text that is in front of you, no prior experiences necessary. A Marxist Critic would say that the text has come to be from experiences of history and culture, so those past experiences are necessary to have in order to fully understand a text.
I believe it is necessary to have some past experiences in order to fully understand a text. No matter how hard we may try to put personal bias aside we each have had individual experiences which lead us to follow a text in our own personal way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i agree lizzie, i too feel as though it is hard to read into a text without any bias. i also agree with you when you stated that each of the points of liberal humanism had a contrasting point in marxism, i found that to be true when i was reading into it as well.
I also agree. A person's experiences will always play a role in how they interpret any kind of text.
Post a Comment