5. Lack of Consideration for the Text’s Autonomy
• Some critics argue that Marxist literary
criticism tends to view literature primarily as a
tool for ideological struggle, which often leads to
the erasure of the text's autonomous value. This
problem is particularly apparent in the ways that
Marxist criticism reads texts as reflections of
social conditions, rather than as works with their
own internal structures and meanings.
The problem with prioritizing a Marxist lens in
literary criticism is that it can become a biased
interpretation, not an objective analysis. This
happens because the theory itself starts with a
pre-determined conclusion: that literature
reflects and reinforces class struggle. Because of
this starting point, the analysis focuses on
finding evidence to support that conclusion,
potentially overlooking other important aspects
of the text. The text's own internal structure,
artistic merit, and unique voice might be
ignored because the primary focus is on fitting it
into the pre-existing Marxist framework.
Essentially, the theory dictates the
interpretation rather than the text itself guiding
the analysis, leading to a potentially skewed
and incomplete understanding of the literary
work.
• Terry Eagleton also addresses this issue,
arguing that Marxist criticism often reduces the
literary text to a mere mirror of the social
system, thus neglecting its complex interplay of
form, genre, and individual artistic creativity
(Eagleton, Marxism and Literary Criticism, 1976).
Terry Eagleton criticizes Marxist literary
criticism for its tendency to oversimplify
literature. He argues that seeing literature
solely as a reflection of social systems ignores
the intricate ways a text uses form, genre, and
individual artistic choices. In essence, reducing
a literary work to a mere "mirror" of society
neglects its unique artistic qualities and the
author's creative contribution, leading to a less
complete and potentially misleading
interpretation.
6. OVERLOOKING THE ROLE OF THE AUTHOR
Stanley Edgar Hyman (1957) critiques Marxist
criticism for for underestimating the personal
voice of the author and their individual role in
shaping literary works. According to Hyman. this
perspective leads to a reductionist view of the
literary work and ignores the intricacies of the
author's creative process (Hyman, The Function
of Criticism. 1957).
Stanley Edgar Hyman points out a flaw in
Marxist literary criticism: its tendency to
downplay the author's individual contribution.
Because Marxist analysis often prioritizes the
social and economic context over the author's
personal experiences and creative choices, it
risks reducing the work to a simple product of
its time and place. This is problematic because it
ignores the author's unique perspective,
creative process, and the complexities of their
artistic decisions, all of which contribute
significantly to the final work. By neglecting the
author's voice, Marxist criticism presents an
incomplete and potentially inaccurate
understanding of the literary piece because it
fails to account for the crucial role of individual
artistry in shaping meaning.
Marxist criticism often focuses more on the class
structure and historical material conditions that
influence the text rather than the personal
agency of the author. Critics argue that this view
neglects the ways in which authors can be
individual creators who bring their unique
perspectives to bear on their work.
This is problematic because it ignores the
author's unique perspective, artistic choices,
and personal experiences, all of which
significantly shape the work. By prioritizing
social structures over individual agency, Marxist
criticism risks presenting an incomplete and
potentially inaccurate interpretation of the
literary text, failing to fully account for the
author's creative contribution.
