Edmund Wilson's Marxism and literature

          Introduction

Edmund Wilson's "Marxism and Literature" published in 1938, is his study of the origins of socialism. It celebrates Marxism's ability to throw a great deal of light on the origin and social significance of works of art, but attacks the belief then advocated by that good literature can be made from ideological formulas. While Wilson wrote extensively on the relationship between political ideologies such as Marxism and Literature, he opposed any pre formulated critical frameworks, or what he called "a process of locking and distortion to make [the work] fit the procrustes bed of a thesis".

      Edmund Wilson and Literature

Edmund Wilson's "Marxism and Literature" is the ninth essay in his collection entitled 'The Triple Thinkers' comprising twelve essays in literary subjects. In this essay, the author studies the place of art and literature in the system in Didactical Materialism of Marx. The author explores the hitherto prevalent myth that art is a weapon of social, political and economic propaganda, and that it can be produced to order. As Wilson says in The New Republic: "A work of art is not technique, or set of Ideas, or even a combination of both. But I am strongly disposed to believe that out literature would benefit by genuine literary criticism which should deal expertly with art and ideas". He studies the influence of Marxism and literature and traces in this essay the history of Marxist literary theory as it was carried out by Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and a number of other critics.

      Relationship between Art and     Society (Marxism principles) 

According to Marxism human society in any given country or epoch grows out of the means of production which provide at that place and time. Out of the relations between society and means of production arose a 'super structure'. This 'super structure' is related to higher activities such as politics, law, religion, literature etc. These activities showed the mould of social configuration below them. Each was trying to get away from its roots in the social classes and constitutes a professional group with its own standards of value which cut across class lines. Art of a great period may reach a point of vitality where it can influence the life of the period down to its very economic foundations. Thus the interaction is reciprocal.

How Marx and Engels looks at the    art

Wilson begins the essay with observation of marks and his devout follower and collaborator, Engels, on the relationship of art and literature with society. He tells us that Marx was well -versed in literary theories and had drunk dip at the fount of literature. They never furnished socio-economic formulas to furnish the validity of art. Marx used to say that poets are originals and must be allowed to go their own way. Engels warned socialist novelists against ideological committed literature. Wilson admired Aeschylus forhis grandeur, and liked the Greek Mythological figures of Zeus and Prometheus for their defiance. Marx valued the contribution of Gothe whom Engels give the status of a " colossal and universal genius". Marx and Engels do not have a tendency to specialize art as a weapon of change. They believed in the renaissance ideal of complete man, of his many sidedness, of the perfection which is achieved by the participation in varied activities.

        How Lenin looks at the art

Lenin was an organizer and fighter. But even Lenin was fond of poetry, fiction and theatre. Gorky said that one day he found of Lenin with War and Peace lying on the table. "You could not find a genuine 'muzik' (The Russian peasant) in literature till this count came upon the scene", Lenin said to Tolstoy. Lenin was a Marxist, who believed in specialization. He called himself a specialized man. He loved music and still thought that music made him soft. He love to read Tolstoy and Gorky and wanted them to be different writers. He believed that art should be specialised as a weapon for social change. This was dichotomy and contradiction in Lenin.

       How Trotsky looks at the art

Trotsky was a literary man as Lenin never was.  In 1924, he published "Literature and Revolution". In this work he has asserted that terms like 'proletlit' and 'prolet culture'

Are dangerous. These terms compress the culture of the future into the narrow limits of the present. Trotsky said, "One can't always go by the principles of Marxism in deciding whether to accept or reject a work of art". A work "should be just in the first place by its own law - that is by the law of art". Trotsky maintained that communism had no artistic culture, it had only a political culture. Hence, a work of art should be accepted or rejected by its own laws and not by the principles of Marxism. 

    Granville Hicks-the American   Marxist critic

In " The Crisis in Criticism", Granville Hicks, drew up a list of requirements for the ideal Marxist work of art. The primary function of a work is to lead the proletarian reader to recognise his role in the class struggle. It must directly or indirectly show the effects of the class struggle. The author must be able to make the reader feel that he is participating in the lives described. The authors point of view must be that of the proletariat.

               Art is a Weapon

Edmund Wilson then deals with the dogma- "art is a weapon". He says that Dante's  "The Divine Comedy" and Shakespeare's historical dramas are weapons. But they are weapons in the more general struggle of European man emerging from the middle ages, striving to understand his world and himself. Weapon is not the right word for this. The truth is that there is short range and long range literature. Long-range literature sums up wide areas and long periods of human experience. Short-range literature preachers, pamphleteers for immediate effect. The confusion is the leftist camp is because they are unable to find out whether they want short range or long range literature. 

Marxism is a new philosophical system which leads directly to programmes of action. It was a vision not of literary art but of actual social engineering. It is society itself, says Trotsky, which becomes the work of art under communism. Human imagination has come to conceive the possibility of recreating human society. Thus the Marxism approach is the first effort of the human spirit to transcend literature itself.

           Conclusion

Towards the conclusion, the author says that the democratic values -sympathy for the poor -is not the monopolies of Marxist alone. This is a worldwide phenomenon in today's world which is the age of common man but despite all this, Marxism still remains a force. It is not a philosophical or theoretical but also a potent force for social change. What impact Marxist vision will have on society and that in the time to come is anybody's is guess but it an admitted fact that Marxism is a creative force.