For advanced readers

our primary mode of relating to the world around us. What could be better for a capitalist economy than for its members to be unable to “feel good about themselves” unless they acquire a fashionable “look” that can be maintained only by the continual purchase of new clothing, new cosmetic products, and new cosmetic services? In other words, in economic terms, it’s in capitalism’s best interests to promote whatever personal insecurities will motivate us to buy consumer goods. (Are my teeth not white enough? Should my hair be blonder? Should my muscles bulge more? Is my breath fresh enough?) And because the kinds of personal insecurities that make us buy consumer products are produced by comparing ourselves with other people (Are my teeth as white as his? Is my hair as blond as hers?), competition is promoted not just among companies who want to sell products but among people who feel they must “sell” themselves in order to be popular or successful. Capitalism’s constant need for new markets in which to sell goods and for new sources of raw materials from which to make goods is also responsible for the spread of imperialism: the military, economic, and/or cultural domination of one nation by another for the financial benefit of the dominating nation with little or no concern for the welfare of the dominated. Spain’s rule of Mexico, Eng‑ land’s domination of India, Belgium’s exploitation of the Congo region of Africa, and U.S. efforts to subordinate native populations in North, Central, and South America are but a few examples of imperialist activities. When the imperialist nation establishes communities in an “underdeveloped” country, those commu‑ nities are called colonies, as were the American Colonies before the American Revolution, and it uses those colonies to extend its economic interests. For the motive of all imperialist endeavor, no matter what positive influence the con‑ quering nation claims to have on the local population, is economic gain for the “mother country.” Less clear cut, perhaps, but equally important for our understanding of capi‑ talism today, is the way in which consciousness can be “colonized” by imperi‑ alist governments. To colonize the consciousness of subordinate peoples means to convince them to see their situation the way the imperialist nation wants them to see it, to convince them, for example, that they are mentally, spiritually, and culturally inferior to their conquerors and that their lot will be improved under the “guidance” and “protection” of their new leaders. Antebellum slave owners, for example, tried to convince African slaves that they were uncivi‑ lized, godless savages who would revert to cannibalism without the constant vigilance of their white masters. In reality, of course, African slaves came from ancient cultures that could boast many forms of art, music, religion, and ethics. This same attempt to colonize consciousness along racial lines continued into the twentieth century through, for example, stereotypes of black Americans in the media, the inadequate representation of African American experience in

American history books, and the promotion of an Anglo‑Saxon ideal of beauty. Thus, the attempt to colonize consciousness can be practiced against us by our own culture. Indeed, the promotion of consumerism discussed earlier is just such another example. Clearly, Marxism’s concern with human psychology overlaps with that of psy‑ choanalysis: both disciplines study human behavior and motivation in psycho‑ logical terms. However, while psychoanalysis focuses on the individual psyche and its formation within the family, Marxism focuses on the material/historical forces—the politics and ideologies of socioeconomic systems—that shape the psychological experience and behavior of individuals and groups. For Marxism, the family is not the source of the individual’s psychological identity, for both the individual and the family are products of material/historical circumstances. The family unconsciously carries out the cultural “program” in raising its chil‑ dren, but that program is produced by the socioeconomic culture within which the family operates. While it is our parents who read us bedtime stories, take us to movies, and, in these and other ways, form our morals, it is our social system that provides the stories, movies, and morals, all of which ultimately serve the economic interests of those in control of that social system. Thus, while psy‑ choanalytic critics examine the family conflicts and psychological wounds that determine individual behavior, Marxist critics examine that same behavior as a product of the ideological forces carried, for example, by film, fashion, art, music, education, and law. Indeed, the Marxist critic will show us the ways in which family dysfunctions are themselves products of the socioeconomic system and the ideologies it promotes.

Marxism and literature

Of course, the family is a recurrent theme in literature, so let’s begin our dis‑ cussion of Marxism and literature by contrasting Marxist and psychoanalytic readings of Arthur Miller’s greatest familial play, Death of a Salesman (1949). A psychoanalytic reading of the play would focus on such elements as Willy’s aban‑ donment at a very young age by his father and older brother; Willy’s insecurity and the massive denial of reality that results; Willy’s projection of his personal needs onto his son Biff; Happy’s sibling rivalry with Biff; the oedipal dimension at work in the family dynamic; and Linda’s avoidance and displacement of her problems with Willy. The central scene for such an interpretation would be Biff’s confrontation with Willy in the hotel, where he discovers his father with another woman. These aspects of the play would be of interest to psychoanalytic critics because they focus on the individual psyche as the product of the family.

A Marxist reading, in contrast, would focus on the ways in which the psychologi‑ cal problems listed above are produced by the material/historical realities within which the family operates: the ideology of the American dream that tells Willy his self‑worth is earned only by economic success and that keeps him looking up to his predatory brother Ben; the rampant consumerism that keeps the Lomans buying on credit what they can’t afford; the competitiveness of the business world that puts Willy back on straight commission work after thirty years of employment with the same firm; the exploitative potential of a socioeconomic system that doesn’t require all companies to provide adequate pension coverage for their employees; and the ideology of “survival‑of‑the‑fittest” capitalism that allows Howard to fire Willy with no concern for the latter’s deteriorating mental condition. The central scene for such an interpretation would be that in which Howard (after displaying signs of his own economic success) fires Willy, telling him to turn to his sons for financial help. Clearly, if a Marxist critic uses a psychoanalytic concept, it is used in service of a Marxist interpretation. For example, Willy’s denial of reality, and the regressive hallucinations that accompany it, would be viewed as evidence of the American dream’s debilitating ideological agenda: the American dream is certainly good for capitalist economics, but it sacrifices the well‑being of the many individuals who don’t achieve it. Similarly, as you read other Marxist interpretations of cul‑ ture and cultural productions, you may notice that concepts from other theories we are studying will appear. For example, you may notice that by revealing the subtle but profound capitalist similarities between, say, Democratic, Republi‑ can, Socialist, and Fascist cultural and educational funding policies, a Marxist critic is engaged in a kind of structuralist enterprise. Or you may notice that, by revealing the ways in which a literary work covertly reinforces the capitalist values it criticizes, a Marxist critic is engaged in a deconstructive enterprise. Indeed, many Marxist critics are, among other things, feminists, deconstructors, social psychologists, and cultural anthropologists. In every case, however, you will see that concepts overlapping with or borrowed from other fields are put in service of Marxist goals. Of course, the Marxist concepts discussed above do not exhaust the field; there are many others. And as in every field, there is a great deal of disagreement among Marxist theorists and literary critics concerning, for example, the forma‑ tion and role of class solidarity among the proletariat, the role of the media in manipulating our political consciousness, the relationship between ideology and psychology, the compatibility of Marxism with other critical theories, and many other topics. However, the concepts provided in this chapter can be considered the basic principles, the main ideas you need to know in order to read Marxist theorists and literary critics with some understanding of the issues they raise.