Reassessing Class, Ideology, and Production
Personal Information
Name: Makwana Bhargav Arvindbhai
Roll No: 01
Batch: M.A Sem 3 (2024-2026)
Enrollment Number: 5108240018
Email: bhargavmakvana221@gmail.com
Assignment Details
Topic: Reassessing Class, Ideology, and Production: A Marxist Reading of Literature through Theory and Dickens’s Hard Time
Words: 2200
Date of Submission : 7 November 2025
Table of Contents
Introduction
Historical and Philosophical Background of Marxist Criticism
Core Principles of Marxist Literary Theory
Major Marxist Critics and Their Contributions
Application: A Marxist Reading of Charles Dickens’s Hard Times
Criticisms and Contemporary Relevance of Marxist Criticism
Conclusion
Personal Reflection
Works Cited
Abstract
This essay explores the intersection of Marxist literary criticism and Charles Dickens’s Hard Times, examining how Marxist theory can illuminate the relationship between literature and the economic, social, and ideological forces of its time. Drawing on the foundational works of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and key twentieth-century theorists such as Georg Lukács, Louis Althusser, and Fredric Jameson, this paper analyzes how Hard Times critiques the dehumanizing aspects of industrial capitalism. By applying Marxist concepts such as class struggle, ideology, and alienation, the essay demonstrates how Dickens’s novel both reflects and contests the material realities of Victorian England. The paper also addresses the evolution of Marxist literary theory, highlighting its contemporary relevance in the context of neoliberalism, digital labor, and global inequality. Ultimately, this Marxist reading of Hard Times reveals how literature serves not only as a reflection of class conflicts but also as a tool for ideological negotiation and critique.
Introduction
Marxist literary criticism remains one of the most influential and dynamic approaches to interpreting literature within the broader field of critical theory. Emerging from the political and philosophical writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this critical mode situates literature within the economic, social, and ideological structures of its time. It insists that art and culture cannot be separated from material conditions and that literature reflects and participates in the struggles between social classes. Over time, Marxist criticism has evolved—from early reflections on realism by Georg Lukács to the more complex ideological critiques of Louis Althusser, Raymond Williams, Terry Eagleton, and Fredric Jameson.
This essay aims to combine both the theoretical framework of Marxist literary criticism (its origins, concepts, and key figures) and its application to Charles Dickens’s Hard Times (1854), a novel that vividly portrays industrial capitalism’s effects on human life. Through this dual approach, the essay explores how Marxist criticism not only offers tools for understanding literature’s relationship with history and ideology but also reveals the material conditions underpinning artistic production and reception.
Historical and Philosophical Background of Marxist Criticism
The foundations of Marxist criticism lie in the works of Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), who articulated a comprehensive critique of capitalism and its ideological structures. In The Communist Manifesto (1848), Marx and Engels argue that history is the history of class struggles, driven by material and economic forces rather than abstract ideas. Their concept of historical materialism suggests that the economic “base” of society—its mode of production—shapes the cultural, political, and intellectual “superstructure.”
From this premise, literature becomes part of the superstructure: a product that both reflects and helps reproduce the dominant class ideology. In A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx famously wrote that “the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.” Thus, art and literature are not autonomous but deeply intertwined with economic relations and class structures.
In the twentieth century, Marxist thought intersected with literary theory, particularly in reaction to formalist and aestheticist views of literature. The early Marxist critic Georg Lukács argued for realism as the mode that most truthfully represented class relations and historical totality. His seminal work History and Class Consciousness (1923) established that literature should reveal the underlying structures of society. Later, Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony extended Marxist analysis to how dominant ideologies gain consent through cultural means. These theoretical developments established Marxist criticism as both an interpretive and a political practice.
Core Principles of Marxist Literary Theory
Marxist literary theory is grounded in several interrelated principles: class struggle, base and superstructure, ideology, production, and historical specificity.
Class Struggle and Materialism
Marxist critics view literature as a site where class conflict is represented, contested, or obscured. Each literary text embodies the tensions of its historical moment—the struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners of production) and the proletariat (workers). Literature becomes both a symptom of and a commentary on these material conflicts.
Base and Superstructure
The relationship between the economic base and cultural superstructure defines the Marxist approach to art. The base determines the superstructure “in the last instance,” meaning that while art may appear independent, it remains influenced by the economic realities of its age.
Ideology
Author and Production
Terry Eagleton, in Marxism and Literary Criticism, argues that the author is not a detached genius but a “producer” embedded within social and economic relations (Eagleton 45). The creation, circulation, and consumption of literature are all subject to material forces—publishers, markets, audiences, and ideological contexts.Form and Content
Marxist criticism rejects the division of form and content. The structure of a literary work—its genre, style, or narrative form—is shaped by social conditions. Fredric Jameson, in The Political Unconscious, asserts that “every text is socially symbolic,” and that form itself encodes historical contradictions.Historical Specificity
Marxist critics “always historicize.” Every text must be read within its material conditions of production. Literature is both shaped by history and participates in shaping historical consciousness.
Major Marxist Critics and Their Contributions
Several key thinkers have shaped Marxist literary criticism across the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Georg Lukács emphasized realism as the supreme artistic form capable of revealing social totality. For Lukács, the realist novel (as in Balzac or Tolstoy) presents types that embody social relations and contradictions, allowing readers to grasp historical processes.
Louis Althusser redefined Marxist criticism by introducing the concept of “overdetermination,” suggesting that literature is not merely a reflection but a complex ideological practice. His essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” (1970) influenced later cultural theories by locating literature within broader ideological structures.
Raymond Williams, in Marxism and Literature (1977), rejected economic determinism and proposed that culture is a constitutive social process. His idea of “structures of feeling” bridges the gap between lived experience and social formation, making literature a key site of ideological negotiation.
Terry Eagleton, one of the most prominent modern Marxist critics, argues that literature should be understood as part of social production rather than as a purely aesthetic phenomenon. In Criticism and Ideology (1976), Eagleton distinguishes between ideology and science in criticism, positioning Marxism as a critical “science” of social meaning.
Fredric Jameson advanced Marxist theory into postmodern contexts. In The Political Unconscious (1981), he claims that interpretation is “the rewriting of the text in the light of its historical situation,” insisting that all texts are political and ideological at their core (Jameson 60).
Together, these theorists demonstrate that Marxist criticism is not static but evolves in dialogue with history, adapting to new cultural and economic forms.
Application: A Marxist Reading of Charles Dickens’s Hard Times
Charles Dickens’s Hard Times (1854) offers a vivid portrayal of nineteenth-century industrial capitalism and its effects on human relationships, education, and morality. Set in the fictional industrial town of Coketown, the novel exposes the dehumanizing effects of a utilitarian worldview that reduces individuals to economic units. From a Marxist perspective, Hard Times functions both as a critique of capitalist ideology and as a reflection of the contradictions within Victorian society.
Industrial Capitalism and Class Relations
The novel’s depiction of Coketown embodies the capitalist mode of production—factories, machinery, and mechanized labour. The workers, such as Stephen Blackpool, represent the proletariat trapped in alienated labour, while characters like Mr. Bounderby symbolize the bourgeois capitalist who exploits the workers under the guise of self-made success. Dickens portrays Bounderby’s arrogance as ideological—a narrative that justifies exploitation through the myth of individual merit.Ideology and Education
Mr. Gradgrind’s philosophy of “facts, facts, facts” mirrors the utilitarian rationality of capitalism, which values productivity and profit over imagination and empathy. In Marxist terms, the education system in Hard Times acts as an Ideological State Apparatus (to borrow Althusser’s phrase), reproducing the capitalist ideology by training individuals to conform to industrial logic rather than question it.Alienation and Commodification
Marx describes alienation as the condition in which workers are estranged from the products of their labour, from others, and from their own humanity. Stephen’s suffering, his inability to change his social position, and his moral integrity highlight the dehumanizing effects of capitalist relations. Even emotions and relationships in the novel—such as those between Louisa and her father—are commodified, reflecting the penetration of economic rationality into personal life.Form and Ideological Ambivalence
While Dickens exposes capitalist exploitation, the novel’s form retains a certain bourgeois moralism. Dickens calls for compassion and reform rather than revolution. From a Marxist viewpoint, this tension reveals the ideological ambivalence of bourgeois art—it critiques capitalism’s excesses yet remains tied to its moral and aesthetic frameworks.
Fredric Jameson’s notion of “political unconscious” helps explain this: even reformist texts encode deeper social contradictions. Thus, Hard Times simultaneously challenges and reproduces capitalist ideology, revealing the complex position of literature within class struggle.Labour, Production, and Authorship
Dickens himself participated in the literary marketplace; his serialized publications catered to middle-class readers while addressing working-class issues. This duality underscores Eagleton’s idea of the author as producer—an artist shaped by and responding to the material conditions of literary production.
Through these lenses, Hard Times exemplifies the Marxist belief that literature not only mirrors social reality but also negotiates ideological tensions. The novel’s moral reformism cannot be separated from its historical role in mediating class conflict in mid-nineteenth-century England.
Criticisms and Contemporary Relevance of Marxist Criticism
Although Marxist criticism has provided invaluable insights into literature’s social dimensions, it has also faced significant critiques.
Critics argue that early Marxist criticism tended toward economic determinism, reducing art to a reflection of economic base and neglecting its aesthetic or psychological complexity. Structuralist and post-structuralist theories later questioned the assumption that ideology could be clearly located or exposed within texts. Feminist and postcolonial critics, such as Gayatri Spivak and bell hooks, further argued that Marxist theory often overlooked intersections of class with gender, race, and empire.
Nevertheless, Marxist criticism has adapted to these challenges. The rise of Cultural Materialism in Britain and Cultural Studies at large (particularly through Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall) expanded Marxist analysis to media, popular culture, and global capitalism. Fredric Jameson’s work on postmodernism revitalized Marxism by analyzing late capitalism’s cultural logic, emphasizing how even fragmentation and irony in art are symptoms of economic structures.
In contemporary contexts, Marxist criticism remains deeply relevant. With the rise of neoliberalism, digital labour, and global inequality, literature and media continue to encode class contradictions. Marxist analysis now extends beyond novels to films, advertising, and digital culture—interrogating how ideology operates through global media and consumption patterns.
As Eagleton observes, “Marxist criticism is not a relic but a living practice,” capable of evolving with changing material conditions (Marxism and Literary Criticism 88). Its central insight—that culture is inseparable from material life—remains a cornerstone for any critical engagement with literature and society.
Conclusion
Marxist literary criticism provides an enduring framework for understanding the dynamic relationship between art, ideology, and history. By uncovering how literature participates in the reproduction or contestation of social power, it transforms reading into an act of political awareness. The analysis of Hard Times demonstrates how even canonical bourgeois literature reflects the material contradictions of its era, revealing the tensions between humanism and industrial capitalism.
For postgraduate literary scholars, Marxist criticism offers not only historical depth but also critical urgency. In a world still shaped by economic inequality and ideological manipulation, the Marxist lens reminds us that literature, like labour, is a social product—and that criticism itself is a form of intellectual resistance.
Personal Reflection
Reading Marxist criticism has changed the way I approach literature. It makes me realize how stories aren't just about characters and plot, but also about the economic systems and class struggles of their time. For example, in Hard Times, Dickens highlights how industrial capitalism dehumanizes people, which helps me understand the role of class in shaping society.
I also see this in other works, like The Great Gatsby. Gatsby's rise and fall shows how wealth and class affect people's lives, just like in Dickens's novel. Marxist criticism has helped me see how literature often reflects the inequalities of its time and how authors engage with these issues.
This approach has made me more aware of how literature connects to real-world struggles, and it’s something I’ll keep in mind when reading other works.
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, translated by Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, 1971, pp. 127–186.
Dickens, Charles. Hard Times. Edited by Fred Kaplan, W. W. Norton, 2016.
Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. Routledge, 2002.
Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory. Verso, 2012.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, International Publishers, 1971.
Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell UP, 1981.
Lukács, Georg. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Translated by Rodney Livingstone, MIT Press, 1971.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford UP, 1977
.jfif)
No comments:
Post a Comment