/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18962762]

This is from my course's literary criticism book. Every page of this book is filled with marxist literature theory, no room for classic/new criticism. Why does the English academia hate individualism so much?

[Anonymous No.18962799]

>>18962762
>whose minds are fed with fixed notions
Gotta love the unadorned "unthought" in action.

[Anonymous No.18962804]

>>18962762
You should also hate individualism as it is presented by modern liberalism, but not for the reasons that Marxists will tell you

[Anonymous No.18962815]

>>18962762
Their objection to liberalism is that it prevents society from moving collectively towards "harmony" and "equality?" What gave them the idea that it ought to? This is just ideology.

[Anonymous No.18963131]

>>18962804
What's wrong with the liberal conception of individualism?
>>18962815
Exactly! Man, this book is so hard to get through! Every other paragraph is basically a potshot at critics like Lewis, Leavis & Eliot.

[Anonymous No.18963156]

They've got a point about how obsessing over the canon tends to hold back creativity

[Anonymous No.18963171]

>>18963156
Aren't they arguing for the canonization of non-canonicity? Sounds pretty canonical to me

[Anonymous No.18963179]

>>18963131
Not him but the reason to hate individualism is exactly the one described in the highlighted excerpt from the text. An individual is powerless against an enemy group and individuality is still entangled in many social constructions. What the author of the book doesn't realise is that this critique backfires at Marxism which aims to destroy many of the most noble forms of collective life such as religion, tradition etc.

[Anonymous No.18963549]

>>18963179
>religion, tradition
>noble forms
No

[Anonymous No.18963574]

>>18963549
Whatever, Marxists aren't well positioned to criticize individualism because Marxism has always been about the liberation of the individual. It only used and abused collectivist rhethoric as a means to this end. Besides you'd have to prove why "religious affiliation" and "nation" are less valid and important than class which would make class collectivism objectivelly better than religious/national collectivism

[Anonymous No.18963949]

They always assume equality is a good

[Anonymous No.18963986]

>>18963949
One of the most frequent implicit assumptions of our age. It's psyopped very hard into children

[Anonymous No.18964611]

>>18963574
This, somehow marxists convinced people that their numerical economical value is more important to their identity than their nation and religion, its very dehumanizing

[Anonymous No.18964663]

>>18962762
>Why does the English academia hate individualism so much?
Because the trade, industry and culture are already pushing the senseless kind of individualism. The state, academia and the mass-media are just the controlled opposition.

[Anonymous No.18964678]

Leftism is a disease.

[Anonymous No.18964876]

>>18963179
>Marxism which aims to destroy tradition and religion
Marx explicitly and directly levies this same charge at capital. And that's not even some unique Marxian idea, all the way back to the Greeks there's and idea that the market eventually erodes community. You just sound American desu

[CEO of Rape No.18964886]

>>18962762
Google the author of that book, go to his or her wikipedia page, then click on "Early Life". You should find your answer there.

[Anonymous No.18964907]

>>18963574
>why "religious affiliation" and "nation" are less valid and important than class which would make class collectivism objectivelly better than religious/national collectivism
Because people who aren't born into landed gentry have to work to eat.
Physical reality doesn't care about the patriotism or feelings of a starving person or homeless guy, and yet productivity is the supposed justification for all of this.