Professor Angello’s lectures and Tyson’s chapter on Marxism were very consumable. They helped me recognize and correct a lot of misinformation that I had been fed about Marxism, and it’s not hard to see why so much misinformation about Marxist theory would be present in the popular culture of a capitalist society. I really like that Marxist theory recognizes the way a literary body is both influenced by the culture it is produced in and influences the culture it is produced into. I never liked that New Criticism so sharply separates literature, or any artform, from the culture surrounding it, but I couldn’t get on board with the way some forms of biographical and historical criticism overlook the text in favor of the culture it was created
…show more content…
No readily available Marxist themes like in Philip Levine’s “What Work Is”; however, a Marxist reading is still possible after analyzing the power dynamics within the poem. The first to lines of the poem seem to show that the girl should be of less worth than the boys. She is “my girl” (1) and they are “the boys” (2), illustrating that she is something that is owned rather than her own person; she is also set “down among” (2) them rather than placed with them, indicating that she wields less social power than the boys in the group is is brought into. Although these subtle phrasings depict the girl as a lesser being than the boys, she is shown to have her own agency and to be just as capable as they are. She is even given a form of power by breaking down and evaluating the boys the same way one might evaluate a math problem. They see “her sweet face” (16), but the girl sees each part of the boys, “their eyes, two each, / their legs, two each, and the curves of their sexes, / one each” (18-20), and is “doing her wild multiplying” (20-21). The girl’s perception and intellect gives her leverage over the boys she’s among. The idea that a girl is equal, even superior, in skill and agency to her male peers is the antithesis to misogynistic ideology, namely women being inherently inferior and subservient to men, which has persisted in society. By existing as a woman with power over men, flipping the typical balance of power, she is challenging social norms, creating her own
No readily available Marxist themes like in Philip Levine’s “What Work Is”; however, a Marxist reading is still possible after analyzing the power dynamics within the poem. The first to lines of the poem seem to show that the girl should be of less worth than the boys. She is “my girl” (1) and they are “the boys” (2), illustrating that she is something that is owned rather than her own person; she is also set “down among” (2) them rather than placed with them, indicating that she wields less social power than the boys in the group is is brought into. Although these subtle phrasings depict the girl as a lesser being than the boys, she is shown to have her own agency and to be just as capable as they are. She is even given a form of power by breaking down and evaluating the boys the same way one might evaluate a math problem. They see “her sweet face” (16), but the girl sees each part of the boys, “their eyes, two each, / their legs, two each, and the curves of their sexes, / one each” (18-20), and is “doing her wild multiplying” (20-21). The girl’s perception and intellect gives her leverage over the boys she’s among. The idea that a girl is equal, even superior, in skill and agency to her male peers is the antithesis to misogynistic ideology, namely women being inherently inferior and subservient to men, which has persisted in society. By existing as a woman with power over men, flipping the typical balance of power, she is challenging social norms, creating her own