Brief description of Ozymandias from a Marxist lens

Ozymandias – Marxist lens

Shelley initially begins this poem by introducing a single narrator – the first lines depict a scene which is now desolate but was once populated with a civilisation now viewed as ancient. The reader automatically becomes aware the poem is in relation to Egypt as Ozymandias is the Greek pronunciation of Ramesses II who reigned from 1279-1213 BC. This relates to the poem as a whole as ‘Ramessuem’ means house of a million years. The change in Ramesses’ name to Ozymandias highlights that the general European population had lacking knowledge in relation to Egyptian history or anything else Oriental and they therefore felt more comfortable naming things by the names that others who were more familiar to them had conjured up. The concept of a long-lasting object for example relates to Ozymandias himself as he aimed to ensure his legacy would live on for eternity. From a Marxist perspective, this concept is unobtainable and unreal to most people as the bourgeoisie dominate all elements of the superstructure and have the power to dictate what is remembered and what is not due to their influence on society. The name change for example by Europeans might not have been done with malicious intent, but it triggered the ideology of an acceptable practice in which westerners applied their own views and judgments onto eastern cultures. A Marxist would highlight this as an act by the bourgeoisie to control the superstructure and all elements of society. This society has many inequalities as it is unjust that figures of authority have power to dictate what is considered memorable and what can be forgotten. Everything we know is only what the bourgeois class decide to inform us, our whole lives could merely be an illusion cast upon us by higher powers.

The poem begins with the introduction of ‘a traveller from an antique land’ – it is unclear whether this traveller is a native to the ancient land or merely a returning tourist. The use of ‘antique’ evidently illustrates an incredibly old or ‘ancient’ land. For this reason, the traveller introduced may be viewed as a time-traveller as he now stands alone in this vast dessert; he appears more modern in comparison to his surroundings. It could be argued that Shelley represents this man as he is returning from a more modern society of his time (19th century) and he understands the historical context of Ozymandias himself due to Shelley’s broad education at Eton and Oxford.

Shelly derived from an aristocratic family, but this did not make him the type of man who favoured monotony. By the age of eighteen, he had collaborated with a friend to produce a pamphlet about Atheism which eventually resulted in his expulsion from Oxford University (Greenblatt 1732). Shelley’s history of rebellion against the norm, makes it easy to believe that he would begin to produce poetry about far off and interesting places that only he might have only ever heard of. Ozymandias is a sonnet, although it does not have the same, simple rhyme scheme or punctuation that most sonnets have. Some lines are split by full stops and the rhyme is irregular at times. Many people may argue that Shelley was rejecting the generic social conventions of accepting the status quo and adhering to what ‘should’ be done by disobeying basic rules like this. His acts of rebellion as a Romantic exemplify his objection to the inequalities within society. Marxists may respect Shelley for recognising the unfair social order, however Shelley himself was a member of the bourgeoisie and so a host of opposing Marxists do not believe his opinion was valid.

IMPROVED the large cool store

The Large Cool Store – Philip Larkin

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

This poem is a description of a Marks and Spencers shop in Larkin’s time. Since then, they have moved further upmarket and the store has been become a more respectable retail chain. However, in the 1950s, M&S was a shop equivalent the Primark of today – providing cheap, fashionable clothes. Class is presented within this poem, and some could argue Larkin is looking down on the lower class. “The large cool store”, for example, is ambiguous with a dual meaning; with “cool” either meaning vacuous, or more in a literal sense that the shop is actually cold in relation to temperature. “Cheap” for those purchasing the goods would be a positive thing as money is saved, but the idea of “cheap” has negative connotations such as “cheap and nasty” and other such idioms. The predominant impression the poem gives is that there is a clear inequality between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The working class desire to have gain the lifestyle of the bourgeois class by aiming to dress in a similar sense to them, however, they fail to realise some similar styled clothes do not escape their day to day ‘drab’ lives and they will never gain the equality they desire.  Marxists aim to fight for the socialist transformation of society on a national and international scale in order to end exploitation and create a new and higher order society in which men and women will relate to themselves as human beings, and so this poem would illustrate the inequalities present, and provide a motive for change.

The opening stanza of the poem is a brief overview of the store, here the narrator highlights a host of clothes available in store, an abundant amount of which are affordable clothes most commonly purchased by the proletariat. Immediately, this appears ironic to the reader as the proletariat produce the clothes that they then go on to buy with their wages. A repetitive, monotonous society is exemplified through the description of the store. Similarly, simplistic language is used here which reflects the monotonous lives of the proletariat – predominantly the use of monosyllabic words are used to evoke the look and feel of department stores. Similarly, this use of dull language reflects the empty, materialistic workers that shop there. Larkin cleverly uses the contrast in colours between ‘browns and greys’ of weekday clothes, in comparison to the more glamorous ‘lemon, sapphire, moss-green’ of the nightwear to show how advertising creates a sense of false consciousness for the proletariat as they believe they can be equal to the bourgeoisie by wearing similar versions of their clothing. Also, these colours are natural and cool which perpetuates the idea that the clothes are naturally made, and produced in a hygienic and open environment. However, the reader is aware of the abysmal state of many factories during the 20^th century, and the unfair conditions for workers which inhabited these factories. The false consciousness created within the proletariat also encourages people to believe they can escape their drab lives in these ‘unreal wishes’. Marx believed being alienated from the objects of a man’s labour and from the process of production, he is also alienated from himself – therefore he cannot fully develop the many sides of his personality. Similarly, the poem has an ABABA rhyme scheme throughout, like the lives of the working class; it’s repetitive, monotone and boring.

This poem also relates to women in various places. Some argue Larkin emphasises the manner in which shops rely on images of women/femininity in attempt to sell their products and therefore fuel consumer desire. The underwear on stands of Modes of Night is described as ‘thin as blouses’ and some items are personified by Larkin to ‘flounce in clusters’. This simile creates the impression to the reader that the clothes and women alike are fragile and insubstantial as women are given the same value here as a mass produced item of clothing. the clothes have been described in this disparaging tone in order to convey the idea to the reader of the personalities of the members of the proletariat that shop in this store. The idea of ‘thin’ givs the impression they are shallow and lacking of personality as they are merely puppets in the superstructure. A Marxist would believe this is because working is not part of a man’s nature; consequently he will not fulfil himself in his work but he denies himself instead. The worker therefore only feels his true self during his leisure time, whereas at work he feels a sense of homelessness. In contast, the use of the verb ‘flounce’ provides a clear comparison of flirtatious female behaviour with the manner in which the clothes attempt to attract the attention of customers. A feminist interpreter would immediately criticise the way Larkin exemplifies images of female sexuality/female nature to relate to how consumerism functions. A feminist may also suggest that the poem supports the idea of women being objectified and used for men, by men in a phallocentric world. This type of reading would most likely lead to the conclusion that Larkin was a misogynist.

The proletariat depicted within the poem are alienated within the capitalist society that they are most unfortunate to inhabit. However, this is only a result of the bourgeoisie limiting their potential. They have every characteristic and level of potential intelligence in order to gain equality, but the higher powers within society deny them of this opportunity to break free of marginalisation. They are consumed by what some could describe as a reassuring sense of false consciousness.  This idea can be highlighted within the poem due to ‘To suppose, They share that world, to think their sort is’. The working class continue to believe that they will be accepted by the authoritative figures within their world, by dressing in a similar manor to them. However, they fail to recognise the irony within their lives as they consistently ‘leave at dawn low terraced houses’ to un-skilled labour jobs in which they produce the products that they later buy for a considerable amount more than the cost is to produce. This strengthens the power and influence of the bourgeoisie as they continue to entrap the working classes within their materialistic world – the small earnings the workers gain from their labour is wasted on goods that they have mass produced for a fraction of the price; therefore the profit that arises only strengthens and continues to empower the bourgeoisie.

As the workers fail to recognise that this is continually occurring to them, they are blinded by the small wages they earn. They perceive the weekend (two day escape from monotonous daily life) as something that allures them into an ideology that their lives are enjoyable and contented. However, as the bourgeoisie controls the superstructure they intelligently foresee this love for the weekend in which a host of people stereotypically waste hours in local pubs for example. Even when the proletariat are not working they are still reified and transformed into puppets as everything they do is controlled by superior powers. The alcoholic beverages they choose to consume (that cause them to delve into a deeper sense of false consciousness and temporarily forget their issues) are taxed by the bourgeoisie and so they still parsimoniously take the little wages away that the working classes have been granted. This reoccurring conundrum of weekday working to weekend spending engulfs the workers further and empowers the already dominant forces within the capitalist society. This idea reflects Andrew Motion’s view that these people are attempting to escape their ‘drab’ lives by ‘trying to change by night into something they are not’. This idea of the workers relying on the weekend could be seen as a reflection of Marx’s view that ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ as they always need something that blinds them and force them to believe that everything is okay in order to sustain their existence and sense of false consciousness.  Marxists criticise the functionalist view as many argue religion is a unifying force that only strengthens the value consensus, they see religion as a feature of only class-divided societies. Subsequently Marxists believe there will be no need for religion and are under the impression that it will eventually disappear. Larkin cleverly recognises the inequalities present within the society due to ‘How separate and unearthly love is’. This shows his acknowledgment of the level of power the bourgeoisie possesses and perhaps their abuse of power as they exploit and restrain the lives of everyone below them in the superstructure. A Marxist could interpret this as a way in which Larkin is sympathising towards the workers and exemplifying what inequalities have arisen with society, but ultimately Larkin’s lack of power and inability to make a difference. Alternatively, some readers recognise Larkin’s ideas (words such as ‘synthetic and ‘natureless’) to illustrate the stupidity of the proletariat as they continue to attempt to be accepted within an unfair world that regularly alienates them. A world in which materialistic, selfish people inhabit. People who are only trapped by money and they too will never be completely free until death, who live by the control of economic determinism. Consequently, perhaps the people do need an ‘opiate’ as Marx states in order to empower their lives and strive for something more – a fundamental characteristic of human nature. Many people do argue that Larkin is a sneering, condescending man who is not highlighting oppression but who is revelling in it as he wasn’t a member of the proletariat – Larkin graduated from Oxford and managed to publish many works within his time. For this reason some people argue that Larkin was not dissatisfied with the status quo of his society but he in fact ostracised the proletariat like so many others, the fact he had more social authority over the working classes actually satisfied him as it gave him a sense of self-worth and power.

At the end of the poem, the speaker refrains from describing the clothes in order to consider the broader impact of advertising on humanity as a whole. Despite it initially appearing Larkin is accusing women of being ‘natureless in their ecstasies’  (as they believe ‘Bri—Nylon Baby—Dolls and Shorties’ have potential to offer them an improved quality of life). Larkin’s true target actually focuses on the men that dominant society. The ending lines could actually be viewed to critique the men whose ‘young unreal wishes’ initiate this concept of female desire, or alternatively the consumer culture itself which feeds it to produce money. In this way, the poem is not misogynistic as women are ultimately victims.

Marx and Engels

How did Marx and Engels view literature?

They regarded literature as insignificant.

What is the sociology of literature?

The sociology of literature concerns itself chiefly with means of literacy production; how books are published, the social composition of authors and their audiences, levels of literacy, and the social determinants of ‘taste’. It also examines literary texts for sociological relevance. It’s a degutted version of Marxist criticism for western consumption.

What did Matisse believe about all art?

All art bares the imprint of its historical epoch, but that great art is that in which this imprint is most deeply marked.

What is 'original' about Marxist literary criticism?

The originality of Marxist criticism lies not in its historical approach to literature, but in its revolutionary understanding of history itself.

Why is art part of the superstructure?

It is part of a society’s ideology – an element in that complex structure of social perception which ensures that the situation in which one social class has power over the others is either seen by most members of society as ‘natural’ or not seen at all.

What, according to interpretations of Conrad's work was the crisis facing the Western bourgeois class?

Individual psychology is a social product. Transformation into art of an ideological permission rife - a sense of history as futile and cyclical of individuals as impenetrable and solitary of human values as relativistic and irrational creates crisis in ideology of bourgeois class.

Which four elements make up the levels of 'unity' which Marxist criticism focuses on?

Text, ideology, social relations, productive forces.

In his letter Joseph Bloc, what did Engels want to deny about the base and superstructure?

He wants to deny that the base and superstructure are directly linked – he nor Marx has ever said this, or that if you’re born economically wealthy then you’re opinion is most valid. It’s what you do with your brains and knowledge which is key, other influences such as politics and religion are considered of higher importance.

Why does Marx believe we enjoy classical Greek literature?

Provides us with a nostalgic lapse back into childhood. The Greeks were able to produce major art BECAUSE of the undeveloped state of their society, not in spite of.

The Large Cool Store – Philip Larkin

How does Larkin explore ideas of inequality between social classes?

This poem is a description of a Marks and Spencers shop in Larkin’s time. Since then, they have moved further upmarket, but in the 1950s, M&S was a shop much like the Primark of today – selling cheap, though slightly dated, fashionable clothes. There is a sense of class within this poem, and one interpretation of Larkin looking down on the lower class. “The large cool store”, for example, is ambiguous, with “cool” either meaning something along the lines of trendy, or more negative, that the shop is literally cold. “Cheap” for those purchasing the goods would be a positive thing, but the idea of “cheap” comes in twain with “cheap and nasty” and other such idioms.

The first stanza is a brief overview of the store, in which the narrator highlights ranks of affordable clothes most commonly purchased by the proletariat.  The language used here is simplistic which reflects the monotonous lives of the proletariat – predominantly the use of monosyllabic words are used to evoke the look and feel of department stores which reflect the empty, materialistic workers that shop there. Larkin uses the contrast in colours between ‘browns and greys’ of weekday clothes and the more glamorous ‘lemon, sapphire, moss-green’ of the nightwear to show how advertising creates a sense of false consciousness for the proletariat as they believe they can be equal to the bourgeoisie by wearing similar versions of their clothing. This false consciousness also encourages people to believe they can escape their drab lives in these ‘unreal wishes’. Similarly, the poem has an ABABA rhyme scheme throughout, like the lives of the working class; it’s repetitive, monotone and boring.

This poem also highlights the manner in which shops rely on images of women/femininity in order to sell their products and fuel consumer desire. Larkin describes the underwear on stands of Modes of Night as ‘thin as blouses’ and the way the different items ‘flounce in clusters’. The simile creates the impression that both the clothes and the women who buy them are fragile and insubstantial. Likewise, the choice of the verb ‘flounce’ compares flirtatious female behaviour with the way the clothes try to attract the attention of customers. A feminist reading would criticise the way Larkin draws upon images of female sexuality to consider how consumerism operates and suggests that the poem reinforces the idea of women as objects used for men, by men in a phallocentric world. This type of reading would most likely lead to the conclusion that Larkin was a misogynist.

The proletariat depicted within the poem are alienated within the capitalist society that they are most unfortunate to inhabit. However, due to their lack of intelligence (as a result of the bourgeoisie limiting their potential) they are consumed by what some could describe as a reassuring sense of false consciousness.  This idea can be highlighted within the poem due to ‘To suppose, They share that world, to think their sort is’. The working class continue to believe that they will be accepted by the authoritative figures within their world, by dressing in a similar manor to them. However, they fail to recognise the irony within their lives as they consistently ‘leave at dawn low terraced houses’ to un-skilled labour jobs in which they produce the products that they later buy for a considerable amount more than the cost is to produce. This strengthens the power and influence of the bourgeoisie as they continue to entrap the working classes within their materialistic world – the small earnings the workers gain from their labour is wasted on goods that they have mass produced for a fraction of the price; therefore the profit that arises only strengthens and continues to empower the bourgeoisie.

As the workers fail to recognise that this is continually occurring to them, they are blinded by the small wages they earn. They perceive the weekend (two day escape from monotonous daily life) as something that allures them into an ideology that their lives are enjoyable and contented. However, as the bourgeoisie controls the superstructure they intelligently foresee this love for the weekend in which a host of people stereotypically waste hours in local pubs for example. Even when the proletariat are not working they are still reified and transformed into puppets as everything they do is controlled by superior powers. The alcoholic beverages they choose to consume (that cause them to delve into a deeper sense of false consciousness and temporarily forget their issues) are taxed by the bourgeoisie and so they still parsimoniously take the little wages away that the working classes have been granted. This reoccurring conundrum of weekday working to weekend spending engulfs the workers further and empowers the already dominant forces within the capitalist society. This idea reflects Andrew Motion’s view that these people are attempting to escape their ‘drab’ lives by ‘trying to change by night into something they are not’. This idea of the workers relying on the weekend could be seen as a reflection of Marx’s view that ‘religion is the opiate of the people’ as they always need something that blinds them and force them to believe that everything is okay in order to sustain their existence and sense of false consciousness.  Larkin cleverly recognises the inequalities present within the society due to ‘How separate and unearthly love is’. This shows his acknowledgment of the level of power the bourgeoisie possesses and perhaps their abuse of power as they exploit and restrain the lives of everyone below them in the superstructure. A Marxist could interpret this as a way in which Larkin is sympathising towards the workers and exemplifying what inequalities have arisen with society, but ultimately Larkin’s lack of power and inability to make a difference. Alternatively, some readers recognise Larkin’s ideas (words such as ‘synthetic and ‘natureless’) to illustrate the stupidity of the proletariat as they continue to attempt to be accepted within an unfair world that regularly alienates them. A world in which materialistic, selfish people inhabit. People who are only trapped by money and they too will never be completely free until death, who live by the control of economic determinism. Consequently, perhaps the people do need an ‘opiate’ as Marx states in order to empower their lives and strive for something more – a fundamental characteristic of human nature.

At the end of the poem, the speaker draws back from describing the style of the clothes to consider the wider impact of advertising on human life. Whilst it initially appears Larkin is accusing women of being ‘natureless in their ecstasies’, since they are the ones who believe ‘Bri—Nylon Baby—Dolls and Shorties’ offer them a chance of a more glamorous life. Larkin’s real target lies elsewhere. The closing lines really critique the men whose ‘young unreal wishes’ create female desire, or rather the consumer culture itself which feeds it to make money. In this way, the poem is not misogynistic as women are ultimately victims.