For this semester I’ll offer my reflections on an introductory, freshmen-level course on western core texts that I am teaching. Maybe the most influential text written in the nineteenth-century, Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto,” still inspires both approbation and repugnance among readers today. While the practice of communism has been a disaster (e.g., the Soviet Union) and mostly repudiated (e.g., the People’s Republic of China), the ideology still retains its allure among western intellectuals and college students. But before speculating why this is the case, a quick review of Marxism is required first.
Lee, I thought this recent article touched on some of the same points you made and clarified what kind of role ideologies like Marxist thought has in liberal arts.
“Democracies Don’t Try to Make Everyone Agree” - The Atlantic
I’ve always thought the Cold War was the reason Marxism was part of the curriculum. It had a practical value for students to learn but it has been 30 years since its greatest champion fell.
Is there more value in learning the ideological battles of today? What are those battles and how can it be appropriately applied to an updated curriculum?
I’m not sure abandoning political texts because of its lack of morality will get us closer to enlightenment. More importantly, what value does the teaching of a defunct ideology have for a college freshman?
The truth lies within the unchanging desire for society to administer power. How they administer power does change and that has value. Then we should question its beliefs and actions.
I think it's a very gross reduction of Marx's thought to say his response in the Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts was, "just don't ask questions." The truth is that he was attempting to be scientific, his thought was constantly evolving, and he subjected his ideas to continual self-critique -- not to mention that he didn't successfully work out all of the problems he had with his own system.
We should probably add to that the fact that Marx was never rich and powerful and didn't hold any political position in any powerful state. He was essentially a writer all of his life.
Lee, I thought this recent article touched on some of the same points you made and clarified what kind of role ideologies like Marxist thought has in liberal arts.
“Democracies Don’t Try to Make Everyone Agree” - The Atlantic
https://bit.ly/2TbpNuY
I’ve always thought the Cold War was the reason Marxism was part of the curriculum. It had a practical value for students to learn but it has been 30 years since its greatest champion fell.
Is there more value in learning the ideological battles of today? What are those battles and how can it be appropriately applied to an updated curriculum?
I’m not sure abandoning political texts because of its lack of morality will get us closer to enlightenment. More importantly, what value does the teaching of a defunct ideology have for a college freshman?
The truth lies within the unchanging desire for society to administer power. How they administer power does change and that has value. Then we should question its beliefs and actions.
The real work is what lies in front of us.
I think it's a very gross reduction of Marx's thought to say his response in the Philosophic and Economic Manuscripts was, "just don't ask questions." The truth is that he was attempting to be scientific, his thought was constantly evolving, and he subjected his ideas to continual self-critique -- not to mention that he didn't successfully work out all of the problems he had with his own system.
We should probably add to that the fact that Marx was never rich and powerful and didn't hold any political position in any powerful state. He was essentially a writer all of his life.