Liberal Humanism vs. Marxist Critics

In my previous post I briefly spoke of liberal humanism and the significance of literature itself in our culture. After learning of Marxist criticism in Barry’s Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory, I realize these critics go against some of the ideals of liberal humanism. The first tenet of liberal humanism expresses the idea that literature is of "timeless significance," meaning it can somehow carry past the time period it was created. Literature can do this through human nature with the belief that certain emotions and thoughts never change over time. Marxist critics tend to relate more to economic factors when analyzing text. They often look into social-class status, specifically that of the author. They also believe that literary forms are associated with certain methods of time periods and class status. For example, the style of iambic pentameter relates to the time periods’ social stability and order. I feel as though Marxist critics may relate literature to social status and class structure more than they should. If they pay too much attention to these factors, they lose the most meaningful points the literature may bring out. Human emotions may deal with economic struggles and triumph, but there are also many that can be shared with people of different social classes.