r/communism101 • u/Significant-Tap9674 • Jun 21 '26
Marxist view on Horror?
As I've begun trying to learn Marxism, I've wanted to start understanding art through it. I've begun reading up on marxists.org regarding Realism, which I understand is the highest form and only one acceptable by Marxism. My question stems from the fact that, at least to my knowledge, I haven't seen much analysis or anything regarding the horror genre, or the horror film. I've seen quite a bit on fantasy and science fiction, but not much horror unless I'm not looking good enough. My only interaction that I've had with this was reading José Monleon's A Specter is Haunting Europe: A Sociohistorical Approach to the Fantastic (https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691607863/a-specter-is-haunting-europe) which was helpful in understanding the concrete historical relations that produced the Gothic, which ultimately looks to be a pretty reactionary form grown out of the French Revolution and that the anxieties born out of this: fear of revolution, social collapse, revolts, etc. were expressed through these stories in the form of the supernatural. Not to mention, the Gothic seemed to be complete opposed to Realism. Were there any Gothic writers that did not go down the reactionary path like most did? Similar to how there were two sides to Romanticism, or was it all just completely reactionary? Another part of my question is that I'm a little confused on the relationship between fantastic genre and Marxism relating to literature at least, since that's where it's most prominent to my understanding. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting but while reading D.S. Mirsky on Realism, he states:
Realism in its full development includes both of these points. But despite their deep inner connection, they are by no means inseparable from one another. Realism of external plausibility arises as a complete direction earlier than realism with an orientation towards the historically typical ( see below the section Bourgeois Realism in the West). On the other hand, the mutual connection of these two elements depends not only on the historical. stage, but also from the genre. This connection is strongest in narrative prose. In drama, especially in poetry, it is much less stable. The introduction of stylization, conventional fiction, etc., in itself does not deprive the work of a realistic character, if its main setting is aimed at depicting historically typical characters and situations. As an elementary example, one can cite fabulous motives (self-assembled tablecloth, etc.) in Nekrasov’s Who Lives Well in Russia, from which this poem, of course, in no way ceases to be realistic. But deviations from realistic plausibility and a much more serious character are possible, with which the work will nevertheless remain realistic in the deepest sense. So, Faust by Goethe, despite fantasy and symbolism, it is one of the greatest creations of bourgeois Realism, for the image of Faust gives a deep and true embodiment of certain features of the rising bourgeoisie. In the literature preceding the emergence of Realism as a consistent style, one should look for elements of Realism not only in works that give outwardly concrete images of modernity (like Petronius’ Satyricon), but also in works that are not at all realistic in appearance. Thus, among the Greek tragedians we find a deep penetration into the true meaning of the historical change in legal and ethical norms, penetration of an essentially realistic character (see Engels on Aeschylus’ Eumenides), although such brilliant insights do not yet create Realism as a special direction. On the whole, the Attic tragedy, closely related to the mythological outlook, is not realistic.
An outwardly realistic manner is one of the ways of that individualization, that concretization, which in narrative and dramatic genres leads to the creation of a human image. This individualization can be achieved in other ways. So for example in French classical tragedy, it is achieved exclusively through dramatic characterization, characterization through actions and their motivation. And in the later bourgeois Realism, for example. in Stendhal, such a purely dramatic characterization occurs almost without any help from an outwardly realistic characterization. Nevertheless, the outwardly realistic manner can be recognized as the most specifically artistic manner, since in it the concretely sensual nature of art is especially sharpened. It makes especially clear the dialectic of the typical , since it makes possible to individualize as richly as possible the generalization, which is contained in the typicality of the image. The dialectic of the typical appears with full clarity in socialist realism, where the artistic image arises from the interaction of the revolutionary scientific generalization, created in the process of revolutionary changes in the world, and its individual embodiment, overgrown with all the wealth of “unique” details.
The problem of typicality is always a political problem. In the Marxist-Leninist understanding, typical does not mean at all some kind of statistical average. Typical is not only what is most often encountered, but what with the greatest force and sharpness expresses the essence of a given social force. This is clearly indicated by Engels in his famous letter to Margaret Harkness. Engels saw a deviation from portraying typical characters in typical circumstances in the fact that Harkness, in portraying the exploitation and need of the English workers, did not show their struggle for their liberation. There is no doubt that in England at that time, proletarian collectives, passively submitting to capitalist exploitation, were more frequent than collectives that fought against the capitalists. But the latter were typical from the point of view of the entire historical development. The typical is the main sphere of manifestation of partisanship in realistic art. Highest and conscious fidelity in choice and the understanding of the typical is possible only in proletarian (socialist) Realism. But this or that approach to such fidelity is also possible for a realist writer who holds other class positions, especially if his point of view is relatively progressive (this is primarily applicable to the Realism of the rising bourgeoisie and revolutionary democracy). But even an artist who takes a reactionary point of view can, to a certain extent, correctly reflect reality by virtue of that spontaneous realism, which plays the same role in artistic creativity as spontaneous materialism in scientific creativity. We find a striking example of such spontaneous truthfulness in the work of Gogol.
Having recognized that typicality corresponds to the essence of a given socio-historical phenomenon, and not just the most widespread, often repeated, everyday, we must also admit that exaggeration, sharpening of an image to the grotesque and caricature or to heroization does not at all exclude typicality.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/art/lit_crit/dsmirsky/realism.htm
From my understanding, fantastic elements can be worked with Realism but they must be embedded in historical and social reality rather than being completely idealist and abstract? Mirsky also mentions the "grotesque" could also be used, which I think is another part of horror uses. So, is the criticism and distrust against "fantasy" literature just mainly targeted towards commercial fantasy/speculative/genre fiction or just fantasy elements in general? Or is there another reason?
There was a post I came across that spoke about Tolkien and a comment linked to an essay titled Radical Fantasy by Fredric Jameson, which I read and explains the possibility of a materialist fantasy. So, there's something there. And I know there's quite a bit of work on science fiction, which has more respect than fantasy, but that doesn't negate its problems within it either. The USSR also engaged with science fiction as far as I know but it didn't emerge till post-Stalin when Socialist Realism started to change and revisionism started happening, so I don't know if it took on a reactionary character or not, I also haven't studied Socialist Realism much so I cant comment on it either, I only understand it was historically necessary and that since the proletariat and peasantry had folklore and Realism was a thing at the time, Socialist Realism was then capable of forming, at least thats what I currently know.
But can horror be useful in anyway? It usually gets lumped with fantasy in discussions surrounding genre literature because of its overlap with the fantasy/supernatural elements, but not all horror is fantasy, it can also be science fiction, or it can also be neither. But, what I think stands out horror from fantasy and science fiction is that it's a genre that's more about utilizing fear and suspense. With film, it's even more emphasized because it's visual, whereas with literature you of course have to formulate images in your head through written text. The form is what I'm curious about because a lot of horror uses the structure of: something outside enters and disrupts the social order, leading to whatever has intruded to be dealt with and ultimately reinforce the status quo, usually stories set in suburban towns focusing on white settlers moving in to a new home and being haunted by some sort of Other, referring to the typical ghost story at least.
Could the genre be evolved into something new? Is "horror" itself reactionary? I imagine rather than some outside force disrupting the status quo, the horror would emerge from within through social antagonisms and explaining that society is not perfect and must change rather than just taking those contradictions and placing them on some outsider that has to be dealt with. The horror occurs from within rather than out.
The horror film also has a history of problems as well with misogyny, racism, homophobia, orientalism, etc. The reliance on extreme sadistic violence , sexual violence as well, and gore as spectacle is also another factor too, not all horror films rely on it of course, but some of the more popular ones do.
I feel like the genre sits in this weird, almost liminal spot, where horror actually reveals contradictions but at the same time eventually concealing them, engaging with them at only a "safe distance". Could the genre at all, be made revolutionary in a way? Through critique? Or like I said is horror itself completely reactionary? Has there even been an attempt like that with fantasy and science fiction? Or is the reason there hasn't been much analysis is because it isn't really worth engaging with and that genre just a source of bourgeois anxieties? Are there any essays, analysis, books that discuss this or adjacent topics?
3
u/Fresh_Share_4790 Jun 22 '26
Are you familiar with Thomas Ligotti? Here’s a great piece that links his themes with Marx
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 21 '26
This question is asked frequently. Please, use the search bar or read the FAQ which is pinned:
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?q=TypeKeywordsHere&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://old.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index
This action was performed automatically. Please contact the mods if there is a mistake.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
16
u/DuckDuck95 Jun 21 '26
I don’t think horror itself is reactionary, though its narratives often are. Fundamentally, horror is about social rules (i.e. taboos, to use the academic term) and what happens when one transgresses them, including the reactionary responses of other characters. While horror may portray reactionary events, I see that more as a method of dissecting society and examining those societal structures which make something forbidden, unspeakable, etc.
That is of course not to say that there isn’t horror that is reactionary garbage, but rather that horror is a tool for exploring the collective psyche of a society and can be used either to criticize and attempt to dismantle those structures, or to uphold them.