Marxism

The Marxist perspective that literature is a product of the time and social class of which it is written is certainly a rational theory. When writing, I often include underlying things that are influential in my life without even realizing it. Therefore, it makes sense that an author would produce a work through the perspective of a social class from which he/she is in. It is much easier to write from a perspective which you have experienced; and even when trying not to, you usually let your societal background creep into your work.
However, the fundamentals of Marxism sharply conflict with those set forth in liberal humanism. If good literature is timeless, it seems that the time period in which it is written should not ground it. If text does have a base meaning, the time period or social class it is written for will not change its interpretation. Good literature is read by all classes and passes the test of time. While the author may have been influenced by his/her background, it remains a fact that good literature conveys that human nature is a constant. Therefore, while the context of this nature may change, its base result will remain the same. When contemplating Marxism, the scene where I’m sitting on the bench and Sean (Robin Williams) is lecturing me comes directly to mind- he says:

You presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine and ripped my fuckin' life apart. You're an orphan, right? Do you think I'd know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you?

This makes me think that while you can read as many books as you want on a social class or setting, until you’ve actually experienced it, you really can’t understand its true magnitude. Therefore, the Marxist position that literature is defined by the author’s social class and time period makes perfect sense, as the author will portray the only true experience he has-his own.