A historical interplay of science, art, and labour through Marxist lens: George Thomson's 'The Human Essence'

By Harsh Thakor* 

George Thomson’s The Human Essence: The Sources of Science and Art, originally published as Marxism and Poetry in 1945 and revised in 1974, provides a Marxist analysis of the interconnected development of science and art, rooted in the concept of human labor. This work remains a significant resource for scholars studying the historical interplay of these fields, though its relevance today requires scrutiny in light of contemporary perspectives and technological advancements.

Thomson’s central argument is that human labor underpins both scientific and artistic progress, viewing them as expressions of social energy shaped by the labor process. Drawing on Marxist theory, including Lenin’s theory of reflection and Mao Tse-tung’s theory of knowledge, he posits that science and art are intertwined manifestations of human creativity and social development, not isolated disciplines. The text spans linguistics, psychology, anthropology, musicology, and literary criticism to support this claim, emphasizing how social relations, particularly those tied to labor, shape thought and creativity. It traces the evolution of science and art through various social formations, offering a Marxist perspective on cultural history and highlighting how both fields reflect the material conditions of their time. Science focuses on quantitative aspects of reality, while art emphasizes qualitative dimensions.

Thomson applies dialectical materialism to explain the evolution of human thought and culture, illustrating how contradictions inherent in matter and society drive development. He examines transitions in ancient societies, such as the shift from bronze to iron or from debt to chattel slavery, connecting these to technological advancements like the wheel, sail, and writing that spurred abstract thinking and cultural production. The text explores how mythology and art evolved from primitive to class-based societies, with art transitioning from magical functions to conscious creative expression. Thomson traces the roots of modern science to figures like Francis Bacon, contrasting materialist and idealist philosophies, such as those of Kant and Hegel, and credits Marx with resolving Hegel’s idealist contradictions by grounding dialectics in material reality. The book also celebrates figures like Beethoven, whose work reflected bourgeois-democratic ideals and anticipated Marxist ideas by emphasizing the role of the masses in history.

The work provides a rigorous, interdisciplinary study, offering a cohesive Marxist framework for understanding cultural and intellectual history. Its emphasis on labor as a unifying force is compelling, and its exploration of dialectics across diverse fields makes it valuable for scholars of Marxist theory and cultural studies. Its historical analysis of ancient and modern transitions offers insights into the material basis of human progress.

However, the book’s scope is limited by its Marxist framework. It gives minimal attention to non-materialist perspectives, such as spiritual philosophies like Vedanta or J. Krishnamurti’s teachings, which could enrich its exploration of human consciousness and creativity. It also does not engage with existentialist or postmodernist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre or Herbert Marcuse, whose ideas on individual agency and cultural critique could complement its focus on social structures. Additionally, predating the digital age, the analysis is disconnected from modern technological transformations that have reshaped science, art, and labor. The lack of focus on psychological or spiritual dimensions further narrows its applicability to contemporary discussions.

Thomson’s work remains relevant for scholars examining the historical interplay of science, art, and labor through a Marxist lens. Its insights into how social conditions shape intellectual and creative output can inform studies of cultural evolution and class dynamics. However, its Marxist orthodoxy may limit its appeal in a world influenced by diverse philosophical and technological paradigms. To remain pertinent, its arguments need re-evaluation in light of digital technologies, globalized economies, and postmodern critiques emphasizing subjectivity and pluralism.

In conclusion, The Human Essence is a foundational text for understanding the Marxist perspective on the development of science and art, offering a detailed, interdisciplinary analysis grounded in the labor process. While its insights into cultural history and dialectics remain valuable, its scope is constrained by its ideological focus and lack of engagement with alternative philosophies or modern technological contexts. Scholars would benefit from juxtaposing Thomson’s work with spiritual, existentialist, or postmodern perspectives to address its gaps and adapt its insights to the complexities of the 21st century.

---

*Freelance journalist