Louis Althusser in his “Ideology and Ideological State Aparratuses,” discusses the idea that “ideology is the system of the ideas and representations which dominate the mind of a man or social group.” He continues this idea by stating that ideology has no history, that it simply exists. This concept, that is in Althusser’s work applied to society, can also be applied, although somewhat loosely, to the discussion of Shelley’s Frankenstein.
By studying all of these literary criticisms in relation to Frankenstein, something interesting happens when reading the works, at least in my own experiences, in that I am automatically drawn to the arguments, however fractional they may be, that can coincide with Shelley’s work. This week, in the midst of the multitudes of Marxist related work, the idea of the existence of ideology, without a beginning or an end, as a simple, constant existence, proved of interest to me. As previously stated, Althusser defines ideology as the system of ideas that dominates the mind of a man. In discussing Frankenstein, what then can be said to be Victor’s ideology? What type of thought process and structure of belief dominates his mind, in that he believes it an acceptable practice to produce a creature of his own imagination? Does his doing so only solidify the ideas presented in Althusser, that what is reflected in the imaginary representation of ideology is in actuality the real world of men? Furthering this concept, one can validate Victor’s creation in the world of Althusser, by inferring that the creature is his representation of his personal ideology. In putting together the creature, Victor is forging a tangible relation to the conditions of his ideological existence. Furthermore, being that the creature is said by many to have no actual soul, as he is fashioned from various dead body parts, it can be argued that he has no “spiritual existence, but [only] a material existence.”
All of this being said, the monster can be viewed as the material manifestation of Victor’s dominant ideological discourse.
Another point proves extremely thought provoking to me, and upon contemplation I find it a spring board for discussion, as it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the class on this subject. Althusser states, “that every ‘subject’ [is] endowed with a ‘consciousness’ and believing in the ‘ideas’ that his ‘consciousness’ inspires in him and freely accepts, must ‘act according to his ideas,’ must therefore inscribe his own ideas as a free subject in the actions of his material practice. If he does not do so, ‘that is wicked.” Thus, I pose the following question; is Victor simply acting on his own ideas of consciousness, his personal ideology, and by doing so, doing no harm in inscribing his own ideas, or can his creation be viewed as wicked in that it is the materialization of his divergence from the group consciousness?
I think its probably a good bet that part of Victor's ideology is being shaped by his formal education. The novel leads up to Victor's construction of the female creature-- and his ultimate destruction of that creature. We've talked in class about how the creation of a female monster is frightening to Victor because suddenly he loses control over the means of production; with a female monster, other monsters could presumably be created without Victor. Victor even mentions these fears to the reader.
ReplyDeleteVictor does seem, at least on some level, motivated at maintaining the social hierarchy; Victor is after all from the ruling elite, and if as Dan suggests, the monster is a stand in for the common man, Victor as a ruling elite has everything to be gained by eliminating a threat to the State. A monster couple that can reproduce threatens the State power-- much as the French Revolution was a transfer of "state power from the feudal aristocracy to the merchant capitalist bourgeoisie" (Althusser 1346).