"One of the most important characteristics of any group that is developing towards dominance is its struggle to assimilate and conquer 'ideologically' the traditional intellectuals, but this assimilation and conquest is made quicker and more efficacious the more the group in question succeeds in simultaneously elaborating its own organic intellectuals" (1005).
I can't help but think of the cable news networks here, and the way they call upon "experts" whenever discussing a particular topic of social or pilitical significance. These "experts" typically present arguments that are based on "facts," but always with a slant towards one particular political agenda. Are these the "organic intellectuals," produced by groups - Republican, democrat, independant or just the capitalist American machine in general - in order to facilitate social dominance and conquer "the traditional intellectuals?"
---
One of the things I struggled with when considering Marxism is that there seems to be no such thing as free will. No matter what, our identities are shaped by socioeconomic forces, whether overt (in the form of "Repressive State Apparatuses" such as the guvernment and the military) or implicit (in the form of "Ideological State Apparatuses" such as religion and the family). There doesn't seem to be any room for choice. Even if I believe that I reject these apparatuses of social control, am I not still (at least accroding to Marxism) their creation, or the vicitm of some other ideology? Where do we go from here? Is violent rejection of the powers-that-be the only truely free action one can take? It makes me feel like I'm walking in a circle...
---
With regards to Frankenstein, could one do an analysis of the "Ideological State Apparatuses" that created Victor's identity and determined his actions as a "mad scientist?" The most obvious apparatuses being the family and the educational system? Or is Victor himself a representation of the dominant social class, and his creature the common man who struggles (unsuccessfully) against the way the powers-that-be define him?
This is probably all a stretch. I must admit that I struggled through the readings this week. I definitely won't be offended by criticism.
That's all for now.
Dan Fiorelli
This is probably all a stretch. I must admit that I struggled through the readings this week. I definitely won't be offended by criticism.
That's all for now.
Dan Fiorelli
Victor certainly is of the dominant social class; his father is a member of the Geneva ruling class and he himself is well educated -- which serves first as an indication of wealth and privilege while also suggesting that he has had the values of society imposed on him through the institution of education.
ReplyDeleteBut as to the creature, I think you are overlooking that the creature does find himself educated (though not privileged). The people the monster encounter all comment on the eloquence of his speech, even if they are horrified by his appearance.
If you were searching for someone representing the common man in the novel, I think you could look to the cottagers or to the Irish villagers that jail Victor.