"I have heard these arguments before"

“Women, children, whole families destroyed because they were born different from those in power” This was said by Erik Magnus Lensheer before he and his Brotherhood launched a terrorist attack on Liberty Island. Though it is definitely a bit on the extremist side, this quote holds a bit of the Marxist argument within it.

It may be a bit unconventional, but I decided to analyze the “X-men trilogy” movies for this week’s response. It appears that it was actually not as far from Marx’s ideals as it had seemed.

The story is set in a world where a new species of humanity has emerged, one with abilities that set them apart from the “normal” populace. They are branded simply as mutants and are right away cast aside or exploited by those around them, especially by the “normal” high-ranking government-types. One of the main characters, Logan has suffered much from such exploitations. His particular talents were used by those of higher authority for the so-called benefit of the country. And he received no compensation for it besides the pain that was the rest of his life as they considered him beneath them because of what he could do. The government had also begun forcing other mutants to register, to sign away their names and abilities to be recorded for future reference and use. The mutants, for the most part, just want to be treated equally and to be given equal rights. Others want to not be mutants, wanting to become “normal”. A major theme of the third installment deals with a “cure” being developed for mutant-kind’s condition. For several of the mutants, this is a chance to finally transcend their current way of life for a new and (arguably) better one, the luxuriously “normal” way of life. But taking this “cure”, considering taking the “cure” or even calling it a cure, would just confirm what the higher power led them to believe, that there’s something wrong with them and that being “normal” is better. Such a thought would just keep the cycle of persecution and exploitation going, exposing it to future generations.

Marxists have identified fascism as a form of politics adopted by governments, where those not equal to or meeting with the qualifications of those in power are stripped of their rights, to prevent a socialist revolution. This series of films speaks out against fascism in almost the same way.

'Office Space'

After watching 'The Bicycle Thieves' in class on Wednesday and briefly discussing it, I could not help but think of 'Office Space' as a movie which a Marxist could view and (hopefully) thorougly analyze.

Briefly, 'Office Space' is a film from the late 90's about a technology company called Initech. Two consultants are hired in order to analyze the company's employees and contribute to the decisions of who should be fired, seeing as they are "downsizing". The main character, Peter, is obviously bored of his job and cannot help but assume that he will definitely be on that list of people to fire. After a sort of epiphany, Peter decides that he will not allow that to happen; instead he will quit his job and dedicate himself to literally doing nothing all day, something he's been longing to do for a while. While announcing this to the temporary consultants, he receives a promotion instead, and his two co-workers/best buds, Samir and Michael, get the boot. These three characters seek revenge by installing a virus in the company's system that somehow steals money from Initech and deposits it into their account. Some time and some significant digits later, the three friends begin to worry that they will get caught and anonymously write to the company admitting to their crime, and return all the money, expecting to get arrested. However, they are saved by their fellow co-worker, Milton, who is typically perceived as an idiot by his bosses who gets thrown around and never speaks up for himself. Finally fed up, Milton sets the office building on fire and disappears with the criminals letter of apology and returned money.

Going back to Balibar and Macherey's Literature as an Ideological Form, "literary productions must not be studied from the standpoint of their unity which is illusory and false, but from their material disparity" (p. 136). After looking up the word disparity in the dictionary, I learned that it means inequality or difference. So, Balibar and Macherey's statement can mean that one can analyze a literary production and find within it many obvious material differences. In 'Office Space', these disparities that have been discussed can be depicted in the four main characters work ethic, compared to of course their bosses. These employees are obviously not satisfied with their jobs and their role in production; their bosses who profit from them obviously do. A Marxist would see this movie and automatically associate it with the flaws in a capitalistic government; within capitalism, the competitive market system is designed to leave most (if not all) of the power with big businesses, leaving those who contribute to the market, in other words the employees, with little or nothing.

Balibar and Macherey also discuss hegemony: "the aesthetic effect is also inevitably an effect of domination: the subjection of individuals to the dominant ideology, the dominance of the ideology of the ruling class" (p 140). In relation to 'Office Space' the "ruling class" in this case would once again be the managers of Initech, while the workers, such as Peter and Milton, are the "individuals subjected to this dominant ideology", until of course all of them revolt and in the end, are left with much personal satisfaction.

It's a Wonerful Life

Based on the reading of Etienne Balibar and Pierre Macherey and all the discussions we have had in class, I have remembered a movie probably near and dear to everyone's heart as it is mine, that may be used in such a way that I can attempt to make a "Marxist" criticism on it. After researching what exactly a "Marxist" criticism is, I have deduced that a Marxist literary critic tends to look for contradictions within literary works (or movies), which is appropriate because Marxism tends to look at tensions and contradictions within society.
"The first principle of a materialist analysis would be: literary productions must not be studied from the standpoint of their unity which is illusory and false, but from their material disparity.
One must not look for unifying effects but for signs of the contradictions (historically determined) which produced them and which appear as unevenly resolved conflicts in the text.
(p 136)

We were told that the movie we saw in class "The Bicycle Thieves" was typical of a Marxist type movie because there was most definitely a hero and it was a very sad film because of the trials and tribulations he went through and was still a good man regardless of life's cruelty. The movie that immediately came to mind (I hope I am on target!) is the movie It's a Wonderful Life.
George Bailey is most definitely what I would think of as being a hero type of a figure that most certainly goes through multiple trials and tribulations and I do believe that I have found contradictons based on what society would expect. George could have "sold out" to the rich banker when he was offered money to save the savings and loan and he chose not to take the easy way out and give up. He could have also been very rich if he would have invested with his friend in the plastic industry from the very beginning and he didn't do that either. He was quite content being the man he was loving his wife and kids, but the despair of his uncle losing the deposit that was to be made to the savings and loan put him into a downward spiral that ultimately made him want to kill himself. Most of people in society would have taken the easiest way out possible and would have sold the savings and loan to the banker and moved on, not George. After running his car into a tree and almost attempting to jump over the bridge just to end it all entirely, he is met by an angel that showed him what life would have been if he had never existed at all. The town was owned and run by the nasty scrooge like banker and every one was miserable, his brother would hae been killed in the war and his wife's life would have been very unfortunate as well. George and his kindness really effected every single person in that enitre town. Most people in society have the nature to be out for themselves and be consumed with the idea of being a part of the rich upper class (dominant group), but George at the very end of the movie says "I am the richest man in the world because of my friends". At the end of the movie all the townspeople donated money to help save the savings and loan because of how much they cared for George. George never strived to be rich as most people in society are struggling to be part of the class above the one they are in because that is human nature in general. We all have an innate sense to in a way be greedy, but George wasn't that way. He is content on how life is and would always be happy as long as he can provide for his family, not caring what class he is in. To George Bailey life in general makes it A Wonderful Life.

Meet John Doe

I haven't been to the movies in a long time, so I thought about some of my favorite ones, most being of the old Hollywood school of B&W films. I remembered a film I had seen a couple of times which I think has a great deal of relevance to what we've been discussing in class. The film is "Meet John Doe", starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, directed by Frank Capra. Briefly, the main female character, Ann (played by Barbara Stanwyck) is threatened with being fired by the new owner of the newspaper she writes for because her columns are too boring.

She sends a fake letter to herself from a non-existent person, calling him John Doe, who, unemployed, says because of societal, political and economic injustices, he will commit suicide on Christmas Eve. After this is printed in the newspaper there is a huge outpouring from the masses asking him not to kill himself. The new Publisher is blown away by this response and seeing a big profit stemming from the increased circulation, wants to continue publishing letters from John Doe. However he finds out about the ruse by Ann, but still ony can see the profit he can make socially, economically and politically from this phenomenon. He gives Ann her job back with a raise but only if she'll continue the charade. It comes to a point where they actually have to produce a real person as John Doe...enter Gary Cooper. Cooper is an unemployed baseball player, a pitcher, due to injury, and lives with his friend under a bridge as a tramp. He interviews for the "job" and agrees to impersonate John Doe. He (Ann) writes about how people should care about their neighbors, be more charitable, how the average man is the working masses and has the power to change society's ills, and to fight against the big corporations and dirty politicians, etc. This whole John Doe philosophy starts a new movement (or ideology) .

The fraud is exposed by the very Publisher who is benefitting from it to further his aspirations in political circles. The John Doe movement is destroyed...However Gary Cooper's character decides to vindicate himself and actually commit suicide as promised on Christmas Eve. I remember this last scene being very powerful. On Christmas Eve, John Doe writes a suicide letter and mails it to a writer he can trust to print it. He goes up to the roof of City Hall where he climbs on the ledge waiting for midnight. The greedy publisher is already there with his cronies telling him to reconsider what he is doing. He said something like it will be all for nothing. The mayor and police are on the ground waiting to take all I.D. off his body. He will be buried in a potter's field having died for nothing. then of course, as only Hollywood can do it, Barbara Stanwyck gets to the roof and pleads with him not to jump, that she loves him, yatta yatta yatta, but most importantly still believes in the "John Doe Movement" . Other friends turned enemy, turned friends again coax him off the ledge. Cooper's trusted friend tells off the greedy publisher in the end, fists raised and all. The message was that the people united were stronger that any social, political or economic machine, and will always prevail.

In Balibar and Macherey's discussion of Fiction and Realism : The Mechanism of Identification in Literature they say "Brecht was the first Marxist theoretician to focus on this ( the identification effect) by showing how the ideological effects of literature materialise via an identification process between the reader or the audience and the hero and the anti-hero, the simultaneous mutual constitution of the fictive' consciousness' of thew character with the ideological 'consciousness' of the reader. This theory can easily be applied in "Meet John Doe".

Additionally, Balibar and Macherey state that "According to the fundamental mechanism of the whole bourgeois ideology, to produce subjects ('persons' and 'characters') one must oppose them to objects, i.e. to things, by placing them in and against a world of 'real' things, outside it but always in relation to it. The realistic effect is the basis of this interpellation which makes characters or merely discourse 'live' and which makes readers take up an attitude towards real ones, though undangerously.

I agree with Lesley's response using "It's a Wonderful Life" as a film to relate to what we've been discussing in class. Interestingly, Frank Capra also directed It's A Wonderful Life. It seems to me that he was proficient in showing audiences the common man and the tests they must endure to keep their integrity and what they value in life. He appealed to the common masses. Another Capra film I could throw into the mix is "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" . Again it's the common man against the corporate and political machines. Of course the common man wins in the end...very Capraesque.

9/26

As I said at the beginning of class, two things are critical to a good first paper. First, coming up with an argument beyond, say, 'This will be a Marxist reading of...' What we're interested is your ability to apply the concepts of the class to a particular work, but also more that that: I'd like you to think about the value of these readings. What do they contribute to our understanding of the work, what do they make visible which other critical lenses don't?

Secondly, be sure to be working intimately with the texts--both the theoretical and the imaginative. I expect to see details quoted extensively in service of your argument, and as always be very careful when paraphrasing (especially with the Marx and the Gramsci--be sure you can find evidence in their work for your claims about what they are saying). Be sure you know your texts inside and out, and be sure that you display that knowledge (accurately) in every paragraph of your reading.

For Monday, read Balibar and Macherey's 'Literature as an Ideological Form' in Modern Literary Theory. For Monday's response, write a 250-400 word 'Marxist reading' a film you have seen. Try your best to be specific (mention specific scenes and moments) even if you haven't seen the film in a while; the point here is to show each other our attempts at this process. In addition, comment on one of the other 'readings.'

Sarah Cole

In this story the "Marxist reading" is very easy to understand. Reading the story this way would entail looking for a separation between classes and understanding the social and economic separations between the two classes. Ron takes it to another level and even notes the differences in appearance which he really emphasizes because she is from a lower class. However Sarah is the one who really points out the differences and says that he is better than her. Ron more just notes that he is so much better looking than she is.

Also, it is interesting because these two different people are coming together to both satisfy a need of the other one. “She walked out the door of Osgood's determined to make love to a man much prettier than any she had seen up close before, and I walked out determined to make love to a woman much homelier than any I had made love to before. We were, in a sense, equals.” This shows how the two different worlds or classes use each other to satisfy their needs but yet they still remain in two different places, only because Ron was afraid of what society would think if he were with her.

I found this assignment also interesting because it reminded me of an earlier class where we discussed the professor who wrote the names on the board for one class as an assignment and one class as a poem. You telling us it is a Marxist reading or to read it in that way makes us all try to fit it into this ideology even if it wasn't necessarily one.

Sarah Cole and Marx

I think the most obvious way to connect Russel Banks’ “Sarah Cole” to our class discussions on Marxism would be through the clear differences between the characters, in class and standing and the role that difference plays in their relationship. Ron is a self-professed remarkably attractive lawyer, and Sarah is a overtly homely press plant worker. Ron lives in a comfortable apartment and dresses in suits, while sarah lives in a run-down tenement house and wears cowboy boots and hats. These two people are not from the same world, and it can be deduced that Ron sees sarah as below him, yet he is drawn to her out of curiosity. He wants to get to know someone of Sarah’s position first hand, almost as an experiment. Although the reader is told what a good guy Ron is, we quickly learn otherwise. Ron has very little reservation about using sarah. He exploits her, simply because he can, but when she makes demands to be compensated by making their relationship public he rejects her. He has the upper-hand and she, being of lower status, is at his mercy. This exploitation is what makes the story Marxist.
The communist ideal Marx and his supporters commonly speak of is the need to do away with class division and live as equals. As long as one group has more political, economical and social power than another, there will be conflict and exploitation. Ron and Sarah walk the thin line between their differences but ultimately cannot overcome them. As Gramsci points out in “The Intellectuals,” capitalism, and the exploitation and dominance of the lower class, will stay in place as long as the lower class continues to accept the place in society the upper class has cut out for them, and by admiring Ron for his looks and standing, Sarah is doing so. She allowed him the power and when she tried to take some of it back, she couldn’t. The revolution Marx calls for will not come about easily or without consequence, but its need is all the more obvious in this story, which focuses on the human aspect of it, not just the economical repercussions.

Hegemony, Marxism, Banks

Once again, I will make an effort to define the concept of hegemony. Except in this scenario, I will attempt to make a connection of the concept of hegemony as it pertains to the Russell Banks story Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story. My goal is to consider what a ‘Marxist reading’ of this story might entail.
Hegemony which is a concept introduced by Gramsci can be defined as the social, cultural, ideological, or economical influence exerted by a dominant group. In the context of the Banks story, it is very clear that we can differentiate the two characters; Ron, and Sarah. I will make an attempt to place these two characters in different categories, or classes if you will. Ron’s possesses good traits such as, being beautiful, honorable, educated and hard-working. Sarah can be described as homely, boarder-line in poverty, not so attracted (ugly as Bank describes her). The question here is ‘Do opposites really attract each other’? Marx wouldn’t hesitate to answer this question, with an answer as “No, they do not attract each other.” From my understanding of Marxism, if anything, he seeks to produce a solution to hegemony by not having a dominant group. There should be an equal group (communism) among classes.
After reading this story a Marxist can polarize the intensity of the message behind the story; ‘Hegemony Can and Will Kill’. Yes, in a long shot, hegemony inevitable kills. Living in a system govern by hegemony only kills, and even the solution to hegemony, according to Marx can only be solved with a revolution, which requires a physical change in the ideology that governs the system. Banks support this claim by reassuring the readers that Sarah isn’t actually dead; “It’s not as if she has died; it’s as if he has killed her.” Ron acknowledges the fact that they are eminently different, and it is the difference on a social-economical realm that causes the death of Sarah. The author doesn’t get into minute details. But it is this notion of being different that helps create the existence of hegemony, which in the end, metaphorically speaking, only kills.

You owe me

I’d like to point out how, early on in the tale, I found Ron, the author to have been quite full of himself. It felt as if after every two sentences he was giving us a full account on just how “effortlessly attractive, a genetic wonder, tall, slender, symmetrical, and clean” he claims to have been. He had a certain superiority complex that, he thought, placed him above the other, more common men. This, right away, made me recall one of the issues that Marx and Engel had brought up in their text and that, later, Gramsci had repeated in his own, namely the notion that society keeps on elevating certain select individuals above the masses, giving those individuals more value and/or more power then the rest. This way of thinking is what engenders the separation and segregation of classes. If we were to apply the class system to this story (and that really wouldn’t be that big of a stretch), Ron, by his own self-praise and definition, not to mention how he suggests everyone around him were admiring his looks, would have to be on the same level as the bourgeoisie or the “intellectuals”, ranked at the top by society’s standards. On the opposing end, Sarah Cole the “woman homelier than any he has ever seen or imagined before” could most definitely be compared to the proletariat, the lower working class, always being exploited and used by the bourgeoisie who profit from it. And Ron did indeed (sexually) use Sarah. He got satisfaction. But what did Sarah get? Well, she said it herself: “You owe me”.

It’s funny, but I understand Marx a lot more reading this unusual love story than Marx himself. Go figure.

Wednesday, 9/26

I liked very much the way Ron tells the story. He tells it so detailed, including things that even seem unnecessary and excessive, and drives the story real life-like. Ron also goes on and on about how fabulous he is and how ugly Sarah is, and this is emphasized throughout the story. Ron doesn't miss a moment to catch Sarah's ugliness, like when they discovered the damage on the car, or when she was trying to cross her legs and failed (this was a good one). He does this as if he wants to create some sort of "class" that would separate him from her. He describes her homeliness and ugliness to the point where it gets so cruel, and yet he let her keep talking to him, just out of curiosity, as if he is playing around with a puppy. Like he says in the story, Sarah, or having sex with Sarah, is an obssession, not a desire. Or maybe, he just couldn't refuse her genuineness or humanness and doesn't even realize.
The first Marxist remark I thought I saw was when Sarah said "You and me, we're real different." I was asking myself, does she mean this the way Ron would understand, the charming and the ugly? The interesting thing about this was that, it was only Sarah who was thinking this way, even though Ron surely thought that Sarah is a lot less than he deserves, I don't think Ron was drawing a thick and visible line between him and her. But it was a line that was clearly visible to Sarah.
The last scene is when they break up, and I believe it was right after Ron was forced to go to a party with Sarah. Probably he decided to leave her after seeing how shallow she can be when she gets drunk. Then he comes out and says Sarah isn't really dead. He had to think she's dead so that he can get the memories back, and also to realize that he "allegedly" loved her, which I doubt. He buried his face in his hands when she left his apartment because he felt terribly bad and sympathetic given her unfavorable situation. Now that he knows she went back to her ex-husband whom he hates himself, he feels bad even worse. Ron is a serious asshole.

marxist lovin'

Russell Banks’ memior-esq short story “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” relates to Marxism by promoting the elimination of social classes. The main character and sometimes narrator Ron is from a high social class. He is moderately wealthy, calm, reserved, and apparently devilishly handsome. A young man who lives a life of routine and solitude after his divorce, Ron is thrown for a loop with the introduction of Sarah. This is where the story takes on a Marxist tone, for Sarah is nowhere near the social, economic, or even physical class that Ron is. She is described as “a woman homelier than any he has ever seen or imagined before” upon when they first meet at Osgood's Lounge. She is revealed later to be older than Ron, a fellow divorcee, and the mother of 3 children, all of whom live with her in her shabby, dirty, tenement apartment. Yet for some unknown reason, Ron is fascinated by her, befriends her, and eventually has a very physical relationship with this horror show of a woman. This idea is very Marxist because somehow this woman of incredibly low class manages to snag a man of a much higher class, effectively eliminating the class differences between them. All is not well with this matchup however, as Ron proves to be reluctant to let Sarah incorporate their lives together for much more than sex and random parties. This shows how, even in this story, Marxist ideals tend to fall through in the end. It looks great on paper, but in practice, these things just tend to fall apart.

Not always what it seems..

In a typical world, this would not usually happen. Sarah, the lower class homely woman approaches this upscale ritzy man out of the blue and unexpectedly they click. He tries to look past her imperfections but cannot because he is scared of what everyone around him will think. It seems like Ron created this dream world where he could have intercourse with this woman listen to her problems and think that that was enough for her. He allowed her to trust in him so he could control every step they made and in the end kick her to the curb and leaving her in the dark. This story was obviously a class struggle. I wouldn’t really consider this a love story except for the fact that Ron did have some relations with Sarah, which was out of the ordinary considering their classes. Usually in this type of situation the man would not even look twice at the woman led alone speak to her. So in a way, Ron did put aside the Marxist views and go for it but in the end by not going to places where he knew he would see other upscale business people and by not meeting her children, he allowed those views to overcome him. Sarah illustrated a good example of communism by approaching Ron in that bar by having the pre-notion of knowing he was above her and still speaking to him as if she were equal. It seems she was searching for a way to get out of her lower class.

The Grass isn't always Greener...

The Russell Banks piece is an echo, from my perspective, of what Marx was trying to unravel through the German ideology, mainly blurring of class lines in an attempt of creating a united one. Also there can be a connection drawn between the conclusion of the story and the historical end communism itself, this is seen through Ron ending his relationship with Sarah.
Banks links the communist ideal through Ron, who is regarded as beautiful by his peers and the community, and his inexplicable passion for the less attractive and grotesque Sarah. The connection here is the blinding of class lines, two people from opposite sides of the Social spectrum. Ron is from a prominent, educated, upper class society (bourgeoisie) and Sarah is from a lower, less educated class (Proletariat). The differences between the two are clear cut and visible, Ron prefers to be oblivious to these differences in the name of love, in the beginning he does not care what others think of him. It is not until Sarah begins to make demands of Ron to asses her needs and desires, what belongs to her, that the relationship begins to head downhill and Ron realizes that the two of them are different.
Sarah’s demands correlate with the Revolution described by Marx. The Proletariat demand from the bourgeoisie to be seen and respected as one, not looked at as a second class. The end of the relationship is representative of the end of Communism; Ron realizes that it would be impossible for them to be together because socially they are different. Things go back to the way they were Sarah returns to her ugly husband and Ron moves onto a new wife.

A Type of Love Story

Russel Banks’ “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” isn’t your typical love story it has no happy ending and many things seem to have different meanings. In short, the story is about two people coming from two different worlds. It is about Ron a handsome upper class man and Sarah a “homely” lower class woman. They only met because both were drinking and Sarah was dared to speak with him. Both were pleased that they were able to connect with one from another class. Their friends observed them as they did something out of the ordinary.

To connect this story to what we have been discussing in class Ron was Hegemonic. From the start he controls everything from their first conversation down to their break up. When they speak they talk about her most of the time Ron even states” he finds that he is not at all interested in telling her about himself”. Is this so she can’t assimilate into his life? Then when he wants to get intimate with her he clearly comes out and tells her. Later on in the story when she wants to go to the Osgood’s he controls the situation and convinces her that he wants to keep his private life private. He obviously didn’t want to be seen together with her in public. Sarah’s friend Glenda even points out that the two of them being together is an awkward sight. Ron never even went over to Sarah’s house and met her kids instead he just kicked her out of his life. He didn’t want to give up his life by joining hers.

The only time that they were equals is when they are having intercourse. Near the middle of the story when they planned to do it in Ron’s Car he says all this stuff about them being completely different but when they are going to make love they are in a sense equals. Later on in text when they actually do it the narrator says they “were two naked members of the same species, a male and a female…” he speaks as if they are one by using words such we, both, etc.

Post Seven: A Type of Love Story

Russell Banks’ “Sara Cole: A Type of Love Story” is a classic “when worlds collide” story, where a good-looking man who is financially successful dates a not-so-good-looking woman who isn’t doing too well financially. This doesn’t seem to be much of a love story to me, but more of a creation of an institution of two people satisfying each others needs, as the narrator basically says it all: “She walked out the door of Osgood's determined to make love to a man much prettier than any she had seen up close before, and I walked out determined to make love to a woman much homelier than any I had made love to before. We were, in a sense, equals.”

While some may argue that is what a romantic relationship is, and it may seem like one, but as I had stated, this does not seem to be a story about a romantic relationship. Ron and Sara are basically looking for each other, seeking each other to satisfy their needs and their desires that they had at the time. In terms of Marxism, it’s a demeaning story to their beliefs, as it Russell Banks portrays a member of the bourgeoisie and a member of the proletariat class coming together, when the latter should be rising up against the former instead of forming a relationship with them. However, upon closer inspection, this story might not be so demeaning after all.

It may be a progressive thought in terms of Marxism, but the idea that two people from different classes are coming together to form an institution to facilitate their separate needs and desires is basically a representation of a communist community where everyone works together for the accomplishment of their own goals. Ron and Sara were looking for something and one was able to deliver to the other, much like members of a community can provide to the other members and have them provide in exchange, much like a Marxist community.

“Marxist Readings” on Sara Cole

In Russell Banks: Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story, three basic concepts or ideologies are presented. Sarah Cole represents the notion of communism and Marx’s beliefs. Ron embodies a novelist individual who has just been recently exposed to communism and its ideologies. Finally, Sarah’s ex-husband symbolizes capitalism.

Sarah embodies communism and Marxist ideologies through out the whole story. Her actions and beliefs also adhered to the rules of communism. Her embodiment of communism is illustrated from the very beginning of the passage, starting with her age. Sarah is thirty eight years old but however appears ten years older. Communism might appear as a new concept that evolved from Karl Marx but however, the concept has been circulating for a while before Marx’s era. It has actually been tracked back to the 16th century, more specifically seen in the works of an English writer, Thomas More. Further, the fact that Sarah approaches Ron, a man who is obviously above her social class, demonstrates that she is striving to abolish the existing class system. She also portrays her feelings towards her job and how she hates it. She is, much like the idea of communism, striving to break free from the productive forces that direct society. Her embodiment can further be seen when she is troubled by her car door. No matter how tight her car door was, she was still able to enter into it. Perhaps, this situation can interpret the idea that no matter how vigorously people strive to deny communism and Marxist ideologies, the concept will find a back door much like Sarah’s action.

Ron, can be perceived as the individual who has just been introduced to communism and Marxist ideas through numerous instances. For example, Ron views Sarah (the representation of communism) as ugly and crude, yet he is drawn to her quite passionately. This is similar to an individual who has been recently introduced to the idea of communism. He/ she might interpret the concept as crude and ugly, yet they will eventually end up adoring the ideology passionately.

Her ex-husband, in the passage, can represent capitalism. She mentions how he oppressed her and called her unnecessary names, much like a capitalist who scolds communism and its ideologies.

This passage also illustrates an unusual relationship between two individuals. Both individuals are struggling to break the chain or fetters that have been restricting past generations. However, Sarah illustrates this concept more passionately than Ron. Ron is held back by an internal struggle between two concepts, communism and individualism. He wonders if he should strive to abolish the class barrier that exists between him and Sarah or adhere to society’s views. This can be related to the “division” that was mentioned by Marx. He is unsure about his beliefs and the only way to clear his mind is to completely eliminate one.

A Type of love story.

In the readings of Russell Banks Sarah Cole: A Type of love story I found that the couple was faced with two particular challenges. The first being Social class and the second being economic disablement.

Even though the story seemed to be just a love story it wasn't it became deeper than the lust the two people shared together. Ron was a good looking man which whom lived on the East of downtown Concord a good neighborhood. On the other hand Sarah lived at the South end of Concord which was described as being dirty, dark and not safe. Which as you could clearly see the two of them come from to different class structures on being middle class and the other being of the Lower class. Through out the Love story Social acceptance came up a lot with Ron and Sarah. For example, when Sarah asked Ron if they could go dancing he replied saying no because his co workers attend that bar on the weekend and he didn't want them in his business. The real reason I believed it be and so did she was the mere fact they come from two different social groups. Ron probably figured just as he sees her as an ugly lower class woman his peers would think the same too.

Economically we can see that Ron was doing better for himself than Sarah was and she new it that's why in the beginning she was a little stand offish when she came to his apartment. She probably was thinking what does he want with a girl such as myself because she didn't have much to offer him. When they described her car it was just a huge, Dark green Buick Sedan but when they described his car as a "Datsun Fastback coupe that she admires for the sole purpose of making love to her" spoke volumes of how she is portrayed as a lower class and socially inclined person that could only be on the same level as Ron only for the reason of their love making.

This story was crazy but so true in regular people's lives today.

A Love Story?

In Russell Banks, "Sarah Cole: A type of Love Story" we see a different type of love story then we are normally accustomed to seeing. This piece shows how two literary terms are both present throughout this piece. When referring to our class discussion from Monday, and then reading this piece we see how both ideology and hegemony are both represented in this story.
When you first begin to read "Sarah Cole: A type of Love Story" you see two people who are totally opposites of each other. They meet at a local bar every now and then where they begin to know each other and become close friends and even form a romantic connection with each other. Ron is a rich and handsome guy who goes after a women (Sarah) who is a lower class, unattractive women. To me this a good example of one term we discussed in class hegemony. The question is, Why would Ron be interested in someone who he refers to as being a homeliest women, and one of the most unattractive women he has ever met? After seeing this you then have to question Ron's ideology.
We said ideology is a set of beliefs, or your own way of thinking. Ron however in this story is going against his own ideology by falling in love with a women who is someone who he would never give a second glance too. You see the word 'desire' used quite often in the story. It seems like Ron has a desire to have Sarah in his life, even if it means going against his own "Romantic Ideology" to have what he wants.
So after reading "Sarah Cole: A type of Love Story" we see how two literary terms ideology, and hegemony both can be related to this one piece.

Beauty and the Beast

This story, obviously much easier to read then anything else thus far, would have nothing to do with Marx to an individual without knowledge of the idealogy, but to me, rang loud and clear with conncection. The main theme I took out of this reading is the idea of class in society.
Ron and Sarah came from two different neighborhoods, almost two different worlds entirely. Ron, a lawyer, financially sound and very attractive; Sarah, a factory work of sorts, extremely homely, a mother of three, and very poor. What could they possibly have in common? What did the proletariat and the bourgeousie have in common? Nothing, and yet something in them gravitates them towards each other in a remarkeable way. Although they enjoyed each other's company, they didn't seem to match just like in the era of Marx, it was wrong and harmful to think that you could raise up to another level of class; that just didn't happen.

I found a very interesting relation to Anna Karenina in this story of ugly Sarah Cole. It's as if Ron, just like Levin was trying so hard to connect with the lesser class, as if to make himself feel better about himself even though he thought he was a nice man. Levin says that when he was mowing with the servants it was the happiest time of his life, and it seems to me that it was a fine time for Ron also. Just like Levin, Ron was exploiting Sarah and using her, just as Levin used his servants. Ron was very one-sided with Sarah, and she was going through more of a struggle personally to live up to Ron's expectations and be good friend then he. He never made any initiative to go to her apartment or meet her kids just as the bourgeouisie would never lower themselves to the lower class level. The lower class is always trying to get ahead, never the other way around.

The end of their relationship, if that is what it was, was very devastating to Sarah. How could Ron be so cruel and just kick her to the curb when he got all that he wanted out of her? It is very similar what we have talking about in class of Marxism. The state uses all the labor forces and production of the people promising freedom ,although without individuality, and what they get is a whole lot of nothing, just like Sarah, a whole lot of nothing. This is definitely similar to the idea of hegemony, because Ron is the "dominant group" who completely seems to control the "lesser group", Sarah, and she gives him free reign over her voluntarily, just as the lesser class gives up their freedom of indiviuality in the era of Marx in order to become what they think a much better classless society that strives for the same goals and purposes. However, as we have seen both enfold in front of our very eyes, we know that in each case (Communism and the relationship with Sarah and Ron)that the dominant group still conquers and opresses the lesser group, even though it was thought that the idea of one being better then the other had been eradicated. Sarah knew that she was lesser then Ron because she said many times how they were very different, but Ron convinced her that there was nothing of the sort, just as Marx convinced us that class should be nothing of the sort and everything would be so much better if we were all on the same level. In both cases, we know that this didn't exactly end up the way intended. Ron screwed over Sarah and Marx most certainly screwed over a lot of influential minds that believed in his idealogy which led to one of the most harmful and depressing times in history.

A Type of Love Story

Russell Banks story “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” can be seen in a whole new light with Marxism written all over it. Its definitely is not there directly but after analyzing the story you will point out the parts where Marxism takes place. For instance the story is about a good looking rich guy who is high in society, and takes advantage of someone who in his eyes has “no purpose” in society and is very unattractive. This story is a great example of hegemony also because Ron was a dominant individual in this story where he got what he wanted out of this ugly woman Sarah, and in a sense this idea was accepted. Also that he was well respected and her not so much in that they both were a part of a different class in society and realized it. Ron secretly loved this woman, but was afraid to let the world know and be seen in public with her. The main point I’m trying to get at here is that Ron would embarrass himself being with this poor ugly woman and that alone was enough to convince him to scare her away, even though he discovered he loved her, but society wouldn’t accept it. So in a Marxism idea their social and economic class is what prevented Ron from accepting this woman as his own and wound up “killing her”(not physically) at the end.

This reading is interesting for a number of reasons. The first thing I would like to address is the fact that this piece is written as a retrospective, I think that this gives the story a totally new meaning and feel that could only be done with this sort of perspective on this person’s story. The other interesting thing is the very complex and almost weird power struggle that occurs between Ron and Sarah. Although Ron has no physical attraction to Sarah he treats the first encounter very gently, gingerly, and with a sense of precision. These two eventually become lovers until they have a tad of fallout because Sarah feels that Ron does not want to be seen in public with her. This is justifiable because as the narrator states “Ron is effortlessly attractive” and the narrator says “I’ve seen a few women who were more unattractive than Sarah.” The major issue is when Sarah wants to get Ron to come over and introduce him to the kids and actually make things work. Ron is reluctant to do this. This fallout leads to an assumption by one of Sarah’s co-workers that she had moved back in with her ex-husband. Ron cannot really comprehend this and can only reminisce about Sarah if he convinces himself she were dead. She has this power over him, but at the same time he was the one making most of the terms of the relationship. It is my opinion that he cannot grasp the fact that he let this woman he loved go, so he has to self-rationalize that she is dead, only then can he remember things. I find the last full paragraph the most descriptive. He explains how as he curses her and expels her from his life, she is showing how beautiful she is, and once she is gone Ron can only blame himself for doing this, not only to Sarah, but to himself.

'Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story'

In 'Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story', we meet Ron, who is described as an attractive and ruggedly handsome young man, and Sarah, who according to Ron, is "homelier" and more or less a woman that if he were to be standing behind on a line at a supermarket, he wouldn't bother to look twice at. They meet at a bar after Sarah is dared to speak to him, assuming that her friends would find it hard to believe that she, being so unattractive, would have the courage to do so. For some reason, Ron doesn't turn her away, like I thought he would, but instead, finds her interesting in an odd way and enjoys conversations with her. They meet frequently and eventually begin to have a more sexual relationship.

Although all along, I as the reader couldn't find anything in common between the two except unsuccessful past relationships, it is only when they are naked that they are alike, and as Banks puts it, a "protracted tension between them had at last been released" (chapter 6). Eventually, as the story progresses, Ron seems to be scared or intimidated by the idea of Sarah wanting something more, and this is demonstrated by her invitation to meet her three children. Eventually, after a harsh conversation, Ron and Sarah meet on the same page and never hear of each other again.

Although my wildest guess would be that Russell Banks did not write this story with the ideology of Marxism in mind, a Marxist could read this story and logically pull pieces away from the story. For example, two obviously distinguishable social classes are discussed: Ron being the 'bourgeoisie' and Sarah the 'proletariat'. Ron is "probably" a lawyer, while Sarah works at Rumford Press where she packs TV Guide magazines into boxes all day. This being said, the greatest revelation of Marxism, for me at least, is when Ron makes a connection between a TV Guide which he holds in his hands one night while at home, alone; "He'll think of the connection some other night, but by then the connection will be merely sentimental. It'll be too late for him to understand what she meant by 'different' " (chapter 3). It is here when Ron realizes that the two are from totally different worlds and Ron simply cannot find it in himself to make Sarah anything more than a temporary sexual encounter in his life.

Slumming with the dog faced girl or a cautionary tale?

I enjoyed reading "A Type of Love Story" though its about two obviously mismatched lovers I felt it served as a way to tell readers about the darker side of torrid affairs. These are two totally different people who come across each other by share coincidence. I noticed one of the responses said that the story was supposed to teach people not to loiter outside of their social circles while in search of love. I disagree. In the end of the story the main character finally discovers that the woman he turned into a sexual object was an actual person though he later convinces himself that the woman is dead perhaps he wouldn’t have learned that lesson if things had ended differently. Outside of the characters themselves to me To me Ron symbolized the nastiest aspect of what it means to be in a social group, sure its pretty rapped up in a nice bow and your supposedly accepted by your peers but deep inside it is something that is separating people for silly reasons. Ron is a deceptive device (communism)from the very beginning of the story, never mind the fact that he was the speaker, his trying to come to terms with what he did through semi admitting his wrongs does not make him a better person just because he owned up.

On the other hand there is Sara. described as "The homeliest woman I had ever seen" by Ron. She is obviously unattractive and basically nothing out of the ordinary. To me she represented the lower class/Under(Classism) dogs of society and in social classes. She has everything working against her, no physical beauty, a husband that wont pay child support and a crummy apartment. Sara was exploited by Ron, partially because she let herself be used and partially because Ron let himself make her a charity case. Here the concept of Hegemony comes in. Though he is not using any physical force to control he, he still is. She is actually consenting to being oppressed and used by continuing to sleep with him/ As long as the poor or middle class are misinformed about the upper class and rich there will always be people in the world who are able to be used by them. (People who consciously support a social system or government, or set of beliefs even though they know on some level it is wrong)

There is a fine line between progress and exploitation, as a couple they could never be seen as equals in modern society based on looks alone. It seemed very highschool clickish. as far As social groups go that’s all we really are the popular and awkward kids trying to find a place in society (social classes) along the way we may get mislead in the process but who cares because this is all for the advancement of the kids who will ultimately make something of themselves while everyone else (lower, middle class) rides their coat tails. Several elements here to be examined. Sexual intermingling in social classes, the affects of poverty on the overall state of a person, and ones ideas of what beauty is and how it is shaped.

1. The sexual relationship between them was what mainly held the story together otherwise this is just basically the horse faced woman who lucked out, but the logic behind this to me was the idea of getting a taste of how the other side lives. Sure they didn’t go out until Sara demanded that they do, but it still remains that Rob used the power of his sex, influence and social status to lure Sara into a false sense of security. It doesn’t matter where you come from when you are taken outside your comfort zone or normal environment it causes you to want more and act like it is owed to you that you get more than you are socially accustomed to. This goes beyond sex but can also be applied to it as well.

2. Sara is wearing the same outfit twice at two different points during Ron's story. The light in her apartment building is out and she cant get her land lord to fix it. She obviously struggles to feed and clothe herself and her children. Her disadvantages are shown and still Ron pursues her even after learning these things. Perhaps if the roles were reversed things would be different. Being the poor homely woman that she she’s accustomed to the way she is living not by default but by being forced to do so. Ron is a lawyer well to do financially it is no surprise why she could be attracted to him, she saw a relationship with the man as a possible way out of poverty. Unfortunately things do not go as smoothly when he grows tired of the sex. Because she lived in poverty she saw him as some sort of savior. He on the other hand recognized her as an average woman whom he could kill time with. The beginning of the story takes place at a cocktail lounge. People who go to these places do not do so with the intentions of meeting the person of their dreams, but simply to kick back relax and down some drinks. To me it didn’t immediately seem like she saw him as some sort of meal ticket, with the way things moved and how she insisted he meet her kids seemed suspect to me.

3.Ron reminded me so much of what a typical preppy person was. As soon as I started reading his description I saw 'Prep' His only imperfection being a small mole, could easily be seen as disfiguring and grotesque. I believe we have been conditioned in some way to think that it is okay to poke fun at the less attractive and physically unfortunate. Because he had this perception that he was an obviously attractive man he was able to put down Sara. If he didn’t have as much confidence he may have approached her differently.

With all of this the two people represent two totally different Ideas. I’ve read some posts and can see why they would be said to represent Communism and Classism but wanted to approach the question from a different angle before going into that. Going past what I already said if there is anything that can be learned from the story, it is that two ideologies cannot exist peacefully even when they are being compared or made into people. Ron and Sara may sound like a good idea but in the end one is on some level destroyed by another. This only proves that there can only be one set type of social rules if a society is to function properly

A Type Of Love Story

In Sarah Cole: "A Type of Love Story", by Russell Banks. This is a story of true life's love relationship on the life that the narrator is trying to write for the readers. Is based on what we where talking about Hegemony, for example hegemony can be found in love, how there can be certain obstacles that deny for two soulmates to be together. Some of the obstacles may be religion, how in many religions one should marry people in their same group, another is personal appearance, which is one main function seen in this story, and also age. This is a type of story where it touches on many different feelings, there is the feeling of bravery where Sarah Cole, who is the protagonist next to Ron in this story, goes an starts a conversation with him. There is also the feeling of discrimination how at first Ron saw Sarah as not attractive, but later it turned to the feeling of passion where he was glanzed by her for being a nice person.
The story starts out in the setting of the bar where they were many important people, of what we can relate to what Gramci defines as "Intellectuas". There was the two kinds as Gramci wrote the first the "Traditional", wich in this story where the un-married lawyers and Ron who seemed a professional person, and the others where the "Organic", who as Gramci said, "These Organic intellectuals are distinguished less by their profession, which may be any job characteristic of their class", these individuals where Sarah and her other friends who worked at the Rumford Press. Then the story describes Ron's reaction when he first saw Sarah, as seeing her older than him, with many features that made her be unatrractive, but after having many conversations with her, he then realize that she is a nice person. Therefore, this makes him start seeing her in a more passionate way, a feeling of desire that causes him to start a relationship with her based greater in sexual intercourse. Consequently, this caused Sarah to feel that their relationship have gotten more seriously, she convinces Ron in introducing him to her family and friends, but then is found with the truth. Sarah confronted Ron, while trying to introduce him to her children, he made things clear to her, in a sense that he didnt want anything serious, just friendship. Therefore, this causes the separation, Sarah is though of going back with her exhusband, and he is remarried an living a happier life.
A way to introduce some kind of Marx interpretations is the use of Ideology, an example is personal values, how Sarah felt sure of herself and started the conversation from the first moment she saw him. Another Marxist relation to this story is popularity, how Ron was seen by others as an object of envy, because he seemed to have a better living style, from his good looks to his more elegant apartment. In the end, I think this all is connected to what Gramci defines as Intellectuals, the separation of groups based on their class oe even 'genre'. Consequently, Ideology is a major obstacle in making people interpret their own beliefs, it can be seen as a hegemony attribute, by creating obsracles that takes away poples freedom to do and say what they are aware off, and not what they are unaware of the consequence this might bring.

Hegemony and Juliet

In Russell Banks’ “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” we see a peculiar type of power structure at work. I find it peculiar because it is largely implied. Although in the story Ron seems to clearly be taking advantage of Sarah we must not overlook the fact that this story is a narrative and there is no direct mention of a desire to exploit his status over her in the narrative save for some inadvertent objectification. There is mention of “obsession” and “desire” but none of exploitation for the pure sake of sexual gratification. For if this was his true motive could he not have gotten his fix easily somewhere else? Especially considering that he’s, “effortlessly attractive, a genetic wonder, tall, slender, symmetrical, and clean.” I find it hard, no impossible, to believe this was a sexual relationship.

Speaking to that, and speaking to the Marxist perspective as well, our greatest clue into the true nature of this Hegemonious relationship is when Ron exposes his motivations as clearly and succinctly as I think the character is able. “…to keep her in front of me, to draw her forward from the context of her life and place her, as if she were an object, into the context of mine.” This objectification or dehumanization of the individual member of the proletariat is the stuff that Marxist theory thrives on.

Even more interesting to me is another desire. That is Sarah’s desire to involve Ron in her life. In this I see a link to our classroom conversation on Monday. In order for Ron to be a part of her life he must be willing to sacrifice material status in order to see her as an equal. The single greatest Marx affirming moment in the story is when they are standing in Ron’s apartment naked for the first time. They are never before and never again considered equal in the story. They are only equal when they are nude, devoid of the status symbol that we all arguably notice first. Clothing.

Worlds Collide

Russell Banks story represents the idea that you should not seek love outside the confines of your social group. Ron and Sarah were from completely different worlds, he a professional, financially comfortable; she, a laborer, and financially challenged. Additionally he was really handsome, and she really ugly. Beauty and the beast, if you will. If it weren't for alcohol they never would have met.

She was out with friends drinking and accepted a dare to break the norm and speak to Ron. I think, out of curiosity he welcomed the conversation. She felt triumphant as she looked back at her friends having broken "the barrier". He felt inexplicably obsessed with her. However, knowing the danger that might result from continuing his pursuit, he avoided going where he knew she would be (the bar where they met).

As fate would have it they did meet again and without further play did what they had both been determined to do. In this they saw each other as equal, not just stripped of their
clothes, but their sensibilities as well. However this equality did not last as their character came into play. He tried to become part of her world, but could not give up his independence. She wanted him to be a part of her world. I don't think she thought she could live in his though, but she didn't care. After it ended, I think he felt guilty about it. She just did what she needed to do to survive, like going back with her abusive husband.

There were constant references to appearance which amplified the class difference. Attractive meant educated, professional, financially sound. Ugly meant uneducated, laborer, financially stressed.

9/24

While we talked around the texts quite a bit today, remember that this can be dangerous, and result in innaccurate renderings of complex ideas. These writers don't write such long and such abstract works just to be confusing: they are often trying to ride a very fine line and brutal paraphrasing and simplification can destroy what they work so hard to try to achieve. In any case, you won't be able to discuss many of these concepts (ideology or hegemony, for example) without textual reinforcement--be sure to be familiar with these two texts in particular as we move on. On Wednesday I also want to touch on Gramsci's description of intellectuals, since we spent all of our time on 'hegemony.' They are, of course, quite related, but let's tease out those relations.

For Wednesday, read Russell Banks 'Sarah Cole' and find a way to connect it to our discussion in a response of 250-400 words. Even in such a brief space, consider what a 'Marxist reading' of that story might entail. What kinds of things might that reading fixate on?


You'll also find the prompt for essay 1 to the right, if you need it. Remember your topic is due via email by Friday.

For Monday, 9/24

One thing I noticed is that Marx, Gramsci, and Williams reading all deal with some sort of classification, whether it is of social class, intellectuals, or idealogy. For me, all of the readings were extremely difficult, since the readings were not, say, self-explanatory. I had to keep my dictionary close throughout the readings, and even with it I couldn't even quite come close to completely understanding the ideas. A good literature enriches readers' knowledge and experience. For this to be done, the communication between the author and the reader is critical. This communication can be facilitated greatly if the author uses the similar or same "language" as the readers. I believe the reason why the readings, expecially Marx, was so difficult for me (hopefully for all of us) was that it was a mere expression of Marx's ideas, with no help provided to help readers to understand his ideas and connect them with our everyday life problems (which makes it easier, by a lot). A good literature, then I presume, is one written in communicable language that enriches reader's knowledge and experience.
In Gramsci reading, there are two types of intellectuals: one with fancy resume and one without.
One without would be entrepreneurs, who become successful with their people skills and knowledge of their business field. One with would be professionals, the ones with desiriable professions, with disregard to their financial success. How these intellectuals are distinguished from the rest is the exclusiveness of their knowledge, as depicted in ecclesiastics example, or that they know better on the same subject. I also liked the argument that whether intellectuals are an independent class or whether they're present in every classes. I still don't completely understand what he meant by "All men are intellectuals, but not all function as such." The way I understand this was that only those who can put their intellect to work are intellectuals: one who knows a lot but does little can't be an intellectual.

In his essay, “The Intellectuals,” Antonio Gramsci speaks of organic intellectuals and their role in capitalism. These individuals use their thoughts and ideas to control non-intellectuals, trapping them in ideology and coercing them into submission. The intellectuals in control Gramsci is speaking of are the bourgeois, who have had the schooling and power necessary to create their own culture and ideology to force upon the workers. According to Gramsci, the practice of hegemony, the dominance of one class over the other through the force of its superstructure, is the key to capitalist success. Capitalism will not come to an end till the workers organize and form their own ideology to follow. In order to break from being dominated, the working class must develop a culture of its own lead by its own intellectuals and reject the views of the bourgeois. In his essay “Marxism and Literature,” Raymond Williams also discusses the superstructure which perpetuates the upper class dominance of the worker. This superstructure is devised of both legal and political institutions, as well as forms of consciousness. Through coercion on both the private and public level, the State has taken control and put into power an ideology that caters to the upper class while the poor toil below it. The Marxist reading of Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' explains the power of a dominant ideology over the submissive working class. The mother in the story is lecturing her daughter on how to adjust herself to the values of the society that dominates her so that she may be accepted.

All the readings, Raymond William, Gramsci’s “The Intellectuals”, and Marxist reading of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” delivered a common message, that in order for a society to exist and be able to function properly, a unified (class less) system must exist.

In the Marxist reading of “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, Marx completely interprets the story according to his beliefs on communism. For example when Rudolph is introduced to the other reindeers, his father covers his nose with mud in order to prevent humiliation. Perhaps Marx emphasizes on this manner in order to demonstrate that this ridiculous instance can only occur in a society that is based on class. In a communist society all individuals are automatically accepted. Marx also mentions Yukon Cornelius the “capitalist wanna-be”. Yukon is unable to accomplish his ultimate desire due to the fact that he is a “capitalist wanna-be”. Additionally when Santa canceled Christmas, Rudolph was the only one who was able to save Christmas due to his deformity. The hidden message in that passage is that capitalism will also eventually fail and the only aspect that can save the industrial world will be communism.

In Gramsci’s “The Intellectual”, he is consumed by the idea of intellectuals. He says that “all men are potentially intellectuals” but however some can not reach that state due to society. He further continues by stating that there are two groups of intellectuals. The first group is “traditional professional intellectuals” and the second group is the “organic intellectuals”. By stating the word “organic” does he mean that these intellectuals are created naturally? This statement is quite contradictory to Marx’s idea of that all aspects are “inorganic”, nothing in our society is created naturally. Perhaps, because these intellectuals are organic, they are the leeches to our social related problems. Gramsci, more or less, blames our social disorder on these intellectuals. He claims that this social group emerges in every generation and perhaps they are the main reason to why each generation is held down and unable to move forward.

We cal also relate Jamaica Kincaid “Girl” to Raymond Williams and Marx’s ideas and beliefs. We can view the girl as the general public and her mother as the government. We can interpret their relation through Marx and Raymond William’s eyes. The government instructs the public how to behave according to their class status. How does the government achieve this manner? Through schools and more specifically through literature.

Hegemony

The text that we have been reading lately is very stimulating with all the Marxism, Marxists ideas and concepts. This weekend we were assigned to read Antonio Gramsci’s The Intellectuals while paying attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Dictionary.com’s definition of Hegemony is leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation. So basically how a group of people rule over other people is what we are looking at and this is clearly seen in Gramsci’s The Intellectuals. He starts off right in the beginning stating that there are “the intellectuals”, “organic intellectuals”, and non-intellectuals. Throughout the whole text this idea of Hegemony is visible with intellects, workers, and everyone else. Schooling even comes in and plays a role. “School is the instrument through which intellectuals of various levels are elaborated.” People are getting ranked and put into categories here and there with people at the top ruling them. I don’t know why but I still see people falling into different classes and from a Marxist point of view there shouldn’t be. The other readings we had to do also showed hegemony with “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy”, “Girl”, and “Dickens’ Great Expectations”. By Looking at things from a Marxist point of view everything actually means something else. It is like there is an ulterior message in things. E.g. all of the things that are pointed out in “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy.” How Rudolph represents this, Herbie represents that, and even the Abominable Snowman represents something. I always thought Rudolph was just a Christmas story and that it was just made to promote Christmas. Here in the reading they represent Marxist ideas like how Herbie is an elf who wants to be a dentist but he can’t. Then Santa is the leader and he makes everything work. I guess sometimes we need a leader to ensure that things move along and work out smoothly. I only briefly talked about the aspects of Marxism. There were many Marxist things in "Girl" and "Dickens' Great Expectations" as well.

Williams and Gramsci

In order to understand and write about Gramci, I had to research him a bit. I came across some information that was very useful for this assignment. Mainly an article about hegemony, it shed light to Gramsci's meaning of the word. "Gramsci defines hegemony as a form of control exercised by a dominant class, in the Marxist sense of a group controlling the means of production..."(http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/hegemony.html). In my own terms and using my own knowledge from reading the assignments and other materials I can develop this meaning. In my understanding, Gramsci understands hemegony to be the reason why capitalism has not fallen when Marx said it would fall. In Gramsci's own definition of the word the reason for this is blamed on the bourgeoisie.

I want to say much for Williams however, he seems to bore me. That passage from "Marxism and literature" seemed to be of little help at first. Once I painstakingly read through it, I grasped an idea. The third page of Williams's excerpt contains a quote. This quote states,"The ruling ideas are nothing more than the idea of expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.(GI,2)" When I read this I realized that these material relationships are actually the relationships between the bourgeoisie and peasants.

My thoughts up to this point of reading the assigned articles still left me with the feeling of something missing. By missing I mean, the concept of hegemony being the reason why capitalism did not fail by 1846 or so. This feeling of emptiness was fulfilled when I read Jamaica Kincaid's "girl". I'm assuming that this was a very useful tool for myself, in order to create an understanding of my problem. It present a real life example of hegemony in my opinion. After I read "girl" I did not automatically read the Marxist understanding of the story, so that I can develop my own. By taking knowledge from all three readings thus far, I understand that it is simple to create a reason why capitalism did not fall according to Marxist's. When the bourgeoisie was created Marx would say that it was created out of thin air. I would say that Marx believed that because the bourgeoisie threw a wrench in Marx's mathematical equation of when capitalism would end. Marx could not see the future through a crystal ball and therefore could not see this external cause leading to the failure of his life's work. Apparently other Marxists would adopt hegemony as the reason why capitalism did not fail. They would believe that dominant ideas from bourgeoisie and their relationships with peasants would act as logs in a fire that was fueling capitalism into what it is today.

Monday Response

All the Works I read are conveyed in a way that all resemble Williams when he talks about systems of beliefs that are "characteristics of a particular class or group", also "a system of illusory beliefs-false ideas or false consiousness-which can be contrasted with true or scientific knowledge", and also, "The general process of the production of meanings and ideas". All of these ideas have been portrayed in the readings such as 'Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", Antonio Gramsci's 'The Intellectuals', who's main theme is the influence of hegemony and the broader use of it in all the stories, also on 'girl', and 'A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectations". Eachone of these readings embodie the use of what Marx puts as "the separation of groups", into social economical functions.

An example of economical function is in Rudolph's Shiny new economy, that is during the christmas season where there is a great amount of economical prosperity by the rise in buiseness. As the story of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is used in a kind of advertisement. Although back in my childhood days where in school we had to put on or see shows ofchristma and there had to be Rudolph, I never at that age imagined it would be use as an advertisement to promovate christmas and with this the the big sales that will raise the economy. Nowadays, Rudolph is still used Primary to boost christmas sales but is also an imaginary figure that the new generation is focused on as a hope of bringing the festivities and with this Santa Clause, who will bring toys and gifts for all those good boys and girls, this can be use as a hegemony for chistmas. In Antonio Gramsci's "The Intellectuals", resembles with what william states as different groups that follow a different class, in this case is different groups that construct different intellectuals, there are the "traditional" intellectual that are literary , scientific, mainly every intellectual who has a professional entity. The other kind of intellectuals are the "organic", who are basically any intellectaual with any job concerning their class, this is a way of interacting with different social classes. Although, manytimes the most pofound intellectual fall in the category of "organic", which can be peasants who have a greater experience of life, and are more productive in a sense of the use of hegemony in this category of productive force in the economy. In the story of "Girl", this is an example of what williams puts as "Illusory beliefs-false ideas", the way the mother is telling her daughter of all the "how to do things", she is teaching her all the things she should know on doing as of cooking, cleaning, that are typical in any society where the children learn from the parents, in this case the "girl" from the mother. Although, the false belifs are that she tells the girl not to do inproper things in order to show her resembling a "slut", because the proper teachings are only those that will help her grow up to a better person, and not to ashame her of her values as a women she is going to be.
All of these readings touch on the use of hegemony, on Rudolph the example of "If you don't show, you don't sale", the use of Rudolph as an icon to promote christmas festivities, and with this the raise of economy during the holiday. There are also the intellectuals who are separated in categories, such as different categories of 'genres', and also the Marxist critical reading of great expectations, how the main charater pip, was in depth that show the problem of his economical capital. Also the problem of teaching by the mother in "girl", is used as an example of false Illusory.











t

Hegemony and Capitalism

I really want to understand all of the different concepts and idealogies being read and discussed in class, and the most helpful tactic for me, before reading anything I try to unnderstand what it is that we will be dealing with. "Theories of hegemony attempt to explain how dominant groups or individuals can maintain their power- the capacity of dominate classes to persuade subordinate ones to accept, adopt, and internalize their values and norms." (Wikipedia definition) I found Gramsci much easier to read then Williams but I believe both are dealing with the same concepts.

Gramcsi says," All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social function." He categorizes class in society into two maingroups: the tradtional and the organic. Gramsci sees the intellectual as " performing an essential mediating function in the struggle of class forces...most important...polical struggle."(p 1) I believe we see this very concept in our society today even though we do live in capitalist situation. Why Marx and many philosophers doomed capitalism boggles my mind a bit. To them, the rise of power and money shared with the free individuals of the society would only lead to a major downfall of that society. However their ideas are slightly archaic in thinking that for a society to be truly free there should be no idea of personal freedom. Why is it then that capitalism has not met its downfall? I truly believe it is because we are all stronger as free individuals then given credit.

I wasn't quite sure at first why reading many different stories would help understand, Marx and his ideas of class and their struggles, but upon completion do feel I have a better understanding. "Marxists regard literature as both production and reflection of and on culture and society and political world in order to change it... Marxists agree that literature is produced in material conditions, that it reflects back upon those conditions and can help to change them." (p 103 Modern Literary Theory) In Great Expectations this is most definitely applied. Dickens uses his book to illustrate the two syptoms of class struggle that he himself suffered from: work and debt. Also dealing with idea of captialism is the Marxist reading of "Rudolph the red-nosed Reindeer". This illustrates how something so simple such as Christmas has become a driven capitalistic machine. Is this necessarily a bad thing though? I mean, the Christmas sales boost our economy tremendously each year, so does it matter if the reindeer kids didn't intially except Rudolph? Are we being so analytical here that we actually draw reference to the huge scary teeth of the Abominal Snowman as the clinches of the Christmas season taking a huge bite out of our wallets?
The reading of Girl touches on the idea of class and capitalism a little differently for me. It seems to tie into the Marxist idea a bit more in the fact that the mother teaches the girl that you are in the class you were born into, however you can raise the market value of yourself " in the subsequent exchange of her body and labor for an acceptable place in society as wife/domestic... Neither the mother or the daughter can escape social order." (p 1)That's probably because of all the contradictions being taught and learned, rather then being oppressed and kept down. The
mother teaches the daughter, in essence, how to be a slut without the consequences (pregnancy). The mother wants the girl to act proper and strive for the best in life and yet that most certainly isn't the message perceived by the girl when being told to use men and almost exploit them for personal gain. "The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the narrative of what her work-her life- entails. She is without any means for social advancement; she will always need to make ends meet." (p3) This is because she has not been taught anything usesful to actually progress her intellect or strive for success. In the world of capitalism, you need to take advantage of all the resources we have to better ourselves, not being a slut, that won't get you anywhere but on the welfare line with a child clinging to each leg.

9/24/07-

After reading Antonio Gramsci’s The Intellectuals, there appears an influential concept of hegemony that is present in ‘Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy’ and ‘Girl’ and ‘A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectation’. Collectively these works embody Williams’s concept of Marxist ideology, ultimately helping to bring awareness and value to such literary works.
Gramsci states that “All men are potentially intellectuals in the sense of having an intellect and using it, but not all are intellectuals by social functions” (p1). The social functions described here can be looked upon as fetters set upon us by our own society. The fetters constitute the very concept of hegemony, which are the social, cultural, ideological, or economical influence exerted by a dominant group.
Hegemony is heavily present in ‘Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy’. With the in depth Marxist reading of the work, we get a Marxist ideological understanding of the all the distinct characters that embody the forward movement into Communism. Alone, Rudolph is useless, due to his radical deformed red nose. Alone, Herbie is nothing more than “an elf… who doesn’t fit into the elf norm since he would rather be a dentist than work at the traditional elf occupation”. Alone, Yukon is just an unsuccessful prospector. Alone the Abominable Snowmonster, is nothing more than a scary monster. With the role of the Santa, which plays as a social function, the characters join a collective (communistic) force, so as to make Christmas happen. In the end they are nothing more than an equal product of labor force. The Marxist message here is simply that of the Three Musketeers; “All for one, and one for all.”

Hegemony is also present in Kincaid’s ‘Girl’. It is very clear that there is a bigger picture than the relationship between a mother and a daughter. On a grand spectrum, the mother embodies the social restraint put forward by the society on an individual. The society molds the individual from the way one eats to the way one spits.
In ‘A Marxist Critical Reading of Great Expectations’ it is very clear that the protagonist Pip is facing a class struggle, work and debt. And as Marx’s puts it “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”(p, 1). Which is non-the-less characterized by the very concept of hegemony.
The most important aspect of all literature is criticism. Criticism opens doors to many questions. Without the proper frame of reference, and conceptual background knowledge, a reader cannot scope in and out of any literary work, as a means to make room for questions and proper criticism.

The Marxist Ananlysis

Williams’ text, Gramsci's “The Intellectuals”, the Marxist criticisms of Rudolph, Dickens and Kincaid: the one most prominent message I found being repeated throughout all these readings was the same one found in Marx and Engel’s The German Ideology, that class distinction would be the downfall of society.

Williams and Gramsci basically paraphrase Marx’s ideas in their individual pieces. The former (Williams) makes sure to reiterate the points brought up in The German Ideology. He brings back to us the idea of how division of labor established by the upper class is the root of the problem. Gramsci takes a slightly different approach, stating that society is divided as it is because we, the people, treat others with higher praise and esteem than others, the intellects and philosophers for instance, when such distinctions are not only unnecessary but problematic. His mention of history and its part (that of passing on the separation of classes from generation to generation) in this scheme is another notion found in the Marx and Engel writing.

What really caught my attention were the story critiques, viewing them with a Marxist eye. This held especially true for the Communistic translation of “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer”. As a child, I grew up watching this cartoon quite often, almost ritualistically, during the holiday seasons. Alongside “Frosty the Snowman”, it had been a Christmas favorite of mine. So, understandably, this completely different outlook on it particularly interests me. I would never have thought of the socio-economic subplot within the story, and yet, reading this article, it seems almost too obvious. Particularly when it came to comparing the elves to third world country factory workers or identifying the Abominable Snow monster as “a worker to generate surplus value”. We come across more examples of the cons of a capitalist economy in the Dickens analysis in the form of Pip and his attempt to climb up in the social ladder even though “he cannot transcend the limitations put on him by the class he was born into.”

The readings of Williams and Gramsci ?

In the readings of williams and Gramsci a long with the other readings as well where found to be similar but different.



Williams wrote mainly about Ideology as consquence of division of labor. Another subject he touched basics on was the social and economic growths within a society. For me it seemed as though all the readings made each other come to life. For example, in the readings of Antonio Gramsci he touched bascis on a little of everything from Ideology, social class, economic political and Intellectual status with in a community. Gramsci made me want to read more after he made the comment that " All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the funtion of intellectuals ". While reading this it made realize that he believes everyone is an interllectual on their on primises and just because your not a part of an elite group doesn't mean your not a key player on the team. He believes however big or small the part of production you shared an important role in the conditioning process. In every social class there are differnt sets of intellectualls so all though together something seperates you to make you unique in your own way. Ecclesiastics ( clergy men) was thought to be one of the most prominent groups of ntellectuals because their extensive knowledge of the philosophy of the past to present science of age.



To answer the quetsion of what was the least useful in the literary readings I would say I learned a little something from each reading. I think that literature primarily the Marxist readings coinside with history.

24.9.07 post

Overall I had difficulty understanding both major works that we read. I don’t quite understand what difference it makes on how an intellectual is made or how they are categorized makes a difference in how literature is made, or interpreted. Beyond influence I don’t understand how this has to do with literature. I understand the concept of hegemony which Gramsci refers too and that term directly correlates to the reading about Christmas and the reading by Kincaid. In the piece by Kincaid, named “Girl”, the piece, in my opinion, is about how to raise a daughter. The piece is mainly fragmented and I think it is done on purpose because doing it in this context makes it almost like a list giving it a surreal but also enlightening effect on the reader. While reading it I though it was rather bland until the line “this is how to make a button-hole for the button you have just sewed on; this is how to hem a dress when you see the hem coming down and so to prevent yourself from looking like the slut I know you are so bent on becoming.” I thought this line is the most provocative line in the text because it gives a characteristic which then brings up a value, in her being a person bent on being a slut, and it also shows that the girl wants to become a slut. This piece could also be seen as rules, in which these rules and mediated by the larger force of the society or media. This is more blatant in the fact that the writer tells you that these systems for consumerism are in place and that we are subjected to them, unknowingly, and we abide by them. It also shows how something as innocent as Rudolph can actually be a very powerful tool to make certain that these systems stay in place.

Post Six- Williams and Gramsci

In Raymond Williams' argument, he states that Marxist readings have three main concepts which are: a system of beliefs akin to a group, a system of beliefs that are opposite the beliefs of the group, and the creation of products, physical or otherwise. Furthermore, he goes on to say that these three concepts are not exclusive to Marx. This idea can be seen in other pieces of literature, even one that isn't ideological at the surface.
Girl by Jamaica Kincaid exhibits the three concepts that Williams has mentioned, as the girl does things such as cooking and laundry for the family in order for it to exist as one unit. There are also citations of little do's and don't's, such as soaking a salt fish overnight before cooking it, which can be considered to be a parallel to real beliefs Vs false beliefs. In terms of the latter, the girl asks "is it true that you sing benna in Sunday school?", questioning a potential belief that could be held by the girl. This is relative to William's main argument, as Girl is not, by any means, an intentionally Marxist reading, but Marxist ideas found in literature, which again, is the argument that Williams is making.
Antonio Gramsci's philosophy is similar to Marxism in that Gramsci believes that he believes that people are all intelligent and can serve their function in a community to make it whole. However, unlike Marx, Gramsci's philosophy places people into two different categories, the "traditionally intelligent" and the "organically intelligent", where Marx would chide this sort of thinking in favor of a more unitarian model of society with everyone doing everything for everyone with no major difference amongst the people.
Again, using Kincaid's Girl, Gramsci's philosophy is much more apparent here, as the "traditionally intelligent" are the people who impart advice about cooking and cleaning, and the "organic thinkers" are people like the girl who apply this advice to their own tasks of cooking and cleaning. While there are two different philosophies that are apparent, they are both easy to find within a simple text of a girl doing everyday chores.

Post on Williams and Gramisci

Willams and Gramisci literary works on Marxism were very intriguing. Williams wrote about ideology and the three senses. What I got out of this reading is Williams was comparing Marx and Engles studies to the past, and philosophical ideas that relate to ideology. I found Gramsci’s work more interesting. He writes about intellectuality and how he states that “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men in society the function of intellectuals”(pg.5). To me he is saying that as humans we all have our own minds that wander and think, we all have our own philosophy’s about how the world should be and where it is at. But we accept certain “intellectuals” to be seen as intellectuals and basically call everyone else non-intellectuals when non-intellectuals don’t exist. We people create this idea of certain people being intellectuals, but deep inside we are all “philosophers”. We all have our own morals and virtues that make us who we are, but as a society we listen to other people that also have their own morals and virtues and consider them to be right because they are “intellectuals”. Now comes the question of what does this al have to do with literature? The way I see it is that the study of ideology and thinking, and all the fact that we all are intellectuals with our own philosophy is what creates the ideas behind all literature. Whether its fiction or non-fiction there is a mind behind all literature. What we were taught or took in ourselves and how our minds were developed will determine how we think and spark ideas that create literature.

Marxism...contd.

Clearly all four readings, as well as last week's 'Marxism and Literature', relate to Marxism in that they discuss social class, labels, and the economy.
In 'Rudolph's Shiny New Economy', a new perspective of looking at this story was brought to light (personally, at least). Learning from my mother at a young age that the only purpose of Christmas was to spoil children and boost the economy, I was able to read 'Rudolph' and concur with everything that was analyzed. Not only does this story depict the Christmas season as "Silver and Gold" (all about the economy profiting from gifts bought), but it also depicts the form of social class, per se, that Rudolph, his elf friend Herbie, and Yukon Cornelius fall into. Rudolph wasn't accepted by the other reindeer because he had a glowing red nose; Herbie wasn't accepted by his elf friends because not only did he lack the common elf features but he wanted to be a dentist; and Yukon was unsuccessfully attempting to be a capitalist. These three characters were the outcasts in Christmastown. Although Marxism discusses how in a communist society no classes may exist in favor of the economy, in the end, Rudolph and his colleagues were "the force which enables the Christmas economy to exist, which brings consumer and consumed together" (para. 16).
Analyzing Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl', one can depict a mother teaching her probable adolescent daughter the characteristics of being prim and proper, yet at the same time, this mother is degrading her daughter by calling her a "slut". One can characterize the mother as being the greater power in this story, and the daughter as a lesser one; therefore, each character falls into two seperate social labels. Here is when Antonio Gramsci's essay titled 'The Intellectuals' comes into place. He discusses hegemony, which is the sort of dominance a particular social group in society takes upon another. Falling perfectly into Kincaid's brief story, the girl's mother treats her daughter in a hegemonical sort of way.
In the end, what can we take from all these readings in relation to a Marxist criticism? Although puzzling, we can conclude that social order, (Rudolph saving Christmas, the girls mother teaching her how to be a lady - or a slut), is a product of labor and work in a society.

In the beginning the problem I had with the Williams piece understanding how exactly it ties into the Marx piece “The German Ideology”. It was hard throughout the beginning of Williams to see a relation between the point Marx was trying to make which was the abolition of the class system/individuals and the creation of the unit as one, and Williams, that to me seemed to discuss the definition and origins of the term ideology. Though Williams does note on some of the similar terms as Marx i.e. Material process etc., and quotes him often, I failed to see where the two connect.
The closest connection that I was able to recognize in the beginning half of Williams to Marx is where Williams speaks about freeing ordinary assumptions of Social questions relating to the history of a certain group. It was not until further towards the end of Williams where the relation became a little clearer in the quote “Ideology was specifically identified as a consequence of division of labor” this relates somewhat to Marx who felt that the division of labor created social and economical unrest within a society. The synapses really began to fire with the quote “…. But ideology then hovers between a system of belief characteristics of a certain class and the system of illusory beliefs...” this relates back to the German Ideology which Marx states that classes are a man made item, they are not natural or inherent to the nature of men making them almost fake or a façade. The Marx and Williams Pieces go hand in hand because the Communist Ideology is what will influence the proletariat revolt against the bourgeoisie and ruling class. Understanding the definition and origins of thought behind the term ideology will help us better decipher the success and failures of Communism.

Classification is as classification does

“We are (to a large extent) as we see ourselves reacted to by others.” A psychologist by the name of Charles Cooley developed the concept of what he called “the looking glass self” and coined the above phrase to, which I have paraphrased, encapsulate his philosophy on the formation of self image. At first glance the most obvious implications are that our image is greatly influenced by the way we feel we are received by our peers. But I feel it also reveals something inherent in the human condition that is useful for our discussion. That is the need to belong to a group. Be you punk or goth, republican or democrat, Lambda-Lambda-Lambda or Omega-Mu, or even Homo Erectus or Ursas Horribles, the need to be a part of a group is so strong it borders on compulsion.

But does all this hyper classification really help the individual understand the world around them? Firstly to accept any label is also to accept the labeler’s power over you. For just as any contribution serves to define it’s group so do the rules of the group define its members. To accept a label as truth is also to accept a power relationship proposed by the inventor of the label. This brings with it an implication of Hegemony, for if I agree to recognize everything by a set of rules and definitions that you hand me, do you not have power over me? And by and large that has consistently been the easier path, to complacently agree to the system we were born into as the effective truth and do what we can to pass it on. Now what happens when the circumstances that gave birth to that system of classification are no longer in place to ensure the systems validity?

I personally see no difference between everyday social labels, scientific classification, and genre. These are all systems of ordering informational experiences that are presumed to still be valid and are rarely if ever challenged. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly they succeed only in providing limits. Armed with these preconceived notions we are only free to explore within boundaries. And by accepting these boundaries we are only accepting erroneous power relationships that fetter progress and only satisfy our compulsion for the illusion of control over our environment and freedom to be efficacious in response to it.