Analysis #3 - Marxism on Slumdog

Click here to see this video







In this clip from Slumdog Millionaire, a Marxist view might be that the children are not only exploited, but they are victims in a capitalistic society where they suffer mentally and physically for their cheap labor at the hands of their oppressors.   This suffering is more than just a basic class difference.  The children are not only well below the poverty level, their thoughts and opinions are disregarded because of their age, therefore causing an even wider gap between them and the authority figures.
One could argue that, if in deed, there was nothing morally wrong with the idea that the children pan for things and beg tourists for money only to give it over to the higher authority (the orphan ring-master), their return payment for their prolific labor is balanced unequally.  In being so young, the children are unable to enter into an amicable agreement that their payment in the form of food and shelter is in direct correlation to their labor value of spending entire days running around the streets of Mumbai begging for money. 
In the end, when realizing that their lives are in danger because of what the men will do to them (gouging out their eyes in an effort to gain further sympathy from tourists – which only increases profits for the capitalists), the children revolt against the men and flee as a means of escape similar to other proletarians who rise up to fight for their rights. 
Marx’s idea of dialectical materialism, in believing that "all change results from the constant conflict arising from oppositions inherent in all ideas," (648) is supported by this economic structure of the society in which these children live.  Their world is shaped at the hands of the capitalists and by having the courage to run, the children have taken the first step toward changing their condition.

Works cited:

Karl Marx 1818-1883; Friedrich Engels 1820-1895; The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism
Leitch, New York, 2010, 2001 - p 648

Slumdog Millionaire, 2008
Dir. Danny Boyle
Perf. Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor, Rajendranath Zutshi

Reflection on Marxism

Marxism

The material conditions of life and the economic structure of society was the driving force behind Karl Marx’s theory of Marxism.  He believed that, “The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general.  It’s not the consciousness of men that determines their well-being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.” (662) 

Marx set out to prove that the economic and social forces shape the human consciousness.  Stemming from dialectical materialism – believing that all change results from a constant conflict arising from oppositions inherent in all ideas - he argued that these internal contradictions in capitalism would eventually lead to its demise. 

He determined that society has a base and superstructure.   With the base being the class (workers) the superstructure emerges.  The base is the way people relate to one another in productive relations.

Marx’s theory of class struggle is a central element to his beliefs.   He was against capitalism (private ownership) insisting it created a barrier between the proletarians and bourgeoisie.   Within capitalism, the proletarians only own their capacity to work – to sell their own labor.  But as a result of the disparity between their labor value and the surplus value derived from their mean of production, the bourgeoisie continue to benefit by getting richer and the proletarians lives remain the same.

Marx believed that eventually a social revolution must occur when an economic recession takes place.  The proletarians would be unable to afford the very products they manufacture and the bourgeoisie would not be able to consume the surplus value.

With relation to commodity fetishism, little thought from the recipient goes into the labor value that is involved in making or producing a product as in our class example of coffee.

Analysis #4 - Is It Psychological or Just Plain Evil?

Freud states in the Imp of the Perverse, “The psychical value of erotic needs are reduced as soon as their satisfaction becomes easy. An obstacle is required in order to heighten libido…” (2412) This is only partially true in the case of serial killer, Ted Bundy, who sexually assaulted and killed over thirty women before he was executed on January 24, 1989.

Ted Bundy’s perpetual erotic need to be satisfied through sadistic and violent sexual assaults, were never fulfilled. Some say he killed anywhere from 29 to 100 women. He did, however, use many tools and created obstacles in his primitive game of hunter, to intensify his sexual excitement to lure his prey into his lair – a Volkswagen Beetle. He would fake a broken leg or arm in order play on the naivety of college girls. The results were mostly the same; the violent deaths of young, beautiful women.

Freud concluded that a criminal’s psychotic behavior stemmed from the inability to successfully develop a healthy relationship between the ego and superego. Bundy, however, apparently had little, if no, issue with his id - “if it feels good, do it.” While sadistic acts of murder are not normal, for Bundy this unresolved battle between the ego and superego may have led to his demise through execution. According to Freud, having the incapacity to feel guilt, affection, or to learn from an experience is a result of a defective superego.

In the case of Ted Bundy, other psychoanalytic theories played into his destructive tendencies. His bizarre childhood of growing up with his mother, believing she was his older sister, may have led to an unresolved Oedipus complex thus directing his aggressions toward women. In addition many speculated his abusive grandfather was in fact his father. Could his violent tendencies have been genetically inherited? Bundy’s impulsive desires for violent pornography and the inability to express those desires in a healthy manner may have directly correlated to his social ineptness. Many psychiatrists can speculate as to what made Ted Bundy act out his aggressions, but we will never know if it was truly psychological or just pure evil.

 
Works cited:
The Courtly ‘Imp of the Perverse’, The Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism
Leitch, New York, 2010, 2001 - p 2412

Reflection #7 - Reader Response

The correlation between Barthes, Sarte and Iser is the connection between the reader and text.
We understand the importance of the reader and the text and how the two bind into a cohesive covenant. I don’t believe, however, that when the reader becomes invested in the story, the author is no longer relevant as suggested in Barthe’s, Death of the Author. In fact, I think the author holds more relevance as he/she is the creator of the story.
Iser’s influence in the development of literary theory is one where literature becomes a way of reflection. This makes sense. I know there are many times after I read as story where I can’t help to reflect on the content and how it might connect in my own life.

Reflection# 6 - Psychoanalysis

Freud was somewhat of a character in my opinion.  I often wonder where he came up with his psychosexual stages.  In covering these stages: oral, anal, phallic, latent, and puberty/genital, Freud insisted these were formative in a child’s development.  While some of these stages make sense, I find it hard to believe that every little boy wants to sleep with his mother and do away with his father as Freud suggests in the Oedipus Complex.  And, if this complex is not resolved, then a neurosis becomes prevalent.   In addition, his belief of castration anxiety where the father poses as a castrating force because the child has feelings for the mother seems absurd.  For human desires to be repressed into the unconscious as a defense mechanism because the conscious cannot tolerate them is more believable to me than the Oedipus Complex. 

Freud’s belief that dreams are “windows to the soul” and that these dreams speak to therapists in an abstract light seem plausible.  Here, it is important for the therapist to connect the symbols in a dream to the reality of what the person is experiencing in order to sift out the cloudiness and focus on the real issue that patient is suffering with.

For Jacques Lacan, language is important in the theory of psychoanalysis because he believed the child knows he can get what he wants through communication.   His idea is that the self is always incomplete.  There is need, demand and desire and that demand never is fulfilled.   There is something to say about this demand.  I recognize it with my own children when they want something and it never seems to be enough.  You can look at it in another way and think maybe it’s just love they desire and therefore you reach to hug them, only to have them scream they want a different toy! 

Reflection #5 - Structuralism

 

Defamiliarization.   Making the everyday - unfamiliar or the ordinary strange.  This was an interesting discussion this past week.  I understood this better after we examined a clip from the movie Go Bananas, by Woody Allen.   With the imminent assassination of the leader in the movie and how the newscaster, Howard Cousell, made the experience like a sporting event, defamiliarized the scene. 

In examining Ferdinand Saussure’s study of linguistics and structuralism, learning about semiotics was interesting in that signifier and signified are the key to language and how we communicate.  The idea that signs are broken down into what you see, is what you think - reinforces this belief.  Saussure’s work emphasizes thinking in binaries.  Ie. cat/dog, mother/father, etc., therefore when we examine something  we don’t comprehend one without the other.  When analyzing this semiotic theory, it allows us to understand how something can be exchangeable with what is represents as in the case of Michael Jordan.  He expands out to many commodities.

Following this structuralistic approach to literature, I am more able to look at a text now and break it down in a way that was foreign to me before.  It isn’t something that particularly excites me, however.  When I read a story, I prefer to get lost in the plot, versus breaking it down to understand the signifier and signified.  How much fun is there in that?  I hope that when people read my novel, they won’t get hung up in the structure and just get lost in the story.