Reason, Freedom, and Equality

How Marx Considers these Enlightenment Projects in the Communist Manifesto

The Enlightenment core values such as reason, freedom, and equality have been embraced by a large proportion of philosophers and scholars in modern traditions. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx also provides a rational analyse of history and a particular interpretation of freedom and equality in order to develop the Communism foundation.   Although Marx provides an argued and rational perception of the landscape of history, the definition that he postulates with regards to freedom and equality is different from those in the Enlightenment.

This essay critically highlights the ways in which Marx incorporates the Enlightenment project of reason, freedom, and equality into the Communist Manifesto. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx stands aligned with the main value of Enlightenment which is “reason” and rational analysis.

The Communist Manifesto by Marx has inherited the Enlightenment main value which is the reason. Reason is the most fundamental benchmark of the Enlightenment but its consequence may differ based on interpretation and the ways of its application in society. Therefore, a reason may not always have resulted in human progress. From its very first stage when science and rationality were going to bring a dramatic change in the overall concept of the universe; the Enlightenment was ignited by reason. Reason has mostly challenged the previous conventional believes and contradicted those of thought collectives. Reason and rationality led Copernicus and later Galileo to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. The idea which replaced the Ptolemaic picture of the universe in which the earth stood at the very centre of the universe. Although confrontation is an inevitable implication of reason its ultimate consequence is not necessarily resulting in human progress in freedom and equality all the times. Despite the fact that the Communist Manifesto explains capital in a way which is quite similar to what Rousseau as the philosophers of Enlightenment has been said before, in some other ways Marx differs with the other major philosophers of Enlightenment such as Kant, particularly in the Enlightenment projects such as freedom and equality.    

Marx provides a rational analysing from history in which we can see the long-lasting conflicts as it is mentioned in the Communist Manifesto as “antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes” (p. 81). Marx presents a rational analysis of the modern economic conditions and emphasises that capital is entirely monopolised by the bourgeoisie “Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms” (p.76). Likewise, Rousseau, one of the Enlightenment philosopher and writer takes a rational perspective in history of ownership and claims that the very first step towards a civilised society paved the way of capitalism “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society” (p.20). Therefore, Marx in the Communist Manifesto develops a consistent association with the Enlightenment project of reason. 

The reason as the canonical project of Enlightenment led to autonomy and substitute the timeworn traditional hierarchy to contemporary individual freedom. Freedom as one of the major value of Enlightenment is discussed, argued and promoted throughout the Enlightenment era by many philosophers such as Kant. Marx clarifies freedom in a rather economic perspective. Marx contends the workers’ condition as they are not just selling their body power but also being pushed to slavery “enslaved by the machine” (79). Marx attacks the bourgeois version of freedom that “freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling, and buying, (p. 84). Therefore, in the Communist Manifesto freedom is mostly determined by the social system rather than the individual admiration of every person as the society member.

The Communism Manifesto predicts a utopia in which following “the extensive use of machinery” (p. 79), the proletariats will raise and make an upheaval against bourgeoisie’s instruments which are factories and machinery. Thus, the proletarians “seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages,” (p. 79). According to Marx, following the proletarian revolution which will lead to destroying the oppressive system of exploitation and collapse of the bourgeois ruling, the society achieves freedom. Therefore, in Marx view, as it is outlined in the Communism Manifesto, freedom happens on a social level within a perfect and advanced Communism society, while in Kant’s view, freedom is rather the outcome of practicing the faculty of reason by every individual member of society “the freedom in question is the least harmful of all, namely, the freedom to use reason publically in all matters” (p. 2).  In contrast to the value of individual freedom which has developed throughout the Enlightenment era, Marx proposes a top to bottom approach in which society acts as the unit and constituent for practicing freedom rather than an individual person. Therefore, and particularly as a comparison with Kant who focuses on individual freedom by admiration of reasoning in leaping from “self-incurred immaturity” (p. 2), Marx leaves the personal freedom in favour of proletariat social and political endeavour resulting into subjugating the bourgeoisie.  

The way in which Marx doubt on previous traditions including religious legitimation and the approach in which he develops freedom in the Communist Manifesto, consists various distinctive differences and similarities with those of other philosophers in the Enlightenment era. Marx expresses a straightforward attack on the entire of previous traditions including religious as he writes “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of the ruling class” (p. 86). In Marx view, the past traditions have always helped the ruling class to keep their sovereignty and continue oppressing the lower class. There is a noticeable assertion in the Communist Manifesto that the overall traditions in the past regardless of any nature they had, they all served the ruling power, re-produced un-freedom and perpetuated inequality because those traditions supported whatever class is in power. If that is the case, this critical point remains experimental that following the proletariat revolution, how the Communism itself cannot be the oppressive tradition at the hand of power.

Although Marx highlights the overall ruling ideas as the means of the power of ruling class and consequently condemns it as an obstacle versus freedom and equality, the Enlightenment philosopher, Rousseau, explains the modern appearance of man as the cause of inequality. Following the improvement of human capacity, when the development of faculty is all in place and reason is practised in its full manner, Rousseau contends that this is the very starting point of appearance of inequality “it now became the interest of men to appear what they really were not” (p. 24). Therefore, in Rousseau’s view, as a comparison with the modern lifetime, the older society as he calls it ‘savage’ societies had less to make them unhappy and consequently they acquired more freedom in the past.

Despite the fact that Marx provides a rational understanding of history and illustrates a vivid picture of the overwhelming emergence of the wold’s modern economic system, his assertion on dividing the modern society to mere two antagonising sides and his predict of proletariat victory is extremely narrowing the path of modern history. Marx even further summarises the overall conflict throughout modern history to mere fighting between bourgeois and proletariat. In the outset of Communist Manifesto, Marx posits that “the history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles” (p. 14). Furthermore, Marx in the Communist Manifesto claims that the history will ultimately lead to a united and a perfect Communist society, which, in relation to the Enlightenment observance, can calculate a totally asymmetrical analogy because in the Enlightenment, as it was considered by Condorcet “the perfectibility of man is indefinite” (p.6) which puts no end for the history and makes the history intrinsically diverse and unlimited. Therefore, it is hard to perceive the notion of Communist utopia aligned with what it was previously envisioned in the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophers. Furthermore, when it comes to considering the influential factors in the social changes of modern history, it is almost inconceivable to set the class as the only foundation of everything and ignore the complication of intersectionality.

The Communist Manifesto is a concomitant product of the post-Enlightenment era. As a counter romantic and anti-religious philosopher, Marx develops the Enlightenment project of reason, freedom, and equality. That said, the integrating of Enlightenment values in the Communist Manifesto is extremely overwhelmed by the modern gigantic industrial and economic progress.  Therefore, in spite of rational understanding of the nature of history, the notion of freedom and equality in the Communist Manifesto, to a large extent, is inconsistent with the Enlightenment traditions.

Reference:

Condorcet, M. “Future Progress of Mankind” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.

Kant, I. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.

Mrx, K. & Engels, F. “Manifesto of the Communist Party” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.

Rousseau, J, J. “A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind” in Texts and Traditions Tutorial Readings Spring 2016, Western Sydney University.

Paula Vogel, as a Post-Modernist

Paula Vogel's play How I Learned to Drive is a post-modern work. This essay highlights the aspects of How I Learned to Drive as a post-modern text.  By focusing on form, the language and concerns of this play, this essay emphasises that the position of power and control is held by the narrator herself without relying on any master narrative.

As a post-modern text, How I Learned to Drive uses silence, chorus, stage, and a direct narration to the audience. The writer arranges the play in the way in which different textualities come together within the play to form it. This is the main characteristic of a post-modernism form in which representing any issue by its all meaning is bounded to text. As it has observed by Derrida: everything happens within the language, (lecture presentation, 13/10/2016, slide. 12). Unlike the ancient Greek dramas, the form of the play How I Learned to Drive is rendered by the intrinsic qualities of a post-modern theater in which the text is not patronized by a single dominative episteme and has used any means such as silence, chorus, stage, and narration to convey the meaning.

Although the Chorus has emerged frequently in this play, it is not just a background sound, as it used to be in ancient plays. As long as the play How I Learned to Drive mostly happens within language, the Chorus is acting as an echo to reflect the cause of the event which is language itself. Although the Chorus has a complementary role in this play, it also conveys the meaningful words and thus reveals the factors by which the life of Li’l Bit has been impacted one way or another, “FEMALE GREEK CHORUS (As mother): Look, Grandma. Li’l Bit’s getting to be as big in the bust as you are” (p. 563). In a post-modern play a vital part may dedicate to a chorus which otherwise could be played by a complete character, because “with the Chorus, Vogel is saying that it is language that shapes the events of Li’l Bit’s life — and by extension, of life in general” (5/10/2016, slide. 12).

In the beginning, even before the play discloses any concern between the protagonist Li'l Bit, and uncle Peck, a series of smells are paralleled to shape the landscape of event. Li'l Bit’s speech invites the audience into the story, meanwhile, her emphases, particularly in the outset of the play is mostly connected with the sense of smell, “the smell of sleeping farms […] the smell of clover and hay […] with the smell of leather” (p. 559). Likewise, the very first sentence that the protagonist, herself, hears is: “Ummm, I love the smell of your hair”. When it comes to the form, in a post-modern play, the olfactory organs, can get involved as much as other senses to lead the scene. Furthermore, the smell can represent the overarching aspect of the play which could be either erotic or paedophilia.

Language has a direct relation to power. This is not only because language shapes the agency and represents the existence of oneself, but also because it is to language that the meaning of the whole world is conceivable. On the other hand, in a post-modern play such as How I Learned to Drive, everything happens within language, therefore, it is inconceivable to understand the events unless the language is being considered. It means language affects everything. Hence, one can observe the conspicuous coincidence of power and language. And in relation to this play; despite the fact that it is intrinsically taking a deconstructive position as it is not relying on any other master narrative, but by using the conventional signs of language, it still acting power, because language is not just presenting but also performing and affecting. “PECK: men are taught to drive with confidence—with aggregation. The road belongs to them. They drive defensively—always looking out for the other guy” (p.583).

The play How I Learned to Drive is a post-modern text written by an activist female writer. Although post-modernism is the epoch of death of God, one can argue that the feminist play writer actively opposes the masculine superiority, in which, to some extent, the presence of God is being acted by men throughout the ages. “Peck: hands on the nine o’clock and three […] your life is in your own two hands. Understand? (Li’l Bit nods)” (p. 583).

 Reference:

Vogel, P. “How I Learned to Drive” in Introduction to Literary Studies Spring 2016. Ed. Achilles S. Western Sydney University. Print.

Edgar Allan Poe & V.S. Naipaul

 “The Purloined Letter” and “The Night Watchman's Occurrence Book”

How do the ways in which these two narratives are narrated and plotted affect the way in which we make sense of their respective stories?

Every story is subject to the reciprocated effects of the aspects of narrative art and the qualities in which the narrative story is developed. Along with a close reading of the two short stories “The Purloined Letter” and “The Night Watchman's Occurrence Book”, this essay highlights narrative characteristics of these two stories and discusses the form, plot, personage, language, and the ways in which these factors affect the meaning of these stories.

The form is the most fundamental feature of a literary work, which produces the overall capacity of the work. However, both of these narratives are in the form of short stories, each of them uses a specific plot or sets the unique order in which events are presented. The plot of “The Night Watchman’s Occurrence Book” is comical and chiastic set in a series of switching messages on the hotel logbook following a new watchman taking over the duty, while in “The Purloined Letter” the plot consists of rather complicated conflict which directs toward a climax prior the last denouement. Therefore, any interpretation and significance of these stories are restricted by their form and bounded to their plots. 

Although the characterisation in “The Purloined Letter” does not seem promising, the very first reaction of the protagonist defines his personality. Following the avoidance of lighting the lamp, Dupin says: “we shall examine it to better purpose in the dark” (330). Also in his meeting with the Minister, he was wearing “a pair of green spectacles” (345), to narrow his vision. In contrast to the other personage “G—” who projects light on Minister’s house and uses many instruments, even a microscope, Dupin is a character who does not need so much light and equipment because he tries to distinguish the Minister’s method. He does not speak so much but thinking a lot. That is why his unique approach for finding the letter is grounded on the significance of identification of the opponent rather than utilising extrinsic methods. Consequently, the story tells that a clear vision does not necessarily bound in light or darkness.

The narrator is also another factor which may affect the way a story make sense. In “The Purloined Letter” the story is narrated by the first person. “At Paris, […] I was enjoying […] with my friend C. Auguste Dupin,” (330). As the roommate of the main personage, the narrator facilitates readers to get in touch with the protagonist: “"And what, after all, is the matter on hand?" I asked” (331). The narrator speaks very little so Dupin has enough floor to explain his detective work. Differs from “The Night Watchman’s Occurrence Book” in which the logbook is used as a motif in the narrative. The struggling between Chas Hillyard and the W.A.G Inskip throughout the logbook provides a glimpse into the boreoarctic system. The logbook exposits the relation between the night-watchman and his manager, who represent a different social spectrum. Likewise, in the first instance, the narrator is used to arrange the detective story in a way that shows that close proximity to the overall human’s potential may result in successful detection.

Language has been used in a creative way to illustrate the intended meanings more attractively. In “The Night Watchman’s Occurrence Book” the author has benefitted of using the language with some genuine mistakes.  Although there are frequently grammatical and spelling mistakes in Night Watchman’s notes: “but they was drinking still” (209), it is not clear either he is doing it deliberately or it is the direct outcome of being ordered to perform his job literally. Furthermore, he signs the notes each time differently, unlike the manager who always uses the same initial followed by his last name “Inskip”. In such a context this is a subtle way to show that not just the language but the whole identity of the watchman is extremely unstable compared to his manager who belongs to a different social class.

In “The Purloined Letter” the whole story is about finding the letter which has been stolen by the minister. There is a question that why does everyone in the story seem so reluctant in what the letter actually contains. Perhaps, it is better to left the letter unrevealed because with the purpose of blackmailing, the more hypothesis about the letter the more power at the hand of the minister. Although the narrative is arranged in a way in which curiosity about the letter is overshadowed by the plot, one can easily observe that the story does not show artless, because there is an obvious exaggeration in favour of Dupin, whose eyes can find an object that a microscope was failed to do. 

Reference:

Naipaul, V, S. “The Night Watchman’s Occurrence Book” in Introduction to Literary Studies Spring 2016. Ed. Achilles S. Western Sydney University. Print.

Poe, E, A. “The Purloined Letter” in Introduction to Literary Studies Spring 2016, Ed. Achilles S. Western Sydney University. Print.