T. C. Đstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü

Đngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Bilim Dalı

Yüksek Lisans Tezi

Marxist Criticism of the Postmodern Elements in Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange and J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting For The Barbarians

HAZIRLAYAN MERAL HARMANCI

2501020042

Prof. Dr. ESRA MEL ĐKO ĞLU

Đstanbul 2005 ÖZ

Bu çalı ma Anthony Burgess tarafından yazılan A Clockwork Orange ve J.M. Coetzee tarafından yazılan Waiting for the Barbarians adlı metinlerdeki postmodern unsurları tartı acaktır. Postmodernism teorisi ‘bütünlük fikri’ nin yıkımına ve decentralizasyon dü üncesine dayanır, ve bu nedenle de Marxismle kar ıla tırlıdı ğında, açık bir ekilde problemler içinde oldu ğu görülür. Marxism teorisi sosyal bütünlük, e itlik ve özgürlük fikirlerine dayandı ğından, postmodernism dü üncelerine kar ı çıkar. Postmodernism ço ğunlukla sorgulama yolu olarak kabul edilir, ancak e itli ğe dayanan sosyal bir çözüm sunmalıdır. A Clockwork Orange ve Waiting for the Barbarians metinleri içindeki postmodern unsurları anlamaya çalı ırken Marxism’in uygun görülmesinin sebebi bu fikirdir.

ABSTRACT

This paper will address Marxist criticism of postmodern elements in the texts A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess and Waiting for the Barbarians by J.M. Coetzee. Postmodernism theory is based on the idea of the decentralization and deconstruction of ‘the idea of wholeness’, and for this reason when it is contrasted with Marxist theory, it is evident that postmodernism is riddled with flaws. Since the Marxism theory relies on social togetherness, equality, and freedom, it counters the thoughts of postmodernism. Postmodernism is usually accepted as a way of questioning, yet it should present a social solution which leans on equality. This idea is the reason why Marxism is pertinent when understanding the postmodern elements within the texts A Clockwork Orange and Waiting for the Barbarians .

v FOREWORD

Terry Eagleton’s The Illusions of Postmodernism , After Theory and Marx’s The German Ideology are the basic sources for this thesis; therefore Eagleton’s and Marx’s theories are fundamental in order to understand the concept of the study. Terry Eagleton argues that postmodernism is the motto of capitalism. He conveys that what is presented as being postmodern is in fact in accordance with the system. For this reason he states that postmodernism cannot be introduced as an alternative way of thinking. Postmodernism is seen to be new yet it is used by the capitalist order. Eagleton evaluates the theory of Postmodernism to have come to an end. While it rejects all universalised theories and ideologies and while it states the impossibility of an alternative, on the other hand it still has to present some alternatives on social life. Therefore it is thought to be incoherent as a theory. Since Eagleton’s point of view stems from Marxism, The German Ideology will be needed to strengthen the discourse of the study. In The German Ideology , Marx gives the illusions of capitalist thought. Marx’s other scriptures might be taken into consideration; yet, The German Ideology will be sufficient to invert postmodernism.

As it is done by Eagleton, postmodernism theory is deconstructed through a Marxist reading. The idea of unity or wholeness is defended against the postmodern comprehension of deconstruction. Dialectic materialism is used throughout the study and it is presented to be the base that can be relied on. Besides, postmodernism assumes that social structure of capitalism has changed and therefore Marxism is not thought to be valid or acceptable in order to evaluate today’s world. But on the contrary, the motto of postmodernism, which claims that today’s capitalism has changed, is in fact illusionary. This thesis shows that capitalism has not changed much; it still gains its profits by exploiting the working class and the impoverished countries. People are still forced to fight in order to survive. They are not given equal chances and opportunities. While some enlarge their profits, the rest are tied to the capitalist order. What has changed is just the name of it: Imperialism is presented as globalism.

vi Whatever it is named, multinational capitalism, globalism, or etc, what is expressed is the definition of imperialism or multinational imperialism. When it is closely considered, it would be easy to find out that there is not an alteration in capitalist ideology based on private property. Furthermore it can be seen that the exploitation of the working classes goes on increasingly. Probably what is altered is the increase in concentration of the conditions of exploitation. Postmodernism is a multifunctional shield for the world’s exploitative minority.

According to Jameson, Mandel’s theory of Late Capitalism is thought to be fundamental in order to understand postmodernism theory. The age of postmodernism is the age of multinational capitalism. According to Jameson, Marx’s definition of capitalism is not adequate to understand the postmodern age. It is suggested by Jameson that Marx gives the purest stage of capitalism, however what is overlooked by Jameson, is the reality that the capitalist way of production exploits working classes. The aim of capitalist production is still to sell and therefore to profit through the exploiting of the working classes.

Whilst composing this thesis, there were many difficulties which I had to confront; yet, thanks to my counsellor Professor Esra Meliko ğlu, I easily overcame such difficulties. Had it not been for Professor Esra Meliko ğlu such a thesis would have been even more tiresome. Additionally, I would like to thank Professor Zeynep Ergun for her support and endless belief in me. I also feel it critical to thank all of my tutors residing in the English Language and Literature Department at Istanbul University. I am forever grateful for their patience, support and assistance. My sincerest thanks and appreciation to you all.

I would like to thank my family, my mother Nafiye Harmancı and my father Hüseyin Harmancı, my sisters Canan, Arzu Kader, my brother Ata Hakan, my dear Umut Turunço ğlu and his brother Ufuk Turunço ğlu. Such people were always with me, filling me with words of wisdom and encouragement when I needed it the most. My friends were always with me and were also such great supporters. Therefore I would like to thank Canan Çalı kan, Çi ğdem Aslan, Rhonda Sultan who is also the editor of this thesis study, Rah an Sönmez, Meral Uluköylü, R. Koray Çiftçi, Đpek

vii en. I would also like to thank my friends at Istanbul University Student Culture Centre Theatre Club; particularly the counsellor of our studies in the theatre club Associate Professor Kerem Karabo ğa who constantly reminded me of the importance of self-discipline, human character and the vital necessity of having strong positive thoughts about my goals and ambitions. I would like to thank my high school teachers Zerrin iik, Sayme Ko ar and Bedri Habiço ğlu for their virtuous words of wisdom.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ÖZ ( ABSTRACT) ...... v FOREWORD ...... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1 DE-CENTRALIZATION ...... 14 2 HISTORY ...... 38 2.1 History of Postmodernism...... 40 2.2 Postmodern Outlook on History...... 45 2.3 New Historicism...... 49 3 CRITICISM ...... 56 4 RATIONALITY AND ENLIGHTENMENT ...... 61 5 LANGUAGE / KNOWLEDGE / TRUTH / SUBEJECTIVITY / OBJECTIVITY ...... 68 6 ART AND THE ARTIST ...... 83 6.1 Art...... 83 6.2 The Artist...... 92 7 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ...... 100 8 WATING FOR THE BARBARIANS ...... 170 9 CONCLUSION ...... 207 APPENDIX ...... 209 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 211

i INTRODUCTION

Postmodernism is a way of thinking about questions that are based around the notions that deconstruct unity or structure. The whole is thought to be totalitarian since it may have abstract or concrete power on its fragments. For the reason that the whole or the idea of unity is thought to be restrictive or oppressive in terms of freedom, fragments are wished to be apart from the whole in order for them to be liberal. Postmodernism can be expressed as the total rejection of the idea of unity. While it rejects the whole it moves in a deconstructive way. The whole is cut into pieces, and each of its fragments is required to be thrown to separate parts. In Routledge Companion to Postmodernism , which might be seen as one of the guidance books on postmodernism, postmodernism is thought to be a way of questioning all the ‘universalising theories’. According to Nietzsche - one of the most important nineteenth-century thinkers, postmodernists are defined as being sceptical and anti-foundationalist.

“The technical term to describe such a style of philosophy is “antifoundational”. Anti- foundationalists dispute the validity of the foundations of discourse, asking such questions as “What guarantees the truth of your foundation (that is, starting point) in its turn?” (Sim, 2001; vii)

Moreover, Postmodernism evaluates the idea of unity as illusionary. It underlines that there is no objective truth, no unity, no grand narratives, no universal or social values, and no social togetherness. All of these are evaluated to be fictitious and human-made and thus it is thought that there is nothing to be relied on since everything changes from the point one stands. It problematizes all ideologies, discourses, truths and theories since they are all thought to be illusionary and fictitious. Therefore everything is questioned and deconstructed. While the postmodernists approve of this deconstructive logic, Marxists attempt to question what is presented as postmodernism theory. One of the important Marxists, Terry Eagleton, stresses on consistency of a theory and he questions postmodernism. Eagleton’s definition of postmodernism summarizes the definition of postmodernism from a Marxist point of view.

1 “By ‘postmodern’ I mean, roughly speaking, the contemporary movement of thought which rejects totalities, universal values, grand narratives, solid foundations to human existence and the possibility of objective knowledge. Postmodernism is sceptical of truth, unity and progress, opposes what it sees as elitism in culture, tends towards cultural relativism, and celebrates pluralism, discontinuity and heterogeneity.” (Eagleton, 2003: 13)

Marxism accepts human beings as social beings; it endeavours to underline how it is impossible to deconstruct all social forms and theories. According to Marxism, life is based on relations of production. It is stated that life and history are formed by class struggles in consequence of relations of production. Moreover, as an alternative to the deconstructed form of society in postmodernism theory; an equal social form, which is based on equal sharings of individuals who are placed in equal conditions in relations of production, is presented by Marxism. Therefore, opposing the postmodern fragmentary thinking, Marxists are interested in the idea of unity and wholeness.

Marxist elements are defined in three stages. At the first stage Marx’s integral view is exposed. It is pinpointed that every ideology establishes itself within its own problematic sphere and thus it becomes impossible to break its wholeness into pieces “without altering its meaning.” The second stage puts forward that “the meaning” “of a particular ideology” is much more related to its “ideological field”, “social problems and social structure” than “its origins or its end, considered as truth.” The third stage determines that “the developmental motor principle of a particular ideology” is interconnected with its external facts. It cannot be thought without its outside realm. Therefore Marxists have to “explain other things than” themselves. The 3 rd stage might be coded as “dialectic materialism” (Althusser, 1996: 62, 63)

As it is stated above, Marxism has an integral view of ideology and it determines the wholeness of an ideology. While the second stage underlines the importance of superstructure, it does not turn a blind eye to the base structure or base sources, since the implications of the first and the third stages are clear that every thought must be considered in its wholeness which includes both superstructure and base structure. It is certain that the idea of wholeness also includes the third stage that is code related to “dialectic materialism.”

2 Dialectic materialism can be defined through circular movements of concrete conditions, which change throughout history and have outcomes, and whose outcomes bring new conditions. (Althusser, 1996: 62, 63)

The reason why Marxism has been chosen in order to criticise postmodernism, is the fact that Marxism is a theory that comprises an entire life. Through Marxism all specific items might be evaluated. It ties each fragment to its bonds; it gives the base structure of all the events or ideologies. As long as capitalism exists, Marxism will be one of the most important ways of criticising the structure and movements of it. Capitalism is a system that exploits people for the benefits of a minority. The basic aim of capitalism is profit making. All the working classes have to work for the capitalists and life is produced and reproduced by means of the exploitation of these working classes. Marx gives the details of the surplus value that is seized by the capitalists. Seizing the surplus value is the basic conflict that exists. As Marx indicates, the working classes produce all values; yet, the capitalists seize a great amount of these values since they are the owners of the means of production. Seizing might be also seen as an act of stealing. Wealth and private property are come into existence by means of theft. Therefore, to an extend capitalism depends on inequality, injustice and inhumanity.

According to Marxism theory, two forces; base structure and superstructure condition life in capitalism. ‘Base structure’ which is a term used for defining the economic production is thought to be the determining factor in social life. Therefore, it must be underlined that superstructure, which includes the state and all the legal, political and ideological forms of it, is determined by base structure including “the economic base” and “the relations of production”. Because of the existence of these relations in capitalism, life is based on monetary objectives. Life is shaped by means of production. Art is produced; means of life are produced; food, drinks, computers, knowledge, technical developments, feelings, love and children are all produced. Yet the world is governed through the relations of economic production. Human beings are primarily formed through their position in this production system. Culture, family relations, language, etc. are all under the determination of relations of production.

3 The place of the individuals in their culture, their families and all their social relations are all determined by the system.

On the other hand, superstructure including ideology of the economic system is reproduced for the permanence of the established order. Social institutions, culture and beliefs are the ideological apparatus of capitalism. Through those apparatus many social conflicts are concealed. Marx defines concealment of realities as false consciousness that is imposed by the bourgeoisie class. The capitalist system is thought to be unjust, oppressive and patriarchal. Society and its members are identified and shaped through that capitalist system. Moreover self-realization of individuals is blocked and ideology and ideological apparatus of the system condition individuals. Social and individual identities are determined and shaped through the superstructure of the system depending on the base structure.

Postmodernists see no difference between the real and the illusionary. All beliefs, theories and ideologies are thought to be fictitious, yet the ties between human thoughts and their materialist conditions are ignored. Everything is questioned and thought to be relative; nothing or no idea is thought to be essential. What is presented as reality is brought forward as being fictitious by postmodernism theory.

“Illusion is no longer possible, because the real is no longer possible.” (Baudrillard, 1992: 156)

Marx expresses the distinction between reality and fiction according to the material conditions. For him the economic relations are the real circumstances of the human being yet the super-structural forms are seen as alienation of consciousness or in other words the illusions of reality. While the real conditions are ignored, the super-structural forms are accepted as if they were real and compulsory for existence.

One of the French Marxist critics Louis Althusser claims that ideology is a determinative factor of “the relation between men and their conditions of existence.” Ideology might be imaginary or real but it is signified and reinforced by the ruling class.

4 The ruling class presents its ideology as if it was covering the whole society from the poor to the rich; therefore their own discourse seems to be in the form of universality. Ideology might be “fabricated and manipulated” by the ruling class in order to exploit other classes. (Althusser, 1996: 234)

Religion, the family, the State, law, morality, science, art, etc. are only particular forms of production and come under its general law. The positive abolition of private property, as the appropriation of human life, is thus the positive abolition of all alienation, and thus the return of man from religion, the family, the State, etc, to his human, i.e. social, life. Religious alienation only occurs in the sphere of consciousness, in the inner life of man, but economic alienation is that of real life, and its abolition therefore affects both aspects. Of course, the development in different nations has a different origin according to whether the actual life of the people is more in the realm of mind or in the external world, whether it is a real or ideal life. (Marx, 1964: 244)

Philosophy unmasks human self-alienation and it criticizes its superstructure. Through criticizing the superstructure of society, one may reach the material reasons of the illusionary forms. Therefore postmodernism should be criticized in order to determine its illusions. For this reason, many thoughts on freedom, liberalization, centralization, equality, internationalism, sisterhood or brotherhood of human beings are all abused and manipulated by postmodernism theory, and thus capitalism is strengthened. The illusions of postmodernism are all in accordance with the illusions of capitalism. Criticism of postmodernism might be transformed into the criticism of capitalism.

The immediate human self-alienation in its secular form now that it has been unmasked its sacred form. Thus the criticism of heaven is transformed into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. (Marx, 1984:14)

All ideologies are rejected by Postmodernism for the reason that they are thought to be illusionary. Nothing is seen to be trusted by the postmodernists. Postmodernism tries to empty surface from ideologies. Yet it should be underlined that ideology is one of the conditions that form the human being. Therefore there is no escape from ideologies. Besides, in postmodernism, the rejection of ideology can be taken as another ideology. All ideologies, theories and truths are thought to be restrictive and relative and thus they are deconstructed. If all things are considered to be relative, then anything might be accepted as true.

5 Capitalism also needs to be away from ideologies, theories and truths in order to legitimise anything such as inequality, fascism, wars, etc. Therefore it might be conveyed that postmodernism featherbeds for capitalism.

It is impossible for the bourgeoisie to universalise ideologies such as equality or free speech on account of its hypocrisy. The mask of capitalism is the reality that the more money you have the more liberal you become. The more you are poor the more you are tied to the strings of poverty. There is no equality for the poor since liberty and equality are in direct proportion with the money that is owned.

The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong – into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze axe. (Marx, 1984:21)

Marxism can be shown as an illuminating light for our future. Since the relations of production are hoped to be changed through the idea of equality; history is thought to be reshaped in a revolutionary way. Yet, according to postmodernism theory, the idea of discontinuous history blackens the light that illuminates the future. The sense of hope and progress is lost because of the postmodern retreat. Postmodernism theory brings forward that history is made and told by fiction and stories. It is thought that there is no difference between a historical text and a fictitious text.

This is the point where the origins of postmodernism commence to be inconsistent. It is accepted by the Marxists that there are borders between fictitious and historical stories. While fictitious stories may depend on unfounded events or imagination, historical and scientific facts should depend on realities, yet capitalism always manipulates truths. According to Marx, history starts with man’s production of the means of production to satisfy their needs in nature. Men feel hungry, thirsty and want to be protected. These are the basic needs of man, yet man’s first historical act depends on the production of the means of life. In German Ideology Marx gives a summary of his thoughts on history that is in accordance with the content of this study.

6 Our conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the simple material production of life, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; further, to show it in its action as State; and so, from this starting-point, to explain the whole mass of different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics etc., etc., and trace their origins and growth, by which means, of course, the whole thing can be shown in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another). It has not, like the idealistic view of history, in every period to look for a category, but remains constantly on the real ground of history; it does not explain practice from the idea but explains the formation of ideas from material practice; … It shows that history does not end by being resolved into “self-consciousness” as “spirit of the spirit,” but that in at each stage there is found a material result: a sum of productive forces … It shows that circumstances make men just as much as men make circumstances. (Marx/Engels, 1965: 28, 29)

As stated in the quotation above, Marx defines history as man’s struggle to survive and thus it is defined to be shaped by the process of production or in other words class struggles. Material conditions are taken as fundamental in order for history to be changed. Man has to struggle to adapt themselves to the conditions of existence or to change them; however “if this ‘adaptation’ or modification of conditions cannot be left to spontaneity but must be constantly assumed, dominated and controlled, it is in ideology that this demand is expressed.” Therefore man’s consciousness is transformed in these class struggles by ideology that is controlled and assumed by the dominant class. Since the dominant class controls the state and ideological apparatus of social life, the needed ideology of the system is imposed and spread easily. (Althusser, 1996: 235)

Despite the fact that postmodernism theory is against the central authority, which is governed by the established system, capitalism, it turns into a central power in the hands of the system. It is held by the system as a theory that is shaped and established by the white western academicians. Although pluralism is defended, still postmodernism theory represents the perspectives and ideas of the western culture. The idea of carnivalesque fits well in this situation.

The idea of “carnivalesque” stems from Derrida’s idea of cultural history, which is based on decentralization. Carnivalesque is thought to be an area including all kinds of extremes, marginal groups, minorities etc. The idea of decentralization keeps each of the fragments away from the central authority. Each of these extremes is thought to be given a chance to submit their own way of life by standing on their

7 own centre. But none of the fragments is wished to create new centres since all the centres are thought to be totalitarian. However, it should be known that such carnivals are organized by the authoritarian power for the benefits of the system. By means of the carnival, the oppressed people are given a chance to release their feelings and oppressions placed on them under the control of the authority. Carnival is organized for the individual’s emancipation that harmonizes the oppositions or opposites.

The idea of decentralization depends on the relations between society and the individual. Postmodernism destroys the comprehension of organised society acting in company and instead of such society it puts forward the decentred, atomised, separated individuals in a carnival which provides a pluralistic form for differences to exist together. Society is claimed to be a structure, which limits the individual and annihilates its self-autonomy. In postmodern thinking the idea of centre is thought to be too restrictive. The idea of organicism disappears within the idea of decentralization. The elements of the structure function differently and each of the fragments is much more differentiated to each other by the idea of de-centralization in postmodernist theory which might also be called the postmodern destruction of the unified structure.

Postmodernism’s visual symbol is also in accordance with the capitalist thought since it is seen as a mushroom cloud that happens after a nuclear warfare; this representation of postmodernism stems from a deconstructive intervention. Therefore postmodernism is always thought to coincide with anarchy. Capitalism moves in a deconstructive way. Since deconstruction is done through capitalism, it cannot be presented as an alternative way of looking.

The critic, then, is no longer in the first place judge, administrator of collective norm or locus of enlightened rationality; nor is he the first place cultural strategist or political catalyst, for these functions are also passing over to the side of the artist. He is not primarily a mediator between work and audience,…critic is indeed the deadly enemy….how is it possible to be a critic at all life art is its own self-grounded, self-validating truth, if social discourse is irremediably alienated, and if there is no audience to address in the first place? (Eagleton, 1996: 42, 43)

Deconstruction also means an act of questioning or interrogating in order to

8 destroy the structure of a discourse. The conventional thoughts and structures are questioned and destroyed but deconstruction does not reject the thoughts exactly. It tries to clarify the reason that lie under the logic in its usage of impossibility. Deconstructive analysis tries to demonstrate the opposite discourse that is thought to be implied in the text. It shakes the central, authoritarian, traditional discourse and reveals the ex-centric or the marginal discourse. Thanks to decentralization, something that is marginal before is drawn into the centre. Yet, according to Marxism, criticism should have bases. Interrogation of anything without enduring any ideologies would bring chaos and anarchy.

The postmodernists also reject Enlightenment since it is thought to represent universality, positivism and determinism. For this reason the ideas of universality, positivism and determinism are evaluated to be repressive and regulative; the logic of enlightenment, which is based on rationality, is not approved by the postmodernists. Reason is claimed to make a systematized unity in a general sense. This systematic way of thinking, which is considered to be authoritarian by postmodernists, is rejected. Thus according to postmodernism, the comprehension of rationality is thought to be relative.

Postmodernism defines individuals as existing on their own, in an individual world, having their own individual thoughts. Individuality brings a divided society since no common way of thinking is accepted. Each individual is identified through his or her distinctive characteristics; and thus it becomes impossible to draw a picture of a unified society in which the individuals are organized for their own common goals. Collectivist aims are totally rejected. Therefore it should be remarked that postmodernism breaks the idea of social unity; it disregards the common goals of individuals and the belief in social progress.

Despite the fact that Eagleton criticises concepts that arise through enlightenment, he cannot approve postmodernism since such ways of thought are rejected by them. Eagleton’s questions are important in demonstrating the insufficiency of postmodernism. Eagleton perceives that postmodernism limits individuals by rejecting rational ways of thought. Eagleton criticises postmodernism

9 since it causes the individuals to be passive in their social life. Eagleton examines various situations and argues the ideas that relate to them. Yet his questions are left in ambiguity since they are not answered. It should be repeated that human beings are able to produce a life based on equality through a rational way of thinking and the consciousness of relations of production. Rationality does not mean the acceptance of inequality in the name of freedom; on the contrary it means the rational solutions for the needs of humanity. Whether they are believed as being the most basic elements of a humane life or not, equality, freedom and peace are the foundations of any quality life.

Nonetheless, a rational way of thinking is always abused and manipulated by the capitalist ideology. Capitalism presents itself through rational arguments and it is introduced as the most rational system while socialism or communism is rejected and thought as unbelievable and irrational. This is an illusionary perception of rationalism. The existence of rational way of thinking should be accepted; yet, that rational way of thinking should neither be perceived as an illusionary way as it is presented through capitalism, nor be thought of as an oppressive way of thinking. If capitalists were rational, then there wouldn’t be any wars, fights and oppression; since a rational way of thinking is always adequate to find more peaceful and equal conditions for the life of human beings.

Postmodernism theory also endeavours to deconstruct language. Since language is thought to be consisted of many signs whose meanings might change according to many different addresses, meaning in language is thought to be unachievable. Differences in a language are given importance and thus it is thought that comprehension of a signifier changes according to many different individuals. Besides, the signifier, which is sent by the sender, is never accepted to be understood by the addressee. Postmodernists always have suspicion about language and thus meaning is rejected. Therefore, the idea of communication is deconstructed.

Yet, it must be underlined that since postmodernism doesn’t show an alternative way of communication whilst rejecting and deconstructing language, it produces an anarchic discourseless form. It legitimises the existence of chaos in life

10 that might be also seen as the definition of capitalism. It is known that capitalism is an order of chaos, which rationalizes its unequal conditions, creates manipulative knowledge on human beings and social life, and moves in an irrational way of production. In the name of rationality the unequal sharing of production is defended by capitalism. As contrary to postmodernist theory, Marxism pinpoints that an alternative language that is purified from the ideology of the oppressing class should be established. The struggle for a society whose individuals will be equal and free is also a struggle for peoples’ free language.

Foucault, who is one of the important defenders of postmodernism, states that subjectivity is studied by its process of conceptualisation. At first rationality and normality are questioned and after, the subject is centred and classified in knowledge disciplines. However, the process of classification of the subject is emphasized to mean the objectification of the subject. The process of conceptualisation is also represented to be based on “a unitary system organized around a centre”; however, unitary system is also criticised to be the result of a repressive rational way of thinking. (Foucault, 1997: 88)

As a result of dominant false consciousness of capitalism, subjectivity is rejected and it is replaced by impersonality and liberation from feelings and thoughts in the postmodern period. Since subjectivity is contemplated to be the reason of authority by postmodernist theory, it is rejected. Since all theories, history and ideologies are comprehended to be fictitious, objectivity is also rejected. Consequently, rejecting both objectivity and subjectivity, postmodernism is therefore senseless. It draws a picture in which all the individuals have rights to tell their own stories yet their subject positions are rejected since subjectivity is thought to be synonymous to totalitarianism or a central power. This picture is perceived to be chaotic in Marxist terms. Marxism declares that objectivity in knowledge and science is possible yet it is against the objectification of the individuals. Each individual is thought to have potency and adequacy in being aware of their consciousness and so their subjectivity. In order for every individual to be aware of both their consciousness and power to change their circumstances; equal conditions, which

11 cannot be produced in capitalist exploitation of labour, should be created.

“The technical process, into which the subject has objectified itself after being removed from the consciousness, is free of the ambiguity of the mythic thought as of all meaning altogether, because reason itself has become the mere instrument of the all-inclusive economic apparatus. It serves as a general tool, useful for the manufacture of all other tools, firmly directed toward its end, as fateful as the precisely calculated movement of material production, whose result for mankind is beyond calculation.” (Adorno, 1997: 30)

As stated in the latter, postmodernism asserts that in the name of freedom, the subject should be objectified; yet, the postmodernist comprehension of objectification means the passivity or inactivity of individuals. According to Marxism, the division of labour in bourgeois society creates self-alienation of the individual. Self-alienation engenders objectification of the individual and therefore subjectivity is lost. The objectification of the individual is rationalized through a positivist way of thinking in capitalism. Therefore, through objectification, individuals are used for the benefits of capitalism as if they were tools, machines or any other objects.

The comprehension of art and the artist has changed in postmodernism theory. Art is dealt with as a commercial commodity that is not created but composed by a composer. The act of creating is rejected since every work of art is evaluated to be interrelated and repeated. Originality of a work of art is rejected and each production is thought to be a copy of another work. An artist’s subjectivity is rejected since it is accepted as authoritative. Through postmodernist theory the artists are thought to be dead in order to leave the admirers of art free. Yet, Marxism cannot accept the absence of the artist. Artists are perceived as important for the criticism of the works of art, yet the existence of plural interpretations is accepted. Art is also seen as an illuminator for society and a form of protest through which millions of individuals are affected.

Anthony Burgess’ fiction A Clockwork Orange is an important work in order to underline and criticise the aforementioned postmodernist aspects. The conflict between society and the individual, the perception of liberalization in postmodernism theory, the dispute about centralization and decentralization and the motto of marginalism are all criticised from a Marxist point of view throughout this thesis

12 study. J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians is another fiction that brings to light many postmodern elements such as decentralization, the story of the ex-centric individuals, the relationship between authority and the oppressed, etc. However, this novel will be evaluated and interpreted from a Marxist reading and perspective and will therefore be criticised.

13 1 DE-CENTRALIZATION

Postmodernism adduces that social life and culture stands as a restriction for the human being. A Postmodern way of life praises individualism apart from any organized communal way of life. Human beings are wished to be separated and liberated from any kinds of social restrictions. The reason for social restriction is claimed to exist in social relations, which are thought to be based on power relations. The centre is accepted to have knowledge through which totalitarianism becomes legitimised. Postmodernism asserts that any representatives of authority who holds the power and knowledge to reinforce their central positions oppress millions of individuals or fragments. All fragments are wished to be separated from the centre in order for them to be free. Yet, the fragments are not wished to create their own centres since the subjectivity of individuals is rejected. Subjectivity is comprehended as another way of oppression which creates a centre. Yet, from a Marxist point of view, individuals are always seen as the components of a whole. Individuals are accepted as social beings and thus social life is not seen as a restriction to an individual’s life.

The idea of decentralization is formalized in one of the Algerian philosophers Derrida’s “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Derrida defines structure as an origin, which is fixed, balanced and oriented by the organizing principle of the structure. But the organizing principle of the structure, since it keeps the central power, is appraised negatively. “The play of the elements” gathered in the structure is seen to be limited and kept in borders of “the total form.” Therefore, social structure is also seen as a limiting force on its fragments. “The plays of its elements” or in other words individual acts are permitted by “the total form” or the structure of society. (Derrida, 1999: 109)

Individuality is a term that gains its importance through the development of social life and social mind. The individuals take recognition of their own existence when society has come to a certain developmental line. Individualism is abused by

14 capitalism as it is done through nationalism. Capitalism uses nationalism in order to divide the social structure. Even nationalism causes diversities among the peoples of the world. Capitalism’s ideological warfare needs to divide social whole into nations, into individuals and into separate atomic beings. Marxists should approve of the fact that an organized society is the most risky enemy of capitalism. Organized individuals or an organized society makes it hard for capitalism to penetrate a market. As far as society is fragmented and divided, it becomes easier to penetrate a market. Therefore nationalism and racism or atomised individualism is capitalism’s weapons against internationalism and the idea of organized society.

The idea of components of a whole can be seen in all social relations; and therefore the idea of unity brings the idea of perfection. Owing to the unification of the individual and society, it becomes really easy to create utopias. As it is stated in the master thesis of Yıldız Tuncer Kılıç, who is a research assistant at Đstanbul University, a utopia of a unified social and individual life might be materialized. Yıldız Tuncer Kılıç describes the model of social life by means of a tree representation. The thought of a peaceful and progressive community is labelled as positive organicism that is embodied in a tree image, which itself stands as a representative of a whole society and feeds each of its leaves as representatives of its individuals.

“All matter everywhere is composed of particles, each of which has identical properties throughout the known universe. As far as we can tell from the light from the most distant galaxies, electrons there obey the same laws that they do in our laboratories on the earth. So, presumably, do the other particles. The laws of these elementary particles, supplemented by the laws of the cosmos, underlie all the laws of natural science-first those of physics, then those of chemistry, geology, biology, astronomy, and all the others. We humans are made up of these same particles. One would like to find a simple and unified description of these elementary building blocks, but so far that unification has eluded us.” (Gell-Mann, 1967: 3)

“Increasing individualization in this sense is a necessary product of modern advanced society, and runs through all its activities from top to bottom…The development of society and the development of the individual go hand in hand, and condition each other. Indeed what we mean by a complex or advanced society is a society in which the interdependence of individuals on one another has assumed advanced and complex forms.” (Carr, 1971: 32)

Society is accepted to be a contract between individuals in their social life. Moreover, the individual progress is thought to be based on social and historical developments and it is thought to improve together with the progress of society.

15 Therefore it is clear that the idea of an organic unity is achievable. The structure is established by its different elements, which have different functions; thus a whole structure is constructed. Different parts can move independently and can be composed to create a structure. The organizing principle of the components or in other words the idea of centralization is not something that should be considered to be frightening. The idea of centre doesn’t have to mean restriction or oppression. On the contrary, the relations between the elements of the structure might be considered as a mutual dependence.

“…it is the parts which constitute the whole and the system to emerge is therefore reliant upon its basic units, to interpret this concept through organic symbolism: without leaves the tree cannot photosynthesise, without roots it cannot maintain stability or obtain nutrients from the earth, and so on, - mutually beneficial and mutually subservient, in other words there exists an autonomous organization within the system.” (Kılıç, 2002: 6)

The postmodernist idea of decentralization leads to fragmentation. It claims power and knowledge to be the most basic elements of social relations. It is considered that social life is shaped through the central authority, which holds the power in its hand and oppresses or quietens the ex-centric living near borders. Individual relations are thought to be conditioned by this authority. In a relationship between a teacher and a student or a husband and a wife or a mother and a child etc, the one which is absent of power and knowledge is always silenced by the dominant one or the one who holds the knowledge. Decentralization is offered to escape from this centralized authority. Therefore, all the institutions that are thought to have a unified form are wished to be destroyed. Social relations might have been accepted to be based on power relations; yet, at that state, the ideological hegemony of the sovereign class and the unconsciousness of the large majority would have been forgotten. Social relations are thought to be based on some common rules. Even the relation between a mother and her child, or a male and a female, or a mother and a father etc. can be the representatives of the basic social structure. The common life is shaped through generalized individual habits. Raymond Williams stresses the wholeness of social life.

Where culture meant a state or habit of the mind, or the body of intellectual and moral activities, it means now, also, a whole way of life (my italics). This development, like each of the original meanings and the relations between them, is not accidental, but general and deeply significant. (Williams, 1976: 18)

16 The matter, which is disregarded in postmodernism, depends on the relations between society and individual related to the idea of freedom. According to Marxists, individuals are born to a whole social life, which is interrelated and interconnected to many different fields of life. In postmodernism ex-centrics are really given a chance to tell their own stories, to interpret life from their own perspectives, yet, it is to be questioned how much they might be free from social ties and borders, and how much they achieve to compose a free perspective of life. Marxism denominates that the human being is under the determination of materialist conditions. Therefore an individual cannot hope to have a free understanding of life. Human beings are defined by their conditions; thus similar conditions might cause different individuals to behave in the same way. Different individuals might have the same story, which is controlled by the dominant ideology. Emancipation from these conditions can be achievable through consciousness. If individuals become aware of their power of labour, which produces and reproduces life and which is the only power to intervene in and change nature, they might have an understanding of life free from the ideology of the system. Therefore the perspectives and comprehensions of ex-centrics might not be free from the dominant ideology of the dominant class. According to Marxists, real liberation from the system might be possible through politic consciousness. Despite the fact that postmodernism accepts materialist conditions to have significant influences on individuals, it still wishes these individuals to have a free understanding of life apart from the materialist conditions they live in.

Postmodernists object to the ideologies because of power and knowledge relations. Both capitalism and communism are thought to have the same origins of patriarchal relations, which are based on male-oriented power that holds the authority. While postmodernists are opposing the ideologies and systems, they stand on the same ground with capitalism. All the notions and structures of social life are being rejected and no alternative is being presented; thus there occurs no alteration and the chaos of capitalism goes the same. Also the ambiguous discourse of postmodernism or the postmodernist is equivalent to capitalist discourse. Each individual has her/his own liberty to do whatever s/he wants as long as they don’t come together to alter the course of events. Liberalization proceeds in direct

17 proportion with insulated singularity.

Both Marxism and postmodernism do endeavour to decentralize the capitalist system and its oppressive ideologies. Yet, while Marxism wishes to centralize the oppressed class’ ideology, accepts the material or the economic conditions of life to be real and the ideological manipulation of the bourgeoisie class as fictitious; on the other hand none of the ideologies is accepted to be the representative of truth by postmodernism since it is claimed to be impossible to answer what is real and what is fictitious. However postmodernism which rejects all ideologies becomes itself a central ideology like religion. Since religion is not a natural truth but a man-made one, and it always wishes people to believe in itself despite its inconsistency; postmodernism becomes a religion by rejecting all other ideologies attempting to take their places in the present age. While it endeavours to decentralize the oppressed individuals, it turns into an illusionary ideology of capitalism, which stands as a central power. Therefore postmodernism is to be questioned, too. While all the ideologies and life itself are perceived to be fictitious by the postmodernists then how it becomes possible to claim anything on ethnicity, discourse, language or etc.

Another reason why Marxism comes up against postmodernism in regards to decentralization, lies in the fact that while Marxism endeavours to collectivise the oppressed in order for them to fight against the exploiters; postmodernism endeavours to divide the collective structure of society amongst individuals. Postmodernism underlines diversities which damage the organized society. Consequently, small social groups or singular individuals cannot display a power which will influence and change history. Moreover these individuals are politically estranged to their collective class-consciousness. Therefore Marxism advises the oppressed classes to centralize and collectivise their power against the exploiters.

The idea of freedom is perceived by the postmodernists as an individual act of expressing one’s own. However it should be reinstated that unorganised power is not a real power. The unique stories of individuals do not bring freedom to anyone but cause a momentary satisfaction; yet as it is proved by history, organized societies always hold the power to change their destiny. Revolutions, liberation of a nation,

18 struggles of the oppressed people have all changed the way of history. As stated below, even for an individual’s right millions of individuals should come together.

Lenin believed:

“Politics begin where the masses are; not where there are thousands, but where there are millions that is where serious politics begin. Carlyle’s and Lenin’s millions were millions of individuals:” (Carr, 1971: 50)

Individuality gains importance and each individual is thought to have her/his own centre, all the bonds of social life are required to be cut in order to leave the fragments free from the central authority. Therefore, in a sense individuality is sublimed in postmodernism. On the other hand individuality is sublimed not only by the postmodern thought but also through the ideological apparatus of capitalism. Society and individuals are placed in a controversial relationship as if they were in continuous conflict. As opposed to this western concept of conflicted relations between the individuals and society; Marxism introduces this relation as components of a whole.

Capitalism sets its sights on individuals and affects millions individually. Individuals are thought to be frail on their own but might be dangerous when they are organized. Therefore, one of capitalism’s main aims is to deconstruct the whole and enter the lives of separate parts. Individuals mean the individual markets. Differences among the individuals are seen as the most significant and basic elements in life, yet it is ignored that millions of separate individuals cannot achieve a revolutionary break whereas millions of nameless individuals might have power to change their common future. An organized society is the strongest enemy of capitalism for the reason that they have all the power to change the historical process.

These nameless millions were individuals acting more or less unconsciously, together, and constituting a social force. The historian will not in ordinary circumstances need to take cognizance of a single discontented peasant or discontented village. But millions of discontented peasants in thousands of villages are a factor which no historian will ignore. (Carr, 1971: 50)

What Marxists put forward on centralization and decentralization results from the idea of equality. First of all, it should be accepted that human beings have not been living under equal circumstances and do not have equal opportunities to survive

19 in life. Individuals cannot be free without being equal. However capitalism promises a free world of free individuals without providing equal circumstances for each of the individuals. This is the point manipulated by capitalist ideology, due to the fact that what is introduced through capitalism is indeed a decentred society, isolating individuals from the centre. Globalised monopolies are formed by means of multicultural shapes. Therefore Eagleton suggests that merely through socialism human beings can achieve being free individuals. Since the circumstances of exploitation are exterminated through socialism, it becomes easier to realize one’s own individual autonomy. Individuals of a socialist society equally gain their freedom “through self-realization of others”. (Eagleton, 2003: 170)

Only a relationship of equality can create individual autonomy. It is not that there are two autonomous individuals who then enter into an equal relationship. Rather, it is the equality which allows them to be autonomous. Friendship frees you to be yourself. (Eagleton, 2003: 171)

For many years centralization has been cursed due to its implications on Soviet Russia. Centralization is claimed to be an element, which limits and restricts the freedom and is considered as being totalitarianism. However, indeed centralization is a way of organization which arranges the needs of society and individuals. It stands for the guarantee of the individuals’ equal rights, for social totality and for guaranteeing the equal opportunities and circumstances for everyone. Moreover, centralization is not something wicked as it is damned by postmodernism, but it is transformed into something cursed in the power of capitalism. For this reason a capitalist way of life can be identified through the power of money including patriarchal culture. The structure of centralization in Soviet Russia was well organized yet it was unable to win the ideological fight against the capitalist world. Capitalism manipulated the realities in Soviet Russia, which was the symbol of socialism. Today the same attitude is shown in Cuba and North Korea. Therefore centralization should be revived, ignoring the capitalist manipulation that causes a perception disease.

There is, however, a much deeper irony. At just the point that we have begun to think small, history has begun to act big. ‘Act locally, think globally’ has become a familiar leftist slogan; but we live in a world where the political right acts globally and the postmodern left thinks locally. (Eagleton, 2003: 72)

20 While the capital is being globalised the people are being decomposed. In the place of the USSR there were different disputed states. Since centralism is thought to be repressive all the states are localized whereas the money is globalised. The motto of privatisation means selling the public property to imperial exploiters. Through the postmodernist concept, the central state’s public property is sold to the de-centred, yet globalised imperial monopoly. Imperialism moves as if it is an octopus, which creates many centres through its arms. Therefore it can be seen that no such decentralization exists; only there is an imperial and multicultural exploitation of the oppressed classes. Decentralization is often used in order to divide social togetherness and the organized individuals, since capitalists wish to stand in the middle of the centre holding the authoritative power.

“The particularizing and contextualizing that characterize the postmodern focus are, of course, direct responses to those strong (and very common) totalizing and universalizing impulses.” (Hutcheon, 1996: 461)

Decentralization is suggested by postmodernists so that the oppressed attain a liberal position in comparison to totalitarianism. The new era of imperialism moves in a postmodern way. If the world’s political condition is analysed it can be clearly seen that imperialism has transformed into globalism; while for the imperialist minority the bounds are to be lifted for their own profits. On the other hand for the most that live in poverty boundaries are becoming more strict and thicker. The motto of lifting up the boundaries becomes easy and important for the money holders, whereas the others have to be kept in silence. It is impossible for the bourgeoisie to universalise ideologies such as equality, free speech, etc. on account of its hypocrisy. The mask of capitalism is that the more money you have the more liberal you are, and the poorer you become the more you are tied to the bonds of poverty. There is no equality for the poor since liberty and equality are in direct proportion with the money that is owned. Owing to postmodernism, western history is thought to be totalising and be based on imperialistic roots; by means of returning to past, totalised images are fragmented. Therefore all the parts are left to compose their own discourse and the totalised image of the past as well as the perspective and the narrative become pluralized.

21 However since postmodernism cannot stand on a terrain of coherent ideas, it becomes problematic to take sides with the ex-centrics. The fact the postmodernist discourse rejects all the ideologies; it takes sides with minority individuals and becomes contradictory to its own. Despite the fact that it doesn’t approve of systematized thoughts, it defends pluralism in a systematical way of thinking. Postmodernism is not coherent as a theory, yet it doesn’t consider coherence to be an important factor. Yet still postmodernism theory should be questioned on how to defend ex-centrics by rejecting all truths and ideologies.

Moreover, ex-centricism is also related to postmodern break out from centralism. Since it is put forward that authority and power is gathered in the centre; life near borders is thought to be oppressed or ignored by the authoritative power. Consequently, postmodernism moves away from the centre to the borders, towards the ex-centrics. It tries to give voice to ex-centrics and they are drawn to the centre to speak out their thoughts. It focuses on the border which contains each single, ignored identity, and; thus the authoritative centre is thought to be deconstructed and decentralized.

According to Marxists, the human being is admitted to be shaped by the ruling class specifically by the social institutions and ideological discourses of the ruling class. The political and social power of the ruling class, work through a discourse that is declared to be rooted in social institutions. The Patriarchal way of thinking, which is produced and re-produced throughout the historical process of social life, might be given as an example to the ruling class ideology. Patriarchal ideology has centred the male authority and has sublimed it through ideological apparatuses of the system such as religious doctrines. For example, through religion, male power is introduced to be a stable authority holding the godlike might. While the male- oriented view has been centred, on the other hand the religious dogmas have sublimed the male’s centred position. However, through the scientific progress such as Copernicus’ innovation in science, the belief in the centred male authority, the subliminal godlike existence of patriarchy has been changed into another comprehension of life based on mobile, equalized, pluralistic way of thinking.

22 “Historically, the Copernican revolution and the world of the telescope destroyed man’s confident view of the central importance of his personality. The next development, when and if-interstellar communication succeeds, may be even more destructive of man’s view of his own spirit.” (Greenstein, 1967: 15)

“The revolution in science of Copernicus and Galileo decentred man as the goal and hub of the solar system. Increased knowledge of the stars placed the sun as a modest body far from the heart of a system of a hundred billion stars. The physical unimportance of man is heightened by the probability that he exists by accident; we must not use our accidental existence as evidence that similar beings populate other worlds.” (Greenstein, 1967: 22)

There have been less-changes in gender roles related to religious doctrines. It is claimed that through scientific progress the belief in the centred male authority and the subliminal godlike existence of patriarchy has been changed into another comprehension of life based on a mobile, equalized, pluralistic way of thought. Religion has still been used as an instrument of male authority. Through Copernicus and Galileo’s innovations in scientific progress, the centred male authority is destroyed yet feudalism and then capitalism could manipulate the reality of men’s existence. For hundreds of years people are brought up by the religious dogmas, those of which show apparent difference but in fact have the same origins that are based on the central power of masculinity. The patriarchal authority is sublimed through godlike features and religious beliefs.

Despite the fact that the idea of relativity and subjectivity has been presented, the religious beliefs, patriarchal doctrines and a male-oriented society still have shown slight change. Throughout the social transformations, patriarchal authority could survive and save its ideologies up to this new stage of imperialism. Although capitalism is thought to be pluralistic, indeed it is not for the reason that it has been founded on the same old patriarchal doctrines. It secretes and centres the male- oriented ideology. Therefore, postmodernism suggests that females should break their silence against the hegemony of male-oriented system. Not only the women in gender relations but also all the oppressed groups or individuals are suggested to compose their own way of living and discourse. In postmodernism, atomised individuals are left to tell their own stories and thus decentralization is claimed to be put in the place of a central power. Through decentralization many stories are told by different individuals and the centre is shifted to ex-centric individuals. The centre is divided among the individuals and new plural centres are thought to appear.

23 Language changes according to gender, class and ethnicity. While stories are told, diversities between societies and individuals are taken into account. Men’s language and discourse differ from women’s, or the employer’s from the employee’s, the blacks’ from the whites’. Each of the social groups and even the individuals of those groups have their own discourse and implications in language. Postmodernists’ aim is to make those differentiations as excessive as possible, since the real chance to break all the ties from obedience is thought to be possible through keeping differences and being decomposed. Also language is thought to leave gaps, which are usually filled by the central powers or authorities. Since the gaps are filled by the dominant class’ own utterances and implications, the oppressed and the ex-centrics are never given a chance to create their own discourse. Therefore it is defended through postmodernism that the space must be filled by means of ex-centrics’ discourse.

In gender relations, because of the male-oriented outlook, woman writers are thought to be fewer than men and their works are seen as inferior. The idea that female writers are inferior to male writers is shaken by the critics who argue that feminist critics have to have new sets of criteria. However feminist scholars who rediscovered the suppressed, demolish these opinions. Feminist criticism is concerned with rediscovering female writings and re-reading literature with a woman’s outlook on life. Feminist criticism deals with the representations of woman in texts since the woman might be represented as a passive, dependent creature who has no sexual desire, or as a bad woman who is sexual and perceived as an object to be used by capitalist needs. However these are fixed roles that capture women not only in literary works but also in their realistic daily lives.

Writing as a woman can be problematic. It is questioned whether a woman writer can tell the stories of men. Is it possible for a woman writer to write, feeling free from restrictive patriarchal bounds? It is known that women are oppressed, inactivated and ignored by the patriarchy. They are thought to be either absent or secondary in the patriarchal order of language. Therefore will it be possible henceforth for a woman writer to constitute her own lexicon?

24 Postmodernism requires each minority group to constitute its own lexicon.

The idea of “woman-centred” literature has developed to stress on women’s writing about women. But this idea is also questioned, seeing the fact that it may present a kind of conventional conclusion such as marriage, women’s sexual development etc. But the feminist effort to expose new critical practice is concluded by what Elaine Showalter has named “gynocriticism” that is, a woman-centred critical practice. (Keith Green and Jill Lebihan, 2000: 238- 239)

The need for this kind of criticism is based on the idea that not only women’s works have been systematically ignored by male critics and academics, but they have also been systematically misread, or read according to the expectations and values of the wrong gender. The argument of “gynocritisism” is not only the fact that women write about different subjects to men, but they also read and criticise them differently. (Keith Green and Jill Lebihan, 2000: 239)

It is also suggested that women have to write in different forms and different genres so as to free themselves from the fixed male literary history and to revolutionize the traditional male-centred culture. In order to create a feminine discourse, many ideas are suggested. For example, ecriture feminine that can be translated as ‘women writing’ is a discourse about subjectivity, sexuality and language. Ecriture feminine accepts the physical differences between women and men. They claim that these differences influence their relations in terms of language. It suggests an alternative form of language in order to stress on differences.

Indeed, Derrida’s idea of “logo-centricity” leads to the idea of difference and pluralism. Centre in language is thought, as a governing notion that exists within the structure, but on the other hand, is itself beyond and outside the play of meanings. Centre both governs the structure and signifies a power outside the parts of the structure. It stands as an abstract power over the elements and their relations between each other. On this account, “logo-centricity” assumes a gap between surface and appearance and gains a transcendental meaning. Since the centre holds power and limits and shapes the relations of its elements, it is thought that in the absence of this

25 central power, meanings would be plural, or when the central power disappears, the play of “differences” can be multiplied. Differences are thought to be compulsory for pluralism. (Sim, 2001: 306)

Philosopher Derrida and Lacan, who is a psychoanalyst and philosopher, have influences on postmodernism and post-structuralism. The fore-stated discourse about pluralism is based on these two philosophers’ theories but their thoughts are also criticised and not accepted inertly and submissively. On the contrary ‘ecriture feminine’ theorists criticize their theories about women bitterly. Cultural theorist Helen Cixous, philosopher and psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray and feminist psychoanalyst, linguist and critic Julia Kristeva are important names connected with this discourse. Cixous underlines the hierarchical order of language and demonstrates the fact that what is feminine is represented only in the negative by the patriarchal order of language within a binary opposition. But the winners’ side is always the masculine.

“Activity / Passivity Sun / Moon Culture / Nature Day / Night Father / Mother Head / Heart Intelligible / Palpable Logos / Pathos (Cixous and Clément 1986 :115) …This hierarchical, fixed structure of winner-takes all is the characteristic of logo-centricism. The fact that the winning half of the duo of terms is always the masculine is evidence of phallo-centrism (and the combination of the two is referred to as phallogocentrism ). These terms relate to Lacinian psychoanalysis, in which the stability of the signifier is guaranteed by the phallus. The operation of language is organized at a metaphorical level by the phallus. The operation of language is organized at a metaphorical level by the phallus, and Cixous argues that therefore Woman is always excluded from this operation, as her relation to the phallus is always one of lack.” (Keith Green and Jill Lebihan, 2000: 244 - 245)

The thing Cixous stresses on is the “otherness” of the female, who is repressed by the fixed forms of phallo-gocentrisism, which is based on restrictive, fixed phallus. But on the other hand she criticizes the phallus as fixed, restrictive, and women are thought to be multiple. Women are thought to be pluralized through the act of giving birth. Kristeva rejects any identity of women and underlines the instability of subjectivity. In order to determine the terms or subjectivity she argues

26 that Lacan’s term, the symbolic, is the indication of phallo-centric language, whereas her own term the ‘semiotic’, indicates the ‘repressed, the feminine aspect of language’. (Keith Green and Jill Lebihan, 2000: 249)

“…Evidence of the semiotic can be witnessed in pre-Oedipal infants, and in non-rational discourses that are marginalized by the Symbolic order, such as the ravings of the hysteric, the work of avant-garde artists, this discourse of a psychotic or schizophrenic patient, and so on. Although all subjects go through the semiotic stage, this aspect is always present (like the unconscious is always present) - it is simply more evident in some people, or at certain times, than orders. Although the semiotic is representative of the repressed feminine side, it is present in both male and female subjects.” (Keith Green and Jill Lebihan, 2000: 249)

Since Lacan is a psychoanalyst, he tries to underline the subject through the function of unconsciousness and he underlines that the subject has to be produced in the field of “the Other”. He claims that unconsciousness is structured as language and he gives importance to the structure; yet he accepts that there are dynamics of unconsciousness that rise to the surface through sexual desires. He asserts that these dynamics are determined by the division between two fields called the subject and “the Other”. He claims that the subject has to appear through the locus of “the Other”. By stating that “in the psyche, there is nothing by which the subject may situate himself as a male or female being”. In a sense he pinpoints the fictiveness of the field of “the Other”. It is thought that being a female or a male is constituted through “the scenario” or the “drama” “which is placed in the field of “the Other”. Subjectivity is presented as something which will never be achieved by the subject. Subject is thought to be depending on the signifier which is produced in the field of “the Other”. The subject is thought to feel the real lack within the self. What the self lacks is signified in the field of “the Other”. Therefore the human being is thought to be in search of a completeness which will never be achieved. What exists is the reality which shows that the subject is always in need of searching the other part of it which is lost and whose reality comes with the lack. (Lacan, 1977: 203 - 229)

Despite the fact that language is also seen by the postmodernists as one of the significant materialist conditions influencing both society and individuals, it is still considered to be the representative of these gendered relations. Lacan claims that all infants are born into the ‘imaginary’ and the infant has no awareness of the physical boundaries of its body, up to the time he learns language. The infant first learns the

27 difference between absence and presence, than he recreates it in language. The infant upon entering the symbolic realm through the language, it immediately desires to return but it can never fulfil its desire. Women are also thought to be in the field of absence. Despite the fact that males are also accepted to be in the field of absence, it becomes easier for them to have a sense of presence since they have the phallus, whereas the females are defined to be in an infinite absence.

“Two lacks overlaps here. The first emerges from the central defect around which the dialectic of the advent of the subject to his own being in relation to the Other turns-by the fact that the subject depends on the signifier and that the signifier is first of all in the field of the Other. This lack takes up the other lack, which is the real, earlier lack, to be situated at the advent of the living being, that is to say, at sexed reproduction. The real lack is what the living being loses, that part of him qua living being, in reproducing himself through the way of sex. The lack is real because it relates to something real, namely that living being, by being subject to sex, has fallen under the blow of individual death.” (Lacan, 1977: 204 - 205)

Lacan’s perspective divides the field into two parts: one being the field of the subject; the other is the field of ‘the other’. While the subject tries to define itself, it might gain its meaning through the field of ‘the other’ which is thought to represent everything that it lacks. Therefore Lacan’s idea underlines that completeness or wholeness is not achievable. The field of the other is also claimed to be the field of lack. Lacan offers an account of the development of the subject, reading Freud’s account at the level of figural rather than the literal, on the level of the linguistic rather than the anatomical. He suggests that all subjectivity is based on loss, absence and failure. He calls the transition from the ‘imaginary’ to the ‘symbolic’ through the process of the ‘mirror stage’. (Keith Green and Jill LeBihan, 2000: 163)

According to Lacan, a woman is always excluded as being the representation of a hole, a vagina; whereas the male takes the position of the phallus. But the term phallus is different from the term penis (in Freudian terms) since it is a figurative form of the wholeness; phallus is accepted as a representation of the whole, the potency and the power. He claims that neither men nor women have the phallus so they both lack it and feel the absence of it. Everything is defined in its outside realm, so unconsciousness can be defined by means of its outside realm. Yet, according to Lacan women feel the absence of phallus much more than men do. Since the man has a penis, which might be seen as the representation of power and authority, he is

28 perceived to be closer to the realm of phallus, while women are totally thought to be in absence of the phallus. Therefore linguistically women are excluded.

The postmodern distrust in language stems from Lacan’s views. Postmodernism requires things to be identified though their outside realm. Hence, ideology, discourse and language are all thought to be shaped in gender relations that have an outside realm. Language is accepted as the representation of these gender relations. Henceforth the language and discourse of patriarchy are needed to be deconstructed in order to be purified from these gendered representations and in order to discover the outside realm of it.

Everything is thought to be language and ‘life’ is seen as a text and consequently can be deconstructed, however the idea of deconstruction has to be questioned because of the fact that its aim is similar to capitalism’s. Additionally, the aim of capitalism is to deconstruct. In order to reach markets freely, it has to deconstruct the strict state structure, sell the goods to millions of individuals by deconstructing the social structure. Capitalism moves by deconstructing and decentralizing social life.

If the signifiers should be left free then the idea of communication should be reconsidered. Language is deconstructed into signs and signifiers and is thought to be left free. Yet it must be underlined that signifiers or signs cannot be freed from their historical background. History binds each fragment. It might be also questioned how it is possible to communicate by means of separate fragments.

“Every human being at every stage of history or pre-history is born into a society and from his earliest years is moulded by that society. The language which he speaks is not an individual inheritance, but a social acquisition from the group in which he grows up. Both language and environment help to determine the character of his thought; his earliest ideas come to him from others. As has been well said, the individual apart from society would be both speechless and mindless.” (Carr, 1971: 31)

Haidar Eid designates that postmodernism is claimed to be constructed both socially and linguistically. If this is so, it must be accepted that the separation of parts or liberation from the central power is unachievable, since it would be impossible to become free from a socially and linguistically constructed reality. Then the idea of

29 liberation, which is underlined by postmodernism, must be handled. What is requested by means of liberation in postmodernism should be questioned.

Marxism accepts that women are oppressed by the male-oriented system, yet the contradictions between women and men are thought to be stemming from not gender relations but relations of production. Women are thought to be excluded basically from the relations of production by being kept in the house, and, as a consequence, they are excluded from history, language, culture, authority, etc. Therefore, women desire to have class-consciousness in order for them to understand the basic problems in human relations. Women are advised to struggle against the male oriented capitalist system in order to establish an equal system. Women have to struggle against not only the system but also the male-oriented ideologies.

Ethnicity is another decentred subject and is always taken into account through post-colonialism. Post-colonialism and postmodernism are interrelated since both approaches give importance to the silenced, exploited and ex-centric characters. Postcolonial literary theory is debated in the academies and is used to describe the whole period from colonization up to the present. The fact that the postcolonial approach deals with literary works written through and after colonization, economic and cultural relations between the imperialist and the colonized countries is interrogated within and through the text.

The post- colonial approach debates much about the characters and the authors. Throughout the post-colonial period literary texts gave voice to the silenced characters, whereas the problem arose when it is asked from whose standpoint the silenced culture has been given tongue to. On the other hand, the origin of the subject who has given a chance to the exploited, might be taking its roots from the imperialist culture. Thus it might be standing as a representative of the exploiters. Therefore it is asked through the post-colonial approach whether the native stories can be told by non-native writers or not.

‘The related debate in feminism is over whether one can read, or write, as a woman; the corresponding debate in terms of ethnicity is over whether white writers can accurately represent black characters in their work” (Keith Green and Jill LeBihan, 2000: 295)

30 Frantz Fanon denotes that the veil is there for the representation of the Algerian nation’s cultural liberation against the Europocentric viewpoint. It represents a new meaning which is given by the struggle of the Algerian women. Besides, the veil is also evaluated to be an instrument of camouflage providing free movement for the women. The French colonizers’ struggle to unveil the Algerian woman is represented as an aim paired off with violation, rape or an act of aggression. However, throughout the history, whatever the cause of veiling; whether it is cultural or traditional; it should be accepted that veiling has been used both as a means of oppression on women and as an instrument of patriarchal authority through which women are kept silent and inactive. As opposed to his denotation, Fanon also accepts that unveiling makes females more self-confident and liberal against the rules of the patriarchal system.

“The unveiled Algerian woman, who assumed an increasingly important place in revolutionary action, developed her personality, discovered the exalting realm of responsibility.” (Fanon, 1970: 89)

Postmodernism purports that problems emerge when understanding a foreign culture and that acceptance should be the means when understanding writings of a foreign culture. It is true that no new thoughts are presented, yet it is important since the acceptance of the ethnic problem does not seem to be the acceptance of passivity but it is a hopeful one based on sensitivity.

“The responsibilities of a white literary critic are to learn to listen in a new way, to shift paradigms and change critical approaches…Krupat argues that the understanding of one culture by another is always going to be imperfect, but he suggests that is not a reason for not developing appropriate critiques of texts by writers of another ethnic background, providing the limitations are recognized” (Keith Green and Jill LeBihan, 2000: 300)

In the article called “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’”, it is stated that the image of Africa is represented as ‘the other world’, the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization”. It is in fact the Europocentric outlook on other cultures. While the European cultures are seen to be the heart of civilization, the ex-centric cultures of the exploited regions, as it is in Africa or the Middle East, are introduced to be ‘the heart of darkness’. It is also true that through despising the minorities or some different identities; despised sides begin to compose a new culture. They begin to form the culture of the oppressed. As a reaction to the

31 European exploiter class’ attitude, the exploited classes establish a new culture which is based on hatred towards the outsiders. (Achebe, 1996: 262)

Foreignness of a culture is also represented as a frightening element. The ex- centrics are associated with beasts and they are also de-humanised and de- personalised. Therefore postmodernism strictly rejects this Euro-centric outlook and it aims at giving the chance to speak to the ex-centrics. Thus the stories are retold from the month of the repressed cultures or identities.

Postmodernism encourages that unspeakable thoughts can be arguable. All minorities such as; migrants, the disenfranchised, children, women, Negroes, workers, slaves, servants, natives, etc are all given a chance to tell their stories. Moreover the previous stories are retold from the perspective of the ex-centrics. The gaps are filled by the re-written texts. Postmodernism’s return to past is also associated with its desire to re-write the history from the mouth of the repressed minorities.

The East and West are thought to be contradictory. The East is seen as an enemy of the West. The West which is represented as the ‘soul’ is opposed to the east which is represented as the ‘body’, or the ‘reason’ to the ‘sense’, the ‘good’ to the ‘bad’, the ‘conscious’ to ‘subconscious’ etc. They are always placed in binary oppositions. As a result of this, while the positive features are placed together with the west, the negatives are thought to be the features of the east. Individuals are thought to have differences based on ‘classes’, ‘gender’, and ‘race’. They are identified with these differences. Identity is also another subject that is problematized by postmodernists. Identity is not the same as individuality, since individuality is a problematization of existence while the identity is the acceptance and demonstration of several social self-definitions. One’s gender, race or class might represent his/her identity, or in other words these are all the components of one’s identity.

“Postmodernism suggests that to discuss only class is to ignore other, perhaps even more basic differences: those of gender and race, in particular. This is one of the most important lessons of the postmodern re-evaluation of the ex-centric and the different.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 217)

32 Marxism assumes class distinctions as the source of other problems such as gender roles and racism. Postmodernism criticises Marxism since it is based on class distinctions. Marxism is considered a theory that ignores other problems. According to postmodernism, it is said that since there exists many different ex-centric individuals all the problems should be dealt with separately. Therefore, individuals are given a chance to express their own differences and views that are based on gender, racial, class or ethnic problems. Yet Marxism is not perceived sufficiently by the postmodernist theory. Marxism accepts all kinds of problems and none of the problems is ignored. Yet, it is considered that all problems have materialistic reasons which depend on the base structure. Therefore the problems are searched in order for their solutions to be found starting from class relations.

Since many different points of view of the ex-centrics are taken into consideration, focalisation gains importance, too. The structuralist term ‘focalizer’ is taken into account because of the fact that it refers to the narrator who shapes the story with his or her own point of view. The term is also used in postmodern lexicon. Postmodernism puts forward pluralistic focalisation. The focalizers are plural and thus their point of view might be represented in the same narrative. Below is another definition of focalisation and inter-textuality. According to Marxist literary and cultural critic Jameson, focalisation is not a redefinition of what is known as intertextuality however his explanation for focalisation seems to be the connotation of intertextuality. Therefore, focalisation might be thought as inter-textual gathering of the ex-centrics’ different point of view.

“Contemporary narrative theory, finally, with its operative distinction between the fable (the anecdote, the raw materials of the basic story) and the mise-en-scéne itself, the way in which those materials are told or staged; in other words, their focalization.” (Jameson, 1993: 87)

“What you get is what you see from where you stand.” (Brooker, 1992: 5)

One of the main aims of postmodernists is to see all the different screens at once, and then its credibility is measured. What difference does it make? What’s the importance of seeing all the screens simultaneously? Does such a viewing change anything for the lives presented on those screens? What is to be depicted here is the

33 impossibility of postmodernists encapsulating the lives of millions of individuals equally. Also postmodernism theory doesn’t accentuate equality but it highlights individual differences. Different individuals are placed in the centre and are given a chance to have the microphone. Hasn’t there been much told about Hitler who was evaluated as being an ex-centric character? Is there a limit for that ex-centricism?

A bourgeois epitomises a victim. He is described as a slave to the capitalist system who has nothing to enjoy in life. Therefore he is thought to be someone who is not able to enjoy living yet has to work hard for the capitalist production. Since the postmodernists are unaware of a capitalist individual’s life, their idea becomes a manipulation. Why postmodernism tries to legitimise the slavery position of capitalist minority while on the other hand millions of majority hardly survive. According to postmodernism the majority should give a voice to the capitalist who says “I too am a slave”. Yet the majority whose ideology is shaped and constituted by the capitalist minority is ignored. (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, 1983: 254)

“Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable.” As such, he shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser is a mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels.” (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guaattari, 1983: 254)

As it is stated above, it might be clearly seen that postmodernism might see the capitalist as an ex-centric. It is true that Marx accepts the capitalist as a subject who has a chance to choose between accepting and refusing the rules of the system through his/her consciousness. The capitalist has a role as a proletariat, one has to exploit while the other is being exploited and thus capitalists place themselves as exploiters. Yet, the system is governed or ruled by those capitalists for the benefits of their class. French philosopher Deleuze lacks acknowledgement of the human consciousness. You might be a capitalist but as long as you work for the benefits of the system, which is on the side of the bourgeois, there remains no ex-centricism. Deleuze distorts Marx’s perception of a capitalist. While Marx tries to see all the elements within the capitalist system, postmodernists abuse some fragments of Marx’s thoughts in order to deconstruct Marxism. Yet, as long as capitalism lives, the deconstruction of the Marxist thought will be useless.

34 As it is stated above, postmodernists especially stress on the importance of being margins or minorities. But on the other hand it is clear that as Eagleton considers that minorities to include neo-Nazis or today’s terrorist groups that kill many in a few minutes. Centralization is neither ideal nor it is thought to be equal. Moreover Eagleton also asks about those minorities of fascist or militarist groups. Does postmodernism ask for the rights of those minorities or whether these minorities may bring a new or an alternative structure of social life? According to Eagleton it should be determined for whom postmodernism means pluralism, and for whom not.

If the conditions of people in many of the countries in the world today are to be defined, it becomes impossible not to see that the majority of the people in the whole world are living in impoverishment, violence and incredible inhuman conditions while a mere minority live in luxury and peace. The minority of the world is also the rulers and whose stories have to be told or whose fictions have to be practiced. The fiction written for the practice of the majority is a whole, which has been divided in many fragments, and each of its parts has been thrown to distant corners. The role of being thrown or left aside is fictionalised for the benefits of the minority and what can damage this vision are the unified fragments of a whole demanding for their right to practice the role of the fictionaliser. Briefly the picture of social life drawn by the postmodernists can be seen as an illusion by the Marxists.

Marx defines a class-based society grown out of a distance between the ‘appearance’ and the ‘real’. In a sense Derrida might be trying to re-define the relation between the ‘appearance’ and the ‘real’ in a historical sense; however Marx’s definition is so clear we are able to understand the capitalist movement. Whether the world order is called imperialism, late capitalism, globalism, etc. or not, it is certain that basic relations are based on inequality in the process of production and that wealth is produced by the majority of the world for the minority. Therefore it is the surplus value which is always hidden for the benefits of capitalists.

35 Apparently, equality and freedom are presented to be achievable, but it is the false consciousness of the bourgeois class since it is impossible to be equal and free without having equal shares in the process of production.

“What seems to me essential is to recognise in the great man an outstanding individual who is at once a product and an agent of the historical process, at once the representative and the creator of social forces which change the shape of the world and the thoughts of men.” (Carr, 1971: 55 )

Postmodern comprehension of life criticizes that all ideologies, roles, beliefs, understandings, views and thoughts are fictitious and hence it suggests that individuals and life must be evacuated from these meanings. Therefore all these notions are left and individuals are bowdlerized or purified from their social ties. Eagleton also underlines that postmodernism brings the idea of purification from historical memory. Eagleton’s idea is in accordance with this study since he states that concepts and ideologies are so emptied and flattened that there is nothing left to be alienated in postmodernism. In the “Politics of Amnesia” in After Theory , Eagleton states that through depolitization, people are decentred from political authority. The historical consciousness of society is destroyed. Postmodernists consciously aim to escape from meaning and all social ties.

“…one can easily study a country’s schools. But without this country’s history and economy, studying its school system is abstract, it has no value.” (Lukács, 1989: 217)

“The separate sciences are no longer capable of understanding society as a unitary whole; they become instruments of mystification.” (Lukács, 1989: 208)

Marxism also accepts the differences between cultures, societies and individuals, and it shows a way for their common future. Since the economic structure is thought to be the ultimate ground of all other inequalities, a class-based approach is defended on a large scale. The social roles, conditions and culture are all under the determination of economic structure. One of the most important revolutionary Marxists, Lenin, claimed and proved that nationalism is an important ideology for the exploited people of a country in order for them to break their ties with the imperialists. For an equal society, a fight should be continued first against the bourgeois classes of the imperialist countries. Therefore, in the name of patriotism, all the oppressed classes of the national countries are advised to struggle

36 against capitalism. The Marxist idea of national liberation is not based on racism but patriotism which does not ignore sisterhood or brotherhood of the individuals.

As Kevin Anderson argues, “Lenin’s theory of imperialism has become dialectical in the sense of pointing not only the economic side of imperialism but also to a new revolutionary subject arising from within global imperialism: national liberation movements” (1995:142). Unless we can improve on Lenin’s theory of national liberation with its processual or dialectical materialist method, we will only be indulging in postcolonial verbal magic and vertiginous topology that seems to be infinitely reproduced by a delirious “otherness machine”(Appiah 1991:356).

In Franco Ferrarotti’s conversation with George Lukács, who is one of the important Marxist philosophers, it is stated insistently by Lukács that Marxism is the most essential theory that would enable us to comprehend capitalism as a whole. As opposed to postmodernism, Marxism evaluates all the fragments, all the ex-centrics under its overall theory. It is also underlined by Lukács that the world history can not be thought discontinuous or fragmented. Lukács’ Marxist interpretation of capitalism stands as a system which ‘conditions all aspects of life.’ Therefore nothing appears itself and no subject can be thought regardless of capitalism. All sciences and all subjects are defined and separated; yet they become meaningless when they are defined separately without any connection to each other. Lukács’ holistic view is opposed to postmodern conception depending on decomposition of all subjects. ‘Understanding society as a unitary whole’ is accepted to be the primary aim of Marxists whereas postmodernists’ aim is to break it into pieces. (Lukács, 1989: 208- 209)

37 2 HISTORY

Marx states that history is shaped and composed by the struggle between classes. The first historical act of man is the production of the means of life which enables man to produce more than his/her needs. Since the means of life are owned by the upper class, the surplus production is impounded by the upper class and thus prosperity can be realized just for the executive class prosperity. Besides, since the base structure means the structure of class relations, according to these relations the upper class gains strength on all means and structures of life and all ideological apparatuses. Consequently, social relations and institutions or structures such as government, justice and family, are all shaped and changed according to this base structure of society. Formerly the most important means of life were the land, wedge, dagger, arrow, arc or some tools to bring land into cultivation. Even the human being was used as a means of life through slavery. The owners of the slaves were the rulers and the moral, cultural, ideological teachings were the teachings of the dominant class. Therefore Marx evaluates history as a whole which continues according to these materialist conditions. These are the fundamental elements of life. History cannot be broken into pieces. Nothing has a special, separate history itself; basically everything can be explained according to these relations of production which means historical relations.

Yet, Marxism is rejected by Postmodernism. Since Marxism is a theory of generalization, it is thought to be a grand narrative by the postmodernists. Postmodernism claims that there cannot be a grand-narrative for different individuals, therefore each of the individuals is thought to have their own relative truth, and thus Marxism, as it is thought to be a grand-narrative, is rejected. Postmodernism aims to question everything without answering. It is there just to deconstruct, and no alternative or solution is presented. Everything is claimed to have its own separate histories. The history of madness, the history of women, the history of slavery, etc.; all these subjects are claimed to be historicised. Yet, the idea, which is presented as historicism, is in fact the rejection of history; since the

38 historical and social ties of the subject, which are claimed to be historicized, are cut indeed. Marxism underlines that there cannot be the history of matters whereas the matters can be told in history; such as madness in history, women in history, slavery in history.

Postmodernism introduces ‘New Historicism’ as an alternative way of evaluating history. New Historicism depicts that there is no difference between history and literature since they are both told or narrated through subjective consciousness. Both historical and literary elements might be shaped relatively by different subjects. Hence, postmodernism alleges history, which is thought to be narrated through subjective consciousness, and literature as textual, fictitious and illusionary. Therefore historical text is evaluated to be a kind of literary text, whereas literary text is presented to be the same as historical text.

However, the idea of ‘New Historicism’ cannot be acceptable by Marxism. It might be true that both of the genres are fictitious and subjective, yet this is not enough to make a similar identification between both genres. According to Marxism, history is evaluated to be told by the upper class’ ideology and thus what are presented to be historical facts are in fact the representatives of the choices of the upper class. Yet for the Marxists, an objective history might not be developed up to the establishment of communism, and until that time history should be re-evaluated from the perspectives of the oppressed classes in a revolutionary way. Since it is thought that the human being has enough potency to change its life, it might change its historical relations of production, too. It is defended that as long as human beings live in unequal conditions, and as long as they are exploited by the upper class, the idea of objectivity cannot be achieved in history. In order to achieve objectivity, there should be the existence of equality. While some are exploited and oppressed within the relations of production through ideology and all the ideological apparatuses of the upper class, the others should endeavour to change these relations in order to establish a society in which production is shared equally and each of the individuals has equal rights and opportunities. Therefore it is suggested that since history cannot be told in an objective way up to the communist era, it should be told

39 from the subjective perspective of the oppressed classes in a revolutionary way. On the other hand literature is evaluated to be a different artful genre within the Marxist outlook. Literature should be constituted in a creative and revolutionary way by the artist’s unique perception of life. Yet in this study it should be stated that a literary text is a unique and creative unification of form and content. Literature might be consisted of revolutionary elements or it might be the wishful thinking of Marxism, yet it should be accepted within the content of this study that literature is basically ‘a form of protest’. Besides it can be evaluated according to aesthetic terms and norms and artful elements or items. Therefore literature and history cannot be evaluated as the same.

2.1 History of Postmodernism

Postmodernism defines itself at many different levels. Actually the Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto Linda Hutcheon states that the origins of postmodernism might be told in many ways.

“…postmodernism is a contradictory phenomenon, one that uses and abuses, installs and then subverts, the very concepts it challenges- be it in architecture, literature, painting, sculpture, film, video, dance, TV, music, philosophy, aesthetic theory, psychoanalysis, linguistics, or historiography. These are some of the realms from which my “theorizing” will proceed, and my examples will always be specific, because what I want to avoid are those polemical generalizations-often by those inimical to postmodernism: Jameson (1984a), Eagleton (1985), Newman (1985) - that leave us guessing about just what it is that is being called postmodernist, though never in doubt as to its undesirability. Some assume a generally accepted “tacit definition” (Caramello 1983); others locate the beast by temporal (after 1945? 1968? 1970? 1980?) or economic signposting (late capitalism). But in as pluralist and fragmented a culture as that of the western world today, such designations are not terribly useful if they intend to generalize about all the vagaries of our culture.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 3-4)

However Linda Hutcheon alleges that many postmodern thinkers of the 1980’s were ideologically formed beginning from the 1960s. Those years are thought to be the years of ‘questioning and challenging’ according to Hutcheon. Institutions, social life, knowledge etc. all concepts are questioned. The 1960s were also the years when both left thought was strong and it was started to be questioned. People were all politicised. A revolution was being waited yet it could not be achieved. Thus the political side of this movement was manipulated by the capitalist ideology. Postmodern questioning went hand in hand with capitalism by not only questioning left thought and ideology but also escaping from or ignoring it.

40 “What would be the likely reaction of the political left to such a defeat?

Many, no doubt, would drift either cynically or sincerely to the right, regretting their earlier views as infantile idealism. Others would keep the faith out of habit or nostalgia, clinging anxiously to an imaginary identity and risking the neurosis which this is likely to bring in its wake. There are, after all, those devotees for whom nothing whatsoever could count as a falsification of their belief -” (Eagleton, 1996: 1-2)

According to Eagleton postmodernism began with the defeat of left thought in policy. The collapse of the Soviet Union has been understood to be the strength of capitalism and Marxism has been thought to be insufficient to examine social, political and economic relations. It is true that the left in Europe could not pull itself upright after such a defeat. The period could not be re-evaluated in common sense. Furthermore the defeat of the left has been perceived as a kind of paranoia among the left thinkers as if there must be something wrong with the socialist ideals. Therefore, by turning back to the Marxist ideas they begin to criticize left thoughts. The result of this defeat was a reaction against left thought which is believed and introduced by these reactionary thinkers whose thoughts composed postmodernism. Eagleton states that many thinkers drifted to the right after the defeat of the left thought, or took shelter in illusionary concepts. Also the rejection and destruction of grand-narratives are both presented and understood to involve the rejection of Marxism. Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida are all characterized by right thoughts of capitalism. Wallerstein who identifies himself as an anti-communist is given ear to and overrated; yet Eagleton has been the most important of all since he could stand keeping a step away from this panorama. He could preserve the Marxist way of outlook. Since most of the thinkers in Europe lost their independence from capitalism, their thoughts became consistent with capitalism. Therefore Marxism should be stated as one of the most important views and alternative theories to evaluate life.

“Julia Kristeva and the Tel Quel group turned to religious mysticism and a celebration of the American way of life. Post-structuralist pluralism now seemed best exemplified not by the Chinese cultural revolution but by the North American supermarket. Roland Barthes shifted from politics to pleasure. Jean-François Lyotard turned his attention to intergalactic travel and supported the right-wing Giscard in the French presidential elections. Michael Foucault renounced all aspirations to a new social order. If Louis Althusser rewrote Marxism from the inside, he opened a door in doing so through which many of his disciples would shuffle out of it altogether.” (Eagleton, 2003: 37)

The quotation above demonstrates the panorama of postmodernism in the world. It is clear that postmodern questioning of life drifts the thinkers to advocate

41 capitalism or depoliticization which stems from the ideological hegemony of capitalism. Mysticism, supporting the right-wing and consumerism are all in accordance with capitalism. Through these theories capitalism has been being legitimised. Mysticism, obscurity, rejection of the rational thought, acceptance of irrationality, and consumerism, which is a capitalist way of life are all defended in the name of pluralism. Yet, it should be stated that if a theory is not founded on socialist ideology, it is enclosed by capitalism. While depoliticization is being legitimised through the ways as they are stated within the quotation above, as a result, capitalism gains strength. The process of depolitization is in favour of capitalism; and thus it turns into a political process.

Haidar Eid is one of those who accept (post)modernism as basically a critical continuation of Modernism. Therefore he uses the term by putting the word ‘post’ in parenthesis in order to designate the (post)modern continuation or transformation of modernism. He states that postmodernism is based on the problematization of the modern theories, grand-narratives; besides it is the end of reason and rationality, what is promoted as social projects by the Enlightenment is also rejected by postmodernism theory. Some evaluate postmodernism as a break from modernism; however Haidar Eid thinks that one should evaluate postmodernism with a historical perspective. Eid claims that postmodernity has some distinctive features with modernism. It might be seen as the continuation of modernism after the 2nd World War; yet this continuation is seen as a periodical continuation of capitalism. Since the conditions of the world have changed after the 2nd World War, there have been changes in the previous thoughts, too. He states that through the 1960s anti- intellectualism has dominated over the modernist movement by means of popular- mass culture. Consequently the Enlightenment project has declined. Art and social values are turned into means of consumption. They are turned into commodities that can be bought and sold. Modernism has an aim to interfere in life quarrels through theories and discourses. Innovations of the capitalist world are formed by the modern theories. It is introduced as a kind of enlightenment project. Yet, multinational capitalism changed the form of the mono-capitalist period. Multinational capitalism needs a form of multicultural society in order for it to enter into markets.

42 Modernism is evaluated to be elitists and universal. Therefore it is rejected, and pluralism and differences are defended.

“Modernization was now all but complete, obliterating the last vestiges not only of pre- capitalist social forms, but every intact natural hinterland, of space or experience, that had sustained or survived them.

In a universe thus abluted of nature, culture has necessarily expanded to the point where it has become virtually coextensive with the economy itself, not merely as the symptomatic basis of some of the largest industries in the world … Culture in this sense, as the inescapable tissue of life under late capitalism, is now our second nature.” (Anderson, 2002: 55)

Perry Anderson and Jameson’s thought on history of postmodernism is similar to Peter Brooker’s view. They both accept postmodernism as a continuation of modernism. Yet, while Anderson and Jameson are relying on the relation between the economic bases of society and its culture; on the other hand, Peter Brooker demonstrates the ideological and complementary relations between modernism and postmodernism. According to Professor of Modern Literature and Culture Peter Brooker, postmodernism and modernism cannot be thought unrelated to each other and outside history. He claims that since there cannot be a historical break, theories or ideologies cannot be separated. Postmodernism might include some features of modernism. History comprises everything in a way of transitivity. In Modernism/Postmodernism , Peter Brooker quotes in his introduction a scheme from postmodernists Ihab Hassan (V. APX - 1). Despite the fact that postmodernism is against binary oppositions, this scheme might be evaluated to be the signification of the binary oppositions between modernism and postmodernism. Both of these theories are often thought to be opposed to each other; yet, there are some critics like Brooker who comments that postmodernism is in relation to modernism. They both have to be thought together since there is no “absolute historical break” between them. Therefore the professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Ihab Hassan’s scheme cannot be accepted as having been consisted of binary oppositions, yet of a reciprocal relationship. (Brooker, 1992: 4)

43 “My argument is initially that there are postmodernisms as well as modernisms, that between them there is the dialogic traffic of collage and argument, the building and unbuilding of orthodoxies. There is no absolute singular cultural entity or absolute historical break, therefore, and no absolute inside or outside part from the ideological constructions requiring them.” (Brooker, 1992: 4)

Professor of History and Sociology Perry Anderson, who also points to the postmodern continuation of modernist thought, continues by stating two important historical developments which have great influence on postmodernism from a postcolonial perspective. He attempts to link the rise of postmodernism with the rise of “intelligentsias outside the West to master the secrets of modernity and turn them against the West.” On the other hand for Marxists’, the contradictions existing in life do not stem from the postulated contradictions between different cultures. On the contrary, they stem from class struggles, moreover, the contradiction between the East and the West occurs as a result of the class struggles, too. Humiliation of the East stems from the Western imperialist exploiters. The West, which is developed through the exploitation of the East, has a despising outlook on the East and any other exploited countries outside Europe. Those countries, which are impoverished by means of Western exploitation, may have the intelligentsias who have a reaction against the Western culture. (Anderson, 2002: 5,6).

It is acceptable that there is a historical relationship between modernism and postmodernism. After the 1st World War, people of the world were enduring their losses, yet the establishment of the Soviet Union was standing as the last hope of humanity as if it was the one in Pandora’s box. It was the revolution for a hopeful feature, yet capitalism went on its attack against the most important socialist country of the world. Socialism was being debated and needed to be developed. During this period capitalism was shaped by means of the nationalist bourgeois of the countries. All these countries are gathered under NATO against the socialist block. The existence of a socialist country was so concrete and real that modernism often had to present an alternative social form and had to be constructive not deconstructive. The hate and fear of a socialist world gave a birth to Hitler and his fascist followers. As a result the child of the capitalist world made an attack on the Socialist World. The 2nd World War was terrible for both sides, yet its results were also horrible. The Soviet Union won the war on the battlefield and fascism had to come to an end. Yet, after

44 the war, since the capitalist block understood that socialism cannot be beaten through wars, it began to spread an ideological war. After the Paris Commune, the 2 nd experience of humanity, the socialist block lost the ideological war since it could not produce an insistent and consistent policy and it could not politicise its own societies; thus the collapse became inevitable. Capitalism had been transformed into a multicultural form in order for it to be more powerful and to enter many more countries than ever. After the 2nd World War, the process of struggle between the socialist block and the capitalist world had shaped postmodern thoughts which won superiority over the socialist ones. Therefore it might be put forward that because of the transformation of the world’s conditions, modernism has been transformed into postmodernism or altered by postmodernism

2.2 Postmodern Outlook on History

History is interpreted differently in different periods. The question of “What is History?” is contended to be replied by various views, because of the fact that each period interprets the question of history according to its own universal doctrines, truths, and values. On this account the idea of objectivity in history becomes blurred. Consequently the act of interpreting underlines subjectivity in history, and subjectivity gains importance.

“The nineteenth century was a great age for facts. ‘What I want’, said Mr. Gradgrind in Hard Times , ‘is Facts…. Facts alone are wanted in life.’ Nineteenth-century historians on the whole agreed with him. When Ranke in the 1830s, in legitimate protest against moralizing history, remarked that the task of the historian was ‘simply to show how it really was ( wie es eigentlich gewesen )’, this not very profound aphorism had an astonishing success. Three generations of German, British, and even French historians marched into battle intoning the magic words ‘ Wie es eigentlich gewesen ’ like an incantation-designed, like most incantations, to save them from the tiresome obligation to think for themselves.” (Carr, 1971: 8-9)

These lines are carried on by the Positivists’, Empiricists’, etc. outlook on the question ‘What is history?’ All these perspectives have a different outlook on history, they interpret history from the point they stand. Therefore all the theories are accepted to be subjective by the postmodernists. There is no objectivity within any of these thoughts, since the meaning of any signification might change from one to another. From all these perspectives, history is interpreted in a different way. Therefore it can be predicted that all theories are subjective. The meaning of what is

45 called ‘fact’ might change from someone to someone else. Moreover the idea of subjectivity and subjective history are defended through postmodernism. According to postmodernism there is no objectivity in life, everything is relative and thus history isn’t thought to be objective. According to postmodernism, history is subjective, fictitious, unreliable, discontinuous and textual and hence literary. It is told and retold by social authorities. Both history and all kinds of stories are written by the dominant characters that defend the dominant discourse and ideology. Therefore, postmodernism tries to rewrite history according to the silenced characters or cultures by deconstructing the written history. Postmodernism defends that future is unpredictable or people cannot form an opinion about future and hence a dead end is presented by postmodernism. The only alternative is presented as looking at, and investigating the past. Postmodernism is not evaluated to be nostalgic in this study, but on the other hand its aim cannot be claimed to be futuristic. The postmodern progress is limited within the bounds of the past. It returns to the past, draws its area and then tries to tell its story within its walls isolated from the bonds of historical totality. Therefore the notion of progress is lost while the past is being traced. Its ultimate aim is to question and to problematize what has been produced without offering a solution or finding an answer. All relations occurred in the past are problematized according to the concept of subjectivity, racism, feminism, culture etc. By questioning these relations, it scrambles to proceed in history.

Yet rewriting history cannot be introduced as an alternative way to show what has passed, because the silenced characters might be under the influence of the dominant ideology and therefore they might be repeating the history which was written by the authorities. The same situation might be told from many perspectives yet none of the interpretations might be sufficient to analyse what has happened. Moreover Ran Greenstein, who is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of the Witwatersrand, objects the thought and underlines that “histories from below are written from above.” For this reason the postmodern way of rewriting history cannot be seen as a reliable way. The most reliable way might be the one which is exhibited by one of the British historians Carr. (Greenstein, 2000: 231)

46 The second question asked by Prof. Carr is “What is a historical fact?” Carr approves one of Pirandello’s characters who claims ‘a fact’ to be ‘a sack’ that has to be filled. This idea must be taken seriously since it underlines the relativity of what has been presented as historical facts. It demonstrates that what is called ‘fact’ is in fact the choices of the historian. There is always someone to decide what a fact is, and what has to be chosen. History is what has passed from the moment we exist; therefore all the passed events can be presented to be historical facts. However while some of these facts are not evaluated to be historical facts on the other hand they are also left in oblivion. Some of the events are selected by the historians and broached as facts; as a result of this, it must be depicted that what is presented as facts are in fact the choices of others and they aren’t brought to us in their pure forms. The reality of the present makes it impossible to attain the pure events since the historian has to evaluate the past from the time he is in. (Carr, 1971: 11 )

“The fact that you arrived in this building half an hour ago on foot, or on a bicycle, or in a car, is just a fact about the past as the fact that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But it will probably called science ‘a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality’.” (Carr, 1971: 11-12)

Carr presents an “imaginative understanding” that might facilitate the evaluation of the past events. As opposed to postmodernist understanding of history, Carr’s views might be presented as an alternative way to analyse the past. The historian is suggested to have an understanding of the mind and the comprehension of the period s/he is interested in. Also, despite the relativity of the historical facts, objectivity in history is still presented to be achievable. Since history is seen as a process, the equal relation between the historian and her/his facts provides objectivity. The historian is not thought to be a slave of his facts; yet, he cannot be accepted as the master of them. This relation is defined as a relation of ‘give-and- take’ by Carr; facts are still seen as the historian’s roots which have to be shaped in a reciprocal relationship. A historian is asserted to reach an objective understanding of the past by means of keeping a distance from the period s/he is interested in. Besides, Carr explains history as ‘a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.’ (Carr, 1971: 29-30)

47 “The historian starts with a provisional selection of facts, and a provisional interpretation in the light of which that selection has been made-by others as well as by himself. As he works, both the interpretation and the selection and ordering of facts undergo subtle and perhaps partly unconscious changes, through the reciprocal action of one or the other. And this reciprocal action also involves reciprocity between present and past, since the historian is part of the present and the facts belong to the past. The historian and the facts of history are necessary to one another. The historian without his facts is rootless and futile; the facts without their historian are dead and meaningless. My first answer therefore to the question ‘What is history?’ is that it is continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.” (Carr, 1971: 29, 30)

It is unacceptable for Marxists, too, to evaluate history as discontinuous. Marxists idea delineates history in relation of cause and effect and draws its ongoing line; consequently history is never thought to be haphazard as it is seen in the postmodern mind. The sense of change in history is thought to be the progressive factor and reason is approved as “our guide for the understanding of” the “complexities” in history. (Carr, 1971: 153)

“But if history really were wholly random and discontinuous, how would we account for this strangely persistent continuity? ... Why would it not be occasionally punctuated with episodes of peace and love? ... On the contrary, the political record of human kind has been appalling. From the moment they emerged upon the earth, human beings have systematically injured, plundered and enslaved one another.” (Eagleton, 1996: 51, 52)

Postmodernism tries to express historical experience as if it were the result of some psychological, sexual or ethnic reasons. Yet it should be stated that if psychological, sexual, or ethnic relations are evaluated without considering the relations of production, its inferences would be random since the base structure is determinant over all the other concepts. For the Marxists, history is asserted to be “what we are made of” while the postmodern mind accepts the historical process as being random. Eagleton criticises such postmodern aims. Eagleton pinpoints the postmodern perception of history based on fortuitous events. For example, the madness of a king or a governor would be evaluated to be the reason of a nation’s collapse, however according to Marxist terms, no evaluation can be made without researching its economic, political relations. (Eagleton, 1996: 46)

48 2.3 New Historicism

“1.There are two meanings of the word ‘history’: (a) ‘the events of the past’ and (b) ‘telling a story about the events of the past’. Poststructuralist thought makes it clear that history is always ‘narrated’…

2. Historical periods are no longer conceived as unified entities. There is no single ‘history’, only discontinuous and contradictory ‘histories’...

3. Historians can no longer claim that their study of the past is detached and objective. We can never transcend our own historical situation…

4. The relation between literature and history must be rethought. There is no stable and fixed ‘history’ which can be treated as the ‘background ‘ against which literature can be fore grounded…” (Selden, 1989: 95)

The postmodern outlook on history, which is called New Historicism’, might be seen as a radical change in the traditional positivist comprehension of history which accepts history to be consisted of facts; yet, in postmodernism, history is accepted as a process formed by social, psychological, politic, economic, etc. relations which are based on relative perceptions of different individuals. Therefore it is thought that what is told as history is essentially the story of a relative perception of a historical process which is selected and might be told in many different ways by many different individuals; and thus, through postmodernism, boundaries between history and literature disappear and both of them are evaluated and interpreted to be the same. Postmodernist thought has brought the idea that there is a relationship between literature and history since both of them depend on selective facts and relative perception of what has been experienced. The idea of New Historicism has been formed by Michael Foucault who is a philosopher, historian and cultural critic; and by literary critic Greenblatt’s thoughts that are influenced by Tillyard who is a critic, a historian and the first to enounce the idea of history and literature’s affinity.

Foucault’s claims on history are not based on ‘the presumption of truth’ but on ‘the suspicion of truth’. He does not accept any definition of truth because of the idea that there cannot be a unified, coherent and truthful history; thus it is accepted that historical truth is based on the relative perception of life which is partial and unstable and come in to existence by contingent events. In addition to Foucault’s argument, Greenblatt opposes the idea based on a comprehension of historical truth as represented in literature is no more seen as a homogeneous whole and defends it as

49 fractured, subjective and textual. Both Foucault and Greenbelt have made a definition of historical truth which is based on relative perception of fractures in the historical process. Because of the fact that their thoughts on historical truth depend on the idea that history is a selection of subjective stories, a connection between history and literature is created. Besides, since literature is no more seen to be timeless, general or central but transient, particular and marginal, it is thought to be akin to what is presented to be historical. Consequently both history and literature are thought to be consisted of selected and fragmented stories.

History is told through written documents and written documents are accepted as facts. Since the events of history are told by textuality, it is thought to be akin to literature. Textuality is described to be consisted of interpretative, fictitious, written fragments. Therefore, postmodernism endeavours to textualize history. Both historical and literary texts are interpreted since they are evaluated to be formed in a fictitious way. The idea of a social text gains importance. As it is fore-stated, history and historical truth are thought to be based on subjective interpretation. For this reason it is stated that historical background could be renamed under the title of social text. Historical events are seen as social texts whose validity depends on individual perception. Historical background of an event or an individual or etc. is evaluated to be the social text of that thing.

“…History is not made obsolete: it is, however, being rethought - as a human construct. And in arguing that history does not exist except as text, it does not stupidly and “gleefully” deny that the past existed, but only that its accessibility to us now is entirely conditioned by textuality… Even the institutions of the past, its social structures and practices, could be seen, in one sense, as social texts.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 16)

History is seen to be consisted of historical stories that are selected by the dominant social group and that are written and told through that social group’s discourse. As historian Carr states, history is told through a selection and interpretation of facts. Besides, since the act of selection means that there should be someone to do the selection, subjectivity once more crosses our path. The one who selects which facts will be told or written takes the subject position; and as a result of this, the idea that there can be an objective history becomes unacceptable. Because of the fact that the selection is done by a group of people who are usually the members

50 of the dominant class, history is told and shaped through ideologies of that dominant class. Therefore postmodernists have an aim to tell the untold or fragmented history of ex-centrics. History is seen as a grand-narrative which is shaped by the dominant social class and thus the fragmented stories of the oppressed are thought to be untold and not told.

According to Linda Hutcheon, Postmodernism comprises a theory of “historiographic metafiction” that means an incorporation of ‘literature, history and theory.’ (Hutcheon, 1992: 5) All these three domains are thought to be human-made: in other word fictitious; thence borders that are thought to exist between genres become indistinct. History is no longer accepted as it is defined by Mr. Gradgrind in Charles Dickens’ Hard Times, ‘Now, what I want is, Facts’ (Dickens, 1). The quotation demonstrates that the conceptualisation of history and life was once taken as stable, harsh and real; but the postmodern era has brought an innovation at its utmost limit. What was once interpreted as facts, are dismissed by postmodernism as subjective and artificial construct. This radical innovation is defined to be “historiography” which means “the story of social meaning” that is “historically constituted.” Historiography might be summarized as the literary form of a social and historical background. (Hutcheon, 1992: 15)

Moreover, historiography might be put forward as the recent names of materialist history. The idea of ‘social meaning’ might be accepted in Marxist terms since what is expressed by postmodern sense of “social meaning” is very similar to Eagleton’s or Marxists’ idea of “materialist history”. Both terms are used to express the interrelation of individual, psychological (or internal) process with social, cultural, political, economic (or external) conditions. Yet, while the materialist history is told in a realistic way and accepted as a thought, which represents the real forms of social relations, postmodernism aims to underline the literariness of these relations. All materialist history or any comprehension of history is thought to be fictitious. Also postmodernism does not aim to exhibit any of these materialist conditions, it just aims to pinpoint that history is told in a literary way. (Hutcheon, 1992: 15)

51 Linda Hutcheon states that there is no difference between history and fiction; what is presented as facts are somehow or other accepted to be fictive. Both of them are thought to be consisted of language. Both fiction and history are constructed by means of selected facts. The existence of the past is accepted yet it is claimed to be known only through its textual elements. While Hutcheon accepts that there is not a resolution of contradictions, on the other hand she still assumes the existence of the past and the knowledge of truth to be challenged through postmodernism. This is thought to be the paradox of ‘historiographic metafiction’; despite the acceptance of the fact that there cannot be any produced solutions or alternatives for these social problems, still it tries to analyse what has been passed. Moreover, all solutions are rejected and thought to be totalitarian by postmodernism, but on the contrary, there exists a solution which depends on exhibiting, exposing and challenging of these textual elements.

“The present and the past, the fictive and the factual: the boundaries may frequently be transgressed in postmodern fiction, but there is never any resolution of the ensuing contradictions. In other words, the boundaries remain, even if they are challenged.” (Hutcheon, 1996: 462)

In postmodern terms the effort to blur the line between literature and history is unattainable; nonetheless the line between genres exists. Since literary, historical, scientific, economic, texts are consisted of facts and fictitious elements that are chosen by the authorities; all kinds of texts might be evaluated to be the same as one another. Yet it should be clarified that, whether they all might be fictitious or all are chosen by the same authoritative power or it might be the reverse of that situation; they could be evaluated as being the same. We can speculate that; while postmodernism on the one hand indulges in diversities, when it comes to the diversity of genres, it rejects such a division. The difference between literature and history is so clear that it is impossible to think of them as the same. Literature is consisted of form and content which are shaped in a unique way with creativity, aesthetic, and fiction. It has an aesthetic value whereas history is consisted of chosen facts, chosen fictitious and scientific elements. Therefore a postmodernist way of criticism ‘New Historicism’ cannot be accepted within the conception of this study.

52 Literature is fictitious and thus always achievable, yet, apart from literariness, historicism which has to be relied on facts and some scientific notions is thought to be achievable too. According to Jameson any cultural approach is thought to exist within the historical stages. Therefore instead of a cultural analysis, Jameson defends an historical approach based on historical periodization. Since history is assumed to be homogeneous which eradicates differences; postmodernism, hence, has to be grasped within its chronological bounds. Through periodizing, it would be possible for one to tie all matters to its bonds, to place all subjects in history. As it is stated below, according to Jameson, continuation of capitalism in history can be comprehended as a whole through periodization.

“This periodization underscores the general thesis of Mandel’s book Late Capitalism; namely, that there have been three fundamental moments in capitalism, each one marking a dialectical expansion over the previous stage. These are market capitalism, the monopoly stage or the stage of imperialism, and our own, wrongly called post-industrial, but what might better be termed multinational, capital.” (Jameson, 1993: 35)

However postmodernism is said to tend to draw a heterogeneous form of life, it moves in a contradictory way while it tends to ‘obliterate’ differences between genres, since the postmodern aim to obliterate differences between history and literature makes these two genres homogeneous. While it rejects the common stories of individuals or a unified form of society in the name of pluralism or while it aims to differentiate things in the name of emancipation, it does not accept genres to be different. It might be depicted that postmodern understanding of history is concordant with capitalism. It has to present history and literature the same to manipulate the real conditions of humanity. For the reason that capitalism moves in a discriminator way in order to enter all singular markets in its multinational stage, it doesn’t require a holistic theory which will underline all these economic relations whereas it needs an approach which divides history into fragments and which manipulates facts for its benefits. Fictitious history is edited by capitalism in present time since it tries to interpret history for its own benefits. It manipulates and distorts facts. It creates stories as if they were real. Therefore it can be proposed that postmodernism is an approach which has a parallel connection with capitalism.

53 While it claims to bind the matters to their historical bounds, on the other hand it differentiates their historical process from its whole bounds. Subjects are not presented within their historical process; they are introduced as if they had separate histories unrelated to the whole concept of history. Therefore it should be repeated that history might be thought in a Marxist way of thinking. According to Marxism history can be defined as a dialectic continuation of class struggles; however, since each subject is determined through the relations of production, there might be revolutionary changes in this homogeneous historical process. The changes in the relations of production are accepted to be revolutionary changes as it can be seen in the change of social relations from slavery to an agricultural one, from agricultural relations to feudalism, from feudalism to industrialism, from industrialism to capitalism. Therefore a specific thing should be told according to its bounds within the materialist history. Through materialist historicism a picture of a period might be drawn, the process of production might be demonstrated with its bounds to social life, individuals, states, culture and art.

Despite the postmodern concept of discontinuous history, still it has a tendency for evaluating signs and references in their historical process. Signs are also determined throughout the historical process. Since the signs are observed from the present time, they are influenced by the present outlook. Therefore the signs and references are evaluated through a present view related to their past dimensions. Consequently the postmodern return to history is not a nostalgic one; but it must be accepted as a critical analysis of the past, from the present through a present view. However, it is ignored by postmodernism that criticism of the past from a present perspective cannot be the only way of approaching history but might be one of the other ways. Marxists also needs to interpret the past from their present standing too. Yet, if the past is not told by trying to catch the sense of that period or if it is told without understanding the comprehension of that period, the present interpretation of the past becomes a manipulation of past. History might be manipulated by a postmodern approach, or since there is not thought to be a difference between facts and fictions, any imaginary story might be evaluated as if it was real. As it is understood, this is a subjective way of evaluating history whereas it should be

54 objective as far as possible and objectivity might be provided if the comprehension of the historical periods is needed to be understood. As Carr stated, history should be evaluated by means of an understanding of the relations of production of the period that is researched.

55 3 CRITICISM

T.S. Eliot begins his essay called “Tradition and The Individual Talent” by stressing on the critical mind that depends on the individual mind of a person. Criticism is asserted to be inevitable when a book is read or any work of art is sensed. Criticism, according to Eliot, is done by means of individual interpretation. Therefore all interpretations might be accepted as criticism. As it is stated by Eliot; pondering something in the mind or expressing an opinion or commenting on something is seen as an individual interpretation. Besides he states that as soon as an individual reads, watches, listens to or senses something, they begin to think about it and create their own comprehension of it. This sensorial and perceptual process of a presentation is seen as the individual comprehension, interpretation and criticism of that thing. Eliot is right in his thoughts on criticism. Criticism should be seen as an individual interpretation of life. Yet, it should be underlined that, Eliot’s definition of criticism does not ignore or reject the theories and ideologies as it is done by postmodernism.

Criticism is one of the subjects which is criticised and problematized by postmodernism. Postmodernism is also defended to be a way of criticism and problematization of all theories, ideologies, and discourses. All the subjects can be criticised in many different ways. Linda Hutcheon accepts postmodernism as the problematization of all theories, and concepts and defends postmodernism as an ideal way of criticism. However, the main aim of postmodernism is claimed to be questioned in terms of Marxism since it is merely questioning rather than presenting a solution or finding an answer. It tries to question and interrogate what is presented as truth. It gets suspicious about all generalizations. Postmodernism might be accepted as a method for criticism however it should be depicted that when one places criticism as rejection of anything, they start to produce nothing; when one tries to criticise something without having a general theory, they start to talk nonsensical and consistency is not taken into consideration.

56 Therefore postmodernism seems to be a way of questioning which leads to anarchy and confusion. Besides, postmodernism never returns to the past in a nostalgic mood but exposes a critical revision of it. The past in critical revision or reworking of postmodernism might be considered to be a kind of loss in value and a “loss of meaning”, since the revision of the past depends on an ironic narrative by means of which the modernist thought of humane values are lost. Through the postmodern outlook, as one might consider, the universal humanistic values such as liberty, brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity, equal opportunities and conditions which should be given to each individual, are overthrown. “Modernists like Eliot and Joyce have usually been seen profoundly humanistic ( Stern 1971, 26) in their paradoxical desire for stable aesthetic and moral values, even in the face of their realization of the inevitable absence of such universals. Postmodernism differs from this, not in humanistic contradictions, but in the provisionality of its response to them: it refuses to posit any structure or, what Lyotard (1984a) calls, master narrative - such as art or myth- which, for just modernists, would have been consolatory.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 6)

Postmodernism assumes that criticism should be free. Free criticism is thought to be cut from all social bounds. In the name of emancipation, all social norms and teachings are rejected. Everything is questioned since all the bounds are seen illusionary. Actually, the idea of liberalization means that everything goes in postmodern terms, yet since a limitless liberalization is presented by postmodernism and the idea of limitlessness is relative which might imply all norms equally right or wrong, there is no legitimating for anyone to take sides against the capitalist world order or patriarchy, or violence etc. Everything is thought to be acceptable since each signifier might mean anything for anyone. Limitlessness means the limitless intervention of capitalism into countries and the individuals’ world. Also, as Eagleton defends; postmodernism does not let anyone take sides against many important political changes, such as the USA’s attack on Iraq, for the reason that whatever is going to be said would be considered to be a changeable signifier. Then; if there is no objective truth, or objective history, how would it be possible to evaluate what is right or what is wrong?

57 “Where controversy is at its fiercest, however, is over the question of whether one is a humanist in the sense that one believes in a human essence or common nature, in the sense of certain properties which human beings importantly share simply by virtue of their humanity, and which have ethical and political implications. It is this meaning of the term which postmodernists on the whole refuse, and which their opponents are keen to promote.” (Eagleton, 1996: 130)

For Marxists’, criticism must not be placed on the same ground with the bourgeois ideology. The criticism must be supported by a grand theory in order to expound what is to be problematized. Expressing something by rejecting all the theories and ideologies mutates to an absurd radicalism. Striving to express something has come to an end. It might be accepted within the study that postmodernism might be a good way of questioning; yet this study underlines that there is no way of being free from history, since the human being is born into a social world. Since postmodernism doesn’t betray an alternative way while criticising, its criticism causes anarchy, yet the study underlines that capitalism moves in the same way. It deconstructs the social bounds; it alienates human beings in order to exploit their labour. The system in which individuals are left free to serve as slaves of the exploiters cannot be free in fact. Freedom compulsorily needs equality. Anarchism does not bring equality and thus it does not mean freedom.

Lenin’s Marxist approach of liberty of criticism should be stated here. In What is to be Done? , it is underlined that Liberty of criticism must not be accepted as it is agitated by the oppressing bourgeoisie, since the bourgeoisie’s ideology does not emancipate the oppressed but on the contrary, manipulates and confines them to the established regime. Capitalism of today has not changed much; it still has to reproduce itself through exploitation and manipulates and misleads the social conscious. It offers a limitless liberty whose meaning is emptied through depoliticization. Therefore as it is stated above, it can be seen that what is presented as liberty of criticism might be manipulative when it is done through depoliticization and thus the liberty of criticism is abused. For this reason; Marxism states that liberty of criticism in postmodernism and liberty of criticism in capitalism are based on the same manipulative depoliticization, since they both present an idea of limitless criticism whose social, political, ideological bounds are cut. Yet the result of this limitlessness becomes an alternative way of defending capitalism. According to

58 Marxism, the human being is thought to have some historical, cultural, social bonds and is conditioned by their materialist environment, therefore a true way of criticism can be achieved by taking all these conditions into consideration. www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/

Despite the fact that postmodernists tussle to criticise the idea of a system (specifically the capitalist system), it is interesting that postmodern ideology is in continuous equilibrium with the ideology of capitalism. In The Function of Criticism, Terry Eagleton not only pinpoints that criticism is subjective and that different historical periods have different concepts of criticism, but also emphasizes the need for the academies to emancipate criticism from its bounds with the ruling-class culture. Jameson also underlines that postmodernism cannot be the criticism of capitalism, yet it might be contemplated as a need of capitalism. According to Jameson, Postmodernism seems to define itself to be “the end of ideology, art, or social class; the ‘crisis’ of Leninism, social democracy, or the welfare state, etc.” However, as Jameson states, postmodernism is actually not seen as a result of a fundamental break in history but as an inevitable result of a capitalism that has reached a multinational stage, a theory or a way of thinking is thus produced in order to provide the continuity of the system. Postmodernism thus has its position as “the cultural logic of capitalism.” (Jameson, 1991: 267)

Postmodernism criticises or questions any concept in a deconstructive way. Since it does not have an aim to demonstrate what is right and what is wrong, since it is against ideologies, discourses and thoughts, it is therefore apolitical. The left thought of criticism has nothing to do with the idea of deconstruction except the revolutionary deconstruction of the capitalist order but for a future oriented aim: the construction of a socialist society. Liberty of criticism is too deconstructive that it cannot hold the individuals together, yet there should be common goals for the future of humanity. As opposed to postmodern problematization, Marxism proposes a future and is an alternative way of historicism and criticism. As opposed to fragmentary, discontinuous, and diachronic conceptualization of postmodernism, Marxism demonstrates history as a whole based on relations of production. On the other hand, postmodern criticism which is claimed to be free from all social ties is in

59 fact compatible with the way of thinking of capitalism; whereas Marxist criticism is there to deconstruct capitalist bounds in order to re-establish social relations based on equality and freedom.

60 4 RATIONALITY AND ENLIGHTENMENT

“Postmodernists often refer to the ‘Enlightenment project’, meaning the liberal humanist ideology that has come to dominate Western culture since the eighteenth century; an ideology that has striven to bring about the emancipation of mankind from economic want and political oppression.” (Sim, 2001: vii)

Postmodernism attacks on the values which are born through Enlightenment; Rationality, Humanism, International brotherhood of men, and equal rights all appear in the period of Enlightenment. Yet, Postmodernism assumes these values to be illusionary and it attacks specifically rationality and strictly rejects it owing to the postmodern outlook which accepts rationality as a totalitarian way of thinking formed by the west-centred outlook. Besides, Enlightenment is also taken into account as a project that comes on the scene for the liberal humanist aims which are used for the benefits of the ruling classes and thus it is defended that through Enlightenment project western imperialism rules the East. Universal ideas and values included within Enlightenment are used for the process of colonization. Through these universal ideas it becomes easier for colonizer the West, to colonise, enter and dominate the East. On the other hand they could never understand that the thought of the Enlightenment does not aim to exploit the East or the lower classes, indeed its aims and values are manipulated by the western bourgeoisie for its own goods. Yet, it will be presented in this study that the human being has to think or move in a rational way in order to express his/her ideas, thoughts or senses. Thoughts might change from one to another, yet everybody has to think and the process of thinking always depends on implications and reason. Even Postmodernism is obliged to express itself in a rational way, in order for it to be understood by others. While Postmodernism rejects rationality on the other hand it endeavours to explain life through thinking.

Marxists’ do not consider reason abstractly by ignoring the human senses or other notions that affects reason. Marxists’ accentuate reason as a sign which demonstrates the common goals and common needs of humanity.

61 The human being is accepted to consist of many notions such as; reason, senses, psychological process, and its materialist conditions.

“Man is directly a natural being . As a natural being and as a living natural being he is on the on hand equipped with natural powers , with vital powers , he is an active natural being; these power exist in him as dispositions and capacities, as drives . On the other hand, as a natural, corporeal, sensuous, objective being he is a suffering , conditioned and limited being, like animals and plants. … To say that man is corporeal, living, real, sensuous, objective being with natural powers means that he has real, sensuous objects as the object of his being and of his vital expression, or that he can only express his life in real, sensuous objects. To be objective, natural and sensuous and to have object, nature and sense outside oneself, or to be oneself object, nature and sense for a third person is one and the same thing.” (Marx, 1992: 389, 390)

As it is stated at length in the introduction, postmodernism protects capitalism by rejecting rationality. On the other hand, in the name of rationality both capitalism and postmodernism place socially constructed racial, gender, class discrimination between people. The existence of these discriminations is real, yet they are produced and reproduced by means of capitalism and capitalism’s way of thinking requires these discriminations to become sharper. The idea of community or unification of individuals for social togetherness is rejected for the benefits of global capitalism. It is propagandised that earthquakes, natural disasters, pollution, social corruption, alienation, unemployment and millions of similar problems are caused by divine reasons; it propagandised religious doctrines through films, schools and many other apparatus, yet it is claimed to be rational. This perception of rationalism is consciously manipulated by capitalism. Marxism does not perceive reason as an oppressive way of thinking. Since rationality depends on thinking, it provides imaginative and creative solutions in the process of thinking. Rationalism is an imaginative way of thinking which demonstrates the materialist cause and effect relationship, which analysis the conditions and by means of tying many fragments it creates a synthesis. Marxism accepts rationality in a dialectic way. If something causes an affect, that affect will be the cause of another affect and thus it is accepted by Marxism that cause and affect are always in a transforming relation. Thus, there never exists an absolute God, idea or power that holds the whole knowledge within it. All life changes according to these transforming relations between cause and affect. The idea of absolute cause is rejected and it is thought that an affect might be the result of not an absolute cause but many different causes. This idea of materialist

62 rationality brings revolutionism. Besides, for the reason that postmodernism does not commit bringing solutions, the rejection of rationality is neither revolutionary nor analytical but anarchic.

Deleuze, as a postmodern thinker, criticises the Cartesian mind, Descartes and rationality, while advancing Spinoza’s Anti-Cartesian thinking. Deleuze underlines the thoughts of Spinoza’s Anti-cartesian thinking. He alleges that fore-stated triad strengthens the univocal and, absolute power of God or the idea, thus accusing this triad of resulting in totalitarianism. Descartes’ acceptance of the cause and effect relationship is thought to be the same with the relation between idea and object. If there is a cause then there should be an idea which has the absolute power and adequacy within itself and it is called God. Therefore the idea is always associated with cause, and cause stands as a God-figure while the object is placed in the position of effect which stands distant from God in a hierarchical way. For this reason God (the idea and so the cause) always exists superior to the object (and so the effect). Yet it becomes problematic within the concept of rationalism, since it is accepted in rationality that idea cannot exist in an accidental way but it exists through reasons. Deleuze thinks that effects remain accidental within Decartes’ thought because in a cause and effect relationship the one is placed in a superior position to the other, and cause is always placed superior to effect. Thus God is always superior to the other forms because it exists as the cause of all things. Deleuze suggests Spinoza’s synthetic method as opposed to Decartes’. All the forms are placed in equal positions. Spinoza’s synthetic method depends on three moments called reflection, genesis and deduction. Through reflection the synthetic method makes the human being to be conscious of his power of knowing. Spinoza’s method is genetic because he accepts the existence of God as the source of all ideas and since all the ideas are taken in hand as the ideas of real beings stemming from God and the production of ideas is basically “the deduction of reality”. Yet it is argued that through the synthetic method of Spinoza, all the forms are placed in equal positions which renders them to move in a flexible way as a molecular. The picture in Deleuze’s mind presents the cause as a source while the others (the effects) are thought to exist as a molecular object placed in an equal distance from the source

63 moving flexible. (Deleuze, 1997: 161)

Deleuze’s ideas are perceived in postmodernism as the reason of obscurity. Reason is rejected since Deleuze claims that it is impossible to have the knowledge of things because everything is conceived to have its own unstable molecular existence. Yet it should be stated that Deleuze’s ideas lead to decomposition. If everything is molecular and accepted to follow its own unstable trajectory, then nothing can be thought to be in accordance with one another. All the orders, social systems are decomposed and the human beings are seen to be molecules each of which moves in its eccentric orbit.

The existence of rational thinking shouldn’t be thought as strict as it is accepted through the Cartesian mind. It is known that Cartesian way of thinking perceived rationality as the one and only perception of truth. Sentimentality is strictly rejected since it is proposed that the human being has to hold on to facts, phenomenon and concrete realities. The human being is thought to be purified from emotional argument. As opposed to the Cartesian mind, in accordance with the content of this study the human being is seen as a whole consisted of many parts; hence, senses, experience, feelings, observation, comprehension are all related to rationality. For this reason, rationality should be accepted in a multiple correlation of many notions.

One of the postmodernists Michael Foucault has attacked on rationality through Kant’s answer to “What is Enlightenment?” Therefore what is written in Kant’s article should be taken into consideration. Kant’s usage of the term enlightenment, in a sense, expresses an intention that underlines the existential importance of the human being, which specifies and settles the subject and object position of human relations. Kant alleges enlightenment as man’s liberalization from someone else's guidance through accepting the rational way of thinking. According to Kant, people are presented to be under the guidance of churches and institutions; therefore only individuals, or in other words those who are able to stand on the subject position, can achieve freedom from “immaturity”, and the ‘other ones’ are suggested to follow their enlightened guidance. Men, being the elements of a whole,

64 have to participate in social life collectively and have to act individually; and each of the individuals are thought to be the representatives of the whole. http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt

Enlightenment is taken as an existential phenomenon by Kant since a person is thought to become free on her/his own, yet the materialist conditions of a person are not taken into consideration. In fact Kant fails to take into account that a person is conditioned with her/his language, society, class, gender, religion, etc. and as a consequence of his/her conditions, it becomes difficult to realize the existential positioning of one’s own. However Kant describes each of the individuals with a competence that will provide them to achieve their individuality being free from their conditions which according to Marxists is merely an illusion or in Adorno’s words a utopia.

Since it is thought that the use of reason is often under the control of authority, guidance is associated with the person, class or a group of people who hold/s the power of authority. Thus, Foucault argues about Kant’s thought by criticising his idea of a mature humanity. Foucault remarks that what is expressed through a mature humanity is a form of society which is constructed on “military discipline, political power, and religious authority.” As a result of the idea of maturity, some who are called to be immature people have to be directed by the enlightened mature ones. Yet that criterion of maturity reveals the repressive power of authority on the immature. (Foucault, 1997: 306)

“There is Enlightenment when the universal, the free, and the public uses of reason are superimposed on one another.” (Foucault, 1997: 307)

Foucault states that reason is superimposed on one another; yet, it is true that there is not an alternative way of communication. Social life compulsorily needs communication, interaction, and intervention but this situation does not always mean oppression of the individuals on the contrary it might have positive effects on freedom of the individual and social life. Despite his criticism of Enlightenment, Foucault accepts the need for self analysis hence reason and the historical influence of the Enlightenment.

65 “We must try to proceed with the analysis of ourselves as beings that are historically determined, to a certain extent, by the Enlightenment.” (Foucault, Ethics, 1997: 313)

The Enlightenment ideal of intellectual and material freedom is shared by both Marxists and Postmodernists. Yet, while Marxists consider reason as a common notion which emancipates the human being from their chains, enlightens their conscious and places them in the subject position in order for them to acknowledge their individuality; on the other hand postmodernists associate freedom with object position which is claimed to be the only way of emancipation. According to postmodernists subject position causes an imperative authority which means the oppression of the others, yet, the object position does not stand as a solution since it causes the human being to be passive and submissive. However, the facts that human relations are interconnected and the human being has to communicate with each other are ignored. The postmodern picture of society seems to be stemming from unrelatedness between individuals owing to its insistence on object position which needs passivity and individuals who do not have bonds with each other. However, Marxism underlines that subjectivity does not mean the oppression of the others; it means the individual conscious existence which aims and acts to produce life and change the materialist conditions.

Philosopher Adorno and Philosopher and Cultural Commentator Horkheimer claim that through Enlightenment the human being is placed in a god-like position which has power to know and learn the natural law and thus interfere to and transform it. According to Adorno and Horkheimer the program of the Enlightenment was the disenchantment of the world; the dissolution of myths and the substitution of knowledge for fancy.” Enlightenment is defined through myths and mythic figures. Since man is placed in the subject position and is accepted to act as God, he gains a superior character against nature. His heroic act is to dominate nature, yet he might be mastered by nature if he is ignorant of it. Therefore a human being’s slavery to nature is thought to be altered by means of consciousness or learning the knowledge of the natural law. The human being is placed in a subject position by means of Enlightenment. (Adorno, Horkheimer, 1997: 3)

66 Despite the fact that rationality, knowledge and ideals of Enlightenment are abused by the bourgeoisie, they can be used for the benefits of society in the hands of an organisation which attaches importance to equality. Postmodernism never trusts in such thoughts or way of thinking or ideals. All these notions are considered to be fictive. Yet as it is also stated by Eagleton there should be common ideals for all individuals. Marxism believes in that the human being might establish an equal society by having knowledge and thinking in a rational way.

67 5 LANGUAGE / KNOWLEDGE / TRUTH / SUBEJECTIVITY / OBJECTIVITY

Both Marxism and Postmodernism interrogates knowledge, truth, subjectivity and objectivity related to ‘language’. For the reason that language is thought to be an arbitrary system by the postmodernists, controlled moreover by the authority in a culture, thus incapable of any absolute truth. Moreover knowledge, truth, subjectivity and objectivity are all thought to be arbitrary related to language. Although Marxists’ agree with the thought that these relations are all arbitrary, they still believe that a common understanding of language is possible to achieve. Owing to the common social life, the arbitrariness of these notions should be limited for the sake of communication.

Language is produced as a means of producing individual consciousness, subjectivity and interaction with society. Since the human being is accepted as a social being, it needs a way of communication which enables interaction. Both consciousness and language are developed depending on each other. It should be also accepted that the human being produces language in its materialistic conditions, and hence the process of language production does not remain the same, it changes according to the new conditions. The human being has power to change and to transform their materialistic conditions. On the other hand they are also affected and determined by their biological nature. Hence it should be clarified that while language is produced through the human being’s consciousness and ability to intervene nature, they are also conditioned and determined by the same nature. Thus, language is seen as a dynamic medium which is based on not only the communicative intrapersonal relationship of the subjects but also the relationship between the subject and the materialist conditions. “Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical consciousness, as it exists for other men, and for that reason is really beginning to exist for me personally as well; for language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men. Where there exists a relationship, it exists for me: the animal has no “relations” with anything, cannot have any. For the animal, its relation to others does not exist as a relation. Consciousness is therefore from the very beginning a social product, and remains so long as men exist at all.” ( Marx, 1984: 10)

68 Marx’s assumptions about the nature of animals might be invalid today, but his belief that human identity, subjectivity and consciousness are related to language, is acceptable. As it is stated above Marx accepts language to be related to human consciousness. Language is admitted to be the result of human needs and it exists compulsorily through intercourse. But on the other hand, language is presented to be one of the major factors which condition the individual. Through language one is socialized and s/he is linked to the historical process, so that language might be considered to be a kind of limitation on individuality, and indeed, subjectivity cannot be thought as isolated from language.

“…subjectivity is a fundamental property of language: “It is in and through language that man constitutes himself as a subject, because language alone establishes the concept of ‘ego’in reality, in its reality.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 168)

Therefore subject is accepted to be constituted through language. Subjectivity is also put forward to be related to both language and consciousness. Subjectivity is formed through consciousness of one’s own existence. Therefore subjectivity is gained through the self-realization of one’s own place and stance in the historical process of his/her society. Yet it should be stated that self-realization becomes difficult, as it owes to the reality of ideological apparatus of authority.

The ‘self’ is also explained through “Double Location” by Mühlhausler and Harre. Their definition of “Double Location” is based on a person’s existence as a biological organism and as someone who has to practice certain social processes. A person is thought to have a solid biologic existence and besides it is there to act some social skills such as speaking a language, thinking, etc. Therefore it can be understood that subjectivity occurs together with its social skills. Both natural and social lives constrain the human being to take its place. The human being has to choose to be a subject in their materialistic conditions otherwise they would be objectified by another subject and they might even be objectified by their materialistic conditions.

The self in psychoanalytical discourse is called the subject, yet it is thought to be the objectification of the self. Foucault depicts that the process of knowing and understanding one’s own is the process of one’s own objectification. Therefore when

69 the self has acquired consciousness then it is seen to have taken the subject position through the knowledge. Yet, it is thought by the postmodernists that the self is in fact objectified by itself. The existence of the subject is ignored and all subjects are tried to be objectified. Postmodernism rejects all kinds of subjectivity, since placement to a subject position is thought to be the result of a desire for the power of authority which might cause the objectification of someone else. All authoritative centres even when it stems from the individual are rejected by postmodernism.

However, it should be underlined that not only language but also economic, social, political, cultural relations affect subjectivity. In view of the interrelatedness of materialist conditions, which Marxism highlights, it might be stated that language, social and cultural behaviours, politics, and indeed all things related to the human being, are constituted by means of relations of production and consciousness is the basic in the process of perception of these notions. Therefore language might be accepted to be one of the determinant elements but not the only one.

Language however is considered to be arbitrary which according to postmodernists, in turn, means that there can be no reliable knowledge, truth. Marxists agree that language is arbitrary, yet defend that in the first place it is the most important means of communication for human beings, despite its limitations; it still accepts the possibility of constructive meaning, although it changes according to materialist conditions.

Saussure who is one of the most important linguistics accepts language as the system of differences through which meaning is constituted. It is claimed by Saussure that there is an arbitrary relationship between a word and the idea (the concept) that is animated in the mind. A sign which is constituted by the signifier and the signified composes a relationship between the sound and the thing or the idea. Therefore it is admitted that the sound, the signifier does not have a direct relationship with the signified. Yet meaning is thought to be possible since the relationship between the signifier and the signified is accepted to be stable. Thus the sign becomes possible to be understood. When a signifier is uttered, it immediately brings the concept of the signified. Yet, it should be stated that the comprehension of

70 the signified might differ according to the individuals’ understanding. The word ‘table’ which might be thought to be the signifier might evoke tables which are different in size or shape or colour, but it is clear that the signifier ‘table’ does not evoke a concept of ‘pen’ or ‘car’. Therefore Saussure thinks that the signifier is coded with a meaning whose concept might differ from one to another, besides the signifier is thought to evoke a common concept which is stabilized through meaning.

Yet, Saussure and the other structuralists’ thoughts are criticised by postmodernism. It is claimed that there cannot be a stable, common relationship between the signifier and the signified. According to postmodernists, everything might be understood as anything; yet this postmodern inference cannot be approved since as it is stated by Sausure, the signifier ‘table’ does not evoke a concept of ‘pen’, ‘car’ or ‘something else’, and thus when something is uttered it becomes possible to catch the meaning of it which is injected by its sender. The concept of the sender would always differ from the addressee. Therefore it is claimed by the postmodernists that there is not a way of communication or understanding one another. Each individual would always have a different perception of the signifiers. Since postmodernism takes the relation between the signifier and the signified to the extreme, it becomes really impossible to constitute a common ground between or among the individuals. However, Lacan states that these signifiers are all interconnected to one another and meaning is derived from this interconnectedness and thus language is not thought to be arbitrary or ambiguous as it is defended by the postmodernists.

“For in Language, signs take on their value from their relationships to each other in the lexical sharing-out of semantemes as much as in the positional, or even flectional, use of morphemes, in sharp contrast to the fixity of the coding used by bees. And the diversity of human languages takes on its full value from this enlightening discovery.” (Lacan, 1981: 60)

Postmodernism admits the relationship between the sender and the addressee to be arbitrary, too; moreover, they never trust in subjects or objects, all subject-centred approaches are accepted as relative, and instead of this approach, discourse is placed in the centre, questioned and deconstructed. The meaning which is imposed on the signifier by the sender might be comprehended by the addressee in a different way. It is also stated that while the sender takes the subject position, the addressee is placed

71 to the object position. Each subject is thought to create their own ‘discourse’. Derrida conveys that the relations of subject and object might change according to different contexts. The relationship between a mother and a child might signify the mother’s authoritative subject position while she tries to educate her child and the child might be seen as an objectified being; yet, on the other hand the child might be deemed as an authoritative subject when s/he wants to be fostered, given love and taken care of. Moreover contexts are thought to be determined by means of ‘discourse’. All relations and thoughts are thought to be shaped through discourse which might be implied through language or might be hidden in physical signs, gestures, and the ‘presence’ of things. Therefore the discourse of the capitalist system is tried to be deconstructed, too. Yet since all the ideologies, concepts and theories are seen to be relative and thus rejected, the aim of deconstructing capitalism turns into anarchism, and finally a dead end.

In postmodern thinking the relationship between subject and object is accepted to be based on oppression. Therefore language communication is seen to bare a close link with power positions. Three elements (sender, addressee and referent) of a communicational exchange are re-expressed through a picture of a game-plan drawn by Lyotard. Sender, the one who has the knowledge therefore the authority, and the addressee represent players of a game whose rules are legitimated by themselves; besides “every utterance” represents the “move” in this communication. And thus, it can be clearly seen that while the sender takes the subject position, the addressee is placed to the object position. Postmodernism always draws the same picture. The relation between the sender and the addressee is always presented to be in a hierarchic structure in which the sender always placed in the subject position with the power of authority and thus it is claimed that the relation between the sender (the subject) and the addressee (the object) has to be based on the oppression of one of the sides. Marxism accepts the existence of authority in the act of enunciation, yet it is defended that the sovereign language and discourse are tried to be transformed into another form which focuses on an equal relationship.

72 Both Marxists and the postmodernists defend that language should be changed and transformed. Language is thought to be the production of the authoritative power and it is constituted through the ideological apparatus of the state. Therefore it should be changed through the outlook of the oppressed. Each oppressed social group or singular individual is suggested to form their own language and deconstruct the language of the authoritative power. Post-structuralism, which might be thought as the deconstructive branch of postmodernism, deconstructs the structure of language. Postmodernism assumes language to be the language of the authority and to be shaped by means of the dominant discourse (such as the discourse of patriarchal relations); therefore the structure of the language must be deconstructed. Postmodernism aims to break into pieces, to atomize the whole or the unity. All parts of language are thought to be torn and unrelated to one another. Therefore, meaning is lost and discourse is rejected.

“…there is a deconstructive left wing which has indeed acknowledged, however nominally, the problem of deconstructing that institution itself. The politics of such left deconstruction have been characteristically anarchistic: a suspicion of power, authority and institutional forms as such, which is once more radical inflection of liberalism. Such an institutional critique is bound to be formalist and abstract, as well as covertly moralistic; but it is also possible to see a certain post-structuralist fixation on power as such as the reflection of a real historical problem.” (Eagleton, 1997: 105,106)

Yet it is clear that the idea of deconstruction of language brings chaos and anarchy. So when a language is deconstructed, the meaning and the possibility of communication disappear. Since language is accepted to be shaped by means of both materialistic conditions and human conscious, language has an important influence on social togetherness. All totalities, institutions, authorities are thought to be composed by means of language. Therefore language is introduced to be the representative of the language of the totality by postmodernists.

On the other hand, postmodernism argues that after deconstruction, language will be transformed, revised and made politically correct. However the oppressed might constitute the same language as the language of the authoritative power since they are educated and grown through the institutions and ideologies of the oppressor class. Thus this notion is ignored. The oppressed people might internalize the discourse of the oppressor class. Despite the fact that these problems are taken into

73 consideration by postmodernism, a solution can not be submitted.

Postmodernism underlines that there is not an equal relationship between the sender and the addressee. For this reason, in order to leave the addressee free, postmodernists’ advice the sender to leave gaps to be filled by the addressee. Additionally the addressee is believed to be free, since it has a chance to compose its own discourse through the gaps that are left and this is called pluralizm.Yet, it must be questioned, who is going to choose which gaps will be left and which will be uttered. What is going to happen if the decisions are made by the ruling class or the representatives of authority? These questions are not to be answered by means of the idea of postmodernism.

Besides, as opposed to the fore-stated pluralist ideas about the relation between the sender and the addressee, postmodernism becomes inconsequent since it also rejects the idea of subjectivity whose place is filled by the addressee. Since the position of the subject is introduced to be associated with the authoritative power, it is rejected. It is thought that there is no need for the subject to constitute its own discourse since all discourse is accepted to be illusionary. Also, since the position of the subject will cause the obedience of the other, subjectivity is thought to be a kind of compulsory authority. Therefore it might be determined that postmodernism is stuck in its dilemma. Capitalism has the same tendency. While it is introduced to be liberal, which gives chances to its subjects, on the other hand it limits individuals in order for them not to constitute their own discourse which might be contrary to the benefits of the system. Therefore while on the one hand the subjects are said to be left free, on the other hand they are ignored or rejected by the system. The only ties of the authoritative power are held by the system.

Marxism also has an aim to produce an alternative language. Marxism underlines that division between classes or in other word base structure determines all life. Language constitutes life by representing these relations. The division between subject and object is represented within the language. Even the sentence “I love you” means that the subject “I” objectifies “you”. Thus it can be pointed out that the subject “I” takes the authoritative position while the object “you” is oppressed or

74 circumstanced with the love given by the subject “I”. Yet, these representations can be abated after the procurement of social equality. Without equal rights, opportunities and conditions, there cannot be the disappearance of these divisions. Therefore postmodernism cannot be a solution for these distinctions. The solution is hidden in the deconstruction of the oppressive system for the construction of materialist and social equality among individuals.

Because of the fact that language strengthens the authority and it turns into an apparatus of authority in order to rule the people, there occurs a division between the obedient and the rulers. Language is often under the sovereignty of the ruling class, and it is dominated by them. Therefore there cannot be an individual who is free from that historical condition of language. However the defenders of postmodernism contend to create new languages for different subjects and different areas. Yet their aim produces the same language as the language of the oppressors. Therefore, it should be accepted that without destroying inequality among people, it is impossible to create a new language. Yet, Marxists’ still endeavour to transform language as a means of struggle against the ruling class and they change it by forming an alternative discourse of language against the bourgeoisie.

So far, dwelling upon language, relations between concepts of knowledge, truth, subject and object have been exposed and discussed; yet, the relationship and inter-connection of subject and object, and, knowledge and truth need to be revised. The same difference between the languages of the oppressors and the oppressed side exists in the relationship of subject and object. Subject is thought to be the representative of the authority, of the ruling class while the object is put to the place the oppressed. Since the subject is assumed to be an authoritative power through which many social groups are oppressed, subjectivity is rejected or the subject position is required to be given to the oppressed social groups, on the other hand, the object is not viewed to be passive and ineffective. However, one must bring to light that as long as capitalism exists there will always be oppressors and the oppressed, the subjects and objects. This might just be abated by equality. According to Marxism, the subject is seen as an individual who is aware of their labour, and who

75 is aware of their power to change the conditions (objects) in which they live. Therefore, each individual is required to take their subject position and change their life conditions.

Each individual is thought to be a representative of this subject/object relationship in postmodernism. If an individual endeavours to be the subject of his/her life, his/her effort is interpreted as his/her desire for the power of authority. Each individual is thought to gain its subject position by means of oppressing and objectifying someone else. All social relations are interpreted in a similar way therefore the subject position is rejected or required to be given to those subjected to oppression. The absence of authority is preferable for postmodernists; each singular subject is thought to share equal positions when the representative of authority is absent. Yet, it is forgotten that if the individuals are unequal as they are in capitalism, then there occurs chaos in the absence of authority. Therefore Marxism assumes that in order to have a social order, equality should be provided, yet what is suggested by postmodernism seems to be achievable by strengthening capitalism.

Moreover, postmodernism not only rejects subjectivity as authoritative but also negates the possibility of objectivity. In fact, while postmodernism sharpens the divisions between object and subject and emphasizes inequality, Adorno in Negative Dialectics endeavours to find reconciliation between different contradictory parts. Adorno states that subject and object are opposites; and thus they are defined through each other. For the reason that they are the alien parts, both subject and object are needed to identify one another. The duality between them should not be perceived as the parts of a totality. They are needed for the identification of each other yet they are separated, divided and parted in reality. However in Postmodern terms, the male oriented bourgeois ideology is tried to be subverted by discursive identity of the subject since subjectivity is seen as a form of contradictions. Therefore and it should be depicted that in postmodernism even the subject is fragmented and is understood by Jameson as being ‘schizophrenic’ subjectivity.

Objectivity is said to be needed in order to represent a ‘thing’ in a scientific way, yet postmodernism alleges that objectivity is an impossible aim. In Theorizing

76 the Postmodern Linda Hutcheon states that postmodernism makes no difference or there exists no ultimate difference between historical accounts and fiction. Both are said to be actually subjective narratives. All these texts are asserted to be depending on relative, variable and changeable facts. Even scientific texts are claimed to be the representatives of relativity. Objectivity in science and history is thought to be indefinable, too. Everything may be evaluated differently according to different subjects. Thus, each point of view of the subjects gains importance.

Despite the fact that subjectivity is indeed rejected by postmodernism, it still gains importance while postmodernism ignores objectivity. Each individual is left free to tell their story from their own point of view with the words chosen by them. Story telling is introduced as the sign of an important act of individual rebelliousness. The relativity of subjectivity presents a slippery ground on which nothing can stand but fall. While some are trying to tell their own stories, nothing changes but some minorities go on earning plenty. Hence the postmodern concept of subjectivity can be defined to be restricted by stories. Life is thought to have no objective truth.

While subjectivity is not desirable, on the other hand objectivity is thought to be inconceivable by the postmodernists. Besides, since objectivity is thought to be unachievable in knowledge, it is thought that there is left nothing to trust in. Postmodernism underlines that who you are in terms of such factors as race, gender, class, will determine and shape your truths, and thus truth is admitted to be relative, too. Apart from postmodernists, Marxists pinpoint subjectivism. It is thought that through subjectivism the human being might comprehend their existence in nature, and may intervene and change their nature. When the existent sovereign subject’s language, discourse and comprehension are criticised through the political consciousness of the oppressed, objectivity becomes achievable. Political consciousness of the oppressed is important in order to recognize the objective conditions of the classes, and after the recognition of the conditions or objectivity, Marxism stresses the importance of taking sides in this class struggle in order to gain a subject position. Therefore, since objectivity is thought to be the recognition of the

77 conditions, it is thought that there is a common truth, which cannot be ignored by anyone, and is decided as well as related to objective recognition. Hunger, poverty, exploitation, ignorance and inequality have no relativity. The truth is that there exists such desperate conditions for the human being and thus it is accepted by the Marxists that there is a common ground which is shared by everybody. Therefore Marxists accept the presentation of an objective truth and thus the definition of capitalism is not a relative but an objective one.

“… no one is threatening the objectivity of objects. It is scarcely necessary for me to say that this objectivity is wholly independent as regards the subject. It exists and develops according to its logic, which is independent of wills, aspirations, desires, goodness, or wickedness of men. Marx’s explanation of capitalism is scientific precisely because it clarifies the logic on whose basis the system moves and develops independently of the good or ill will of the individual capitalists.” (Lukács, Theory, 1989: 214)

As it is fore-stated, postmodernism demonstrates the relationship between the subject and the truth, and the notion of truth is ignored. One of the reasons why postmodernism rejects the existence of truth is connected to the relationship between subject and knowledge. It is admitted that the subject consists of knowledge, which is acquired by means of language. Since knowledge is constructed relatively through the subjectivity of the subject, the truth which is presented through knowledge is accepted to be relative too. Besides it has to be stated that the conceptualization of knowledge might change according to different cultures, and different societies. Therefore this study asserts that the conceptualization of knowledge might be researched within its social background. It is important to know how knowledge is applied in different cultures, how it is gained, how it is transferred to the next generation, and how it is esteemed. The existence of the relationship between truth and knowledge enables the subject to be powerful and hence authoritative. For this reason Foucault states that truth is represented through authority.

Through Bacon who is accepted to be “the father of experimental philosophy”, Adorno endeavours to define what knowledge is. The affinity between power and knowledge is first suggested by Bacon. Knowledge enables man’s control over nature. Man is thought to become free from ignorance. Man’s fear of the unknown is thought to have disappeared whereas it is masked through the face of enlightenment. Knowledge is claimed to be something which uncovers the illusion of mind. Chaos is

78 thought to be abrogated through the rational way of thinking. However postmodernism rejects and questions all the concepts of enlightenment, since no concept is thought to be relied on. (Adorno, W. Theodor. & Horkheimer Max, 1997: 3)

“The step from chaos to civilization, in which natural conditions exert their power no longer directly but through the medium of the human consciousness, has not changed the principle of equivalence.” (Adorno, W. Theodor. & Horkheimer Max, 1997: 17)

There is a strict relationship between knowledge, truth and authority. It is stated by Adorno that language at first is mastered by priests and such authorities. Therefore it is used for the belief in supernatural powers and sanctity. The truth is thought to be the religion and all the supernatural notions. The usage of language by religious authorities causes them to know and thus to reinforce their authoritarian positions. Foucault also argues that knowledge is always immanent with power and hence authority. Therefore authority immanently is thought to represent the truth, and hence the truth is determined to be variable and relative.

Both Marxism and postmodernism accept the relationship between knowledge, truth, and authority to be relative, and it is elucidated that what is presented by the dominant authority might be manipulative or illusionary. Yet as opposed to postmodernists, Marxists accept the existence of these concepts instead of negating them. Knowledge has existence; truth has existence; yet they are ruled for the benefits of the dominant class. Therefore till the date when the classless society will be achieved, human beings have to question the relation between knowledge, truth and authority. Consciousness will provide man to find what the truth is and for this reason the existence of real becomes achievable to perceive.

Knowledge and truth are not only considered to be relative and manipulated by authority but also subject to the laws of the market. Lyotard reveals in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge that his aim is to study the condition of knowledge in highly developed societies which might be called information societies. Lyotard states that knowledge has turned into an object which might be bought and sold. It is consumed as well.

79 Therefore knowledge is no more something that can be relied on. Since it is produced for the needs of the market, it might be manipulative.

“Yet for the young and the rich and the educated and the privileged things could not have been better. The world of real estate, finance, and business services grew, as did the ‘cultural mass’ given over to the production of images, knowledge, and cultural and aesthetic forms. The political-economic base and, with it, the whole culture of cities were transformed.” ( Harvey, 1992: 184 )

Lyotard argues that future nation-states will fight to have control over information, learning and knowledge. Besides some terms such as “transparency”, “opacity”, “commercialization of knowledge” gain importance. For the reason that capital circulates through “multinational corporations”, the institutions of the nation- state and its operations have to be reformed for a flexible and a transitive state model. Therefore, knowledge also has to be circulated. The field of knowledge of our era is thought to be in “Computerized Societies.” (Lyotard, 1997)

Jameson considers the postmodern way of thinking as depthless and superficial. Despite the fact that postmodernists assume that knowledge is all invaded by capitalism, the postmodern perception of knowledge indeed becomes in concordance with capitalist perception of life. Since postmodernism rejects all ideologies and the existence of truth and knowledge, it reaches a dead end, it suggests no alternative and all suggested alternatives are considered to be authoritative. Thus the human being is left alone and advised to keep an object position which causes the continuation of capitalism. As a consequence, the postmodern concept of knowledge is defined or seen as broad, superficial, emptied and discharged. Therefore, as it is accepted within the concept of this study, Jameson’s thought on postmodernism becomes true. He claims that since knowledge is transformed into a commodity of objects which might be bought and sold, all concepts become concordant with the capitalist way of life which obliges depthless fetishization of knowledge.

According to Lyotard’s definition, knowledge is seen as something going beyond the “technical qualification”, “ethical wisdom” and “auditory and visual sensibility”. Knowledge is composed of all these features. It is more than a signification; it carries a background based on these features. The knowledge is

80 determined and applied by means of its qualifications. (Lyotard, 1997: 18)

Lyotard argues that scientific knowledge needs not to be verified; on the contrary, it has to be denoted in a “one language game”. Scientific knowledge can be accepted or not, according to the criterion of truth-value relationship. It can be falsifiable or verifiable but it is drastically separated from social bonds and language games. What ensures the scientific communication is the sender’s referent. Science is drawn as a play whose rules are immanent in itself and according to whom the conditions of truth are specified. Yet, it is known that in capitalism even science and scientific knowledge might be manipulated. While some developments are kept in secret, some are announced or while some improvements are ignored as it is done to Darwin’s thoughts, some are sublimed as congruent with religion. Consequently it might be pinpointed that there is no knowledge which might be thought free from capitalism, on the contrary all knowledge is kept under control by the authorities or institutions of Capitalism.

Knowledge and power are expressed related to each other. The one who knows, has the power to decide “what knowledge is” and, who is the authority of decision which is needed. Therefore the knower holds power in his/her hand. As a result of this, it can be stated that knowledge is subjective, since it is chosen by the authorities. Besides, knowledge of anything might change according to different cultures, authorities, individuals, etc.

Postmodernism underlines that language, discourse, knowledge and truth are interconnected and they are all defined differently according to each singular subjects. All of these concepts are broached as changeable, variable, and subjective. Besides, the difference between subjectivity and objectivity becomes blurred in Postmodernism. Each subject might comprehend and tell an event form his/her own point of view. Therefore it is depicted that there is nothing to be trusted. However, despite the fact that these concepts are thought to be interconnected with one another, still they can be defined differently if the subjects are placed in equal conditions. Without providing equality, all these terms cannot be interpreted differently according to each individual; they can just be interpreted according to the ideology of

81 the dominant social class in postmodernism. The postmodern expression of these concepts is thought to be the result of the postmodernists’ false consciousness.

82 6 ART AND THE ARTIST

6.1 Art

In this chapter it will be avoided to make a definition of what art is. It is known that many definitions of art and discussions about it have been done so far, yet there still is not a full definition of art. No approach is made with desirable accuracy. Therefore art will only be examined according to both Marxist and postmodernist approaches. Both approaches wish to value art with its social, historical, economical, political and cultural content. Both Marxism and postmodernism underline the importance of the materialist conditions of art, for this reason that art is thought to be produced through its conditions, the gap between art and life is put forward to disappear. Art isn’t thought to be autonomous as it is advocated through New Criticism, yet artists such as Shakespeare or Goethe might transcend their own class identities and look the reality from a different point of view. However the materialist conditions are thought to be the determiner for art and some artists might still be autonomous regardless of their conditions.

Both Marxism and postmodernism accept that art has a politic function. While art might be turned into an apparatus for ideology and propaganda through Marxism, postmodernists use it for the minorities to be heard. Specifically, re-writing samples of postmodernism have an aim to give voice to the silenced, oppressed and ex-centric identities. Both Marxism and postmodernism accept art as a form of protest, yet art being politic does not mean art being only didactic but imaginative and creative. Both theories expect many things from art since it is seen as a way to change and transform society and life. Marxists think that the materialist conditions determine art, yet still art has a potency to create a distance from the illusions of reality. While it holds a mirror to society, on the other hand it puts a distance from the dominant ideology and thus it criticises life.

Both Marxists and postmodernists aim to re-write history, yet there are some differences. While Marxists aim to re-write history in order to exhibit and question

83 the relations of exploitation and change these relations for a future society, postmodernism does the same thing without taking the future and the aim of change into account. While Marxism defends the oppressed and wish this class to conquer the subject position in order to change history, postmodernism does not wish any subjectivity which is thought to be authoritative in some way or the other. Since all ideologies are ignored by postmodernism, re-writing becomes difficult. For example, what happens should be questioned when history is re-written from a patriarchal perspective of capitalist system. Therefore being without ideology strengthens the oppressors’ position in exploitation relations.

Moreover, postmodernism differs with its hopelessness, since it always turns back to the past and tries to reveal and exhibit the political, social, economic, relations of the past. Since postmodernism does not have a look at future and does not believe any social, moral, politic togetherness, it seems to be pessimist yet, still it should have a futuristic aim, otherwise they do not deal with re-writing or desire the minorities and their identities to be heard and known. Yet, when postmodernism is questioned on where the human beings are going or what should be done as an alternative, no answer is given, therefore it should be stated that it is neither revolutionary nor progressive.

Terry Eagleton argues postmodernism as a parody of the 20th Century’s revolutionary avant-gardism. It is known that modernism gives birth to avant- gardism which shows the way of a progressive art. Art is produced not to interpret life but to change it through an avant-gardist understanding of art which is thought to be a leading process which pioneers to individuals and society. Avant-gardes have something to say on life whereas postmodernists leave all discourses. Yet, according to Eagleton, it is thought that the dream of a socialist world is caricaturized by means of the postmodernist approach. The integration of society and art in avant-garde Utopia is vulgarly parodied by the commodity production of postmodernism. The 20th Century’s avant-gardism defends productive aesthetics and rejected the idea of art based on representation. The aim of avant-gardism is not to imitate the world but to produce and change it. Besides, although postmodernism puts forward the same

84 argument on imitation, it has differences since it also rejects creativity and autonomy. It argues that there is nothing to imitate. What is going to be imitated is thought to have been already imaged (imagined), changed and speculated. What is going to be represented is thought to be fictitious. Consequently it becomes clear that, as Eagleton states, postmodern thinking evacuates and bowdlerizes avant- gardism from its contents and thus it constitutes postmodern art.

“When postmodern artist and theorists argue for a return to the collective and historical and to the past conventions of art (e.g. Portogehesi 1983), this is not a nostalgic return to humanist universal history; it cannot be, because, for the postmodernist, art is considered not as the product of original genius or even of individual artisan(al) activity, but as a “set of operations performed in a field of signifying practices” (Burgin 1986,39) which have a past as well as a present, a public as well as a personal dimension.” (Hutcheon, 1992: 191)

As it is stated above postmodernist art form is defined to be “a set of operations” which include different dimensions. It might contain both the present and the past within the same content. Different characters from different periods might be brought together in “a field of signifying practices”; yet the artistic originality, autonomity, creativity and genius are all rejected. Since the elements that are included in a postmodern art form are thought to be the result of a selection of a composer, each of the selected pieces is thought to refer to a sign. Art form is combined through fictitious and chosen signifiers.

The concept of art has been appraised differently, too. Since the artist is evaluated to be a composer, the work of art is also treated in a similar way. The subjectivity, the personal style and tone of the artist is thought to have disappeared by postmodernists. The sense of originality in a work of art, its sufficiency and integrity has been handled to be invalid. Therefore, despite the opposition of the postmodernists, it should be stated that postmodernism composes a work of pastiche. Pastiche is usually defined to be the work of composition consisted of different studies those of which are imitated from previous works. For this reason, since postmodernism rejects the autonomy of the artist, it defends the work of art as something consisting of different works. In fact it composes the work of pastiche. Jameson designates postmodern work of art as being pastiche, too.

85 Also according to Jameson, pastiche is defined to be a kind of “blank parody” of what is “historically original” or “modern”. Jameson’s statement remarks that the postmodern work of art is depthless. (Jameson, 1993: 17)

“Pastiche is blank parody, parody that has lost its sense of humour: pastiche is to parody what that curious thing, the modern practice of a kind of blank irony, is to what Wayne Booth calls the stable and comic ironies of, say, the eighteenth century.” (Jameson,1992: 167)

Marxism also advises realism as it is done by Lukács who is one of the important Marxist literary critics. If art will examine society then it should be realistic, it should deal with real matters and reality. Mostly, reality is presented through an illusionary way by the dominant class and thus reality becomes fake and realness is hidden; therefore the idea of defamiliarization is introduced by Brecht. Through defamiliarization, it becomes possible to be alienated from the circumstances and inspect life from a distance. Thus the illusionary realness can be comprehended and criticised. On the scene, both the spectators, and, actors and actresses are alienated from the illusions of reality and they are pushed to question and criticise it.

Early Marxists think that art reflects life so art must be taken as mimesis or an imitation of life but Lukács underlines the fact that art can’t be a reflection of reality like a mirror since an artist “in the case of a correctly formed work” must create it. According to Lukács, art reflects the reality by criticizing society. Lukács combines the Marxist theory and Hegel’s aesthetic theory. Lukács’ aesthetics theory rejects the bourgeois art comprehension. Art is seen as a form of protest or the most important rebellious act against the utilitarian bourgeois discourse. Therefore art is composed through a revolutionary interpretation of the previous works of art.

According to Marxists, the idea of universal wholeness is valid for art. Art is thought to be interconnected and inter-textual. Despite the fact that postmodernism refuses the idea of universality, it still accepts the works of art as interconnected and inter-textual. For Marxists, a text might be accepted to be the imitation of another text, yet each imitation should carry its creator’s unique imagination and materialist conditions. Since life changes in dialectic relations, a previous work of art is accepted to cause another work of art. Innovation and creativity in art, in thought or

86 in life are also accepted by Paul de Man. He presumes history as a whole and depicts that there is innovation in life and thus there can be modernity. Yet, he asserts that what is presented to be new or modern is essentially the interpretation of the previous works. The mere innovation is considered to be the ‘change’ itself. Since time has changed and is always changing, what is produced previously or seen to be traditional has been interpreted through the perception of the new age. Stagnation of history and mind is rejected. Change in life is permanent, yet it should be stated that innovation of a previous form is not sufficient for a work to be evaluated as a work of art. The possible originality and creativity should not be ignored.

“It is all too easy to point to apparent repetitions in the history of the human mind for proof that there is nothing new under the sun, but this can only be done by confusing tradition with the commonplace and by mistaking the stagnation of one’s own mind for the stagnation of history.” ( Paul de Man, 1989: 137 )

While Marxists try to reveal and exhibit the universal values and features of the form and the content of the work of art in a revolutionary way in order to change life, postmodernists wish to deconstruct the wholeness of the work of art into small fragments and each of the fragments is evaluated separately. Yet still these fragments are thought to exist in an international web through which any signifier might sign any other signified. Despite the fact that all the fragments are wished to be decomposed, still they are related to each other.

“It is in the nature of the work of art, or aesthetic semblance, to be what the new, terrifying occurrence became in the primitive’s magic: the appearance of the whole in the particular” (Adorno, W. Theodor, Max, Horkheimer, 1997: 19)

As the quotation above shows, according to Marxists, art and aesthetic are defined to be a harmonious and unique unity. Adorno also makes a similar definition of it. Adorno accepts art as a representation of the whole. There is a dialectic line between the whole and the particular. It is known that in a dialectic relationship, the two contradictory are defined through each of them and these two ends are seen as the part of a whole. It draws a never ending line through dialectic thinking. Life is defined by means of its potency of changeability and transformability. Therefore, it should be approved that a singular unity cannot be thought as if it is unrelated to the whole. History, ideology, and social and cultural ingredients are the single units of

87 life. When aesthetic is blended with the artist’s creativity, there is formed an organic unity which has the representation of the whole within that particular work of art. Thus, art becomes universal.

As opposed to Marxism, postmodernism defines art in a deconstructive way. Art is no more seen as a structured unity; yet, it is presented as a patchwork whose ingredients are not compulsorily needed to be in harmonization. The work of art is thought to be fragmentary and it is not compulsory for its pieces to be formed in the same work. All the pieces might be used separately or each fragment can be thought outside the context. The bounds of each of the pieces are required and promoted to be cut, even the contextual bounds might be deconstructed or cut.

While capitalism globalizes, it creates divisions within the structure of the whole. Globalization needs to enter all the markets of the world and therefore the structure of the states, nations, communities must be divided into the most possible smallest pieces. Nations must be divided into local cultural unities; these unities must be divided into individuals. Each individual is seen as a market for capitalism and through globalization each single market becomes open for the intervention of capitalism. Postmodernism has the same tendency with capitalism. Postmodernism stresses on the divisions among social groups and individuals, it underlines the differences and aims to deepen the differences as far as it is possible. Both capitalism and postmodernism moves in a deconstructive way or in other words they both have an aim to deepen the divisions within the life. Postmodernism stresses on and deepens the division within the individual self of the artist. The past, present and future are divided, even the stories are divided. Therefore the idea of ‘schizophrenia’ is uttered by Jameson in order to define postmodern art. Yet, Jameson’s the schizophrenic ethic which is placed as a postmodern alternative exists through capitalism’s natural circumstances.

“If we are unable to unify the past, present, and future of the sentence, then we are similarly unable to unify the past, present, and future of our own biographical experience or psychic life. With the breakdown of the signifying chain, therefore, the schizophrenic is reduced to an experience of pure material signifiers, or, in other words, a series of pure and unrelated presents in time.” (Jameson, 1993: 27)

88 Furthermore, Jameson endeavours to signify another matter which occurs through the postmodern concept of historical approach and is also thought to be fragmentary. According to postmodernism theory; since the relationship between the past, present and future is thought to be fragmented and the historical line is thought to be broken, the human mind is accepted to be broken and pieced, too. “Personal Identity” of the artist is linked to the “temporal unification” of the past, present and future; thus when these lines are broken ‘schizophrenia’ emerges. The integrity of Sassurean thought is deconstructed by the postmodernism theory. Therefore personal identity of the artist is also deconstructed by postmodernism. We are no more able to unify the personality. (Jameson, 1993: 26)

Postmodern work of art is defined by Jameson as being schizophrenic. The work of “schizophrenic art” is thought to be standing alone on its “free-standing isolation”. The work of art exists on its isolated freedom. All the bounds are cut and fragments are brought together in a different context or left alone to tell its own story. It is expressed that postmodernism defines art as a fragmented composition which might be interpreted differently by many different individuals. In order to liberate art and the self from ideologies and social bounds postmodernism defends all these bounds to be cut. Yet this study is in conformity with Jameson’s thought which defines postmodern art form as being schizophrenic. Since it is thought that there cannot be liberation from all these ties, the isolated art form of postmodernism is evaluated to be an idea that could not achieve to stand on its own feet and also has not any basis.

While Marxism wishes art to be equipped with a social role and be an illuminator guide to society, on the other hand postmodernism facilitates to capitalism for art to be turned into an object of daily life. As Jameson claims, art is turned into a commodity or a means of popular culture which is bought and sold, and produced in the capitalist production system for the mass-consumption of daily life. It is needed as a medium of exchange in capitalism. When art is produced for consumption of popular culture, the result of it does not mean a work of art, yet it means a product for the market in capitalism.

89 Art is sold to the consumers. What is composed in a postmodern art form is left to the consumer’s choice or acceptance, whose freedom of choosing is manipulated by the dominant class. Since originality is rejected, millions of copies of the postmodern commodity might be produced in order for them to be sold to millions of singular consumers. The majority of people are surrounded by the ideology of capitalism, thus it becomes impossible for individuals to be selective. They are brought up under the hegemony of capitalist comprehension of life and they are shaped by means of the objectivity they live in. Hence what is presented to the market is sold or consumed by the masses. Art is produced the same as the production of the needs of the masses; therefore, the object of art might be turned into a computer or a tin of industrially-made soup or a car or a cup of tea.

Postmodernism criticises the modernist art form. Modernism is thought to be elitists. Since art is formed through an intellectual thinking in modernism, it is not produced for the needs of daily life but it is produced for some subliminal sharing of life. According to Lyotard, ‘modern aesthetics’ is thought to be the ‘aesthetic of the sublime’. What is considered ‘modern’ creates ‘the real sublime’ which signifies both pleasure and pain. Human consciousness combines reason and sensibility; therefore while the rational side knows how to overcome difficulties and take pleasure, the sentimental side deepens the existential pain. This delicate sensibility is thought to be formed in a work of art through the autonomous creativity of the artist. Yet what is thought to be sublime is also thought to be elitists and therefore rejected by the postmodernists.

For the reason that art is thought to be elitists, it is rejected by postmodernism. Instead of the modernist art approach art is defended to be for everyone, which is resulted in popularism. The idea of popularism is not a negative one. The truth is it would be nice if all individuals were interested in art. Yet, since all media and ideological apparatuses are in capitalists’ power, art is abused in order for it to be sold to millions of individuals. Owing to the commodification of art, all the objects and works are treated to be the same. Consequently postmodernism causes popularism since it does not have an aim to make a progression in art and society.

90 Moreover, the aims of postmodernism are not revolutionary; it doesn’t attach importance to the possibility of an alternative life and art. On the other hand, postmodernism is accepted to be elitist, too. Since it defends to re-write the previous texts and stories, and since in order to re-write these texts, approximately all texts should be known and it is claimed that only a small elite may do the re-writing. (Lyotard, 1997: 81)

Besides within this study Jameson’s opinion on postmodernism is accepted since it clarifies the ties between postmodernism and capitalism or the postmodern comprehension of art and the needs of capitalism. According to Jameson, capitalism finally has constituted the “commodification of art” through its own way of thinking called postmodernism. Through the multinational consumer capitalism, art is turned into a commodity which can be produced by anyone for the market. The commodity is produced for consumption. Since capitalism produces and reproduces itself through consumption, consumption itself turns into a way of life or the culture of capitalism. Therefore Jameson presents postmodernism as “the cultural logic of late capitalism”. (Jameson,1993)

“Artistic and literary research is doubly threatened, once by the “cultural policy” and once by the art and book market.” (Lyotard, 1997: 76)

It is possible to deduce the consequence such as; capitalism secretes the ideology of consumption in its global (or might be called high-imperialist) phase, it transforms all the values into commodities which can be bought and sold while on the other hand it reduces art to a product which is produced for the millions of consumers. Yet it is clear that one must either accepts art as a part of daily consumption within this system or loses all his/her hopes of art production.

“…one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald’s food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and “retro” clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter of TV games. It is easy to find a public for eclectic works. By becoming kitsch, art panders to the confusion which reigns in the “taste” of the patrons. Artists, gallery owners, critics, and public wallow together in the “anything goes,” and the epoch is one of slackening. But this realism of the “anything goes” is in fact that of money; in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield.” (Lyotard, 1997: 76 )

91 Art becomes a commodity in a postmodern world; it is consumed and thrown after it is finished. It is thought to be kitsch, yet, what should be asked is in fact based on the possibility of an artistic work in capitalism. It is a fact that these conditions that surround the individuals and societies are produced by capitalism. These conditions are the materialist facts, yet if art is thought or pressed under the same conditions or tried to be produced within these circumstances then how the result of these conditions is claimed to be a work of art. Art, in fact, will be produced in the future after the destruction of capitalism and the construction of socialism.

This drawn view or fore-stated ideas are told in order to underline the hopelessness in capitalism. Besides, since capitalism is in such an aggressive phase that it deconstructs the states, it kills millions of people as it goes on exploiting the world, art is compulsorily forced to take sides. A choice between art for commercial relations and art for society should be questioned. Yet, it must be accepted that there exists a single individual who believes in communism or communist ideals, this means that there is still much to hope for this being, art which will be valued as it is deserved.

6.2 The Artist

Because of the fact that human beings are born to a social world and history, they unconsciously learns those relations binding them to their society and the ties which bind the past to the present, and the present to future. The only liberation of human beings might be done through their consciousness and revolutionary thinking on an individuals’ own existence in history. When individuals rise their consciousness to the surface, then they can see that through revolutionary and historical attempts their obedience to the capitalists and capitalism, or to the system of the dominant class in general, might be changed and the exploitation relationship might be transformed into an equal one. And thus a new art form of an equal society which is not easy to imagine from today’s world, will be produced. Moreover artist is perceived as the one who is going to hold the illuminating light of art to society.

92 Artist is wished to be a leader who is a foresighted, creative liberator, and has a different consciousness of life which enables him/her to criticise and question the existent conditions and relations.

While the position of the artist is not rejected within the Marxists theory, on the other hand postmodernism wishes the artist’s position to be destroyed. Postmodernism rejects the subjective position of the artist, and individual creativity. It is claimed by postmodernism that social relations are based on struggle for hegemony. The one who has the knowledge, which will provide it with power, is placed in the central position and thus it creates its own sovereignty. The position of the artist is seen as the same. The author is presented to be standing with his pen which might be the patriarchal representation of his authority. Therefore the notion of author is not only individual but it is also patriarchal and authoritarian. Therefore postmodernism strictly rejects the author’s position. The perception of the artist as the creative producer of art is considered to be based on subjectivity which is totalitarian and centric. Discourse of the artist is thought to be authoritarian. The artist is thought to objectify his/her readers, audience, spectators by taking the subject position. Therefore the position of the artist is suggested by the postmodernists to be obliterated. (Foucault, 1995: 197)

Apart from postmodernism, Marxism places the artist in the subject position which is not thought to be something frightening. Subjectivity is consisted through the consciousness of the individual. Therefore the artist is perceived as an individual who has the consciousness of their existence. The artist perceives life from their point of view and mixes their perception with their senses and consciousness and at last produces a work of art. Artists are also seen as illuminators and guides to society. Through a work of art, an artist might reflect the reality from many different points of view, therefore the position of the artist should not be thought to be totalitarian. Marxism questions the fear of subjectivity. Why do postmodernists always advice individuals to escape from the centre instead of conquering it in order to change the existent inequality of the system?

93 Postmodernism rejects the idea of authorship and the position of the artist since they are all thought to be liars. Besides, what is presented as the meaning of the work of art can be stemming from a fictitious idea. The realness of meaning is acceded to be arbitrary and fictitious. The ‘truthfulness’ of an author becomes unreliable and s/he is thought to be a liar. Although in Marxist literary theory the artist’s subject position is accepted and s/he is wished to have a guidance role on society, the truthfulness of the author is still questioned. Owing to the fact that meaning is relative, various things might be understood by different readers. In contrast with postmodernism, Marxism accepts the existence of meaning which might be various and relative. There is not an aimless writing and even the aimlessness of writing is perceived as an aim which has significance on written culture. Therefore, according to Adorno, variability of meanings can not be altered with the rejection of the idea of authorship or the position of the artist.

Moreover, Barthes accentuates the illusive author (or artists in general). As Barthes states, an artist is perceived as someone whose intention and voice cannot be understood from the text. An artist intention, which might be also called ‘intentional fallacy’ and strictly opposed by New Criticism, is thought to be impossible to be estimated. Barthes conveys that the author is dead.

“the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins” (Barthes, 1992, 228)

Roland Barthes’ article ‘The Death of The Author’, starts stating the impossibility of deciding on who is speaking in written texts. He argues that writing is “the destruction of every voice” therefore the origin or in other words the author of the voice is alleged to be lost. What is spoken is thought to be language and the author is thought to write for his own death. Writing is thought to begin when the author is dead and the readers’ birth is also seen as the result of the author’s death, yet it should be pinpointed that the idea of the death of the author indeed deepens the paradox of postmodernism. Marxists accept the author’s subject position which has power to reach people.

94 The author is seen as a guide and since the act of writing is always done through someone, be it the author or not, the identity of the person who writes or who tells the story or who creates a work of art becomes significant, and thus there cannot be an escape from identity.

Roland Barthes’ article The Death of The Author and Harold Bloom’s A Map of Misreading both share the idea on the death of the artist. Both an author and a poet or in general terms an artist shares the same death after the production of the work of art. Even the process of art production is betrayed as a kind of journey to death which might also be called the dialectic reality. Postmodernism cannot stand the existence of the artist since the artist is perceived as a God-like figure. On the contrary Marxists know that there can be no way of escaping from the artist’s identity and existence which are shaped through the culture, environment, politics, economic and psychological conditions. The work of art is given birth by the artist. In a work of art, the existence of the artist and all his/her materialist conditions are sensed and thus should be accepted.

Genette does not reject the position of the artist, yet still does not wish to criticise the text through its author. Therefore without ignoring the position and the identity of the artist, the criticism of a text is thought to be possible. Genette states that not only the name of the author but also the publisher’s name, the prefaces, indexes, the size and colour of types, etc. are all presented to be determinative in text analysis. The meanings of titles, authors’ names and any other significations might change and might be perceived in various ways according to the time it is written or in which culture it is written or in which culture it is read, or when it is read, etc. The historical, cultural, economic, political, ideological background of both writing and reading process must be taken into consideration. Therefore Genette states that the author’s identity and competency for the authorship becomes important. It must be given importance to the owners of the works. If the text is put on a high value, then the author must be given his share. According to Genette, it is impossible to evaluate any text without implicating the author.

95 The author’s existence is neither ignored nor thought to be the most important element of the text. Yet postmodernism rejects the importance of the authors since they are associated with the authoritative power.

“ ... the difficulty of which was fully recognized: for the point is more or less (as we would say today) to put a high value on the text without antagonizing the reader by too immodestly, or simply too obviously, putting a high value on the text’s author.” (Genette, 1997: 198 )

The given importance to the author’s name might also be related to the ideology of private property. It is known that during the Middle Ages, there exists feudalism which is based on agricultural relations. Literature is thought to be the work of aristocracy then and there is no need to mention on the author’s name since it is just read among a specific group which is consisted of educated aristocracy; therefore the author’s name is already known within that class. On the other hand the desire for mystification might be the reason for the absence of an author’s name. The absence of a name might be the signification of a mask which is used as an artificial mask for aristocracy.

However as a result of the rise of industrialism, capitalism begin to develop and so does the idea of private property. Publishing and the press has begun to be seen as a considerable market. The idea of private property is printed to individual’s mind. The ownership of a work of art is thought to be a feature which is chosen by the artist. Authors desire to feel their existence through their names which are put on the cover of the book and presented to the market. Despite the postmodern motto which underlines the significance of the absence of an author, all authors, be they postmodernists or not, have an aim to put their names on the cover of the book. Therefore postmodernism becomes conflicting. As it is fore-stated, Marxists attach importance to authorship and the identity of the author which are thought to be determining elements of text analysis, besides it should be stated at this point that the idea of private property and capitalist relations are questioned.

An artist’s personality is not only deconstructed but also thought to be dead. Opposing to psychic “autonomy” which is fended by the traditional Frankfurt School, postmodernists develop the idea of “decentred subject”. Owing to the fact

96 that a subject is weighed as a centre of power and authority, it is needed to be decentred, yet decentralization is deepened within the self of the artist, too. The artistic self is thought to be schizophrenic and fragmented. Jameson gives a definition of not an original but a schizophrenic artist in postmodernism concept. Jameson’s idea of schizophrenia takes its roots from Saussurean structuralist definition of meaning. “Meaning” is grown out of the relationship between signifier and signified.

“When that relationship breaks down, when the links of the signifying chain snap, then we have schizophrenia in the form of (a) rubble of distinct and unrelated signifiers.” (Jameson, 1993: 26)

Because of this reason the position of the artist is required to be deconstructed by postmodernism. The word ‘artist’ is replaced with the words ‘composer’, ‘mixer or ‘editor’. An artist is no more seen as a creator or the mother of an original work of art but as a composer and ordinary man who sums up the materials and mixes them in a way. The individuality and the creative self of the artist is no more taken into consideration. Eagleton claims that anyone who composes different materials in extremity might be accepted as an artist or if anything is presented in a popular way it might be seen as a work of art by postmodernism. It is argued by Jameson in Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism that through postmodernism the individual subject is lost.

The labour of the artist is reduced to the labour of an editor. Individuality and autonomy are rejected by postmodernism. Since the language, paints, actors, actresses, scenes, daily objects such as cars or spoons or etc. are seen as the tools or the objects of a composer who decides which of them will be chosen or how they will be organized, it is suggested that anyone can compose a work of art through bringing such tools together. Postmodern composers, who may decide to choose the objects of art, select and place the fragments and pieces. Since creativity and autonomy are not taken into consideration, these pieces and tools of art are thought to be composed by anyone. Thus the subject position of the artist is claimed to be filled by anyone. Artistry is not thought to be based on cultivation, sophistication, and creativity.

97 “Postmodernism presumably signals the end of this dilemma, which it replaces with a new one. The end of the bourgeois ego, or monad, no doubt brings with it the end of the psychopathologies of that ego-what I have been calling the waning of affect. But it means the end of much more-the end, for example, of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal, the end of the distinctive individual brush stroke (as symbolized by the emergent primacy of mechanical reproduction).”( Jameson, 1993: 15 )

Originality is thought to be impossible; the only power attributed to the artist is the position of a composer who brings the parts, quotations and fragments together. Since the individual autonomy of the artist is thought to be authoritative, which represses and limits the admirers of art, is deconstructed. The artist’s individual existence is attached no importance. As Jameson states postmodernism might be seen as “the end of the distinctive individual brush stroke.” In opposition to the postmodernists, Marxists accepts the personal identity of the artist. An artist is thought to have an individual aesthetic perception of life which helps them to produce life in a creative, unique way. Both Marxists and postmodernists underline that the materialistic conditions in which the artist lives would certainly affect the artist’s talent and way of thinking. Moreover, according to Marxists, art might not be produced through a single artist but through a communal way as it can be seen in the production of a theatre play; actors, actresses, director, electrician, musician, designer are all work in a communal way by adding their personal imagination, style and creativity. Despite the fact that postmodernists reject the idea of subjectivity, it still suggests the commune way of art production in the name of pluralism.

The aim of writing is indicated in relation with death. The oral narrative, as opposed to the written one, is seen as a way to escape from death and to create a protective space. Foucault gives The Thousand and One Nights as an example to this protective narration through which the death is kept out of the life circle. Author’s death is assumed to be the result of his act of writing. Moreover, the written narrative is also thought to be in association with the patriarchal culture, and thus the oral narrative, which is thought to go along with the matriarchal tradition, is seen as an alternative narrative to the written tradition of the male-oriented system. The identity of the narrative voice in oral tradition is much more blurry than it is in the written one. Therefore postmodernists think that the absence of authority and power can be achieved through the oral narrative. Yet, the identity of the narrative voice still can

98 be guessed or it should be underlined that the power of authority might be told through an oral narration. By underlining the importance of ideology, Marxism shows that there is no difference between the oral and the written tradition if the narrative voice strengthens the authoritative power. Therefore, authority or the idea of power is not associated with the identity or the existence of author.

Since “the absence of a centre” is coded to be “the absence of a subject and the absence of an author”, an author is thought to be dead. Since who has written something would be dead as soon as after the thing is written, the idea of the dead author might be acceptable. On the other hand since the words would be the choices of the author, in a sense author would stand there, would be present within the living entity of the written words. So the author will live through the words chosen by him or her. (Derrida,1999: 117) Besides, Foucault approves this idea and he not only problematizes the notion of author but he also questions the notion of writing or in other words “work”. Writing is not considered to be “the act of writing” or an “indication”. Writing is seen as a tool by the author in order to keep some representations (derived from the author’s image) alive. Therefore, apart from the fore-stated idea which underlines the importance of the death of the author in postmodern terms, author is thought to be alive through their written works which will live forever.( Foucault, 1995: 199 )

Not only Foucault but also Roland Barthes defend that the author is dead. In the absence of the author, the reader must search for the gaps. He questions the word ‘author’ as a proper name. The author is thought to function as a classifcator who defines, differentiates or groups the texts. Foucault gives different characteristics of an author. One of the basic characteristics of an author depends on his position as a punisher. An author is defined to be “placed in the system of property.” As if the author were a punisher, they draw a line between the bipolar fields of the legal and the illegal, for the benefits of property. (Foucault, 1995: 202)

99 7 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE

The complete edition of A Clockwork Orange was first published in England in 1962, yet it was published in the United States without its final chapter. The shortened American version is cinematized by Stanley Kubrick and it became one of his most celebrated films. A Clockwork Orange is a dispohia and an example of a fiction and its story is told by a first person narrator called Alex who is the leader of a gang and who “controls the novel.” The story is also thought to epitomise satiric writing which desperately brings the human beings face to face with what they are in reality. He and his friends love violence, they rob, beat, torture and rape people. In one of their ultra-violent experiences Alex is caught by the police and put into prison. He is chosen to be transformed into someone who behaves well and does not disturb the peace of society, and he is reclaimed by a brainwashing method and thus he is set free. Yet, this time he is tortured and beaten by the members of his society and decides to commit suicide. After his shocking experiment of self-destruction, while he is unconscious he is healed by the doctors. He becomes the same person in the beginning of the story yet in the final chapter he becomes mature and does not feel the same wild excitement for violence. He decides to get married and wants to have a son. (Tilton, 1977: 23) A Clockwork Orange is a fictional text which elucidates postmodernist themes. It cannot be evaluated as an example of fiction which holds all the features of postmodernism or a masterpiece of postmodernism; yet there are some themes, ideas and characters which should be deliberated with regard to the postmodernist elements. On the other hand these elements will be criticised in the light of Marxist theory.

According to Marxism, the conflict between society and the individual is in fact unnecessary since they have to be thought together. Society and the individual are tied to each other. Individuality is acquired in a social life and it is shaped through language, culture, history, religion and such components of society. Individuality is also one of the components of society. Besides, the idea of

100 individuality comes on the scene through the modern society since both society and the individual have influences on each other. Since, social, scientific, cultural, artistic, economic, and political development had reached a point where it became impossible not to discuss individualism, it is open to discussion. However the western mind has taken this term contrary to the idea of society as it can be seen through the idea of postmodernism. Yet, according to Marxism the mutual interaction between society and the individual is in confluence.

According to postmodern thinking, society is always seen as restriction to the individual’s world. Therefore postmodernism wishes this restriction to be destroyed and deconstructed. While it endeavours to lift the veils or force the limits of society, all the rules of social life are being disturbed. This notion in postmodernism might be considered to be its revolutionary aspect but on the other hand the idea of liberation in postmodernism brings the liberation of violence and destruction as well. At the same time destruction mostly comes in accordance with the authorities’ benefits. In Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange , the idea of liberalization in postmodern thinking is submitted with its consequences.

In A Clockwork Orange , Alex is an ex-centric character, despite the fact that he has some very significant central features. He is white, male, and an individual of the western world; yet he is such a type of individual whose story is never preferred to be told. He tells his story from a distance, as a third eye. He is young, loves ultra violence and speaks and thinks as if he is one of the other members of society. Indeed, individually and consciously Alex chooses a violent way of life. He is a unique character with his choices reason being, he individually knows his place and his rights in society. He is too extreme in his manners and extreme circumstances are attached importance to by postmodernism. Yet his uniqueness might be evaluated to be normality and violence is fostered in society. Consciously he wishes to live in violence and as an individual right; he requires his society to let him live in the way he has chosen. He legitimizes his desire for violence by means of liberalization. He seems to be right according to the rules of liberalism; thus his extreme manners might be claimed to be normal in these circumstances. If postmodernism wishes

101 every single individual to live his or her life without the disturbance of others in an apolitical way, then Alex should be left to do whatever he pleases. Yet the problem comes since what Alex wants to damage is social life and the life of other individuals.

The novel starts with a question sentence: “What is going to be then, eh?” The novel constantly pushes the reader to ask: “What’s it going to be then, eh?” This question has been being asked to all the members of society, all the ex-centrics and the postmodernists. What is going to be done when someone comes on the scene and tells that s/he wants to live without all the restrictions? When all authorities and power relations are rejected, what will be done? As it might be seen, the failure of postmodernism becomes clear. Marxism determines that rejection of all the power relations and the rejection of a social life should be done through consciousness. While some authoritative power should be rejected and abolished, it should be done in a revolutionary way by submitting an alternative way of living. Social life is in the nature of human beings, yet the system alienates human beings to their nature and thus they begin to act differently from their nature. Therefore a more peaceful life based on the equal rights and opportunities of individuals should be re-ordered. Yet this question is being asked and its answer is being searched for throughout the story within the postmodern framework. The materialist conditions of the individual and society are abstracted and ignored; and conflicts are endeavoured to be faced up to in their self-styled expressions freestanding from cultural, social, politic and economic ties. (Burgess, 1972: 5)

The novel opens with a question and then Alex starts to tell the story from his perspective; yet it is not known if the question is asked by Alex or not. The question might be asked by the author. The question is asked as if it should be always kept in mind of the reader, as if it was always there apart from everything, as if it exists forever in a God-like position and is asked by an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient power. Also the word “eh” reminds us that the question is asked in a mid- conversation and as if it is taken from a different conversation of a different context. Apart from all these probabilities, an unknown speaker or Alex himself might be

102 trying to make a conversation with the reader. Yet this question which keeps its existence in the beginning of the story, throughout the story and in the end of the story, thus forces the reader to find the solution of the answer.

It also reminds us that something has happened, something but after all what is going to happen? Whether the question has been asked by God, the author or Alex, it is clear that it is in any wise asked by an authoritative central power and forces the reader to think about the future. Everything that has been done should have its consequences and influences on future. Even in many of the beliefs the believers have to think about life after death. The authoritative power in the story has a similar god-like position and requires the reader to keep this question in mind and think about the consequences of their behaviours.

As an ex-centric character, Alex is given a voice to tell his story. He seems to be a fascist and thus an ex-centric character whose story should be told according to postmodernists. Alex takes the position of the narrator. As he tells his story it is understood that he tells it from a distance as if he was the third eye. He talks to the reader, yet he always seems to be in need of impartial story telling. He rarely begins by using the word ‘I’, and instead of beginning the story by saying ‘I was there’, he starts with the words “There was me that is Alex”. Thus he seems to define himself from a distance trying to de-familiarize himself in a conscious way. He seems to tell his story in an epistemological way.

Narrative form defines the social competence and evaluation criteria, and includes a great variety of language games. Traditional knowledge is told and retold through the narrative processes. The narrator has importance for the reason that their gender; race, culture, etc. determine the rules of his/her narration. The narrator attains its narrative qualification simply through listening. The narrator both represents the authority and the inactive individual. Narrative competence includes “know-how,” “knowing how to speak,” and “knowing how to hear.” The Narrative form is also thought to have a rhythm. The narrator Alex has the same characteristics. Despite the fact that he hasn’t listened to the story from someone else, he still has the knowledge of it since he has experienced it. Since he has

103 experienced it, he is trying to tell the story form a distance by de-familiarizing himself. He is positioned to a narrator’s place who knows how to speak in his own style of language. (Lyotard, 1997: 21)

In the beginning of the novel, Alex gives his name and the names of his friends “Pete, Georgie, and Dim, Dim being really dim”. He calls them as his “three droogs” (Pg:5 Burgess) which will probably mean ‘his friends’. By giving each of his friends’ names at the very beginning of the novel Alex demonstrates that he accepts each of them as a different individual but on the other hand he also calls them as his droogs and mentions their togetherness. According to Alex there is first he and then the ‘others’ who are called his friends. Alex gives the picture of his small group in whose centre stands Alex and then his friends. He puts himself in the centre of the world and in conformity with the postmodernist theory, an ex-centric character who cannot find acceptance by society is taken into the centre to tell his own story. Alex might be seen as the representative of a minority group.

Moreover, it is significant that when Alex gives the name of Dim, he says his opinion of Dim. He thinks that Dim carries the characteristics of his name. So it is understood that according to what Alex has told about Dim, Dim is not a very clever and intelligent person. He is a friend of Alex but Alex makes fun of his identity and he wants readers to make fun of him. By making fun of Dim, Alex holds a power on Dim. By saying his own opinion, Alex wants readers to have the sense of his central power, he ties the reader to his central view and he wants the reader to have the same opinion of Dim. Whenever Alex talks about Dim, he makes fun of him or he stresses on his stupidity. He doesn’t respect Dim, his identity or personality. Thus he wants reader to think in the same way. Being the representative of a minority group, he forces the reader, who might be considered to be the representative of the majority, to look from his own point of view. At the very beginning he doesn’t talk much about his friends but as the story develops, the readers learn much about the other characters.

Alex and his friends are introduced as a small local group whose existence should be respected in postmodernism and thus have right to tell their stories.

10 4 Despite the fact that they are the elements of an ex-centric social group and have right to tell their stories in the name of pluralism; this relationship is resulted by Alex’s fascism. This may also be seen in The Lord of the Flies , a story where human beings are seen as unable to organize an equal social togetherness. A masculine power settles down to the centre in the absence of authority and presents itself as the authority. Despite the fact that postmodernism is always against these kinds of central totalitarianism, since it does not show and believe in an alternative way, a chaotic result becomes inevitable. Alex becomes a character of postmodernism with his fascistic features. Because of the fact that fascistic features are never accepted in social life by the vast majority, the fascist characters become the representatives of minorities thus they are treated to be ex-centrics in postmodernism.

“Postmodernim is also much taken with ‘extreme’ situations, and in this as in other ways is a true child of the modernism it upbraids. For both creeds, the extreme unmasks the norm as the lie or illusion that it is. But if norms really are illusions, then there can be no extremes either, since nothing against which to measure them. Extremism then becomes our normal condition, which is to say that it is not extreme at all, just as we cannot know that we are alienated if the criteria by which we might judge this condition are alienated along with us.” (Eagleton, 1996: 54, 55)

Additionally, on the one hand while the ex-centricism of Alex seems to be exaggerated, on the other hand his existence in real life is sensed or perceived as dreadful and absolute. Another dilemma of Alex’s ex-centricism relies in his self- centricism. He is a western character, he is a male and he is white. These are all central features, yet he represents the dark double of the western patriarchal culture. He is 15 years old and stands as the next generation of this western society. It has to be stated that the patriarchal way of thinking has centred the male authority and has sublimed it through an ideological apparatus such as religious doctrines. The male power is introduced to be the stable authority holding the godlike might in western cultures. While the male-oriented view has been centred, the religious dogmas have sublimed his centred position. Yet, the most important distinct feature of Alex’s character, lies in the reality that his character represents evil without reflecting it in other cultures. Alex stands as the member of the civilised western world. He is one of the civilized members of the patriarchal western world, yet he is too violent. It is also significant that despite Alex’s ex-centricism, he still accepts these patriarchal traditions; he takes pride in his gender, class and race.

105 While on the one hand liberalism in the postmodern sense is put forward in fiction through the identity of Alex, on the other hand it is underlined that such kind of acceptance of liberalism, life would be more limited and based on patriarchal western white male traditions. Marxism explains the reason of this situation by false consciousness and apolitical way of thinking of postmodernism. If the individuals and society are not evaluated in their economic and politic context, then it would be probable for such unequal conditions and despotic aims to gather strength.

Any other information is not given about Pete and Georgie at the very beginning of the story yet as the story develops we understand that they love violence, too; despite the fact that they do it under the guidance of Alex. Without his leading, they cannot go on doing violence in the same way but they will go on in some other ways which will be explained as the story develops. Violence is their individual choice, they are afraid of other local underground groups such as Billyboy and his droogs. The coming generation loves violence. Not only their group but also some other groups act in the same way. It’s an underground way of living whose rules are accepted by all the members of all the other groups. It’s an alternative social living, yet it is not common for the whole society, therefore they have to remain as ex-centric small formations of society. Pete, Georgie, and Dim orbit around Alex’s centre. Alex does not need them, he individually and consciously chooses his choices and wants to live in ultra-violence; yet the others have desire for power and do it for the purpose of feeling Alex’s central power and being a part of that power. They also do violence for the purpose of robbing and thus earning money to survive.

They wore the same clothes with some individual symbolic differences. They all wear the same “black very tight tights with the old jelly mould”, “waisty jackets without lapels”, “horrorshow boots for kicking”. Through these clothes it is symbolized that they are a small local group who dress in a common masculine way. Yet, since their wearing style is different than the other groups of people, their clothes should be considered to be the sign of their difference. Therefore not only Alex stands as a postmodern individual achieving his central free space, but also his droogs are thought to be a part of a postmodern local group which is different than

106 the other groups and has its own life-style independent of all the other social togetherness, institutions, etc. Each of the members of the group keeps an individual difference while they all stand as a group. Their individual differences can be seen through different designs on their clothes and the masks they choose before one of their operations.

“….I had one in the shape of a spider. Pete had a rooker ( a hand, that is), Georgie had a very fancy one of a flower, and poor old Dim had a very hound-and-hourny one of a clown’s litso (face, that is), Dim not ever having much of an idea of things and being, beyond all shadow of a doubting thomas, the dimmest of we four.” (Burgess, 1992; 6)

“We put our maskies on – new jobs these were, real horrorshow, wonderfully done really; they were like faces of historical personalities (they gave you the names when you bought) and I had Disraeli, Pete had Elvis Presley, Georgie had Henry VIII and poor old Dim had a poet veck called Peebee Shelley; they were a real like disguise, hair and all,…” (Burgess, 1992; 12)

The design on Alex’s clothes symbolizes his character. The spider can be seen as the symbol of his central power. A spider usually has eight legs jointed to the main body which has a round shape. Legs makes the main body move, they collect anything to the main body. Alex as the main body of his group uses his three droogs as his legs in order to have the central power. Postmodernism theory defends deconstruction for all kinds of central power mechanism. Therefore it suggests the division of social togetherness into small societies as far as it is possible. These social groups should stand separately and thus it is believed that all central power mechanisms should be deconstructed. It aims to deconstruct the individual and wishes each individual to keep their difference and deconstruct their ties. Yet as it can be seen in Alex’s group, all small societies, be it local, cultural, sexual, ethnic or racial, create their own central power. The power is created not through social ties and identities but through individual’s conscious, independent, free understanding of life. Alex’s life which is seen as a postmodern alternative way of life brings deconstruction and chaos; and there have been no alternative changes since the world is still shaped through physical strength and masculine power. Also as a postmodern hero, Alex holds the absolute power in his hand.

The symbol of imperialism is the octopus which is similar to Alex’s. Since imperialism is overall the world it is symbolized with a huge animal whereas Alex stands as a small miniature of the same kind of relationship. The name Alex also has

107 “11 variant forms” in different countries from Russia to Germany and for this reason it’s one of the most common and popular names. Alex’s symbol spider is an animal which can be seen in many places in an individual’s life. Therefore, Alex’s symbol forces the reader to see the common characteristics of small social groups. Any individual might come across the same power relations, or any alternative small group might create the same consequence which is symbolised through a spider and therefore Alex’s authority. The name takes its origin from both English and German which reminds us of an individual who has significance in the world and German history. This individual is Hitler with whom Alex might have similar characteristics since he is one of the most known characters for overindulging in violence. (http://www. thinkbabynames.com/search.php?g=1&t=1&s=Alex)

These four friends choose masks to hide their faces, yet they choose the masks without knowing the names of them, rather only looking at their facial appearances. Despite the fact that they do not know whose masks they are putting on, they still carry similar characteristics with the identities of the faces on their masks since all elements in such texts should be seen as the choices of its author and thus have significant implications. Without knowing the fact that Disraeli is a politician and author, Alex chooses the face of Disraeli which seems knowledgeable, experienced and powerful. Alex has the same characteristics with Disraeli. Since he wants to rule his small group, he is a kind of politician, he has to govern his droogs and stand in the centre of this relationship. Disraeli is also an author, which demonstrates that he has thoughts and authority to write his thoughts. He is the centre of thoughts; therefore he should be obeyed by the others. Alex has the same features despite the fact that he didn't write anything, yet he always thinks himself as the brain and the teacher of his group. Also the author F. Alexandre can be seen as Alex. F. Alexandre and Alex seem to be the two halves of an apple. While F. Alexandre is on the side of liberalism, Alex wants to have the authority to rule the people around him. Alex wants to be the governor of not the whole world but his own republic. From another point of view Alex and F. Alexander have the same ideas with a slight difference. While Alex is on the side of liberalism for his own individual sake, F. Alexander demands liberalism for each of the individuals in society.

108 Pete’s clothes design is that of a rooker (a hand) which might be seen as the symbol of mediation. He becomes the symbol of handshaking. Whenever Alex, Georgie and Dim argue about anything, Pete comes on the scene and says something to find a common ground for them to form a resolution. He is a mediator of his three friends. He is loved by all the others like Elvis Presley who is loved by millions of people. He is not like his other friends; he knows how to communicate with different people. If Alex could have learnt something about communication from Pete, Dim and Georgie might not have gone against him.

The name Pete is originally coming from the name Peter and is the shortened version of this name. Peter is another popular name which has been reproduced in twenty one different forms. It is also the name of one of Jesus’ apostles. Jesus said to Peter “Upon this Rock I will build my church”. ( Matthew 16. The Holy Bible: King

James Version, Peter's Confession, Mk. 8.27-30 · Lk. 9.18-21 ) Pete in this story represents the base of the group. Upon Pete’s existence this local group can survive. Pete is in a sense the centre of the group since he has the power to balance the other three and stabilize the jumbled conditions. If he takes sides with one of his friends everything might change and the group may disperse. He is too silent; he doesn’t talk too much and is unable to render himself conspicuous, yet he represents the headstone in the structure of their group. Moreover he is the most social type of man of the group. He gets on well with Alex and the others. He is communicative but does not introduce himself as a leader and he has no complexes to take place in an authoritative power in the group. He does not want to be the front-man but prefers to stay a step back and rule the human relations in their group. (http://www.thinkbabynames.com/ meaning/1/Peter)

Georgie is another interesting character who wants to be the authority and to have the place of Alex. The origin of his name comes from the name “George”, and has thirty three forms in different languages. The name ‘George’ has medieval and agricultural implications. Also, despite the fact that the name ‘George’ is a common name for boys, the name ‘Georgie’ is not as common as a male’s name. Georgie in A Clockwork Orange carries this feminine side within his identity. The flower design

109 on his clothes and his mask of Henry VIII are significant in understanding his human characteristics. He is not a man of thought but a man of feeling, which is symbolized with a flower. He is too violent in his manners and acts by means of his feelings without thinking. He has the face of a king, which is the head of a kingship. He wishes to have the authority and he possesses the same ideas as Alex. He is always considered second best however he wants to have an equal sharing of authoritarian place. Yet, as his name significantly demonstrates the medieval and agricultural implications in his identity, he is an old-fashioned leader who cannot survive in such a post-modern world and thus dies.

Georgie’s desire of being a king is an old-fashioned one because kingship is an old-fashioned type of government; it is too old in the agricultural world, while Alex represents the authoritative power of a modern democratic republic. Therefore Georgie’s authority makes it impossible for him to survive in such a postmodern age. He rebels against Alex for the purpose of being more liberal, yet in fact his ultimate desire is to have a totalitarian power. He admires the past. Henry VIII is fond of hunting and he was the defender of the Roman Catholic Church, he was against Martin Luther and he was called the ‘defender of the Faith’ by the Pope. Georgie not only puts on the mask, which has Henry VIII’s face, but also he carries the same characteristics. He wants to be the hunter but he is hunted, and killed like a dog. He might have capacity to lead as if he is a king, yet he cannot survive in this postmodern age and as a result he is killed.

They live in a postmodern world which gives such ex-centric small groups chances to survive according to their own wishes; yet within this small group another problem lies beneath the surface. It seems democratic that each of the members has a right to demonstrate their thoughts and feelings, they have the right to tell their own opinions, but, on the other hand, Alex becomes the representative of the central power that regulates the relationship for the survival of his group. Yet as it might be in any democratic society, the members start to demand being more liberal. They want a limitless democracy. Therefore Alex accuses them of demanding ‘vandalism’. While Alex accepts the existence of rules for social togetherness and for his order to

110 survive, the members want to be more liberal. Alex doesn’t like anarchy and disordered life, he wants it to be systematic, yet the others want no rules and no order which might cause total chaos. Alex knows it and he goes against their opinions. Despite the fact that Alex is presented as the representative of postmodern liberalization of the individual, he turns into a fascist who demands to use democracy to keep his central authority. He loves violence but he does it for the purpose of having fun and happiness. His friends’ aim in doing violence is a bit different than Alex’s. For his friends ‘violence’ is a way of earning more money, and having a sense of masculine power.

“Whereas his three comrades are more goal-directed, hoping for better goods in return for their efforts, Alex states that “money isn’t everything, a conflict which ultimately sets the gang against him. For him, their nightly acts are crimes of passion. Alex, who beyond his almost limitless capacity for violence is socially powerless, expresses his desires, his sense of self, his alienation, and his artistry through the violence itself.” (Lichtenberg, Lune, Mcmanimon, 2004; 434)

Dim’s design is the face of a clown and he chooses a mask with the face of a poet called Percy Bysshe Shelley. Dim can be seen as the most interesting character in the whole novel. The word ‘dim’ is not used as a name of an individual; it is used to mean ‘stupidity’ and is often said by Alex for ‘humiliation and denigration’. Indeed, Dim is not a stupid person, he acts consciously, as an individual he has thoughts, ideas and desires, yet he is not understood by his friends. He feels great anger from deep inside his heart for his queer existence. He is as unique as his name. He is different than the others, and he is always treated to be secondary. Alex gives ear to him, yet Dim is too unique to be understood. Alex feels Dim’s intelligence and uniqueness therefore he humiliates Dim, and makes Pete, Georgie, the reader and even Dim himself to accept Dim as a stupid person.

The clown symbolizes Dim’s conscious side and humanity. He doesn’t choose a design of an animal, a vegetable or an abstract thing but he chooses the face of an identity and thus carries the characteristics of it. He is not stupid indeed, but he acts stupidly in order for his friends to have fun, and he acts as if he is a clown who consciously acts in a mood to make people laugh. In order to make people laugh, someone has to make a witty remark. Dim may not be making a witty remark for his

111 friends to laugh; yet, while they are committing ultra-violence, he acts in a manner which amuses his friends.

Dim is not a type of person who loves order, but loves chaos. While his friends keep their clothes clear and tidy after a fight, he always loses himself in his anger and his clothes become messy, bloody and dirty. He exists as the symbol of chaos. Therefore Alex hates Dim’s untidy appearance. While Alex stands in his untidy clothes, he disturbs Alex’s order and authority. He might be the representative of a threat both to Alex’s order and to the order of society because nobody in their society would like to see someone in Dim’s appearance. All the people in their society, Alex, and Pete accept the existence of an idea of order which should be kept superficial and they cannot put up with Dim’s appearance, since it shows the ultimate violence that lies beneath the surface of order. Only Georgie understands Dim since they both share the idea of chaos as a way of living.

Dim is a lunatic and tends to be in constant emotional turmoil and thus possesses feminine side. He is a total outsider to the masculine word. While all the others are carrying knives and cutters, he has a chain. He hides his chain till the time it is needed to be used and if it is needed he snakes out “the chain from his waist”. (pg: 45, Burgess) Additionally, his mask has the face of Shelley; this demonstrates deep feelings, and the passion in him. Shelley might also be seen as the most important representative of romantic poets. As it might be known, romantic poets want to reach nature and the natural emotions lying beneath civilised society. They wish to demonstrate ultimate passion which lies beneath the human soul. Madness is something sacred for romantic poets and romantic poets are also seen as mad by society. Dim has these features in his identity. He behaves without using reason as if he is mad or an animal. He acts in the most violent way without thinking, instead having the sense of violence as if he was an animal. He is limitless in his behaviour. If he had God’s power, he would annihilate everything; he may commit the most ultra-violent crimes passionately. He is too extreme and therefore dangerous for Alex. Dim’s limitlessness might be understood in the scene given below. They are in F. Alexander’s house and raping his wife. Dim dances as if he is a clown and he

112 wants to commit limitless ultra-violence, yet Alex controls Dim from behaving like that for the sake of order. There might be a satisfaction for Alex but not for Dim.

“Dim still dancing round and making ornaments shake on he mantelpiece (I swept them all off then they couldn’t shake no more, little brothers) while he filled with the author of A Clockwork Orange, making his litso all purple and dripping away like some very special sort of a juicy fruit…Then there was like quiet and we were full of like hate, so smashed what was left to be smashed – typewriter, lamp, chairs – and Dim, it was typical of old Dim, watered the fire out and was going to dung on the carpet, there being plenty of paper, but I said no. ‘Out out out out,’ I howled. The writer veck and his zheena were not really there, bloody and torn and making noises. But they’d live”( Burgess,1962; 22)

Alex tries to be the teacher of Dim. He tries to teach him how to act in a civilized society, and attain some rules on life. Alex also stresses on his teaching position while he tries to have the control of his group in his hands. According to Alex, especially Dim, as if he is a student, has many things to learn from Alex. One day while all of them are out to experience a new ultra-violence event, Dim looks up at the moon and the stars as if he had never seen them before, and says: “What’s on them, I wonder. What would be up there on things like that?” Dim seems to be talking to himself, yet Alex answers immediately by humiliating Dim in his usual manner. Since Alex sees himself in a God-like position, as if he had the ultimate knowledge of everything; he gives the answer that there is nothing to be curious about the life on such satellites and stars. He claims that the life on such different satellites; stars and planets have the same life people have down on earth. While some are “knifed”, on the other hand some are “knifing”. Having God’s authoritative power in his order, Alex doesn’t want anyone from his group to think about an alternative order; and thus he wants them to believe that there is nothing different than the order they have, there is no need to imagine anything else and his order might not be the perfect order, yet it has no alternative. Dim seems to be suspicious of what Alex has explained. He looks up at the moon and the stars once more as if he wants to show that it is hard for him to believe in Alex’s order. He goes on searching for another world. (Burgess,1962; 18)

Alex and his friends are in Korova Milk Bar which sells “milk plus something else”. In that Bar, milk is sold mixed with drugs. The place has no licence to sell alcohol but it sells milk with many different types of drugs. Youths go and have

113 these drinks and they start to lose their consciousness and start to imagine themselves being somewhere else. It becomes a way of escaping from reality. Yet, on the other hand Alex never has these drinks to lose himself but to find himself. He has “milk with knives in it” which sharpens him. Milk with knives is another kind of milk mixed with a drug yet it prepares Alex to have enough fun. He is still conscious of himself. (Burgess, 1962; 5)

Their “pockets were full of deng” therefore they don’t need to damage people to have money but just for having fun. They do all these things in order to have a good time together. Yet his friends still want to do it to earn money. But violence makes all of them happy. They act in the same way, they are dressed in the same way and they use the same language. For all these reasons they stand as a small local social group whose existence can be accepted in postmodern thinking. According to postmodernism each of the separate different social group or individuals has a right to live the way they wish. Postmodernism wishes all different social groups to keep their difference from the others and move in an independent way. In this story Alex and his friends are presented as a different social group which live according to their own rules and lifestyle; yet that social group gives harm to other individual’s private lives and the public life of society. While they are trying to liberate themselves, they represent the crookedness in social life. Yet this is the point where postmodernism ceases for the reason that in the name of liberalism the world is getting more dependent on physical strength and masculine powers. In the name of liberalism and democracy, and through postmodernism, the most male-oriented culture is being legitimized in individual and social memories. However according to Marxism, postmodern understanding of liberalisation is accepted to be apolitical, that’s why what is presented to be liberalization by postmodernism is accepted to be an illusion by the Marxists’. (Burgess, 1962; 5)

Alex talks about three girls who are in the Korova Milkbar. They are ordinary girls of the same generation and dressed in fashionable clothes. They are wearing wigs in different colours; purple, green and orange. They put on a rainbow eye make- up; and as opposed to their make-up and wigs they have “long black very straight

114 dresses” which have silver badges with different boys’ names on them, “Joe and Mike and suchlike”. As Alex explains, these names are supposed to be the names of the boys who rape the girls’ and take their virginity. Alex tells it through the words written below: (Burgess,1962; 6)

These were supposed to be the names of the different malchicks they’d spatted with before they were fourteen. (Burgess,1962; 6)

These words reveal the marks of a patriarchal society and culture. The women are seen as sexual objects and they internalize their object position. According to postmodernism subject position is regarded to be oppressive and authoritarian and something to be deprived of. Moreover, in order for the oppressed individuals and societies to go against authority that has the subject position, it is proposed that they should gain a subject position. Yet on the other hand postmodernism indeed requires each individual to keep their object position as long as all subject positions are deconstructed. It is thought that objectivity becomes a force which changes, transforms and reproduces life in the absence of subjectivity. Despite the fact that the individuals are reproduced in a male-oriented system in the story, in convenient to postmodern terms, these girls start to use their object position against men in order for them to have a place in this patriarchal society. These girls wear fashionable clothes, wigs and make-up and they carry their owner’s name. It becomes a kind of identity. Legally, the daughters and sons have their father’s surname and their father’s surname is written on their identity cards; and it is usually respectful for a girl to keep her virginity for her husband and has her husband’s surname; yet everything changes here. The girls lose their virginity before they become fourteen and they see their rapists as their husbands and have their identities. Therefore these girls have their owner’s name on their clothes and accept the subject positions of males on them.

Despite the fact that there is an effort to draw the picture of a future society in this novel; this picture is not a positive one, since people are still under pressure of horrible conditions such as patriarchal relations, masculine power, violence, etc. Therefore the picture of this future society is not a utopian one, but what is presented through this novel is called ‘dystopia’. The utopic ideals and images are

115 deconstructed throughout the story. Therefore the idea of ‘dystopia’ checks with the thoughts of postmodernism. As opposed to an equal structure for social life which is usually submitted by the Marxists’, in this work of Anthony Burgess a deconstructive aim is continued to create the postmodern sense.

These girls are also ready to go to bed with any boys they see in a pub. Alex and his friends see them in the Korova Milkbar and want to be with them yet they are four people while these girls are three. That’s why Alex thinks of leaving Dim by means of giving him drugs and going to bed with the girls with his remaining friends Pete and Georgie. Alex’s attitude towards Dim signifies that Dim is seen as someone who can easily be expended. While Alex thinks Dim as an expendable person on the other hand he also has to take Dim’s anger in consideration, for the reason that Dim is very good at fighting. Whenever Alex talks about Dim he always tries to humiliate him by underlining his ugliness, oldness (Dim is a few years older than Alex), madness, stupidity etc. The reason for Alex to humiliate Dim should be questioned. Alex really thinks that these are the characteristics of Dim and wants the reader to believe in what he says about Dim; whereas, in fact it is not. For the reason that Alex takes Dim as a threat to his authority, he always tries to imply that Dim cannot be a favourable leader and he tries to justify their togetherness in the same group by accepting Dim as a good fighter.

They kept looking our way and I nearly felt like saying the three of us (out of the corner of my rot, that is) should go off for a bit of pol and leave poor old Dim behind, because it would be just a matter of kupetting Dim a demi-litre of white but this time with a dollop of synthemesc in it, but that wouldn’t really have been playing the game. Dim was very very ugly and like his name, but he was a horrorshow filthy fighter and handy with the boot. (Burgess, 1962; 6)

Alex, as a leader, behaves consciously and doesn’t like to be apart from the civilized world. He believes in and uses reason. At the beginning of the novel he describes a veck (man) who sits next to him. Alex’s conscious can be clearly sensed within the way he describes this man’s position. Using drugs is considered by Alex as a coward act. He doesn’t like the appearance of anyone who looks slovenly, messy and open to any interference. He wants individuals to be conscious to survive and wants them to square up to the difficulties in life, yet he uses drugs himself in order for him to be sharpened. Since he doesn’t exactly give the name of the drug he uses,

116 the reader cannot exactly understand what the thing is he is injecting. According to what is presented in the story, Alex is not a drug addict and he justifies his tripping out on drugs by means of the purpose of feeling a nice sense at the deepest level. Therefore whenever he sees a man who is drunk or very far away from the reality because of drug addiction he wants to use brute force on such kinds of people.

The chelloveck sitting next to me, there being this long big plushy seat that ran round three walls, was well away with his glazzies glazed and sort of burbling slovos like ‘Aristotle wishy washy works outing cyclamen get forficulate smartish’. He was in the land all right, well away, in orbit, and I knew what it was like, having tried it like everybody else had done, but at this time I’d got to thinking it was a cowardly sort of veshch, O my brothers. You’d lay there after you’d drunk the old moloko and then you got the messel that everything all round you was sort of in the past. You could viddy it all right; all of it, very clear – tables, the stereo, the lights, the sharps and the malchicks – but it was like some veshch that used to be there not no more… You lost your name and your body and your self and you just didn’t care, and you waited till your boot or your finger-nail got yellow, then yellower and yellower all the time. (Burgess,1962; 6, 7)

After this scene Alex’s mind becomes confused because he cannot decide whether to be together with the girls by leaving Dim there with drugs or to kick the man who is tripping. While the music is going on which is fashionable but is not liked by Alex, the milk with knives starts to show its effects by “prick”ing his brain and he is sharpened by the milk plus knives drink. He feels ready for committing violent crimes and wants to ejaculate. His satisfaction and happiness does not depend on sexual intercourse, apart from this, his happiness and even his sexual satisfaction depend on the loveliest violence.

Leaving the girls in the Korova Milkbar, they all go out and wish to find something to play with, then they see a man carrying books under his arm. This man has the appearance of a typical library man. He has glasses and carries an umbrella and looks like a “schoolmaster” or an “older bourgeois type”. Alex especially points out his difference in class terms and he always reminds the reader of the fact that he is the “son and heir” of a worker. Alex is sure of himself and he knows his place in society and accepts it. As the representative of the working class he wants to violate someone who may be considered to be the representative of the civilised bourgeois class. On the one hand the civilised world has importance for Alex, he wants to disturb its order. As it is expressed before, Alex loves tidiness, cleanness, order and he has is systematic in his mind. He has reason, yet he loves destroying the remains

117 of civilization. He and his friends beat this man violently starting from tearing his books which might be seen as the most significant symbols of a civilized world; then they beat him, they take his money and read one of his private letters loudly in an ugly way. They not only physically injure this man but also hurt him psychologically and sentimentally. In fact they violate the values of civilization which are usually seen as the values of the bourgeois class. Alex cannot justify his acts politically, yet one of the causes of his attitude might be the unconscious historical revenge of his oppressed place in history. (Burgess,1962; 105)

Sometimes Alex says that he hates such type of bourgeois men yet, indeed, he reflects his lacking under his mask of hate. On the other hand, Alex’s excessive fondness for tidiness, good-looks, being polite in public and his interest in classical music which is another bourgeois type of interest are all because of the fact that he is totally lacking these features. He is not a member of the bourgeois society and he lacks of this reality, yet he tries to perform his role and acts as if he was a bourgeois type. Even his violence is associated with his fondness for a type of civilized bourgeois man. In history, civilization is used to colonize some regions, oppress the people of those regions, bring up its heirs such as Hitler, attack many countries and the people living there, and besides, even today G.Bush who might be considered to be the representative of a civilized world and the hero of liberalism does the same thing. Taking all these events into consideration, it can be easily said that Alex tries to be a part of this world despite the fact that he is lacking some features of a civilized bourgeois. (Burgess,1962; 8)

The books’ names and the man with the books’ interest are significant. The one Alex takes from the man is “ Elementary Crytallography ” and the one Georgie has is “The Miracle of the Snowflake ”. While the book’s title in Alex’s hand has theoretical and realistic insinuation which implies Alex’s characteristics, Georgie’s insinuations are religious and unrealistic and in convenient to his features. A third book called “Rhombohedral System ” is in the hands of Pete and Dim. The title of this book implies an unknown subject which it is too complex maybe not as Pete’s but especially as Dim’s character. The books are the books of public library of

118 municipality therefore they are the common property of society, yet they are caught by the members of the youth and thrown away or made fun of, etc. The common property of society, the representative of scientific accumulation and the experience of humanity is destroyed disrespectfully and it is done by the representatives of the next generation. The act of destroying also symbolizes the destruction of them. It is known that according to postmodernism all social ties, institutes and rules should be deconstructed, even the self of an individual should be deconstructed in order for them to get rid of their social ties. Alex and his friends not only deconstruct all social and private ties but they also destroy them. (Burgess,1962; 8,9)

The name of the books demonstrates that the beaten man has an interest in crystallography and he might be a crystallograph as Alex says when they come across for the second time. Crystallography reminds us of the theory of postmodernism. A crystal is a substance which is transparent and looks as if it is made up of pieces. Postmodernism also defends the idea of the whole to be deconstructed and kept in the possible smallest pieces. These separate pieces are required to be transparent in order to deconstruct both subjectivity and objectivity. Therefore Alex and his friends destroy not only the books about crystallography but in a sense they also destroy the theory of postmodernism. As it is argued by the Marxists’ as a theory postmodernism is so apolitical and limitless that it has to explode its own theory and notions.

Alex uses different ways of speaking while he is talking to the man with the books and while he is talking to his friends or the reader. His conscious in that his acts might become once again observable. While he is talking to the man with the books or while he is talking to the prison chaplain, or P.R.Deltoid, he uses different words and a different way of speaking, yet he uses another language which is called nadsat when he is with his friends and readers. The nadsat language has a gender since it is too masculine; besides it can be seen as an alternative language to the male world according to postmodernism. He talks to the man with the book in a very polite way. He is formal with P.R. Deltoid and he is respectful to the prison chaplain, yet while he is with his friends and the readers he uses a very very different slang

119 language which is really difficult to understand. These differences in his language can be seen throughout the whole story yet the quotations below are reminiscent of these different usages.

“So we goolied up to him, very polite, and I said: ‘ Pardon me, brother.’ He looked a malenky bit poogly when he viddied the four of us like that, coming up so quiet and polite and smiling, but he said: ‘Yes? What is it?’ in a very loud teacher-type goloss, as if he was trying t show us he wasn’t poogly. I said:

‘I see you have books under your arm, brother. It is indeed a rare pleasure these days to come across somebody that still reads, brother.’” (Burgess,1962; 8)

From the beginning of the story onwards, difference in language is understood. As it is known postmodernism wishes all individuals to create their own languages in order for them to be free and liberal from all types of social ties. All small local groups of people and even each of the individuals are wished to have their own different languages or usages of language. And in this story as it is convenient to postmodernism Alex and his friends have a special, different language which is not easily understood by anyone outside of their group. Yet, this difference of language does not bring liberalism because it creates another small hierarchical social structure which makes Alex more powerful and which strengthens Alex’s role and position. He is so witty with the language and he can reply back to his friends immediately. Also this is an underground language of the male youth generation and thus, in postmodern terms, might be evaluated as an alternative language to the social life of the male adult world. Postmodernism might also advise Dim, Pete and Georgie to form their own individually different languages without taking the consequences of such an event into consideration. According to the idea of liberalism in postmodern terms, each of the individuals is required to find their own separate way of language and way of life, besides; they are required to stay separate from each other in order for them not to have a subject or an authoritative position. Yet these limitless apolitical ideas on liberalism may justify Alex’s will to violate his own understanding of living. Language is not thought to be communicative in postmodern terms but it is required to be distinctive. Each individual has their own way of thinking and life therefore each of them should develop their own language, yet this distinctiveness in languages causes distinction in social life and communication breaks down among individuals. When languages become distinct from one another

120 social structure might be deconstructed. Also these alternative languages of different individuals may cause many authoritative and totalised discourses. (Burgess,1962; 5)

After they milk the crystalograph of his money, they immediately go to a pub to spend it. In the pub there are some old women who look like quiet and inoffensive people. They only drink alcohol and want to go on drinking and do not want anyone to disturb them. Yet, these boys tell the waiter to bring some alcohol to these women. When they are brought “double firegolds”, these women feel grateful towards them. Despite the fact that they feel something “dirty” is hidden in these boys’ attitude, still they accept the drinks. Accepting the drinks is the sharing of the same violent attitude. They do not question how those boys in such an age may have enough money to do it, where they found the money, and the reason why they are ordered drinks by the boys. Despite the fact that they feel there is something dirty is about to happen, still they accept the drinks. They keep silent but most of the time being silent causes someone to ignore some realities. They not only keep silent but they become actively involved in the boys’ plan by saying to the police that the boys had always been there sitting next to them. In a sense they sell their soul for a little drink. It is too cheap for a person to lie in such a society because everybody takes part in such kinds of immoral activities. Morality is something that can be bought and sold. Even the readers are forced to share the same violence throughout the reading process and by means of the question, “what is it going to be then, eh?”, in a sense, they are forced to decide to take side in this situation. They have to accept the situation in the name of liberalisation or they should question the events and the relationships. The readers are forced to choose a postmodern world or a social togetherness based on inequality and hypocrisy. Yet, an ideal alternative social life which is constructed of equality, justice and freedom is not shown as an alternative. Postmodernism evaluates such social life to be totalitarian; on the other hand it creates many different totalitarian subjects and local centres in the name of liberalism.

“ ‘Makes you feel real dobby, that does,’ said Pete. You could viddy that poor old Dim the dim didn’t quite pony all that, but he said nothing for fear of being called gloopy and a domeless wonderboy.” (Burgess,1962;11)

121 As it is stated above, Dim is once more silenced by the others. He cannot evaluate why Pete feels good but he cannot ask anything to know the meaning of what Pete has said. He is afraid of asking anything for the reason that he might be made fun of, or laughed at or ashamed of. As it can be observed easily, in this small postmodern group one of the members is silenced not through physical strength in a fascist way but through a social mechanism. Dim is always treated as if he was stupid and he is silenced with a fear of being alienated from the group.

They go to a shop putting their masks on, their aim is to rob the place, but they not only take the money but also beat the owners in the worst way. The owners of the shop are a wife and a husband. After they beat both of them, Alex thinks of raping the woman but then he gives up thinking it for the reason that the night is young and thus they keep it for another woman. As it might be understood women are all seen as sexual objects by males. In the shop there is an advertisement of a cigar which presents a woman holding a packet of cigarettes on her breasts. In all these examples the female body is seen as the vagina or a hole that should be filled by means of a penis or a cigarette. Women are oppressed by their fathers, husbands, and these types of young boys and they are also abused by the system. They never go against the system; they are all silenced by the masculine world and too weakened by these conditions. Moreover, since they remain silent to the events and never rebel, they assist the reproduction of the system, they share the same guilt.

When Alex and his friends commit all these violent acts, the women in the pub save them from the police for a little drink that was ordered by Alex. They say to the police that the boys have been there. Within this situation an old story is reproduced, this being the story of Adam and Eve. As it is known Eve, since she is female and emotional, is closer to seduction than a man, and can be easily deceived by Satan. In this picture again the defender of Satan who is represented by Alex and his friends are saved by the women. The drinkers in the pub are not men but women, or Alex chooses to order something not for a man but for women. Again the women are deceived. The secondary position of females in the religious dogma remain the same, no improvement of women’s condition can be seen. Even the world in this story is

122 more masculine than the world of the 21 st century. Women are oppressed, used as a sexual object, raped, knifed and silenced; on the other hand the system is reproduced by the same women.

Another victim of these boys is a drunken man. He lies on the road in an untidy way which makes Alex angry. The man is also singing a love song by himself, the song is about loneliness, and lateness of a love. When they start to hit him, he shouts out loudly that he doesn’t want to live anymore. He commands them to stop in order to say what he wants to say about the world. Alex thinks that this man might have an interesting thought about life since sometimes it is possible for such types of drunken men to have enough experience to underline an unspoken reality in life. This man speaks out a reality, yet Alex does not give attention to what he says. This drunken man questions the world and life on earth and he states that it is not a world worth living. Especially the difference between generations is pinpointed by the drunken man, yet the problems between adult and young generations are not only driven from the differences in generations. This is the simplest way and not the real answer. In the end Anthony Burgess tries to escape from the real consequences by trying to do the same thing.

“ ‘It’s no world for any old man any longer, and that means that I’m not one bit scared of you, my boyos, because I’m too drunk to feel the pain if you hit me, and if you kill me I’ll be glad to be dead.’… ‘What sort of a world is it all? Men on the moon and men spinning round the earth like it might be midges round a lamp, and there’s not any attention paid to earthly law nor order no more. So your worst you may do, you filthy cowardly hooligans.’ ” (Burgess,1962; 15)

As the quotation above demonstrates this drunken man is not a silent character, yet, he is not courageous enough to speak out his thoughts when he is sober and wide-awake. Maybe he fears that his thoughts would not be accepted, listened to or taken into consideration by the society he lives in or he doesn’t want to face up the reality when he is so sure of himself. Yet through drinking alcohol, in a sense, he tries to alienate himself from the real life he lives in, he tries to escape from these hard-conditions, inequality, immorality, etc. the act of drinking alcohol might be seen as the symbol of his rebelliousness against the materialist conditions. He tries to question the system on earth. While scientific progression of mankind goes on and on the one hand, on the other hand there is moral regression.

123 In this age, Alex and his group are not the only ones, there are some other groups who are as professional as Alex’s group. These groups are usually consisted of four or five members and called “auto-teams” since the number of people is enough to fill an auto. Six members are not thought to be suitable for “gang-size”, yet “Billyboy and his five droogs” are one of these six-member groups. As it can be guessed Billyboy has Alex’s position in his group. He is the leader. His name sounds like a nickname and his real name is not given within the story. The word ‘Billy’ has many meanings yet two of them are analysed in accordance with Billyboy’s characteristics. ‘Billy’ means a container which is used to cook something over a fire and it is used with the word ‘goat’ in order to pinpoint that the gender of the goat is male. Moreover, Alex, taking a dislike to Billyboy, stresses on his appearance. (Burgess,1962; 15)

“Billyboy was something that made me want to sick just to viddy his fat grinning litso, and he always had this von of very stale oil that’s been used for frying over and over, even when he was dressed in his best platties, like now. (Burgess,1962; 15)

According to Alex’s description Billyboy’s appearance might symbolize something that can be cooked, while his nickname tells the opposite. It is also clear that Alex tries to describe him belittlingly, yet all of this data is used to introduce Billyboy at the time of the reading process. With all these implications in mind, he reminds of someone who has contradictory sides. He is the leader of a gang; he is too masculine; he is harsh and strong as if he was a metal container which has resistance against fire. He smashes everything and takes everything inside and kills them or controls them. Yet, on the other hand, he might have an unknown name and so an identity. His nickname might be a mask in order for him to feel strong and courageous enough to struggle against the others. In addition to this, while Alex has three droogs and generally some other groups are consisted of five people, he has five droogs which is unusual. He wants to be perceived as a strong-type of man. The reason for this situation lies in the fact that he does not have enough self-confidence and wants to reflect the opposite characteristics. He is in fact a coward and Alex knows it. The weaker he feels, the more he wants to cover and hide it. (Burgess,1962; 15)

124 Another significant data about Billyboy and his friends was the thing they are doing when Alex and his friends caught them. At the time both of the groups come across, Billyboy and his friends were about to rape a girl who is “not more than ten”. They are six young boys, yet they are struggling with a girl younger than ten. Their masculinity and power is not as developed as Alex’s. Alex rapes two girls at the same time by using his mind. In addition to this, Alex’s group which consisted of four people beats the Billyboy’s. These are all the significations of the reality that Billyboy and his group are not as strong as they seem, they are too weak, yet they try to look strong, masculine, powerful in order for other groups to become afraid of them. They have to do it if they want to exist in such a world and age. (pg:16, Burgess)

The world of youth is a male-oriented world and that’s why the girl who was about to be raped is never given a voice. She has no place in such a world, no right, no name, no identity; yet an object position which is decided by the male subject. This object position oppresses the female, and presents them as a sexual object or a hole to be filled by the male authority. The females are to be tortured, ignored and raped in such a world since they are seen as the private or common property of the males. The female body is thought to be a battlefield on which the male has to prove his power, authority and masculinity. In such a modern age, it is too disappointing for anyone to be placed in such a primitive position. Both males and females are born, educated at the same schools, brought up in the same society and taught to be civilised individuals, whereas in reality they carry out violence and anarchy. They create a new underground order in which there is no place for a female. Yet they are creating their alternative local group by attaching importance to their gender which is wished for by a postmodern society.

While Alex’s group fights against Billyboy’s Alex describes the attacks in an artistic way. In Alex’ opinion, he doesn’t fight, he dances. It is art for him. It may not be a branch of fine arts, yet it can be considered to be 'fight art’. Alex uses his “cut- throat britva” in an artistic way, while he is kicking he dances a waltz and Dim swings his chain beautifully, etc. These are all Alex’s description for their acts. He

125 has an understanding of aesthetic in fighting. He evaluates violence as a way of art creation. While he is telling the scenes of ultra-violence, he always uses expressions such as “…then out comes the blood, my brothers, real beautiful…Pete kicks him lovely…” This demonstrates that Alex has an aim to violate life in an aesthetic way which means the creation of art. Alex introduces his acts as if he was an artist who tries to shape everything in his own understanding of aesthetic. In postmodernism, everybody might be seen as artists and daily life is taken in hand as an area in which art is able to be produced. The word ‘artist’ is replaced with the word ‘composer’ or ‘performer’, thus Alex takes the position of a performer and creates his postmodern understanding of art. (Burgess,1962; 7, 10)

He also listens to Mozart, Bach and such classics. While he is listening to them he feels the real horror show and the most ultra-violent experience, when the music reaches its top, he ejaculates. Music is something which feeds Alex and prepares him for another day. By means of this music Alex becomes ready to continue his horror show. Music sharpens him, makes him feel “like old Bog himself” and thus he takes God’s position by becoming the most powerful terrifying actor in a horrorshow. He imagines the most beautiful scenes of violence when he is listening to classical music and he creates the images in his mind while he is fighting on the streets. Art has an aesthetic value which gives joy and Alex has this understanding. For this reason Alex may have seen himself as a postmodern artist in whose age the understanding of art has changed and turned into a brutal work. He might be creating a work of art by means of fighting, robbing, raping, and he has the joy of it. While an artist may reflect their sexual desire on the work of art, Alex reflects his through the act of violence and he ejaculates. (Burgess,1962; 35)

“As I slooshied, my glazzies tight shut to shut in the bliss that was better than any synthemesc Bog or God, I knew such lovely pictures. There were vecks and ptitsas, both young and starry, lying on the ground screaming for mercy, and I was smecing all over my rot and grinding my boot in their litsos. And there were devotchkas ipped and creeching against walls and I plunging like a shlaga into them, and indeed when the music, which was one movement only, rose to the top of its big highest tower, then lying there on my be with glazzies tight shut and rookers behind my gulliver, I broke and spattered and cried aaaaaaah with the bliss of it. And so the lovely music gilded to its glowing close.” (Burgess,1962; 29)

126 Classical music is systematic within itself and Alex is systematic within his own way of thinking. Like mathematics, music creates a systematic order by means of notes. Alex also creates a systematic order by means of violence. He rationalizes his systematic by means of demanding his right to be liberal enough to do what he likes. He consciously creates a small local world order and puts himself in the centre. His order depends on doing violence. In his dreams also he sees himself in a God- like position: omnipotent to create the most ultra violence. According to his postmodern way of thinking everything changes and turns upside down. While God is thought to be the unique creator who has an original power to create the most beautiful works of art, Alex as a God is there to destroy everything that exists. His systematic depends on a hierarchical order which is produced in an anarchic world, producing anarchy and liberalises the human being at their most.

As it is fore-stated Alex is coming from a working-class family but in the story there are people who come from the middle-class. He doesn’t like the bourgeois culture and he criticizes the middle-class life by means of a television. He stresses that everybody usually the middle-class people watch television and the same news are told and shown to the people all over the world. They are all given the same ideas, their thoughts and ideas are conditioned through televisions. Their mind is emptied and washed by the television. Because of this reason, such kinds of people are not seen as free as Alex, because the television teaches those people how to look, how to think, what to think, what to say., etc. There is no freedom in such a world. Since most people watch these programmes on TV, they are conditioned to think in the same way with it. Alex stands as a postmodern critic who criticises social life and he wishes each individual to be left on their own without any conditions.

“This would be the telly. Tonight was what they called a worldcast, meaning that the same programme was being viddied by everybody in the world that wanted to, that being mostly the middle-aged middle-class lewdies. There would be some famous stupid comic chelloveck or black singer, and it was all being bounced off the special telly satellites in outer space, my brothers. (Burgess,1962; 17,18)

As Althusser stated, many things and ways of entertainment might be used by the government for the benefits of the capitalist system. In the story, Alex also states that, television turns into a control mechanism on people. Television teaches them

127 what to think. They are ruled by the channels and programmes, and however the programmes on television present a colourful world, in fact each of them shows everything from the same perspective. The variety of the programmes is controlled and checked by the government who represents the authoritative power in the hierarchical social structure. The government wishes to present several programmes and channels in order for people to think they are presented many different things which are thought to be chosen by them in a democratic way. In fact the presented programmes are all on the side of the order. It might be a programme about religion, economy or art yet it has to be submitted from the dominant class’ perspective. People are taught that they are free and have a chance to choose anything they want, yet freedom and free will to choose is not as simple as choosing which channel to watch because of the fact that they are conditioned by the dominant class’ ideology. However postmodernism tries to present different points of view, it becomes a weapon against the real consciousness of freedom as long as they are controlled by the oppressor class. According to Marxism, what is presented to be pluralism becomes a disguise for the totalitarian mind of the oppressors.

“Those who bear the burden of running the system are aware that ideologies are in business to legitimate what you do, not just reflect it.” (Eagleton, 1996; 133)

They go on their adventures by stealing money which is an illegal way of possessing properties. In a sense they rape someone else’s life by stealing their things. The act of stealing demonstrates how these individuals internalise the capitalist ideology which takes its origins from the process of civilisation and which is clearly explained by Engels in his work called The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State .

The members of Alex’s group enjoy stealing and robbing. This is a professional job for them. Everyday they meet in order to have another adventure, a horror show. They are exploiters. While they are robbing, not only do they rob places but they also rape if there is any woman or they beat the people in that place. Whenever they need a woman, they find one and rape her, whenever they need money they steal it, whenever they need fighting they find someone to beat. This is the ultra-violent life. While they are on the road driving for a new adventure, they

128 drive the car on people and other cars. While they are driving, they pass over an animal and love the sound of the dying animal. They love torturing and having all the possessions of the people with whom they come across. In such a postmodern age it is acceptable for youths to enjoy such extreme violence. There is no social togetherness, each individual is wished to live separately from one another and thus the rules based on physical strength win.

Alex and his friends stop somewhere near a village and find a cottage there. It is written “HOME” on the gate of the house. The name of the house implies purity and a peaceful atmosphere; yet that peaceful atmosphere will be destroyed by Alex and his friends. They knock on the door of the house and somebody asks who it is, Alex lies and says that his friend is ill while they are standing outside; he asks kindly if it is possible for him to use their telephone. But the woman answers that there is no telephone inside her house. Then Alex wants her to bring for his friend “a cup of water”, she accepts it and goes to get a cup of water leaving the door ajar and chained. Alex knows how to put the chain off and he unchains the door easily. They get in with their masks on. Inside the house there is “another intelligent type bookman type” of man who is a writer. It is important to talk about the writer. He is a man who is living in a house called “HOME” with his wife. He is a writer and he is working while Alex and his friends get into his house. At this stage his name is not given, so the readers come across an unknown writer. His first sentences are quoted below: (pg: 20 , Burgess)

“What is it? Who are you? How dare you enter my house without permission.” (Burgess,1962; 20)

His mind works through questioning. By means of questions he finds the answers and he gets hold of the knowledge which makes him powerful against the world. If he has the knowledge of something he can control it and keep his Godlike position. As a writer he holds a God-like position. He writes, he creates and represents the origin. While he represents ‘the unknown’ for Alex and the readers, he holds the knowledge in his hand. The act of writing is so significant. It is a civilized way of telling stories and it always carries masculine implications. The tool of writing is a pen which may symbolize the phallus. Since the male is thought to be the

129 origin, and is able to control his feelings and think in a rational way, the written tradition is associated with the male-oriented culture. On the other hand, since females are thought to be emotional and distant from rationality; language, the tongue and oral tradition are thought to be the representatives of feminine elements of telling stories. Besides, the postmodern outlook of the writer can be perceived in his way of questioning Alex and his friends. He doesn’t shout for help, yet as a representative of a postmodern thinker he starts to question.

Alex and this writer have some similarities; they are both telling stories. F. Alexander is telling his stories by means of writing which might be thought as the basic element for the establishment of patriarchal culture. Written tradition is always associated with patriarchal relations whereas the oral tradition is associated with matriarchal culture. Traditionally, since the female is confined to the house, she is given some roles to reproduce the established system. One of the roles of woman is to teach the next generation the rules of the written patriarchal culture. In her teaching process, she tells stories but she never records them. While telling a story can be considered to be a way of liberalization, on the other hand the woman is tied to the patriarchal system since she is forbidden to tell anything else with the exception of stories which reproduce the doctrines of the patriarchal culture. Alex’s story is related to both the feminine and the patriarchal culture. He tells his story as if he is talking to the reader, as if he is with his friends and he is chatting to his friends, on the other hand his story is recorded somehow and the identity of the recorder is not known. Who is typing Alex’s words, he is doing it himself, F. Alexander or an unknown typer or Anthony Burgess, etc. That’s why it is possible for Alex to become another writer like F. Alexander.

Alex and F. Alexander might be the same person. They are two halves; they have the same name with a slight difference. A name is the most important element of anyone’s identity, and their names show that they have very similar identities. The writer has a name which is only symbolized through a capital ‘F’ and ‘a dot’. His name is F. but what F it is not known, the F of Frank, the F of France, the F of Father, etc. That’s why his identity has an unknown part, yet he has a surname and it

130 is Alexander which is the name or surname of many great historical characters and leaders like Alexander the Great. Alex only has a name, his surname is not known and his name is the shortened version of Alexander. While F. Alexander might symbolize the powerful, authoritative, God-like being, Alex symbolizes the heir of him, yet Alex is the shortened and the postmodern version of the name Great Alexander. There has been an evolutionary change in the historical process and Alexander the Great turns into F. Alexander, and F. Alexander turns into Alex; thus Alex becomes the weakest generation of Alexanders for the reason that each generation becomes weaker than the previous one throughout the process of evolution.

F. Alexander might be the writer of this story because of the fact that he is writing something called “A Clockwork Orange” in Alex’s narration. The reader of Alex’s story cannot understand exactly what F. Alexander’s A Clockwork Orange is about, yet the meaning of ‘A Clockwork Orange’ is understood throughout Alex’s narration which is also written under the title of “A Clockwork Orange”. That’s why it is possible that F. Alexander might be the writer of Alex’s narration called “A Clockwork Orange” or Alex or an unknown writer is stealing the name of F. Alexander’s story. It is known that the title or a book or a work of art is seen as the private property of its creator which indicates the fact that the relationship between the creator or the producer and their work is affiliated with the rules of private property. A work might be sold, bought and kept by the owner of it. Yet Alex or an unknown writer might be taking F.Alexander’s place by stealing his idea. He becomes a satanic character who wants to take God’s place by stealing his knowledge. (Burgess,1996; 3,21)

In addition to the fore-stated facts about the title; another function of the title, which derives from its basic meaning to demonstrate the ultimate paradox in the story, should be stressed on. While the word ‘orange’ can be considered to be the signification of man’s nature and liberalism; the word ‘clockwork’ can be undertaken as a social and repressive side which struggles to transform man into a machine . Moreover John W. Tilton, who is a critic of Burgess’ works, stresses on the word

131 ‘clockwork’ referring to the idea of “man’s dual nature.” Tilton’s definition is also significant to understand Alex’s nature. (Tilton, 1977:38)

“ But to keep in mind Burgess’s conception of man’s dual nature is to grasp another, more profound significance, one that complements the conception of clockwork-orange man as a queer, unnatural product of conditioning and deepens the cosmic themes of the novel. Man is and always has been a clockwork orange, by nature. Man is the orange, the natural fruit, and one can infer that the epithet “clockwork” refers to delicately balanced psychic mechanism of man’s dual nature. Man’s clockwork is the steady rhythmic heartbeat of his psychic life, the tick and the tock of his good and evil urges. This internal mechanism operates without man’s conscious awareness of control. This clockwork will malfunction if tempered with; it will stop if the tension of its pysic springs is relaxed. (Tilton, 1977: 38 )

In Alex’s story the reader is left in confusion, it is not known if Alex himself takes the pen or an unknown writer does it or someone else’s eye sees Alex and writes it from his mouth; yet the story is told through the narrator’s eyes, and the narrator is Alex who also holds the god-like power. By means of his mind and his eyes and from his point of view, the readers will learn his story. While they are reading, they’ll have the eye of Alex and in a sense they will have his identity. They will commit ultra-violence and they witness the most terrifying horror show, they become the actors of this story. They will share Alex’s life, his guilt, his goodness, his thoughts, etc. Thus nobody will stay pure by means of reading Alex’s story. He also wants everyone to accept that his necessity of violence is something common. Not only him but millions of people do the same thing or want to do the same thing.

Alex and his friends are also raping the house of the writer. They have no permission to go in. The house is like the title of the book, it has an owner and it is the private property of the author. The house also represents a vagina whose owner is a man and which is raped by other men. As it is foretold, the female body is seen as the field of man and it is turned into a private property whose keys are given to its owner who is usually represented through a man such as a father or a husband. Also the wife of the author is raped by Alex and his friends. The woman’s body is presented as F. Alexander’s private property which is raped by four other men. According to these property relations, woman is never given a voice and once more is seen as an object which can be sold, bought, raped, touched, etc. It is presented as a field on which the male power and authority are proved. Postmodernism divides societies into pieces and gender; race and class distinctions are fostered and as a

132 consequence females are completely thrown to ex-centricism. The conditions become more difficult for the women to survive. On the other hand Marxism presents equal rights and chances to the individuals for them to share life together.

“O my brothers, while I untrussed and got ready for the plunge. Plunging, I could slooshy cries of agony and this writer bleeding veck that Georgie and Pete held on to nearly got loose howling bezoomny with the filthiest of slovos that I already knew and others he was making up. Then after me it was right old Dim should have his turn, which he did in a beasty snorty howly sort of a way with Peebee Shelley maskie taking no notice, while I held on to her. Then there was a changeover, Dim and me grabbing the slobbering writer veck who was past struggling really, only just coming out with slack sort of slovos like he was in the land in a milk-plus bar, and Pete and Georgie had theirs.” (Burgess, 1996;22)

Towards the end of the novel, the reader learns that the wife of the author dies because of Alex and his friend’s rape. She has no name and is known and respected as a wife. She has no identity and cannot achieve to have an identity in such a patriarchal, male-oriented world. She has nothing to save herself and her owner also cannot do it. She is too weak too survive. Identities make someone feel strong, they are means of masks which guards the individuals from the dangers of the outside world; yet she has no mask to wear, no identity to cling to. Her body is turned into a battlefield and the war on her body is so dreadful that she cannot survive. This is the given role to woman by postmodernism, since the females are completely thrown away from the field of the subject; they are completely silenced by the authoritative centre of the masculine world. Moreover, in such a pluralistic liberalisation the chances of a female to survive are raped and attacked by such minorities who has right to live as they please.

Alex and his friends get into the house easily because of the wife of the writer. She believes in Alex’s lie and goes to get a cup of water leaving the door chained but ajar thus Alex can easily goes in. A crucial point which lies in this situation is the fact that once more the female is seen as the one who cannot withstand the temptation of Satan. While the writer is working inside (in his God-like position), Satan goes into The Garden of Eden by tempting the woman and then comes the fall of men. The woman is encoded as the one who is emotional, weak and thus can be tempted. The Biblical story is reproduced, and by the same token the woman is positioned in Alex’s story. Many many years after the Bible, there has been no

133 progression in woman’s position, on the contrary it got worse in this postmodern age.

Alex and his friends rape the wife of the author and tear his papers, his works into pieces. His work represents his order. As God did, he tries to write his own Bible which is torn into ribbons by Alex and his friends. The rules of the writer and his order are destroyed in an anarchic way. A writer presents his ideas by means of his work; many people read it and are affected. Yet Alex tears all the pages into ribbons immediately reading a short passage of a page. He doesn’t need to read it but it is necessary for him to prove his knowledge whenever he finds a chance to show. He reads it only for his cocksureness. Both Dim and Alex deride the writer’s words and thoughts. Moreover, Alex has his own order in his mind and he humiliates F. Alexander’s.

“The attempt to impose upon a man, a creature of growth and capable of sweetness, to ooze juicily at the last round the bearded lips of God, to attempt to impose, I say, laws and conditions appropriate to a mechanical creation, against this I raise my sword-pen” (Burgess,1996; 21)

As it is stated above within F. Alexander’s words, human beings are deemed to be free individuals who should not be turned into mechanical creatures. As a writer he counters the attempts to transform an individual into an object. He is so humanistic and believes in the freedom of humanity. He rebels against the government. He thinks, because of the government’s politics people are treated as objects that have no rights to think to their names. His pen might be the representation of phallus. He has the phallus, the pen and considers himself to be another God or centre which holds the god-like power. Alex does the same thing with a slight difference. While F. Alexander is rebelling as a civilised man with his pen, Alex is doing the same thing with his penis. Moreover, Alex and F.Alexander’s thoughts are compatible with each other. They both defend human beings to be liberal. The rules of the government are thought to be conditions which leave no space for an individual to do what they like, by F. Alexander. Alex also doesn’t like human beings to be turned into a “ thing ”, and as the consequence of his belief in the free conscious human being, he objects to drug-addiction. When they return to the Korova Milkbar after damaging the writer’s house and life, Alex sees the same man who was there loaded when they left. When they return he is still loaded and Alex

134 doesn’t like his “pale inhuman look, like he’d become a thing .” For these reasons, both F. Alexander and Alex counter to the human being to turn and be transformed into an object. As herein defined, they want them to have a right to choose by means of their freewill. (Burgess,1962; 24)

“It may not be nice to be good, little 6655321. It may be horrible to be good. And when I say that you realize how self-contradictory that sounds. I know I shall have many sleepless nights about this. What does God want? Does God want woodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some way better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? …” (Burgess, 1972: 76 )

According to Marxism, freedom derives from the free consciousness of the human being in an equal social togetherness, and thus the idea of limitless freedom in postmodernism is criticised to be apolitical and rejected. While postmodernists’ wish the human being to be liberal, they become an authority since they take a ruler’s place as they are defining freedom. The freedom they defend brings violence in its train since there is no politics in it. Even F. Alexander’s thought is an apolitical one since he doesn’t consider man’s materialist conditions, world power, religion, doctrines and thoughts that are taught at schools and churches. The human being is not discussed as a social being and thus is evaluated as separate and liberal who might have a right to do anything s/he wants.

Postmodernism defends a similar idea of freedom in which the human beings are all separated from one another and they are left free to do whatever they want. When they get into the house Pete and Georgie immediately go to the kitchen and Dim stays with Alex for his orders. As they start to torture the writer, Pete and Georgie come from the kitchen eating something. Alex gets angry with them and he affirms that he didn’t give permission for them to eat anything. Despite the fact that Alex puts himself in a God-like position, yet both Pete and Georgie behave without taking Alex’s authority into account. They go on doing what they want. They have identities free from Alex’s authority. They can liberalise themselves whenever they want. While it is important for them to have something to eat, their first aim becomes eating, yet Alex’s is always committing ultra-violence.

When they finish committing ultra-violence in the writer’s house, they want to return. Alex, who usually takes the driver’s seat, leaves it to Georgie when they are

135 on the way home. Alex regards Georgie as his guard, yet, on the other hand he believes that Georgie is not as bright as himself. Georgie is also seen as the one who might take Alex’s position in his absence by Pete and Dim. Their desire for attaining power will cause a problem in their relationship and will be the end of Alex. His authority will be rebelled against and he’ll be left alone in the government’s arms . The government represents the totalitarian social structure which desires to transforms Alex and such free conscious individuals into machines. Once more fragments and the whole are brought against each other by means of a postmodern outlook. The whole which is represented by means of the government is needed to be deconstructed in order for its fragments which are presented by means of individuals to be left free.

They stop somewhere on the way home and push the car and precipitate it into the water. They come to a railway station and buy their tickets as civilized individuals and they try to find some destitute to give them some money or chocolate or something making them happy. The reason for their appetite for helping the people who are in needy circumstances lies in their benefits since they take the advantage of the destitute.

“We paid our fares nice and polite and waited gentlemanly and quit on the platform, old Dim fillying with the slot machines, his carmans being full of small malenky coin, and ready if need be to distribute chocbars to the poor and starving, though there was none such about, and then the old espresso rapido came lumbering in and we climbed aboard, the train looking to be near empty. To pass the three-minute ride we fillied about with what they called the upholstery, doing some nice horrorshow tearing-out of he seats’ guts…” (Burgess,1996;23)

They abuse the destitute’s conditions. The poor people, in consideration of their needy circumstances, accept any help without questioning the reason or reasons of their help and identity. They also think that the one who helps people living in such poor conditions should be a benign and warm-hearted person. Such benign never connote violence, terror or anarchy but kindness, gentility and civilization. Alex and his friends, who have such great distinction of manners, designate their consciousness in their manners. When they want to be calm, polite and kind they put that mask on, when they want violence they put it off. Brutality is the individual choice of each of them. In addition to this, it should be stated that Dim is exceptional for the reason that he has problems with his mask. As it is fore-stated, Dim is an

136 emotional young man who cannot think in the rational way as the others do. Consequently, he is unable to apprehend where to stop.

Dim begets the first rebellious slight movement. When they return to the Korova Milkbar, they have something to drink and comfortably get seated; a woman begins to sing one of the arias from Friedrich Gitterfenster’s opera called Das Bettzeug. Alex enjoys perfect peace and quiet when he thinks of a diva singing “with her throat cut”; yet, his peace is disturbed by Dim. Alex gets angry with him and fists him “on the rot” yet Dim never apprehends why he is fisted. He asks Alex: “What for did you do that for?” Alex answers him in the quoted way. (Burgess,1962; 25)

“For being a bastard with no manners and not the dook of an idea how to comfort yourself publicwise, O my brother.” (Burgess,1962; 25)

Dim declares that he doesn’t want to be a friend of Alex’s thenceforth and he doesn’t like Alex’s manner. By supporting Dim, Georgie criticises Alex for his pedantic self-styled manners. Pete also gives a right to their criticism of Alex and he declares it, yet he strives to reconcile the sides. Pete’s position is so important at this point, Alex is not in the centre but Pete is. He becomes the mediator and balances the situation. If he took Dim’s side as Georgie did, Alex’s argument might fall, yet without taking sides, he strives to pull the sides to the centre, thus he becomes the most important central element. He is too silent, yet his movement might be the cause of a revolution.

Alex defends democracy, he does not believe in anarchy but since he has no policy his thoughts may cause anarchy. He defends that there has to be a leader. He admits each of them as friends including him, yet he still states that “somebody has to be in charge”. Without discussing Alex’s argument, they all accept his leadership in order to settle the dispute. On the one hand each of them accepts Alex’s leadership, on the other hand questioning Alex’s system continues in their mind. Besides, they may also want to escape from another discussion. (Burgess,1962; 27)

Throughout the discussion Alex tries to look “calmer out” while he is feeling angry and anxious inside. So his paradoxical characteristic becomes observable once more. He is a conscious individual and is able to control his feelings in order to

137 influence his friends. He is like a politician, yet on the other hand he feels weak and gets afraid losing his position. He knows that he cannot survive alone and he loses his self-confidence. He feels the same when he is alone on his way home. He walks holding his knife for the reason that somebody might assault him. He doesn’t want to feel alone and holds his knife which might be seen as a representative of his phallus and thus masculinity. (Burgess,1962; 27)

Not so much information is given about his mother and father. His father doesn’t talk much, he works and when he comes home from work he wants to feel comfortable. He wants Alex to have a good education and become a respectful individual. His mother takes care of him. She leaves some food and milk on the table for him to eat and drink when he comes home. His mother and father accept his coming home late for the reason that they know Alex works for a social project in the evenings after school. That’s why they don’t get angry with Alex if he feels tired in the morning and does not go to school. His parents are workers and they work for the government. They cannot earn so much and they need Alex’s work. Alex has an interest in classical music and he has to pay his own expenses. This makes his family happy.

Moreover Alex has committed juvenile crimes and had had to stay in a “Corrective School” His parents don’t want him to make the same mistakes, they know that if Alex does something wrong, he would not be sent to a corrective school once more but directly to a prison. They don’t want him to be involved in youth fights and crimes; however they cannot show the necessary concern for their son. Alex also knows his parents’ conditions, he can adequately comprehend the situation, yet he chooses to abuse these conditions. He is lying about his situation and states that he is working for a social project while he is disturbing and destroying social life. His family believes in him or chooses to believe in him. They prefer to accept what he states as true rather than questioning his job and pursuing their son. If parents endeavour to take care for their children they should try to learn more about them, what they are doing, with whom they are working with, where they are working, who their best friends are, what kind of friends they have and so on. In fact,

138 Alex’s father tries to learn more about his son, yet he is not a self- confident person and is defeated by Alex’s look. Alex knows that his father cannot earn much and he does not feel proud of himself on the contrary he always feels inadequate being a father and a husband. His masculinity or masculine power is not stronger than Alex’s. (Burgess,1962; 41)

“ ‘Oh,’ I chewed, ‘it’s mostly odd things, helping like. Here and there, as it might be.’ I gave him a straight dirty glazzy, as to say to mind his own and I’d mind mine. ‘I never ask for money, do I? Not money for clothes or for pleasures? All right, then, why ask?’

My dad was like humble mumble chumble. ‘Sorry, son,’ he said. ‘But I get worried sometimes. Sometimes I have dreams. You can laugh if you like, but there’s a lot in dreams. Last night I had this dream with you in it and I didn’t like it one bit.’ ” (Burgess,1962; 40,41)

As it is fore-stated above, Alex implies by means of his glance that his father is not adequate to earn enough for his family and for this reason he has to work not to ask his father for money. In the conversation, Alex gets his father under his control. Because of money, his father cannot go against Alex. Even through the end of the story, since Alex is thought to be in the prison, they rent his room out to a worker. When Alex is released from the prison he comes back and wants to stay in his room, yet his parents turn their back on him since they rent out his room and do not want to be deprived of the rent. They change their family relations for money. In a sense they sell their family relationship.

Alex’s father also sees his son who will be his heir in his dream. In his dream, Alex is beaten by his friends and left on the street. He is predicting the future in his dream. He might be feeling a possible close danger and might be trying to warn his son against these dangers in order to save him; on the other hand, he might have a desire for Alex to be beaten and left to death by his friends. Unconsciously he might be in need of feeling his masculinity and authority. He knows that in the absence of Alex or against a beaten Alex he might regain his authoritative masculine position. Since he apprehends that each generation becomes worse than the previous one, he might be feeling a hateful revenge against his heir.

His mother seems to be a loving mother but cannot go against both her husband

139 and her son. She always cries when she has to face up to a problem about her family. She cannot utter a word about her husband’s inadequacy. She cannot take pride in her son. She is totally alone and is never listened to by anyone in her family or anyone else. She tries to go on her life by accepting the roles given in social relations. Being a mother and a wife are her socially given identities which enable her to survive in such a masculine world. She shares the same fate with the other women, yet she is at least respected in the story since she is a mother and a wife of a husband who represents ownership. She has no power to go against her owner and her son. Even when Alex returns to his home she implies that Alex cannot stay there with them since they have had the rent of his room. They may pay back the rent and accept their son back to their house; yet they do not wish to come across Alex who will probably cause another problem. They neither choose to stay with Alex nor accept him as a son since their tenant has already taken their son’s place. Therefore they imply to get rid off Alex as soon as it is possible.

Before being put in a prison Alex wakes up one morning and someone knocks the door. He is Mr. P. R. Deltoid who is Alex’s Post-Corrective Adviser. He comes to Alex’s house in order to warn him not to be involved in youth fights and such kind of violent activities. He has also heard about the news of the fight between Alex’s group and Billyboy’s group since Billyboy has given their names to the police. The police cannot do anything without any evidence, that’s why Mr. Deltoid warns Alex that he may not be so lucky for another fight. He really wishes Alex to change his behaviours yet on the other hand he accepts that Alex won’t change anything about his identity and behaviours as long as he doesn’t want to do it. On the other hand, in a sense he is there to do his job since he doesn’t believe any change or transformation in Alex’s self.

“What gets into you all? We stud the problem and we’ve been studying it for damn well near a century, yes, but we get no further with our studies. You’ve got a good home here, good loving parents, yo’ve got not too bad of a brain. Is it some devil that crawls inside you?” (Burgess,1962; 33)

While P.R. Deltoid is trying to correct Alex’s behaviours and wants to keep him away from such kind of fights, bad happenings, etc.; on the other hand he knows Alex and can easily apprehend that all his endeavours are nonsense since Alex does

140 everything consciously. Mr.Deltoid is able to comprehend the situation in which Alex and himself are acting their roles but will perform what they want. What is painful in this scene is the fact that both Mr. Deltoid and Alex know that their conversation is a waste of time. Mr. Deltoid is frustrated since he comprehends that he is unable to put what is thought to be goodness into practice. Alex knows what the good is better than Mr. Deltoid, yet he chooses the one what is bad and which is chosen by a considerable minority of the new generation.

“But brothers, this biting of their toe-nails over what is the cause of badness is what turns me into a fine laughing malchick. They don’t go into the cause of goodness , so the other shop? If lewdies are good that’s because they like it, and I wouldn’t ever interfere with their pleasures, and so o the other shop? If lewdies are good that’s because they like it, and I wouldn’t ever interfere with their pleasures, and so of the other shop. And I was patronizing the other shop. More, badness is of the self, the one, the you or me on our oddy knokies, and that self is made by old Bog or God and is his great pride and radosty. But the not-self cannot have the bad, meaning they of the government and the judges and schools cannot allow the bad because they cannot allow the self. And is not our modern history, my brothers, the story of brave malenky selves fighting these machines? I am serious with you, brothers, over this. But what I do I do because I like to do. ” (Burgess,1962; 34)

Alex accepts his badness by saying: “All right, I do bad”. He underlines his right to choose what is bad and lives the bad way. He knows the differences between goodness and badness. He is able to estimate the results of his behaviours. For Alex, being into a prison for three months or six months is not something which can be overcome since he is able to estimate that he should be released from such a place after a particular time. Yet he doesn’t want to be confined in a specific place as if he is an animal. He demands his right to live in his own way by choosing himself what to do. His thoughts and the fore-tasted words in the quotation reveal the similarity with F. Alexander’s thoughts. This is the rewritten version of the same text which is written by F. Alexander. Both of the texts, and thus both of the narrators endeavour to underline the fact that human beings can achieve their existence on earth by means of their free will. The governmental, parental, educational, institutional, judgmental, etc. authoritative centres or focal points should be deconstructed in order to let human beings free to behave and live as they please. (pg: 34, Burgess)

“…he was govoreeting as a ma of Bog IT WAS THE DEVIL THAT WAS ABROAD and was

141 like ferreting his way into like young innocent flesh, and it was the adult world that could take the responsibility for this with their wars and bombs and nonsense. So that was all right. So he knew what he talked of, being a Godman. So we young innocent malchiks could take no blame. Right right right.” (Burgess,1962; 35)

Alex is also abusing the thoughts of ecclesiastic people. When he is reading an article of one of these Christian officials he immediately accepts and wants to be involved by the thoughts implied in the text. He escapes from the reality, whenever a legitimization for his manners is presented. The reality lies in the fact that there is not so much responsibility of the adult world in their violent manners; the real reason derives from their apolitical demand of freedom. Yet he has no comprehension of what political consciousness is.

Alex believes in deconstruction as postmodernists do. He comes across two girls who cannot be more than ten years old and starts to flirt with them. He takes the girls to his house and there he gives them drinks putting some drugs in it. He encourages them to drink more in order to seduce the girls. While they are totally drunk he takes their virginity. He hates anything which is pure, unripe, immature and intact. Since he is a civilised man, he wants to control the things by deconstructing and interfering in their nature. If something looks as if it is pure, he immediately destroys it or dirties it. He passes over an animal which might be the symbol of the pure and natural life. While he is drinking milk, he says: " How wicked, my brothers, innocent milk must always seem to me now.” He also takes two girls, who are not at the age of ten, to his home, he gives them drinks mixed drugs and he rapes them and takes their virginity. He sees the girls as objects and wants to be the first to use them. For Alex, the girls are like a packet of milk; he drinks them and throws the packet. He feels his God power when he is the first rapist, user or killer. In order to prove his God-like existence he takes the position of the owner of a thing and becomes the first who possesses uses or consumes that thing. In addition to this, girls are forced to internalise their roles in this masculine world at such a young age since they have no power, identity and authority to fight against the deconstructive aims of males in this postmodern age. (Burgess,1962; 28)

“What was actually done that afternoon there is no need to describe, brothers, as you may easily guess all. Those two were unplattied and smecking fit to crack in no time at all, and they thought it the bolshiest fun to viddy old uncle Alex standing there all nagoy and pun-handled,

142 squirting the hypodermic like some bare doctor, then giving myself the old job of growing jungle-cat secretion in the rooker. Then I pulled the lovely Ninth out of its sleeve, so that Ludwig van was now nagoy too, and I set the needle hissing on to the last movement, which was all bliss. There it was then, the bustrings like govoreeting away from under my bed at the rest of the orchestra, and then the male human goloss coming in and telling them all to be joyful, and then the lovely blissful tune all about joy being in a glorious spark like of heaven, and then I felt the old diggers leap in me, and then I leapt on these two young ptitsas. This time they thought nothing fun and stopped creeching with high mirth, and had to submit to the stangeand weird desires of Alex under the large which, what with the Ninth and the hypo jab, were choodessny and zammechat and very demanding, O my brothers. But they were both very very drunken and could hardly feel very much.” (Burgess,1962; :38,39)

These two girls have names; Marty and Sonietta. They are little girls and even not teenagers. They are in the process of being teenagers yet before this process naturally comes to an end Alex makes them young girls. They have to face growing up in a day’s time and thus they have to adopt some other identities. They may also choose to be called with the name “uncle” as Alex has introduced himself. What is going to be in these girls’ life is not known and not paid attention to. They are like the other members’ of their gender; therefore they will have to be shaped by the males within this masculine postmodern culture. (Burgess,1962; 37)

According to Alex he teaches these girls and feels like a teacher. The girls don’t go to school in the afternoon but their education goes on by teacher Alex. As it can be recalled, Alex also wishes to teach Dim how to act in a civilised world. He teaches the western world’s culture to those uncivilised and immature youth and children. He wants to give shape to these immature girls by making them young girls. These girls are seduced and history repeats itself. Once more the gender who cannot ride for a fall and have to accept what is inevitable becomes the woman. They have to fall once more in a fallen world as their ancestors did. The world presented by the story gives the same roles to the females in much more difficult conditions. While postmodernism returns to the past to give voice to the oppressed characters, its aims cannot be achieved because of its limitless liberalisation which breaks the whole and each construction into pieces. In such a fragmentary world the one who wishes to survive by means of physical strength wins. Social life is divided into gender roles yet the females are distanced from the central authority. And no alternative history is written or told.

Alex can be seen as the representative of militarist imperialism. Since he likes

143 the act of violence and he does it, he can be taken as the symbol of fascism which takes benefits from torturing people, and taking control over them. Alex also needs to have control over his group and he uses violence to have that power. He tries to stand focusing on power. He endeavours to hold the ties of the control mechanisms and he tries to be in the centre of it. In convenient to postmodern theory Alex stands as an individual centre; he is not conditioned by any social, cultural, ideological identity and he achieves to create his own centre apart from all ties, he seems to achieve his atomization. He has a family and friends but he doesn’t have usual parental relations or friendships with them. The relationship between these people has been transformed into a liberal one through which anyone might choose to be away from the centre, yet can accept to do something under the guidance of someone else. Therefore Alex is considered to be a free and independent individual in terms of postmodernism.

Alex can do whatever he wants without being captured by the police. As long as he behaves cleverly, it becomes difficult for the police to catch him. He might not be captured, yet he is not experienced enough to rule his friends and keep his authority. That’s why he makes some mistakes and is captured while he is in the house of the woman with the cats. Entering such a woman’s house is in fact Georgie’s plan, yet Alex tries to take the control by taking the leader position. One day Georgie, Dim and Pete come to talk to Alex in a diplomatic way in order to present their “new way” which might be considered to be the first organised movement for their revolution. Alex doesn’t want to rob such a house for money. He believes that they all have enough money to do what they want. Since Alex doesn’t do violence for money, he thinks the others do it for having fun and feel how liberal they are; yet the others’ main aim is a capitalistic one. They do violence to rob and earn more. Alex criticises their manners accusing them of “being the big bloated capitalist”. As a representative of fascism Alex stabs his friends Georgie and Dim by disturbing the diplomatic way. He establishes his authority by force and as a God or a representative of God; he gets the “sheep” under his control. While on the one hand he seems to be a fascist who gets everyone under his control, on the other hand he might be considered to be a God who gives free-will to everyone to do whatever they

144 want. He wants his friends to choose accepting his authority through their free-will and whenever they go against him, he punishes them as if they were sheep. He might be trying to pinpoint that the God who has given all individuals their free will is in a sense a fascist. (Burgess,1962; 42, 43, 45)

Alex is a teenager, and in the teenage periods the individuals feel different than the other members of society. They usually oppose to the ideas of the adults. If they love they do it in an extreme way, if they fight they do it very harshly and Alex does the same thing, yet Alex’s desire for extreme violence is still different than his friends’. He acts consciously and wants not only extremism in violence but also the central authority. He wants to have a God-like position and he wants his words to be the rules for his friends and family. While he asserts his order to be democratic he wants each member of his friends and family to follow the rules and the limits of an ultra-violent togetherness, he thus becomes a fascist. He wouldn’t have had some fascist features in his characteristic if he wasn’t too masculine. His masculinity causes him to be such a man.

The whole story depends on the paradox that the individual should act by means of their free will or they have to live under oppression. The question “What is going to be then, eh?” is asked throughout the story in order to find a solution to this paradox, yet only the question, which causes a chaos to occur in mind, keeps its existence. The story forces the reader to move in a circular way around an irresolvable question. When Alex’s friends try to rebel against him and are beaten by Alex, all four go to “the Duke of New York” to have something to drink. There, Alex gives an answer to this question while he is talking to Georgie. “Now we’re back to where we were, yes?” The story does the same thing in the circular way. The question is repeated and the answer is chased, yet at the end it comes to the beginning. (Burgess,1962; 5, 45,46)

They go to a house which is full of jewellery and things made of silver and gold. They try to persuade the owner of the house by means of their usual lies; however the woman insistently does not open the door. Being the leader of the group Alex claims to enter the house first while his friends were outside waiting for Alex to

145 open the door for them. Since the woman is alone Alex thinks that he can do the work alone and he wants to prove his capacity to manage everything on his own. Yet, he can’t cope with the woman and he has to throw a silver statue on her head and she dies. At that time he hears the sirens of police and wants to get out, yet Pete and Georgie have already gone, only Dim is there and Dim hits Alex “gentle and artistic” with his chained stick. (Burgess,1962; 53)

Police arrives at the house and captures Alex at the gate. Alex is taken to the police station. On the way to the prison an ambulance sirens are heard. Alex thinks that the sirens were for his friends, yet the policemen inform him that the sirens were the sirens of an ambulance for the woman with the cat. The police also had heard about Alex and his friends. His group has had famous for their ultra-violent horror shows. They become popular almost the street youth.

The police take them to the police station and begin to treat them roughly while they are getting of the police car. The police force is an institutional organization and their first aim should be keeping the suspects till the end of their cross-examination. They do not have right to torture suspects before or after the cross-examination, yet they apply violence on Alex. They call Alex as “little Alex” since they are better in violent manners than Alex. They are the official violence appliers while Alex and his friends are their underground version. Alex should have been a policeman if he hadn’t wanted to be captured and had wished to go on his violent manners; yet he is captured before thinking about such an idea.

The police force is in the service of social security and thus they become social representatives of torturing. They wish to control the individual from the point it stands, from its central power. Alex and his group reflect an image of the police force or the police force is the same of Alex’s group. They have a leader and they all like torturing. They enjoy torturing like Alex and his friends. While they are turning Alex into a “bloody ball” they treat him in the same way as any underground youth group who likes violence. Alex’s appearance turns into something which he hates. His appearance looks worse than Dim; his clothes, face, body is in blood and he even vomits because of the poundings from the police force. His appearance changes so

146 much that when Mr. Deltoid sees him he cannot stop saying “Dear dear, this boy does look messy, doesn’t he?” (Burgess,1962; 56,57)

The police force is an institutional organization which is responsible for the security of people. It’s a social organization which has a place in society and is accepted by each of the individuals and their representatives; however it is observable that they are not different from Alex who wishes to apply ultra-violence in his own life. At this point, the reader is come across with such paradoxical situation. There is no difference between the social and individual life and manners. The forces which represent society believe that “Violence makes violence”. They think they are right to torture Alex since he deserves it, however in fact they have no right to do it. Moreover, despite the fact that all the governmental commissioners know that the police force torture the suspects, still they never prepare any preventive projects. (Burgess,1962; :57)

The sentence “Violence makes violence” has also importance since it reminds us of the friar’s speech in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. Friar who represents the balance in individual manners and social togetherness and who endeavours to get two different families together in the collective consciousness, says in one of his speeches that “these violent delights have violent ends” (Pg: 62, Shakespeare) He warns Romeo not to go to the extremes. He always underlines that excessiveness in manners in return for bringing excessiveness. In a sense the Friar’s thought is repeated and rewritten by means of the sentence “Violence makes violence”. This sentence retells the social consciousness which gives right to apply violence whenever it is confronted with. (Burgess,1962; : 57)

Moreover the sentence “Violence makes violence” pinpoints to the justification of the police force. The police claim that they don’t do violence to any man on the street but just to suspects such as Alex; however it is known that they might do the same thing to anyone they like. When Alex is recovered by the governmental forces he is left free and in his new life Alex comes across with Billyboy and Dim who become the members of the police force. As soon as Billyboy and Dim recognise that the one before their eyes is Alex, they take him to the police car and go somewhere

147 outside the city and they torture Alex in the usual way. They are no longer part of any youth gangs but the social members of the adult world, yet they apply the same violence officially. Taking into consideration all the fore-stated information, it becomes observable that society does the same thing and teaches its individual members to be violent in their manners. The main aim in the social world is hiding a reality under a mask. While it looks peaceful on the one hand, on the other hand fights, oppression and unequal conditions might be fostered. (Burgess,1962; :57)

As the police torture Alex, Mr. Deltoid drops a malicious hint on his face … as Alex has done to people and women. According to the police force Alex deserves such kind of punishment since he has given harm to many people; in fact they enjoy punishing Alex. They are like Alex and his friends. They have an authorial leader and under his authority all the members of that institution love and enjoy applying violence. They know that there is no legitimisation of torturing and for this reason they try to find a justification which might be considered to be another mask for hiding realities. Alex does not hide anything and directly says to their face: “if all you bastards are on the side of the Good then I’m glad I belong to the other shop”. He tells that he is proud of being on the bad side since what is represented to be the right way has no difference and is even worse than the bad route. (Burgess,1962; :57)

Alex is cast into prison. In the prison, there are all kinds of convicts who are put there for simple offences. There are thieves, murderers, and perverts. On the first day of prison Alex sees a dream, in his dream he hears the sound of the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven. He sees himself in a “big field with all flowers and trees”, “Ludwig” rises like the sun. He feels as if he is passing to another world which is better than the one he lives. He sees “a goat with a man’s litso” which is playing a “flute”. He dreams himself in such an uncivilised field and he sees the face of Beethoven which has his civilised cravat. In his dream Alex wants to bring the civilised and the uncivilised worlds together. He loves Beethoven for the reason that Beethoven is one of the best composers who has achieved to express some wild feelings in the most passionate way in a civilised culture. Alex wants these wild feelings to have a natural place in his civilised world. He dreams of a man with an

148 animal body which becomes a representation of his rational side and the emotional side. As a rational individual, he wants to be more expressive and doesn’t want to limit his feelings. His passion for violence is presented as his very humane desire. He also hears the words quoted below. (Burgess,1962; 59)

“Boy, thou uproarious shark of heaven,

Slaughter of Elysium

Hearts on fire, aroused, enraptured,

We will tolchock you on therot and kick

your grahzny vonny bum.” (Burgess,1962; 59) (pg, 59, Burgess)

These words predict what Alex will have to face up to life. Through these words he wants to underline that torturing will be even in heaven. Therefore what is presented to be the good applies the same violence? Here in his dream an unknown voice, which might be the voice of God, speaks to him and defines him as the “slaughter of Elysium” and explains that he will be tortured and beaten before passing to a better world, which might be the representation of heaven. (pg:59, burgess)

“I know, I know, my friends, I have been informed in visions that there is a place, darker than any prison, hotter than any flame of human fire, where souls of unrepentant criminal sinners like yourselves and don’t leer at me, damn you, don’t laugh – like yourselves, I say, screaming endless and intolerable agony, their noses choked with the smell of filth, their mouths crammed with burning ordure, their skin peeling and rotting, a fire ball spinning in their screaming goots. Yes, yes, yes, I know.1” (Burgess,1962; 63)

Alex is sentenced to fourteen years. In the prison on Sunday mornings, the prison charlie comes and preaches. God as the creator informs that the individuals who are on the side of badness will be punished after life and they will be tortured in an unimaginable way. Therefore it is informed to the human being that God has the same violent manners and will apply violence to the individuals who have done wrong. So the justification which is argued by the governmental institutions is presented by God, too. God has the same justification since he informs that violence will be applied to the individuals who have violent manners. The chaplain himself carries the same characteristics as he is the one who tells God’s truth. Therefore what is presented to be on the side of goodness carries the same passion for violence, too;

149 yet it is covered and hidden under a social mask.

The prison chaplain asks the same question “What is it going to be then, eh?” to the criminals. This unknown voice becomes the chaplain who tries to judge the people in the prison by means of a question. Moreover being the owner of this question, he takes the place of God and feels himself as if he was in Judgement day. The criminals are prepared for Judgement day by keeping the question in mind. He wants them to understand the existence of hell and how they will be tortured in hell. He thinks that the criminals may not commit crimes if they become afraid of God’s anger. While he is talking about the belief in God and his almighty power to punish the criminals in every unbelievable violent way; he also wants to make them believe in God. Alex accepts the existence of God. He is sure that there is a God which has almighty powers to smite everyone, yet some other criminals respect neither God nor the prison chaplain and one of them makes a sound to disturb the climate, thus the order of silence and acceptance is once more spoiled. (Burgess,1962; 63)

In the prison black prison clothes are given to Alex, and he is given a number “6655321”. This number takes the place of his name in the prison. Nobody is called with their names which remind them of their identities and subjectivities; yet, everybody is called by their numbers which enable the prisoner to feel as if they have no identities. They are objectified in the prison. Alex can never be Alex but just “6655321”. Alex describes the prison as a “human zoo”. Alex has a personality, identity and self-consciousness; yet he has to be a number in the prison. As an official social institution, a prison should have more humane conditions, yet it applies the same torture to criminal individuals. Their identities are rejected without asking and for the sake of goodness they try to objectify the subjects. For all these reasons such institutions can never achieve to transform these criminal subjects into socially accepted subjects, but rather into criminal objects. (Burgess,1962; 61)

The individuals in the prison who are seen as numbers and objects are also worked as workers. Their physical power is used and that’s why they are seen not as individuals but as batteries. They are worked for making matchboxes. Also on Sunday mornings when the prison chaplain is ready to preach them a sermon, Alex

150 takes the responsibility to play the stereo “putting on solemn music”. They are seen as workers or in other words machines; for this reason, they are treated as if they were objects which might be used and thrown away when their energy runs out. They are oppressed under the existence of the central authoritative power of the prison. (Burgess,1962; 62)

“Weak tea we, new brewed,

But stirring make all strong.

We eat no angel’s food, are

Our times of trial are long. (Burgess,1962; 65)

The criminal people are accepted to be seen as if they are objects and the seeds of badness are believed to be hidden within them. They see themselves as “weak tea” which might be the representation of their bad manners. They accept themselves as bad and they know that in order for them to walk on the angel’s path, they should suffer in violence. The prison, which is a confinement for the criminals, becomes a tool for the government to isolate these criminals while the police force is left free to do whatever they want. Social institutions represent the central authoritative power which is opposed to individual freedom. Therefore, in the fiction, while on the one hand the existence of a postmodern world, which defends limitless freedom, is presented; on the other hand, a modern society, which endeavours to oppress its individuals, is underlined.

On the other hand Alex tries to use his position. He spies on other prisoners and then informs on them and the things they do to the chaplain. By means of his spying, he gains a right to listen to the stereo and read books. Since he is religious and young, the chaplain thinks that he might be transformed into someone who will choose goodness by his free will; yet on the other hand reciprocally he endeavours to use Alex. Since Alex is one of the prisoners who can easily learn what is going on inside the cells, he is the best one to learn more about the events in the prison.

By means of the knowledge he gained from Alex, he hopes to be promoted to a great

151 position.

It is observable that both Alex and the prison chaplain do the same thing by trying to take advantage of each other’s knowledge and position. If the prison chaplain thinks himself to be on the side of goodness, the idea of goodness should be questioned. What is thought to be normal is also thought to be good yet what is thought to be normality might have bad influences on society and individuals. While the violence applied by the governmental forces might be seen as normal and for the sake of goodness, it is inconsistent to evaluate Alex and his friends’ behaviours as violent. If the government and the governmental institutions and many other social institutions are presented to be the representatives of goodness, this goodness should be questioned. What the good is cannot be explained; yet if the idea of social togetherness is accepted as opposed to the postmodern view, a social order providing the best qualified life to its members should be aimed.

The prison chaplain, Alex and F. Alexander are all talking about an apolitical idea of liberalism. They all think that individuals should be left free to choose their way between badness and goodness. When Alex hears about a new technique by means of which the prisoners will be released, he wishes to experience it. Since he doesn’t know anything about the technique, he thinks that he may mislead and deceive the judges by exploiting this technique. The technique is called “Ludovico’s Technique” which has not been experienced; yet Alex seems to be willing to experience it. He informs the chaplain of such a technique. The chaplain underlines his doubts about this technique and tries to pinpoint to the idea of free will and goodness. (Burgess,1962; 67)

“The question is whether such a technique can really make a man good. Goodness comes from within, 6655321. Goodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man” (Burgess,1962; 67)

One day an old prisoner is put into the cell where Alex is residing.. In fact the cell has seating accommodation for three people, yet they are six people and one more prisoner is placed without a bed. This man has some homosexual manners and on that night he tries to sleep with Alex. When Alex wakes up he starts to beat him, the other prisoners in the same cell wake up and stop the fight, then they start to

152 about the subject. When the old man insults a Jewish prisoner, he is beaten by all of them. Towards the end of the fight, Alex wants to beat the old man alone and consequently the man dies. All the other prisoners think that it was Alex’s fault to beat him in such a violent way and one of them tries to explain the situation with the words quoted below.

“Nobody will deny having a little hit at the man, to teach him a lesson so to speak, but is apparent that you, my dear boy, with the forcefulness and, shall I say, heedlessness of youth, dealt him the coo de gras. It’s a great pity.” (Burgess,1962; 72)

Alex is once more left alone as his three friends were. All of them do the same thing but since he is the youngest of all, he is presented as the most violent one. At the end of the story Alex’s youth is presented as the reason for his violet manners; yet his consciousness and desire for violence are ignored. His young age might be presented as one of the reasons, yet not the basic one. Since an alternative solution for the chaotic structure of society cannot be put forward, the basic principle of the problems is reduced to a simple reason.

Since Alex is young and courageous one, he is chosen for “Reclamation Treatment”. He accepts to sign it immediately. Since the prison chaplain wants to have a word with him, he is taken to the chaplain’s room. The chaplain talks about the idea of goodness and the free will of the human being to choose what is good. He wishes Alex good luck. Then Alex is taken from the prison to “the new white building” which smells like a hospital. He is taken care of properly and all the comfortable conditions are provided for him. He is introduced to two doctors, Dr. Broadsky and his assistant Dr. Branom. Alex still thinks that there won’t be any changes in his characteristic and consequently deceiving the doctors and the judges, he will be released from the prison. He is given an injection containing an unknown medicine not mentioned to the reader yet thought to be vitamins for Alex. For the first time he has to accept a female’s authority over him. A female nurse comes and gives him a hypodermic injection. In a sense, for the first time he is pacified by a female. He is taken to a place in which some films will be shown to him. He is placed on a special seat, fixed and strapped to the seat. His eyes are pulled up and put clips on them in order for him not to shut his eyes. He is shown many different films

153 which have the most violent elements in them. He has to watch each of the films without closing his eyes and stirring his neck or any part of his body. He feels as if he is about to vomit. Those films are like real life. The scenes are so real that Alex cannot understand how such films are shot in the name of the goodness of the State. While Alex is watching the films, the doctors check his heartbeats, reaction and health. (Burgess,1962; 75, 77 )

Alex is seen as a kind of laboratory animal an object or a machine on which some tests are applied. His humanity and individuality are ignored. Alex thinks that they are making him sick; yet Dr Branom claims that he is “being made sane” and is being made as healthy as a normal human being. Throughout the process of watching the films, Alex feels sick and wants to vomit. He has to watch the most brutal, terrible, inhumane treatment by means of the scenes. He may like the things he has seen in the films before this reclamation treatment, since he is under the influence of the injections and because of his stabilized position and the music keeping at the background, he doesn’t enjoy watching them. Even he doesn’t dream of himself while he is behaving violently. After watching the films Alex feels no pain or sickness on the contrary he feels healthy. (Burgess,1962; 86)

Alex has a nightmare. It is one of his usual dreams, yet this time he feels as if he was drowning in his own blood. He sees himself with some vagabonds and they were all torturing a young girl. Alex sees himself as the leader of these boys; he does the most ultra-violent tortures to the girl; however he feels so sick that he wants to be rescued from the nightmare. He evaluates his enjoyable dreams as nightmares after all. His emotions and reactions are transformed into what is called normal. His masculine unconscious side has not been transformed. His dream demonstrates that he still wants to feel his masculinity on a female body, yet since his reactions to such things he have been conditioned by sickness, he becomes not a human being but a machine which does the same thing under the same condition.

Ludovico’s Technique is not utilized as a tool of entertainment but is used for brainwashing. After the brainwashing process, the behaviours of the individuals are controlled and altered. This technique epitomises a totalitarian way for the human

154 being to be good yet all techniques even the education in schools can be asserted to be totalitarian since it is shaped according to the ideology of the ruling class. Postmodernism is against all ideologies and totalitarian applications. In one of the treatment processes, Alex feels as if he is about to die when he hears Beethoven’s the Fifth Symphony. It is the most terrifying film he has watched which was made by the Germans and about the Second World War. Alex cannot stand watching the film and shouts at them to stop, yet the show goes on and when it ends, it is understood that Alex has an interest in music.

Alex is seen as someone who naturally wants to be violent. Violence in his character is evaluated to be God-given, yet the real conditions are not told in the story. The cultural and economic structure of his society is not described much and is not described in association with Alex’s life. Alex is presented as a human being who is atomized from his social background and who is naturally in desire of violence. The conflicts in the story cannot be evaluated properly without considering their materialistic conditions.

Alex is transformed into a true Christian who has no free will. He loves to be beaten more than beating someone. When he is slapped, he turns the other cheek to have another slap. He becomes someone who likes suffering. He is purified from his violent manners, yet it is debatable if he can be seen as a human being or a programmed machine. He becomes a kind of machine which is programmed for suffering.

“And what, brothers, I had to escape into sleep from then was the horrible and wrong feeling that it was better to get the hit than give it. If that veck had stayed I might even have like presented the other cheek.” (Burgess,1962; 96)

Alex is taken to the scene on his last day in order for him to present a show to the governor of the prison, the prison chaplain and the Minister of the Interior. He is shown as if he is an object, a creation of the doctors. Alex is beaten by a man on the scene, he wants to hit the man but he cannot do it for the reason that he is pacified by the treatment. As soon as he thinks of hitting someone, he feels sick and suffers. He gives his cigarette and knife to the man and starts to lick his boots. It seems more self-respectable to fight than licking his boots. He seems to be inferior. The man who

155 beats Alex is an actor and performs his role. There is nothing wrong for him to beat someone on the scene, since he is acting a role at that time. Yet Alex is exhibited as a laboratory animal. Doctor Brodsky presents Alex as a subject in an overconfident way.

“Our subject is, you see, impelled towards the good by, paradoxically, being impelled towards evil. The intention to act violently is accompanied by strong feelings of physical distress. To counter these, the subject has to switch to a diametrically opposed attitude. Any questions?” (Burgess,1962; 99)

Doctor Brodsky explains that he has to ignore some ethics for the sake of “cutting down crime”. In order to cut down the crime rates, the individuals should be turned into clockwork oranges. Alex questions them about whether he is transformed into “a clock-work orange”. He is against being pacified as an individual yet he is conditioned to act in the same way by means of the treatment. (Burgess,1962; 99, 100)

Then a woman comes on the scene. She is semi-naked, extremely beautiful and attractive. Alex at first wants to be with her. He wants to “have her right there on the floor with the old in-out real savage”. He is masculine at the beginning but when he thinks of raping her he is pacified by the sickness he feels. In order to get rid of the pain he feels, he starts to treat her kindly. He wants to kiss her feet in order for her to accept his help and protection. He offers the woman not to be her rapist but protector. This is not his individual choice, yet he is conditioned to turn his other cheek whenever he is beaten. (Burgess,1962; 101)

When Alex is released from the prison, he goes to his home, yet his parents have a tenant in his room and do not want Alex to take his room back. They need the money they earn from renting Alex’s room. They do not want to accept Alex since they consider him as a source of problem. When Alex understands that his parents reject him and he is no more “their only son” he immediately goes out and tries to find something to do. He goes to the music market Melodia where he was used to going before he was sentenced. He wants to listen to Mozart’s Symphony Number Forty, yet the charged person is not an intellectual one so he gives Mozart’s “Prague” to Alex. Despite the fact that Alex has missed music, he cannot stand listening to it.

156 Since he has listened to Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony during a “Nazi film”, he associates Mozart’s music to Beethoven’s, and as a consequence he feels the same pain and sickness he felt while watching those films. He runs out of the place and goes to the Korova Milkbar. He drinks a glass of milk with knives and starts to pass to another world. He perceives life in another way. He sees himself in heaven by getting rid of “platties, body, brain, name, the lot”. He finds the answer of the question. The answer is “death”. He wants to commit suicide, yet he feels sick when he thinks of himself in blood. (Burgess,1962; 105, 110, 111)

With a hope of finding peace he goes to the Public Library. He wants to find a peaceful way of committing suicide. He finds “a medical book” which is full of “drawings and photographs of horrible wounds and diseases” and thus he ceases to read it. He takes the Bible and starts to read, yet it is full of painful stories, he becomes lachrymose and someone who sits across wonders why he feels so sad in such a young age. At that time the one who sits next to Alex looks at his face and they immediately recognise each other. He is the man who is interested in “Crystallography” and was beaten by Alex and his friends. Alex is easily recognised because they beat him without masks. The man exposes Alex to his friends and they altogether beat him. They do the same torture with the same justification “Violence makes violence”. They torture Alex and want to kill him. The man thinks that he has a right to take his revenge. He and his friends in the library start to beat Alex. In fact it becomes clearly observable that society is ready to show the same violent manners. There is no difference between an individual to whom goodness is attributed and Alex, the representative of badness. As opposed to the postmodern idea both the majority and minority share these common features rather than differences. Therefore when the whole is deconstructed into its fragments, the fragments probably will carry the same features of the whole and thus no improvement is social life will be achieved on the contrary individuals such as Alex will be able to have a chance to perform violence. (Burgess,1962; 57, 112, 113)

At last the police arrive and save Alex from the torture of the people in the

157 library. The police beat the people in order to have control over them. The police take Alex out of the library and one of the police recognises him. Alex looks at them and he recognises that they are Billboy and Dim. He is shocked and cannot believe his eyes. Since they are older than Alex, they are accepted to be the members of the police force. They achieve to establish a social identity through which they might be seen as normal people in their society. Since normality is accepted to be related to goodness, both Dim and Billyboy might be seen as the representatives of goodness. They are on the good side. They are police and have to protect citizens from brutality. Since they become the members of a social institution, they are thought to be good and normal which might be considered abnormal. People who have bad manners like Alex, or who have worse manners than him might be accepted as the representatives of normality, and through their identities violence is legitimized and encoded to social memory. They take Alex somewhere which is away from the city and there they beat him with a heavy hand; then leave him there alone. Alex was a perpetrator yet becomes a victim in the hands of society. He is still a postmodern character who is thrown away, kicked, beaten and who is in the service of goodness without his central authority. Therefore, postmodernism wishes to pull him into the centre for him to tell his story. Anything might be legitimised in postmodernism. Even a capitalist or a fascist dictator might be seen as a victim and thus might legitimise their positions. “I too am a slave” becomes a motto for everyone; yet how the justice and equality will be considered should be interrogated. Postmodernism ignores the materialist conditions of the human beings and they all might be seen as victims. Without an ideology which leads apoliticism any of the individuals might be submitted and legitimised as if they were victims. Yet according to Marxism any problem should be considered for the benefits of common life. Besides by transforming the conditions of both social and individual life, individuals who have class consciousness are aimed to educate. (Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guaattari, 1983: 254)

Alex teeters slowly and comes to a place on whose gate it is written “HOME”. He comes to the same place, the name of the house sounds familiar but he cannot remember why it sounds so familiar. He knocks the door and begs the one inside to

158 take him in or protect him. Someone takes him inside the house and Alex remembers the place and the man as soon as enters; yet the man cannot recognise Alex since they had their masks on when they raped his wife, tortured him and tore his writings into pieces. The author takes care of Alex, he prepares a comfortable place for Alex. He considers Alex to be “a victim of the modern age”. The author recognises Alex from that day’s newspapers as the prisoner whom was subjected to the Ludovico’s Technique. The author rebels against this application. Since he is on the side of freewill, he evaluates that technique as inhumane. He represents a typical postmodern theorician. Despite the fact that he is against the idea of the state and all authoritative social institutions, he does not evaluate the events in a political way. He endeavours to legitimize the idea of limitless liberalization for the sake of humanism, yet such an idea of limitless liberalism causes him to be tortured and his wife to be raped. He represents the epitome of intellectualism and humanism and wants Alex to feel as an individual who chooses his own way of living. He doesn’t want Alex to be transformed into a machine. (Burgess,1962; 119, 120 )

“You’ve sinned, I suppose, but your punishment has been out of all proportion. They have turned you into something other than a human being. You have no power of choice any longer. You are committed to socially acceptable acts, a little machine capable only of good. And I see that clearly – that business about the marginal conditionings. Music and the sexual art, literature and art, all must be a source now not of pleasure but of pain.” (Burgess,1962; 122)

While on the one hand he is such a humanistic person that he endeavours to help Alex to have his own free way of living, on the other hand he aims to use Alex’s conditions. He aims to use Alex to “dislodge” the “overbearing Government”. His political aim is to deconstruct the government in order for people to be liberalised. His aim which seems to be political is indeed an apolitical one, since no alternative is presented; as it is done through the postmodern way of thinking. The Society and togetherness of two people which might be submitted as the lowest common denominator are ignored and ruled out as a possibility. If a human being’s life is argued as separate from social togetherness, there cannot be any politics in such an idea. Politics is established for the common life of humanity. For all these fore-stated reasons F. Alexander’s way of thinking cannot be evaluated as a political one. His main aim is deconstruction and he dedicates his life to deconstruct all governmental authorities which are regarded as totalitarian. All kinds of social togetherness and

159 central structures are contemplated to be totalitarian; yet on the contrary his way of thinking causes individuals to be totalitarian and fascist as Alex is. Each individual has a right to choose a kind of life which is chosen by Alex. Therefore if a man demands his right to be a fascist, and wishes to torture others he cannot be defended by any postmodern theoricians such as F. Alexander. (Burgess,1962; 122)

F. Alexander and his friends Z. Dolin, Rubinstein, D. B. Silva all come together to discuss how they can use Alex to overthrow the government. In their discussion Alex is displayed as an object which will be used by them. Thus he is positioned as a kind of machine since his object position is still kept by these defenders of freedom and can be observed in the quote below:

“What a superb device he can be, this boy. If anything, of course, he could for preference look even iller and more zombyish than he does. Anything for the cause. No doubt we can think of something.” (Burgess,1962; 127)

“If you want to be good, you need a good society” (Eagleton, 2004:128)

Ignoring the fact that society should be in good conditions, social institutions tries to transform Alex into someone who is good. Yet, he is abused by the government. Alex wants to know how he will be used. He hates to be treated as if he was an object. He wants them to stop treating him “like a thing that’s like got to be just used”. He is tortured in the prison and used as a guinea pig by the doctors and now is thought to be used as a weapon by the defenders of freedom. Alex’s desire is to be a free individual as he was before the reclamation treatment. In order for Alex to be free and to do whatever he wants, he needs F. Alexander’s society. Since the idea of freedom in F. Alexander’s thought is an apolitical one, it enables Alex to do whatever he wants; even rape and kill his wife. (Burgess, 1962;128)

In order to make Alex fight for F. Alexander and his associates, they oppress him to accept being utilized against the government. F. Alexander is a real advocate of liberalism as the postmodernists, yet when he recognises Alex and understands that he is the one who has tortured him, raped his wife and tore his writings, he immediately starts to torture him by taking the position of a central authority. He feels that a kind of god-like power is in his hands. Failing to remember his criticism

160 about the government, he does the same torture. He and his friends lock him in a room and play classical music, which deeply tortures Alex and causes him to commit suicide.

“Postmodern end-of-history thinking does not envisage a future for us much different from the present, a prospect it oddly views as a cause for celebration. But there is indeed one such possible future among several, and its name is fascism. The greatest test of postmodernism, or for that matter of any other political doctrine, is how it would shape up to that. Its rich body of work on racism or ethnicity, on the paranoia of identity-thinking, on the perils of totality and the fear of otherness: all this, along with its deepened insights into the cunning of power, would no doubt be of considerable value. But its cultural relativism and moral conventionalism, its scepticism, pragmaticism and localism, its distaste for ideas of solidarity disciplined organization. Its lack of any adequate theory of political agency: all these would tell heavily against it.” (Eagleton, 1996;134)

Alex’s answer became “DEATH” which is presented as his only option and salvation, thus he commits suicide, and however he is admitted to hospital and cured by the doctors. While Alex is locked in a room, and tortured by the music which is kept playing in the background, he thinks of stopping the torture that is going on in life. Seeing a cover of a book, which is titled “DEATH to THE GOVERNMENT”, he comprehends the answer and then unfortunately or rather fortunately he reads another sentence of another book titled “Open the window to fresh air, fresh ideas and a new way of living”. Following up the clues, he decides how to commit suicide. This is the answer he has been searching for and he decides to jump out of the window. After attempting suicide Alex is admitted to hospital and is cured totally. He is transformed into the Alex in the beginning of the story. He is freed from his object position and displayed as an individual who has a right to choose his own way of living. Thus Alex becomes the same Alex who enjoys doing ultra-violence. (Burgess, 1962; 131)

The idea of the government is also important. In this fiction the government is presented as the representative of social togetherness. They claim to exist for the benefit of social welfare, yet they cannot succeed. The government may be thought to be liberal since it lets groups of youths to act violently in the streets despite the fact that they have enough police force to put all these individuals in prisons or corrective schools. As it is stated in the novel, several production forces and social services are in the hands of the state, therefore the government has a right to control

161 these institutions on their own. Whenever something arises in the social world, the government interferes in the situation only if the situation is evaluated to be significant; otherwise no solution is presented for the problems that are faced in the daily lives of citizens. The government is there for its own benefit. The country is ruled according to the terms of democracy. Another party may be voted by the people and the present government may be demolished, therefore the government has to move in a hypocritical way in order to keep its central position.

The death of the government will start with the death of the self. What is thought to be real liberalism might also exist in death or death might be the symbol of chaos that cannot be explained. The reality or the answer is presented to be death which is something unknown and cannot be ruled by anyone. In a sense the story leads the reader to the acceptance of chaos. Since the narrator is congested by the idea of individual freedom and social order, the alternative solution is thought to be hidden in chaos. Yet, the acceptance of chaos featherbeds the oppressor classes’ benefits since nothing changes in social and individual life conditions within chaos. The death of the government reminds us of Roland Barthes’ article “The Death of the Author”. The presence of an author is identified with the presence of an authority and the readers are wished to be free from the central existence of the author. The government in A Clockwork Orange is identified with an author or God. According to postmodernism the sense of authority and centralism should be deconstructed.

This is a circular ending for the story. The question is answered yet what is presented as the answer is something unknown and thus carries a question within itself. The relationship between society and the individual is also put in a circular relationship. Individual freedom always antagonizes and damages society while social order is always presented to be totalitarian on the individual.

The story is ended by American Publishers at this stage, yet it goes on and has one more chapter and is published with its last chapter in the British edition. The last chapter of the story is not a complicated one as its previous chapters. In order to cease the chaos presented as a solution in the previous chapter, the last or in other words the seventh chapter puts pressure on the narrator to find out a solution.

162 Therefore the reason of this circular chaotic relationship is submitted to be deriving from the conflict between generations that are not adequate to elucidate the real causes. Yet John W. Tilton, a critic of Burgess’ works, thinks that the last chapter is vital in understanding the story.

“Without the last chapter, readers are likewise left without the evidence needed to confirm or refute the impression made by egocentricism that h is not a reliable observer of or commentator on his own behaviour or that of others. … The true climax, in chapter seven, does what I think Burgess intended to do: precluding both self-congratulation and the simplistic formulation of isolable themes, it distresses the reader into disturbing reflections on the nature of man.” (Tilton, 1977; 23,24)

The last chapter opens with the same question, “What’s it going to be then, eh?”. While the previous chapter has come to an end by means of the idea of ‘death’, in this last chapter another solution, which might be submitted through the idea of ‘birth’, is found. Alex returns to his previous stage and wants to continue his violent acts by means of a son. The idea of having a son represents the idea of reproduction and creation. Throughout the book the story is told by Alex yet is not typed by him. He narrates the story and someone else writes the story maybe at the time of speaking or after Alex has told his events. The reader cannot know how this story is printed, yet may try to guess that Alex’s story is written by his son.

The desire in Alex for having a son and also his need to narrate his story are the representatives of his creative side. He wishes to leave something from himself and something that is created by him. He wishes to leave a son to this patriarchal world in order for him to continue his life as his father does. On the other hand it might be claimed that he is also trying to conquer the position of the original creator, God. By means of a son he will be always a threat to the existence of God for the reason that Alex accepts his son as someone who will have his satanic side and will learn the natural evolution in himself as his father does.

“Alex’s creative act is an act of evil, an expression of immanent evil more frightening and more powerfully affective than the whole series of violent acts that he has overtly committed.” (Tilton, 1977; 24)

Alex is there and his new three friends called Len, Rick and Bully. While Len and Rick might be seen as the representatives of Pete and Georgie, Bully takes the place of Dim. Alex humiliates Bully as he did with Dim. They are sitting in the

163 Korova Milkbar. Their clothes are in the latest fashion however black this time. Alex is no more the youngest of his friends but the oldest one despite the fact that he is “eighteen”. He comes on the scene as an experienced, knowledgeable leader. They still use the nadsat language. (Burgess, 1962; 140, 146)

Everything is portrayed in the same way as was done in the beginning yet there are some slight changes in Alex’s manners. Alex tries to turn in on himself in order to perceive why he feels different than his usual mood. They come across a man with a newspaper, and since there was no police they want to apply ultra-violence on him, yet Alex does not want to be involved this time and taking the position of an authority, lets Bully beat the man. He becomes a kind of teacher who evaluates his or his students by stading back. Therefore Bully beats the man with his other two friends.

“More and more these days I had been just giving the orders and standing back to viddy them being carried out.” (Burgess, 1962; 141)

They go to “the Duke of New York” and the women who have been always there are still there for drinking. At first Alex wants to order something to drink for them since these women are always on their side against the police and are ready for false witness. Yet he changes his mind and maybe for the first time he doesn’t order anything for these women and wants them to pay for their own drinks. He doesn’t wish to drink whisky but instead a small beer which is a common drink of ordinary males. His friends see a picture that comes out from Alex’s pocket accidentally. He carries a picture of a baby cutten from a newspaper. When Alex realises that they have seen the picture he tears it into pieces. They have a plan to rob a shop “in Gagarin Street”. When Alex does not want to be involved in this horror show activity, Bully suggests postponing the plan for another day; yet Alex claims that they should go on the plan without his leadership in their “own like style”. He thinks that he is not in his usual mood and leaves. (Burgess, 1962;142, 144)

Alex is on his way home. He tries to turn in on himself and relax his emotive side. He discovers that he likes to listen to romantic songs like “ Lieder ” and is played by “a goloss and a piano ”. He walks around and feels tired and wants to have a cup

164 of milky tea. He thinks of himself sitting with a cup of tea in his seventies with grey hair. He feels strange. The reader is forced to discover that Alex is getting old and naturally feels different and more mature than he felt before. His age naturally forces him to choose another way of living.

In addition to the fore-stated feelings of Alex, he comes across Pete on the way home. Pete is married and he introduces his wife. It is very understandable for Pete to choose such a social life since he has always been the most social member of Alex’s group. Pete has had a constructive side in the group and he may construct another social togetherness through marriage. On the contrary Alex is always presented to be a character which enjoys deconstruction. Yet in the end Alex suddenly perceives that he has grown up. Alex wants to change himself after all, he is also forced to change naturally, and he thinks of having a son. He imagines that his son will do the same things he has done.

“My son, my son. When I had my son I would explain all that to him when he was starry enough to like understanding. But then I knew he would not understand or would not want to understand at all and would do all the veshches I had done, yes perhaps even killing some poor starry forella surrounded with mewing kots and koshkas, and I would not to be able to really stop him and nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers. And so it would itty on to like the end of the world, round and round and round, like some bolshy gigantic like chelloveck, like old Bog Himself (by courtesy of Korova Milkbar) turning and turning and turning a vonny grahzny orange in his gigantic rookers.” (Burgess, 1962; 148, Burgess)

The end is still kept in another circular structure since Alex claims that this chaotic existence of nature will go on in the same way. It is put forward that everything will change in the natural way from one generation to the other. The problems of one generation won’t be understood by the new one and the same mistakes will be carried on. Having a son is important for Alex since he wants his story to be carried on by his heir. The patriarchal way of thinking is kept the same since the females are treated the same. They are given roles by the males. Alex will be in search for a woman who will be evaluated to be qualified enough to be his wife and the mother of his son. Therefore a woman will be chosen by him for marriage.

According to this last chapter’s end, the answer is not submitted to be death, on the contrary it is claimed to exist in natural life. Alex tries to say that people should let life go on in its natural way. Youth is presented to be the reason of the extreme

165 desire for violence. As he argues, because of his youthness he doesn’t want to stop raping women, beating men, fighting and killing women. Yet he realises that he is eighteen which is not a young age for people like Mozart who had written many works of art till his eighteenth birthday. Alex feels himself as a grown up boy.

“Yes yes yes, there it was. Youth must go, ah yes. But youth is only being in a way like it might be an animal. No, it is not just like being an animal so much as being like one of these malenky made out of tin and with a spring inside and then a winding handle on the outside and you wind it up grrr grrr grrr and off it itties like walking O my brothers. But it itties in a straight line and bangs straight into things bang bang and it cannot help what it is doing. Being young is like being like one of these malenky machines.” (Burgess, 1962; 148)

Alex thinks that a new life is on the way for him. He apologises to the reader for all his behaviours and since he is not young enough to experience such events he ends his story. He has completed his turn and another young boy, maybe his own son will go on experiencing such adventures and telling such stories. Therefore the story tells that the reason of what has happened throughout the narration is immaturity. The question is answered. The solution is presented. Therefore young people should be encouraged to live their own way of living. Even these young boys may rape, rob, beat or kill but the reader might be more pleased became youthfulness is the justification. Alex finds a very simple solution in order to get rid of his guilt complex, yet turning to his readers and wanting them to believe in the submitted end.

“That was something I would have to get started on, a new like chapter beginning. … And all it was was that I was young. But now as I end this story, brothers, I am not young, not no longer, oh no. Alex like groweth up, oh yes.” (Burgess, 1962; 148)

“Burgess thus squarely condemns the behavior modification inflicted on Alex, insisting instead that we should wait for the inner transformation that occurs in the twenty-first chapter. 82 The author's adoption of free will “by definition" parallels the assumption that Herbert Packer identified as a central tenet of criminal law: The legal system assumes free will and therefore punishes criminal acts as chosen by the individual, rather than determined by forces beyond personal control; the assumption arises not because it is empirically verifiable, but because its adoption conduces to better social arrangements, principally greater individual liberty. 83 (Batey,1998:59,60)”

The second ending of the story wishes the reader to believe in natural transformation of the individuals . Both of the last two chapters might be the representatives of alternative solutions, yet these endings are the ones which are presented to the reader for them to believe in them. Yet, these two solutions cannot be accepted as real solutions for the reason that all the problems about individual

166 freedom and social life remain the same. While the first ending presents a chaotic social structure which will go on in a circular way and cannot be improved or changed, the second ending asserts that the same violence will go on because of the chaotic nature of youthfulness. Both endings force reader to accept these chaotic structures that exist in the established order. In a sense the readers want to be kept silent and pacified. If they think of another ending, if they try to ask the same question and find other answer, the established patriarchal and masculine order might not go on raping, torturing, robbing, beating and oppressing both individuals and societies. In a sense both endings try to legitimize the oppressors’s established order.

In this novel the postmodern idea of liberalism and atomization of society is considered to be the idea of a society whose people are not equal and free. Society and individuals are described as having a contradictory relationship as it is argued by postmodernism. While social life is presented as the restrictive side of this relation, the individual is positioned in the liberal side. These two parts are thought to be in an eternal fight that will reach the same dilemma. This dilemma is always defended by postmodernism. Therefore all the members of society are intentionally separated or atomised from any social togetherness. Any relationship between two human beings is thought to cause a restrictive relationship. Yet, it should be reminded here that nothing is limitless and there are always limits in a social world. If the human being is accepted to be a social being then some restrictions should be accepted willingly for the benefits of everybody as is stated in the quotation below.

“The political upshot of this condition is liberalism. If there are many conceptions of the good, then the state must be so constructed as to accommodate them all. The just state is one neutral in respect of any particular conception of the good life, confining its jurisdiction to furnishing the conditions in which individuals may discover it for themselves. It does this by guaranteeing each individual the so-called primary goods necessary for such exploration while protecting them from being unjustly constrained in this enterprise by the actions of others.” (Eagleton, 1996: 76,77)

While on the one hand Alex may also be seen as the alter ego of white western patriarchal culture, on the other hand he can be seen as the mirror image of western society. For the reason that evil and badness are represented in Alex’s character; besides Alex is isolated from his society as the source from whom all badness,

167 madness and abnormality are derived. He is accepted as the one who hides the evil face of the western white man. The dark double of the white patriarchal society again lies beneath a white man. Apart from this fact, he can be known as a member of his society and he represents it. The system takes him and tortures him, brainwashes him. The tools and the way of brainwashing of the system are the signs which underline the similarity between society and Alex. Society has the mirror image of Alex. The act of brainwashing is fostered in social institutions and applied to Alex. No one objects to brainwashing except the author who might be evaluated to be the representative of the intellectual class of society. The author shows the sympathy and goes against such inhumane acts, yet his humanism shoots him. He is violated, his life is destroyed and his ideas are deconstructed. As a consequent of this wicked experience, he cannot stand defending the truths; he is transformed into someone else after the attack, or, from a different point of view his dark double or the evil side in him is thought to appear. Everybody may have such a violent face which is kept hidden under a social mask. Alex submits the reality and never hides his feelings.

Moreover the author may be taken as the representative of Anthony Burgess. The question “‘What’s it going to be then, eh?’ ” might be continually asked by Burgess. The word ‘then’ adds a futuristic aim to the question, since it also means ‘after all’ or ‘from now on’. The intellectual thinking of the author might be forcing him to ask this question, in order to find a solution for the future. So at the very beginning readers are coerced to ask this question for the future. Yet the presented solutions cannot be taken in hand as real solutions, since they keep the same problems in life. No solution is presented indeed as it is done by the postmodernism theoreticians. This is due to the fact that in postmodernist theory, life is just questioned and no solution is produced. The solutions which are thought to be suggested by postmodernist theory internalises the same problems and thus the same questions. Reality and history are endeavoured to be deconstructed, thus are questioned or problematized or believed to be kept in their usual chaotic structure.

Consequently, since postmodernism is always on the side of limitless liberty by rejecting all common agreements, ideologies and truths, Marxism should always be

168 placed on its opposite side. While on one hand Marxism underlines liberty for each individual of society under equal circumstances and requires each member to be consciousness of the class struggle; on he other hand postmodernism wishes to give such a limitless and ideologiless freedom that may cause strengthening the masculine authority and centre. Therefore postmodernist and Marxist thoughts have always encountered with each other.

169 8 WATING FOR THE BARBARIANS

J. M. Coetzee who is a South-African novelist, critic and translator; and who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2003, is accepted to be one of the most important intellectuals who is influenced by the postmodrnist thoughts. His works can be seen as the representatives of postcolonial thoughts which are in regard to postmodernism yet a bit more political. Postcolonialism interrogates both colonial discourse and the colonised culture. By taking language, gender, race, class and subjectivity problems into consideration, it endeavours to decolonise the land. Yet since it is under the influence of postmodernism it cannot produce an alternative future for both colonised and colonizer societies; on the contrary the conditions for the colonised societies or individuals become more difficult. “Postcolonial studies’ concern with historicl continuities and the legacies of coloniallism is motivated by a moral and political agenda. Postcolonial analyses focus on the colonial with a desire not just to understand and explain, but also to oppose and counteract. In this way, postcolonial studies can be seen as drawing inspiration from the anti-colonial and liberation movements of the past with a wiev to contributing to the struggle against colonialism in all its present-day forms and manifestations (Young 2001, p.11)” (Hill,2005;144)

According to postmodernism, the difference between the real and fictive becomes blurred. Therefore it is defended that there is not a common truth for the individuals. What is presented as historical and real is considered fictive. Coetzee’s novel Waiting for the Barbarians epitomises the same postmodern outlook. Yet it should be stated that rejection of difference between the real and fictive, strengthens the coloniser countries. Since the individuals cannot comprehend what is real and what is fictive they cannot struggle against the authoritative power. Despite the fact that postmodernism does not believe in the existence of reality, still it has to deal with it. It is important to stress on Coetzee’s aim for reflecting the real life. Coetzee is presented in 2003, The Nobel Prize Ceremony as it is quoted below:

170 “To write is to awaken counter-voices within oneself, and to dare enter into dialogue with them. The dangerous attraction of the inner self is John Coetzee's theme: the senses and bodies of people, the interiority of Africa. "To imagine the unimaginable" is the writer's duty. As a post-modern allegorist, Coetzee knows that novels that do not seek to mimic reality best convince us that reality exists.” (http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2003/presentation- speech.html)

Waiting for the Barbarians is another example of postmodernist literature. This story is about an expedition to deserts in order to catch the barbarian tribes. The name of the place in which the events take place is not given. For this reason, the story is able to take place in any country of the world. The time of the event is not known and thus it might be understood to take place in any period. These abstract places and time expressions create a slippery ground for the reader. The novella is read in a lack of confidence and a distrustful atmosphere is established at the very beginning of the fiction.

The title also gives a sense of discomfort. The word ‘barbarianism’ is associated with violence and strength. Why the barbarians are waited for and who is waiting for them is not known. A sense of fear is spread by the title. Even before reading the text the title creates an insecure field. It also calls the impression that something has happened while the barbarians are being waited for; yet, what has happened is not known and wondered. It is probable that there has not been anything so far, so the barbarians are still waited upon and thus the unknown who wait for them involve the readers. The existence of barbarians also might mean the existence of its opposite which might mean civilised people.

Waiting for the Barbarians also calls another similar title called Waiting for Godot . It is known that in Waiting for Godot , a person called Godot is being waited upon, yet s/he never comes. It is also understood by the audience that there is no existence of such a person, and thus waiting for Godot is seen as hopeless waiting. It is the same with Waiting for the Barbarians . The existence of barbarians is not clear and it is probable that there exist no such people. It might be also possible that these unknown waiters might be the real barbarians who are waited for. Since the barbarians are being waited, the unknown people who wait for them represents civilized people and thus the waiting civilized people are thought to be the real barbarians.

171 “It is the white man who creates the Negro. But it is the Negro who creates negritude.” (Fanon, 1970: 32)

As expressed by Frantz Fanon, if societies or individuals are labelled as something, then they become that thing. Yet what is associated with negative features in cultures is always created by another culture. In the fiction Waiting for the Barbarians people who are thought to be barbarians are not known; yet they are labelled as barbarians. Such people are expected to create a barbarian culture since they are always accepted as being barbaric. Also it is not known as to why they are called barbarians. In this fiction, it becomes accepted that people who live closer to nature rather than a civilized life are accepted as being barbaric. Yet what is considered barbaric might be lying in the civilized world indeed. Thus the whole notion of what is defined as barbarity is a conception created by the western world. So, because this notion derives from an ‘apparent’ civilised perspective, should it then be considered a true definition?

Waiting for the Barbarians also calls the impression of a hunting scene. The barbarians sound like animals that will be slain. Moreover at the very beginning of the novel an unknown man, who is later introduced as Colonel Joll, tells about his last experience of hunting where thousands of animals were killed. So the novel drives the reader to despair. In an unknown place and time, barbarians are being waited upon whilst the western men are talking about hunting. This creates a terrifying image.

It is said among the people that the traders are robbed by some unknown barbarian tribes and these tribes are believed to have an aim to unite against the traders or the civilised world. The fear of barbarians’ unity is perceived at the very beginning of the novel. It is understood that when a group of people come together, they become a power capable of changing their lives. Why do the barbarians want to struggle against the traders who are the representatives of the civilised world when the problem between them will soon be understood?

The narrator of the story is a magistrate. While on one hand he doesn’t seem to be an ex-centric character on the one hand, because he is a typical white male

172 European narrator, on the other hand he is ex-centric since he is living in exile, away from his native culture. He seems to be sent into exile for his own country. It is also understood that he is there for his country, for his empire. Britain was a powerful empire once and thus the speaker might be coming from Britain.

The story starts with the word “I” which refers to the speaker; but since this is the first word of the story, the identity of this “I” was yet to be known. Moreover, the reader might put herself/himself to the place of the subject, which is an unknown subject. The unknown “I” in an unknown place and time becomes more chaotic and confusing. Since the reader might identify himself or herself through this unknown “I”, the subject of this unknown chaos becomes the reader. The word “I” also sounds like the word ‘eye’ through which the world is seen, watched and observed. However, still it has not been known whose eye it is. The eye represents the perspective but from whose perspective the story is told is not understood. The reader has to see the story through an unknown eye and from an unknown perspective. The sense of chaos is created and can be perceived throughout the whole fiction. (Coetzee, 2000; 1)

The first sentence of the novel is “I have never seen anything like it:” The subject ‘I’ talks about a thing which has not been seen, yet. The thing which has not been seen, yet, should be something so interesting or extra-ordinary. They are “two little discs of glass” which are dark. The person who has two little black discs of glass is a male as it is understood from the speaker’s words. The speaker asks if he is blind or not and thus the gender of the owner of the discs is understood, yet the speaker’s gender has not been mentioned. Since he asks if he is blind or not those discs are also understood. The speaker is trying to give a definition of sun-glasses, but, since nothing like that has been seen before, the name of the discs cannot be given. The speaker also says that it is understandable for a blind person to use such glasses; however wearing sunglasses is not suitable for someone whose eyes are healthy. The discs are dark and since they “look opaque” the others cannot see the eyes of the owners of it, whereas the owner of the glasses can see through them. At first the speaker becomes suspicious of the defect of eyesight but while he is

173 observing the man with dark discs he perceives that those dark discs are transparent which enables him to see though them. Apart from his gender, the owner of the sunglasses is unknown at that moment. He is associated with dark glasses whose identity is not known. He seems to be an unknown dark man who is defined with such satanic features. On the other hand since he has sunglasses this being a technological production of the civilised world, he is comprehended as an individual coming from a civilised country. Therefore these satanic features are represented by a member of the civilised world. (Coetzee, 2000: 1)

As it is known by the speaker, these discs “protect one’s eyes against the glare of the sun.” (Coetzee, 2000;1) Why would anyone want to be protected from the glare of the sun? In Mrs. Dalloway, Virginia Woolf states: “Fear no more the heat o’ the sun.” In Mrs. Dalloway the importance of being closer to one another is stressed, and the relations between individuals are underlined in order for them to be sincere, closer and without masks; therefore it is advised not to fear the heat of the sun. (Woolf, 1978: 10) While it is advised in Woolf’s novel to be closer to nature; in Coetzee’s, the speaker indicates the glare of the sun as something that should be avoided. Therefore, it can be conveyed at this point that Coetzee’s speaker seems to be coming from a civilized culture. Since sunglasses are used in the civilized cultures as a protection from nature, it stands as a barrier between the human being and nature. Through such protective accessories or things, human beings are alienated to their natural life. These glasses might also be the representative of a barrier between the civilised world and the barbarians. These glasses were even put on at home which significantly shows the barriers between the members of a family.

The owner of the glasses is there for some “emergency powers” yet the definition of these emergency powers are not mentioned and any other reasons are not known. The existence of the owner of the glasses is decided by an authoritative power like god. He is thrown to this unknown place without being informed the reasons. Nobody knows and understands his existence there yet his reason of his existence has to be accepted by everyone.

174 He is there to find out “the truth”. Yet according to postmodernism the idea of truth cannot be approved of since different facts might be assessed to be true by different people.

He starts to tell one of his hunting experiences “when thousands of deer, pigs, and bears were slain”. There were too many “carcases” that “had to be left to rot (Which was a pity)”. The conversation goes on by mentioning different experiences or slaying animals. These slaying scenes are told by the owner of the sunglasses who might be seen as the representative of the civilised world on the other hand the speaker, who might be seen as an uncivilised being, tells one of his fishing experiences in which they got into “a native boat” holding a torch and beating drums “to drive the fish towards the net”. Despite the fact that the owner of the glasses is coming from a civilised culture, his behaviours and appreciations seem more violent than the speaker’s. (Coetzee, 2000; 1)

This man who likes animals to be slain does not remove his glasses even if he is in a much closed place. For the first time his name is mentioned, he is Colonel John from the Third Bureau which has been the best department of the Civil Guard recently. The speaker and Colonel John are at an inn which is accepted to be “the best accommodation” in the region. A clue about the speaker’s identity is mentioned since they are the ones who inform the reader about Colonel John. Despite the fact that the gender of the speaker is not known, still it can be guessed with the position at the inn or the experience of fishing. He is a male magistrate yet he becomes a kind of inn-keeper.

The story begins at the inn which is always used by the passengers especially for military or commercial reasons. The place has many different stories of many different visitors. It is a conjunction place as if it stands between different cultures to bring them together. It has an intertextual construction which is so significant for postmodern terms. The magistrate has a similar significance since he has chances to talk many different individuals from many different cultures, to hear their stories, to collect them and keep them as a kind of intertextual being. Many different stories are composed in his own existence.

175 The magistrate sleeps on the roof or in other words on “the roof of the world” in order to have some fresh air in such a hot weather. He likes to observe things as well as human beings in the moonlight, and hear “the murmur of conversation”. The word “conversation” has significance since it creates a sense of communication and understanding between individuals; and therefore the place and the inn keeper stand as a kind of bridge between different cultures and individuals for them to share something common. Moonlight creates a feminine sense that is thought to be contrary to the masculine sense created in the memoirs of Colonel John. It’s the summer time and the summer is about to end. Summer symbolises maturity yet the events that have happened till the end of this maturity term are not explained. The image of an ending summer has a postmodern significance because it represents the past. According to postmodernism it is important to return to the past and criticise the events in the past, it is also important for postmodernists to rewrite history by stressing on the untold stories. (Coetzee, 2000; 2)

The characteristics of the speaker in such an inn remind us of Gillian Perholt who is one of the female characters of A. S. Byatt in The Djinn in the Nightingale’s Eye. Gillian stands as a kind of centre and all the stories derive from her experiences. Yet while Gillian retells the stories of different females, in Waiting for the Barbarians a male character tells the stories of the males. In order to comprehend and perceive the stories and feelings of different people, one has to acquire an understanding and communicative competence which is related to feminine features. Owing to the existence of such a magistrate the stories of different people are told and retold and different cultures are represented not in a fragmented way but by the same person who has a central existence. As a magistrate he has an authoritative place judging people and becoming a central character for all the people of the region. Yet he is an official character who has to be on the side of civilization. Yet he is able to comprehend the behaviours of the native people who are admitted to be the barbars.

The idea of telling untold stories of different people, or giving a voice to the silenced characters is represented by intertextuality. Despite the fact that

176 intertextuality is developed by postmodern studies, it creates a connection between different stories and demonstrates the common features of different individuals on the contrary to “the postmodern emphasis on difference”. (Meliko ğlu, 2004; 35)

“Stories are repeated again and again through intertextuality to construct meaning, making visible overall connections in a seemingly change-ridden world, against the postmodern emphasis on difference as well as the limitations of failure of language. It is within these stories from the east and west that Byatt inserts the story of her central character, the menopausal Gillian Perholt, who finds herself in a disrupted (post-modern) world, also being threatened by ultimate disruption death.”(Meliko ğlu, 2004: 35)

He wakes up “before dawn” when the night is in its ‘darkest heart’. A binary opposition is created by means of this image. While the image of waking up symbolises the morning and lightening the innkeeper, he wakes up in darkness. While the sun has a masculine image, the moonlight is associated with the feminine world. Besides, everything is told in a sympathetic way under the moonlight however the mornings make people put on their masks. In the night time before morning the innkeeper endeavours not to disturb the soldiers who are sleeping. These soldiers are described as individuals who need their mothers’ care and who have “sweet hearts”. The image of a solider is always too masculine and harsh, yet it is not morning and they are described without their masks in their pure human nature. (pg:2, coetzee)

“The sentry at the gate sits cross-legged, fast asleep, cradling his musket. The porter’s alcove is closed, his trolley stands outside”. (Coetzee, 2000; 2 )

The sentry needs to cradle his musket while he is sleeping. Despite the fact that the idea of a soldier creates a strengthful image, indeed they feel alone and unprotective. They have a sentimental side since they are the humane kind. Usually the soldiers are thought to be senseless yet they are human kind and have the same nature. Therefore what is mentioned within these phrases is the survival of mankind. Man has to survive in such a world by putting on masks otherwise they cannot survive. The porter also closes himself in his room in order to be protected by the others and he leaves his trolley outside his room. These people are called by the work they do, the innkeeper, Colonel, soldier and porter. Their existence has no importance in such a world except the works they do. These works should be done by some of the people and these works differentiate their identities from the others. These works are means of survival. These works become different kinds of masks

177 which protect them from the dangers in life and they can survive in such a life through the works they do. Moreover, the Colonel and innkeeper talk about the whether and agricultural production. The only subject between these two men depends on the ways of survival. Production is the most important way of survival for the people of this region.

As the speaker explains “there is not much crime” in the region which demonstrates that the people in the region always behaves regarding the rules. They know how to survive that‘s why there is not so much crime and even the penalty which is imposed to those who have committed slight crimes depends on their working or payment of an amount. The criminals have to either work or pay in order to be punished yet the way they are punished demonstrates the commercial aims of society. Everything is used for the reproduction of life. There are two prisoners inside one of the rooms since there is not a special place which is to be used as a prison. These prisoners are lying bound on the floor. They smell urine and the innkeeper wants these men to clean themselves. This is a civilised place yet the prisoners have to be kept in bad conditions, they are treated as if they were animals left in a very small barn.

One of the prisoners is an old man and the other is a very young boy who is captured in a raid. Despite the fact that they insistently tell they know nothing about the raid, still the soldiers take them to the inn. The boy’s faces are “puffy and bruised” as if he had been beaten by someone. The innkeeper wants to learn who has beaten this boy but the boy does not say anything, yet he looks at Colonel Joll. He may have been beaten by some soldiers, by the old man, by Colonell Joll or even by the innkeeper. Yet the one who has beaten him is unknown and his story is untold. His name is not known which stresses on his oppressed characteristics. He has never given a chance to talk and when he was given the opportunity he is afraid to tell his story.

The magistrate talks to the boy and the old man in a friendly way. He calls the old man “father” and he knows their language, which demonstrates his intermediary position. According to the old man they are not related to the raid but captured for

178 some unknown reasons by the soldiers. The man and the boy are on the way to see the doctor in order to heal the child who has a red sore on his arm. The magistrate empathizes with the old man and the boy, and believes that they might be taken there mistakenly. Yet, since he is a member of the “civilised individuals” he tries to alienate himself from them. Colonel wants to interrogate the boy and the man and requires a translator disregarding the magistrate. The Colonel looks as if he has understood that the magistrate has been empathizing with these people, and for this reason he doesn’t want to keep him in the process of interrogation. (Coetzee, 2000; 3)

The magistrate does not want to be aware of the screaming coming from the granary which is inhabited by three thousand people, yet he is aware of everything indeed. He is aware of “human pain” which is ignored by “three thousand souls”. He has a sense of empathy to feel the pain deep inside his heart. He even criticizes himself and also Colonel Joll. The Magistrate’s position might be symbolizing Coetzee’ position that is consciously endeavours to evaluate the situation in a colonised country. (Coetzee, 2000; 5)

“When Coetzee speaks about the position that he occupies as a white mail author and academic in South Africa (Professor of General Literature at the University of Cape Town) he is cautious to ascribe to his own position a complex amalgam of both power and powerlessness, hence the equi-vocal title of this paper. In the most obvious sense Coetzee, as a white man, is necessarily associated with the most dominant group in a colonial society, and as a white man, who is also a ‘liberal’ he is uniquely vulnerable.” (Probyn,2002;4)

According to Colonel Joll the truth has a tone and in order to understand if someone lies or not he has to torture those people. Torture brings the truth therefore the pain is thought to be truth. There is no safety in such a social togetherness. Everybody might be telling lies and in order for them to tell the truth they have to be tortured. Colonel Joll is criticised by the magistrate’s perspective which has a postmodern sense. In postmodern terms, it is not assented to submit as if there was only official truth. The subjectivity of the Colonel should be regarded, yet Colonel submits himself as if he was an objective God-like being who is able to comprehend the truth. Yet, as it is stated within postmodernism, each of the individuals has different perceptions of life and thus in fact it becomes impossible to assert the truth as if it is the one and only.

179 “First I get lies, you see – this is what happens – first lies, then pressure, then more lies, then more pressure, then the break, then more pressure, then the truth. That’s how you get the truth.’

Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt” (Coetzee, 2000; 5)

Colonel Joll has a feministic side which pinpoints his contradictory characteristics. He looks brutal, strict and strong yet he walks with “his hands clasped before him like a woman” and has “slender feet in soft shoes”, and “tapering fingernails”, with “mauve handkerchiefs”. He is able to empathize with the magistrate, yet he tries to alienate himself from everyone surrounding him. He has an unprotected self indeed and puts on sun glasses in order for this side not to be recognised by the others. Putting such a mask is needed for his survival in such a masculine world. He is an official employee and has to continue his life by means of his job.

On the other hand Colonel Joll might be a homosexual who has to keep another face to survive in such a masculine world. Therefore he becomes stricter than the others. By feeling the lack of masculine potency in himself, he tries to express the opposite characteristics in order to feel complete. In Coetzee’s fictions the notion of incompleteness can be observed. Coetzee’s fiction In the Heart of the Country demonstrates this notion in Magda’s characteristics. Magda stresses that she feels as if she was a hole that should be filled. A theory which is expressed by Lacan becomes the reality of such characters. Even the magistrate feels the same lack, yet he cannot feel complete and he searches for it throughout the story. The girl feels the same incompleteness, yet he does not search for it but tries to escape from that feeling by means of sleeping.

“Sleep, perchance to die; and this search for fulfilment is followed by a hopeless renunciation” (Nkosi, 2005; 168)

The identities in the stories of postcolonial period are described in the sense of “lock and loss, in which desire is always intimately bound up with death”. These postmodern characteristics lead the individuals to a dead end. They become passive, inactive and even they can’t even struggle for their culture, identity and right to be independent. According to Marxism individuals should always regard the needed consciousness for them. Consciousness is the only weapon which is able to pull up

180 the individual from the swamp of passivity. (Nkosi, 2005; 169)

Furthermore, the Magistrate’s feminisation is not resisted by him, but instead is embraced as a means of escaping the masculine power that is now overwhelmingly associated with Colonel Joll and his deputy. By stepping outside that masculine power, the Magistrate has survived his victimisation. (Probyn,2002;13)

The feministic features of the magistrate are also stemming from the ideology of a male-oriented social structure. Since he is a conscious person who comprehends the limitations in social life and he is able to perceive the masculine world, he wishes to escape from these masculine borders. He questions the rules of a male-centred world and endeavours to give a chance to the victims. On the other hand while he is trying to escape from the masculine world in a sense he captures the females’ world by internalising some feminine features in a sense. Therefore the female’s own land is conquered or raped and the power of her femininity is taken by the magistrate. Females are thrown away from their own centres and their own feminine centre is deconstructed by a male’s authority.

The aim of the Empire has a postmodern tendency. The Empire does not need its employees to “love each other”, yet the employees have to “perform their duty”. Such kinds of social construction is convenient to postmodernism, since the individuals of the same group of people are asserted as if they were atomic fragments which automatically know what to do and never have to communicate with each other by means of their human senses. (Coetzee, 2000; 6)

The names of the old man and the boy are not known and not needed to be mentioned since they are accepted as members of the barbarians. The old man is the knowledgeable and experienced representative of his society and the boy symbolises the new generation. They are tortured and treated in the same way, and the old man dies. He is slain or in other words officially murdered by Colonel Joll in his process of reaching the ultimate truth. The only common truth of the human being in this fiction is presented to be death.

“During the course of the interrogation contradictions became apparent in the prisoner’s testimony. Confronted with these contradictions, the prisoner became enraged and attacked the investigating officer. A scuffle ensued during which the prisoner feel heavily against the wall. Efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.” (Coetzee, 2000:6)

181 The idea of new-historicism in postmodern thought endeavours to write the hidden untold history. According to postmodernism theory many different stories can be seen as the representatives of truth which is thought to be relative. Here the untold history of the barbarians is unconsciously ceased with the realm of death. The new generation is to find their own way deciding their own truth. The story of this crime committed by Colonel Joll is officially accepted to be a lie. On the contrary to the postmodern way of thinking, the existence of a common truth, which is not relative, should be affirmed. Therefore it should be exposed that this old man is murdered by an official officer of the Empire and if someone is accepted to be barbaric then the officer Colonel Joll should be accepted as the real barbarian. There is no relativity in the realm of death.

On the other hand Colonel Joll is not the real cause of this crime. He acts in the way he knows. He is educated and taught by the rules of civilisation, yet the notion of civilisation carries the most barbaric elements in itself. Civilisation is presented as a kind of mask which will make it easier for the western male to colonize the underdeveloped societies. The realities are manipulated officially and many events are abused for the sake of the oppressor side. While some people are called as barbarians accused of robbery, some people are considered to be the representatives of civilisation by means of torturing, colonising and murdering. Yet since nothing is accepted to be the truth according to postmodern thought, these crimes are accepted to be relative and thus they are all justified.

“There are Westerners, and there are Orientals. The former dominate; the latter must be dominated, which usually means having their land occupied, their internal affairs rigidly controlled, their blood and treasure put at the disposal of one or another Western power.” (Said, 1978:36)

The Westerners have always had an aim to colonise the other countries. According to the western mind if something is not known then it would be alienated and distanced from the centre and is controlled by the Westerners. Therefore the knowledge about the unknown is considered as vital for its colonisation. The magistrate tries to find out the history of the barbarian people. He sends soldiers and

182 criminals to dig the area in order to find remains from the previous tribes and cultures. He finds some remains yet he cannot find out any historical information. He dedicates himself to digging. Unconsciously he wants to reach the ultimate truth, this being the id of social history. He finds some ruins which say nothing about the history of the region. He collects two hundred fifty slips on which some scripts are written. Despite his attempts to arrange these slips in many different combinations in order to find out the truth about the history of the region, yet he is unfortunate to find anything. The history of an unknown culture becomes unknown in the hands of someone feeling stranger. He dedicates himself to find something which will live forever, yet he cannot find anything. In the hands of the coloniser even the history of an ex-centric culture becomes an empty page. It might be because of the fact the barbarians’ history depends on an oral tradition which is based on a woman-centred social structure rather than a written tradition which is based on male-centred social structure.

“The Barbarians, who are pastoralists, nomads, tent-dwellers, make no reference in their legends to a permanent settlement near the lake. There are no human remains among the ruins. If there is a cemetery we have not found it. The houses contain no furniture. ” (Coetzee, 2000:16)

“I sat watching the moon rise, opening my senses to the night, waiting for a sign that what lay around me, what lay beneath my feet, was not only sand, the dust of bones, flakes of rust, shards, ash. The sign did not come.” (Coetzee, 2000:17)

As far as it is understood, the barbarians have no written culture but an oral one. They never attempt to possess materials. Their identities are not known. They reproduce their stories in life in a matriarchal way which shows that the eccentricity in their culture is accepted to be the white western male’s culture; the barbarians’ feminine culture is kept away from the centre, not told and recorded. The barbarians don’t attach importance to possessions. They are coming from a nomad culture which is the opposite of a stabilised civilised culture. They travel and therefore do not want to possess anything. Yet the civilised men are so fond of materials that they are able to slay millions of individuals in order have something more.

In the story, the Empire is the central power which stands on its God-like existence and it judges people with its omniscient powers. Whatever is told by the

183 Empire accepted by the others as the truth and they would never attempt to question what is presented by the Empire. On the other hand this Empire wants the barbarian to continue their life in fragments. The Empire is frightened by the idea of the unification of the barbarian. This central power needs other individuals and social groups to continue living apart from one another. Today what is presented by the postmodernist economists is the same. They advise globalism as an alternative model, yet by means of globalism only the central European countries and U.S.A. become strengthen since globalism makes it easy for them to penetrate a market. Moreover, while on the one hand the idea of globalism is asserted for the whole world, on the other hand many borders of many nations are required to be abated and those nations are advised to continue break into many local settlements. The idea which suggests that people of those local settlements may unite becomes creepy for the Empire. The magistrate is someone who questions the Empire. He doesn’t want to break the law, yet unconsciously he doesn’t believe in what is presented to be the truth of the Empire. The native people of the region are called the barbarian and even their cultural identity is not evaluated to be necessary. Yet the magistrate questions those relations in mind and he does not believe in the existence of a barbarian army. What he doesn’t believe is barbarism. He is so inquisitorial that he compares what is presented for him as a barbarian by the Empire to what he perceives in life and in societies by means of his experiences. Since he has to judge and find out the truth on his own as a magistrate he becomes a character who endeavours to relieve the barbarian society and give the devil his due. Yet there is not presented a multiple understanding of truth, on the contrary to postmodernist thoughts, the truth is thought to exist in the acceptance of the crimes that are committed by the Empire or in other words the acceptance of the oppressed barbarian people’s rights.

“Show me a barbarian army and I will believe” (Coetzee, 2000; 9)

Since the magistrate does not believe in the existence of a barbarian army he is not frightened by the idea of the unification of the barbarian tribes. What postmodernism suggests to societies is a life in small tribes without having an idea of unification. Western people start to become afraid of the unification of these barbarian tribes and many of them start to have nightmares at night. The fear they

184 feel is so awesome owing to their unconscious guilt complex. Millions of crimes are committed against the native inhabitants of the region, the rights of these people are stepped on, and the people of the empire start to wait for the barbarians in revenge of their oppression.

“Fear is the cause of all evil” (Ibbotson,2003; 2)

The people of the Empire have a fear of the unknown. They are in the field of “the forbidden” or in other words ‘the unknown’ or ‘the barbarians’. Despite the fact that the cause of evil is always claimed to be deriving from the unknown or in other words the barbarians, in fact it always lays hidden deep in the heart of the Empire. “Heart of Darkness” is in fact the heart of the Empire. The magistrate does not feel relieved when he is in an unknown place. He is there for many years yet never attempts to travel the region. He has lived for years without stepping out of the limits he knows. He is not an adventurous character, he is sent there officially. He never attempts to experience something new. He feels stranger, does not want to go out and he advises Colonel Joll not to go out. (Coetzee, 2000; 13)

“They have lived here all their lives, they know the land. You and I are strangers – you even more than I. I earnestly advise you not to go” (Coetzee, 2000;12)

The dreams of the magistrate reflect his subconscious. In one of his dreams he sees the “bare flagpole” and the buildings losing “their solidity” which gives a sense of relief. In the absence of an authority which is symbolised with a bare flagpole, the solidity in life, the sense of oppression will be nebulous and indistinct. “The earth is white with snow” in his dreams, the children play with it by building a castle which demonstrates his subconscious desire for an alternative social togetherness which might be realised by the new generation. He cannot understand any words from the children’s conversation. He sees a girl working at the gate of the snow castle. She does not turn and look at the magistrate. The magistrate wants to imagine her face, yet he cannot. In the new generation’s social structure the females are given roles but they are still unable to create their identities. Probably these children will endeavour to build another fort with the fear of the outside world. In the absence of their parents which is symbolized by “snow”, they will endeavour to create a new society that

185 depends on the feeling of safety which is needed when there is a feeling of fear. (Coetzee, 2000; 10)

In another dream “he dreams of a body” whose hair glisters “liquid black and gold” and when he attempts to touch the hair, he realises that it is not the hair in fact “but bees clustered densely atop one another: honey-drenched, sticky”. The one, which sets itself free from the sticky honey-drenched, flies way. In this dream he once more dreams of the Empire and wishes each individual to be rescued from the oppressive ties of it. The “sticky”, “honey-drenched” represents the tight bonds between the individual and the Empire. As it is stated by postmodernism, the individuals will be liberalised in the absence of the authority, yet no struggle of a unified social togetherness is accepted. The bees are dangerous animals which live in a communal synergy, yet in his dream they cannot struggle together against the bonds and none of them stings him. As it is convenient to the postmodern way of thinking, the magistrate fears the unification of the tribes. Probably because of this subconscious fear, he wishes to accept them as human beings not barbarians. The magistrate seems to be wishing reconciliation between the barbarians and members of the civilized world. Since he possesses a guilty conscience and he endeavours to salve his guilty conscience by means of reconciliation between the two sides. His fear of the idea of a unified barbarian army derives from this guilt complex. (pg:14, Coetzee)

“ ‘ Those who think of the Amazon as a Green Hell’ , she read in an old book with a tattered spin, ‘ bring only their own fears and prejudices to this amazing land. For whether a place is a hell or a heaven rests in yourself, those who go with courage and an open mind may find themselves in Paradise .’ “(Ibbotson, 2003; 7)

As Ibbotson’s heroine Maia states in the fiction Journey to the River Sea people may have prejudices and fears for an unknown place or a culture. The magistrate has prejudices against the aboriginal people who are called “a race of beggars” and described as ugly barbarian. The native people are not wished to stay at his fort. Probably the aboriginal people are not endeavoured to be liberalised but to be rid of. While they are seen respected on the one hand, on the other hand they are thought to be the representatives of dirtiness. The magistrate has a subconscious civilised self. When the river people are brought to his fort he requires them to be set

186 free and doesn’t want to stay with them on the same borders. He fears them, even while he is sleeping with a native girl he pushes her outside the bed subconsciously. (Coetzee, 2000;20)

He wishes the aboriginals to have to continue their traditions from one generation to the new one in regard to their history to be written or told. Yet the idea of living with that beggar race purports to be a subconscious dislike which is actualised in his dreams and which comes out with some of his spontaneous natural behaviour. Some ideas and treatments of civilisation are internalised by him and because of this reason, he treats them and looks at them in a derogatory way. Despite the fact that aboriginals will never attempt to escape from the fort, still he orders his soldiers to keep them in shut doors and as soon as the interrogation ends he wishes them to be set free unlocking the barracks hall or taken to somewhere else. His fear of the idea of an aboriginal army is one of his nightmares since throughout the previous years he might have to misjudge in many courts which causes him to feel guiltier.

“I hope that the history of their captivity enters their legends, passed from grandfather to grandson. But I hope too that memories of the town, with st easy life and its exotic foods, are not strong enough to lure them back. I do not want a race of beggars on my hands.” (Coetzee, 2000:20)

“Once again, knowledge of subject races or Orientals is what makes their management easy and profitable; knowledge gives power, more power requires more knowledge, and so on in an increasingly profitable dialectic of information and control.” (Said, 1978; 36)

Knowledge is related to the civilised world of the west and makes him indisposed. Civilisation abuses its knowledge in order to penetrate a region, whereas the cause of fear lies in its heart since someone never achieves to have an omniscient god-like knowledge. Knowledge causes one to have a stronger place and is always abused by the authorities of the system. In the story knowledge is abused and manipulated by the Empire strengthening its authoritative power. On the other hand, for the reason that omniscience is never able to be achieved, the sense of fear never leaves it. Besides, since in postmodernism knowledge is presented to be something relative, the relationship between civilisation, the Empire and knowledge becomes legitimised and justified. By means of the knowledge the magistrate has, he feels

187 guilty. Despite the fact that knowledge is imposed to the region by the Empire and it is required to be believed without an interrogation, the magistrate goes against these exact truths of this god-like authority. By means of his consciousness, he has to accept that barbarism begins in the heart of civilisation and thus he wants to cease such an injustice and inequality in the system. He cannot find a solution except the idea of death. He wants to die, sleep and gets rid of his life. He feels responsible for the annihilation of a society. His solution is a postmodern solution which is not a solution in fact. As it is presented by postmodernism, the solution is evaluated as a way of questioning; yet the real salvation of societies and a clear future for a society whose members are equal to each other and live in justice are ignored. Here what is found as an answer to all these problems and submitted to be the only common truth is the idea of death which should be thought with regard to passivity.

The aboriginals are a kind of postmodern local society that never wishes to have a subject position in life and history, on the other hand their object position brings something else on its own as it is claimed to be by the postmodernists. So as herein the postmodern idea of objectivity defined, the objectivity constitutes a natural intervention in life. Yet this acceptance of an idea, which is turned to account by means of objectification of individuals and societies, can be considered to be derived from a euro-centric outlook. According to Marxism any kind of objectification of an individual or society is strictly rejected and they are supported to struggle for their own rights which is not realised by the aboriginals. The aboriginals are defined in such a postmodern way that the objectification is internalised by socially.

“At the hearth of Orientals is not only the idea of the absolute difference of the West from the Orient and of Westerners from Orientalism, but also the belief that the former are ‘rational, developed, humane, [and therefore] superior’ and that the latter are aberrant, underdeveloped, [and subsequently] inferior’ (Said 1978, p.300)” (Hill,2005;142)

“The identities of the European colonisers are defined by virtues, such as ‘nobility’ and ‘honour’. The identities of colonised on the other hand are defined by both vices, having ‘no sense of honour’, and characteristics deemded ignoble, like ‘manual dexterity’ and being good ‘tillers of the soil’. Furthermore, the identities of the coloniser and colonised are presented as fixed in order to maintain the colonised in ‘the subordinate part of a man/master relationship’ (Ranger 1983, p. 227)” (Hill, 2005,142)

The individuals in colonised countries commence identifying themselves with

188 the inferior characteristics which are attributed to them by the coloniser. Ignorance brings indifference to the paradoxes in life. The aboriginal people are easygoing people. The idea of independence and freedom are not considered to be valuable, yet more importance is attached on cheap or free food and thus free life. For this reason they never struggle against the Empire. The region people is endeavoured to be transformed into the real barbars and they start to have the identifications of barbarians as which they are labelled. They love the place they are kept since they are taken care of; the values of the west are not thought to be valuable in the east. Yet, since the magistrate knows that what the Empire does in the region is exploitation which is considered to be deriving from injustice. The name of the magistrate is not given in the story and he is called with his profession which becomes identification for him. His basic characteristic which enables him to bring justice is too contradictory to what he does.

“These river people are aboriginal, older even than nomads. They live in settlements of two or three families along the banks of the river, fishing and trapping for most of the year, paddling the remote southern shores of the lake in the autumn to catch red worms and dry them, building flimsy reed shelters, groaning with cold through the winter, dressing in skins. Living in fear of everyone, skulking in the reeds, what can they possibly know of a great barbarian enter-prise against the Empire? (Coetzee, 2000:19)

Despite the fact that the magistrate has the cultural knowledge of both the Empire and the aboriginals, he begins admitting them as animals. On the one hand he tries to write their history and does not want to accept them related to the barbarian tribes, yet on the other hand he presents them as animals and barbars. What the representatives of civilisation become afraid of might come out in real. It is possible for the aboriginal people to internalise the identities of “strange animals” as they are claimed to be by the civilised world. The magistrate is able to comprehend how the aboriginals behave, besides he has also perceived the fact that such an underdeveloped society can never be claimed to be a threat to the Empire, however sometimes he wishes all aboriginals to be buried in order to start a clean future. A mass destructive weapon is needed for humanity to open a clear page in the history of societies and cultures. (Coetzee, 2000; 19)

189 There is an aim of cleanness that can be perceived in the magistrate’s behaviours. Postmodernism has the same aim. According to the postmodern movement, it is advised for everyone to turn back to the stories of the past and re- evaluate what has happened, how they are represented in the books of history and by whom those stories are told and re-told. It is required for individuals to clean the past from its guilt by accepting and explaining the differences between the oppressive and the oppressed cultures. On the one hand all events are thought to be relative and the idea of an objective history is disregarded;, on the other hand each separate society or even individuals write their own histories of their existence.

“Now herded by their guards they stand in a hopeless little knot in the corner of the yard nomads and fisher folk together, sick, famished, damaged and terrified. It would be best if this obscure chapter in the history of the world were terminated at once, if these ugly people were obliterated from the face of the earth and we swore to make a new start, to run an empire in which there would be no more injustice, no more pain. It would cost little to march them out into the desert (having put a meal in them first, perhaps, to make the march possible), to have them dig, with their last strength, a pit large enough for all of them to lie in (or even to dig it for them!), and, leaving them buried there forever and forever, to come back to the walled town full of new intentions, new resolutions. But that will not be my way. The new men of Empire are the ones who believe in fresh starts, new chapters, clean pages; I struggle on with the old story, hoping that before it is finished it will reveal to me why it was that I thought it worth the trouble.” (Coetzee, 2000:26)

He still accepts these people as “ugly” beings, yet he still believes that by interrogating the past, some realities about these people may be explained. The believers of civilisation assert to annihilate such peoples and cultures in order to start a new, clean life. Yet, the magistrate does not believe in a civilisation which is coded as injustice in his mind. Therefore as a magistrate he needs to feel the sense of justice in order to go on and finish his story. (Coetzee, 2000; 26)

In order to see justice he washes the feet of the blind girl. He ejaculates with the feeling of washing her shapeless feet. The aboriginals are oppressed people; moreover a female of the aboriginal society represents one of the most oppressed individuals of that society. Even the girl whose feet are washed is not one of the proper individuals of her society since she cannot see very well and seems to be blind, has no one from her family to support her. Washing her feet becomes a kind of sexual ejaculation for him. Sometimes he falls asleep while he is washing and describes his act as if he is at the moment of greatest pleasure or satisfaction.

190 Apart from this he also feels as if he is praying for God and wants to be purified through confession.

“I loose myself in the rhythm of what I am doing. I lose awareness of the girl herself. There is a space of time which is blank to me: perhaps I am not even present. When I come to, my fingers have slackened, the foot ests in the basin, my head droops. ” (Coetzee, 2000:30)

She only perceives the surroundings of a centre by ignoring the centre itself. It is observable that the solution of postmodernism for the salvation of women is illusory since it is believed that she achieves her freedom by ignoring his central position. She looks like a blind person and is accepted to be blind by the magistrate. She claims that she can see everything around a centre in a muddy way yet she cannot see the centre which is only perceived as a blank space. The magistrate cannot believe in the fact that she sees a blank space whenever she looks at him. This is another postmodern notion. The female is left in the absence of a male authority. In fact there exists the magistrate, yet, she subconsciously does not wish to see him or such central authoritative characters. In a sense she is rebelling against the male- oriented system yet her rebelling makes no sense except an illusory salvation, on the contrary they are still treated in an oppressive way by the male-oriented system and they are never placed into the centre or given a voice by the males. They are kept in silence in their ex-centric positions

“Coetzee sees himself ‘without authority’ because the type of authority associated with his position as a white male in South Africa is the one whose authoritarian connotations he rejects and, throughout his novels, attempts to dismantle.” (Probyn, 2002; 6)

What is stated in the quotation above about Coetzee can be accepted valid for the magistrate’s characteristics. Despite the fact that the magistrate does not accept the Empire’s authority on the colonised land, he still has a position which gives him the same authoritative power and thus he feels guilty. That’s why the magistrate wishes to heal the scars of the torture on her body and every evening he massages and scrubs her. He washes her feet. Starting from her feet he touches each of her scars and feels guilty. Washing her feet gives him relief from the guilt complex and it represents the excuse of the white male. There is a paradox in his wishes for that he

191 wants those colonised people to be free and independent while on the other hand he goes to bed with these women. He is against civilisation since he comprehends the fact that civilization ties another nation to the Empire. Who are called to be barbarians and thus tortured or perceived to be frightening are in fact the nomads who aim to live in their own way of life which is perceived and labelled as ‘uncivilised’ by the western mind.

“Where civilization entailed the corruption of barbarian virtues and the creation of a dependent people, I decided, I was opposed to civilization and: and upon this resolution I based the conduct of my administration. ( I say this who now keeps a barbarian girl for my bed!) ” (Coetzee, 2000:41)

On the one hand he accepts nomads with their differences in postmodern terms, on the other hand he cannot get rid of his western civilised characteristics which are subconsciously internalised. The magistrate comprehends the life of the barbarians; then again he finds them ugly and wild. He associates her with a “wild animal like fox” and he cannot find a description for her with any words but with the word “ugly”. He keeps her in his house as if she is a kind of pet. He even brings a fox which is not a pet and cannot be evaluated as a kind of domestic animals but can be seen as a wild animal. The girl wants this fox to be free since “animals belong outdoors”. Yet since the magistrate is a representative the civilised culture, he perceives wild nature as something to be intervened and given a new form. Even the girl is seen as a kind of domestic animal which is kept in the house and given a new identity. She becomes the magistrate’s servant in his house and in his bed. (Coetzee, 2000; 37,50)

“So I begin to face the truth of what I am trying to do: to obliterate the girl. I realize that if I took a pencil to sketch her face I would not know where to start. Is she truly so featureless? With an effort I concentrate my mind on her. I see a figure in a cap and heavy shapeless coat standing unsteadily, bent forward, straddle-legged, supporting it self on sticks. How ugly, I say to myself. My mouth forms the ugly word. I am surprised by it but I do not resist: she is ugly, ugly.” (Coetzee, 2000:50)

The female identities are described in a postmodern way. They are always associated with blank spaces and emptiness. According to postmodernism an individual should struggle to break their ties with society. Identities are thought to be purified from the central, authoritative subject position. If the identities are deconstructed then the subject positions have to be deconstructed at first. By means

192 of the deconstruction of the subject position the oppressive authority is perceived stronger than it is and postmodernism causes the females to be oppressed much more than they were before.

The female body is thought to be a place for hunting on which manhood is proved. While the magistrate is hunting he strengthens his “manhood”. Once he goes out for hunting and comes upon a “waterbuck” he lets it go. He tries to understand the reason why he wants to hunt. He is getting old and wants to prove that he is not an impotent man. He is strong enough to live on his own. He questions his sexual desires which are thought to be related to animal like features. He evaluates his sexuality to be brutish. In fact the magistrate and all the male members of the western countries have the same mask of civilisation for the reason that they feel their sexuality as if they were animals. They cannot rule the nature of the penis and thus they cannot civilise their own sexuality. They become the barbarians. (Coetzee, 2000; 42)

“Why do I have to carry you about from woman to woman? I asked: simply because you were born without legs? Would it make any difference to you if you were rooted in a cat or a dog instead of in me?” (Coetzee, 2000:49)

This is a male-oriented society and the place of women is always thought to be secondary. The women are accepted within their social roles, otherwise they are always ignored or pretended to be objects, therefore it can be claimed that be it white woman or a different woman of another culture they are also evaluated in association with the colonised culture. In one of his dreams the magistrate saw a girl with her face turned away, he tries to imagine her face but he could not. The female in his mind has no identity and she represents the unknown. The only way for a woman to survive in such conditions depends on a male owner.

The civilised women are stressed for the reason that they are the mothers of the soldiers. When the civilised women are compared to the barbarian women, the identity of a mother is observed to be admitted respectfully for the civilised women while the barbarian women are never treated in the same way. Yet, if a white woman does not accept the socially given role, then she is treated as if she is uncivilised, a member of the barbarians or a member of a colonised culture. Then the male

193 endeavours to colonize the woman. A barbarian woman is considered to be something to be possessed, raped and tortured, however these realities demonstrate the internalisation of barbarianism in a white male’s identity. They are presented not as a representative of a real civilised life which is not hypocritical, as it is presented in the story, but a representative of a barbarous life. They become torturers and rapists. Fiona Probyn who is from the University of Sydney, New South West, Australia, states in the article called “Writing with/out authority” that even a white woman is identified with the colonised culture, and thus they become secondary.

“One of the most common features attributed to the white woman is her ambivalent status in between the colonial master and the colonised, ambiguously asserting both her (white) colonial status and her ‘woman-ness,’ which may undermine her power as a colonial.” (Probyn,2002;3)

The beggar girl in a male’s boots is protected by the magistrate, yet the act of protection also means becoming a sexual object for the protector. She is taken by the magistrate to his house and promoted from begging to serving. She becomes one of the maids in the house. Maids are responsible for cleaning, cooking and going to bed with the employer. This unprotected girl accepts to work for him and thus has to go to bed with him. She has already known some other men who stipulate her in the same way, yet the idea of being saved in a house by the magistrate makes her feel protected.

A barbarian woman can only survive in a man’s boots which symbolise the male identity. It is compulsory for a woman to stand on her own by means of either disguising themselves in form of a male identity or by transforming their characteristics into masculine features. On the other hand some women are conditioned to internalise and accept their socially given roles without questioning. Yet as a woman she has to destroy her own characteristics, and thus her feet are transformed into a shapeless form. Some women such as prostitutes and, beggars are never respected in most societies despite the fact that these identities have been created in a male-oriented society.

This girl’s name is never mentioned, yet she is associated with blankness, emptiness, ugliness, animals, etc. Because of the internalised feeling of the magistrate, she is labelled as the representative of the uncivilised. He wishes to find

194 her family in order to give her back since he does not want to continue to own her. He legitimates himself with the guilt complex and aims to be purified, yet on the other hand he wants to get rid of this incomplete girl. He expresses that “it is the whole woman” he wants. Females are seen as incomplete since they have no phallus which enables them to be powerful. The woman’s self is always divided into parts, and deconstructed under male’s authority.

“Looking also at the notion of the ‘middle voice’ in Coetzee’s writing, Dovey argues that all Coetzee’s novels are "always making reference to the self of writing" and that they "exploit the notion of the divided subject of Lacan, the split between text and narration, or utterance and enunciation, in order to gesture towards the possibility of escaping complicity with the dominant discourses" ("J. M. Coetzee" 19). While Dovey and Macaskill do not consider the issue of gender in this representation of the ‘middle voice,’ it would appear that the voice of the white woman is particularly pertinent to this strategy.” (Probyn,2002;3)

If the males are thought to be complete with their phallus then he should choose or wish to go to bed with another male. When the magistrate goes out the prison and hides under a bed in one of the rooms, a maid and her lover comes in and make love. The magistrate hears the sound they make and when they are asleep he comes out under the bed and looks at the naked bodies. For the first time he mentions that he had homosexual intercourses; yet he doesn’t give the details. On the other hand, in fact both males and females have incomplete selves which are completed when they come together. Males and females’ completeness is based on their mutual dependence. Yet the postmodernist idea endeavours to deconstruct these mutual relations and requires each individual to have a separate and centreless space. (Coetzee, 2000; 70)

While her body is thought something to be owned, or sometimes something to be avoided it is also accepted as a bridge between two different cultures. He perceives her as “the only key” for “the labyrinth”. For the first time, by means of her delivery the representatives of the western world and the nomads encounter equally. Moreover, the magistrate feels himself as a bridge between “the men of the future and the men of the past”. The idea of bridge is opposed to the postmodern theory. Bridges tie one side to the other side and it creates a connection between two different fragments, yet the idea of postmodernism requires each fragment to be placed in a centreless space. There is no need for different minorities to communicate

195 with each other owing to the fact that communication might cause an intervention on liberalism. Yet it should be stressed that in fact many different minorities might coexist equally together. (Coetzee, 2000; 79, 95)

The faceless girl in the magistrate’s dream is building a gate which might be considered as the representative of some new rules of a new society and the blind girl claims that she is able to see everything; however they are ignored and turned a blind eye. All the women can sense the torture, injustice and humiliation. The blind native girl is able to comprehend that she will become a kind of mistress for the magistrate. She has some contradictory features as they are signified by means of her “black irises” in the centre of “milky whites” and which are “as clear as a child’s”. In fact the women have different features, yet they are required to have an accepted role in the social order. They are underestimated by patriarchy.

The same dream of that faceless girl has consistently been seen by the magistrate and he always tries to see her face yet he cannot see anything except a blank. In one of his dreams, everything is frozen; even his smile is frozen on his face. The frozen images of life in his dream signify a lack of communication between these native children and himself. The distances and differences between the western culture and these natives are thought to be deepened with regard to the frozen images. However in one of his dreams he sees the face of the girl while she is trying to build “a fort of snow”. He sees a smiling child face with “the light sparkling on her teeth” and with her “jet-black” eyes. She seems to be happy, yet “the town she is building is empty of life”. It might be too late for a smile since it will probably freeze in such a cold weather. On the other hand owing to the idea of death which is symbolized by means of the cold white weather, the smile might be asserted as the representative of salvation coming with the idea of death. The most significant fact in this scene is in its postmodern implications. Postmodernism supports peoples and individuals to be different from one another. In this scene two representatives of different cultures come across one another, they see each other face to face, yet there is no communication in fact.

196 Everything is described in their death and once more the idea of death or emptiness is presented as the only place where people will be completely free. (Coetzee, 2000; 57)

It is important to pinpoint the fact that this is a dream of a male from a western culture and therefore this picture and postmodern implication is deriving from his subconscious. In his dream the magistrate wishes the girl to put the people in the middle of the square, yet the girl does not. According to the magistrate in order for nomads to be free they should rebel against the Empire altogether and his opinion is believed to be so valid for such a colonised society. History has betrayed the necessity of rebels in important social changes and transformations. Yet according to postmodernism the act of rebelling is claimed to be authoritarian and the act of keeping silence is respected. Instead of rebelling against social systems, people are wished to be indifferent to such systems. By means of indifference many minorities are thought to achieve their freedom and display a passive rebelling without conquering an authoritative place. Yet, nothing changes in their life, and their indifference is paid no attention to by the Empire as long as it goes on creaming off the profits.

“Every year the lake-water grows a little more salty. There is a simple explanation – never mind what it is. The barbarians know this fact. At this very moment they are saying to themselves, “Be patient, one of these days their crops will start withering from the salt, they will not be able to feed themselves, they will have to go.” That is what they are thinking. That they will outlast us’ ”(Coetzee, 2000:55)

According to the magistrate’s estimation nomads are waiting for colonisers to leave their country but they choose to be patient and wait for the day of freedom. They watch the western people and without attempting to conquer a subject position they prefer to go on their lives in silence. The western people are thought to be visitors by the nomads however the Empire’s insistence on striking roots to the land is avoided by the officer who comes to the fort with some soldiers. For this reason, silence and patience do not seem to bring freedom to nomads. The only way for nomads to become free from all restrictions of colonisation is to struggle against the

197 Empire in a political and organised way which might be seen to be impossible to be realised by the nomads since they have to live in tribes and travel whereas it might be easier for a settled society.

When the magistrate concedes the girl to the nomads and comes back, he encounters a serious atmosphere. The army has come and a civil guard from the Third Bureau is put in his place. The magistrate is taken to a prison; he falls from a high position and becomes a prisoner. He is proclaimed a traitor, yet he confesses that they are living in peace there and they have no enemies except themselves. What is thought to be barbarism is an inveterate fear of loosing authoritative powers. The central place is always claimed to be the place for the Empire, therefore the western cultures and their elements are presented to in the same way. Yet this centralism of the Empire depends on inequality and injustice and thus it has to be deconstructed for the establishment of a new society whose rules and life style are based on equality and justice. The conditions of the ex-centric should be demolished since the aim of the Empire does not derive from fostering its each element on the contrary exploiting them. Postmodernism broaches all central structures to be totalitarian even if they depend on an equal and fair social system. In fact a social structure based on equality cannot be presented to be totalitarian, but in direct contradiction a social system which is called democratic and whose members are conditioned by concealed ideologies of the system should be regarded as totalitarianism. What is presented to be freedom in this story is conditioned with the ideologies of the patriarchal unequal social system. Therefore what is thought to be freedom by one of the members of such societies indeed represents their dependence on the centre and central ideologies.

“As for this liberty which I am in the process of throwing away, what value does it have to me? Have I truly enjoyed the unbounded freedom of this past year in which more than ever before my life has been mine to make up as I go along? For example: my freedom to make of the girl whatever I felt like, wife or concubine or daughter or slave or all at once or none, at whim, because I had no duty to her save what it occurred to me to fell from moment to moment: from the oppression f such freedom who would not welcome the liberation of confinement? In my opposition there is nothing heroic – let me not for an instant forget that. ” (Coetzee, 2000:85, 86)

198 When the magistrate is put into a cell he tries to empathise with the barbarian girl and he comprehends how she is tortured before his father’s eye and how his father is tortured before her eyes. He feels the pain deep inside her heart. Her father is conditioned to choose death which causes the death of some feelings in her. Her father is tortured by some fathers of some girls of the western culture and she is left unprotected. At that time magistrate comes to protect her, yet he is a little bit late as a protective father figure since she has “ceased to believe in fathers”. She starts to perceive life in a different way without sympathising any feelings. The fathers’ world depends on power relations and thus it depends on wars. There has to be an enemy to fight against in order for the father to strengthen his position. Moreover postmodernism makes it easy for fathers to strengthen their position since societies are suggested to be separated into parts and this postmodern notion of atomization which conditions individuals not to be organised to rebel against the father’s position. (Coetzee, 2000; 88)

The police force in the story is the same with the forces in A Clockwork Orange. They are the official murderers and the barbarians. The best way to torture people without being accused of it depends on an official identity. The western soldiers love violence; they love hunting, eating meat, cutting the throat of horses, cows, sheep, etc. Their aim of violence is covered by their profession. For the reason that they are professionally soldiers, behaving in violent manners becomes their right and is legitimised. Since the police force is led by the government, their treatments should be thought of as being the treatment of the government.

Social institutions are submitted to be totalitarian which is unacceptable by postmodernism. They are all thought to have central order to oppress the individuals or minorities and thus they should be deconstructed into fragments. Yet postmodernism creates an illusion by rebelling against the idea of centralism, since it refuses all political ideologies. If ideology depends on inequality and injustice then ex-centrics have to suffer much more than the other members of society; however in a social structure whose main ideology depends on equal rights and treatments, all members will be treated in the same way. Therefore all ex-centrics and oppressed

199 individuals are to be thought independent and treated equally, an alternative social structure whose roots are deriving from equality should be suggested. Otherwise the fate of the ex-centrics should be admitted to be unchangeable.

“But now I begin to comprehend how rudimentary freedom is. What freedom has been left to me? The freedom to eat or go hungry; to keep my silence or gabble to myself or beat on the door or scream. If I was the object of an injustice, a minor injustice, when they looked me in here, I am now no more than a pile of blood, bone and meat is unhappy.” (Coetzee, 2000:93)

The magistrate starts to question the importance of freedom. He feels the guilt of injustice yet he is also aware of his own country’s acts of injustice against the native people of the land. Besides, he is chosen to be confined for him to be isolated from society, yet in fact he is excluded and treated as if he has no personality. His identity, belief and thoughts are ignored. He is treated as an object and left in a prison. He is treated as a body which has no subjective position. Postmodernism cannot change social life, whereas it deepens the differences. Thus the magistrate’s posture is conditioned by the materialist environment. Postmodernism cannot improve individual liberalism because on the one hand it is trying to deconstruct all social togetherness; on the other hand it strengthens the ties between the members of society and their materialist conditions. Without ideological bases postmodernism has to defend either an anarchic social life or a social structure whose members’ ties are strengthened and whose materialist conditions are thought as if they were God given. The only suggested alternative way for an individual to be free is regarded with the idea of death. When the Magistrate escapes from the cell, he sleeps as if he was in his mother’s womb, he feels as if he was dead.

“All I can think of is the pain, all that I desire is to be left to lie in the easiest position I can find, on my side with my knees raised toward my chin. For an hour at least, while I could be pursuing my escape, I lie there, hearing through the open window sighs of the sleepers, the voice of the body mumbling to itself. The last embers of the fire on the square die. Man and beast are asleep. It is the hour before dawn, the coldest hour. I feel the chill of the earth enter my bones.” (Coetazee, 2000:100)

The magistrate cannot forgive himself since he is conscious of his involvement in the committed crime. He knows he has sent many innocent natives to prison, besides he keeps silent despite the fact that he knows how injustice the treatments are for some individuals. He becomes a prisoner at last, he can empathise the feeling of a prisoner who is in a sense accused falsely. Yet he is unable to find a solution for the

200 paradox of injustice. Despite the fact that he manages to get out of the prison, still he returns to his cell without attempting a rebel against authority. His attempts underline the postmodernistic elements in his characteristics. For the reason that postmodernism rejects subjectivity, social togetherness and ideology, the magistrate is drawn as a character in these norms. He is unable to organise the people, or the barbarians in order for them to rebel against the authority. For the purpose of not being placed in a subject position he does not aim to lead the people or find a solution. He accepts his responsibility in this guilt by keeping silent, yet he does not wish to be placed in an authoritative position which will cause some changes in people’s lives. He wants to wait “like everyone else”. Yet, he won’t be able to keep silent and, by bursting his fetters from postmodernism, has to rebel against Colonel Joll who is the representative of the totalitarian Empire. (Coetzee, 2000; 111)

The soldiers have captured some barbarians and brought them as if they were lambs or as if they were representing crucifixion when the flesh of Jesus Christ is nailed on a cross. The prisoners are nailed by their hands and cheeks. This treatment to both Jesus Christ and these prisoners designates the real barbarians throughout history. The white western male who is Christian has the guilt of torturing the prophet Jesus Christ and for this reason historically carries the origin of this guilt. The origin of torturing becomes observable when these prisoners are brought as if they were animating a historical scene. They are treated in such a horrific way that it is impossible to think that a human being can commit such inhuman crimes on their fellow human beings.

The western male, representing the ideals of civilisation tortures people in the most brutal and barbarous way. If someone should be coded barbarian the one should be coded is the western male. The people are also encouraged to torture the prisoners. A girl “is pushed forward by her friends” in order for her to hit the prisoners with a cane. She does it shamefully and runs away “to a roar of applause”. Torturing is transformed into a way of social satisfaction as it can be perceived in George Orwell’s fiction 1984 in which the social satisfaction is aimed for similar purposes. Something is submitted to be evil, or an enemy or the cause of all troubles,

201 and people are encouraged to come together and share the feeling of fighting against that thing. The Empire legitimises its crimes by socialising the situation. The human being who finds acceptance as “the great miracle of creation” is encouraged to applaud the torture. (Coetzee, 2000; 116, 117).

“What would I have said if they had let me go on? That it is worse to beat a man’s feet to pulp than to kill him in combat? That is brings shame on everyone when a girl is permitted to flog a man? Those spectacles of cruelty corrupt the hearts of the innocents?”(Coetzee, 2000:118)

At first he doesn’t want to go against the torture and accepting himself as an innocent individual tries to keep his purity. He thinks of some other people who are not involved in this torture and are in their homes uninterested in the situation or showing indifference towards the torture going on there; thus he endeavours to claim these people as pure as himself. However, all these people who treat the situation as normal and as if nothing bad has happened are not thought to be innocent. The responsibility of any crime committed on the world should be placed on all individuals’ shoulders. Ignoring inequality and injustice dirties people and destroys peace and security. Within these conflicting feelings the magistrate can not stand the scene in which the prisoners are being tortured and he shouts for this act to be stopped. He starts to judge Colonel Joll by saying “You are depraving these people”. The outcry “No!” should be seen as the rebel of the magistrate against the Empire which is represented by Colonel Joll. (Coetzee, 2000; 116)

“‘You would not use a hammer on a beast, not on a beast!’…I point to the four prisoners who lie docilely on the earth, their lips to the pole, their hands clasped to their faces like monkeys’ paws, oblivious of the hammer, ignorant of what is going on behind them, relieved that the offending mark has been beaten from their backs, hoping that the punishment is at an end. I raise my broken hand to the sky. ‘Look!’ I shout. ‘We are the great miracle of creation! ” (Coetzee, 2000:117)

On behalf of the Empire, Colonel Joll is judged by the magistrate. Some general moral rules for human life are to be defined by the magistrate. By taking side with morality the magistrate in a sense rebels against the postmodern norms. According to postmodernism morality is useless and inessential to defend since it is believed that there is no common understanding of life for all people. Each individual is though to be responsible from their own life, yet the materialist conditions and social ties of the individuals are ignored. Besides, the rebel of the

202 magistrate is undertaken to be invalid in postmodern terms for the reason that the one rebelling against the Empire should not be the magistrate but the Barbarian people. If the Barbarian people chose to keep silent, it is not thought to be the magistrate’s business to encourage or support them to fight for their freedom. The magistrate’s support for the oppressed people is claimed to be authoritative and totalitarian. The magistrate is evaluated to be standing in his own central power, thus his moral standing is adduced to be deriving from the central and authoritative needs of a totalitarian mind. On the other hand since the magistrate is tortured as if he is an individual of the Barbarian people, his rebelliousness might be seen as being the rebellion of a Barbarian individual; yet still this rebel is accepted to be deriving from not social but individual needs of the magistrate. That’s why it is unacceptable in postmodern terms for such a magistrate to demand freedom, equality and justice on behalf of a group of people.

The fear is internalised by all individuals especially by the representatives of the Empire. Colonel Joll and Colonel Mandel who are the civil guards are both portrayed in regard to some masculine features. They are civilised males of the Empire and holding the authoritative power to rule the region. They wish the land to be ruled and shaped according to the western outlook and understanding, yet the place is such a different wild land than they expected and their aims have to fail. They have to return to their own country after many months of searching for the barbarians which has come to a catastrophic end. These two torturers cannot cope with the region and even the oasis they are in causes their oppressed feelings to come out. The evil, ugly, brutal and barbarous feelings come out by lacerating their civilised masks. The enemy they are searching for is in fact hidden in their own mind. The barbarous feelings are internalised by them and thus they unconsciously reflect this hidden feeling on to another thing which might be coded as the other and easier to be labelled as evil. The soldiers act in the same way and it becomes impossible for the civilian population to trust in anyone since there is no difference between the barbarians and the security guards.

203 “There have been incidents in which soldiers have gone into shops, taken what they wanted, and left without paying. Of what use is it for the shopkeeper to raise the alarm when the criminals and the civil guard are the same people” (Coetzee, 2000:135)

The houses of the civilian population are sabotaged and many people are left homeless and forced to immigrate to another place. The facts are mis-stated by the Empire about those people who have to emigrate. It is rumoured that the reason of such migration has been deriving from the barbarians’ brutal aims whereas the houses which are sabotaged or the women who are raped by the soldiers are not mentioned. The events and the history of the region are manipulated by the Empire. This aim is fostered by the postmodern outlook, since it is argued that there is no objective history and all histories are fictitious stories. By means of postmodernism the manipulation of the Empire is legitimized and accepted to be valid for some people, yet the reality based on oppression of the ignorant and poor people of an uncivilised land are ignored.

The magistrate endeavours to understand, how Colonel Mandel has such clear eyes, and is able to go on his daily life after “working with people”. Since the magistrate believes in justice and moral rules he desires to empathise with the Colonel, yet he perceives that after torturing people one should be in need of a ritual purification. Colonel Mandel does not wish to face up to the reality. He does what he should do on behalf of the Empire without questioning. He has internalised the fear of the Empire and thus unconsciously wishes to torture and likes torturing as Alex does in A Clockwork Orange . Yet, his aim differs considerably from Alex’s since Mandel’s power to torture is unconsciously deriving from the totalitarian Empire while Alex does it consciously for the purpose of his individual liberty. (Coetzee, 2000;138)

Having been announced, labelled and cursed as a traitor who works in cooperation with the barbarians, the magistrate is left to die yet still saved by Mandel in order for the magistrate to go on his life as a beggar or an old clown. The magistrate is tortured and turned a blind eye by the soldiers. He is treated as if he was an insect and as a consequence his identity is deconstructed. He is pushed into an eccentric position and he becomes a complete postmodern character.

204 By being ignored by the central figures and authority it becomes easy for the magistrate to internalise the feelings of an oppressed individual, he precisely comprehends how a barbarian or a native individual feels. When he is set free nobody but a female maid starts to listen to him. He shares the same pressure with the oppressed individuals of his society thus he becomes closer to social life; he even starts to learn the language of the fishermen.

This is the land of the barbarians. They know how to treat nature, they know the environment of the land, and so they could easily flood the land. That’s why the people living under the Empire’s patronage have to immigrate to another place. Yet the barbarians can flood their land whenever they want, since the place is their land and they know every inch of it. When winter appears the conditions become harder than they were before. The army decides to withdraw without finding a representative of a barbarian. They have to return to their country. Withdrawal of the “Imperial Command” in a sense means the acceptance of the victory of an uncivilised, ignorant culture. Yet in fact they are beaten by the environment which is completely different from the civilised nature. (Coetzee, 2000; 154)

The soldiers have claimed that they have been led by the barbarians to the deepest regions of the desert and as a consequence many soldiers of the Empire have been annihilated. Throughout the story the barbarians are claimed to exist by the guards of the Empire yet their existence is never proved. All people in the region even the native people are convinced of the existence of the barbarian tribes, however what exists has been deriving from deep inside their unconscious fear and guilt. The soldiers have claimed that they have seen some ugly barbarians in the desert, yet who are thought to be barbarians should be the mirages which are seen in deserts owing to natural conditions. The whole torture and violence should be precisely deriving from an illusion. Postmodernism accepts illusions to be the realities of the individuals therefore they are all accepted and respected. According to postmodernism if individuals wish to believe in an illusion, they should do it and be respected owing to the fact that everything in life is evaluated to be illusionary and it is thought that there is no difference between reality and illusion . Yet because of this

205 postmodern acceptance it becomes easy to legitimise all types of injustice, inequality and oppression.

The story ends in confusion. Since it is winter, it snows and children build a snowman which is not the same as the magistrate imagines. It has no arms which might be seen as the representation of interference. It is a postmodern image of a man who feels nothing to react and interfere. It is impossible for a snowman to take a subject position, and to have responsibility for crimes and guilt. Therefore it is innocent and pure and represents a new and pure future of the next generation. Despite the fact that this image of a snowman is not considered to be bad, the magistrate feels confused. He is still not hopeful for the future owing to the fact that according to the magistrate, the future draws a kind of death image of the next generation. Postmodernism does not hope for an optimistic future, on the contrary it tries to return to the past to search for the oppressed and eccentric peoples’ stories in order for their history to be corrected according to their own needs or desires. The future establishment of society is not taken into considerable account.

It can clearly be seen that postmodernism and postmodernistic features in the story create a blurred and slippery ground in order for individuals to predict and consider their future. Each of the individuals is left alone, society is fragmented and thus none of the fragments may exist together for a common future. According to Marxism the postmodern features that are mentioned throughout this study create illusions in the individuals mind. Instead of organising social fragments, postmodernism requires deconstruction for an atomised version of society. Yet, what is introduced as an alternative way of living by the postmodernists, indeed strikes its roots for the benefits of the white male imperialistic ideologies of Euro-centricism.

206 9 CONCLUSION

It should be stated that postmodernism is a theory of deconstruction. Through postmodernism theory it is impossible to solve the conflicts that human beings have. Postmodernism theory endeavours to defend the ex-centrics while it rejects all truths, ideologies, etc. Yet, it should be questioned if it is possible to defend an ex-centric group or an ex-centric individual, by rejecting all ideologies; thus, postmodernism theory becomes inconsistent.

Postmodernism theory can be accepted in the sense of questioning, since it is suspicious of all theories and what are presented as truths. In order to question a theory, postmodernism can be used; yet without having a perspective, nothing can be achieved. Taking sides with some common truths, or some moral rules are important to establish a social togetherness. When something is just questioned and not given a solution, the result will always be deconstruction. Deconstruction is an anarchist attitude, which is defended by the postmodernists.

Another idea related to deconstruction is the idea of decentralization, which might be the deconstruction of social life. Through the idea of decentralization all the individuals are thought to be separated. Since society is thought to be tied through a totalitarian, central power, it is wished to be decentralized. Each of the social togetherness is accepted to be in the relations of power and authority. Therefore, all centres are decentralized in the name of emancipation. It is argued that, for an individual to act liberal, s/he should be atomised from society.

The wider significance of the postmodern condition lies in the awareness that the epistemological ‘limits’ of those ethnocentric ideas are also the enunciative boundaries of a range of other dissonant, even dissident histories and voices - women, the colonized, minority groups, the bearers of political sexualities. For the demography of the new internationalism is the history of postcolonial migration, the narratives of cultural and political diaspora, the major social displacements of peasant and aboriginal communities, the poetics of exile, the grim prose of political and economic refugees. (Bhabha, 1996: 421)

Despite the fact that postmodernism theory is asserted to be libertarian, it still has some limits. It is trivial to define what liberty is. Does liberty mean the stories of

207 the ex-centrics? Is telling stories a libertarian act? The postmodernists do not answer these questions. Yet, still postmodernism is put forward as a theory which removes the limits.

As opposed to postmodernism, Marxism puts forward that liberty only comes through class struggle. If a social group lives under the exploitative conditions then there cannot be freedom. In order to be liberal, first of all, the materialist conditions should be re-ordered equally. Liberty is always thought to be related to equality. Unequal individuals cannot be free. Therefore, postmodernism is criticised by the Marxists, since it does not theorize the conditions of freedom or liberty; yet, it just questions the existing conditions.

Borders are destroyed! All the classifications and distinctions among the genres are thought to be needless. Objectivity is ignored and all the narratives are thought as literary and fictitious. While postmodernism ignores the distinctions between the genres and objectivity, on the other hand it accepts the distinctions between peoples, individuals and cultures. It is argued that, by means of globalization, the borders between the peoples and cultures are destroyed. Yet, in fact the borders are seemed to be destroyed only for the capitalists and their needs of markets; since poor people are always left to live in poverty. Globalization brings no improvements for the poor. Postmodernism theory always fosters the needs of the capitalist system. By abusing the idea of decentralization, capitalism gains strength. The idea of deconstruction is also used against the idea of social togetherness. For all these reasons mentioned in the latter it is inconceivable to fathom that postmodernism is an equally, righteous, and truly liberal ideology when it is compared to, contrasted and analysed against the Marxist discipline on a whole. It is from my understanding of such research as well as the logic from which my intellect has enabled me with, a just world of equality and fairness can never really take its course within a postmodernist social framework. Yet society has chosen such a means of existence.

208 APPENDIX

“Modernism Postmodernism Romanticism/Symbolism Pataphysics/Dadaism Form (conjunctive, closed) Antiform (disjunctive, open) Purpose Play Design Chance Hierarchy Anarchy Master/Logos Exhaustion/Silence Art Object/Finished Work Process/Performance/Happening Distance Participation Creation/Totalization/Synthesis Decreation/Deconstruction/Antithesis Presence Absence Centering Dispersal Genre/Boundary Text/Intertext Semantics Rhetoric Paradigm Syntagm Hypotaxis Parataxis Metaphor Metonymy Selection Combination Root/Depth Rhizome/Surface Interpretation/Reading Against Interpretation/Misreading Signified Signifier Lisible (Readerly) Scriptable (Writerly) Narrative/Grande Historie Anti-narrative/Petite Histoire Master Code Idiolect Symptom Desire Type Mutant Genital/Phallic Polymorphous/Androgynous Paranoia Schizophrenia

209 Origin/Cause Difference-Différance/Trace God the Father The Holy Ghost Metaphysics Irony Determinacy Indeterminacy Transcendence Immanence” (Modernism/Postmodernism, 11-12)

210 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Practical Reader in Contemporary Literary Theory, Ed. by., Peter Brooker and Peter Widdowson, Longman,Pearson Education, 1996.

Achebe, Chinua: “An Image of Africa: Racisim in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness,” A Practical Reader in Contemporary Literary Theory , Ed. by., Peter Brooker and Peter Widdowson, Longman,Pearson Education, 1996.

Adorno, W. Theodor: Aesthetic Theory, Trans. and Ed. by., Robert Hullot-Kentor, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,1997.

Adorno, W. Theodor & Horkheimer Max: Dialectic of Enlightenment ,Trans. by., John Cumming, Verso Classics, London, New York, 1997.

Adorno, W. Theodor: Negative Dialectics , Trans. by., E. B. Ashton, The Continuum Publishing Company, New York, 1983.

Against Theory, Literary studies and the New Pragmatism, Ed. by., W.J.T. Mitchell, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1985.

Allen,Graham.: Intertextuality, Routledge, Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc, 2000.

Anderson,Perry: The Origins of Postmodernity, Verso, London, New York,2002.

Barthes, Roland: The Death of the Author, Literature in the Modern World, Ed. by.,Dennis Walder, Oxford University Press assoc. with The Open University, New York, 1992.

Batey, Robert: “ Literature in a Criminal Law Course: Aeschylus, Burgess, Oates, Camus, Poe, and Melville ”, Legal Studies Forum, Volume 22, Number 1/2/3, 1998. http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/lsf/batey22.htm . (10.01.2006)

Baudrillard, Jean: “Simulacra and Simulations,” Modernism/Postmodernism , Ed. by, Peter Brooker, Longman, 1992.

Beauvoir, de Simone: Nature of the Second Sex, Trans. By., H. M. Parshley, NEL, The New English Library, 1968.

Beckett, Samuel; Waiting For Godot , Tragi Comedy in 2 acts / New York, Grove Press, 1954.

211 Berktay, Fatmagül: Tek Tanrılı Dinler Kar şısında Kadın, Metis Yayınları, Beyo ğlu, Đstanbul, 1996.

Bhabha, Homi K.: “The Location of Culture,” A Practical Reader in Contemporary Literary Theory , Ed. by., Peter Brooker and Peter Widdowson, Longman,Pearson Education, 1996.

Bloom,Harold: “The Anxiety of Influence,” A Theory of Poetry , Oxford University Press, London, Oxford, New York, 1975.

Bloom, Harold: A Map of Misreading, Oxford University Press, New York, 1975.

Brannigan, John: New Historicism and Cultural Materialism, Transitions, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1998.

Burgess, Anthony: A Clockwork Orange, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1972.

Butler, Judith: Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, Routledge, New York, London, 1990.

Carr, E. H.: What Is History?, Penguin Books, Middlesex, England, 1971.

Clearing a space : postcolonial readings of modern Indonesian literature / edited by Keith Foulcher and Tony Day., Leiden : KITLV Press, 2002.

Clive Barnett: Constructions of Apartheid in the International Reception of the Novels of J. M. Coetzee, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 25, Number 2 , 287 – 301 / June 1, 1999 .

Coetzee, J.: Waiting For The Barbarians, Vintage, Great Britain, 2000.

Coetzee: In the Heart of the Country , Secker & Warburg, London, Published in the USA as From the Heart of the Country, 1977.

Cohen, Tom: Ideology and Inscription , Cultural Studies After Benjamin, de Man, and Bakhtin. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, 1998.

Contemporary Literary Criticism Ed. by., Davis, Robert Can, N.Y. & London: Longman, 1986.

Crozier, Beattie, John: Civilization and Progress, Longmans, Green, and Co., New York, Bombay, And Calcutta, 1909.

Cultures of Globalization, Ed. by., Fredric Jameson & Masao Miyoshi, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 1998.

212 Deleuze,Gilles and Guattari, Félix,: Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Trans. by., Robert Hurley, Mark Seem and Helen R. Lane, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, printed in USA, 1983.

Deleuze,Gilles, Essays Critical and Clinical, Trans. by., Daniel W. Smith, Michael A. Greco, Verso London, New York, printed in Great Britatin, 1998.

Deleuze, Gilles: Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, Trans. by., Martin Joughin,Zone Books, New York, 1997.

Derrida Jacques: “Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences,” Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader., Ed. by., David Lodge. London, New York: Longman, 1999.

Dodds, R. E.: The Ancient Concept of Progress: and other Essays on Greek Literature and Blief, Oxford, At The Clarendon Press,1974.

Eagleton, Terry: After Theory, Penguin Books,London,2004.

Eagolton Terry: The Function of Criticism, Verso, London-New York, 1997.

Eagleton, Terry: The Function of Criticism: From the Spectator to Post- Structuralism, Verso., London., New York, 1997.

Eagleton, Terry: The Illusions of Postmodernism, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Great Britain, 1996.

Eliot T. S.: “Tradition and The Individual Talent,” Selected Prose of T. S. Eliot , Ed. with an introduction by., Frank Kermorde, New York, w. date.

Eisner, W. Elliot.: “Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice by Howard Gardner,” Teachers College Record , Vol. 95, Number 4, Summer 1994.

Ernesto R. Acevedo-Muñoz: Don't Look Now: Kubrick, Schnitzler, And "The Unbearable Agony Of Desire", Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group,Volume 13, Number 2, 117 – 137 / April-June 2002.

Fanon, Frantz: A Dying Colonialism, Trans. from the French by Haakon Chevalier, Penguin Books, Great Britain, 1970.

Fisher, G. B. Allan: “The Clash of Progress and Security,” Reprints of Economic Classics, Augustus M. Kelley., New York., 1966.

Foucault Michael: “What is an author?,” Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader. , Ed. by. David Lodge, London, New York, Longman, 1995.

213 Foucault Michel: “What is Enlightenment?,” Ethics Essential Works of Foucault 1954-1984, Vol. 1, Trans. by Robert Hurley and Others, Penguin Boks, 2000.

Fromkin, Victoria. & Rodman, Robert: An Introduction to Language , HarcourtBrace College Publishers, Orlando, Florida, 1998.

Gell-Mann, Murray:”The Elementary Particles of Matter,” Scientific Progress And Human Values , Proceedings of the Conference Celebrating the 75 th Anniversary of the California Institute of technology in Pasadena, Ed. by., Hutchings, Edward and Elizbeth, California, October 25-27, 1966, American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc, 1967.

Genette, Gérard: Narrative Discourse Revisited, Trans. by., Jane E. Lewin. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1990.

Genette, Gérard: Paratexts, Thresholds of Interpretation, Trans. by., Jane E. Lewin, Cambridge University Press, Great Britain, 1997.

Gilbert Sandra M. and Susan Gubar: “No Man’s Land; The place of the the Woman Writer in the Twentieth Century,” Tradition and the Female Talent: Modernism and Masculinisim, Vol. 1, Yale University Press, New Haven London, 1988.

Green, Keith and LeBihan, Jill: Critical Theory and Practice: A Coursebook, published in the USA and Canada by Routledge,2000 (1 st published in 1996).

Greenblatt, Stephen: “Culture”: Critical Terms For Literary Study, Chicago and London, Ed. by. Lentricchia, Frank & Mchlaughlin, Thomas, The University of Cchicago Press, 1995.

Greenstein, L. Jesse: “The Speculations of Science About the Universe,” Scientific Progress And Human Values , Proceedings of the Conference Celebrating the 75 th Anniversary of the California Institute of technology in Pasadena, Ed. by., Hutchings, Edward and Elizbeth, California, October 25-27, 1966, American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc, 1967.

Hall, T., Edward: Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, The United States, 1997.

Harvey, David: “from The Condition of Postmodernity. An Enquiry into the Origins of Social Change,” Modernism/Postmodernism, Ed. by., Peter Broker, Longman, 1992.

Hassan, Ihab: The Dismemberment of Orpheus, Toward a Postmodern Literature, Second Edition, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1982.

Hawthorn, Jeremy: Studying The Novel , Arnold, London, 2001.

214 Hill, Jonathan: “ Beyond the Other? A postcolonial critique of the failed state thesis, ” Taylor and Francis, African Identities, Volume 3, Number 2, 139-154, 2005.

Hobsbawm, E.J.: The Age of Capital 1848 – 1875, Abacus, London, 1977.

Huberman, Leo: Man’s Worldly Goods, The Story of the Wealth of Nations, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1968.

Hudge, David. (Ed.): Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader, London, New York, Longman 1995.

Hutcheon, Linda: A Poetics of Postmodernism , Routledge, Printed in Great Britain at the University Printing House, Cambridge, 1992.

Hutcheon, Linda: A Theory of Parody, The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 2000.

Hutcheon, Linda : From ‘Re-presenting the Past, A Practical Reader in Contemporary Literary Theory , Ed. By., Peter Brooker and Peter Widdowson, Longman,Pearson Education, 1996.

Ibbotson, Eva: Journey to the River Sea, Macmillan Childerens’s Book, London 2003

Influence and Intertextuality in Literary History , Ed. by., Jay Clayton & Eric Rothstein, The University of Wisconsin Press, England, 1991.

Ismael Abu-saad : Epilogue: reflections on race and racism in contemporary Israeli society: 'wishing the barbarian away', Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 10, Number 2, 293 – 299 / 2004.

James A. Clapp : "It was the city killed the beast:" nature, technophobia, and the Cinema of the urban future, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 10, Number 2, 293 – 299 / 2004.

Jameson, Fredric: Late Marxism, Verso, London, New York, 1996.

Jameson, Fredric: Postmodernism and Consumer Society, Ed. by., Brooker, Peter, Modernism Postmodernism, Longman, Pearson Education, England, 1992.

Jameson, Fredric: Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Duke University Press, Durham, 1993.

Jameson, Fredric: The Political Unconscious, Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,New York, 1982.

215 Kant Immanuel, “ An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784), (Online) http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/what-is-enlightenment.txt , 20. 03. 2005.

Kılıç Yıldız Tuncer: Organicism: An Explanation and Exposition of The Eighteenth & Nineteenth-Century English Novel, Đstanbul, 2002.

Kristeva, Julia: Proust and the Sense of Time, Trans. by., Stephen Bann, Columbia University Press, New York,1993.

Lacan, Jacques: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, The Hogarth Press and the Institute of psycho-analysis, London, 1977.

Lacan, Jaques: The language of the self: the function of language in psychoanalysis, Trans. by., Anthony Wilden, John Hopkins University Pres, Baltimore, 1981.

Lacan, Jacques: The Seminar of Lacan, Trans. by., Sylvana Tomaselli, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, London, 1988.

Lenin, V. I.: Imperialism, The Higest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, New York, 1963.

Lenin, V. I.: What is To Be Done?, (Online) www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ , 15.01.2005.

Lentricchia, Frank & Mchlaughlin, Thomas : Critical Terms For Literary Study, Chicago and London, The University of Cchicago Press, 1995.

Lichtenberg, Illya, Howard Lune, Patrick Mcmanimon, Jr: “ Darker Than Any Prison, Hotter Than Any Human Flame”:Punishment, Choise, And Culpability In A Clockwork Orange, ” Journal of Criminal Justice Education, Vol.15, No. 2, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Fall 2004.

Literature In The Modern World: Critical Essays and Documents, Ed. by., Walder, Dennis, Oxford University Press, New York, The United States, 1992

Loomba, Ania: Colonialism/Postcolonialism, 3rd edition London and New York, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2000.

Lyotard, Jean-François: The Inhuman, Reflections on Time, Trans. By., Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1991.

Lyotard, Jean-François: The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Trans. from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Foreword by Fredric Jameson: Theory and History of Literature, Vol. 10, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 11th printing 1997.

216 Lukacs, Georg: A Defence of History and Class Consciousness, Tailism and the Dialectic, Verso, London, New York, 2002.

Sarup, Madan: Post-Yapısalcılık ve Postmodernizm , Ark: Ankara, 1997.

Man, de Paul: Critical Writings 1953-1978, Ed. by., Lindsay Waters, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1989.

Marx, Karl: Capital, The Communist Manifesto and Other Writings, Carlton House, New York, Copyright, 1932.

Marx, Karl: Early Writings, Trans. by., Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton, Penguin Books, 1992.

Marx, Karl: On Society and Social Change, Ed. by., Neil J. Smelser, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1984.

Marx, Karl: Selected Writings in Sociology & Social Philosophy , Trans. by., T. B. Bottomore, Ed. by., Mr. Bottomore and Maximilien Rubel, McGraw-Hill Paperback Edition, Printed in the United States of America, 1964.

Marx, Karl & Fredrich, Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy , Ed. by., Lewis S. Feuer, Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1959.

Marx, Karl & Fredrich, Engels: The German Ideology , Prometheus Books, New York, 1998.

Marx, Karl & Engels, Fredrich: The German Ideology, Parts I and III, Ed. by., R. Pascal, International Publishers, New York, 1963.

Marxism, Modernity and Postcolonial Studies, Ed. by., Bartolovich Crustal and Lazarus Neil, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

McDonald, Peter D.:" The Writer, the Critic, and the Censor: J.M. Coetzee and the Question of Literature ", Penn State University Press Book History - Volume 7, 285-302 , 2004, pp.

Melikoglu Esra: Allies and Antagonists: The Ambivalent Relationship between the Servant and the Child of the House in Nineteenth-Century Literature, Türk Kütüphaneciler Derne ği, Đstanbul ubesi Yayınları;25, Đstanbul, 1998.

Meliko ğlu, Esra: Interactive Voices in Intertextual Literature, Tectum, Verlag, Marburg, 2004.

217 Murphy, Richard: Theorizing the Avat-Garde: Modernism, expressionism, and the problem of Postmodernity, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Modern Criticism and Theory. A Reader. Ed. by., David Lodge. London, New York, Longman, 1999.

Modern Literary Theory, Ed. by., Jefferson, Ann and Robey, David, B.T. Batsford Ltd London,1989.

Modernism/Postmodernism , Ed.& intr. By., Peter Brooker, Longman, Pearson Education, England, 1992.

Moran, Berna: . Edebiyat Kuramları ve Ele ştiri, Đleti im Yayınları: 2002, (1 st Published 1999).

Morris Robert K: The Consolations of Ambiguity, A Literary Frontiers Edition University of Missouri Press Columbia 1971

Nkosi, Lewis: “ Luster’s Lost Quarter, Reading South African Identities”, Journal of Postcolonial Writing , Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 41, Number 2/November 2005 . http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(txicmzyhsqezb445y0fyvual)/app/home/contri bution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searcharticlesresults,18,1000 (10.01.2006)

Pechey, Graham: ‘ A Complex and Violent Revelation’: Epiphanies of Africa in South African Literature, Carfax Publishing Company, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 11, Number 1 , 9 – 25 / July 1, 2002 . http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(byemhszpki5wpl452aeubp55)/app/home/cont ent.asp?referrer=contribution&format=2&page=1&pagecount=17 (10.01.2006)

Pat J. Gehrke : Deviant Subjects in Foucault and A Clockwork Orange: congruent critiques of criminological constructions of subjectivity, Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group, Volume 18, Number 3, 270 -284 / September 2001.

Pavis, Patrice: Theatre at the Crossroads of Culture, Trans. by., Loren Kruger, Routledge, Printed in Great Britain by T J Press (Padstow) Ltd Padstow, Cornwall, 1992.

Perloff, Mmarjoire: 21 st Century Modernism: The “New” Poetics, Blackwell Publishers, 2002.

Postcolonial approaches to the European Middle Ages : translating cultures / edited by Ananya Jahanara Kabir and Deanne Williams, Cambridge, UK ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005. http://www.bartleby.com/108/40/16.html (12.12.2005)

218

Presentation Speech by Per Wästberg of the Swedish Academy , The Nobel Prize in Literature 2003, December 10, 2003.

Probyn, Fiona: “ J. M. Coetzee: Writing with/out authority, ” University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,2002

Quayson, Ato: Postcolonialism, Theory, Practice or Process? , Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers, USA, 2000, Bo ğaziçi University Library, gen PR 9080.Q39 2000.

Said, Edward W. : Orientalism, Penguin Books, 1978.

Scientific Progress And Human Values , Proceedings of the Conference Celebrating the 75 th Anniversary of the California Institute of technology in Pasadena, Ed. by., Hutchings, Edward and Elizbeth, California, October 25-27, 1966, American Elsevier Publishing Company, 1967.

Selden, Raman: Practising Theory and Reading Literature: An Introduction, Prentice Hall, Printed and bound in Great Britain by., MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall,1989.

Scout Linda M. : A story of South Africa : J.M. Coetzee's fiction in context / Susan VanZanten Gallagher , Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1991. Scott, Linda M. : “ Editor’s Introduction ”, Advertising & Society Review - Volume 6, Issue 4, 2005 - Articlehttp://muse.jhu.edu/search/pia.cgi

Sharma, Alpana: “ Towards a Pedagogy of Counterculture/Countering Culture: Globalization and the Case of Asian American Literature ,” Taylor and Francis Copyright, The Rewiew of Education and Cultural Studies, 24:77-89, 2002.

Spivak, Gayatri Chaakravorty: A critique of Postcolonial Reason, Toward a History of the Vanishing Present, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England, 1999, Bogazici University Library, JV 51.S58 1999.

Spivak, Gayatri Chaakravorty: In Other Worlds, Essays in Cultural Politics, Routledge, NewYork and London, 1988, Bogazici University Library, HM 621.S65 1988.

Tejera, Victorino: Literature, Criticism, and the Theory of Signs, John Benjamin Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995.

219 The Cambridge companion to postcolonial literary studies / edited by Neil Lazarus, Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2004.

The Cambridge Companion to T. S. Eliot, Ed. by., Moody, A. David. Cambridge University Press, 1994

The Kristeva Reader, Ed. by., Moi, Toril, New York Columbia University Press,1986.

Tilton, John W: Cosmic Satire in the Contemporary Novel, Lewisburg Bucknell University Press London: Associated University Presses 1977

Wolfreys, Julian: Readings, Acts of Close Reading in Literary Theory, Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Woolf, Virginia: Mrs. Dalloway, Atriad Ppanther Book, Granada Publishing, London, Toronto, Sydney, New York, 1978.

Young Robert J. C.: Postcolonialism, A Very Short Introduction , Oxford University Press, 2003.

220