Sarah Cole

The story “Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story” reminded me of “Anna Karenina.” Both stories involve social interaction,. Or intercourse as Marx would say, between two different classes, the working class,, and ruling class, or as they are referred to under the teachings of Marx, the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Just as Levon became enchanted with the ideals of his workers and even favored their company rather than that of his own family, Ron became obsessed with Sarah going as far to become her lover. Unlike the descriptions in the “Anna Karenina” excerpt, Sarah, the proletariat in the story, isn’t glorified, instead she is constantly referred to as “homely” and several of the lines in the story describe her unattractive appearance. Ron, the bourgeoisie, in the story, mentions that her “homely” appearance is one of the things that attracts him. “he asserts--to himself that he is speaking to the most unattractive woman he has ever seen, a fact which fascinates him, as if instead he were speaking to the most beautiful woman he has ever seen or perhaps ever will see, so he treasures the moment…”

A Marxist would read this story similar to “Anna Karenina” Ron represents both sides of the Bourgeoisie, one that favors his class and looks down on the workers, his is shown by his constant mention of Sarah’s appearance, car, apartment, neighborhood, he also represents the side that wishes to mix with the lower class, against his own better judgment he feels compelled to see Sarah. A Marxist would see this as a failed intercourse. Both parties wounded up being incompatible, Unlike Levon who could easily give up his life and spend hours doing labor, Ron couldn’t see himself getting any deeper into Sarah’s lower-middle class life style, he ended the relationship the second he found out that her kids were fully aware of him. This would be the fear of a Marxist, while they hope all members of the bourgeoisie would be like Levon and merge seamlessly into the proletariat, most would be like Ron, who would tip-toe inside and then leave things more damaged than they were before they came.

Does it ever matter?

Hegemony is the idea of dominance that was brought upon by consent as opposed to force. Rather than simply explaining how a culture could dominate another, let’s look at how one culture dominated another. Christianity, the majority of people living in the United States belong to this religion. Every single one of our presidents has been a Christian. Some candidates even flaunt their faith as a reason for their nomination. We, by which I mean those of us that still think our votes affect the election, choose one out of two or three people to lead the country for two years. The main problem with this is the fact that all the candidates are the same. Until recently, all the candidates would be white males. Unlikely that someone who doesn’t fir that criteria would even be taken seriously, let alone win the nomination, even then it would be unlikely for that person to win the election.

While we thought the common link between candidates was their gender and skin color, of course Clinton and Obama have disproved this since both have a possible chance at becoming the president, but what is then common link then? They are all Christians. For some reason, we as a nation have agreed that not just religion, but a religion that the majority follows is a major qualification for the president. We didn’t even see it happening, at first it was all that was available, most people that came to this country in the colonial era were Christians. Since each president was a Christian, why should we want another one? The whole idea behind hegemony is people saying “hey, we got a good thing going on here.”

The status quo is so locked into our minds that we can’t even conceive the idea of an Atheist president. Rather than focusing on the issues, people would question his moral background and the fanatics would sooner hang him from a tree than even hear him debate. The Christian dominance exists all around us. The “War on Christmas” is often covered on the news, but they seem to sway more towards the religious rather than someone simple protest. Perhaps they are afraid, or perhaps they are biased to the religion they belong to, either way it continues.Marx said “religion was the opium of the masses.” It has warped the judgment of the population. While out candidates may look different and may spin the same word in a charming tone, they are all clones.

Reindeers, Marxists, Gramsci...

, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony explains why working-class movements failed and why Marx’s theories in “German Ideology” never came to fruition. Gramsci believed that economic struggles weren’t enough to warrant a revolution. Simply, people were too different. “Gramsci was more "dialectic" than "deterministic": he tried to build a theory which recognized the autonomy, independence and importance of culture and ideology” when I read that quote, it seems that Gramsci understood that people follow different ideologies and belong to different cultures, this would of course prevent a unified Marxian revolution. Gramsci continued to discuss reasons as to why the majority would favor the hegemony. It could be argued that certain members of the working-class didn’t feel as if they were qualified to run the world, and that the bourgeoisie, who were already the wealthier and smarter group, were better suited for controlling the masses.

Keeping Gramsci in mind, lets look at the Marxist reading or “Rudolf”. Rudolf, a mutant reindeer with a red glowing nose, ridiculed by his peers, shamed by his parents, he decides to runaway. Due to his mutation, it was assumed that Rudolf would never pull the sleigh, and thus he would never get to work. Work, being the primary goal for a reindeer. A Marxist finds the similarities between Rudolf and the working class. “The theme, like so many texts before it, is how an individual gains social acceptance, but the emphasis on how the social activities the reindeer children perform prepare them for entrance into the labor force makes it clear that this acceptance and work are somehow inextricably linked” Not until Rudolf finds a use for his mutation is he accepted. Work good, no work, not good, this is how the ruling class see the working-class.

The elf that Rudolf was paired with wanted to stop making toys and become a dentist, interesting how this decision wasn’t based on paychecks but on his own inadequacies in the toy making business. Going back to Gramsci, the economy wouldn’t be enough for a revolution, it would depend on ideology and people. Rudolf and the elf “revolt” by leaving and trying to make it on their own. Their revolution is clearly short-lived because no other workers share their views. I am reminded of Huxley’s “Brave New World” two characters felt apart from the natural order of things. After their time with the Savage they both tried to convince people how the world could be and how it used to be, no one cared. The majority already embraced the hegemony. The world in “Brave new World” was only a dystopia for those two characters, everyone was happy, it was in fact pretty close to Marx’s dream world. As Gramsci said, the economy wouldn’t be enough, it depends on the people, if they submit to the rule and think the world is a utopia, it’ll be hard to pull them in for a revolution.

An Edwardian Response to Marxist Readings

Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, that is that the ruling class can exert and maintain its dominance not by physical force but by psychological and cultural manipulation of the populous, should not be a revolutionary idea to us. We’ve seen it all throughout history. In the antebellum South religious texts were presented in away that made the slaves think they should stay in their place and alleviated any fear the Masta might have had that he was somehow committing an inhumane act by holding scores of people against their will.

It’s even the central tenement of advertising according to A Marxist Reading of "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”. Rudolph, Santa, the elves, et al. all stand as figures and embodiments of the Capitalist system and, through song and dance, they insidiously plant the seeds of acceptance to the subjugation of as a member of the proletariat.

But it’s a talking dancing reindeer. It’s made out of felt and glue and slapped together in five minutes. Does Rudolph really contain all that much beyond the fact we shouldn’t crack jokes on the guy with the glowing nose?

Well yes of course it does, all fiction is a byproduct of its culture and as such the ideas of that culture have a way of creeping into the work. But I found myself asking, isn’t this “reading” and all others like it just a manifestation of Marxist hegemony? A belief that anything and everything has been set up by the bourgeoisie to keep the masses under their thumb?

Yes, yes it is and Gramsci already told us that all levels of society can and do create their own hegemony which is why some people adhere to seemingly inflexible concept of Marxism.

They might have taught it like they mother in Kincaid’s Girl taught her daughter. Rigidly she imparts her worldview and like in Rudolph she starts at the earliest age but reason can really take hold in order to make her daughter’s subservience as complete as possible.