JANE AUSTEN’IN EMMA’SINDA İDEOLOJI

 DERS KİTABI CEVAPLARINA BURADAN ULAŞABİLİRSİNİZ! 

JANE AUSTEN’IN EMMA’SINDA İDEOLOJI

Özet

Bu makale Jane Austen’ın Emma adlı eserinde arazi sahibi aristokrat sınıfın hiyerarşi düşüncesine dayalı ideolojisini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Sınıf, hiyerarşi, statü ve düzen gibi kavramları doğal sosyolojik olgular olarak yansıtmak için yüksek sınıftan insanlar mevcut hiyerarşik düzeni korumak ve gerçek amaçlarını gizlemek amacıyla kibar sınıfın değerleri üzerine oturtulmuş ideoloji yürütmektedirler. Bu makalenin temel amacı önde gelen Marksist eleştirmenlerden biri olan Volosinov’un ideoloji ve dil tartışması ışığında, hem karakterlerin sosyal olguları kavrayışını, hem de para, statü ve hiyerarşiye dayalı mevcut sosyal ilişkileri sürdürmek için ideolojik komplolara şekil veren temel kodları tartışmaktır.

The present analysis is intended to shed some ight on the class struggle and ideology in Jane Austen’s Emma, which is one of the richest and most evocative texts. The novel provides a very satisfactory framework for the discussion of ideology which reflects the period, society and its relationships which depend upon false consciousness. 

Emma is a text which glosses over the traumatizing social problems when the reader focuses upon the psychological analysis of its protagonist, Emma Woodhouse. Her subjective psyche cannot be reduced to the introspective analysis of her mind. The reader faces a difficult problem of finding an approach through which she/he can criticise Emma’s conscious, subjective psyche. Her conscious life is shaped by not the physiological or biological patterns, but by sociological environment. The boundary of the study is confined to the functions and the significance of the social factors such as class, hierarchy, rank and order as natural or given, and the fundamental and basic codes which represent the ideological tools. 

The introductory part revolves mainly around the general background discussion about the intrinsic relationship between ideology and language. This briefinvestigation is hoped to familiarise the reade with Jane Austen’s perspective of ideology and social debates in the light of cultural and social ambiguiti The theory and the critique of ideology in the nineteenth century which totally depends upon Cartesianism and the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries defined itself as a way of thinking which is systematically mistaken, as a form of false consciousness or as a distorted representation of reality. Ideological phenomena are reduced to the phenomena of individual consciousness which strip it of its sociality DQGPDWHULDOLW\ ,GH ology is accepted as a fact of consciousness. The reduction of ideology to individual consciousness stems from Saussure’s giving priority to the abstract system of langue and ignoring actual speech, unique utterances of individuals as hecalled parole. Langue is a definite, fixed and determined system, and it is independent of the human subject. The system has its autonomous existence. 

Saussure alienates the individual from society. Saussurean sense of language has phobia of history and society, denigrating the role of diachrony and sublimating and exalting the role of synchrony. Saussure strips the language of its historical development. If the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified is considered as completely random and accidental as Saussure did, it will mean “signifying processes are totally removed from the exigencies of history and class struggle” (Williams, 1977: 37). Semiotics and deconstruction challenge Saussure’s one dimensional and monologic sense of language. 

Volosinov’s Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1973) “shifts the conceptual terrain away from an epistemological preoccupation with cognitive distortion and vague notions like ‘world-view’ or ‘belief system’ towards a concern with semiotic and linguistic processes.” (Gardiner, 1992: 9) Opposed to Saussure, Volosinov was interested in unique utterances of particular individuals in particular social contexts. Rather than seeing language as static, determined and fixed structure, he saw it as a dynamic medium  which is in continual changing process. The social role of parole and the social, historical context in which parole is produced are his major concerns. Particular individual utterances cannot be evaluated regardless of social factors in time and space. As Terry Eagleton explains, “language was not to be seen either as ‘expression’, ‘reflection’ or abstract system, but rather as a material means of production, whereby the material body of the sign was transformed through a process of social conflict and dialogue into meaning.” (1983: 102)

 DERS VE ÇALIŞMA KİTABI CEVAPLARINA BURADAN ULAŞABİLİRSİNİZ