Third Analysis: American Cartoons and Marx

The American public is bombarded by cartoons today. There are many sorts of American cartoons, many which make people happy through wise comedy that exceeds the expectations of their silly visuals. One such sort of American cartoon that has become popular on a mass international scale is the cartoon about the average family. An example of this is the wildly popular television series Family Guy.



The main characters of the show being the average family makes Family Guy particularly interesting to analyze from a Marxist perspective, much like I've done to the movie Silent Hill in reflection 6, - is Family Guy for or against the revolution?

Clearly Family Guy glorifies the working class life, as seen in the above clip. The father, Peter, shows no interest in intellectual (bourgeoisie) matters like the newspaper except insofar as they assist him with his silly, crude sense of humor. Turning the intellectuals into jokes is a recurring theme in Family Guy and most average family cartoons. Family Guy characters that are intellectuals are hilarious farcical exaggerations - people with outrageously long "sophisticated" names, a man with such an exaggerated high-class accent that his words are inaudible, the sophisticates at the New Yorker magazine who don't have toilets because they have no anuses. Marx would no doubt find these characters to be a great show.

However, simply that Family Guy glorifies the working class does not necessarily make it a Marxist show. Perhaps the appreciation of the working class is being used in the case of American cartoons as a way to put false satisfaction for capitalism into the American working class. For example, Family Guy father, Peter, may celebrate the working class in order to keep workers happy while they're being taken advantage of elsewhere - economically by the bourgeoisie. If this is the case, then Marx would be adamantly opposed.

In the end, a show like Family Guy cannot be judged so simply as just being a 'show for the people,' regardless of its Marxist overtones. Capitalists may just as easily have used the Marxist image for their own profit. It's impossible to know the truth, but if we recognize the stranglehold that capitalists have and enforce on the media, the latter idea seems more realistic.

Weekly Reflection 7: Marx versus New Historicism

(The comic is unrelated, but hilarious) Roughly, Marx, discussed also in reflection 6, believed every person was a product of history. Roughly, the 'New Historicist' movement believes that history should not be considered when studying literature. These two views contradict almost perfectly.

I respect the New Historicist movement for what they try to do - that is, understand a work of art on only the terms of the work, and nothing else. They seek the true essence of a work that makes it good or bad literature, without being tainted by the biases of the real world. However, I can't help but think that it's at least unfair on the moral level.

Not everyone can write freely, removed from the world. In the most extreme case, it may be even illegal to do so. Consider authoritarian societies where writing that does not express a certain view is suppressed, censored, or destroyed. Are those writers who conform to the authoritarian viewpoint simply bad writers because, removed from history, they all express the same uncreative view? It would be morally wrong for us to judge those writers for doing something they have no control over. To truly understand such literature would absolutely require the authoritarian historical context, so that we may realize at least the restrictions put on the author and thus the work itself. This would seem to favor a Marxist view on literature.

Weekly Reflection 6: Revolution in Silent Hill!

Marx, discussed last class, said that all literature and art is about class struggle - the tensions between different socioeconomic classes. This is quite a generalization, which anyone would likely be skeptical of. This in mind, I sought to find a literary work that contradicted Marx's art theory. Immediately my mind went to one of the most abstract locales of horror fiction - Silent Hill, a favorite of mine.

Silent Hill is one of those video game-turned-movies with a long run and a near-cult following. My main interest in Silent Hill pertaining to Marx are the monsters of Silent Hill. I questioned, how can monsters possibly be explained by Marx's art theory? The monsters of Silent Hill are mindless vicious killers, seeming that not much literary depth could be drawn from, especially class struggles. My expectations were amended by the plot.

The monsters of Silent Hill in the movie were created by a child named Alessa. Alessa was born to an unwed single mother in the strict Christian town 'Silent Hill.' She was endlessly bullied and harassed by both other children and adults for being a bastard child. The harassment went overboard when Alessa was set on fire by the church officials. Through sheer will, Alessa filled the town with vicious monsters in an act of revenge (Wikipedia).

The monsters of Silent Hill are metaphoric for the strength of the individual. In opposition to the corrupt church powers, Alessa overwhelms them with monsters. This is a classic example of the binary powerful-versus-powerless, making Alessa's story a microcosm of class struggles between Marx's 'bourgeoisie' (owner) and 'proletariat' (worker). The church is the owner with the power (the power of numbers, akin to the power of money for the owner), and Alessa is the worker with no power.
Alessa's miraculous will empowers her to overcome the tyranny of the church, much like Marx theorized that the will of the workers will allow them to overcome the evils of the owners. In this light, the monsters of Silent Hill do have a place in Marx's art theory. Silent Hill could even be seen as a metaphor for Marxist revolution.


Works Cited_

Wikipedia. Silent Hill (film). Anonymous author(s). URL=[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill_(film)]. Accessed 3/28/2010.