"Drop the mask of cultivation"

Wilhelm Reich was a sexual radical thinker, and believed in the unparallel significance of sex; he stated that sexual pleasure is the ultimate measure of human happiness. He came up with the theory of the ‘id’; instinctive drives and impulses which meant people were obsessed with sex. He also used the term ‘super ego’, which relates to the subconscious; you could be talking to someone or sitting in a lecture, but are you really listening/engaging? Who knows the thoughts that are really going on inside of your head?

Reich believed that the unconscious forces inside the mind were good, and it was their suppression by society that distorted them and made people dangerous. He believed that the underlying energy was sexuality and if this was released then human beings would flourish. Freud, on the other hand, wanted to keep these kinds of sexual feelings in; he believed that they had negative effects on human beings, whereas Reich embraced them and wanted them to be set free. Reich linked sexuality and politics by speaking of sexual repression as a principal weapon of political domination; he attempted to synthesise Marx and Freud into one. He was fixed upon a single idea of the orgasm, and elevated it to a universal principle which explained everything. Reich used terms such as orgone energy; a repression visible in the body (an orgasm is not possible if a person is depressed) which he believed permeated all living things, and orgiastic potency; the ability to surrender to the flow without any inhibition.

Reich also claimed there were three layers of the human mind:

1. Surface level – polite, compassionate, responsible
2. Second layer – cruel, sadistic, rapacious – the “unconscious”
3. Third layer – biological core – honest, loving

I guess Reich believed that we all have a ‘mean streak’ somewhere within us, with or without realising it, and that it can override our ‘surface level’ of politeness and compassion; perhaps he linked this second layer to a lack of orgasms or sexual thoughts due to suppression by society.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche and the 'superman'


Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None

I’m about halfway through this book by Nietzsche, and I must say I’m finding it a rather difficult read so far. A lot of preaching going on by Zarathustra and most of what he says is fairly tricky to grasp. Zarathustra, or Zoroaster, was an ancient Iranian prophet, philosopher, and religious poet. The religion Zoroastrianism was based upon his teachings, and it is the worship of their God Ahura Mazda; the Wise God and the Lord of Wisdom. Nietzsche’s fictionalised take on Zarathustra presents ideas dealing in the death of God and the “eternal recurrence of the same”. Centrally ironic to the text is the idea that Nietzsche mimics the style of the Bible to present ideas which actually oppose the morals and traditions of Christianity and Judaism.

One of my favourite parts of the book so far is the scene in which Zarathustra comes across a tightrope walker in the marketplace. The crowd believe that Zarathustra is the ringleader, and is there to introduce the tightrope walker, and so gather around to listen as he speaks to them. Zarathustra poses the question “What have you done to overcome mankind?” and says “I teach you the Overman!” which in German is ‘Ubermensch’; translating to ‘beyond man’, or ‘superman’.

“The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I beg of you my brothers, remain true to the earth, and believe not those who speak to you of otherworldly hopes!”

I have found with the book so far is that each statement or moral taught by Zarathustra holds a whole new lesson of its own, making the text very difficult to grasp, and also making it a slow read in order to take everything in, with there being various metaphors, puns, translations etc. Nietzsche is trying to reach out to the select people that will understand what he is trying to say, as a lot of people will not be able to grasp the morals being taught here. The very first page of the book explains how Zarathustra left his home to go and live in solitude in the mountains, and did not weary of this way of living for ten years. This way of life suggests he is a 'superman'; he defies the typical norms of life and enjoys being able to do as he pleases. By placing Zarathustra in the mountains, it puts him at a higher position to everyone else, suggesting his higher power and knowledge compared with others. Even the very last line of the text "Thus spoke Zarathustra, and left his cave, glowing and strong, like a morning sun emerging from behind dark mountains." suggests that he is the light, the knowledge, the power, the 'superman'.

Orwellian Newspeak

"They can torture you, make you say anything. But they can't make you believe it. They can't get inside you. They can't get to your heart."

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."

"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."

"Power is tearing human minds apart and putting them back together in new shapes of your own choosing."

"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever."

‘1984’ is a British film released, a little too coincidentally, in 1984, which is based upon George Orwell’s novel of the same name. The story follows Winston Smith living in Oceania; a country run by a totalitarian government. Citizens are under constant surveillance by the ‘thought police’, who’s job it is to uncover and punish ‘thoughtcrime’; any disapproved thoughts of members. Winston is an antihero who keeps a secret diary of his thoughts, thus committing ‘thoughtcrime’, contrary to the aims of the Party which rules Oceania and their supreme figurehead, Big Brother. Winston lives for a few months in happiness and relative freedom when he meets Julia; a sensual, free spirited woman. Winston rents an apartment for them to stay together in the apparently proletarian area, however they are caught by the thought police, and it is revealed that the proprietor of the apartment was in fact a member of the police. The couple are separated and Winston is taken to the Ministry of Love, where he is tortured and brainwashed by O’Brien, a high ranking member of the Inner Party. Finally, he is taken to Room 101, where he is subjected to the “worst thing in the world”, this being a cage full of rats, something that has haunted his thoughts previously. He is then restored back to physical health and released, where he sees Julia who has also been brainwashed by the Party. They exchange a few unemotional words about how they have betrayed each other, and then a video of Winston confessing his crimes is played with him saying “I love you” to Big Brother, thought earlier to be aimed at Julia.

I have not yet read the novel but I would like to as to compare similarities and observe differences within the film. Orwell has created this dystopian world which would have been highly disturbing to read at the time, and in ways still is today. I think the most powerful and shocking scene was the torture of Winston and how they succeed in brainwashing him, implying just how powerful this Party is. The story mirrors the idea and reality of corrupt governments and dictatorships in various countries but not to as great an extent.



The Party in the novel/film imposes ‘antisexualism’ amongst citizens in order to eliminate personal sexual attachments that diminish political loyalty. Julia describes the Party’s idea as “sex gone sour”. During her and Winston’s love affair, Winston suffers recurring ankle inflammation, an Oedipal allusion to sexual repression. Also, O’Brien tells Winston that neurologists plan to extinguish the orgasm entirely; the mental energy required for prolonged worship requires authoritarian suppression of the libido. In partnership with this ‘antisexualism’, censorship is heavily displayed in the film/novel, especially within the Ministry of Truth, where photographs are doctored and public archives rewritten to rid them of ‘unpersons’ and in according to the Party’s rules.

Julia and Winston's encounter after they have been brainwashed and 'restored' back to physical health:

"I betrayed you," she said baldly.
"I betrayed you," he said.
She gave him another quick look of dislike.
"Sometimes," she said, "they threaten you with something — something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' And perhaps you might pretend, afterwards, that it was only a trick and that you just said it to make them stop and didn't really mean it. But that isn't true. At the time when it happens you do mean it. You think there's no other way of saving yourself and you're quite ready to save yourself that way. You want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself."
"All you care about is yourself," he echoed.
"And after that, you don't feel the same toward the other person any longer."
"No," he said, "you don't feel the same."

"Mr Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it"

This week there was a screening of Orson Welles’ 1941 American drama film ‘Citizen Kane’. I was looking forward to seeing it as I’d always been intrigued after hearing it referenced in other programmes, namely one time in The Simpsons. The film is based loosely around the life and legacy of William Randolph Hearst, portrayed as Charles Foster Kane; an American newspaper magnate. The story is told through narration and flashbacks, and revolves around a newspaper reporter’s attempt to discover what significance Kane’s last word before he died, ‘rosebud’ held.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect when watching the film, but I enjoyed the way Welles’ decided to set it out; a series of flashbacks and interviews with the people closest to Kane, which included his second wife Susan Alexander, his personal business manager Mr Bernstein, his best friend Jedediah Leland, and lastly his butler Raymond. I loved the fictional estate of Kane’s called ‘Xanadu’, which looks like something out of a horror film where kids would never dare to go trick or treating. The estate claimed its name from a real ancient Mongolian city, and in the film it was described as being the world’s largest private estate, “cost: no man can say”. In relation to the film, it represented the excess of lavish lifestyles such as Kane’s, and their inability to spend their money wisely, gradually becoming disconnected from the ‘norm’ of the everyday world. It seems to me to represent a need to distance oneself from the rest of society to make the difference in power and wealth more obvious to other citizens; he created his own prison to live in. Massively wealthy individuals often become greedy and self involved, thus being portrayed as living in an oversized house often alone or with only a butler for company. Kane was not alone at the start of the film but he drove his wife out towards the end, adding to his misery and loneliness.



The way that Kane came into power and wealth is important for the film’s focus. He was born into a poverty stricken family, but then changed when the ‘world’s third largest gold mine’ was discovered on an assumed to be worthless property that his mother acquired. He is forced to leave his mother when she sends him away to live with guardian Walter Parks Thatcher, where he is educated and protected from his abusive father. At 25, he enters the newspaper business and takes control of the New York Inquirer, hiring all of the best journalists, some who worked for the Chronicle beforehand, his newspaper’s main rival. The film focuses on Kane’s downhill; the way he pushes his loved ones away and manipulates others to get what he wants. The relationship between him and his first wife disintegrates, and a ‘love nest’ scandal with his soon to be second wife, Susan Alexander, is uncovered. With his domineering personality he forces her into an operatic career which she has no desire or talent to be in, and gradually destroys his relationship with her, forcing her to leave him.

At the end of the film, it is revealed to the audience that ‘Rosebud’ was the name of a sled from Kane’s childhood; a time before he was taken away and gained all of his wealth. The sled is burnt in the furnace along with Kane’s other belongings, thought to be worthless, and they are left with no answer to their question. I thought the way that his last word related to his childhood where he was part of a poor family was highly significant; this suggests that Kane was perhaps at his happiest when he was a child and had no fame or wealth. The film is wrapped up with a rather pleasant moral that you don’t need fame and money to be happy, and suggests that if you have those things your life might be on a downward spiral as Kane’s was.

Quote of the film by the reporter Thompson:

“Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything... I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a... piece in a jigsaw puzzle... a missing piece.”

Germinal

Regarding 'Germinal', just reading the back made me understand what Chris meant when he talked about the indepth imagery within the book's description. The insert they chose to put on the back cover as a teaser reads:

"Buried like moles beneath the crushing weight of the earth, and without a breath of fresh air in their burning lungs, they simply went on tapping."

The description used is so powerful you can almost picture yourself amongst the characters; inhaling the dirt into your lungs and struggling to breathe. Any writer that manages to portray this kind of imagery surely has talent, and would surely have to considering the uncompromisingly harsh and realistic portrayal of a coalminer's strike in 1860s France. The title itself refers to a month in the French Republican Calendar, being a spring month. 'Germen' is a Latin word meaning 'seed' and therefore reflects in the novel a hope for a better future amongst the miners.

I will be frequently blogging random updates on how I am finding the novel, and also talking about my favourite descriptive passages or chapters.

We're on a train called history!

My efforts to get ahead in the second year at Uni seem to be failing me miserably so far. I thought I would be clever and download ‘Germinal’ to watch; only to find that it was in French. Fine, that’s what subtitles are for, right? Only, not when they are in another language too. I might give it a watch anyway, pictures are supposed to tell a thousand words so perhaps I can work it out. Secondly I was eager to grab the books mentioned in the lectures as quickly as possible, only to find that they are out of stock for the mean time, however I have managed to pick up my copies of ‘Germinal’ and ‘Ulysses’ after reserving them from the bookshop. So I will be attempting to read those as quickly as possible so I can get blogging about them!

For now, I will go over what we have learnt so far in the lectures. The first lecture back was taken by Chris, and the main focus was socialism, alienation, and the Young Hegelians. I think the most important thing to note about German philosopher Hegel was his thought of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which basically translated to the starting point (intellectual proposition), the contradiction (a reaction to that proposition), and the resolution (the resolved conflict). This theory was adapted by Marx who said “Philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways – the point is to change it”. He went on to use the same structure as Hegel, but instead talked about idealism, materialism, and instrumentalism. Idealism translated to ‘you are what you think’, materialism to ‘you are what you eat’, and finally instrumentalism to ‘you are what you do’. He placed these economic factors into Hegelian context by saying that they are internal contradictions which drive the development of prosperity. Both Marx and Hegel see the state as the vehicle of historical change; an instrument for the domination of one class to another.

Hegel famously stated “The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk”, meaning that philosophy comes to understand a historical condition just as it passes away; philosophy cannot be prescriptive because it understands only in hindsight. In Greek and Roman mythology Glaucus is the symbolic owl of Athena, often referred to as ‘owl of Athena’ or ‘owl of Minerva’. It is seen as a symbol of wisdom in Roman myths because the owl is capable of seeing in the dark and is awake at night when it is seen as the ‘norm’ to be asleep.