On Character - kredati/media-theory-encyclopedia GitHub Wiki
The Liberation of the ‘Character’
Kathryn Marsland
Introduction:
This essay will work to demonstrate the ways in which ‘characters’, in any form this word may take, have changed historically. Furthermore, it will demonstrate the number of ways that characters have been shown throughout history. Karl Marx’s “The Fragment on Machines”, Donna Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto”, and Walter Benjamin’s “Experience and Poverty” are all able to tell highly politicized stories, with various fictional beings as their main characters. These characters, and the political implications attached to them, are able to demonstrate that characters can appear in any form, as long as they work to tell a story.
Definition:
The word “character” can be interpreted in many ways but is commonly thought of in one of two manners. First, “character” can be read as a character within a novel, film, play, etcetera. They are a person with traits and motivations, who are generally following some sort of path as part of the story, narrative or otherwise. Elsewhere, the word can be read as “features that make up or distinguish an individual” (Webster). Though there are many definitions for the word, many center around the idea that one’s character is what makes them an individual; what makes them unique, and differentiates them from all others. In order for either definition to be complete, one must make reference to the other, and vice versa. A character is defined by their characteristics, and characteristics, as a mode of organization, are designed to be assigned to characters. Many definitions also reference one’s character as what defines their sense of morality, and the ethics by which they make decisions.
Historical Usage:
Similar to the implications of the definition, the term ‘character’ has long been exclusively used to describe people. It has been difficult to assign characteristics to inanimate objects, because we cannot see the performance of these characteristics come to life in the same way in objects as we can in humans. We can see the ways in which different humans will react to specific situations, and acknowledge that there is not a one-size-fits-all label for the ways that any single person will react to any given situation. The ‘characters’ outlined in this essay were each designed to fulfil a specific requirement; they do not need to be adaptable, cognisant, or civilized, like humans are expected to be, in order to complete the task that they have been designed to do. While this does make it more difficult to determine what their character may be, it is not impossible, especially when one looks at the character in relation to the task they were created to fulfil. The machine, to be a part of an assembly line. The cyborg, to represent and challenges ideas of feminism. Mickey Mouse, the barbarian, and other characters outlined by Benjamin, to help make sense of post-World War I poverty in Europe. In the same way that we learn more about the character of humans by learning about their motivations, we can do the same for learning about fictional or mechanical beings as characters.
Of the characters referenced in this piece, few are human, and therefor it can be difficult to see the others as characters, to assign them personality traits and to liken them to a human being. The basis of this term always comes back to humans, as that is the group for which the concept of characterization was developed. For this reason, this essay will always come back to referencing humans, and comparing the ways in which the machine, the cyborg, Mickey Mouse, and the barbarian are characters, in relation to humans.
Forms of Usage (Marx):
A major focus of Marx’s piece “Fragment on Machines” is the machine becoming a part of an assembly line, isolating workers from their labour and continuing to support the capitalist society in which we live. Marx outlines that “worker’s activity is reduced to the work classified as necessary by the machine”, and that the machine is now in control, rather than the other way around (Marx, pg. 693). Furthermore, Marx states that “people have, with rare exceptions, been treated as secondary or subordinate machine” (Marx, pg. 711). In this case, the machine is not only seen as a character in the story of the means of production in the same way as workers, but is seen as more important than the workers (Marx, pg. 693). This comparison of workers to the machine, by placing them on equal ground to begin with and then raising the machine above the workers, is a common theme across Marx’s essay (Marx, pg. 711). It is clear that Marx’s main goal is to demonstrate the ways in which humans are seen as secondary to the machine in capitalist societies, and he often goes about expressing this thought by defining the two in relation to each other (Marx, pg. 711). In this sense, it is easy to see the machine as a character, in comparison to humans.
In many ways, it is easy to conceive the machine as a ‘character’, in the same ways that we, as humans, see ourselves as characters in different stories that play out of the course of our lives. In physical form, the machine “consumes coal and oil” in the same way that humans must consume food to survive, and possess what Marx describes as intellectual organs (Marx, pg. 692, 693). Knowledge plays a significant role in relation to the machine (Marx, pg. 694). The knowledge of the workers is placed into the products that they are creating, and is absorbed by the machine as well as the means of production itself (Marx, pg. 694). To access the intellectual organs of the machine, workers act as a “conscious linkage” between the machine and the assembly line (Marx, pg. 693). This “conscious linkage” forms with the knowledge that humans have provided the assembly line, which they then work to connect with the machine (Marx, pg. 693). Machines are thus deemed as knowledgeable, by way of their relationship to the knowledge they have gained from the workers (Marx, pg. 693).
Aside from physical similarities to humans, the machine can also be interpreted as having its own personality (Marx, pg. 694). The machine “develops with the accumulation of society’s science” (Marx, pg. 694), which is to say that, similarly to humans, machines develop based on the needs of the society and world around them. Marx describes the machine as having “a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it”, meaning to say that through the machine’s design, it is thought to have a soul by way of completion of its purpose within the assembly line (Marx, pg. 693). When the machine is able to fulfil its purpose, it is thought to possess a soul (Marx, pg. 693). In some ways, Marx sees the machine as an extension of the worker, both physically and mentally; in others, the workers as an extension of the machine (Marx, pg. 711). Machines possess the ability to create on their own terms, but require a worker to act as a “conscious linkage” between different parts of the machine (Marx, pg. 692).
It is also likely that Marx’s attempt to humanize the machine is also an attempt to remedy the isolation of the worker from their labour. If we are to see the machine in the same vein as humans, it is to say that workers have not been replaced by a machine (cold, hard, and unfeeling) that is not able to provide the same level of care to their work. Instead, it is an attempt to tell workers that they have been replaced by one of their own. Furthermore, likening machines to humans also helps to bridge the gap created by the process of isolating workers from their labour. If workers see machines are possessing similar characteristics to themselves, they are less likely to feel that a machine has isolated them from their labour. Rather, they have been simply replaced by another character in the story of the means of production.
In the same way that humans within the assembly line are thought to be forms of capital, machines are no different (Marx, pg. 694). Although machines are valued above humans, machines are still described by Marx as the “most adequate form of fixed capital” (Marx, pg. 693). There is truly no need to differentiate between workers and machines in the assembly line; all are characters in the means of production.
Historicization of the essay (Marx):
Marx’s theory, developed in 1858 but translated to English in the 1960s, discusses the possible ways in which the creation and integration of machines for purposes to assembly lines for mass production disrupts a worker’s relationship to their labour (Trott, pg. 1107-1108). Since its creation, the machines in the essay have been interpreted many ways, including thoughts of predicted artificial intelligence and applications of the essay’s concepts to contemporary capitalism (McBride) (Trott, pg. 1107). Marx’s arguments have held their shape as the years have passed since their development, as the assembly line system, and isolation of the workers from the labour, are still practices that are commonly employed today.
In the time of its creation, Marx was able to acknowledge that the development of the machine for assembly lines is relatively recent, and thus his theory was not fully flushed out (Marx, pg. 694). Marx could acknowledge that “the development of the means of labour into machinery is not an accidental moment of capital, but is rather the historical reshaping of the tradition, inherited means of labour into a form adequate to capital” (Marx, pg. 694). This is to say that the machine was and is thought to have revolutionized the assembly line, means of production, and the way capitalism is interwoven into our society. When this essay was created, Marx was just becoming familiar with the machine, and its development as a character within the means of production.
Forms of Usage (Haraway):
Donna Haraway’s cyborg can be categorized as a character, through a combination of the history that led to its creation, the personality traits that it has been assigned, and the multifaceted identity that it holds. Haraway’s cyborg was created to critique ideas of feminism that did not include all women or people, and in doing so, she began to develop the character of the cyborg. The cyborg was meant to be a representation of all of the aspects of traditional feminism that Haraway wished to change, and was meant to represent all of the qualities that her version of inclusionary feminism represents. The cyborg was designed to change or rebrand what was considered to be a “woman’s” experience, a concept in and of itself that Haraway moved to dismiss (Haraway, pg. 155). First, the cyborg attempted to de-gender the world in which we live (Haraway, pg. 155). As Haraway stated, “the cyborg [was] created in a post-gender world” (Haraway, pg. 150). Haraway’s theory largely believed that there was no universal experience of being a woman, because there was no experience of being ‘female’ to begin with (Haraway, pg. 155). Because of this attempt to gain distance from societies based on gender, the cyborg “[had] no origin story in the Western sense”, because so much of Western society is based in gender binaries (Haraway, pg. 150). In order to ever truly dismantle the non-inclusive nature of some forms of feminism, we must first disregard societal beliefs that there is a need to divide people based on gender (Haraway, pg. 155). There is no true way to be a woman, because being a ‘woman’ does not exist (Haraway, pg. 155). Because we live in a society that is so deeply rooted around the division between gender, Haraway’s theory then moves to critique feminist theories and ideals based on the society in which we live.
First, Haraway attempts to disregard the belief that there is a “right” way to experience and practice feminism. It has often been said that “other feminisms are either incorporated or marginalized”, in relation to what is thought to be a universal experience of feminism (Haraway, pg. 156). Experiences that do not fit this mold are often tossed aside. A main point that the cyborg attempted to argue was that “the main achievement of both Marxist feminists and socialist feminists was to expand the category of labour to accommodate what (some) women did”, ignoring the achievements of women who did not fit their ideas of an ideal feminist figure (Haraway, pg. 158). The cyborg was meant to exist external to this point of view. It was meant to encapsulate all ideas of feminism, and express that there was no universal way to experience feminism, similar to how there was no universal experience for womanhood (Haraway, pg. 156).
Second, the cyborg attempted to dismantle theories of feminism that revolve around identities and experiences of white women. Though the cyborg was created by a white woman, it attempted to learn from other theorists about the experiences of women of colour, specifically as outlined by Chela Sandoval (Haraway, pg. 155). Sandoval’s theory stemmed around the need for intersectionality, a term which did not exist when Haraway wrote this essay in 1985, and would not come into being for another 4 years (Crenshaw). She stated that women of colour needed to create their own spaces in a male-dominated world, and that feminism was not doing enough to operate in the interests of women of colour (Haraway, pg. 156). Furthermore, she stated that there are no specific criteria for who is a woman of colour (Haraway, pg. 156). This also opened up the definition of feminism provided by Sandoval even further, by allowing more women to be included in the definition and to share their experiences (Haraway, pg. 156). Because the cyborg is not a human, it does not need to represent a specific race, and can instead advocate for intersectionality of all kinds.
Third, the cyborg exists politically. In order to truly make a difference in expectations of gender and race, political unity is required (Haraway, pg. 157). Though this theme was already portrayed through the cyborg’s feminist agenda, it must be made clear that the character of the cyborg was meant to advocate for those who’s voices are regularly ignored or unheard. Haraway referenced the development of the identity of the cyborg as being completely for political reason, and acknowledged that the cyborg was unable to exist separately from political issues, as the issues that it was created to represent are largely political in nature (Haraway, pg. 155).
These aspects tied together create the personality of the cyborg as not only a character, but a political figure. The cyborg was designed to represent equality and equitable practices, and advocate for those who’s identities had been overshadowed or misrepresented. The cyborg was defined by a set of goals, hopes, and means of attainment that are commonly associated with humans.
Historicization of the essay (Haraway):
Haraway’s theory was developed in response to three major breakdowns of societal relationships (Haraway, pg. 151-152). First, Haraway moved to dismiss thoughts that a breakdown or boundary between animals and humans was necessary (Haraway, pg. 151-152). She declared that as we gained more knowledge on evolution, there was truly nothing separating animals from humans, and that it was unnecessary to have this sort of class system in place, which placed humans above animals. Second, with the development of different types of technology through the 20th century, the boundary between animals and humans (living organisms), and technology no longer existed in the same form as it once did (Haraway, pg. 152). To begin with, this outdated concept was developed when forms of technology first arrived, and as Haraway states, “machines were not self-moving, self-designing, autonomous” (Haraway, pg. 152). As technology evolved to become more independent, the line between living beings and machines began blurry and unnecessary, which led to another major breakdown (Haraway, pg. 151). Finally, the third division was the most difficult to grasp, and the most difficult to justify (Haraway, pg. 152). Similar to the second breakdown, the division between the physical and non-physical became even more blurred as technology became more prominent (Haraway, pg. 152). As physical pieces of technology strive to become smaller, and become more focused on transmission through radio waves, the boundary between physical and non-physical ceased to exist (Haraway, pg. 152). Without the breaking of these three boundaries, Haraway’s concept and design of the cyborg could not exist.
All of these theories moved to dismantle class notions, and break down any hierarchies that were in place. The first theory challenged and dismantled the hierarchy between humans and animals, which dictated that humans took precedence over animals. The second division objected to claims that living beings were more important than machines. As I’ve outlined otherwise in this essay, it is difficult to ignore the character possessed by inanimate objects, and thus difficult to believe that machines do not hold a place of importance within our society. Finally, as the importance of physical existence became less significant, it became easier to ignore differences between the two poles. These three theories attempted to dismantle ideas of hierarchy, which was also what Haraway’s cyborg attempted to do.
Forms of Usage (Benjamin):
The characters of the barbarian and Mickey Mouse in Benjamin’s essay played two vastly different, but similarly motivated roles (Benjamin, pg. 732, 735). The barbarian was meant to represent the reality of the situation of poverty that was occurring at the time Benjamin wrote his piece (Benjamin, pg. 732). The barbarian was introduced as an innovator of sorts, in response to a time of crisis (Benjamin, pg. 732). He was meant to make do with what he has, without comparing himself or his wealth to those around him (Benjamin, pg. 732). The barbarian could better enjoy his experience by avoiding comparisons of himself to other (Benjamin, pg. 732). When a man failed to be a barbarian, and looks to those around him to compare himself, he would encounter Mickey Mouse (Benjamin, pg. 732, 735). Mickey Mouse was meant to represent everything that a man wished he could have or could be, in this period of poverty (Benjamin, pg. 735). As Benjamin described “[Mickey’s] life [was] full of miracles” (Benjamin, pg. 735). For men who struggled to experience day to day life, it was refreshing to see a character for whom everything came so easily; who defined all laws of physics and could make something appear from nothing (Benjamin, pg. 735). Men attempted to compare their experiences to others, and when they saw a way of life that seemed to come so easily, they “need[ed] to step back and keep [their] distance” (Benjamin, pg. 735). One character was meant to represent the simple reality of the period, which was categorized by immense poverty. The other was meant to represent the aspirations of all men; the greatest form of idealism. The final characters of the story were the men who had to make a decision: to choose barbarism, and make do with what they have, or to allow their envy to take over and constantly compare their ways and means of living to Mickey Mouse (Benjamin, pg. 732, 735).
Benjamin created several characters across his short piece, but all of these characters worked together to tell different parts of the story, and to represent the different needs and phases of man’s experiences and poverty. One is a realistic representation of what men want to be, one is an idealistic representation of what men want to be, and one is what men really are.
Historicization of the essay (Benjamin):
The time period in which Benjamin’s essay was written for was clearly demonstrated in his essay in multiple ways. His use of tone and vocabulary, as well as his subtle references to the lives of soldiers in World War I show that he was yearning for a time that was not represented by sadness and poverty, like the reality of Germany in 1933. Though Benjamin was speaking more about the experiences of Europeans following the war, his concepts of poverty were also applicable to the Great Depression, which was partway through when Benjamin wrote this piece. The essay spoke to the general living conditions that encompassed Europe in the 1930s as a result of the war. Many were left deeply impoverished as they searched for any kind of hope.
Common themes:
Across all three vastly different texts, and numerous types of characters, there is a common thread that runs all throughout: all characters are political. Whether it is intentional or not, it is impossible for these characters to exist without political implications. Because the character of all these beings is in some ways created or manufactured by the author of their respective essays, and all of the essays are political in nature, these characters cannot exist separate from the works they were created for.
The machine’s political nature is shown through its place in the assembly line, isolating workers from their labour. Marx criticizes this practice, believing that the capitalist society in which we live in exacerbated by this process (Marx, pg. 694). The machine is shown to be a political figure, both by virtue of its place within the assembly line and means of production, and as a character in the anti-capitalist story that Marx tells.
The cyborg in Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto”, perhaps the most overtly political figure referenced in the work, was created to represent and advocate for intersectional feminism, before the term even came into being. The advocacy for feminism that is representative of all women and people is a political issue. The type of feminism that the cyborg was created to fight against purposely isolates many people, and it is the cyborg’s job, through its creator’s lens as a white woman, to attempt to remedy the situation. As Haraway states, “the political struggle is to see from both perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from other vantage points” (Haraway, pg. 154). This is to say that the cyborg’s motivation is to consider all forms of feminism, and come up with a more inclusive definition, which politically, is not an easy task to accomplish (Haraway, pg. 154).
Finally, the characters shown in Benjamin’s “Experience and Poverty” show the different forms that the political issue of poverty can take. The barbarian is meant to represent someone who is complacent with their reality, who decides to live the life they have been given without complaint (Benjamin, pg. 732). Mickey Mouse represents what man hopes to be in an ideal world; able to pull anything he may need out of thin air (Benjamin, pg. 735). Finally, the men in the essay are representative of the reality of this situation, and the choice between making do with what they have been given, or yearning for more (Benjamin, pg. 732, 735). All of these characters are representative of the political and economic state of Europe, post World War I.
All of these objects or people are character, and are in turn, political in nature. All exist in reference to political pieces that call into question the ideology of the world in which they were created, and since it is impossible to see or understand any of these objects as characters without knowing their political implications, we must read these characters with these implications in mind.
Works Cited:
Benjamin, Walter. “Selected Writings”, Volume 2. 1933.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics", University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 1989 , Article 8. Web.
Haraway, Donna. “Simians, Cyborgs, and Women”. The Berkeley Socialist Review Collective (1985): 149-181.
Marx, Karl. “The Grundrisse”: 690-712. Web.
McBride, Michael R. “Did Karl Marx Predict Artificial Intelligence 170 Years Ago?” Medium.com, Medium, 18 Nov. 2017, medium.com/@MichaelMcBride/did-karl-marx-predict-artificial-intelligence-170-years-ago-4fd7c23505ef.
Trott, Ben. "The ‘Fragment on Machines’ as Science Fiction; Or, Reading the Grundrisse Politically." Cambridge Journal of Economics 42.4 (2018): 1107-22. Web.