Although there are many literary theories to choose from when it comes to the novel Dracula, I have chosen to focus on Neo-Marxism. I have done this because the ideas of Marxism and Neo-Marxism are fascinating, in that they both draw upon the aspect of society and how people relate/interact with one another based on class differences. The main aim of Marxism is to bring about a classless society and all aspects within a society and culture are viewed as products and processes of human activity. In the novel Dracula, the characters have characteristics which fall into the Neo-Marxist approach of literary theory.
In Dracula, the class difference between
the characters is quite evident. In the beginning of the novel, Jonathan, a
proletariat, sets off from his home in London to visit Count Dracula in Transylvania.
During his journey he encounters numerous Eastern Europeans who he describes
were “at every station there were groups of people…just like the peasants at
home or those I saw coming through France and Germany, with short jackets and
round hats, and home-made trousers; but others were very picturesque” (Stoker,
6). It is clear that even though he is not of upper class, he doesn’t usually
mingle with peasants, or those who are of lower class than he.
Once Harker
arrives at Dracula’s castle, it is clear that the Count is of upper class.
Jonathan describes the castle and its furnishings to be “extraordinary
evidences of wealth…the table service is of gold, and so beautifully wrought
that is must be of immense value. The curtains and upholstery of the chairs and
sofas and the hangings of my bed are of the costliest and most beautiful
fabrics, and must have been of fabulous value when they were made, for they are
centuries old, though in excellent order” (31). As the novel goes on, it is
clear that everything the Count owns is of significant status and he enjoys
living in the lap of luxury. Dracula owns property in England, as well as
Transylvania, and is presumed to come from a line of wealthy ancestry. He is in
a definite position of power and is prime example of what Marxism refers to as
the bourgeoisie.
The
females in this novel are also of middle/upper class, vainly spending their
days enjoying the lifestyle that comes with being upper class women. Mina, who
longs to "be useful to Jonathan," perfectly represents a woman in the
society of the early nineteenth century (84). Mina is consistently seen in an
idealistic light, instead of in a realistic way. Near the end of the novel
while Mina is recovering from her encounter with Count Dracula, Harker writes
that she is "sleeping now, calmly and sweetly like a little child" (517).
He compares her to a child, or at least someone who is more helpless than he,
and he expects nothing more from her.
Lucy, on the other hand, is more sexualized and uses her money to better
herself in hopes of finding a suitor. She possesses the greed that is
stereotypic of the upper class and wonders even why she can’t marry as many men
as she wants (93). Due to their consumer nature, both women play not only into
the category of Feminine Criticism, but also Neo-Marxism.
Capital
is another important aspect of Marxism, which is prevalent in Dracula. The count acquires gold, money,
and materialistic items, which are considered capital; however he also obtains
blood and human life. The act of Dracula sucking blood and stealing mortal’s
lives is a representation of gaining more capital. The bourgeoisie needed money
and power to preserve their position of power within society, as Dracula needs
human blood to secure his being. It is the blood of the lower class that he
attains through manipulation and seduction, similar to how Marxism views mortal
upper class people and how they treated the lower class. Without blood, the
lower class could obviously not survive, and without obtaining their blood,
Dracula cannot survive; the society would fall apart.
All of
course is restored when Dracula is defeated; the lower class triumphed the
upper class and harmony was restored in the universe. To Marxism, this is the
triumph of the lower class as well as the institution of socialism. The mark on
Mina’s head, for instance, which was put there by Dracula when he was alive,
disappears once he is dead. This is symbolic of things reverting back to how
they should be, how Marxism interprets society should be; with no evil and
greedy upper class and suffering lower class. Of course this isn’t factual,
because Jonathan, Van Helsing, and Arthur are all of middle/upper class, and
there still are peasants about the cities. But good has triumphed evil and it
is the beginning of a better, classless, society.
-Stoker, Bram. Dracula.
New York. London: W.W. Nortan and Company, (1997). Print
-Yelin, Louis. Deciphering
the Academic Hieroglyph: Marxist
Literary Theory and the Practice of Basic Writing. Web
-Barry, Peter. Beginning
Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester.
Manchester University Press, (2002): 124
I think that Nikki’s approach to Dracula using Marxist and Neo-Marxist theory is very interesting, and not something I would have thought of doing. I agree with a few of her points, and would like to comment and expand on them.
ReplyDeleteClass differences are one of Marx’s most argued points, and the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the common proletariat man are outlined quite obviously in Dracula. While it is no secret that Dracula is wealthier than the others in his area, I believe it goes deeper than monetary value. Dracula manipulates the lower class people around him, such as the people he hires to work for him, like the Slovaks (Stoker 36) that Harker sees around and outside the castle; his victims, such as the child and the mother, who were drained by Dracula and devoured by wolves, respectively (38); and of course Jonathan Harker, who is powerless under Dracula’s tyrannous reign of the castle. I believe Dracula’s behavior is characteristic of the classic bourgeoisie as described by Marx, who are stereotypically described as people who manipulate the masses of lower class peoples for personal or monetary gain.
As for monetary gain, blood functions as a type of capital in Dracula. Having capital can be looked upon as a method to benefit only the bourgeoisie, because they have more than they need and it is easier to gain more and more capital. Acquiring blood is only beneficial to Dracula, because the more he has, the better he lives. It is necessary to his life. While I agree with Nikki that humans technically need blood, they do not collect it or need to drain other humans of it to live comfortably, as Dracula does. I believe it is meant to make him “rich” while the lower classes suffer.
“There lay the Count, but looking as if his youth had been half restored… The mouth was redder than ever, for on the lips were gouts of fresh blood, which trickled from the corners of the mouth and ran down over the chin and neck… It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood” (43). This quote outlines how Dracula gorges himself on the blood of his victims. It is obvious that Dracula has an excess of blood. I believe this is a great example of the gluttonous qualities of the bourgeoisie; he is a classic rich person who takes more than he needs, while people with less capital are suffering all around him, many of which suffer because of him.
Though Bram Stoker may not have realized it when writing this famous novel, Dracula covers some important ground and easily outlines the basics of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The class struggle is a strong theme in the novel, and as Nikki stated, is overcome when Dracula is killed. Marxist theory makes out communism to be a government ideal, and if the bourgeoisie is overthrown, such as in Dracula, society is that much closer to peace.
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester. Manchester University Press, (2002): 124
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. New York. London: W.W. Nortan and Company, (1997). Print.