• 영어영문학
• /
• 제64권4호
• /
• pp.629-649
• /
• 2018

To date, one of the prevailing criticisms of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe has seen the adventure novel as a celebration of the rise of mercantile capitalism and the beginnings of colonialism. From this point of view, the Englishman has often been interpreted as an early embodiment of the concept of the sovereign economic subject. Prominent social critics who took up this interpretation have included Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Within literary studies proper, the work of Ian Watt offered perhaps the earliest version of this point of view of the novel. Influenced by both Weber and Rousseau, Ian Watt argued that Defoe's wandering protagonist embodies the rise of economic individualism. More recent criticism has tended to challenge this dominant interpretation by laying greater stress on such countervailing factors as Crusoe's mental uncertainty and inner conflict. Drawing inspiration from Fredric Jameson's diagnosis of the ills of late capitalism, this paper analyzes the ways in which Defoe's hero, rather than championing modern rationality, can in fact be seen as suffering from many forms of emotional psychosis. Robinson Crusoe can, after all, be better viewed as a contradictory multi-layered text that, despite its outward valorization of economic individualism, portrays its hero as a victim of negative capitalistic forces, a hero driven by his desire to possess but haunted by a fear of loss, a hero who flaunts inflated feelings of self-worth even as he reveals deflated notions of material insecurity and mental persecution.

• 영어영문학
• /
• 제54권1호
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2008

Ian Watt, author of The Rise of the Novel, maintained that the novel originated in modern England, came from prose discourses such as the news, political essays and journalistic writing which propagated the Enlightenment, and the novels represent formal realism. The main point of this paper is to examine Watt's theory of the rise of the novel on the basis of the criticism of antinomy of the Enlightenment and "the public sphere" in Habermas' terms. At first, I will criticize formal realism, which is not a new literary species, but a formally renovated realistic form that represented capitalism and protestantism. And, then, I will show that formal realism is a kind of antinomy because it turned away from the voices and reality of the low-class and women though the novel concentrated on common people, not the aristocrats. Secondly, I will inquire into the antinomy of the Enlightenment in the aspects of reason, freedom, individualism and women. In my view, as soon as the high-middle class acquired their political rights, these values were no more encouraged and the result revealed antinomy of the Enlightenment more explicitly. Thirdly, I'd argue that "the public sphere" had positive meanings to everyone when the bourgeosie were fighting against the Absolutism and the aristocracy. I'll also insist that the high-middle class and the intellectuals were in "the public sphere" in which Habermas argues that rationality and equality were thought to have been realized, while the low-middle class and most women were de-enlightened and disciplined by reading the novel privately. In conclusion, formal realism is not the rise of the novel, but the opening of the novel peculiar to bourgeosie parliamentarism from the middle-eighteenth century to the middle-twentieth century.