A fetish is a synecdoche, being a mere objective indication of something much larger than itself. A fetishistic engagement allows the individual to apprehend, perhaps as libidinous cathaxis, that which has been barred from a more immediate experience, either by mental cordons set up within his own psyche or by what can be perceived to be external factors acting through his psyche to structure certain restrictions disallowing contact with the said experiences. Thus, the fetish may be said to be a condition of repression. This relation between fetish (as synecdoche) and repression may represent an approach in the understanding of Modernism and its relation to Western Imperialism.
*
Much has been said about the “resolutions” of Conrad’s narrative elements in Heart of Darkness, and I believe much of the same will be and can be said of Jim. As far as these two texts are concerned, the opacity of Conrad’s narrative is not so much the opacity of a who-dunnit, but rather that of a how-dunnit, by which is meant within Conrad’s narratives a definite investment in character psychology: Conrad’s texts are loquacious texts, employing the communicability of Marlow as storyteller to render portraits of experience. But any attempt at psychologizing is essentially flawed insofar as, within the limits of hermeneutics, any portrait is essentially an extension of a pentimento cast over by a trompe-l’oeil: complications arises out of the locquacity; and words reveal themselves as tools of evasion, rather than that of revelation – though the fine line between evasion and revelation is subtle, and what would be revealed, and what is hidden, will make itself known to the reader depending on where he stands in relation to the aspect of the portrait he wishes to see. The fetish, if you will.
(292 words)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Check
What is the fetish in Lord Jim, then? And why is this important? The post is unclear.
I guess I was trying to say that, in relation to Lord Jim, the text illustrates, amongst other things, a "flaw" in the legal system which demands, in order for it to function as an institution or state apparatus, the obviating of many intricate details or nuances that compose an individual's account of his experience (e.g. the emotional / psychological / moral upheavals that Jim went through during the incident at sea, or at least what Jim went through according to Marlow). The legal system demands a particular method of interpretation which, I am suggesting, may can be approached via an understanding of the nature of fetish.
Ah... now *that* is extremely interesting. That could have formed the bulk of your post! Again, try to be clearer when you state your ideas... your thoughts have a great deal of potential most of the time!
if i understand you correctly, Jim's trauma, defined belatedly by the structure of its experience, is further fetishized by the court because it assumes that there is "nothing there" at all?
I would say that it isn't necessary to apprehend, through the framework of the fetish, the mechanics or nature of the legal system in relation to Jim's trial.
Though having said that, it does occur to me that the court of law, the operation of which isn't absolved of certain fetishistic elements. But I am speaking only in broad theoretical terms; I have yet to fully formulate the reason why the idea of the fetish seems so pressing to me in relation to the mechanics of the court of law.
The idea of repression comes to mind - though of what, and to what end, the answers to which still appear to me as yet indefinite.
Yes -- and that is a very interesting line of inquiry! There's a fascinating text on the use of the law in Jean Genet that you may find useful; I'm not sure if it's translated, though... but the legal system within literature is a very fascinating trope. Nice thinking.
Post a Comment