들뢰즈 관점에서 디킨즈의 『어려운 시절』읽기

Abstract

This paper aims to look afresh at Charles Dickens’s Hard Times (1854) from the perspective of Gill Deleuze by using Deleuzian keywords and expressions, such as “becoming,” “the machine désirante” (the war machine), the line of flight, deterritorialization, and the state apparatus. The existing scholarship on Hard Times has predominantly focused on the disadvantages of utilitarianism, namely the extermination of fancy and imagination, and Dickens’s double distancing from Utilitarianism philosophy and the Union of Radical Workers. Irrespective of those realities, it is clear; that Dickens celebrates the vitality and virtues of ordinary people, particularly such female characters as Louisa Bounderby and Sissy Jupe. To begin with, I consider utilitarianism prevalent in schools, factories, and society to be, what Deleuze calls, the state apparatus which demands a total submission into a monolithic and dehumanizing ideology to which both Utilitarianism and patriarchy belong. Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bounderby are ruthless tyrants. By contrast, Louisa and Sissy are the subversive female figures who take the line of flight driven by the machine désirante. Particularly, the solidarity forged by Louisa-Sissy-Racheal is a clear indication of rhizomic connection (or articulation), which eventually leads to the generation of creative forces or subversive energies. Sleary Company, a nomadic circus, has a special significance as an alternative to a monotonous life of factory and school. Sleary Company can be seen as, to borrow a Deleuzian term, “le Lisse” (the Smooth) in which a natural and vibrant life is in full swing. At the core of my argument is the possible link that can be safely established between Dickens and Deleuze who advocates the idea of deterritorialization. Also, the Louisa-Sissy-Rachael sisterhood provides a counter-pensée in that they have gone awry from the sublime object of ideology, namely Utilitarianism and patriarchy. In conclusion, there are remarkable overlapping territories between Dickens and Deleuze, although Dickens fails to recognize workers’ potentials for radical social change. It must be emphasized that Dickens is in favor of singularity and creativity, both elements that are required to enliven our lives, in order to avoid being enslaved by the state apparatus.