跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.220.62.183) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/27 22:21
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳彥銘
論文名稱:瑪麗雪萊《科學怪人》中的符號經濟學
論文名稱(外文):The Economy of Signs in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
指導教授:王俊三王俊三引用關係鄭冠榮鄭冠榮引用關係劉建基劉建基引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立中興大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:英文
論文頁數:91
中文關鍵詞:瑪麗雪萊《科學怪人》中的符號經濟學
外文關鍵詞:Creation As the Outset of CatastropheThe Monster’s GenesisThe Real Monster
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:214
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
摘要
很多讀者初次看到瑪麗雪萊的《法蘭肯斯坦》(科學怪人)時,常常會誤以為書名即是那怪物的名稱,而非是那造物者的姓名。其實這樣的誤解,正好符合小說中所刻意留下的意象。法蘭肯斯坦之所以會侵犯神的領域,去從許多死人身上蒐集材料,運用科學的方法,去創造一個具有超強能力的新生命,其實是個體受到符號系統宰制的必然結果。他這種扭曲的內在,與扭曲的創造過程,還有因為全力投入而使得他的外表因而扭曲,所有這種創造的內在、外在、與過程,使得法蘭肯斯坦更像怪物。相反的,小說中的怪物是依法蘭肯斯坦的形體所創造,除此之外,它在一開始所展現的美德,與後來展現的語言的技巧,使它比它的主人更像人類。或者我們可以說其實怪物反映的是人類最原始的自我,而它的悲慘經歷,就像人類成長的過程。這樣的過程,其實就是符號從侵入我們的意識,到建構我們的慾望系統,我們的人格特質的一種過程。就某方面來說,怪物代表的是,對於這樣的符號宰制的一種反動,但是這樣的反動其實也是符號系統運作中的一個必然。
本篇論文一開始是從馬克思所描述資本主義中生產的過程去探討怪物的創作過程。這樣的極度理性化的過程,其實充滿了疏離的意象。人與人關係轉換為抽象的物與物、或機器與機器、或數目字之間的關係。人與其產品那種和諧自然的關係轉換為一種相互的敵意,就像法蘭肯斯坦之於他的創造物的關係。其實所有這些理性當中的非理性現象,或非自然的現象,都是在這生產過程中資本主義系統運作的結果。這樣的現象,不僅影響人與人之間的關係,更建構了我們的內心世界。本篇論文,我運用的鏡像原理去詮釋怪物人格發展的過程;這個過程是人類發展的過程,也是符號系統運作的軌跡。自我的形成其實都是來自非我的領域,而這個非我的領域其實是一個全然受到符號系統所宰制的領域,所以其實根本沒有自我,所有個人或團體的行為或想法都是這個至高無上、無所不在、萬能的符號系統所呈現的一個效果。
Abstract
At the first sight of the name of Frankenstein, many readers may mistake it for the name of the monster. Such misunderstanding somewhat corresponds to the interaction or even the duplication between the creator Frankenstein and the monster in the novel. Frankenstein’s application of human knowledge, his zeal for the creation of a new being, and his infusion of the physical and spiritual essence into the dead bodies are the inevitable outcome of the domination of the symbolic system. The twisting process of creation followed by the twisted mentality makes Frankenstein look more like the monster. However, in his sympathy toward other creatures, his master of human language, and his need for companionship, the monster is perhaps more human than his creator Frankenstein. Or, we can say that the monster represents our most organic and natural “self”, and his miserable experience symbolizes the process of the civilization and cultivation of human beings. It is the process by which the arbitrary laws of the symbolic system intrude the human consciousness, construct artificially the world of desire, and dominate the construction of human identities. From another perspective, the monster represents the subversion of or antagonism to the omnipotent system of signs. Actually, such subversion or antagonism is also the inevitable part of this system.
Shelley’s novel reflects or represents the same economic moment Marx describes, the moment in which the dominant mode of production becomes a socially symbolic act. The ostensibly rational process of production is made up of irrational elements characterized by the image of alienation. The most obvious representation of alienation in Shelley’s text lies in the relation of Frankenstein’s creature to his creator and to the entire world around him. Such alienation from nature and from other men, through the mirror structure, actually has a great impact on the construction of human identity. Thus, the mirror-image seems to be the threshold of the visible world. And, the shaping of the monster’s identity resembles vividly that of human beings’, which is the end product of the symbolic system. In other words, the formation of the “I” comes from the individual’s projection onto and identification with the sphere of “Other” that is dominated by the sign system. Then, all of consciousnesses, identities, or desires are nothing but the epiphany of the lofty and almighty system of signs.
Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract …………………..…………………………………………………….i
Abstract ………...…………………………………………………………...…ii
Introduction ……………..…………………………………………………………1
Chapter One Creation As the Outset of Catastrophe…………………..………..8
Chapter Two The Monster’s Genesis…………….……………………...……….31
Chapter Three The Real Monster………………………..…………………………56
Conclusion .……………………….…………………………...…………………83
Works Cited …………………………………
Works Cited
Althusser, Louis. For Marx. London: Allen Lane, 1969.
---. "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." Ed. Slavoj Žižek. Mapping Ideology. London: Verso, 1994.
Baldick, Chris. In Frankenstein''s Shadow: Myth, Monstrosity, and Nineteenth-century Writing. New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
Bann, Stephen, ed. Frankenstein, Creation and Monstrosity. London: Reaktion Books Ltd, 1994.
Baudrillard, Jean. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis: Telos Press, 1981.
Behrendt, Stephen C, ed. Approaches to Teaching Shelley''s Frankenstein. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1990.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1986.
Brannigan, John. New historicism and cultural materialism. New York: St. Martin''s Press, 1998.
Brooks, Peter. Body Work: Objects of Desire in Modern Narrative. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.
Broom, Harold, ed. Mary Shelley. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1985.
Callinicos, Alex. Althusser’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press, 1976.
Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.
Goux, Jean-Joseph. Symbolic Economies: after Marx and Freud. Tran. Jennifer Curtiss Gage. New York: Cornell UP, 1990.
Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
Krip, Henry. Fetish: An Erotics of Culture. New York, Cornell UP, 1999.
Lacan, Jacques. "The Mirror-phase as Formative of the Function of the I." Ed. Slavoj Žižek. Mapping Ideology. London: Verso, 1994.
Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. 2nd ed. New York: Verso, 2001.
Lukács, Gerog. History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: The Merlin Press Ltd, c1971.
Marx, Karl. Capital. Volume I. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970.
---. Early Writings. Trans. Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. New York: Vintage Books, 1975.
---. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Trans. Martin Nicolaus. Balimore: Penguin Books, 1973.
---. Selected Writings. Ed. David McLellan. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1977.
Marx, Karl. and F. Engels. The German Ideology. Ed. C. J. Arthur. London: Lawrence & Wishard, 1970.
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Ed. Scott Elledge. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1993.
Pettigrew, David, and Francois Raffoul. Disseminating Lacan. New York: State University of New York Press, 1996.
Twitchell, James B. The Living Dead: A Study of the Vampire in Romantic Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1981.
Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. New York: Penguin Books, 1994.
Žižek, Slavoj. Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?. London: Verso, 2001.
---. "How did Marx Invent the symptom?" Ed. Slavoj Žižek. Mapping Ideology. London: Verso, 1994.
---. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso, 1989.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關論文
 
1. 蕭維民(2001)。本軍女性軍、士官人力運用之研究。海軍學術月刊,第35卷第1期,頁24-39。
2. 廖國鋒、梁成明(2000)。國軍女性軍官工作特性、工作滿足與離職傾向關係之研究。國防管理學院學報,第21卷第1期,頁18-19。
3. 馮道遠(2002)。以績效評估理論探討女性軍官之晉升機率。空軍學術月刊,第549期,頁71-85。
4. 楊宇彥(2000)。女性生涯發展研究之質之取向--敘說研究法。測驗與輔導,第163期,頁3429-3431。
5. 莊淑芳、陳彰儀(1994)。已婚職業婦女知覺之夫妻性別角色及成就差異性與其成功恐懼的關係。教育與心理研究,第17期,頁455-476。
6. 孫敏華(1998)。現職軍士官對女性軍人態度之研究。軍事社會科學半年刊,第3期,頁1-30。
7. 孫立方(1998)。陸軍女性軍、士官部隊適應狀況之研究。陸軍學術月刊,第34卷399期。
8. 施鍾武(1994)。對女性軍人遂行軍事任務之研究。國防雜誌,第10卷第3期,頁20-25。
9. 李美枝、鍾秋玉(1996)。性別與性別角色論。本土心理學研究。第6期,頁260-299。
10. 李亞明、李嬌瑩(2000)。從女性主義看中共解放軍女性軍人之發展。復興崗學報,頁29-54。
11. 呂玉瑕(1984)。婦女就業與家庭角色、權力結構之關係。中央研究院民族學研究所集刊,第56期,頁111-143。
12. 呂玉瑕(1982)。現代婦女之角色態度的價值延伸現象。思與言,第20卷第2期,頁135-150。
13. 田秀蘭(1996)。女性生涯發展之主要型態。諮商與輔導,第127期,頁33-35。
14. 嚴祥鸞(1996)。台灣勞動市場性別分工的解析,1951-1995。勞資關係論叢,第5期,頁147-176。