Abstract

This article examines John Gabriel Borkman’s neo-aristocratic performance of power and authority in Ibsen’s eponymously titled play (1896) . After his downfall, John Gabriel has retreated into his once grand reception hall wherein he has become like a petrified relic from a preceding era. His performance within the “fading glory” of the upstairs hall– a veritable theatre for his delusions of grandeur – is one of an outmoded type of bourgeois “hero” whose flagrantly illicit dealings are no longer tenable as capitalism becomes ever-more “rational” and bureaucratic in its facade. The article focuses on John Gabriel’s performance of a “sovereign” or charismatic authority and examines his future visions as “manifestos”. The manifesto is a form belonging to a feudal era of rule by divine right – one that is necessarily “theatrical” in its performance of a legitimate authority. Assuming the voice of the sovereign, John Gabriel attempts to address the needs of the iron-ore miners – a desiring, albeit latent force in Ibsen’s text. The desires of the workers, however, are continually effaced by the bewitching powers of capitalist abstraction, which account for the alienation of family and individuals in Ibsen’s play. Comparing John Gabriel’s manifesto with Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto not only accounts for the end of an age of neo-aristocratic bourgeois decadence, but also marks labour as the definitive socio-political issue of the late 19 th century. Where John Gabriel uses a dramaturgy rooted in past models of rule to address the workers in his vision of a benevolent “kingdom”, the Communist Manifesto heralds the death of his class and replaces the voice of the “sovereign authority” with the self-authorising voice of the workers themselves. Borkman’s fatal flaw then is failing to sufficiently address the plight of the iron-ore miners with whom he claims intimate acquaintance but with whom he is grossly out of touch. Ibsen shows us his inevitable failure and the disappearance of the John Gabriel “type” of Romantic industrialist in favour of corrupt lawyers such as Hinkel, who are more adaptable to capitalism’s ever-changing incarnations.

Highlights

  • Thinking about Ibsen’s Borkman in relation to The Communist Manifesto does three things: (1) it accounts for some of the imagery Ibsen might have tangentially or indirectly absorbed in creating the contours of John Gabriel Borkman and his world as bourgeois industrialist “type”, (2) it challenges us to think about power and legitimacy in terms of performance and “theatricalization” following Martin Puchner’s work (2006) on the manifesto genre (3) it impels us to consider the iron-ore miners in Borkman as a desiring force– a body of workers whose lives John Gabriel genuinely wishes to improve, but who are effaced by his reification of labour and commodity fetishism

  • The manifesto genre provides us with a way to think about the intersecting thrusts of John Gabriel Borkman’s justifications and pronouncements and Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto as two different visions for the future of workers on the eve of the 20th century Both are directly invested in the labouring class

  • Where John Gabriel’s type of visionary authority is in a historical state of entropy and disintegration, the Communist Manifesto mobilizes a form of future authority by usurping sovereign posturing in the name of the proletariat

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Thinking about Ibsen’s Borkman in relation to The Communist Manifesto does three things: (1) it accounts for some of the imagery Ibsen might have tangentially or indirectly absorbed in creating the contours of John Gabriel Borkman and his world as bourgeois industrialist “type”, (2) it challenges us to think about power and legitimacy in terms of performance and “theatricalization” following Martin Puchner’s work (2006) on the manifesto genre (3) it impels us to consider the iron-ore miners in Borkman as a desiring force– a body of workers whose lives John Gabriel genuinely wishes to improve, but who are effaced by his reification of labour and commodity fetishism. Comparing these two types of manifestos, marks a crucial distinction between a bourgeois power that is rooted in the past and in aristocratic posturing, and the advent of a revolutionary, future-oriented genre wrought by Marx and Engels.

Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.