You’re a brilliant guy Todd, I learn so much from these videos. More importantly, they just help me to see the world in a difficult way, I guess through a more critical lens. I never went to college and I work a pretty a stupid, unfulfilling job so it’s nice to get some intellectual stimulation, even it’s just on RUclips.
My takeaway after some reflecting is this: To the family, Gregor died when he transformed. He had only utilitarian value to them. The sister who brings Gregor food is portrayed sweetly, yet even she never even once tries to actually communicate with Gregor to find out if he really is just an insect now or not. Because of his horrible appearance I guess. The mother is the worst hypocrite of them all when she exclaims: "I must see my darling son!" yet cannot do it without fainting immediately. They had ample time to get used to the fact that Gregor is now this bug but still can't get over their utter revulsion of his appearance. If they actually loved him, they would have made it a priority to find out more ways to help and understand him besides just bringing him food and cleaning his room. This really hammers in Kafka's point that to the society at large, human has no inherent value except if they bring some value to it. If you no longer can function in a way expected of you, your life is forfeit and worthless. You are no longer worthy of even humane treatment, and are expected to just die to not inconvenience anyone with your existence. Edit: To clarify, I do not think that Kafka thinks by making this point that it is morally right to discard a human being this way. He was just making the point that this is how society at large sees the worth of a human life.
I had always wondered why Kafka chose to end his story on the comments of the family about how the sister is becoming a woman. Your analysis regarding social excess explains that. Whatever happens next to the family will involve the sister.
This is also why the hegelian Theory of the 'rabble' is now so important. They are exactly this kind of Social Excess; a part in Society with no proper space but also produced by Society and needed as some sort of lacanian Real which holds the entire symbolic Order. Which means if they would fade away Society would indeed achieve calm and peace but, as you mentioned Todd, it would not last because the rabble is not only the Excess but also at the same time the Pillar of Society. This is why I describe the rabble as 'Sein ohne Dasein' (Being without Existence).
this video is an interesting companion to your Foucault episode, because so much of it reads like a reading of the content of Madness and Civilization (madness as animality, as unproductive, as something to separate from society and gawk at behind bars, etc.) but liberating it from even a mention of Foucault.
Commenting before watching, I want to get my thoughts out without being influenced by your reading: My argument is that the FAMILY is the protagonist of the story, and the story is an ironic fascist fairy tale about eliminating the undesirable Other so that society can function smoothly. From this point of view, the primary transformation that occurs is that the family goes from sickness to health as it recovers vitality after exterminating the unwanted Other. In order to understand what Kafka does, you have to read the "happy ending" very closely, and also understand Kafka's tendency of taking metaphors and similes literally--in this case, he takes literally the racist idea that some groups of humans are "like vermin" in society that must be eliminated in the interest of health and hygiene. At the same time, in counterpoint to this, I believe that Gregor's transformation is mystical; Gregor doesn't just want out of the family, he wants to escape from every aspect of human reality, and ultimately, perhaps from material existence itself. Kafka presents the world as obviously flawed at its core, reminding one of gnostic myths that claim that the world was created by an evil or misguided demiurge. Gregor's transformation allows him to escape that world, and retreat to a spiritual realm, revealed in the story especially through the sister's violin playing. "Was he an animal that music so seized him? For him it was as if the way to the unknown nourishment he craved was revealing itself to him." (And I would argue that this gnosticism really has very little to do with modern existentialism, it is rooted much more in traditional negative theology and mysticism). Of course, these two themes (fascist fairy tale, gnostic liberation myth) don't work together neatly and Kafka doesn't do straight allegory, so I think the impact of the story and the multiplicity of readings that are possibly, are generated by the tension between the two parallel transformations, which move in opposite directions, of the family and Gregor.
I am trying to work this through. The argument seems to include the distinction between alienation and the social excessive figure. Some (most) say Gregor is the figure of modern alienation (which is now embodied in his pest-state), but TM argues that he is a figure of social excess. My questions: Is his insect figure the embodiment of social excess? has his social excess transformed him into the bug? Is alienation the consequence of the relational ostracism engendered by the figure of excess? As in, the figure of excess is ostracised and then feels/is felt to be alien? I suppose there is a distinction with feeling alienated from society and thus becoming a bug. or being a bug alienates you from modern society.
Great commentary. BTW, Todd, do you know any psychoanalytic literature that criticizes things like personality categorization, the sort you find in public psychology or jungian stuff. I find so many, some of whom are intelligent in fact, like to label themselves with a psychological type according to so-called MBTI. People even do this to Zizek, though expectedly they impose quite a few different types on him. I find it so ridiculous. Would like to know how can such phenomenon be properly inspected and which books and papers I can resort to.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Most briefly, I think it can be explained as an expedient attempt to cover up the real kernel of a person through symbolization. But to point it effectively out requires more thorough analysis.
Gonna be pedantic a bit here--the word "excess" implies "more than necessary" or "overabundance" but the family looks for a replacement soon after his change and eventual demise. I would look for a different word that better captures Gregor's predicament. Otherwise great work, and one of the better videos on youtube analysing this work.
@@toddmcgowan8233Wow you also read Murakami. Do you remember an extremely enlightening, redemptive scene in which the light projects into the well in Wind-Up Bird Chronicle? Would be great to have an episode or a written form on Haruki Murakami from you, if possible.
@@signifier4016 Of course I remember that scene in Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. It's a great moment. I'll try to do a video on Murakami after the semester ends.
Thanks for posting this video, Todd! Kafka is a great writer and his work is very conductive to this kind of analysis. His short novels, The Castle and the Trial, seem like they would be particularly fruitful to give a going over. I'd be fascinated to hear what your take is on Kafka's short story 'In the Penal Colony' is, too.
You’re a brilliant guy Todd, I learn so much from these videos. More importantly, they just help me to see the world in a difficult way, I guess through a more critical lens.
I never went to college and I work a pretty a stupid, unfulfilling job so it’s nice to get some intellectual stimulation, even it’s just on RUclips.
Thanks. That is really gratifying to hear that you find them valuable.
My takeaway after some reflecting is this: To the family, Gregor died when he transformed. He had only utilitarian value to them. The sister who brings Gregor food is portrayed sweetly, yet even she never even once tries to actually communicate with Gregor to find out if he really is just an insect now or not. Because of his horrible appearance I guess. The mother is the worst hypocrite of them all when she exclaims: "I must see my darling son!" yet cannot do it without fainting immediately. They had ample time to get used to the fact that Gregor is now this bug but still can't get over their utter revulsion of his appearance. If they actually loved him, they would have made it a priority to find out more ways to help and understand him besides just bringing him food and cleaning his room.
This really hammers in Kafka's point that to the society at large, human has no inherent value except if they bring some value to it. If you no longer can function in a way expected of you, your life is forfeit and worthless. You are no longer worthy of even humane treatment, and are expected to just die to not inconvenience anyone with your existence.
Edit: To clarify, I do not think that Kafka thinks by making this point that it is morally right to discard a human being this way. He was just making the point that this is how society at large sees the worth of a human life.
Great content Todd, always refreshing your page for more!
I had always wondered why Kafka chose to end his story on the comments of the family about how the sister is becoming a woman. Your analysis regarding social excess explains that. Whatever happens next to the family will involve the sister.
Excellent analysis!
This is also why the hegelian Theory of the 'rabble' is now so important. They are exactly this kind of Social Excess; a part in Society with no proper space but also produced by Society and needed as some sort of lacanian Real which holds the entire symbolic Order. Which means if they would fade away Society would indeed achieve calm and peace but, as you mentioned Todd, it would not last because the rabble is not only the Excess but also at the same time the Pillar of Society.
This is why I describe the rabble as 'Sein ohne Dasein' (Being without Existence).
this video is an interesting companion to your Foucault episode, because so much of it reads like a reading of the content of Madness and Civilization (madness as animality, as unproductive, as something to separate from society and gawk at behind bars, etc.) but liberating it from even a mention of Foucault.
He wasn't wrong about everything!
Commenting before watching, I want to get my thoughts out without being influenced by your reading:
My argument is that the FAMILY is the protagonist of the story, and the story is an ironic fascist fairy tale about eliminating the undesirable Other so that society can function smoothly. From this point of view, the primary transformation that occurs is that the family goes from sickness to health as it recovers vitality after exterminating the unwanted Other.
In order to understand what Kafka does, you have to read the "happy ending" very closely, and also understand Kafka's tendency of taking metaphors and similes literally--in this case, he takes literally the racist idea that some groups of humans are "like vermin" in society that must be eliminated in the interest of health and hygiene.
At the same time, in counterpoint to this, I believe that Gregor's transformation is mystical; Gregor doesn't just want out of the family, he wants to escape from every aspect of human reality, and ultimately, perhaps from material existence itself. Kafka presents the world as obviously flawed at its core, reminding one of gnostic myths that claim that the world was created by an evil or misguided demiurge. Gregor's transformation allows him to escape that world, and retreat to a spiritual realm, revealed in the story especially through the sister's violin playing. "Was he an animal that music so seized him? For him it was as if the way to the unknown nourishment he craved was revealing itself to him." (And I would argue that this gnosticism really has very little to do with modern existentialism, it is rooted much more in traditional negative theology and mysticism).
Of course, these two themes (fascist fairy tale, gnostic liberation myth) don't work together neatly and Kafka doesn't do straight allegory, so I think the impact of the story and the multiplicity of readings that are possibly, are generated by the tension between the two parallel transformations, which move in opposite directions, of the family and Gregor.
I am trying to work this through. The argument seems to include the distinction between alienation and the social excessive figure. Some (most) say Gregor is the figure of modern alienation (which is now embodied in his pest-state), but TM argues that he is a figure of social excess. My questions:
Is his insect figure the embodiment of social excess? has his social excess transformed him into the bug?
Is alienation the consequence of the relational ostracism engendered by the figure of excess? As in, the figure of excess is ostracised and then feels/is felt to be alien?
I suppose there is a distinction with feeling alienated from society and thus becoming a bug. or being a bug alienates you from modern society.
Great commentary. BTW, Todd, do you know any psychoanalytic literature that criticizes things like personality categorization, the sort you find in public psychology or jungian stuff.
I find so many, some of whom are intelligent in fact, like to label themselves with a psychological type according to so-called MBTI. People even do this to Zizek, though expectedly they impose quite a few different types on him. I find it so ridiculous. Would like to know how can such phenomenon be properly inspected and which books and papers I can resort to.
No, I don't know of anything, but I would love to read on this because I too find it totally ridiculous. Let me know what you find.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Most briefly, I think it can be explained as an expedient attempt to cover up the real kernel of a person through symbolization. But to point it effectively out requires more thorough analysis.
Why no post anymore...
Deleuze’s reading of the Metamorphosis seems uncharacteristically far from the mark - does it have any merit?
I think his approach really fails when it comes to this novella, I must say.
Gonna be pedantic a bit here--the word "excess" implies "more than necessary" or "overabundance" but the family looks for a replacement soon after his change and eventual demise. I would look for a different word that better captures Gregor's predicament. Otherwise great work, and one of the better videos on youtube analysing this work.
That's fascinating! As a student of English literature, I wonder what your favorite novels are.
Just a quick list: War and Peace, The Trial, The Great Gatsby, Beloved, Wind-Up Bird Chronicle
@@toddmcgowan8233Wow you also read Murakami. Do you remember an extremely enlightening, redemptive scene in which the light projects into the well in Wind-Up Bird Chronicle? Would be great to have an episode or a written form on Haruki Murakami from you, if possible.
@@signifier4016 Of course I remember that scene in Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. It's a great moment. I'll try to do a video on Murakami after the semester ends.
@@toddmcgowan8233 I can't wait for the Murakami video!
Thanks for posting this video, Todd!
Kafka is a great writer and his work is very conductive to this kind of analysis. His short novels, The Castle and the Trial, seem like they would be particularly fruitful to give a going over. I'd be fascinated to hear what your take is on Kafka's short story 'In the Penal Colony' is, too.
Walter Benjamin knows that!
enjoyed the quite christian note you ended this one on
Thank you sir. I would really love to know what is your favorite scene, imagery in the Hunger Artist.
I love the ending best, when the crowd turns to the panther. To me, that's the best commentary on the seductiveness of spectacle.
nice conclusion
Lovely, I love you ❤