Abstract This study examines the connection between power and identity in three Gothic novels, Ann Radcliffe’s The Mysteries of Udolpho, William Godwin’s Caleb Williams, and Charles Robert Maturin’s Melmoth the Wanderer. Following the identity theories of Erik Erikson, I argue that identity has biological, psychological, and social aspects that are subject to change over time. As individual agency—the ability to function as a person—depends on a relatively certain and stable sense of personal identity, Gothic villains—both individuals and institutions—gain and maintain their power by disempowering their victims. In order to do so, they work to compromise these victims’ sense of personal identity, causing them to suffer identity crises that greatly reduce their ability to function. Employing various means—including threats of rape, destruction of reputation, imprisonment, forced exile, denial of freedom of thought, torture, and others—Gothic villains attempt to weaken their victims by placing them in situations that cause the fears that Erikson argues all people share to become paralyzing and debilitating states of anxiety, states in which the victims suffer from a temporary, or, in extreme cases, permanent loss of agency. These Gothic victims’ paranoia, identity crises, and subsequent loss of agency underscore the importance of individuals’ identity and constitute the horror that is at the heart of Gothic fiction.

Thesis (D. Phil.)--University of Oxford, 2008. / Supervisors: Dr Fiona Stafford, Dr Jo McDonagh. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 324-352).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Indiana University of Pennsylvania. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 257-279). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 257-279). Also available on the Internet.

The aim of this diploma thesis is the comparison of the interpretations of the two novels of English Romanticism: William Godwin?s Caleb Williams (1794) and Mary Shelley?s Frankenstein (1818). It will concentrate on the influence of the tradition of Gothic novels, especially on the motifs of secret, pursuit, crime and self-devision. It will also concentrate on the atmosphere of fear and suspense.

Some contemporary anarchist scholarship has rejected the Enlightenment-inspired reliance on reason that was supposedly central to classical anarchist thought and expanded the anarchist critique to address issues ignored by their classical predecessors. In making reason the object of critique, some contemporary anarchists expanded the anarchist framework to include critiques of domination residing outside the traditional power centers of the state, the capitalist firm, and the church thereby shedding light on the authoritarian tendencies inherent in the intellect itself. Though contemporary anarchist scholarship has sought to apply this anti-authoritarian ethos to the realms of epistemology and ontology (by employing Michel Foucault’s analysis of power and other postfoundational thinkers), their own framework of analysis is glaringly susceptible to what Habermas called a “performative contradiction.” In questioning the authority of aspects of even our own intellect (and the epistemological and ontological presuppositions that accompany it) we call into question even the authority of our own argumentation. I answer this “contradiction” by interrogating two intellectual traditions. Firstly, I question a key postfoundational anarchist premise. Namely, I assess whether an understanding of classical anarchist thinkers as quintessential children of the Enlightenment is justified. Secondly, I offer an alternative path to reconciliation between the anti-authoritarian values of the anarchists and the anti-metaphysical values of the postfoundationalists (that I think mirrors anarchist anti-authoritarian concerns) by suggesting we are better served to think of an anti-authoritarianism of the intellect by employing three key twentieth century thinkers: Richard Rorty, Paul Feyerabend, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I do so while anchoring Rorty’s, Feyerabend’s, and Wittgenstein’s philosophies in the 19th century anti-metaphysical thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical anarchism of Max Stirner.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation argues that the British philosopher, novelist and social critic William Godwin (1756-1836) used literary depictions and discussions of book-reading to negotiate public debates about the nature of the human mind. It takes an intellectual-historical approach to Godwin's representation of communications media, using this to illuminate the wider cultural significance of book-reading in Romantic-period Britain. I ultimately claim that for Godwin, the book-object became a literary presence and a conceptual tool by which he expressed and defended his belief in the reality and necessity of intellectual perfectibility. My first three chapters set the groundwork for this argument by exploring Godwin's treatment of 'The Matter of the Reader' (Chapter One), 'The Ethics of Novel-Reading' (Chapter Two), and 'The Discipline of Reading' (Chapter Three). As Godwin engaged with debates about materialism, literary form and education, he negotiated inherited ambivalence about the nature of the human mind and the conditions necessary for its vitality. Godwin's writing about reading exposes a fundamental tension that runs throughout his corpus: he consistently invested confidence in the mind and idealised its operation, yet was simultaneously preoccupied by theorising major threats to its development. My final two chapters argue that Godwin's writing about the book as a material medium provided an ongoing response to this tension. I show that his comparative evaluations of 'Social Media' (Chapter Four) and his literary rendering of books in terms of 'Bodies and Monuments' (Chapter Five) were contributions to debates about the powers of truth, death, and cultural memory. I conclude that Godwin used the book-object as a gesture of faith in the necessary perfection of human minds. This dissertation remaps Godwin's contribution to British culture by drawing attention to the crucial role book-reading played in his philosophy, fiction, essays and correspondence. In doing so, it highlights a rich vein of enquiry opened up by the growing 'interdiscipline' of media history: the cultural figuration of books and reading.