Against Accumulation: Moby-Dick, Mason & Dixon, and Atlantic Capitalism

This thesis examines the question of what it means to think about a text as Atlantic literature. I consider two novels, Melville’s Moby-Dick and Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon, in their relation to the Atlantic cycle of capital accumulation. I borrow this term from Ian Baucom, who, drawing on the w...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Borchert, Scott K.
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: Digital Commons @ Connecticut College 2008
Subjects:
Online Access:https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/enghp/5
https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/context/enghp/article/1004/viewcontent/Borchert___English.pdf
Description
Summary:This thesis examines the question of what it means to think about a text as Atlantic literature. I consider two novels, Melville’s Moby-Dick and Pynchon’s Mason & Dixon, in their relation to the Atlantic cycle of capital accumulation. I borrow this term from Ian Baucom, who, drawing on the work of Giovanni Arrighi, argues that the period extending from the late eighteenth century to the late twentieth century represents a definite epoch of historical capitalism: an Atlantic cycle of capital accumulation. To think about these texts as Atlantic literature, then, is to think about how they reproduce the logic of or understand themselves in relation to this Atlantic cycle, the dynamic engine of a circum-Atlantic world. I turn to two key theorists whose work I feel is best suited to each novel. Moby-Dick is primarily focused on capitalist production as represented by the whaling industry,and thus I employ Georg Lukács—particularly his model of realism and its emphasis on revealing the nature of production of a given social field—for my reading of that novel. Mason & Dixon, however, is less directly concerned with production and instead centers its narrative on the consumption of Atlantic commodities, which invites a reading that draws on Walter Benjamin, whose work focuses (primarily) on this stage of capitalist production. In my reading of Moby-Dick, I argue that the novel approaches the requirements of Lukácsian realism, but fails to meet them because of its compositionally eclectic nature. Because Moby-Dick is inherently contradictory, it does not contain what Lukács calls the moving center (the force that orients and directs the “totality of objects†of a given social field, in this case, capital)—or at least not conventionally. Instead, the moving center is displaced and reproduced figuratively in Ahab’s monomaniacal hunt for the white whale, leaving the empty shell of its rhetoric on Starbuck: Atlantic capitalism as contradiction. This, I argue, is not Lukácsian realism per se, but ...