EPSOM DOWNS: A PLAY WRITTEN FOR “OTHERS”

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze Epsom Downs (1977) by Howard Brenton in terms of reflecting the microcosm of British society. Depicting the sordid and tragic life conditions in a capitalist society, Brenton highlights the sordid life conditions of the poor families and of the marginalized people because of their ethnicity or their sex. There will be a Marxist reading of the play in order to focus on these mentioned issues because Marxism centers on the relationship between the ruling class and the ruled one. Marx explains this relationship by introducing the terms base and the superstructure. The former is concerned with economic activity and is made up of human production relations, whereas the latter is concerned with awareness as determined by the basis. In Epsom Downs, Howard Brenton has a Marxist agenda because he is writing for the British working class and he highlights this ‘economic base’ and ‘superstructure’ relationship in line with the characters’ experiences in the racecourse. As a result, harsh conditions under which these characters have to live in the capitalist society where lower class people are marginalized and exploited by the ruling class may be illustrated with a Marxist reading of the play.

EPSOM DOWNS: “ÖTEKİLER” İÇİN YAZILAN BİR OYUN

Abstract

Bu makale, Howard Brenton’ın Epsom Downs (1977) adlı oyununu İngiliz toplumunun bir mikrokozmosunu yansıtması açısından incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Brenton, ideoloji ve iktidar sahiplerinin hegemonyası tarafından yönetilen kapitalist bir toplumdaki sefil ve trajik yaşam koşullarını betimleyerek, yoksul ailelerin ve etnik kökenleri veya cinsiyetlerinden dolayı marjinalize edilen kişilerin kötü yaşam koşullarını göstermektedir. Bu konuları analiz etmek için oyuna Marksist bir okuma yapılacaktır. Marksizm, yöneten sınıf ile yönetilen sınıf arasındaki ilişkiye odaklanır ve bu ilişkiyi alt yapı ve üst yapı terimlerini ortaya atarak açıklar. Bu terimlerden birincisi yani alt yapı ekonomik faaliyetle ilgilidir ve insan üretim ilişkilerinden oluşur. İkincisi yani üst yapı ise alt yapı tarafından belirlenen farkındalıkla ilgilidir. Epsom Downs adlı oyununda Howard Brenton, İngiliz işçi sınıfı için yazdığı için Marksist bir gündeme sahiptir ve bu oyunda da, Marx’ın ortaya attığı alt yapı ve üst yapı ilişkisini oyundaki karakterlerin at yarışı pistindeki tecrübelerini yansıtarak açıklar. Sonuç olarak, kapitalist toplumda egemen sınıf tarafından marjinalleştirilen ve sömürülen bu karakterlerin yaşamak zorunda oldukları ağır koşullar oyunun Marksist bir okumasıyla gösterilebilmektedir.

Keywords

• Howard Brenton
• Epsom Downs
• Marxizm

References

1. Ball, T. (1991). “History: critique and irony”, Terrell Carver (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Marx, Cambridge UP. Cambridge, 124-143.
2. Baker, J. & Barfield, S. (2005). "Epsom Downs". The Literary Encyclopedia.
3. Bowles, P. (2007). Capitalism. New York: Pearson / Longman.
4. Brenton, H. (1977). Epsom downs. London: Methuen Publishing Ltd.
5. ---. (1986). Howard Brenton: plays 1. London & New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
6. Bressler, C. E. (2007). Literary criticism: An introduction to theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
7. Cohen, A. (1981). The politics of elite culture: Explorations in the dramaturgy of power in a modern African society. California: Univ of California Press.
8. Dupré, L. (1983). Marx’s social critique of culture. New Haven: Yale UP.

9. Eagleton, T. (1976). Marxism and literary criticism. London: Routledge.
10. Farganis, S. (1996). Social reconstruction of the feminine character. Rowman & Littlefield.
11. Fischer, E. (1996). How to read Karl Marx. New York: Monthly Review Press.
12. Freeman, I. ed. (2014). Seeds of revolution: A collection of axioms, passages and proverbs Volume 2. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse; World Harvest.
13. Fromm, E. (1998). Marx's concept of man. New York: F. Ungar, 1998.
14. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (2008). Manifesto of the communist party. Radford: Wilder Publications.
15. Marx, K. (1976). Wage labour and capital. NY: Kessinger Publishing.
16. ---. (1977). Preface. A contribution to the critique of political economy. Trans. S. W. Ryazanskaya. Ed. Maurice Dobb. 2nd ed. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
17. ---. (2017). ‘The German ideology’. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (Eds). Literary theory: An anthology. Third Edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
18. Rivkin, J. & Michael R. (eds). (2017). Literary theory: An anthology. Third Edition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
19. Patterson, M. (2003). Strategies of political theater. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Purvis, T. & Hunt, A. (1993). “Discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology, discourse, ideology...”. The British Journal of Sociology,Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 473-499.
21. Saksena, A. (2009). “Relevance of ideology today”. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 44, No. 32, pp. 65-69.
22. Selden, R. & Brooker, P. (2005). (ed.) A reader’s guide to contemporary literary theory. UK: Pearson Educated Limited.
23. Stoll, K. H. (1976). “Interviews with Edward Bond and Arnold Wesker”. Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 411-432.