본 논문은 법과 질서라는 이데올로기를 공통분모로 삼고 있는 해롤드 핀터(Harold Pinter)의 『정부』(The Lover, 1962), 『파티타임』(Party Time, 1991), 『달빛』(Moonlight, 1993), 『축하파티』(Celebration, 2000)를 중심으로 절대적 이데올로기 비판적 사유, 성찰의 윤리와 구체적 실천적 윤리의 가능성을 탐구한다. 핀터가 초기부터 후기까지 겨냥한 가장 큰 법, 이데올로기는 성공만 한다면 ‘옳은 것은 옳다’는 자본주의이다. 이 매트릭스는 본 논문의 네 작품에서 역사를 초월해서 반복 강박적으로 순환한다. 구체적으로, 절대적 ‘나’ 자본주의는 『정부』에서 1960년대의 위기에 처한 가부장제도, 『파티타임』에서 1980년대의 자유주의적 민족주의, 『달빛』에서 1970년대의 황금시대의 일급공무원, 그리고 『축하파티』에서 1990년대의 평등한 다문화주의로 각각 옷을 갈아입는다. 자본주의의 진화 과정에서 가부장제도, 민족주의, 그리고 다문화주의와 같은 정치 이데올로기적 체제는 자본에 의한 경제적인 요인과 직결되어 있고, 이 정치적 체제는 이 체제에 실재하는 자본이 부여하는 환상에 의해 작동된다. 자본은 정치 체제들을 결정짓는 실재적인 요인으로서 ‘나’와 ‘내 속의 나보다 더한 나’인 타자를 가르는 분할선의 역할을 한다. 자본주의가 어떤 이데올로기의 옷을 갈아입든 타자를 배제하고 생성하는 기제는 공통적으로 작동하고 있다.
This dissertation examines various ideologies of capitalism in Harold Pinter''s dramas, in light of sociocultural histories and Slavoj ?i?ek''s idea of it. According to ?i?ek, capitalistic evolutionary ecosystem has constantly invented and reinvented itself through crises. The crises, instead of collapsing its system, promote creative destruction through which political system are reorganized. In short, capitalism has been grown out of the crises in political ideologies such as patriarchy, nationalism, and multiculturalism as mediums in capitalistic history. No matter what faces the capitalism turns up with like Keynesianism or Neoliberalism to deal with the crises, they are only interested in their enlargement ignoring humanity. Capital is the Real not only determining political systems but also dividing the subject into ''I'' and ''the other''. Pinter''s criticism of capitalistic fantasy starts with his philosophy of ''you have it(death) on your body.'' What he means by this is that death is not separated from ''I''; for him, ''death'' is within ''I'' and a part of ''I''. Pinter dramatizes ''I'' by its negation, its absence, and ''the other''. He demands that we confront the dead in ''I'', so that we will not act as if ''I'' were unified. ''I'' is ''dead'' or the other. The ethics of Pinter''s identification of ''the other'' with I is not only his but also Lacan''s and ?i?ek''s. The Lover''s family narrative presents the historical Real, showing how capitalism took advantage of the paralyzed patriarchal order in 1960s. The patriarchy and the capitalism are two sides of the same coin and make tensions between them as in that of Richard and his double Max. Richard and Sarah introduce Max, Sarah''s lover, for their successful marriage under consensus. This external marriage life game should be sustained for their marriage. This game seems to promise the happy marriage life but actually symbolizes the end of Richard''s regime. When the game no longer effectively functions as the marriage bond, Richard intends to stop the game and by doing so exhibits patriarchal authority to control Sarah''s sexuality and to exclude his double Max as the other. His violence to limit and oppress women in modern society represents the desire of capitalist patriarchy, which the patriarchy aims to housewifize the women and make use of the women''s labor as the means of capital accumulation. But in face of Richard''s patriarchical desire, Sarah destroys his symbolic authority not only by rejecting housewifization but also by regarding Richard as one of her numerous lovers. Surely it is the moment the Real appears so that Richard''s patriarchal order is completely collapsed. However, Sarah''s triumph is temporal; Richard and Sarah never give up the game completely, which means that this game continues in this couple''s mutual erotic fantasies. Sarah is just a part of the cycle of sexed reproduction as the inner fuel of capitalism. As Sarah''s limitation shows, the feminist movement represented by her in 1960s was just a resistance within capitalism. Party Time dramatizes 1980''s Thatcherism, outlining the fantasy of nationalism under utopian Neoliberlism. It focuses not on the collective concern of Keynesianism but on individual choice and freedom like a capitalist Douglas''s in the play. No wonder it is ''the value of money'' that divides the boundary between the insiders and the excluded in the party. The excluded in the club is represented by Jimmy whose void leads the club to be open up for fantasy that emerges to fill in the void around Jimmy by means of ideological competition of making self-reflective discourses. Whatever names Jimmy is called by the club members, he represents the poor foreigners and laborers, etc, who are considered to be obstacles to a strong ethnic England in Thatcher''s regime. Pinter reveals Thatcherism''s national value(Englishness) and its moral value turn out to be nothing but the value of money. Furthermore, Pinter exposes the club''s the real kernel by staging Jimmy in it, which well illustrates Lacan''s notion of traversing the fantasy. After traversing the fantasy, Jimmy is no longer the dirty person who steals their enjoyment like love, country, the moral values. What makes Jimmy''s appearance in the club at stake is that he himself reveals that the club members are immersed in the darkness without possessing any identity like Jimmy and their fantasy is supported by the club''s philosophy, Neoliberlism. The club members are far from being free and equal but classified and discriminated by the power of the capital in the free market. Moonlight examines capitalism''s the Real and its ethics as the answer to the Jimmy''s questions, ''who am I'', ''Where am I'' in Party Time. In moonlight, Bridget is the dead daughter of Andy: she remains unsymbolized and returns in ghost. The absence of Bridget in Andy''s family leaves them separate and alone, locked in the "I". Andy remembers himself as the first civil servant of his golden age and Bridget''s father. Bridget does not function as Andy''s daughter but rather as a victim of holocaust and the gulag in the twentieth century. This means that Andy''s golden age is established on the wars and that Bridget is the Real and an object of social antagonism renounced and repressed in his order. Andy''s symbolic order is now based on the real of social antagonism between Andy and his sons. The antagonism is related to enjoyment that constitutes itself as stolen money. But the truth is that they impute an excessive enjoyment to the other to conceal the fact that they have never possessed money considered to be stolen. To put it in Lacanian words, the traumatic kernel in their ideological fantasy is the castration of Andy''s symbolic order. This symbolic order is capitalism that only can communicate with none-existing money like a ghost. The limit of capitalism is the limit of capital itself, not caused by the other. Andy is originally castrated $ in his golden age. Andy''s place is therefore not different from Bridget''s in his golden order. The ethics of the Real Moonlight reveals is to expose our missing parts and accept them as the things which are in us more than ourselves, and which also reflect Pinter''s philosophy of "you have it(death) on your body." Celebration deals with Tony Blair''s New Labour''s politics, especially multiculturalism that seems to be radical in that they discarded the ideological divisions between ''I'' and ''the other''. In Celebration, there seems to be no a hierarchy of customers composed of various countries within the restaurant. But the foreigners''s status is not properly regarded because they are just mentioned as members of the restaurant in the state of invisible remainders without any way to express their voices. And while the waiter can freely speak to the customers who let him do it, he is threatened to loose his job due to his voice interrupting the capitalists. This means that the speaking waiter and the speechless foreigners can just be tolerated as long as the capitalists and the muticulturalists allow. In the liberal multiculturalist tolerance, a new kind of ethnic violence is generated by it. Meanwhile, the Restaurant''s the most powerful man is Lambert known as a world''s peacekeeper. He is actually the arm dealer who stands for Neoliberlism. As Neoliberlism favors extensive market coordination, Lambert and his brother Matt like going forward together not only ignoring any human in their way but also smothering resistant voice of the waiter. Through this play, we come to know that Blair''s New Labour division had built muliticulturalistic communities upon typical Thatcherian nationalistic town of Neoliberlism. In conclusion, Pinter witnesses how strong capitalism is in recent history. The capitalism is a matrix in which all ideologies are formed and perished like the death drive. In face of deadly capitalism, we may raise the question of how we can go a step further without being immerged in the capitalism. Some answer to it can be found in the waiter in Celebration. Despite his failure, he insists that he''d like to make one further interjection, once more attempting to make a new discourse to go against the capitalism. What Pinter searches for compulsively in his dramas is then to bring up the true moment that people come to be awake in the middle of darkest world ruled by capitalism, to restore the legal ownership of a human being and to get the dignity of man once again.
