Marxist Alienation and Social Theory in Debrizzi's America

Introduction

This paper considers the novel America by John Debrizzi. What makes analysis of this work somewhat challenging is that Debrizzi is a sociologist. To properly understand the novel, one must first understand the social theory behind it. We will therefore first consider the theoretical implications — specifically Debrizzi's working out of C. Wright Mills's dichotomy between individual and society. In doing so, we will examine how the Marxist dialectic and alienation from the means of production apply. Finally, we will consider the novel itself, particularly the relationship between Moses Shabalala and America Huerta.

These two individuals represent not only economic alienation but also individual alienation from each other. They must cross not only the racial color barrier but also the cultural barriers of their various subcultures. Only then will the "workers" — that is, humanity in general — unite to make a better society and a better world. In this way, they become connected and end the alienation of human beings from each other and from their surroundings.

Mills's Sociological Imagination and the Individual–Society Divide

In writing The Sociological Imagination, Mills was trying to reconcile the tension between the individual and society. He thereby challenged the dominant sociological discourse in order to interrogate some of its basic premises and definitions. Mills felt that the central task for sociologists was to find and articulate the connections between the particular social environments of individuals and the wider social and historical forces of the milieu in which those individuals find themselves. His approach questions the structural-functionalist approach to sociology because it opens new possibilities for understanding the individual in relation to the larger social infrastructure. Mills also wrote of the danger of malaise, seeing it as inevitable in modern societies. This led him to question whether individuals truly exist in modern societies in the sense that "individual" is commonly understood (Mills, pp. 7–12).

Herbert Spencer's reactionary ideas of survival of the fittest were well suited to justify the capitalist realities of America. Robber barons used Spencer's philosophy to justify many actions against workers and the lower classes. Spencer's philosophy was typical of classical liberalism and was used to run roughshod over the rights of workers — not only in labor disputes, but in other situations as well where the interests of the wealthy were threatened by the actions of the poor.

Spencer, Marx, and the Roots of Alienation

Such tendencies were precisely what Mills was arguing against. More important for our purposes are Marx's concepts of alienated labor, applied not just to labor but to individual social situations outside the workplace. Marx correctly identified the premier place of economics at the center of human existence, as well as the disconnect between labor and the control of wealth and its creation via the means of production. To realize his vision of a new world, individuals must be educated to see their individual destinies in the context of the surrounding society. As the old saying goes, we need to "act locally and think globally" — or at least nationally. By doing this, sociology becomes not merely an abstract study but a blueprint for constructing a more humane society.

Conclusion

To recap, this analysis has considered the novel America by John Debrizzi. What makes the novel's contents somewhat difficult to digest is that Debrizzi is a sociologist, and to properly understand it, one must first understand the social theory behind it. The author first considered the theoretical implications — specifically Debrizzi's working out of Mills's dichotomy between individual and society — and examined how the Marxist dialectic and alienation from the means of production apply. Finally, the paper considered the novel itself, particularly the relationship between Moses Shabalala and America Huerta.