Marxist Influence in South Korean Development and its Global Implications

The life of a political science student at the University of Oregon is pervaded by the omnipresence of Marxist text, and though the progressive-leaning-socialist views of the professorship are clearly present, the students are largely left to their own devices in determining the effectiveness, viability, and applicability of Marxism. It is in this text that we will attempt to discern the quality of these traits, using the economic development of South Korea in the 20th century as a case study. Through this process, we will see why Marxism, like many political and economic ideologies, can be wildly valuable in certain contexts, such as in the early economic development of vulnerable regimes, and detrimental in others. We will also explore the implications of these findings for the political theorist.

South Korea’s transition into a fairly major player in the global economy is a fairly recent development— as recently as the 1970’s, over half of the nation’s labor force was employed in agriculture. This changed quickly, though; within 20 years, that was reduced to only 20% of the population (Koo, 34). So what happened during those 20 years? According to Hagen Koo in Korean Workers, this shift from agriculture occurred alongside a massive expansion of manufacturing in the country. As jobs were created in urban areas through state investment in manufacturing, young people began moving from the rural areas they once occupied and began earning wages. This establishment of a proletariat is likely where our analysis of Marxist thought begins, as the workforce transitioned from low-density, non-wage-earning, disjointed population to a high-density collective, employed by a small number of manufacturing companies.

It’s also important to mention that this “proletarianization” was very much encouraged by the state— during the 1970’s, there was a massive economic liberalization movement in southeastern Asia. It’s this movement from small, agrarian, authoritarian states to manufacturing export economies that marked the rise of the region’s global presence. South Korea’s most concrete example of this is perhaps the creation of POSCO, a state-owned steel production company, in 1968. While South Korea had, up to this point, never been home to a steel production facility, Park Chung-Hee was hoping to imitate the economic success of the west. South Korea was able to become the fourth-largest producer of steel in the world within 10 years with the financial support of Japan, with which South Korea had just recently normalized relations. Very rarely can a nation’s economic policy change without having some impact on culture, though, and an impact was certainly had.

With this new, liberal, west-emulating agenda, South Korea was confronted by an interesting and dangerous paradox: Their workers remained unionized only in the most technical sense, underpaid, and overworked in spite of the adoption of this new pseudo-democratic framework. This paradox is faced by nearly all developing countries attempting to liberalize their economy, and we can see a nearly perfect parallel in the case of Thailand. In Thailand’s case, the “class struggle” was met and complimented by a growing presence in Marxist ideology (Walker, 13). We can see that this was the case in South Korea as well, as is evidenced by the labor struggles that extended well into the 1980’s.

How might we have expected any other result, though? With South Korean political scholars clearly advocating for systemic changes to closer emulate the west, it should be no surprise that the culture changed to meet those adjustments. As discussed in Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, there are some forms of violence that are simply incompatible with the ideals that the west espouses, and oppression of the the proletariat is a form of mass violence— violence, of course, being defined as an intentional act of harm.

Although POSCO is an example of oppression by the state, the lack of laborer’s rights extended into the private sector as well. The fact that workers were treated as mere resource, or as Marx says in Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, “[sunk] to the level of a commodity and [became] indeed the most wretched of commodities (70)” instigated an incredible upset that would change the landscape of the laborer. As workers-turned-scholars and scholars-turned-workers recognized their own circumstance in the writings of Marx, revolution became inevitable; although class warfare is often avoided by the maintenance of ignorance in the lower class, working-class South Koreans of the 1980’s had the benefit of comparative politics. Prior to the departure from agrarian life, comparing their own status to those in the west would be comparing apples to oranges— most were self-employed, and those who weren’t were aware of their nation’s vulnerable regime. It became far more reasonable to demand ownership of their labor once the state entered a more stable, growth-oriented period, especially when that period was accompanied by a flood of western ideals being systematized.

The idea that workers and scholars began to blend and fuse is an important one to understand when attempting to conceptualize how Marx made his way into the hearts and minds of the worker. This class of scholarly workers developed a culture of ceremony and togetherness in the 1970’s and 80’s that involved public protest of inequitable systems and unfair class politics. This culture of ceremony was deep, robust, and prolific— involving formalized dance, masks, music, and poetry. One particular ceremony, the mask dance, often involved two different groups of people, the Confucians and the commoners. The commoners would heckle and tease the Confucians for being hypocritical and immoral. This ceremony was clearly influenced by the class politics of the time, and reinforced by Marxist ideology.

Korean Workers brings forward an important account of the activism of Lee Sun-ju on page 119, which underlines the importance of Marxist thought in the labor movement. Lee Sun-ju, a student at Seoul Women’s University, was bound for a life of factory work, and worked in a garment factory (as many women did) for a month during her junior year. At that point in her scholastic career, Sun-ju had familiarized herself with Marxist literature after learning Japanese, as there were very few texts offered in Korean. Her circle of friends had studied the political and economic philosophies of Marx, discussing how it could explain the incredible inequities and injustices found in Korean culture at the time. So, when Sun-ju experienced the life of a worker, she was appalled.

After experiencing the pitfalls and failings of the industry for a number of years after graduation, Sun-ju and a group of her coworkers (a number of which were also former students) flooded the union election with labor activists, placing a number of former scholars and advocates of Marxist ideology into power.

If one looks at the local leaders of the labor movements, they will likely find that the majority of them had formal education that led them to the works of Marx. Koo reveals this on page 103:

“[i]t was a period of Marxism and radical discourse; many students, intellectuals, and political activists were strongly influenced by Marxism, dependency perspective, or people’s liberation theology and embraced the idea of radical social transformation through collective action.”

Although Marx is rarely credited, the consistency with which his works appear in the lives of those leading the movements can be no coincidence. We might infer that the reason for the omission of Marx’s credit for the success/instigation of such activism is the pervasive anti-communist sentiment that was and is found in South Korea. This inferral can be reinforced by the behaviors of the minjung political party.

The minjung (“people”) movement is potentially one of the most concrete examples of Marxist ideology making its way into the public consciousness in South Korea, although those advocating for the new party were sure to align themselves with nationalists; during that time, to align one’s self with Marx would be to commit effective social suicide (Koo, 143). This party largely focused on the issues that class disparities created, and aimed to represent those marginalized by the recently liberalized economy— much like the labor movements that occurred earlier in the US and the UK. The parallel to the labor movement in the UK is particularly strong, as the UK’s labor party has much in common with South Korea’s minjung party. Suehiro points out, though, why South Korea was able to see such incredible change so rapidly on page 257 of Catch-up Industrialization: “The three features most frequently pointed out have been lifetime employment, the seniority system… and cooperation between management and trade unions to achieve the company’s growth-oriented targets.” Although South Korea changed a lot to mimic the west, the threshold between the private and public spheres was very blurry during this time. This resulted in a lot of oversight that restricted both unions (each factory could have only one union by law, so many companies created their own to block the minjung advocates from creating their own) and companies in way that created a culture of employee loyalty. Because of the lifetime employment expectation and the reliability of the seniority system, which rewarded loyal employees, workers felt invested in their work environment. This culture of personal investment is very much backed by Marxist thought, and came about as a result of workers identifying problematic elements of work culture in the country and unifying against those elements.

A term coined in Marx’s Political and Philosophic Manuscripts, “alienation”, was almost certainly one of the concepts that immediately took hold in the hopeful and progressive minds of South Korean students. The South Korean worker, especially if female, was made to work a considerable amount more than the workers of countries South Korea competed with and emulated. In 1980, as the labor movement began en force, Koreans were working 53.1 hours per work week, as compared to the 39.7 hours that were (and are) expected of Americans (Koo, 48). Revisiting Sun-ju, we learn that her daily wage at the garment factory, where “[o]vertime until midnight or even 2 A.M. was very frequent”, was approximately $9.95 in 2017 USD. Because the workers of South Korea were unable to appreciate the value of their work, they become removed from it. Not only did most workers not have a passion for the work in the first place, but the ability to take pride in the work was ripped from their hands. She was unable to even regret her decision, she said, as “[l]ife was too busy to reflect on… her decision to become a factory worker” (Koo, 120). How can we make conscious decisions about our wellbeing if we are unable or disallowed to even reflect on the decisions we’ve already made? Marx brings this up on page 74: “[The worker] no longer feels himself to be freely active in any but his animal functions- eating, drinking, procreating.” The person has become animal. A person unable to correct their own path is a victim of de facto slavery, “forced labor”— in Marx’s words: “With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men.”

The very nature of industrialization makes alienation almost inevitable, as industrialization is most often accompanied by mass production, which undermines the value of the worker’s hand in the creation of the object. Regardless of the worker, the bowl will look the same and serve the same purpose, devoid of the mark of its maker. In this way, the commodity (a bowl in this case) is removed from the worker, and the worker is disallowed from taking pride in the creation of that commodity (Marx, 74).  

It is furthermore important to recognize that, because the labor of a member of the working class very rarely actually belongs to the individual, the product of that labor becomes unimportant. When labor is exerted as a result of employment, the individual sees the production of steel bars less as the creation of a valuable resource and more as an opportunity to receive capital. The exertion of labor is less about living a life fulfilled, and more about living a life at all. In this manner, the worker is treated not as a powerful and individual human, but rather as a source of energy: no more important than the coal powering the facility.

As time went on the working class continued to struggle, in spite of occasionally winning small victories on the company level, until the growing conflict exploded in 1987 in what was dubbed the “Great Worker Struggle.” So relatable were the frustrations of the working scholars, and estimated 1.2 million workers participated in the struggle. This was estimated to be about a third of those employed by larger operations (Koo, 158). Prior to 1987, the labor movement consisted largely of women, who grouped up attain more gainful employment through community effort. The Great Struggle, though, succeeded in bringing employees from previously uninvolved sectors through a far more active approach to activism. This swung the demographics of the movement far to the male end of the spectrum, and although it would be easy to say that the change following 1987 was a result of widespread threat of violence, the change in demographic points to the possibility of cultural and institutional racism that was holding the movement back prior to the involvement of a more masculine population.  

As tensions built, Chun Doo-hwan feared an uprising and rolled out what became South Korea’s transition to democracy. Ignited by this success, the labor movement exploded: The number of unions increased exponentially overnight, and the beginnings of a years-long uptick in labor disputes were seen (Koo, 157). It is at this point that the average work week began to grow shorter in South Korea, and although Korea was still significantly behind the US, Japan, and even Taiwan, progress was progress— the labor movement had made a massive stride forward. The struggle not only brought real change to the lives of workers, but it also developed a strong class identity among the proletariat. The masses were now proud of the work they did, and announced boldly their status, taking ownership of their skill, hardworking nature, and the minjung movement only grew (Marx, 175). The glass box of alienation had been cracked, if not broken.

The interesting and ironic reality of this analysis, the analysis of a political economist, finding correlation between the spread of Marxist thought and the development of the labor movement in South Korea, is that Marx openly critiques and warns of the direct, black-and-white approach:

“Do not let us go back to a fictitious primordial condition as the political economist does, when he tries to explain. Such a primordial condition explains nothing. He merely pushes the question away into a grey nebulous distance. He assumes in the form of fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce-namely, the necessary relationship between two things-between, for example, division of labour and exchange. Theology in the same way explains the origin of evil by the fall of man: that is, it assumes as a fact, in historical form, what has to be explained (71)”.

In attempt of explanation, Marx says, the political economist reverts to a “fictitious primordial condition”— a not-so-subtle jab at the naive nature of the simplification— which should be avoided when possible, as it “explains nothing.” Here, though, he commits too heavily to his assertion. While his point is well taken (political science involves far too many variables for us to pretend that it is infallibly consistent), he seems to brush aside the value of the science as a tool of prediction and advisement, in spite of the fact that many of his works make bold assertions about the correlation between capitalist ideology and economic inefficiency. While it is entirely possible that Marx was referring exclusively to those attempting to make absolute claims, the irony of the fact that Marx himself utilized absolutes should not be lost on the reader. So, in spite of his critical view of those attempting to discern the correlation between politics and economics, let critique of our analysis be on the basis of flawed logic, rather than on the basis of the form of the analysis itself.

The influence of Marxism has spread to all corners of the earth, and this is clearly visible in populist movements across the globe. Although communism is still essentially a four-letter word in many places, this was particularly true in South Korea of the late 1900’s; with the communist North and the anti-communist South splitting in 1945, the fear of the spread of authoritarian communism was very real. Marxist ideology can be cleverly disguised as nationalist populism, though, and we saw this occur when student workers fought to organize themselves and to take ownership of their labor and their bodies. Without the influence of Marxist texts, which had to be sought after, it is very possible that South Korea would look very different today. It began with a few students learning Japanese, evolved into a political ideology, and then threatened the state in such a way that the Chun administration gave into the rising tide of democracy as a preventative measure.
While Marxism has yet to prove itself valuable to me in the context of the first-world nation, it is without hesitation that I affirm its value for countries on the cusp of achieving true democracy. With the leadership of Marxist scholars, collective action has enough pull to enact real change in certain vulnerable regimes.

Works Cited

Koo, Hagen. Korean Workers: The Culture and Politics of Class Formation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell U Press, 2001. Print.

Marx, ​​Karl, ​​and ​​Friedrich ​​Engels. ​​​The​​ Marx-Engels ​​Reader​. ​​2nd ​​ed. ​​Edited ​​by ​​Robert ​​C ​​Tucker, Norton, ​​1978.

Suehiro, Akira. Catch-up Industrialization: The Trajectory and Prospects of East Asian Economies. NUS Press, 2008.

Walker, Andrew. Thailand’s Political Peasants: Power in the Modern Rural Economy. University of Wisconsin Press, 2012.


Predicting Populism

The 2016 presidential election saw two major candidates who used an incredible amount of populist rhetoric during their campaigns— Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. In spite of lying on opposite ends of the dualistic American political spectrum, both claimed to come from humble beginnings and to understand the plight of the average American. While Sanders advocated for the “99%”, which included wage earners making up to ~$250,000 per annum (Wage Statistics), he primarily targeted those in lower income brackets— Effectively garnering the support of many minority groups. Trump, while still using populist rhetoric during his campaign, instead targeted a single group, middle-class whites, to make up the bulk of his support. A Face in the Crowd, a auteur political film released in 1957, highlights a number of themes that are particularly relevant today, in light of this political dynamic. In particular, the film attempts to communicate that politics are a corrupting force, and that populist rhetoric should be met with skepticism.

While the amount of literal political content in A Face in the Crowd is fairly small, the plot of the story and the interactions between the characters are all very much political, and the message of the film is one that warns of the pitfalls of populism. In this way, it very clearly contains a political agenda. This message of caution is delivered in a way that is both impactful and disturbing, as the character of “Lonesome” Rhodes is one crafted to be immediately likable. He is introduced in a way that implies to the viewer that he is the protagonist of the story, which makes his eventual turn to a blatant distributor of propaganda that much more surprising and memorable. Not only does this make the film more entertaining, it also gives the political message more “punch.”

The release of this film came at an interesting time in history, as it released shortly after President Eisenhower’s second election. It is unlikely that this was a coincidence, as Eisenhower notably used a great amount of populist rhetoric in his 1952 campaign. A study done by Bart Bonikowski and Noam Gidron of Harvard University found that “[t]he 1952 Eisenhower campaign, the 1996 Dole campaign, and the 1968 Nixon campaign represent peaks in Republican populism” (p. 1604). They concluded this by measuring the percentage of campaign speeches that employed “populist rhetoric” and comparing the results across parties and election cycles between 1952 and 1996.

This study also showed in the results that those without previous political engagement are much more likely candidates for the use of populism. Eisenhower, who fit that demographic, was able to easily stand opposed to what he considered a vulnerable regime, as he had not been an active participant up to that point. By critiquing the decisions made by the previous administration, he capitalized on the public’s frustration and ignorance of political issues. This placed him firmly into what Stephen Skowronek calls “The Politics of Reconstruction”, which Skowronek identified were present under the likes of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, who are widely considered very successful presidencies (Skowronek, p. 36). Eisenhower knew that to grab hold of this approach, he would have to bring to attention the questionable decisions made by the Truman administration, and so he focused on three hot-button issues, identified by Bonikowski and Gidron:  “Korea, Communism, and corruption” (1606).

It is very possible that the A Face in the Crowd was pitched as a result of Eisenhower’s approach to the campaign and the presidency. Eisenhower was incredible at maintaining his positive image, and hoped to largely separate himself from politics in the minds of the people. We can see a very tangible relic of this endeavor in the form of the Chief of Staff, as well as some other positions that Eisenhower established as permanent members of the White House staff.  

Because Eisenhower was a master of delegation, the newly-established Chief of Staff position would allow him to hand off tasks that could hurt his public image. He knew how important it was to maintain the image of a down-to-earth man, just as Rhodes did even late into the film. That is not to say, of course, that Eisenhower had the same intentions as Rhodes, but rather to point out that both knew how powerful popular opinion can be. Eisenhower used it to gain favor in a political environment that had put a Democratic congress in place, while Rhodes used it to gain money, fame, and power for himself.

Projecting Politics describes Citizen Kane (1941) in a way that draws a large number of parallels to A Face in the Crowd— A person with humble beginnings slowly loses their grasp on the values that they once held and chooses to use the power of popularity to get involved in politics. Even similarities in the form of the films can be drawn, and Haas, Elizabeth, et al. go on to describe Citizen Kane as “an antielitist, antiauthoritarian reiteration of the axiom that power corrupts” (126).

The shift in character that we see in Rhodes part of the way through the film is accompanied and complimented by a shift in editing and perspective during his scenes. The scenes in general seem to be staged in a way that make Rhodes seem powerful and unreachable, and are often poorly-lit. This is most obvious in the scenes filmed in Rhodes’ apartment, where he is often pictured looking down from his loft. The dark corners of the room feel sinister and occasionally somber, as if the director was lamenting Rhodes’ transition from a jubilant and lively man walking away from the camera in broad daylight to a greedy, power-obsessed monster. This speaks to an underlying darkness that the film is trying to show exists in those involved in politics, and particularly in those who attempt to come off as apolitical.

Works Cited

Bonikowski, Bart, and Noam Gidron. “The Populist Style in American Politics: Presidential Campaign Discourse, 1952–1996.” Social Forces, vol. 94, no. 4, 2015, pp. 1593–1621., doi:10.1093/sf/sov120.

Haas, Elizabeth, et al. Projecting Politics: Political Messages in American Films. Routledge, Taylor et Francis Group, 2015.

Skowronek, Stephen. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

Wage Statistics for 2016. United States Social Security Administration,


Authorship and the Romanticism of Smoke

It seems to be that, for some reason or another, the act of smoking attracts authors like flies to honey— there is something deeply profound about taking the product of flame into one’s own body to the detriment of health, as humans have done for centuries, but we must understand that there are limitless explanations for this phenomenon; this analysis serves as a tool not to distinctly explain why authors smoke, but to rather engage in the topic in a way that might be useful for the reader. Through understanding how those who perpetuate and capture culture through the art of written word see the world, we might learn to better understand our own motives. It may be that, by looking at the world as a jumble of thoughts, objects, and moments to be collected, we become wrapped up in the external. Let us, together, build a framework upon which we might see the world through the author’s eye.

Before attempting to break down the inner workings of any particular author’s mind or work, we must make clear the what and the who of authorship. Any person reading this particular work is likely to feel that these attributes are somewhat easily defined, but the importance of creating concise, accurate definitions cannot be undermined— we cannot (and should not) place value on the undefined, and often the simplest questions hold incredible depth.

So, what is authorship? The word author can be misleading and intimidating in this context, as it requires the labelled individual, by definition, to have published work. This is perhaps unimportant, though— the author’s mindset is not exclusive to those with the time, ability, and resources to commit to writing as a profession. No, in this context, we refer to the “author” as a person profoundly dedicated to the act of immortalizing thought and object through language. The authors we will glance at, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Haruki Murakami, and Ayn Rand, are important not because they were and are wildly successful in captivating vast audiences, but because they are masters of the moment. Like an insect to their amber, moments are grabbed from the ether of their minds and given permanence and form. During Vonnegut’s early days, when he was supporting his family of eight on nothing but his varied and inconsistently-successful short stories and the mixed reception of Player Piano (his first novel), he noted the following in a letter to his editor at Scribner’s:

“If I could write another pretty good book, Harry, I would. The trouble seems to be that I’m a compulsive, irrational writer, rarely on top of the creative process, but that my id, or whatever it is that Hemingway and Faulkner get in touch with way down deep, down among the dead men, isn’t a very interesting one— not even to me” (Letters, 50).

At this point, Vonnegut was clearly a skilled writer, but he had only truly began his foray into technical authorship. It is this example that gives the definition we use here rapport. It should be noted, of course, that Vonnegut did get in touch with his “id”, a Freudian term for his deepest level of consciousness, pervaded by the sexual and primal, but this is something to be touched on later.

The who is perhaps where the majority of our focus should lie, if we are to consider this mission statement of this text— to better understand how our most romantic thoughts impact our behaviors. The author is one who brings together the stories of the world around us and turns them into experiences that may be shared. While writing is a skill that can certainly be mastered by the the jaded and greedy (one only has to glance at the likes of Oscar Wilde to see this), the authors who we turn our attention to are the ones who write not exclusively as a method of stroking the ego or acquiring capital, but to those who write as a way to appreciate culture, connect with others, and express themselves. It is this nature that draws authors to a behavior as loaded with emotion, symbolism, and expression as smoking.

The act of writing is one that is deeply personal— the words that grow on the page are a product of a nothing but a few keystrokes and the creative energy of the keystroker. As Vonnegut addressed in his letter to his editor, he felt that there was an element of consistent and effective writing that required use of the the “id.” So, it may not be much of a stretch to interpret the act of writing through the use of Freudian thought, and indeed, it would be remiss not to. In a not-so-subtle way, the act of writing is very similar to that of dreaming. As ideas form and twist and come into being, we can discover things about ourselves that would be otherwise impossible. In this way, writing is a method of growth and self-discovery. Freud asserted that “the meaning of every dream is the fulfillment of a wish” and that “there cannot be any dreams but wishful dreams” (134). If we are to continue with our analogy between the art of writing and dreaming, we must accept for argument’s sake that this is true in both cases. This is the crux of our foundation.

Haruki Murakami is perhaps the one of the most prolific writers of his time, and although he grew up in a world that was aware of the negative effects of smoking, nearly every main character featured in his fiction smokes frequently. So frequently do they smoke, in fact, that it could be easily be considered a major element of all of Murakami’s works. In Norwegian Wood, which is widely considered to be Murakami’s most successful work, the main character, in spite of representing Murakami’s more scholastic and romantic side, begins his story by reminiscing about his time in the university dormitories— an experience that would not be complete without mention of cigarettes.

While the main character, Watanabe, eventually finds love in a girl named Naoko, much of his attention in the first several chapters of the book are focused on a girl named Midori. Midori being a hypersexual eccentric smoker, a description that matches many of the ephemeral love interests featured in the works of Murakami, fills the former of what we might consider to be the two forms of love that we see represented in all corners of humanity— the immature and the mature. Midori exists as a highly conflicted and complex character in the story, but we might posit that she represents the repressed sexuality of Murakami; if the main characters of these stories represent Murakami himself, then this process of writing is Murakami’s way of expressing and mulling over his conflicting desires. Watanabe ends up loving Naoko, who is far more reserved and “sweet” than Midori. She represents the mature love that Murakami sees as an ideal. Midori, though, is who Murakami is drawn to— and we can see this because she fits a stereotype found in almost all of Murakami’s novels. Midori’s cigarette smoking is what gives this away. The cigarette, producing fog-emulating smoke, holds an aire of mystery and intrigue. Like a mystery novel, the smoker holds our attention and makes us want to know more. On top of this, we might add a layer in the Freudian semiotician’s perspective: that the cigarette is a blatantly phallic object, holding direct meaning in the sexual lives of the smokers (Danesi, 4).

Murakami’s writing as an expression of desire is further reinforced by Watanabe’s relationship with an upperclassman character, Nagasawa. Nagasawa is a couple of years older than Watanabe, and most likely represents Murakami’s ideal self. Throughout the book, Nagasawa coaches Watanabe on how to properly get women to sleep with him, all-the-while talking about the incredible professional development opportunities that he secures. Even when congratulated, Nagasawa maintains his cool and confident demeanor:

“That’s it. Officially, it’s called the ‘Foreign Affairs Public Service Personnel First Class Service Examination.’ What a joke!”

“Congratulations!” I said, and gave him my left hand to shake.


“Of course, I’m not surprised you passed.”

“No, neither am I.” Nagasawa laughed (201).

Although it occasionally comes off as grating to the reader, it isn’t difficult to see why Watanabe (Murakami) would look up to the character.

Ayn Rand, in contrast, was confident in her knowledge of the sexuality of herself and others: “Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive,” Rand wrote, “and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life” (“The One Argument”, 3). Rand, though, had an insecurity that was likely a compound of her mental illness and her womanhood. Following the publishing of her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, Rand fell into a depression. “John Galt wouldn’t feel this”, she lamented (“The One Argument”, 1). This particular combination of identities likely lent Rand to feel powerless, and smoking reinforced the identity of power that she wished to hold.

Rand’s appreciation for smoking, in fact, can be found in Atlas Shrugged:

“I like cigarettes, Miss Taggart. I like to think of fire held in a man’s hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind—and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression” (56).

This romantic description of the act of smoking, the connection to the primal force first harnessed by man, fire, is a clear indication of Rand’s love for the concept. It was only when Rand was diagnosed with lung cancer that her perception of the power associated with cigarettes was shattered; what once gave her control of her life threatened to take it away. The story goes that she put out the cigarette she was smoking in the doctor’s office and never touched one again.

As we read with these things in mind, we see incredible compounding evidence of the author writing as a method to express repressed emotion. Murakami writes of a sexuality he wishes to obtain. Vonnegut writes to escape trauma. Rand writes to regain control. Murakami writes of cigarettes because, to him, they represent a coolness, mystery, and sex appeal. Vonnegut smokes to express and assert his masculinity in a world that embraces him as an immasculine figure. Rand smoked and writes of smoking in order to feel powerful. By seeing these methods of coping with our internalized desires, perhaps we can see our own repressed desires and emotions. The author, who feels deeply and more often requires a method of escape and empowerment, who has their thoughts and desires written plainly for all to see, offers a case study through which we might improve ourselves.

Works Cited

Danesi, Marcel. Of Cigarettes, High Heels, and Other Interesting Things: An Introduction to Semiotics. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.

Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Penguin Books, 1991.

Murakami, Haruki. Norwegian Wood. Translated by Jay Rubin, Vintage International, 2000.

Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. New American Library, 2016.

“The One Argument Ayn Rand Couldn’t Win.”,

Vonnegut, Kurt. Letters. Edited by Dan Wakefield, Vintage Books, 2013.