There can be no doubt that Faulkner’s texts seem exceedingly concerned with the way in which “individuals” are caste into a particular identity. It is the “process” by which this occurs that I am primarily interested in. That’s to say, how does a subject become a signified identity for both themselves and for others in the text? Increasingly, I am becoming convinced that for Faulkner, this is a process heavily dependent upon the signification of language, or perhaps more succinctly, cultural signification. One passage in particular from Light in August, I seem to return to again and again.
Memory believes before knowing remembers. Believes longer than recollects, longer than knowing even wonders. (LIA, 119)
As we have discussed previously in class, the dichotomy here between “memory” and “knowing” can inform our reading of Faulkner from a psychoanalytical perspective. The distinction between the two different modes of thought may indeed allude to the distinction between the unconscious and the conscious respectively. Memory (the unconscious), the repressed unspoken material that is nonetheless ever-present, is “translated” by knowing (conscious) through language (and other systems of signification such as culture and visual media) to take on a symbolic representation of the “self.” As a socially constituted system of signification, language necessarily brings ideology along with it in the process of identity formation. This means that the way in which subjects self-identify does not correspond to some essential and natural form, but is purely a cultural-linguistic construction. The intentional obfuscation of Christmas’s racial identity in LIA, lead me to suspect that Faulkner (whether implicitly or explicitly) may in some way theoretically align with this way of understanding subjectivity.
If this thesis can be defended, than it may permit a rich reading of how certain characters understand other prevalent motifs within Faulkner’s texts, such as predestination, traumatic experience, perhaps even salvation. To put it another way, it seems evident that Faulkner’s works appear to be very much concerned with the problematic nature of the south, its curse, it hauntedness, its recursive violence and stigmatization. Indeed, much of the text seems intent to explore how it is that southern society represses itself, stuck in a former era of glory and unable to move forward toward a more inclusive and flourishing society.
This project will rely on a intersection of semiotic, neo-Marxist and psychoanalytical theory to provide a heuristic from which the text can be understood. This will include bringing into conversation various critical essays that utilize these methodological approaches with regards to Faulkner. Focusing primarily on LIA and perhaps Absalom! Absalom!, I hope to isolate and trace certain ideological discourses within those texts that are productive of subjectivities. These may include discourses on race, gender, religion. However, I will also attempt to explicate through close-readings how Faulkner challenges the cohesion of these discourses, thereby potentially upsetting their claims to “truth,” and thereby revealing the ambivalent nature of social signification. As Louis Althusser remarks, “what is represented in ideology is therefore not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live” (Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and the State.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Monthly Review Press, 2001, pp. 111).


