waiting for godot a critique of modernity
DESCRIPTION
A perspective on human nature. An analysis of the play Waiting for Godot through various sociological thought.TRANSCRIPT
Waiting for Godot: a critique of
modernity
1
“We are all born mad. Some remain so." -Samuel Beckett (Waiting for
Godot)1
The play Waiting for Godot, written by existentialist absurdist Samuel
Beckett, was voted the most significant English language play of the 20 th in
a British Royal National Theatre poll of 800 playwrights, actors, directors
and journalists.2 Although the play is senseless and illogical at first glance,
beneath the surface there are many different powerful ideas and meaningful
themes. The presence and nature of these themes and philosophies, and
that they are portrayed in such a simplistic and almost redundant fashion, is
the main reason this play is deemed to be notably significant. This play,
Waiting for Godot, like other pieces of ‘modern’ art, is a product of our
‘modern’ society and like all art it is a mirror that permits us to see the
thoughts and philosophies most prevalent in society at the time, which the
artist responds to. The controversial nature and irritation this play gives
rise, prompts the need for a more in depth study of sociological philosophies
that come up in the artwork. As William Barrett states, "Irritation usually
arises when something touches a sore spot in ourselves, which most of the
time we would like desperately to hide... Modern art (like Waiting for
Godot) touches a sore spot, or several sore spots, in the ordinary citizen of
2
which he is totally unaware.”3 This essay will look at and reveal these 'sore
spots’ and analyse them, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of human
nature in modernity.
The significance of the play, revealed in the simple and repetitive
dialogues and actions, show the state of human nature in the modern
society. Martin Buber describes this state as the period of homelessness,
where people enter a period of identity diffusion, meaninglessness and
anomy. A strong sense of meaninglessness is seen throughout the play as
the two main characters takes simple actions or habits found in the daily
lives of people in modernity and essentially breaks down the actions by
repeating them over and over again, until the action itself loses meaning.
Beckett uses these repetitions to show that fabricated and illusionary
meaning is the basis which action in our society is contingent. The problem
in Waiting for Godot is that the characters are questioning the only meaning
system in their lives that gives them the resolve to keep living. Sociologist
Peter Berger responds to such a problem by using his concept of anomy,
which describes the loss of order in society. He believes this loss of order is
caused by the loss of a meaning system that is needed to keep people in a
state of security and meaning he calls the nomos.
Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy, is essentially about two days of two
people waiting for Godot by killing time without knowing who or what
Godot is, but only that he is or will be some kind of saviour to them. The
play opens with the characters Estragon and Vladimir meeting in front of a
3
tree to wait for Godot together. To occupy themselves while they wait, they
do everything from playing with their hats to contemplating suicide. After a
while of waiting, two other men enter the scene: Pozzo who is on his way to
sell his feebleminded slave Lucky. They stay for a while to chat to Estragon
and Vladimir, and Pozzo also has his lunch. Lucky then entertains them by
attempting to dance and think. At the end of the day after Pozzo and Lucky
leave, a boy who claims to work for Godot comes and tells Estragon and
Vladimir that Godot will unfortunately not come today but will surely come
tomorrow.
The next day, Estragon and Vladimir meet again at the same spot in
front of the tree—which has grown a few leaves overnight—to wait for
Godot together. Again they converse and pass the time. After a while Pozzo
and Lucky enter again, but this time Pozzo is blind. Pozzo, like Estragon,
has a memory problem so neither of them can remember meeting each
other, only Vladimir remembers their meeting. Pozzo and Lucky leave and
Estragon and Vladimir continue to wait for Godot. When night falls, the boy
enters to tell Vladimir and Estragon that Godot could not come today but
will surely come tomorrow. Estragon and Vladimir decide to leave but they
do not move and the play is ended.
Much more can be said about the specific actions that occur
throughout the play but not without getting into mundane details that are
individually not important enough to be mentioned in an overview or
1 Beckett, 1954:2.5362 Berlin, 19993 Barrett, 1990:43
4
synopsis. However, the repetitious actions work towards the strong
prevalent theme of meaninglessness and pointlessness of habits throughout
the play discussed later.
Perhaps a different way to look at this tragicomedy would be that the
play is so funny that it is shockingly sad. According to Thomas Hobbs,
humans laugh at other people’s misfortunes. In The Leviathan, Hobbs
states: “Sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called
laughter; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own that
pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another,
by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves.”4 For example,
when we see the comical act of someone slipping on a banana peel, we
laugh at their helplessness and pain and feel a relief of tension. That is,
comedy can be seen as food for our egos to make us feel superior in
comparison to the victim, who is in our eyes a lower being. However, in
Waiting for Godot, the comedy is too real. It takes the audiences so far out
from their comfort zone that even if they find a certain scene funny at first,
after the realization of the obvious relationship between the scene and our
life; it feels like a psychological backhanded compliment.
According to Martin Buber there are what he calls, epochs of
homelessness and habitation in the history of the human spirit.5 Each of
these epochs is characterized by many traits reflecting the predominant
philosophies in society. Metaphorically, in a period of habitation, “man lives
4 Hobbs, 1998:36
5
in the world as in a house, as in a home”6; this is a period of certainty of
existence. Whereas in a period of homelessness, “man lives in the world as
in an open field and at times does not even have four pegs with which to set
up a tent”7; this is a period of uncertainty of existence. It is necessary to
look first at the finer details of this concept before applying it to any
sociological event in modernity. To clearly illustrate an epoch of habitation
we will turn to history and examine the different qualities in each epoch.
Considered to be one of the greatest thinkers in history Aristotle was
a philosopher and scientist who had a very large impact on society in his
time. His philosophies and ideas were so revolutionary that it is still
repeatedly seen and studied in modern thought today. Like most Greek
scientists of his time, Aristotle tends to “understand the world as a self-
contained space, in which man too has his fixed place.”8 In other words
Aristotle was living in an epoch of habitation because of his certainty of
man’s identity. As is the case with Aristotle, a period of habitation does not
completely prevent philosophical thought about man’s purpose in life
because man is completely certain of himself and therefore requires no
need to search for meaning. Rather, there is a lack of need of philosophical
anthropologic thoughts about the meaning of mankind because a stability of
consciousness is present and questions about meaning are already
answered. Martin Buber holds that, for Aristotle “man ceases to be
5 Buber 1979:157 6 Buber, 1577 Buber, 1578 Buber, 158
6
problematic... [he] is only a “case” for himself, he attains to consciousness
of self only as “he” not as “I”.”9 For Aristotle, Ptolemy’s geocentric system is
a crucial element which leads to the illusion of finitude in Aristotle’s
thinking and ultimately the view of man as simply a “case” for himself. The
geocentric system—which portrays the earth as being the centre of the
universe—supports the idea of anthropomorphism and man having his fixed
place in the universe. Humans are seen as “an objectively comprehensible
species beside other species.” In this way, man idealized finitude by being
in a state of anthropomorphism, resulting in a belief that man is an
objectively known and nameable thing. Thus Aristotle’s philosophies contain
answers to Immanuel Kant’s first three questions of philosophy in the
universal sense: “What can I know?”, “What ought I to do?”, “What may I
hope?” but not the forth anthropologic question, “What is man?”10
A more recent example of a world of habitation is the dominance of
Christianity in the medieval era. During this era the Christian faith itself is
the house that shelters from the storm of uncertainty. The certainty stems
from the Christian ideals imposed upon society, in the forms of laws and
norms created. These laws and norms, strongly enforced by the church,
create order in society. Other than the sense of meaning people get from
the dogmas of Christianity, there is also a sense of superiority and
smugness, similar to that which the geocentric system in Greece produced,
gives us a place in the universe and a set role to fulfill. It is a belief in
9 Buber, 15810 Buber, 149
7
Christianity that man is made in the image of God—imago dei—blessed by
God and chosen by God. This idea gives people of society an identity, for we
are not just any species on the earth, but we are created in the image of
God like no other, and we are the only species in possession of a soul. The
finitude comes once again from the idea that man finds themselves in a
known and nameable world. There is nothing out of the scope of human
understanding and man thinks of himself as having a comfortable place in
the universe in between heaven and hell. “Once again there is a self-
enclosed universe, once again a house in which man is allowed to dwell.”11
The existence of the rites and dogmas of Christianity to fall back upon
contains comprehensive answers to the philosophical anthropological
question, “What is man?”; thus there is no need for that question to be
posed during this era.
As science and the never ending quest for knowledge continued to
advance at a steady pace in the medieval era, even within the constraints of
the church, new revolutionary thoughts are introduced. It is these thoughts
that will start the storm which will tear down the foundation of the once
comfortable house of man and inevitably annihilate the house altogether to
bring man into an epoch of homelessness. Near the end of the medieval
period, mathematicians like Charles de Bouvelles and Nicolas of Cusa were
already contemplating the idea of infinity. The basis from which Cusa
developed the idea of infinity comes from his assessment of God:
11 Buber, 160
8
In God we must not conceive of distinction and indistinction, for example, as two contradictories, but we must conceive of them as antecedently existing in their own most simple beginning, where distinction is not other than indistinction.12
Ironically, Christianity, which gives the people of the medieval era the
illusion of a self-enclosed universe, is also that which gives way to the idea
of infinity. Being ahead of his time Cusa used this idea of infinity to argue
that the universe cannot logically be centered around the earth or the sun:
It is impossible for the machine of the world to have any fixed and motionless center; be it this sensible earth, or the air, or fire or anything else. For there can be found no absolute minimum in motion, that is, no fixed center, because the minimum must necessarily coincide with the maximum…Therefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference…13
This gave birth to the heliocentric system later to be developed further by
Copernicus. Cusa anticipates Kepler and argues that earth is constantly in
motion and the motion of stars and planets are not circular and uniform.14
Cusa goes further and describes a universe without a centre, or with an
infinite amount of centres, because a true centre point cannot be found in
an infinitely large vacuum.15 This is a giant leap in terms of scientific
reasoning, anticipating and going theoretically beyond both Copernicus and
Kepler in the development of the heliocentric system. The idea of a finite
world is being razed to the ground and what is discovered is knowledge that
is not knowable through human reasoning or science. After the
conceptualization and acceptance of infinity, during the renaissance era
12 Bond, 1997:2913 Bond, 158-15914 Bond, 158-16015 Bond, 161
9
man came to “know man’s limitation, his inadequacy, the casualness of his
existence”16
This casualness of man’s existence creates a feeling of uncertainty in
man because of a lack of identity. Buber argues that this lack of identity
stems from the realization that man is completely different: “man is the
being who knows his situation in universe and is able, so long as he is in his
senses, to continue this knowledge.”17 In a period of homelessness, as is in
the renaissance era, man becomes solitary and “endures being exposed as a
human being to infinity.”18 As expressed by Pascal: “nous sommes quelque
chose, et ne sommes pas tout.”19 Hence, we see in Pascal a sense of
meaninglessness and insecurity that was not seen in Aristotle’s time or in
the medieval era. The answers to the anthropological question, “What is
man?” are not definite and leave lots of room for radically different
responses. Because of man’s need to constantly place meaning and names
to things to understand the workings of the world, an indefinite answer to
such a fundamental question is frightening.
As seen throughout history, there are shifts from one period to the
other as a result of the dominating philosophies and thinkers developed
during each epoch. The point of interests and perhaps the frightening
aspects of the concept of homelessness are not limited to the effects and
qualities of the different epochs, but also Buber’s claim that we are
16 Buber, 16317 Buber, 16418 Buber, 16319 Buber, 164
10
currently in a state of unlimited homelessness, where homelessness will
cease to give way to an epoch of habitation. This is due to the fact that man
has come to know infinity and the finitudes of science.
The concept of anomy (the loss of order in society) is important to the
study of philosophical anthropology because, according to Peter Berger,
religion (the basis of most cultures and traditions) is but a manmade system
to construct a world with meaning used for ‘world making’. Peter Berger
claims that “man is curiously “unfinished” at birth,”20 thus unlike all other
mammals in the world we are born into the world with very few instincts.
This means that for every situation man is in, there is a plethora of different
option that he could choose to be his response; in essence man ‘must’
choose to respond in whatever way he wishes. This step is what Berger calls
externalizing ourselves, to pour out meaning into the world. Because of the
nature of free will in humans nature, man “in the world is thus
characterized by a built-in instability”; he is “out of balance” with himself.
Thus, “human existence is an ongoing ‘balancing act’ between man and his
body, man and his world.”21 In order to ‘balance out’ man needs to go
through the second step of objectivizing; to make a certain act an objective
fact. When a parent tells their child that they must brush their teeth before
going to bed, even though we are not required to do so in human nature,
the parent wants their child to believe that they must brush their teeth
before bed. The parent is making the action an objective fact and a rule that
20 Berger, 1990:421 Berger, 5
11
must be followed. In this way society is telling us what actions should be
made a habit and what actions should not be done. In the last step of ‘world-
making’, man must take the social control, from the step of objectivizing,
and turn it into self-control. Berger calls all the patterns or the meaningful
order that society objectivises and forces individuals to internalize, the
nomos.
Berger claims that man is born into anomy (a state of chaos and
terror) because we are ‘unfinished’ at birth. We need to move to a nomos
where there is predictability and stability. But the problem with nomos is its
precarious nature; people having innate freedom subconsciously know they
are free and thus sometimes tend to ‘forget’ about what they should do and
how they should act; this is where the role of religion plays an important
part in maintaining order in society. To legitimize the nomos religion uses
cosmization, stating that man’s laws or ways (the microcosm) are in
harmony with the divine laws or ways (the macrocosm), to give individuals
the feeling that the acts that they are objectivizing and internalizing are the
right ways to go about life. We see much of this phenomenon break down in
the play Waiting for Godot
The characters in Waiting for Godot are clearly in a state of
homelessness as described by Buber. Although during the play the Estragon
and Vladimir seem to know the meaning of their existence, it is evident that
they are doubtful of this meaning. “Vladimir: What are we doing here, that
is the question. And we are blessed in this that we happen to know the
12
answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are
waiting for Godot to come—”22 The essence of epiphany in the answer
makes Vladimir sound very sure of himself, but as the play continues, we
see that it is all bravado for there is immense doubt in Vladimir’s
consciousness about the necessity to wait for Godot. But to Vladimir, Godot
is the only hope left for a better life, thus whatever hope he has left, he puts
it in Godot. This phenomenon is similar to people’s belief in religion in
modernity. Considering the secularization and globalization of the world,
people are only taking a small part in religions because of the
inconsistencies and contradictions of religious dogma discovered with
scientific reasoning and linguistic analysis of scripture. Many, like Peter
Berger who chose to come up with a reductionist theory to explain religion,
choose to be atheist by ignoring or rejecting religion all-together because of
its unknowable nature. This doubt in the meaning system happens only in
an epoch of homelessness because man is no longer sheltered under the
certainty of knowledge, but is exposed to the ineffable.
Another aspect of the play that clearly illustrates the state of
homelessness is the lack of certainty seen in almost all aspect of the play.
Estragon and Vladimir are uncertain about everything from the identity of
Godot to the date and time it is. Although the plot of the play remains nearly
the same throughout the play it is the level and intensity of the uncertainty
22 Beckett, 2,526
13
that changes the feelings and mood of the play. Near the beginning of the
play the meeting with Godot is already being questioned:
VLADIMIR: We're waiting for Godot.ESTRAGON: (despairingly) Ah! (Pause.) You're sure it was here?VLADIMIR: What?ESTRAGON: That we were to wait.VLADIMIR: He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?[…]ESTRAGON: Looks to me more like a bush.VLADIMIR: A shrub.ESTRAGON: A bush.VLADIMIR: A—. What are you insinuating? That we've come to the wrong place?23
The intensity of the uncertainty that clouds the mysterious being, Godot, is
brought to a new level when Estragon and Vladimir begins to question the
validity of their meeting place. Even if they can be sure of Godot’s arrival,
being at the wrong location would still lead to an unsuccessful meeting.
Viewing Godot as a comparison with God, this scene is related to the
monotheistic religions of the world in modernity. The eschatology of the
three largest monotheist religions claims that there is a messiah that will
come before the end of time, but it is never exactly specified when.
Nonetheless, believers were certain that the messiah will come, just like
Estragon and Vladimir are certain in the beginning that Godot will come
and save them. However, Estragon and Vladimir soon realize that they
could be in the wrong meeting place. In modernity, as a result of
globalization and the growing interconnectedness of the world in
modernity, people start to interact with others with essentially different but 23 Beckett, 1.94-109
14
similar beliefs. Before long they start to question the validity of their beliefs
and the infallibility of the ‘right’ path. Like how Estragon and Vladimir
began questioning the validity of the meeting location, people in society
start to question their religious orientation in view of the plethora of
different sects of religion offering essentially the same soteriological end.
As the play draws out, uncertainty becomes more and more intense.
Like the development of human reasoning Vladimir’s uncertainty worsens
as doubt is piled upon doubt.
VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?BOY: Yes Sir. 24
After mulling over the uncertainties surrounding Godot for the whole day,
Vladimir is not just questioning the reality of Godot but is also beginning to
question the reality of his own existence. Similar to the development of
modern society, uncertainty ripens into a deeper, more profound
uncertainty. This uncertainty in modernity is not only limited to the
uncertainty of an absolute being, but has developed into an uncertainty of
human existence. Looking back into history, we can see the development of
the Christian religion resembling the development of consciousness
throughout the play. At first during the medieval period, there was certainty
of an absolute being. During the protestant reformation, people lost the one
infallibility Christian path and it was replaced by an overabundance of
different yet similar paths to the same God. In this manner the ‘location’ of
24 Beckett, 1.817-818
15
the meeting with God was questioned. As reason, science and more
specifically the ongoing discoveries of infinity continued developing through
the centuries—much like the whole day Vladimir was left to contemplate
and discover many other uncertainties of Godot—people started to lose
sight of themselves and began to question the essence of existence of man.
Buber’s concept of homelessness in modernity is ever the more prominent.
A loss of identity is evident throughout the play; it is associated with
the theme of forgetfulness. Estragon is seen through his interactions to be
very forgetful and Pozzo himself admitted he had a disease that prevented
him from remembering anything past a day.
Vladimir: We met yesterday. (Silence) Do you not remember? Pozzo: I don't remember having met anyone yesterday. But to-morrow I won't remember having met anyone today. So don't count on me to enlighten you. 25
The forgetfulness of both Pozzo and Estragon characterizes the thinness
and shallowness of existence, such as in an epoch of homelessness. Vladimir
is the only character who remembers what they do, and in many cases, he is
in doubt—constantly questioning the validity of his memories—because he
can affirm none of what he thinks are the correct versions of his memories
with anyone else. Estragon himself loses his identity by forgetting the
fundamental reason he is where he is:
VLADIMIR: I'm curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we'll take it or leave it.ESTRAGON: What exactly did we ask him for?VLADIMIR: Were you not there?
25Beckett, 2.751
16
ESTRAGON: I can't have been listening.VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite.ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.VLADIMIR: Precisely.ESTRAGON: A vague supplication. 26
By forgetting the reason he and Vladimir are waiting for Godot, it takes
away all meaning from his actions and leaves him in a state of
meaninglessness, yet he feels compelled to continue to wait for Godot.
According to Berger, this compelling feeling comes from the internalization
of social norms. Similar to Estragon, in modernity, people do what is right,
or what is considered to be right in society at the time, because they are
encouraged to act in accordance with society as a result of the pressure of
social constraints. During the Second World War generals in the Nazi party
claimed to have been ‘forced’ to kill Jews. The feeling of being ‘forced’
stems from the internalization of the idea of superiority of race imposed on
them by society, hence they view the act of killing as the only right thing to
do. The social constraint for the generals is the fear of being called a traitor
and executed. Of course, internalization does not work only in ‘morally bad’
ways. Most people in a capitalist society have internalized the idea of
obtaining a high education so they classify people that have obtained a high
education as ‘good’. However, the social constraint go hand in hand with
this idea, if one does not acquire a good education you run the risk of
feeling inferior by being classified as being uneducated. Berger claims that
the internalization of social norms leads to the alienation of man from his
26 Beckett, 1.202-205
17
own freedom. This is what compels Estragon to keep waiting for Godot, the
Nazi generals to continue killing Jews and the people in the capitalist
economy to pay money and work hard for a superior education.
A recurring theme present throughout the entire play is the theme of
repetition and habit. All throughout the play there are many repetitions of
actions that the audience might subconsciously do every day.
Estragon takes Vladimir's hat. Vladimir adjusts Lucky's hat on his head. Estragon puts on Vladimir's hat in place of his own which he hands to Vladimir. Vladimir takes Estragon's hat. Estragon adjusts Vladimir's hat on his head. Vladimir puts on Estragon's hat in place of Lucky's which he hands to Estragon… Estragon hands Vladimir's hat back to Vladimir who takes it and hands it back to Estragon who takes it and hands it back to Vladimir who takes it and throws it down.27
During this comical hat-playing scene, Beckett is showing the audience the
absurdity of an action repeated countless times. Similarly, Berger talks
about the religious use of rituals to remind individuals the way of life that
should be led, and of the rituals that are not created by religions, but are
created by ordinary people serving the same purpose as a ritual of religion.
Such actions are done every day over and over, by habit. These actions that
are repeated by habit such putting on a hat everyday are seen in the
process of objectivising an action, thereby helping legitimize and maintain
the nomos. Beckett makes the same point by illustrating the
meaninglessness and the true chaos of habit. To Beckett habit is action
without thought or purpose so it is but a waste of time:
27 Beckett, 2.349
18
VLADIMIR: All I know is that the hours are long, under these conditions, and constrain us to beguile them with proceedings which – how shall I say – which may at first sight seem reasonable, until they become a habit. You may say it is to prevent our reason from foundering. No doubt. But has it not long been straying in the night without end of the abyssal depths? That's what I sometimes wonder. You follow my reasoning?28
What Beckett is saying through Vladimir’s speech is that to prevent time
from passing too slowly we fill it up with a series of actions, which at first
seem reasonable. However, as time passes these repeated actions become
empty internalized habits, lacking thought and purpose and in effect,
deaden our lives.
Although this tragicomedy seems at first to be a rather simplistic work
of literature and theatrical play, Waiting for Godot is far from being
meaningless in terms of the ideas and themes present. The reason for its
acclaimed recognition is the naked depiction of man’s solitude in the world.
The anger and irritation this play stirs up is a result of the blatant truths of
the modern world this play reveals in all its bareness. As a piece of art
reflecting the thoughts of modern society, this piece of art talks to the
homelessness and anomy found beneath the ever thinning layer of illusions
set up by society. Buber’s concept of homelessness is clearly illustrated in
the loss of identity found in the characters as well as the meaninglessness
shown by the characters interactions with each other and the environment.
Man, in modernity, can no longer place a definite identity on himself as in
the medieval period, like Estragon and Vladimir we are forced to question
28 Beckett, 2.535
19
man’s existence and any meaning systems that can be found within our
society. In other words, we are questioning the very things that make up the
foundations of the nomos thus resulting in more anomy than ever seen
before. However this state of consciousness can be viewed of as an era of
developing thought. An era of homelessness appreciates and recognizes the
unrestricted human intellect and allows for freedom of thought allowing for
a much more sophisticated understanding of human nature and man place
within the infinite universe.
Bibliography
Barrett, W. (1990). Irrational man: a study in existential philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot; tragicomedy in 2 acts,. New York: Grove Press.
Berger, P. L. (1990). The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor Books.
Berlin, N. (1999). Traffic of our stage: Why Waiting for Godot?.Samuel Beckett Resources and Links. The Massachusetts Review. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.samuel-beckett.net/BerlinTraffic.html
Bond, H. L. (1997). Nicholas of Cusa: Selected spiritual writings. New York: Paulist Press.
Buber, M., & Smith, R. G. (1979). Between man and man. Glasgow: Collins.
Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. (1998). Leviathan . Oxford : Oxford University Press.
20