Waiting for Godot: a critique of modernity

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 20th 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 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 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 treewhich has grown a few leaves overnightto 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 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 peoples 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 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 tent7; 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 mans identity. As is the case with Aristotle, a period of habitation does not completely prevent

philosophical thought about mans 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 problematic... [he] is only a case for himself, he attains to consciousness of self only as he not as I.9 For Aristotle, Ptolemys geocentric system is a crucial element which leads to the illusion of finitude in Aristotles thinking and ultimately the view of man as simply a case for himself. The geocentric systemwhich portrays the earth as being

the centre of the universesupports 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 Aristotles

philosophies contain answers to Immanuel Kants 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 Christianity that man is made in the image of Godimago deiblessed 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: 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 maximumTherefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference13 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 man came to know mans limitation, his inadequacy, the casualness of his existence16 This casualness of mans 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

10

chose, et ne sommes pas tout.19 Hence, we see in Pascal a sense of meaninglessness and insecurity that was not seen in Aristotles 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 mans 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 Bubers claim that we are 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

11

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 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

12

cosmization, stating that mans 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 answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come22 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 Vladimirs 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 peoples 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

13

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 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 Godots 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

14

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 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 Vladimirs 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

15

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 the meeting with God was questioned. As reason, science and more specifically the ongoing discoveries of infinity continued developing through the centuriesmuch like the whole day Vladimir was left to contemplate and discover many other uncertainties of Godotpeople started to lose sight of themselves and began to question the essence of existence of man. Bubers 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

16

doubtconstantly questioning the validity of his memoriesbecause 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? 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

17

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 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.

18

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: 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 Vladimirs 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 mans 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. Bubers 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.

19

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 mans 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

1 2

Beckett, 1954:2.536 Berlin, 1999 3 Barrett, 1990:43 4 Hobbs, 1998:36 5 Buber 1979:157 6 Buber, 157 7 Buber, 157 8 Buber, 158 9 Buber, 158 10 Buber, 149 11 Buber, 160 12 Bond, 1997:29 13 Bond, 158-159 14 Bond, 158-160 15 Bond, 161 16 Buber, 163 17 Buber, 164 18 Buber, 163 19 Buber, 164 20 Berger, 1990:4 21 Berger, 5 22 Beckett, 2,526 23 Beckett, 1.94-109 24 Beckett, 1.817-818 25 Beckett, 2.751 26 Beckett, 1.202-205 27 Beckett, 2.349 28 Beckett, 2.535