Entradas
A Sisyphean allegory in the
female protagonists of “The Adulterous Woman” and “Hills Like White Elephants”
Note: The following essay (also) received an A at Harvard Summer School
1.-
Introduction
The
notion of absurdity constitutes a challenge for teleological ways of
understanding human existence. In this essay I will put forward a lumping
argument to show that both “The
Adulterous
Woman” and “Hills like White Elephants” hare the same structural
and thematic approach to the concept of banality. I will claim that the authors
use an identical causal chain of events which mimics the Sisyphean struggle,
thus illustrating the purposelessness of their lives.
2.-
Sisyphus in Hades
First,
Hemingway and Camus show how the masculine characters manipulate their female
companions. In Hills like white elephants the American says: “if
you don’t want to you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t
want to (…) But I don’t want you to do it if you don’t really want to”. These
three conditional sentences reiterate the same idea, however they do so to
portray the American’s use of reverse psychology, to make Jig feel that she is in control of the
decision when really he is just creating in her mind the illusion of choice. This
thought is expressed by the fact that only the first conditional sentence
starts with the word “you” as its subject. In the next sentence the speaker starts
off the first clause with the pronoun “I”; this consequently means that the
word “you” ceases to be the causal agent of the sentence and becomes the direct
object. This is a syntactical way of letting the reader know that the man is in
fact treating the girl linguistically and literally as an object. By switching
the order of the pronouns, Hemingway focuses the action on the speaker and
stresses his desires over the girl’s, showing the true power dynamic of the
relationship. In addition, the presence of the expression “don’t have to”
conveys the idea that
while there is a lack of necessity of deciding to have an
abortion, it does not eliminate the possibility of it completely. To illustrate
this, the man could have said “if you don’t want to don’t do it” and this way
of phrasing the idea would introduce the prohibition of going on with the
abortion in case Jig decided to keep the baby However, by not choosing this
formulation, the speaker is implying that the hypothetical scenario in which
Jig decides to keep the child does not thereby eliminate the theoretical
possibility of having the abortion. The point is that the absence of reasons to
do a certain action does not completely forbid that option. His way of
expressing Jig’s choice is therefore illusory, he is indirectly imposing his
will upon Jig’s and partially undermining her sense of self as a causal agent.
The
adulterous woman also portrays how the female character depends
on the male figure. Camus writes: “By so often making her aware that she
existed for him he made her exist in reality. No, she was not alone…” In this
quotation one can easily notice that Camus is using the same syntactical
technique that Hemingway uses in Hills like white elephants, that is to
say the subject of the first sentence, and therefore its causal agent, is
Marcel: “he made her exist”. Once again, the female character is equated with
the direct object of the sentence and, as a result, she experiences the
consequences of the male’s action. The narrator is stressing the role of the
man in the relationship, which is emphasized with the words “for him”, meaning
that Janine necessitates of Marcel to exist. However, the narrator is telling
the reader that this relationship is delusionary and, just like in Hills
like white elephants, is annihilating at least part of Janine’s sense of
freedom. The narrator suggests this by introducing a philosophical parody of St
Anselm’s ontological argument, which is an attempt to provide deductive proof
for the existence of God. In a nutshell, St Anselm claimed that God is the
greatest conceivable being and for such a being to be the greatest it must necessarily
exist not only in one’s imagination but also in reality. The narrator is
playing with this concept in this sentence: By moving from Marcel’s subjective
experience (as exemplified in the expression “for him”) to Janine’s factual existence
(which is referred to when the narrator says “in reality”), it is claimed that
that is enough to make her exist in reality, echoing St Anselm’s thesis. Janine’s
awareness of Marcel’s belief leads her to the conclusion that she really
exists. Nonetheless, Kant develops a very strong criticism of the ontological
argument, pointing out that existence is not a predicate and one cannot “draw”
things into existence. Based on these two pieces of information, it can be
claimed that Camus’ narrator uses irony to depict the status of the dependence
relationship of the couple. The narrator is the ironist in this case because he
is in possession of a true piece of information (Kant’s critique) which he indirectly
shares with the reader. Janine, on the other hand, is the object of the irony
because she ignores that she is basing her metaphysical existence upon a flawed
argument. This irony is exemplified in the use of the ellipsis at the end of
the quotation, revealing a sense of inconclusiveness in the assertion and suggesting
that, contrary to what she believes, the narrator knows that she is in fact
alone. Provided that the subjective beliefs that Y has of the existence of X do
not influence the objective existence of X, it can therefore be claimed that Marcel
is limiting Janine’s freedom by making her think that she needs a subjective
verification of her existence which she doesn’t. This false
belief, that is at the heart of the dependence relationship, undermines
Janine’s sense of self.
This
corresponds to the Sisyphean myth because when the gods take Sisyphus to Hades,
they imposed their will upon his, hence restricting his freedom. The male
figures allegorically take the place of the gods and the women that of Sisyphus.
Psychological manipulation recreates “the underworld”, the force that erodes a
significant amount of their capacity to choose.
3.
Sisyphus’ rock
The
psychological control of the masculine characters plunges the women into a
state of alienation which is the second domino of the causal chain. Camus
portrays Janine’s isolation: “She had dreamed too of palm trees and soft sand.
Now she saw that the desert was not that at all, but merely stone (…)”. These
lines describe the clash between expectations and reality, leading on to deception.
Camus explores this contrast from a chronological viewpoint through the use of
verbs. The verb “had dreamed”, being in the past perfect tense, highlights that
the action of dreaming has been taking place over a long period of time but has
now finished. The following sentence contains the verb form “saw”, which is
past simple, pointing out that the completion of the second action has taken
less time to occur than the former. In juxtaposing these two concluded sequences,
Camus suggests that both actions ceased at approximately the same time. This
hints at the idea that Janine’s sensorial experience of the landscape was what put
an end to her long-held expectations. This shows that a whole non-empirical
conception of reality can collapse with the slightest piece of empirical
evidence about the truth of reality. Applying a Wittgensteinian analysis[1], her preconceived ideas of
reality do not draw an accurate picture of it and this causes he initial thoughts to belong to the mystical,
for they cannot be told. I would add that the realization that she cannot use
her past thoughts meaningfully is what leads to desolation and negativity which
are metaphorically represented with the stone[2]. Not only do her past conceptual
beliefs turn out to be false, but she also notices that they have always lacked
linguistic value and the utterance of them is banal. She is alienated in both a
linguistic and a conceptual level.
Hemingway’s
text conveys the same sense of alienation when Jig compares the hills to “white
elephants”. This mental association symbolizes the emptiness of her
relationship with her nameless partner. The origins of the expression trace
back to one of the kings of Siam who was said to give these animals as gifts[3] to those who offended him.
The costs of maintenance of a white elephant were incredibly high and as a
result those who had one of these animals would quickly be ruined. The benefit
obtained from having a white elephant was very little compared to its costs and
so the term “white elephant” is normally associated with worthlessness. The
idea is that at first sight white elephants are very unique, exotic and
beautiful creatures, but in the long run they are useless. This mimics the
relationship between the girl and the American man, which used to be full of
excitement and travel but has now become hollow and devoid of meaning. The
girl uses the expression because she has lost happiness in her life. This idea
is emphasised when she mentions that “everything tastes of licorice”. This
suggests that for her all her vital experiences have the same status; she has
ceased to feel excitement for her life. Equating
an absolute concept with one flavour indicates that there
is nothing in her life that stands out; Jig is trapped in a monotonous
life-style which prevents her from moving forward and does not add anything to
her as an individual anymore.
The
alienation of the females represents Sisyphus’ rock, the task that must be finished
to regain individualism. If Jig and Janine managed to move beyond this state,
they would have rebelled[4] against the
meaninglessness of their condition. As existentialists like Sartre would point
out, in a universe with no inherent essence or telos, what matters is the
individual’s response to this reality and the confrontation with it is a way of
creating our own purpose in life. The reason why these Sisyphean characters are
tragic heroines is precisely because succeeding in imposing their will upon
that of the men is a theoretical possibility[5]. In this hypothetical scenario,
the Sisyphean characters could have succeeded in carrying their rock to the top
of the mountain and be liberated from alienation. But all hopes for this
possibility of success are denied when the rock rolls[6] back, restarting the
circle of absurdity. Janine
and Jig’s failure to overcome their alienated status leads to a perpetuation of
meaninglessness and consolidates their transformation into Sisyphus. This idea
is expressed at the end of both stories. The last words of The adulterous
woman are “it’s nothing” and those of Hills like white elephants are
“There’s nothing wrong with me. I feel fine”. Both endings express the same
idea, namely that the female characters lie to their male counterparts about
their feelings. The reader knows that these endings mean that nothing has been
solved and the character’s struggle against the universe’s lack of telos has
been in vain because they are both living meaningless lives and they simply go
on with them, which will prevent them from ever getting out of their
alienation. The resolution of the stories is in itself absurd because it will
only increase the solitude of the characters and keep restricting their freedom.
As Sartre would claim, the reason why they do not break the absurdity of
their condition is caused by bad faith[7]: they choose not to
choose, but in doing so they ignore that paradoxically not choosing is also an
option. From an existentialist point of view, their inaction will lead to a set
of major consequences, such as the continuation of their alienation, which they
now must accept. This everlasting step of repetition constitutes the last
effect of the causal chain. In refusing to acknowledge the possibility of their
success in the battle against absurdity, the characters give up in regaining
their freedom, their happiness and their individualism, causing the fall of the
rock.
4.
Conclusion
To
conclude, both texts can be understood as a presentation of the human quest for
meaning in a non-teleological world. Hemingway and Camus approach the question
by depicting how their protagonists have been led against their will to a state
of alienation and their incapacity to rebel against such a state produces the
repetition of their struggle, completing the Sisyphean allegory.
Word
count: 2297
Fernando
Martinez-Periset
Harvard
University
[1]
“1. The world is all that is
the case
1.2
The world is the totality of facts, not of things”
Janine’s
failure to present a correct picture of the world, from a Wittgensteinian
perspective, make her initial ideas nonsense. The words she uses do not
correspond to the facts of what is the case.
[2]
It is also worth noting that
the fact that Camus chooses stones as part of the imagery of the landscape is a
direct allusion to Sisyphus’ punishment. Yes, I was thinking that.
[5]
In both his Poetics and
the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle thought that tragedy was produced when
the potential state of affairs do not correspond to reality, such as a person
failing to fulfil his/her potential. Janine and Jig’s tragedy mirrors Sisyphus’
because all three of them could have fulfilled their potentials had they
regained their freedom.
[7]
Just to clarify, in the
previous section of the essay I indicated that their freedom had been
“restricted”, not totally eliminated. It is obvious that a certain degree of
freedom is needed for them to decide whether to go on with their relationships
or not, even if they fool themselves into thinking that they cannot decide, which
is a delusion that might stem from their state of alienation.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario