Assignment : Paper no 107 Twentieth century Literature : From world war II to End of Century

 22400: Paper no 107 Twentieth Century Literature: World War II to End of Century

Smt. S.B.Gardi, Department of English, MK Bhavnagar University

Vachchhalata Joshi

Roll no .20

Vachchhalatajoshi.14@gmail.coms

Topic: Waiting of Godot: A Deconstructive Study

 

“The earth makes a sound as of sighs and the last drops fall from the emptied cloudless sky. A small boy, stretching out his hands and looking up at the blue sky, asked his mother how such a thing was possible. Fuck off, she said.”

Waiting for Godot

Written by Samuel Beckett

Samuel Beckett is the most Eminent Irish based French Playwright of the Theatre of the Absurd, who tries to depict human absurdity and uncertainty in the late modernist bourgeois world of shattered beliefs and uncertainties through the medium of meta theatre , Lionel Able asserts that ,  Mark those frames and boundaries that conventional dramatic realism would hide.

Samuel Beckett wrote ‘Waiting for Godot’ in French in 1949 and then translated it into English in 1954. “Waiting for Godot” is the most popular play in every corner of the world. Therefore, this play has been performed as a drama of the absurd with astonishing success in Europe , America and the rest of the world in post second world war era. For this reason, Martin Esselin calls it,

“One of the successes of the war theatre”

The central theme of the play revolves around waiting. The two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, are waiting expectantly to visit Godot near a stunted tree in the middle of nowhere. They do not even know their real name whether he promises to visit them, or if, in fact actually he exists. However, they are still waiting for him. Nevertheless, he did never appear.

The slave – owning Pozzo and his subservient slave, Lucky and the boy whose name was not mentioned in the play, interrupted their waiting. Godot has nothing significant to do with their lives. They do every possible thing, even prepare to commit suicide, just to keep the dreadful silence. The play begins with waiting for Godot and ends with waiting for Godot. Play does not end formally, when the boy, who is as well messenger of Godot, reveals the fact to the tramps that Godot is not expected to come this evening and he will come tomorrow. In fact these characters are entrapped and entangled in the illusory trap of the slavery of the metaphysics of presence. Therefore, they represents all the human beings in the world, who are imprisoned in one way and the other in the blind alley of different illusions of the logos of language, philosophy and religion. Therefore, the present study tries to discuss the different facets of this famous play from Derridean deconstructive perspective.

Research Questions

·        How does Samuel Beckett disseminate the logos of life in “Waiting for Godot”?

·        Which characteristics of his art do bring him close to deconstruction?

Various answers

The complex structure of “Waiting for Godot” is based upon symbols and ideological content, in which the vertical repression and layering or sedimentation is dominant structure of the text of the play. For this reason it has been always a focal target for world’s researchers. Most of the researchers interpreted its different elements from different angles. Therefore, the complex and entangled structure of the play has drawn multifarious research attentions.

Harold bloom edited a book entitled “Samuel Beckett: Modern critical views” which is an important criticism nearly on all the important works of Samuel Beckett, including “waiting for Godot”. The Book consists of various critical commentaries by different critics on “Waiting for Godot”, which also presents different critical commentaries by different critics on “Waiting for Godot”, from different angles.

Martin Esslin edited a book entitled “An Anatomy of Drama” which is a thought provoking book. He also edited another book , entitled “Samuel Becket: Twentieth century views” which consists of various views on the author under discussion, relating him to the “Theatre of the Absurd” and philosophy of existentialism. William S.Haney in his essay, “Beckett out of his mind: The Theatre of Absurd” states that Samuel Beckett crosses “the linguistic and cultural boundaries by dispensing with narrative technique, sequence, character development and psychology in conventional sense”. Further states that Samuel goes beyond “the psychic structures that select, organize, interpret and limit our knowledge about the world around us”.

Deconstruction

Jacques Derrida is the most eminent Algerian born French philosopher, who originates the path breaking theory of deconstruction. He argues that the tradition of west European philosophy since Plato has been the metaphysics of presence or logo centrism. Its compelling influences and repercussions on human thought have proved to be the inhibiting and fossilizing deadlocks of aporia of meaning and authoritative fossilized logo centric structure of human thought to explore the new horizon, grounding it in the stable and pre-determined meaning of the logos of the metaphysics of presence. We cannot imagine the end of the metaphysics of presence we can criticize it from within it by identifying and reversing the hierarchies it has established.

When we study “Waiting for Godot”, we come across the central theme of the play which revolves around the waiting for godot, who does not appear in the play. Nevertheless, the two characters of the play, Vladimir and Estragon, who are homeless vagabonds seem to be entrapped in the trap of illusory world of the metaphysics of presence. They are tied up with the messianic logo centrism of the term Godot. Messianic is one of the forms of the metaphysics of presence which is evident in the concept of theocentrism and anthropocentrism. Any ideological religious and political system which claims to be authorized legitimacy is messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism. This messianism is dominant in human thought. Jacques Derrida also calls this way of thinking messianicity, according to which Christian hope of a future to come. 

Therefore, the word Godot in the play signifies both theocentric as well as anthropocentric messianic logocentrism, which may be noted is, the privilege given to it as Jehovah of “The old Testament” his wrath frightens and like messiah of “The New Testament” his second coming will redeem the humankind. He may stand for salvation, donation, rebirth and promise which is able to be link between these logi and the two waiting tramps. However the tramps are fallen in the trap of illusory world of the metaphysics of presence and messianism. Nevertheless they have taken it for granted that it is a dominant source of redemption and salvation. They attempt to discover the meaning, origin and the truth under the umbrella of the presupposed messianic logos Godot.

Therefore, Godot can punish them if the tramps leave, redeem and reward them if they keep waiting for him. The tramps have strong desire to turn Godot’s absence to presence. This desire is identical to the yearning of west European philosophy for Centre or the stable and fixed signified by the metaphysics of presence. This messianic metaphysical presence makes a concrete physical anthropocentric entity for the tramps. For instance Vladimir’s yearning to perceive an exact image of Godot’s appearance in an anthropomorphic manner brining him on the level of human perception is an attempt of this kind:

“Vladimir: (softly) Has he a beard, Mr. Godot?”

Boy: Yes sir.

Vladimir: Fair or…. (Hesitates)…or black?

Boy: “I think its white sir”

(From Act 2)

In this manner Vladimir cannot perceive the image of Godot without what west European philosophy’s tradition of the metaphysics of presence and messianism has set for him as the foundation of messianic logocentrism of his beliefs and thoughts. An absent entity of Godot in the play refutes definition and at this point it becomes very close to Jacques Derrida’s definition of difference than to the metaphysical notion of messianic theocentric or anthropocentric logos. Jacques Derrida explains that difference is “formation of form” and the historical and epochal unfolding of being something that negates origin.

However, the absent Godot puts the idea of the origin of true meaning, into the radical question, because it cannot be easily defined categorized or adjusted to an object outside the text. It can signify multiple meanings of more things simultaneously and non- existence or nothing at all. It is in fact, an aporic being, which resist interpretation. As a result, the two tramps are seeking for something to give meaning to their existence. For them Godot is a source of solution of their miseries, the logos that may fill the meaning in their absurd existence. The identity of this absent entity remains unknown in the whole text of the play.

As Worton writes:

“Much has been written about who or what Godot is. My own  view is that he is simultaneously whatever we think he is and not what we think he is, he is an absence we can be interpreted at moments as God, Death the lord or the manner ,a benefactor even pozzo .nevertheless Godot has a function rather than a meaning . He stands for what keeps us chained to and in- existence. He is the unknowable that represents hope in an age when there is no hope, he is whatever fiction we want him to be as long as he justifies our life as waiting.”

The tramps attempt to capture this non- entity or unknown being in terms of the known messianic logocentrism by visiting him are all in vain. Finally, Godot did not appear and tramps turned disappointed and frustrated. Therefore, the bond between language and reality is shattered and words lose their vocation of communicating feelings and thoughts:

“Vladimir: Say I am happy

Estragon: I am happy

Vladimir: So I am

Estragon: So I am

Estragon: We are happy. What do we do, now that we’re happy?”

Therefore Godot’s final absence however, frustrates the hopes of the tramps shows their hidden desire to set themselves free from the tiresome act of waiting for an unknown or non- existent messianic metaphysical being:

“Estragon: (his mouthful vacuously) we are not tied!

Vladimir: I didn’t hear a word you’re saying.

Estragon :( chews, swallows) I’m asking if we’re tied

Vladimir: Tied?

Estragon: ti-ed.

Vladimir: How do you mean tied?

Estragon: Down

Vladimir: But to whom? By whom?

Estragon: to your man

Vladimir: To Godot? What an idea! No question of it. (Pause)For the moment”

(Act 1)

 

Finally the tramps are unable to act even to commit suicide. For example the following dialogue makes the point clear:

 

“Vladimir: we will hang ourselves tomorrow. (Pause) unless Godot comes.

Estragon: And if he comes?

Vladimir: We’ll be saved”

(Act 2)

We can mostly notice their incapability and undecidability to do anything throughout the whole play:

“Estragon: Why don’t we hang ourselves?

Vladimir: With What?

Estragon: you haven’t got a bit of rope?

Vladimir: No

Estragon: Then we can’t.

Vladimir: Let’s go.

Estragon: oh wait, there is my belt.

Vladimir: It’s too short.

Estragon: You could hang on to my legs

Vladimir: And who would hang onto mine?

Estragon: True.”

Therefore, Samuel Beckett refutes the certainty and stability of the Holy Scripture by dismantling its authorized metaphysical meaning. He uses Christian mythology without having to believe in it. As he states, “Christianity is a mythology with which I am perfectly familiar, and so I use it. But not in this case.” For this reason , he involves the tramps in serious  religious debates between the four Evangelists about the saved thief. Vladimir, like the assiduous religious scholar seems to search for the truth and certainty in the Holy text of “The New Testament”. However, he finds that there is no certainty in this text. In fact, his perplexity is the confusion of a layperson in perceiving the philosophy of the Metaphysical of presence, Presented to him as messianic logocentrism. The Following dialogue between the tramps makes the point clear:

“Vladimir: And yet  ... (Pause)…How is it – this is not boring you I hope – how is that of the four evangelists only one speaks of a thief beings saved. The four of them were there or thereabouts and only one speaks of a thief being saved. (Pause.)”

Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can’t you. One in a way?

Estragon :( with exaggerated enthusiasm) I find this most extraordinarily interesting.

Vladimir: One out of four. Of the other three two don’t mention any thieves at all and the third says that both of them abused him.

Estragon: who?

Vladimir: What?

Estragon: What’s all this about? Abused who?

Vladimir: The savior.

Estragon: Why?

Vladimir: Because he wouldn’t save them.

Estragon: From hell?

Vladimir: Imbecile! From Death.

Estragon: I thought you said hell.

Vladimir: From death, from death.

Estragon: well what of it?

Vladimir: Then the two of them must have been damned.

They confront uncertainty and absurdity as illustrated in the conversation between Estragon and Vladimir about the Holy scripture, the memories of the past or identity of Godot.Beckett studs Godot and endgame with reference to these very texts in order to make us “think and participate in his anxious oscillation between certainty about what is untrue and uncertainty about what may be true.”

 

 

Aporia

Aporia means a logical impassable, contradiction doubt and a moment of undecidability. It is the inherent contradiction in the import of the text or theory. Jacques Derrida, for example cites in his book “Of Grammatology” the inherent contradictions at work in Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s use of words culture and nature by stating that Jean Jacques Rousseau’s sense of the self’s innocence is already corrupt by the concept of culture and existence.

Aporia is in fact a logical deadlock of relationship, decision making and interpretation , which makes one to undecidable to gasp logical reasoning and justification . It is precisely a situation, which reflects the impossibility of thought, language, meaning, ethics and justification.  

Conclusion

The present study tried to interpret Samuel Beckett’s play “Waiting for Godot” from a new and innovative perspective through Derridean deconstruction. It showed how the metaphysics of presence and messianic logocentrism imprint preventive effects on mental structure of human beings, and fall them in the aporetic trap of omnipresent and omnipotent logic.

“Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for one the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us! What do you say? It is true that when with folded arms we weigh the pros and cons we are no less a credit to our species. The tiger bounds to the help of his congeners without the least reflexion, or else he slinks away into the depths of the thickets. But that is not the question. What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in the immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come.s”