An essay written by Ibrahim Malik
Within Waiting for Godot, themes of paradoxically contemptuous desire for others’ company can be seen, particularly between the two duos presented. Looking at the air of the epoch under which Beckett has written this play, as well some consideration of Hegel’s concept of consciousness and its development, we might just be able to form a narrative from this congregation of bowler hats.
Self-consciousness, its development, and the other
Before beginning to tackle the play directly, it’ll help to have an understanding of the key concepts of this analysis. In Hegel’s view, self-consciousness requires an independent object, something external to itself, in order to fully develop. Whilst being a catalyst to its actualization, self-consciousness does not shy away from viewing this object as foreign and opposing to it. Self-consciousness wishes to possess this external object and as such preserve it whilst, at the same time, transforming it to be fit for possession, thereby making it non-foreign. Hegel explains this as an attempt to prove independence. If that on which I am dependent becomes part of me, then I am as dependent on it as I am on any other part of myself. This can imply that, in order to fully realize oneself as a self-conscious being, one must transform the external world and possess it. However, herein lies a dilemma.
If a being is successful in the possession of the external, then there is no longer an external element to satisfy their yearning for the external, that is unless the object was able to possess itself, thereby being independent for as long as it exists. Here, the external ‘object’ is yet another self-consciousness. A self-conscious being needs to be able to observe themself in another self-consciousness (one needs a mirror to view oneself.) In addition, self-consciousness, at least in the human manifestation, needs to develop in a social context. A human child who had grown up in isolation is expected to struggle later on in life, an example of an under-developed self-consciousness. Therefore, if one possesses that which simultaneously possesses itself, then, in theory, one needn’t worry about the external losing its reflective properties throughout the process of possession.
Vladimir, Estragon, and desperation for communion
It is perhaps for this reason that Vladimir and Estragon refuse to part ways, despite how seemingly better off each one would be without the other. The two haven’t anywhere else to turn, for they are waiting for a man they do not know in an unfamiliar and hostile land where the question of whether one had been beaten up the night before is a conversation starter. They find themselves with very limited food supplies and in the least comfortable of attire. Nonetheless, they await, all for the possibility of the fulfillment of even one of their requests. All they seem to have, truly, is one another, without that, they would go even more mad than they already have gone. Furthermore, they fulfill the role of mirror for each other. Vladimir is there to remind Estragon of what has or has not happened, and Estragon is there to question Vladimir’s sweaty grip on truth. Estragon is there to be reminded, and Vladimir there to be questioned. Each one of them offers dynamic novelty and recognition to the other, as frustrating as it may be to receive at times. Through this lens, we can hope to understand interactions between the other characters too, although perhaps to a lesser extent. For example, this might also explain why Pozzo is so keen on keeping company with Vladimir and Estragon, for he is desperate for recognition, for finally and at last, he finds other self-consciousnesses meeting his standards of truly deserved independence, others who can acknowledge him. Indeed, Pozzo does not view Lucky as his own self-consciousness.
Slave and master, Pozzo and Lucky
Through owning Lucky, Pozzo manages to realize himself onto the external ‘object’ as he becomes ‘its’ master. However, through enslaving Lucky and denying to see him as an independent self-consciousness, Pozzo loses out on the mirror through which to view himself. Likewise, Lucky does not receive any recognition from Pozzo. Master loses recognition, for through the enslavement of the other, ‘slave’ ceases to be an independent self-consciousness with whom acknowledgement and self-recognition can be achieved. Indeed, Pozzo may be aware that Lucky is conscious, however, his actions and treatment of Lucky do not reflect a full or proper recognition of that consciousness and independence. Pozzo treats Lucky as an object or a possession. On the other hand, whilst slave does lose out on external acknowledgement or recognition, they can find fulfillment and self-realization in external objects through labor, even though such labor is enforced and controlled by a hostile and commodifying external force. It is important to know that the master’s ownership of the slave’s labor products implies the slave’s loss of their own essence. Lucky permeates his essence into the outer world through acts of thought, dance, luggage-lifting and, in this adaptation, photography. As such, through his acts of self-actualization onto the external world, by influencing and changing it, Lucky the slave advances more than Pozzo the master does. Pozzo does speak of disposing of Lucky, of selling him, and of how useless he apparently is to him. Yet, such words never come to fruition, and his action of keeping Lucky, supposedly out of the ‘goodness of his own heart’ might just be out of his desperate dependence on Lucky for self-realization. To Pozzo, Lucky is the external object through which self-realization is achieved, an external object which cannot properly acknowledge him. One can see this relation of dependence symbolized by the rope which binds these two together, literally. A physical bond indicating their proverbial one. In addition, Pozzo’s dependence on Lucky is indicated in the 2nd act by his loss of vision and the shortening of their rope, showing just how dependent Pozzo is on Lucky. Usually, a Hegelian master-slave dynamic has a resolution, yet, in Waiting for Godot, the thematic element is that of endlessly cyclical repetition. In addition, the dynamic may be on a wider scale than we had anticipated.
Collective apostasy
The loss of recognition of one’s being and its worth by one’s own community—ostracization and shunning—can be detrimental to one’s wellbeing and very sense of identity. It can lead to madness and alienation from the external and the otherization thereof, for one undergoes a process of alienation. Such often is the experience of the individual who is apostatizing from societal norms; the enslaved denied recognition by the masters, the gatekeepers of recognition, identity, inclusion or even moral consideration. This is how apostasy often goes. This exact process may not be depicted in this play of Beckett’s, however if we reflect on the absurdist, post-World War 2 context under which this play was catalyzed, and look at it from the lens of the collective experience, then we might be able to see how the experience apostasy could fit into all of this.
The experience of the societies involved in World War 2, apostatizing form their very cultures, cultures which upheld the norms that had facilitated the war. The very norms that had implicated these societies in the war, had its people kill and be killed, to name an ounce of the atrocities that had taken place. After that horrific experience, individuals have had the proverbial rug of meaning that the contemporary culture was pulled from beneath their collective feet, and the fall, for each individual respectively, was like none they had ever fallen before. The disillusionment with culture. The people did not die, some of them may wish they did. But no, instead, they are left, surviving with no reason to survive. For the very cause they sacrificed everything for, it is over; and yet, they were expected to move along. Continue their lives as if nothing had ever happened, as if many of them had not been lost, as if they could give what they had never been taught to give, to give expressions of healthy individuals who had never even heard of war nor mass death. Culture in this case is blind to the effect of such experiences, for how could it ever see its society as anything more than an object of self-realization? Here, we have culture as the master, commodifying and objectifying its society, making of it nothing but a tool to realize itself with, a means of upholding tradition and keeping itself, culture, alive, even in a dead society. The state of its subjects ignored, for they are mere subjects, not individuals who require recognition of their innate value and their unique being. Here, culture is master and the denizens under it slave. People serving their culture, instead of their culture serving them. But after the war, the limits were tested, and the metaphysical chains were broken. People stopped believing in culture, due to the place that it brought them to. Everything was lost, not only the horrific, but also the beautiful, for to redeem the beautiful from its ugly roots is a long process which calls for much trust, something that was just severely shattered. And as such, it is not only that one individual who becomes lost, it is everyone, the collective. Here, we have the conditions that created absurdism, and Waiting for Godot and its bizarre themes that even Beckett himself had struggled to unravel. This is why we see our characters in an endless state of waiting, a stalemate, existing in what seems to be a purgatory. It also explains why we do not see a resolution to the master-slave dialectic between Pozzo and Lucky, their very collective predisposition is yet to reach its conclusion. Until they find a way to connect, they are stuck in this eternal metaphysical and physical limbo.
SUAD Théâtre 