Meursault s Ethical Transcendence : A Žižekian Reading of The Stranger. What does it mean to be displaced, separated from the ever-present sense of

Transcription

1 Kvinnesland 1 Greta Kvinnesland Dr. Steven Larocco ENG March 2013 Meursault s Ethical Transcendence : A Žižekian Reading of The Stranger What does it mean to be displaced, separated from the ever-present sense of exteriority or communitas? Is it possible to overcome this chasm between the self and true solidarity? Albert Camus explores this question in The Stranger, setting the reader inside the nihilistic worldview of a narrator whose sense of community is ambiguous at best. While Meursault puts himself in contact with the social order, he also repeatedly sets himself apart from making meaningful connections on what one might consider an ethical level. His sense of self retains precedence over any sense of community, yet even that seems to hold no meaning for him; throughout most of the book, he remains an automaton living under the assumption that any one life is as good as another and none of it really matter[s] (Camus 41). At the end of his life, however, one can see him undergo a transformation that arguably alters this worldview by means of what Slavoj Žižek calls ethical transcendence (Žižek 142). Meursault s decision to murder the Arab illustrates Žižek s concept of the traumatic (140) encounter between self and alterity. This confrontation therefore becomes a symbol of Meursault s relationship with society in general, and his last moments in prison can be seen as an attempt to transcend that ethical autonomy and finally enter into a larger sense of communitas. In order to analyze this transcendence, one must examine what kind of grand social order is actually present within The Stranger, and how this eventually informs Meursault s act of murder. While the overall community portrayed here is reminiscent of

2 Kvinnesland 2 Roberto Esposito s notion of a group bound by no-thing (Esposito 146), Camus also presents a Žižekian conceptualization of the law as an entity that presides over society as a whole and acts as perhaps the only unifying force. Žižek describes this presence as coming from some universal place, a Law that allows the individual to recognize and deal with the stressful impossible relationship with one s neighbor as the Other (140). Though Meursault himself does not readily accept this presence, he nevertheless acknowledges it in two ways: first, in his admission to Raymond that he [doesn t] like cops (Camus 37), which conveys an unapologetic repulsion to the social order, and secondly, in his agreement to act as witness for Raymond after Raymond s fight with the woman in the apartment complex. This decision not only binds him with Raymond which establishes Meursault as part of a whole or at least a sub-community but also brings him into contact with the presence of the Law even before the murder. It is therefore clear at this point in the novel that Meursault should be considered an unreliable narrator, simultaneously acknowledging and resisting the alterity of Žižek s Law-as-Other. While his interaction with Raymond shows that he is conscious of playing a role within the community, his actions still seem to be predicated on an unvarying indifference to any significant social effect. Shortly after the bond is made with Raymond, for example, Meursault accepts Marie s proposal even though he does not believe marriage is a serious thing and agrees that he would probably have accepted the same proposal from another woman (42). Regardless of his emotional detachment from Marie, this scene nevertheless affirms the possibility that Meursault can feel a certain communitas with another individual. At the same time, however, it portrays his

3 Kvinnesland 3 distorted view that none of his actions will have any significant effect on the social order. His ethics are thus grounded on non-reason, or simply no reason at all. This unreliability is crucial in examining Meursault s resistance to the idea of some exteriority larger than himself, and how this may lead to his murder of the Arab. When he returns to the beach and engages the man in a one-on-one confrontation, Meursault seems to experience a sudden and mysterious upheaval of his worldview. If one applies Žižek s reading of Lacan to this crime scene, the question of a traumatic encounter with the Other is raised (Žižek ): the Arab becomes a kind of vessel through which Meursault is confronted with that untouchable exteriority, what Žižek refers to as the Other qua Real, the impossible Thing...with whom no symmetrical dialogue, mediated by the symbolic Order, is possible (143). This philosophy then gives agency to the Arab as being the neighbor for Meursault: The neighbor (Nebenmensch) as the Thing means that, beneath the neighbor as my semblant, my mirror image, there always lurks the unfathomable abyss of radical Otherness, of a monstrous Thing that cannot be gentrified. (143) Because Meursault lives an egocentric life, focused entirely on the Self, I would argue that it is not the mirror image that provokes his desire to destroy the neighbor, but rather this unfathomable abyss as a threatening force. It is important to note, however, that Meursault does not acknowledge the neighbor in the moments preceding or even following the murder, but instead remains locked within a sensual rather than social mindset. He feels the gun in his hand, but does not admit any real responsibility in the moment: The trigger gave; I felt the smooth underside of the butt; and there, in that noise, sharp and deafening at the same time, is where it all started (Camus 59). While he

4 Kvinnesland 4 does not necessarily seem to be avoiding blame (as he later unashamedly admits he is guilty), he nevertheless gives momentary agency to the environment, hypothesizing that the sky split open from one end to the other to rain down fire (59) and seemingly set in motion all action that followed. Yet one could still consider this moment to be the first instance of emotional recognition for Meursault. He admits here that he has shattered the harmony of the day (59), which presents a realization of his effect, albeit not on the neighbor, at least on some form of Žižek s Other. Consequently, it is he, and he alone, who eradicates the veil that once shielded him from the void of otherness outside of himself. Once charged by the Law for his crime, thus coming into contact again with the Other, Meursault slips back into an isolated and indifferent state of mind. He still denies the concept of this alterity as significant, even as he is both literally and figuratively imprisoned by it. His ethical ego does not undergo its transformation until just before his death sentence is carried out. While his visit by the chaplain does not in itself seem to change Meursault s ethical stance, their conversation becomes a catalyst for Meursault s ethical transcendence (Žižek 142). The chaplain provokes a hysterical reaction from Meursault, which is arguably his only real emotional awakening in the entire novel. Seemingly as a result of this awakening, we see a transcendent shift in his worldview. His final thoughts concern himself in the realm of the alterity: [...] for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself so like a brother, really I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate. (Camus 123)

5 Kvinnesland 5 Here he portrays a calm acceptance in the face of death, allowing himself a connection with the world as the Other in his sudden desire for communitas. He has undergone an ethical journey from extreme egocentrism to a conscious confrontation with the realm of a higher Order. Essentially, he has now abandoned his stranger status and accepted fraternity with the alterity that he had (perhaps unknowingly) resisted for so long. Meursault s final revelation can again be explained rather eloquently by Žižek s reading of Lacan. Žižek maintains that the experience of ethical transcendence (142) is something beyond human control, a kind of inevitable event after the initial encounter with the Other : After this first alienation in an established particular life-form comes the separation from my familiar world: when I am addressed by the absolutely Other beyond my world, I am shattered from the complacency of my life-world, and, in answering this address, I have to renounce my egotism and the safety of my Home [ ] (Žižek 144) When read through this lens, the course of Meursault s life is able to be rationalized. The Arab-as-neighbor has presented him with some menacing alterity, to which Meursault responds accordingly. The consequence of this action is that he must then renounce [his] egotism in the last moments of his life in order to transcend the ethical system that had heretofore predicated his existence. In the end, Meursault s journey leads him to turn away from isolation, and his happiness at the thought of being surrounded even by cries of hate (Camus 123) evidences that he has indeed achieved this transcendence.

6 Kvinnesland 6 Works Cited Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Trans. Matthew Ward. New York, NY: Vintage International, Print. Esposito, Roberto. Communitas: The Origin and Destiny of Community. Trans. Timothy Campbell. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, Print. Žižek, Slavoj, Eric L. Santner, and Kenneth Reinhard. The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago, Print.