Reading of Waiting for Godot: A Derridean Study in context to Meaninglessness and Nothingness

 

 

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to explore one of the prominent writers Samuel Beckett’s play, Waiting for Godot which shows the meaninglessness and illogicalness of people’s life, this play doesn't follow any structure. Jacques Derrida’s trend-breaking theory of deconstruction attacks the metaphysical presuppositions of western philosophy, ethnicity, culture, politics, and literature. It gives a new meaning of perspective to Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot which has always been a focal point of world literature criticism. But this paper scrutinized the different facets of the play from Derridean deconstructive theory. This play concerns two characters Vladimir and Estragon who are waiting anxiously and are going to visit Godot near a dwindled tree in the middle of nowhere. They are not acquainted with his real name, whether he promises to visit them or actually exists. They are still waiting for him. Nothingness and meaningless influence both of them to frustrate in leading their life, suffering even trying to hang themselves which brings destiny in their relationship. The unprofitable waiting is the main concern of this play. Estragon and Vladimir as a ramification of the deconstructive ‘modus operandi’ is the premier corollary this paper is going to analyse. The meaninglessness of life that led to loss of dignity and the spread of depression of the European people due to World War 2 reflected Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. The war brought nothing but destruction, sadness, and misery, and had forced humanity at that time.

 

Keywords: meaninglessness, deconstruction, metaphysical presence, binary opposition, class discriminations

 

The aim of this paper is to attempt a critical reading of Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot which shows the meaninglessness of life and Derrida’s deconstruction through the play Waiting for Godot. The objectives of the paper are as follows:

 1) To explore the uncertainty and unpredictability in Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot

2) To analyse the meaninglessness and unprofitable in the play Waiting for Godot

3) To examine Derrida’s philosophy on fixity, logocentrism, singularity, metaphysical presence and unified meaning in the text Waiting for Godot.

Samuel Beckett, the Irish playwright, theatre director, novelist and poet is one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century. He often wrote in French and then translated his work into English. He is a well-known writer of Absurd literature, who tries to depict human absurdity and uncertainty in the modern period. His plays such as Waiting for Godot (1954) and "Endgame" (1958), projects the irrationalism, helplessness and absurdity of life in dramatic forms that rejects realistic settings, logical reasoning, or a coherently evolving plot.

Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot was originally written in French in 1949 and then translated into English in 1954. This play is an absurd play, as it is based on the absurdity and meaninglessness in the life of the characters in the novel. The central theme of the play revolves around waiting. The true tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, are waiting expectantly to visit Godot near a stunted tree in the middle of nowhere. They have not meet Godot before nor they know his identity. They were aimlessly waiting for an unknown person who eventually did not show up.

The play begins with waiting for Godot and ends with waiting for Godot. Play doesn't end formally, when the boy, who is a messenger of Godot, reveals that Godot would not show up that evening and would come the next day. In fact, these characters are entrapped and entangled in the illusory trap of the slavery of the metaphysics of presence. Therefore, they represent 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 facts if this famous play from Derridean deconstructive perspective.

Jacques Derrida is the eminent poststructuralist French philosopher, who originated the path breaking theory of deconstruction. He argues that the tradition of west European philosophy since Plato has been the metaphysics plot presence or logocentrism. Derrida originated the term deconstruction but he didn't define it anywhere. However, the term deconstruction is by no means simple and easy task but very complex one and not defined explicitly by initiator Derrida. Habib writes that deconstruction is a “way of reading, mode of writing, and above all a way of challenging interpretation of the text, based upon conventional notion of stability of human self, the external world and of language of meaning” and Derrida write about it “deconstruction is ‘destruction’ and disedimentation  of all the signification that have their sources in that if the ‘logos’ (Derrida 10). However, doesn't mean destroy, as Derrida write" rather destroying, it was also necessary to understand how a whole was also constituted and reconstruct and to dismantle logocentrism and phonocentrism.

The complex structure of Waiting for Godot is based upon symbols and ideological content, the vertical repression & layering or deposit is dominant structure of the text. The preliminary survey of literature proceeds with the study no relevant books articles, research papers, journal’s, most of the researcher interpreted in different element from different angles. There are so many books and critique composed on this play.

Shabir Ahmed Mir entitled as “Unmasking Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot as a candid paradigm of Jacques Derrida's Deconstruction" published in research journal of English language and literatures (RJEAL); an attempt has been made to critically analysis. The term Central to the philosophy of Deconstruction, transcendental signified, logos, binary oppositions.

Ghassan Awad Ibrahim entitled as meaninglessness and futile in Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot published April 2017 critically analysis the text waiting for Godot as an absurd drama, nothingness in human life and meaninglessness of life. This paper makes us aware that should appreciate his current situation and try to enjoy each moment as much as possible.

Javed Akhtar entitled “Waiting for Godot a deconstructive study” published University of Balochistan Quetta Balochistan Pakistan, the study is narrative research and follows descriptive cum analytical methods. The key concepts of this paper are Deconstruction, metaphysical presence, messianic, binary oppositions and delogocentrism are discussed in relation to the text in this paper.

 

M.H Abraham in his book A Glossary of Literary Terms discuss simply about Derrida’s philosophy of Deconstruction, binary oppositions, logocentrism, etc. which makes it to understand better about philosophy and analyse in context to the paper.

These books and research papers are interesting, informative and thought provoking on the subject in many respects. The present paper interpreted the breaking Derridean Deconstruction. Therefore, this paper would be an analysis from a new and innovative perspective on Waiting for Godot applying Derridean Deconstruction to the test of this debate raging play.

Derrida calls all western tradition logocentric because it places all the centre of our perception of the universe of concept. Derrida criticises that the notion of innate structure of human consciousness in structuralism has always presupposed a centre of meaning of something which governs the structure, but is itself not subject to structural analysis (to find the structure of the centre would be to find another centre) for this reason Derrida claims that western philosophy has always has a desire “to search for a centre, a meaning, origin or a transcendental signified” (Derrida 45). He calls this desire for logocentrism or phono centrism (Derrida 11). However, he opines to ground its basis on meaning, presence or existence.

Through the study of 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 messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism of the term Godot. Messianic is one of the forms of the metaphysics of presence, which is evident in the concepts of theocentrism and anthropocentrism. Any ideological, religious and political system, which claims to be authorised legitimacy, is messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism. This messianism is dominant in human thought. Jacques Derrida also calls this way of thinking messianic, 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 (Jesus Christ) 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 a link between these logic and the two waiting tramps. However, the tramps are fallen in the trap of illusory world of the metaphysics of presence and messianism. Therefore, they are mentally tied up with the logocentric messianic term Godot. 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 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 logocentric metaphysical presence makes a concrete physical anthropocentric entity for the tramps. For instance, In Act Two, Vladimir’s yearning to perceive an exact image of Godot’s appearance in an anthropomorphic manner, bringing 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... (He hesitates) ... or black?

Boy: I think it’s white, sir” (Beckett 92).

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 differance than to the metaphysical notion of messianic theocentric or anthropocentric logos. Jacques Derrida explains that differance is “formation of form and the historical and epochal unfolding of Being”; something that negates origin.

The tramp throes to this mentality or unknown being in terms of the known messianic logocentrism, by visiting him, are all in vain finally Godot didn’t appear and tramps turned disappointed and flustered. The Nexus between language and reality is decimated and words fatter and collapse in their enterprises of corresponding feeling and thought in Act Two:

Vladimir: say I am happy.

Estragon: I am happy

Vladimir: so am I

Estragon: so, I am

Estragon: we are happy (silence) what do you do, now that we are happy? (Beckett 60).    

Therefore, Godot's final absence, however, frustrated the hopes of the tramp and they have become nervous the following dialogue shows the tramps hidden desire to set themselves free from the tiresome act of waiting for an unknown or non-existent messianic metaphysical being. The dialogic conversation in Act 1 goes on as:

   Estragon: we are not tied!

   Vladimir: I don't hear a word you are saying

   Estragon (chews and swallow) I am asking if we are tied

   Vladimir: tied.

   Estragon: ti-ed

   Vladimir how do you tied?

   Estragon: down

   Vladimir: but to whom? By whom?

   Estragon: try your man

   Vladimir: to Godot? Tied to Godot? What an ideal no question on it (pause) for the moment

(Beckett 20-21).

Finally, the tramps are unable to do act even to commit suicide. Therefore, Beckett refutes the certainty and of the holy scriptures by dismantling its authorised metaphysical meaning. He ties “Christian mythology with which I am perfectly familiar and so I used it but not in this case”. For this reason, he involved the tramps in serious religious debate between the four evangelists about the save thief. Vladimir, like assiduous religious scholars seems to search for truth and certainty in the holy text of “The New Testament” we find the character of the play entangled within an illusory web of logocentric illusion of thought that they want to grasp the ultimate truth of life and the universe in a way as logocentric western tradition of the metaphysics of presence confines their mind to think about the authoritative universal truth, meaning and origin. Nevertheless, they are unable to find it and on the contrary as illustrated in the conversation between Estragon and Vladimir about the holy scriptures, the memory of the past or the identity or identity of Godot. However, Vladimir want to find a proof for Existence his desire for a centre, origin, or logos of Godot is fully illustrated when he says; words (pause) speak (Beckett act1 ,p. 50)  

In this way Samuel Beckett’s deconstruct messianic theocentrism and anthropocentricism of the logocentric word of Godot and after dissemination Godot and the holy y, Samuel Beckett further goes in Lucky’s speech and his deconstructive techniques to undo western philosophy in the metaphysics of presence.

The character of Godot by its perpetual suspension between presence and absence (words coined by Derrida while expounding he theory of Deconstruction) suggesting interesting parallels with an idea in post structural linguists, which is central to the idea of deconstruction.

Derrida’s transcendental signified surpasses the physical world. It is the centre that is not subjected to change, because it is fixed. God, truth, essence etc. are usually thought of transcendental signified. It is beyond or is independent of the play of signifiers (any meaningful sound or written mark) which produce other signified. Derrida negates the existence of this transcendental signified. A signified is not any independent identity but the product of the interplay of a number of signifiers. so; the search for the signified always leads to an infinite number of signifiers. A transcendental signified as already mentioned above would be however one that escapes this play of signifiers and has a privileged existence. Such a signified, as Derrida reveals is a philosophical fiction. Analogically, we can think of the play as a complex set of signifiers in search of a transcendental signified called Godot. This is the most important component of the theory of Deconstruction that makes the play eligible for a deconstructive reading. It would then be clear that like the dog-song at the beginning of Act 2, or a text in the current sense of the term, it can never escape from its endless chain of significations and arrive at that signified- that is, Godot is a fiction and can never arrive. Yet, just as the poststructuralist theory of language has to presume the dubious presence of some transcendental signified, simultaneously generating and generated by the act of difference, to explain the origin and functioning of meaning, the text has to presume the presence of a Godot whose arrival give it meaning. But Godot didn't arrive so the text remains meaningless.

According to structuralists and Western philosophers, binary opposition is essential and fundamental to human day-to-day life like language, cognition, communication, writing etc. This opposition helps to shape the entire world-view and to differentiate one thing from another. However, binarism underlines human thought and action. Culture and nature often function through binary polarities. In philosophy and religion, paired oppositions, like causes and effect, body and mind, virtue and evil, beauty and ugliness etc. serve as the very foundation of human thought.

Jacques Derrida opposes the system of binary opposition. He claims that in the Western tradition of philosophy, there has always been an opposition between the two concepts and each pair of concepts always “govern the other or has the upper hand”. Derrida shows that such oppositions constitute a tacit hierarchy, in which the first term functions as privileged and superior and the second term as derivative and inferior. The polar opposites have a certain tension between them. For this reason, deconstruction is simply defined as a critique of the hierarchical oppositions that have structured Western thoughts. Deconstructing opposition means not destroying any opposition but giving it a different structure and functioning.

Deconstruction stands against all predetermined and fossilized norms and values. The notion of binary oppositions like white and black, light and dark, virtue and evil, beauty and ugliness, smart and dull may be noted in Waiting for Godot that highlights the lack of stability and coherence of the text. However, binary oppositions between Vladimir and Estragon and Pozzo and Lucky are also exit in their way of thinking, feelings, appearance, social status and even their levels of intelligence. The characters ate also come in pairs: Didi/Gogo, and Pozzo/Lucky in the play.

In the play Waiting for Godot, the characters are entangled within the web of binary oppositions. These polar opposites are used in the text as highly applied lines of condemnation to the one, which is depreciated. The characters of the play resort to contrast and comparison, whenever they confront an aporetic and manically offensive mode. In this sense, Samuel Beckett’s text is based on individual inferences and linguistic experiences of the reader/ audience and decentring logocentric binaries. In this manner, the logocentric binaries lose their validity and determination in the text, fulfilling Derridean deconstructive aspiration. Therefore, the text refrains the readers from determining only one fixed meaning and prepares more room for different and deferral meanings and interpretations.

In Waiting for Godot Vladimir and Estragon are homeless tramps. Therefore, homelessness is shown to be a gift of capitalism. In this way, Samuel Beckett deconstructs the sentimentalism of home and family by demythologization of sentimental concepts of home and family in the play. For this reason, he demystifies the traditional concept of home and family as a centre of shelter in the play to present his characters Vladimir and Estragon as homeless and familyless tramps.

However, Vladimir and Estragon create the logos in the name of Godot, which is an ultimate source of donation and salvation for them. In this way, Samuel Beckett protests against different ontological problems. His interest in "the shape as opposed to the validity of Ideas" brings him very close to Derrida's deconstruction. His play is ambiguous to define the word Godot and ambiguity and futility are the characteristics of non-relational arts. His meta-dramatic text of the play refuses to fall in the order and a strong sense of reality, which prevails in most modernist literature. As Michael Warton mentions:

“What Beckett says in his plays is not totally new. However, what he does with his

sayings is radical and provocative; he uses his play texts to remind (or tell) us that

there can be no certainty, no definitive knowledge, and that we need to learn to read in a new way, in a way that gives us space to bring our contestations as well as our knowledge to our reception to the text” (Warton, Michael, 1995, p. 81).

Therefore, nameability is also one of the forms of Derridean de-logocentrism because nominalism is a logocentric phenomenon in language. In the play the boy who is the messenger of Godot is unnamed; Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky are unfamiliar type of names and even Godot is not name of any person. The title of one of Samuel Beckett’s plays is also “Unnameable” in which Unnameable is the central character. In this manner, Samuel Beckett uses the infinite play of signifiers through a refusal of narrative closure, an idea that often finds expression in its tendency to embrace contradictions instead of resolving them. This is what Jacques Derrida says that, language is the ground of being, and the world is an infinite text in which an infinite chain of signifiers is always in play.

Therefore, deconstruction in Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot” is both admitting this “unnameability” and parodying all efforts, especially of the characters, for deciphering this domain. For instance, Vladimir gropes for meaning but fails in his logocentric effort to overcome the differance of language and achieve meaning and origin. However, he is unable to access the meaning, essence and origin of the self. At last, he remains unable to move in as incoherent structure of the self.

Moreover, Samuel Beckett has a tendency towards playful treatment of subjects. Treating the text of “Waiting for Godot” as a literary game, he seeks to develop his playfulness to everything, even to most philosophical concepts in his plot. He wants his audience or readers to revise their position towards theatre and text by putting the concepts of God, truth, origin, meaning and language in question in the inappropriate concepts of his language games. However, the game playing in his text appears in two levels in Derridean deconstructive manner: outside the text, either he plays a game with the audience and readers, or he plays a game between the characters or elements of performance.

The class discrimination depicted by Karl Marx in his philosophy “Marxism” is also portrayed in the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett. Through the characters of Pozzo and Lucky, the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat is represented. Pozzo, Lucky’s slave-owning master dictates him by the power of words and logic. His one-word command dictates and handles Lucky. Therefore, like a puppet or remote-controlled robot, he obeys the orders of his master Pozzo. “back”, “stop”, “turn”, “stand”, “up”, and “basket” are the one-word commands of his master, he obeys. In this way, he behaves and reacts in accordance with the command method of his master.

As a matter of fact, literature is the mirror of society that reflects the realism of the factual daily life at any blight of the recent war and its terrible experience to present the masterpiece play Waiting for Godot from a new innovative perspective through Derridean deconstructive. It shows how the metaphysics of presence and messianic affect on mental structure of human beings. Therefore, they accept the authority of the messianic ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism logic. This study tries to prove the technique of meta-theatre used in Samuel Beckett’s play, rejecting the conventional dramatic realism making the text of the play de-logocentric text and bringing it very close to Derridean deconstruction, which rejects and deconstructs the romantic singularity and fixity or hidden transcendental meaning of the text.

Submitted by:

Josmina Begum, Esha Choudhury and Momtaz Begum

Supervised by:

Aditi Ghosh

HOD

Department of English

Maryam Ajmal Women's College of Science & Technology, Hojai