The quote that is the title of this post is from the musical "Caberet" (recently performed at Kranert). For those of you who are unfortunately unaware of even a musical as famous as Caberet, I will provide a little background. Caberet is set in the years closely preceding WWII and was published about ten years after. It stretches the social bounds on issues such as sexuality and mocks the atmosphere of the 1930s which is filled with racism and, in Germany where the musical is set, the Nazis are on the rise. The quote that pertains to the book we are reading now, The Stranger by Albert Camus, comes from an American novelist as he rebukes his land lady for breaking off her engagement with a Jewish shop owner because she is scared of the Nazis. This quote struck me as particularly relevant to The Stranger and Albert Camus because he held similar beliefs about resisting the Nazis or being passive and he demonstrates his ideas in this book.
Meursault is really the perfect example of if you're not against it, you're for it because he is really not against anything and thus, ends up being for everything. Let's start with a minor example, first of all their is Marie. He's not for marriage or love but because he is not completely opposed to it, he agrees to it. This dynamic may strike the reader as odd but is really very inconsequential. The really obvious and more important point is Raymond and his issues. Meursault thinks writing the letter for Raymond leads to nothing meaningful, thus doesn't care and subsequently ends up leading the poor girl he has no connection to, to an awful encounter with Raymond. This shows how people can be indirectly hurt by one who does not resist a bad thing but rather proceeds passively. Meursault even refuses to get a policeman and remains completely neutral during the scene with Raymond and the girl. Camus even condemns partial resistance as he demonstrates when "the Arab" injures Raymond. Meursault stands by the fight, not becoming physically involved but tries to warn Raymond that the Arab has a gun. Meursault has good intentions and for the first time makes a choice to become involved in the fight but his only partial involvement was not enough to make a difference. The final and most poignant claim that Camus makes is that being passive and not taking a side can actually cause direct injury to others. This is obviously when Meursault kills "the Arab". Meursault has no personal interest in the man he kills but because he is not against the way Raymond treat the man, he ends up doing permanent, grave damage to the man.
I think this is a really interesting comparison because it implies that many people were unhappy with the Europeans that didn't join the resistance because they thought it was safer to stay on neutral ground. It is also a really interesting moral question. Do you really have to be against something to not be for it? or vice versa? If that is the case, is there anyway that one can stay neutral or is neutral just a wishy-washy cop out position? It's really hard to say and somewhat intimidating to think about. Saying that you must be completely for or against everything in the world is quite a daunting idea. To take away a position of neutrality is to take away the point of view the majority of people choose on most issues. Its like politics. We are pretty much forced to be Republicans or Democrats whether or not we like either side. Weird right?
1 comment:
This is the second time you've drawn a comparison between a production you've seen at Krannert and this novel--I love this kind of cross-pollination!
I find the novel's view of neutrality a real conundrum: on the one hand, I want to see Meursault's detachment as sustainable and defensible, but the Raymond situation really brings that to a head. And when he *does* participate, it's on the "wrong side" and has no real moral aspect to it (and he still insists on narrating it in a way that maintains his neutrality and passivity). And there's a definite integrity to Meursault's refusal to pass judgment--the court's judgment of him (not the crime but his life itself, before the pivotal act) doesn't seem legitimate).
It is like politics, to the extent that the popular media casts it as a two-sided, either/or proposition. But if voter participation is any reliable indication, typically half of the adult population comfortably occupies "neither" side. (And, consequently, their views are not even part of the conversation.)
Camus's own values in the French resistance are clear--but it's less clear to me what he's doing with the ideal of neutrality in the novel.
Post a Comment