Reflections
on duality in 19th century literature and
its
philosophical forebears and successors.
When Plato differentiated
between the body and the soul, he laid the foundations of most religions and
belief systems that continue to this day, based on a supreme being whose
standards of spiritual morality we humans may aspire to but frequently fall
short due to our bodily desires, weaknesses and limitations.
Religions and churches based
on faith and ecclesiastical hierarchy were developed to help us chart a way
through life but by the end of the Middle Ages, they had grown in authority and
influence to the point where they exercised control over many aspects of life
and discouraged challenge or dissent.
Bolstered and promoted by
the advent of the printing press and the consequent sharing of ideas, education
and independent thought developed and became more widespread. Focus on
mathematics, science and logic became more prevalent and thinkers or
philosophers such as René Descartes and John Locke emphasised the place of reason,
evidence and proof rather than blind faith and dogma, though their logic was
often applied to proving God’s existence.
This intellectual
movement grew steadily and its proponents grew more daring in terms of conclusions
and more challenging to the ecclesiastical and political status quo. In the
course of the 18th century, a series of philosophers (including
Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and Hume) effectively offered reasoned challenges
to the authority of those in religion-based power. Their argument ran (in a
VERY simplified and condensed form!) that God and therefore morality may not
exist, therefore those in authority, who generally ruled in the name of God,
had to justify by reason their policies and should be held accountable for
their actions as all men were to be considered equal. This came to be known as
the Enlightenment Movement and its intellectual, political and practical
repercussions (including, indirectly, the French Revolution) cannot be
overstated.
This represented a
revolution in thought but also in political and practical consequence. Equality,
responsibility, accountability and justification were now expected and this new
outlook had enormous repercussions in the 19th century, politically,
socially and economically in terms of democratic government, social unrest and
even, perhaps, the ban on slavery as individuals gained the inspiration and confidence
to challenge the status quo and demand fairness for all.
Philosophically, and in
terms of our perception of ourselves as functioning human beings, these ideas
also had something of an impact and this is perhaps best illustrated through examples
of the literature of the time and the concepts of duality they present.
Initially convinced by
Plato’s distinction between the body and the soul, then influenced and directed
by religious elements before having his beliefs upended by philosophical claims
that God and morality may not exist, mankind was in something of a moral and
philosophical quandary by the mid-19th century.
Beneath the façade and
veneer of respectability, social tolerance and conformity, is there a raging
cauldron of desires, impulses and ambitions held in check by the distraction of
work and routine, the common acceptance and expectations of social groups, and
limitations for the common good set by law, morality and religion?
What if theses limits
have no sovereignty and are merely social conventions?
Circumstances can cause a
person to recognise and possibly embrace man’s baser instincts, and the
consequences of succumbing to the temptation of conceding to impulse and desire
are explored in the five works to which I will refer.
In “Les fleurs du mal”
(1857), Charles Baudelaire presents a collection of poems that describe and
investigate conflict between nature and social conformity or expectation within
the individual. Baudelaire encapsulates a desire for spiritual purpose and
buoyancy but this is punctured and deflated by the prospect of the
non-existence of God and morality as proposed in the principles of the
Enlightenment. Spurred on by the inevitability of death and the apparent
pointlessness of life, he supports (indeed, promotes) physical gratification
and indulgence as a consequence of this turning away from the spiritual and the
more elevated purposes of the mind. The division between the body and the mind
or soul is clearly made and Baudelaire is overwhelmingly of the opinion that
our bodily needs and desires will always win out over our spiritual attempts to
impose control or discipline, and any short-lived regrets we may experience
following our adventures.
That said, his contention
does not seem to extend to matters of criminality but is rather focused on
physical indulgence and pleasure without oversight.
However, in “Les
Misérables” (1862), Victor Hugo makes a clear case for the capacity of man to
rise above his base desires and social conditioning and to impose a form of
moral order by way of compassion and understanding.
Having served 19 years in
penal servitude for a relatively minor crime, Jean Valjean becomes the very
creature he was accused of being all these years before – a self-centred opportunist
thief. However, as a result of kindness and generosity shown to him, he
realises there is a choice to be made and he abandons his outlook of personal
survival at the expense of others in favour of compassion, tolerance and
dignity.
The division or conflict
between the two pathways is therefore drawn but Valjean displays the spiritual
determination and strength to put humanity and compassion for others above his
personal needs and ambitions, whether God and morality exist or not. Although
Valjean is inspired by a Bishop, it is the Bishop's kindness and concern that motivate
him, not his faith or position, emphasising the importance and accessibility of
humanity as a source of motivation.
In “Crime and punishment”
(1866), Fyodor Dostoevsky juxtaposes apparent freedom to put one’s own best
interests above those of others (ultimately leading to murder) with the
consequences, moral and practical, of these actions.
Nihilism resulting from
the affirmation that God and morality do not exist may lead to egotism and a
sense of social superiority. Some individuals may appear to lead lives that are
worthier than others and it takes little rationalisation to convince poor
student Raskolnikov that he is entitled to commit the murder of an elderly
pawnbroker for his advantage.
However, an underlying
compulsion toward humanity and compassion affect him and, despite his attempts
to rationalise the situation and appeals to nihilistic reasoning, he is dogged
by guilt and conscience which cause illness and out-of-character responses.
Eventually, obsession and paranoia lead to confession and punishment, and this
leads to a form of social rehabilitation by virtue of a friend whose love and
guidance allow him to appreciate the value of humanity.
Dostoevsky focuses on the
spiritual or psychological aspect of man, having had Raskolnikov stoop to the
depths of murder. God and morality may not exist but there remains a common
bond of life among people, one that requires respect for the existence of
others and that lends limits to our actions and attitudes toward others, though
this respect needs to be cultivated and protected to be fully effective.
In “The strange case of
Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde” (1886), R L Stevenson makes the division of the two
aspects of man’s nature all the more effective by way of a physical
transformation between the two. One presentation is the law-abiding, principled
and outwardly virtuous Dr Jekyll while the other is the self-indulgent and
narcissistic Mr Hyde.
Jekyll’s aim in
separating these two facets of his character is to allow each to fully blossom
and not to encroach on or impede the other. Although we are given scant detail
of Mr Hyde’s misadventures, we are assured of their awfulness, but also of
Jekyll’s pleasure in being guilt-free and in being able to focus on good and
charitable works.
However, Jekyll starts to
take pleasure in Hyde’s conscience-free indulgences and this allows the Hyde
side of his character to develop beyond his control and to take precedence over
his civilised and principled self.
The essential notion is
that by separating and indulging the two sides of our nature, we free ourselves
of internal conflict and may focus our efforts with greater purity and therefore
greater success. That said, it is strongly implied that indulgence of our base
desires without limits set by concepts of compassion and morality would be
disastrous. We may even conclude that each side of our nature may be necessary to
man’s survival but a balance between the two is essential, with the “dark” side
providing motivation, desire and enthusiasm but held in check by compassion,
empathy and humanity.
In “La bête humaine” (The
beast within) (1890), Emile Zola seems to suggest that work and routine provide
distraction, therapy and stability which allow us to control or ignore our base
desires and personal ambitions. Scientific and technological advances (in the
shape of the railway system, transport and communication) may have had a
profound effect on the shape of society but society’s component parts retain
age-old problems regarding passion, self-control and respect for others.
Here, there is little
attempt to exercise control or respect society’s conventions and principles as
our protagonists or antagonists concede to emotion and instinct as they have
affairs, seek revenge and plot murder. They display intelligence and cunning
only in how to achieve their aims and evade punishment. There is a casual
acceptance of lack of consideration for others and indulgence of one’s own
desires and sense of fulfilment. Caution is exercised only in the pursuit of
self-protection, not in the effect of actions on others, to the point of
deprivation of life, suggesting that “spirituality” or morality have diminished
and people simply follow their feelings or impulses. This represents a
significant development and departure from the previous entries in that
consideration for others, or common humanity, now appears to hold little
appeal.
Readers see also that the
actions of the main characters impact many innocent lives, drawing attention to
the existential premise that our actions exercise an influence on others and we
should perhaps take that influence into account when considering our plans and
deeds.
These existential concepts
will be greatly developed and expanded with the advent of the World Wars and
the ensuing political and social change while duality will be explored,
explained and given psychological validation by Sigmond Freud in 1920 and again
in 1923.
Interestingly, Freud
suggests the two conflicting elements, the “id” being our base or inner
instincts and the “superego” being external forces of control and social
limitation, are balanced by the “ego” which acts as an arbiter and judge in
terms of how best to proceed in the situations we face.
In the course of the 20th
century, existentialism rather overtook the concept of duality, or perhaps it
grew out of the casual acceptance of our moral dilemma, as suggested by Zola.
Whatever its roots, with its insistence that God and morality do not exist and
its affirmation that we are morally free to act as we wish, existentialism apparently
does away with justification and moral conflict – we simply do as we feel.
Many seized on these
contentions to support nihilism but they failed to take into account the second
part of the existential doctrine, that if freedom is the only truth, and if we
are entitled to that freedom, it is “wrong” to deprive others of it. Indeed,
the whole basis for much mid-century existential literature is the exploration
of the impact and influence we have on one another and the extent to which we
should feel responsible for any impact or influence.
In the 21st
century, rather than pursue concepts of responsibility, common humanity and
empathy, there appears to be a development of casual acceptance of our moral
freedom and a turning away from compassion, conformity and even definition.
There is a move to simply be, recognising no social restrictions, limits or
even, some would argue, objective truth, and the focus seems to be on
egotistical assertiveness and self-indulgence, and this has led to an increasingly
fragmented and divided society.
It is interesting to note
that religion played little or no part in the evolution of these ideas, perhaps
reflecting man’s desire to find a cohesive base for “morality” based on
humanity and common experience rather than nebulous beliefs and man’s potential
manipulation of such beliefs.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
