Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 8 Number 1, April 2007
___________________________________________________________________
Nothingness
by
University of Wales Aberystwyth
Samuel Beckett’s Happy Days strongly reflects the themes in Sartre’s Nausea. There is a connection between the main characters in the two texts and the works can be read profitably against one another. A Sartrean approach to Happy Days reveals that the concept of concrete nothingness discussed by Sartre in Being and Nothingness is found throughout the dialogue and stage directions. The most important connection that can be made between Happy Days and Being and Nothingness is the relationship between the characters in the play and Sartre’s concept of concrete nothingness. By substituting Beckett’s characters with Sartre’s three non-beings we form the base from which a number of the examples of concrete nothingness arise. Both Sartre and Beckett use fictional characters in order to convey ideas about nothingness. Sartre’s novel Nausea expresses his views about nothingness through the character Antoine. While Beckett and Sartre’s characters show us examples of concrete nothingness, they don’t provide us with an understanding of the concept itself. When examining both works in conjunction with Being and Nothingness, the connection between the specific examples and the theory of concrete nothingness becomes evident. The three examples that will be used to highlight the connection between the two texts are the role of mirrors, the significance of the body, and the concept of time. The characters in the texts are searching for an answer or solution to concrete nothingness, but what they discover is that it is not something that can be overcome. The very idea that they are constantly searching for an answer and questioning themselves is what reveals that they are not in perfect unity with themselves. In the end, there is no clear resolution, rather Sartre and Beckett, through their fictional characters, show that the process of questioning is, in itself, what characterizes the concrete nothingness in man.
To begin, a basic overview of Sartre’s theory of concrete nothingness is required in order to be able to break the theory down into comprehensible portions and discuss these segments as they apply to Happy Days. Sartre’s definition of being and non-being in relation to man is intricately connected to one’s ability to question their own being. This is best described as the ability to be aware of one’s own consciousness; or in other words, have a consciousness of one’s consciousness. It may help to have a definition of Sartre’s consciousness from the outset: “Consciousness is a being such that in its being, its being is in question in so far as this being implies a being other than itself” (Being 630). Sartre proves that both consciousness and consciousness of one’s consciousness are two separate non-beings. He then sets the two non-beings in juxtaposition to each other by means of the concept of questioning to form an indisputable equation that gives way to a ‘third non-being.’ The combination of these ‘three non-beings’ creates a triangle of non-being which yields nothingness.
It is important to note that consciousness can be examined in a multitude of ways. Concrete nothingness holds a very precise place among the various phenomenological concepts of consciousness. In general terms, let us accept phenomenal consciousness to be the state of being conscious such as when we say “I am conscious.” By these means, we can understand concrete nothingness as the ‘space between’ the “I” of “I am” and the consciousness of “conscious.” In other words, for Sartre, the phenomenon of consciousness includes the possibility of Nothing existing between one’s consciousness and themselves (or with the world).
Let us begin to explore Sartre’s concept of concrete nothingness by using his method of questioning. The example Sartre uses is, “Is there any conduct which can reveal to me the relation of man with the world?” (Being 4). At this point the answer is irrelevant; the question is what’s important. The purpose of posing the question in the first place is because I want to know whether or not it can be proven objectively that there is a conduct which can reveal to me the relation of man with the world. However, the only one who can provide me with the answer is I since I am the one posing the question to my consciousness by means of my consciousness of my consciousness. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre defines this phenomenon in the following way: “In every question we stand before a being which we are questioning. Every question presupposes a being who questions and a being which is being questioned”(4). According to Sartre, there are two possible replies to my question, an affirmative one and a negative one. There is a conduct or there is not a conduct. What Sartre proves in Being and Nothingness through his method of questioning, is that the possibility that there is a conduct is just as great as the possibility that there is not:
One will perhaps be tempted not to believe in the objective existence of a non-being; one will say that in this case the fact simply refers me to my subjectivity; I would learn from the transcendent being that the conduct sought is pure fiction. But in the first place, to call this conduct a pure fiction is to disguise the negation without removing it. “To be pure fiction” is the equivalent here to “be only fiction.” Consequently to destroy the reality of the negation is to cause the reality of the reply to disappear. This reply, in fact is the very being which gives it to me; that is, reveals the negation to me. There exists then for the questioner the permanent objective possibility of a negative reply. (5)
Given the possibility of a negative reply, I am lacking a definitive answer as to whether or not there is a conduct; the possibility implies that, my consciousness is an unknowing entity:
In relation to this possibility the questioner by the very fact that he is questioning, posits himself as in a state of indetermination; he does not know whether the reply will be affirmative or negative. Thus the question is a bridge set up between the two non beings: the non-being of knowing in man, the possibility of non-being of being in transcendent being. (5)
In other words, the questioner that poses the question to the questioned is united with the questioned by means of the question itself. Both the questioner and the questioned become non-being as the questioned is unable to provide a definitive answer and the questioner is unable to have confirmation of its being. Lastly we arrive at Sartre’s proof of concrete nothingness in relation to the third non-being:
Finally the question implies the existence of a truth. By the very question the questioner affirms that he expects an objective reply, such that we can say of it, “It is thus and not otherwise.” In a word the truth, as differentiated from being, introduces a third non-being as determining the question-the non-being of limitation. This triple non-being conditions every question, which is our question (5)
In the end, our pursuit of the answer as to whether or not there is a conduct by which man relates to the world leaves us with concrete nothingness. As we have discovered, the questioner, the questioned and the question are incapable of being united as there is no concrete answer. What we thought might be the truth, in the form of an answer to the questioner from the questioned has instead revealed itself as a permanent possibility of a negative reply. In other words the cause of concrete nothingness is that our consciousness is incapable of being one with itself. Lastly, as emphasized by Joseph S. Catalano in A Commentary on Jean Paul Sartre’s ‘Being and Nothingness’ “this concrete nothingness cannot be pictured, but an approach can be made to understand it if we repeatedly ask ourselves what we are” (64). It will be seen that both Winnie, the main character in Happy Days and Antoine, the main character in Nausea are attempting to do just that.
In the same way that Sartre uses the questioner, the question and the questioned to come to the conclusion that we are left with concrete nothingness, Beckett, in Happy Days, uses his characters as representative of the question, the questioner and the questioned which creates a sense of concrete nothingness. There are only two characters in Happy Days, Winnie and Willie. The focus is almost entirely on Winnie with the occasional response from Willie. Winnie is stuck inside a mound from which she never moves. Because there is very little interaction between the two characters one has the sense that the whole play is simply Winnie’s train of thought. It is because the play is essentially one long monologue that we are able to attribute Sartre's three non-beings to it. Let us say that Winnie represents the first two non-beings, the being who is questioning and the being who is being questioned. Winnie’s monologue is riddled with questions to herself. It is the very act of questioning that allows Winnie’s consciousness and consciousness of her consciousness to be made evident to the reader. One instance of Winnie being conscious of her own thoughts is when she becomes conscious of the fact that she is alone: “Ah yes, if only I could bear to be alone, I mean prattle away with not a soul to hear. Not that I flatter myself much you hear, no Willie, God forbid. Days perhaps when you hear nothing. But days too when you answer. So that I may say at all times, even when you do not answer and perhaps hear nothing, Something of this is being heard, I am not merely talking to myself” (Beckett 408). Since earlier in the play Winnie reflected upon the fact that she was alone, her consciousness of being alone in this quote represents her consciousness of having previously been conscious that she was alone. Winnie, however, is not entirely alone as she confers with a ‘being’ who she believes to be real: Willie. Willie, in the form of a second character, can be seen as representative of Sartre’s third non-being and thus the possibility of an objective truth. Just as Sartre’s questioner assumes that there is an objective truth, Winnie assumes that she can rely on Willie to affirm her questions. Initially, Winnie pleads with Willie to respond to her, to give her some kind of indication that he is present in order to quell her anxiety about being alone: “I beseech you, Willie, just yes or no, can you hear me, just yes or nothing” (410). Although Willie is sometimes present and sometimes not and sometimes gives her an answer and sometimes does not, he exists mostly as an uncertainty, as does the reply of the third non-being. Winnie, despite her belief that Willie is an other, cannot depend on him: “Willie? Do you, Willie? You have no opinion? Well that is like you, you never had any opinion about anything” (421). For Winnie, Willie is merely a comfort that allows her to continue to believe that there might be an answer: “I mean unless I come to the end of my own resources which is most unlikely, just to know that in theory you can hear me even though in fact you don’t is all I need, just to feel you there within earshot and conceivably on the qui vive is all I ask” (411). Winnie, unlike Sartre’s questioner, continues to hold onto the possibility of an objective truth.
The first example of Winnie and Antoine's search for an understanding of concrete nothingness is their use of the mirror. In general, the mirror is a falsely comforting tool used to affirm one’s existence. It is in fact possible to stare at a mirror long enough so that the image seems to take on a life of its own. There are many occasions in Nausea where we see Antoine getting caught in his mirror. For Antoine, the mirror is a symbol of his isolation and non-being. He does not find any meaning in his image. He searches for understanding but cannot make anything of the face that stares back at him: “I can understand nothing of this face. The faces of others have some sense, some direction. Not mine” (16). He stares into the mirror until “nothing human is left” (17). Antoine is unable to find life in his face, but he is given some comfort by identifying his hair as uniquely his own: “above the flabby cheeks, above the forehead…is the beautiful red flame which crowns my head, it is my hair. That is pleasant to see. Anyhow, it is a definite colour: I am glad I have red hair” (16). He is not completely lost; he hangs on to his identity by a hair. Antoine continues to be drawn to the mirror with the hope that he may come across some sense of himself. Alone in his apartment, with nothing to do, Antoine admits that if a little more time had passed without distraction he “would have fallen into the lure of the mirror” (30). Just shortly after, when he is no longer satisfied with staring out the window he is unable to hold back: “I tear myself from the window and stumble across the room; I glue myself against the looking glass. I stare at myself, I disgust myself” (31). Antoine's use of the mirror is just one way in which he attempts to resolve his uncertainty of self. While not literally posing questions to himself, he seeks answers by referring back to himself by means of his reflection
Winnie uses the mirror as an attempt to “see” herself in a similar way. As consciousness, she holds the mirror up to her consciousness of her consciousness and demands an answer. Just as she cannot find a reply in Willie, the third non-being, she finds no answer in her own reflection. Winnie takes her mirror out randomly without explanation and looks in it for brief moments: “rummages in bag-cannot be cured-brings out small mirror, turns back front-ah yes-inspects teeth in mirror-poor dear Willie-testing upper front teeth with thumb, indistinctly-good Lord!-pulling back upper lip to inspect gums, do…no better, no worse-lays down mirror” (404). While this first example shows Winnie using the mirror for a practical purpose, as the play progresses and Winnie begins to sink further into the ground, the mirror’s significance becomes more obvious: Pause. She takes up mirror-I take up this little glass, I throw it away-does so far behind her-it will be in the bag tomorrow, without a scratch, to help me through the day.” (416). The phrase “to help me through the day” signifies what the mirror has become. The mirror is a comfort, something by which Winnie can attempt to avoid sliding away from her identity. The mirror is a way for both Antoine and Winnie to temporarily ‘pull themselves out of’ concrete nothingness, but of course, it in no way resolves it, as such a thing is not possible.
Another way in which Antoine and Winnie try to understand concrete nothingness is by examining their hands. For Antoine, his hands are the first source of his recognition that something is happening to him. The following passage occurs in Antoine’s first journal entry: “For instance, there is something new about my hands, a certain way of picking up my pipe or my fork. Or else it’s the fork which now has a certain way of having itself picked up, I don’t know” (Sartre, Nausea 17). Antoine is describing his hands as though they are separate from him. It is not he who is picking up the fork, but his hand. His consciousness is recognizing a detachment from his body which leads him to believe that he is sensing something new in his hands. Many of Sartre’s theories in Being and Nothingness are expressed in Nausea not only through what Antoine is thinking, but what he is feeling. What Antoine is feeling in his hand can be linked to the following concept in Being and Nothingness: “I see my hand touching objects, but do not know it in its act of touching them[…]. For my hand reveals to me the resistance of objects, their hardness or softness, but not itself. Thus I see my hand only in the way that I see this inkwell” (304). As the novel progresses, we see that Antoine, in studying his hand, is getting closer and closer to understanding concrete nothingness. Whereas Antoine may once have believed that his body and mind were all one, he now makes his hand into an object of study, which allows him to see that it is not one and the same with his consciousness:
My hand turns over, spreads out flat on its stomach, offers me the sight of its back. A silvery back, shining a little-like a fish except for the red hairs on the knuckles. I feel my hand[…] My hand scratches one of its paws with the nail of the other paw; I feel its weight on the table which is not me. (99)
There is a line in Being and Nothingness that perfectly captures the sentiment of the above quote: “I am present to it [my body] without its being me and without my being it” (304). By observing his hand, Atoine has just come across an important aspect of concrete nothingness. As Catalano states, “we must not imagine that the human reality is a union of nothingness and matter or a union of consciousness and a body” (69).
Winnie has a similar experience with hands which leads us to believe that she has also gained insight into concrete nothingness through them. The first and most important use of hands in Happy Days is Willie’s invisible hand. Willie, as the third non-being, or possibility of a negative reply to the questioner from the questioned is represented as such by means of his hand. Willie’s hand is referred to as being invisible several times in the stage directions. This suggests that Willie’s presence is only an illusory one. He cannot exist in a whole and complete way because, as the third non-being, he can never be an ‘answer.’ There is one moment in Happy Days in which the significance of Willie’s hands as well as Winnie’s is particularly evident. As in Nausea, this scene occurs toward the beginning of the text which indicates that questioning one’s body (represented by hands) is an important stage in the process of getting to understand concrete nothingness. The play opens with Winnie rummaging through a black bag filled with various objects. We see her playing with such objects as toothpaste and spectacles. With each new object she calls to Willie who is lying somewhere beside the mound she is buried in: “Hoo-oo! Pause. Louder Hoo-oo! Pause. Tender smile as she turns back front, lays down brush. Poor Willie” (404). We see no sign of Willie until she hits him with one of her objects: “Hoo-oo! Pause Willie!...She strikes down at him with beak of parasol” (405). She has now gotten Willie’s attention. If we look at this once again from the point of view of the questioner, the questioned and question, we can see that the first time she calls out to Willie, she is playing the role of the questioner and questioned. After several attempts she comes across the third non-being, Willie, and hopes that he may be a reply: “She strikes again. The parasol slips from her grasp” (405). Despite her efforts, she does not get a response. The stage directions read: “It [the parasol] is immediately restored to her by Willie’s invisible hand” (405). Winne has just witnessed a brief glimpse of concrete nothingness as represented by Willie's invisible hand and what follows is her reaction to it. At this point, the role of hands becomes similar to what we saw in Nausea. Winnie makes an attempt to understand what she has just witnessed by turning to her own hands: "She transfers parasol to her left hand, turns back front and examines right palm. Damp. Returns parasol to right hand, examines left palm" (405). Winnie, upon confirming what she believes to be the 'concreteness' of her own body feigns relief: "Ah well, no worse. Head up, cheerfully. No better, no worse, no change" (405). It is clear however, that she is haunted, to use Sartre's word in Being and Nothingness, by concrete nothingness as she continues to hope for a reply: "Cranes back to look down at WILLIE, holding parasol by butt as before. Don't go off on me again now dear will you please" (405). Throughout the rest of the play, Winnie continues to pose questions to herself emphasizing the fact that nothingness itself must always be in question.
The third and final example of Antoine and Winnie’s attempts to understand concrete nothingness is found in their relationship with the concept of time. Both works are written as externalized versions of their internal monologues, or in Antoine’s case, his journal. For Antoine, one main focus of his diary entries is the passage of time. He is constantly observing time, watching it pass while at the same time trying to understand it. In the following quote, Antoine is standing at his window watching a woman walking below him on the sidewalk:
I see the future. It is there, poised over the street, hardly more dim than the present. What advantage will accrue from its realization? The old woman stumps further and further away, she stops, pulls at a grey lock of hair which escapes from her kerchief. She walks; she was there, now she is here… I don’t know where I am any more: do I see her motions, or do I forsee them? I can no longer distinguish present from future and yet it lasts, it happens little by little; the old woman advances in deserted street, shuffling her heavy, mannish brogues. (31)
According to Sartre’s definition of the paradox of time, we can see that Antoine, in his observation of the lady, is struggling to overcome it:
The past is no longer; the future is not yet ; as for the instantaneous present, everyone knows that this does not exist at all but is the limit of an infinite division, like a point without dimension. Thus the whole series is annihilated and doubly so since the future “now”, for example, is a nothingness qua future and will be realized in nothingness when it passes on to the state of a present “now.” (Being 107)
In his observation of the lady, Antoine is trying to distinguish between the tenses. He attempts to break down her movements in order to categorize them as having happened, happening or going to happen. This is what Sartre refers to as a "succession of 'nows'" (Catalano 120). Time can be seen neither as separate 'pieces', nor as all one 'piece.' According to Catalano, when considering Sartre's definition of time "we must keep in mind both the multiplicity and the unity of the temporal" (121). Although Sartre does not use these words they are helpful to our understanding of time. If time were only an accumulation of separate pieces, it would be "external to being" (Catalano120). The stacked passage of time would not occur in conjunction with the flow of consciousness. Antoine, in his misconception that time can be placed as pieces one beside the other misses the concept of time as concrete nothingness: "'temporality,' the concrete nothingness of consciousness is, from its temporal aspect, consciousness' continual negating" (Catalano 69). Of course there are serious arguments against Sartre's theory of time, however, despite any evident flaws, by discussing time in a very general way we will see how Antoine's relationship with it allows him to intuit concrete nothingness. Time and consciousness are two complimentary things as neither can be pictured but both exist. In Nausea, Sartre, as in the examples with the mirror and hands, expresses his theoretical concepts through Antoine's emotions. Through Sartre's description of Antoine's state of mind we can see that although Antoine does not acknowledge an understanding of concrete nothingness he senses it. In the following quote Sartre gives us an idea of what the sensation of concrete nothingness would be like: “this is time, time laid bare, coming slowly into existence, keeping us waiting, and when it does come making us sick because we realize it has been there for a long time” (Nausea 31). The feeling of being ill is perhaps common among those who ponder time and come to the realization that it, in itself, isn’t. Antoine's nausea is surely reflective of Sartre's own state of being when attempting to understand time. In the end, no matter how hard Antoine tries to “learn” about time, he cannot know it as it does not belong to consciousness. We do however get the sense that Antoine has managed to perceive concrete nothingness in relation to time.
In complete opposition to Sartre's theory of time, according to Daniel Aplaugh in Negative Definition in Samuel Beckett’s Happy Days: “time is a meaningless term; she [Winnie] lives in an everlasting now” (589). Superficially, Winnie's state of being is defined by an unjust time that sets rules and dictates patterns of days and nights: "Long pause. A bell rings piercingly, say ten seconds, stops. She does not move. Pause. Bell more piercingly, say five seconds. She wakes. Bell stops" (403). The play opens with Winnie buried halfway in the ground. A bell rings and she mechanically begins her day. She performs the requisite morning routine and proceeds to pass the rest of her days entertaining herself with the contents of her black bag. If time was simply measured according to events, then Aplaugh might be correct in saying that "Winnie has neither a past nor a future; her day has neither a beginning nor an end, but is arbitrarily begun and terminated by a bell" (589). One may be tempted to believe that because there is no 'outside world,' or world beyond the mound, there is no way to define one moment from the next. Based on what we already know about the connection between Sartre and Happy Days, it would be surprising to see Beckett adhering to such a banal definition of time. Where must we look then for an indication of time? I suggest that the answer is within the mound, not literally of course. Its presence is dominating yet it is almost as if it doesn't exist for the characters as there is never any mention of it in the dialogue. There is one brief mention of it in the stage directions at the beginning of act two: "WINNIE embedded up to neck, hat on head, eyes closed" (419). As we are exposed to the flow of Winnie's consciousness we are also aware of the constant presence of the mound, surrounding her as she progresses through a 'succession of nows,' creating the impression that consciousness is grounded in the ground. But since the mound is only a metaphor for time, it doesn't matter whether she is sinking into it or whether it is growing around her. Quite like time, the mound is something which surrounds her without her being able to acknowledge its presence.
Each of the examples that connect Happy Days to Nausea capture the feelings that underlie the overall quality of nothingness. The mirror is an unsatisfactory tool that is used to provide comfort and a sense of being, yet ends up adding to the overwhelming impression that one’s life is a concept above and beyond one’s comprehension and therefore escapes us altogether. The body, the one thing that seems to be intrinsic to our existence proves not to be so. Antoine and Winnie, while understanding that their bodies are somehow connected to their being also discover that their bodies are ‘separate’ beings. Time does not prove to solve the problem of non-being as it is also an unexplainable phenomenon which is as much dependent on our existence as we are on it. Despite the evident lack of ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’ of concrete nothingness, both Winnie and Willie have made discoveries through questioning. However, the frustration and anguish that accompany an attempt to grab hold of an illusory being seems not to be resolved. At the end of Happy Days Willie finally surfaces from inside his hole and despite the fact that Winnie has yearned for his presence throughout the play, there remains a sense of sadness. Winnie will remain in the mound and continue to question without accepting the permanent possibility of a negative reply. At the end of Nausea Antoine finds himself alone in his favourite café. Although he knows at this point that consciousness is aware of its own existence, his solitude reminds us that even with awareness, our consciousness will never be one with itself.
Works Cited
Alpaugh, Daniel J. “Negative Definition in Samuel Beckett’s ‘Happy Days.” Eight Modern Plays. Ed. Anthony Caputi. New York: W.W Norton and Co., 1991.
Beckett, Samuel. Happy Days. Eight Modern Plays. Ed.Anthony Caputi. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1991.
Catalano, Joseph S. A commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness.” Chicago: University Chicago Press, 1980.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Nausea. Trans. Llyod Alexander. New York: New Directions Publishing company, 1964.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. London: Methuen & CO Ltd., 1966.