Through the point of view of Camus and his protagonist Meursault, social constructs such as love, justice and religion are futile attempts to lend meaning to aspects of life that are fundamentally absurd [The transition here does not correspond to the content following – this paragraph exclusively deals with notions of justice]. Camus directly confronts these constructs through the use of point of view, language, tone and characterization, in an attempt to position readers to accept this notion. Camus criticizes the justice system and the absurdness of it. Marie is a representation of society, and her expectation and reliance on the support and bringing of justice is exposed as hollow [Exp a little unclear]. Such social regulation of violence with more violence, as seen in chapter 4 when an officer hits Raymond across the face for acting like a “clown” after he had “punished” his mistress, is utterly arbitrary. In his refusal to call an officer, Camus reveals that this is something Meursault is all too aware of. Camus extends his criticism of justice in the latter part of the novel, by satirizing Meursault’s trial. In Meursault’s mind, the trial is conducted “independently” from him - he is told to “keep quiet” as it is “better for [him],” despite the fact that he feels he has “something important to say” in being the accused [So, what’s the point you’re trying to make about justice?]. The case argues whether Meursault is a “monster” or an “honest chap” with a kind “soul,” both arguments of which have nothing to do with the murder itself. In a sense, Camus mocks the justice system and positions his audience to understand its futility and senselessness.
Camus also confronts the social construct of love, and through point of view and juxtaposition, he positions the audience to realize how inherently absurd the concept of love is. Camus juxtaposes the outlooks of Meursault and Marie. Marie embodies the attempt by the world to lend meaning to what Camus considers an inherently meaningless existence. Whilst she may appear moral and adhere to dominant social narratives of love in her desire to make meaningful her interaction with Meursault, Meursault demonstrates the unnecessary and futile nature of such a claim. Despite her confusion when Meursault fails to meet her desire for reassurance, claiming he “doesn’t know” but probably does not love her, Marie finds herself able to pursue the relationship, as Meursault’s treatment of her remains as it was. Through the use of point of view, readers are also exposed to Meursault’s idea that one could “get used to anything” as we see in the relationship between Meursault and his mother, and Salamano and his dog. Although Meursault “probably did love [his] mother,” they had grown apart, and since she had moved to the home, he had got used to living without her, which is why his tone is indifferent when he finds out she has died. This notion carries through to the relationship between Salamano and his dog, a dog which was “worth just as much as his wife,” and simply “replaced” her after she died. Camus, through these conventions, is suggesting that love is just an attempt to lend meaning to an absurd existence, and that it is to be dismissed, as one can “get used to anything.”
Furthermore, Camus, through the use of language, directly attacks religion, relating it to weakness and desperation. The magistrate in part 2, becomes “flustered” when he finds Meursault is not religious, and in a “trembling” voice, announces that “all men believed in god…that was his belief, and if he should ever doubt it, his life would become meaningless.” Because he cannot come to terms with a meaningless existence, Meursault sees the magistrate as “ridiculous.” Additionally, the chaplain that tries to convert Meursault moments before his execution is described with negative language such as “extremely weary,” “anxious,” “annoying,” and ”aggravating.” Despite the fact that “every man in [his] positioned had turned to God,” Meursault demonstrates the pointlessness in doing so, as he doesn’t “have time.” Eventually, in reaction to the chaplains persistent attempts to convince him to believe something that “doesn’t interest” him, something “explodes” inside Meursault, and his indifferent tone turns to “shouting at the top of [his] voice... pouring everything out at [the chaplain] from the bottom of [his] heart in a paroxysm of... anger.” Camus shifts the tone to highlight the anger Meursault feels towards what he perceives as the chaplain’s naivety in his religious beliefs. Meursault demonstrates that religion is just another attempt to lend meaning to a futile existence and that in reality, there is a “benign indifference” in the world – life is simply meaningless.
In the wake of this pessimistic criticism, Camus presents an optimistic solution that suggests how to truly reach freedom and happiness in what is a chaotic universe with no inherent meaning. This optimistic solution is one that involves accepting the absurd nature of life and death. In doing this, one learns to relish physical experiences, appreciate nature, and to live life in the present, for there is no time for the past and only death in the future. Meursault, unconsciously, lives the life of the Absurd hero. Meursault has a “profound passion” for truth, and in his afterword, Camus justifies that Meursault is “far from lacking all sensibility,” despite being an outsider, and in a sense, “agrees to die for the truth,” which makes him, in Camus’ mind, “the only Christ we deserve.” This obsession with truth allows Meursault to live in the present, nurture physical experiences, and appreciate the natural, without feeling the need to lend a false narrative to life. Meursault’s narration is indifferent, disjointed and disconnected, as Meursault only focuses on the present and the physical, so much so that he admits that at times, his “physical needs distort his emotions.” This relishing of the physical is shown through tonal flourishes during the times when Meursault is most stimulated, using similes such as “like a flower,” and “like an apple” to describe his physical attraction to Marie. These moments have a starkly different tone when compared to the usual dry, indifferent tone Meursault uses to recount “uninteresting” events that “[don’t] mean anything.” Camus shifts the tone to highlight the enjoyment one can achieve by living in the moment as Meursault does.
However, Meursault is unconscious to the free and happy way he lives his life until he comes to his Absurdist revelation and realises that he “had been happy, and was still happy.” Camus positions readers to understand that by confronting the absurdity of life and its conclusion of death is necessary to appreciate life and its beauty. Meursault only truly reaches this understanding, ironically, just before he is to be executed. By using Meursault’s point of view, readers are eventually exposed to the idea that “it doesn’t matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy…given that you’ve got to die, it doesn’t matter how or when.” This idea informs Meursault’s idea that the “absurd life [he]’d been living” was futile, and to try lend meaning to it as the chaplain does with religion, the court does with justice, and Marie does with love, is “absurd.” [Very good] This realisation leads to Meursault’s enlightenment, where, in an unusually tranquil tone, Meursault admits that for the first time he had opened his conscious self to the “benign indifference in the world,” and from this, he realises that he “had been happy, and was still happy.” Camus is suggesting to readers that true freedom and happiness comes from acknowledging the absurdity of life and certainty of death, and by living as Meursault does in the opening section of the novel. [Very good]
From this, it can be construed that Albert Camus employs generic conventions such as structure, language, tone, characterization and point of view, to position readers to uptake his philosophy of Absurdism. Such ideas he encourages include the notion that existence is futile and death is an inevitable, absurd occurrence. In light of this understanding, Camus suggests many social constructs, such as love, religion and justice, are simply human attempts to lend meaning to life. Thus he suggests that life should instead be appreciated for what it is, its natural beauty, and the momentary physical stimulation it offers.
Part B: Discuss the ways by which a reader adopting an alternative ideological position could arrive at an alternative reading of the text.
While the author of The Outsider, Albert Camus, positioned readers to accept Absurdist ideologies, when looked at under a postcolonial lens, readers may arrive at vastly different meanings within the text. Meursault is a French settler in Algeria, and as a result of this setting, we are exposed to the issues that existed within colonised Algeria. Throughout his experiences in the novel we are exposed to several instances involving Arab people who were, in the context, the oppressed natives. In almost all of these scenes it can be read that the Europeans have assumed superiority in their cultural aspects which evidently leads to an absence of rights for the Arabs, who are seen as inferior and inhuman. If we take this postcolonial stance, we can view Meursault as a representative of a colonial society, as he, self-admittedly, acts “naturally,” and kills an Arab. Instead of a hero, Meursault now appears as a French settler whose power comes from rash physical violence, military superiority, and a discriminatory legal system. Good.
Postcolonialism is defined as “a postmodern intellectual discourse that reacts to and analyses the detrimental cultural effects of colonialism.” The ideology criticises the imperialism and colonialism of European Powers during the 20th century, and the damaging impact they had on the lives of the indigenous within their colonised land. Postcolonialism rejects aspects of colonialism such as the assumed superiority possessed by the settlers, the resulting suppression of rights for the indigenous, and the enforcement of Eurocentric ideals into the culture of the indigenous. Camus writes this novel during World War 2, a time when France was fighting for freedom against Germany. Algeria, as it was one of France’s many colonies, felt as though they deserved freedom as well. Alongside this, many of the quintessential problems of imperialism and colonialism, such as cultural prejudice and deprivation of rights for natives, created large division among the French settlers and the indigenous Arabs within Algeria. Thus, in reading The Outsider under a postcolonial lens, one can gain great insight into the colonial issues that existed in French Algeria during 1942.
The representation and treatment of Arabs when juxtaposed against that of the French, reveals a distinct prejudiced division within Algeria [exp]. The French assume superiority over the Arabs, as seen through Meursault’s language when describing Arabs, which is thick with underlying tones of prejudice. In the text, Arabs are never given names, or described in a fashion that could be considered normal. The first Arab that appears in the text is an unnamed women, working in a menial job as a nurse, whose “face seems to be nothing but a white bandage,” in the eyes of the coloniser Meursault. When juxtaposed with the 64 year old French legionnaire who is in a high position that he was “surprised to find himself in,” it is revealed that job opportunities are discriminatory. Furthermore, Meursault’s French friend Raymond has an inherent distaste for Arabs, and “almost spits” when talking about them. Raymond also has a sexual relationship with an Arab only ever referred to as his “mistress,” who he sees as an exotic sexual being and nothing more. She is characterised as “deceiving,” and is “punished” by Raymond because of this. To this act of assault, Meursault’s tone is indifferent, and in fact is something he tells Raymond he should be “pleased” with, which reveals his acceptance of this beating. This same attitude is reflected in the policeman’s dealings with Raymond, who is more concerned about Raymond being “drunk” and acting like a “clown” than he is about the wellbeing of the Arab after the beating. This dehumanisation of Arabs and lack of care for their wellbeing is carried through to the midsection of the novel, where Meursault sees three Arabs outside a tobacconist shop, “staring in their own special way” and looking like “nothing more than dead trees or blocks of stone.” Here, Meursault uses language to describe the Arabs that isolates and dehumanises them, which reveals the underlying attitudes of the French toward the indigenous Algerians. Thus it can be deducted that the text reveals the discriminatory issues amongst colonised Algeria.
From this discriminatory dynamic in Algeria comes conflict, as we see numerous times throughout the text. The French resort to physical violence to assert their superiority, and due to their military advantage they are able to conquer the Arabs in almost all confrontations. Raymond asserts his authority over his “deceiving” mistress by “punishing” her, and since the law does not care for Arabs, the brother of Raymond’s mistress and two other Arabs seek revenge. Raymond, Meursault and Masson, find themselves confronted by these Arabs who they believe look like “dead trees or blocks of stone,” and without any communication, or attempt of reconciliation, the Arabs and the French find themselves in a brutal fight. This confrontation symbolically reveals that in this colony, there is no communication or reconciliation – just sheer conflict. The Arabs are characterised as inherently hostile and aggressive in these fights, as they bring a knife to the beach. However, Meursault the Frenchman returns with a gun seeking revenge, and approaches a now-amenable Arab, and in cold-blood, he fires a fatal shot, and then four more at the dead body, revealing that in reality, the French were equally as violent and malicious. This symbolic moment highlights the reliance of physical assertion and military superiority that the French require to maintain their power in Algeria, and also, their inherent hatred toward the oppressed indigenous people. Thus, it is revealed that the dynamic in colonised Algeria is one that ignores reconciliation and leads to a power struggle in which the French have the upper hand.
To tie in with the discrimination of Arabs and the violent nature in which they are suppressed, comes a discriminatory legal system, which assists in the maintenance of the colonial social order. Meursault’s court case is focused on the fact he has “no place in a society whose fundamental rules he ignored” in relation to the fact that he did not weep at his mothers funeral, not the fact that he murdered an Arab. The case almost ignores this fact entirely, and never calls an Arab as a witness despite the fact that they were the most informed about the murder. This goes to show that alongside physical assertion and military superiority, the French also rely on a discriminatory justice system to maintain their authority. The repercussions of this are revealed when Meursault first visited prison and notices the prisoners were “mostly Arab.” Evidently, the social structure of this society completely deprives the Arabs of fundamental rights, and due to the discriminatory and ironically named ‘justice system,’ fairness and equality does not exist.
From this, it can be surmised that by undertaking the lens of a postcolonial reader, vastly different meanings and insights can be made from the text. Under this perspective, Meursault is not seen as the hero of the text, but rather, an average French settler who presupposes his authority over Arabs in Algeria, resulting in racist and belittling treatment of the Arabs and a reliance on the use of violence, military supremacy and a discriminatory legal system to maintain this assumed power. This leads readers to the understanding that Meursault is in fact the villain of the text, which starkly contrasts what was intended by the author in presenting “the only Christ we deserve.”
Part C: Bibliography and points of reference
Abrams, M. (2011). A Glossary of Literary Terms.
Azar, M. (2010). The stranger, the mother and the Algerian revolution. From http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-10-15-azar-en.html
Djamoukhano, R. (2007). A Critical Analysis of Albert Camus' "The Stranger". From http://http://www.lib.iium.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view/view.jsp?key=PpIP06bcz0LM3PGTQcA5tgBiMAZPqbIC20080206114624734
Google. (2012). Google Definitions. From https://www.google.com/
Millitello, D. (2007). Silent Stares: Albert Camus’ Representation of Arabs. From http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2007Proceedings/Militello_SilentStares.pdf
Peters, A. (2011). An Existentialist Analysis of Camus' The Stranger (The Outsider). From http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=4646 [A somewhat dodgy reference]
Sartre, J. (1943). Jean-Paul Sartre on Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus. From http://myapotheosis.com/?p=77
Simpson, M. (2011). Freedom and Death in The Stranger (The Outsider). From http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=7630 [Same deal…]
Sparknotes. (2010). From The Stranger: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/stranger/
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2011). Albert Camus. From http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#NupCamStaPoi
(Google, 2012) Nope…go to the source