Deconstructive reading of 'Waiting for Godot'

 Assignment-4

A deconstructive reading of 'Waiting for Godot'

Name:   Avani Jani

paper: 204 Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies

Roll no: 03

Enrollment no: 4069206420220014

Email id: avanijani.18@gmail.com

Batch: 2023-2024 (M.A Sem 3) 

Submitted to: S. B. Gardi Department of English, maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Introduction:

A deconstructive reading of Samuel Beckett's "Waiting for Godot" unveils a complex interplay of linguistic, philosophical, and existential elements that challenge traditional notions of meaning, presence, and truth. Written in the mid-20th century, the play stands as a seminal work within the Theatre of the Absurd, defying conventional narrative structures and introducing a sense of uncertainty and absurdity into the fabric of its characters' existence.

Samuel Beckett, a prominent figure in the Theatre of the Absurd, intricately weaves themes of waiting, uncertainty, and the elusive nature of truth throughout "Waiting for Godot." The characters, Vladimir and Estragon, find themselves in a perpetual state of anticipation, waiting for someone named Godot, whose nature and significance remain elusive. Through a deconstructive lens, this analysis delves into key concepts such as messianic logocentrism, metaphysics of presence, aporia, and binary oppositions, unraveling the intricate layers of meaning and challenging fixed interpretations.

Samuel Beckett (1906-1989) stands as the foremost Irish-born French playwright of the theatre of the Absurd, aiming to portray human absurdity and uncertainty within the late modernist bourgeois world of shattered beliefs and uncertainties through the medium of meta-theatre. According to Lionel Able, "meta-theatre marks those frames and boundaries that conventional dramatic realism would hide" (Able, Lionel).

Samuel Beckett penned "Waiting for Godot" in French in 1949, subsequently translating it into English in 1954. The play has achieved unparalleled popularity worldwide, establishing itself as a quintessential piece of the absurd drama genre in post-World War II Europe, America, and beyond. Martin Esslin acknowledges its impact, dubbing it "One of the successes of the post-war theatre" (Esslin). At its core, the play revolves around the theme of waiting, with the two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, eagerly anticipating a meeting with Godot near a stunted tree in the middle of nowhere. Despite their uncertainty about Godot's true identity, his promises, or even his existence, they persist in their vigilant wait. Nevertheless, he never makes an appearance.

In "Waiting for Godot," Pozzo, the slave owner, and his subservient slave, Lucky, along with the boy, Godot's messenger, interrupt the protagonists' futile waiting. Despite Godot's insignificance in their lives, the characters engage in desperate actions, even contemplating suicide, to fill the haunting silence. The play both begins and ends with the anticipation of Godot, perpetuating an endless cycle. The characters, caught in the illusory trap of metaphysical slavery, symbolize humanity entrapped in various illusions of language, philosophy, and religion. This study explores the play's diverse dimensions through a Derridean deconstruction lens.

Deconstruction–

"Deconstruction" is Jacques Derrida's concept involving the dismantling and desedimentation of significations originating from the logos. Contrary to being a destructive force, it aims to understand the constitution of a "whole" and reconstruct it beyond logocentrism or phonocentrism. Deconstruction involves destabilization, seen positively as necessary for progress, challenging the Western philosophical tradition of metaphysics of presence or logocentrism. Derrida critiques Saussure's linguistics, asserting that writing is not a secondary copy but primary, revealing the self-divisions and deferrals inherent in meaning. His famous phrase, "There is nothing outside the text," reflects the idea that meaning is perpetually deferred and complex. Derrida's deconstruction, applied to literature such as Rousseau's "Confessions," Mallarme's "Mimique," and Joyce's "Ulysses," reveals the inherent complexities and deferrals within language.

Deconstructive Analysis of 'Waiting for Godot' –

Analyzing "Waiting for Godot" is a challenging endeavor without considering key notions articulated by Jacques Derrida in the dissemination and elaboration of Deconstruction theory. The following terms of Derridean deconstruction are highly pertinent to the nature of this research.

Metaphysics of presence-

Jacques Derrida contends that the continuum of Western European philosophy, spanning from Plato to Edmund Husserl, consistently embodies the metaphysics of presence or logocentrism. The enduring impact and consequences of this philosophical orientation on human thought have proven to be burdensome, leading to entrenched quandaries of aporia in meaning and authoritative, fossilized logocentric structures of thought. The pursuit of new intellectual horizons is impeded by the cohesive and predetermined fixation on meaning, origin, or presence.

Derrida posits that all Western philosophical traditions are inherently logocentric, positioning a concept (logos) at the center of our understanding of the universe. This concept both charts and interprets the universe for us while paradoxically existing outside of the universe it interprets. Derrida identifies this as the greatest illusion of Western philosophy. He challenges the metaphysical foundations of Western philosophical traditions since Plato, critiquing grounding concepts such as Plato’s perfect Forms, Descartes' cogito, and structuralism's notion of innate structures of human consciousness. According to Derrida, these concepts are human constructs, products of human language, and he questions the assumption that they are not subject to the same structural analysis they impose (to analyze the structure of the center would be to find another center).

Derrida contends that Western philosophy has persistently harbored a desire to seek a center, meaning, origin or a "transcendental signified." He labels this desire for a center as "logocentrism or phonocentrism." Despite this desire, he argues that Western philosophy, since Plato, has consistently sought to ground itself on concepts like meaning, presence, or existence.

Upon exploration of "Waiting for Godot," the central theme of the play becomes apparent: the anticipation of Godot, a character who eventually materializes in the narrative. However, the two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, destitute wanderers, appear entangled in the snare of an illusory realm rooted in the metaphysics of presence. They are firmly bound by messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism associated with the term Godot. Messianic, a manifestation of the metaphysics of presence, becomes apparent through the concepts of ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism. Any ideological, religious, or political system claiming authorized legitimacy falls under the umbrella of messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism, a pervasive aspect of human thought. Derrida refers to this mode of thinking as messianic, aligning with the Christian hope of a future to come.

In the play, the word Godot conveys both theocentric and anthropocentric messianic logocentrism. Notably, it carries the connotations of Jehovah from "The Old Testament," whose wrath invokes fear, and, akin to the Messiah (Jesus Christ) in "The New Testament," whose Second Coming promises redemption for humankind. Godot symbolizes salvation, donation, rebirth, and a pledge, serving as a link between these theological elements and the two awaiting tramps. However, ensnared in the illusory world of the metaphysics of presence and messianism, the tramps find themselves mentally tethered to the logocentric messianic term Godot. Despite taking it for granted as a dominant source of redemption and salvation, they strive to unearth meaning, origin, and truth beneath the presupposed messianic logos of Godot.

Thus, Godot wields the power to impose penalties on the tramps should they opt to depart, yet holds forth the promise of redemption and reward if they persist in their vigil for his arrival. The tramps nurture an intense longing to convert Godot's absence into a tangible presence, echoing the overarching aspiration in Western European philosophy for a central, unwavering signified dictated by the metaphysics of presence. This messianic logocentric metaphysical presence materializes as a concrete, anthropocentric entity for the tramps.

“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,).

In this instance, Vladimir grapples with defining Godot's image independently of the framework set by the tradition of Western European philosophy, grounded in the metaphysics of presence and messianism. The non-existent nature of Godot in the play resists categorization, aligning more closely with Jacques Derrida’s concept of différance than the metaphysical notions of messianic theocentric or anthropocentric logos. Derrida elucidates that différance encompasses the "formation of form" and the historical, epochal unfolding of Being, thus challenging the idea of a fixed origin.

However, the absence of Godot raises fundamental questions about the origin of legitimate meaning, as it eludes easy definition, categorization, or alignment with an external object. It possesses the capacity to signify a multitude of meanings, ranging from the concomitant to nonexistence or nothingness. In essence, Godot emerges as an aporic being, resistant to straightforward interpretation. Consequently, the two tramps find themselves in search of something that can imbue meaning into their existence. For them, Mr. Godot becomes a fertile ground for resolving their tribulations and hardships, a symbolic entity that may fill the void in their seemingly absurd existence. The disposition and identity of this absent entity remain elusive throughout the entire text of the play. As Worton articulates:

“Much has been written about who or what

Godot is. My own view is that he is

simultaneously whatever we think he is and

not what we think he is, he is an absence,

who can be interpreted at moments as

God, death, the Lord of the manor, a

benefactor, even Pozzo. Nevertheless, the Godot has a function rather than a

meaning. He stands for what keeps us

chained- to and in-existence. He is the

unknowable that represents hope in an age

when there is no hope; he is whatever

fiction we want him to be as long as he

justifies our life-as-waiting”  (Worton and Still ) 

The tramps' efforts to attain this nonentity or unknown being within the framework of known messianic logocentrism, by visiting him, prove to be futile. Ultimately, Godot fails to appear, leaving the tramps disappointed and flustered. Consequently, the connection between language and reality disintegrates, and words falter and collapse in their attempt to convey feelings and thoughts:

“Vladimir: Say I am happy

Estragon: I am happy

Vladimir: So I am Estragon: So I am.

Estragon: We are happy. (Silence). What do we do

now, now that we’re happy?” (Beckett)

Godot's final absence frustrates the hopes of the tramps, and they become agitated. The ensuing dialogue among the tramps reveals their latent desire to liberate themselves from the wearisome act of waiting for an unknown or non-existent messianic metaphysical being:

“Estragon: (His mouthful, vacuously.) We are not

tied!

Vladimir: I don’t hear a word you’re saying.

Estragon: (chews, swallows.) I’m asking if we’re tied.

Vladimir: tied?

Estragon: ti-ed.

Vladimir: How do you mean tied?

Estragon: Down

Vladimir: But to whom? By whom?

Estragon: To your man Vladimir: To Godot? Tied to Godot? What an idea!

No question of it. (Pause) For the moment”

Finally, the tramps are unable to act, even to

commit suicide. For example, the following dialogue

makes the point clear:

“Vladimir: We will hang ourselves tomorrow.

(Pause.)Unless Godot comes. Estragon: And if he

comes?

Vladimir: We’ll be saved”

We can mostly notice their incapability and

undecidability to do anything throughout the whole

play:

“Estragon: “Why don’t we hang ourselves? Vladimir:

With what?

Estragon: you haven’t got a bit of rope? Vladimir:

No.

Estragon: Then we can’t.

Vladimir: Let’s go.

Estragon: Oh wait, there is my belt.

Vladimir: It’s too short.

Estragon: You could hang on to my legs.

Vladimir: And who would hang onto mine?

Estragon: True” 

Samuel Beckett disrupts the certainties and stability traditionally associated with the Holy Scripture by deconstructing its authorized metaphysical meaning. Distancing himself from the beliefs of Christian mythology, Beckett asserts, “Christianity is a mythology with which I am perfectly familiar, and so I use it. But not in this case” (Bair, Deirdre, 1995, p.386). Consequently, he entangles the tramps in profound religious debates among the four Evangelists concerning the saved thief. Vladimir, adopting the role of a diligent religious scholar, endeavors to uncover truth and certainty within "The New Testament." However, his pursuit unveils the absence of certainty in this text. Essentially, his confusion mirrors that of a layperson grappling with the philosophy of the metaphysics of presence, as presented in the form of messianic logocentrism. The ensuing dialogue between the tramps vividly illustrates this challenging exploration:

“Vladimir: And yet… (Pause.)… How is it this is not boring you I hope- how is it that of the

four Evangelists only one speaks of a thief being

saved. The four of them were there- or thereabouts and only one speaks of a thief being saved. (Pause.)

Come on, Gogo, return the ball, can’t you, once in a

while?

Estragon: (with exaggerated enthusiasm). I find this

most extraordinarily interesting.

Vladimir: One out of four. Of the other three, two

don’t mention any thieves at all and the third says

that both of them abused him.

Estragon: Who?

Vladimir: What?

Estragon: What’s all this about? Abused who?

Vladimir: The Saviour. Estragon: Why?

Vladimir: Because he wouldn’t save them. Estragon:

From Hell?

Vladimir: Imbecile! From death.

Estragon: I thought you said hell.

Vladimir: From death, from death.

Estragon: Well what of it?

Vladimir: Then the two of them must have been

damned.

Estragon: And why not?”(Beckett).

Immersed in the play, the characters find themselves ensnared within an illusory web of logocentric illusions, fervently seeking to grasp the ultimate truths of life and the universe. The logocentric Western tradition, grounded in the metaphysics of presence, confines their minds to contemplate authoritative universal truths, meanings, and origins. However, their pursuit proves elusive, leading them to confront uncertainty and absurdity, as depicted in the dialogues between Estragon and Vladimir concerning the Holy Scripture, memories of the past, or the identity of Godot.

Samuel Beckett, suspecting the messianic logocentric authorities underpinning Western cultural texts, intricately weaves references to these very texts into "Godot" and "Endgame." His intent is to compel the audience to "think and participate in his anxious oscillation between certainty about what is untrue and uncertainty about what may be true" (Worton).

Vladimir's quest for proof of existence is evident as he seeks a center, origin, or logos of Godot, illustrated when he implores the boy, "Words, words. (Pause.) Speak" (Beckett).

The tramps, however, eventually lose hope for salvation and redemption. Vladimir's doubt surfaces in the dialogue with the Boy: "Boy: What am I to say, Mr. Godot, sir? Vladimir: Tell him... (He hesitates)...tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn’t you?" (Beckett)

In this manner, Samuel Beckett engages in the deconstruction of messianic ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism inherent in the logocentric concept of Godot. Following the exploration of Godot and the Holy Scripture, Beckett extends his deconstructive techniques in Lucky’s speech to unravel the Western philosophical tradition rooted in the metaphysics of presence.

Godot as the transcendental Signified-

The character of Godot exists in a perpetual state of suspension between presence and absence, a concept articulated by Derrida in his exploration of Deconstruction. This notion intriguingly aligns with a poststructural linguistic idea central to the concept of deconstruction.

Derrida's transcendental signified, encompassing entities such as God, truth, and essence, transcends the physical world. It is conceived as an unchanging center, impervious to the fluctuations inherent in the play of signifiers—meaningful sounds or written marks that generate other signifieds. Derrida challenges the existence of such a transcendental signified, asserting that a signified is not an independent identity but a result of the interplay among multiple signifiers. Consequently, the quest for the signified leads to an infinite array of signifiers. The transcendental signified, as Derrida reveals, is a philosophical fiction. Drawing an analogy, one can perceive the play as a complex set of signifiers in pursuit of a transcendental signified named Godot.

This fundamental aspect of the Deconstruction theory renders the play amenable to a deconstructive reading. It becomes evident that akin to the dog song at the outset of Act 2 or a text in the contemporary sense, the play cannot escape its ceaseless chain of significations and attain that signified—Godot is a fiction that can never materialize. Yet, mirroring the poststructuralist theory of language that presumes the dubious presence of some transcendental signified, both generating and being generated by the act of difference, the text presupposes the existence of a Godot whose arrival bestows meaning upon it.

Aporia –

The Greek term for a logical contradiction, "aporia," is employed by Derrida to signify the "blind spots of any metaphysical argument," constituting challenging knots within a text that resist easy unraveling. These are described by M.H. Abrams as insurmountable deadlocks or "double binds" of conflicting meanings that are "undecidable" due to a lack of sufficient grounds for choosing among them.

Aporias function as textual knots, expressions of real or feigned doubt or uncertainty for rhetorical effect, where the speaker appears uncertain about what to do, think, or say. Despite being acquainted with the answer, the speaker questions themselves or their audience about the appropriate course of action. Samuel Beckett vehemently opposes the fossilized denotative process of traditional theater, adopting meta-theatrical techniques that result in an anti-narrative structure, generating aporic effects on the minds of the audience and readers, resisting straightforward interpretation.

The structural aporia of meaning occurs in the text, where opposing poles of meaning make messianic logocentrism or phonocentrism unfeasible. The play is filled with "simultaneously either ors," according to Derridean terminology, leading to a text that resists definition, interpretation, and analysis within a closed system.

Samuel Beckett's dramatic text introduces aporia by challenging traditional dramatic structures, rendering it multidimensional in meaning and opposing conventional interpretations. The ontological impassivity of the text prevails, preventing the audience and readers from fixing a meaning or enclosing the text in a closed system. Consequently, the text invites interpretation in new and novel ways, resisting categorization and stereotyped interpretations.

Despite this, common perceptions and traditional interpretations often lead readers and audiences to uninhibited recognition based on hackneyed reception and stereotyped interpretations. Samuel Beckett strategically employs the symbol of Godot in the play to portray the uncertainty and folly of the human situation in modern capitalist social formations, making the text arcane and exposing the extremities of language and its aporetic repercussions on human minds.

The symbol "Godot" introduces ambiguity and alienation, delaying its immediate recognition through defamiliarization and obscurity. The aporetic effects are evident when the tramps, faced with the messenger's message that Godot will not come today but will come tomorrow, find themselves in a state of hesitation and reluctance to act.

The word "Godot" within the play carries multiple or diverse meanings, its immediate recognition deferred by defamiliarization and obscurity. The nebulosity or ambiguity and alienation discomfort the referentiality between Godot and its original entity, leading Samuel Beckett toward Derridean's disallowance of semantic fixity or concealed transcendental meaning.

This aporetic effect becomes apparent in the tramps' dialogue, where they are struck with deep anxieties and unable to articulate their pains and jeopardy. The play's open-mindedness invites the audience and readers to interpret it in new ways, preventing them from falling into categorized perceptions or stereotyped interpretations.

Binary Oppositions–

Forms of binarism have been ingrained in human thought since ancient times, with binary oppositions serving to delineate differences in an otherwise random sequence of features, shaping the human experience and the universe. Dualisms like subject/object, God/man, and temporal/eternal form the foundation of entire worldviews, while in literary analysis, the identification of thematic binary polarities within texts is a central hermeneutic tool for interpreting meaning. Jonathan Culler notes that "oppositions are pertinent to larger thematic structures, which encompass other antitheses presented in the text."

Deconstruction operates within the text in two ways. One is to bring attention to neglected portions, questioning them and revealing inconsistencies. The other involves dealing with binary oppositions present in the text. Jacques Derrida uses the analogy of neglected portions as architectural cornerstones that, when leveraged, allow for deconstruction.

In Western philosophy, there has always existed an opposition between pairs of concepts, where one concept governs the other. Deconstruction, as defined by Jacques Derrida, critiques hierarchical oppositions that have structured Western thought. It seeks to dismantle and reinscribe these oppositions, revealing them as constructions rather than natural and inevitable.

"Waiting for Godot" exhibits binary opposites, such as white and black, light and darkness, and virtue and evil, emphasizing the lack of stability and coherence in the text. Binary oppositions also manifest in the characters' ways of thinking, feelings, appearances, social statuses, and intelligence levels. Characters like Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky, and others come in pairs, contributing to the entanglement of characters within the web of binary oppositions.

The characters in "Waiting for Godot" employ binary oppositions as a method of condemnation, resorting to contrast and comparison to justify their claims. Samuel Beckett's text challenges logocentric binaries and invites various interpretations, resisting a fixed meaning. The play presents an illusory logocentric metaphysical presence in the form of Godot, contradicting logocentric preferences for presence and highlighting the futility of binary signification. Godot's absence in the play raises ontological questions, challenging conventional interpretive assumptions. The concept of Godot, akin to Derrida's difference, escapes a one-to-one correspondence in the signification system, as it does not refer to a concrete real being in the objective world. As Bair notes, "If I knew I’d have said so in the play."

Works Cited

Able, Lionel. (2003). Tragedy and Meta-theatre: Essays on Dramatic Form. New York:

Holmes and Meier Publishers.

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Faber & Faber, 2010.

Esslin, Martin. The theatre of the absurd. Penguin, 1980.

Worton, Michael, and Judith Still, editors. Intertextuality: Theories and Practices. Manchester University Press, 1990.

. Intersexuality, Theories, and Practices. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Words-3437