Tadhg Caffrey

ENG30550: The City in Literature Word Count: 4,189

Individualism and the City: Attempts to escape society and the social reaction.

In this discussion, I will take an in-depth look at the attempt of individuals to escape the institutions imposed on them by society. London and Paris can be seen to have certain structures that citizens must adhere to in order to have profitable and secure lives. However, many examples of individuals who are unsatisfied with these systems are evident. To track their struggle, it is first necessary to detail the elements of society that individuals can find undesirable. Following this, a detailed account of the attempts by characters in Nineteen Eighty-Four and Walter Benjamins writing to avoid these structures will be offered. This will allow us to infer the methods by which society suppresses these individuals humanity in relation to society. However, before this structure can be followed, it is first essential to address the issue of author politics in relation to these texts. It is my intention to use these works as a world of their own, divorced from the political leanings of the author. In particular, Nineteen EightyFour will be used as a separate entity from Orwells politics and his declaration of himself as a socialist in Toward European Unity. In addition to this, by viewing Benjamins The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire as a text rather than criticism political bias can be avoided. The wide arc that many literary characters travel through during their struggle against society is underpinned by the conventions of their societies. Two such points of contention for 1

characters can be found in the writing of Freud and Simmel. By looking at issues of human drives and the collective mass of society, the basis for rebellion can be ascertained. In his Civilization and its Discontents, Freud details underlying instincts inherent in humanity. Specifically, these take the form of aggression and sexuality. Early in his discourse, Freud states that humanity can count a powerful share of aggression among their instinctual endowments (Freud, 48). Freud goes on to theorise that when we attempt to give up this aggression we feel uneasy (50). However, to survive in society and to be accepted, it is necessary that we resist all urges of hostility towards other members of this society. If a person fails to inhibit this natural aggression, they are punished or marginalised in this civilization. So, according to Freud, when society inhibits our aggression, it is resisting a natural force and this is a basis for rebellion. A similar pattern can be observed in relation to Freuds treatment of sexuality. Freud details our natural desire for total sexual freedom (50). In his opinion, we are beings who would naturally engage in sexual activity often and with a large number of partners if we had the choice. Society does not allow this and encourages monogamy in order to limit the acceptable number of sexual partners a person can have. So, these social structures can be seen as a method for creating a stable society at the expense of innate human desires. It is therefore inevitable that some people would attempt to resist these constrictions. Similarly, George Simmel also offers insight into potential reasons for people resisting society. In The Metropolis and Modern Life, Simmel details many instances of this rebellion. One such example deals with the objective nature of society. Simmel compares the small towns which were based on feelings and emotional relationships to the rational manner of the metropolis (Simmel, 12). This objective nature of society is based on the money-economy that 2

has developed within the metropolis. By assigning a monetary value to all aspects of life, society simplifies all issues into mathematical relations. This leaves no room for subjective human instinct or emotion where valuation is concerned. It is an objective system that is seen to be in contrast with our individual desires as it uses a sphere of mental activity which is least sensitive and which is furthest removed from the depths of personality (12). Along with this objective money-economy, the relationships between members of society are seen to be a point of objection for Simmel. The vast metropolis forces one to come into regular contact with people that they know nothing about. Again, Simmel compares this to small town relations that create an emotional tone in conduct (12). This imponderability of personal relationships in the metropolis is also in conflict with our natural inclination for meaningful interaction with other people (13). Simmel, then, shows how the objective nature of society in its money-economy and personal relationships is in conflict with our natural emotional tendencies. This brief discussion has highlighted many areas of potential rebellion for individuals in society. Of course, it is not sufficient to simply state these theories as fact, but rather it is necessary to highlight the underlying element in common to each of them. These writers imply that society has created a situation whereby our natural inclinations are minimised for the good of society as a whole. Individual members of humanity are shown to be unaware of the consciousness of society and strive to resist restrictions placed on them that are for the greater good of civilisation. Due to the fact that literature based in these cities necessarily deals with iterations of these undesirable facets, many characters can be seen to rebel. The manner in which characters attempt to avoid society will be dealt with in relation to these general areas, but at the core of their struggle is the attempt to create an individual world separate from society.

There are countless examples of individuals who attempt to move away from these social constrictions. Two such instances are Winston Smith of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Baudelaire in The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire. By looking at their specific attempts to create division and the reaction of the world in these texts, we can assess the overall nature of such separation. Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four offers an example of a detached character. Winston is subject to a massive government system that deprives him of his sexual and aggressive drives, while forcing him to lose his subjective personality. Smith resists this by creating a physical and mental space separate from society and also through literature. By looking at both of these elements in turn and how society resists them, a general theory of his attempt at rebellion can be ascertained. First, it is useful to observe the physical and mental barriers created by Winston in his struggle with The Party and how society reacts to these attempts. We will then be able to decide on the overall nature of these attempts to create division. Upon encountering Julia, it is Winstons main goal to find a secure place where they can meet. Their first rendezvous in the country-side is marked by the infeasibility of any future meetings. Specifically, Julia states that they can use any hide-out twice (Orwell, 133) due to the all-seeing government of Big Brother. This prompts Winston to gain access to Mr. Charringtons flat and to use it as a permanent hide-out. It is here that Winston and Julia can express their aggression towards society and engage in sexual activity as frequently as they wish. These characters can relax their facial expressions and attempt to articulate their humanity without social restraint. This apartment is carved out as a separate entity from society where there is no surveillance equipment or restrictive social conventions. In short, it is here that Winston becomes invisible among the press of bodies of society (123). 4

This physical separation is in parallel with an attempt at mental separation. Winston believes that he can place himself against society by internally resisting it. He thoroughly agrees with Julias view that society can make you say anything anything but they cant make you believe it. They cant get inside you (174). This marks an effort to create a mindspace devoid of society. Winston refuses to believe what society tells him about the past, present and future and instead, relies on what he believes to be the objective facts of reality. This idea is referenced throughout the novel in relation to the mathematical equation: 2+2=4. Winston believes that society can make him say that the real answer to this equation is five, but objective knowledge can show this to be false. So, on the surface it appears that Winston has broken away from society by creating a mental barrier. These acts of mental and physical rebellion are indicative of a very particular method of separation. Winston endeavours to divide his physical existence from the geographical bounds of society and couples this with an attempt at mental division. While he toys with the idea of actively attacking society in order to gain freedom, he never truly believes this to be a viable option. These methods therefore, are underlined by the common trope of passive resistance within society. However, this apparent division is quickly shown to be an illusion. The ThoughtPolice (agents of society) have been watching Winston for seven years and the telescreen in the apartment shows that this space was never actually outside the remit of society. Even Winstons mental resistance to society is eventually broken by The Party. Agents of society use torture to force Winston out of his mental refuge. This is seen most vividly when OBrien holds up four fingers and demands that Winston recognise them as five (264). The novel closes with the identification that Winston loved Big Brother (311). Evidently, these methods of passive resistance within society are shown to be ineffective. Overall, Nineteen-Eighty Four 5

implies that no physical separation is possible within this society and any mental rebellion can be destroyed by agents of this society. A more active element of rebellion on the part of Winston relates to the use of language and literature and in particular, his efforts to write a diary. Winstons composition of a diary is the central element of this active rebellion. Smith highlights the importance of this when he thinks that To mark the paper (is) the decisive act (9). This act of writing is strictly outlawed by The Party and Winston is certain that he will be killed for this crime. The dedication of the diary marks Winstons attempt to use literature as a medium to affect change and separation: To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone. (30) Evidently, this diary is an attempt to defeat the restrictions placed on Winston by society and to communicate with people not yet born or dead who can relate to his discontent. Literature is used in other areas of the novel as an attempt at division. Julia and Winston pass a written note to each other and the rebellious teachings of Goldstein are circulated through The Book. This heretical literature allows Winston to believe that he is not alone in his rebellion and gives him hope that future generations will be able to read about his resistance. This book is said to be indestructible (185), further implying that literature can be used as a medium to subvert social convention. This use of literature in both of these instances is an example of a different kind of rebellion. By using a tangible medium to create division, Winston takes a more active stance against social constrictions. While this is not the main element of his rebellion, it is still an important facet of his attempt to create division.

However, various revelations undermine this apparent freedom through literature. The memory-holes found throughout this society allow all scraps of literature found by The Party to be immediately incinerated. In addition to this, Goldsteins book is revealed to be a product of the Thought-Police and therefore not actually a tome of rebellion. Smiths diary is also seized by The Party, preventing it from being read by others. This literature is shown to be a method of rebellion, but the publication and distribution of it is in the firm control of society. Overall, Winston Smith fails to create any significant division between himself and society. His efforts to create a physical and mental space separate from society are defeated and his attempts at writing divisive literature are undermined. His generally passive resistance of society is implied to be ineffective and Smith does not engage fully enough with his writing to make it a viable avenue of active rebellion. These actions of Smith may have failed but his elements of active opposition do show potential. A character that does put more emphasis on this method of active resistance can be seen in the writings of Benjamin. While the protagonist of this text is not given specific reasons for his rebellion, Baudelaire still takes steps against the general inhibitions that society places on his creativity and freedom. By looking at the Bohme and Hero in Benjamins text and how Baudelaire adapts these archetypes, his method of active separation within society becomes obvious. The first section of Benjamins The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire is entitled The Bohme. This refers to the professional conspirator that emerged in Baudelaires Paris. These conspirators engaged in mysterious plots and theories in opposition to various elements of society. Benjamin is quick to place his character of Baudelaire within this type. By looking at how Baudelaire is said to defend the disinherited, create literary barricades and 7

societys reaction; we can ascertain the manner in which Baudelaire adapts this type in a bid to create separation from society. The disinherited Baudelaire is said to defend are the elements of society that are perceived to be worthless. This includes commodities, people and theories that have become obsolete in the ever-changing city. The character of Baudelaire first engages with this refuse in The Ragpickers Wine (Benjamin, 8). These patterns continue in relation to Abel and Cain and Satan. In this way, Baudelaire is highlighted as a defender of the fallen angels and his opinion of Satan as a founder of society is evident. Baudelaire takes his own position as disinherited through his writing. This character is not content to merely pander to the public with his literature, but instead divorces himself from many aspects of society to retain his integrity. Baudelaire takes on these precepts in order to write without constriction. Overall, Benjamins narrative obviously creates a picture of Baudelaire as a champion of the disinherited. A parallel issue in The Bohme relates to the barricades of the French commune. The character of Baudelaire seems to praise these barriers for their own worth, devoid of human creation and in doing so highlights his approval of these physical structures (6). Baudelaire can even be seen to adopt the premises of the barricades into his own writing. The prostitutes, ragpickers, refuse, politicians, money-economy and countless other thematic elements of society become the cobblestones of Baudelaires barricades. In the same way that the French commune challenged the political systems of Paris from behind walls made of the city, Baudelaire challenges society by using its own precepts against it. By interweaving these issues of the disinherited and literary barricades, Benjamin allows us to infer one method that Baudelaire implements to gain separation from society. Baudelaires tendency to defend the worthless does not hinge on the actual content of this 8

refuse. This can be seen by his association of the physicality of the rag-picker with both the meta-physicality of Cain and Abel and the spiritual facets of Satan. The emphasis here is not on the content of the disinherited, but the manner in which society creates this refuse. By placing him as a member of this worthless section of society, Benjamin ensures that we view Baudelaire as a writer without restrictions. Similarly, the character of Baudelaire is not interested in the political issues of the barricades. He adapts their structure to his own writing without relying on the ideologies that brought them about. Both of these issues highlight the manner in which the character of Baudelaire is able to separate method from message and adopt these precepts to his own writing. Benjamin portrays Baudelaire as fickle in his message (4) but we can discern his form as stable. This concentration on medium over message marks an adaptation of the Bohme type. While these conspirators usually have an uncertain existence (3), Baudelaire creates stability in the structure of his writing. The character of Baudelaire does not dwell on the practical issues of his conspiracies, but instead focuses on how conspiracies have emerged and how they can be effective. In this way, this poet makes an attempt to bypass the ever-changing iterations of society in favour of a discussion of its core structures. The character of Baudelaire therefore, endeavours to create separation between himself and society by circumventing particular social issues and challenging core elements. This marks an active resistance of society from within. We can now assess the relative success of this method of separation from society in The Bohme. Benjamin creates a society in his narrative that actively works against Baudelaire. He tells us that The assimilation of a man of letters to the society in which he lived took place on the boulevard (14) and goes on to describe the state of creative readiness fostered by society. This condition forced writers to constantly be alert to potential thematic subjects appropriate for literature. This culminates in the newspapers that published the articles most likely to result in advertisement revenue (14). While Baudelaire endeavours to create a 9

universal form in his writing that all can appreciate, the social institutions of the newspapers marginalise the importance of these structures. Message is the most important element of these articles that have a set structure. As such, Baudelaire is put to one side and infrequently published. Without an audience, Baudelaire has no fellow conspirators to rely on and therefore unsuccessfully adapts the Bohme type in a bid to create separation. The final section of The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire is entitled Modernity. Benjamin gives us a view of the Hero figure in this section and allows us to infer how Baudelaire engages with this type through his writing. A close inspection of Baudelaires use of imagery and his relationship with Blanqui ties into these heroic ideals and offers another active point of separation from society. The beginning of this extract focuses on the image of the fencer that Baudelaire creates in his tribute to Constantin Guys. This image implies Guys mastery over artistic elements and the aggressive nature of his compositions. In the same way that Guys created art through imagery, Baudelaire endeavours to give shape to modernity through his imagery (49). Benjamin describes his Baudelaire as going out into the city to conquer the streets - in images (41-42). By giving shape to modernity in this manner, Baudelaire is capable of observing society from afar and transposing these precepts through imagery. Again, it must be noted that the content of Baudelaires images is not as important as his ability to capture the timeless elements of society in an understandable manner. Along with Baudelaires heroic use of imagery, his position in relation to Blanqui contributes to his attempt at separation from society. Blanqui is a character in this text that is consistently portrayed as an active revolutionary. In the closing of The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire, Benjamin links his practical revolutionary with the poet Baudelaire. He tells us that Blanquis action was the sister of Baudelaires dream and that they are joined 10

hands on the stone under which Napoleon III buried the hopes of the June fighters (63). This highlights the manner in which Baudelaire created a medium for Blanquis message. By looking at these elements of imagery and revolution together, the heroic nature of Baudelaire becomes apparent. In relation to imagery, these patterns continue in the character of Baudelaire. Benjamin highlights suicide as possibly the only heroic action left for a person in society and purposefully blurs the details of Baudelaires death. While it is not overt in the text, the narrator does imply that Baudelaire took refuge in death (45) through suicide. This allows the character of Baudelaire to become an image. His ideals and mannerisms become form devoid of function and therefore resonate with the idea of imagery as an effective method of resisting society. Benjamin underlines this with reference to the detective genre. He states that detective stories have four main elements; the victim and scene, the murderer, the masses and the detective (23). Baudelaires mysterious death allows us to view him as the victim in the city, posits society as the murderer amongst the masses and places the reader as the detective. In effect, Baudelaires death in this text encourages us to identify the structures of society that he attempted to move away from. Similarly, Baudelaire is positioned as a character who understood the revolution of Blanqui as a structural element of social resistance. By creating a form for this function, Baudelaire can outlast the failed June revolution. His structure of imagery is divorced from the content of the revolution and in this way, can be seen as a method of separation that is not subject to specific social changes. Overall, Baudelaire can certainly be seen as a heroic character that separates himself from society in this structurally active manner. However, society again has an adverse reaction to this bid for division. Baudelaires heroism depends entirely on his creativity and ability to articulate these complex theories. But society prevents Baudelaire from spreading his literature in any significant way. By placing 11

practical concerns like patronage and money at the feet of this character, Paris diminishes his ability to resist society. In effect, the Baudelaire of this piece was obliged to write frequently in order to survive. Benjamin tells us that he was not likely to have made more than a mere 15,000 francs for his writing (17). This was fatal to Baudelaire, whose creativity is said to be overtaxed in order to protect the interests of a social order that is hostile to him (42). This portrayal of society implies a deliberate effort to reduce the influence, proliferation and respect that potentially divisive writers like Baudelaire could possess. While his death does allow some separation, the apparent suicide of Baudelaire merely marks a separation from Baudelaires perspective, and not from society itself that still nurtures and destroys whatever it chooses. Overall, Baudelaire can be seen to resist society actively through his poetry. His concentration on form over function in both of these sections of The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire implies an understanding of the importance of structure and how this can be used to create a lasting rebellion against society. These patterns can also be followed in relation to the Flneur section, where Baudelaire adapts the empathy and labour power of this type to create separation. However, in each of these sections, Baudelaires rebellion is firmly based in society and is consistently undermined by social convention. These discussions of Winston Smith and Baudelaire allow us to approach specific theories on methods of separation from society. The particular attempts at division by these characters are indicative of two general approaches. Winston is a figure of passive resistance that does not attempt to change society. He invests his time in creating secret divisions between himself and society. The character of Baudelaire is an example of a more active resistance. By adapting the types of the Bohme, Hero and also the Flneur through his writing, Baudelaire actively uses societys own precepts to affect change and create separation. At the core of both of these attempts is their position in relation to society. Winstons physical and 12

mental resistance, along with his writing are always approached in relation to society. Similarly, Baudelaires adaptation of types is subject to the actual make-up of society and his attempts at creating a structure of rebellion are marginalised. Neither of these characters truly achieves separation from society due to the control and prevalence of civilisation in their efforts. As previously highlighted; Freud and Simmel highlight societys tendency to inhibit personal drives, but this discussion of Nineteen-Eighty Four and The Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaire allow us to further these theories. The search for individuality by these characters is inhibited by society to the same degree as the sexual and aggressive drives in Freud and the subjective communication in Simmel. Individuality is therefore a similar threat to society and as such, is very difficult to achieve from within these systems. As we have seen, Freud and Simmel offer examples of why individuals attempt to resist society. The specifics of these inhibitions are important, but so is the general identification that society sacrifices individual benefits for the betterment of civilisation. Two examples of resistance to this are Winston Smith and Baudelaire, who attempt to create separation with varying levels of overt action. These actions have a common ground within society and are ultimately shown to be ineffective as methods of division. Overall, society can be seen to actively marginalise these efforts in a bid to protect itself. There is scope here for discussion on other characters in literature that undergo similar patterns, but also for characters that could possibly be perceived as working outside of society such as Dostoevskys Rodion Romanavich and Mrs. Verloc of The Secret Agent. In these areas there is great potential to contribute to the conclusion of this discussion that separation from within society is either extremely difficult, or entirely impossible.

13