Sunday, October 2, 2011

The Search for the Meaning of Life in Coetzee's The Life & Times of Michael K


The search for the meaning of life is an oft explored theme among authors and critical theorists. Nietzsche contends that human beings arrogantly deceive themselves into thinking that they can understand the Truth of existence: “the constant fluttering of human beings around the one flame of vanity is so much the rule and the law that there is virtually nothing which defies understanding so much as the fact that an honest and pure drive towards truth should ever have emerged in them” (875). Samuel Beckett asserts in Waiting for Godot that human beings wait their whole lives for someone (Godot) to impart to them words that give their lives meaning in a meaningless world. Herman Hesse claims in Siddhartha that enlightenment comes from living in the present without thought for the past or the future. J.M. Coetzee adds to the complexity of the discussion with his 1983 novel The Life & Times of Michael K, contending that happiness comes from abandoning meaning in favor of simplicity and silence. This is shown in the way Michael finds bliss in minimalism – burrowing into a self-made cave-like home, eating just enough food from his garden to subsist, sleeping and being at one with nature.

When Michael first discovers the abandoned Visagie farm, he tries to make himself useful: “In his first days in the mountains he went for walks, turned over stones, nibbled at roots and bulbs” (68). But he discovers after awhile a kind of existential ecstasy in simply existing, without desire for food, purpose, time or action: “He ceased to make an adventure of eating and drinking. He did not explore his new world. He did not turn his cave into a home or keep a record of the passage of days … he wondered if he were living in what was known as bliss” (68). He attributes this pleasure to his abandonment of desire and embracing of tranquility: “Then he had grown older and stopped wanting. Whatever the nature of the beast that had howled inside him, it was starved into stillness” (68). Michael’s discovery here of the value of minimalism in part encapsulates Nietzsche, Beckett and Hesse’s contentions about the meaning of life as well. It points to Nietzsche’s line of reasoning that “nowhere does [human] perception lead into truth” (875). It embraces Beckett’s assertion that the search for meaning is futile because life has no meaning and it elaborates on Hesse’s contention that bliss comes from simply being fully present in the here and now. Therefore, via Michael’s existential discovery of the value of simplicity, Coetzee both unites and elaborates on the assertions of other authors, thereby strengthening his contention that happiness comes from abandoning meaning in favor of minimalism.

Michael also finds comfort in silence. Throughout the novel, others such as the doctor in the infirmary at the work camp, impel Michael to speak in order to assert himself in the world: “No one is going to remember you but me, unless you yield and at last open your mouth. I appeal to you, Michaels, yield!” (152). But Michael has no desire, like other men, “to be remembered” because this would require him to attach meaning to his existence and Michael is beyond that. This frustrates the doctor and Noel and others around him because they are still searching for meaning just as Nietzsche, Beckett and Hesse contend that most men do. But, Michael doesn’t care. He is beyond this desire to be “seen” in the world. He is content to be left alone with himself, his thoughts, and his silence: “I was mute and stupid in the beginning, I will be mute and stupid at the end. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being simple” (182). In other words, he accepts the fact he is like a “mole … that does not tell stories because it lives in silence” (182). His acceptance of this fact and his contentment with his silence show that he is agreeing with Nietzsche, Beckett and Hesse’s contentions that the search for meaning in life is futile and that instead men should find contentment in the realization that life has no meaning, that to be happy all one must do is take pleasure in existing. In this way, once again, Coetzee uses Michael’s character to unite the contentions of other authors while strengthening his own argument that bliss comes from abandoning meaning in favor of silence.

Many authors have entered the debate about the search for the meaning of life. Nietzsche contends that man cannot know the Truth of nature and is arrogant to believe that he can. Beckett contends that people wait their whole lives for meaning that does not exist. Hesse contends that it is the abandonment of attachment to meaning that frees the spirit. Each of these authors takes a different stance on the same overriding theme, that life in fact has no meaning. Coetzee unites and adds his own perspective on the arguments of these authors with his novel The Life & Times of Michael K. In it, his central character comes to the realization that bliss comes from abandoning a search for meaning in favor of simplicity and silence. In discovering this, Michael frees himself from the constraints of time, purpose and meaning, giving himself instead “time enough for everything” (183). While I appreciate Coetzee’s stark take on this discussion, I find Michael’s quiet, resigned response to be depressing. His contention that “Perhaps the truth is that it is enough to be out of the camps, out of all the camps at the same time. Perhaps that is enough of an achievement, for the time being” (182) is so passive that it makes me question and reject his form of paradise. I much prefer Siddhartha’s joyous response to his enlightenment: “As time went on, his smile began to resemble the ferryman’s, was almost equally radiant, almost equally full of happiness, equally lighting up through a thousand little wrinkles” (108). Though both Michael and Siddhartha have found their own kind of ecstasy, Siddhartha’s outward expression of delight seems much more desirable than Michael’s calm, acquiescent life of solitude.

Works Cited and Consulted

Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. Chelsea House, 2008. Print.

Coetzee, J. M. The Life & Times of Michael K. United States: Viking Penguin, Inc., 1985. Print.

Hesse, Herman. Siddhartha. New York: Bantam, 1971. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “From On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense.” The Norton Anthology of Literary Criticism. Eds Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie A. Finke, Barbara E. Johnson, John McGowan, Jeffrey J. Williams. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 874-884. Print.

2 comments:

  1. Keli,

    What an impressive post! I think that the way you draw upon Nietzsche, Beckett, and Hesse is quite insightful. Reading your thoughts on this really adds to my understanding of what Coetzee may have been trying to accomplish in the often perplexing character of Michael K. I feel that your statement that Michael "comes to the realization that bliss comes from abandoning a search for meaning in favor of simplicity and silence" dovetails nicely with the way that many of the critical articles I have been reading analyze Coetzee's use of language in the novel. If we read "meaning" as "language," Michael K's withdrawal into "simplicity and silence" as a path to enlightenment can be seen as a condemnation of the system of language. This, in combination with the arguments you present from Nietzsche, Beckett, and Hesse, bring to light what seems to me an inescapable paradox: How can Coetzee (or Nietzsche, Beckett, or Hesse) use language in order to convey these "truths"? If language must be escaped in order to be happy, if human beings are fools in their attempts to understand some "Truth of nature," does that make these writers' claims self-defeating?
    Some of the critical articles that I read in preparation for my presentation address this problem, and I'm not sure any of them come up with a truly satisfying conclusion. Coetzee, at least, seems aware of his dilemma. Some critics point out that the second section of the novel, written from the point of view of the doctor who fails in his attempts to understand Michael K, is Coetzee's way of acknowledging the impossibility of using language to convey meaning.
    Is this acknowledgement enough to make the paradox acceptable?
    To be honest, I don't really have an answer. It's an interesting debate, one to which I see strong connection in your post.

    Oh, and for what it's worth: I find Michael K depressing, too.

    -Melissa Filbeck

    ReplyDelete