A Strange Society
By Dominique Pettway
In The Stranger, Albert Camus uses Meursault’s journey to criticize society’s stringent expectations and harsh insincerity. Although Meursault descends from a tolerable anomaly to a soulless monster in the eyes of society, he actually develops more emotional thoughtfulness and sensitivity. This contrast is relevant to Camus’ criticism of society’s insensitivity to reality and it’s iron-fisted grip on its own judgments. While society is quick to place an individual in a particular category, as demonstrated by their assumption of Meursault’s entire moral character from a limited number of encounters with him, Meursault does not attempt to judge any person in any way. Meursault is not the ideal citizen by any stretch, but these discrepancies seem to demonstrate Camus’ belief that while Meursault does murder someone and has an unusual emotional affectedness, an unassuming and naively dangerous individual is preferable to a judgmental and condemning society.
The novel begins with the death of Meursault’s mother, which is essential in society’s characterization of him. Meursault explains how even when he and his mother lived together, they rarely spoke, and she “was always watching [him]” (5). This explanation does not paint the picture of a close and loving relationship, and he does not pretend that it was one. Meursault’s brutal honesty is contrasted sharply with society’s polite insincerity, as seen with the telegram that announced his mother’s death. The telegram, which stated “YOUR MOTHER PASSED AWAY. FUNERAL TOMORROW. DEEP SYMPATHY.” (4), is wonderfully void of any real sentiment. This “deep sympathy” seems to be more similar to shallow politeness, as they could not even bother to use an entire sentence to express their “sentiments”. Although Meursault and society seem to be polar opposites, they are actually functioning in the same way; Meursault is simply honest about his lack of true caring for societal norms and empty sympathies.
Throughout The Stranger, Meursault is depicted as everything that society is not. As Germaine Brée points out in his article, “Heroes of Our Time: The Stranger”, “[Meursault] acts in a human situation as though human relationships, and therefore responsibilities, do not exist”, (37). He is not concerned about getting a promotion at his job, as he lives a life that he is comfortable with already. His boss seems mildly insulted by this after Meursault states his indifference towards a new job opportunity, which is likely representative of society’s sentiments on the matter. Similarly, Meursault is not concerned about future emotional attachments, such as marriage, as demonstrated by his indifference towards Marie’s proposal of marriage. Her surprise at his lack of thought into deeper matters such as love or marriage is a reflection of society’s sentiments toward this deviation. Meursault’s supposed deviation is even evident in his friendship with Raymond. Society has already written Raymond off as a pimp and a low-life; Meursault’s sympathy towards him and acceptance of his friendship is simply absurd to society. This “acquaintanceship” is one of Meursault’s fatal flaws. Before this point, he was not associated with anything outstandingly sinister. Raymond’s friendship, however, opens the door for more open judgment of Meursault’s choices, which, oddly enough, seems to be expressed using the character of the “odd-looking little woman”(29).
In Chapter V of Part I, Camus introduces this odd woman that “came in and asked if she might sit at [his] table” while Meursault was eating lunch at Celeste’s (29). At first glance, this woman seems like a minor character and just another oddity in Meursault’s life as an anomaly. However, she is introduced after Meursault has solidified his friendship with Raymond and written the letter to his girlfriend that would lead to her brutal beating. It is at this point that many people believe that Meursault has hit the point of no return. Arthur Scherr points out that this is the instance in which he “commits his one untruthful, inadvertently ‘evil’ act” (192), which seems to be accurate according to the evidence. The fact that this odd woman appears at this point in time is no coincidence, as she is representative of society as a whole. The woman, or society, politely asks if she may sit at his table, as any civilized person would do. Camus arranges it so that with Meursault’s acceptance, he invites society to “sit with him”, so to speak, and analyze his actions. The woman “moved in a curiously jerky way, as if she were on wires” (29), which is a statement by Camus about the robotic and insincere nature of society. Society condemns Meursault for his lack of emotion at his mother’s funeral, when society’s lack of emotion is simply masked by forced politeness and ritualistic mannerisms. The entire novel is a statement about society’s hypocritically judgmental nature, as it is pitted against Meursault’s honest indifference to its expectations.
Up to this point, society is simply uncomfortable with Meursault’s deviation from the norm, and they are not entirely able to justify any outright action against him. This remains true until Meursault commits the act that would invite a torrent of judgment and persecution towards his inner being- shooting the Arab. This Arab lacks characterization to the point that he is not even given a name, or any dialogue. This suggests that the murder was not to be centered on the Arab, or the relationship between Meursault and the Arab. Rather, the murder is the act that falls so completely outside of what is socially acceptable that the people of Algeria can finally use it as justification for their persecution of Meursault. As Robert Brock writes, the Arab “simply does not exist other than as a means to get Meursault condemned to the guillotine”, and “it forces the reader to concentrate on Meursault” (98). In many ways, the murder seems to be the catalyst for the exposure of society’s true nature. They needed something to hang Meursault with, since he was not following his prescribed societal role. This murder was their opportunity, and they took it without hesitation.
This sequence of events puts the reader in a difficult position; we are disturbed in many ways by the brutality of the murder, but have a difficult time in actually blaming Meursault, since he seems clueless as to the depth of his mistake. Interestingly enough, this is the position that Camus intended for his audience. The unfolding of events following the murder seems to be the dividing point between the reader’s opinion of Meursault and society’s opinion of Meursault. When he is imprisoned and standing trial, real and true emotions begin to surface within him while, at the same, time society’s opinion of him is reduced to a sort of “Antichrist” (45) as stated by the magistrate after a single meeting with him. At this point, it is hard to distinguish who is more inhumane here- Meursault or society. While society has formed their own opinion of Meursault and has failed to see his inner turmoil, Camus has granted the audience an up close and personal view of Meursault’s true emotional mayhem.
The trial process is instrumental in Camus’ characterization of society as the antagonist. Meursault’s actual murder seems to be of little concern to the prosecuter, while the real “crime” that he commits is a lack of emotion at his mother’s death and, even further, his unwillingness to live up to society’s standards. Not once does it occur to his prosecutors or the jury that people can differ in their grief or outlet of emotions. Instead, society holds Meursault to their own standards, the ones that everyone is expected to follow, regardless of their unique personalities or upbringing. In fact, in this society, there are no unique personalities or upbringings. Everyone is victim to the role they are expected to play, like Raymond fulfilling society’s expectations of him by beating his girlfriend, and Marie doing the same by dating a man and expecting marriage. Camus himself even explained that he “only meant that the hero of [his] book is condemned because he does not play the game” (Preface, 19). This is central to the argument that Meursault was not sentenced to death because of the murder he committed; no, on the contrary, he was sentenced to death for his deviation from societal norms and failure to meet its stringent expectations of his personal life.
At first glance, The Stranger seems to be a story about an unfeeling and monstrous man, who goes through life as if he cares about nothing. However, upon further speculation and deeper reading, Meursault is actually a hero, of sorts. He has resisted falling victim to society’s empty gestures and ritualistic behaviors. He is unlike the typical hero, in that he does not have a well-rounded moral compass, and is not particularly concerned with doing the right thing. In fact, he does not seem to care about those things in the least. However, his martyrdom rests in exposing the true insincerity of society, and how they are not the saintly figures that they claim to be. He may be monstrous and unfeeling, but Camus’ portrayal of the events seems to suggest that between Meursault and society, Meursault is the lesser of two evils.
Works Cited
1. Brée, Germaine. “Heroes of Our Time: The Stranger” pag. Rpt. In Modern Critical Interpretations: The Stranger. By Harold Bloom. Pennsylvania: Chelsea House, 2001. 19-20. Print.
2. Brock, Robert R. "MEURSAULT THE STRAW MAN." Studies in the Novel 1993: 92. JSTOR Journals. Web. 9 May 2015.
3. Camus, Albert. “Preface to the American Edition of the Stranger.” pag. Rpt. In Modern Critical Interpretations: The Stranger. By Harold Bloom. Pennsylvania: Chelsea House, 2001. 19-20. Print.
4. Camus, Albert, and Stuart Gilbert. The Stranger. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946. Print.
5. Scherr, Arthur. “Meursault’s Dinner with Raymond: A Christian Theme in Albert Camus’s L’etranger.” Christianity & Literature 58.2 (2009): 187-210. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.
The novel begins with the death of Meursault’s mother, which is essential in society’s characterization of him. Meursault explains how even when he and his mother lived together, they rarely spoke, and she “was always watching [him]” (5). This explanation does not paint the picture of a close and loving relationship, and he does not pretend that it was one. Meursault’s brutal honesty is contrasted sharply with society’s polite insincerity, as seen with the telegram that announced his mother’s death. The telegram, which stated “YOUR MOTHER PASSED AWAY. FUNERAL TOMORROW. DEEP SYMPATHY.” (4), is wonderfully void of any real sentiment. This “deep sympathy” seems to be more similar to shallow politeness, as they could not even bother to use an entire sentence to express their “sentiments”. Although Meursault and society seem to be polar opposites, they are actually functioning in the same way; Meursault is simply honest about his lack of true caring for societal norms and empty sympathies.
Throughout The Stranger, Meursault is depicted as everything that society is not. As Germaine Brée points out in his article, “Heroes of Our Time: The Stranger”, “[Meursault] acts in a human situation as though human relationships, and therefore responsibilities, do not exist”, (37). He is not concerned about getting a promotion at his job, as he lives a life that he is comfortable with already. His boss seems mildly insulted by this after Meursault states his indifference towards a new job opportunity, which is likely representative of society’s sentiments on the matter. Similarly, Meursault is not concerned about future emotional attachments, such as marriage, as demonstrated by his indifference towards Marie’s proposal of marriage. Her surprise at his lack of thought into deeper matters such as love or marriage is a reflection of society’s sentiments toward this deviation. Meursault’s supposed deviation is even evident in his friendship with Raymond. Society has already written Raymond off as a pimp and a low-life; Meursault’s sympathy towards him and acceptance of his friendship is simply absurd to society. This “acquaintanceship” is one of Meursault’s fatal flaws. Before this point, he was not associated with anything outstandingly sinister. Raymond’s friendship, however, opens the door for more open judgment of Meursault’s choices, which, oddly enough, seems to be expressed using the character of the “odd-looking little woman”(29).
In Chapter V of Part I, Camus introduces this odd woman that “came in and asked if she might sit at [his] table” while Meursault was eating lunch at Celeste’s (29). At first glance, this woman seems like a minor character and just another oddity in Meursault’s life as an anomaly. However, she is introduced after Meursault has solidified his friendship with Raymond and written the letter to his girlfriend that would lead to her brutal beating. It is at this point that many people believe that Meursault has hit the point of no return. Arthur Scherr points out that this is the instance in which he “commits his one untruthful, inadvertently ‘evil’ act” (192), which seems to be accurate according to the evidence. The fact that this odd woman appears at this point in time is no coincidence, as she is representative of society as a whole. The woman, or society, politely asks if she may sit at his table, as any civilized person would do. Camus arranges it so that with Meursault’s acceptance, he invites society to “sit with him”, so to speak, and analyze his actions. The woman “moved in a curiously jerky way, as if she were on wires” (29), which is a statement by Camus about the robotic and insincere nature of society. Society condemns Meursault for his lack of emotion at his mother’s funeral, when society’s lack of emotion is simply masked by forced politeness and ritualistic mannerisms. The entire novel is a statement about society’s hypocritically judgmental nature, as it is pitted against Meursault’s honest indifference to its expectations.
Up to this point, society is simply uncomfortable with Meursault’s deviation from the norm, and they are not entirely able to justify any outright action against him. This remains true until Meursault commits the act that would invite a torrent of judgment and persecution towards his inner being- shooting the Arab. This Arab lacks characterization to the point that he is not even given a name, or any dialogue. This suggests that the murder was not to be centered on the Arab, or the relationship between Meursault and the Arab. Rather, the murder is the act that falls so completely outside of what is socially acceptable that the people of Algeria can finally use it as justification for their persecution of Meursault. As Robert Brock writes, the Arab “simply does not exist other than as a means to get Meursault condemned to the guillotine”, and “it forces the reader to concentrate on Meursault” (98). In many ways, the murder seems to be the catalyst for the exposure of society’s true nature. They needed something to hang Meursault with, since he was not following his prescribed societal role. This murder was their opportunity, and they took it without hesitation.
This sequence of events puts the reader in a difficult position; we are disturbed in many ways by the brutality of the murder, but have a difficult time in actually blaming Meursault, since he seems clueless as to the depth of his mistake. Interestingly enough, this is the position that Camus intended for his audience. The unfolding of events following the murder seems to be the dividing point between the reader’s opinion of Meursault and society’s opinion of Meursault. When he is imprisoned and standing trial, real and true emotions begin to surface within him while, at the same, time society’s opinion of him is reduced to a sort of “Antichrist” (45) as stated by the magistrate after a single meeting with him. At this point, it is hard to distinguish who is more inhumane here- Meursault or society. While society has formed their own opinion of Meursault and has failed to see his inner turmoil, Camus has granted the audience an up close and personal view of Meursault’s true emotional mayhem.
The trial process is instrumental in Camus’ characterization of society as the antagonist. Meursault’s actual murder seems to be of little concern to the prosecuter, while the real “crime” that he commits is a lack of emotion at his mother’s death and, even further, his unwillingness to live up to society’s standards. Not once does it occur to his prosecutors or the jury that people can differ in their grief or outlet of emotions. Instead, society holds Meursault to their own standards, the ones that everyone is expected to follow, regardless of their unique personalities or upbringing. In fact, in this society, there are no unique personalities or upbringings. Everyone is victim to the role they are expected to play, like Raymond fulfilling society’s expectations of him by beating his girlfriend, and Marie doing the same by dating a man and expecting marriage. Camus himself even explained that he “only meant that the hero of [his] book is condemned because he does not play the game” (Preface, 19). This is central to the argument that Meursault was not sentenced to death because of the murder he committed; no, on the contrary, he was sentenced to death for his deviation from societal norms and failure to meet its stringent expectations of his personal life.
At first glance, The Stranger seems to be a story about an unfeeling and monstrous man, who goes through life as if he cares about nothing. However, upon further speculation and deeper reading, Meursault is actually a hero, of sorts. He has resisted falling victim to society’s empty gestures and ritualistic behaviors. He is unlike the typical hero, in that he does not have a well-rounded moral compass, and is not particularly concerned with doing the right thing. In fact, he does not seem to care about those things in the least. However, his martyrdom rests in exposing the true insincerity of society, and how they are not the saintly figures that they claim to be. He may be monstrous and unfeeling, but Camus’ portrayal of the events seems to suggest that between Meursault and society, Meursault is the lesser of two evils.
Works Cited
1. Brée, Germaine. “Heroes of Our Time: The Stranger” pag. Rpt. In Modern Critical Interpretations: The Stranger. By Harold Bloom. Pennsylvania: Chelsea House, 2001. 19-20. Print.
2. Brock, Robert R. "MEURSAULT THE STRAW MAN." Studies in the Novel 1993: 92. JSTOR Journals. Web. 9 May 2015.
3. Camus, Albert. “Preface to the American Edition of the Stranger.” pag. Rpt. In Modern Critical Interpretations: The Stranger. By Harold Bloom. Pennsylvania: Chelsea House, 2001. 19-20. Print.
4. Camus, Albert, and Stuart Gilbert. The Stranger. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946. Print.
5. Scherr, Arthur. “Meursault’s Dinner with Raymond: A Christian Theme in Albert Camus’s L’etranger.” Christianity & Literature 58.2 (2009): 187-210. Religion and Philosophy Collection. Web. 1 Apr. 2015.