Las Meninas: Abandoning the subject in favor of the periphery

In the opening chapter of The Order of Things, Michel Foucault provides an analysis of Velasquez’s painting “Las Meninas” and makes an interesting point regarding the subject versus everything else in the composition. In discussing the reflection in the mirror of the king and queen that can be seen in the rear of the room, Foucault suggests that even though the two monarchs capture the attention of the figures in the painting, the viewers outside the painting see the king and queen as insignificant. On page 14, Foucault writes, “Of all these figures represented before us, they are also the most ignored, since no one is paying the slightest attention to that reflection which has slipped into the room behind them all, silently occupying its unsuspected space; in so far as they are visible, they are the frailest and the most distant form of all reality.” Foucault here is referring to the reflection of the monarchs in the mirror that the viewer outside the painting sees, but that the individuals in the painting ignore. The omniscient viewers who witness but are not part of the scene can be seen as more objective, credible observers, and since we take little regard for the king and queen (we see only their stagnant reflection) perhaps the reality of the situation is indeed that the monarchs are less significant than the depicted spectators. If this interpretation is correct, it would conform to the idea of things that are “beside the point” having as much substance as the point itself. The painter and the whole crowd of observers are gathered for the purpose of seeing the king and queen, but it may just be that these spectators carry the greatest importance.

Foucault is possibly interpreting that Velasquez intended for the reflection of the monarchs to be some sort of statement regarding the relation of the center (the monarchs) to the periphery (everyone else in the painting). It would seem that because the periphery is actually the main subject of the painting, Velasquez was asserting that the fringe components are more important than the apparent central purpose. Was this some sort of disguised political or social statement? I tend to think that the ramifications of Velasquez’s portrayal of the monarchs in the mirror are of a broader nature. Perhaps he meant to apply the concept of the periphery and the center to a general system of thinking about the world. In the present day, we sometimes forsake the peripheral detail for the central purpose. Too often we are concerned with what “the point” is, instead of paying attention to everything else that is unique about a composition, idea, or structure. As we have found with the work of Henrik Ibsen, and now with Velasquez, it is the little things that often carry the greatest significance. Perhaps Foucault saw this neglect of the periphery in the modern paradigm of logic, and thus wished to portray an example of Classical Age thought where what was “beside the point” was the central purpose. Regardless of Foucault’s intent for including a discussion of “Las Meninas,” he does well to present the concept of looking past the subject and into the realm of the periphery.

A few final thoughts on Ibsen

After reading and discussing several Henrik Ibsen plays, I have come to appreciate the importance of details in his work. The guns that appear in the scene description at the beginning of Hedda Gabler, the rocks that Dr. Stockmann saves in An Enemy of the People, and the white shawl worn by Mrs. Solness at the end of The Master Builder all have significance to the symbolism and meaning that Ibsen is attempting to portray. It is not enough to read Ibsen by cutting straight to the gist and skipping over the details, as the details themselves are as important as the overarching conclusions that readers may draw from his work. In this way, those who read Henrik Ibsen must take a scientific approach to his plays, much like Ibsen himself took a scientific approach to developing his characters. The scientist is always concerned with the details, the bits and pieces of information that may lead to a great discovery or a new theory. If one simply concentrates on the big picture, he/she will in all likelihood overlook the very elements that together comprise the essence of the subject in question. To modify a common adage, it is not enough to simply understand the forest, as the concept of forest is meaningless without an awareness of the individual trees. So it is with Ibsen’s plays as well – we must not neglect the little things, as the specific details add up to yield an understanding that would be lacking in their absence.

The particulars in Ibsen’s plays are also vital to readers’ comprehension of the themes because Ibsen draws heavily from mythology and from other works of literature. These literary allusions are not laid out on the table for readers, but are instead deftly placed within scene descriptions or quick conversations between characters. For example, the differences in Ibsen’s descriptions of Hedda and Mrs. Elvsted’s hair near the beginning of Hedda Gabler serves as the first clue to these characters’ inner qualities. Hedda is described as having hair that is “an attractive medium-brown but not particularly full,” (page 296) while Mrs. Elvsted’s hair is “remarkably light, almost a white gold and exceptionally rich and full,” (page 300). The differing hair qualities of these two women serves as a representation of their lives and personalities, as Mrs. Elvsted is fertile in the sense that she can produce ideas and cultivate them with action while Hedda is sterile in that she is limited to passive inaction and lives vicariously through the experiences of others. Later on, readers discover that Hedda is envious of Mrs. Elvsted’s hair and even threatens to burn Mrs. Elvsted’s hair off, which further emphasizes the symbolic difference between these two characters. In this way, Ibsen is portraying hair as a symbol of strength, which alludes to the biblical story of Sampson. This important literary connection and metaphorical significance would be lost to readers who did not give serious consideration to scene descriptions when these two characters entered the play. This example serves as further evidence that those who take the approach of the scientist and who critically analyze the details get the most out of Ibsen’s plays. With Ibsen’s own affinity to the scientific approach, it’s hard to believe these rewards for the close reader were anything but intentional.

Reaction to Wild Duck truth vs lie discussion

We had an interesting discussion last Thursday in class regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the differing philosophies of Dr. Relling and Gregers Werle in The Wild Duck. Relling avoids telling his patients the distressing truth about their conditions and instead deliberately manufactures lies to keep them going. Gregers, on the other hand, is more of an idealist and believes that he must break the truth to Hjalmar about his wife, even if such knowledge will initially be distressing to Hjalmar. When Hjalmar eventually learns the truth, he is extremely upset, and his emotions eventually lead to the suicide of his daughter Hedvig. That in The Wild Duck such a destructive act is portrayed as the end result of divulging the truth would suggest that Ibsen was a proponent of the “life-lie.” Ibsen believed, like Relling in the play, that if an individual has a certain truth that is comforting and beneficial to him/her, this truth should be cultivated and encouraged by everyone around the individual, even if the ‘truth’ is actually a fallacy. This is an interesting view on the human experience, as it advocates that comfort and peace of mind are more important than discovering the true nature of our existence. Perhaps Ibsen thought that humans are incapable of handling the truth, and that our very existence depends on the promotion of certain lies. This view is similar to that held by the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, who criticizes Christ for giving to mankind the concept of freedom, which is a great burden rather than a gift. Thus, freedom and truth, two principles that are commonly connected with happiness (especially in the United States), are portrayed as harmful to the human psyche in The Brothers Karamazov and The Wild Duck, respectively.

I claimed on Thursday that I came out on the side of Gregers, that I would rather know the truth than live a “life-lie.” I’ve done some thinking on this subject over the past few days and my opinion hasn’t really changed, though it’s possible it will change with further life experiences. As Madeleine pointed out in our class discussion, perpetuating lies for sheer comfort or convenience can be destructive, especially if such lies are spread throughout the whole of society. For example, if the government were to falsely claim that a major spill at a nuclear power plant was small and that it would not have any adverse affects on the environment or the communities near the plant simply to pacify the public, such a lie could prevent the appropriate action from being taken to clean up the spill. What is comforting or easy is not always right, and what it right is sometimes difficult to handle, but this should not prevent the truth from coming out. I would much rather be told the truth and act accordingly than be lulled into a blind sense of comfort by fabrications meant to keep me going.

An interpretation of the relationship between Mrs. Solness and Hilda

At the end of class on Tuesday, we had a discussion about how in The Master Builder, Mrs. Solness and Hilda had a relationship similar to that of Demeter and Persephone and how the two may have been co-conspirators who worked toward the demise of Halvard Solness. At first, this idea does not seem to fit, as Hilda and Mrs. Solness initially appear to have a rather chilly relationship. For example, Hilda becomes upset when Mrs. Solness claims that it’s her “duty” to go buy new clothes for Hilda, and Hilda remarks “She could have said she’d do it because she liked me so much. Something like that, she might have said. Something truly warm and heartfelt, don’t you see?” (page 389). At this point in the play it seems unlikely that Mrs. Solness and Hilda could work together for a common result, as they do not have a good relationship. Their relationship changes, however, after the two have a talk on the veranda about the fire that destroyed Mrs. Solness’s house and that led to the deaths of the twin boys. As they part at the end of this conversation, Mrs. Solness says “And let’s be friends, Miss Wangel, can’t we?” to which Hilda replies “Oh, if only we could,” while the two share a hug (page 408). This illustrates that Hilda and Mrs. Solness have managed to find a way to get along with each other, which is important to the idea that they are working together against Solness, as cooperative action is difficult if there is no common ground between the players. This sense of cooperative action between these two characters finally rises to the forefront near the end of the play when Mrs. Solness encourages Hilda to “hold fast” to Halvard Solness and to convince him not to climb the tower on the new house (page 416). Hilda ends up doing just the opposite and persuades Solness to climb to the top of his tower after all, which at first would seem to oppose the idea that she was working together with Mrs. Solness. After further consideration, however, it does not make sense that Mrs. Solness would trust Hilda to be alone with Halvard Solness and to convince him not to climb the tower, especially after Hilda had previously expressed her fascination with seeing Solness at the top of the church tower in Lysanger. Perhaps Mrs. Solness knew all along that Hilda would encourage Solness to climb the tower, and perhaps Mrs. Solness actually desired the final outcome of her husband falling from the scaffolding. Throughout the entire play, Halvard Solness’s relationship with his wife is basically nonexistent, and it would be understandable if Mrs. Solness was ready for her husband to move on. Additionally, it would make sense for Hilda to be working toward Solness’s demise, as she is a manifestation of his “trolls and devils” (which is itself a topic for another blog). With all of these factors considered, it seems valid to interpret Mrs. Solness and Hilda as co-conspirators in the death of Halvard Solness.

Ibsen and Individualism

In the article “Ibsen and Mimesis” that is posted as a link on Shelby’s blog, Otto Reinert (the author) makes an interesting point regarding Halvard Solness’s feeling of guilt in The Master Builder. Reinert writes on page 223 that “The Master Builder is a play about the inner anguish of guilt and fear, the obstinate ambition, and the erotic fantasies of an aging egotist, whose achievements have become instruments of torture.” Solness repeatedly makes reference to the fact that he feels guilty for all of his successes and that his previous “luck” is now a source of anguish. This is because his accomplished career as a master builder was made possible only through harm to others. For example, Solness’s first opportunity to build houses arose from the fire that destroyed his wife’s family’s home and that has since caused his wife incessant grief. Additionally, the ascension in his building career directly corresponded to the demise of Knut Brovik’s business, as Solness effectively displaced and ruined Brovik’s career while pushing to get to the top. These examples illustrate one of the realities that Ibsen wished to illuminate in this play – that the fates of all humans are related and that the rise of an individual toward his goals necessitates the fall of another from his aspirations.

Reinert goes on to comment that “This is the essence of an Ibsen tragedy: by some immutable law self-realization through self-transcendence entails transgression against others. That theme is also the most radical challenge to individualism in all of modern drama,” (page 223). Besides it’s obvious relation to The Master Builder, this concept is also present in An Enemy of the People, where Dr. Stockmann’s great discovery does not unite the townspeople but instead threatens their economic wellbeing and forces Peter Stockmann to push back against his brother. This is Ibsen illustrating the dualistic nature of the human quest for self-affirmation: for every individual who wishes to accomplish a goal there is another individual who would be negatively affected if such a goal were realized. As Reinert points out, Ibsen is effectively undermining the validity of individualism through this argument. If pursuing our own aspirations leads to the injury of another, are we justified in chasing after our goals? Where should the line be drawn between justifiably following our own desires and inexcusably holding others back? These are the types of questions that tormented Halvard Solness in The Master Builder, and Ibsen seems to give no resolution to this qualm in the play. With Solness’s tragic fall from the top of his own house, Ibsen is suggesting that this contradiction between self-affirmation and assistance to others is an essential component of human nature, and that it is impossible to escape from its grasp. Thus, Ibsen again is able to deftly illuminate a difficulty that is inherent in the human experience and to encourage examining the subject of individualism with a critical eye.

Halvard Solness and the paradox of desire

In Henrik Ibsen’s play The Master Builder, Halvard Solness has the unique condition in which he is afraid of that for which he longs. He believes that he only needs to wish for something to happen in order for his “helpers and servers” (which he later refers to as “trolls and devils”) to carry out that task, effectively allowing Solness to will an occurrence to come about. For example, Solness explains to Hilda why he feels responsible for the fire that destroyed Mrs. Solness’s family’s house and killed their two sons when he remarks on page 398, “Who called for the helpers and servers? I did! And so they came and submitted to my will.” In this case, Solness’s “will” was that his wife’s house burn down so that he would have an opportunity to divide up the estate and build more houses, thus setting off his career ascension to a master builder. He feels that because he secretly fantasized about such an event, it ended up occurring after all through the actions of the helpers and servers. This is where Solness’s fear for that which he desires comes from, and he accordingly is reluctant to embrace any of his aspirations, including his wish for his wife’s happiness. He claims to do everything in his power to make his wife happy again by, for example, building a new, exquisite house on the land where the house that burned down used to stand, but in reality he cannot fully commit to fostering Mrs. Solness’s happiness. This is because for Mrs. Solness to truly be content, Halvard Solness would have to reduce his work as a master builder and settle down with his wife. Solness is unwilling to do this because he is paranoid that if he lets up at all, the younger generation, specifically his apprentice Ragnor, will displace him from his position as a renowned master builder. In this way, Solness is reluctant to desire too strongly for his wife’s happiness, as he fears that if the “helpers and servers” work toward this end, his career will be destroyed at the hands of the next generation.

Similarly, though Solness is afraid of the youth (“You’ll see, youth will come here and thunder at the door. Smash their way in to me.” page 382), he also subconsciously longs for the youth. He seems to be reinvigorated by the arrival of Hilda, even though she represents the younger generation that, literally and figuratively, is knocking at Solness’s door. This contradiction of desire and fear is illuminated on page 400 and 401, where Solness admits that he has been longing for the youth that Hilda embodies. After Hilda reminds Solness that he is fearful of the youth by asking “Youth, which you are so afraid of?” Solness replies “And yet which, deep within, I long for so painfully.” This sequence proves that Solness does indeed long for the strength and vitality of the youth, even though these are the exact traits that he fears. It is thus that the paradox is solidified: Solness fears what he desires and yearns for that which he most alarmed by.

Dr. Stockmann: a free man?

Throughout An Enemy of the People, Dr. Stockmann prides himself on being a free man who acts independently of the opinions and wishes of others. He chooses to pursue the truth in the form of scientific findings instead of following the townspeople’s desire to promote the baths. At one point while arguing with his brother Peter, Dr. Stockmann boldly proclaims “There is only one single thing in the world a free man has no right to do…A free man has no right to soil himself with filth; he has no right to behave in a way that would justify his spitting in his own face,” (pg 275). In this way, Dr. Stockman is suggesting that all free men have a duty to be true to themselves and to follow their own convictions instead of feeling obligated to join with the popular opinion. But a free man can also change his own course of action without trepidation, which is something Dr. Stockman seems incapable of performing. He is so rooted in his views of the danger of the baths that he is, in a sense, trapped by his scientific findings. For example, Dr. Stockmann eventually comes to realize that exposing the flaws of the baths will have ill effects on his family in the form of the entire town turning against his household, but he cannot seem to break away from, or at least modify the presentation of, his controversial ideas. Thus, Dr. Stockmann is a free man in one sense but not the other. He is strong in his convictions and free from the influence of others’ dissuasion, but he is so engaged in his own ideas that he is inseparable from them.

This concept of being independent of the wishes of others and totally inseparable from one’s own ideas is present in other literature as well, specifically Robert Bolt’s play, A Man for All Seasons. The main character in this play, Sir Thomas More, is eventually executed for refusing to take an oath declaring King Henry VIII the head of the Church of England. Like Dr. Stockmann, Thomas More remains steadfast in his ideals even when there is enormous pressure to do otherwise. It is as if both Thomas More and Dr. Stockmann are unable to part from their prior beliefs, even as the situations surrounding them collapse. The obstinacy of both of these characters directly endangers their families, and each wife makes several unsuccessfully attempts to convince her husband to modify his stance. Thus, the refusal of Thomas More and Dr. Stockmann to part with their convictions, even with the wellbeing of their respective families on the line, illustrates how a man can be free from the influence of others, but not always free from his own thoughts.