I just finished Kate Chopin's
The Awakening. I am very frustrated.
Why is it that every literary "awakening" ends in death? All of them! Brilliant Plath, awakening, ends at the oven-- tired of carrying the "burden of... dead selves", waiting to live once again; Edna Pontillier throwing herself into the sea after discovering love, "a bird with a broken wing... beating the air above, reeling, fluttering, circling disabled down, down to the water", having proven herself rather than strong ("The bird that would soar above the level plain of tradition and prejudice must have strong wings"), a weakling, "bruised, exhausted, fluttering back to earth."
But must every awakening end in death? Why on earth, in that case, would one want to be awakened? Mme. Pontillier's awakening was, in orthodox terms, foolish; her journey of self-actualization led her into simple narcissism, farther from others and into herself. She was awakened to: a beautiful "maybe", an impossible love which flung open the passage to a newfangled version of herself. Her love for Robert was selfish, really; she admits this openly ("Despondency had come upon her there in the wakeful night, and had never lifted. There was no one thing in the world that she desired. There was no human being whom she wanted near her except Robert; and she even realized that the day would come when he, too, and the thought of him would melt out of her existance, leaving her alone.")
Really she only awakened to herself (but this self was fragmented, blurry, confused; she did not know it very well, and upon discovering it to be as flawed as her former self [if, at least, more interestingly so], she abandons hope not only in humanity, but eventually, herself. I suppose when one reaches the state of utter self-dependence, the discovery of one's own flawfulness would be irremediably shattering.)
I am likewise fragmented, blurry, confused, yes; I love, and perhaps it is equally selfish as the love Chopin portrays. I am not, however, subject to mad self-destruction. (This is, perhaps, because I have a future: if infinitely mired in present circumstance, I might consider the same. There are always avenues of subjective newness, when one fears stagnation; when one is unhappy, there is always some form of escape.)
I suppose what I am grappling with is this: would it not be better to live blissfully, unawakened, like bland contented Mme. Ratignolle? That is, I am sure, a terribly unpoetic statement, but there it is. The romantic, poetic concept would be that it is always preferable to be awakened, to live in a tumult of love and agony and feeling, even to the point of death; that death in an ecstasy of emotion is preferable to a slow swaddled life without self-actualization. I suppose that to Mlle. Average, here, the blind contentedness born of innocence (or, depending on your philosophic prejudices, ignorance) is preferable to languoring in bleak oppressive wisdom.
To be quite frank, and blasphemously unpoetic, is happiness not preferable to wisdom? To quote Douglas Adams (ha!), "I'd far rather be happy than right any day." To bring faith into it,
ma foi, we are certainly instructed to pursue wisdom at all costs. Proverbs 4:6-8 says, "Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme, therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding. Esteem her and she will exalt you; embrace her, and she will honor you." (Naturally, Mme. Pontellier's "wisdom" is not parallel with Biblical wisdom; the wisdom of Solomon would never recommend that vast deviation from both her husband and mankind, especially for self-love, self-discovery, and the pretense of love that Mme. shares with Robert.)
Even if one acquieces that blind contentment is preferable to self-actualization, however, a problem arises: this thought process in itself implies at least some of self-actualization is in place, and once one has left this contented state of blindness, once one has ripped open the chip-bag of self-actualization, one loses the ability to return to it. Do I propose running about among the innocent with a black veil, shouting, "No! you do not want to see"--? Naturally, no. It is proverbially best to be wizened; the difficulty lies in procuring the correct sort of wisdom, and building a Self from this base. I propose a turning-about of the tables: rather than seeking self-actualization and from that garnering wisdom,
begin with wisdom, and from that a Self will grow.
Once enlightened (if choosing the non-Christian vein of self-actualization), one is left with a subjective future of self-development. One is left to the stripping away of layers and layers of Otherness, and, particularly, of others. The refining of Self apart from all other entities depends largely on a premise of unmolested solitude. (Mme. Pontellier discovers this in relation to her husband, and later her children. Initially it is her love for Robert that spurs this, but eventually, it is simple self-acquaintance, independence, and the accompanying mistrust of the rest of mankind: "Instinct had prompted her to put away her husband's bounty in casting off her allegiance... Conditions would some way adjust themselves, she felt; but whatever came, she had resolved never again to belong to another than herself.") Life, then, is either hurtling towards some sort of point of isolated self-actualization (assuming one can fully know oneself) or an unconsummated journey, an endless stripping of influence, fanning out in endless subjectivity. I hasten to choose the latter, shrinking from the possiblity of knowing myself fully; the former sounds frighteningly like Existentialism, which has always seemed rather infinite and hopeless to me.
(I do beleive that Chopin thinks so as well... Even in the midst of Mme.'s passion, she consistantly picks illusion over reality, narrating: "...And she found it good to dream and to be alone and unmolested. There were days when she was unhappy, she did not know why-- when it did not seem worth while to be glad or sorry, to be alive or dead, when life appared to her like a grotesque pandemonium and humanity like worms struggling blindly towards inevitable annihilation.")
Life, I suppose, is all. Perhaps it is best to leave the philosophy here on the table, and live; for there is snow on the ground, and coffee cake in the oven. Watch out, though, Chopin, I'm not through with you yet....
Next on the Menu:
East of Eden by John Steinbeck (apparently also profoundly depressing. Heavens. I am growing weary of great geniuses of sorrow; I am ready for the world to produce more geniuses of love.)