17.3.2007
1) In Steven Soderbergh's film Kafka, which is vaguely
biographical in its plot, there is a sequence in which the writer Kafka
(played by Jeremy Irons), who works at an insurance agency, is asked to
his chief clerk's office where he gets a mild reproach for the way he leads
his life. At the end of the exchange, the chief clerk (Alec Guiness)
remarks:
Chief Clerk: I understand you fancy yourself as a writer.
Kafka: In a small way.
Chief Clerk: You should find a more ... athletic hobby.
Put some colour in your cheeks. (Indicates punching the air.)
This recommendation strikes us immediately as just wrong. Why is that?
2) First of all, we should distinguish between two points of view
here: on the one hand that of the character, Kafka, in the film, which we
understand as roughly representing the historical person, the writer Kafka;
and on the other hand, our point of view, that of the audience of the
film, but also one that includes an appreciation of Kafka's (the writer's)
works. (Let us assume that we indeed value his works; part of the argument
here just won't be interesting for someone who does not care for literature,
or not the particular sort of literature which is exemplified by Kafka's
writing, or maybe just for Kafka's highly original style. Even so, it is
only part of the argument that doesn't apply - I'll come back to that
distinction later.)
From our point of view, the statement of the chief clerk could be seen as
wrong just because it is not consistent with our wishes. We are glad that
Kafka, the historical person, did in fact produce his works, because they are
something we appreciate and value. (By the way, most of the time, and for
most people, these works are the only thing that is associated with Kafka's
name; the details of his life might be something that many don't know, or
don't care about.) We are glad then, to a certain extent, that his life went
exactly as it actually did, and that he did not decide to spend his spare
time with something else than writing his novels and short stories. Perhaps
we would accept, or even wish for, a different course of his life which might
have involved more productivity. But we would certainly not be in favour of
a life in which he never produced some, or all, of the works that we know
now.
Note that there is the possibility of a certain conflict within our
attitudes here: suppose it really would have been much better for Kafka's
health had he abolished writing altogether at some time of his youth, and
suppose further he might have lived much longer and happier that way (being
more successful in his job, happier in his romantic life etc.). Wouldn't it
be somehow wrong, then, to be glad that he actually didn't? Is it, in
consequence, not the chief clerk's recommendation in the film which is wrong
but actually our somewhat egoistic stance?
I don't think this is so, at least in this case. To see why, we have
to take into account an element of the situation that we have not considered
so far.
3) I have suggested above that we should distinguish two points of
view: one is our own point of view, as audience both of the film and of
the actual Kafka's writings; the other is the point of view of Kafka himself,
both as character in the film and as historical person. In the previous
section I discussed the first of these two points of view; I'm now turning
to the second.
What would we imagine Kafka's response to be? In the film, the
character doesn't reply at all - there would of course be no point in that,
given his situation. But the very fact that no discussion is needed shows
that Kafka, both the film character and the historical figure, are taken to
have a clear position on that question. Since the director did not consider
it necessary to explain that position (through a dialogue, or some other
cinematic means), we are obviously supposed to know it sufficiently.
I take it that Kafka's reply would go on the following lines: writing
is not a 'hobby', or at least not 'just some' hobby for him. It cannot
easily be exchanged for some other sort of recreational activity (like
boxing, or other sports, or any other leisure activities). And that is
because it is not a recreational activity at all for him. He doesn't do it
in order to get some diversion from the day's work - he sees it as some
entirely different sort of activity.
Now, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in seeing writing as 'just a
hobby', one possible pastime among others. In fact, there are people
who enjoy it just as that, without putting as much significance on it as
Kafka would. The mistake in the chief clerk's comment is not that he treats
the activity of writing as a 'mere hobby'. Rather, it seems, that he overlooks
that this activity might mean something else too, at least to some
people. But if that is indeed to be seen as his mistake, then we first have
to clarify the significance that Kafka supposedly puts on his writing
activities (to see if it is something that the chief clerk should have known
of, at least as a possibility, and should have thought of), and secondly, we
should be able to explain what it is in his neglect that strikes us,
when viewing the film sequence, as so badly wrong in his comment.
Note that the importance of his writing, for Kafka, is not only higher
than any importance that he would put on other hobbies, or indeed, on
hobbies at all. Most probably, it would also be much more important to him
than his daytime job. (Surely Kafka would not be very wise if he would admit
that in front of his chief!) For Kafka, his writing is (or at any rate, that
is how we are intended to understand his situation) a life-defining project
much in the sense in which I have discussed them in a
previous entry and
its follow-up. It is
essential for him to be able to do with his life what he wants to do with
it.
(Imagine a somewhat similar situation: a young man falls in love with a
woman; he wants to marry her; at some time he introduces her to some distant
relative, who tells him: "Well, maybe you should look out for a livelier
person." What the relative seems to misjudge is the significance that the
young man puts on the relationship. There is a phase in many people's lives
where relationships have a more playful character and are not understood, on
both sides involved, as necessarily binding for an entire lifetime. To a
teenager in that situation, the relative's remark might be not inadaequate to
make. Assuming that the young man in question is not thus minded, however,
but really intent to dedicate himself to a more lasting relationship, it
should be clear that this aspect of missing liveliness that the relative
points at is of inferior importance to him.)
4) What is the correct attitude to take to other people's
life-defining projects? Even if we have no obligation to form such projects
ourselves (as I maintained in an earlier post), do we have a duty (or a
good reason from our own point of view) to recognize the force and
significance that they have for others? Can we be blamed for not doing so?
If there is an answer to that question, then it should be clear that it
must be independent of the particular life-defining project. Our stance
towards such a project should be determined in virtue of it being a
life-defining project. Remember that I noted, in paragraph 2) above, that
part of the argument here is independent of the particular nature of Kafka's
project, independent, that is, of its nature as a literature project.
Insofar as Kafka's project is indeed life-defining, a stance toward
that project should not originate from a specific virtue which it might have
(as being a project of art), but from its general character as life-defining.
Or, formulated differently: some people might pay Kafka respect for his
achievements in literature because they appreciate the artistic value of his
works, but this can naturally only apply to people who a are capable of such
an appreciation (that is, who are sufficiently educated in the appreciation
of literature, or at least of literature in Kafka's genre). But if there is
something in his project that results from its character as life-defining,
and if there is a reason for respecting life-defining projects in virtue of
that character, that reason should apply to everybody capable of formulating
such projects - that is, to everybody.
5) I shall not attempt to actually answer this question here (I hope
I may have clarified some of its dimensions, however). To me it seems clear
that there is an element in life-defining projects that deserves respect from
any reflecting person, and that this element is there precisely because of
the character of the project as life-defining.
Partly, I think, this has to do with the fact that embarking on a
life-defining project is a decision that must be preceded by some reflection
and requires some determination. These are in themselves qualities in persons
that command some respect. Partly it is because it means that a person is
following a path that I think should be recommended, on philosophical
grounds (as I pointed out in that earlier post which I've already quoted
several times in this one). There is, however, a more principled point in
addition to that which I'll try to come to terms with in forthcoming posts -
stay tuned!
