Laura B. DeVilbiss
Modernist Primitivism
Dr. Mark Wollaeger
Paper #2
2 November 1998

 

Existential Reading of Maugham’s Strickland Strickland: An Existential Hero or an Indifferent Bastard?

 

        In this paper I intend to examine the character of Strickland in Somerset Maugham’s novel The Moon and Sixpence in light of existential paradigms set forth by Jean-Paul Sartre and Soren Kierkegaard. First, I will outline a number of existential criteria that Sartre raises. Then I will look specifically at Keirkegaard’s ideas of the individual and society. I will present all of these philosophical points and examine them with regard to Strickland in order to determine whether he is or is not an existential hero.

        The primary existential issue that Sartre grapples with is that of existence and essence. That is, if essence precedes existence, either due to God or some other reason that posits an expectation of man before he arrives, there is no existence in and of itself, only a living to meet the predetermined definition of man. However, if existence precedes essence, "man turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself" (Sartre, 15). Sartre goes on to say:

For we mean that man first exists, that is, that man first of all is the being who hurls himself toward a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. Man is at the start of a plan which is aware of itselfÂ….man will be what he will have planned to be. Not what he will want to be" (Sartre, 16). This concept of man throwing himself, or being thrown, out into the world is a common trop of existential writers, the most famous being SartreÂ’s own Mathieu in his novel The Age of Reason. The struggle of these characters is to define themselves as they live: they exist and as they exist they must define who they will be. The important move that Sartre makes in the above passage concerns manÂ’s consciousness of his existence. Sartre says that the plan is aware of "itself" because all humanity faces this obstacle of defining essence.

        In many ways Strickland appears to be this existential man. He consciously throws himself into the world. His rejection of his former life—all of its people, places, occupations and habits—and his move to France cause a symbolic rebirth for him. At this point Strickland begins to exist, and define himself as he does. Strickland chooses his own individual plan and executes it. In this way Strickland exemplifies the existential life: creating and existing, existing and defining, defining and existing.

        Sartre elaborates on man’s self-consciousness by saying:

existentialismÂ’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him. And when we say that a man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that he is responsible for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men (Sartre, 16). Here Sartre makes the move of expanding an individualÂ’s responsibility to include all of humanity. Sartre says this of the existential man, "I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man" (Sartre, 18). This idea of oneÂ’s individual existence formally resembles KantÂ’s categorical imperative. Kant proposes an ethical system in which an individual establishes a maxim and then universalizes it to apply it to all mankind. Although existentialism does not propose such universalization, the idea is the same. An existentialist lives only for himself, yet he cannot ignore the fact that when he chooses for himself he cannot transcend his individuality. He must allow that in some way his decisions will first be a part of the choices of humanity and secondly effect humanity. Sartre says, "Through his choice, he involves all mankind, and he cannot avoid making a choice" (Sartre, 41).

        The existentialist must not get caught up in solipsism. This, however, seems to be what Strickland does. His indifference crosses the line dividing existential defining of oneself and outright solipsism. He moves to France, disregards the needs and desires of those in his former life, yet he does not establish any other relationships, save those that his sexual urges dictate.

        Sartre mentions some other points of existentialism that apply to Strickland as well. He addresses the proper place of passion in a man’s life. Sartre says, "The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will never agree that a sweeping passion is a ravaging torrent which fatally leads a man to certain acts and is therefore an excuse. He thinks that man is responsible for his passion" (Sartre, 23). Strickland has passion for his painting, enough for him to abandon his life. The question is: does his passion control him or did he choose his passion? Is Strickland actualizing a carefully thought out existential plan of self creation or is he merely giving up on the endeavors and actions of his former life?

        Another very important aspect of Sartre’s existentialism concerns the evaluation of a man’s life in the end. Upon his death, the moment of ultimate actualization for an existentialist, who is this person who has been existing and creating himself for all these years? Sartre says, "…reality alone is what counts, that dreams, expectations, and hopes do warrant no more than to define man as a disappointed dream, as miscarried hopes, as vain expectations. In other words, to define him negatively and not positively" (Sartre, 33). For an existentialist, a man who dreams accomplishes nothing more than dreaming. His hopes and aspirations may only be considered as actions in and of themselves, not as means to another end. Sartre goes on to say, "What we mean is that man is nothing else than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organization, the ensemble of the relationships which make up these "undertakings" (Sartre, 33). Upon his death, a man leaves behind only his actions, only those dreams he has actualized.

        The narrator in The Moon and Sixpence presents a similar view in the beginning of the novel, concerning his views on art and man’s accomplishments in general. He says, "A painter’s monument is his work" (Maugham, 10). This is precisely what Sartre says above, only the narrator specifically addresses art. The narrator goes on to say, "What chance is there that any book will make it through the multitude?…There moral I draw is that the write should seek his reward in the pleasure of his work and in release from the burden of his thoughts; and, indifferent to aught else, care nothing for praise or censure, failure or success" (Maugham, 11). This further demonstrates the existential point of view of man’s creation and accomplishments. For many reasons man cannot depend on the praise or expect the censure of others; therefore, if he has something he wants to accomplish, he must pursue it himself, with only his own desires in his mind. If he does so, he will actualize his plan for his own existence. The opinions of others are transient, ill-formed at times, and generally useless to the existentialist if the man accomplishes what he set out to do and did so according to his own level of satisfaction.

       Strickland operates according to this existential principle. The narrator says, "He was independent of the opinion of his fellows" (Maugham, 54). When he begins to paint, and on until the end of his life, Strickland cares nothing about the opinions of others. Critics approve of his work, but these opinions are inconsequential to Strickland. Maugham exemplifies this by Strickland’s not allowing people to see his paintings. Strickland is satisfied with his work, creates it in reality, and cares nothing more about it. In this way he does exemplify existential traits.

        Finally, Soren Kierkegaard provides insight into the existentialist’s view of the interaction between the individual and society. He says, "For a "crowd" is the untruth" (Keirkegaard, 809). He says:

A crowd—not this crowd of that, the crowd now living or the crowd long deceased, a crowd of humble people or of superior people, of rich or of poor, &c.—a crowd in its very concept is the untruth, by reason of the fact that it renders the individual impenitent and irresponsible, or at least weakens his sense of responsibility by reducing it to a fraction (Kierkegaard, 810). Kierkegaard argues that an individual’s association with society, community, or a faction or such an organism renders him individually impotent. Without accountability for his own actions, he may deny any and all responsibility for malice or error because of his alignment with a group. Kierkegaard goes on to say, "For every individual who flees for refuge into the crowd, and so flees in cowardice from being an individual…such a man contributes his share of cowardliness to the cowardliness which we know as the "crowd"" (Kierkegaard, 810). This statement carries Kierkegaard’s argument further. Individual participation in a group, because it frees the individual from responsibility, perpetuates negligence of personal action. Each and every individual may retreat to the structure and beliefs of the group, regardless of the poor judgment these beliefs may be demonstrating. Each person may deny any claim to the actions of the group because they are only a part, and the "crowd" is an organism in abstract.

        In The Moon and Sixpence, Strickland’s life prior to his rebirth exemplifies this "untruth" of the crowd. The narrator in Maugham describes Strickland’s family in the beginning of the novel. He says:

There was just that shadowiness about them which you find in people whose lives are part of the social organism, so that they exist only in it and by it only. They are like cells in the body, essential, but, so long as they remain healthy, engulfed in the momentous whole (Maugham, 26). Strickland, in his old role, as is the rest of his family, is relegated to a follower. None are responsible for their own actions or contributions. They play roles but offer nothing of themselves, because they have no individual selves to offer. While a certain number of anonymous individuals must serve to fill this community and abide by the structures governing it, these people could be Stricklands, Browns, anybody. There need only be people to fill the roles. The narrator goes on to say, "I take it that conscience is the guardian in the individual of the rules which the community has evolved for its own preservation" (Maugham, 54). In this way, Maugham internalizes the mechanism which causes the cowardice of the individual. That is, the structures of society are deeply imbedded in the psyche of the individual and known as an operative called the conscience. The cowardly individual thinks he does the right thing by default, because these ideas not only govern the crowd, but his own mind as well.

        Stickland differs from this former person who seeks shelter in the crowd. Upon his abandonment of his old life and his rebirth, Strickland takes up a different attitude regarding the "crowd". Although he rejects the crowd, Strickland doesn’t want anything to do with people. His persistent indifference seems to be a way of eliminating all the distractions in his life so that he may work on his art.

        Although Strickland may not be an entirely existential hero, or existential character, he does embody and implement many of the ideas of existentialism. Perhaps for those of us who find him to be an unappealing character, this leads us to conclude that it is his personality and not his actions or his existence that offend us.