The Characters in Jose Saramagos Novel Blindness - Essay Example

The Blind can see: Tragic Flaw of Modern Man It is quite interesting that the characters in Jose Saramago’s novel “Blindness” are blind, but they can see. After reading the novel, a reader will necessarily conclude that the tragedy of modern man is blind in spite of having eye. The novel seems to be quite thrilling because of its “science-fiction” apparel. But only on the surface level, the novel resembles much a science-fiction. Beneath its surface level there lies a quite serious philosophical and political intention that makes it an allegory of human life and society. Behind the central theme of “blindness” the author clearly criticizes the heinous, self-centered and pernicious nature of human being. Literally, the town people are blind; but metaphorically they were blindfolded from reality even though they can see. Indeed, Saramago’s readers remain in confusion about the true meaning and the philosophical dimension of “blindness”, until they reach the final passage of the novel and read the lines: “Why did we become blind, I don't know, perhaps one day we'll find out, Do you want me to tell you what I think, Yes, do, I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see.” (Sarmago 56) The novel’s philosophical dimension can be summarized into these few lines. In a sense, the novel “Blindness” rather explicates Plato’s philosophy of reality in the fictive environment of a narrative. Saramago’s characters go blind suddenly; the author keeps the pathogen of the epidemic blindness secret intentionally to allow the readers to brood more on the possible meaning of the blindness. At the end of the novel, the readers’ literal perception of the ‘blindness’ receives its philosophical dimension. Such ultimate perception further tends to allure the readers to reread the novel. The blindness of Saramago’s characters in the novel tends to resemble the inability of Plato’s cave dwellers. A brief overview of Plato’s allegory of the cave and the subsequent analysis will necessarily help a reader to perceive the philosophical significance of ‘blindness’ in the novel. Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” primarily asserts that both reality and ethicality are solely contextual and subjective. That is, it depends on one’s point of view. Therefore one way of living is more practical and ethical than others to the extent one’s view and circumstance allow one to accept the way of living. For the prisoner of Plato’s cave, the practicality and reality are confined in the shadows that are produced on the wall. So the shadowy reality itself and the way of living shaped by this reality are more practical and ethical for the prisoner before he escapes, because his circumstance shapes his view of reality as well as his way of living. In the cave, the prisoners are, in a sense, blind, since they can compare their cave-reality with the outside world. Even though they can see the shadow, they cannot understand that their reality is a shadow reality. Even if they can see the reality, they are blind because they cannot perceive that their life in the shadow reality is real and meaning only in the cave. (Watt 45-56) Therefore, by referring to this allegory, Plato indicates that knowledge does not merely derive from mere sight of something; rather it derives from logical perception of sight. But after one of the cave dwellers escapes from the cave, he becomes able to realize the concrete reality in front of his eye through reasoning that is an essential part of a man’s education. It is not that the reality outside the cave is more meaningful to him. Rather by seeing the outside reality and by comparing the cave reality with the outside world, the escaped cave dweller further realize the true significance of his former cave life. (Watt 72-76) In the epigram of the novel, Saramago seems to refer to this very difference between “seeing” and “logical perception”, as following: “If you can see, look. If you can look, observe.” (Sarmago 2) Referring to this platonic difference between ‘seeing’ and ‘observation’ (logical perception), he further implicates that modern people are, in a sense, like Plato’s cave-dwellers. They live within the boundary of social, personal and political authorities. At their heart they subconsciously carry both the fear and the respect for these authorities. Still they are happy and obliging. Like Plato’s cave-dwellers modern man also cannot realize that they are living in a reality that is quite milder and expectable. They simply live in it without learning to logically perceive it (as Plato says) or to observe it (as Saramago says) Teaching modern individual to observe reality is the responsibility of modern education system. The town-people seems to go blind. But the truth is that they are (had been) blind, before the epidemic started. Therefore, here ‘blindness’ is a metaphor that represents their inability to observe reality. In this regard, George Snedeker says, “Saramago uses blindness as a metaphor for both personal misfortune and social catastrophe.” (Snedeker, pars. 5) They simply see it; but they cannot logically perceive it. It seems they were blind before they became blind, as one of the characters says in the final passage: “I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind” (Sarmago 2) . Such affirmation appears to be self-contradictory and paradoxical. Indeed such paradox evolves from Saramago’s use of “blindness” as a floating signifier, as Snedeker notes, The central problem with Saramago's novel is that his master sign "blindness" is a floating signifier. No matter what his intention, the metaphor of blindness has a real referent. Readers of this novel are faced with an ambiguity, the relationship between the "symbolic" and the "real". (Snedeker, pars. 2) But, the metaphorical meaning of blindness will dispel this self-contradiction. Indeed the town-people were blind because they were unaware of the social and political authorities. They simply live in the society without observing it. But they go blind during the epidemic; such massive ‘going blindness’ refers to the withdrawal of the people’s respect and fear of the social and political authorities. The anarchy in the town spread as a result of such withdrawal of public fear and respect for social orders. The established social orders collapse, because they no longer function normally because of their blindness or metaphorically because of their lack of respect for the social order. Crimes, murders and vices tend to engulf the town as a result of their metaphorical blindness. Snedeker further notes that “blindness is clearly a sign of limitation in this novel. It causes the entire society to no longer function. It also places blind people in the condition of physical jeopardy and psychological torment.” (Snedeker, pars. 3) The blindness afflicted people cannot run their own community; they cannot produce and distribute “food, water and electricity” and maintain the “infrastructure of transportation and communication” (Snedeker, pars. 5). The overall scenario in the blind’s asylum will remind a reader of anarchy-affected society where people have forgot their duty to others and also to a social. The question that may arise here is what limitation ‘blindness’ may symbolize. Indeed in reference to Plato’s view of reality, the town people’s epidemic blindness is their inability to view the system in which they live. Since Plato’s cave dwellers are unaware of the reality of the outside, they seem to be unaware of the fact that they are living in a cave. The person who escapes from the cave, can only know that they dwelling in a cave. Also he can tell what the reality in the cave looks like. In the same fashion, the town-people are blessed enough to live in the society by birth. They simply know that they live in a society while having a subconscious tendency to follow its rules, norms and laws. It is obvious that they are unaware of what the social system is really like. In Saramago’s term, they are incapable of observing, even though they have eye. When they are further tempted to violate the social orders, they get plunged into endless sufferings. Indeed this anarchy is another reality outside the society. Since they escape from the society and experience the reality outside of the social system, they gradually realize what the social system really is. Saramago expresses this realization through the metaphorical regain of his characters’ eyesight. Saramago’s novel is a philosophical allegory in disguise. While telling the thrilling event of epidemic, it also tells that simply living in a society is not enough for modern man to be modern. Rather it is his or her duty to learn to observe the society instead of simply living in it. Living in it is nothing more than being blind. Obviously there is every possibility that anarchy will inflict modern society, if modern man remains blind. It is remarkable that the characters regain their eyesight only when they undergo the painful realities induced by the breakdown of their society, as Snedeker notes, “As the narrative of Blindness progresses, the conditions of the blind continue to get worse. They find themselves in a society that no longer functions…While they are at the edge of despair their vision miraculously begins to return.” (Snedeker, pars. 3) Only then they realize that they are blind because they cannot understand the social realities, even though they can see it. Therefore, one of the characters says, “I don't think we did go blind, I think we are blind, Blind but seeing, Blind people who can see, but do not see.” (Sarmago 2) Works Cited Saramago, Jose. Blindness. London:Harcourt, 1997 Snedeker, George. “Between Metaphor and Referent:Reading Saramago’s Blindness” 10 May 2008. Web. 23 November 2012. Watt, Stephen. “Introduction: The Theory of Forms (Books 5–7)”, Plato: Republic, London: Wordsworth Editions, 1997 Read More