Is Meursault a bystander?
A big discussion we have in class about Meursault is when did he officially cross the line into the bad side. Was it when he didn’t cry at his mother’s funeral, slept with Marie a day later, seemingly not care about Salamano’s dog, accept food from Raymond, help Raymond abuse a woman, or when he kills the Arab? At first glance I thought the first instance where we see Meursault's indifference allow the abuse of someone else, this being Salamano’s abuse and especially when we learned of Raymond’s abusive nature. However, in class people mentioned the of Salamano’s dog is ignored by Meursault and everyone else in the building who seems to know of the situation, the only reason we are really mad at Meursault is that we have seen more examples of him being heartless. A question that continually came up in my mind throughout the first part of the novel, before we really see him commit crimes, what is the role of a bystander? Google defines a bystander as “a person who is present at an event or incident but does not take part.” with
synonyms like onlooker, spectator, and witness the only concrete example of
Meursault being a bystander is with Salamano and his dog and the first time the
3 men encounter the Arabs. As high schoolers, we often hear the word bystander
in association with bullying we are taught that being a bystander isn’t good
and that it is our responsibility to help someone who is being harassed.
According to what we are taught Meursault should have stepped in. He didn’t
have to go directly to Salamano but in theory, he should have called the cops.
Even though we get the impression from Raymond that the police aren't super
effective Meursault never uses that as a reason not to call the cops. So maybe
Meursault has no morals and is just a terrible person, so what about everybody
else?
Another example of Meursault being a bystander is him and Raymond’s encounters with the Arabs. The first instant Meursault stays back while Masson and Raymond are ready to fight. However, the second instance Meursault steps in and gets the gun away from Raymond. So why does Meursault act in this situation and not the other? It would be way worse to get into trouble with Raymond rather than Salamano so why does he do nothing with Salamano and something with Raymond. The bystander effect claims that bystanders are much less likely to help a victim when there are more bystanders. Basically, if you are walking down a street and you see someone being harassed you are more likely to help the victim if the street is less busy. Do you think this could explain Meursault seemingly random decisions to step in?
Meursault's complicity, in my opinion, makes him a bad person. His philosophy is inconsistent and he seems to revel in his "outsider" label. The fact that Salamano turned out to be not so bad as we could have guessed was pure luck and nothing Meursault would have been able to know, and his "no judge" ideology is complacent to crime and almost crime adjacent in multiple instances. However, Meursault would not care how I would judge him.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, great post! I was really interested in one of your last comments and I'd like to explore it further: "The bystander effect claims that bystanders are much less likely to help a victim when there are more bystanders". On the other hand, in our society today and probably in the society Meursault lived in as well, we're taught to conform into the social norms and follow along with what other people are doing (or what they're not doing). This reminds me of another blog post that discussed Meursault's complicity and him taking "The path of least resistance". In this case, the path of least resistance IS to follow along with Raymond's actions, since making Raymond angry doesn't seem like the best idea (from what we've read).
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your points in this post. I also want to build off of your final points about how Meursault (and people in general) are more likely to step in if there are less people around. A part of me wonders if this is, as Asante pointed out, just that people want to conform to society and not stand out. However, the first thought that came to my mind when you mentioned this was that if there are more people around, you are more likely to delegate the duty of stepping in to somebody else in the crowd. You think "oh there are a bunch of people around, somebody will step in, it doesn't need to be me." But if everybody thinks that way, then nobody steps in. When there are less people around, you know that you are the only one who can take on this responsibility. I think this could be a reason that Meursault selectively participates, but we don't see that kind of reasoning from him in the text. That's not to say he wasn't thinking it and just didn't share it with the readers, but I am more inclined to think that he had less specific reasoning for his actions.
ReplyDelete