One of the predominant themes throughout Ishiguro’s novel is the question of dignity. This article will explore the notion of dignity in relation to moral judgments and moral character and to what extent (if any) it is embodied by some of the novel’s main characters.
We’ll begin by looking at Stevens’ description of a great butler as one who “possesses a dignity commensurate with his position.” He goes on to say that “great butlers wear his professionalism as a decent gentleman will wear his suit.” There’s no question that Stevens’ role as a butler is much more to him than just an occupation, it’s the embodiment of who he is. As such, it has a profound impact on his moral character. Now we will see some of these cases.
Steven’s total immersion in his role as a butler makes him appear, on the surface at least, as some kind of programmed automaton rather than a human being. This is evidenced by the cold way in which he reacts to the death of his father and describes him as a man of limited human feelings. His duties as his steward call him more resoundingly than his duties as a son. Another example is his cool attitude towards Miss Kenton when he receives the news of her aunt’s death. In this scene where Stevens debates whether or not to comfort Miss Kenton when she hears her cry, we see him nearly break the veneer of his role for the first time, but once again, his duties as butler supersede his duties. of him as a human being. be.
Iris Murdoch probably wouldn’t see Stevens as virtuous or dignified because she doesn’t put human emotions into the equation of her moral decision-making. Murdoch thinks it’s wrong to make a distinction between thought and action, and Stevens does exactly that on many occasions. At this point in the novel, Stevens would have defined himself as a dignified butler, but Murdoch would probably have defined him as a human being devoid of all dignity.
Stevens can also be seen as a tragic character because his entire set of values is based on a tradition that is being fulfilled. Stevens strives to meet the impeccable standards of a “great” English butler, but it only remains for him to judge his achievement, as he is one of the few remaining individuals who have retained the set of values by which to measure the performance of a Butler. Stevens’ new employer, Mr. Farraday, is in no position to determine the quality or standards of an English butler, and in fact goes out of his way to engage Stevens in “jokes”, which falls outside the purview of the professional duties in Stevens’ eyes. . Doing so would take Stevens out of his role, therefore, out of his dignity.
At the point in the novel where Lord Darlington dismisses the Jewish maids, this raises moral questions on the part of Darlington himself, Stevens, and Miss Kenton. Stevens describes the hierarchical society in which he lives as a wheel where the knights reside at the center and where the rest of society strives to get as close to the center as possible without crossing the border. I prefer to think of it as a giant swimming pool in which the upper echelon of society happily splashes around and makes decisions that will affect all the inhabitants of the earth, while the middle class and perhaps the “big” stewards reside on the outskirts of the pool, and the hierarchy continues to the desert where the dregs of society reside. Darlington obviously defines himself first as an elite member of the pool party and second as an individual. This becomes apparent when he fires the maids even though he may very well think he is wrong on an individual level. Darlington justifies his decision by saying that “there are more important concerns”, but then realizes that he did, in fact, urinate in the pool. One gets the impression that Lord Darlington’s intentions were noble; he thought that he was performing an act for the greater good. But as a defender of utilitarianism would say, his intentions do not improve the consequences of his actions.
Stevens’ reaction to the firing of the maids is predictably apathetic as he chides Miss Kenton for her outburst: “Miss Kenton, I’m surprised to find you reacting this way. Surely I don’t have to remind you that our professional duty is no to our own foibles.” and feelings, but to the wishes of our employer”. Some would say that Stevens is deferring a moral decision to his superiors here. However, we later learn that Stevens found the dismissal of the maids unpleasant. Therefore, his decision to submit to Lord Darlington’s wishes is a moral decision in itself. He decides not to do anything in the face of what he himself finds unfair.
Unlike Stevens, Miss Kenton expresses her outrage at the injustice being committed and threatens to leave Darlington Hall’s employment if it is carried out. However, as we find out later, she does not follow through on her threat. Many would see this as an act of cowardice on Miss Kenton’s part for failing to live up to her moral convictions. In fact, Miss Kenton herself even says, “It was cowardice, Mr. Stevens. Mere cowardice. Where could I have gone? I have no family.” However, it is because of this passage that I wish to argue that Miss Kenton is not necessarily a coward but rather a victim of the hierarchical system of which she is a part of.
In this note, I am forced to reveal a pitfall of personal experience to clarify this position. During my years in the broadcasting business, I encountered a number of situations that I found morally unpleasant. To give a specific example, while I was working as a news director at a local television station, we were covering one of the shuttle launches. This time, we were flicking back and forth through a split-screen double frame of reporters in our newsroom providing commentary to a live broadcast from NASA about the launch. At some point during the coverage, the news director walked into the control room where he was stationed and asked me to superimpose the logo of our local satellite truck on top of the NASA video. This would obviously be an attempt to make our viewers believe that our station had a live local team in Cape Canaveral and would obviously also be an outright lie. I voiced my objections, but the news director was persistent in his request and after some sarcastic mutterings, I finally gave in to my superior’s wishes.
There are many other examples that could be cited, one of which would be the involvement of local media in altruistic causes such as food and clothing drives for the less fortunate, blood drives, etc. The moral goodness of these acts seems unquestionable since the final result is unequivocally positive. However, altruism, in my opinion, is doing something for the greater good for its own sake. Inevitably, the local media will have numerous cameras and/or reporters present at these events to immortalize the “kindness” of their employer and later use it for shameless self-promotion. I dare say that if a law were passed banning the use of community service to promote ratings for the media outlet that sponsors it, we would see a marked decrease in “altruism” from our local, gold-hearted media.
So the questions posed here are these: Did I lose my dignity when I, like Miss Kenton, did not act in accordance with my moral convictions? Is there dignity in an act of altruism that has a selfish underlying cause?
In response to the first question, I think it would have been impractical for me to have quit my job over this issue. When I was a young man in my early twenties, my views on morality had as much spit and vinegar as those of other young people. However, when one gets a real glimpse of how the world really works and learns that the phrase “all men are created equal” is little more than window dressing in one of our most revered documents, one must necessarily dilute the vinegar in his bottle. of moral judgment. Would Miss Kenton have had more dignity as a pauper who had acted in accordance with her moral convictions? Would she have had more dignity standing in an unemployment line wondering where my next job would be and knowing that I would inevitably face the same kinds of moral dilemmas there, too? The answer to both questions, I think, is “no.” As for the second question, it boils down to a question of motive and consequence. The moral goodness of the act of community service by the media can be determined by whichever of these, motive or consequence, is assigned the highest value.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of us temper our moral decision-making in deference, to some degree, to the world and life as it really is. Ideals are fine, but they won’t pay the bills. In this sense, most of us are not unlike Miss Kenton. So if Miss Kenton is a coward, I dare say the vast majority of us are cowards too.
A thinker like Nietzsche would probably find little dignity in any of the three main characters. Certainly he would associate Stevens and Miss Kenton with slave morality. Stevens’ entire identity is tied up in the service of his master, and Miss Kenton’s actions (or lack thereof) reflect little better. Here, a Marxist view can be presented that a servant-dependent socioeconomic system requires that a segment of the population be denied their sense of identity. This is exactly what Nietzsche disdains most vehemently. The Marxist point of view can be taken a step further when we remember that Farraday presents Stevens as a commodity: “I mean, Stevens, this is a great old English house, isn’t it? That’s what I paid for. And you?” . You are a true old-fashioned English butler, not just a waiter pretending to be. Nietzsche would say that Stevens was a slave to Darlington and will now continue to be a slave to Farraday as evidenced by his commitment to master the art of joking at the end of the book.
Darlington would seem to be associated with master morality, but Nietzsche would probably find little dignity in him because Darlington defers his moral decisions to “greater concerns.” Nietzsche would dismiss the notion that value arises from our relationship with others or with the community.
Ultimately, Stevens is arguably a character who emptied himself of individuality in order to play his part, and during his road trip, he begins to realize the heavy price he has paid for it. Stevens’ epiphany occurs when he goes completely out of character by making a moving confession to a total stranger: “All those years I served you, I trusted that I was doing something worthwhile. I can’t even say I made my own mistakes. Really – one has to ask – what dignity is there in that?” In saying this, he finally rejects his justification for living not as a human being, but solely as a steward. Furthermore, I disagree with the notion that Stevens’ desire to joke with Farraday is an indication of his continued slave morality. In fact, joking requires the individual expression that had given Stevens so much trouble throughout the novel. I think the first display of true dignity of Stevens occurs when he finally takes off the veneer of the perfect butler and reveals himself as a thinking, caring, and feeling individual.Thinking as an individual is the highest dignity bestowed on any of us, and this is exactly from what Stevens has deprived himself of until he is faced with what is left of the day.
