The Many Questions of Camus' The Guest
In Albert Camus' short story "The Guest," Camus raises numerous philosophical questions. These are: does man have free will?, are an individual's decisions affected by what society demands, expects, neither, or both?, and finally, how does moral and social obligation affect decision making?
Balducci brings the Arab to Daru's door, informing Daru that "I have an order to deliver the prisoner and I'm doing so," (90) thus freeing Balducci of the responsibility over wherever the Arab ultimately ended up. Balducci didn't want the responsibility of the Arab possibly escaping, and by doing only as was expressly required of him (delivering the Arab to Daru's door and giving the orders of the Arab's destination to Daru), he was also setting the story so that any decision Daru later took was an act of Daru's alone and was not directly dependent on any other decision another man had made prior. Balducci avoids the social obligation he's supposed to feel. He should follow through on the prisoner's handling, but he doesn't have to. Balducci knows this, and decides to avoid the effort and instead justifies his leaving the Arab there by simply following his orders and not reading between the lines of the order.
Daru ended up accepting the Arab, both because the prisoner was delivered to him, and because he had a sense of responsibility to the French government (or society) to at least accept him, if not deliver him to the police in Tinguit (social obligation to not let him go free, justice must be served because if it wasn't, society would turn to chaos). Daru's orders were escort the Arab there for he was "expected at police headquarters" (88) because the Arab had killed a man, an obvious crime against society. Again, this is a concise plot device; if the Arab had robbed corn from a public field to feed his children, then Daru would have justification of not taking him to jail (society's rules against stealing shouldn't apply if it is done for a truly just cause). Instead, the Arab had killed an innocent man, "a family squabble," (89) according to Balducci. This made taking the Arab to jail a societal obligation: in order to live in a safe society, criminals must be punished. And for this concept to follow through, Daru was given the responsibility of delivering the Arab, it was his part, given to him by the society he chose to live in. If Daru chose not to accept and deliver the Arab, then he was denying his responsibility to society and not fulfilling his own obligation that came by his choosing to live in that society.
After accepting the Arab, Daru was forced to wait for the next day to take the journey to the jail. This presented him with another choice. He could treat the Arab civilly, like a brother, or, he could treat the Arab like an animal (keeping him tied, not giving him a place to rest or a thing to eat). Daru chooses to treat him like a man, even though he didn't see him as one. This impression is also given to the reader, the Arab remains "the Arab," and is not given a name. In the same way we say 'the car,' or 'that dog,' and mean an object identified only by what class of object it falls under, Camus gives us "the Arab," leaving us no option but to see the man as simply a small part of a larger Arab nation, and not as a man with a name and a personality all his own. Daru does not know the man's name, and looks on the prisoner as an object, even, as an animal. Daru "could see nothing but the dark yet shining eyes and the animal mouth," (92) as the Arab was eating Daru's flour cake. So while Daru's actions were performed for a man (putting away the gun, removing ropes, sharing a meal, giving a bed), his perceptions remained those reserved for animals and objects (including his not asking the prisoner's name or about his past).
By leaving the Arab a non-man, Camus presents a particular predicament-the Arab is not given a personality because that would mean when Daru gave the Arab the choice, Daru's actions were performed in a vacuum, the Arab's particular personality had no bearing on whether Daru chose to make options available. This is also witnessed when Balducci leaves the Arab at Daru's without ensuring Daru kept up his end of the social bargain. No man lives in a vacuum, but Camus perhaps chooses to write the story this way because he is a philosopher, vacuum-packed characters can give definite conclusions about the possible nature of man as a species, which is one of the philosophers ultimate aims.
Over the night, Daru does not actively prevent the prisoner from leaving (the gun is in the drawer and the doors are unlocked. When the Arab awakens to relieve himself,. Daru thinks "He is running away... Good riddance!" (93), but the Arab doesn't take the opportunity: perhaps out of fear of a trap, perhaps for lack of understanding the opportunity presented to him, perhaps because he had decided that he deserved to be punished and was just buying time until his imprisonment (or execution). If Camus truly wanted the Arab to be as 'the dog,' it makes sense that the Arab didn't leave. A dog loyal to his owner won't run away at every opportunity, congruently, a person loyal to the laws of society shouldn't disobey them at every presented opportunity, for any reason (barring injustice). This makes Daru's motions of presenting the Arab with choice somewhat useless. If the Arab was loyal like a dog, Daru had to reason to even bother leaving the door unlocked, for no dog would have thought of unlocking the door themselves. On the other hand, if Daru is in the center of a vacuum, then it wouldn't matter who he performs his actions, philosophical conclusions are applied to and drawn from whether he offered the opportunity, regardless of what he offered it to.
In accordance with his order, Daru sets out on a journey with the Arab. Instead of taking him directly to Tinguit, however, Daru disobeys the directive and instead stops the Arab on a hill and presents him with a choice: take this food and money and go in one direction, live with the nomads where no one will know of or punish you for your crime, or, take this food and money and choose punishment, "the way to Tinguit... they're expecting you" (95). Daru gives a choice to the Arab; this assumes the Arab has free will, and understands there is a difference between the options presented.
Daru then leaves the Arab to make the choice in solitude. By leaving the Arab without escort, Daru is disobeying the orders he is obliged to follow. While relatively minor, this choice shows the reader that Daru valued man's reasoning abilities (to decide right and wrong for himself) over society's predetermined laws and regulations. This same thing is witnessed simply by Daru's offering of options to the Arab; he had been charged with bringing the Arab to Tinguit and he disobeyed. By giving the Arab two distinct choices - having freedom pointed out and encouraged by the addition of food and money versus a continuation of what society had demanded on them both (going to jail as a punishment for murder) - Daru is directly disobeying the society's demands, by choice. Daru expects the Arab to utilize his free will and choose according to his heart, not to follow the path toward punishment merely because punishment of criminals is inherent in society. Daru was potentially aiding the destruction of the ordered society he took for granted, by valuing his own choices above that of the greater social good. Conversely, he could have just been avoiding his responsibility to take the Arab to Tinguit, perhaps out of personal weakness, perhaps because he didn't want the fate of another man to rest even partially on his shoulders.
Upon returning to the hill, Daru discovers, "with heavy heart" that the Arab took "the road to prison" (95). This is devastating to Daru (and the reader) because he had hoped the Arab would choose freedom. Any free-willed man such as Daru would automatically hope that every other man was operating under that same scope of free will. Daru hoped the Arab chose freedom because Daru gave him the choice of freedom versus punishment. If he had not created the choice, Daru couldn't have been disappointed by the Arab ending up in jail, but because Daru put out personal effort to situate a man in a situation where truly just and pure acts could be performed and decided, he was crushed when the Arab didn't do what he had so nobly planned. Daru could have suspected the Arab would choose jail, because he hadn't escaped the night before, but this could be (and probably was, the reader suspects) rationalized away by saying to oneself 'he was scared for his life, that's why I had to give the decision to him in such an unaffected setting.'
The Arab's 'choice' is in contrast to what Daru did throughout the story. Daru acted on what he thought were personal beliefs and convictions formed independently of society rather than mechanical reactions fed to him. Some actions, however, really were just results of society's expectations and demands and of his obligations to society. The Arab's choice could be rationalized by this argument: if he had been controlled, unwittingly, by others and society all his life (while he operated under the assumption that he was an independent man), then once society's wills have been removed a step, it was natural to continue to act as if he were controlled.
Balducci told Daru to take the Arab to police headquarters in Tinguit, and while this was where the Arab eventually ended up, Daru did not act in accordance with those orders. He took his social obligation and manipulated it into something that he could use for justifying his own morals. He was irresponsible: it is up to no one man to decide the fate of another (even a judge operates under the word of law, created by hundreds and agreed upon by thousands), but Daru seizes his unique opportunity and offers the Arab a choice. Daru perhaps secretly wished that the Arab would go towards freedom because his escape would mean Daru's punishment, and Daru was probably itching to tell the authorities that he didn't agree with the laws of society (regardless of whether he used the society and its conventions or not). Each decision in this final part of the story has endless philosophical ramifications. Daru only chose to do one thing, but the nature of the choice he gave the Arab means the analysis of this story should only be left to experts.
The power to make many decisions is rested on all members of society. Some outcomes are predetermined, and which actions are cannot be predicted by any simple rules. Why is it some men think about decisions and some just react to their environment like a glorified plant? Do all men know they have free will and understand what that means? Daru gave a choice to the Arab, was that fair for the Arab (and society) or was it an egotistical action based on what Daru thought was right, fair or just? Why did the Arab's ultimate choice depress Daru, and why did neither Balducci or Daru want to be responsible for another man? In the end the Arab really is 'the dog' of society. No decision was ever his (from the perspective of the reader and Daru), but still, how do we know if Daru is different? By answering some philosophical questions through use of characters in a vacuum, Camus raises many more questions, which is the modus opernadi of the philosopher: not to find answers, but to ask questions that will eventually have the answers inherent in them.
Partner sites: Pitbull pics, Study Spanish in Ecuador, and Free Essays and Term Papers