In Albert Camus's The Stranger, Meursault is sentenced to death for not conforming with the jury's view on humanity. The thing that condemns Meursault the most in his trial is his lack of visible grief for his mother's death. It is this lack of grief that causes the jury to believe he is inhuman. The jury and Meursault have differing views on what makes one human. The jury believes that a base of humanity is that one will feel love and grief for a parent who passes, and will mourn in a unspecified way that they deem appropriate, but one which Meursault clearly violates. As such, the jury is convinced by the prosecution that Meursault is a "monster", as they continuously paint him throughout the trial.
But we the audience, with full insight to Meursault's thoughts, can see him as a person, and know they are misinterpreting the events as well as failing to understand Meursault as a person. Meursault takes enjoyment of from the physical things in life, the murder was not premeditated, and his mother's advice is mentioned throughout the novel, suggesting Meursault did care for his mother, even if it was not as shown or typical of what society would expect.
In light of this, we must ask ourselves: Did Meursault deserve the death sentence? And can anyone really make judgments about what makes one human?
Meursault was a person, and felt emotions, even if they were not the ones deemed appropriate by society. Does this make him human? Or does his general indifference to emotions truly make him an inhuman monster? And most importantly, why? Who has the right to decide what one must feel to be a human?
At the end of the day, Meursault undeniably was a murderer, as so legally did deserve some sort of punishment. However, in addition to being punished for murder, he is also being punished for failing some abstract notion of humanity pushed by society, leading me to conclude that the death sentence was an unnecessary extremity.
I think Meursault was not inhuman; he couldn't be inhuman based on his very existence as a human being. Although he did not conform to the societal definition of a good person, his lack of typical emotions is not something that is his fault. What gives one person the authority to say that the way they feel emotions is more valid than the way someone else feels emotions? I feel like there is no distinction and nothing that makes one way of feeling better than another. (Obviously taking into account the fact that he murdered someone and was justifiably punished for that action.)
ReplyDeleteI agree. Meursault was faithful to himself and his beliefs. He was not willing to change them nor his behaviors to those that are deemed acceptable by society. They used this against him, made him to be an outcast, and sentenced him to death for the wrong reasons.
ReplyDelete