Insanity in Society and "Waiting for Godot"

Insanity holds a variable connotation in the context of society. In the original context, insanity denoted a “severely disordered state of the mind.” In the sense of law, insanity formed a more strict definition of “unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand” that lawfully can release one from their “criminal or civil responsibility.” Overtime, particularly in the 19^th century insanity began to take a more casual form referring to that of “extreme folly or unreasonableness” and something “utterly foolish.” Some consider the definition of inanity to be “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” which is not the technical definition but rather resides within its umbrella of referring to unsound actions. Insanity functions around the idea of an unsettled mind or some sort of imbalance of ideas that causes one to act outside of the allowances of society.

Sanity stands as insanity’s antithesis and exists only as the opposite of insanity representing a sound mind with rationality. Sanity is variable in the sense that there are no set parameters on what constitutes a sane individual. The very existence of such an ambiguous term alludes to a form of insanity and disorder. But, even in this ambiguity sanity in itself is a legal term, suggesting a somewhat underlying sense of insanity within cultural ideals. The definitions of both sanity and insanity leave room for much variation, as no clear guidelines classify one as insane vs sane.

The play “Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett displays a cyclical storyline with characters that may be deemed insane. Both Vladimir and Estragon follow a cyclical mode of conversation and nonsensical topics that suggest insanity.

The first aspect of insanity’s definition proposes a disordered state of mind. Both Vladimir and Estragon form nonsensical connections about different subjects that contrast rational thought. When Pozzo proclaims “I am blind” Estragon replies with “Perhaps he can see into the future” (Act 2). The idea that through not seeing the external world, Pozzo can somehow see into the future makes no logical sense and appears derived from a clearly disordered mind. This backwards logic highlights a state of insanity that both Vladimir and Estragon occupy together.

Similarly, Vladimir and Estragon reflect the foolishness and extreme folly aspect of insanity. One of those instances is when Vladimir offers Estragon a carrot saying he may also have some turnips and Estragon asks for the carrot only to discover that it is in fact a turnip. To this Vladimir responds: “Oh pardon! I could have sworn it was a carrot” (Act 1). It could be argued that their interaction may suggest a nonsensical nature of life and the difficulty with focusing on what some may consider mundane details. But to witness an exchange like this in real life would cause one to view these two as ‘off’ or deranged. Throughout the play they go through many more conversations that appear to have no clear direction or logic.

A key facet of the definition of insanity is that it frees one of criminal or civil responsibility due to an unsoundness of mind or the lack of ability to understand. Although Vladimir and Estragon do not demonstrate this explicitly, there is a restrained sense of accountability for their actions especially with those towards Lucky as they treat him inhumanely. They receive no repercussions and appear somewhat separated from the rest of human society, relinquishing them of their responsibility to behave within societal confines allowing their insanity to foster freely.

Although doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not in the technical definition, it represents a working cultural definition widely acknowledged in society. Estragon and Vladimir continue to wait for Godot despite his constant delay in coming by, holding onto the idea that he will come. In the beginning of the drama the following scene ensues:

                                    Estragon: Let’s go.

                                    Vladimir: We can’t.

                                    Estragon: Why not?

                                    Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot

                                    Estragon: (despairingly) Ah!

Throughout the play Estragon and Vladimir undergo similar conversations where they forget the very purpose for their waiting yet continue holding it to such importance that they do not move on. The play then ends on a similarly unsettling note as Estragon once again forgets their purpose at the tree:

                                                Vladimir: We have to come back tomorrow.

                                                Estragon: What for?

                                                Vladimir: To wait for Godot.

                                                Estragon: Ah!

Estragon appears aloof, almost childlike throughout the play while Vladimir appears more level headed, but in further review of the drama Vladimir seems just as disordered:

                                                Vladimir: Well? Shall we go?

                                                Estragon: Yes, let’s go.

                                                They do not move. Curtain.

The play ends confirming the insanity of both characters in this appeared cycle of waiting which they remain in somewhat obligatorily. Here we see that Vladimir is also somewhat aloof—or rather insane—in his actions throughout the play.

While the characters themselves appear insane, the work proposes that life itself revolves in insanity, that life itself is a cycle that makes no sense as it repeats over and over until we die. By both the technical and cultural definitions of insanity, Vladimir and Estragon represent a characteristic formation of the insane.