Waiting for Godot and Insanity

Nick Moran According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, insanity is described in two definitions. The first being, "the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness", and the second stating, "extreme foolishness or irrationality." Together, the two definitions are able to cover a large spectrum of connotations and meanings for the use of the word insanity. However, it is interesting to see how different the actual definitions are from one another when viewed individually. One seems to encompass a meaning which is seen more in a medical context, while the other is related towards a societal judgement of insanity. While there is no doubt that one who is in a mental state of madness would frequently act with extreme foolishness or irrationality, the two are still mutually exclusive in many circumstances. For example, would it always be correct to say that extreme foolishness necessitates the label of mental illness or madness? While the answer to this question is obviously no, one can see how difficult it is to actually find the line where extreme foolishness crosses into insanity. Clearly, there must be some social understanding of how circumstance factors into the judgement of what is and isn't considered insane. For this reason, the second definition probably fits better in analyzing Waiting for Godot. Permanency is likely one of the stronger determiners in discovering insanity. For instance, to look at the reasoning abilities of someone who has just received a concussion or brain trauma and declare him insane for his weakened mental state would be insane itself. There is a broad understanding of his mental capability prior to the current state, as well as a belief that he will at some point return to that same level. For something to be insane, there needs to be some sort of recurring pattern or persisting belief in falsehood. There, of course, also must be some sort of common belief existing for the insane idea to contrast. And between these larger common beliefs there is much space for differences, and even contention. Perhaps it demonstrates that there is no inherent behavior of insanity, only lack of following. To put this thought in terms of real life, in 1941 Americans and Germans would each have called one another's political and social agendas insane. What one held as superior was thought of to be at least extremely foolish and irrational by the other. Ultimately then, the insanity of Vladimir and Estragon is dependent on the behavior of the social and environmental context of both themselves and the reader. Based off of my own understanding of sanity, Vladimir and Estragon both exhibit insane behavior throughout the play. At its surface, the story is one of nothingness. As the play drags along uneventfully, Vladimir and Estragon find no progress in their goal to meet Godot. The nature of Estragon and Vladimir's critical thinking and decision making skills helps perpetuate the cycle of nothing, and makes them out to be insane. For instance, their comfortability with suicide as a casual way of dodging seemingly minor obstacles is extremely irrational. For obvious reasons, one wouldn't justify killing themselves to dodge the responsibilities of sitting and waiting. Least of all would they focus on the frivolous positives of suicide as Vladimir and Estragon do when they realize hanging themselves would result in them getting erections (Beckett 12-13). Furthermore, they mention suicide as a viable option on multiple occasions, creating patterns which heavily signal insanity. Their delusion is further confirmed in the repetitive and contradictory nature of their conversations. The countless examples of these conversations essentially make up the entire play, and give the noticeable tones of restlessness and deadlock. Within these conversations, Estragon and Vladimir convey their lack of reasoning. Take for example, when they try to discern how long they had already been waiting for Godot and fail to make a simple timeline (Beckett 10-11). Their persisting deficiencies in mental capability and decision making classify them to be definitionally insane. However, based off of the understanding of insanity in whichever world Estragon and Vladimir live in, insanity becomes more vague. While the setting of Waiting for Godot isn’t named or described in detail, it is made clear that time and progress in this world exist in a different way than the reader would be familiar with. Given the context of Estragon and Vladimir living in a cyclic world which seems to remain unchanging even as days pass, it may be fair to judge Estragon and Vladimir as people who act accordingly to their surroundings. In a world where progress exists to a much lesser degree, would critical thinking and rationality still hold the same value? Would they still be decent measures of sanity? The same example of suicide used previously gives the impression of insanity in the world of the reader. But if the reader found themselves in a purgatory-like world, the perception resonates more towards apathy than insanity. Perhaps then, the insanity of the characters of Vladimir and Estragon takes on different meanings depending on both the context of where they lie in the play, as well as the values held by the actual reader. 854