Waiting for Godot: a critique of

modernity

1

“We are all born mad. Some remain so." -Samuel Beckett (Waiting for

Godot)1

The play Waiting for Godot, written by existentialist absurdist Samuel

Beckett, was voted the most significant English language play of the 20 th in

a British Royal National Theatre poll of 800 playwrights, actors, directors

and journalists.2 Although the play is senseless and illogical at first glance,

beneath the surface there are many different powerful ideas and meaningful

themes. The presence and nature of these themes and philosophies, and

that they are portrayed in such a simplistic and almost redundant fashion, is

the main reason this play is deemed to be notably significant. This play,

Waiting for Godot, like other pieces of ‘modern’ art, is a product of our

‘modern’ society and like all art it is a mirror that permits us to see the

thoughts and philosophies most prevalent in society at the time, which the

artist responds to. The controversial nature and irritation this play gives

rise, prompts the need for a more in depth study of sociological philosophies

that come up in the artwork. As William Barrett states, "Irritation usually

arises when something touches a sore spot in ourselves, which most of the

time we would like desperately to hide... Modern art (like Waiting for

Godot) touches a sore spot, or several sore spots, in the ordinary citizen of

2

which he is totally unaware.”3 This essay will look at and reveal these 'sore

spots’ and analyse them, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of human

nature in modernity.

The significance of the play, revealed in the simple and repetitive

dialogues and actions, show the state of human nature in the modern

society. Martin Buber describes this state as the period of homelessness,

where people enter a period of identity diffusion, meaninglessness and

anomy. A strong sense of meaninglessness is seen throughout the play as

the two main characters takes simple actions or habits found in the daily

lives of people in modernity and essentially breaks down the actions by

repeating them over and over again, until the action itself loses meaning.

Beckett uses these repetitions to show that fabricated and illusionary

meaning is the basis which action in our society is contingent. The problem

in Waiting for Godot is that the characters are questioning the only meaning

system in their lives that gives them the resolve to keep living. Sociologist

Peter Berger responds to such a problem by using his concept of anomy,

which describes the loss of order in society. He believes this loss of order is

caused by the loss of a meaning system that is needed to keep people in a

state of security and meaning he calls the nomos.

Waiting for Godot, a tragicomedy, is essentially about two days of two

people waiting for Godot by killing time without knowing who or what

Godot is, but only that he is or will be some kind of saviour to them. The

play opens with the characters Estragon and Vladimir meeting in front of a

3

tree to wait for Godot together. To occupy themselves while they wait, they

do everything from playing with their hats to contemplating suicide. After a

while of waiting, two other men enter the scene: Pozzo who is on his way to

sell his feebleminded slave Lucky. They stay for a while to chat to Estragon

and Vladimir, and Pozzo also has his lunch. Lucky then entertains them by

attempting to dance and think. At the end of the day after Pozzo and Lucky

leave, a boy who claims to work for Godot comes and tells Estragon and

Vladimir that Godot will unfortunately not come today but will surely come

tomorrow.

The next day, Estragon and Vladimir meet again at the same spot in

front of the tree—which has grown a few leaves overnight—to wait for

Godot together. Again they converse and pass the time. After a while Pozzo

and Lucky enter again, but this time Pozzo is blind. Pozzo, like Estragon,

has a memory problem so neither of them can remember meeting each

other, only Vladimir remembers their meeting. Pozzo and Lucky leave and

Estragon and Vladimir continue to wait for Godot. When night falls, the boy

enters to tell Vladimir and Estragon that Godot could not come today but

will surely come tomorrow. Estragon and Vladimir decide to leave but they

do not move and the play is ended.

Much more can be said about the specific actions that occur

throughout the play but not without getting into mundane details that are

individually not important enough to be mentioned in an overview or

1 Beckett, 1954:2.5362 Berlin, 19993 Barrett, 1990:43

4

synopsis. However, the repetitious actions work towards the strong

prevalent theme of meaninglessness and pointlessness of habits throughout

the play discussed later.

Perhaps a different way to look at this tragicomedy would be that the

play is so funny that it is shockingly sad. According to Thomas Hobbs,

humans laugh at other people’s misfortunes. In The Leviathan, Hobbs

states: “Sudden glory is the passion which maketh those grimaces called

laughter; and is caused either by some sudden act of their own that

pleaseth them; or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another,

by comparison whereof they suddenly applaud themselves.”4 For example,

when we see the comical act of someone slipping on a banana peel, we

laugh at their helplessness and pain and feel a relief of tension. That is,

comedy can be seen as food for our egos to make us feel superior in

comparison to the victim, who is in our eyes a lower being. However, in

Waiting for Godot, the comedy is too real. It takes the audiences so far out

from their comfort zone that even if they find a certain scene funny at first,

after the realization of the obvious relationship between the scene and our

life; it feels like a psychological backhanded compliment.

According to Martin Buber there are what he calls, epochs of

homelessness and habitation in the history of the human spirit.5 Each of

these epochs is characterized by many traits reflecting the predominant

philosophies in society. Metaphorically, in a period of habitation, “man lives

4 Hobbs, 1998:36

5

in the world as in a house, as in a home”6; this is a period of certainty of

existence. Whereas in a period of homelessness, “man lives in the world as

in an open field and at times does not even have four pegs with which to set

up a tent”7; this is a period of uncertainty of existence. It is necessary to

look first at the finer details of this concept before applying it to any

sociological event in modernity. To clearly illustrate an epoch of habitation

we will turn to history and examine the different qualities in each epoch.

Considered to be one of the greatest thinkers in history Aristotle was

a philosopher and scientist who had a very large impact on society in his

time. His philosophies and ideas were so revolutionary that it is still

repeatedly seen and studied in modern thought today. Like most Greek

scientists of his time, Aristotle tends to “understand the world as a self-

contained space, in which man too has his fixed place.”8 In other words

Aristotle was living in an epoch of habitation because of his certainty of

man’s identity. As is the case with Aristotle, a period of habitation does not

completely prevent philosophical thought about man’s purpose in life

because man is completely certain of himself and therefore requires no

need to search for meaning. Rather, there is a lack of need of philosophical

anthropologic thoughts about the meaning of mankind because a stability of

consciousness is present and questions about meaning are already

answered. Martin Buber holds that, for Aristotle “man ceases to be

5 Buber 1979:157 6 Buber, 1577 Buber, 1578 Buber, 158

6

problematic... [he] is only a “case” for himself, he attains to consciousness

of self only as “he” not as “I”.”9 For Aristotle, Ptolemy’s geocentric system is

a crucial element which leads to the illusion of finitude in Aristotle’s

thinking and ultimately the view of man as simply a “case” for himself. The

geocentric system—which portrays the earth as being the centre of the

universe—supports the idea of anthropomorphism and man having his fixed

place in the universe. Humans are seen as “an objectively comprehensible

species beside other species.” In this way, man idealized finitude by being

in a state of anthropomorphism, resulting in a belief that man is an

objectively known and nameable thing. Thus Aristotle’s philosophies contain

answers to Immanuel Kant’s first three questions of philosophy in the

universal sense: “What can I know?”, “What ought I to do?”, “What may I

hope?” but not the forth anthropologic question, “What is man?”10

A more recent example of a world of habitation is the dominance of

Christianity in the medieval era. During this era the Christian faith itself is

the house that shelters from the storm of uncertainty. The certainty stems

from the Christian ideals imposed upon society, in the forms of laws and

norms created. These laws and norms, strongly enforced by the church,

create order in society. Other than the sense of meaning people get from

the dogmas of Christianity, there is also a sense of superiority and

smugness, similar to that which the geocentric system in Greece produced,

gives us a place in the universe and a set role to fulfill. It is a belief in

9 Buber, 15810 Buber, 149

7

Christianity that man is made in the image of God—imago dei—blessed by

God and chosen by God. This idea gives people of society an identity, for we

are not just any species on the earth, but we are created in the image of

God like no other, and we are the only species in possession of a soul. The

finitude comes once again from the idea that man finds themselves in a

known and nameable world. There is nothing out of the scope of human

understanding and man thinks of himself as having a comfortable place in

the universe in between heaven and hell. “Once again there is a self-

enclosed universe, once again a house in which man is allowed to dwell.”11

The existence of the rites and dogmas of Christianity to fall back upon

contains comprehensive answers to the philosophical anthropological

question, “What is man?”; thus there is no need for that question to be

posed during this era.

As science and the never ending quest for knowledge continued to

advance at a steady pace in the medieval era, even within the constraints of

the church, new revolutionary thoughts are introduced. It is these thoughts

that will start the storm which will tear down the foundation of the once

comfortable house of man and inevitably annihilate the house altogether to

bring man into an epoch of homelessness. Near the end of the medieval

period, mathematicians like Charles de Bouvelles and Nicolas of Cusa were

already contemplating the idea of infinity. The basis from which Cusa

developed the idea of infinity comes from his assessment of God:

11 Buber, 160

8

In God we must not conceive of distinction and indistinction, for example, as two contradictories, but we must conceive of them as antecedently existing in their own most simple beginning, where distinction is not other than indistinction.12

Ironically, Christianity, which gives the people of the medieval era the

illusion of a self-enclosed universe, is also that which gives way to the idea

of infinity. Being ahead of his time Cusa used this idea of infinity to argue

that the universe cannot logically be centered around the earth or the sun:  

It is impossible for the machine of the world to have any fixed and motionless center; be it this sensible earth, or the air, or fire or anything else. For there can be found no absolute minimum in motion, that is, no fixed center, because the minimum must necessarily coincide with the maximum…Therefore, just as the earth is not the center of the world, so the sphere of fixed stars is not its circumference…13

This gave birth to the heliocentric system later to be developed further by

Copernicus. Cusa anticipates Kepler and argues that earth is constantly in

motion and the motion of stars and planets are not circular and uniform.14

Cusa goes further and describes a universe without a centre, or with an

infinite amount of centres, because a true centre point cannot be found in

an infinitely large vacuum.15 This is a giant leap in terms of scientific

reasoning, anticipating and going theoretically beyond both Copernicus and

Kepler in the development of the heliocentric system. The idea of a finite

world is being razed to the ground and what is discovered is knowledge that

is not knowable through human reasoning or science. After the

conceptualization and acceptance of infinity, during the renaissance era

12 Bond, 1997:2913 Bond, 158-15914 Bond, 158-16015 Bond, 161

9

man came to “know man’s limitation, his inadequacy, the casualness of his

existence”16

This casualness of man’s existence creates a feeling of uncertainty in

man because of a lack of identity. Buber argues that this lack of identity

stems from the realization that man is completely different: “man is the

being who knows his situation in universe and is able, so long as he is in his

senses, to continue this knowledge.”17 In a period of homelessness, as is in

the renaissance era, man becomes solitary and “endures being exposed as a

human being to infinity.”18 As expressed by Pascal: “nous sommes quelque

chose, et ne sommes pas tout.”19 Hence, we see in Pascal a sense of

meaninglessness and insecurity that was not seen in Aristotle’s time or in

the medieval era. The answers to the anthropological question, “What is

man?” are not definite and leave lots of room for radically different

responses. Because of man’s need to constantly place meaning and names

to things to understand the workings of the world, an indefinite answer to

such a fundamental question is frightening.

As seen throughout history, there are shifts from one period to the

other as a result of the dominating philosophies and thinkers developed

during each epoch. The point of interests and perhaps the frightening

aspects of the concept of homelessness are not limited to the effects and

qualities of the different epochs, but also Buber’s claim that we are

16 Buber, 16317 Buber, 16418 Buber, 16319 Buber, 164

10

currently in a state of unlimited homelessness, where homelessness will

cease to give way to an epoch of habitation. This is due to the fact that man

has come to know infinity and the finitudes of science.

The concept of anomy (the loss of order in society) is important to the

study of philosophical anthropology because, according to Peter Berger,

religion (the basis of most cultures and traditions) is but a manmade system

to construct a world with meaning used for ‘world making’. Peter Berger

claims that “man is curiously “unfinished” at birth,”20 thus unlike all other

mammals in the world we are born into the world with very few instincts.

This means that for every situation man is in, there is a plethora of different

option that he could choose to be his response; in essence man ‘must’

choose to respond in whatever way he wishes. This step is what Berger calls

externalizing ourselves, to pour out meaning into the world. Because of the

nature of free will in humans nature, man “in the world is thus

characterized by a built-in instability”; he is “out of balance” with himself.

Thus, “human existence is an ongoing ‘balancing act’ between man and his

body, man and his world.”21 In order to ‘balance out’ man needs to go

through the second step of objectivizing; to make a certain act an objective

fact. When a parent tells their child that they must brush their teeth before

going to bed, even though we are not required to do so in human nature,

the parent wants their child to believe that they must brush their teeth

before bed. The parent is making the action an objective fact and a rule that

20 Berger, 1990:421 Berger, 5

11

must be followed. In this way society is telling us what actions should be

made a habit and what actions should not be done. In the last step of ‘world-

making’, man must take the social control, from the step of objectivizing,

and turn it into self-control. Berger calls all the patterns or the meaningful

order that society objectivises and forces individuals to internalize, the

nomos.

Berger claims that man is born into anomy (a state of chaos and

terror) because we are ‘unfinished’ at birth. We need to move to a nomos

where there is predictability and stability. But the problem with nomos is its

precarious nature; people having innate freedom subconsciously know they

are free and thus sometimes tend to ‘forget’ about what they should do and

how they should act; this is where the role of religion plays an important

part in maintaining order in society. To legitimize the nomos religion uses

cosmization, stating that man’s laws or ways (the microcosm) are in

harmony with the divine laws or ways (the macrocosm), to give individuals

the feeling that the acts that they are objectivizing and internalizing are the

right ways to go about life. We see much of this phenomenon break down in

the play Waiting for Godot

The characters in Waiting for Godot are clearly in a state of

homelessness as described by Buber. Although during the play the Estragon

and Vladimir seem to know the meaning of their existence, it is evident that

they are doubtful of this meaning. “Vladimir: What are we doing here, that

is the question. And we are blessed in this that we happen to know the

12

answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are

waiting for Godot to come—”22 The essence of epiphany in the answer

makes Vladimir sound very sure of himself, but as the play continues, we

see that it is all bravado for there is immense doubt in Vladimir’s

consciousness about the necessity to wait for Godot. But to Vladimir, Godot

is the only hope left for a better life, thus whatever hope he has left, he puts

it in Godot. This phenomenon is similar to people’s belief in religion in

modernity. Considering the secularization and globalization of the world,

people are only taking a small part in religions because of the

inconsistencies and contradictions of religious dogma discovered with

scientific reasoning and linguistic analysis of scripture. Many, like Peter

Berger who chose to come up with a reductionist theory to explain religion,

choose to be atheist by ignoring or rejecting religion all-together because of

its unknowable nature. This doubt in the meaning system happens only in

an epoch of homelessness because man is no longer sheltered under the

certainty of knowledge, but is exposed to the ineffable.

Another aspect of the play that clearly illustrates the state of

homelessness is the lack of certainty seen in almost all aspect of the play.

Estragon and Vladimir are uncertain about everything from the identity of

Godot to the date and time it is. Although the plot of the play remains nearly

the same throughout the play it is the level and intensity of the uncertainty

22 Beckett, 2,526

13

that changes the feelings and mood of the play. Near the beginning of the

play the meeting with Godot is already being questioned:

VLADIMIR: We're waiting for Godot.ESTRAGON: (despairingly) Ah! (Pause.) You're sure it was here?VLADIMIR: What?ESTRAGON: That we were to wait.VLADIMIR: He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?[…]ESTRAGON: Looks to me more like a bush.VLADIMIR: A shrub.ESTRAGON: A bush.VLADIMIR: A—. What are you insinuating? That we've come to the wrong place?23

The intensity of the uncertainty that clouds the mysterious being, Godot, is

brought to a new level when Estragon and Vladimir begins to question the

validity of their meeting place. Even if they can be sure of Godot’s arrival,

being at the wrong location would still lead to an unsuccessful meeting.

Viewing Godot as a comparison with God, this scene is related to the

monotheistic religions of the world in modernity. The eschatology of the

three largest monotheist religions claims that there is a messiah that will

come before the end of time, but it is never exactly specified when.

Nonetheless, believers were certain that the messiah will come, just like

Estragon and Vladimir are certain in the beginning that Godot will come

and save them. However, Estragon and Vladimir soon realize that they

could be in the wrong meeting place. In modernity, as a result of

globalization and the growing interconnectedness of the world in

modernity, people start to interact with others with essentially different but 23 Beckett, 1.94-109

14

similar beliefs. Before long they start to question the validity of their beliefs

and the infallibility of the ‘right’ path. Like how Estragon and Vladimir

began questioning the validity of the meeting location, people in society

start to question their religious orientation in view of the plethora of

different sects of religion offering essentially the same soteriological end.

As the play draws out, uncertainty becomes more and more intense.

Like the development of human reasoning Vladimir’s uncertainty worsens

as doubt is piled upon doubt.

VLADIMIR: Tell him . . . (he hesitates) . . . tell him you saw us. (Pause.) You did see us, didn't you?BOY: Yes Sir. 24

After mulling over the uncertainties surrounding Godot for the whole day,

Vladimir is not just questioning the reality of Godot but is also beginning to

question the reality of his own existence. Similar to the development of

modern society, uncertainty ripens into a deeper, more profound

uncertainty. This uncertainty in modernity is not only limited to the

uncertainty of an absolute being, but has developed into an uncertainty of

human existence. Looking back into history, we can see the development of

the Christian religion resembling the development of consciousness

throughout the play. At first during the medieval period, there was certainty

of an absolute being. During the protestant reformation, people lost the one

infallibility Christian path and it was replaced by an overabundance of

different yet similar paths to the same God. In this manner the ‘location’ of

24 Beckett, 1.817-818

15

the meeting with God was questioned. As reason, science and more

specifically the ongoing discoveries of infinity continued developing through

the centuries—much like the whole day Vladimir was left to contemplate

and discover many other uncertainties of Godot—people started to lose

sight of themselves and began to question the essence of existence of man.

Buber’s concept of homelessness in modernity is ever the more prominent.

A loss of identity is evident throughout the play; it is associated with

the theme of forgetfulness. Estragon is seen through his interactions to be

very forgetful and Pozzo himself admitted he had a disease that prevented

him from remembering anything past a day.

Vladimir: We met yesterday. (Silence) Do you not remember? Pozzo: I don't remember having met anyone yesterday. But to-morrow I won't remember having met anyone today. So don't count on me to enlighten you. 25

The forgetfulness of both Pozzo and Estragon characterizes the thinness

and shallowness of existence, such as in an epoch of homelessness. Vladimir

is the only character who remembers what they do, and in many cases, he is

in doubt—constantly questioning the validity of his memories—because he

can affirm none of what he thinks are the correct versions of his memories

with anyone else. Estragon himself loses his identity by forgetting the

fundamental reason he is where he is:

VLADIMIR: I'm curious to hear what he has to offer. Then we'll take it or leave it.ESTRAGON: What exactly did we ask him for?VLADIMIR: Were you not there?

25Beckett, 2.751

16

ESTRAGON: I can't have been listening.VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite.ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.VLADIMIR: Precisely.ESTRAGON: A vague supplication. 26

By forgetting the reason he and Vladimir are waiting for Godot, it takes

away all meaning from his actions and leaves him in a state of

meaninglessness, yet he feels compelled to continue to wait for Godot.

According to Berger, this compelling feeling comes from the internalization

of social norms. Similar to Estragon, in modernity, people do what is right,

or what is considered to be right in society at the time, because they are

encouraged to act in accordance with society as a result of the pressure of

social constraints. During the Second World War generals in the Nazi party

claimed to have been ‘forced’ to kill Jews. The feeling of being ‘forced’

stems from the internalization of the idea of superiority of race imposed on

them by society, hence they view the act of killing as the only right thing to

do. The social constraint for the generals is the fear of being called a traitor

and executed. Of course, internalization does not work only in ‘morally bad’

ways. Most people in a capitalist society have internalized the idea of

obtaining a high education so they classify people that have obtained a high

education as ‘good’. However, the social constraint go hand in hand with

this idea, if one does not acquire a good education you run the risk of

feeling inferior by being classified as being uneducated. Berger claims that

the internalization of social norms leads to the alienation of man from his

26 Beckett, 1.202-205

17

own freedom. This is what compels Estragon to keep waiting for Godot, the

Nazi generals to continue killing Jews and the people in the capitalist

economy to pay money and work hard for a superior education.

A recurring theme present throughout the entire play is the theme of

repetition and habit. All throughout the play there are many repetitions of

actions that the audience might subconsciously do every day.

Estragon takes Vladimir's hat. Vladimir adjusts Lucky's hat on his head. Estragon puts on Vladimir's hat in place of his own which he hands to Vladimir. Vladimir takes Estragon's hat. Estragon adjusts Vladimir's hat on his head. Vladimir puts on Estragon's hat in place of Lucky's which he hands to Estragon… Estragon hands Vladimir's hat back to Vladimir who takes it and hands it back to Estragon who takes it and hands it back to Vladimir who takes it and throws it down.27

During this comical hat-playing scene, Beckett is showing the audience the

absurdity of an action repeated countless times. Similarly, Berger talks

about the religious use of rituals to remind individuals the way of life that

should be led, and of the rituals that are not created by religions, but are

created by ordinary people serving the same purpose as a ritual of religion.

Such actions are done every day over and over, by habit. These actions that

are repeated by habit such putting on a hat everyday are seen in the

process of objectivising an action, thereby helping legitimize and maintain

the nomos. Beckett makes the same point by illustrating the

meaninglessness and the true chaos of habit. To Beckett habit is action

without thought or purpose so it is but a waste of time:

27 Beckett, 2.349

18

VLADIMIR: All I know is that the hours are long, under these conditions, and constrain us to beguile them with proceedings which – how shall I say – which may at first sight seem reasonable, until they become a habit. You may say it is to prevent our reason from foundering. No doubt. But has it not long been straying in the night without end of the abyssal depths? That's what I sometimes wonder. You follow my reasoning?28

What Beckett is saying through Vladimir’s speech is that to prevent time

from passing too slowly we fill it up with a series of actions, which at first

seem reasonable. However, as time passes these repeated actions become

empty internalized habits, lacking thought and purpose and in effect,

deaden our lives.

Although this tragicomedy seems at first to be a rather simplistic work

of literature and theatrical play, Waiting for Godot is far from being

meaningless in terms of the ideas and themes present. The reason for its

acclaimed recognition is the naked depiction of man’s solitude in the world.

The anger and irritation this play stirs up is a result of the blatant truths of

the modern world this play reveals in all its bareness. As a piece of art

reflecting the thoughts of modern society, this piece of art talks to the

homelessness and anomy found beneath the ever thinning layer of illusions

set up by society. Buber’s concept of homelessness is clearly illustrated in

the loss of identity found in the characters as well as the meaninglessness

shown by the characters interactions with each other and the environment.

Man, in modernity, can no longer place a definite identity on himself as in

the medieval period, like Estragon and Vladimir we are forced to question

28 Beckett, 2.535

19

man’s existence and any meaning systems that can be found within our

society. In other words, we are questioning the very things that make up the

foundations of the nomos thus resulting in more anomy than ever seen

before. However this state of consciousness can be viewed of as an era of

developing thought. An era of homelessness appreciates and recognizes the

unrestricted human intellect and allows for freedom of thought allowing for

a much more sophisticated understanding of human nature and man place

within the infinite universe.

Bibliography

Barrett, W. (1990). Irrational man: a study in existential philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Beckett, S. (1954). Waiting for Godot; tragicomedy in 2 acts,. New York: Grove Press.

Berger, P. L. (1990). The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor Books.

Berlin, N. (1999). Traffic of our stage: Why Waiting for Godot?.Samuel Beckett Resources and Links. The Massachusetts Review. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from http://www.samuel-beckett.net/BerlinTraffic.html

Bond, H. L. (1997). Nicholas of Cusa: Selected spiritual writings. New York: Paulist Press.

Buber, M., & Smith, R. G. (1979). Between man and man. Glasgow: Collins.

Hobbes, T., & Gaskin, J. C. (1998). Leviathan . Oxford : Oxford University Press.

20