Žižek's Misinterpretation of Herman Melville's Bartleby, the Scrivener

[@jessicam9289]

A couple of years ago, I found this interpretation (I think through Byung Chul Han?) and resonated with it. Once I read the full story of Bartleby the Scrivener, I was less enchanted and more confused. Thank u for your interpretation and insight!

[@victoralfonssteuck]

Thank you so much for your comment! I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts. If you haven’t already, feel free to check out some of the other videos on the channel, and consider subscribing if you enjoy the content! Thank you!

[@antonprokhorov6185]

I still more agree with Zizek here. It's like questioning Stoics on their beliefs, "what is this all for if you die in prison?" I think there should not necessarily be an implicit change done with the real world when applying such thinking as Bartleby. It's like that branch of philosophy that asks why there's some thinking about negative pessimistic questions if it has no positive impact on society? Well, it simply shouldn't. Why should some thought care about people suffering at all? The most casual example is probably Witcher's decision not to choose between evils. Does it help to beat at least some evil? Why should he care at all, it's not about external world, it's just about inner perception

[@victoralfonssteuck]

Thank you for sharing your perspective - it’s a very interesting take, and I appreciate the depth of thought behind it. However, I find it hard to fully see things this way because of where I was born and raised: Brazil. Unlike many Brazilians, I’ve studied the history of slavery in depth, and it deeply shapes how I interpret stories like Melville’s Bartleby. In the story, Bartleby starves himself, and those around him ultimately let him die of hunger. Here in Brazil, enslaved people didn’t have that option. When they resisted passively - refusing to eat, for example - their owners would force-feed them. They would use wooden spoons to shove food like angu (a kind of porridge) down their throats, ensuring they survived only to return to work. It was brutal, and that’s where expressions like “a dar com pau” originate. In other words, if Bartleby had been a Black man in colonial Brazil - or even in the U.S., where slavery had similar horrors - he wouldn’t have had the “luxury” of passive resistance. He would have been forced to eat, to survive, and to work, no matter his will. Resistance would only bring more suffering. This is why I struggle with the idea of rejecting all choices, as Bartleby does. Choosing the lesser evil, in my view, is part of being an adult. Life forces us to make choices, even if they’re imperfect or painful. While I find Bartleby’s stance thought-provoking, it feels to me like a refusal to engage with the complexities of life - a stance that, in my context, seems detached from harsh realities. I hope this doesn’t come across as dismissive or offensive - that’s not my intention at all. I simply wanted to share a perspective shaped by my personal history and cultural context. Thank you for sparking such an engaging discussion!

[@antonprokhorov6185]

Yes, that's a fair point. I agree with what you say. I wonder if there could be some "transformation" of "I would prefer not to" so it will also be aligned with experiences of yours. Could we e.g. say that starving is only a way of expression in Bartleby's case as an answer that's very individualistic, and to other person it would be like still saying "I would prefer not to" - and still eating? Like, is it possible to abstract from the situational meaning of the phrase and dive deeper to accept only sort of chemical reactions between the world around and what's the inner meaning of that phrase for everyone individually... Thank you too, I never had a chance to share such thinking openly with someone else, it's a pleasure