Is Herman Melville’s character Bartleby’s constant statement of “I’d rather not” an act of freedom or passive submission?
In Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener, Bartleby’s insistently repeated phrase “I would prefer not to” has a multi-layered meaning, both philosophically and literaryly. This sentence points to a tension area that oscillates between freedom and passive submission, and invites a deep questioning of the existential situation of the modern individual. The question of whether we will evaluate Bartleby’s attitude as an act of freedom or passive submission requires examining concepts such as freedom, authority, will, and the effects of social structures on the individual through a philosophical lens.
Bartleby’s Attitude as an Act of Freedom
Although Bartleby’s expression “I would prefer not to” may seem like a simple refusal on the surface, this refusal can be read as a kind of rebellion of the individual will against social expectations and authority. In a philosophical context, freedom is associated with the individual’s ability to determine their own actions. According to Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential philosophy, freedom is possible when the individual assumes responsibility for creating his own existential project. Bartleby’s attitude of refusal can be interpreted as an act of freedom in this respect; because he tries to define his own existential space by refusing to accept the duties and social roles imposed on him. However, while Sartre’s freedom requires an active engagement and meaning-making process, Bartleby’s passivity complicates this interpretation.
From a Kantian perspective, freedom is related to autonomy, that is, the individual’s determination of his own laws using his own reason. Bartleby’s statement of refusal can be seen, in a sense, as an attempt to create his own autonomous space by rejecting the laws imposed on him by others (his boss’s demands, the norms of the business world). However, for Kant, freedom also requires a will that is in harmony with universal moral laws; Bartleby’s inaction, on the other hand, rather than being bound by these universal principles, points to a kind of nihilistic emptiness.
In a more radical interpretation, Bartleby’s attitude can be considered through Michel Foucault’s concepts of power and resistance. According to Foucault, resistance is possible wherever there is power, and the individual’s opposition to power structures is a form of freedom. Bartleby’s statement “I prefer not to” can be read as resistance to the mechanizing demands of the capitalist work order (as symbolized by Wall Street). Although this refusal is not a direct rebellion or revolutionary action, it creates a disruption that disrupts the functioning of the system. By refusing to work, Bartleby questions the logic of capitalist productivity, and this can be considered a passive but effective form of freedom.
Bartleby’s Attitude as Passive Submission
On the other hand, Bartleby’s attitude can also be interpreted as a kind of passive submissiveness or existential exhaustion rather than freedom. Søren Kierkegaard’s concept of despair provides a useful framework here. According to Kierkegaard, despair is the individual’s denial of the responsibility to realize his own self or the surrender of this responsibility entirely to an external authority. Bartleby’s declaration of refusal initially seems like a declaration of will, but over time it does not turn into an attempt to create any alternative action or meaning. He simply refuses; he neither offers a counter-proposal nor constructs his own existential project. This may indicate a situation that Kierkegaard calls “despair”: instead of exercising his freedom, Bartleby condemns himself to a kind of inaction.
From a Hegelian perspective, freedom is the process by which an individual realizes himself in a historical and social context. Bartleby’s attitude of refusal, in this context, represents a break from sociality and the historical process. For Hegel, freedom is not only an individual declaration of will, but also the individual’s recognition and realization of himself within the community. Bartleby’s increasing isolation, separation from his workplace, and ultimately his death in prison indicate that he has completely abandoned social ties. This may not be an indication of freedom, but rather a kind of self-imposed captivity.
In addition, Bartleby’s passivity can be associated with Albert Camus’s concept of the absurd. According to Camus, the absurd is the contradiction between man’s search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe. Bartleby’s declaration of refusal may seem like a reaction to this absurd situation; however, as Camus suggests, resisting the absurd requires continuing life with an effort to create meaning. Bartleby, however, does not make this effort; his refusal resembles surrender to meaninglessness rather than a rebellion against the absurd.
The Tension Between Freedom and Passivity
Bartleby’s statement “I prefer not to do” is neither a pure act of freedom nor a complete passive submission; on the contrary, it reflects an existential tension that oscillates between these two poles. Giorgio Agamben’s concept of “potentiality” may provide a key to understanding this tension. According to Agamben, true freedom is not only in the potential to do something, but also in the
