The short story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener” by Herman Melville, presents one of the most captivating rebellions in American literature–captivating due to its decidedly indistinct nature. The narrator of this short story is a lawyer who wishes to employ a new scrivener with the aim of increasing the competence of his Wall Street law firm as well as to calm the temperaments of two other scriveners, Nippers and Turkey, one of who suffers from chronic indigestion and the other is an alcoholic. Initially, when Bartleby is hired for this job, he produces large volumes of high-quality work to the delight of the Lawyer. One day, however, when asked by the lawyer to help in proofreading a document, Bartleby responds with what soon becomes his signature response: "I would prefer not to." To the narrator’s disappointment and to the irritation of the other scriveners, Bartleby performs fewer tasks in the office. Several attempts are made by the narrator to reason with him and to understand him, but Bartleby only offers his trademark response: "I would prefer not to," without an explanation. His “passive resistance,” is seen to escalate throughout the story, eventually leading to his imprisonment and self-imposed starvation.
Bartleby’s enigmatic and outwardly eccentric behavior is both intriguing and puzzling to the reader. Why doesn’t he want to work? And what does he want from the lawyer, his employer? In analyzing Bartleby’s character, critics have suggested extremely diverse interpretations. Some see him as a Christ figure; others as a mysterious loner; and still others as a representation of the exploited employee, a Thoreau-like agent of passive resistance[ CITATION Tho \l 1033 ]. Readers have also been in disagreement concerning the narrator’s character. Some see him as a spineless employer, others as an insensitive boss, others as a self-serving hypocrite and yet others as a compassionate employer whose accommodating intents are aggravated by Bartleby's untreatable pathology.
Economic Conflict
It is important to place “Bartleby, the Scrivener” in the context of pre-war capitalism. Several decades before Melville wrote the story, the United States had undergone a complex process of economic revolution. A transportation insurgency was marked by the building of superior roads, the innovation of the steamship and railways. Innovative labor-saving machines that used steam and waterpower were developed. Additionally, exceptional opportunities to acquire and secure capital arose. These were made possible by the numerous upcoming banks, insurance firms, and state laws that facilitated the formation of business corporations. Consequently, there was a change in the nature of production as a result of the infrastructural changes. In the middle ages, most goods were produced by skilled artisans who owned small shops in or close to homes.
The onset of the Industrial Revolution in 18th century Europe and 19th century America resulted in the gradual replacement of this mode of manufacturing by entrepreneurs who owned large factories and employed skilled and unskilled workers. A system of production was hence set up; one in which workers sold their labor to capitalists. As a result of all these, workers encountered an unfriendly workplace, more tiresome work, and fewer opportunities to advance. In the artisanal system, masters knew their workers well. They worked together, took meals together, and habitually lived in the same house unlike in the emerging industrial system where it was possible for employers and employees not to know each other.
In "Bartleby, the Scrivener", the workplace is a law office in Manhattan, yet it is invested with many of the features of an urban-industrial place of work. As described by the narrator, the building that houses the law office is a space "entirely unhallowed by humanizing domestic associations" [ CITATION Mel04 \l 1033 ]. This suggests the unfriendliness of Bartleby's work setting and the seclusion of his life. The lawyer has employed only four workers yet his firm has a hierarchical structure and an impersonality characteristic. He separates himself from his employees and commands them. He does not engage them in any consultations and limits their tasks to monotonous copying and serving. There is evidently no prospect for any of them to become a lawyer. The all-pervading walls, the tall buildings that surround the office, the folding glass doors and moveable screen that partition the office, and finally the walls of the prison, all symbolize the growing division between employers and employees and between the capitalists and working classes. They also point to the barriers which confine workers to their tedious, poor-paying jobs and thwart their social progression. Additionally, they are outward indicators of the ideological conjectures that separate the lawyer from Bartleby, his employee, preventing him from understanding Bartleby and having genuine empathy for his plight.
Ideological Conflict
Melville seeks to expose the fundamental ideology that legalized the new production system. Supporters and antagonists of the change to industrial capitalism came up with rival ideologies to rationalize their positions. Those in support of capitalism pointed out that American workers had enough opportunity to attain a sensible competence. Such supporters believed that a worker’s main obstructions were laziness, indulgence, and alcohol; the solution was to embrace diligence, prudence, and sobriety. However, supporters of the working class argued that a production system in which the poor were made subject to the wealthy for life’s necessities was unnatural and inequitable. The change in production systems gave rise to new ideological structures wherein the capitalist would presume the leniency of the system, disregard the grievances of employee and blame their poverty on their individual moral failures. The workers with the contrary viewpoint addressed the inequity in the economy and the place of work, and they defined their reliance as a form of slavery.
However, Ideology, particularly the overriding ideology, functions both at a conscious and at an unconscious level. When ideologies are set up in a society's institutions and day to day practices, they become the "natural" or "commonsensical" way of thinking and acting. If an employer were quickly transferred from a hierarchical to an autonomous system, he or she would find the new environment puzzling, even annoying, and would naturally exact some enlightenment for the employees’ ostensible audacity and defiance. The lawyer in "Bartleby, the Scrivener" experiences this disturbing shift as his hierarchical system is infiltrated by Bartleby, an employee who begins to dissent, albeit silently, the injustice of his circumstance. The lawyer is accustomed to running his law firm as he pleases and presumes that he will treat Bartleby just like he treats the other scriveners. Nonetheless, Bartleby becomes depressed by his monotonous duties and service status, and stops taking orders. He opposes the injustice of the system, declines to cooperate and starts to exercise his own preference; to do whatever he "prefers." The lawyer is totally baffled at Bartleby’s behavior and does not understand why Bartleby is acting in derision of common usage. Incomprehension turns to frustration, then anger, and eventually he fires his unmoved scrivener.
Readers may find it difficult to comprehend this ideological conflict between Bartleby and the lawyer as their views are never presented openly. The lawyer simply presumes his right to exercising unrestricted authority, and Bartleby, though certain his resistance is justifiable, appears too dejected to speak or possibly feels the forces united against him are so overpowering that open dissent is ineffective. Living in a society where precedence is given to property rights and consequently the rights of employer over those of workers, Americans are accustomed to assume that employers will be more prosperous than their employees, that employers will give orders, and that employees will simply comply. It is hence likely for readers to instinctively subscribe to the lawyer’s ideology. One can hardly imagine an employee being defiant; and if one is, it is predictable that she or he will be fired almost immediately. As readers therefore, Americans come across Bartleby from the viewpoint of the culture's prevailing ideology as regards employer-worker relationships. Readers share the lawyer's frustration and outrage and see Bartleby as a preposterous employee. However, Melville intends that readers will eventually realize that the ideology comprises ideas and practices founded on power as opposed to reason or right. Melville hopes the reader will be able to consider the likelihood that a more democratic system would be more natural, more sensible, and more productive as opposed to the lawyer's office that is quite subjective, unjust and improvident of human energy.
The Lawyer’s assumptions
Several key assumptions shape the Lawyer’s perception of the workplace and employees and prevent him from understanding Bartleby and dealing with the problems that weigh down his office. On his first attempt to get rid of Bartleby, the lawyer gives him his full pay and allowance, assuming that Bartleby will be gone when he returns but he finds him in the office the following morning. The lawyer realizes that his assumptions regarding Bartleby may be disproved by the facts. However, he fails to realize that he also makes many class-based assumptions regarding his workers and the workplace that are similarly erroneous. The lawyer's consciousness is intensely ingrained with these beliefs that he considers them as natural laws or commonsensical.
The lawyer assumes that the problems of employees are as a result of vice, poor health, and adversity. He never considers the thought that Bartleby’s discontent and strange behavior may be a justifiable response to his tedious, low-paying job. Bartleby's conduct is attributed to an "organic" psychosomatic ill: an "innate and incurable disorder"[ CITATION Mel04 \l 1033 ]. Instead of relating Bartleby's actions to his working conditions, the lawyer constantly points out to external factors, hence absolving himself as well as the wage-labor system of any blame.
The lawyer also assumes that employees are the boss’ servants. He feels at ease exercising a near-dictatorial control over his scriveners and any idea of equality in his firm is completely outside his consciousness. Using Bartleby as his personal assistant seems acceptable to the lawyer. He believes that it is in his right to do so even though Bartleby is only paid for the pages he copies and so he will not earn anything for these additional tasks.
Bartleby is objecting being reduced to a messenger and copying machine. He waits for clear proof that the lawyer realizes the fault of his ways and becomes a more thoughtful and fair-minded boss. Unfortunately, this does not happen, and hence the disagreement carries on until Bartleby dies.
Works Cited
Melville, Herman. Bartleby The Scrivener. reprint. Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Thoreau, Henry David. Life Without Principle. Forgotten Books, n.d.
