Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day and Nietzsche’s “Problem of the Actor”

Paul Patton

Title： Kazuo Ishiguros The Remains of the Day and Nietzsches “Problem of the Actor”

Abstract： The Remains of the Day is open to many different interpretations： a postmodern novel about the unreliability of first person narration； a tragedy of emotional repression； a denunciation of the English class system， and so on. I offer a different reading of the novel as an exploration of modern selfhood， reading it against the background of Nietzsches discussions of actors and acting. The central character， Mr Stevens， holds strong views about what it means to be not merely a good but a great butler. His life is lived in the service of this ideal， for which he pays a high emotional and moral price. I read the novel as addressing directly the question of the relationship between personhood and the roles that we assume， thereby raising profound questions about that nature of individual identity， agency and responsibility in the modern world.

Key words： Kazuo Ishiguro； Nietzsche； “problem of the actor；” dignity

Author： Paul Patton is Scientia Professor of Philosophy， University of New South Wales， Australia. He is also a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities. He is the author of Deleuze and the Political （Routledge， 2000） and Deleuzian Concepts： Philosophy， Colonization， Politics （Stanford， 2010）. He is editor of Nietzsche， Feminism and Political Theory （Routledge 1993） and author of a number of articles and book chapters on Nietzsche. In June 2019 he will take up the position of Hongyi Chair Professor of Philosophy at Wuhan University.

標(biāo)題：石黑一雄的《長日留痕》和尼采的“演員問題”

內(nèi)容摘要：《長日留痕》是一部有著多種闡釋可能的小說。現(xiàn)有闡釋有的視其為書寫第一人稱敘述不可靠性的后現(xiàn)代小說，有的認(rèn)為它是一出情感抑制的悲劇，有的論證它對英國階級體系的抨擊，凡此種種，不一而足。與已有闡釋不同的是，我以尼采對演員和扮演的討論為小說解讀的背景參照，認(rèn)為《長日留痕》探索了現(xiàn)代自我觀。主人公史蒂文斯對何為偉大男仆有著堅(jiān)定不渝的信念。他用自己的一生踐行這一理想，并為此付出高昂的情感和道德代價(jià)。小說探討了人的觀念與我們所扮演的角色之間的關(guān)系問題，并藉此提出了現(xiàn)代世界中事關(guān)個(gè)體身份的本質(zhì)、個(gè)體能動性和責(zé)任等具有重大意義的問題。

關(guān)鍵詞：石黑一雄；尼采；“演員問題”；尊嚴(yán)

作者簡介：保羅·帕頓是澳大利亞新南威爾士大學(xué)哲學(xué)杰出教授，澳大利亞人文科學(xué)院院士。主要論著包括《德勒茲與政治》和《德勒茲概念：哲學(xué)、殖民、政治》，編著有《尼采、女性主義和政治理論》，發(fā)表尼采研究的論文和專章若干篇。2019年6月起受聘出任武漢大學(xué)哲學(xué)學(xué)院弘毅講席教授。

The profession of butler as it is presented in film and literature seems an anachronistic occupation， but perhaps this has more to do with the peculiar sensibilities and constraints of the aristocratic households in which they are employed than with the nature of their work. With the increase in the number of super wealthy households since the 1980s， the number of professional butlers or household managers worldwide is apparently rising. The nature of the job requires a devotion to serving the needs and sensibilities of employers that overlaps in some ways with the profession of acting and this overlap will be a focus of my reading of Kazuo Ishiguros award winning novel The Remains of the Day （Ishiguro 1989）. As Nietzsche noted in The Gay Science 361， the virtues characteristic of the actor are shared with those of a range of other categories of people whose lives unfold in situations of relative powerlessness， or where the sensibilities of others must take precedence. These include members of lower social classes， of professions such as diplomacy， or of excluded or dominated casts such as Jewish people or women： ‘consider the whole history of women – mustnt they be actresses first and foremost？ （The Gay Science 226）. These virtues， or what Nietzsche calls the “instinct，” of actors include such things as：

Falseness with a good conscience； the delight in pretence erupting as a power that pushes aside， floods， and at times extinguishes ones so-called ‘character； the inner longing for a role and mask， for an appearance （Schein）； an excess of capacities for all kinds of adaptation that can no longer be satisfied in the service of the nearest， most narrowly conceived utility （225-6）.

In the light of this diagnosis， it is entirely appropriate that the butler in Downton Abbey， Mr Carson， should have had a previous career on the stage. Similarly， the butler and principal character in The Remains of the Day， Mr Stevens， is conscious of his profession as one that requires him to play a role. Indeed， for Stevens， it is a mark of his quality as a butler that he is at all times fully and completely invested in the role：

A butler of any quality must be seen to inhabit his role， utterly and fully； he cannot be seen casting it aside one moment simply to don it again the next as though it were nothing more than a pantomime costume. There is one situation and one situation only in which a butler who cares about his dignity may feel free to unburden himself of his role； that is to say， when he is entirely alone （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 169）.

Stevens demanding conception of what it is to be a great butler lies at the heart of the novel. It provides the basis for the unfolding story of unrequited and unacknowledged love between him and Miss Kenton who was for a long time the housekeeper at Darlington Hall where he worked. It also explains why Stevens could devote his life to the service of a man who devoted much time and effort to appeasement if not collaboration with the Nazi regime that took hold of Germany in the 1930s. Both elements of Stevens life give him cause for regret， although it would be too simple to say that he or the reader come to see his life as a tragic waste. Nietzsches reflections on the actor as a human type help us to see why. The Gay Science 361， “On the problem of the actor，” begins with his blunt declaration that “The problem of the actor has troubled me for a very long time” （The Gay Science 225）. Nietzsche does not explain in this section precisely what is his problem with the actor type， although he does provide a clue at the outset when he wonders whether it is not only from the angle of this problem “that one can approach the dangerous concept of the ‘a(chǎn)rtist ” （225）.

To fully appreciate Nietzsches actor problem， we need to turn to another section of The Gay Science， paragraph 356 entitled “The extent to which things will become ever more ‘a(chǎn)rtistic in Europe.” Here he contrasts different periods of European history in terms of the manner in which individuals experience their relation to their chosen occupation： first， there are those earlier times in which “men believed with unyielding confidence， even with piety， in their predestination for just this business， just this way of making a living， and utterly refused to acknowledge the element of accident， role and caprice” （215）.

In these periods， individuals belief in their predestination for a particular role endowed them with a particular “faith which in turn sustained the “estates， guilds and inherited trade privileges that supported the kind of social pyramid found in the middle ages. Then there are those contrary ages of a more democratic temper， in which people unlearn that faith and “the individual is convinced he can do just about anything and is up to playing any role； and everyone experiments with himself， improvises， experiments again， enjoys experimenting， where all nature ceases and becomes art ”（216）.

In these periods， a different kind of “role faith” characterizes peoples relation to their occupations： “the faith of artists， if you will” （216）. This faith first emerged in Periclean Athens during the fifth century BC and the result was a world in which the Greeks “really became actors” （216）. Nietzsche believed that modern Europeans were well advanced along the same road and that， once people discover the extent to which they can be and are actors， they become actors. Hence the suggestion in the title of this section that things will continue to become ever more “artistic” in Europe. For reasons that will be explained below， Nietzsche found this a worrying development in modern European culture.

Ishiguros Mr Stevens displays elements of both of the above ways of relating to his chosen occupation. He is a butler employed in the service of one of the grand houses of the English landed gentry during the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand， his father had been a butler and Stevens began his professional life as a footman under his fathers supervision. There is no suggestion that he ever contemplated any other way of earning his living and his dedication to the profession is expressed in his recurrent reflections on whether or not he might be counted among the truly great butlers of his time. On the other hand， he resists the suggestion that it is merely a role that a butler can adopt or discard at will. He devotes his life to becoming one of those great butlers who fully and completely inhabit the role.

The Love Story

The Remains of the Day takes the form of a first-person narrative， in which Mr Stevens relates his journey to visit Miss Kenton， twenty years after she had married and left Darlington Hall to live with her husband and later her daughter in Cornwall on the other side of the country. By the time of this journey across England in 1956， Stevens previous employer Lord Darlington has died and the house has been sold to a wealthy American. The new owner， Mr Farraday， asks Stevens to manage the household with a much-reduced number of staff. Initially he presents this as the reason for this journey to see Miss Kenton， justifying the visit as a professional matter， with the potential to solve a staffing problem. However， there are strong indications of a more personal motivation. Stevens is convinced that a letter from the former Miss Kenton hints at a desire to return to her former position as housekeeper. As the journey unfolds he begins to admit that she does not explicitly state her wish to return to her former position， even though he remains convinced that this is the unmistakable subtext. Not until they finally meet does he finally admit that he was mistaken in his reading of Miss Kentons state of mind. The prospect of her returning to Darlington Hall is never raised and she makes it clear that she is not as unhappy with her married life as Stevens had thought. This is but one of many instances in the novel in which we are made aware of the unreliability of the narrators view of events.

To the reader， there are clear indications throughout the novel of an emotional attraction between them， but for most part this goes unrecognised by Stevens. He recounts an episode shortly after Miss Kenton had arrived at Darlington Hall in which she brings flowers to his room in a gesture of friendship and good will. He rebuffs her offer and launches into a series of critical remarks about her performance as housemaid. It becomes apparent that she repeated the offer of flowers several times during her years at Darlington Hall. They developed a habit of nightly meetings over a cup of cocoa， at the end of the working day， which Stevens also justifies as a means to improve their performance of their respective duties. His accounts of these interactions and his responses to them remain resolutely framed in professional rather than personal terms. On another occasion， she enters his room while he is off duty and endeavours to flirt with him over a book he was reading. In his own words， Stevens shows her out of his pantry “quite firmly” and brings the unfortunate episode to a close （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 167）. It was this episode that led to the reflections on the relationship of a butler of quality to his role cited at the outset above. Stevens sincerely believed that any butler who took his vocation seriously should never allow himself to be “off duty” in the presence of others. His commitment to this ideal effectively foreclosed the possibility of any personal， non-professional interaction with Miss Kenton.

Even as he narrates these incidents and his own refusal to relate to her， or indeed to himself， in terms other than his conception of what is required of a butler in charge of the staff at a large noble house， Stevens remains entirely within the character of his professional persona. He recounts one especially poignant episode in which she returns from an evening with her future husband and informs him that she has accepted a proposal of marriage. Stevens congratulates her and insists that he must return to his duties waiting on Lord Darlington and some very important guests upstairs. It is only years later when they finally meet again that his account betrays his real feelings for her. He asks whether she is happy in her married life. She insists that she did come to love her husband， but also admits to moments when she thought about another and better life that she might have had： “For instance， I get to thinking about a life I may have had with you， Mr Stevens” （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 239）.

Stevens does not respond immediately and confesses that her words provoked an intense sorrow on his part， saying to the reader “Indeed – why should I not admit it？ – at that moment my heart was breaking”（Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 239）.

To Miss Kenton， or Mrs Benn as she now is， he says only that she should not dwell on what might have been but rather be grateful for what she has. She should look forward to her remaining happy years with her husband， who is about to retire， and to the expected grandchildren from her daughter. The title of the novel comes from a remark a few pages further on when Stevens reflects on his advice to the woman it is now clear to him that he loved and says that perhaps he too “should adopt a more positive outlook and try to make the best of what remains of my day” （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 244）.

This comment refers back to a conversation that he had with a stranger that he met while sitting on the pier at Weymouth shortly after his meeting with the former Miss Kenton. It was near sunset and he waited along with many others for the evening spectacle of the coloured lights on the pier to be switched on. In the course of their conversation the stranger， who turned out to be a retired butler from a much smaller household， tells Stevens that he too should think about retirement： “Youve got to enjoy yourself. The evenings the best part of the day. Youve done your days work. Now you can put your feet up and enjoy it. Thats how I look at it. Ask anybody， theyll all tell you. The evenings the best part of the day” （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 244）.

The metaphor implicit in this comment is not just any old metaphor. It is one of the examples given in Aristotles Poetics immediately after he defines metaphor as giving to something a name that belongs to something else. “As old age is to life， so is evening to day. One will accordingly describe evening as the ‘old age of the day – or by the Empedoclean equivalent； and old age as the ‘evening or ‘sunset of life ”（Aristotle， Poetics 2333 [1457b]）.

So the remains of the day refers to the twilight years which Stevens looks back at the life he has lived and tries to make sense of what he has done. Perhaps the implicit reference to this exemplary， canonical metaphor in the title suggests that the novel itself is intended as a metaphor. But a metaphor for what exactly？ The novel consists of Stevenss narration of his journey across England and eventual reunion with Miss Kenton， along with his memories and account of the life he has lived. How and for whom is this account of a man attempting to perform his chosen role to the best of his abilities a metaphor？ To answer this question， we need to look more closely at the character， Stevens， and the life that he has lived in pursuit of his conception of the good.

Ishiguros distinction between those for whom being a butler is like playing a pantomime and those like Mr Stevens who genuinely and fully inhabit the role recalls a distinction that Nietzsche draws in Thus Spoke Zarathustra between mere actors and genuine actors. An overriding concern of that book， and of Nietzsches philosophy as a whole， is the creation of new values. From Human， All Too Human and Daybreak onwards Nietzsche was concerned to revalue the fundamental moral values of Christian European society. Contrary to the popular misunderstanding of Nietzschean ?bermensch as singular individuals who create their own values， for Nietzsche new values are always embodied in new institutions and forms of social life. It follows that one of the conditions for the emergence of new types of human being is the extreme embodiment of existing institutions and practices. Those who push a given form of life to its limits also contribute to the emergence of the new， even if in a different manner to those who consciously abandon the old ways. Accordingly， in Thus Spoke Zarathustra， Nietzsche includes among the virtues that are required to bring about the creation of new values such things as courage and commitment to a single virtue， even to the point that one lives or dies for ones virtue. The incident involving the tightrope walker in the Prologue exemplifies this virtue. A tightrope walker momentarily usurps the attention of the crowd in place of Zarathustra， before his demon appears on the rope and causes him to fall. Zarathustra kneels beside the dying man and comforts him with the thought that he has made a vocation out of confronting danger and now dies in the pursuit of his calling， saying “there is nothing contemptible about that” （Nietzsche， Thus Spoke Zarathustra 12）. Zarathustra reassures the dying tightrope walker that his life has not been pointless and it is possible to say the same about Stevens. In contrast to the view of his life as a tragic waste， Zarathustras perspective enables us to see it as a life lived in pursuit of his calling and not without a certain dignity.

Individuals who commit to a particular virtue or way of life are those with the capacity to truly want a particular course of action. Zarathustra insists on the importance of this in Part Three “On the Virtue that Makes Small，” where he launches into a diatribe against small men and those who become smaller “because of their teaching on happiness and virtue”：

A few of them will， but most of them are merely willed. A few of them are genuine， but most of them are bad actors. There are unknowing actors among them and unwilling actors among them – the genuine are always rare， especially the genuine actors. （135）

The distinctions invoked in this passage， between bad actors， but also unconscious and involuntary actors， and genuine actors refer us back to Nietzsches problem with actors and acting. As the remarks cited earlier in praise of art and artists suggest， it is not acting per se that is the problem but certain kinds of acting. He is critical of what he calls “mere acting” and this passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra makes it clear that what is at issue is the capacity of the individual to fully identify with a particular role. Those who can do this are， in Nietzsches terms， those who can will： “Oh if only you would put aside all half willing and become as resolute in your sloth as in your deeds！ Oh if only you understood my words： ‘Go ahead and do whatever you will – but first be the kind of people who can will！ ”（137）

In these terms， Stevens is a genuine actor rather than a mere actor conscious of himself as only playing a role. To postmodern readers， and indeed to the new American owner of Darlington Hall， he is an anachronism. He is the kind of person that many would say “should get out more often，” which is precisely the advice given to him by his new employer when he encourages him to take a break from work and see more of the country. Stevens problem is not that he is no longer material for a society but rather that he is material for a kind of society whose time has passed. As we saw earlier， the problem lies with his chosen role rather than with Stevens attitude towards it. Even a genuine actor is bound by the confines of the role they have chosen to play， and the role of butler that Stevens plays condemns him to a supporting role in a hierarchical world in which decisions are left to others. As a servant， he willingly accepts severe limitations on what he can say or do. His role allows him to excel in the smooth running of a large household， but not to have opinions on matters of state. Another kind of artist more suited to the egalitarian temper of the times might see themselves as contributing to the national narrative， helping to shape the character and distribution of the roles that are open to individuals in society. This is the democratic view expressed by the man in the village where Mr Stevens passes a night： “Weve all got strong opinions here， and its our responsibility to get them heard” （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 189）. Stevens may well be genuine in the performance of his role， but at the end of the day it is a very constrained role.

Finally， we should perhaps be wary of being too critical of Stevens. It is true that he is an anachronism and a relic from a world that has largely disappeared， or that lives on only in television series such as Downton Abbey. But there is also a sense in which he is a cautionary figure even for we postmodern subjects. At this point， we might return to my suggestion that the novel as a whole is a metaphor and propose an answer， based in part on comments made by Ishiguro in an interview （Ishiguro， “Kazuo Ishiguro on The Remains of the Day”）. This answer relies on elements of Stevens defence of his acceptance of the limitations of his role. As he says near the end after his admission of lack of dignity in relation to his employer， it is still the case that most of us rely on the judgment of others： “The hard reality is， surely that for the likes of you and I there is little choice other than to leave our fate， ultimately， in the hands of those great gentlemen at the hub of this world who employ our services” （Ishiguro， The Remains of the Day 244）.

All of us perform roles and undertake jobs that remain to a large degree outside our control. Most of us are remote from the centres of power in power in society. We learn particular skills or functions that we perform， but the effects or the disposition of those function remains largely outside our control. In this sense， Stevens condition is a metaphor for the condition of most people in society. In effect， to a greater or lesser degree， we are all English butlers.

Notes

①In the novel， the gathering at Darlington Hall took place in March 1923， but the fictional events most likely allude to the lead-up to the Genoa Economic and Financial Conference， championed by the British Prime Minister Lloyd George， that took place in Genoa in April and May 1922.

②The same phenomenon is invoked in Book Three of Platos Republic when Socrates asks “have you not observed that imitations， if continued from youth far into life， settle down into habits and second nature in the body， the speech and the thought？” （Republic 395d）. In the context of Platos discussion of the appropriate education for the future rulers of the republic， this poses a problem with regard to acting. The phenomenon of role becoming character leads him to argue that the young guardians should not be allowed to play characters less noble than they were expected to become， for fear of corruption. The young men and women should only be allowed to impersonate the deeds of “good men”， particularly when these are acting “steadfastly and sensibly” （Republic 396d）.

③On Reagan， see Brian Massumi， “The Bleed： Where Body Meets Image，” and the response by Paul Patton， “Reagan and the Problem of the Actor” （Welchman 1996：18-50）.

Works Cited

Aristotle. Poetics in Jonathan Barnes ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle： The Revised Oxford Translation， Volume Two. Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1984， 2316-2340.

Baudrillard， Jean. America， Chris Turner， trans. London： Verso， 1988.

Ishiguro， Kazuo. The Remains of the Day. London： Faber and Faber， 1989.

---. “Kazuo Ishiguro on The Remains of the Day.” Books on Film： TIFF Bell Lightbox， Oct. 5， 2017.

Nietzsche， Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra： A Book For All and For None， Adrian Del Caro and Robert B. Pippin eds.， Adrian Del Caro trans. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2006.

---. The Gay Science， Bernard Williams ed.， Josefine Nauckhoff trans. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2001.

---. Daybreak， Maudemarie Clark and Brian Leiter eds.， R. J. Hollingdale trans. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1997.

---. Human， All Too Human， R. J. Hollingdale trans. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1986.

Patton， Paul. “Nietzsche and the Problem of the Actor in Alan D. Schrift ed. Why Nietzsche Still？ Reflections on Drama， Culture， Politics. Berkeley： University of California Press， 2000， 170-183.

---. “Postmodern Subjectivity： the Problem of the Actor.” Social Analysis， 30， 1991， 32-41.

Plato. Republic in E. Hamilton and H. Cairns eds. The Collected Dialogues of Plato， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1961.

Welchman， John C.， ed. Rethinking Borders. London： Macmillan， 1996.

責(zé)任編輯：賴艷