The story of Billy Budd is generally a very easy story to understand. As the story shows, Billy Budd kills Claggart by accident and Captain Vere must make a decision on whether or not to sentence Billy Budd to hanging. This decision that Captain Vere depends on whether he judges with his feelings or his rules upon the ship. Melville brings up this idea of “cruci-fiction” which is a cross shaped diagram that shows the difference between how a character is perceived versus what really happens. Melville illustrates this relationship by linking Billy Budd to guilty, and Claggart to innocent. This goes against the characterization of the two characters at the beginning of the story. Billy Budd was seen to be a light- spirited and very personable sailor on the ship. Claggart was seen to be a sailor who starts trouble and is not as easy to get along with as Billy.  The characterization of Captain Vere is the most important element of this story and deconstructing him is necessary to the full understanding of the text.

Ultimately, Vere decides to execute Billy Budd for killing Claggart. In this case, Vere put natural law over his personal feelings when deciding on a verdict. Vere was able to detach himself from his feelings in order to make a decision that he felt was the best for the ship and overall the British Navy. Having knowledge of the historical context of this story makes it easier to understand the motivation of Vere. Even though he feels sorry for Billy, he had to make his decision under the king’s law. He is seen as a authority figure that rules by the book. Captain Vere is seen as intelligent and fair leader but ultimately he ends up sentencing one of his own sailors to death because of an accident. The reader is meant to feel animosity towards Captain Vere because we feel compassion for Billy Budd because he was systematically symbolized as the “good” guy in the story for lack of better terms.

I think that power plays a significant role in the story of Billy Budd. While Captain Vere felt sympathetic towards Billy, he wanted to make sure that the hierarchy on the ship was clear. The captain is the boss because he runs everything, has his own quarter of the ship, and wears different clothes from the rest of the sailors. He needed to keep order upon the ship and keep the social hierarchy in check so no other sailor even thinks about trying to do what Billy did.

Lastly, language plays a big role in Billy’s downfall. Billy had an inability to speak and convey his thoughts which lead to his violent outburst against Claggart which killed him. Johnson states that “his literal mindness (Billy) is represented by his illiteracy because, in assuming that language can be taken at face value, he excludes the very functioning of difference that makes the act of reading both dispensable and undecidable. (2262).” Billy is put at an disadvantage because he could not properly convey his words to Captain Vere or Claggart which led to his downfall.

In “Semiology and Rhetoric,” Paul De Man brings attention to how rhetoric exhibits the tension between critical and creative writing.  Critical writing relies on grammar and clear, direct statements.  When rhetoric is inserted into language, the lines begin to blur.  Rhetoric undoes grammar, or at least adds something indiscernible to the structure of the sentence.  De Man uses the example of Archie Bunker saying “What’s the difference?” in response to being asked how he would like his shoes tied.  Archie doesn’t care how his laces tie, but instead of saying that explicitly, he uses a snarky rhetorical question to make his point.  Interpreting “What’s the difference?” literally would tell the reader that he genuinely wants to know the impact of tying his laces either under or over.  But rhetoric complicates the literal, “the same grammatical pattern engenders two meanings that are mutually exclusive: the literal meaning asks for the concept (difference) whose existence is denied by the figurative meaning.” (1370).  

This creates a dilemma for the addressee.  Rhetoric produces the need for the receiver to distinguish which meaning is the correct one, whether it is the literal or the figural.  We can only do this through “the intervention of extra-textual intention” (1371).  In Archie’s case, his snarky tone tells his wife that he is so annoyed with the question he can’t bother to give her a straight answer.  The rhetorical question was used to convey his irritation in a non-literal sense.  De Man follows with another example, a passage from Proust.  In Proust’s passage about Marcel, he uses a series of single-moment shots: the bed, the book, light streaming through the window, etc., until we finally arrive at the metaphor of the chamber music flies.  The combination of metonymy and metaphor culminate in giving the reader the most accurate scene of Marcel in his room, both physically and mentally.  

Rhetoric is the best way to connect to readers on a deeper level.  It undoes logical grammar and “writes figuratively about figures.” (1374).  In Proust’s passage, summer is the signified, and the flies are what he chose as the signifiers.  There are thousands of other possible options he could have used, but the flies were the best way to capture the experience of summer that most all people can relate to.  De Man ends the essay with “Literature as well as criticism […] is condemned (or privileged) to be forever the most rigorous and, consequently, the most unreliable language in terms of which man names and transforms himself.” (1378).  This goes back to Nietzsche and the idea that every word created by man is an arbitrary label that has no formal basis.  We have both the blessing and the curse to continuously reinvent the words we use, and the meaning behind our sentences.

I am a closet Marxist “commy”, at least on a non-Marxist spiritual tip. Specifically meaning, it would be wonderful, in a global city like New York, to have a holiday dedicated to the temporary closure of commercial hi-risers, from Goldman Sachs to Gap, like they indirectly do on Thanksgiving Day. There would be ads from TV to billboards, promoting this occasion, to give heads-up to save sufficient food for the individuals diet, and gather in parks like Governor’s Island or Union Square, to kumbaya it out. But alas, as a capitalist nation, that advocates individual pursuit for life (money), liberty (money), and constitutional happiness, most NYers have “better” things to perform than to meditate and light up sages.

I digress. I am a closet Marxist in light of recent history, of corrupt communism from it’s leaders, one being Mao Zedong (or was he a fascist?). But here’s why communism is flawed as a 365 day political establishment…because Robinson Crusoe (667) is not the native Lenape Indians, and the Lenape’s are not cynically Aristotelian political animals, and neither does the Lenape political/tribal system cover vast land of geography. However, it’s worth noting in modern day, that nuance communism has sustained across China. So yes as a counter argument, geographically across a country, communism has spread, but fatally this political ideology of (sorry for the simplistic version) property publically owned and workers earn what they create for their needs, is not definite in the minds of all Chinese.

America has done a (more Trumpian than Hegelian) phenomenal job in mass-composing it’s political ideology, impressing post-industrial nations, that hasn’t banned their media channels. Nonetheless, the current billions of citizens settled in China, there are a large number of those people, who don’t believe in the one-for-all distribution system. Even the native Lenape’s (Gotham, p.5), who stationed seasonally on the tip of what is now called Manhattan, were influenced by the Dutch foreigners household materials (blankets, forks, kettles, etc.), which were initially all unnecessary, but unfortunately they grew to depend on these items, when the East India Company had gradually more vested interest on their coastal lands, that rendered scarce the surrounding trees and animals.

Speaking of material dependence, that predates commodification (665) that Marx speaks of, it was this dependency I attributed the power imbalance, of the superior-subordinate dyad, which Marx systemically loathes during the early industrial revolution. The material being money—a foreign idea to the Lenape’s, who unfortunately acquiesces: thru the bartering of Wampum for euro-centric material needs of the 1700’s, to afford survival such as Thoreau-ian food, fuel, shelter, clothes (Walden)—was both [1] why they couldn’t question their reality that was selfishly-economic-first-corruptly-political-second, thus warping the myopic vision of the worker (652), and [2] couldn’t Robinson Crusoe an individual livelihood, because America isn’t a stranded island, and the US competitively put most local farmers outta business, during the bi-coastal railroad period.

But neither can a communist social Crusoe-ian (660) establishment last, even post-exposure of Wilde-ian hedonism (with it’s purple cloak and infinite cig smoke)…because of the variable of an always-necessary leader, whether in an equanimity focus (i.e. Lenape) or not society, that historically has purview and “privilegized” information, along with his advisors, and whom he horizontally politics with; like the pre-Martin Luther Roman Catholic priest, who withheld biblical knowledge for non-Latin readers. Lastly, a leader is requisite in a communal society not to instill a superior-subordinate complex, but to be a deputy, a spectre of law…and historically speaking, I cannot think of one civilization (barring wars), that has survived from ancient times to 1848, because, as Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Yes, this is a pessimistic stance, but to give impartial treatment to all political ideologies, especially the more persuasive capitalist nations of today, our “leaders” in business and politics, can never create such utopia in their transnational world. But what can be done, existentially, is to find, a non-trivial Kumbaya in the Governors Island of themselves. And you may be wandering how a factory worker in early industrial revolution can find inner bliss? It’s too simple and inconsiderate to state they should’ve left their job. Buuut…

Capitalist economy is corrupt and unfair. Society is sets up the working class for failure and the elite will only gain more power and prosperity. Political economists ignore inequality in our economic society. In Karl Marx’s “From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” Marx depicts the inequality of the economy. He explains how the society works for the working class, how we begin to lose a sense of our selves as workers. Marx begins by stating the idea, “the worker sinks to a level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production” (652). Society falls into two classes as Marx states, “the property-owners and the propertyless workers.” It is the propertyless workers who work for the property owners or as it is implied, it is the propertyless workers who are owned by the property owners. The property owners pay the workers, essentially owning them. They are able to sustain by providing the workers income to do so, if the workers stop working, then they would not be able to support and sustain themselves for long, thus creating this cycle, where workers work until their deterioration.

Political economists explain nothing about how the political economy works by making connections of the important ideas such as when Marx states, “He assumes in the form of fact, of an event, what he is supposed to deduce–namely, the necessary relationship between two things–between for example, division of labour and exchange” (652). Wealth and income gap is another connection political economists fail to explain. The catchphrase we all recognize is, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.” This is true among capitalist economies, as the gap between the property-owners and the propertyless workers will continue to increase over time. The worker becomes a cheaper commodity, the more commodities he creates. Marx explains, “the product of labour which has been congealed in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labour. Labour’s realization is its objectification” (653). The workers essentially become objects themselves, they are considered a capital, a means of production which can easily be replaced by a machine or a robot. The more the worker puts himself into his work, the less of himself he retains. This causes the worker to be alienated, “not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside of him, independently, as something alien to him” (653). Being this “object,” it actively alienates the worker from their humanity and depravity of means of life. Their work, their labour essentially becomes their news means of life– to sustain, leading to a loss of human identity.

The more the worker puts into his production, the less he has to consume for himself. The more he produces, the less he becomes as he is consumed by his labour and production, yet, in order to sustain, he must be able to produce and work– work for another person. The worker is forced to produce for another, leading to a loss of self, as his creativity, spontaneity , and imagination is belongs to another. Marx concludes, “In his human functions, he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal” (655). We, the working class, have more or less become modern day slaves–wage slaves. It is a vicious cycle, that most of us will indeed become stuck in, our work will define our lives and we will likely be working until our work deteriorates us until we can no longer produce. We expendable capital no different from a kiosk or a kitchen appliance. It poses a question— what is the difference between modern day slaves and workers in the capital economic system? Even though there are now some better benefits and working environments, workers and slaves essentially work until they are consumed and they can no longer produce, which causes them to lose value, being unable to provide sustenance.

In his collection of writings, The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Karl Marx discusses the subservience one suffers in having a job. He argues that the more a worker produces, the less valuable the worker becomes because he “falls under the dominion of his product” (653). In turn the worker’s value and the product’s value become two separate entities where the product outweighs the producer. Therefore, the worker becomes enslaved to his work in many ways. As someone who works a full-time job, I pride myself on the freedom in consumerism I can enjoy as a result of the time I put in, sometimes too much time one might argue, but Marx has made me wonder if there is freedom in my consumerism or am I just bound to the system itself?

Marx begins his piece by discussing the “premises of political economy” that workers within the system have taken for granted, such as land rights, value of exchange, and most momentously, labor rights (or lack thereof). He notes that political economy has made “abstract formulae” that construct economic standards, which “it then takes for laws” (652). Marx challenges what civilians view as a system they are bound to, and reformats them as pieced-together laws not fully explained. He calls out labor work as one of the worst of these “abstract formulas” that nobody questions.

In his crusade against labor work, Marx compares the value of the laborer to the value of the laborer’s production. Marx states, “The worker becomes an even cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men” (653). Marx makes the point that in world of increasing material production, a growing importance is placed on the material itself and there exists an inverse relationship with the lessening importance of the workers themselves. He proceeds to discuss the “alienation” of the worker,” for as much as they produce, in reality, the materials which they produce as well as their actual production abilities, become separate entities from the producers themselves (653). Therefore, the worker becomes a separate and alienated entity with devaluated importance. Marx sums this argument up when he says, “The alienation of the worker in his product means not only that his labour becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him, independently, as something alien to him…” (653). Marx points out a scary fact: the more a worker produces and the more merit he puts into his job, the more the worker separates himself from his product and his work becomes defunct as the product takes over. Marx then shines light on the worker-to-“slave” aspect of this system, where people must work to gain value for sustenance on which to live (654). The more they work, however, the less valuable they become in favor of the object they produce, and it is an ever-living cycle in the system which one is consistently devaluating to the point where he or she is no longer living, but only surviving.

Marx’s argument makes me question the real meaning in my working my 40-hour-a-week job, where I work overtime to make ends meet. But do these ends justify these strenuous means? Or do I merely live in this previously constructed and unquestioned system that he mentions in the beginning of this essay? I used to consider the food I buy and the rent I pay a freedom I obtain within this system, but really I am prisoned in this cycle of work, which leads to increasing devaluation. Survival and life are two separate things, which used to be alienated, but have become merged in the system of political economics.

The notes about “Semiology and Rhetoric” before the reading made it very clear that Paul de Man, and the ideas he brought up about interpretation of literature, were not extremely welcomed by many other philosophers and such of his time. de Man was “charged with threatening the foundations of literary criticism because he radically questioned the possibility of meaning” (1363). He did this by suggesting that focusing on historical or social meanings that could be connected to texts may not be the only way to do so, but rather, one should focus on rhetoric and grammar, and the gap, aporia, between them.

de Man argues that not everything is as it seems. He starts by looking as the rhetorical question “What’s the difference?” He states that, as we know, this is not actually a question looking for an answer, but really is a statement saying “There is no difference.” Grammar always haunts rhetoric though, according to de Man, so when looking at the grammar of this sentence, it is a question, and reading it as one is not wrong, it is just a different meaning. By looking at the question through this lens, a whole new meaning arises, away from the socially understood meaning. He followed this by looking at an example in the poem “Among School Children,” where the last line says “How can we know the dancer from the dance?” Again, reading this line figuratively and literally create two different meanings, but, according to de Man, we cannot necessarily say that the poem has two meanings at the same time. He says that “The two readings have to engage each other in direct confrontation, for the one reading is precisely the error denounced by the other and has to be undone by it” (1372).

After looking at other ways that authors “manipulate” grammar, de Man writes about the word “deconstruction,” and the act of “deconstructing” literature. He writes about how a lot of literary criticism is looking at the text and decoding it in a way that makes it your own reading, which we label as “deconstructing the text,” when in reality, we have not added anything to the text that was not already there, we just found the meanings of the text. He writes “A literary text simultaneously asserts and denies the authority of its own rhetorical mode, and by reading the text as we did we were only trying to come closer to being as rigorous a reader as the author had to be in order to write the sentence in the first place” (1377). Therefore, the reader of the text did nothing besides bring out what was already laid down by the author.

He finishes this piece by writing about how unreliable literature and criticism are, in the same way that Nietzsche says that we pull apart structure to rebuild it on flowing water; no text has only one meaning, and no matter how much you “deconstruct” the text, you are not adding anything of your own to it. This argument which totally goes against most of the literary critics believe, is why there must have been so much push away from his ideas by others.

Ian Bogost’s article, “Don’t Hate the Phone Call, Hate the Phone,” discusses how people in this generation despise the act of speaking one the phone and are so conditioned to texting or video calling. He states, ” One of the ironies of modern life is that everyone is glued to their phones, but nobody uses them as phones anymore.” I personally agree with this statement because a lot of people my age rather text on apps like iMessage, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. The biggest form if communication that I know for sure a lot of kids my age and up also like to use is FaceTime. Video call is another huge way of communication not only in our generation, but even adults and much older people use it too. People rather use these forms of communication because they feel that it is more comfortable and less personal. For example, Bogost states, “When asked people with a distaste for phone calls argue that they are presumptuous and intrusive, especially given alternative methods of contact that don’t make unbidden demands for someone’s undivided attention. In response, some have diagnosed a kind of telephoniphobia among this set.”  Bogost also goes on to say that ,”When even initiating phone calls is a problem—and even innocuous ones, like phoning the local Thai place to order takeout—then anxiety rather than habit may be to blame: When asynchronous, textual media like email or WhatsApp allow you to intricately craft every exchange, the improvisational nature of ordinary, live conversation can feel like an unfamiliar burden. ”  Now this is where I would have to agree with Bogost in the sense that it’s pretty ridiculous as to why people are so opposed to the idea to having a conversation on the phone and here is why. Way before their was even  a computer or any kind of texting or video calling people used to talk on the phone all the time and there was no problem. In fact, Bogost argues that even phone call back then was way better than now because their was no risk of losing signal during a phone call like there is now because now we have wireless phones. For example he states, ” The traditional, wired public switched telephone network (PSTN) operates by circuit switching. When a call is connected, one line is connected to another by routing it through a network of switches. At first these were analog signals running over copper wire, which is why switchboard operators had to help connect calls. But even after the PSTN went digital and switching became automated, a call was connected and then maintained over a reliable circuit for its duration. Calls almost never dropped and rarely failed to connect.” I would say Bogost does have a point because like most people, I have a smart phone and my calls fail all the time when I’m in certain areas. When you have landline it’s connected to something and because of this explanation on how phone calls used to work, they were much easier to make. However, on the contrary wireless phones are more reliable than a landline because it’s portable and it’s easier access to a phone and as a  millennial myself I appreciate the privilege to text, call, and video chat whenever I please, but I do not mind being on the phone like most people do not these days. All in all, I do agree with Bogost’s main gist of this piece. I do believe we need to appreciate the phone call because I do not mind being a little bit more personal because sometimes texts and emails can be misconstrued because we cannot always tell the tone of which the person is writing in. I think I’d rather seem more personal and inviting than impersonal because in life you cannot always just text and video chat to communicate, we need phone calls as well as face-to-face interaction as well.

Melissa Guachun

Notes on Melvilles Fist: Barbara Johnson

Johnson’s analyzation shows that there are two different lens in which one can perceive Melville’s Fist-literal and figural. In this story, each character offers a different point of view that shed light into the depth within the situation presented.

When reading this passage, many people perceive the happenings through Billy’s perspective. His one dimensional and simple character mimics the lens in which he personifies which is literal. The details, actions, and characters that are perceived through Billy are interpreted as straight forward, simple, and straight-forward. The flaws in Billy’s personalities lies in his stutter, his illiteracy/unintelligence, and his behavioral filtering/obliteration. Claggart is known for his intelligence, articulate nature, and his mistrust for Billy for being capable of “possessing natural depravity”. His envy and mistrust makes him the character associated with evil. Captain Vere stands for the well being of man and relies on the history of discourse of men to guide him as a captain. Even though he is a key character, his response in this tale is perceived as unaffected, cold, and emotionally detached. He doesn’t have the patience for tolerance and acts swiftly. Billy’s version of the reading is considered literal because the plot mimics Billy’s essence of illiterate, simplistic nature. Johnson states “ His literal mindness is represented by his literacy because in assuming that language can be taken at face value, he excludes the very functioning of difference that makes the act of reading both indispensable and undecidable” (2262). Johnson makes the point that by reading the passage through Billy’s lens one can only interpret the actions and characters at face value. Billy’s simplistic nature only renders him as disadvantaged causing his ability to read and filter to result in his death. In Billy’s perception, the conflict resides in the discourse of good and evil.

Claggart’s perception is then considered figural in this passage. This is where deconstruction comes into play because Claggart’s lens allows the relationship between the signified and signifier to flip. The question of being versus doing is brought into question and challenges Billy’s lens of the good versus evil archetype. Billy is deemed innocent, attractive, popular, and simple, yet he is a murderer. Claggart is “supposed” to be then considered evil by default but ends up being murdered by Billy. Captain Vere is deemed responsible for bringing justice to this matter and being the captain of these men. Yet he makes a hasty sentence, allowing a man who he thinks is innocent to be hung. The decision was done with force due to his fear of not maintaining the respect of his men if he were to let a man go free after committing murder. Claggart who is assumed to be evil questions the good nature of Billy, causing the sign of Claggart to switch (as sign of arbitrariness). To Billy, he is put under an intense emotional situation causing his stutter to render him verbally paralyzed. Claggart’s serious accusation causes Billy to respond in a serious manner. He results to physical violence as a way of verbally communicating his allegiance to his captain and men. But the action was performed in violence against his accuser which ends up being the alibi to convict him of murder and to his hanging. Johnson states “Captain Vere is a reader who kills, not, like Billy, instead of speaking, but rather, precisely by means of speaking” (2272). This makes Captain Vere and Billy both murderers in their own right. Billy’s action of announcing loyalty through his lens was perceived as proof of Claggart’s claim through Claggart’s lens. Billy’s action of filtering his answers and responses through repression. By filtering out certain words he is able to control his sign, being perceived only as “good”. He maintains his innocence by erasing, destroying, and obliterating any evidence that would challenge the persona he has constructed for himself. This challenges the nature versus doing, if Billy is making conscious attempts to edit himself into a supposed “good character” then it’s not his natural state. Then we as readers are unsure of who he really is characteristically, he becomes an anomaly. We are only aware of who he is attempting to be. This makes Claggart more human because he is sticking to his gut by calling Billy out because he is able to see through his attempts of maintaining goodness. Billy’s censorship had become so integral to his inner workings, it became a source of maintenance and control. So when Claggart accused Billy of mutiny, it sparked an impulse in him to obliterate any evidence of character abnormality. This impulse in combination with his literacy and stutter under emotional situations prompted violence. Claggart’s lens offers an insightful, articulated, and analytical approach to the reading. This is because it mimics his character traits. His lens allows a deeper understanding of how the signifier and signified are constantly in flux. Again, it proves that this reading can’t be taken at face value because of mistrust. Mistrust from Claggart’s character and mistrust from receiving filtered information from Billy. Billy’s censorship and simplistic persona acts as a blank sign, proving that blank signs often hold other meanings.

Using Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, to discuss the nature of the reader’s interpretation, Barbara Johnson starts off her discussion with the characterization of the protagonist, Billy Budd, and antagonist, John Claggart. Billy Budd is the picture of morality; he sees the world as wonderful and straightforward, blocking out anything he witnesses as alluding to the opposite. Claggart, Budd’s foil, is endlessly suspicious, seeing irony and evil in everything. Personifying the two main interpretations of the novel, the first, the perception of Budd’s execution as Melville’s “acceptance” of tragedy, the second, the perception of the execution as an ironic ending alluding to the author’s critique of society, these two characters are only the beginning of a wide range of binaries inside and surrounding the text.

However, Johnson shows us that Melville’s work questions more than the situation it poses when she introduces Captain Vere, the decision-maker in the protagonist’s execution. Yes, Billy has struck Claggart and killed him, but only because he is wrongly accused of conspiracy, of being the opposite of his loyal, straightforward self. Stuck in a dilemma, where he must choose between what feels morally proper (letting Billy go), and lawfully proper (executing Billy, because he has just murdered someone), Vere, Johnson states, is forced to judge, and turn what is quite an ambiguous situation into one of binaries. How does Vere go about this?

Unlike Budd and Claggart, who focus on the intentions of others and the hidden meaning within the world, Vere focuses on what is external in order to back up his decision. The captain is not so concerned with the “why”, but more concerned with how what has happened will affect society. Johnson states that “For Vere, the functions and meanings of signs are neither transparent nor reversible but fixed by socially determined convention“(2270). To determine what this convention is, the captain turns to sacred texts, such as the Bible, and history, eventually coming to the verdict that Budd must be executed.

Johnson shows us that the decision-making process of Vere teaches us something. Although letting Budd go might be morally correct, because the eponymous character has no evil intentions, this does not matter because it is not correct within the society that the novel is situated in. Vere looks towards sacred texts and history not because they offer inherent wisdom, but because they are important in determining the moral culture of the society within which he must make his decision. Vere believes in and understands a concept that the other characters in the novel do not; we should not look towards any sort of inherent standard, but only to that of the current playing field.

Johnson ends her piece with the idea that judgement is in itself a political act, that it cannot be neutral because it naturally references the beliefs of society (usually being history), and drags out the relevant facts of the case that match those beliefs, rather than the full story. However, she only touches upon the idea of leaving a case in ambiguity before her conclusion. Is this the key to objectivity, though?

If judgement is in itself a nonobjective act, what if we refused to judge? This question is similar to Nietzsche’s in On Truth and Lying, in which he questions language and its limitations. In language, we seek to classify and rigidly define aspects of our world so we can control and better understand them. Vere does something similar in attempting to reduce the ambiguity of Budd’s crime by placing it against societal rules and standards. In both cases, we attempt to reduce the meaning of a concept so that we can push it aside and move on. However, if objectivity is what we want, then why decide at all?

On the other hand, is it possible to even live in this much ambiguity? Taking again the example of the plot of Billy Budd, how would Vere do this? Yes, the captain could throw his hands up in the air and say “I don’t know, I have no verdict”, but in doing this, in refusing to make a decision, he ends up making one anyway by keeping Budd from punishment. Interestingly, I think the main problem between binaries and ambiguity is that we can never have just one. If we try to live in black and white, we are only pointed towards the grey, and vice-versa. Life is about both ambiguity and binaries, I guess.