… but a worldview makes one of them bad.
I watched Les Miserables earlier this week. I had never seen the stage musical or even heard any of its songs. Although I read Victor Hugo’s book many moons ago, back then I probably would have simplistically considered Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman in the film) the “good guy” and his relentless pursuer Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) the “bad guy.”
Watching the movie, I was struck instead by how much alike they are. Both are diligent, dutiful men. Both have an extreme sense honor, honesty, and justice. Each believes he’s doing God’s work and refuses to be deterred from doing it, no matter what the cost or danger.
The one thing that divides them is that Valjean has to break the law to live as a good man. And Javert — to whom the law is a sacred principle — absolutely can’t conceive that Valjean, a lifelong lawbreaker, could possibly be a good man.
He repeatedly refers to Valjean as dark, evil, thieving and dangerous. He asserts that bad men like Valjean never change. Even after Valjean has saved his life, he calls him a devil; after that he just can’t understand what kind of “devil” Valjean is.
And of course, Outlaws like Valjean are dangerous — to the systems men like Javert stand for. And perhaps all the more dangerous when they’re as strong and principled as Valjean.
—–
In the opening scene, when Valjean is being paroled after 19 years on a prison slave gang, Javert insists on calling him “24601” (his prison number), refusing to give him his name, no matter how strongly Valjean asserts his identity. (Is that familiar, or what?)
He’s not only reminding Valjean “You’re a prisoner forever,” he’s telling him, “To me, you’re not even human.”
In his final moment in the story, Javert, realizing that Valjean is truly something that doesn’t fit into his rigid, law-and-order worldview, can’t bear to live with the revelation. He can’t change. He can’t flex. He can’t function.
And of course one key to Javert is that, while Valjean was born a peasant, Javert himself was born to a prisoner in a jail.
So Javert, who perceives shame in being so lowborn, gains all his personal validity from one thing: the state. Specifically the state in the form of its laws. Without their surity, he’s nothing. He’s extinguished.
—–
Aside from inflexibile attachment to false beliefs, the problem with being Javert — a hauntingly contemporary problem — is that even if law were a good thing in theory, being a rigid law enforcer in an unjust society, is a terrible thing.
And today, as Jonathan Simon notes, our legal system is a system of Javerts even as we think we idolize Valjean. Simon wrote a book called Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear). He gets what you probably get but most people don’t — that crime (of which terrorism is the latest bugaboo, following switchblade knives, juvenile delinquency, drugs, serial killers, etc.) is the state’s route to power.
Unlike the honorable Javert, to “control crime” today’s law enforcers constantly commit crimes. Like Javert, they serve as functionaries to those who obliterate the greatest universal principles of justice in rigid, fanatical pursuit of unjust laws.
The more that modern-day Javerts and their masters subvert justice, the more dangerous they perceive We the Outlaws to be. Because we see as clearly as Jean Valjean did that law never defines justice. That in an unjust society like France’s in 1832 or ours now, defying or ignoring law is the true course of justice.
If they understood what was going on, they’d see that we don’t threaten them (no matter how often or forcefully they define us as criminals and “domestic terrorists”). We threaten their flawed and rigid worldview.
There’s nothing new in this observation, I know. It was just intriguing, and moving, to see it played out so plainly on the big screen.
And of course, while Javert eventually did the honorable thing (which I’m trying not to spoil too badly for anyone who hasn’t seen or read Les Miserables), the Javerts who govern us are more likely to take an opposite course.
Thanks for the excellent riff – a bracing way to start a Friday morning. I had completely missed the Jonathan Simon book when it came out in 2007 – I will check it out.
Interesting. I recently watched the non-musical movie starring Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush (who was excellent as Javert), and some of this thought process took place in me as well.
In Javert, as in most authority figures, there is only black and white, and he/they alone walk the moral road. “What hubris is this?” comes to mind, for who has the final answer of another person? It’s not what you say – or even what you see – that can explain any of us.
(And even deeds may have reasons beyond the obvious, as evidenced by the priest-Valjean interplay – though I don’t know how the musical handled the priest’s scenes.)
Is it inevitable, that we must accept being labeled as the Javerts of the world would label us – define us?
Or can we effectively REFUSE that arbitrary and unjust categorization? In a black and white world? Perhaps, walking the fine line between… and being our own master?
I think going our own way – as Freedom Outlaw, gulcher/homesteader, “three felonies a day”, asking questions and not acepting the conventional wisdom, using and accepting cash instead of credit cards, etc. *IS* refusing to accept Javert’s definition. This is what has TPTB running scared. Everyone (not just libertarians) can raise the middle finger, intentionally or not, by what they do. And this overloads the authoritarian system beyond their control.
Take a look at this post by David Codrea re Mike Vanderboegh. I have a number of disagreements with Mike over the “constitution” and role of any government, but he most certainly walks the talk. He’s a true freedom outlaw, and just painted another big target on his back. The graphic at the link is priceless.
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-outlaw-patriot.html
Despite the trials he’s had to endure, I can tell you for a fact the facial expression reflects who this man is. Anger gets expressed at times because it has to be, but at his core you’re looking at someone who has not forgotten that faith, love and good cheer are the ultimate fruits of Liberty, and what make the struggle worth it.
I have tried to explain this issue that is illustrated by Les Mis to some of the younger people in my life. It isn’t the fact of the specific crime you commit, but that you dared commit any crime at all. That is why simple crimes or even violations of civil codes (zoning laws etc) get such over reaction and often armed response. It is reaction to the fact that someone actually dared to do something in defiance of the law! Resistance is futile and must be stamped out at all costs.
“A system of Javerts”. And it reaches down to the lowest levels of authority.
http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2013/04/ban_on_strapless_dresses_at_eighth-grade_dinner_dance_under_review_in_readingtoni.html
My nephew goes to this school, so I’ve been following the story and the comments. To summarize: The matronly female principal declared strapless dresses to be “distracting” to 8th grade boys and banned 8th grade girls from wearing them to their formal dinner dance. Comments have ranged from supportive to “why aren’t these parents teaching their children to just obey authority?”, “teach them to go along to get along” and “the parents who want this will be the first to yell when they’re daughters get raped or come home pregnant at 15”
A system of Javerts. Its downright scary.
Hot off the presses
http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2013/04/readington_middle_school_princ.html
Tonight’s dance is cancelled, someone threatened the principal today.
Do threats ever do any good?
I wonder: Will the principal be any safer because the kids won’t have their dance?!
Why send kids to government sponsored, controlled and regulated dances?
I have neither read nor watch Les Mis. Thinking I should change that. I’m dubious about making it throught the book, unless there’s an English translation which comes off as well as something by Neal Stephenson.
And, since it’s Friday, and fits in, here’s some Bob Seger.
Should I change my name to The Infamous Oregon LawJavert?
There’s a huge difference between the “rigid law enforcer in an unjust society” of today and, for instance, the “peace officers” of long ago. Essentially, though, humans simply don’t organize well above a village/tribe level of existence, and the more disconnected and urbanized communities become, the more likely “sub tribes” are to form, and once you have sub tribes, you have – as is normal to the human condition – competition and warfare for resources. Peaceful trade and coexistence go by the wayside and war the norm.
I fail to see how a man who is released from prison and then steals silverware from a church to use as seed money is anything other than a thief.
The story revolves around Christian repentance and salvation. Hugo’s goal, if he had one, was to paint the state as unforgiving and un-Christ-like. His concern with justice revolved around the self-sacrifice and “good” deeds of Jean Valjean and how the state as exemplified by Javert was immoral for not recognizing “Christian Values”.
I was forced to read this sappy tale in high school 50 years ago. Why it’s still being forced on us is a mystery since the ideals it promotes are now everyday law.
Valjean wouldn’t be arrested in this country for stealing bread and jailed for 19 years. Now the state steals the bread from those who produce and gives it free to those who don’t.
The ideals of Les Miserables have been put into practice and enforced.
What is your complaint?
“I fail to see how a man who is released from prison and then steals silverware from a church to use as seed money is anything other than a thief.”
For one, you confuse “seed money” with feeding a family to avoid starvation.
For two, perhaps you’re not a follower of Christ? The story about the thief who steals a mans cloak… go and find him and give him more, comes to mind. But that’s lost on many people, especially, so-called Christians. The “church” should be more than happy to trade the silver to feed a family. Imho. At any rate, it seems to me the “church” had no say either way. Why is that?
“Valjean wouldn’t be arrested in this country for stealing bread and jailed for 19 years.”
Seems to me I recall under the Three Strikes Law there were a number of situations just like that. I could be mistaken, I’ve no desire to look it up, but I think that’s the case.
The state hates competition in feeding those who need it. There’s plenty of examples of that.
The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit wrote, “Peaceful trade and coexistence go by the wayside and war the norm.”
It seems to me war is not the norm, rather, being dominated by bullies is the norm. It is the bully who desires war, who foments it, who causes it. Without the bully-thug war would be the opposite of the norm. Jmho.
So perhaps it’s not true that humans simply don’t organize well above a village/tribe level of existence, maybe we’re just more susceptible to domination and manipulation? Or, maybe Jon Rappoport is right and a lot of us have just been hypnotized?
For two, perhaps you’re not a follower of Christ?
That’s not the point. What we may feel morally obliged to do on a personal level, like giving to the poor or sharing with the afflicted, has been supplanted by the state at the point of a gun.
Claire’s observation that both Valjean and Javert were “two good men” is wrong, unless you think that a man’s worth is measured by his attention to others. Valjean achieves hero status not so much because he turns his life around and becomes a self supporting capitalist, but rather because of his care for a prostitute and her bastard child, in other words his altruism. Even what should be a shining moment, when he comes forward to openly testify in the trial of a wrongly accused man, is undercut by Hugo’s focus his Valjean’s self-sacrifice. He’s not being a man of integrity, honor, and truth, and let the consequences be damned. No, he’s “sacrificing” for the sake of another. As you can tell, I hated the novel, and as much as I like Liam Neeson, didn’t bother with the movie.
[War]… “is the fault of the several dozen or so political connivers, liars, manipulators and empire builders who call themselves “statesmen.” The average American never has anything whatsoever to do with the “diplomacy” that gets us into never-ending, perpetual wars for perpetual peace. As Randolph Bourne wrote in his famous essay, “War is the Health of the State,” [A]ll foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war, are . . . the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass themselves.” …”
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo253.html
“Valjean achieves hero status not so much because he turns his life around and becomes a self supporting capitalist, but rather because of his care for a prostitute and her bastard child, in other words his altruism. Even what should be a shining moment, when he comes forward to openly testify in the trial of a wrongly accused man, is undercut by Hugo’s focus his Valjean’s self-sacrifice. He’s not being a man of integrity, honor, and truth, and let the consequences be damned. No, he’s “sacrificing” for the sake of another.”
I can’t agree with that assessment, Old Printer. Valjean’s turnaround and subsequent hero status was not based on his altruism, but rather his intent to be a “good man” precipitated a concern for others and, in his capacity as mayor, was able to achieve that goal. (It’s a matter of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” I guess it depends on how you look at it.)
In the trial, he wasn’t “sacrificing” for others, he simply refused to compromise his own integrity and honesty; when he knew the truth, he couldn’t in all good conscience let someone else take the blame. (Could you?)
Hugo was great at setting up ethical problems and forcing his characters to pay for them – one way or another, for good or for bad. In every novel of his that I’ve read (four), there were moral dilemmas to solve. In fact before Rand, his were the only _consistent_ novels that I found morality to be a factor in the storyline. I loved it! (The only other novel I read as a young person which equaled that morality was Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” – which ending I consider a true sacrifice.)
Pat, just consider the source. I’ve become a cranky old fart. I too have read other novels by Hugo and enjoyed them.