Politicians. They are a curious kind of people.They disagree so absolutely about all this and all that, just as if each had some sort of a table or algorithm by which they figure things out, yet they always allow one root belief to govern their ultimate decisions no matter what topic is up for debate—common people are deservedly stuck where they are because they haven’t accomplished anything uncommon. So while Bartleby was said to have a high capacity to produce legible and accurate copy, he was basically just another scrivener—-laborer—and thus not special in any real way. He was utterly common, unlike the mavens and titans who managed the money on Wall Street where he was briefly employed, and being common, was utterly expendable (although his employer undoubtedly did have a heart).

Even though political conservatives and liberals are superficially unalike when it comes to the economy—every one of them in their own group knows the same things and talks about the same things, and all of them have the same words and the same opinions within their group, and all are directly opposed to the opinions of the other group— not one politician in either group sees or acknowledges the fundamental problem afflicting the world—the meager share of income and wealth held by common people (laborers) both here at home and in the world at large. All of them, conservatives and liberals, conclude that everybody either deserves what they get or they don’t deserve what they don’t get, and laborers, even highly industrious laborers, don’t deserve much.

A side point here—I concede that politicians can be quite entertaining when actively representing their different political parties in debate on some or another matter or issue. Isn’t it pure comedy sometimes to listen to them trying to differentiate themselves on all kinds of matters that are superficial? It’s as if they had prearranged to do everything possible not to agree just for the show of it or maybe for the sake of confusing the public. They begin by talking in a loud voice, and immediately talk themselves into a passion. Then one of them in his passion says something which he doesn’t mean, and then the other one says the direct opposite which she doesn’t mean, and then the one attacks what the other had said, and the game is on. Pure comedy if it were not all so seriously sad and disgusting.

But they never do get around to discussing the issue— economic unfairness—that can be found at the core of all other economic and social issues. When it comes to disproportionate distribution of wealth, the politicians from each party are nothing but identical in never addressing this fundamental issue. Since they all agree on just desserts, namely; labor doesn’t justify much dessert, politicians all of the way around are in such agreement they secretly share a perfect joy.

So what does any of this have to do with Bartleby the Scrivener? Here goes. Since Bartleby is probably the all-time most mysterious character in the entire body of literature—a character who has proven to be impossible to analyze to a degree at all close to certainty—then why couldn’t it be that he did not prefer what he did not, or preferred not what he did, because everybody he encountered, whether they be in his work-life (so to speak) or perhaps elsewhere, viewed him undeserving by virtue of their neglect or refusal to delve into the core of two matters that afflicted him—economic deprivation and carpal tunnel syndrome—the latter being a condition which was further bound to one day entirely diminish his worth in his important but lightly rewarded occupational pursuit, and that in response to this disregard from others (excepting his new boss), Bartleby, being emotionally ill-equipped to divulge either his philosophical attitude or physiological condition to his boss or anyone, developed that arcane social tic for which he is known, which could then be regarded as a natural, uncontrollable reaction that absolved him of any obligation to prefer to do what others might naturally expect of him.

I took an introductory college course in psychology once upon a time and I think this sounds as likely as any other analysis that attempts to explain Bartleby. Granted, I was influenced by my social biases in this analysis, but I can be do that, for I still retain, at least for the time being, the freedom to express myself honestly, or even otherwise. If you have your own opinion on what motivated Bartleby—or did not—and you would like to honestly or otherwise exercise your freedom of expression and publish it as a blog in this blog space, then send it along and I will publish it unless I would prefer not to. Thank you. Please also include a reasonably current photo and a short bio unless you would prefer not to. Thank you.