Philosophical Reconciliations of the Bell

Philosophical Reconciliations of The Bell

7506

        Philosopher Iris Murdoch’s 1958 novel The Bell chronicles the community of the Imber Court, a lay religious group located outside the mysterious order of nuns of the Imber Abbey. Her book traces the existential challenges and resolutions of three characters: Dora Greenfield, Michael Meade, and Toby Gashe. Free-spirited Dora arrives at Imber when she returns to her ill-tempered husband, an art historian studying antique documents of the Imber Abbey. Dora struggles with maintaining her individualism against the pressures presented by her conservative husband and the strict Imber community. In contrast, both Michael and Toby come to the community out of religious motivations. Nonetheless, the pursuit for a godly life conflicts with their natural inclinations; Michael battles his homosexual tendencies while Toby grows out of his spiritual innocence. All of this is complicated when Toby discovers the legendary bell, ultimate symbol of good, in the local lake, and Dora convinces him to raise it. Naturally, Murdoch’s characters’ somewhat ambiguous moral positions can be clarified by examining their choices philosophically. Specifically, existentialism, pragmatism, and neo-platonism all shed light on the dilemmas of Murdoch’s characters.

        Initially, Murdoch seems to mean Dora as a symbol for existentialism. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, existentialism “defines man by his action” (156). He continues by stating that humans must take responsibility for their own actions. In the opening of the novel, Dora pursues happiness by living in the moment and defining herself day to day. However, she fails to take responsibility for her actions. Instead of simply reacting to her husband Paul’s demands, Dora must act in a way that satisfies her own needs while also acknowledging her effect on others in order to be an existentialist. Although she initially marries a man who completely opposes her lifestyle, Dora follows the principles of existentialism by deciding to leave Paul, stating, “this was in fact what she really wanted to do, and she would find that this was where her true happiness lay” (291).

In contrast to Dora, Toby has yet to define himself through experience at all. For example, at age nineteen Toby has yet to have any physical interaction with a member of the opposite sex; instead, he spent time concentrating on his schoolwork and religion. His sexual ignorance does not faze him in the slightest until he becomes romantically involved with Michael Meade, leader of the Imber Community. Toby begins to question his sexuality as he tries to confirm his attraction to women. Particularly, he takes an interest in Dora and eventually tells himself “that he was in love” (199). At this point, Toby follows existentialism as explained by Sartre because rather than letting his religious ideals, or “essence,” control his actions, he bases his self-definition on his actions and relations to others (158). Toby confirms his “natural” self not by having “impulses,” but by acting on them, eventually initiating the kiss with Dora. Toby shows he has more faith in existence—what he actually feels and does—than in what his religion, society, and studies have taught him.