The Lebowski Paradox

Published on December 8, 2004 By TaBooTenente In Politics

This aggression will not stand, man.

The Dude is just a guy. His rug really tied the room together. Now there's no rug, and his life is a mess.

Was his life a mess before? I'd say yes, and so would you. But it was his life, and he organized it brilliantly. He's lying on his back, on top of his rug, smiling blissfully while listening to the crystal clear sound of bowling balls striking the pins. Everytime that beautiful sound comes through, the perfect strike, his lips twitch. He laughs to himself. Life is good.

He loses the rug. It's pissed on, stolen, replaced, and stolen again. His life ceases to continue while he struggles to put the pieces together again.

But the world impresses political, financial, religious, and social issues into the fray, and the conflict begins. He is a retired hippie. His best friends are a vet and converted Jew (Walter), and a strange almost-anonymous vagrant (Donny). His own name becomes a center of contest. Like Steven Dedalus in Ulysses, his name is usurped by evil forces. He must find balance or he will lose himself.

The Lebowski Paradox is the Freedom paradox. What the hell is freedom, anyway? We talk about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to achieve-- all of which become central issues in the movie. We also talk about free will, or the freedom to control our lives. How realistic is this?

One recent thread on this site is called "How the Left Stole Christmas" and many sympathizers paradoxically believe that christianity is some sort of liberal target. The argument is often rephrased as "Freedom of religion? Freedom from religion is more like it." The concept, freedom of religion, supports a separation of church and state, such that the state cannot limit the practices of various churches. It also means, lest we forget, that state cannot support, sanction, or speak for the various churches. simply stated, the separation of church and state demands that the state provide an even, legal, unpersecuted playing field for everyone. Protestants and Anglicans are safe, Jews are safe, Muslims are safe, so on and so forth, so long as they do not infringe upon the practices of others. Do not forget that last part. It is key.

Another issue is the freedom to pursue the so-called American dream, where any American can achieve as much as their own cunning will allow. True, this is an ideal. No one starts with the same starting gun, no one starts with equal tools. Still, the concept implies that the state will provide a judgment free rule book that will pertain to everyone. Judgment free.

Free will is the central paradox. Lebowski wants to live his life his way, and whether or not we approve of the life style, we let him, if it doesn't infringe on our choices. But the action of others throws his life into the public spotlight. It wasn't his choice. It was the fault of his name--which he had done everything within his cunning to change in the first place.

He wants his rug. No one cares when he loses it, and no one does anything to protect his right to own the damn rug. He has to defend himself. There is no state protection. In the end, his rug is lost. It is out of his control. The death of his friend Donny represents a fatalistic world. Donny's death is like the death of Buddha, or Winnie the Pooh. Those people who do not infringe on other people's choices are saints and martyrs. They are victims. The Dude cares too much about his rug to be the martyr, though. He cares too much, not because it's a damn rug, but because there's nothing he can do about it.

Freedom is a concept, true. Freedom is an ideal, I agree. Freedom, though, is also a load of crap that they continually try to sell to me. When we say freedom, we mean our freedom from you. The Dude would have to step into our madness to retrieve his rug, which he tries to do, but the rules (which are there to supposedly help him) prevent him. He loses. His choices are not really choices, but reactions. His reactions are the effect of other causes.

The Lebowski Paradox is subtle and deep. No one achieves freedom. No one has a right to it. No one really believes that your freedom can co-exist with mine, or your religion can co-exist with mine. Our religious imperialism cannot co-exist with Muslim religious imperialism. Whatever the root cause is, our roll is to witness the effect, and in order to carry out the sentence we suffer the illusion of free will.

The Dude just wanted his rug back; but whatever he may or may not believe, all the aggression in the world WILL stand. Aggression is one knee jerk after another. Sucks for children, though, and for our souls, because we have to continually lie to them--or they'll end up martyrs like Donny.

Copyright ©2004, ©2005, ©2006 Joshua Suchman. All rights reserved.
Taboo's Ezine Navigator: Article Index
Taboo Tenente: A Thinker's MFA Journey - Home
The Phallic Suggestion
Stone Soup Blog Forum

Comments

historyishere

on Dec 08, 2004

But you forgot his battles with the Nihilists.... their impulse to destroy(aggression) vs. Lebowski's impulse to exist in his status quo world with an unsullied rug.

Of course, as part of his struggle to best his foes of destruction, which were forces that extended beyond the nihilists, he found himself not only a force of existance, but of creation as well with Maud Lebowski who would bear his child, a child who would not know him. And as she was an artist, a creator herself, what a rich and splendid life her child would lead, a life probably entirely removed from the existence of his or her father.

An interesting treatise nonetheless.

TaBooTenente

on Dec 08, 2004

As far as Lebowski lore goes, I'd say the nihilists play both sides of the free will issue. On the one hand, the nihilists are not really about aggression. They have no more interest in killing than they do in politics ("Say what you will about the tenets of national socialism, but at least it's an ethos!"). In this vein, they represent the Dude's stasis. Nothing matters, not even existing. The Dude and the Nihilists co-habitat the earth, caring nothing about the other.

But by a simple twist, the Dude shares a name with a person from whom the nihilists want to extort money. Even after they pee on his rug, Dude wants to bowl, not caring beyond a sort of distant dissatisfaction until his highly aggressive friend, Walter, takes an interest. Walter pushes him into a different world, where he becomes subject to things like aggression, motivation, and will.

Now the nihilists become enemies. They still believe in nothing ("Yah, we believe in nothing, Lebowski!") at this point--though this changes when one of them is forced to make a sacrifice (a toe)-- and the Dude suddenly becomes "deadbeat" Lebowski, a person trying to find meaning. Of course, his search comes up empty. No meaning is found, and the victim is zen-like Donny who never wavers from his non-aggressive nature.

And good old Maude, she's also an aggressor. Will the child become a creator? I'd say no, if only because the premise seems to disallow creation, or change. In fact, I'd guess the offspring will be zen-like and non-affectual, like poor Donny. Little Lebowski is conceived to bring balance to the force, so to speak.

The knowledge uncovered by the Dude's journey is piercing the illusion of free will. "You know, man. The Dude abides." I love that line, by the way. And the Townes van Zant (sp?) cover of the Stones' "Dead Flowers" is a brilliant choice, too, suggesting the results when someone tries to change the nature of life.

Oh, Dude.

TBT

Deference

on Dec 08, 2004

Anything with "Lebowski" in it wrenches away my attention from whatever project I'm on. Great piece, well done. I, of course, love the Lewbowski reference.

I always thought of "The Dude" as being more synonymous with the average joe floating through his life without any particularly strong convictions, only seeking his favorite objects (rug), pastimes (bowling) and reliefs from pain ( joints and white russians ) while being pulled at by conservatives (the Big Lebowski), Liberals (Maude) and interpersonal relationships (fellow bowling buddies).

TaBooTenente

on Dec 08, 2004

You know, that's an excellent point. I'm not sure where the joint smoking and drinking (you have to love the driving scene after visiting the penis doctor when he's trying to do both) fits in with the free will dilemma. Maybe it's like the Heraclitus concept, a man's character is his character? Huh. I'll have to stew.

And your take on the political arena of the movie is great. Don't forget the opening scene at the grocery store, where the television shows GBush 1.0 (I stole that from another blogger here whose name I forget at the moment--not trying to steal someone else's thunder) saying, "This aggression will not stand," referring to Gulf War 1.0. Of course, the Dude being an old hippie you would expect him to have an aversion to Bush, but throughout the movie he ends up echoing this phrase in many ways. In fact, throughout the journey "away from his life", he becomes something of a vessel for other people's aggressive perspectives. Interesting.

TBT

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!