Transformation of the Self and Law as Depicted in Les Misérables
1. Introduction
Though first written in 1862, Les Misérables serves as a socially-relevant commentary on our society today. The main storyline revolves around the conflict of Jean Valjean, an ex-criminal, and Javert, an inspector, and their struggles within themselves and with each other. Throughout the film, both characters have showcased character development in tremendous depth, and this essay seeks to evaluate the transition undergone by them. This leads to the essay topic: Transformation of the self and law as depicted in Les Misérables.
It argues that while the law tries to transform individuals and help distinguish the good from the bad, it only does so to a minimal extent through punishment and social segregation. Ultimately, shaming and condemnation fails to transform an individual’s cognitive understanding of modality. On the other hand, the transformative power of mercy changes a person’s actions and leads to the transfiguration of a person, as shown in the transition of Jean Valjean. Nevertheless, while the two seem to diverge, the essay asserts that the death of Javert only represents the death of a corrupted form of the law, which serves to exist in our world, but is not the only form of law. Ultimately, there exists an ideal form of the law, which is metaphysically unreachable but serves as a guide for us to follow and approach. It is unattainable because in today’s society, the law must operate in a way that regulates human activity and impose negative consequences upon those who have wronged, which by definition refutes the notion of mercy and forgiveness.
2. Transformation of the self
2.1. Transformation of the self through law
In the film, Jean Valjean was condemned, shamed and stigmatized by the society for stealing a loaf of bread. The innkeepers and children rejected him because of his status as a criminal. Through punishment, he has learned how to behave in a way that does not get him punished again; however, he still finds himself justified in stealing the bread.
On hindsight, this seems absurd, because one of the main functions of the law is to deter and condemn socially unacceptable behaviour, and reward those who behave well. In a way, one of the positive obligations of the law is to rehabilitate and transform,1 yet this does not seem to be the case for Jean Valjean. While there has been a transformation in terms of his identity and status, there was only a minimal degree of substantial and positive transformation in character. Instead of becoming a good person, Jean Valjean simply became a resentful person who finds his actions unlawful but justified. This is because while the law itself aims to provide momentary punishment to criminals, its repercussions prevent positive transformation of an individual in the long term; even though his punishment is momentary, the society has sentenced him for life.
As shown through Javert, there is little room for change in face of a retributive legal system. The law is “simple and monotonous, like Euclidean logic — it’s a system closed to alternatives, shut-up against intervention.”2 The rigidity of this law prevents transformation. The law not only punishes Jean Valjean through physical labour and confinement, it does so labelling him. While this in itself does not seem like much, it leads to social stigmatization and a lifelong sentence of shame, resulting in rejection by the society. So, even in the case where Jean Valjean was able to become a better person and transform while he was in custody, his life onwards has already been predetermined by the crimes he has committed. In the movie, we see that Jean Valjean tried to be hospitable and begged for a shelter, yet the children’s mockery and rejection by innkeepers render his momentary attempt to transform impossible; the only way for him to be left alone was to scare the children, and be the monstrous criminal the society has labelled him as. Not only is he imprisoned for stealing, in a way, Jean Valjean is also sentenced for life, leaving him no room for him to transform.
The rigidity of the law is also highlighted in the in the film, when Javert let Jean Valjean go. Javert does so not because he was merciful, but because he wanted things to be equal between them – he did not want to owe Jean Valjean for letting him go during the revolution. In a system where a person should only get what he deserves, it is almost impossible to leave any room for change. Thus, transformation of the self through law is quite minimal.
In light of the issue at hand, the question is: If the law fails to transform a person, what, then, causes the transformation of the self?
2.2. Transformation of the self through the Christian notion of mercy
One would argue that instead of the legal system, true transformational power is derived from the Christian notion of mercy as depicted in the film.
In the film, the bishop not only refuses to accuse Jean Valjean for stealing the silverware, he also gives Jean Valjean the things he had stolen. In law, Jean Valjean deserves punishment and condemnation; instead, the bishop showed him love. Still, the process of Jean Valjean’s transformation was not without struggle. Right after mercy has been bestowed upon him, Jean Valjean’s immediate reaction was to leave; yet in the midst of his dilemma, he finally decided to embrace mercy and forgiveness. The bishop was “motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Valjean in the eyes of God,”3 which provided Jean Valjean with a transformative experience, and “afforded him the means by which to recover his virtue through a life devoted to goodness.”4 One might even call this a transfigurative experience, where Jean Valjean undergoes a spiritual change that brings him closer to God.
Here, the transition is shown through how Jean Valjean went from being one who has sinned, to one who was able to reconcile with love and be renewed. In the end, he was able to reconcile with himself by saving Javert, who “has spent a lifetime denying [Valjean] mercy.”5 Unlike the law, mercy and forgiveness allow Jean Valjean to internalize his guilt and to be reborn as a different person, and allows him to be set free from the burden of his past. Jean Valjean’s experience has not only changed his status from guilty to innocent, but it changed him into a person whose character reflects the one he received his grace from. This ultimately shows the life-changing impact grace can have when extended to another, and the process of salvation through mercy.
Given the transformation of the self through the law and mercy, it seems like the two diverge in a way that they lead to different degrees and levels of the transformation. On one hand, forgiveness and mercy transform a person, whereas the law in its form does not reform a person’s mind, but merely one’s actions. In the eyes of Javert, it is unjust to love others the way Jean Valjean does, because love is unconditional, and disregards what a person deserves. Mercy involves the altruistic practice of the satisfaction of the self and others, while Javert’s world of justice resolves around fairness and vengeance. So, while the law seeks vengeance and justice, “grace sees to redemption, and the tightrope walker betwixt is love.”6
3. Transformation of the law
3.1. The death of law
This dichotomy of the love and mercy is shown through how Jean Valjean’s mercy to Javert shattered his faith in the law, which holds that people should get what they deserve. In the end, unlike Jean Valjean who accepts mercy and embraces it, Javert would rather die with his ideals and then undergo this transformation of giving into the mercy and love shown by Jean Valjean. In other words, he would rather give up his life and resort to his world without mercy, than to live and accept that he has been embraced by Jean Valjean’s forgiveness and mercy. As he sang, “there is no way to go on/there is no way I can turn”7 Like his law, Javert leaves no room to himself for change. Given that his character is the personification of the law, the death of him also signifies the death of the law in the face of mercy and love. Therefore, it seems as though the film is drawing our attention to the divergence of the two, and how they cannot co-exist. Is this dichotomy, then, indicative of the incompatibility between the law and mercy?
To some, this might seem to suggest that love trumps law. While one punishes to transform yet fails to do so, the other transforms through forgiveness. However, one might also argue that the death of Javert and the law is not the death of all law, and Javert simply represents the corrupted law in our society today. His idea of the law is corrupted, because it “entangles the poor and privileges the wealthy”8, and it fails to recognise the life-long unfairly “consigns the poor to a life that is nasty, brutish, and mercifully short.”9 repercussions of punishment.
3.2. The ultimate law
In an ideal world, there is a middle ground for law and love to co-exist. Therefore, it seems as though the death of Javert and his ideals is not the end of the law, but a start of something different. In fact, the question perhaps is not whether there should be law or mercy, but whether there is a middle ground for love and mercy. One might claim that there exists a divine and ultimate law that signifies the unity of the two. So, perhaps what follows Javert’s death is not the absence of law, but the reborn of another personification of the law – a more ideal, almost utopian-like version of it. In other words, the corrupted law Javert represents is incompatible to mercy and love not because of the law itself, but because it fails to capture and the ultimate law, which is compatible to love and mercy.
Then, the questions would be whether we can envision an alternative ending where Javert, as instrument of the law, is transformed and lives. Perhaps, in an alternative setting, while Jean Valjean’s notion of mercy would be highlighted, the law would still be deemed necessary and compatible to mercy and forgiveness.
Nevertheless, there seems to be a reason why Victor Hugo, of all the replicas of the law, chose to showcase this corrupted and overly-rigid version of the law. The same argument would entail that this is because the story seeks to show “how pervasive the human penchant to establish false laws is.”10
Realistically, the ideal form of law is a metaphysical order that humans are unable to replicate, because of the subsidiary function of the law. The subsidiary function of the law refers to the purpose of regulating and controlling human activity and actions. The ideal form can never be achieved by humans because there are always people like Monsieur Thénardier and Madame Thénardier who needs to be deterred through punishment. Without imposing consequences and punishment, humans would depart from the social code of conduct and maximise utility for their personal gains, and this is an unacceptable way to operate as a society. Therefore, in the case where the ideal law is formulated as a command to love and forgiveness, our current law, given the necessity of social regulation, would fail by definition. Thus, with our limitations, realistically, the closest thing that is desirable for our current society would then be the suicide of Javert.
4. Conclusion and implications
The law as shown in the film aims to transform but fails to do so. On the other hand, mercy and forgiveness transform a person in a way that changes a person’s purpose and outlook in life. We must, however, recognise that the law shown in the film is not representative of the ideal version of law, and is a corrupted version of law we must employ in our society.
It is corrupted because ideally, the law itself should not depart from love and grace. However, the subsidiary function of the law to impose consequences and regulate human action, inevitably diverges from the notion of mercy and redemption. Even in the end of the movie, the victorious scene of people singing was not one of our society, but an imaginary utopia.
Nevertheless, the ideal law should serve as a guide that brings us closer to the optimal – the best humans can do given the current circumstances. For instance, the restorative justice model today would be an attempt to balance consequences and forgiveness through reconciliation. Our current law is forever changing, and is hopefully taking us closer to its ultimate form. However, this still means one would always look upon our current law as a failure to comply with the ideal model of love and mercy, but it would also be one that we deem necessary. Perhaps, this is why our society is les miserable – one that is wretched.
