(The analysis of RUR by Robert Bowles is printed as an example of what is being done in Freshman Composition classes in the form of analysis. We believe that this is a superior illustration of a review of the important work by Capek.

Bowles, Robert

English

Digital Commons @ Butler University

Analysis Of "R.U.R."Robert Bowles(The analysis of RUR by Robert Bowles is printed as an example of what isbeing done in Freshman Composition classes in the form of analysis. We believethat this is a superior illustration of a review of the important work by Capek.)R. U. R. is a drama of ideas, and itcontains a great amount of symbolismtogether with the conflicts between itsideas.To begin with, there is a conflictbetween Domin, who believed in pro-gress despite its effects on the individual,and Helena, who believed that the rightsof human personality are more importantthan progress. I do not believe thatHelena symbolizes the social worker whois interested in correcting somethingvrithout knowing exactly what she wantsto do. Helena, in my opinion, symbolizesthe individual personality. Everythingconnected with this idea is vague and un-certain. No one knows what to do, eventoday, to protect the individual. It is acomplicated process which has no clear-cut path. What is good for one man isbad for another. No wonder that Helenawas confused. She agreed, as do we, thattechnological progress in its pure senseis desirable and beneficial to man. Andyet she questioned progress when itcrushed the individual to meet it ends,just as thinkers today question theexploitation of labor by business whileagreeing that this exploitation benefits,in one sense, the human race as a whole.Helena was merely trying to weigh in hermind the effects of Domin's ideas, and toput across to him why she consideredthem wrong. She could not deny that hisrobots would reduce labor or make itagree that violating the human personal-ity was wrong. Hence she was confused.Domin symbolized progress. He wasan idealist in that his belief in progressnever wavered. However, I do not be-lieve that Domin symbolized progress inthe true sense of the word, and I do notbelieve that Capek was against the trueidea of progress when he wrote this play.True progress is not only the subjugationof the material world so that all of mans'physical wants are supplied. It is also astep forward or the improvement in man'smoral and cultural outlook so that hismental wants are supplied. And of thetwo, mental happiness and satisfaction ismuch more important in my opinion thanthe mere satisfaction of material wants.Domin was interested only in materi-alistic or technological progress and theextension of its benefits to all of society.While this was a very noble ambition, itstilk left unsolved progress in man's moraland cultured outlook. This never occur-red to Domin as he evidently thought thatman could and would be happy once hehad satisfied all of his material wants.He thought that man could then spend allhis time on improving his moral and cul-tural outlook.From this idea comes the conflictbetween Domin, who wanted to removeman from the degradation of work, andAlquist, who believed in the dignity andusefulness of labor. Both in their waywere right. Domin's conception of laborwas the monotonous, dull, routine-likework of the common factory or officeworker. A job such as this adds nothingto a man's life other than supplying him./41 ~with the money to keep alive. So rea-soned Domin.On the other hand, Alquist took plea-sure in his work and would have beenlost without it. This is a problem facedby the world today as it gradually reducesthe hours of the working man.The fact remains that removing thenecessity of work does not solve the pro-blem unless another interest or goal issubstituted to fill the vacuum created.Here was the fallacy in Domin's plan.You must educate man in the ways ofself-improvement before turning himloose to devote all of his time to it.Experience is also necessary for a correctunderstanding and interpretation of life.Without work and the contacts it affords,experience would be drastically curtailed;and theory or speculation would take itsplace.I thought that in a way big businesswas satirized in R. U. R. The idea of therobot corresponds very nearly with theidea that big business had, and to a cer-tain extent still has, of its employees.To them, their employees are merely forthe purpose of doing a job in the mostefficient way and in the quickest time.They are not thought of as individualpeople, but more Or less as the robotswere thought of by Domin.In the same vein of thought, Dominarbitrarily decided that the robots wouldsolve mans' problem. Therefore, he pro-ceeded on his own accord to introducethem into the world. The consequenceswere of no interest to him. Immediateresults of the invention, horrible as theywere, made no difference. What matteredwas that his idea in the long run wasaccomplished regardless of the immediateconsequences. Domin reasoned that al-though the masses were injured badly inthe process, the goal justified his actions.This I believe is not true progress, as itresults in a backward step in the presentfor a doubtful and unsure advance in thefuture.Now, if you substitute money in placeof Domin's goal, you will have a pictureof the reasoning used in many instancesby big business, especially in the field ofmunitions. To these firms, as to Domin,the goal is all that counts; and this goal tothem is profit. Take too the idea of send-ing the robot to the stamping mill whenhe wore out or something went wrongwith him. Then look at past actions ofbusiness in regard to its employees' oldage or occupational injuries. The em-ployees were laid off - sent to the stamp-ing mill - when they were no longer ofuse.Now the above, I realize, are verybroad statements and not applicable inmany instances. However, the point isthat in both the case of Domin and of bigbusiness, one man or a small group ofmen make decisions which affect the livesof millions, and they are accountable tono one.One of the most important conflictsin the play is that between the materialis-tic point of view and the spiritual inter-pretation of life. The former is self-explanatory. The latter does not neces-sarily mean the presence of a DivineBeing; but it means that there is a pur-pose or meaning to life for every individ-ual over and above the satisfaction ofcertain wants. This conflict has alreadybeen discussed to a certain extent. Mansince the beginning of time has felt thatthere is some reason for his being on thisearth. If then, there is a purpose to life,it most certainly is not the mere satisfac-tion of material wants. After you haveattained your goal, you still have nothingbut an empty physical satisfaction, 8942 ~the purpose or meaning of life must lie inthe field of education. Here the satisfac-tion comes from the mind, which morenearly than anything else approachesman's earthly conception of the Soul.These two ideas were in direct conflictthroughout the play. Domin, in his com-plete disregard for the individual per-sonality, allied himself with the material-istic point of view, while Helena andAlquist fought for the individual andwere allied with the opposite side.The robots to me also symbolizedman at his lowest state. With no ideasand merely working at a given job, theyseemed to represent the masses of manycountries today. They, like man, werenot free from the rebellion 9f mere work.They began to think, and hence becamedissatisfied with their lot. True, therobots were free of all the passions ofman, even man at the lowest levels, butthe symbol still seems valid.I believe that Capek in writingR. U. R. wanted to show that technologicalprogress can be harmful if carried too far.In the end, technological progress, with-out accompanying progress in moral andcultural insights, could cancel itself out.In the epilogue of the play, the humanrace is completely destroyed by therobots. The robots themselves are unableto reproduce so their end is merely amatter of time. However, two robotssuddenly become aware of each other andof human reactions and feelings. Tworobots have developed a Soul, or a mind,whichever you want to call it, and arehuman. In the end you have these twotransformed robots whom Alquist sym-bolically calls Adam and Eve. You feelthat although the other robots will dieout, man in the form of these two trans-formed robots will survive. Everythingis wiped out except man himself, andman must begin all over again as he didfrom the Garden' of Eden. And yet youdo not feel an overwhelming sorrow atthe loss of all the knowledge or so calledprogress in the world. Man is left, andthat is all that matters.Progress then in its technologicalsense is of no use unless man can growwith it in his outlook and interpretationof life. Along the above lines, the playalso suggests the immortality of manvrithout necessarily advocating the pre-sence of a Divine Being. Despite every-thing, the human race lives on.I believe Capek was trying to saythat technological progress is not as im-portant as we may think and that it mostcertainly does not justify the destructionof any individual or human personality.He felt that the individual counted foras much as society as a whole, and thattrue progress realized this. Capek, in hisway, was merely trying to make clear theidea of true ·progress.PURPLE PATCHThe shell of clouds was tinted withmother of pearl.In Clouds by Francis E. Donahue,- 43 ~

Analysis Of  R.U.R.

https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1595&amp;context=manuscripts

Analysis Of R.U.R.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ Butler University