By Jack Langan
Giovanni’s Room is a provocative novel that centers on the retrospective recounting of the main character David’s turbulent navigation through life and romance as a gay man, not unlike that of the author James Baldwin. Baldwin, an acclaimed but controversial author, uses the novel to challenge mid-20th-century norms by initiating a conversation about the previously taboo realm of homosexual intimacy. David’s forays into the homosexual subcultures as an American expatriate living abroad in Paris provide the ideal setting for an existential journey to emerge, underpinned by the intersection of sexuality, class, nationality, and, as will be examined in more detail, social perceptions of masculinity, which can be defined for the scope of this analysis as the set of cultural, social, and behavioral traits traditionally associated with males, such as strength, dominance, and emotional restraint.
At the heart of this journey lies a conflict between David’s internalized perceptions of manhood and his yearning for authenticity, an existentialist term that refers to living according to one’s true self and making choices based on personal values, free from societal expectations or pretense. He finds himself at a crossroads, having to choose between maintaining the facade of heterosexuality with his fiancée Hella, or pursuing true love in his homosexual relationship with Giovanni. In this struggle for happiness, David’s decisions are shackled by his self-deceiving interests in conforming to traditionally held notions of masculinity. This paper seeks to explore this facet of David’s characterization through an existentialist lens, drawing on Simone de Beauvoir’s The Ethics of Ambiguity—a formative work of Parisian existentialism—to unravel the nuances of his struggles and the societal constraints that confine him to a life of regret, hatred, and misery. By reflecting on David’s struggles with masculinity and his failure to self-actualize, Baldwin offers a critique of the framework that assumes all individuals have the opportunity to choose their own authentic selves, free from societal influence. Further examination will reveal how Baldwin uses David’s story to reflect upon the human condition and comment on the complexities of reconciling authentic identity with societal norms in an inherently meaningless and indifferent universe.
Tracing the course of David’s life in the novel, it is natural to begin with David’s youth. One cannot overlook the impact of his adolescence on his psychology. Here, we can also find one of the most pronounced existentialist influences in the novel. Congregating at the various cafes of the city, Baldwin and other great writers and thinkers circulated their ideas among one another, so it follows that Baldwin would incorporate some of these principles into this novel. In particular, Simone de Beauvoir, a French intellectual and existentialist writer with whom Baldwin associated during his time in Paris, sets forth an ideological framework in her 1947 book The Ethics of Ambiguity which parallels David’s journey in Giovanni’s Room.
Analyzing David’s rocky upbringing and explorations into his sexuality during his childhood, in conversation with de Beauvoir’s Ethics of Ambiguity, illuminates how these formative experiences serve as the foundation for his struggles with masculinity into adulthood. De Beauvoir’s viewpoint stands on the fundamental premise that “the unfortunate choices which most men make can only be explained by the fact that they have taken place on the basis of childhood” (14). Fraught with inner turmoil and failed attempts at introspection, David’s adulthood is filled with these “unfortunate choices” that ultimately lead to his social and romantic isolation.
From a young age, David is conditioned to conform to traditional ideas of manhood, reinforced especially by his father’s expectations. David’s father makes clear his adamant wishes for his son to grow up to be a man, juxtaposing this sentiment with the converse possibility of David growing up to be “a Sunday school teacher” (Baldwin 27). This phrase suggests that the ideal form of masculinity excludes qualities like sensitivity or nurturing, which are traditionally associated with a female caretaker archetype. This belief that masculinity and femininity are incompatible has an outsized effect on David, since his mother is dead and his only maternal figure, Aunt Ellen, routinely defers to the authority of his father, making no effort to instill any qualities of sensitivity or vulnerability into him. David makes it clear the extent to which these feminine traits disgust him when he confronts Giovanni after living in his room, accusing him that he wants him “to stay here and wash the dishes and cook the food and clean… and be [his] little girl” (140). By equating love with emasculation, David reveals his fear of losing his masculinity. He concludes his rant with a bitter accusation: “You say I want to kill you. What do you think you’ve been doing to me?” (140). This outburst highlights David’s perception of Giovanni’s love as being incompatible with his autonomy and identity. David feels that a threat to his masculinity is a threat to his life—which, in a sense, is true, since his illusion of a conventional life is predicated upon his outward appearance of masculinity. By denying his ability to be vulnerable with Giovanni, he strains his ability to ever fully love him.
David, like all people, cannot control the environment into which he was born; he is at the mercy of those who brought him into the world. This concept is encapsulated in The Ethics of Ambiguity, with de Beauvoir commenting how this powerlessness and impressionability of childhood is “characterized by his finding himself cast into a universe which he has not helped to establish, which has been fashioned without him, and which appears to him as an absolute to which he can only submit” (14). David submits entirely to his father’s idea of masculinity, as de Beauvoir contends that any child learning about the world must accept “human inventions, words, customs, and values” as “given facts, as inevitable as the sky and the trees” (14). He shapes his beliefs to fit the rigid mold that his father has put in place for him, living in fear of letting his father down by not living up to his expectations.
The meaning of David’s existence has been preordained—to be a man. However, David never once attempts to execute his agency in defining for himself what exactly it means to be a man. It is not until he has his sexual encounter with Joey during his adolescence that he must confront the clash between society’s rules for masculinity with his own desires—a clash between love and fear, in which fear emerges the victor. It marks the first—and only—time in the novel that David expresses feelings of uninhibited love; the expanse and endless allure of his love seemingly cannot be contained as “a lifetime would not be long enough for [David] to act with Joey the act of love” (Baldwin 20). This revelation that joy can be found in homosexuality shatters his previously held worldview of male identity. However, rather than embracing this feeling, a sense of dread washes over him once he realizes he has strayed from the path of manhood set forth by society. David likens homosexuality to a “black opening of a cavern” in which he would “lose [his] manhood” (21). From an existentialist angle, David has entered a crisis that, according to The Ethics of Ambiguity, is ubiquitous in the adolescent experience. David has entered a state of “great confusion,” having been “cast into a world which is no longer ready-made, which has to be made” (de Beauvoir 16). David knows the path that will bring him to a truly fulfilling life, but when the time comes to “decide upon his attitude in the face of it,” (de Beauvoir 16) he lets fear take over. This is the moment that David fails. By choosing to retreat back to the safety of his assigned worldviews on masculinity and abandoning a future in line with values of self-fulfillment, he essentially fails the test of existentialism, missing out on his chance at an authentic life.
Having unsuccessfully transitioned out of adolescence, David now finds himself in adulthood, clouded with existential self-deceit. He uses Hella as a means to convince himself of the possibility of living the life of a “normal” man. Baldwin intentionally characterizes Hella in a way that constantly reaffirms traditional gendered relationship roles. Upon reuniting with David in Paris, she expresses pride in being David’s “obedient and most loving servant”(Baldwin 125). Hella gets solace from knowing that being in a relationship with David can allow her to fulfill her self-described female potential. Despite having traveled across Spain on her own, Hella feels that she “couldn’t be free until [she] was attached—no, committed—to someone” (125). Much like the existentialist icon Sisyphus, who derives a sense of happiness and freedom from attributing meaning to his job of rolling the stone, Hella seeks fulfillment and purpose through devotion to a male partner. Her views on femininity and female identity, which place an emphasis on subservience and dependence, give David even more of a reason to play into the traditionally masculine role of the relationship.
To David, though, Hella merely serves as a means to an end. Pursuing a relationship with Hella and starting a family will ensure that the outside world will leave his “manhood unquestioned” (Baldwin 105). He fantasizes about having this fictional family, not because of the joy it will bring him through love and purpose, but because it will grant him an escape from the world’s judgment. In doing so, David can ensure that he retains “the privilege that white middle-class masculinity provides, the privilege of normalcy” (Thomas 609) that he so desperately clings to. Additionally, David uses Hella as a pawn to secure funds from his father, who insinuates that he would only send him money if he had a woman to care for. David’s disingenuousness and warped views on masculinity violate both of their propensities for self-actualization—Hella cannot fulfill her womanly potential of being submissive to a man, and David denies himself the reality of his homosexual love.
David’s entire existence is centered around his denial of his homosexuality, which would threaten his masculinity. Associating with the homosexual subculture of Paris, David hopes to prove to them and to himself that he is “not of their company” by “manifesting toward all of them a tolerance which placed [him]… above suspicion” (Baldwin 33). His sexual insecurities are reflected outward toward the homosexual community, especially toward men who exhibit outwardly effeminate traits—the “grotesqueness” of which “turns some people’s stomachs” in the same manner as “the sight of monkeys eating their own excrement” (37). Likening homosexual men to animals highlights David’s feelings of superiority compared to them, fueled by his fragile sense of “immaculate manhood” (40). The opposite is true, though, according to Simone de Beauvoir. She asserts that men like David, who are “denuded of this living warmth,” lacking the qualities of vitality, sensitivity, and intelligence, can be placed on “the lowest rung of the[existential] ladder” (de Beauvoir 17). It is men like David, not the homosexual men, who are “sub-men” (17). Not only is David not fully a man, but de Beauvoir would suggest that he is not even fully existing either. For homosexual men, their behavior, sexuality, and style of dressing contradict socially accepted conventions for masculinity. However, by embracing their authentic selves, they avoid falling into the tragedy of sub-men who “have eyes and ears, but from their childhood on they make themselves blind and deaf, without love and without desire” (17). The reminder that these men still have eyes and ears implies a sense of optimism when looking toward their futures. David has the means within him to live an authentic life, but he is holding himself back; as long as he continues to make himself blind and deaf to reinventing masculinity for himself, he will never truly be free.
In a somewhat ironic way, it is these men—namely Jacques, with his effeminate demeanor, and Giovanni, with his candid directness of his desires—who show David how to open his eyes and ears. From his perspective, though, since Jacques and Giovanni do not fit within David’s framework of masculinity, he ignores what they have to say and instead continues to deepen his delusion. Fed up with his constant denial, Jacques interrogates David, urging him to realize that his purpose is to “love [Giovanni] and let him love you,” forcing him to consider whether “anything else under heaven really matters” (65). Having come to Paris to flee a past he is ashamed of, David does not welcome this advice. As one of de Beauvoir’s “sub-men,” David internalizes a “fundamental fear in the face of existence” that leads him to reject his “‘passion’ which is his human condition” (de Beauvoir 17). This trepidation of deviating from the norms of masculinity causes him to reject what is so obviously the true meaning of his life: love. Living out his purpose and abandoning the masculine armor around his heart is the only way to love; as one critic writes, “love is possible if one is willing to live existentially, if one is willing to abandon the puritan mythology of man’s corruption, of the body’s evil, of the necessity of sin and guilt, and to live freely, unashamedly, and unselfishly as a trusting and committed person” (Bell 397).
Although David’s story does not yield a happy ending, it serves as a prime example of the principle of authenticity. The principles of existentialism are founded upon the premise that the philosophy is “incapable of furnishing [someone] with any principle for making choices” (de Beauvoir 3). No matter how insistently Jacques or Giovanni try to make David commit to true love in a homosexual relationship, David stubbornly refuses. Ultimately, these choices do not give David any fulfillment in his life. However, while David makes the decisions he does, his unhappy life is shaped by the social and conventional rules he internalized from a young age, underscoring the tension in his pursuit of authenticity.
Overall, examining Giovanni’s Room from an existentialist perspective can offer some of the most valuable insights into the human condition—while every reader may not be able to relate to themes of homophobia or extreme social isolation, they can certainly relate to the concept of finding meaning in existence. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, de Beauvoir argues that authentic existence requires individuals to confront and embrace the freedom to define their essence, rejecting societal labels and expectations that constrain their identity. Authenticity, in de Beauvoir’s view, requires full engagement with one’s freedom, despite the anxiety and alienation that such freedom often entails. However, Baldwin’s depiction of David’s struggles challenges this framework in several ways. While de Beauvoir emphasizes embracing freedom to self-define, David’s choices are constrained by societal norms and his internalized expectations of masculinity, which are difficult for him to transcend, especially within the context of a society that views his homosexuality as deviant. Unlike the fluid and empowering freedom de Beauvoir imagines for the authentic individual, David’s journey is marked by inauthenticity, self-deception, and a denouement that is ambiguous and bleak. Baldwin shows that, for some individuals like David, the tension between self-realization and societal expectations is not only alienating but can also lead to a profound sense of existential failure. Baldwin, in this sense, highlights thelimits of freedom in a world governed by oppressive societal structures that dictate what is deemed acceptable or moral.
WORKS CITED
Baldwin, James. Giovanni’s Room. Vintage International, 2013. https://ericcervini.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Baldwin.Giovannis-Room.pdf, PDF Format.
Bell, George E. “The Dilemma of Love in Go Tell It On The Mountain and Giovanni’s Room.” CLA Journal, vol. 17, no. 3, 1974, pp. 397-406. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44329064. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.
de Beauvoir, Simone. The Ethics of Ambiguity. Translated by Bernard Frechtman, Citadel Press, 1948.
Thomas, Harry. “‘Immaculate Manhood’: The City and the Pillar, Giovanni’s Room, and the Straight–Acting Gay Man.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 59, no. 4, 2013, pp. 596-618. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24246956. Accessed 30 Apr. 2024.
