Albert Camus's Philosophy of Communication: Making Sense in an A ...

into the perspective of the conversation partner come through the filter of Jean-Baptiste Clamence. The style assists in bringing the content of the text to life; this one-sided exchange helps Camus emphasize Clamence’s individualistic attitude and demonstrates that the protagonist has little interest in what his interlocutor says beyond the opportunity the other’s remarks provide for Clamence to make his own predetermined points. Though it is beyond the scope of this section to explore why Clamence acts as he does, it is possible to recognize that, by his own admission, he is working from a position that lacks certainty and basic interpersonal trust. These two components, certainty and trust, are vital to what Christopher Lasch referred to as “havens of trust” (1977); unfortunately, as certainty and trust decline, so do the available havens of trust. Without havens of trust, “we begin to live life narcissistically, not because we are self-centered, but out of a feeling that the old moral stories, havens of trust, cannot be counted on” (Arnett, “Existential” 239). This decline in the stories available to mold and guide one’s decision making directly contributes to the rise in the experience of existential homelessness. Tying together the notions of common center and dialogue, Arnett wrote, a “[l]ack of direction … is born as a common center for conversation ceases” (Arnett, “Existential” 234). Though Clamence is talking with another human being, he is not truly engaging in dialogue because he shares only what he feels is necessary to share—a point well emphasized by Camus’s writing style.

Public Sphere

In order to facilitate the type of confession Clamence has in mind, he needs to share very private events and experiences in the public setting of the Amsterdam bar, thus contributing to the emergence of a therapeutic relationship. According to Arnett, “[W]hen we take therapeutic communication, a private form of discourse, and transform its intention and application to the public arena, we invite a new ‘Dark Ages’; truth is privatized within the confines of the individual, resulting in the devaluing of collective and public life” (“Therapeutic” 150). This blurring of public and private communication contributes to the emergence of what