Self and Other in Sadegh Hedayat’s “The Stray Dog” and Paul Auster’s Timbuktu: A Comparative Study

Introduction
The terms self and other have been cast as constituent elements of the human condition. Philosophers like Hegel, Husserl, Kierkegaard, Bakhtin and Levinas have addressed these concepts as social problems, as issues within the society that are also reflected in literature. Sadegh Hedayat’s “The Stray Dog” and Paul Auster’s Timbaktu are two examples from Persian and American literature which show the writers’ preoccupation with the concepts of self and other. An important function of these works is their social function. Pat and Mr. Bones represent a society in which the relation between self and other is constantly constructed and reconstructed. Their actions make the audience think about the social and philosophical implications of the binary opposition of self and other. Sometimes they are the other to the social self and sometimes they are the self which enters into social relations with others. The present study probes into the notions of self and other in “The Stray Dog” and Timbaktu and asks how the texts define and construct the concepts of self and other and how could these constructions be interpreted. It also studies eschatology, altruism and indifference towards the demands of the other in the two texts as it draws a distinction between fear and social anxiety. It also discusses animal rights and the human domination of nature. As submissive characters, both Pat and Mr. Bones are entrapped in the rules and structures of human society. Even when they are rejected by society, they still seek the approval of a domineering power to experience the satisfaction consequent upon hegemony.
 

Methodology

This is qualitative and fundamentally theoretical research. The logic that governs the research is deductive; that is, the results have been obtained by comparing extracts from the two texts. Using library sources and using the American school of comparative literature, this research has investigated the different aspects of self and other in “Stray Dog” and Timbuktu.
 

Discussion

The present study deals with philosophical perspectives on self and the metaphysical concept of otherness. It also addresses alienation, rationality, power and the rise of modernism against Cartesian philosophy in “The Stray Dog” and Timbaktu. It studies the emergence of self/other binary opposition and modern man’s rejection of Descartes’s concept of subjectivity and his embracing of Hegel’s notion of consciousness, a philosophy that makes allowances for the presence of the other. The binary opposition of self and other is evident in “The Stray Dog” and Timbaktu. In these narratives the opposition between human beings and dogs provides the writers with a fertile ground for investigating the social and philosophical implications of self and other. The confrontation between humans and non-human animals represents the ontological and social dimensions of self and other in the modern world as self–other understanding is a central concept that forms the backbone of social cognition. The study also addresses eschatology in the narratives in terms of the dimension of time and space. The eschatological journey of Pat and Mr. Bones is beyond the realm of comprehension because it is the mysterious separation of the subject/self from society/other. Although both characters move towards annihilation, their journey could be seen as moving toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained. Pat and Mr. Bones are both seeking a Utopian world and a master who would make an ideal world for them. This is the subject’s escape towards the sacred and the transcendental. Both narratives challenge the concept of time and place. According to Auster, Timbuktu is “Where the map of this world ends, that’s where the map of Timbuktu begins” or it is “an oasis of spirits.” (Auster:  2017:61) or “a realm of eternal nothingness” (ibid, 62). It is also described as a place “where no things are nor will ever be. Except me. Except not me. Except eternity” (Ibid, 76). Similarly, in “The Stray Dog”, Pat “did not know why he was running, did not know where he was going, could neither go back nor move forward”. (Hedayat, 2017: 28). The two narratives are caught between the impulses of life and death. That Pat finds peace by separating from the human society and Mr. Bones finds peace in reaching Timbuktu show that both narratives are eschatological chronology: both stories are concerned with the ultimate destiny of the individual and the return to one’s origins.
 The two texts are similar in many respects. Both writers employ suspense to highlight the outcomes affecting the characters’ fate. Hedayat creates suspense by choosing the word stray to describe the dog and Auster creates semantic ambiguity and suspense by choosing the title Timbuktu and relating it to the other world. In both texts, space becomes time and vice versa. The temporality and spatiality of the two texts is close to Bakhtin’s concept of chronotope. As chronotope has a cognitive meaning and narrative structure, it expresses the style, attitude and ideology governing the narratives. By choosing two non-human animals as major characters, Hedayat and Auster portray and criticize the self through its confrontation with the other.  In both stories, the other becomes a catalyst for the recognition of the social self. In addition, both writes emphasize the interrelationship of the self and the subject as well as the independence. However, in “The Stray Dog” the self is in a destructive relation with the other, while in Timbuktu the self and other complement each other. Both texts address the coexistence of self and other, the ethics of care, animal rights, eschatology and man’s passive attitude towards nature. Both writers have addressed self-other dualism in their other novels. This theme is evident in Sadegh Hedayat’s The Blind Owl and Paul Auster’s The New York Trilogy, The Book of Illusions, Moon Palace and Oracle Night. In both texts, the binary of self and other is based on the presence of the self, the presence of the other and the interaction between the self and the other. This self-other dynamic is closely related to Bakhtin’s idea that self is implied dialogically in otherness.
 
4.Conclusion
An analysis of the two texts shows that they have many points in common: non-human animals as narrators, narrative suspense, the interrelation between the social self and the subject, symbiosis and social ethics, eschatology, the ethic of care, animal rights and the metaphysical concept of otherness.in both narrative the self is represented in opposition with the other. Both texts suggest interaction between the self and the other and caring for the demands of the other. Otherness is approached as the presence of the self, the presence of the other and the interaction between the self and the other. The dialogical implication of the self in the otherness is Bakhtin’s suggestion for the self/other binary opposition. Through this opposition he comments on hegemony, displacement, abandonment, loneliness, the problematic relation of man and nature, and the expression of pain and suffering. As hegemony designates complete domination, both narratives criticize the way oppressed societies recreates the discourse of power. Hedayat and Auster use the relation between humans and nature and humans and non- human animals to show the dark side of the society. Moreover, both narrative show the distinction between fear and anxiety which, at the narrative level, related to existentialist fears and jouissance.