Stephanie MacDonald
Eng 320C
Teaching through Counterparts
People are counterparts in other people’s lives. For example, someone could be the
victim when placed in a situation with one person, and then become the bully when placed in
another situation with another person. Through these interactions thinking is affected and creates
the character of who someone is. In James Joyce’s Counterparts, it is easy to see the cause and
effect relationship between two instances and how one seemingly unimportant event can help
create the character of someone. The character of Mr. Farrington is created through the
parallelism of his relationship between him and his boss and the relationship between him and
his son through prejudice of his past experiences shaping future ones, emotion of the situation to
create his response rather than feeling, imitation of the appropriate reactions allowed in a
situation, the action of aggression to release the inner emotions that are hard to express,
hypocrisy of two situations seeming differently when they are similar, and the extension of the
mind into actions that the body takes.
In the story, past experiences influence the way the Mr. Farrington handles his situations
at work. Damasio says that “Our memories are prejudiced . . . by our past history and beliefs . . .
The brain holds a memory of what went on during an interaction, and the interaction importantly
includes our own past,” which can be seen when Mr. Farrington has his interaction with his boss
(113). Mr. Farrington’s boss treats him with disrespect and discouragement when they talk to
each other. “Why have I always to complain of you?” asks Mr. Alleyen to Mr. Farrington,
showing that Mr. Alleyen thinks negatively of the work that Mr. Farrington does in the company
(Joyce, 105). He is constantly finding something wrong in the work of the other man and
repeatedly points out to his lower counterpart. Mr. Farrington’s work had previously been
neutral, but since his boss is so negative about him and his work, prejudice is put into Mr.
Farrington and he has negative feelings for his work. He no longer is concerned with the quality
of his work because he knows that something will be wrong with it no matter what he does.
Furthermore, he is working hard at it but is messing up on accident. It seems that the negative
ideas his boss has are coming into his own mind and shaping the work that he is doing. The
interaction of the employee and employer shape the thinking of this man and shapes the future
work of him because his past has shown him the way to think. He has a prejudice against his
boss and what he thinks he will do in the future and so it shaped his actions in the present.
Similarly, Mr. Farrington uses his emotions rather than feeling to determine what his best
course of action is in a situation. Damasio says in his book that emotions are “inspired by
principles and goals that anteceded brains and that, by and large, operate automatically and
somewhat blindly, until they begin to be known to conscious minds in the form of feelings,
(108). This is shown in Counterparts when Mr. Farrington is reacting to his various situations.
He has emotion and expresses it through his body and movement, yet he does not show that he
has feeling or a consciousness of what feeling is. “A spasm of rage gripped his throat for a few
moments and then passed, leaving after it a sharp sensation of thirst. The man recognized the
sensation and felt that he must have a good night’s drink,” which can be seen as an automatic
reaction of the body to the interaction between him and his boss (Joyce, 105). He is upset and
wants to immediately go get a drink at the nearby pub. It is a blind reaction and is automatically
done, which is what Damasio classifies as emotion. There is a lack of consciousness in this
process and his body is the deciding factor in what he wants to do in the situation. Mr. Farrington
is not using his mind to make his decision, but rather allowing his body to work and have a say
in what is to be his reaction.
Moreover, Mr. Farrington becomes the counterpart of his boss in his interaction with his
son. Mr. Farrington watches his boss as he puts his frustration onto him, and he goes home to do
the same with his frustration and his son. In Garrels’ book we can see that “there is development
in imitation,” which translates into Mr. Farrington in Joyce’s short story (58). This is first seen
when “Mr. Alleyne began a tirade of abuse,” towards Mr. Farrington when Mr. Farrington
missed two letters in his report (Joyce, 110). Although he used words to express his
disappointment in his employee, he uses abuse to get the point across and to teach him a lesson
about what was expected and how disappointed his is in the work that was turned in. This
teaches Mr. Farrington that it is acceptable and expected to use abuse, whether physical or
mental, to express when something is not to the liking of another human being. It was a mere
mistake of missing two words on the document and the boss is taking it out very harshly on his
employee. Mr. Farrington does not think it is fair that his boss is treating him this way, yet he is
unable to state his side of the situation because his boss keeps cutting him off. This is then
recreated by Mr. Farrington with his son when he comes home from work. His son is going to
cook him dinner, but the fire is out, so he tells his son “I’ll teach you to do that again!” (Joyce,
119). He is disappointed in his job and himself by the end of the night and wants nothing more
than to take his anger out in some way. Earlier his boss put blame on him and used abuse to
show the distaste for what had been done; now he is imitating this with his son.
By the same token, Mr. Farrington allows his aggression to surface and it becomes the
way that he expresses his ideas. In Garrels book, he states that “physical violence has a strong
genetic component, that it emerges in predictable ways developmentally with only partial
dependence on the psychological environment,” meaning that aggression is something that is
within everyone, yet it does not involve thinking in order to be done (164). This is shown in the
story when Mr. Farrington’s “body ached to do something, to rush out and revel in violence,”
after his encounter with his boss (Joyce, 109). His body wants to react and do something violent,
which is an inherited characteristic of humans, yet he has no cognitive backing for wanting to
show this aggression. His boss rightfully yelled at him because he was supposed to have
something done, and instead of recognizing that he made a mistake, his body wants to take his
frustration out on anyone that he can. This is the body reacting without depending on the brain
for support. Moreover, this is seen again when Mr. Farrington leaves the bar after being beaten in
an arm wrestling contest. “He was full of smoldering anger and revengefulness,” and when he
gets home he is able to take these feelings out on his son (Joyce, 117). His son was not the cause
of his humiliation for that day, yet when he does not have the fire started, he becomes the outlet
for this anger. His neurons in his brain cannot be responsible for telling the man to take his anger
out on his son because there is not a connection between the actions that have taken place
throughout the day and the actions that his son are taking. This shows that the answer must be
hidden in the body and aggression that is already within the man, rather than the cognitive
thinking of him.
Furthermore, Mr. Farrington is a hypocrite as he does not like to be the release of
someone else’s emotions, yet he goes home and takes out his emotions on anyone that is
available. In Clark’s book, “If two things look different, they do so because, as we engage them
in space and time, we bring to bear (rightly or wrongly) different sets of sensorimotor
expectations,” (22). Though Mr. Farrington’s two situations are the same, he treats them with
two different reactions. When his boss yells at him, he becomes cowardly and allows the
negativity to seep into his mind and take over. He wants to stand up to him, yet he is stuck
because it is his job and if he is to do anything he could lose his job. It is expected that he will
take the criticism and use it to improve his work, and if he was to raise his hand and hit
something like he would like to do, it is not allowed in the circumstance. However, as his
frustration builds inside of him, he takes his anger out on his son. For Mr. Farrington this is
completely acceptable as he lets his anger out in a physical manner. In this situation it seems
different because he is the one that is releasing his emotion, rather than being the one to absorb
the punishment. It is wrong in this situation, yet to him he cannot see what he is doing as wrong
because it is packages differently than the first situation.
Also, Mr. Farrington extends his inner feelings into the outside world, which then
becomes an extension of his mind. In Clark’s book, he says that “the actual flow of processing
and representation in the (possibly extended) physical array that realizes the coarse functional
role itself,” meaning that physical actions can become an extension of the mind and help shape
the thinking that occurs within a person (88-89). This can be seen in Joyce’s story whenever Mr.
Farrington becomes upset. He raises his arms in a physical manner, whether he wants to hit an
object or if he actually hits his son. His mind is unable to process what his thoughts are and he is
trying to reach out to do something that can help him process what he is thinking. As he moves
his arm to let out his frustration he is realizing and that process becomes a function to
understanding. This is also shown when Mr. Farrington is trying to finish his work. He is
frustrated and upset, so he keeps making mistake when he is writing out the document. Mr.
Farrington is trying to believe that he is alright, yet his body is showing that his mind is
deceiving him. In both of these situations, Mr. Farrington is extending his mind past his body
and revealing his true feelings. Actions are always said to be louder than words, and in this
instance he is unable to fully comprehend what his words are and so his body comes in to helps
display what his word cannot express.
All in all, it can be seen that Mr. Farrington is a character that is showing the changes of
human character throughout the story. He is the victim when it comes to his boss and his
frustration, yet he turns around and becomes the villain when he releases his emotion on his son.
This man’s actions are justified through the theories of neuroscience that we have read because
he is only using his mind and the actions of others to determine what he should do in a similar
circumstance. He is merely becoming an invention of the series of events that are happening in
the story and he is not to blame for what he does in the end. He is justified because he was the
victim and he has learned the proper protocol that is expected when put into the situation. When
he becomes the harasser, it can be seen with an eye of pity because his journey of getting there
was shown.