Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Disgrace, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Desire and Power
Shame, Remorse, and Vanity
Violence and Empathy
Love and Support
Time and Change
Summary
Analysis
David’s disciplinary hearing takes place in a room next to Hakim’s office. The committee is made up of Manas Mathabane (a religious studies professor who is chair of the committee), Farodia Rassool, Desmond Swarts (dean of the Engineering department), a woman from the school of business, and a student observer. As they convene, Mathabane asks David if he has any objections to the makeup of the committee, and David says, “I have no challenge in a legal sense. I have reservations of a philosophical kind, but I suppose they are out of bounds.” Moving on, Mathabane addresses Melanie’s complaint, asking David if he’d like to hear what Melanie said in her own hearing, which took place the day before. David doesn’t show any desire to hear this, and so Mathabane outlines the second matter, which has to do with David’s fraudulent attendance records.
From the very beginning of his disciplinary hearing, David appears arrogant and abrasive. When he suggests that he has “reservations of a philosophical kind” about the entire process, he insults the purpose of the hearing without specifically going into why, exactly, he disapproves of it. In this way, he undermines his colleagues’ efforts to conduct a fair disciplinary meeting, framing it as morally flawed. David continues to inevitably press forward in his actions, refusing to compromise or see things from others’ perspectives.
Themes
“That is the sum of it?” David says when Mathabane lays out the charges. He then says, “I am sure the members of this committee have better things to do with their time than rehash a story over which there will be no dispute. I plead guilty to both charges. Pass sentence, and let us get on with our lives.” Once he says this, Hakim reminds him that the purpose of the disciplinary isn’t to find him guilty, but to “hear both sides of the case and make a recommendation” to the university regarding the nature of his punishment. He then gives David a chance to tell his version of the story, but David refuses to say anything more than that he’s “guilty.” “I do not wish to read Ms Isaacs’s statement,” he says. “I accept it.”
Again, David’s willingness to plead guilty seems like a sign that he’s ready accept responsibility for his immoral actions. However, this isn’t the case; as he continues to speak, he disparages the disciplinary committee, belittling the entire hearing by suggesting that everyone must have “better things to do” than listen to the particulars of his case. By saying this, he not only makes his transgressions seem petty and insignificant, but enables himself to avoid Melanie’s accusations and keep from confronting what he’s done.
Themes
Disapproving of David’s arrogant behavior, Farodia Rassool notes that the disciplinary committee perhaps has a “duty” to “protect” him from himself. At this point, the professor from the school of business asks David if he’d be willing to do counseling, and David says he absolutely would not, pointing out that he is a “grown man” who is “not receptive to being counselled,” adding that he is “beyond the reach” of such forms of rehabilitation. Hearing this, the committee takes a break to discuss the situation amongst themselves, sending David out of the room. When they bring him back, Rassool objects to David’s attitude, suggesting that he is making “subtle mockery” of the disciplinary process. “In a case with overtones like this one, the wider community is entitled—” she begins, but he cuts her off, saying, “There are no overtones in this case.”
Once more, David expresses his unwillingness to go to counseling. He apparently believes a person can’t change after a certain age, though this in and of itself seems like nothing more than a way of avoiding responsibility for his actions. After all, if David went to therapy, he would have to examine himself and his moral failures, but if he doesn’t, he can simply move on with his life, continuing to do whatever he wants. This is also why he makes “subtle mockery” of the disciplinary process, since doing so will make it easier for him to write off his punishment as petty. As such, readers see that the majority of David’s rhetorical moves are nothing more than self-defense techniques that will enable him to avoid moral culpability. It is because of this that he insists there “are no overtones in this case.” In truth, there are many “overtones,” since what he did to Melanie is complicated and problematic. By telling himself that the entire ordeal is a black-and-white matter of guilt and innocence, though, he saves himself from having to delve into the true moral implications of his actions.
Themes
Ignoring David, Rassool insists that the “community” deserves to know what, exactly, David has done and why he’s being punished. Mathabane, for his part, adds that the committee is certainly clear about why David is being punished, but that they want to make sure David is “crystal clear in his mind.” Still, though, David refuses to examine Melanie’s allegations, and though his colleagues on the committee urge him to reconsider this—saying he might be able to keep his job if he shows a sense of remorse—he doesn’t change his approach. Eventually, though, he gives a brief summary of what happened between him and Melanie, saying that he was a “servant of Eros.” In response, Rassool points out that David is speaking “in circles” and that, despite his willingness to plead guilty, it’s obvious he isn’t thinking at all about “the pain he has caused.”
When David says that he was driven to do what he did to Melanie because he became a “servant of Eros” (the Greek god of love) he tries to shift blame away from himself. Framing his transgression as a natural lapse of strength in the face of desire, he suggests that his mistake is understandable and forgivable (and does so by emphasizing his own status as an intellectual and academic). What this approach fails to take into consideration is that he meticulously manipulated Melanie into having sex with him. Their intimacies didn’t take place spontaneously in the throes of passion—David actively pursued Melanie until she finally stopped resisting him.
Themes
Get the entire Disgrace LitChart as a printable PDF.
The disciplinary committee encourages David to issue a statement of regret, so he callously says, “Very well. I took advantage of my position vis-à-vis Ms Isaacs. It was wrong, and I regret it. Is that good enough for you?” In turn, Rassool tells him that it doesn’t matter whether or not this statement is good enough for her, but whether or not it’s good enough for him. Still posturing in his arrogant way, though, David simply says that he has said what they want him to and that they can’t force him to prove his “sincerity.” Mathabane wraps up the hearing and dismisses him. On his way out of the building, David encounters a number of reporters, all of whom want to talk to him about the hearing. At one point, a journalist asks if he regrets what he did, and he says, “No. I was enriched by the experience.”
Rassool raises an important point about the way David is approaching the matter. Rather than focusing on whether or not his statement will appease the disciplinary committee, she urges him to look within himself, clearly understanding that his unwillingness to genuinely consider what he’s done to Melanie stems from a desire to avoid reckoning with his own shortcomings. However, he still refuses to face the moral implications of his actions, as made especially clear when he tells the reporters that he was “enriched” by the “experience” of sleeping with Melanie—a sentiment that brazenly disregards the fact that he has harmed her. Once again, he focuses only on his own desires while also posturing in an arrogant manner to sidestep the moral consequences of his actions.
Themes
Not long after the hearing, Mathabane calls David at home. He explains that the Rector will avoid “extreme” disciplinary “measures” if David issues a public statement of regret. In fact, Mathabane has a draft of a statement that would meet the necessary requirements. When he reads it, David pinpoints a specific line: “I sincerely apologize […] and accept whatever appropriate penalty may be imposed.” When he asks what this means, Mathabane tells him that the “penalty” would involve a brief leave of absence. However, David once again refuses to cooperate because he insists that he isn’t genuinely remorseful. “Very well,” Mathabane sighs. “Then I can only say, you will be hearing from the Rector.”
David frames his unwillingness to issue an insincere apology as a commitment to honesty and integrity. By doing this, he postures as someone who cares deeply about right and wrong—an ironic stance, given that he’s about to lose his job for behaving immorally. Nonetheless, his stubbornness allows him to feel as if he’s taking some sort of moral high ground, and though this is a backwards way of looking at his situation, it enables him to continue living his life without feeling remorseful.
Themes
