On Dozing What does it mean to doze? It is remarkable that a seemingly harmless
question can lead to such genuine confusion. While we may all know how
to use the word doze, we don’t seem able to really answer the
question of what the concept of actually is. We just end up falling
into the same philosophical situation that St. Augustin found himself
in when he asked what time is. While one may hope that sleep research
can offer some answers, this is really only avoiding the philosophical
nature of the question. A sleep researcher can provide one possible
explanation for dozing – if they’re a scientist, they can
only give a purely scientific explanation, thus ignoring other possible
explanations, whether philosophical or psychological. They’re
equally likely to dismiss esoteric ideas, which claim that creative
energies can be released while dozing. Any particular explanation is
preceded by the question of what the concept is. As soon as normality
begins to be replaced by the philosophical, a feeling of insecurity
ensues – a sure sign that the question you’re dealing with
is fairly fundamental. We don’t, under normal circumstances anyway,
have any difficultly understanding the remark “I dozed for a bit“.
It’s only when someone asks “What do you mean exactly by
dozed?” that we become completely unsure of ourselves. (When it
comes down to it, we end up asking the sleep researcher again anyway,
so that we can reassure ourselves with their explanation). In all likelihood,
the verb to doze refers to a particular state that someone is in when
they are nearly asleep. An obvious strategy is thus to define such a
state by differentiating between it and other similar states –
starting with sleeping and then moving on to dreaming or semi-consciousness.
Following this strategy, someone dozing is, to a certain degree, more
aware than someone asleep. If you, however, compare someone dozing with
someone who’s dreaming, the difference is that their mind is completely
empty – when the person regains consciousness, they won’t
remember anything. At the same time, the fact that someone dozing is
still capable of returning to a state of consciousness separates them
from someone who is half-asleep, who is no longer really capable of
thought. Dozing could thus be defined as being half-asleep for a temporary
period of time. It is a brief, reoccurring state during which we are
without thoughts but still awake. However, if we claim that someone
dozing is without thought, a provocative counter question can be posed:
do animals have thoughts if they aren’t dozing for once? We wouldn’t
actually say that someone who has acted without thinking had actually
been dozing. Someone who is dozing doesn’t think and doesn’t
do anything – you could say that they’re just brazenly idle.
On the other hand, sleeping is an acceptable form of idleness because
it serves to replenish our energies. The concept of dozing seems to
be less connected with a description that with a judgement, and a negative
one at that. When we use the word doze to describe a state, we normally
disvalue it, whether or not we are really able to describe it. At the
same time, sentences such as “unlike other classic writers, who
were far stricter, Proust didn’t have anything against dozing
or only being half-awake” can be found in newspapers. In this
example, the standard critical usage of doze gains a positive dimension.
Someone dozing can thus be surprised by deep and far-reaching discoveries
precisely because they are not beholden to systematic and focussed thought.
The meaning of the word in the strictest sense does not, however, support
this more pleasant interpretation. When the adjective dösig (dozy)
came into use in Standard German at the beginning of the 19th Century
(the verb dösen came into use a little bit later), it was a part
of a less complimentary word field that contained words such as dumb,
vacant, foolish, ignorant, stupid, dazed and confused. Another, more
neutral word field containing words such as drowsy, bemused and unthinking
has always provided a counterpart to this though. Dusel (befuddlement),
which is related to dösig, but was already use in Standard German
by the 16th Century, means on the one hand dizziness, being half-asleep
or thoughtlessness and, on the other, unearned happiness. This final,
positive dimension to the word probably only arose in the 19th Century.
If, therefore, to be in state of befuddlement is not necessarily something
bad, and if dozing can lead to deep insights, then it seems surprising
that doziness is something best avoided. The Brothers Grimm used words
such as daze, foolishness, stupidity, casualness, lack of wit and cheerfulness
to order paraphrase the word for its entry in their dictionary. It’s
one thing to say that someone is dozy because you think of them as stupid,
but quite another to say that someone looks dozy because you think they’re
just sitting there vacantly. In the second example, we are actually
able to see that someone is dozing. There is obviously a particular
facial expression ,combined with a typical posture, that leads to use
the word dozing. Someone who is dozing is physically motionless, except
maybe for some sort of repetitive movement that accompanies the state,
like a foot bobbing up and down. They are also mentally idle, which
can be seen in their facial expression. Someone who stares at the same
place without moving a muscle has a different expression than someone
staring vacantly in front on them on a hot day in a sleepy village in
Brittany. At the same time, it is still exceptionally difficult to specify
which exactly characterises a dozy facial expression. This is astounding
when you consider how certain we are when we recognise somebody dozing,
despite how little we actually know about it. Gernot Grube |