In The
Rebel (1951) by Albert Camus, Promotheus chooses to devote his whole life to
the others, to fight against the adversity. For him it is the only way to
respond to the absurdity of the human condition. It is precisely because of
this absurdity that Sisyphus committed suicide in an ultimate act of despair, as
if it was the only exit door to escape from this human malediction. Camus
juxtaposes the both characters and makes of the refusal an act of affirmation. A rebel is a man who says no, but his refusal
does not necessarily mean that he is renouncing.
The myth of Sysyphus
Camus admitted to be pessimist regarding the
human destiny but optimist about the human being since he is the only creature
which refuses to be itself.
Facing the absurdity, every single human being
has to revolt so he can give a sense to his existence, and refuse his
condition. The rebellion is motivated by a feeling of injustice, an injustice
which has whether been committed against one personally or against the human
species in its whole: I can revolt myself when I consider that the human as
such, whose I am an example, has been attacked.
Albert Camus gives to the revolt a role that we
can compare with the Cartesian cogito. According to the philosopher, the revolt
justifies the belonging to a group, to a whole which goes beyond the simple
individual existence. “Je me révolte, donc nous sommes” (“I revolt myself, so
we are”). The revolt allows the individual to go out from his loneliness, hence
the revolt can create a solidarity between men.
The rebel is not a resent man, he is not full
of hate and disdain. On the contrary, the rebellion creates values and that’s
why, we have to revolt to be. The rebellion has a moral goal which is to make
the world recovering its moral order. Without revolt, the man is only a
consciousness of his freedom but it is nothing more than a formal freedom: it
is only through the revolt that the individual can experiment what to be free really
means. In other words, the rebellion is the purest expression of freedom. As Camus said, “the only way to deal
with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is
an act of rebellion”.
When we talk about Tiananmen Square protests
that took place in Pekin in 1989, I guess that the first thing most people have
in mind is this famous photo:
 |
In my opinion, the image of this man standing
alone in front of military tanks embodies perfectly the concept of rebel man. Facing
the injustice, he decided not to renounce but to express his refusal in a
peaceful and powerful way. At this very moment, he is absolutely free, he
definitely is. Besides, even if he is
alone on the photo, he is actually standing in the name of all, in the name of
an injured humanity. We will never know who this man is. By remaining anonym,
he is become a symbol, he embodies the ideas of rebellion and freedom.
Hi Claire !
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I would like to thank you for your post blog. I thought it was very interesting and rather right. Indeed, the last paragraph about the famous picture of the « Tank Man », « The Man of Tian'anmen » got me think about the figure of the Rebel. The « Tank Man » is a peacefull rebel who has embodied all humanity, all the humanity's fight against oppression. So, he symbolizes a free man. Nevertheless, is freedom really contained in revolt ? It is the eternal question : « What is freedom ? », but, I am conviced it is crucial to answer it right now. The possibility to say no, of course, is a human characteristic, which makes the difference between human beings and animals. Furthermore, to be free means to have the choice. That means to be not submit to others and to illegitimate orders. We could be free by refusing to be under the supervision of others. However, on the other hand, all the nays are not a way to free ourselves. Indeed, lots of nays are determined by our own nature, by society (the nay of the child, of the teenager). Moreover, some nays are useless, a consequence of ignorance. For, instance, when we said no to a Democratic State, we are, in a way, destroying freedom. In a country without laws, there is no citizen protection of our liberties, so, we come back to a nature state where « brother will turn on brother » (Hobbes). That's why, I believe that freedom is not always contained in revolt, neither yes or no. It is rather in the capacity to make choices wich shows who we are. We say yes to the law while we are conscient to be determined. We are not free, but, we can free ourselves because we understand the necessity, we realize (Spinoza). Finally, as Sartre said « il y a dans toute révolte une adhésion entière et instantanée de l'homme à une certaine part de lui même ».
Thank you Fiona, you raised a very important point. If freedom resides in the ability to say no, it means that we could exercise our freedom by refusing it. It is completely paradoxical, you’re right. Nonetheless I don’t think that when someone refuses deliberately a Democratic State, he is, through his refusal, giving up his freedom. Because by refusing, he expresses his will-power even if that does not make any sense. It makes me think about this famous sentence which has always been the subject of endless debates: “Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté”. Denying the freedom of someone on behalf of the freedom goes against the idea of freedom and protects it at the same time… it is very confusing!
DeleteHey Claire! Thank you for this really interesting post. And thanks Fiona for this accurate definition of freedom.
ReplyDeleteUsing the "Tank Man" example is a rather interesting choice. Whom is this men fighting against? He is rebelling against the Chinese Communist Party, that he considers as reppresive. Isn´t it completely paradoxical?
The essence of communism seems to be rebellion. Defending the poors, the oppressed against the rich. But as soon as they took power, they started themselves to be repressive. And in a way this remains me on the Master-Slave relation we saw in the beginning of the term. Isn´t our story an endless switch of power and repression between Masters and Slave? Claire, you say the rebellion creates values. But does it mean that as soon as this rebellion succeeded we lose our values?
Fiona, you talk about democracy: "when you say no to democracy, you say no to freedom". Do you see in democracy the end of this endless switch?
I'm looking forward to your answers, because the fact that as soon as the rebels get the power, they get themselves oppresive, troubles me...
Hi Anastasia,
DeleteI find it very interesting when you said that : the essence of communism seems to be rebellion, and at the end they started themselves to be repressive.
I think that it is what characterizes the human being, the fact that there will be always rebellions because there will be always people oppressed and people in disagreement with certain ideas. According to me the rebellion is part of the human nature.
It is true Anastasia, the communism is building on the idea of rebellion: the final goal is to create a society in which there won’t be any social class anymore. And to achieve this goal, the “proletariat” has to revolt against the “bourgeoisie”. But in my opinion, something goes wrong with this ideology because all the countries that have adopted the communist model have become authoritarian state, have deny individual rights and freedoms to its citizens: the Soviet Union, the Popular Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, Viet Nam, etc.
DeleteRebellion creates values because when people are revolting, they are fighting for a cause or against something. And I don’t think that when the rebellion success, the values that have been created during the process are condemned to disappear. On the contrary, I guess they should keep existing and being defended. Of course, the communism is not a good example to illustrate this idea. But I consider that communism should not be a reference concerning rebellion because the funny thing with communism is that the project seems great theoretically but we have to admit that it has never been correctly applied (is communism nothing else than a utopia?) However, if you take the example of the pacific revolt for freedom and independence that has been organized by Gandhi in India, you have a good example of a rebellion at the end of which, the created values have remained intact.
Hi there claire I relally liked your post and found it very intresting and clear
ReplyDeleteI found your opinion very accirate and i made me think that a man that has to find his meaning by fighting with others, is actually existing throughout the others. It makes me remember the text from sartre!