ŷ������

As long as mankind has told stories, the topic of rebellion has been central.

“Man’s disobedience and the loss thereupon of Paradise��, as well as Satan’s rebellion against the oppressive authority of God in Heaven are the two main strands in Milton’s classic Paradise Lost, to just name one of countless examples, summing up human experience in unforgettable drama.

Camus analyses the topic from a philosophical and historical viewpoint, and gives a perfect example for his thesis on revolution and the development of mankind by writing this long reflective essay, rebelling against the predominant ideas of his own time.

Starting with the metaphysical revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but always with the disastrous contemporary world post 1945 in mind, Camus embarks on a quest to establish the nature and consequence of revolts and revolutions, and to define the limits within which it is still possible to justify violence and stay human.

It is not an easy read, definitely not something to skim through in a couple of hours. I had to put it aside more than once and read up on other authors, as well as other texts by Camus, to eventually be able to finish it. I am happy I did, for Camus certainly was “ahead of his time��, if I may use that absurd term in honour of his celebration of absurdity in general. Writing at a time when collectivist ideology was en vogue, especially in France dominated by Sartre, he makes a claim for a reevaluation of revolutionary developments focusing on individuals and their choices and responsibilities.

What is a rebel, he asks in the initial paragraph:

“Un homme qui dit non. Mais s’il refuse, il ne renonce pas: c’est aussi un homme qui dit oui, dès son premier mouvement.��

A human who decides that a limit is reached, and change has to happen.

Camus slowly guides the reader through the various causes and effects of religious, historical and political revolts and revolutions, as well as artistic revolutions in modern society. He explains the initiatives deriving from a sense of justice, and the consequences of absolute faith in the revolutionary cause, leading to its proverbial eating its own children and turning into its opposite, until a new revolution takes place.

While Communist followers embraced individual sacrifice and collective action, encouraging violence, even murder, with the argument that the future utopian fair state would justify any means, Camus pointed to the destructive power of justice without liberty of individuals, or liberty without justice to limit it:

“En face d’une future réalisation de l’idée, la vie humaine peut être tout ou rien. Plus est grand le foi que le calculateur met dans cette réalisation, moins vaut la vie humaine.��

This idea is made perfectly clear, and more accessible, in Camus�� play Les Justes, focusing on the historical events in Russia in 1905, culminating in the murder of the Archduke and the execution of Kaliayev, the socialist terrorist. The dialogues and conflicts between different revolutionaries make the different positions come alive. As Kaliayev and his positions are discussed in detail in L’Homme révolté as well, the play and the essay can be read as complements, artistic expression and philosophical reflection supporting the thesis from different perspectives and with different audience in mind.

For many of Camus�� contemporaries, his middle way of trying to balance freedom and justice was almost treason against a religiously protected cause to change the future radically, but for our contemporary world, he seems almost prophetic. Many thinkers who have struggled to come to grips with the idea of freedom and justice have developed systems that build on Camus�� thought of balancing ideal and reality to be able to achieve tangible change.

Amartya Sen’s The Idea Of Justice for example, strongly advocates a step-by-step reform programme of feasible projects, rather than theorising or giving up the whole idea of justice altogether because a perfect world is unachievable.

Amin Maalouf, on the other hand, has shown the disastrous effects of monofocal ideological or religious identification on society, leading to violence and murder in the name of an identity that is non-negotiable, and focused on ultimately - in future - uniting the entire world under the banner of one specific idea or belief. He also speaks up for diversity, not uniformity of the world as the goal, and for giving up trying to mould the world according to one narrow minded, exclusive worldview. However, both in Sen’s and Maalouf’s approach, freedom to develop individual traditions is limited by the duty to respect other individuals�� equal rights to justice.

Camus�� response to the missionary approach to humankind is:

“La vraie générosité envers l’avenir est à tout donner au présent.��

If you work for a better world here and now, no human sacrifice in the name of a future utopia is justified. Balance of power is the democratic answer to the human condition:

“La liberté absolue raille la justice. La justice absolue nie la liberté. Pour être fécondes, les deux notions doivent trouver, l’une dans l’autre, leur limite. Aucun homme n’estime sa condition libre, si elle n’est pas juste en même temps, ni juste si elle ne se trouve pas libre.��

We certainly need to consider his passionate plaidoyer for a balanced world without extremist terrorists of one kind or the other, approving of violence in the name of their presumed future uniform, worldwide utopia.

It is time to rebel and say NO! To dogmatic violence. And it is time to say YES! To all of humankind, by respecting every individual’s right to freely develop their identity within the limits of justice.

Highly recommended!