"On fait de la politique pour des raisons personnelles, mais en faisant de la politique on vise des fins qui dépassent l'individu." (JEAN BAECHLER) Discuss with reference to at least two of the authors you have studied.
"On fait de la politique pour des raisons personnelles, mais en faisant de la politique on vise des fins qui dépassent l'individu." (JEAN BAECHLER) Discuss with reference to at least two of the authors you have studied.
The concept formulated by the historian and political writer Jean Baechler that political engagement is at the same time both individual and collective is not only valid for the characters portrayed in the works studied but also for the authors themselves. The wars which scarred the twentieth century brought with them deep and rapid social changes and a reassessment of values, particularly among French people whose lives had been affected by occupation, resistance and liberation. In the face of such events, many contemporary writers felt compelled to focus on the subsequent questions regarding the imminence of death, the nature of revolt and man's humanity. By focusing on such issues in their literature, writers are automatically bringing the issues that are important to them to a wider audience. The engaged writer takes on the role of a social critic involved in the situations he is portraying. By choosing to write on real political events, Malraux and Camus are appealing to their contemporary audience and readers, presenting them with characters facing familiar dilemmas. As far as Les Conquérants and Les Justes are concerned, 'la politique' is limited specifically to involvement in revolutionary activity. Every character has his own reasons for his engagement, whether stemming from experiences, personal ambition, moral duty or political conviction and their involvement clearly has repercussions far and beyond the sphere of the individual. What is more questionable, however, is the extent to which the characters are consciously working towards a common aim.
Garine stands out as being the closest to Malraux's thinking at the time of writing Les Conquérants and is the character into whom the reader has the greatest insight. For Garine, revolution is not a means to an ends but a way of life: he is involved for the action rather than aiming to create a utopian end-state. He is contrasted to Borodine, also a man of action, but a dedicated Communist who engages in revolution with a clear picture what they are fighting to create. Borodine is therefore critical of Garine's motives and lack of serious commitment. The key to understanding Garine's personal motives for being involved in the Chinese revolution lies in his past. His biography shows us that he spent his youth flitting from one revolution to another, looking for adventure and a chance to prove himself. His lack of moral scruples makes him a good revolutionary as he can dedicate himself unreservedly to a cause, earning admiration from his comrades as Tcheng-Daï observes:
La guerre ne vous déplairait pas...Elle montrerait à tous votre habileté [...] Vous aimez les expériences, pour les exécuter, comment puis-je dire? ... ce dont vous avez besoin. (p172-3)
The force of the word 'besoin' illustrates how such involvement has become essential to Garine's life. This need is born out of an urge to overcome the absurdity of human existence. To go back to Garine's past once more, it was at his trial when he stood accused of funding illegal abortions that he sees human life as being full of futile, vacuous rituals and social structures as trying in vain to impose order where there is no order. Like his involvement in revolution, his motivation to fund the abortions had little to do with wanting to help people in difficult circumstances - he vainly wasted his inheritance on an a-social act. His motivation to join revolutionary causes is similarly selfish. He throws himself into revolutionary activity, not out of empathy for the oppressed, but in order to create a purpose for his life through a series of what Sartre might term 'projets'. Garine treats the Chinese as the raw material for his own conquest. He states plainly that he has no interest in the results of his action - one can justly assume that once the Chinese revolution is over, Garine would go on to find another adventure. The term 'jouer' highlights the fact that Garine does not take the political aspect of the revolution seriously. Moreover, the capitalisation of 'Révolution' indicates that Garine sees the process of revolt as an institution in itself, one to which he readily ascribes.
Mon action me rend aboulique à l'égard de tout ce qui n'est pas elle, à commencer par ses résultats. Si je me suis lié si facilement à la Révolution, c'est que ses résultats sont lointains et toujours en changement. Au fond, je suis un jouer. (p289)
Given the above it would be fair to conclude that Garine is not interested in politics at all but in adventure. Yet however questionable Garine's motives for participating in the revolution may be, he was still a good revolutionary. Before the narrator meets Garine, he has already built up a picture ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Mon action me rend aboulique à l'égard de tout ce qui n'est pas elle, à commencer par ses résultats. Si je me suis lié si facilement à la Révolution, c'est que ses résultats sont lointains et toujours en changement. Au fond, je suis un jouer. (p289)
Given the above it would be fair to conclude that Garine is not interested in politics at all but in adventure. Yet however questionable Garine's motives for participating in the revolution may be, he was still a good revolutionary. Before the narrator meets Garine, he has already built up a picture of him as a successful activist from conversations with other characters and his police report. Garine is aware of how his activism has helped the Chinese, creating an army of trained soldiers, a class conscious and, most importantly, hope. This recognition offers Garine some degree of comfort when his state of health declines at the end of the novel. As the novel progresses, the narrator gains the confidence of Garine and he becomes more open. His feverishness and the closeness of death also make him reflect on and talk about his experiences. Such insights into Garine's thoughts humanise him. As he faces death, he can see that the good that his work has done will live on. Garine went into revolution to give his life a meaning and in so doing has given the oppressed Chinese reason to live:
Combien d'hommes sont en train de rêver à des victoires dont, il y a deux ans, ils ne soupçonnaient pas même la possibilité! (p236)
Garine remains dedicated to the revolution as long as his health allows him. He returns from hospital to help whilst having to have daily injections. His despair at the dehabilitating qualities of his illness makes him progressively more pessimistic and reflective, not because he is unable to see the Chinese struggle to the end, but because he is unable to combat the natural course of his disease. His throwing himself into various revolutions, desperately trying to give his life a purpose, can only offer short-term relief from the absurd: nature is shown to be ultimately more powerful and permanent than humankind, which is non-essential. Although Garine is aware of the widespread beneficial effects of his work, his sole true motivation is to find new adventures to give his life meaning. Even as he is dying, he is planning to go to England - ironically the country which he is fighting against in China - where he could put his leadership skills to good use. Despite the fact that Garine was a successful propaganda officer, his real dedication is only to himself and his current 'projet'. Adventurers like Garine join the revolution because they cannot fit into society, not because they want to change it.
Qu'on la transforme, cette société ne m'intéresse pas. Ce n'est pas l'absence de justice en elle qui m'atteint, pas quelque chose de plus profond, l'impossibilité de donner à une forme sociale, queele qu'elle soit, mon adhésion. Je suis a-social (p115)
In Les Justes, Camus also explores differing personal motivations for the characters' involvement in revolt but irrespective of their opposing personal driving forces, the characters all share a common desire to overthrow the existing order for the good of the masses. The notion of revolt as both a key part of human behaviour and as being automatically collective is encapsulated by Camus' line 'Je me révolte, donc nous sommes' from his text on the nature and history of human revolt L'homme révolté (page 307). The change to the plural 'nous' indicates that by becoming a revolutionary activist, one immediately goes beyond the sphere of the individual. In Les Justes, the collective aim is important to all the characters, even though they do not agree on where to place the limits on violence to achieve this goal. Their unity is shown by the fact that they are all members of a organisation whose immediate task is to murder the Grand Duke, whereas in Malraux's novels, the characters do not all share the same political convictions, for example Garine is not a member of the Communist party.
Despite the common aim of the terrorists in Les Justes, conflict arises between the characters when their personal convictions regarding the limits of acceptable political activism come into play. The characters' ethics stem from their experiences and values which initially prompted their involvement in revolutionary activity. Stepan's hatred towards the existing ruling order is fuelled by the harsh experiences he went through in prison. The juxtaposition of the images of freedom and prison in the following quotation highlights his belief that freedom should be for everyone, not the reserve of the few.
La liberté est un bagne aussi longtemps qu'un seul homme est asservi sur la terre. (Stepan, Act 1, p17)
His motivation transcends simple revenge: he wants liberty for everyone at any cost. His bitterness leads him to feel that any means that would lead to destroying the regime are justifiable. He speaks in absolutes. The extremes he is prepared to go to for the cause are highlighted by the incident following Kaliayev's failure to throw the bomb when there were children in the carriage. He is the only character to object to Kaliayev's ethical decision not to throw the bomb with the Duke's niece and nephew in the carriage. Stepan's advocating of the use of violence and even of killing children is prompted by the suffering he went through at the hands of the regime he is set to destroy. However, he never turns his back on the party and obeys, albeit unwillingly, orders not to throw the bomb, whereas in Les Conquérants, Hong turns to anarchy after becoming dissatisfied with the organised approach of the party. Anarchy is associated with spontaneity and individualism whereas in all texts the party stands for organisation, teamwork and fighting for an clearly envisaged end-state.
Although the characters do all stick to the rules regarding who shall throw the bomb, the fact that many of them reveal a desire to carry out this act indicates a certain degree of selfish motivation and heroism. If they were only interested in the ends, then it would not matter who throw it. Stepan, for example, wants to throw the bomb himself as a personal gesture of revenge and also because he considers Kaliayev too weak to throw it. Dora renounces her femininity and humanity at the end of the play by wanting to become the first woman to throw the bomb, as after Kaliayev's execution, she no longer has to live for love. In each case, the action of throwing the bomb represents something personal as well as contributing to the common cause. Annenkov, the group leader, represents the unity and fraternity of the activists and reminds the group of how the killing is a joint act, whoever carries it out, which will lead to the destruction of tyranny for the good of Russia. Annenkov is the character who most clearly envisages the end-state and shows no interest in heroism or seeking admiration. His role in the organisation does not allow him to participate in the assassinations.
Vous souvenez-vous de qui nous sommes? Des frères, confondus les uns aux autres, tournés vers l'exécution des tyrans, pour la libération du pays! Nous tuons ensemble (Annenkov, Act 1, pages 34-35)
It is clear from this speech that Annenkov sees the driving force behind the revolutionaries as the end-state and that the assassination of the Grand Duke is something that the cause necessitates rather than being motivation in itself. Unlike Stepan who is motivated by his brutal treatment in prison, the other characters have joined the revolutionary organisation out of a moral duty to improve the quality of life for Russian people. These people are the 'meurtriers délicats' to whom Camus refers in L'Homme révolté. For Camus, they are ideal terrorists because they manage to fight for their cause whilst maintaining ethical limits. A sense of ethics is particularly evident in Kaliayev. In his eyes, the just end alone does not sufficiently outweigh the means that the organisation has to go to in order to achieve freedom for the people. The only way by which Kaliayev can redeem himself for having killed the Grand Duke is to sacrifice his own life. This martyrdom is the most extreme example of acting for the common cause alone, not for personal reasons. By resigning himself to execution, Kaliayev finds a way out of the moral dilemma facing all who engage in violent revolt, namely whether you can claim that the new regime is better given the loss of lives in installing it. Kaliayev was motivated to join the organisation and fight tyranny out of a love of life and happiness. Stepan criticised Kaliayev for not being a true revolutionary, for treating it all as a game. Yet Kaliayev proves himself by carrying through an action which clearly causes him moral doubt. Having to kill is at odds with the very reason he became involved in the movement and the fact that he does carry out the assassination demonstrates his supreme dedication to the cause and to Russian people.
J'aime la beauté, le bonheur! C'est pour cela que je hais le despotisme. Comment leur expliquer? la révolution, bien sûr! Mais la révolution pour la vie, pour donner une chance à la vie, tu comprends? (Kaliayev, Act 1, p36)
One further personal motive common to the works of both authors which is in itself linked to the collective is the notion of fraternity. In Les Justes, Annenkov refers to the rest of the group as 'frères' and Kaliayev has a strong need to be respected and loved by his fellow activists, which is why he is particularly upset after his dispute with Stepan. Like Garine, Kaliayev has made a new life for himself as a revolutionary activist (although of course they are completely different in terms of morality and of visualising the results). Kaliayev seeks approval, praise and friendship from the rest of the group.
Je suis triste. J'ai besoin d'être aimé de vous tous. J'ai tout quitté pour l'Organisation. (Kaliayev, Act 1, p36)
This concept of fraternity is more developed in Malraux. Indications of this theme can be found in Les Conquérants, notably in Garine's reaction to Klein's disfigured body. When Klein spoke of the Stimmung (lit. atmosphere, p104) among the revolutionaries, he evokes the comradeship and shared excitement which attracts potential revolutionaries to join up. Fraternity becomes an essential aspect of Malraux's later novel L'espoir. Malraux himself fought as an aviator in the Spanish Civil War and enjoyed the sense of comradeship. In Les Conquérants, Garine is ultimately unable to conquer the absurd through his involvement in revolution, shown by his worsening illness. However in L'espoir¸ Malraux has developed his thought a stage further and the fighters are able to see some sort of continuity of their lives after death through the fraternity that activism offers them. In Les Conquérants, the main focus of the novel is the individual and Garine's slow, degrading death, whereas in L'espoir the focus is on a multitude of characters whose bond counters isolation. Whereas Garine's death can be seen as solitary and the negation of his life, in L'espoir dying is not solitary, there is a sort of unity in suffering. Characters who become engaged in revolutionary activity looking for this sort of fraternity and community automatically envisage a sort of reciprocal behaviour among their fellows. Thus the way in which becoming involved in political activism transcends the individual is not purely a question of envisaging ends which will have a widespread effect, but also of participating in a sort of community united in action, like the airmen and firemen in L'espoir.
It cannot be denied that everyone who participates in politics does so out of some sort of personal motive, whether that motive be revenge, ethical duty or giving one's life a purpose. Equally true is that involvement in politics is bound to have a wide-reaching effect. What varies from character to character is whether they have a common aim as a conscious objective. This is closely connected to the author's own philosophical or political standpoint. It is essential to remember when examining committed literature that the authors are primarily writers and philosophers, rather than politicians. Malraux's particular interest in writing Les Conquérants was not to urge people to go and participate in revolution or to give a historical account of the events in China. Through the particular we reach the universal and in this case the wider theme is the exploration of an attempt to conquer the absurdity of human existence. The novel concludes on Garine's ultimate failure to counter the supreme power of nature. None of Malraux's favoured characters participate in revolution with a strong political commitment to an end-state. Malraux's own life was marked by a series of deaths and so the imminence of death features strongly in his writing. Camus was particularly interested in the nature and morality of revolt and hence explores motivation and ethical limits in Les Justes. The fact that his characters are all members of a terrorist organisation committed to ridding Russia of despotism means that they adhere more closely to Baechler's assertion. Belonging to a party automatically gives an individual a sense of working towards a collective aim, as shown by Camus' 'meurtriers délicats' and the Communist Borodine in Les Conquérants. These characters illustrate much more closely Baechler's statement than Garine, who admits he is not interested in the results of his action. The discipline and unity of party members focus them on the collective, as opposed to anarchists whose spontaneity and heroism are associated with individualism. Engaged authors themselves also exemplify Baechler's statement. By using novels and theatre to communicate their ideas, whether political or philosophical, they are targeting a wider audience to provoke thought, if not change, in society.
Bibliography
Albert Camus L'homme révolté Librairie Gallimard, Paris 1951
John Cruickshank Albert Camus and the literature of revolt Oxford 1959 this edition 1963
Philip Thody Albert Camus 1913-1960 London 1961, this edition 1964, reprinted 1973
Vinh Dao André Malraux ou la quête de la fraternité Geneva 1991
André Marissel La pensée créatrice d'André Malraux Toulouse 1979
Max Adereth Commitment in Modern French Literature 1967
(2996 words)
