Myself and Others

I recently read Anthem by Ayn Rand. It is set in a post-apocalyptic world (similar to By the Waters of Babylon, a fantastic short story I was introduced to in high school) that has little technology and whose inhabitants look back at our age in wonder. In Anthem, the society that has arisen is also totalitarian: it decides every aspect of a person's life. At birth, people are placed in the home of the infants, and at age five they begin ten years of study, at the end of which they are assigned a career and a home with all the others who do the same job. Each day is completely structured and monotonous. There are no marriages, and mating occurs as an awkward ritual one day a year. There are to be no friendships, for that would mean preferring one person above another. There are to be no preferences, for the state assigns what is best for each person. Learning is forbidden for everyone but the scholars because it is superfluous. The purpose of existing is to serve one's brothers. There is no individuality in this collectivist society. The word "I" has disappeared from the language, and everyone refers to themselves and others in the plural. (It was kind of creepy at first to read the protagonist constantly refer to himself as "we" - it reminded me of Gollum, and then made me question how often I do the same thing myself.)

The story is about the liberation of two characters from this society. Equality 7-2521 is banished for an innovative but wholly illegal discovery, and his forbidden love Liberty 5-3000 follows him. Together they find happiness in living a non-communal life.

The story concludes with these discoveries:

For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice for their altars.
I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!
I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of the spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.
I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, no do I live for any others. I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.
I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned...
For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie...
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey? (95-97)

At first I questioned the hyper-individualistic premise of the book. But then I learned that Ayn Rand grew up in Soviet Russia. She knew what she was writing about, and although collectivism can often be beautiful, she had seen its ugly sides. I found her perspective to be a very interesting one, and her background lent credibility to her argument.

This is not to say that I agree or that I am converted. I see her point; I feel like my view has gained a new dimension, but I think hyper-individuality can be similarly dangerous. I'm a big fan of the middle ground.

Around the same time that I was reading Anthem, I was also reading Becoming Human by Jean Vanier, the man who started the L'Arche communities that welcome people with disabilities. He offers a more communal view, saying that "A society can function well only if those within are concerned, not only with their own needs or the needs of those who immediately surround them, but by the needs of all, that is to say, by the common good and the family of nations," (34) and he feels that personal maturity requires involvement in a community (41). He sees individualism as a negative quality. However, he acknowledges the tension necessary between these two extremes, and he sees how living as part of a group can be unhealthy, oppressive and stifling. He acknowledges the need for personal attention.

I think the best alternative lies where we seek to develop ourselves in order to be a willing blessing to others. There was a moment of this in Anthem: Equality 7-2521 is excited to share his discovery with his brothers because it will benefit them, and although his personal search for knowledge is illegal he is sure that all will be forgiven in light of the gift he is presenting. Later, however, when things haven't turn out as he anticipated, he doubts his earlier goodwill and believes he only sought his own glory. I wish he hadn't changed his mind; I think the idea of giving to others is beautiful. I think that Equality 7-2521 went too far. But, then again, I have a relatively good sense of self, and I have never been forced to live for others. I have been able to aspire to this by choice.