Albert Camus The Plague

June 27, 2012

Book Critique of Albert Camus’ THE PLAGUE

In reading Camus’ The Plague, I found myself easily attaching personal significance to the many symbolic references and themes alluded to in this allegorical work. Some of the most powerful messages woven throughout the novel seem to all speak to conflict or imbalance between two ends of a spectrum. The ideas of apathy vs. concern, solidarity vs. isolation, freedom vs. imprisonment (intellectually and physically), individual moral responsibility vs. the power of the collective, as well as the potential abuse of the power that government and religion have over the masses.
When the rate of human deaths in Oran starts to cause reason for concern among
Rieux and the town doctors,
the Prefect needs to choose how to balance alerting the public to the epidemic, while not causing alarm or hysteria. He chooses to remain silent initially. This is our first glimpse at an ethical dilemma in the book, and one where the choice to not act was as powerful as taking action. The silence allowed more time for more people to be infected and the deaths mounted. Should the doctors have acted independently from the Prefect? Should Rambert, the journalist, have used his position to spread the word via the newspaper? Could they have done so in a way that would have been “heard” by the public without confirmation from the Prefect? Or would the doctors or media’s speaking the truth have caused chaos, or worse: disbelief and therefore a
“tuning-out” of the public?

As time passes and more people start to die, the word “plague” is finally used.
Despite the Rieux’s previous experience in dealing with a plague in China and France, the news still seems to come as a surprise. It seems to be a primal defense tactic to protect oneself from the shock of a perceived or actual threat, and to instead cling to optimism at all costs…even to the point of denial. The following quotes speak to this theme:
“In fact, like our fellow citizens, Rieux was caught off his guard…he was torn between conflicting fears and confidence” pg. 32
“There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise” pg. 32
“Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves” pg. 32
While Rieux was caught in a state between awareness and denial, the townspeople were in the grip of apathy, denial and cockiness (they forgot their “modesty”, as Camus
says).
They simply could not wrap their head around something so pervasive and overpowering as the Plague. They continued their travel, business and social plans despite finally having heard the news. This lack of action on the part of the townspeople highlights another shortcoming in humans in that we allow ourselves to so easily slip back into complacency and apathy, even after (or at the same time, but in a different context) expressing rage and disapproval over the pain and suffering of others and vowing “never again”.
This public lack of concern or engagement caused more time to pass, resulting in mounting death tolls, and soon the town has to be sequestered to contain the spread of the epidemic. Was the news delivered “too little, too late”? Would any choice of when or

how to deliver the news have mattered to the apathetic, self-absorbed public? How does one generate in others a true interest in a subject that doesn’t directly affect their own narrow circle of experience? Is it only when calamity strikes close to home that we are awakened and moved into action? Consider the following
quote:
“Paneloux is a man of learning, a scholar. He hasn’t come in contact with death; that’s why he can speak of such assurance of the truth with a capital T” pg. 116
Father Paneloux, the town priest, does not personally face a Plague-related death until much later in the story. Till that time comes, he uses the plague to support his ideological religious propaganda. He calls for a Week of Prayer, and asserts that the
Plague is surely a judgment and punishment for the sins of the people. Although the congregation is skeptical, they attend church in throngs, clinging to the hope that good can overcome evil…that some sense can come from the absurd. Father Paneloux uses the commonly used religious reference of a calamity being a “test” of faith, of character, of will…perhaps the goodness of religion can crush the evil of the plague? Father Paneloux says the following:
“My brothers, a time of testing has come for us all. We must believe everything or deny everything. And who among you, I ask, would dare to deny everything? Pg. 202
Rieux has trouble reconciling this message, with that of the deaths of the innocent children who are not “deserving” of God’s judgment or merit being “tested”.
Nonetheless, the townspeople continue to come together and internalize the message that increased religiosity can save them from the plague. However, they, like
Rieux, ultimately become skeptical and turn to superstition and wild speculation and prophecies. When Father Paneloux starts to show signs of being stricken with the plague

himself, even he starts to question blind submission to God’s will vs. seeking the knowledge of man (doctors). Should he have encouraged more people to seek medical attention sooner, rather than spread the message that doing so would be in contradiction to God’s will?
At this point, due to the prolonged isolation and physical separation from loved ones and in some cases, each other, the townspeople are now grappling with the physical manifestation of the plague, as well as personal “demons” or “plagues of thought”.
“Each of us has the plague within him; no one on earth is free from it. “ pg. 229
In their collective “isolation”, each person feels imprisoned by their own “private plague” and madness and lawlessness ensue. People start turning on each other, fighting to escape Oran, in the search for freedom. As the sense of humanity declines and the town is ravished by death, the number of people committed to helping to end the plague slowly mounts. Do the numbers of people moved to action correspond to the number of people who have had a brush with the plague hit close to home? Is it not enough to fight suffering in others if it does not directly affect oneself? It would seem so…
Ultimately, the plague is controlled and the numbers of death slow enough for the town to fling open the gates and be “free” again. Rieux adds this positive thought:
“There are more things to admire in men than to despise” pg.
278
On the other hand, the cyclical nature of catastrophe/tragedy is emphasized with these last few sobering words:
“He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know, but could have learned from books…that the plague never dies or disappears for good…” pg. 278

Personally, I could see parallels to the recent political and cultural events of
Egypt. I was able to easily relate the plague to the “sickness” of the corruption of the
Mubarak regime before the revolution, and how oppressed the people were. There was no freedom of speech, no chance for optimism or “escape” from the tight grip of government power. There was virtually no physical escape, either, as one could attest when seeing the lines of people waiting at embassies praying to secure the elusive “visa” (ticket to escape). As was the case in Oran, in recent years, Egyptians started turning on each other and crime/theft were rampant due to shortages of the most basic necessities, such as water, electricity…even bread.
It was, after all, the apathy and despair of the Egyptian people that afforded
Mubarak his decades-long “power grab”. Mubarak and his regime used State-run media to peddle their propaganda and lies (denial) to the people, but the people knew, despite the saccharin-coated optimism they were being fed, that the truth was being concealed from them. Year after year, I wondered: what would it take to “awaken” the people? To cause them to rise up and take back their dignity, their integrity, their humanity?
Individuals spoke up for years, only to wind up languishing in jail, or worse, brutally murdered simply for speaking out against immoral leadership.
It was only when enough people stood together in solidarity for an end to the oppression, that they were able to topple the regime in a historic coup.
Yet, despite the Egyptians’ heroic quest for freedom, in a surreal turn of events, the presidential election was narrowed down to two candidates: one himself, formally a member of the Mubarak regime (symbolizing the oppression of the past), and the other was a leader from the Muslim Brotherhood (symbolizing the oppression of religion).

Mohamed Morsi was eventually elected president because people turned to religion to “save” them from the “sickness” of their country, rather turn to the “comfort” of the old regime. Because so many Egyptians found themselves in the ethical dilemma of not knowing which form of “potential oppression” would be less disastrous, they couldn’t bring themselves to vote for either (millions of Christians, for example, abstained from voting).
What is also striking is this echoes the idea of cyclical patterns of “plague”. My fear is that the Egyptian people will soon find themselves grappling with corruption (the
Brotherhood has a history of internal corruption within the organization), intellectual oppression (the Brotherhood are after all, ministering a very conservative
“Wahabi/Salafi” brand of Islam that allows for virtually no diversity of interpretation), and divisiveness (will Christians be treated equally as Muslims?). I fear the Egyptian people have gone from plague to plague…I end by repeating the following quote:

“He knew what those jubilant crowds did not know, but could have learned from books…that the plague never dies or disappears for good…”