Who is a Rebel?

The rebel, Camus once wrote, is a person who says “no.” Indeed, the rebel’s “no” is a unique kind of rejection directed at forces much more powerful than himself. Governments, gods, and traditions are the most common targets of the no. In saying no to these forces the rebel stands in direct opposition not only to the specific thing he rejects, but also to all those who accept that which he refuses. What ensues is a contest between the rebel and the Heideggerian They.

Whether the opposition to the rebel from the They is strong or weak depends on how fervently the latter believes in what the rebel is rejecting. When the rebel says no, he says no to something important to the They: custom. Accepting a government as legitimate, believing a god exists, and thinking that a tradition is proper, are each examples of the They’s customs. The They is convinced of the rightness of its customs. Government, god, tradition, morals, etiquette, etc. are deeply embedded in society and as such shape the individuals who comprise it—the They. Hence, in rebelling against a custom of the They, the rebel rebels against the whole of society.

This is not the rebel’s aim, but the result is unavoidable. In rejecting some facet of society he finds unfavorable or detestable, he invites upon him the opposition of an indignant They in full force. By saying no to a dearly-held custom or conviction of the They, the rebel has distinguished himself as possessing peculiar morals. The They possesses a particular set of values, and as such, it thinks its values are optimal. As far as the They is concerned, when the rebel rejects some or all of the They’s values, the rebel in essence avers that he possesses suboptimal values. That the rebel is perceived as having inferior morals would be of no consequence were he alien to the society; for in that case he would simply be a novelty instead of a threat. But the rebel is always domestic, always local. He originates in the They and eventually breaks ranks. To be sure, the They is always shocked at the rebel because he was once of Them. His rebellion is evidence of a social breakdown and demonstrates that the They’s monopoly on thought and behavior is far from total, which frightens the They. For if the rebel—once a part of the They—can break loose, who cannot?

The They is inherently reactionary. It matters not what social or political customs and traditions it practices. When it comes to opposing the rebel, liberal societies are no more immune from reactionary tendencies than actual reactionary societies. The zealousness of the They’s opposition is the same in both. Only the methods for opposing the rebel are different. In opposing the rebel, The They “deals with” him. “Dealing with” is performed by the They on a daily basis—officially through the government and unofficially through public ridicule. Like the murderer, thief, and drunk driver, the They “deals with” the rebel.

Where the rebel has not crossed some legal boundary, the opposition of the They is constrained. Especially in liberal societies, the They is frustrated by the law-abiding rebel. Legally the rebel is allowed latitude when it comes to his rejectionist words and actions. He is free to say no and explain all the reasons why he says it, and he may even try to encourage those of the They to do the same. Liberal societies, therefore, furnish room for rebellion. As such, the They of the liberal society is frustrated. It wishes to silence the rebel and have that be the end of the matter, but the They cannot because that would be a violation of its own customs. At the same time, the They feels it cannot ignore the rebel because he threatens it. The They of the liberal society faces a conundrum: if the They silences the rebel in order to neutralize the threat, it will be rebelling against its own liberal customs, hence demonstrating that its values are not fixed, but mutable; thus the rebel would be vindicated in his attempt to topple merely mutable customs. On the other hand, if the They allows the rebel to proceed in his ways unfettered, he may become increasingly dangerous to the They and the status quo. What then, is the They of the liberal society to do?

-Max