What We Can Learn from Camus' 'The Plague'

Year 13 IB students recently discussed Albert Camus’ 'The Plague'. Written in 1947, the novel describes the effect of a plague on a community in Algeria (then a French colony), exploring the characters’ responses, from resistance to resignation. It is often seen as a fable about the Nazi occupation of France at at time when, according to historian Tony Judt, “the French were beginning to forget the discomforts and compromises of four years of German occupation” and to create “the myth of glorious national resistance”. The novel is “an illustration of what Camus meant by the “absurdity” of the human condition and the seemingly chance nature of human undertakings . . . Camus was a moralist who unhesitatingly distinguished good from evil but abstained from condemning human frailty . . a believer in absolute truths who accepted the limits of the possible.”

Early in the novel, the narrator argues "There have been as many plagues in the world as there have been wars, yet plagues and wars always find people equally unprepared . . . A pestilence does not have human dimensions, so people tell themselves that it is unreal, that it is a bad dream which will end. But it does not always end and, from one bad dream to the next, it is people who end, humanists first of all because they have not prepared themselves . . . The people of our town were no more guilty than anyone else, they merely forgot to be modest and thought that everything was still possible for them, which implied that pestilence was impossible. They continued with business, with making arrangements for travel and holding opinions. Why should they have thought about the plague which negates the future, negates journeys and debate? They considered themselves free and no one will ever be free as long as there is plague, pestilence and famine."  The novel ends as follows: “the plague bacillus never dies or vanishes entirely . . . perhaps the day will come when, for the instruction or misfortune of mankind, the plague will rouse its rats and send them to die in some well-contented city.”

Julie: This sparked in me a need for further answers. What does it mean "never dies"? Shouldn’t a vaccine be enough to end it all? We might be talking about how the effects of the plague never die, such as for example the recession Covid-19 will make us face, or maybe we intend it in a more literary way as the souls of the dead are never entirely vanished but remembered. Maybe the plague never dies as it arose from a past one or the present one can lead to a future plague that will appear, might not be the same kind but may kill thousands such as a past plague.  

JEB: That is an interesting reflection: that, even in the event of a medical solution, the economic one will be more complicated,and a fascinating point that the plague will never end as long as it is remembered in human consciousness (for example through literature). As you say, there are always consequences that we cannot understand or predict - pandemics such as this remind us of our limits not just physically but in terms of our understanding. 

Theo: I think that the topic of freedom in this extract is interesting. As mentioned that ‘no one will ever be free as long as there is plague, pestilence and famine’, freedom is absolute and must encompass everything - in this way no one will ever be free. However, in my view freedom is something that is available for anyone who works for it or deserves it. Maybe we as a race will not be free from natural disasters over the next decade, but we can be free inside our own minds and so freedom of a mental/psychological kind is indeed possible. The definition of freedom is essentially to be without restraint or restrictions and as we have the power of thought with endless possibilities, I would argue that we are free.

JEB: Yes, this goes to the heart of tragedy and also religion: the gap between our physical limitations and our imaginative/spiritual (take your pick) boundlessness. Will this crisis have a spiritual consequence, a shift to the inner life?

Rex: There seems to be a sense of our own self-deception portrayed by Camus. He talks about how inhuman pestilence is and how this feature leads to denial. We are never prepared for anything of this kind I believe this to be true about society. We never expect anything to disrupt the comfort of our fairly privileged lives so when something occurs which does interrupt it, we seem to take offence as if to say that we have been wronged by disease or pandemic. The “bad dream” reference is especially true. We seem to struggle to accept that this is reality. People are still holding the belief that future plans will follow through and that this is a mere interval in our lives and the play, as it were, will continue shortly but this is very much a part our life which we must embrace to avoid falling into a situation where we are all stuck waiting for our “deserved” moment of bliss. Camus is known for his slightly depressing view on freedom. He is opposed to the ideas of absolute freedom from other existentialists such as Sartre and Beauvoir in that he believed that the human condition is confining. The same idea resonates here. He says that with pestilence, plague and famine nobody will ever truly be free. I wouldn’t completely agree or disagree with this. I would agree that these issues are very real, they are not the bad dream or interval which we try to make them. They pose real threats to us and our freedom but on the other hand, they only restrict our freedom to the same extent that the rest of the human condition’s routine and monotony does. As in the myth of Sisyphus, we are condemned to this cycle which we cannot escape. In the context of today, the pandemic is another part of this arduous task. We have to stay indoors, avoid contact but we do not have to think in a restricted and confined mindset. We can allow ourselves to be happy and be active within the circumstances. We can imagine that Sisyphus is happy. 

JEB: Interesting observation that we take "offence" as if the virus is "wronging" us; indeed, many people talk about it as something "evil", as if it has a moral consciousness. I agree with your view of Camus' perception of the limited extent of our freedom, with the plague here as metaphor for human "absurdity" and your own presentation of the imagination in almost transcendent terms

Dom: In this extract, Camus is making an interesting point about good and evil by claiming that humans are more often than not good. This makes the point that men are generally not intrinsically evil, and if we take La Peste as an allegory for the Nazi occupation, Camus is suggesting that neither the French collaborationists nor the Nazis were traditionally evil. Instead, Camus is claiming that the evil deeds of these groups came from ignorance believing that it is knowledgeable. Camus, therefore, is suggesting that truth - real, enlightened truth, not ignorance disguising as truth - is the force for good in the world. The final line of this extract, “it is knowing whether or not two and two do make four” has further interesting implications for the nature of truth. The suggestion here is that truth - and by consequence goodness, if you follow Camus’ answer - is not concerned with abstract ideas such as reward or punishment or the whims of people, but absolute truths such as two plus two equal four, and therefore it is concerned with the pursuit of knowledge. What I think Camus is trying to say here is that in order to make an objectively good decision or action it requires a great deal with knowledge. What causes some people to make good or bad actions has nothing to do with the morality of a person, but with their level of ignorance. This leads to Camus’ overall philosophy that humans are generally good because they do not try to do bad things, it is simply a consequence of their ignorance.

JEB: Yes, Camus' perspective on the Occupation caused much controversy at the time, exposing "truth" as myth. There are interesting parallels with his contemporary, Orwell. 

Mia: As plagues and wars are both unexpected yet impactful events, they often reveal a lot about human behaviours and the ways in which societies interact and are constructed. From a psychological view, events such as the current COVID-19 pandemic act as stressors for a large majority of the human population spreading high levels of fear, panic and stigma especially now that the media is involved. COVID-19 has changed social dynamics across the globe and societies are having to function in completely new ways with little preparation. At first, the shock of the pandemic and the mass hysteria forced people to confine to the lockdown rules but when we start hearing any positive news I believe there are chances that people will begin to disobey the government. The extract shows how people then also ‘forgot to be modest’ due to the fact that the rules would ‘negate the future’ this again is the reason some societies may not do what is best for the health of its people. This is seen in the US where President Trump has eased some lockdown measures earlier due to the economic hit of the coronavirus. Severe pandemics pose a large threat to economies and there is a complex issue between balancing peoples health and welfare. The nature of freedom is also complex as there will always be forms of plague, pestilence and famine present in the world, so no one can be completely ‘free’. During the current pandemic, anyone who believes they are ‘free’ and who is continuing life as normal would be regarded as selfish and likely to be punished. However, the scale of this particular epidemic is so large that there are very few people who can believe they are ‘free’ as almost everyone knows someone who has been affected. Until a vaccine is discovered, COVID-19 will remain and precautions will have to be made. Freedom from the virus will take a long time and the sheer loss of lives means we will never truly be ‘free’.

JEB: Yes, there are difficult judgements to be made. The crisis has helped to illuminate the complexity of 'freedom' and the extent to which the current crisis brings us back to the tension at the heart of Greek tragedy which we studied, between aspiration and limitation. 

Chelsea: The extract starts off saying that people are equally unprepared for wars and plagues. For a humanist however, these two disasters may not be equally weighted and thus prepared for. Since wars directly involve the participation of human beings and destruction of cities, it is seen that it is something real and evil and must be prepared for. However, as mentioned plagues/ pestilence “does not have human dimensions” and appeals less to the worry of people mostly humanists. 

Another point is that at most times, when a plague first comes about, the consequences foretold of its doing contrast greatly with the current way of living; or it is reported that the plague is halfway across the world, thus will have little impact on the people. It causes people “to tell themselves that it is unreal” since they cannot conceive the impacts realistically or they do not want a change in their way of living. When thinking about plagues, most think of it as an “ancient” disease and that it wouldn't happen now in this much more civilised and modern world. People think that tech, medicine, transport, manufacturing etc as a shield or immunity of some sort and take it less seriously. Freedom could be seen as humans’ imagination and overconfidence of freedom in their dreams. By rejecting reality, of course it can be considered that there is freedom in dreams as they are fantasy and can be manipulated freely by humans.

Despite the seemingly connected society at normal times, when it comes to panic, it is much of a pile of sand. For example the image of people panic-buying excessively for themselves. The plague therefore reveals the underlying mistrust and miscommunication in the society covered by the facade of normal daily ease and panic-free living.

JEB: I think many of us were certainly guilty of thinking about plague as something "ancient" or certainly less relevant to our modern world. I like your image of medicine and technology as a "shield of immunity" whose limitations Covid-19 has starkly revealed, as if (as you say) stripping away a fragile facade.

Imogen: I find it interesting that the author has decided to compare plagues with wars. A war is something often associated with violence, anger,and destruction. At first this may seem like an extreme way of describing a plague or in today’s case Corona. However when we consider the effect on not only the economy that society as a whole, we are able to see the huge amount of destruction that has caused. This links to the idea of freedom and the idea of turning a blind eye to the matter. As said, because the virus does not have a human physical dimension many people may neglect to think that it is real and therefore a problem or challenge in their life.  This may lead to them continuing their life as normal as they may see themselves as free of the virus. But this mentality then compromises the freedom of others. This can be shown currently through the idea of lockdown as many people are starting to defy the rules and go out whenever they please. But not only does this continue to spread the infectious disease it also prolongs the process. When you think about it like this it becomes something selfish and the people who are defying the rules are somewhat naive of the extremity of the situation. So when you think about it like this comparing the plague or coronavirus to war actually may be somewhat accurate. This fight that we are having is against the virus and the

plague is but it is also causing a conflict within society. This conflict is between different groups of people with different mentalities on how to survive and how to continue living in an uncertain time. The extract also says that the virus or the plague never dies or vanishes entirely and this is interesting because it shows a different aspect. There is a group of people that may believe that everything happens for a reason and therefore this virus is allowing us to change as a population as a world or as a country and if it never finishes entirely then this may seem to improve how we live. For example we could look at the effects of coronavirus on the environment and climate change. The price of oil has the client for the first time in years and see the becoming clearer, there is less pollution. And therefore looking at this from a philosophical point of you you may see that this problem and the plague is helping to shape our society and to show us what we can live without. 

JEB: It is interesting that extreme events such as wars and plagues have such transformative effects, with consequences that may take many years, even decades, to understand. When and if we go to "normal", it will not be a return, it will be a new normal.

Will: Throughout the history of humanity, there have always been several consistent thoughts; one of these has always been “it won’t happen to me”. This thought is visible within the passage, where Camus writes that the townsfolk ‘forgot to be modest’; this has been mirrored within our own time, with governments and people alike clamouring that they are safe and that they will not be affected for whatever reason by the pandemic. In some aspects the human need for freedom creates this trance-like thought, as without this belief that bad events will not affect us how can we live our lives free of anxiety and worry?

JEB: You are right that "freedom" has become totemic in many societies, with a resultant  loss of our appreciation of and even respect for its complexities and contradictions. This fetishisation of freedom has been particularly pronounced in the USA for many years, which is complicating governmental attempts to keep lockdowns in place and mitigate the spread of the virus. 

Henry: Evil occurs from ignorance. This inevitably relates to the rise of Nazism and, from Camus' perspective, the French experience of Occupation in particular. The German people are often argued to have been generally ‘good’ but to have succumbed to committing bad actions due to their situation. As Camus writes, this is relatively insignificant, as it is rather the lack of reason and blind following, in contrast to the clear sight he asks for, that led them to commit such acts. This questions responsibility and guilt, as they were blind to their ignorance, but this similarly is not the most significant question, that is instead if their acts were truly good or bad. In other words, if the ideology that so many saw as reasonable did have merit behind it, and how so. If we are to reject the assertions without such investigation we fall to the ignorance of them as they do not conform to our world view. This is perhaps why, as Camus states, we focus on punishment rather than truth, as this is the structure in which we see and judge actions. We live through reactions, and therefore see anything as requiring reward or punishment, we should instead be looking to find truth instead of a rapid response, with the clear sightedness Camus asks for. Absolute truth can induce goodness, which comes from clear sightedness, a potentially impossible conclusion yet one we must strive for to understand what is evil or virtuous.

JEB: That is an interesting point that we focus on punishment rather than truth - that we seek justice rather than understanding. Even in this avowedly secular age, our response is religious rather than philosophical. We need heroes (and villains). 

Nikhila: “The plague never dies or vanishes entirely”- To me this particularly stood out as I felt that it could be interpreted in many different ways. The first one being purely scientific as, a plague is never fully eradicated even with a vaccine . There will always be that pathogen that still exists and has escaped the vaccine thus allowing the plague to survive and throughout  history come in and out of society. Additionally, I also read it as the way in which the league causes many negative externalities, i.e. the impact on society of the death of loved ones, the trauma from those working on the front line and lastly the economic impact that the league has caused can be everlasting and change the way society operates forever. For example, since the last recession, all business and economic classes were based on this situation and used to teach students; however how the Covid will be used instead conveying how it will be seen in everyday life for a long while to come.

JEB: I agree that there will be ramification we are not yet aware of that may take many years, even decades, to become clear. 

The narrator of The Plague describes a character who "would be expressing himself from the depths of long days of meditation and suffering, the image that he wanted to communicate having been long tempered in the fire of waiting and passion. The other person, meanwhile, imagined a conventional emotion, the suffering that is hawked around the marketplace, a mass produced melancholy. Whether well meant or not, the reply would always strike the wrong note and have to be abandoned. Or at least for those to whom silence was unbearable; since others could not find the true language of the heart, they resigned themselves to using the language of the market-place and themselves speaking in a conventional manner, that of the the simple account or newspaper report, which is to some extent that of the daily chronicle of events. Here too the most authentic sufferings were habitually translated into the banal cliches of conversation. It was only at this price that the prisoners of the plague could obtain compassion from their concierges or gain the interest of their audience . . . if it happened that one of them did succumb to the disease, it was almost always before he became aware of it. Dragged away from the long dialogue that he was holding inside himself with a shadow, he would then be cast forthwith into the still deeper silence of the earth."  

Theo: I think that the line ‘if it happened that one of them did succumb to the disease, it was almost always before he became aware of it’ is particularly striking and relevant. This is very much true with the virus today as symptoms may not appear for one or two weeks but I think that there is a deeper meaning here also. Having something, whether it’s a disease or maybe a hidden talent, without knowing it is common and so awareness is a powerful skill to have. As coronavirus is teaching us to be more aware, both globally and of ourselves, I hope that we will discover new things at an even faster rate than before. If we can decrease the time for realisation and increase our awareness then we will not only be able to deal with this virus and future viruses better and more quickly, but also we will be able to deal with other problems via the same process - awareness is key. My football manager used to tell me that a talented player is good but a talented player with awareness is to be feared. The combination of skill and awareness can be applied to all aspects of life and lead anyone to success - if awareness can separate a good player from a professional, then it can be the difference between fighting and outwitting a disease.

JEB: Yes, many are becoming more aware, partly as a result of life slowing down and becoming more restricted, leading to a greater intensity to aspects of experience. I like your differentiation between fighting and outwitting. 

Will: Camus identifies the way that human interactions are often viewed in economic, transactional terms, as a trade of sorts. If this were to be true, everything is subconsciously weighed up for its value and then acted upon, attempting to achieve the best outcome for the person performing the action. However this comes into question when we think of sacrifice for the ones we love; it is a wholly selfless action and goes against the idea that everything is a trade, and so maybe there is more to human nature than everything being seen as an economic function. believe that the pandemic has shown us that one of the greatest evils in the world is mistruth; mistruth in the sharing of information, mistruth in the taking of information and ignorance within the understanding of information. Without this evil, the virus would have been shut down before it left China’s borders (or at the very least the death and disruption would have been multitudes less intense). To this end I feel that evil stems from willful ignorance and cruelty.

JEB: Yes, there is even the sense that the virus is helped by mistruth: the more people attempt to deny or cover it up, the more effective it is.