Individualism in Anthem, Jane Eyre, and The Giver
Many literary works depict individualist heroes struggling against collectivist societies. Here are three brilliant examples.
As a young girl, I was a multi-library-card carrying bookworm. I read every fiction book I could get my little hands on—exploring the shelves of public libraries, my grandparents’ homes, and the school library, not to mention eagerly awaiting those precious rectangular treasures that would appear under the Christmas tree. The characters in novels became my friends, heroes, and teachers. When I faced challenges, I often looked back on the characters I’d loved to help me make the right choices.
I’m far from alone in my love of fiction. Most people have connected deeply with a work of fiction at some point in their lives, be it a novel, movie, play, short story, comic, TV show, video game, or poem. We connect with stories because they dramatize things we care about: love, friendship, achievement, courage, heroism, intelligence, and so on. Well-crafted works of fiction show us our abstract values in vivid color. They show us we aren’t alone in caring about the things that matter to us; that others see what we aspire to and admire it, too. They also offer new ideals to which we can aspire. This is at once comforting and empowering—providing spiritual fuel, a vision to strive for, and heroes to emulate.
Among the most important values great fiction illustrates is individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism is the idea that the individual is the unit of moral concern, and one cannot morally trample a single person’s life or rights, no matter the supposed benefit to others. Collectivism, by contrast, is the idea that some sort of group (the race, the nation, society, or the like) is the source of moral value, and a single individual’s life is secondary—or irrelevant—compared to the supposed welfare of the group. Both ideas have serious consequences for human life.
Collectivism may manifest merely at the cultural level or at the political level, with the latter being most virulent. The 20th century, for example, was full of collectivist political leaders: Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler all were rabid collectivists, to name a few of the most significant. They explicitly held that the group comes first—and they enforced this view on entire populations. Hitler wrote, “It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of the nation, that the position of the individual is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.”1 Similarly, a communist, according to Mao Tse-tung, “should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any individual, and more concerned about others than about himself.”2 Such ideas caused the death of millions and the misery of millions more.3
By contrast, as Ayn Rand put it, “Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being.”4 Individualism, the philosophic underpinning for the political concept of individual rights, influenced the Enlightenment and the subsequent creation of the United States. For example, John Locke, a major influence on the American founding fathers, argued that “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.”5 In other words, everyone should be free to pursue his own values, so long as he doesn’t violate another’s right to do the same. We can see the practicality of individualism on one level by observing the flourishing it has enabled wherever and to whatever extent it’s been implemented. And the practicality of individualism at the social level is undergirded by its morality at the personal level: It recognizes and upholds the moral fact that each individual’s life is his to live, and the products of his efforts belong to him.
Many literary works depict individualist heroes struggling against collectivist societies, but three brilliant examples are Charlotte Brönte’s classic Jane Eyre, Lois Lowry’s award-winning young-adult novel The Giver, and Ayn Rand’s dystopian novella Anthem.6 By reading these and other such works, we can not only savor them as great works of art, but also gain valuable examples of what it means to live for one’s own happiness—examples we can come back to when facing pressures to sacrifice our values for the supposed good of some collective, whether community, nation, race, or any other group.
Jane Eyre
This timeless novel tells the story of the orphaned Jane, who becomes a strong, intelligent, independent young woman despite the struggles of her youth.
The tale begins with Jane being unjustly rejected by her aunt and sequestered far away from her family in a strict Christian boarding school. But Jane is resilient and bright; she excels in school, becoming a teacher when she graduates. As a curious young woman, she begins to yearn for a change of pace and a chance to see more of the world. So, she leaves behind the life she’s known to become governess to the young French ward of a wealthy gentleman. Through the course of her adventures, she makes many pivotal choices that pit her emotions of the moment against her principles. Some of these revolve around her relationships with Mr. Rochester, the gentleman who employs her as a governess and with whom she falls in love, and Mr. St. John Rivers, a preacher who intends to become a missionary and wants Jane to accompany him as his wife.
Mr. Rivers embodies the Christian doctrines Jane has been steeped in her entire life, including the idea that one must sacrifice for one’s fellow man—to “love one’s neighbor as oneself.” At the time, one of the most revered forms of such sacrifice was to become a missionary, trying to save the souls (and, to some extent, lives) of people in such places as India. Mr. Rivers, unsatisfied with his life as a parish priest in rural England, is convinced that this fate—spending the rest of his days in a dangerous, disease-ridden place for the benefit of others he does not know—is his calling. He tries to persuade Jane to come with him based on her supposed duty to others, as well as her intellectual ability and mental stamina, virtues he claims are God-given gifts that should be employed for God’s work—namely, charity projects for the poor and spreading Christianity. Jane is not interested in missionary work; though she believes in God, she considers teaching to be her calling and finds fulfillment in it. Mr. Rivers knows this but emphasizes that one’s Christian duty requires sacrifice, proclaiming, “The more arid and unreclaimed the soil where the Christian labourer’s task of tillage is appointed him—the scantier the meed his toil brings—the higher the honour.”7 Jane is pressured to give up her values for the well-being of a group, to choose between the Christian command of sacrificing her comfort, career, and potentially her health for the poor, on the one hand, and staying true to her chosen path of teaching on the other.
Jane is a strong-willed woman, determined not only to earn her own way in the world, but to make up her own mind and stand up for her principles (justice and integrity primary among them). And she does not mind standing against societal norms; she says she would “dare censure” from even those who are well-off and well-respected “for the sake of any friend who deserved my adherence”—that is, a friend whose actions are morally good.8 Moreover, she holds that a person who has thought through her ideas and applied them appropriately shouldn’t be distressed by others disapproving of her actions; she agrees entirely with her friend’s declaration that “If all the world hated you, and believed you wicked, while your own conscience approved you, and absolved you from guilt, you would not be without friends.”9
Jane’s commitment to her principles is tested when adhering to them means leaving behind those she holds dear. But she reminds herself that “Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour; stringent are they; inviolate they shall be.”10 It is relatively easy to declare moral principles and to defend them against those one thinks are evil, but it’s much harder to hold fast to those principles when doing so drives a wedge between us and our loved ones. Another fictional character, the wise Professor Dumbledore of the Harry Potter series, makes a similar point when he tells his students, “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”11
Jane’s employer, Mr. Rochester, is also an independent thinker who refuses to let others’ ideas dictate his actions. In a pivotal scene, he explains why he’d made the decisions that had shaped the course of his life—decisions that, if they became public, would have scandalized his Victorian peers. Acknowledging this, he then declares, “For the world’s judgment—I wash my hands thereof. For man’s opinion—I defy it.”12 His actions, he says, have not hurt anyone but worked for his own happiness—and he is not willing to accept that this is a moral crime, whatever others may think.
Jane thoughtfully weighs all her major life decisions. When she realizes that to accept Mr. Rivers’s proposal would be to “disown half my nature, stifle half my faculties, wrest my tastes from their original bent, force myself to the adoption of pursuits for which I had no natural vocation,” she rejects it, even though doing so causes her short-term problems.13 She is unwilling to betray herself, standing firm against her supposed duty to sacrifice for others and defending her right to choose a life path she finds satisfying. Her independence and integrity lead to a happy ending. She takes her values seriously, makes decisions for herself, and achieves her happiness—an example we all should emulate.
The Giver
The Giver portrays a dystopian society shaped by a policy called Sameness; to make everyone and everything equal, government committees got rid of money and trade and now distribute food, clothing, and other goods to the population; eliminated all forms of art; rendered everyone color-blind; and strictly control reproduction to make the gene pool more homogenous. They even flattened hills and control the weather in an effort to maximize efficiency for “the common good.” By the time the story takes place, a government committee in each community directs every aspect of citizens’ lives, from what they wear to whom they marry to when a child receives his first bicycle. Everyone is expected to behave in strict accordance with the rules; to do otherwise is to shame the community, and if the infraction is severe enough, to deserve expulsion. When people violate the rules, even if their infractions are minor, they are said to have “infringed on the community’s sense of order and success.”14 Lowry presents a society that seems peaceful and stable, but achieved at the cost of individual choice and happiness.
Even memories are collectivized: When an individual dies, his memories are transferred to other minds. Without government intervention, they could be experienced by anyone. However, to enforce Sameness, the government cordons off access to memories, giving them solely to The Receiver, who is assigned to bear the responsibility of holding all the memories of mankind, regardless of his wishes. These include wonderful things that no longer exist, such as sunshine, music, and holidays—and dreadful things that also no longer exist, such as war, famine, and disease. The story follows twelve-year-old Jonas, who is chosen to become his community’s new Receiver (the old Receiver then becomes the Giver, passing on memories to Jonas). When he learns of all the things that had been, along with a few dark secrets about what his community does for “the common good,” he must decide what to do with his new knowledge.
One thing Jonas learns from the memories is the joy of individuality. All his life, he’s been taught to conform to his classmates and never draw attention to differences between people. One of the community elders sums it up in a speech given to his class: “You Elevens have spent all your years till now learning to fit in, to standardize your behavior, to curb any impulse that might set you apart from the group.”15 In so doing, the children are held back from developing their own identities, never mind cultivating and pursuing their own dreams. But Jonas learns from the memories that the differences his elders vilify are what make people unique and capable of achievement. So, he discovers, individuality should be celebrated: “He has seen a birthday party, with one child singled out and celebrated on his day, so that now he understood the joy of being an individual, special and unique and proud.”16
As Jonas learns about color, holidays, music, and everything else that has been taken from people, he recognizes a fundamental truth: “If everything’s the same, then there aren’t any choices!”17 And if there aren’t any choices, Jonas comes to realize, there’s nothing beyond one’s physical body to distinguish one person from another—and no apparent reason one shouldn’t be sacrificed for the supposed benefit of the community. He begins his journey toward greater individuality, declaring, “I want to wake up in the morning and decide things!”18 Though he was never taught to be an independent thinker, the young Jonas recognizes the importance of choice—the first step in building character and sculpting a happy life for himself.
Jonas exemplifies how curiosity and seeking the truth lead toward a flourishing human life. The unusual nature of memories in the novel (when Jonas receives a memory, it is as though he himself has experienced it) means that Jonas is shown, not told, the nature of the reality that has been hidden from him. For the reader, it’s encouragement to go out and experience the world and to form one’s own judgments, rather than taking someone else’s conclusions or dictates on faith.
Anthem
Like The Giver, Ayn Rand’s 1938 novella Anthem takes place within a politically collectivist society. Both societies share the expectations of conformity and enforce strict regulations on people’s behavior, but unlike the society depicted in The Giver, the one in Anthem doesn’t sugarcoat its brutality. Citizens’ time is strictly regulated, their jobs and sexual partners are assigned to them, and they are taught to live for their community. At school, children recite, “We are nothing. Mankind is all. By the grace of our brothers are we allowed our lives. We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State.”19
People in this society aren’t given names we would recognize but are, instead, named after supposed ideals—and because there are only so many ideals, these are followed by numbers. The protagonist is a young man known as Equality 7-2521. In a society that assigns each person a career, he secretly chooses a different one. In a society in which showing a preference for one individual over another is forbidden, he makes friends with a colleague and falls in love with a girl. In a society governed by an oppressive regime that considers independence and intelligence a threat, he is exceedingly independent and uses his intellect. And when that society rejects something he views as precious and life-sustaining, he must decide between that society and his own judgment.
Through this journey, Equality 7-2521 learns that an individual’s life is precious, and that when it’s controlled by others, misery is inevitable. He asks, “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?”20 Thus, he discovers that to truly live, one must be free of such restraints.
He also grasps a truth that undermines the ideas he was raised with. He was taught that one ought to sacrifice for the good of society. But if everyone who is able must sacrifice for everyone else (regardless of what they contribute), then some benefit at the expense of others—and this is unjust. In the end, this undermines even the value of the unearned benefits to those who receive them, because it deprives them of the chance to build skills and self-esteem by accomplishing things for themselves. Egalitarianism, Equality 7-2521 realizes, works against everyone who lives under it.
Anthem is a work of fiction that exposes the naked truth of real-world collectivism: that it is fundamentally opposed to the human mind and, thus, to human life. Though brief, it encourages the reader to think about such questions as: Am I living my life fully, as Equality 7-2521 learns to? If not, why not? What needs to change for me to do so?
Similarities among the Protagonists
Jane, Jonas, and Equality 7-2521—though created by different authors in different eras and placed in different settings with different challenges—all share certain characteristics: They are independent and curious, have integrity and a strong sense of justice, and value (or learn to value) freedom.
All three have been taught to follow some authority—the spokesmen for God, the community elders, the government—because collectivist systems depend on individuals deferring their judgment to leaders’ dictates. Despite not being taught to use or trust their minds, these protagonists learn to do just that. When Jane makes her final decision in the story, she focuses on the facts at hand and draws the rational conclusion from them.21 Similarly, Jonas challenges the wisdom of the Sameness as soon as he learns what it means and grasps some of the effects it’s had on his life. He stands up against the opinions of his elders, whom he has always been taught to look up to as the final authority. And Equality 7-2521 explicitly states his approach to understanding the world: “It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth.”22 Jane, Jonas, and Equality 7-2521 show us that to really understand the world and take control of our own lives, we must use our own minds to seek the truth.
They do this, in part, because all three protagonists also are curious, though they live in societies that are designed to quash this trait. Because collectivism focuses on the supposed welfare of the group, individual knowledge takes a backseat, and anyone who tries to understand the world for himself threatens the status quo. In Jane’s society, collectivism isn’t politically enforced, so she doesn’t face political consequences for her curiosity. But she does face social consequences, including stiff rebukes from her aunt and teachers.23 Jonas, upon first meeting the Giver, suppresses his questions (exemplifying the self-suppression his parents and teachers instilled in him), because he’d been taught that they’re rude: “Jonas had questions. A thousand. A million questions. . . . But he did not ask one, not yet.”24 In Equality 7-2521’s case, as a child he faced the censure of his teachers; he “asked so many questions that the teachers forbade it.”25 Later, his curiosity leads him to become an inventor, which has more serious consequences under a brutal regime that doesn’t allow such a profession. This repression of active minds, whether by social pressure or by force, is one of the many human costs of collectivism.
If people are prohibited from forming their own ideas, then integrity—loyalty to one’s own convictions—is effectively banned. But all three protagonists have, or form, principles they stick to in the face of immense pressure. Jane, after leaving her comfortable position as governess and ending up in a rural backwater teaching farmers’ daughters, reflects that it is better “to be a village-schoolmistress, free and honest” than “a slave in a fool’s paradise.”26 She recognizes, in short, that she would never be truly happy if she betrayed her principles—even though holding to them makes life uncomfortable at times. As Jonas becomes exposed to more and more values through the memories he receives, he begins to care about personal liberty and the ability to shape his own life. Eventually, those values come into conflict with the stability that his community offers, and he must decide whether to risk that stability for the prospect of freedom. Equality 7-2521 knows that he must keep his invention secret until the right time. When he slips up, he ends up in jail and is tortured. But he withstands the physical misery to protect his beloved creation.
In a society in which everyone is commanded to love and help others equally (as in all the societies discussed), justice is essentially outlawed. In such societies, the standard for how to treat people is not as they deserve based on their choices and actions but equal treatment for all. However, these protagonists either have or learn a strong sense of justice, one that consists of treating others as they deserve based on their virtues or vices. When a classmate espouses the Christian idea that one ought to “turn the other cheek,” Jane disagrees vehemently:
You are good to those who are good to you. It is all I ever desire to be. If people were always kind and obedient to those who are cruel and unjust, the wicked people would have it all their own way: they would never feel afraid, and so they would never alter, but would grow worse and worse.27
Jonas, on learning about one of the many things his community had been deprived of via the Sameness, reacts indignantly: “‘When did they decide that?’ Jonas asked angrily. ‘It wasn’t fair. Let’s change it!’”28 Equality 7-2521 sums up the point nicely when he pledges, “I am neither friend nor foe to my brothers, but such as each shall deserve of me.”29
Finally, each character values, or learns to value, personal liberty. Jane, who is confronted with social barriers, is determined to decide her own fate: “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will,” she declares proudly—and proceeds to exercise it.30 Jonas’s final choice depends on whether he values freedom (which he has only recently learned the meaning of) more than stability, which he has always taken for granted. And Equality 7-2521, after freeing himself from the oppressive society he was born into, learns to value his happiness and the things it depends on, declaring, “I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.”31
***
The virtues these characters display—independence, curiosity, integrity, justice—and the achievement of their values are possible because each of them holds that his or her life matters. This conviction and these virtues enable them to pursue their values and achieve happiness. By contrast, the collectivist societies they were born into discourage such virtues, hampering or physically stopping people from pursuing their values, thereby pushing happiness further and further out of reach. By consuming such glorious fiction with heroic, individualist characters, we can better appreciate the significance of this idea for our own lives and happiness—and connect with and be inspired by heroes who live it out in the face of adversity.