2084
A few weeks ago, Boualem Sansal, a French-speaking Algerian author, won the Grand Prix du Roman, one of the highest literary awards in France. His book, titled 2084 to echo Orwell’s masterpiece, should probably not be read as a political manifesto but rather as a summary of anthropological issues yet unresolved.
Many perspectives can be used to unravel the intricate synopsis of the novel and the message behind it. The most relevant is probably the concept of frontier, which runs athwart the intrigue.
Divisions shape structures. When a boundary is created, subjects and objects have to locate themselves and determine on which side they are. The more separations are designed, the more elaborate is the fabric. In 2084, boundaries in time and space have been crushed, which results in the dismantling of human lives.
Following a great war, which might or might not have been won in 2084 (nobody remembers), the glorious country of “Abistan” rules the planet. It knows no geographical limits. Therefore, mankind cannot be considered “multiple”, but is united as one. Humanity is composed of Abistanis.
This raises a first question. Of course, it is vital to denounce the regimes and religions that pretend to hold the monopoly of truth on what the human species is, and should be. Totalitarianisms, global religions, absolutisms are threats to human diversity. However, defending the idea that humanity is not unique also implies that there can be no enlightened citizen of a universal republic, and that the Anthropos of the Anthropocene cannot exist.
In Abistan, time has no frontiers. Religion is embodied by the State, which becomes a manager of the economy of the death of individuals/citizens/the people. “As a matter of fact, nothing exists, even God doesn’t, only it [the theocratic state] is.” According to the absolute religion, death isn’t a limit. This axiom entails the neutering of the individual relationship to time and the succession of generations. It is not necessary to prepare our future and the future of our children. The absolute equality among people spreads to time, both horizontally (within a same cohort) and vertically (between cohorts).
Sansal argues that the abolition of such frontiers deprive individuals of their access to liberty. Homo sapiens, to be free, must have a death that belongs to her/him only, as a person. This could be a reason why humans can be free, whereas a machine remains a slave (for now). Liberty, nonetheless, is not every individual’s goal in life. Worse than that, it is an acquired taste, that demands an elaborate education to be shouldered. “Nothing can be worse than being a slave without a master.”
This is where religion comes, as an answer to the “intrinsic violence of emptiness”. It shapes an identity, so that mortals can escape the need to ponder on where/when they come from, and what they should collectively do to mould a common future. On the opposite, allowing a total diversity and dissemination of values can backfire, as the United State reminds us everyday. There is a simple way to dismiss school shootings, but the society cannot agree on it.
What should we do? Sansal only raises questions. But he hints that we should be looking for a new frontier.