21 XI 2007
In Albert Camus’ Plague, two characters with opposite motivations are portrayed with obvious human weakness; Rambert, the journalist from Paris, finds himself not belonging to the situation and wants to break through the quarantine. Cottard, on the other hand, desires the exact opposite: crime of past makes him believe that through the plague the past can be forgotten and that a new community is formed through the collective experience of the plague. Hence, Cottard is anything but excited to see the end of plague.
Through the character of Rambert, Camus explores the theme of commitment. Viewing himself as an outsider, as someone who doesn’t belong to the situation, Rambert initially sees his involvement in the situation as completely accidental and hence find himself justified to escape. Rambert’s excuse is the love he bears for his wife: though this point is proven false when Camus points out that for the most part Rambert’s mind is never on his love, but instead on his own situation. What he fail to recognize is that man has little control of his situation; a situation is given to man and he must face it and make decisions based on it. The people of Oran are given this situation of uncertain fear and death not by their choice: lot is chosen for them. Hence, Rambert belongs as much to the plague as the people of Oran: it is not a matter of whether one belongs or deserves to be in a situation, but that a situation is given to man without his choice, and he can only do what he can within the situation. The character of Rambert, after his failed attempt to escape, suddenly realizes this point and joins Dr. Rieux’s sanitary squad. This act is one of acknowledgement and commitment: acknowledgement that he, too, belongs to the community of the plague and commitment to act within his ability in an unalterable situation. As soon as the situation ends, Rambert is again free to leave this community, to become a foreigner again, and to return to his wife. But regardless he belongs before the situation is lifted. Hence, the plague serves as an act that creates a community that calls for commitment.
Cottard’s case also demonstrates the point that a situation such as the plague unites to create a community. As a man of crime, Cottard is first presented after his attempted suicide: his desire to do away from his past and himself completely after realization that community with those who are not guilty is impossible. Yet, the situation of the plague brings hope to Cottard: he recognizes that in the plague everyone is equal before death again, and that the government administration is no longer functional to track down his crimes. Hence, he happily enjoys this community and takes advantage of the situation through involvement with smuggling. Cottard is portrayed as an opposite to Rambert; although he recognizes the community from the very beginning, no event triggers him to commitment. He wishes the exact opposite, as if suffering of others means nothing to him as long as the illusion of his participation in the collective remains. Thus, Cottard becomes irrationally attached to a situation given to him, which ultimately causes his doom. When he plague is lifted and others celebrate life, Cottard, recognizing that his imagined community ceases to exist, becomes mad and chooses his own doom; the unbearable thought to be alone, to fear, to be wanted drives his senses to lunacy, even though no such action is meant to aim at him at any point yet. Without commitment, Cottard’s view of the community, ultimately, is flawed and illusionary at best.
The situation of a plague represents an absurd state of life; death happens, without any note, to man, upright or corrupt, alike. Its inception and end might as well have nothing to do with the work of the sanitary squad: and the death of Tarrou–a man who has deeply felt the plague within, who spend his life siding with the weak, who realizes that man are equally guilty–demostrate that people who commit to this form of voluntary and communal action, too, may perish through the plague without any reason. Yet what is one to do? It is precisely because of meaninglessness that he find the community of man indispensables, and commitment to protect it, a process to create meaning.
