We
are all chained to Fortune. Some men's chain is loose and made of gold, that of
others is tight and of meaner metal; but what difference does this make?
We
are all included in the same captivity, and even those who have bound us are
bound themselves, unless you think that a chain on the left side is lighter to
bear.
One
man may be bound by public office, another by wealth.
Some
have to bear the weight of illustrious birth, some of humble birth.
Some
are subject to the commands of others, some only to their own.
Some
are kept in one place by being banished there, others by being elected to the
priesthood.
There is a
common assumption, that since we are all dealt different hands in life, we are
all therefore given different degrees of freedom and happiness. The second
statement does not follow from the first, however, and it rests only on the
false premise that having more or having less means being more or being less.
All
external circumstances, in whatever form they take, will act as limitations on
our liberty. It is fittingly ironic that the more we try to bend them to our
wills, the more tightly they take a hold on us. We think we are so close to
having mastered our situations, and then we only find that the master has unwittingly
made himself the slave.
Perhaps I
am painfully aware of the chains that bind me, while I look to my neighbor, and
I think I see no chains on him at all. I grow resentful and jealous, and I
direct my efforts to becoming more like him, to becoming the idealized self-made
man. I desire as much wealth as he has, all the seeming power he possesses, the
smiling friends who always surround him, the leisure and luxury that appear to
make his life so carefree.
Some people
have developed entire philosophies, whole systems of social progress, on the
struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”, working from the theory that
fighting one’s way from the latter group to the former will bring satisfaction.
A particular
version of the American Dream, for example, would have it that we can become
happy by having the freedom to acquire our own private wealth. The Socialist
will insist that the dream can only be achieved when all property is shared in
common. Both models, however, define the worth of a man by what he has.
I have
not thought through what it means for me to live well, and I have not looked
carefully enough to see that all of us, regardless of our class or position,
carry the weight of chains. If I suddenly had everything my neighbor has, I
would still find myself filled with fear and anxiety.
Poverty
may be the burden I must bear, and yet wealth is also a burden for the man who
receives it. I become obsessed with wanting more, and he becomes obsessed with keeping
a hold on what he owns.
I may
feel insignificant because no one pays attention to me, and he feels smothered
because everyone pays attention to him.
I am sure
I am powerless because he controls every aspect of my life, by slowly selling me
my house or granting me the trickle of my wages, and he is also sure that he is
powerless, by being tied to all his many obligations and paying back all the
favors that got him to where he is now.
Prosperity,
or high office, or influence do not buy freedom; they are only different sorts
of shackles.
Written in 10/2011
No comments:
Post a Comment