Seneca, On Peace of Mind 10.3

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