La Boétie Street is a Parisian street very close to the Champs-Élysées, an ideal place for those who like to soak up historical references such as the home and workshop of Pablo Picasso or to observe the daily life of the banks and international companies that have their headquarters there. Not all passersby know that the name of the public thoroughfare honors Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1562), a jurist and philosopher who was a friend of Michel de Montaigne and lends his name to a neighboring street. His modest literary output includes, in addition to some Renaissance sonnets, a small treatise whose publication now marks its 450th anniversary: Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. Liberal revolutionaries and anarchists, among others, have praised this work over time, which Montaigne rescued from oblivion.
The discourse is an intelligent reflection on tyranny that remains valid for our era. It raises, though it does not resolve, the question of why human beings voluntarily renounce their freedom to submit to the arbitrariness of a tyrannical power. The author did not attack the constituted power directly, which spared him from censorship, but indirectly questioned its legitimacy. It continues to be a valuable work for differentiating that one thing is legality and something very different—legitimacy.
Both in domestic and foreign policy today we witness the spectacle of voters, citizens and rulers who yield to the powerful. Freedom, a defining trait of humanity, is marginalized by voluntary servitude. In that stance fear plays a role, clouding reason, though one must not forget the petty collusion with tyrannies from which short-term personal gains are sought.
“A more recent model of that cry for liberty is that of the Iranian masses who have taken to the streets against the ayatollah regime. Rebellion in the name of liberty is inherent to human nature”
Voluntary servitude remains an act of alienation. In any era a tyrannical regime seeks to dominate the people. It would be logical to suppose that that people will not accept that domination and will rise up even at the cost of their rebellion failing. The GDR, Hungary, Poland or Czechoslovakia were in the twentieth century examples of struggles in the name of liberty that temporarily ended in failure. And a more recent model of that cry for liberty is the Iranian masses out in the streets against the ayatollah regime. Rebellin in the name of liberty is inherent to human nature, as Le Boétie asserts. Yet our author shows himself unable to understand why many citizens let themselves be dominated and deprive themselves of their own freedom to surrender to tyrants.
The discourse reminds us that to be free it is not enough to rebel and go out into the streets. The essential, according to Le Boétie, is not to accept the lie—or the post-truth of our era—and to want to stop being subjected. You do not need to topple the tyrant’s statues. If the number of those who do not support him grows, power will break from the base and fall under its own weight. These and other considerations serve to show that Le Boétie read both the Bible and the classical authors of Antiquity. For example, he read Seneca, in On the Shortness of Life, who denounced the ungrateful role of the courtier, one of the forms of voluntary servitude, since every courtier displays an inner consent that makes him an accomplice of the powerful. He lifts his benefactor to the category of master and arbitrarily fashions for him a nature of a good sovereign, in Le Boétie’s words. It goes without saying that this is not exclusive to empires, in case we are thinking of North American, Russian or Chinese leaders. No political regime lacks courtiers.
Fear and Concern for Image
La Boétie was a keen observer of human nature and he delved into the traits of the tyrant. He highlighted the paradox that he sits at the head of the government, but he does not govern, although he does not stop believing himself to be the master. He deploys “unceasing fear and a perpetual threat” toward those around him. Moreover, our author is fully right in underscoring that tyranny rests on a human vice: cowardice. He reminds, however, that many times the tyrant is not a Hercules or a Samson but a simple little man. The fact is that the tyrant, in all eras, worries about his image. He always proclaims that he is concerned for the citizens, although many times this is reduced to entertaining and feeding the people. He resembles those Roman emperors who consciously took on the role of tribunes of the plebeian crowd.
“As Le Boétie states, ‘tyranny does not complete its work if reason exercises influence’. And corruption inevitably arises as petty tyrants proliferate who directly support the tyrant”
In short, the tyrant constructs his own image. But this false image serves to foster ignorance and irrational behavior. Science and intelligence are proscribed or despised in tyrannical regimes. As Le Boétie himself states, “tyranny does not complete its work if reason exercises influence.” And inevitably corruption arises as petty tyrants proliferate who directly support the tyrant. Then the people fall into passivity, that is, into voluntary servitude. Simone Weil, a great philosopher of the twentieth century, was right to say that “oppression is maintained not only by those who command, but by those who consent to obey.”
The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude remains fully relevant in a world like ours in which there has emerged a certain fascination with force, and there are those who accept voluntary submission in the name of “moral” principles or “saviors.” Perhaps La Boétie would tell us today that serving the good and still being free is not exactly a virtue.
