“How could I help but feel stunned? For I knew that the documents and the film meant much more than any part they might play in the libel suit. They challenged my life itself. They meant that there had been given into my hands the power to prove the existence of the Communist conspiracy. They meant that I must decide once for all whether to destroy that documentary proof and continue to spare those whom I had so far shielded, or to destroy the conspiracy with the means which seemed to have been put into my hands for that reason by the action of a purpose that reached far back into the past to the moment and the impulse that had first led me to secrete the film and papers. There was this one chance, and only this one, which, if I destroyed the evidence, would never come again. I knew, too, that whatever else I destroyed, I could do what I had to do only if I was first of all willing to destroy myself” (649).
Throughout Whittaker Chambers’ memoir Witness, we see Chambers faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas. For Chambers, it seems that each dilemma is intensified by the effects of communist totalitarianism. This passage reveals how totalitarianism forces the annihilation of self because Chambers must acknowledge his own destruction before accepting his act of resistance as possible.
Towards the end of the passage, Chambers states: “I could do what I had to do only if I was first of all willing to destroy myself”(649). This chilling statement reveals the existential nature of his decision. Furthermore, the language of this quote highlights the totalizing power of totalitarianism. It specifically points to how Chambers had no room for compromise or partial resistance. Instead, he had to make the stark decision between shielding and exposing the communist conspiracy. Proving the existence of the communist conspiracy would mean sacrificing every aspect of life in which he held autonomy. For example, his own safety, loved ones, and private identity. Chambers’ dilemma is made nearly impossible by a system that forces individuals to choose between total complicity and self-erasure.
One major concern that emerges from this is the disintegration of the boundary separating Chamber’s private and political life. Chamber’s remarks that his choice “challenged my life itself” revealing how incredibly deeply political power had infiltrated his personal life (649). Under normal circumstances, perhaps not under communist totalitarianism, forms of resistance would not challenge one’s privacy or individuality. However, totalitarianism makes it so that any act of dissent or resistance becomes inextricably linked to self-destruction. The nature of Chambers’ dilemma as a life-threatening existential crisis reveals how dangerous and institutionalized totalitarianism is. Furthermore, Chamber’s displays how totalitarianism can go as far as infiltrating one’s conscience, losing someone the psychological autonomy they may have once had.
Chambers’ paradox, in which his freedom is only ensured first by his own destruction, reveals how totalitarianism not only represses freedom but also corrupts its very meaning. It’s simply unattainable without self-sacrifice. However, there is a layer of nuance in which the destruction Chambers faces goes beyond just himself. It also seeps into his personal relationships. Exposing the existence of the communist conspiracy means Chambers would betray “those whom I had so far shielded.” In the attempt to shield those bound to him by old communist loyalties, totalitarianism acts as a form of emotional blackmail. Essentially, it ensures that any act of resistance or acts also acts as a form of betrayal. As communism continues to infiltrate almost every facet of ones life, it becomes more difficult and costly to resist. It goes from simply resisting the communist beliefs to betraying a part of ones self that may have been once aligned with the party.
From this passage, we can work towards a definition of totalitarianism as a system that commands total control by giving individuals no way of resistance without the cost of self-destruction. Chambers’ moral dilemma reveals how any violence triggered by totalitarianism is not limited to institutions but reaches into the most intimate parts of someone’s identity. This erodes any chance of maintaining independence. For Chambers, it seems almost impossible for truth and survival to coexist.
Leave a Reply