Right now, for AP Literature, I’m reading The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas for a project that we’re doing where we have to read a book and then develop a research essay based on some aspect of our book.
If you know anything at all about The Count, you know that it’s a revenge story that follows the journey of a young man falsely imprisoned. Now, this isn’t my first time reading The Count, but it is the first time where the exposition of the story – where the reason why the main character, Edmond Dantès, is imprisoned is developed – stuck out to me.
[MEDIUM-SIZED SPOILERS AHEAD:]
The Count of Monte Cristo is set in early 19th century France in a period of turmoil and conflict between the pro-monarchy and pro-Bonaparte factions in the European nation. Specifically, the beginning of the book takes place alongside Napoleon Bonaparte’s escape from his exile and his bid to reclaim power in mainland France.
Our main character, Dantès, is caught in this whirlwind of political tensions and is implicated as being part of the plot to restore Napoleon to power and undermine the monarchy, thus leading to his imprisonment. Each of the three “villains” who frame Dantès has a unique motivator: one covets Dantès’ lady love, one is jealous of Dantès’ professional success and popularity among his colleagues, and one seeks to advance his own political status. But the central thread shared between the three is their desire to scapegoat Dantès to achieve their own ends.
While The Count is a fictional tale, I feel that this phenomenon occurs far too often. People in power want to stay in power and want to maximize that power, so they take advantage of existing fears and political discord to create a situation that facilitates the “other”-ization of part of the population and leverage the goodwill cultivated in our wider society as a result of neutralizing that dangerous “other” to accrue greater amounts of power.
It happened in Nazi Germany: Germany faced intense economic ruin in the aftermath of World War I with the establishment of the Weimar Republic and the skyrocketing levels of inflation that resulted. Adolf Hitler was able to employ the widespread resentment brewing within the German people to redirect the resentment that stemmed from the ruin to the West and (to a much, much greater degree) the Jewish people living in Germany, scapegoating them for the hardships Germany faced and using the political approval gained through those measures to soar to power.
It happened in Cold War America: Americans were forced to confront the growing threat of the USSR, contributing to a widespread fear of communism. Then-Senator Joseph McCarthy leveraged these fears of communism to set off what can only be called a modern-day “witch hunt,” creating the House Un-American Activities Committee and investigating countless individuals accused of being communists.
It even happened just a few years ago (although to a much lesser extent): with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, people sought to find someone to point a finger at and blame and landed on Asian people, due to the pandemic’s origins in China, setting off a wave of crime and violence rooted in Asian hate.
There’s just something about facing times of uncertainty that pushes us to find someone to scapegoat, usually to the benefit of the people in power. But the more we seek to scapegoat someone, the more we prevent ourselves from actually addressing the problems at hand. So the next time you face a crisis, whether in your personal life or in the wider political realm, stop and think for a moment before you instantly blame someone and consider that there might be More to the Story than what you’re being told.
