Full Court Drama
John Paul Sartre's 1948 play Dirty Hands is a political drama set in the fictional country of Illyria during World War II. The story revolves around Hugo, a young recruit for the Communist "Proletarian Party," who is tasked with assassinating Hoederer, the party's leader. In the drama, Hugo develops a complex relationship with Hoederer (who may represent the historical Leon Trotsky), responding emotionally to his leadership and humanity. Hugo is led to believe that Hoederer is having an affair with Hugo's wife, triggering the honor motive, and giving the assassination a driving force. The play's title, Dirty Hands, alludes to the moral compromises, and conflict of conscience, that Hugo experiences as he becomes embroiled in political machinations -ultimately leading to his act of violence. The play's themes and characters continue to provoke important debates about politics, morality, and individual responsibility.
As was Trotsky, Hoederer is viewed by the play's Proletarian Party leadership as a pragmatist, one who is willing to compromise with other political groups—including the bourgeoisie—in order to achieve tangible progress. Hoederer's policy is seen as a deviation from the party's revolutionary ideology, and his willingness to form alliances with other groups is perceived as a threat to the party's ideological purity, and revolutionary objectives. By ordering Hugo to assassinate Hoederer, the party's leadership aims to eliminate the perceived threat, all the while keeping its own hands clean. This personal and political plot twist dramatizes the conflicts and struggles within the party system, as well as between the players involved. The play's exploration of Hugo's motive is tied to existentialist themes, such as Sartre's concept of bad faith, and other preconceptions, as (to give a general example), that of the notion that individuals are absolutely responsibility for their actions.
Philosophically, in the play Dirty Hands, by Jean-Paul Sartre, the protagonist Hugo is faced with the judicial dilemma of owning responsibility for acts motivated by self-interest, versus acts committed on behalf of society—for others—and for humanity, as a whole. Through the character of Hugo, Sartre dissects the moral ambiguity of political action, and the difficulty of distinguishing between self-interest and service to the cause. Hugo's decision to kill Hoederer is motivated by a complex mix of personal and political factors, making it difficult for the audience to decide if his actions are truly selfless, or driven by ambition. The play's title, Dirty Hands, plays-off the ambiguity of "dirty hands" as symbolizing both blood guilt and simple manual labor.
My renewed interest in Sartre's play Dirty Hands, at this time, is due to current events. As of the moment, law enforcement has apprehended the suspected United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson's shooter, Luigi Mangione. Mangione's lawyer subsequently announced his client's intention to fight the charges, basing his defense on (1) mistaken identity, and (2) having in his possession a written manifesto when arrested. The manifesto itself is in Mangione's handwriting, and reiterates his disdain (previously expressed in social media and elsewhere), for corporate society. Mangione's defense will probably be that he was acting altruistically—motivated by a desire to expose and challenge the perceived wrongdoings of United Healthcare, and of the healthcare system, in general.
At the present time, the shooting of Brian Thompson, CEO of United Healthcare, is believed to have been a targeted and premeditated attack. Additional circumstances suggest that Luigi Mangione—or someone in his family—may have been the victim of a botched medical procedure, which established his motive. The convoluted motive for Luigi Mangione's alleged crime bears similarities to Hugo's predicament in Sartre's play, Dirty Hands. One key difference between Luigi Mangione, and Sartre's Hugo, is in Hugo's having been ordered by the Communist Proletarian Party to assassinate Hoederer, while Luigi Mangione cannot point to anyone else as the instigator of his act -somewhat like a case of simple tort liability.
In Sartre's play, Hugo is explicitly ordered by the Proletarian Party to assassinate Hoederer, which raises questions about Hugo's responsibility, and the extent to which he can be held accountable for his actions. In contrast, Luigi Mangione appears to have acted alone, without any explicit orders -or direction from a higher authority. In a simple tort liability scenario the person who commits the harmful act is held solely responsible for damages. Consequently, Luigi Mangione cannot point to anyone else as the instigator of his act, which means he bears sole responsibility for the consequences of his actions -which includes his own Exhibit A, the Manifesto, which was authored by Mr. Mangione, alone.
My literary-critical contrasting of Sartre's Hugo, and Luigi Mangione, is meant to provoke a discussion about the complexities of responsibility and accountability in ethically-challenging situations. While the fictional Hugo's actions were influenced by a party ideology and command structure, Mangione's actions are driven by his own personal animosity and motive. This difference in accountability and responsibility raises important questions about the limits of free will, and the extent to which individuals are accountable for their actions. Hugo's actions are, to some extent, determined by the party's orders. Mangione's actions, on the other hand, appear to be the result of his own free will, -without any external influence or direction.