Uncovering Blind Spots of Classical Liberalism: 

Blindness

The year 2020 was when our lives were unexpectedly struck by a disease that

introduced the world to a new social order: the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly, in his book

named “Blindness”, José Saramago endeavors to depict a societal disorder that would have

happened if societies were infected with a contagious disease of blindness. Indeed, the notion

of blindness in the novel has a figurative meaning attached to it. It symbolizes the status of the

ignorant and neglectful individual in modern societies who has sight but is blind to one

another and focuses solely on self-interest at the expense of the public. Becoming physically

blind was merely a means that made people realize this very fact. Since Saramago believes

that the practice of some critical ideas upheld by classical liberal ideology, including

individualism, private property, and free-market, causes conflict in societies, he manifests his

strong criticism of these notions through a sequence of events and reflections on characters'

attitudes throughout the book.

In the novel, Saramago criticizes staunch advocacy of individualism since he believes

it ultimately causes a feeling of loneliness and alienation amongst individuals in society.

Selection of blindness as a metaphor could thus be interpreted as an analogy to the status of

ignorant human beings in modern societies who are oblivious to anything that does not serve

their interests. As remarked by the writer who moved into the first blind man’s house: ‘Blind

people do not need a name, I am my voice, nothing else matters’ (Saramago). This statement

implies that people lost their identities, forgot what makes them human, and hence names do

not matter to them anymore since individuals do not care about each other anymore, all of
which are caused by excessive individualism. However, unlike classical liberalism’s definition

of human nature as self-seeking and egoistical (alıntı), Saramago argues that individualism

nurtured self-interest, which could be justified by his portrayal of blindness as a contagious

disease not human nature. In other words, as individuals interact with self-oriented people,

they too become ignorant. Consequently, individualism detaches one from society as it

preaches to prioritize personal interest over public interest. This could explain why the

doctor’s wife did not go blind as she constantly cared for, empathized, and felt responsible for

the collective good. It shows that she retained her moral conscience and thus her sight,

making her favor collectivism against individualism and guiding her group towards salvation.

It is evident in the scene where the doctor’s wife strongly objects to the girl with black glasses

when she expresses her will to abandon the group and live by herself. This scene implies that

solidarity keeps the societies from descending into chaos, which is eradicated by

individualism. 

Along with individualism, the concept of free market and right to private property

were criticised by Saramago, particulary when the hoodlums took over the distribution of

foods. As far as liberalism is concerned, everyone is given equal opportunity to participate in

the market, and the outcome depends on merit (alıntı). However, it is obvious in the novel that

not everyone is equipped with equal means entering the market hence, being given chance to

participate in the market does not mean much itself. The hoodlums who came to power

possessed a gun that enabled them to dominate the market and left the blind with no choice

but involutarily abide by their command in the fear of being shot dead. In this context, the

hoodlums and the rest of the blind resemble the capitalists who own the means of production

and working class who depend on employment by capitalists, respectively. Consequently, free

market creates dependency on the powerful as shown in the scene where the blind submit
whatever valuables they have, just like the working class gives their labor to ensure

livelihood. Non-existence of a controlling mechanism in economy, advocated by classical

liberalism, facilitated the hoodlums to become more greedy and even claim their right on

women’s private property of body in the pursuit of maximizing their pleasure, similar to

capitalists trying to get as much labor of workes by increasing work hours. However,

Saramago illustrates that the tyranny shall be destroyed thanks to the power of unification and

solidarity present in the first ward. The common experience and organization led by the

doctor’s wife brought them into a common fraction and resulted in a revolution similar to the

proleteriat revolution anticipated by Karl Marx. 

In conclusion, the novel Blindness presents a dystopia that depicts the gradual

breakdown of a society afflicted by a blindness of conscience. Even though it is generally

explicit to the reader what Saramago wants to criticize through some quotes or actions of

characters, there remain highly controversial aspects of the novel. In essence, the novel

criticizes the central teachings of the liberal ideology prevalent across many Western

societies, which he found to be having a devastating effect on human nature and thus societal

order. However, Saramago does not leave it unmentioned that he believes in the possibility of

wakening up from this ignorance and becoming genuinely aware of our surroundings is

achievable since, at the end of the story, everyone started to gain their sight, or more

figuratively, their consciousness, back having undergone a catastrophe that taught them a

painful lesson. 
Works Cited