Is Sisyphus a figure of submission or a symbol of resistance for individuals to whom the system imposes meaningless tasks?

Sisyphus is a figure in Greek mythology who was condemned by the gods to a meaningless punishment: rolling a boulder up a mountain, only to have it roll back down each time. This story has become a powerful metaphor for the existential condition of modern man, especially in Albert Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus. In the context of individuals imposed meaningless tasks by the system, a philosophical tension arises in which Sisyphus can be read as both a figure of submission and a symbol of resistance.

1. The Submission of Sisyphus: The Acceptance of Meaninglessness

Sisyphus’s situation may at first glance seem to represent the individual’s submission to meaningless tasks imposed by the system. The punishment inflicted by the gods aims to break Sisyphus’ will and trap him in an endless cycle. This parallels the bureaucratic, repetitive, and soulless tasks that individuals face in modern society. For example, as in Max Weber’s “iron cage” metaphor, rational-modern systems make the individual part of a mechanical process, devoid of meaning. Sisyphus’s continuation of rolling the rock reflects, in this context, the individual’s surrender to the demands of the system: the person fulfills his tasks in order to survive or avoid punishment, no matter how meaningless he knows they are.

Phenomenologically, Sisyphus’ surrender can be associated with “fallenheit” in Martin Heidegger’s concept of Dasein. The individual, forgetting his authentic existence, is lost in “everyone” (das Man) and unquestioningly fulfills the tasks imposed by the system. In this sense, Sisyphus is a figure who abandons his existential freedom and is crushed under the weight of meaninglessness. The gods have made punishment meaningless in order to break his will; this is like the modern individual exhausting himself in capitalist production cycles or bureaucratic structures. Sisyphus’s continuation of rolling the rock is a concrete manifestation of this surrender: he continues his action, no matter how absurd he knows it is.

2. The Resistance of Sisyphus: The Triumph of the Absurd

In contrast, in Camus’ existential interpretation, Sisyphus is reconstructed as a symbol of resistance against meaninglessness. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus argues that the individual who becomes aware of the absurd (the conflict between man’s search for meaning and the meaninglessness of the universe) gains his freedom by accepting this absurdity. Sisyphus does not submit to his punishment; on the contrary, he is free in his own consciousness while rolling the rock. As Camus famously puts it, “We should think of Sisyphus as happy.” This happiness arises from the recognition of meaninglessness and the decision to continue living despite it.

Sisyphus’ resistance here lies in the individual’s preservation of his subjectivity against the meaningless tasks imposed by the system. Although he plays the role assigned to him by the gods, he re-meanes this role with his own consciousness. This can be related to Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of “freedom”: man is free in every situation because he creates meaning with his own consciousness. When Sisyphus rolls the rock, he rejects the meaning that the system (or the gods) imposes on him, knowing and accepting the meaninglessness of his action. This rejection is not passive submission, but active resistance, because Sisyphus preserves his existential autonomy.

In terms of political philosophy, Sisyphus’ resistance can also be read through Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of “power” and “resistance.” According to Foucault, power is everywhere and disciplines the individual; but resistance is possible even within this discipline. Sisyphus resists the power of the gods by consciously owning his own action. In the modern context, this can mean that the individual constructs his own world of meaning even while participating in the meaningless tasks of the system. For example, a factory worker can resist the soullessness of the system by resorting to his own inner creativity or community solidarity while doing his monotonous work.

3. The Tension Between Submission and Resistance

The fact that Sisyphus can be read as both a figure of submission and resistance stems from his tragic and paradoxical nature. This tension reflects an existential dilemma: can the individual completely escape the meaningless tasks imposed by the system, or must he create his own freedom within these tasks? Camus’ answer is the second option: freedom lies in the midst of meaninglessness. However, this is not an easy victory. Sisyphus rolling the rock is both a physical and mental torture; his resistance arises from the courage to confront this torture.

This tension also sheds light on the situation of the modern individual. While the system (capitalism, bureaucracy, technology, etc.) condemns the individual to meaningless tasks, the attitude the individual takes in the face of this meaninglessness determines whether he submits or resists. For example, in Hannah Arendt’s distinction between “work” and “action,” the individual’s ability to break away from the mechanical work cycle of the system and create meaning through “action” offers a moment of freedom similar to Sisyphus’ resistance. However, this may not always be possible; most individuals, like Sisyphus, push the limits of resistance as they continue to roll the rock.

The Double-Faced Legacy of Sisyphus

Sisyphus is neither a figure of submission nor a romantic hero of resistance. He represents the tragic yet honorable stance of man in the face of the absurd, oscillating between the two. For individuals to whom systems impose meaningless tasks, Sisyphus is a warning and a source of inspiration. A warning because rolling the rock without being aware of the meaninglessness traps the individual in Heidegger’s trap of “falling.” A source of inspiration because, as Camus showed, by becoming aware of the meaninglessness and choosing to live despite it, the individual can create his own freedom.

Philosophically, the story of Sisyphus questions how man deals with the tension between freedom and meaninglessness. As the modern individual rolls the rock of the system, he carries the ambivalent legacy of Sisyphus: the struggle to create his own existential meaning on the fine line between submission and resistance. This struggle offers neither complete surrender nor complete victory; But perhaps the essence of being human lies in this struggle itself.