WRITERS IN EXILE
491
self as a writer who emigrated from Poland. Both descriptions
are, at least in my case, rather imprecise. First of all, I didn't emi–
grate. I left Poland in March 1981-that is, at its height of
political freedom. I couldn't have foreseen anything like the
events of December 1981, and nobody else could. Therefore, I
didn't have the slightest intention of staying in the West forever.
I may consider myself an exile-a temporary one-but
not
an
emigre. So much for the first semantic distinction.
The second one is much more important, I think. As some of
you may recall, Stanislaw Lem, a prominent Polish writer, wrote
in the 1950s a grotesque science fiction story, the action of which
took place on a certain distant planet. Its inhabitants, otherwise
completely humanlike creatures, lived in a social system that
forced everybody to live his life in water-preferably under water.
Bubbling sounds were the only acceptable way of communica–
tion, the official propaganda emphasized the advantages of being
wet, and occasional breathing above water was considered almost
a political offense-although everybody had to do it from time to
time. And of course, the whole population suffered from rheuma–
tism and dreamed all the time about some dry place to live. But
the propaganda still maintained that the fishlike way of life, espe–
cially breathing under water, was the highest ideal for which
every citizen should strive.
I can't help recalling that short story whenever I hear the
word
dissident.
Does someone who simply wants to have a breath
of fresh air really deserve to be called a dissident? Should some–
one who simply can't live under water, his human lungs not al–
lowing him to do so, necessarily be described that way?
And let's consider another possible situation. Suppose that
one day the whole population of that fictional planet decides
to
live on dry ground, and only the rulers, the propaganda people,
and the police still prefer to stay in water and to bubble their ab–
surd slogans. Who would be a dissident then? As everybody
knows, the word
dissident
comes from the Latin word
dissidere,
which means
to
sit apart. This implies at least two connotations:
someone who sits apart behaves abnormally, opposes the behav–
ior considered typical and normal; or he and other persons like
him constitute a minority who sit apart from a supposedly much
larger group.
If
we accept these two implied meanings, it be–
comes quite obvious that at least one of them cannot be applied to
