By Gillian Schutte.
As the mother of a teenage boy who tragically took his own life after being wrongfully accused and subsequently cancelled by his peers, and in light of the recent self-immolation of a young man as a form of protest against the genocide in Gaza, I am compelled to explore the complex matter of self-sacrifice and protest against injustice. These two deeply poignant incidents, separated by context and method yet united in their manifestation of desperation and defiance, invite a profound examination through the philosophical frameworks of Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism and Nisargadatta Maharaj’s non-dualism. By exploring these acts through the lenses of existential freedom, responsibility, and the illusory nature of the ego, as well as the interconnectedness of all existence and the transcendence of suffering, I hope to uncover deeper insights into the motivations, implications, and ethical dimensions of self-sacrifice as a response to systemic injustice.
My aim is not to set up my son’s suicide as the same act of heroism as the young man’s self-immoliation in protesting the genocide in Gaza. Rather, in exploring the intersection of suicide and self-immolation, I aim to foster a nuanced understanding that transcends mere disapproval of these acts. By examining the complex circumstances surrounding each incident—the wrongful accusation leading to cancellation in the case of the teenager, and the genocide prompting the self-immolation—we can uncover deeper insights into the motivations and desperation that drive individuals to such extremes. It is through empathetic exploration of these contexts that we can begin to appreciate the profound sense of injustice, despair, and powerlessness that individuals may experience in the face of systemic oppression and violence. Rather than simply condemning these acts, understanding their context allows us to engage with the underlying issues of injustice and suffering, and to work towards fostering environments where such extreme responses are no longer seen as necessary or inevitable.
In this light, these two seemingly disparate acts—suicide by a wrongly accused teenager, Kai Singiswa, and the recent self-immolation by Aaron Bushnell, seeking to raise awareness of genocide—share a common thread: both are extreme expressions of desperation and defiance against injustices. Despite the differences in methodology and context, each act represents a profound and tragic response to the violation of fundamental human rights and dignity. Examining the underlying motivations and implications of these acts reveals a complex interplay between personal suffering, societal injustice, and the quest for meaningful change.
The wrongly accused teenager, facing the crushing weight of false accusations and societal stigma, may see suicide as the only means of reclaiming agency and dignity in the face of injustice. Driven by a profound sense of despair and isolation, they may view death as a final act of protest—a declaration that their life and reputation are not disposable commodities to be tarnished by baseless accusations. In this sense, the act of suicide becomes a tragic assertion of autonomy and defiance against the injustice inflicted upon them.
Similarly, the individual who chooses self-immolation as a form of protest against genocide is motivated by a deep-seated conviction that their sacrifice will serve as a catalyst for change. By willingly sacrificing their own life in a highly public and symbolic manner, they seek to draw attention to the atrocities being committed and to inspire collective outrage and action. Self-immolation becomes a potent expression of solidarity with the victims of genocide and a powerful indictment of the indifference or complicity of the international community.
Despite the differences in methodology and intent, both acts of protest share a common impulse: the refusal to passively accept injustice and the determination to confront it, even at great personal cost. Whether through self-inflicted death or self-immolation, individuals are driven by a profound sense of moral outrage and a desperate desire to make their voices heard in the face of systemic oppression and indifference.
Moreover, both acts highlight the limitations of traditional forms of protest and advocacy in addressing deeply entrenched injustices. Faced with the enormity of genocide or the devastation of false accusations, individuals may feel compelled to resort to extreme measures to break through the apathy and inertia that often accompany systemic injustice. While these acts may be controversial and fraught with ethical complexity, they serve as stark reminders of the urgency and necessity of confronting injustice at its roots.
Despite their differences, both acts embody a profound refusal to accept injustice and a desperate plea for recognition and change.
Self-immolation involves deliberately setting oneself on fire, often as a form of protest or political statement. While self-immolation shares some similarities with suicide in that it involves intentionally causing one’s own death, there are important distinctions to consider.
Suicide typically involves an individual taking their own life due to reasons such as mental health struggles, despair, hopelessness, or the desire to escape suffering. The primary motivation behind suicide is often personal anguish or distress, and the act is typically carried out in private or without an audience.
On the other hand, self-immolation is often a highly public and visible act, carried out as a form of protest or political expression. The motivation behind self-immolation is often to draw attention to a particular cause or grievance, such as political repression, social injustice, or human rights violations. While self-immolation may result in death, the primary aim is not to end one’s own life but to bring attention to a broader issue or to inspire social change.
Furthermore, self-immolation is often preceded by a deliberate effort to communicate one’s motivations and intentions to others, whether through written statements, public speeches, or other forms of communication. This distinguishes self-immolation from suicide, where the act is typically carried out without prior warning or communication.
The intersection of communication and injustice in the case of Kai Singiswa taking his own life after being wrongfully accused and cancelled adds a layer of complexity to the understanding of his tragic decision. Despite his efforts to communicate and seek reconciliation with those who perceived wrongdoing, the persistence of the injustice perpetrated against him continued. His sincere apologies and attempts to make amends were met with continued exclusion and ostracisation, exacerbating his sense of powerlessness and despair. This stark contrast between his willingness to engage in dialogue and the refusal of others to extend forgiveness or understanding highlights the systemic nature of the injustice he faced. The failure of communication to rectify the injustice inflicted upon him, again, underscores the profound limitations of traditional avenues for seeking redress and reconciliation in the face of entrenched prejudice and bias. In this context, his decision to take his own life can be seen as a desperate act of protest against the futility of communication in the face of systemic injustice, a final assertion of agency in the face of overwhelming despair.
The self-immolation by Aaron Bushnell, driven by the ongoing suffering and injustice inflicted upon the innocent victims of the war on Gaza, epitomises a profound act of desperation and moral outrage in the face of systemic impunity and indifference. Despite countless appeals to international structures and legal mechanisms, the relentless violence and oppression against the people of Gaza have persisted unabated, leaving countless lives shattered and futures uncertain. In choosing to sacrifice his own life as a form of protest, the young man sought to disrupt the cycle of violence and draw attention to the urgent need for meaningful intervention to end the suffering of the innocent. His act, rooted in empathy and solidarity with the victims of genocide, serves as a poignant reminder of the human cost of geopolitical conflict and the imperative of collective action to uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals, regardless of nationality or creed.
From a philosophical perspective, self-immolation and suicide can be interpreted in several ways:
Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist philosophy emphasises the individual’s freedom and responsibility in creating meaning in a seemingly absurd world. In the context of self-immolation as a protest against genocide, one could argue that it represents an extreme assertion of individual autonomy and defiance against oppressive forces. From this perspective, the act may be seen as an assertion of existential freedom and a refusal to passively accept injustice.
Within the framework of non-dualism, which emphasises the interconnectedness of all existence and the illusion of individual identity, self-immolation may be interpreted as a profound act of sacrifice aimed at awakening collective consciousness. The individual willingly sacrifices their physical form to draw attention to the suffering of others and to challenge the boundaries of egoic identification. From this perspective, self-immolation transcends the realm of personal ego and becomes a symbolic gesture aimed at catalysing social change and collective awakening.
The act of a teenager taking their own life after being falsely accused is a deeply tragic and complex situation with profound implications for their sense of self and the philosophical interpretations of their actions.
From Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist perspective, the act of suicide in this context could be seen as an assertion of individual freedom—a radical attempt to reclaim autonomy and control over one’s own narrative in the face of injustice. Sartre emphasises the freedom of choice and the responsibility that comes with it, suggesting that suicide, while a drastic measure, can be an assertion of existential freedom in response to intolerable circumstances. In this interpretation, the act of suicide may be viewed as an expression of agency—a final act of defiance against the unjust accusations and the limitations imposed by external circumstances.
From Nisargadatta Maharaj’s non-dualism perspective, suicide may be seen as a manifestation of egoic identification and a failure to recognise one’s true nature beyond the confines of the ego. Nisargadatta teaches that true liberation comes from transcending the ego and realising one’s inherent unity with the universal consciousness. In this context, suicide may be viewed as a misguided attempt to escape suffering by identifying with the ego and its perceived limitations. From this viewpoint, the act of suicide may be seen as a tragic consequence of misidentification with the ego and a failure to recognise the interconnectedness of all existence.
On the other hand non-dualism emphasises the underlying unity of existence and the illusion of individual identity, in which death is viewed as a natural part of the cosmic play—a transition from one form to another without inherent significance or judgment. From this perspective, the concept of ego, as the illusory sense of individuality, loses its relevance in understanding the nature of death, including death by suicide.
If it was predetermined within the framework of someone’s life journey to die by suicide, then the notion of ego as a driving force behind the act becomes moot. In non-dualistic thought, all experiences, including the circumstances surrounding death, are seen as part of the unfolding of the universal consciousness, devoid of personal agency or egoic intention.
Moreover, if many stand to learn from the suicide of an individual, it could be viewed as a potential catalyst for collective reflection, growth, and transformation. From a non-dualistic perspective, every experience, even those that may seem tragic or painful, holds the potential for deeper understanding and awakening. In this sense, the suicide of an individual in the context of cancel culture could indeed be perceived as a catalyst for youth to experience self-reflection, empathy, and the realisation of the ripple effects caused by unkindness and self-righteousness.
In this light both Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialist framework and Nisargadatta Maharaj’s non-dualistic perspective, the acts of the teenager protesting his cancellation and the individual self-immolating to stop genocide can be viewed as profound expressions of protest against injustice that have the potential to catalyse meaningful change. From Sartre’s existentialist viewpoint, these acts represent radical assertions of individual freedom and agency in the face of oppressive forces. The teenager’s protest against his cancellation and the self-immolation to stop genocide are seen as acts of defiance against the absurdity of existence and the injustices perpetrated by societal norms and structures. By refusing to passively accept their circumstances and instead taking extreme measures to challenge the status quo, these individuals embody Sartre’s philosophy of engagement and responsibility.
Similarly, from Nisargadatta’s non-dualistic perspective, these acts are seen as manifestations of the interconnectedness of all existence and the illusory nature of the ego. Kai Singiswa’s suicide and Aaron Bushnell’s self-immolation are viewed as symbolic gestures aimed at transcending the limitations of the egoic self and awakening collective consciousness to the interconnectedness of all beings. By sacrificing their own well-being for the greater good or defying the evisceration of self perpetrated by societal discourses, these individuals embody Nisargadatta’s teachings on the dissolution of ego and the realisation of unity with the universal consciousness. In both frameworks, these acts can be viewed as potent catalysts for change, inviting collective reflection, empathy, and action in the face of injustice.
As society grapples with the complexities of systemic oppression and violence, it is essential to listen to the voices of those who choose to speak out, even in the most extreme and tragic ways. Only by confronting injustice head-on and addressing its root causes can we hope to build a more just and compassionate world for all.