Once again, the challenge of the present historical juncture is to reimagine a future without a future: a society after the demise of modernity, yet one that is not without hope or the possibility of reclaiming self-assertion, earthly self-preservation, and collective and individual self-determination. Jennifer Stevens reflects on the role of apocalyptic rhetoric in legitimizing power, as well as on emancipatory politics in the face of an increasing amount of doomsday propaganda.
*
In November 2025, something happened that many had longed for and few had dared to hope for. Algerian-French writer Boualem Sansal was released from prison after spending a year there. To a reader of his novel “2084: The End of the World” (2015), Sansal’s sudden disappearance upon arriving at the airport in Algiers could seem like the grim realization of his decade-old fiction.
Was Sansal, who was sentenced to five years in prison for criticizing Algeria’s official history and colonial policies, able to identify with his protagonist, who was persecuted by the regime?
The initial reports of his prison conditions certainly suggest so. For him, imprisonment literally meant the end of the world. He had no contact with fellow inmates or his lawyer, and all ties to the outside world were severed. He felt like he was dying because his physical strength and vocabulary were both shrinking. It’s understandable that the writer experienced the loss of language as his own death, not only against the backdrop of his great body of work, but also because of his profession. It also expresses the powerlessness experienced by a regime critic whose most dangerous weapon is his words.
Religion as a deadly remedy
While “2084” illustrates the dangers that concepts such as freedom and democracy pose to a totalitarian regime, the novel also clearly demonstrates how language can be used as a tool of power. This is where the similarity to George Orwell’s “1984” becomes particularly clear, as indicated by the title. In “2084,” a sacred language is also artificially created by the state to prevent people from entertaining false ideas. As the only legitimate form of communication, it forces everyday language into secrecy.
Populists of all kinds have long used the term ‘newspeak’ to discredit efforts toward inclusive language development, calling them state dictation. Populists and extremists can thus present themselves as valiant champions of freedom and individualism, even though they strive to destroy the freedom and self-determination of others. This crude yet effective projective defense, whereby political opponents are accused of the very repressive tendencies secretly harbored by the accusers, is evident in the reception of Sansal’s “2084.”
There is striking blindness to the novel’s portrayal of the inextricable intertwining of criticism of power and religion. Consequently, the novel cannot be reduced to a mere critique of Islam, nor can it be dismissed as Islamophobic, as its right-wing admirers and left-wing critics insinuate. Rather, “2084” shows us the fragility of the Enlightenment by depicting the end of the modern world not as humanity’s salvation, but as the demise of its historical potential.
The future as an exact replica of the past
Sansal’s “2084” presents a narrative oxymoron: a novel about the future and the end times. It tells of a future without a future and a world without a world, where all contemporary events have been placed under a transcendent shelter.
Like his literary role model, Sansal adopts the perspective of an average citizen in a totalitarian regime, offering readers an immediate experience of the ‘immobility of time’ and the unconsciousness of history. The protagonist, Ati, lives in a rigid totality that has institutionalized the end times. In this world, there is no future or past, only the eternal return of the same. An awareness of the passage of time would call into question the supposedly eternal order of things, which is actually a man-made order.
Thus, Ati finds himself in a postmodern state of society. Modern civilization has been destroyed by a ‘holy war,’ and the processes of modernization – individualization, industrialization, and secularization – have come to a standstill. Even the slightest hint of individuality is extinguished by strict religious practices and a rigid dress code. The technical level of productive forces is medieval, and each individual’s social status depends entirely on their loyalty to the regime. In short, questions about individual self-determination, earthly self-preservation, and historical self-assertion raised by the processes of modernization no longer arise here.
Sansal’s novel paints a bleak picture of a society after the demise of modernity. After postmodernists dug modernity’s grave and said goodbye to its ‘grand narratives’ in order to free themselves from outdated categories and break with hegemonic ways of thinking, this novel shows how deception and terror can flourish on the ruins of promises of enlightenment, progress, and autonomy.
The mask of tyranny
Two hundred years earlier, Percy Shelley expressed in his poem “Mask of Anarchy” that behind the apocalyptic mask glorifying misery and war as an eternal necessity among humans, simple man-made power relations can be revealed. The poem shows that this mask, which seeks to legitimize existing suffering by posing as a force of order and pretending to prevent worse things from happening, can be torn down.
This inevitably brings to mind the regular nuclear threats from Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Whenever the Kremlin’s imperial claims to power are threatened, Putin immediately invokes the specter of the end of the world – even though he is actually only afraid of his own demise.
Two hundred years ago, Percy Shelley argued that we should not be fooled by such apocalyptic behavior and that humanity’s salvation lies in overcoming tyranny, not pacification. Contrary to the widespread pacifist interpretation of Shelley’s “Mask of Anarchy,” the poem does not emphasize nonviolent resistance but rather the just victory of democracy, freedom, and justice – even when it seems hopeless.
Where the power of gods ends
This is made clear by the ‘maniac maid’ in Shelley’s poem, who is a personification of hope. As the daughter of ‘father time,’ she accuses her father of insane perseverance and waiting for better times. When all hope seems lost, a figure reminiscent of the goddess Athena bursts onto the scene, bearing a feathered helmet and shining armor. This allusion becomes understandable against the backdrop of the contemporary Peterloo Massacre, which preceded the writing of the poem. Athena is also the patron saint of weavers and craftswomen – the occupational groups that made up the majority of the demonstrators at St. Peter’s Field in 1819. Facing early industrial misery and the lack of voting rights, they gathered to advocate for social and political justice, but were brutally crushed by the cavalry.
However, Shelley, a romantic, was too much of a realist to allow a goddess of war to intervene directly in the events. The goddess remains a product of the human imagination and exerts great influence. The mere idea of a just victory over despotic rule gives people new courage and hope to rise up and stand against tyrants. History is not God-given destiny; it lies in the hands of human beings. This is an old Enlightenment truism: human history begins where the power of the gods ends.
Return of hope
Unlike in apocalyptic visions, which depict the triumph of death, death is exposed as a mere threat in this system of rule and is overthrown. William Turner depicted this scene in his unfinished painting, now exhibited under the title “Fall of Anarchy.” The supposedly eternal, arbitrary rule crumbles to dust. This is less a call for pacifism than it is a call for active resistance to conditions that conceal their changeability behind apocalyptic threat scenarios.
Thus, it almost seems like an homage to Shelley’s “Mask of Anarchy” when, in “2084,” Sansal writes about the “return of the idea that there is hope,” which is closely tied to the concept of democracy that had nearly been eradicated by the fundamentalist regime. Hope awakens where one reflects on the transience and changeability of history through the ‘heroes of the unwritten story.’ These heroes include the authors of “Mask of Anarchy” and “2084.” They do not place their most dangerous weapon, their power of speech, at the service of princes, leaders, gods, or presidents in the guise of demigods. Instead, they place it solely at the service of humanity.
The release of a dissident like Boualem Sansal offers us a faint glimmer of hope and reminds us that the question of the end of modernity cannot be answered theoretically but only practically. Modernity will not end as long as people are willing to fight for their historical self-assertion, earthly self-preservation, and collective as well as individual self-determination – and defend them. Therefore, anyone who wants to discuss emancipation today must support it, not disarm it.