- “All mankind is divided into three classes: those that are immovable, those that are movable, and those that move.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
What are the differences among these three, and how can they best collaborate?
The Weight of the Rock
He heaves the boulder forward and upward, grunting, moaning, willing himself to make it to the mountaintop. His face contorts in pain as the rock’s weight pushes against him. Muscles straining, he slowly forces the rock to roll.
The ancient myth of Sisyphus, the mortal who defied the gods and was given this eternal task as punishment, contains two of the three characters Franklin defines in this quote; Sisyphus is the mover, the rock the movable. The third is present in abstract form. The gods had to give him a rock he could move. Make the boulder much bigger, and it would be immovable. However unlikely it may seem, this story can provide members of modern society wisdom on the relationships between Franklin’s three classes of mankind.
Sisyphus, his rock, and the theoretical, too-heavy rock, are three separate characters. However, all three are equally necessary, both in the story and in society. Too often we exalt the movers in society, the leaders, the change-makers. But how would Sisyphus generate movement without having a rock to move? What would his work’s significance be if no rocks were too heavy for him? Without the movable, no societal change could take place. Without the immovable, the change would be without significance.
Sisyphus is moving toward a goal: to reach the mountaintop with the rock in front of him. In the end reaching this goal is impossible since the rock always rolls back down, making the task a punishment. But for moments of his unending penance, he will reach his goal. As he pauses for breath, he looks around his rock for a glimpse of the distant mountaintop. This vision, though possibly blurry, foggy, or unclear as he restarts his journey, gives purpose to his toil.
The movers in society are those who have that vision of an end goal, a purpose for the change they instigate. It may not be clear and well defined, but some are gifted with a special ability of foresight even in the darkest of times. Their names may be remembered long past their deaths; Rosa Parks, Galileo Galilei, Princess Diana, Confucius, even Ben Franklin himself are a very few examples of those the world recognizes as movers of society, each according to his or her own expertise, passion, and experience.
But the movers do labor against something. The movable do not promise to be easily moved, they only confirm the possibility of movement. The movable bring reality into the picture. They have diverse perspectives; they require compromise, understanding, and empathy from the movers. They are the church that opposed Galileo, those who joined Rosa’s bus boycott, and those touched by Princess Diana’s loving hand. They are the reason for movement, those who make it both necessary and possible.
And then there are the immovable. They stand firm, holding society in its place. Their rigidity may come from stubbornness and disregard for the movers, or from firm principles and fixed beliefs. The perspectives of the ‘immovable’ question the changes taking place, helping the movers refine their ambitions. The immovable may change the movers’ direction and end result. But sweat and struggle are measurements of a movement’s significance for society. If it were unimportant to society, the vision wouldn’t be worth working toward. The very existence of opposition adds to its ability to impact society.
Back to Sisyphus. Even the repetitive nature of his efforts against the rock is modeled in society. Changing the world is not a straight line toward an endpoint. It is an up and down, back and forth journey that may only touch the endpoint once somewhere, sometime, before falling away again. One mover may inspire great strides in society toward a certain goal only for his influence to wane at his death. Human society is complicated, variable, and unpredictable. We don’t always cooperate, we don’t always act selflessly, we don’t always act in our own true best interest. Progress can come through baby steps, and maybe that is the movement we are best at.
Each of these characters—the mover, the movable, and the immovable—is present and necessary in society. They differ in their desires, visions, perspectives, tasks, and societal roles, but without all three, change could not be dreamed of, worked toward, collaborated over, agreed to, or opposed. All three must appreciate the value of each role in society in order to work together. Granted, the immovable may need to move at times. The mover may need to change his vision. The movable must bring the movers back to reality. But mutual respect is the first step, and maybe we won’t end up like Sisyphus, with our rock back at the foot of the mountain.