Author: Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Year: 1952 (1943)
Publisher: Rabén & Sjögren
Language: Swedish (translator Gunvor Bang)
Antoine de
Saint-Exupéry’s “Lille prinsen” (“The Little Prince”) is often, correctly or not,
classified as a children’s book, a categorisation that itself reproduces one of
the central faults the text quietly dismantles: the adult tendency to sort
meaning into rigid taxonomies that obscure lived experience. Beneath its
deceptively simple narrative lies a potent ethnography of adulthood, observed
through the eyes of a child positioned as The Other within the dominant social
order of grown-ups.
The main
character, in social anthropological sense, functions as an etic observer. He
moves between worlds, asteroids, deserts, and human institutions, and interacts
with their respective societies without fully belonging to any of them. In the
adult world, he is systematically misconstrued. Adults interpret through
institutionalised parameters: numbers, ownership, rank, productivity. The
child, by contrast, operates with relational epistemologies: care, curiosity,
attachment, and presence. This mismatch renders the child an outsider, not
because of juniority, but because of incompatibility.
The
grown-ups Saint-Exupéry depicts are not individualised characters so much as
social types. The king, the businessman, the geographer, and the lamp lighter
are caricatures of actors captured in their roles. These are all people who have
mistaken symbolic systems for reality itself and whose identities have consequently
collapsed into their functions. Their lives are governed by what I call “self-imposed
futility”: activities sustained not because they generate meaning, but because
they reproduce the illusion of purpose. The businessman counts stars he can
never use; the geographer records landscapes he has never seen.
Self-imposed
futility resembles what Sartre called “mauvaise foi” or “bad faith”, but while self-imposed
futility proposes to name a collective condition in which people inhabit empty
roles sustained by social norms rather than lived meaning, mauvaise foi is the
individual’s conscious self-deception that denies personal freedom by mistaking
role for destiny. Both diagnose role capture, but Sartre moralises it whereas
Saint-Exupéry anthropologises it, as it were.
Another
concept akin to self-imposed futility is the Marxist notion of “estrangement”
which describes how people can become disconnected from the fruit of their
labour, and by extension from their context in society, which may lead to
apathy and nihilism. However, in the most basic Marxist understanding this alienation
is experienced, whereas self-imposed futility, I submit, encapsulates the
continuous illusion of meaning into a state of the subconscious.
What makes “Lille
Prinsen” remarkable is that it, kills two birds with one stone, without
announcing its didacticism. First, it reassures the child reader that they do
not need to understand, or envy for that matter, the adult world. The book
subtly delegitimises adult norms by revealing their arbitrariness. Children that
are used to hearing “you will understand when you grow older” may find this refreshingly
liberating as it legitimises not only their childhood, but also their worldview.
Childhood here is not a preparatory stage but a fully realised cultural environment
with its own logic and value system.
Second, the
book offers grown-ups a mirror that is gentle but unsparing. By adopting the
child’s point of view, Saint-Exupéry uncloaks adult practices, making them
visible as odd, ritualised, and absurd. This is a classic ethnographic manoeuvre,
externalising the familiar allowing for outside scrutiny. The result is an
invitation for adults to recognise the arbitrariness of their life choices and
the ways they have normalised nonsense in the name of seriousness. In Millennial
vernacular: adulting.
Crucially,
the text resists nostalgia. It does not argue that children are purer or
morally superior. Instead, it suggests that adulthood often involves a
narrowing of perception, a loss of interpretive plurality. The tragedy is not
growing up per se, but forgetting that other ways of being remain possible. The
little prince does not reject adulthood. He simply refuses to normalise it.
Being an adult, he teaches us, does not have to follow a pattern. We could
choose to break the routine, but we have grown blind to that option. And even if
we saw it, having forgotten what it is like to be a child, we would no longer
grasp the value of it. We are victims of self-imposed futility.
In the end,
“Lille Prinsen” endures because it operates simultaneously as a fable, a
philosophical critique, and a soft ethnography of modern life. It speaks to
children without condescension and to adults without accusation. By positioning
the child as The Other, Saint-Exupéry exposes how adulthood, far from being an inevitable
norm, is itself a culturally specific, and perhaps questionable, way of organising
existence.






