A Model for Perilous Times: Be, as Emile Zola said, “Engagé”

The French Writer's Powerful “J’Accuse” Letter in 1898 Invites the Question “What can I do?” rather than “How much do I need to know?”

As democracy spirals around the drain, I’ve heard many people struggle with the question, “how much do I really need to know?”

According to this way of thinking, on one end of the spectrum, there’s endless doomscrolling; on the other, outright ignorance.

My view is that a more useful prism is the one made famous by the French novelist Émile Zola about 125 years ago:

The idea of being engagé, or engaged.

The context for Zola’s exhortation—the Dreyfus Affair in late 19th-century France—is worth recalling.

A Jewish army officer, Albert Dreyfus, had been wrongly accused of treason for allegedly passing military secrets to Germany. The case was fueled by antisemitism, and even after new evidence emerged proving his innocence, the military covered it up to protect its reputation.

On January 13, 1898, Zola published an open letter on the front page of a widely read newspaper. Known as the “J’Accuse” or “I Accuse” letter because Zola began numerous sentences with that powerful, direct phrase, Zola excoriated the French President, military, and justice system for their role in Dreyfus’ conviction, which Zola portrayed as a national moral failure that threatened the soul of the Republic.

Though Zola was prosecuted and fled the country, his letter ultimately helped bring justice: After over ten years, Dreyfus’ conviction was reversed and he was awarded the Legion of Honor. His main accuser committed suicide after his role in fabricating evidence was revealed.

For writing his letter, Zola became known as a model for an engaged citizen—someone who uses their art, voice, or position to actively shape society and confront injustice.

Zola’s courage inspires me to ask, “What does engagé mean to me? What does it look for me, given my skillset, to be engagé?”

I like this framing because it focuses on doing rather than knowing.

Knowing “enough,” whatever that means, is impossible. It invites a Sisyphean struggle to keep reading and scrolling, which plays into the hands of mass media’s efforts to colonize our attention while cementing our powerlessness.

Doing, by contrast, is concrete. It promotes a sense of power and agency. And it builds upon itself, begetting more, and more audacious, action.

Of course, there is a relationship between knowing and doing. Knowing equips and empowers us to take, as Buddhists would say, right action.

But engorging oneself on the news without taking action, without being engagé, is a recipe for anxiety, depression, and other maladies.

Candidly, I’m still figuring out what engagé means to me.

Writing is part of it, as is my work at Fireside Project, which gives all Americans free access to emotional support as they navigate psychedelic experiences, fostering connection, resilience, and healing.

What do you think of this idea of being engagé? And what does being engagé mean and look like for you?