“A Man Said to the Universe” — Stephen Crane
I am sitting in Sydney Airport awaiting a flight to Brisbane, after a week in this busy, impressive city.
My time here closed out with the Ireland vs Wallabies Rugby Test at the majestic Allianz Stadium, which apparently had its biggest-ever crowd last night. The Irish, it seems, can fill any stadium, anywhere.
Before the match, having secured the necessary pre-match beers, we made our way to a table on the concourse. As we stood there supping, two Irishmen came over and began to chat. They asked where I was from and I replied, “Leitrim” — which, in my experience, prompts 99 Irishmen out of 100 to say, “Ah, I didn’t know anyone came from Leitrim.” Except this time I had met the one in a hundred. “Which part of Leitrim are ya from?” he asked. “I’m from Drumshanbo.”
It turned out he had left Ireland in 1977, spent seven years in England, then twenty in New Zealand, before moving to Sydney in the early 2000s. His name was Hearne, and his brother had managed the Central Bar in Manorhamilton for many years — a place we used to frequent regularly. There, in the middle of Sydney, surrounded by Wallabies, Irish jerseys and plastic beer cups, was Leitrim again: improbable, insistent, and not in the least surprised to find itself at the centre of the universe.
I have also been reading the Sunday paper — The Sun-Herald — and it speaks to some interesting challenges currently preoccupying politicians and commentators in Australia. There is the familiar argument from some conservatives calling for monoculturalism: a return to “the way the country once was”, as opposed to multiculturalism, which embraces the actual realities of the country — including, rather importantly, the cultures that were here long before the first ships arrived from England.
There is also a deeply troubling awareness of antisemitism and its consequences. The Bondi Beach attack of 14 December 2025, in which gunmen targeted a Hanukkah celebration, killed 15 people and injured many more; Australian authorities described it as an antisemitic terrorist attack and the incident now sits within the broader work of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. It is a sobering reminder that debates about identity, belonging and social cohesion are not abstract intellectual exercises. They have real human consequences.
A First Nations writer in The Sun Herald, Aunty Bunya Andrew, writes in her column: “The current political debate about what Australia should look like frames diversity as a problem.” She continues: “This country has never been a monoculture. For tens of thousands of years, First Nations people have been practising diversity, inclusion and belonging. Yet diversity did not mean disconnection. We remained connected through our love of Country and kinship, with shared values of belonging, respect and responsibility.”
Then there is an editorial titled, “Meddling parents do no favours for their children”. This relates to the escalation in aggressive and entitled behaviour from some parents whose children attend private schools — behaviour which has led many such schools to introduce explicit codes of conduct, contracts, or behaviour agreements to curb unhelpful parental interventions. Philip Heath, the Head of Barker College, is quoted as saying that there is an increased tendency on the part of some parents to “weaponise” disputes: calling lawyers or the police when unhappy with the school, using social media to whip up outrage, or using AI to craft complaints that then consume invaluable school resources in lengthy responses.
It was in this frame of mind — rugby crowds, wandering Leitrim men, national identity, antisemitism, parental entitlement, and airport coffee of uncertain moral quality — that I found myself thinking about Stephen Crane’s tiny poem, “A Man Said to the Universe”:
A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!”
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
The poem is almost offensively efficient. In just a few lines, it manages to do what some philosophers take several hundred pages to attempt: remind us that the universe does not owe us customer service.
The man’s opening line is magnificent:
“Sir, I exist!”
It is a wonderfully formal complaint. One can almost imagine him standing at the reception desk of existence, clutching a ticket, waiting to be called. The word “Sir” is especially comic. The man treats the universe as though it were a slightly senior administrator who has misplaced his paperwork. He appears to believe that the mere fact of his existence should matter — not just to him, but cosmically.
The universe’s reply is devastating:
“However…”
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”
In other words: Noted. And?
The humour lies in the mismatch between human seriousness and cosmic indifference. The man makes what feels, to him, like a grand declaration. The universe responds with the chilling politeness of someone declining a funding request. It does not rage, punish, comfort, or explain. It simply refuses to be emotionally blackmailed by existence.
And this is where Crane’s poem brushes up so neatly against the modern problem of entitlement. There is a version of the man in the poem who lives in all of us. He is the part of us that says: I am here, therefore I must be recognised. I am offended, therefore someone must act. I am dissatisfied, therefore someone must be blamed. My child is unhappy, therefore the institution must rearrange itself immediately.
Of course, schools must listen carefully. They must act justly, communicate clearly, and be accountable. But there is a difference between legitimate concern and the belief that every discomfort is an injustice, every disappointment a failure of administration, and every “no” an act of personal aggression.
Crane’s universe is not cruel. That is the interesting thing. It is not hostile to the man. It does not say, “You do not matter.” It simply says, “Your existence does not automatically create an obligation in me.” That distinction matters. The poem is not an argument against compassion. It is an argument against inflated expectation.
The same applies to the debate about culture and belonging. To exist in a country, a school, or a community does not mean that everything must bend around one’s own preferences. Belonging is not the same as possession. To belong well is to recognise that others belong too. A healthy community is not created by the loudest person announcing, “Sir, I exist!” and then expecting the whole room to reorganise itself accordingly.
That is also why antisemitism — like all forms of hatred — is so corrosive. It denies belonging to others. It says, in effect, that one group’s presence, history, worship, grief or joy is somehow less legitimate than another’s. It turns identity into accusation and difference into threat. A society cannot be coherent if some of its members are made to feel that their very existence places them outside the circle of protection and respect.
In Aunty Bunya Andrew’s reflection, diversity is not presented as chaos or fragmentation, but as something held together by shared values: belonging, respect, responsibility. That is a far more mature understanding of community than the brittle dream of monoculture. It suggests that the answer to human difference is not to flatten it, nor to weaponise it, but to bind it through responsibility.
And perhaps that is what entitlement lacks most: responsibility. Entitlement says, “My need creates your obligation.” Responsibility says, “My need exists within a wider web of relationships, duties and limits.” Entitlement shouts at the universe. Responsibility learns to live meaningfully in it.
This is uncomfortable because we are all, at times, the man in the poem. We want effort to guarantee success, goodness to guarantee protection, and sincerity to guarantee understanding. We want the universe to behave like a decent schoolmaster: firm, fair, and available during office hours. Crane’s universe, however, is not marking our homework. It is not even sure we are in the class.
And yet the poem is not merely bleak. Its humour saves it from despair. There is something absurdly human, even endearing, about the man’s protest. He may be entitled, but he is also brave enough to speak. His “Sir, I exist!” is ridiculous — but also deeply recognisable. It is the cry behind every prayer, complaint, application, ambition, grievance, and sulk.
Crane leaves us with a bracing lesson: we should not confuse existence with entitlement. The universe may not owe us meaning, justice, comfort, or applause. But that does not make our lives meaningless. It simply means that meaning is not handed down like a receipt. We may have to create it ourselves — through humility, service, responsibility, humour, and the occasional willingness to accept that not every disappointment is evidence of institutional failure.
In short, the poem says: you exist. That matters enormously to you, and perhaps to those who love you. But the universe is under no obligation to rearrange itself accordingly.
It has read your email.
It regrets that it cannot assist on this occasion.

