Camus wanted to make of Sisyphus an analogue for the Modern1 subject and the absurdity of its existential position, but if we acknowledge:
Sisyphus was punished for cheating death.
His punishment is legible.
Then we see it doesn’t work, for the Modern lacked God, or gods2, and therefore a scaffold wherein the concepts of sin and punishment could cohere. He had no Death to cheat, no Zeus to mete justice determinate, no hill, no rock to roll up; and this was his true absurdity, not the absurd of Camus which assumed these factors and called for a quasi-Nietzschean embracing of them.
Still, The Myth of Sisyphus was a decent attempt at Nietzche’s challenge: the godless subject who conceives the universe in material terms must materialize his own existential framework. Factory drudgery, the difficulty of social mobility, etc are decent enough pantomimes of boulders and being “thrown” into an arbitrary system of economic rationality masquerades well enough as Fate that Camus could project through Sisyphus the presence of a psychological option seemingly available to the godless Modern, namely 'resign yourself to fate', where the act of resignation is a freely willed decision and ultimately liberating. This resignation, this surrender to fate’s certainty, dissolves the paralyzing “paradox of choice” and answers the question “Who am I” (i.e. what do I do, because one is what one does) - forever. "You are Sisyphus," as decreed by Zeus, “You push rock”- where Sisyphus is an established quantity in the ecology of Greek myth.
But fate- Fate proper- was long obsolesced by 1950, and to know of no fate is to be foreclosed this option, doomed to existential vertigo. That is, if we knew what we had to do, we would know who we are, and there would be no existential despair. That is: Sisyphus is not free, whence his freedom, while the Modern is free, whence his chains.
So Camus is unworkable, now as then, in fact the technological environment to which we are currently subject is not sufficiently Camusian to permit even LARPing as Sisyphus on an enduring basis. By all means, you can try, even find it a meaningful way to interpret your life for some time. It works until it doesn’t. And then once again: the abyss.
But not only are you not Sisyphus, you are not even Modern; and since the inadequacy of identity is something of which you are more-or-less conscious, it is not even ideology. Already prefigured by perspectivism, this “postmodern turn”, where the contingency of such narratives (personal, interpersonal, societal) is limelit, liquidated the subject into postabsurdity. So the contemporary subject is beyond absurd. In fact he is hardly a subject or individual at all, and as such will suffer to the extent he grasps for identity. What he is- insofar as we can speak of Being- is a raw vehicle of Capital, whose tradewinds circulate signifiers into noetic space like so many dandelion florets awaiting pollination with affect, to fertilize intersectional subjectivities3 thence it reaps as profit may ten thousand bored apes blossom.
Christ does not harrow to lift Sisyphus out from Sheol or Tartarus. There he remains: imprisoned, resigned. Sisyphus is identity, you are difference. Always were. Your task- should you want one- is to empty yourself of self and recover the aspect of Lila from the fetters of history.
Those who came of age between the Enlightenment and Postmodernity™. Modernity extended the Enlightenment’s rationality worship into all domains of knowledge, from state governance to physics research to sociology. N.B. top-down centrally coordinated planning is not flawed in principle, only resource limited. If one lacks sufficient intelligence, foresight, coordination, etc, what eventuates from the excitement of initial achievement and the ensuing power trip is precisely Babel.
It would be inaccurate to call the industrial apparatus and its historically novel incentive structures “the new religion” and punching in at work “the new worship”; while these may bear some superficial resemblance to religion and its rites they are, crucially, not undertaken under the aspect of religion, qua religion. They are closer to what Zizek calls “ideology”- what you are mediated by / believe in / reproduce without realizing.
Cf. Azuma, Database Animals