Jean-Paul Sartre was one of the most prolific philosophers and play writes of the 20th century. Although he did focus greatly on fictional literature, his main focus was on his philosophy. Sartre was an existentialist, a term with ambiguous meaning. In Sartre's context, this meant a wide range of things about his philosophy. However, most relevant to these plays is Sartre's idea that individuals possess a great freedom of action, and that as a result conscious subjects are the creators of all meaning. This idea is portrayed in The Respectful Prostitute, No Exit, and Dirty Hands, and upon further examination can be seen in previous blog posts.
All three plays mentioned above connect back to a strong existentialist theme. No Exit, Sartre's most famous play, carries strong ideas relating to freedom of action and consciousness. According to Sartre, one is bound by their own subjectivity, as "a consciousness cannot conceive of a consciousness other than itself" (Sartre, Transcendence of the Ego). Conscience beings are constantly creating ideas and thoughts, and thus others can never reduce another consciousness as an object to be thought of, as an object is something which has objective properties. This idea is very confusing, but is made clear in No Exit. The characters are conscious beings, and thus attempt to conceive of themselves. They react violently to the consciousness of others being ascribed to them. This connects clearly to the symbol of the mirror. Estelle desires to conceive of herself, and she can't stand to be conceived of by another. This idea leads Sartre to conclude his play with Garcin saying "hell is-other people!" (Sartre, 26). Hell in No Exit is an arena in which all characters define each other. This heated stare downs destroy the characters. For Sartre, this issue of other consciousnesses occurs in all human interactions. The judgement of others is always forced upon humans in the judgement of themselves.
This same idea is clear in Dirty Hands and The Respectful Prostitute. In both plays, the characters make decisions for themselves which are heavily influenced by others. In Dirty Hands, Hugo is bounded by the judgments of others. He cannot kill Hoederer until he is no longer concerned with the opinions of others. The same idea holds true of The Respectful Prostitute. Lizzie is heavily influenced by those around her, and is oppressive partially as a result of those around her. Lizzie is engaged in what Sartre would call "bad faith," in that she doesn't think for herself and recognize that as a conscious subject she has the ability to make her own choices.
Picking up on these ideas can be difficult, but using some ideas presented by literary scholars can aid in uncovering meaning. Thomas C. Foster, author of How to Read Literature Like a Professor, heavily influenced my reading of these plays. In Foster's book, he argues that "it's all political." This aided my reading of The Respectful Prostitute, as I was on the lookout for extending political meanings. I also reread important parts of the text, a strategy advocated by Vladimir Nabokov and Flannery O'Connor. In order to pick up on symbols, I focused on the ways in which symbols acquire meaning, a strategy advocated for by Laurence Perrine. Once I noticed something which I thought was a symbol, I looked back to the text to figure out the development of the symbol and to check all of the instances in which the symbol was used. Admittedly, I did violate one of Nabokov's core principle's of major readers. I came into the text expecting certain philosophical ideas and notions to be expressed. I have knowledge of Sartre's work, which biased my interpretation of symbols. For instance, it is clear that the mirror is a symbol within No Exit, but I needed to think back to Sartre's ideas on subjectivity in order to fully understand the symbol.
Overall, I felt that reading the plays was a good experience, and I would thus recommend these texts to most individuals, especially those interested in philosophy. Sartre is a master of literature, and does a great job with symbolism and expressing his philosophical ideas. Plays are also a valuable experience for all readers. Instead of a narrator telling the story, one must simply interpret the actions which are supposed to be performed. This provides the reader a unique challenge as they must interpret stage actions solely through text. However, there are a few weaknesses in Sartre's fiction writing. One of the biggest issues is his method of argument making. Particularly in The Respectful Prostitute, Sartre is far too obvious when using his symbols. As mentioned in previous posts, a character imitating the voice of uncle Sam directly tells a woman to wrongfully accuse a black man. As such, there is less nuance and subtlety to Sartre's argument. Sartre is blatantly arguing that the US government is racist, a message which could assuredly be expressed in a number of other ways. Instead of using a play as a way of expressing something which can only be told using character development in a story, Sartre seeks to exemplify arguments that can easily be made logically. None the less, these books provide a unique literary experience and relate heavily to issues of existential meaning, a recurring theme in literature.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
An Analysis of Hoederer's Murder in Sartre's Dirty Hands
Dirty Hands, a play written by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 1940s, which details a political assassination and its motivations. Hugo, a communist in an imaginary country called Illyria, is ordered to kill Hoederer, a member of the party who is viewed as a traitor to many. One of the most significant moments during this play is the murder scene itself. Although this scene makes up only one page of the entire play, its symbolic significance is great.
Hugo is reluctant to kill Hoederer initially. Hugo asked his comrades for this mission, but when he arrives at Hoederer's office to work as an under-cover secretary, he begins to have second thoughts. Hugo ends up deeply conflicted. He desires to prove himself to those who have sent him on the mission, while he wants to please his wife. Jessica, who has begged him to not kill Hoederer. In the final act of the play, Hugo goes into Hoederer's office with the intention to kill him. Hugo ultimately cannot kill Hoederer, and Hoederer agrees to work with Hugo to fight in the communist party. Hugo goes on a walk, and when he arrives back at the office the story reaches its climax.
Jessica is with Hoederer in his office. She mentions that "when I was kissed I always wanted to laugh," an indication that she is not happy with her relationship with Hugo. (Sartre, 132). In response, Hoederer kisses her, and Jessica says that "I didn't feel like laughing" (Sartre, 132). At this moment Hugo bursts into the door, and is deeply changed. It seems now that he has lost respect for Jessica and Hoerderer. Hugo is permanently changed, and it seems that in some sense he is freed. Immediately, Hugo is able to admit to his wife that "we weren't really in love" (Sartre, 132). Hugo is also angered with Hoerderer, as he is quickly able to denounce him. Although Hoerderer appeared to want to fight with Hugo, it seems his motivation was simply to get to Jessica. According to Hugo, Hoerderer "didn't give a damn" for him. (Sartre, 132).This is the first time Hugo is clearly seen as angry within the story, and it is difficult to interpret this correctly.
Luckily, Sartre makes clear the significance of this moment. Hugo, a character constantly concerned with others judging the motives of his actions, now no longer is afraid. Hugo had previously mentioned that killing another scared him, because he would no longer be able to know what their thoughts were. Now, his attitude seems quite different, as he is concerned with his own actions. As Hugo announces, "You see, Hoederer, I am looking you straight in the eyes and I'm aiming and my hand's not shaking and I don't give a bloody damn for what's going on in your head" (Sartre, 132). Hoederer asks for Hugo's forgiveness, but he refuses to budge. He refuses the apology as he says, "don't apologize. On the contrary, I should thank you" (Sartre, 132). Hugo, right before he pulls the trigger announces his freedom as he shouts, "you have freed me" (Sartre, 132).
Sartre goes to great length to make the meaning of this scene clear. Hugo, a character who is constantly concerned with the thoughts of others, can finally focus on his own actions because he is no longer concerned with those others. He is acting for himself. This idea is deeply connected with the rest of the play, which is a discussion of freedom of action. This idea will be further discussed in a later post about existentialism.
Political Underpinnings of "The Respectful Prostitute" by Jean-Paul Sartre
The Respectful Prostitute, a play written by philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the 1940s, is described by some as "a scathing attack on American racism" (Vintage International - back cover of book). Although this is an accurate description of the play, it fails to capture many of the nuances of Sartre's arguments. The Respectful Prostitute details an American prostitute's failure to uphold justice by falsely accusing an innocent black man of rape, in order to protect a white murderer with the same disrespect for women as a rapist. Through this plot, Sartre is able to depict what he finds most troubling about American racism. Namely, the citizens and law enforcement dehumanize Black Americans by stripping them of personal identity and defining them as eternally guilty.
Sartre's character development in this play is brilliant. Although "The Negro," is the focus of the play, he is never given a name. The desperation of this character is apparent from the beginning of the play. A black man arrives at the door of Lizzie, a prostitute, pleading for help. Lizzie has just gotten off a train with the man, yet she doesn't recognize it. This is the first sign that Sartre views Black Americans as invisible. The black man is eventually able to get through to Lizzie, and she remembers him. A riot is after him, as he's been accused of rape. Really, he's had to run from two white men who have tried to murder him. Lizzie is aware of this, yet all she does is ask the man "do you want money?" (Sartre, 139). This again demonstrates the ignorance of white Americans to the obvious problems and hardships of many Black Americans. The black man needs to be hidden in order to survive, but Lizzie refuses.
The play further develops to explain the criminalization of Black Americans. The previous night, Lizzie worked for a man named Fred, who is the son of a Senator. Through conversation, it is uncovered that Fred intentionally hired Lizzie. Fred's brother was on the train with Lizze, and murdered one of the black man's friends. Fred needs to convince Lizzie to sign a statement saying that the black man raped her, a seemingly unrelated crime, which seems to somehow nullify the murder at hand. Lizzie is unconvinced, and eventually the Senator must sidestep her reasonable logic in order to get her to sign a statement. Again, Sartre's argument becomes obvious. The Senator cannot convince Lizzie that she was raped by the black man, but he can convince her that black people are worthless. Intentionally taking the voice of Uncle Sam, the Senator says, "Lizzie, this Negro whom
you are protecting, what good is he? Somehow or other he was born, God knows where. I nourished and raised him, and how does he pay me back? What does he do for me?" (Sartre, 150). Lizzie is still resistant to sign the statement, but the senator takes her hand and she does not resist. Here, Sartre is making another subtle argument about American racism. The first is the pre-determined criminalization of black Americans as described above. The statement of accusation is pre-written, and thus is a sign that the government has defined black existence as criminal in ink.
The same ideas are continued through the conclusion of the play. The black man is accused of rape, and is being hunted by the police. Again he needs to be helped by Lizzie, who eventually agrees to. While being hidden by Lizzie, the black man has his last conversation. Lizzie acknowledges that he is innocent, but asks the black man "you feel guilty?" (Sartre, 155). Again along with Sartre's message, he responds, "yes ma'am" (Sartre, 155). American society has defined the black identity as guilty, and this notion even permeates the pride of many Black Americans. The black man is killed by Fred, but Lizzie still feels no pain for him. Strangely, the play concludes as Fred says to Lizzie, "My name is Fred" (Sartre, 157). This is also significant to Sartre's message. Black Americans are never able to build an identity for themselves, even when they are absolutely innocent. White Americans, although they can commit the most horrible crimes against black Americans, can still justify themselves and build their identity. Despite all that has happened, Fred is still able to introduce himself. This last line concludes Sartre's main message, which emphasizes the destruction of black identity.
Sartre's character development in this play is brilliant. Although "The Negro," is the focus of the play, he is never given a name. The desperation of this character is apparent from the beginning of the play. A black man arrives at the door of Lizzie, a prostitute, pleading for help. Lizzie has just gotten off a train with the man, yet she doesn't recognize it. This is the first sign that Sartre views Black Americans as invisible. The black man is eventually able to get through to Lizzie, and she remembers him. A riot is after him, as he's been accused of rape. Really, he's had to run from two white men who have tried to murder him. Lizzie is aware of this, yet all she does is ask the man "do you want money?" (Sartre, 139). This again demonstrates the ignorance of white Americans to the obvious problems and hardships of many Black Americans. The black man needs to be hidden in order to survive, but Lizzie refuses.
The play further develops to explain the criminalization of Black Americans. The previous night, Lizzie worked for a man named Fred, who is the son of a Senator. Through conversation, it is uncovered that Fred intentionally hired Lizzie. Fred's brother was on the train with Lizze, and murdered one of the black man's friends. Fred needs to convince Lizzie to sign a statement saying that the black man raped her, a seemingly unrelated crime, which seems to somehow nullify the murder at hand. Lizzie is unconvinced, and eventually the Senator must sidestep her reasonable logic in order to get her to sign a statement. Again, Sartre's argument becomes obvious. The Senator cannot convince Lizzie that she was raped by the black man, but he can convince her that black people are worthless. Intentionally taking the voice of Uncle Sam, the Senator says, "Lizzie, this Negro whom
you are protecting, what good is he? Somehow or other he was born, God knows where. I nourished and raised him, and how does he pay me back? What does he do for me?" (Sartre, 150). Lizzie is still resistant to sign the statement, but the senator takes her hand and she does not resist. Here, Sartre is making another subtle argument about American racism. The first is the pre-determined criminalization of black Americans as described above. The statement of accusation is pre-written, and thus is a sign that the government has defined black existence as criminal in ink.
The same ideas are continued through the conclusion of the play. The black man is accused of rape, and is being hunted by the police. Again he needs to be helped by Lizzie, who eventually agrees to. While being hidden by Lizzie, the black man has his last conversation. Lizzie acknowledges that he is innocent, but asks the black man "you feel guilty?" (Sartre, 155). Again along with Sartre's message, he responds, "yes ma'am" (Sartre, 155). American society has defined the black identity as guilty, and this notion even permeates the pride of many Black Americans. The black man is killed by Fred, but Lizzie still feels no pain for him. Strangely, the play concludes as Fred says to Lizzie, "My name is Fred" (Sartre, 157). This is also significant to Sartre's message. Black Americans are never able to build an identity for themselves, even when they are absolutely innocent. White Americans, although they can commit the most horrible crimes against black Americans, can still justify themselves and build their identity. Despite all that has happened, Fred is still able to introduce himself. This last line concludes Sartre's main message, which emphasizes the destruction of black identity.
Inescapable Subjectivity and the Problem of Others in Sartre's "No Exit"
No Exit, a highly revered
play written by philosopher and political activist Jean-Paul Sartre, is a work
of great metaphor and symbolism. The play features three characters in hell. This hell is dissimilar from the image of hell purported by Christianity, and instead a simple room with three people, locked for eternity. This hell turns out to be worse than any of the characters imagined. No Exit has a variety of symbols and broader meanings, but the symbol of the mirror is particularly important.
Like all other literary symbols, the mirror acquires meaning over time. Sartre first introduces the mirror as something quite insignificant. When first arriving in Hell, Garcin, a major character in the play, notices that there are "no mirrors...only to be expected" (Sartre, 3). Garcin seems initially unperturbed by the lack of mirrors, but the characters later introduced do not fair nearly as well. After first becoming acquainted, the characters being to annoy each other quite a bit. To prevent this, Garcin suggests that the characters stop speaking. The others agree to this. The silence is quickly broken by Estelle. She's is unable to find a mirror, and is in desperation. So much so, that she says to Garcin, "Even if you won't speak to me, you might lend me a glass" (Sartre, 11). Estelle is willing to break the silence agreed to prevent eternal suffering simply for a mirror. As such, the mirror brings on a great importance for the characters; this importance, though, is not yet made clear by Sartre.
The importance of the mirror grows for Estelle. After more failure, Estelle realizes she simply cannot persist without a mirror. So much so that she mentions, "When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself... I can't do without a looking-glass for ever" (Sartre, 11). Estelle attempts to put on lipstick, but she has the intuition that she did a poor job. Inez, another soul in hell, offers to act as Estelle's mirror. Estelle is initially hesitant, but agrees. Although Inez repeatedly tells Estelle that she is "lovely," Estelle cannot bring herself to trust Inez. So much so that she responds, "but how can I rely upon your taste? Is it the same as my taste? Oh, how sickening it all is, enough to drive one crazy!" (Sartre, 12).
The meaning and importance of the mirror now becomes more clear. The mirror, as a literal reflection of one's appearance, can give one a view of themselves. For Sartre, the problem with a world of multiple conscious beings is their irreconcilable subjectivity. One can never escape the gaze of the other, and thus are trapped by another's subjectivity. By looking in the mirror, one is able to look at and define themselves. The Hell depicted by Sartre is truly hell, because it is an environment in which one is wholly unable to achieve self-definition and self-perception.
This irreconcilable and shackling subjectivity is furthered in the remainder of No Exit. After their first encounter, Inez begins to heckle and torture Estelle. Inez taunts Estelle as she says "I'm your...mirror, my dear, and you can't escape me" (Sartre, 12). Moreover, Inez beings to understand her power as a "mirror." Inez notes, "suppose the mirror starts telling lies?" and then proceeds to lie to Estelle about having a pimple on her face. The ability to interpret existence gives the interpreter power, and the ability to determine one's own existence is the human struggle portrayed in No Exit, using the symbol of a mirror.
Like all other literary symbols, the mirror acquires meaning over time. Sartre first introduces the mirror as something quite insignificant. When first arriving in Hell, Garcin, a major character in the play, notices that there are "no mirrors...only to be expected" (Sartre, 3). Garcin seems initially unperturbed by the lack of mirrors, but the characters later introduced do not fair nearly as well. After first becoming acquainted, the characters being to annoy each other quite a bit. To prevent this, Garcin suggests that the characters stop speaking. The others agree to this. The silence is quickly broken by Estelle. She's is unable to find a mirror, and is in desperation. So much so, that she says to Garcin, "Even if you won't speak to me, you might lend me a glass" (Sartre, 11). Estelle is willing to break the silence agreed to prevent eternal suffering simply for a mirror. As such, the mirror brings on a great importance for the characters; this importance, though, is not yet made clear by Sartre.
The importance of the mirror grows for Estelle. After more failure, Estelle realizes she simply cannot persist without a mirror. So much so that she mentions, "When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself... I can't do without a looking-glass for ever" (Sartre, 11). Estelle attempts to put on lipstick, but she has the intuition that she did a poor job. Inez, another soul in hell, offers to act as Estelle's mirror. Estelle is initially hesitant, but agrees. Although Inez repeatedly tells Estelle that she is "lovely," Estelle cannot bring herself to trust Inez. So much so that she responds, "but how can I rely upon your taste? Is it the same as my taste? Oh, how sickening it all is, enough to drive one crazy!" (Sartre, 12).
The meaning and importance of the mirror now becomes more clear. The mirror, as a literal reflection of one's appearance, can give one a view of themselves. For Sartre, the problem with a world of multiple conscious beings is their irreconcilable subjectivity. One can never escape the gaze of the other, and thus are trapped by another's subjectivity. By looking in the mirror, one is able to look at and define themselves. The Hell depicted by Sartre is truly hell, because it is an environment in which one is wholly unable to achieve self-definition and self-perception.
This irreconcilable and shackling subjectivity is furthered in the remainder of No Exit. After their first encounter, Inez begins to heckle and torture Estelle. Inez taunts Estelle as she says "I'm your...mirror, my dear, and you can't escape me" (Sartre, 12). Moreover, Inez beings to understand her power as a "mirror." Inez notes, "suppose the mirror starts telling lies?" and then proceeds to lie to Estelle about having a pimple on her face. The ability to interpret existence gives the interpreter power, and the ability to determine one's own existence is the human struggle portrayed in No Exit, using the symbol of a mirror.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)