Can We be Authentic in Everyday Life?

Posted by: Stephen Miller - Oakwood Friends School, Marist College
Designed for: College/University, High School, Middle School
Topics Covered: Existentialism, Authenticity, Authenticity, Sartre, Jean-Paul, Being-in-the-World, World War II
Estimated Time Necessary: 45 minutes
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
[addtoany]

Learning Objectives

  • Understanding of the WWII context of Sartrean Existentialism - The essay gives historical context to 20th century Existentialism and prompts students to apply this to their lives.

Tool Text

“Republic of Silence,” by Jean-Paul Sartre

Jean-Paul Sartre came to define post-war Existentialism.  In this prominent editorial published shortly after the occupation ended, Sartre articulates both the context to his views and the suggestion that everyday life may present even more challenges to real “Existential Choice.”  After watching this short video, read the essay and answer the discussion questions below.

“Republic of Silence,” by Jean-Paul Sartre

We were never more free than during the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, beginning with the right to talk. Every day we were insulted to our faces and had to take it in silence. Under one pretext or another, as workers, Jews, or political prisoners, we were deported EN MASSE. Everywhere, on billboards, in the newspapers, on the screen, we encountered the revolting and insipid picture of ourselves that our oppressors wanted us to accept. And, because of all this, we were free. Because the Nazi venom seeped even into our thoughts, every accurate thought was a conquest. Because an all-powerful police tried to force us to hold our tongues, every word took on the value of a declaration of principles. Because we were hunted down, every one of our gestures had the weight of a solemn commitment. The circumstances, atrocious as they often were, finally made it possible for us to live, without pretense or false shame, the hectic and impossible existence that is known as the lot of man. Exile, captivity, and especially death (which we usually shrink from facing at all in happier times) became for us the habitual objects of our concern. We learned that they were neither inevitable accidents, nor even constant and exterior dangers, but that they must be considered as our lot itself, our destiny, the profound source of our reality as men. At every instant we lived up to the full sense of this commonplace little phrase: “Man is mortal!” And the choice that each of us made of his life and of his being was an authentic choice because it was made face to face with death, because it could always have been expressed in these terms: “Rather death than…” And here I am not speaking of the elite among us who were real Resistants, but of all Frenchmen who, at every hour of the night and day throughout four years, answered NO. But the very cruelty of the enemy drove us to the extremities of this condition by forcing us to ask ourselves questions that one never considers in time of peace. All those among us – and what Frenchman was not at one time or another in this situation who knew any details concerning the Resistance asked themselves anxiously, “If they torture me, shall I be able to keep silent?” Thus the basic question of liberty itself was posed, and we were brought to the verge of the deepest knowledge that man can have of himself. For the secret of a man is not his Oedipus complex or his inferiority complex: it is the limit of his own liberty, his capacity for resisting torture and death.

To those who were engaged in underground activities, the conditions of their struggle afforded a new kind of experience. They did not fight openly like soldiers. In all circumstances they were alone. They were hunted down in solitude, arrested in solitude. It was completely forlorn and unbefriended that they held out against torture, alone and naked in the presence of torturers, clean-shaven, well-fed, and well-clothed, who laughed at their cringing flesh, and to whom an untroubled conscience and a boundless sense of social strength gave every appearance of being in the right. Alone. Without a friendly hand or a word of encouragement. Yet, in the depth of their solitude, it was the others that they were protecting, all the others, all their comrades in the Resistance. Total responsibility in total solitude – is this not the very definition of our liberty? This being stripped of all, this solitude, this tremendous danger, were the same for all. For the leaders and for their men, for those who conveyed messages without knowing what their content was, as for those who directed the entire Resistance, the punishment was the same – imprisonment, deportation, death. There is no army in the world where there is such equality of risk for the private and for the commander-in-chief. And this is why the Resistance was a true democracy: for the soldier as for the commander, the same danger, the same forsakenness, the same total responsibility, the same absolute liberty within discipline. Thus, in darkness and in blood, a Republic was established, the strongest of Republics. Each of its citizens knew that he owed himself to all and that he could count only on himself alone. Each of them, in complete isolation, fulfilled his responsibility and his role in history. Each of them, standing against the oppressors, undertook to be himself, freely and irrevocably. And by choosing for himself in liberty, he chose the liberty of all. This Republic without institutions, without an army, without police, was something that at each instant every Frenchman had to win and to affirm against Nazism. No one failed in this duty, and now we are on the threshold of another Republic. May this Republic to be set up in broad daylight preserve the austere virtue of that other Republic of Silence and of Night.

ENDS

 

Can We be Authentic in Everyday Life?

Possible Discussion Questions
  1. What is an Authentic Life?
  2. Are we closer to our true selves in times of crisis or during regular life?
  3. How does the context of Nazi occupation of France during the early 1940's affect the meaning of this text?
  4. If Sartre is right, what dilemmas does this present us in 21st century United States?
  5. What are some of the implications and assumptions suggested by this essay?
  6. What are arguments in favor and against Sartre's position?

Resources for Further Study
  • Jean Paul Sartre Biography - Biography of Sartre from the Nobel Prize page (despite the fact that Sartre was the only Nobel Prize in Literature winner to decline the prize).