The Struggle Towards Collective Authenticity in Early Sartrean Works

Collective authenticity is a project which must be realized at the social level. Sartre holds that this can only be achieved through proper social reorganization. With due consideration to the preceding discussion, it is almost needless to say that a society which is unfavorable to authenticity must be duly restructured so as to change the way it views interpersonal relationships.

The struggle towards collective authenticity is not limited to late Sartrean works. Indeed, we can say that the earliest seed of such thought is found in his Anti-Semite and Jew. Let us then return to the text and discover how Sartre upholds the need for social reorganization as a result of his thesis on authenticity.

Sartre did not just discuss the notion of collective authenticity in the Anti-Semite and Jew; he likewise offered an initial solution to the difficulty in the achievement of authenticity in a societal level. We recall that for Sartre, collective authenticity is primarily manifested in the bonding together of those concerned in order to react to a situation unfavorable to the realization of authenticity. However, Sartre believes that the fraternity of the Jews of his time was due not to a common cause or common history but to a common labeling by society:

If it is true, as Hegel says, that a community is historical to the degree that it remembers its history, then the Jewish community is the least historical of all, for it keeps a memory of nothing but a long martyrdom, that is, of a long passivity. What is it that serves to keep a semblance of unity in the Jewish community? To reply to this question, we must come back to the idea of situation. It is neither their past, their religion, nor their soil that unites the sons of Israel. If they have a common bond, if all of them deserve the name of Jew, it is because they have in common the situation of the Jew, that is, they live in a community which takes them for Jews.

Sartre, in the concluding portion of the book on the historicity of the Jews, comments that "the Jewish community is neither national nor international, neither religious nor ethnic, nor political: it is a quasi-historical community."

In view of the kind of bonding existing among the Jews, the first step in the struggle towards collective authenticity, then, is to attempt to instill among them a deeper sense of unity through an emphasis on a common scarcity. We again recall that for Sartre, scarcity is the major determinant in interpersonal relationships. What then is the lack of the Jews? Sartre answers that it is the lack of a common cause. This view is somehow a seed to Sartre's later critique of the Marxism of his time. Marxists tend to accept the concept of a class as a given. Sartre then argues that the concept of a class must never be taken as a given. His Existentialist mindset made him think that nothing must ever be taken as a given; everything must be viewed as something made, produced, or induced. In explaining that the formation of a Jewish organization is a manifestation of authenticity, Sartre writes:

I am told that a Jewish league against anti-Semitism has just been reconstituted. I am delighted; that proves that the sense of authenticity is developing among Jews.

Upon the establishment of a 'Jewish class,' Jews can then proceed with the initial task of correcting errors of metaphysical magnitude that serve as the foundation of anti-Semitic tendencies. By metaphysical errors, this researcher means consideration of the Jew as having a Jewish nature or essence. We have to note here that Sartre does not believe in the pre-existence of essences. Essence is what one makes through the activities he does. In line with this thinking, Sartre traces the problem of anti-Semitism to what he considers as an error of attributing a Jewish essence to Jews. Sartre explains that "without the presence of this metaphysical essence, the activities ascribed to the Jew would be entirely incomprehensible."

However, the question of the manner of this correction remains unanswered. Sartre replies that the rectification of such an error can only be done through revolution. In the Anti-Semite and Jew, Sartre holds that the need for a revolution comes from the conflict of interests among classes. Sartre explains this position in a text containing the reason for the revolutionary's adoption of the cause of the proletariat:

In the eyes of the Marxist, the class struggle in no sense a struggle between Good and Evil; it is a conflict of interests between human groups. The reason why the revolutionary adopts the point of view of the proletariat is, first of all, because it is his own class, then because it is oppressed, because it is by far the most numerous and consequently involves the fate of mankind in its own destiny, finally because the results of its victory will necessarily include the abolition of the class struggle.

The revolution Sartre envisions is one directed towards the reorganization of society. Social reorganization consists of two concrete ways, namely, the destruction of the old order and the building of a new order:

The goal of the revolutionary is to change the organization of society. To do that it will no doubt be necessary to destroy the old regime. But that will not be sufficient; above all it will be necessary to build a new order.

Moreover, the new social order envisioned in the revolution proposed by Sartre must be characterized by concrete liberalism. By concrete liberalism, Sartre means that all persons who through their work collaborate toward the greatness of their country must have the full rights of citizenship in that country. As Sartre says, "what gives them this right is not the possession of a problematical and abstract 'human nature,' but their active participation in the life of the society." Furthermore, the achievement of concrete liberalism must be done in a twofold manner: propaganda and education. Concrete liberalism is a must for authenticity to become feasible because of the fact that a social order that infringe upon the freedom of the individual can never be able to lay out a foundation for the realization of authenticity:

Political action can never be directed against the freedom of citizens; its very nature forbids it to be concerned with freedom except in a negative fashion, that is, in taking care not to infringe upon it. It acts only on situations.

Sartre holds that authenticity is best and most efficiently realized in a classless society characterized by concrete liberalism. This position can be better understood if we take into account Sartre's earlier notion that inauthenticity is the easiest recourse in view of the clash of interests of two naturally opposing classes. Sartre writes:

Anti-Semitism would have no existence in a society without classes and founded on collective ownership of the instruments of labor, one in which man, freed of his hallucinations inherited from an older world, would at long last throw himself wholeheartedly into his enterprise - which is to create the kingdom of man.

After developing his arguments for the necessity of the Jews' bonding together in their fight against the movement inimical to them, Sartre proceeds one step further in a way alien to the Sartre who considers other people as hell:

He called for everyone to support the Jewish cause. We can therefore say that this early, Sartre already considers intersubjectivity as an ideal in human relationships. Sartre says:

What is there to say except that the socialist revolution is necessary to and sufficient for the suppression of the anti-Semite? It is for the Jews that we shall make the revolution.

As if to reinforce his call, Sartre again laments the indifference of other people to the Jewish cause:

The cause of the Jews would be half won if only their friends brought to their defense a little of the passion and the perseverance their enemies use to bring them down.

Finally, Sartre categorically points out the brotherhood that exists between men. We must understand that late Sartre argues that the only true political project must be a project of human brotherhood and association. It is thus interesting to know that even the Sartre who considers other people as a threat to one's freedom must explicitly uphold the intimate connection existing among men. As Sartre writes at the end of the Anti-Semite and Jew:

What must be done is to point out to each one that the fate of the Jews is his fate. Not one Frenchman will be free so long as the Jews do not enjoy the fullness of their rights. Not one Frenchman will be secure so long as a single Jew - in France or in the world at large - can fear for his life.