I was surprised by Sartre’s exposition of authenticity in this piece as I was unaware he gave it much focus in his other writings. It is certainly a bit morbid when he concludes that “the choice of authenticity is not a solution of the social aspect of the Jewish problem; it is not even an individual solution.” I can almost see how he arrives at this conclusion, however I don’t think I was able to grasp the whole argument.
I have to agree with how Sartre and Beauvoir make use of the gaze to show that we are all responsible for the labeling of others as Jewish, woman, etc. This is especially powerful when Sartre states that, “the Jewish blood that the Nazis shed falls on all our heads.” Does Sartre offer any way out of this? Does he agree with Beauvoir that change is possible even if it’s resistive? Or is this simply a result of a fundamental being-for-others and that there will always be this master slave dialectic one way or another?
I am slightly confused as to what Sartre expects Jews to do in situations where the authentic Jew can find themselves in loads of trouble for being authentic. For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't care much for authenticity (admitting you're Jewish) when your people are being openly discriminated against and even killed. I think Sartre does mention that being authentic as a Jew is a moral solution, but not a social one though. So I'm left wondering if existentialism has any insight into what a Jew in Nazi Germany should do.
It was kind of funny when Sartre wrote about the instance of the Jew being used as nothing more than a demonstration of tolerance. It reminded me exactly of a person I know that I went to a restaurant with recently who has a tendency to look down upon most people. Whenever the waitress would bring water or food to the table, no matter how trivial the service, the person I was with would meet them emphatically with a "Thank you sooo much" and a high-pitched/warm alteration in their voice I had never heard before. It came off as quite inauthentic.
I find the social trap of the gaze around the Jew morbidly fascinating. It's mental to really think that for someone to simply acknowledge/ respect their history and culture they're playing into the narrative set by their oppressors. It really seems like a never ending trap
When Sartre proposes "the situation which he has to pay claim and to live in is quite simply that of a martyr". I'm reminded of a Sartre's ethics. An authentic Jew has to live life as if their choices are being constantly monitored in order to "prove" that they are a pure human. Part of me wonders if, because of this scruteny, a fully oppressed individual could ever be truly authentic.
I think It was intresting that he says that the antisemite creates the Jew. Then goes on to say that the only answer would be in assimulation but because the antisemite creates the jew it is the antisemite who has to assimulate.
I find this intersting because it shows how the Jew is in a winless situation. They are at the will of the antisemite because they can always create more "Jews"
Within the context of the revolutionary project, I completely agree with Sartre that the first step must necessarily be that of authenticity, or rather that in some circumstances to be authentic is inherently revolutionary.
I really enjoyed this piece as a call for social pluralism, it almost seems like he is advocating some sort of trans modernity. I believe it was Marx who said "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce", furthermore I believe that this knowledge has never been so relevant.
At the top of the reading, Sartre describes a certain situation the marginalized position of the Jew in Europe just prior to World War II, and although it may be my own politics leaking into my interpretation, the kind of oppression he claims the Jew is facing is the same kind of de facto prejudice that still exists in western society and has become more apparent in the last three years. Sartre makes sure to mention that the Jew cannot revolt against a system that designates him as “other” but in no other way restricts his rights. In recent American politics, there has been a move from the far left to enable this kind of revolt, but it has, to little surprise, been met with significant resistance from the right where many suggest that there is no real oppression, and therefore nothing to protest against. In addition, I wonder if the type of one-upmanship that has arisen in the far left (where the person who is most victimized has the most social capital) comes from the same tendency Sartre recognizes for the oppressed to favor the “passionate” oppression against which they are free to rebel. I think Sartre’s ability to articulate the concept of the Other in so many ways is intriguing. He talks about the Other in multiple works we have read this semester, and even references Hegel in terms of his dialectic. I think Sartre is more effective than Hegel, Husserl, and others at explaining this idea, since he makes it about such a real example, as opposed to an abstract argument. Maybe this is because of Sartre’s experience with writing literary works as well as philosophical ones.
I had never considered how life in France was for Jews after WW2 however the reading made me think about a lot I had never thought of. One interesting idea I read was the freedoms Jewish people had. The had the ability to hold all of the government positions yet were still looked at differently because they were Jewish. I find this odd because usually when people are allowed to hold government positions and hold them they are no longer treats as outsiders.
Another interesting concept I read about was how racism was so ingrained at this time in France that Jewish people were always suspicious. The is a part of the reading that talks about how Jewish people felt that anyone being a little to friendly to them was doing it for show. They were being friendly to show that they were accepting of Jews not doing it because they were genuine. I found it interesting that Jews felt to alienated that a gesture of kindness could be seen a inauthentic.
I was surprised by Sartre’s exposition of authenticity in this piece as I was unaware he gave it much focus in his other writings. It is certainly a bit morbid when he concludes that “the choice of authenticity is not a solution of the social aspect of the Jewish problem; it is not even an individual solution.” I can almost see how he arrives at this conclusion, however I don’t think I was able to grasp the whole argument.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with how Sartre and Beauvoir make use of the gaze to show that we are all responsible for the labeling of others as Jewish, woman, etc. This is especially powerful when Sartre states that, “the Jewish blood that the Nazis shed falls on all our heads.” Does Sartre offer any way out of this? Does he agree with Beauvoir that change is possible even if it’s resistive? Or is this simply a result of a fundamental being-for-others and that there will always be this master slave dialectic one way or another?
I am slightly confused as to what Sartre expects Jews to do in situations where the authentic Jew can find themselves in loads of trouble for being authentic. For instance, I'm sure you wouldn't care much for authenticity (admitting you're Jewish) when your people are being openly discriminated against and even killed. I think Sartre does mention that being authentic as a Jew is a moral solution, but not a social one though. So I'm left wondering if existentialism has any insight into what a Jew in Nazi Germany should do.
ReplyDeleteIt was kind of funny when Sartre wrote about the instance of the Jew being used as nothing more than a demonstration of tolerance. It reminded me exactly of a person I know that I went to a restaurant with recently who has a tendency to look down upon most people. Whenever the waitress would bring water or food to the table, no matter how trivial the service, the person I was with would meet them emphatically with a "Thank you sooo much" and a high-pitched/warm alteration in their voice I had never heard before. It came off as quite inauthentic.
I find the social trap of the gaze around the Jew morbidly fascinating. It's mental to really think that for someone to simply acknowledge/ respect their history and culture they're playing into the narrative set by their oppressors. It really seems like a never ending trap
ReplyDeleteWhen Sartre proposes "the situation which he has to pay claim and to live in is quite simply that of a martyr". I'm reminded of a Sartre's ethics. An authentic Jew has to live life as if their choices are being constantly monitored in order to "prove" that they are a pure human. Part of me wonders if, because of this scruteny, a fully oppressed individual could ever be truly authentic.
I think It was intresting that he says that the antisemite creates the Jew. Then goes on to say that the only answer would be in assimulation but because the antisemite creates the jew it is the antisemite who has to assimulate.
ReplyDeleteI find this intersting because it shows how the Jew is in a winless situation. They are at the will of the antisemite because they can always create more "Jews"
Within the context of the revolutionary project, I completely agree with Sartre that the first step must necessarily be that of authenticity, or rather that in some circumstances to be authentic is inherently revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this piece as a call for social pluralism, it almost seems like he is advocating some sort of trans modernity. I believe it was Marx who said "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce", furthermore I believe that this knowledge has never been so relevant.
At the top of the reading, Sartre describes a certain situation the marginalized position of the Jew in Europe just prior to World War II, and although it may be my own politics leaking into my interpretation, the kind of oppression he claims the Jew is facing is the same kind of de facto prejudice that still exists in western society and has become more apparent in the last three years. Sartre makes sure to mention that the Jew cannot revolt against a system that designates him as “other” but in no other way restricts his rights. In recent American politics, there has been a move from the far left to enable this kind of revolt, but it has, to little surprise, been met with significant resistance from the right where many suggest that there is no real oppression, and therefore nothing to protest against. In addition, I wonder if the type of one-upmanship that has arisen in the far left (where the person who is most victimized has the most social capital) comes from the same tendency Sartre recognizes for the oppressed to favor the “passionate” oppression against which they are free to rebel.
ReplyDeleteI think Sartre’s ability to articulate the concept of the Other in so many ways is intriguing. He talks about the Other in multiple works we have read this semester, and even references Hegel in terms of his dialectic. I think Sartre is more effective than Hegel, Husserl, and others at explaining this idea, since he makes it about such a real example, as opposed to an abstract argument. Maybe this is because of Sartre’s experience with writing literary works as well as philosophical ones.
I had never considered how life in France was for Jews after WW2 however the reading made me think about a lot I had never thought of. One interesting idea I read was the freedoms Jewish people had. The had the ability to hold all of the government positions yet were still looked at differently because they were Jewish. I find this odd because usually when people are allowed to hold government positions and hold them they are no longer treats as outsiders.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting concept I read about was how racism was so ingrained at this time in France that Jewish people were always suspicious. The is a part of the reading that talks about how Jewish people felt that anyone being a little to friendly to them was doing it for show. They were being friendly to show that they were accepting of Jews not doing it because they were genuine. I found it interesting that Jews felt to alienated that a gesture of kindness could be seen a inauthentic.