In 1944 Sartre published an article in the Lettres françaises beginning with « We were never more free than during the German occupation ». What does it mean, and how it is linked to the particular notion of liberty introduced by Sartre ?
Many are those who could not understand how the German occupation could be synonym of freedom, when the word occupation is quite equivocal. The years of German occupation are on the contrary most of the time described as dark years for French people. France lost its autonomy, a part of its sovereignty, French were submitted and watched by German soldiers, acts and thought had to satisfy the National Socialist totalitarianism. To sum up, if French were free, it was to obey and suffer.
Remember, what is freedom for Sartre ? Sartre had an almost physiological conception of freedom, he thought that human beings, because they are human beings, were free. But freedom is not an end in itself, nor is it an engine that drives you, freedom is an action and is expressed in choosing. Thus freedom is embodied in choices, and what matter are the things you do and the road to you take to actually get to freedom.
Moreover, Sartre was convinced that life was meaningless, that we were born by chance, and that we were justified in creating nothing. Then, if our existence makes no sense at all, it is up to us to give it a meaning. Our inherent freedom gives us the opportunity to give it a meaning.
Let’s now consider the rest of the quote :
« 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, were deported en masse. Everywhere, on billboards, in the newspapers, on the screen, we encountered the revolting and insipid picture of ourselves that our suppressors wanted us to accept. And because of all this we were free. Because the Nazi venom seeped 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, everyone of our gestures had the weight of a solemn commitment. »
The idea that individuals can always choose their actions is something essential in Sartre philosophy. Even if the situation seems to let you no choice, seems to enslave you, the possibility of choice remains real. Besides, you always have the possibility of folding your arms, or choosing to die standing upright, even in the most tragic situations, such as the German occupation. The constant surveillance of individuals and the real threats that German occupant represented, the risk to die for example is not a justification to wait and see, or to collaboration. On the contrary, the more the choice clear and oversimplified is, the more individuals face their freedom. Indeed, during the German occupation, individuals were at any moment exposed to violence and were conscious of their vulnerability. Then, thought, acts and words took an extraordinary weight and at this very moment individuals were conscious of the price of freedom.
This conception of freedom shed a new light on the behavior of French citizens during the war. As the conception of liberty is inherent to human being, to resist, to wait and see or to collaborate are considered as choices. Sartre’s conception of freedom faces up individuals to their responsibilities. It is all the more remarkable since Sartre’s attitude during the war was quite ambiguous. Among other, Sartre has been reproached of accepting a position as a philosophy professor held by Henri Dreyfus-Lefoyer, laid off because he was Jewish.
But on the other hand, remember that Being and Nothing was published in 1943, whereas the nazi totalitarian ideology triumphed. Affirming the value of existence and the inherent character of freedom is a very subversive act in itself, and maybe that was the most subversive thing that Sartre could do : writing.
Hi :) i really liked your article which explains one of the most emblematic and misunderstood quotes of Sartre. Personally, I also saw this sentence as an expression of the resistancialist myth which took place at the time Sartre was writing. Seeing the German occupation as a way, a period where the context forced everyone to exerce their liberty by choosing, if not only to disagree, to resist; seems to me like a sort of negation of the collaboration, of the Vichy regime (exactly what did De Gaulle later). What i wanted to say is maybe, unfortunately, by this quote, Sartre mainly wants to defend the idea French people fought against nazism and expressed their utmost liberty in those hard times.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi ! I agree with Alexandra. Although I understand what is Sartre trying to express with his quote, I believe that on the one hand, Sartre is criticizing the people that didn't do anything during the occupation, but on an other han he doesn't seem to understand the situation of the ones who are scared about their life and who didn't resist. Even if I agree with the philosophical meaning of the quotation that promotes a rational and brave behavior, I believe it is not focusing enough on the potential despair of people during this period. One has to take into account the evolution of the philosophical perception of existence. Rather than a biggest ability of choice, people maybe just didn't care about what they could do and they just wanted to survive. For Sartre, the occupation period is a time of decisions and actions, but for others it may represent a time of weaknesses in the way people build their conscience and their reflexion. Just to reassure you, I am not talking about people who were in the collaboration but those who didn't do anything and just wanted to feed their children and to keep their home.
DeleteHi girls ! Thank you for your comments ! First, I would like to say that if Sartre said those words in 1945, his conception of liberty was established in 1943. Yet, the resistancialist myth made up by De Gaulle wasn't already established. Furthermore, I don't see this quote of Sartre as an element of the resistancialist myth, but as the very transcription of Sartre's conception of liberty. Sartre strongly believed that liberty was an action, that liberty was expressed through choices. When he says that "we were never more free than during the German occupation", I think he wasn't trying to paint a rosy picture of the German occupation and of the French behavior, on the contrary. Sartre was convinced that the possibility to choose was embodied in the human nature, and actually the German occupation IMPOSED to the French people a choice : to do something or not. In this sense, we were never more free than during the German occupation, because we HAD to choose, finally. Sartre didn't want to say that all French took the decision to resist, but that every French actually had a choice to do. To choose to do nothing IS a choice, it is an expression of your liberty. To collaborate was also a choice. In this sense, Sartre made a simple observation. I think that, on the contrary, he encouraged individuals to face up their responsibilities, preventing them from hiding behind the resistancialist myth.
DeleteConcerning fear and despair, the necessity to feed children and to protect them, it doesn't work against Sartre for me. He never said that the choice to do during the German occupation was an easy one. Fear, that was a reality, was something to take in consideration when taking a decision. But it didn't prevent you from doing a choice. If you chose to stay and see because you preferred to protect your children, it is a choice and few people will blame you for this.
Dear Félicie,
ReplyDeleteFirst i would like to congratulate you for your article that i found very interesting. The idea of choice during the German Occupation is very interesting specially for Sartre who believes we always have choice and writes that " not choosing ins also a choice" which makes french people responsible for their different status during this dark period whether it is collaboration, resistance or just silence without taking part of the conflict. I personally agree with this vision because no one can flee his responsibilities and must chose how history is going to remember him. However, the very interesting theory of Hannah Arendt about The Banality of evil approaches the issue in a different way : she thinks that men are not totally free when the group dictates its will. Arendt explains that people who were born in this period were surrounded by evil and it's banality, everyone was doing "evil things" without even being conscious about the fact it was evil, people were doing so only because it was the global atmosphere and because they had orders to do so. Simone Veil is actually strongly against this theory of Arendt that could make people irresponsible of their own acts and choices, she takes the example of Les Justes : the french who hide jews during the war instead of denouncing them and proves we always can choose, and if this king of Justes existed that also means that the other did the choice of capitulation and collaboration. All this to finally ask you, which theory do you think more pertinent between Sartre's and Arend's concerning choice ?
Thank you Ahlem ! I think it is really interesting to confront Sartre's conception to these of other philosophers who worked on the same issue. Choosing between Arendt's conception or Sartre's one concerning the choice to do during the German occupation, and the nature of this choice, is quite complicated, because nothing is all black or all white. Personally, I am really convinced that every body had a choice to do during this dark period. Of course the climate, groups behavior, propaganda, everything played to make this choice difficult, and not so evident for every one, but for people born before the beginning of WW2 "evil" was perceivable, so susceptible to be fought. Of course, it is a personal point of view. And you what do you think ?
DeleteDear Félicie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your answer. Just like you, i believe we always have choice, and many people did the wrong one and are responsible for it, we shouldn't talk about a "global climate" since we had many exceptions and a lot of people choose not to collaborate and not to denounce. But still, i always remember that old song entitled " si j'étais né en 17 à Leidenstadt " of Jean Jacques Goldman, what would i become, which choice would be mine, i believe every choice can be understood because we can't know which choice we could do if we were in the same case.
Hi, I realy liked your post it was clear and synthetic. I just wanted to ask you : don't you think that the occupation was according to Sartres a moment of freedom because as the french were dominated and humilited they were more aware of the fact that they had the choice to rebel ? when you make everyday's choices for instance you are not aware of the fact that you have actualy a lot of different choices, that you are able to do anyone of them, and that you are exercing your freedom in chosing one. Whereas when you are facing a strong oppostion you understand that the choice you are choosing is a choice that defines you.
ReplyDeleteHi Félicie !
ReplyDeleteIndeed we realize that the most fundamental freedom is not necessarily the freedom of expression, but the freedom of speech, the freedom to think. Even under the censorship, truths remain truths, and even under the oppression ideas remain the same.
Kery James is considered as the best lyric writer of the French rap, he wrote:
"Pour faire tomber ma plume il faut me couper les doigts
Tu peux me crever mes yeux, tu n'changeras pas c'que j'vois
Tu peux me trancher la gorge mais mes écrits ont une voix"
translation:
"To bring down my feather it is necessary to cut me my fingers
You can burst me my eyes, you will not change what I see
You can cut me the throat but my writings have a voice"