CHAPTER ONE

JEAN-PAUL SARTRE AND THE SADOMASOCHISTIC

RELATIONSHIP

Jean-Paul Sartre proposed that romantic relationship is fascinating because it

seems to be a means of knowing oneself, but it is naturally disappointing because the

ideal is unachievable, leaving Romantic Relationships to stumble on the vicious cycle of

sadomasochism.

A. The life of Sartre

Jean- Paul Sartre was born on June 21, 1905 in Paris. He is the son of Jean-

Baptiste Sartre a member of the French Navy and Anne-Marie, an unpaid housekeeper

and first cousin of Albert Schweitzer, the famous German Missionary. 1 His father died

when he was still months old. He grew up with the guidance of his grandfather Charles

Schweitzer a language teacher and an author. After years that he had been tutored by his

grandfather he then have his formal education and was aided by some of the finest

schools in France, at École Normale Supérieure. It is also in the same place he met his

longtime partner named Simone de Beauvoir. 2

They met as a young Philosophy students in 1929. Sartre won first prize in the

agrégation, France’s highly competitive teacher’s exam, after failing the first time.3

Beauvoir drew second place in what was a controversial and heated decision process. 4

They became highly admired teachers, writing about their new philosophies in smoky

1
2
3
4
Paris cafe. Like any other existentialist thinkers, Sartre wrote many plays, novels, stories

and political pamphlets. In 1964, Sartre was awarded but refused the Nobel Prize for his

autobiographical narrative “The Words”. 5

While Beauvoir won Frances literary award,

the Prix Goncourt for her 1954 novel the Mandarins. They fell in love with, inspired, and

challenged each other for the rest of their lives, until Sartre died due to declining health

on April 15, 1980.

A1. Influences that shaped Sartre’s view on romantic relationship

Much of Sartre’s existential writing was published in the 1940s. His Philosophy

was developed through accepting and by opposing the Philosophies of the most well-

known people in the field. Attracted to Philosophy through Henri Bergson’s ideas about

consciousness, Sartre began “Being and Nothingness” by rejecting Immanuel Kant’s idea

of ‘noumena’, which is the notion that appearances conceal essences. Instead he bases his

Phenomenology on that of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, wherein the essence

is as it appears.6 While Sartre denied reading much Hegel before “Being and

Nothingness” there are three key points relevant to this analysis that Sartre denies from

Hegel. 7 First they both split Being into two opposing elements: The in-itself 8
and the

for-itself. 9 Second, the role of the ‘Other’ is a fundamental aspect of self-consciousness,

Sartre was attracted to Hegel’s idea that being-for-others is necessary for being-for-

myself because so much of my existence depends on being recognized by others. The

third key element that Hegel and Sartre have in common is the source of conflict in

5
6
7
8
9
relationships. They discuss a form of encounter between humans, a master and slave

interaction as a ‘dialect’, which is an oppositional and oscillating relationship.

Hegel described the dialectic as two consciousnesses who meet, and in their

recognition of each other, they realize there is a part of their being lost in the other. Both

think that the other holds the missing piece of their being, and so a “life-and-death

struggle” ensues.10 However killing the other consciousness would be self-defeating

because one would not be able to access what one was seeking in the first place, that is

self-certainty and alterity. So it is essential that both consciousness survive in order to

recognize each other as opposed. The more powerful one seizes the independent essential

position “Lord” existing for-itself the one that is more afraid of dying surrenders and

becomes the dependent and unessential “bondsman” or “slave”.

This provokes the master-slave dialectic that Sartre explored with regards to

sexual and loving relationships in Being and Nothingness. Despite saying in a 1959

interview that he was not interested in writing about love, he did actually have plenty to

say on the topic. 11 Sartre acknowledges that lovers are in a prime position to provide that

deeper level of self-knowledge, because they form some of the deepest, most intimate,

and most intense relationships. While other relationships such as family, friends, and

work colleagues can be more time-consuming than romantic relationship, the former do

not normally engage on a sensual level. Sartre places much importance on sensual

engagement because it opens up possibilities for deeper intimacy than platonic

relationships because Sartre believed that intimacy provides a means of discovering new

10
11
dimensions of oneself and creating more profound experiences with and through the

others.12 This is why in Sartre’s view; lovers are among the best people to provide a

comprehensive and valued reflection for each other.13 Notwithstanding the charm of

romantic loving, there are also inherent problems in such relationships, and it is these

problems that shall now be addressed.

B. Problems of Romantic Relationship

Sartre accepted the factor that the human condition cannot be viewed in isolation

as a single object; basically we are social beings fixed in a social context so in addition to

the primary modes of being namely being-for-itself and being-in-itself Sartre then

employs the term being-for-others. This describes the interpersonal dimension of being,

which acknowledge the existence of others and how we encounter them within the world.

An experience such as shame is the key to understanding being-for-others. If one makes

an awkward or rude gesture when one is alone, one does not judge himself. According to

Sartre one cannot be ashamed unless other people are involved.14 The presence of

someone else forces one to pass judgment on oneself as an object and reveals completely

new aspects of the self.

For example in Sartre’s shame analogy by being looked at, say someone saw you

looking through a keyhole of a bathroom door. People then feel ashamed when they are

caught and when one is ashamed one becomes self-conscious. As Sartre says in the
15
experience of shame, the objectification of an ego denies the existence of a subject.

12
13
14
15
These relationships with new people are not being-with-others, but being-for-others, we

are not with other people, we are for them.16 This look reduces oneself as an object for

the other. In this way, the other decentralizes one’s whole world.

This will be best exemplified in Sartre’s play No Exit.17 We use mirrors because

they tell us what we look like and in the play, Inez seduced Estelle by offering to be her

mirror when she is applying make-up to herself. After the make-up is applied, Estelle

asks how it looks. Then Inez imposed his own view of Estelle based on her own

perspective then ended up frightening Estelle.

ESTELLE: But how can I rely upon your taste? Is it the same as my taste? . . .
INEZ: I have your taste, my dear, because I like you so much. . . Am I not nicer
than your glass?
ESTELLE: Oh, I don’t know. You scare me rather. My reflection in the
glass never did that; of course, I knew it so well. Like something I had
tamed . . . I’m going to smile, and my smile will sink down into your
pupils, and heaven knows what it will become. [. . .]
INEZ: I’m your lark-mirror, my dear, and you can’t escape me . . . There isn’t
any pimple, not a trace of one. So what about it? Suppose the mirror
started telling lies? Or suppose I covered my eyes—as he is doing
[Garcin]—and refused to look at you, all that loveliness of yours would
be wasted on the desert air. No, don’t be afraid, I can’t help looking at
you, I shan’t turn my eyes away. And I’ll be nice to you, ever so nice.
Only you must be nice to me, too.
ESTELLE: Are you really—attracted by me?
INEZ: Very much indeed.
ESTELLE: . . . But I wish he’d [Garcin] notice me, too.
INEZ: Of course! Because he’s a Man! [To Garcin] You’ve won. 18

In this way, the other “decentralizes” one’s whole world. The above example

shows how people complicate each other’s lives because everyone imposes their own

meanings on the world and in doing so modifies each other’s possibilities and brings each

16
17
18
other’s existence to a new level. This is exactly the case with lovers as the implication of

this shows that the more highly one regards the other, the more important their

interpretation of one’s action becomes, the more power the other gains in one’s self

recognition, the more dependent one becomes on the other’s view, and the more

desperate one is to control that view, fueling the conflict that Sartre said characterizes

relationship.19 Lovers tend to be more concerned about each other’s respective sentiments

than anyone else’s which is why conflict is particularly intense in romantic relationships.

Moreover there are at least three reasons why others are disruptive for Sartre.

First, others decentralize one’s world, as in the shame analogy. The other reveals aspects

of one’s being that one cannot recognize alone because one cannot look at oneself as an

object. Second, Sartre thought that others are the promoter for us to understand ourselves

better. It is out of vanity that we want to get close to others because we want them to

reveal secrets about ourselves. The other helps modify one’s possibilities. Third, in the

presence of others one recognizes that one is vulnerable because one could be an

instrument of other’s possibilities, and it is terrifying to be a means to ends of which one

is ignorant.

For Sartre romantic relationships are alluring because the intimate nature of them

would seem to provide the means of deeper self-reflection through another whose opinion

is held in high regard. Sartre outlined a number of strategies that people in a romantic

relationship employ in order to become one’s own foundation. In Being and Nothingness,

he reduced relationships to two fundamental attitudes: assimilation and appropriation.

19
The following sub topics highlights the key elements of these two attitudes at play in

romantic relationships, namely possession, freedom, seduction, sadism and masochism.

B.1. Possesion

20
The natural state of human affairs, according to Sartre is conflict. One is torn

between being indebted to the other for being the facilitator by which one realizes whole

other dimensions of ones being but also not wanting the other to steal one’s being

entirely. The other realizes an aspect of oneself that cannot be understood without being

told because one cannot become other to oneself. Because the other holds the secret of

one’s being, one tries to enslave the other in order to learn these secrets. Yet, the other is

trying to do the same. At the same time, both are trying to free themselves from each

other’s hold. Therein lies the battleground of consciousnesses.

Possesion, for Sartre, involves wanting to integrate it into one’s being, which means

destroying it.21 Sartre’s statements overlook the idea that if one values a possesion, then it

is not just a matter of using it up but also a matter of maintaining, preserving, or

improving it in order to extend its usability. Nevertheless, even using something does not

quench the desire to possess it, because nothing can ever actually be assimilated into

one’s being. Complete possession is impossible because although one can lock up a body

or an object, there is actually nothing concrete in possesion.22 Furthermore, to possess is

more than simply to use because there are plenty of things that are used but not

possessed-for example, a plate in a café. Rather, possession involves a desire to unite.

This would explain why lovers tend to be possessive: they want to unite.

20
21
22
 The contradiction lies in wanting the other to be free consciousness since I want the

other to view me objectively, but I do not want the other to have a free consciousness

because I want to rule her freedom. It is the paradox of two becoming one, but still trying

to remain two.23 No one can be free and possessed. Lovers want to be loved freely. Yet

on the other hand, lovers do not want each other to be completely free, because they do

not want the other to love anyone else. This tension, Sartre explained arises because

lovers want each other to make special exceptions to their freedom. Lovers want each

other freely to choose to limit their freedom and to become the absolute ends for each

other.

B.2. Seduction

Sartre concludes that lovers can neither ever truly find security nor know whether

they are being used as instruments or are the absolute ends for each other. Love becomes

an act of seduction in order to try to appropriate the beloved without the threat of being

objectified. This is a matter of flaunting oneself like a peacock in an attempt to impress

the other that one is profoundly wise, worldly, and eminently powerful. As Shaun Miller

writes in his study of Sartre’s problem of love: “Love is really a device to make the other

people love us”.24 Because fascination is a transcending project, we would rather be

loved than to love. However, one cannot force the other to love. Even if one could, it

would not be free love; the best I could do is to make the other think of me in

impressionable terms. To manipulate the other by hiding my subjectivity by making her

believes that I am a fascinating object. This fails; however, once I have become an object,

23
24
my objectivity has no meaning for me. I have already lost my freedom by making myself

objectified. However, in being and nothingness, Sartre argued that seduction and

fascination are not enough. For love to come to fruition, one still needs the beloved’s

participation, which Sartre assumed would happen when he enchants the other’s freedom.

The frustration is that one cannot force another to reciprocate love, and no one wants to

demand to be loved. Lovers want the other to freely choose to love them. Nevertheless,

loving is ultimately a “project of making oneself be loved”. 25

B.3. Masochism

The failure of seduction turns to masochism.26 This happens when a lover tries to

become what he thinks his lover wants him to be, and in the process denies his own

freedom. Both lovers try to seduce and fascinate each other and are each other’s projects

then later on one of them gives in and then starts to surpass the self into an object for the

other and suffer for it by letting the other enslave him/her. One lets oneself be used as an

instrument in an attempt to reveal how one appears as an object. This is will be best

exemplified in Sartre’s play No Exit when Inez attracts Estelle once more, Estelle claims

that she will not fall for Inez tricks but Inez tries to tempt Estelle by being what Estelle

wants him to be.27

INEZ: Come to me, Estelle. You shall be whatever you like: a glancing
stream, a muddy stream. And deep down in my eyes you’ll see yourself just
as you want to be. 28

25
26
27
28
 Nevertheless one is still is using the other as an instrument to achieve this goal

and so masochism is also unsuccessful and yet Sartre presented that failure is indeed the

goal. 29 So one succeeds in and enjoys failing. With the failure of masochism, a strategy

of assimilating oneself into the beloved, one throws oneself into trying to appropriate the

beloved and this is sadism.

B.4. Sadism

Sadism happens when the lover treats the loved one as an object and ties her

down. Sadism looks at the other as an instrument and uses violence to force the other into

ungraceful positions and acts, which creates the illusion that one holds the other’s

freedom. For Sartre incarnating one’s freedom is the goal and not satisfaction.30 He had

said this because he has a very different belief about sexual desire. For Sartre unlike other

forms of desire such as thirst or hunger, fulfillment does not extinguish sexual desire. No

matter how much sex one has, one always wants more. Sartre concludes that this means

that there must be another goal besides satisfaction, and he proposes that it is incarnating

other’s freedom. The idea is that not regulating freedom from the body should give more

tangible insights on each other.

This would go some way toward explaining why two people in love like to touch

each other so much because this would be an ideal strategy to capture glimpses of each

other’s secret except for these three key problems. One this is only a temporary situation

lasting as long as caresses can be enchanting. Two if one of the lovers stops transcending

that love is effectively initiating a masochistic encounter. Three in using bodies one

29
30
attempts to grasp the others freedom reciprocity breaks and the affair turn sadistic,

whereas desire is about caressing and using one’s own flesh to incarnate the other’s

freedom. Sadism attempts to force it without reciprocity.

Nevertheless sadism also fails because one can never totally grasp he freedom

because the victim can still exercise freedom in two key respects, first is that the victim

can still freely choose when to surrender, and second the sadist cannot control the victims

look or thinking. Sartre likens it to the experience of getting hold of a man who runs

away and leaves only his hand.

To be sure, I can grasp the other, grab hold of him, and knock him down. I can,
providing I have the power, compel him to perform this or that act, to say certain words.
But everything happens as if I wished to get hold of a man who runs away and leaves
only his coat in my hands. It is the outer shell which I possess. I shall never get hold of
more than a body, a psychic object in the midst of the world. 31

Sartre concludes that the goal of love to merge is impossible because people are

fundamentally disconnected.32 The source of the problem is that lovers attempt to merge

in order to discover aspects of themselves that they cannot alone because they think this

will help them to become complete. Nevertheless there is an overwhelming void between

people, which means that lovers can never completely know what each other thinks, and

thus they can never definitely capture the secrets of their being lost to the other . The

result is that people cannot truly capture one another, and lovers are forever caught in a

vicious circle of assimilation and appropriation and are destined for conflict.

31
32
 C. The Sartrean model of Sadomasochistic Relationship

The diagram below shows the Sartrean model of sadomasochistic relationship.

Sartre believes that there cannot be a full fusion of individuals because two can never

become one. After this realization the lover must subsume the other. 33

Figure 1: The Sartrean Model.

In the end, Sartre view romantic relationship negatively by disbelieving that there

can never be full fusion because two can never be one, thus, romantic relationships are

forever caught in the vicious cycle of sadomasochistic tendencies hence; it is doomed to

failure. 34

33
34