Keeping one's own company because hell is other people

"Hell is other people" - This is something we often hear and talk about, but what we usually do not know is that it comes from one of the most famous writings of the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. So let us have a look at the play "No Exit" that made this saying so popular. The play was first performed in 1944 shortly before the end of World War II. It talks about three people a man and two women who are all dead and come together in the afterlife. It seems like they are being punished for the sins they committed while they were alive as they are all locked in one room for eternity. They see the place where they are as hell and try to figure out why they ended up there and what their punishment is. Although they think they are going to be tortured it quickly turns out that this is not the case. Instead they make each other miserable through everyone individual's presence. This play is supposed to support Sartre's existentialist view that there is a perpetual ontological struggle of being caused to see oneself as an object in the world of another consciousness.

So the characters eventually realise that hell is not the room they are trapped in or the torture that they thought is awaiting them, but it is more likely other people.
Without a doubt the phrase hell is other people is still being used and referred to. It seems like we all ask ourselves the question whether we can be ourselves or not. Usually we all try and the internet is full of self-confidence boosting quotes and sayings that we need to be ourselves. But is that even possible? The existentialist view says no because we are always influenced by other people's opinions.
What do we actually do for ourselves? Most of the time we do things not because we want to, but because we have been shaped by people's beliefs that this is the right way to act. We always find ourselves in the middle of what we want to be and what other people want us to be. Now do you really want to be a Law major or is this what people want from you? We could ask this question with anything in life. Point is we cannot escape it as Sartre and Beauvoir claimed, but we can accept it and be aware of it because that is the only way to accept this kind of  "No Exit" situation.

Another thing that you need to do is keep your own company as much as you can. This is probably the best response to all the noise around us that seems to be drowning out ours. Enjoy being alone with yourself and your own thoughts without having people around all the time because sometimes people can be exhausting let us be honest. This is not about hating other people by the way, but only about appreciating your own company a bit more.

Just take it from one of Queen B's songs: Me, myself and I! That's all I got (or let us say want) in the end!

The Struggle is Still Real

Humans are assholes. There, I've said it. 261 years ago, Jean-Jacques Rousseau called out the same inequality of opportunity that still exists today. The intervening period, wherein apparently nothing has changed for the underclass, has seen the introduction of electric energy, the internal-combustion engine, telecommunications, space exploration, the industrialization of the world, and – oh yeah – the entire existence of the United States of America.

Whether we are born with it or whether we acquire it, people are terribly focused on their own status. Social status, economic status, sexual status, moral status... any means by which we may project our power over our fellow man is important to us. Though France had ostensibly banned overt slavery in the early 14^th Century, the institution of human ownership persisted both institutionally and in practice in 1754. Human slavery was then and is today – in the form of sweatshops, forced labor, bondage, and coercion – an expression of physical and economic power over an underclass. Rousseau wrote, “Even less can one inquire[...] if the power of the body or the mind, and wisdom or virtue, are always found in the same individuals in proportion to their power or wealth : this is a good question, perhaps, in a debate among slaves within earshot of their masters, but it is not fitting for free men of reason who are engaged in a quest for truth.” He wrote this from Switzerland, where orphan children were regularly bonded to farmers and tradespeople upon the deaths of their parents. It seems to be a bitter jab at those who exert power not just for their own survival, but for the sake of increasing their estimation in the eyes of others. The suggestion seems to be that slaves could make their own lives easier by passively assuring their masters of the masters' inherent, unquestionable position of power over their human property.

Today, that Uncle Tom-esque reassurance may be provided in the developed world by one's peers rather than by one's perceived underlings. We reassure ourselves of our dominance by speaking in dialects of prestige and by telling one another how superior we are because we place apostrophes in the accepted places and because we avoid metathesis when “asking” a question. Whether White Western males today or a Rwandan Tutsi with four cows circa 1993, many people imagine ourselves as subject to the divine right of kings because we are born into a position of power over someone. Rousseau writes of the “excess of idleness” and the “excessively exotic dishes” that define the lives of the rich and the “excess of work” and the want of food that the poor live by. Though the developed states of the world have made some marginally-effective moves towards assuring food for the hungry, the easy lives of the ruling class of oligarchs remain a common theme as they have since agriculture led our forebears to put down literal and figurative roots and to establish a social order.

In concluding the first part of his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau compares the rich – represented by a giant – with the poor – represented by a dwarf. He points out that, “If a giant and a dwarf travel the same road, every step they take will give the giant an added advantage.” However, the original problématique that he would have asked had he been a student at Sciences Po is, “Are giants born as giants and dwarves born as dwarves?” The conclusion would of course be that no, all people are born naked and screaming, covered in amniotic fluid and unable to form advanced thought. Giants become giants because they are well-fed and because they are constantly reminded that they will grow up to be giants. Dwarves become dwarves because they rely on government cheese for sustenance and are constantly faced with the reality of their lack of opportunity.

The excesses which define the lives of the rich and the poor seem to be irrational. Why would a comfortable person take so much more than they needed when their fellow man toils endlessly only to go hungry? Well, it seems that Rousseau originated the stag hunt game to explain this, two centuries before John Nash became a figurative giant of game theory. While a giant and a dwarf might be able to devise a cunning and mutually-beneficial plan to capture a stag that would easily feed both of them, the remote possibility that the dwarf might defect leads the giant to use his artificially superior arm's length to snatch a hare that passes just past the dwarf's reach and to then defect on the stag hunt. The giant is so scared of the dwarf putting a tiny dent in the giant's enormous advantage that he settles for a lesser reward so that the dwarf remains hungry and desperately subservient.

So, here we are... students at an elite university in the capitol of one of the only two states of the world that possess a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier... giants, every single one of us. Every moment that we are converting oxygen to carbon dioxide we make a decision to take a giant step forward, putting the billions of dwarves of the world that much further behind us. There is no one here who is unaware of their privilege, so the question is: will your next step forward be taken alone, or will you use your might to help the dwarves of the world catch that tasty stag?

POWER AND RELATIONS

Foucault discussion of power and its relations sparks a rise in the support for anti-institutionalism that I didn’t know I possessed.  Particularly in regards to the way he incorporates a historical context that asserts to the deeply embedded power that our current system and institutions prevails particularly in the context of the disciplining of each citizen.  Notably he sparks a thought about how our current system has not learnt from history and has not in fact taken away all the evils and problems that were present in the past.  Institutions have in fact just hidden these problems from plain view. Institutions have created areas that can categorize each person to ensure law abidance and obedience and to prevent anarchy. He argues that modern day psychiatry is the perfect explanation of this. I like the idea that in order to understand insanity we must look to sanity. In considering that the institutions in a society have categorized the polar opposite. We must therefore look towards why they are considered opposites by comparing them in line with the good and back actions they play within a society.

This reminds me of the case of normality of which is governed by a set of norms for each person to follow. But the question is who defines this normality in the first place? Could it be possible that in another universe where a norm was set within a society for people to sing instead of talk and people who spoke were considered bizarre. What then could we say about the norms in that society and how they are very different to the one we have to the present day? Foucault argues that people who were considered as mad during the renaissance were able to run free in society and was just seen as different but not as insane. However this notion changed when they became institutionalized, these people did not disappear but instead were hidden from the general society.

According to Foucault people when going against the institutions don’t look for the “chief enemy” but instead look for the “immediate enemy” they are align themselves with something which is more closer and easier to grasp and hence don’t risk the current system of todays society. But are only fighting a smaller faction with in a society which can be easily amended to satisfy their claims.

But who is the man? And will that really make that much difference? In peoples struggle to be individualized, once being given that individuality they are put into categorizes which they thought they wanted. This is due to the case as said by Foucault the combination of individuation and totalization.  Which is controlled by the state and in a western society. He thus argues that it is not because people have become more obedient in society but rather they have been adjustments to the society, which allow productivity and individuality to occur on a smaller scale.

These disciplines within a society according to Foucault are used to insure order within human groups, at to exercise power at the lowest cost but at the same time maximum effectiveness. This ensures the submission of the people as they think that they have the freedom to choose.  These disciplines began in the 18^th century with the rise of nationalist states and institutions. People were put into particular sectors according to their ethnicity, beliefs, ideology etc, along with this came the creation majority and minority groups making it easier for the state to assert order within each different group. This change also enhanced the ability for people to move to different disciplines instead of fighting they had the opportunity if unhappy to move to another area or sector.  According to Foucault the power of these institutions is use through the tool of communication, each institutions is given a certain amount of power from that state and within that discipline they able to exercise as they choose. Quite often within these institutions that power is then dispersed in a hierarchical manner beginning from the bottom up to the very top. People are happy to sustain this little power, because they have something to work up to that allows them to go up the ladder and gain power.  This suggest therefore that the power given in to these disciplines is minimal the state and the current society hold the real power. My thought is this even if this is true, does it really matter. Is possessing only a little amount of power really a bad thing? Imagine if it got into the wrong hands.  At least that means we don't live in a world of anarchy or do we?.........

Sartre’s Freedom and Duty

In Sartre’s existentialism and ambiguity, he thought that we were sentenced to be free, and thrown to freedom, and there was no any other origin of us except freedom itself. In other words, in Sartre’s perspective, human beings were born to have freedom, people could not to choose a situation lacking freedom, and we even had no idea to escape from this kind of freedom. Freedom is existence; there was no any difference between them. The pursuit of freedom could be derived from Sartre’s childhood, and it was developed with his growth.

l  Freedom in his childhood

Ever since his childhood, he had been feeling free, there was no any ambiguity, contradictory or abstraction in my understanding of freedom. From born to death, he felt freedom clearer and clearer, because Sartre had an unfettered childhood, when he was loved as a little prince by his families. When he realized that all the people were born to be free, this kind of superiority by freedom was lost gradually.

l  The Freedom for Choosing

Human beings were born to be free, so we could not obtain assistance from outside or ourselves, and people were full of annoyance and fear. Human beings needed to choose all the time of lives, we chose to be an ideal person by actions, thoughts, and feelings, and we all had the freedom for choosing at any circumstances. However, there was conflict in his choosing freedom in the whole society even in a specific group: society or world had its specific systems, but our choosing freedom was complete and absolute. Therefore Sartre came up with people’s duty: in his perspective, willingness of a person was absolutely free, there was no any limitations when he made a choice, although a society had its own moral or legal standard, they could not impact this choosing freedom, but human beings must take responsibility for what they did. If a person disobeyed social morality or law, the criticism or punishment were what he needed to take, but these were not the evidence for not being free.

l  Freedom and Others

Sartre summarized the relationship among people: Others are hell. Because the existence of others set up barriers to our freedom, and the ego existence made barriers to others’ freedom. This seemed to be social ridiculous and irony of existence. We could not leave alone in the world without others, but the existence of others was block to our freedom. However, Sartre thought that we had the freedom for choosing, we could obtain freedom by our choice and actions, the existence of others had double meanings, it was either restriction or condition. There was shortcoming or contradictory in the development of Sartre’s theory, which made him continuously amend his thought of freedom, as a philosopher with justice, responsibility and independence, he advocated human beings’ personality and freedom, but did not lose duty to society due to excessive emphasis on freedom. But this was just Sartre’s trap which was difficult to get rid of in his academic life.

l  Freedom and the Practical Value of Duty

Although some scholars thought that Sartre’s theory had contradictory and extreme, it had very positive and practical value on humanism, transforming themselves by people’s willingness and shaping characters by people themselves. Other theory concerning destiny, god, certainty and fate were negative in his perspective, because they were restrictions towards human beings’ choosing freedom. He made us know that people could hold their own destiny; there was no natural things except existence and freedom, hopes were derived from actions. Now that we could decide what to do by ourselves, we should be brave to take responsibility of our decision. If we could reflect ourselves whenever there was conflict, others would not be our hell, but the conditions for our existence.

    After Sartre came up with the conception of choosing freedom, he found moral uncertainty brought by it, which troubled him for a long time, so he did not achieve “absolute freedom” just like what he said. Rather than a serious and deep philosophy, the freedom for choosing was more like a painful, real but difficult pursuit of philosophy.

Individualization vs homogenization

In his theory of power, Foucault poses the concept of pastoral power, which is the technique of lead and direct the subjects under his rule similarly to the way it makes the shepherd with his sheep. The interesting and novel of this technique imposed by Christianity was that "salvation" is individual, and so the shepherd of souls must meet each and every one of the members of his flock. He had to know not only what these sheep did, but also what they thought, felt and wanted. Thereby, the shepherd would be able to better guide them and, if they go astray, leading them back to the flock.

The pastoral power of the Church disappeared, or was limited to active believers, but pastoral power remained and began to spread throughout society . Thus, the modern state emerged as the new and more effective form of pastoral power, with certain differences regarding the proposal of Christianity: an old form converted in a functional one in a different society. Religious goals were not sought, that is, lead to humans to their eternal salvation, but their goals were more mundane, more earthly. The State is then worry about the health, welfare and safety of its population.

Thus, the pastoral power of the modern state tended to act on the behavior of citizens, ensuring that these behaviors will not depart from those considered "healthy" and "normal". This new pastoral power also requires knowledge to lead and guide better and more effectively  the subjects; knowledge on the one hand, globalizing and quantitative refer to all; and, on the other hand, analytical skills, qualitative, individualizing, of each of its members. So the study of medicine, psychiatry, psychology and behavioral sciences in general arise.

Then, it must be known the behavior of all, the whole herd as well as each of the members of the flock. To be able to exercise this individualizing tactic it will be necessary to appear numerous and different powers, such as the family, psychiatric knowledge, pedagogical, medical and clinical knowledge. At the same time, it will require the emergence of Managers who exercise the power everywhere, that is, the mother and father, who exercise the family power; psychiatrist, which exercises the doctor-mental power; teacher, educational exercising power; medical, clinical exercised power, etc. It is a constant mode of action of each other: the teacher on students, parents over children, the doctor on the sick, psychiatrist on the patient.

 

In this society with this new pastoral power takes place a double paradoxical link: for one hand, it individualize the subjects to know what they think, what they do, what they want. The purpose of this individualization is not to accept the uniqueness of each person, but change their behavior in order to homogenize them into the new category that has been invented: the normal. Such society individualize to homogenize. What is paradoxical is the fact that individualization is used as a technique to integrate all subject to a globalizing whole, in which all are alike and become part of the same.

 

 The fights that Foucault poses are also paradoxical. On the one hand, one fights against the technique of individualization. When someone leaves the average considered as normal, whether for more or for less; then the power discharge, over that which escapes the normal, full battery of techniques to drive it again to the whole. Examples of these techniques are persuasion, seduction, blackmail, to stay in again a psychiatric or confinement in jail. But, on the other hand the fight is also against the techniques of mass homogenization of citizens. This fight tries that differences and singularities are recognized, respected and tolerated.

In my opinion, it is interesting the view of Foucault, as he proposes the performance of power as a process of individuation which aims to homogenize society. What is implied is that the goal of the power is to eliminate differences between individuals. However, I think the argument is a fallacy, as it present as paradoxical something that is not necessarily so. According to Foucault, fighting against individualization and combating homogenization is paradoxical. However, there are two facts that are not taken into consideration and for this reason I think his argument is fallacious. On the one hand, the fact that there are two struggles in society does not mean that all members participate in the two of them. It is fully possible, as it happens, that there are individuals who struggle against homogenization, others against the individualization and others who do not fight. Moreover, if even exist some who fight in both battles, it does not mean that they are contradicting themselves. There is an intermediate, a balance between individualization and homogenization is also possible and perhaps optimal for society. In other words, homogenization does not mean accepting a single type of behavior, but a set of behaviors that belong to the range of "normal". While people are in that range, the society worked correctly and the execution of power to homogenize is not necessary. However, within that range there are differences that must be respected and tolerated.

For me, Foucault presents a world of extremes, a world of blacks and whites and leaves no room for grays.

Defining Community for Beauvoir

A problem facing Beauvoir, and most authors who write on the subject of gender and sex, is how do you define a gender or sex? Of course there are many ways to define gender ranging from the biology of the person, to the outwards appearance of the person, to the preference of the person. However, in reading Beauvoir’s Second Sex, a new way to define gender was brought to my mind. Through analyzing how “Jews” and “Negroes “ are identified some light can be shed on how to define a community and then expand this understanding of community to being a woman. Granted there are many definitions to what makes a “woman” and I am not trying to state the one described below is in any way better than any other definition; however, I would like to make the argument that this definition is at least equally valid, and in some cases could serve as more useful. 

What makes someone a member of the Jewish community? I know many people, myself included, who don’t consider them religiously Jewish but still consider themselves part of the Jewish community, as I always tell people, “I’m ethnically Jewish, not religiously Jewish.” Likewise, just memorizing prayers and going through a conversion ceremony might make someone religiously Jewish, but not fully part of the Jewish community. So what makes someone part of the Jewish community? There are several factors at play here but the biggest two are self-recognition and a shared understanding of past experiences. I identify with the Jewish community not for any religious reasons but because I understand the past experiences of the Jewish people, I have seen the effects of these experiences, which last even until today, and I have let these experiences shape me. In order to be part of a community one must understand the past experiences of said community. That doesn’t mean just knowing dates in a history book, this person must understand it on a deeper level, to the point where the experiences of this community aren’t just a story they know from history class but is a story that stirs genuine emotion within them. It is only once a person truly understands a community’s past and decides to be identified with them, does he become part of that community. And at the same time, this defines the community: groups of people who identify together and who have a shared understanding of past experiences. 

Benedict Anderson, famous for his ideas on Imagined Communities, wrote “ Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.” Someone becomes part of the Jewish community not simply through a conversion ceremony, someone becomes part of the Jewish community through their imagination; imaging themselves as part of the community and imagining themselves as a product to some extent of the past experiences of the other members of the community. When many people subscribe to these notions, a community is constructed.

This concept is applicable to African-Americans as well. Being part of the African-American community is more than having dark skin or ancestors from Africa, it requires self-recognition and an understanding of the past. I personally know people who are, according to lineage, African-American. However, they do not consider themselves as African-American, and rather identify as African or identify as American and I feel they are completely justified in this decision and are true members of their respective communities. If someone feels their understanding of past experiences is more inline with those of an American and not that of an African-American, they can identify with the American community, likewise if they feel their understanding of past experiences, and how it has effected their personal growth, is more similar to someone who is purely African, they can identify with the African community. Likewise, I believe that someone who is not African-American can identify, and truly be considered, part of the African-American community without being, according to lineage, African-American. Say someone with dark skin from Jamaica moved to the US at a young age and while there experienced a life typical of an African-American. They learned about the history of America in school, and the history of blacks in America, they learned about slavery, segregation, and also they felt the lasting effects of these institutions in their daily lives. Now they are not technically African-American, but their understanding of past experiences, and their own experiences too, has paralleled that of more African-Americans than Jamaicans, should they have less of a right to identify with and be a part of the African-American community than someone who is African-American by lineage but lived their entire life in another country and never really understood the African-American experience? I believe the answer is no. Being a member of a community is primarily about similar understandings of past experiences. 

Now the same is true for a woman and the woman community. An appropriate way to define this community is through past experiences. If someone identifies as a woman and truly understands the experiences of women, then they are part of that community. I would like to reiterate here that understanding the past experiences of women doesn’t mean reading about it in a textbook, it means feeling a true connection to those past experience in a way that has shaped the person’s personal development. Being a woman, by this definition, is independent of the biology, it is independent of dress, it is independent of other people ideas on your gender, it is, however, dependent on considering yourself a woman and truly understanding the past experiences of other people in the woman community and allowing those experiences to at least partially shape you. 

Recently Caitlyn Jenner was award Glamour’s “Woman of the year award” and there was a widely publicized reaction from Rose McGowan on this decision. Mrs. McGowan’s reaction reflects many of the ideas here on what it means to be part of a community and, more specifically to be a woman. “Caitlyn Jenner you do not understand what being a woman is about at all. You want to be a woman and stand with us —well learn us. We are more than deciding what to wear. We are more than the stereotypes foisted upon us by people like you. You’re a woman now? Well fucking learn that we have had a VERY different experience than your life of male privilege. Woman of the year? No, not until you wake up and join the fight. Being a woman comes with a lot of baggage. The weight of unequal history. You’d do well to learn it."

Based on the ideas of Mrs. McGowan and bits of what I’ve seen of Caitlyn Jenner, it seems she has yet to enter into the community of women. Yes, she recognizes herself as a woman, but that’s just part of it. She must also have her life impacted and her person further developed by the past experiences of woman, and it seems that this is not yet the case. Recently Mrs. Jenner stated, “The Hardest part about being a woman is figuring out what to wear.” Once Mrs. Jenner further understands what it has meant to be a woman throughout history, than will she become closer to becoming a woman by the definition provided in this post. 

Using ideas from Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities and by drawing on the similarities between Women, Jews, and African American, we’re able to gain insight into a new way to define a community and specifically the woman community. Defining a member of this community as some one who both considers themselves a member of the community and has a true understanding of the past experiences of other members of this community. There are many different ways to define who is a woman, and for different situations different definitions suffice, but this definition is equal valid to any that exist and will find situations where it is particularly effective. 

Simone de Beauvoir’s unintentional guide to the teenage struggle

Though it often feels that I have been on this Earth for a long time, I am ever-aware that my young years are trailing not far behind me; a time when I am certain most everyone felt themselves coming into their own, yet not having full control over their lives. There was always a dichotomy between what you wanted to be and what your parents wanted you to be, what your teachers demanded, or any other expectation which you unfortunately might not have fulfilled. 

As I read Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Ethics of Ambiguity”, I found much of it resonated with me. There were, of course, many parallels to Sartre’s writings, but I did find Beauvoir’s delivery added something new and convincing which may shed some light on the teenage struggle. 

This struggle between being what others want you to be and being what you are is exactly this notion of “ambiguity” Simone de Beauvoir was referring to. Beauvoir calls for the need for one to recognize one’s own ambiguity and thus realize one’s own ability and duty to act. Because there is no God responsible for our actions, and we have the freedom to act, we must recognize the freedom that we are and our corresponding responsibility. Beauvoir also addresses how the gaze of “the other” can be detrimental to one’s freedom. The look of the other is a form of oppression, for it forces one to change their actions accordingly and turn one into what they are not. 

  When applied to the adolescent period of life, Beauvoir can be said to set forth a very important life lesson: To recognize one’s freedom and subsequent responsibility to act independently from the gaze of the other. Basically, do what is right for you, regardless of anyone else’s expectations or desires. As humans we have this freedom that we must use in accordance with ourselves, and once we recognize this state of constant “ambiguity”, we will be able to be true to our condition and whatever passion we choose to pursue.