Sartre's early plays reflect a formula which he described in a 1940 essay entitled

"Forgers of Myth"; in this essay, he analyzes the French drama of the Occupation and
of the post-war period. He advocates a particular type of drama, one which is short and
violent and which is centered entirely around one event. It should be a "conflict of rights,
bearing on some very general situation — written in a sparse, extremely tense style,
with a small cast not presented for their individual characters but thrust into a
conjunction where they are forced to make a choice — in brief, this is the theater,
austere, moral, mythic, and ceremonial in aspect, which has given birth to new plays in
Paris during the Occupation and especially since the end of the war."

Sartre's plays are characteristically classical in structure, adhering to traditional unities

(time, place, action) and maintaining a fast, non-stop pace. These are not the plays of a
romantic or wistful soul; rather, they fairly burst with naturalistic reality and offer the
spectator a cold, often brutal encounter with Sartre's Weltanschauung (world view).
There is little color or profusion of emotion; it is a stark universe peopled with characters
who represent various "types" in Sartre's thinking: good faith, bad faith, rocks, animals,
and so on. It has often been called a "black and white" theater, one in which actions are
right or wrong, acceptable or condemnable, heroic or cowardly. But traditional value
judgments do not apply here: While there are good and bad actions, these adjectives
refer more to their philosophical principle than to their moral quality.

There is much ground for comparison between the works of Sartre and the Absurdists.
Sartre and Albert Camus, for example, shared many ideological viewpoints and brought
to their plays, novels, and essays similar reactions concerning the universe.

But the differences are also worth noting. The epithet "absurd" is vague and often
misleading. It is used to describe the works of such varied writers as Camus, Beckett,
Ionesco, Adamov, Genet, and Albee, yet the systems at work in these dramatists are
unique to the writers, and even within the works of one writer, the ideas change and
evolve radically. Therefore, it is of no value to apply the term "absurd" to the works of
Sartre since he is, at best, peripheral to this "school" of drama. The absurdists, for the
most part, concentrate on the irrationality of human experience. They do not suggest a
path beyond this lack of rationality, and they show how cause-effect relationships
deteriorate into chaos. Their dramatic structure mirrors this causal impossibility and
focuses on the sense of absurdity in an irrational world. Sartre, on the other hand,
begins with the assumption that the world is irrational.

The idea of rationalism did not interest him: What was the point, he thought, of battling
with ideas which led nowhere? Who cared whether there was — or whether there was
not — rationalism in the world; more important, he judged, was the concept of freedom
and choice — and even more significant was the idea of creating an order out of the
chaos.

So while the absurdists concentrated on the lack of order, Sartre narrowed in on the
construction of order. The former were more interested in showing the absence of
cause-effect situations, while Sartre demonstrated the need for making responsible
choices which would effect a life based on freedom from "nausea."

Critical Essays Sartre's Political Ideas

Sartre was a leftist thinker throughout his entire life, and after World War II, he moved
more and more to the left, expressing himself in increasingly difficult publications, and
often in a language accessible only to a select few.

He rejected the idea of class and attempted to strip away the layers of bourgeois values
imposed by the capitalistic society in which he lived. His major goal, politically, was to
have a country in which total freedom existed — a true democracy, not a dictatorship
disguised as a free society. He had good relations with the former Soviet Union early in
his adult life and admired the idea behind their society. But he later became very critical
of the former Soviet Union as it spearheaded prisoner-of-war camps, invaded Budapest,
and behaved with the kind of dictatorial will that he decried in Europe. He discusses this
disagreement with the Soviets in his essay "Le Fantôme de Staline" in Les Temps
Modernes and describes his condemnation of the French Communist Party for
submitting to the dictates of Moscow.

This is an important factor in assessing Sartre's politics: He was not a Communist.

Rather, he began as a believer in humanity's historical materialism (during the period
of The Flies), then he moved toward Marxism, and ultimately he ascribed to what is best
termed neo-Marxism. He advocated permanent progress whereby man would correct
his mistakes whenever they occurred. This is one of the reasons why he criticized the
French Communists: He claimed that they acted in "bad faith," adhered to policies in
which they did not believe, expressed a lack of honesty, used tricks and opportunism,
and lacked critical perception in all their dealings with the membership.

Sartre's Marxist thinking began with a deep hatred for bourgeois values. He insisted that
the bourgeois always ended in thinking about the self, selfishly, instead of thinking
responsibly about individual contributions to the group, to society.

But if Sartre rejected capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other, he
found himself happily devoted to the tenets of Marxist socialism. His concept of freedom
("be free") is not at all the same as the "Fais ce que vouldras" ("do as you wish") of
Rabelais' Abbey of Thélème, in Gargantua and Pantagruel, but rather a freedom based
on responsibility toward society and, naturally, toward one's own growing essence. This
devotion to society at large is where Sartre comes closest to Marx's thinking.

There are, however, differences between Sartre's "system" of existentialism and Marxist
politics. The differences are clearest in the early writings of Sartre: Whereas Marxism is
primarily interested in the biological and social condition of humanity (with
consciousness seen as a "superstructure"), Sartre focused originally on the individual,
on his innermost thoughts about freedom and anguish, on the concept of responsibility
and consciousness. The Marxists looked at the social group; Sartre narrowed in on the
individual member of that group. Marxism was external to consciousness; Sartre placed
consciousness at the very center. Marxism delineated the characteristics of human
collectivity and class structure whereas Sartre elaborated a theory anchored in human
experience and in individual choice.

The critic René Marill-Albérès explains the differences between Sartre's thinking and
Marxism, as well as their eventual coming-together: "In contrast to Marxism, which has
as its starting point cosmic, biological, and social elements, Sartre starts from human
experience, from consciousness, from the individual. . . . The problem is to reconcile
Marxism, which explains the individual in terms of his social conditions, and Sartre's
philosophy, which cannot avoid giving first place to what is actually experienced by the
individual. From Marxism, Sartre borrows the notion of the dialectic — that is, the
development of a reality through several stages and through several forms, each more
complex than the one that preceded it. The problem of reconciliation confronting Sartre
is therefore what he calls 'totalization,' or passing from the individual to the group, from
consciousness to history. . . . To resolve the issue, Sartre transports 'dialectical
movement' from the collectivity to the individual and, in contrast to Marxism, sees in
consciousness the source of the collectivity; it is the individual that experiences social
realities, reacts, develops dialectically, and creates the social dialectic." This brings us
right back to the essence of Sartrean existentialism, showing how Sartre's philosophical
and political ideas were intimately woven into a coherent system of thinking.

Because Sartre prefers to examine the individual, instead of the group, his Marxism is

actually a neo-Marxism. He does not dispute the claims of Marx about the social
collectivity, but he insists that the individual must not be overlooked in the process. In
this manner, he adapts Marxism to his own thinking, but he still remains committed to
leftist politics. Both the individual and the group appear in his plays, and if you keep in
mind Sartre's belief in the individual as a responsible contributor to the group, you will
see in what way he integrates Marxism into his system.

In order to simplify things even further, one should study a point-by-point list of
existentialist principles. This is a summary useful for understanding several of Sartre's
works, and it is representative of his major ideas.

The Problem

Existence is absurd. Life has no meaning. Death is the ultimate absurdity: It undoes
everything that life has been building up to. One is born by chance; one dies by chance.
There is no God.

The Solution
One must make use of freedom; only freedom of choice can allow one to escape
"nausea."

The System

(1) Existence Precedes Essence Our acts create our essence. Humanity

alone exists; objects simply are (for example, they do not exist per se). Animals and
vegetables occupy an intermediary position. Plants grow, form fruits, live, and then die.
Animals are born, chew their food, make sounds, follow their instincts, and die. Neither
plants nor animals make deliberate choices or carry through with responsibility.

EXISTENCE + FREEDOM OF CHOICE + RESPONSIBILITY = ESSENCE

Historically, philosophy before Sartre was "essentialist." That is, it was concerned with
defining the essence of each species, with providing details about generic traits.
Existentialism, on the other hand, places existence before essence. Man exists (is born)
before he can be anything, before he can become anything; therefore, his existence
precedes his essence. His state of existence precedes his state of becoming. An
individual is responsible for making himself into an essence, of lifting himself beyond the
level of mere existence. This is where choice and action come in. Sartre offers the
argument about the artisan and his craft: "When you consider a manufactured object,
such as a book or a paper cutter, this object was manufactured by an artisan who
started from a concept; he referred to this concept of a paper cutter and also to the
technique of producing it as a part of the concept — which is basically a recipe. Thus,
the paper cutter is simultaneously an object which is produced in a certain manner and
which has a definite purpose; one cannot suppose a man making a paper cutter without
knowing what the object will be used for. That's why we say that, for the paper cutter,
essence . . . precedes existence. . . . It's a technical vision of the world in which one can
say that production precedes the existence of an object. When we conceive of a God-
creator, this God is usually thought of as a superior artisan. . . . In the eighteenth
century, with the atheism of the philosophers, the notion of God was done away with,
but not so with the idea that essence precedes existence. . . . Atheistic existentialism,
which I represent, is more coherent. It declares that if God does not exist, there is at
least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before being
defined by any concept, and this being is man — or, in the words of Heidegger, human
reality. What does this mean, that existence precedes essence? It means that man
exists first, finds himself, ventures into the world, and then defines himself. . . . Thus,
there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it. Man is simply, not only in
the way by which he conceives himself, but as he wishes himself to be, and since he
conceives himself after existence, man is nothing other than what he makes of himself."

Thus, Sartre takes the traditional assumption of "essence precedes existence" and
changes it into "existence precedes essence." This is a direct result of his atheism
whereby God does not exist. Man is born at random, and objects such as paper cutters
simply are (they do not exist). Sartre distinguishes between "to be" and "to exist." One
must exist before one can have essence, but objects and animals simply are.
(2) Freedom Man's situation is an unhappy one: what is good? and what is evil? Since
there is no way of separating them, man is condemned to a life of freedom in which he
must choose. If one rejects the notion of God, who is to say what is good and what is
evil? No one, since there are no absolutes: There is good in evil and evil in good. One
cannot act and remain pure since too many fears and obstacles would present
themselves; of necessity, one must make choices and assume the consequences.

Sartre delineates three categories within his definition of freedom:

 the man whom he compares to a stone: this man makes no choices and is happy
in his no-choice life. He refuses to commit himself (engagement), to accept
responsibility for his life. He continues in his passive habits. Sartre scorns him.
In The Flies, this person is represented by the Tutor.
 the man whom he compares to plants: This man is not happy. But he lacks the
courage to take responsibility for his actions. He obeys other people. He is the
one who suffers from "nausea." Sartre scorns this man the most of all three
groups.
 the man not compared to stones or plants: This man suffers from freedom. He
has the nobility to use freedom for the betterment of his life. He is the one whom
Sartre admires.

(3) Responsibility Man must be committed, engaged. He has a responsibility before

other citizens for his actions. By acting, he creates a certain essence for society ("by
choosing for oneself, man chooses for all men"); any action which one takes affects the
rest of humanity. From the moment when man makes a choice, he is committed. One
must not renege on one's responsibility (as does Electra in The Flies), nor must one
place the responsibility for one's actions onto the shoulders of someone else. Man
should not regret what he has done. An act is an act.

(4) "The others" Other people are a torture for two reasons:

 they are capable of denying one's existence and one's freedom by treating one
as an object; for example, if you do a cowardly act, and another person calls you
a coward, this cuts off the possibility of your doing something heroic or
courageous; it stereotypes you as a coward, and this causes anguish.
 others judge you, observe you without taking into consideration your intentions
(either your intentions about a future act or an act which you've already
committed). The image they have of you may not correspond to the one you
have of yourself. But you can't do without them because only they can tell you
who you are. Man does not always understand the motives behind his actions;
therefore, he needs others to help in this process. But there is relief; man can say
to himself: "I am torture for them, just as they are torture for me."

Sartre offers four ways of defending oneself from the torture of "the others":
  evasion or avoidance: One can isolate oneself from them, go to sleep, commit
suicide, remain silent, or live in obscurity;
 disguise: One can try to fool others, lie to them, give a false image, resort to
hypocrisy;
 emotions: One can inspire emotions such as love and friendship in others, make
oneself liked/loved by them: "My lover accepts me as I accept myself." Therefore,
an "other" judges you as you judge yourself;
 violence: A dictator can put people in prison to prevent them from saying what he
doesn't want to hear.

Sartre concludes that if any of the above four conditions prevail(s), one finds oneself in
circumstances that are hell.

(5) Commitment Man must not be indifferent to his surroundings. He must take a stand,
make choices, commit himself to his beliefs, and create meaning through action. Sartre
is in favor of an engaged literature, of art that has a goal, a purpose. As with a man
shooting a gun in the air or directly at a target, it's better to have a target, a message.
The readers should feel their responsibilities; the author should incite the readers to
action, infuse an energy into them. Sartre is interested in a "historical public" (that is, a
public of a certain precise moment in history): He addresses himself to the public of his
times. Ideally, an author should write for a universal audience, but this is possible only
in a classless society.

But the compromise is to address all readers who have the freedom to change things
(for example, political freedom). People hostile to Sartre's writings criticized him of
assassinating literature. But he replied that he would never ignore stylistics, regardless
of the ideas he was developing. He claimed that a reader should not be aware of a
writer's style, that this would get in the way of understanding the piece of literature.
Commitment to one's writing, he argued, was as vital as commitment to all other actions
in one's life.