The Art of Exclusion: How Sartre's Treatment of Bad Faith is Bad Philosophy

In his Existentialism, Sartre advocates for authenticity - for recognizing that one's present self is not determined by one's past behavior or some innate personality qualities; that we choose to perpetuate how it is we exist in relation to, and how it is we create with, our surroundings. To cover over this truth and exist under the pretense that "things are the way they are, I am the way I am, and that's the way it is - some things will never change," is to fall prey to "bad faith." We are all susceptible to bad faith. Yet, by taking responsibility for the freedom which underlies human action, one may overcome one's self-imposed impediments to flourishing growth.

Personally, I can get down with this concept. It fits well with the Lawn Chair commitment to aesthetically approaching philosophical space, to creating an environment of inclusion and intellectual prosperity. We recognize that the shape of our space is up to us, and we can authentically bring our values to the fore however we wish. However, the examples that Sartre uses to illuminate how bad faith plays itself out in reality are extremely offensive to women and marked by so much bad faith. His base assumptions about the motivations behind a woman's actions reveal the deeper motivations of philosophy's patriarchal, antagonistic tradition. He takes for granted a perspective with which he is truly unfamiliar, builds with it a thoroughly enlightened philosophy explaining its inner nature, then vehemently argues for the validity of his claims with no shame whatsoever. And while it is certain he's authentically showing his true colors by freely crafting his encounters with women using the Chisel of Universal Truth, as he does, he in no way freely creates a philosophical space for himself. Such assumptions and behavior are hardly new.

According to Sartre, "pathologically frigid women apply themselves to becoming distracted in advance from the [sexual] pleasure which they dread; many for example at the time of the sexual act, turn their thoughts away toward their daily occupations, make up their household accounts. Will anyone speak of an unconscious here? Yet if the frigid woman thus distracts her unconscious from the pleasure which she experiences, it is by no means cynically and in full agreement with herself; it is in order to prove to herself that she is frigid. We have in fact to deal with a phenomenon of bad faith since the efforts taken in order to not be present to the experienced pleasure imply the recognition that the pleasure is experienced; they imply it in order to deny it."

Sorry you suck at sex, Sartre. Maybe there's some freedom within your own capacities to change your behavior involving the thing you're lying to yourself about: "they want that "d," that's just the way it is; certainly it's not my performance aiding any perceived frigidness." And I believe this lie of Sartre's analogously carries over into the professional field of philosophy. Philosophies are seldom lived by; assumptions are hardly checked. I believe elitism and sexism to be so deeply ingrained into the cannon and history of the field, that changing its landscape will involve EVERYONE checking assumptions at the start of philosophical conversation - else such implicit biases about women (and other minority groups) will continue to suppress our freedom to autonomously create within the field, without past (and present) patriarchal states determining our actions. It will suppress everyone, really.

What sort of space have we created for women and other minorities in philosophy? What sort of space have we conceptually carved out for women and other minorities, in general? How can we recognize our bad faith in perpetuating lines of thought such as Sartre? How can we bring the bad faith in our suppressors to the fore without falling into bad faith, ourselves?

Join us in conversation to see if we can adequately answer these questions! Can't wait to see y'all there!