parrhesia03_lacaze

8/7/2019 parrhesia03_lacaze

1/12

www.parrhesiajournal.org 43

PARRHESIA NUMBER 3 2007 43 54

Sartre integrating ethicS and politicS:the caSe of terroriSmm u l c z1

Sartre re ecte on questions relate to terror an terrorism throu hout his career an these questionsshape his un erstan in of ethics an politics. In explorin these connections I link Sartres controversialremarks about the terrorism he observe urin his lifetime to our more recent experiences of terrorismin the USA, Bali, Ma ri an Lon on. In Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism, Robert Youn claims thatSartre moves from ethics to politics in his account of colonialism, un erstan in that shift as one from aconcern with in ivi ual free om to commitment to political causes. 2 In contrast, Azze ine Ha our saysthat Anti-Semite and Jewan Black Orpheus emonstrate the inextricable link between ethics an politicsin his critiques of anti-Semitism, racism an colonialism. 3 While Sartre con emns these phenomena inethical terms, some of his statements in response to them appear to su est that ethical assessment isirrelevant. For example, escribin Al erian rebels, he says Sons of violence, at every instant they rawtheir humanity from it. 4 I aim to make some sense of this seemin inconsistency in Sartres views. On theone han , he takes an ethical stance an on the other han , he seems to su est that ethics has no placein ju in revolt by the colonise a ainst the colonisers or by the oppresse a ainst their oppressors.Since ethics provi es criteria for ju in political actions as ri ht or wron rather than un erstan ableor inevitable, Sartre appears to have chan e his min a number of times about political violence. Or ishe, as Ronal Santoni ar ues, curiously ambivalent? 5

A popular interpretation of Sartres work is that he ha at least two, possibly three ethics, urin hislifetime. 6 The rst is the ethics of authenticity of Existentialism an Humanism (1948) an Notebooks

for an Ethics(1992), the secon his ialectical ethics or ethics of inte ral humanity of Critique of Dialectical Reason I (2004) an subsequent essays an lectures, an the thir is his sketchy ethics of the we mentionein Hope Now(1996) an in interviews. I shall consi er how these conceptions of ethics are in ecte in hispolitical statements, particularly those concernin terrorism.

There has been a reat eal of ebate about Sartres views on terror itself. He famously supporte thePalestinian Black September roup that ki nappe an was responsible for the eaths of members of the Israeli Olympic team at the Munich Olympics in 1972 in a piece in La Cause du peuple. In that shortarticle, Sartre says that the roup has no other alternatives an that the principle of terrorism is thatone must kill. 7 In contrast, he also states that it remains inexcusable after an explosion to see mutilatebo ies or a chil s severe hea . 8 Sartres stance seems to articulate the lo ic of terrorism rather than toapprove of it, leavin one uneasy about his failure to con emn that attack.


2/12

SARTRE INTEGRATING ETHICS AND POLITICS


Likewise, Sartres preface to Frantz Fanons The Wretched of the Earth(1967) has been taken to a vocatein ee to lorify violence. For example, in On ViolenceHannah Aren t writes: Sartre, who in his prefaceto Fanons The Wretched of the Earthoes much farther in his lori cation of violence than Sorel in hisfamous Refections on Violence further than Fanon himself, whose ar ument he wishes to brin to itsconclusion still mentions Sorels fascist utterances. 9 Aren t also quotes Sartre from that essay,sayin irrepressible violence is man recreatin himself , To shoot own a European is to kill twobir s with one stone there remains a ea man an a free man 10 an violence, like Achilles lance,can heal the woun s it has in icte . 11 These quotations su est support for rebellious violence but I willar ue later in this paper, a ainst Aren ts claim, that Sartre oes not lorify or a vocate violence in thatpreface.

Yet while Sartre oes not explicitly con one a violent response to oppression, his account implies that

it is at least un erstan able. Now, to un erstan violence is not to accept it. Sartres wor s are aninterpretation of the speci c actions of colonial subjects who wish to be soverei n an in epen ent anwhose violent actions have speci c oals. The un erstan in Sartre recommen s is limite to terrorist

roups belon in to a nation that ha suffere enerations of oppression an the outra es of torture, asin Al eria. In his iscussion of the events at the Munich Olympics Sartre says that he can also un erstanan accept the actions of the Israeli overnment: Similarly, while we isa ree with the Israeli overnmenton all other points, we can un erstan that, bein at war with the Palestinians, Israel woul reject allconcessions. 12 These remarks seem to express the same un erstan in that is more appropriate to thoseinvolve in such con icts.

Thomas Flynn claims that Sartre was a moralist all his life an was isappointe that the communistswere intereste in power rather than justice. 13 But is Sartre takin an amoral, Realpolitik approach tothe question of ethics in politics in these cases? Sartre himself sai that he a opte an amoral politicalrealism aroun 1950 when he ave up his rst ethics, a position that he was uneasy with. 14 He calle ita perio when ethics was sent on holi ay. 15 Althou h Sartres position appears to shift between ifferentperio s, we cannot un erstan Sartres politics or his views of terrorism unless we un erstan the rolethat his ethics plays in them an that the role is an evolvin one rather than a series of ramatic chan esin attitu e.

In a recent iscussion of Sartres likely response to the 9/11 attacks in Sartre Studies International ,16 threebasic positions are set up. The rst, claime by Ronal Aronson, is that Sartre efen e terrorist violencein a number of plays, essays an The Critique of Dialectical Reason, thinkin of violence as emancipationfrom oppression that humanises the self, which mi ht ive us reason to think he woul support theattacks. However, Aronson points out, Sartre ha not experience attacks of this kin suici e attackson such a lar e scale, an the aims of the attacks are sha owy, not liberation from oppression, so he isunlikely to have supporte them. 17

As he ar ues enerally throu hout his book, Santoni hol s that Sartre woul have been ambivalent about violent revolt. Accor in to Santoni, whereas Sartre justi es violence in his preface to Fanons book anin his 1964 Rome Lectures, in Notebooks for an Ethicshe says that terrorist violence is a ea en . 18 Santoniconclu es that Sartre woul have seen 9/11 as a response to the injustices of the worl but also woulhave seen it as criminal an inimical to the en of creatin a new autonomous, inte ral humanity. 19 Thus Sartre woul be in two min s about the attacks.


3/12

MARGUERITE LA CAZE


The thir interpretation (Robert Stones) is that Sartre woul have con emne the attacks because theyo not meet the criteria he set out in his Rome Lectures. In these lectures Sartre outline four criteria

for assessin whether terrorist violence can be excuse . The rst is that terror must not become a systemitself but remain a provisional expe ient. 20 The secon is that An i eolo y of terror an a moralityof suspicion must be avoi e . 21 The thir is that there is no justi cation [for terror] beyon its necessitynever makin it the easy solution when a more if cult one is possible. 22 The fourth an nal is thatbecause terror is a eviation from humanity as en ue to ur ency a pause in liberation, terror isacceptable only if it issues from the people. 23

As Stone notes, the 9/11 attacks woul not meet the criteria because of the speci c character of al-Qai a as a terror system. Its attacks come from an i eolo y of holy war taken as in iscriminateterror. Furthermore, other means coul have been use (presumin there was a strate ic oal). Finally,

al-Qai a is without popular roots.24

In summary, Sartre woul almost certainly join us in con emnin it.25 This level of isa reement between commentators on Sartre su ests there is an important issuehere in un erstan in how he conceive the relation between ethical concerns an political ones, anthat the issue is acute when it comes to questions of terror.

UNdERSTANdINg SARTRE

In what follows, I inten to put Sartres comments about terrorism in the context of the evelopment of his work. The main sources I will use are the notorious preface, Critique of Dialectical Reason(2004, 2006),an the criteria he sets out in the Rome Lectures. Santonis book, Sartre on Violence: Curiously Ambivalent (2004) will be useful in explainin that context, espite its weaknesses. Santoni criticises Sartre for not

istin uishin between forms of violence, an yet oes not make those istinctions himself. Throu houthis book, he refers only to violence. Furthermore, his entire analysis of Sartre is base on a paci stposition that woul not justify violence of any kin , even in self- efence. He be ins the book by sayin that Self- efence an necessity have been characteristic wor s offere to justify violence. 26 Sucha position, assumin that violence can never be justi e , is itself in nee of justi cation.

For his part, Sartre fails to be clear about what he means by violence, an to istin uish terrorist violencefrom other forms. Yet he makes his position clearer than Santoni oes his own. In Colonialism and Neo-colonialismSartre istin uishes clearly between acts of sabota e an terrorism. In an essay on events in

Al eria publishe in 1958 he notes that sabota e that oes not irectly harm human bein s can in noway equate with a terrorist action. 27 He is also unequivocal in his enunciation of torture. In A Victory,Sartre stron ly criticises torture, callin it quite simply a vile, revoltin crime, committe by men a ainstmen, an to which other men can an must put an en . 28 This is not a contextual claim, but universal.Furthermore, in Imperialist Morality Sartre is unequivocal that certain acts of violence committe

urin the Al erian war are crimes a ainst humanity: Torture, the or anisation of concentration camps,reprisals on the civilian population, executions without trial coul all be equate with some of the crimes

con emne at Nurember .29

An as the Rome Lectures clarify, he oes not see terror as a system tobe ethically justi e . For him, colonial a ression is internalise as terror by the colonise . 30 Srepu iates that kin of terror. He also refers scathin ly to fanatics in France who want to terrorise theFrench for losin Al eria. These are all si ni cant istinctions that nuance any claim that he en orseviolence.


4/12



The real problems with Sartres ethical views in relation to these issues emer e at the time of the preface(1961) an Critique of Dialectical Reason I (1960) an II. 31 Santoni sees the preface as the consequence of the views etaile in the Critique. Apart from Sartres comments about Munich, these views represent hismost extreme statements about violence. As Santoni acknowle es, Sartre is ivin a escriptive accountof the evolution of violence. 32 But it coul be ar ue that in refusin to con emn terrorism he is justifyin it. I woul like to brie y trace the evolution of Sartres views on these issues.

Sartres rst ethics of authenticity, expresse in works such as Existentialism and Humanism(1948) an Notebooks for an Ethics(1992), su est a con emnation of terrorism an violence in eneral, althou h Existentialism and Humanism(1948) oes not eal with this question explicitly. The ethics of authenticityrequires us to make choices about how to live an to take full responsibility for them. Critics of this ethicshave objecte that one coul be authentic but choose a way of life that is violent so lon as one is clear-

si hte an not in ba faith about it.33

One way aroun this problem is to take free om as a value thatone must promote. In consequence, authenticity woul be incompatible with oppression an violence.

Sartre ar ues that oo faith eman s consistency: once a man has seen that values epen uponhimself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thin , an that is free om as the foun ation of all values. 34 Furthermore, Sartre conten s that when we make a choice we commit humanity: of all theactions a man may take in or er to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative,at the same time, of an ima e of man such as he believes he ou ht to be. 35 It is also important to showthe link between in ivi ual free om an the free om of others. In Existentialism and HumanismSsu ests that as soon as there is a commitment, I am obli e to will the liberty of others at the sametime as mine. I cannot make liberty my aim unless I make that of others equally my aim. 36 His reasonis that each persons free om is epen ent on that of others. Each of these ar uments nee s furtherelaboration. As Sartrean scholars have combine an reconstructe them, his ar uments in icate thatchoices to act violently must be justi e in terms of the ima e of humanity they create an the effects onthe free om of others. 37 Such a reconstruction restricts the reasons for an the scope of violence.

In the NotebooksSartre touches on the subject of violence many times. In a short section on the natureof violence, he escribes it as the estruction of human or anisations, people, an other livin thin s. 38 Violence for him opposes human lawfulness. He says that violence is unpro uctive an that terrorist

violence is a ea en , the unique an in ivi ual iscovery by a subject of his free subjectivity in tra e yan eath. This is an experience that can bene t no one. 39 At most violence can prevent resi nation anat this point Sartre oes not believe that it can overcome oppression. While Sartre was not satis e withthe ethics rst evelope in the notebooks (they were not publishe in his lifetime 40 ) the problem was notsimply how his rst ethics relate to terrorism. He came to realise that the framework of what he saithere was in no way a equate to eal with political issues.

Sartres secon ethic, as it appears in the Critique, belon s to what is sometimes calle his amoral realistperio . (Or shoul it be calle his immoral realist perio ?) His account appears to imply that ethicalrelations are not possible between oppresse an oppressor. In the Critique, Sartre e nes scarcity as the

if culty of satisfyin nee s.41 Scarcity an the stru le a ainst scarcity is the back roun a ainst whichboth con ict an fraternity evelop. Oppression is on a kin of sub-ethical an subhuman level whereonly ne ative forms of reciprocity can be expecte . In colonialism, speci cally the Al erian exampleSartre iscusses, the colonisers intensify scarcity for the colonise throu h superexploitation an use

violence to eny the colonise any possibility of reactin , even by a mirin his oppressors an seekin to become like them. 42 Thus, it coul be ar ue that Sartre neither en orses nor con emns non-ethicalrelations between coloniser an colonise because they exist in a pre-ethical realm. 43 Santoni calls Sartre


5/12

MARGUERITE LA CAZE


to account for usin weasel wor s in escribin these relations as necessarily an inevitably marke bycon ict an violence. But when Sartre says that, for example, the violence of the Al erian rebellion wasa ne ation of the impossible, an the impossibility of life was the imme iate result of oppression 44 he

oes not thus endorserebellious violence; his wor s simply accept violence as the result of oppression.

In Critique II Sartre iscusses a boxin match to show that in ivi ual stru les are linke to or uni e bythe scarcity that ominates social roups. He also ties the violence of the boxin match to the violence of oppression an colonisation, sayin Thus Fanon points out that the colonise man when he has notreache the revolutionary sta e hits the colonise man. In uce violence, which in him is violencea ainst man (because he has been ma e subhuman), n s an outlet only by attackin his fellow(i.e. hisbrother). 45 In subhuman relations, the oppresse attack each other an the boxers themselves exemplifythis phenomenon.

But can one become the inte ral human of Sartres secon ethics by refusin these subhuman relations?If so, it is the responsibility of each in ivi ual to become part of the ethical realm an positive reciprocalrelations. Sartre never uses the lan ua e of ba faith here but perhaps overcomin ba faith coul playa role in en in oppression. One expression of ba faith is that of the oppressors an another is thecomplicity of the oppresse . There is somethin troublin about his acquiescence in a realm outsi e theethical because it seems to abne ate the responsibility so important to the ethics of authenticity. As weshall see, Sartre soon trie to inte rate his ethics with his account of politics an history an to constructan ethics that applies even within oppressive situations. To escribe inevitable con ict is not yet to makeethical ju ements. In any case, the con ition of material scarcity an superexploitation Sartre believeshol s in such situations is not relevant to the current issue of terrorism, which is enerally carrie out bymi le-class a ents even if in the name of an oppresse reli ion or culture.

Another if culty in Sartres work concerns the function of terror in his account of roups. In Hope NowBenny Lvy refers to terror emer in instea of fraternity in Sartres work. 46 Takin up this theme,Santoni quotes Sartre from the Critique of Dialectical Reason I as sayin that violence is calle terror when it

e nes the bon s of fraternity itself; it bears the name of oppression when it is use a ainst one or morein ivi uals, imposin an untranscen able statute on them as a function of scarcity. 47 In our ay-to- aylives, we form series, waitin for a bus, watchin television, an so on, in which we are competitivean have no common oals. Sartre ives an account of the way roups form, rst spontaneously inresponse to a threat (the fuse roup), then throu h a ple e, later becomin an or anisation an even aninstitution, an then issolvin back into a series. Santoni cites Sartres view that a ple e roup is ableto unite everyone throu h terror, an takes that to mean Sartre believes terror is justi e . 48

However, Santoni seems not to have un erstoo that the kin of terror Sartre is talkin about is notterrorism. The ple e roup is one that is forme throu h takin an oath an maintaine by thethreat of terror over anyone who betrays it. What Sartre is talkin about here is terror exercise over themembers of the ple e roup to make sure that they o not efect or betray the roup, not terrorisma ainst civilians of another roup. He also seems to be escribin rather than en orsin such terror.(Santoni a mits that the most one can say is that Sartre oes not con emn it heartily.) 49 The kin of control terrorist roups exercise over their members can be un erstoo usin Sartres account of theple e roup, which applies as much to or anise conventional army units as to terrorists. This accountof terror relates to Aren ts account of the terror of totalitarianism, which terrorises both the populationan the members of the ominant or powerful roup. Nevertheless, while Sartre says that the limitationon free om of the ple e is accepte mutilation 50 he seems quite tolerant of the terror exercise inthese roups, partly because he oes not see how else a roup of this kin can be kept cohesive. In Critique


6/12



II Sartre refers to the Terror of Stalinism in the 1930s as a result of losin contact with the masses,clearly not a lau atory reference. 51 Elsewhere he refers to the ossi cation of the hierarchy in the USSR. 52 Is terror exercise within roups the only kin of terror Sartre accepts?

THE WRETCHEd PREFACE

Publishe soon after Critique I , the preface to Fanons book is often un erstoo as an application of Sartres views on violence an terror to a particular situation, that of Al eria. Usin the istinction between thesubhuman situation of colonialism an oppression an a truly ethical realm, we can interpret Sartresremarks about Fanon an Al eria as pertainin only to the sub-ethical context. In that context, Sartreis concerne with violence as a pure response to oppression. This is perhaps what Sartre means by hisclaim concernin Fanon that the octrinaire in him saw in violence the ineluctable fate of a worl in theprocess of liberatin itself, but the man, eep own, hate it. 53 In an i eal worl , such violence woulhave no place.

However, in this worl where terror of one kin or another has become almost a commonplace, oneshoul not be surprise when such violence comes, as it will be the same violence reboun in on us justas our re ection comes from the epths of the mirror to meet us. 54 This statement su ests that thosewho use violence to subju ate peoples must expect violence, not that violence is en orse . Nevertheless,Sartre oes not con emn violence by the oppresse subjects of colonialism a ainst the colonisers. He

escribes it as inevitable an cause by the violence an ehumanisation of the oppressors. Otherstatements su est violence is un erstan able, that such violence is no less than man reconstructin himself an makes the subject a free man an that it allows the colonise to n their humanity. 55

As a consequence, Santoni losses Sartres ar ument like this: If nonviolence a ainst oppressionequals passivity, as Sartre states, an passivity in this historical context places one in the ranks of theoppressors then clearly (Sartre is sayin ) counterviolence a ainst the oppressors is morally justi e aswell as liberatin an humanisin . 56 But here Santoni fails to un erstan Sartres project, alon with thecontext of the whole essay. Sartres preface intro uces Fanons work to a wi e rea in public, inclu in a Western, particularly French, public. Sartre presents a stark alternative for the colonise : eitheracceptance of subju ation by the oppressors or violent reaction a ainst them. For the colonisers however,Sartre presents a ran e of possibilities: ne otiate, with raw forces, allow in epen ence, an stop thetorture, an he emphasises these possibilities repeate ly throu hout his anti-colonial essays. In that sense,he appears to be expectin the oppressors to take ethical responsibility for improvin the situation anmovin it beyon the pre-ethical realm to one where positive reciprocity is possible.

Furthermore, because Sartres essay a resses a French au ience, he is warning the colonists of the resultsof their actions by sayin that violence by the colonise will be the same violence reboun in on us

just as our re ection comes from the epths of the mirror to meet us 57 an It is the moment of the

boomeran , the thir sta e of violence: it comes back an hits us, an , no more than on the otheroccasions can we un erstan that it is our own violence. 58 At the be innin of the preface he notesthat it is common for French people to say: Weve ha it! but then to a Unless. Sartre commentsthat In short, it is a threat followe by a vice an these comments are all the less shockin becausethey sprin from the share national consciousness. 59 Furthermore, he a mits that he is usin a similarstrate y: I, too, say to you: Everythin is lost, unless I, a European, steal the book of an enemy anuse it as a means to cure Europe. Make the most of it. 60 Sartre is also exhortin the French people to osomethin about the situation in Al eria. Otherwise, he says, passivity makes bystanderson the si e of the


7/12

MARGUERITE LA CAZE


oppressors not as Santoni misinterprets him as claimin , that passivity places the oppresse on the si eof the oppressors. 61 He ur es people to re ect on themselves, to speak out an eclare soli arity with the

Al erians. As Sartre says

This book ha no nee of a preface. Even less so because it is not a resse to us. I havewritten one, however, to brin the ialectic to its conclusion: we, the people of Europe, arealso bein ecolonise , that is to say the colonwithin each of us is bein remove in a bloo yoperation. Let us look at ourselves, if we have the coura e, an see what is happenin to us. 62

These comments make clear that Sartre is tryin to brin about a transformation in French attitu es, notencoura in violence in Al eria.

Moreover, Sartre is presentin Fanons writin s in a sympathetic li ht by pointin out that his ar umentseal with actions within colonisation. What Sartre says oes not morally justify violence but recor s it as

the result of a terrible situation in which human bein s are ehumanise an within which people canconceive of no alternative to violence. Santoni is ri ht, however, that Sartre oes not present any limitsto this violence or even sketch the precise con itions in which it becomes a more open choice amon a ran e of alternatives. This is what he attempts to o in his later work in the Rome Lectures an theCornell Lectures, where ethics an politics are inte rate .

integrating ethicS and politicS

In the Critique, Sartre only hints at the possibilities of positive reciprocity an oes not explain how onecan act ethically in spite of relations of con ict. The i eal level of ethical relations emer es more stron lyin his writin s followin the Critique. On this i eal level lives the inte ral human. The inte ral humancan have positive an reciprocal relations with others, of true fraternity, because their fun amentalanimal an human nee s have been met. 63 In the Rome Lectures Sartre reinte rates his ethics anpolitics, brin in ethics back from its holi ay, an this is perhaps why Simone e Beauvoir saw them asthe culminatin point of his ethics. 64 By ivin criteria for justi e violence, he is at last e nin limitsto what is ethical in politics, even in liberation stru les. Santoni is surprise that Sartre to the last, evenin the Hope Nowinterviews, hel to the position that violence in certain circumstances is both necessaryan justi e . 65 I am surprise that Santoni is surprise . Apart from extreme paci sts who believe thatone shoul not even respon to violence in self- efence most thinkers hol that violence can be justi e .

We may isa ree with Sartre about the causes he took up, but still a ree that circumstances arise whereextreme action such as sabota e or other forms of violence are necessary and justi able ethically. Suchcircumstances inclu e action a ainst violent occupations, totalitarian re imes, an in wars.

In his Rome Lectures, Sartre inte rates his ethics an politics by placin ethical constraints on the actionsof the oppresse to overcome oppression. In terms prescient of Jacques derri as un erstan in of

ethics, he proposes that moral norms are uncon itional: Thus the norm, the most or inary as well asthe most exactin , is un erstan able as the future which must be created , an is capable of eterminin thepresent simply because it is iven as an uncon itional possibility. 66 Similarly, in the Cornell lectures, hereports a survey of hi h school irls, 90% of whom a mit that they lie an 95% of whom con emnlyin , as illustrative of the uncon itional nature of ethical imperatives. 67 Nevertheless, he ar ues thatthe content of these norms is con itione by particular social systems. Here Sartre also consi ers therelations between means an en s an says that All means are oo except those which enature theen .68 For example, Sartre conten s that Khrushchevs invasion of Hun ary was incompatible with the


8/12



revolutionary en of autonomous inte ral humanity. He characterises terror as a ni ht time momentwhere someone re uce to subhumanity uses themselves as a means to make themselves human a ainstthe oppressive system.

In settin out these con itions, Sartre is attemptin what he says we shoul o in Hope Now: So thereare two approaches, an both are human but seem not to be compatible; yet we must try to live themboth at the same time. There is the effort, all other con itions asi e, to create Humanity, to en en erHumanity; this is the ethical relationship. An there is the stru le a ainst scarcity. 69 I eally, oppressean oppressors woul unite to chan e the system. Even un er the l imite con itions Sartre thinks terrormi ht be permissible he believes it shoul be acknowle e as inhuman an temporary. For example,Sartre i not support institutionalise terror in the USSR. Interestin ly, however, in his comments onMunich in 1972 he oes not explicitlyapply the criteria for assessin terrorist violence he evelope in

1964. He perhaps thou ht that the Palestinian stru le met the criteria an was thus excusable. However,it is if cult to see this attack as a ni ht time moment or provisional expe ient. 70

In An ersons rea in of the criteria, Sartre a s to the list the con ition that there must be a oolikelihoo of success. 71 In the article on Munich, Sartre says that what happene must be assesse interms of the results inten e , an also claims that there was no alternative strate y: It is a terribleweapon but the oppresse poor have no other. 72 Sartre speaks similarly of the Al erian an Vietnamwars: In the Al erian war, I always refuse to place on an equal footin the terrorism by means of bombswhich was the only weapon available to the Al erians, an the actions an exactions of a rich army of half a million men occupyin the entire country. The same is true in Vietnam. 73 As Santoni points out,Sartre oes not clarify the nature of the terrorist means he thinks coul be use , an oes not properly

istin uish between violence a ainst oppressors an terrorist attacks involvin innocents. Nevertheless,we can take from his construction of the two ifferent attitu es to the worl that he a vocates in Hope

Now (1996) an ethical approach that will en en er humanity an brin the ethical future closer ratherthan continuin the cycle of violence.

I a ree with Stone that Sartre is likely to have con emne recent terrorist attacks as they o not meet hiscriteria for justi able or excusable uses of terror. These attacks o not constitute a provisional expe ientas they are on- oin an an i eolo y of terror has evelope . The terrorist attacks o not seem to bethe only alternative available, althou h they may be perceive by the perpetrators to be so. Nonetheless,Stone may have ismisse the i ea that recent acts of terrorism have popular roots too quickly, as there issupport for the attacks in some countries, althou h the level of support varies reatly between countriesan over time. For example, one survey asks whether suici e bombin an violence a ainst civilians aresometimes justi e , an the survey in Jor an in 2005 recor s majority a reement, whereas in Turkeyonly a minority (14%) of those surveye a ree. Notably, there is a very low level of support for terroristattacks within the speci e country. Support for violence a ainst civilians has ecline in the Muslimcountries surveye (Jor an, Lebanon, Pakistan, In onesia, Turkey, an Morocco) since 2002 by between10-30% from between 27% (in In onesia) an 73% (in Lebanon), except in Jor an were it has increasean Turkey where the chan e is insi ni cant. Furthermore, support for suici e bombin in Iraq, forexample, oes not necessarily correlate to support for Osama Bin La en. 74 Joseph Schwartz believesal-Qai a can i nore the question of winnin hearts an min s as it oes not nee support from thepopulation of any one particular country. 75 This possibility is a consequence of the international natureof al-Qai a. However, it nee s some support in some places in or er to continue.

A comparison with Sartres analysis of anti-colonial terrorism is fruitful because althou h the con itionsof superexploitation an ehumanisation were not the ori inal basis for the 9/11 attacks, perpetrators


9/12

MARGUERITE LA CAZE


may have perceive these con itions to obtain or have come to be the case ue to America an its alliesresponse to 9/11. 76 The invasion of Af hanistan an Iraq, the occupation of Iraq, the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo Bay an Abu ghraib, the practice of ren ition an use of torture be in toreplicate the con itions lea in to political violence Sartre escribes. 77 Another apparent ifference, asI note earlier, lies in the fact that many of the attacks are carrie out by well-off actors, such as the

octors involve in the recent UK bombin plot, in countries far remove from the site of exploitationor humiliation. 78 In this case, a fourth roup is involve in a ition to the three i enti e by Sartre

colonise , coloniser, an bystan er that is, the a ent who sympathises because he/she shares areli ious tra ition with the oppresse .

Furthermore, the tar ets are not irectly the oppressors or members of the oppressor roup, but thoselinke with them, as in the bombin of commuter trains in Ma ri an Lon on, althou h they may

be perceive as linke to the oppressors ue to their overnments support for the Iraq war. A featureof Sartres analysis that is particularly illuminatin is his account of the mirror of violence. As theoccupation of Iraq oes on, the circle of perpetrators, the techniques of violence, an the scope of tar ets continually increases, just as he escribes in relation to colonial violence. With re ar to chancesof success, this becomes less likely as the oals become less clear or too broa , as is the case with thewar on terror, which aims to eliminate terrorism alto ether. 79 One of the if culties in a ressin thisquestion is knowin what woul count as success. It has been claime that Spains with rawal fromIraq is a kin of success. Alternatively, as Thomas Schellin observes in a 1991 article focusse on thequestion of why there is not more international terrorism (!) if the terrorists want to cause confusionan panic, isruption, economic loss, an a emonstration of civilian vulnerability to catastrophic harmat the han s of a comparatively small terrorist squa , success oes not seem out of reach. 80 For Sartre,these possibilities woul only count as means to some other en , an unless the effects were strictlylimite , they woul be un erminin of the oal of creatin inte ral humanity. Neither the terroristattacks nor many counter-terrorism measures appear compatible with Sartres en of inte ral humanity;rather, such an en seems to have been lost si ht of alto ether.

We can see in Sartres ifferent views of terrorism expresse at ifferent times an evolution in hisconception of ethics in relation to politics. As Flynn notes, one can classify Sartres ethics into his ethicsof authenticity, his ialectical ethics, an his nal ethics of the we. 81 The stran e inconsistencies one

n s between ifferent texts represent his evolvin attempt to solve the problems which existe withinhis ethics an in the relation between ethics an politics. His apparently isparate opinions on terrorismre ect his stru le with these questions. Thus Sartres views evolve from a con emnation of terrorism ashavin no place in his ethics. He came to reco nise violence as an inevitable response of the oppressean urin that perio i not evaluate it ethically. Eventually, he trie to inte rate his ethics an politicsby provi in criteria for the justi cation or excuse for violence. Throu hout this evolution of his work Sartre con emne absolutism, extremism an fanaticism as well as racism, oppression, an exploitation.His evelope position woul not countenance the recent terrorist attacks. At the same time his positionconstitutes a critique of many of the typical responses to terrorism that will not look beyon the violenceitself.

Mar uerite La Caze is Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Queenslan . She is the author of a numberof articles on French feminist philosophy, The Analytic Imaginary(Cornell University Press, 2002) an theco-author of Integrity and the Fragile Self (Ash ate, 2003)


10/12


11/12

MARGUERITE LA CAZE


26.Ibi ., xi.27. Ibi ., 65.28. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 65-77.29. An erson et al, Conversations, 99.30. Sartre, Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism, 145.31. Critique of Dialectical Reason II was not publishe in France until 1985, althou h it was written aroun the sametime as Critique I . Sartre aban one the work un nishe .32. Sartre, Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism, 40.33. See, for example, An erson in An erson et al, Conversations, 55, who says this is true of Sartres account of authenticity in Anti-Semite and Jew.34. Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism. Trans. Philip Mairet. Lon on: Methuen, 1948 ( Lexistentialisme est un humanisme, Paris: Na el, 1946.), 51.35. Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, 29.36. Sartre, Existentialism and Humanism, 52.37. In her reconstruction of Sartres ethics of authenticity Lin a Bell uses the i ea that one who wills the en willsthe means. Bell, Lin a A. Sartres Ethics of Authenticity. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1989. 48-60.38. Sartre, Notebooks for an Ethics, 172.39. Sartre, Notebooks for an Ethics, 405-06.40. Sonia Kruks ar ues that the problem with the Notebooksis that they are incoherent because they waver betweenhis early ontolo y an Marxist i eas. Sartres Cahiers pour une morale. Social Text . No. 13, 1986. 184-193.41. Santoni, Sartre on Violence, 123-124.42. Critique of Dialectical Reason. Vol.1. 2 n E . Trans. Alan Sheri an-Smith. Lon on: Verso, 2004. ( Critique de la Raison

Dialectique, tome I, Paris: gallimar , 1960.), 724.43. Puttin the point ifferently, Bowman an Stone refer to Sartres i ea of an in-between moral situation,where circumstances are not appropriate for a universal morality. This is the moral situation both Sartre an weexperience.44. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.1, 733.45. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.2, 36.46. Sartre, Jean-Paul Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews. With Benny Lvy. Trans. A rian van en Hoven. Chica o: The

University of Chica o Press, 1996. ( Lespoir maintenant: les entretiens de 1980, La rasse: Ver ier, 1991.), 66.47. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.1, 737.48. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.1, 434-444.49. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 47; An erson assumes that for Sartre, the ple e roup best satis eshuman nee s an is a cohesive force as it works even when there is no external threat. An erson et al, Conversations, 99-100.50. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.1, 441.51. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.2, 144.52. Sartre, Critique of Dialectical Reason v.2, 176.53. Some interpreters ar ue that Fanon himself i not a vocate violence. See Santoni Sartre on Violence, 68-69.54. Santoni, Sartre on Violence, 144.55. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 148; 149.56. Santoni, Sartre on Violence, 72.57. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 144.58. Ibi ., 147.59. Ibi ., 138.60. Ibi ., 142; In Hope Now, Sartre explains that he has to take the position he oes so as not to be on the si e of theFrench, an that it is very ifferent from a ressin a roup of which he is a part, as in the resistance.61. Santoni, Sartre on Violence, 151; gor on notes that Sartre is a ressin Europeans, primarily the liberalsamon them. gor on, Rivca. A response to Hannah Aren ts critique of Sartres views on violence. Sartre Studies

International . Vol.7, No.1 (2001), 72.62. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 150.63. Flynn, Thomas R. 1994. Philosophy of Existence 2: Sartre. Routledge History of Philosophy Vol. VIII. TwentiethCentury Continental Philosophy. Lon on: Routle e, 88; Sartre brie y refers to this possibility in Critique I (736) anCritique II (152) This istinction between ethical possibilities, one of oppression an one of reciprocity, strikes me as


12/12



similar to the istinction Beauvoir makes in The Second Sexbetween relations of oppression an the reciprocal relationswomen an men wi ll have when oppression is overcome. However, Beauvoir oes not su est that relations betweenwomen an men are necessarily violent, no oubt ue to the peculiar nature of womens oppression.64. This how Beauvoir escribe the lectures in a letter to Robert Stone. See Stone an Bowman, Makin theHuman in Sartres dialectical Ethics. Writing the Politics of Difference. E . Hu h Silverman. Albany: SUNY Press,1991. 111-22.65. Santoni, Sartre on Violence, 79.66. determinism an Free om. The Writings of Jean-Paul Sartre Volume 2: Select Prose. E . Michel Contat an MichelRybalka. Trans. Richar McCleary. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974. 241-52; Sartres view is very

ifferent from derri as because he has one sin le uncon itional norm in min that of becomin human anhe believes that the oppresse seek this norm, even when unaware of it. derri a ar ues that there are a numberof uncon itional eman s, such as for iveness an hospitality, an that they must always be ne otiate with theiruncon itional forms. See derri a, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. Trans. Mark dooley an MichaelHu hes. Lon on: Routle e, 2001.67. Sartre, Jean-Paul, Morale et Histoire, Les Temps Modernes60(632-634), 2005, 323.68. Quote in Bowman an Stone, The en as present in the means in Sartres morality an history: birth anreinventions of an existential moral stan ar , 2.69. Sartre, Hope Now, 91; becomin human means to have all nee s ful lle : for foo , air, culture, communication,knowle e, love an a meanin ful life. It has been su este that Hope Nowis not worth iscussin as Sartre isexpressin his interviewers i eas, not his own. Ronal Aronson iscusses this issue thou htfully in the intro uction,an makes a convincin case that Sartres remarks shoul be taken seriously an compare to his other works.70. Another if culty with Sartres comments on Munich is that he mistakenly believes that everyone was killeby police bullets.71. An erson, Thomas Sartres Two Ethics. Chica o: Open Court, 1993, 128.72. Sartre, The Wretche of the Earth, 7.73. An erson et al , Conversations, 105.74. See Wike, Richar , an Samaranayake, Nilanthi. Where terrorism n s support in the Muslim worl . http://pewresearch.or /pubs/26/where- terrorism- n s- support-in- the- Muslim worl for a survey on these questions.gen er is the most si ni cant variable in this stu y, with fewer women supportin terrorism or approvin of Bin

La en.75. Rockmore, Tom, Mar olis, Joseph, an Marsoobian, Armen T., e s. 2005. The Philosophical Challenge of September 11 , Oxfor : Blackwell, 2005, 59. In Unholy Politics. In Social Science Research Council essays After September 11,

www.ssrc.or /sept11/essays . (2001), Benhabib makes the point that al-Qai a are not concerne with winnin thehearts an min s of the West either.76. S Laquer, Walter, No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Continuum, 2003, for a iscussionof the history of Islamic terrorism. Robert Youn ar ues that supporters claims that the 9/11 attacks were a responseto injustices shoul be investi ate . See Coa y, Tony, an OKeefe, Michael. Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in aThreatened World . Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2002, 29-30.77. The other si e of these responses is the attack on the free oms that are bein efen e . derri a refers to theun erminin of civil liberties which have also occurre in response to recent terrorist attacks autoimmunity. See

Borradori, Giovanna. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jrgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press, 2003.78. See Cowell, Alan, an Shane, Scott. 2007. 2 doctors hel in British Bomb Plots ha Looke to U.S. New York Times, July 7.79. Richar son makes this latter point in her book What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat.

New York: Random House, 2006.80.Frey, R.g. an Morris, Christopher W., e s. 1991. Violence, Terrorism, and Justice. Cambri e: Cambri e UniversityPress, 1991, 31.81. Flynn, Philosophy of Existence 2: Sartre, 81.

Documents

parrhesia03_lacaze