Sartre on Violence: Curiously Ambivalent

by Ronald E. Santoni

From "Materialism and Revolution" (1946) through Hope Now (1980), Jean-Paul Sartre was deeply engaged with questions about the meaning and justifiability of violence. In the first comprehensive treatment of Sartre’s views on the subject, Ronald Santoni begins by tracing the full trajectory of Sartre’s evolving thought on violence and shows how the "curious ambiguity" of freedom affirming itself against freedom in his earliest writings about violence developed into his "curiously ambivalent" position through his later writings.

200 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2003

Reviews

[Keila Cruz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough and well narrated exploration of Sartre's potential views of violence. Did Sartre oppose violence because of its destructive nature or did he see it as a possibly being an instrument for humanization? The title kinda gives it away: he's "curiosly ambivalent"... An analysis of Sartre's body of work suggests that he's open to both views - he's torn by both even. Some important ideas:

-Only violence can eradicate violence
-There are different kinds of violence: Destructive, revolutionary, regenerative
- Violence is not seperate from freedom, Sartre suggests he believes violence is freedom that has turned against itself

The second half of the book brings in Sartre's debate with Camus. I was surprised and kinda wish this had been advertised in the title. Essentially, Camus did not think violence was justifiable under any conditions, but Sartre made exceptions. The two went at each other when they were alive because despite being both existentialist thinkers, Sartre was on the side of a revolution that he believed necessitated from violence. I found Sartre's ideas about violence, the Colonizer and Colonized really captivating! By enacting violence toward the colonizer, the colonized recover their humanity and unshackle themselves. Camus, however, thought that violence would only spoil any hope of change.