What, According to Sartre, is Committed Literature?

The committed writer knows that words are action. He knows that to reveal is to change and

one can reveal only by planning to change.1 To ask what Sartre meant by committed

literature is to ask what he meant by literature, or more specifically, prose. Rather than

enquiring into specific authors political intentions, he argued that the very nature of prose

itself implies that it is inherently committed, that is to say committed to, engaged with and a

product of human freedom. This is so because the writer deals with meanings (WL 4), as

opposed to the poet who deals with words as representative objects, much as the painter deals

with paint, the musician with sound, and other artists with other mediums of artistic

expression. Because literature deals with the meanings of words, Sartre argues that it

distinguishes itself from all other artistic media in that it finds its basis in human freedom and

is thus in and of itself committed to it. In dealing with words as meanings, literature appeals

to human freedom by revealing the world to us, thus affecting change. This change can then

compel us to take responsibility for our actions, or we can persist in acting the way we have

been, but now in full knowledge of what we are doing. I will begin by examining what Sartre

writes about prose, its function in disclosing the world to the reader and its appeal to human

freedom. From here, I will turn to Sartres consideration of the possibility of writing a

successful racist novel and a successful anti-Semitic novel in order to see what they reveal

about Sartres conception of prose. We will then consider the status of the good novel as an

exigence (sic) and an act of faith (WL 47), which will be exemplified using Orwells Animal

Farm. By way of final clarification, after Sartres positive account of committed literature has

been outlined we shall examine his distinction between poetry and prose to fully understand

1
Jean-Paul Sartre, What is Literature? , Routledge, Oxfordshire, 1993, p. 14, (hereafter
referred to as WL in the text)
why poetry could not be considered committed literature, even though it deals with the same

medium as prose, the written word.

Prose is, in essence, utilitarian. I would readily define the prose-writer as a man who

makes use of words. (WL 11) In essence, for Sartre, prose is always political, always

committed, always serving a purpose regardless of the authors intentions and this is so

because of the very nature of prose itself and not simply because of the writers intentions.

Even if a writer writes a book with no discernible political statement, this is still a political

statement of a kind: being silent is not being dumb; it is to refuse to speak, and therefore to

keep on speaking. (WL 15) Sartre insists the prose-writer is also a speaker. The writer

addresses the readers freedom by choosing to speak to them directly as a free agent. It could

be objected that the poet does this as well as they also use language as their medium, but

Sartre contends this is not the case, and we shall examine his reasons for doing so later. In

using words based purely on their meaning, that is to treat them first of all not [as] objects

but designations for objects (WL 11), the writer reveals the world to us, or at least certain

aspects of it. This revealing changes the world by the very fact of its presence, and Sartre

gives us a description of what this phenomenon is like:

If you name the behaviour of an individual; he sees himself. And since you are at the
same time naming it to all others, he knows that he is seen at the moment he sees
himself. [] After that, how can you expect him to act in the same way? Either he
will persist in his behaviour out of obstinacy and with full knowledge of what he is
doing, or he will give it up. Thus, by speaking, I reveal the situation by my very
intention of changing it; I reveal it to myself and to others in order to change it. (WL
13-14)

If an individuals behaviour is revealed to them via speaking, they have two options. They

can stop behaving the way they are and take responsibility, or they can carry on in full

knowledge of what they are doing. Either way, their behaviour will not be the same as it once

was: To speak is to act; anything which one names is no longer quite the same; it has lost its
innocence. (WL 13) Such change is only possible on the basis of the freedom of the speaker

and the individual spoken to because in both cases a choice is made. The speaker chooses to

reveal and in knowing that to reveal is to change, they choose to reveal because they choose

to change. The individual who is the subject of the revealing then chooses whether to

consider this information and change their behaviour or not. This is what Sartre argues

literature does on a grand scale in its essence, and must be recognised so by the reader:

the one who writes recognises, by the very fact that he takes the trouble to write, the
freedom of his readers, and since the one who reads, by the mere fact of his opening
the book, recognises the freedom of the writer, the work of art [] is an act of
confidence in the freedom of men. (WL 47)

Literature, born out of the writers freedom, discloses the world to the reader and does so on

the basis of the readers freedom. In having its basis in human freedom, literature should be

engaged with and committed to it. It is true that literature to some is simply a certain way of

earning a living, but Sartre argues that the deeper implications of the task of literature are

inescapable: writing is a certain way of wanting freedom; once you have begun, you are

committed, willy-nilly (WL 49). An interesting implication results from this, and we can

make more sense of it if we consider the example of a racist novel, an anti-Semitic one and a

George Orwells Animal Farm.

If literature arises from and appeals to human freedom, an interesting implication

arises. According to Sartres account of literature, it would be impossible to write a novel that

espoused any position that called for the oppression of human freedom, or indeed any anti-

democratic political system because the writer, as a writer, must be committed to human

freedom. The art of prose is bound up with the only regime in which prose has meaning,

democracy (WL 48-49). Since the writer is a free man addressing free men, (WL 48) this

cannot be done except under a democratic system in a free society. The writer, as a writer,

cannot call for anything that contradicts human freedom. On this basis, one might think it
would be impossible for a writer to write a good, successful but racist novel. However, this

may not be the case, as Sartre counters:

one can imagine a good novel being written by an American negro even if hatred of
the whites were spread all over it, because it is the freedom of his race he demands
through it. (WL 47)

A good novel could be written where the writers absolute hatred for the white man is

apparent on every page because this hatred is not entirely without bias, as it is the white man

oppressing his people. Through this hatred, the writers call for the freedom of his people is

heard. In revealing his hatred of the white race and his reasons for it to me, as part of that race

I cannot bear to identify myself with a race of oppressors (WL 47). In feeling this way, I

am compelled to think that freedom, if it to be rightly called so, must call for the freedom of

all people and thus the liberation of black people from the oppression of white people.

Certain literary feats, however, are impossible according to Sartres account. For instance,

nobody can suppose for a moment that it is possible to write a good novel in praise of anti-

Semitism (WL 47). To do so would involve a contradiction in terms. The writer, by their

very choosing to write, has adopted a craft that has its basis in human freedom and only exists

on the basis of it. Choosing then to write a novel that explicitly praises anti-Semitism would

contradict this in that it calls for the oppression of the freedom of Jewish humans. Literature

appeals to my freedom, and if I engage with it generously in my freedom, I realise that it is

not just me that is free, but that my freedom is indissolubly linked with that of other men

(WL 48). Thus, it cannot be demanded of me that I use it to approve the enslavement of a

part of these men (WL 48). Sartre concludes from his discussion of these two examples that

regardless of subject matter, target or specific intention in writing, the writer can only

legitimately direct himself toward one subject if they want to be successful: freedom. Now
we have seen how human freedom could be appealed to through literature in the wrong way,

let us consider a successful example.

By appealing to human freedom through literature, the writer reveals situations to the reader

by their intention of changing them, thus disclosing the world to the reader. The reader is

challenged in being shown a situation and forced to think about it in the terms set down in the

work. This can then compel them to take responsibility, act or re-evaluate their values.

Though the writer appeals to human freedom, the appeal is not always fulfilled: different

readers will have different reactions and form different opinions from reading the same book.

In addition, there is not usually just one single simple message in a single book. The writers

revealing, his stance and message are not necessarily completely obvious and explicit, but

often work on multiple levels. Indeed, the good prose-writer does not need to be explicit and

obvious with their message. George Orwell, for instance, wrote very plainly that: every line

of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against

totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.2

However, Christopher Hitchens observes that

You can read him exhaustively [] he hardly writes anything about fascism at all,
he hardly writes a single essay saying why you should be against it. He takes it for
granted that when you look down the gun-barrel of Hitler and Mussolini and Franco
and Nazism and fascism that you dont need to be told whats wrong with it.3

Orwells Animal Farm is a simple but good example of the revealing of a situation through

subtle, yet powerful imagery and an example of a case where the message may not be

immediately apparent to some. Nowhere in the novel does it mention by name any political

2
Why I Write (collected in Essays), George Orwell, Penguin Books, London, 1994, p. 5
3
Why Orwell Matters, Christopher Hitchens, The Commonwealth Club, 21/10/02, extract
taken from 17 minutes onwards, link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA
ideology the characters in the novel represent, and nowhere in it does it explicitly say that any

of these represented ideologies are good or bad things. Instead, we are shown through the

actions of the pigs and the quality of the writing the dangers of these ideas and actions,

though not told explicitly how to feel. However, since literature appeals to human freedom,

and aided by the quality of the writing, we know when at the end we are told that the

oppressive pigs sell out to the humans and it was impossible to say which was which,4 that

the pigs have betrayed their essential integrity and become everything the animals hated in

the first place. Words affect change in the world through the very revealing of situations and

their writers intentions of changing them. However, the disclosure of a situation by the

writer is not in itself enough for change or meaning: writers cannot write for themselves

alone. Animal Farm is also a good example from personal experience of another important

aspect of Sartres committed literature we have to discuss - the role of the reader. I read

Animal Farm when I was younger and the only reaction it instilled in me was that it was a

good story about pigs. On revisiting it, however, the thoughts and reactions it produced in me

were somewhat multiplied. In the reading of a novel, a gentle force accompanies and

supports us from the first page to the last. This does not mean we fathom the artists

intentions easily. (WL 40) This is borne out by the fact that different readers will have

different reactions to the book, with some readers failing to understand the authors intentions

or message at all. The role of the reader then is not one of mere receptivity of words or

perception alone, but seems to be the synthesis of perception and creation, (WL 31)

resulting in a phenomenon which makes it seem as though the reader gets as much out of

reading the novel as they are willing to put into it.

the disclosure-creation by which the reader discovers must also be an imaginary

participation in the action; in other words, the more disposed one is to change it, the
more alive it will be. (WL 45)

4
Animal Farm, George Orwell, http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal_farm.pdf, p. 54
A successful committed novel arises from and must appeal to human freedom in a pact of

generosity between author and reader (WL 41). In being such a pact, the good novel requires

not only significant input from the reader, but a certain amount of faith and trust from them

too. The good novel is reciprocity between writer and reader, an exigence and an act of

faith (WL 47). It is an exigence in that it should be a demand on and challenge to the reader.

It is an act of faith on the parts of both reader and writer in that the writer has faith the reader

will use their freedom and engage with the text generously and the reader has faith that the

author will appeal to their freedom. Reading the book in the first place is an expression of

that trust.

We have seen now how Sartre sees literature arises out of the freedom of the writer,

appeals to the freedom of the reader and so has its basis in human freedom. However, it could

be objected that Sartre does not consider poetry in his discussion of literature, choosing to

rather focus on prose. Poetry deals with in the written word too, arises out of the poets desire

to write and is read, so can poetry also be said to be committed and have its source in human

freedom in the same way? Sartres answer is no, and by final way of clarification, let us look

at how Sartre distinguishes prose from poetry as well as all other art forms.

Literature is comprised of written words. Since literature is committed, and in

response to his critics who asked if poetry, painting and music are too to be committed, Sartre

replies:

No [] and why would we want to? [] Those who want to expose the absurdity of
a literary theory by showing that it is inapplicable to music must first prove that the
arts are parallel. (WL 1)

Immediately we see that Sartre wants to distinguish literature from all other art, and he

further argues for this by pointing out notes, colours and forms are not signs, because they

refer to nothing exterior to themselves (WL 2). A painting or a piece of music may make
you feel happy or sad, but they do not in themselves signify happiness or sadness or

specifically inspire only happiness or only sadness. A myriad of colours that paint a beautiful

fresco on a church wall do not in themselves mean happy, or sad. Rather they are the

painters emotions rendered in colour. Colour in and of itself does not possess meaning and

when arranged in such a way as arranged on a painting, its meaning can only be ambiguous

because the colours and shapes are not significations of exterior meanings, i.e. they refer to

nothing outside themselves. Using Tintorettos Crucifixion as an example of this, Sartre

writes:

Tintoretto did not choose that yellow rift in the sky above Golgotha to signify
anguish or to provoke it. It is anguish and yellow sky at the same time. [] it is
anguish become thing [] That is, it is no longer readable. (WL 3)

For Sartre, paintings (as well as all other art except literature) do not signify meaning, they

represent it. The emotions of the artist are not discernible and though there is no single

identifiable meaning, a painting or a piece of music has meaning, but this meaning cannot

be translated into other terms [] [they are] an expression, rather than a description.5 We

have now seen how Sartre differentiates literature from other art because (essentially) they do

not deal in words, however the question still remains as to the status of poetry poets deal

with words too, so are they also committed?

It is true that the prose-writer and the poet both write. But there is nothing in
common between these two acts of writing except the movement of the hand which
traces the letters. (WL 11)

Sartre distinguishes poetry from prose because the poet has a different attitude to words than

the prose-writer and therefore uses them in a different way. The poet dwells upon words, as

does the painter with colours and the musician with sounds. (WL 6) He views words in the

same way the painter views colours and the musician sounds, that is as things, in the highest

5
Anthony Manser, Sartre: A Philosophic Study (hereafter SPS), The Athlone Press, London,
1966, p. 250
degree. (WL 2) The writers primary concern with the word lies in its meaning, whereas the

poet takes into account its sonority, its length, its masculine or feminine endings, its visual

aspect (WL 7), as well as and even before its meaning. The poet does not use words to

signify, but to express - they paint with words. Because of this, their meaning and intent

will always remain obscure as the meaning in a painting would, so their work cannot be said

to disclose situations that affect change by planning to change. This means that poets are not

committed.

According to Sartre, prose is committed literature. By reflecting on the nature of prose

writing and reading,

we may conclude that the writer has chosen to reveal the world and particularly to
reveal man to other men so that the latter may assume full responsibility before the
object which has thus been laid bare. (WL 15)

Prose is born out of the freedom of the writer and is an appeal to the freedom of the reader.

This is so because the prose writer deals exclusively in the meanings of words, using them to

reveal situations to the reader in the hope of changing them. Once the situation has been

revealed to the reader, their freedom is engaged in that they can now choose to either take

responsibility and change their behaviour, or persist in the way they have been acting only

now in full knowledge of what they are doing. This is only possible on the basis of the

freedom of both writer and reader. Prose, then, is inherently committed and should deal with

the subject of human freedom. What happens when it does not has been exemplified in the

case of the anti-Semitic novel, which in a free society ought to be an impossible task because

it contradicts the writers status as being someone that appeals to human freedom in their

craft. When the readers freedom is appealed to correctly and generously, a pact between

writer and reader takes place where the reader gets as much out of the text as they are willing

to put into it. This was exemplified by Animal Farm which through subtle, powerful imagery
shows but does not tell us the dangers of Stalinism. Once the book ends, it is up to the reader

to decipher the message, decide what they think about it, whether they continue behaving the

way they have been, or adopt a new political stance. It could be argued that Sartres

discussion of literature leaves out poetry and chooses to focus on prose, but Sartre argues that

poetry is distinct from prose because the poet has a different attitude to words that treats them

as things, and thus belongs on the side of all other art forms as distinguished from prose. The

poet views the word as a form of expression, as the musician views sound and the painter

colour, and thus does not deal with meaning the way the prose writer does.
Bibliography

Primary Sources

Jean-Paul Sartre, What is Literature? , Routledge, Oxfordshire, 1993

George Orwell, Why I Write (collected in Essays), Penguin Books, London, 1994

George Orwell, Animal Farm, http://msxnet.org/orwell/print/animal_farm.pdf

Secondary Sources

Anthony Manser, Sartre: A Philosophic Study (hereafter SPS), The Athlone Press, London,

1966

Christopher Hitchens, Why Orwell Matters, The Commonwealth Club, 21/10/02, extract

taken from 17 minutes onwards, link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY5Ste5xRAA

Unreferenced

Ion Georgiou, Sartre on Literature, Philosophy Now Magazine, 2009, link:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/75/Sartre_on_Literature

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry for Jean-Paul Sartre, 22/04/2004, link:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/