No Exit in the Context of Existentialist Thought

No Exit in the Context of Existentialism

The play No Exit, written by Jean-Paul Sartre as an illustrative work of existentialist philosophy, features three individuals, strangers in all aspects, who are forced to perpetually perceive each other, with no possible recourse: Garcin, Estelle, and Inez all have personal ulcers and fixations (a universal point of humanity) that prevent them from interacting as a well-adjusted and harmonious group. This play serves as an engaging guide to Sartre's philosophy, defining the concepts of anguish, despair, and forlornness through the complex interpersonal interactions between the three characters and their environment.
Sartre's conception of anguish is derived from the denial of determinism, as Sartre believes that man alone is responsible for defining both his essence and the collective essence of mankind: "If existence really does precede essence, there is no explaining things away by reference to a fixed and given human nature. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom" (Sartre, Existentialism 204). This idea is explored, for instance, in Garcin's struggle in reconciling his propensity to depravity with his essence (that proceeds from his cowardly actions). He attempts, throughout the play, to lessen his burden in bad faith, by refusing full accountability for the consequences: "What was I to do? Everyone was watching me [...]. Had I done anything wrong?" (Sartre, No Exit 285). This line, despite the interrogative form, implies that his course of action was correct and moral, which Garcin disagrees with, as only the individual's subjective values could push to justification in bad faith. If one was refusing to serve out of a belief in pacifism, and not out of cowardice, of which Garcin was later accused by Inez (299), he would completely endorse his action, as he would believe them to be universally correct for mankind to enact. Sartre explains this struggle in more explicit terms in Existentialism: "A man who lies and makes excuses for himself by saying "not everybody does that," is someone with an uneasy conscience, because the act of lying implies that a universal value is conferred upon the lie" (202).
The second fundamental of existentialism portrayed in No Exit is forlornness, in the characters' struggle to accept the absence of the high powers that they are compelled to look up to in order to avoid confronting their wretchedness. He defines it in Existentialism as follows: "When we speak of forlornness [...] we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this" (203). Faith requires one to believe that essence precedes existence and that some values are inherently good by virtue of having been defined as such by God, and not man. As an existentialist, Sartre proposes that there is no inherent meaning to existence other than what is made of it by man: "Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result, man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to" (Existentialism 204). The characters in his play find themselves in such a situation as well. This is manifested repeatedly in subtle reminders, such as the valet's statement at the beginning of No Exit: "But you can never be sure about that bell. There's something wrong with the wiring, and it doesn't always work" (281). This is meant to foreshadow the later events when, indeed, the bell does not work, but serves also as an analogy to God's lack of response to man's prayers. Then, toward the end, it seems as though Garcin receives an answer for his demands when the door opens, but this only serves to emphasize the fact that no superior entity is keeping him bound to any course of action, and it is his desire to be viewed in a positive light that is binding him to Inez and Estelle: "Did you suppose I meant to go? No, I couldn't leave you here, gloating over my defeat, with all those thoughts about me running in your head" (Sartre, No Exit 298). Therefore, the fact that the door did open once he started drumming on it was only a narrative device to prove to Garcin the meaningless nature of his current existence.
The last element of the existentialist trifecta is despair, best exemplified in Inez's relation to the other two characters. Sartre proposes in Existentialism that the realization that, just as one is free to act in alignment with his subjective values, so are all other men free to act as they please: "I can not count on men whom I do not know by relying on human goodness or man's concern for the good of society" (207). Inez differs from the other two characters in that she is honest about her propensity to cruelty, she even states as much out-right: "When I say I'm cruel, I mean I can't get on without making people suffer" (Sartre, No Exit 290). Considering her anti-social tendencies, it becomes more difficult for the others to engage with her, as she does not allow formalities or the goodness expected of men to limit her range of action. Garcin's realization that she will not allow him the relief he begs for is what drives him to, through his actions, change her attitude, which he has no control over: "It's you who matter; you who hate me. If you have faith in me I'm saved" (298).
In conclusion, Sartre's play No Exit is an insightful exploration of the core of his existentialist ideology through human interaction. He proves masterfully that the anguish, forlornness, and despair one experiences once he engages with his freedom in a social context are the worst hell man can be subjected to.

Works Cited


Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism.” Gould, James A., and Robert J. Mulvaney, eds. Classic
Philosophical Questions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice, Fall 2007. Pp. 198-209

Sartre, Jean-Paul. “No Exit.” Twenty Best European Plays on the American Stage. Ed. Gassner,
John. New York: Crown Publishers, 1974.