Central to
the discussion this week was Jean-Paul Sartre’s conceptualization of “bad
faith.” When Sartre begins discussing the critical elements that comprise this
bad faith, he notes that “it is a certain art of forming contradictory concepts
which unite in themselves both an idea and the negation of the idea” (Sartre in
Solomon, 226). In other words, our discussion of what constitutes bad faith
immediately becomes complicated with the formation of a contradictory subject.
To provide an example of what this contradictory nature is and how it looks in
action, Sartre provides the reader with a scenario in which he portrays a woman
and a man on a date of some sort. Furthermore, he explains this woman is in bad
faith.
This woman’s
bad faith is derived out of this contradictory idea explained earlier. That is,
Sartre wants to reassure us that she is most certainly aware of something,
however even with this consciousness she simply negates the truth. Put simply,
Sartre is trying to imply something about human nature. He wants to show that
deep down this woman is fully aware of the fact that she inspires a particular
(sexual) desire in the man, however to acknowledge this would apparently
humiliate and horrify her. Therefore, she portrays herself in a certain way to
try to and sidestep her obligation to make that crucial decision of allowing
any kind of intimacy to form between the two. She tries to present herself as
an intellectual, something above the kind of human nature that Sartre is trying
to convince the reader of.
Thus, it
appears that the conceptualization of bad faith is heavily reliant on the idea
that there must be two elements present to be in bad faith. That is, there must
be a truth, and at the same time, a lie. What’s more, these two seemingly
incompatible elements must both be present within the same agent to achieve the
contradictory nature that this discussion has revolved around so far. The woman
in the example provided by Sartre can be explained to be in bad faith simply
due to the fact that she is, at a certain subconscious level, fully aware of
the true intentions of the man that she is on a date with. However, she
convinces herself otherwise because to acknowledge the truth would force her to
realize just how disgusting human nature is. To deceive herself is to allow
herself to remain veiled by the mask that she has formulated for herself throughout
life. Similarly, to recognize the truth would be detrimental to her entire
identity.
From here,
we have a better understanding of bad faith. Bad faith is also essential to the
concepts of facticity and transcendence. A particular example that I found to
be quite compelling is that of a student who obtains bad grades, yet believes
that the achievement of medical school is still within reach. However, there
are certain facts which comprise the facticity of the matter which restrict
this individual from obtaining her goals and aspirations. It could certainly be
explained that this person is in bad faith; however I would not be so quick to
extend such a judgment on the matter. This is because of the problem previously
explained within the contradictory nature of bad faith. If the individual in
this particular scenario authentically believes that she still has a possibility
of obtaining her goals of attending medical school, I would not argue that she
is in bad faith because she is not deceiving herself of anything, but rather
that she is simply mistaken.
I come to
this conclusion by applying an example from my own life. For me to explain how
this is so, I feel that I must also address whether or not I am in bad faith
when I am working my job in a grocery store as a cashier. For each and every
transaction I begin by asking the customer how they are and whether or not they
have found everything that they are looking for. In a way, you could easily
argue that I am being challenged with conflicting roles: the role of a cashier,
and the role of who I really am. With this in mind, however, I would most
certainly not claim that I am in bad faith. This is because of the fact that I
am fully aware of the fact that I am being paid to perform a certain service,
and that if I want to be paid I will also have to do as I am required. I
understand that I am not being forced act the way I am, but that I am willing
to in order to receive compensation. Put more simply, the instance that I have
explained above does not contain deception at any point. Therefore, a critical
aspect of bad faith is missing and so I would argue that I would not be acting
in such a way.
