Sartre’s analysis of anti-Semitism and its relevance for today

Abstract

In the second half of 1944, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote an essay entitled ‘Anti-Semite and Jew’. He analyses what might be termed the moral pathology of the anti-Semite. Such a person, Sartre suggests, has chosen to enact a passion, a passion of hatred. The motive is the desire for ‘impenetrability’ – a disavowal of reasoned argument – and a pleasure taken in the assertion and re-assertion of what is known to be false. Sartre’s essay was written hurriedly and looking back over 70 years, we can see its flaws. But I suggest that the kernel of his analysis of the anti-Semite is compelling, especially in the context of the growth of anti-immigrant prejudice in the UK and elsewhere. Using Sartre as a starting point, I discuss the nature of prejudice and suggest that to counter prejudices, a civic education is needed that emphasises a narrative of liberty.

Keywords:

• Sartre
• anti-Semite
• prejudice
• immigration
• liberty

Notes

1. Sartre also uses the male gender pronoun constantly and consistently throughout the whole essay. It is no use pretending that for Sartre ‘he’ stands proxy for humankind: it doesn’t. He really is talking just about men (not women). Therefore, his analysis is of the male anti-Semite. Nevertheless, despite Sartre’s gendered use of language (and its concomitant meaning) it is my hope that many of his considerations can be seen to apply to male and female equally.

2. See the account by Christopher Browning of the members of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in the years 1942–1943 in Poland (Browning, 2001).

3. See for example the podcast by Ruth Weiss (2017). Sartre’s essay was published in the American journal Commentary in 1948 and provoked much discussion—see, e.g. Rosenberg (1949).

4. Anti-immigration prejudice is not uniform across the country even though it is clearly widespread.

5. On the 26 June 2016, the Sun newspaper ran a lengthy article examining the views (and elation) of people in towns where there was a strong Leave vote. The chief reason overwhelmingly cited for voting Leave was immigration. Even the Sun reporter felt obliged to mention that in Bolton (one of the towns visited) EU migrants formed only 2% of the population. See: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1342831/streets-full-of-polish-shops-kids-not-speaking-english-but-union-jacks-now-flying-high-again/.

6. See Financial Times, 3 June 2016.

7. This is emphasised in a more recent book—see Stocker (2017). Anti-Immigrant sentiments appear to be more concentrated in England but generalisation on their distribution needs to be guarded.

8. There is some, though limited recognition of this alternative tradition. See David Marquand, The Guardian 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/19/britain-problem-not-europe-england-brexit-englishness

9. The attitude of American colonists regarding slavery and Cromwell’s treatment of Ireland need not be ducked; a critical attitude to a narrative of liberty is no bad thing.