In Being and Nothingness, Sartre introduces the concept of ‘bad faith’. Simply said, bad faith is the act of lying to oneself. Lying to oneself is different from lying in general (86). When a person lies to another, he assumes “(his own) my existence, the existence of the other, (his) my existence for the other and the existence of the other for (him) me” (88). The lair carefully constructs the lie around this “ontological duality”. But when he lies to himself this duality does not exist, he is only deceiving himself, he is both the deceiver and the deceived. Sartre says, by directing this negation inward, consciousness is “affecting itself with bad faith”, it hides the truth from itself. This acts as a foreground for the fact that there is an apparent “unity of a single consciousness” (89). In order to lie in general, one must know the truth, but, in order to lie to oneself, one must be lying to oneself and knowing the truth exactly at the same moment, in order to conceal from itself, there cannot exist a duality here, one must have a single idea or what Sartre calls, “unitary structure of a single project” (89). Sartre over the extent of this chapter is able to say that bad faith resides completely in consciousness.
When a person lies to himself about his reality, he is in ‘bad faith’. This can be best visualized through Sartre’s famous example of a waiter who performs his duties and functions as a “being-in-itself” or as a mode of being which is “what he is” (100-101). This waiter moves quickly, is far more interested than he should be when a customer orders, “he bends forward a little too eagerly”, which he imitates in his traditions. He acts as a sort of mechanical machine, regulating and controlling himself step by step in the game that he is playing. “He is a playing at being a waiter in a café”, moreover, he is playing “with his condition in order to realize it.” (101 -102). He has applied himself to portray a role, a role in which he thinks of himself as a waiter. Hence, the waiter lives by his social role, by making his occupation equivalent to that of his existence. This, to Sartre, is ‘bad faith’. According to Sartre, the man cannot “immediately” be a waiter in the same way as a “glass is a glass” because in this case the waiter cannot transcend his situation and realize that he is not what he is (waiter) and he is what he must be (existence). To understand this, we must delve into what consciousness means. To Sartre, “consciousness is a being the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness of its being” (86). This being is one “which is what it is not and which is not what it is”. This is human reality (100). Consciousness is self-conscious and is in constant negation. It is only in this nothingness can a human be anything. The waiter has reduced himself to “being-in-itself” and must therefore realize that he “is a waiter in a mode of being what (he is not) I am not” (103). “If a man is what he is, bad faith is forever impossible” (101). By acting in bad faith, the waiter is denying his own freedom.
Human consciousness is composed of facticity and transcendence and bad faith uses this “double activity in the heart of unity” (94) for its own good in order to prevent them from acting in sync or coordination. “Bad faith seeks to affirm their identity while preserving their differences” (98). This essentially says that in certain situations, bad faith will apprehend facticity in order to transport us into a state of transcendence. In other situations, it can move us from a state of transcendence, “in order suddenly to imprison us within the narrow limits of factual essence”. This is its natural state. Therefore, the project of being in good faith seems excruciatingly hard because by default we are in bad faith.
As Sartre points out, the goal of bad faith is to escape (110). This happens when I act like what I am in a manner of “not being what one is”, and not act like what I am in a manner of “being what one is”, i.e. contradictory to being. If there is no project, there is no good or bad faith, then “as far as my being is concerned, there is no difference between being and non-being” (111). Now, in order to lie to myself and keep the truth hidden also from myself, the project of my bad faith must also be in bad faith because I can only persuade myself by believing in whatever concepts I am trying to incorporate into myself (faith). And here, to believe is to not believe, because knowing that I believe is no longer believing, this is to say that I have faith in my bad faith. Therefore, as Sartre says, “the original project of bad faith is a decision in bad faith on the nature of faith” (115). Bad faith is a destruction of the fact that a being with consciousness “is to exist by itself, then to make itself be, and thereby pass beyond itself”. This is why my faith is in bad faith because by me not believing what I believe, I am in bad faith as I take cover under not believing what I believe. It is the opposite of what good faith is. According to Sartre, good faith is a faith “that wishes to flee “not-believing-what-one-believes” by finding refuge in the being”. Bad faith is possible only because of its own nature.
By realizing that bad faith has a much deeper connection to being and how it functions, it can be by no doubt said that most people live in bad faith. In fact, if a person does not know that bad faith can exist (in whatever way/form it may be), it is most likely that he might be or has been in bad faith himself. This is sort of like the “philosopher-king” from The Republic where Plato articulates that in order for a system or a state to inherit being, it must have a king who is a philosopher. Similarly, if a person wants to be what he is not and not be what he is, i.e. a being not in bad faith, he must know that such a thing called bad faith can even exist. This wouldn’t have been true if by default we are in good faith.
Lying in general too often could also lead to bad faith, because by deceiving a deceiver, we often deceive ourselves, we start to believe the lie we are telling, eventually taking the lie to be the truth thereby introducing an altered truth into the project of bad faith. Likewise, there are many qualities by which if we act, we could be in bad faith. Sartre uses a familiar logic to say that if a man is sincere, he is in bad faith because by being sincere he is what he is in order to not be it. This is explained well through the homosexual man. A homosexual man who finally takes the call to be sincere and open up about his sexuality is in bad faith because he has not fully accepted that he is a homosexual in the sense that he has adapted a particular pattern of conduct, although he would also need to realize that his existence cannot be tied that of a lifestyle, this pattern of conduct. That is to say that he needs to furthermore understand that his existence and his identity are different.
Another example Sartre provides is the example of a woman on her first date. The man on the date compliments her physical beauty, but she accepts them as mere words and not for what was sexually implied by the man (96). Later on, when the man takes her hand, she allows for it to happen, postponing her decision to either resist or consent to return the gesture. She addresses her hand as an object and at the moment she is “all intellect” (97). By doing this, Sartre says that she parts from the duality of her existence as a ‘physical body with a consciousness’ and breaks her unity (98). Sartre says that the woman is in bad faith because like the waiter she is also rejecting her own freedom.
A person can be living in good faith sometimes, but like Sartre says bad faith “implies a constant and particular style of life” (90), a style of life that is normal for a great number of people. It looks like bad faith is far more common than it seems. Scheler’s description of a “man of resentment” is what Sartre depicts as a man whose reality is that of a No, “a man who will live and die, having forever been only a No upon this earth” or a man who takes it on himself to make his “human personality as a perpetual negation” (87).
Like the waiter, all workers will have to realize that are acting in bad faith if they do not recognize that they are free. Their “condition is wholly one of ceremony”, it is dictated by the public, society calls for this, it demands that such a person should limit their duties and functions, it makes a man live by what he is, it makes it seem that he cannot escape his condition. There “is the dance of the grocer, of the tailor, of the auctioneer”, the act of a soldier, a good speaker, etc. All this is forced moreover not only by society but much more adamantly by us, we do something even though we do not believe in it because it’s easier, it reduces short term pain or postpones the decision we need to make. We tell ourselves that there are no other options, we deny our freedom. This is bad faith and it can be seen all across modern society, from sexuality to politics, to relationships, to work, in dreams, in sleep, or in any way of life that suppresses our options. We must realize that if we want to become anything, it is only in the nothingness that it is possible.
Answers to Popular Questions
What is the difference between lying to oneself and lying in general, according to Sartre?
Although lying is the act of hiding the truth by deceiving, it is different in ‘lying in general’ and ‘lying to oneself’. According to Sartre, ‘Lying in general’ is a characteristic of the “transcendence” (87) or “for-itself”, in which the liar assumes “my existence, the existence of the other, my existence for the other and the existence of the other for me” (88). It is put together by the deceiver intentionally, but this intention is not directed on himself. Since his character in the eyes of the deceiver/ “object” does not exist, it is transcendent and the “original negation rests on the truth” (88). ‘Lying to oneself’ does not incorporate this “ontological duality” of the deceiver and the deceived because the deceiver is the deceived himself and he is concealing the truth from himself only. This in Sartrean Terms is known as bad faith and here Sartre shows the reader that “consciousness affects itself with bad faith” (89).
How do the psychoanalysts explain the phenomenon of lying to oneself with reference to the concept of the unconscious? Why is it possible to lie to oneself according to the psychoanalysts?
To avoid having to comprehend the impossible situation of bad faith or the act of lying to oneself, psychoanalysts act as “mediators” between the unconscious complexes or drives and the situations that play out in the conscious life of the patient or his “psychic phenomenon” (91). They do this by establishing a “censor” that creates a false sense of duality within the same person, thereby creating a deceiver and the deceived (90). Over time the patient reveals details of historical accounts that the psychoanalyst attaches to the unconscious drives and the truth unfolds through the probable results from the theory that the psychoanalyst uses, making it a mere “experimental idea” (92). Through this, the patient realizes how he has been lying to himself even though he wasn’t explicitly lying, and the psychoanalyst replaces the deceiver and deceived as Sartre puts it, by the “id and the ego” (92). I think according to Psychoanalytical theory it is possible to lie to oneself because one can, in his unconscious mind create a belief/idea but in his conscious mind, act not accordingly thus deceiving “himself about the meaning of his conduct” (91).
What does Sartre mean when he writes “All knowing is consciousness of knowing” (p. 93)? Provide an example to illustrate your explanation.
For Sartre, the deceiver would have to know the truth in order to conceal it, moreover know the complete truth to “disguise” it if he is trying to deceive himself (89). Sartre rejects the unconscious system that psychoanalysts use because to him “Consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness of its being” meaning that consciousness is fundamentally self-conscious (86). The concept of using a 'censor' to perform psychoanalytical deductions was contradictory to itself because in order to repress impulses the censor must be conscious of the impulses that it is repressing. The 'censor' is redundant as consciousness still hides from itself and in fact, is in bad faith, and to Sartre, this would constitute “a knowledge that is ignorant of itself” (93). An example would be like such: I cannot really know what 1 billion trillion stars means, because I have no concept of number like that, but I am conscious of this fact that I don’t know and therefore I am not ignorant. This is what I think Sartre relates to when he says: “All knowing is consciousness of knowing” (93).
Explain the example of the woman who goes out with the man for the first time (pp. 96-97). How is her behavior an example of bad faith according to Sartre? Do you agree with him?
Sartre provides the reader with an example of a woman on a first date. The man compliments her physical beauty, but she accepts them as mere words and not for what was sexually implied by the man (96). Later on, when the man takes her hand, she allows for it to happen, postponing her decision to either resist or consent to return the gesture. She addresses her hand as an object and at the moment she is “all intellect” (97). By doing this, Sartre says that she parts from the duality of her existence as a physical body with consciousness and breaks her unity (98). Sartre says the woman is in bad faith because she is rejecting her own freedom but from Sartre’s definition of consciousness, it’s clear that she is using her own freedom to do this. Therefore, I agree with Sartre that she is acting in bad faith, however, I think bad faith has a lot to play with behaviors accepted by society, etc.