Sartre's No Exit: Freedom, Responsibility, and Hell

Introduction: Existentialism and No Exit

Jean-Paul Sartre's notions of freedom and the responsibility that comes with it were central to his conception of and contributions to existentialism. Essentially, existentialism is the idea that a person must define himself or herself through actions and through the exercise of freedom — along with the responsibility that accompanies it. These ideas are demonstrated in Sartre's famous play No Exit. An analysis of key elements of the play — its characters, its setting, and the dialogue between those characters — as well as of the cultural circumstances that influenced Sartre's writing, shows that his ideas of freedom and responsibility are dramatized in opposition throughout No Exit.

The Setting and Its Existential Significance

Sartre believed that a true existentialist was someone who took responsibility for his or her freedom by defining himself or herself through choices and actions. However, virtually none of the characters in this play are able to accomplish this. Instead, they regularly look to one another and to external things to define themselves. Sartre holds that such an approach is ultimately hell — which is precisely why the setting for this work of drama is hell itself, in which three characters, Garcin, Inez, and Estelle, continually torment one another by trying to define themselves through each other.

The setting is very important to the play's meaning. The characters are confined to a simple room with antique furniture that none of them like. They have nothing to do but talk to each other, and in doing so they attempt to build their own self-esteem through their interactions. This, of course, is the opposite of what a true existentialist would do. Since they are in hell and can do little else with their time, their existence becomes a figurative hell in which they make each other perpetually upset and uncomfortable.

Garcin and the Refusal of Self-Definition

The fact that the characters have limited freedom in this play is deeply significant. Freedom is one of the most vital aspects of existentialism. Without it, it is virtually impossible to live as an existentialist. Therefore, all of the characters display qualities that are the exact opposite of how a true existentialist would act.

Sartre's use of Garcin is a compelling example of an existential problem. Not only does Garcin have limited freedom — confined to hell with people he does not get along with — but he has also denied himself the responsibility of forming his own self-image and passed that responsibility on to someone else. Specifically, he wants Inez to confirm that he was not a coward for fleeing his country when war broke out. His own opinion on the matter is irrelevant to him; he needs someone else to take responsibility for judging his actions. The fact that Inez refuses to do so — and in fact withholds her validation deliberately in order to torment him — represents a major existential dilemma. Garcin is in a situation in which he neither takes responsibility for his own self-perception nor has the freedom to change his circumstances, and the one person he wants to validate him will not. The torment of this reality represents an existential hell, both literally and figuratively.

Conclusion: Freedom and Responsibility as Existential Necessities

No Exit demonstrates a number of key ideas that were essential to Sartre's existentialism. By depicting characters with very little freedom who refuse to take responsibility for their own self-conceptions, the play shows the reader that freedom and responsibility are indispensable to authentic existentialist life. Additionally, a consideration of the cultural circumstances Sartre lived through reveals that he himself experienced situations of limited freedom and constrained selfhood, which almost certainly contributed to his emphasis on these elements as core components of existentialism.