In Elias Canetti’s novel Blindness, how close are Kien’s relationships with other characters to Sartre’s idea of ​​”others are hell”?

In Elias Canetti’s novel Blindness (Die Blendung, 1935), Peter Kien’s relationships with other characters strikingly coincide with Jean-Paul Sartre’s phrase “others are hell” (L’enfer, c’est les autres). Sartre’s famous statement emphasizes in his play Huis Clos (1944) that the individual’s encounter with the other creates an existential conflict and that this encounter threatens freedom. Kien’s relationships with characters such as Therese, Pfaff and George deeply reflect this existential tension; however, Canetti’s novel presents a perspective specific to the loneliness of the individual and social alienation by considering Sartre’s philosophical framework in a more grotesque, absurd and modernist context. This response will examine Kien’s relationships in detail in the light of Sartre’s existential philosophy, especially through the concepts of “the gaze of others” (le regard), freedom and authenticity.

Sartre’s Concept of “Others Are Hell”

According to Sartre’s existential philosophy, the individual creates his own meaning as a free being; however, this freedom is threatened by the existence of others. In L’Être et le Néant (1943), Sartre develops the concept of “the gaze”: the gaze of the other objectifies the individual, reduces him from being a “for-itself” (pour-soi) to a “in-itself” (en-soi). This objectification restricts the individual’s freedom and makes him dependent on the judgment of the other. In Huis Clos, the characters lose their identities under each other’s gaze, and the presence of the others prevents their ability to freely define their own selves. The phrase “others are hell” emphasizes the inevitability of this mutual objectification and conflict.

Sartrean Dynamics in Kien’s Relationships

Kien is an intellectual at the center of Blindness, living in a world he has constructed in his own mind, worshipping knowledge and solitude. His library is like a metaphor for Sartre’s “for-itself” existence: Kien tries to freely create his own meaning through books. However, his relationships with other characters such as Therese, Pfaff, and even George emerge as a series of existential encounters that threaten this freedom. Let’s examine these relationships in light of Sartre’s philosophy:

1. Therese and the Objectifying Gaze

Therese is a crude, materialistic character who is Kien’s maid and later his wife. Kien’s relationship with Therese is a concrete example of Sartre’s concept of the “gaze.” Therese sees Kien merely as a tool; his wealth and status are objects that Therese uses to fulfill her own desires. Kien ceases to be a “knowledgeable” or “for-itself” being in Therese’s gaze and is objectified as a “husband” or “property.” This fits perfectly with Sartre’s description of the restriction of the individual’s freedom through the gaze of the other.

At the same time, Kien also objectifies Therese. He denies Therese’s subjectivity by viewing her as a “danger” or an “ignorant being.” This mutual objectification resembles the dynamics between the characters in Sartre’s Huis Clos: each side refuses to recognize the other’s subjectivity, and this creates a kind of existential hell. Therese’s threats to Kien’s library (her desire to sell the books) are a direct assault on the world of meaning that forms the basis of Kien’s freedom. In Sartre’s terms, Therese’s presence destroys Kien’s “project” (authentic existence based on knowledge).

2. Pfaff and Objectification through Violence

The janitor Pfaff is another destructive figure who enters Kien’s world. Pfaff’s wild, manipulative, and materialistic nature is in stark contrast to Kien’s intellectual world. Pfaff objectifies Kien by seeing him as merely a “tenant” or “source of money.” In Sartre’s philosophy, the way the other objectifies the individual is sometimes expressed through physical or symbolic violence. Pfaff’s influence on Kien is both a physical and psychological form of such violence: Pfaff infiltrates Kien’s home and mind, restricting his freedom.

Kien’s reaction to Pfaff is to try to completely deny the existence of the other. According to Sartre, the individual develops various strategies to escape the gaze of the other; one of these is to ignore the other. But Kien’s effort fails, because Pfaff’s presence opens a gap in Kien’s own world. Sartre’s idea of ​​“hell is other” is clearly evident here: Pfaff imposes her presence as a threat to Kien’s loneliness and authenticity, and Kien cannot escape this existential conflict.

3. George and Misleading Empathy

Kien’s brother George, while less destructive in the novel, also carries a Sartrean tension in his relationship with Kien. As a psychiatrist, George tries to understand Kien; however, this effort to “understand” him risks objectifying Kien’s subjectivity as a “case” or “patient.” In Sartre’s philosophy, even the other’s effort to “understand” the individual can limit the individual’s freedom, since it reduces the individual to a specific category. George’s approach to Kien involves a kind of misleading empathy; instead of supporting Kien’s own project (his library and his devotion to knowledge), he tries to return him to “normal.”

This dynamic is similar to the efforts of the characters in Sartre’s Huis Clos to “save” each other. George’s presence acts as a mirror for Kien; but this mirror does not reflect Kien’s own self but George’s image of Kien. In Sartre’s terms, George’s gaze reduces Kien to the status of a “for-the-other” (pour-autrui) and threatens Kien’s freedom.

Differences from Sartre’s Philosophy

While Kien’s relationships largely parallel Sartre’s idea of ​​“others are hell,” Canetti’s modernist and absurdist approach presents this dynamic in a more caricatured and tragicomic way. While Sartre’s characters consciously experience their existential conflicts, Kien’s tragedy is that he cannot fully grasp these conflicts. Kien rejects responsibility for his own freedom and imprisons himself in his books, similar to Sartre’s concept of “bad faith” (mauvaise foi). However, Canetti handles Kien’s rejection in a grotesque and ironic style rather than Sartre’s analytical philosophical tone.

Furthermore, in Sartre’s philosophy, the presence of the other threatens the individual’s freedom, yet at the same time provides a mirror for the individual to define himself. In Blinding, the presence of others does not help Kien construct his self, but rather accelerates his destruction. Therese, Pfaff, and George function as foreign forces invading Kien’s world, a more pessimistic picture than Sartre’s idea that conflict with others can have a productive aspect.