INFLUENCES OF HEIDEGGER’S ONTOLOGY AND NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN IN SARTRE AS SEEN IN THE MAIN CHARACTER OF SARTRE’S THE FLIES AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

INFLUENCES OF HEIDEGGER’S ONTOLOGY AND
NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN IN SARTRE AS SEEN IN THE
MAIN CHARACTER OF SARTRE’S THE FLIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
In English Letters

By
GURUH DWI RIYANTO
Student Number: 05 4214 091

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2010

INFLUENCES OF HEIDEGGER’S ONTOLOGY AND

NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN IN SARTRE AS SEEN IN THE
MAIN CHARACTER OF SARTRE’S THE FLIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
In English Letters

By
GURUH DWI RIYANTO
Student Number: 05 4214 091

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2010

i

ii

.

iii

iv

“Kalau semua sekolah tinggi hanya menghasilkan
bangsat-bangsat saja, ya, akan runtuhlah manusia
ini”(Yang Sakit, Mereka yang Dilumpuhkan, Pramoedya Ananta Toer)
“Truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a
sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetorical
intensification, translation, and decoration, and which, after they have been in use
for a long time, strike a people as firmly established, canonical, and binding;
truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions”
(On Truth and Lies in Non-moral Senses, Nietzsche)

Everything happens for a reason (which is made for an interest)

“He who climbs upon the highest mountains laughs at all tragedies,
real or imaginary”(Zarathustra, Nietzsche)
“Desire is the theme of life” (Lame Light, Charlie Chaplin)
“To choose is to invent” (Sartre)
“Put your passion into action” (Before Sunset, a movie)
“An ideology is made of what it does not mention; it exists because
there are things which must not be spoken of” (Macherey,
Postcolonial Studies Reader,pg.235)
“Diniati” (A man in a gas station)

For me, my parents, my aunt, my brothers, and Paryanti.
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following people for helping me to accomplish
this study. My greatest gratitude goes to my family. This includes my aunt who
gave her “arisan” reward pay the expensive entrance tuition of Sanata Dharma
University. She also paid the expensive tuition fee each semester. I also thank my
parents and brothers who have given me my being-in or dwelling and constructed
my being-in-the-world.

I give thanks also to individuals, communities and institutions that have
supported me. They are Natas and PPMI that have grown me up, Orong-orong
(the most anarchistic community I have ever joined) and Kajian Jumat Malam for
the discussions, Being community for introducing me with Heidegger, Canista
community for teaching me to love education, IIEF for the journey that has
permitted me to get the materials I need, Kolese S.T Ignatius Library for
providing the sources. Thank to students of 2005, especially the D class and they
who were involved in In Love with Madonna. My gratitude also goes to Sartre for
opening the horizon of freedom and responsbility, Nietzsche for encouraging me
to live passionately, Pramoedya for his struggle, and Marx for his specters.
For the criticism, I am very thank you to Mrs. Elisa, especially for the
suggestion on problem formulations, Mr.Tatang and Mrs.Putu. All that I have
mentioned have supported me to accomplish this undergraduate thesis.
Guruh Dwi Riyanto

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE..........................................................................................................i

APPROVAL PAGE...............................................................................................ii
MOTTO PAGE.....................................................................................................iii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH
................................................................................................................................iv
DEDICATION PAGE...........................................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRAK.............................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER I:
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1
A. Background of the Study........................................................................1
B. Problem Formulation.............................................................................7
C. Objectives of the Study..........................................................................7
D. Definition of Terms................................................................................8
CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW.......................................................10
A. Review of Related Studies.....................................................................10
B. Review of Related Theories................................................................. 14

vii

1.

Theory of Character and Characterization.........................14

2.

Theory of Heidegger’s Ontology.....................................15

3.

Theory of Nietzsche’s Overman........................................27

C. Theoritical Frameworkd........................................................................47
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study..............................................................................49
B. Approach of the Study.........................................................................53
C. Method of the Study.............................................................................54
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS
A. The Characterization of Orestes Character..........................................57

B. Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology in Orestes...................................86
C. Influences of Nietzsche’s Overman in Orestes....................................98
D. Orestes’ departure from Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s
overman.............................................................................................120
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
Conclusion...........................................................................................................127
BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................132

viii

ABSTRACT
GURUH DWI RIYANTO: Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s
Overman in Sartre as Seen in the Main Character of Sartre’s The Flies.
Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma
University, 2010.
This work discusses influences of Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s
overman in the main character in Sartre’s The Flies since interpretations of this
play are dominated either by relating it to its historical background or to
existentialist philosophy. Ontology is the science of being in general, embracing
such issues as the nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality, in

this case human’s nature while overman is the ideal man according to Nietzsche
who succeeds in overcoming humanity. This study attempts to take another point
of view, seeing The Flies through influences of Heidegger’s ontology and
Nietzsche’s overman. Nietzsche and Heidegger are chosen because they are
considered to give immense influences on western philosophical tradition,
especially existentialism. Nietzsche revolutionized ethics, and Heidegger strived
to bring back ontology to its radix.
This study is guided by four problem formulations. First, how the main
character, Orestes, is characterized? Second, what are influences of Heidegger’s
ontology in Orestes? Third, what are influences of Nietzsche’s overman in
Orestes? Fourth, how does the character of Orestes depart from Heidegger’s
ontology and Nietzsche’s overman?
This study applies library research and moral-philosophical approach.
Library research includes data from internet, especially e-book and periodicals,
and printed materials, mainly books. Moral philosophical approach is employed in
this study to explore the philosophical influences of Heidegger and Nietzsche.
Through those two steps the study has been accomplished.
The study shows that Orestes is characterized in two different ways, before
and after his awareness of freedom. First, he is characterized as bondless,
submissive, and ambivalent. Second, he is characterized as brave, free,

responsible, creative, individual, rebellious, bonded, dangerous, outcast, and
liberating.
This study proves that Heidegger’s ontology influences Orestes’ point of
view. First, Orestes saw his human being, dasein, as distinctive being and that the
awareness of the radical duality brought man to the state of authenticity. Second,
men were in the condition of being abandoned. Third, men were being who

ix

always projected to the future. Fourth, men were constituted in their being-in-theworld. Fifth, human’s ontological mood was basically unhappiness which should
be faced to be authentic.
Nietzsche’s overman influences in building Orestes’ characters, actions and his
relationship with society. First, Orestes had been slave morality. Second, he had
the characters of overman; strong, noble, and intelligent. Third, Orestes’ act of
rebellion was highly Nietzscheian in his creativity, individuality, and goodness.
Fourth, Orestes’ self mastery freed him from resentment. Fifth, his remedy for
Argos was the remedy of overman. Sixth, Orestes in his society was outcasted.
Yet, he carried their pollution and heaviness.
Orestes, however, departed from Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s
overman. Orestes was anthropocentric encouraging men should be permanently

authentic while Heidegger was Being-centric believing authenticity as a temporal
state. If Orestes considered himself as an equal and his goal was in society,
Nietzsche’s overman established order of rank and the belief that the goal of
society should lie in its crystallization, the birth of overman.

x

ABSTRAK
GURUH DWI RIYANTO: Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s
Overman in Sartre as Seen in the Main Character of Sartre’s The Flies.
Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma,
2010.
Karya ini membahas pengaruh-pengaruh ontology Heidegger dan konsep
adimanusia. Penelitian ini mencoba mengambil sudut pandang lain, yaitu melihat
The Flies melalui pengaruh-pengaruh ontologi Heidegger and adimanusia
Nietzsche, karena sebagian besar penelitian atas The Flies jika tidak
menghubungkanya dengan latar sejarahnya maka menghubungkanya dengan
filsafat eksistensialisme. Ontologi adalah ilmu perihal keberedaan secara umum,
mencakup isu-isu seperti hakikat ada dan struktur kategori kenyataan, dalam
kasus ini hakikat manusia, sedangkan adimanusia adalah manusia ideal bagi

Nietzsche yang berhasil melampaui kemanusiaan. Nietzsche dan Heidegger
dipilih karena mereka dianggap memberi pengaruh besar pada tradisi filsafat
barat, utamanya eksistensialisme. Nietzsche, seperti disebutkan oleh Kaufmann,
memberi revolusi pada etika, dan Heidegger berjuang membawa kembali ontologi
ke akarnya.
Empat rumusan permasalahan memandu kajian ini. Pertama,
bagaimanakah tokoh utama, Orestes, ditokohkan? Kedua, apakah pengaruhpengaruh ontologi Heidegger pada Orestes? Ketiga, Apakah pengaruh-penaruh
adimanusia Nietzsche dalam Orestes? Keempat, bagaimakah tokoh Orestes
berangkat dari ontologi Heidegger dan adimanusia Nietzsche?
Kajian ini menerapkan penelitian pustaka dan pendekatan moral-filosofis.
Penelitian pustaka meliputi data dari internet, khususnya buku elektronik dan
terbitan berkala, dan sumber tercetak, kebanyakan dari buku. Pendekatan moralfilosofis diterapkan dalam kajian ini guna menggali pengaruh-pengaruh filosofis
dari Heidegger dan Nietzsche. Melalui dua langkah itulah kajian ini diselesaikan.
Kajian ini menunjukan bahwa penokohan Orestes dibagi melalui dua cara,
sebelum dan sesudah dia menyadari kebebasanya.Pertama, dia ditokohkan sebagai
tak terikat, pasrah, dan mendua. Kedua, dia ditokohkan sebagai pemberani, bebas,
bertanggung jawab, pencipta, individualis, pemberontak, memiliki ikatan,
berbahaya, terbuang, dan membebaskan.
Kajian ini membuktikan adanya pengaruh-pengaruh ontologi Heidegger
pada sudut pandang yang dikenakan Orestes. Pertama, Oreses melihat manuisa,
dasein, sebagai makhluk berbeda dan bahwa kesadaran akan perbedaan radikal

xi

tersebut membawa manusia pada keadaan asli. Kedua, keberadaan manusia adalah
terabaikan. Ketiga, manusia selalu membayangkan dirinya ke masa depan.
Keempat, manusia dibangun dalam berada-dalam-dunia-nya. Kelima, suasana hati
manusia pada dasarnya adalah ketidakbahagiaan yang harus dihadapai agar
seseorang menjadi diri yang asli.
Pengaruh-pengaruh adimanusia Nietzsche ada dalam membangun tindakan
dan karakter Orestes serta hubunganya dengan masyarakat. Pertama, Orestes
terlebih dahulu bermental budak. Kedua, dia memiliki sifat-sifat adimanusia;
kekuatan, kebanggan, dan kecerdasan. Ketiga, tindakan pemberontakan Orestes
sangatlah bernuansa Nietzsche dalam penciptaanya, kedirianya, dan kebaikanya.
Keempat, pengendalian diri Orestes membebaskanya dari kebencian. Kelima,
penebusanya untuk Argoas adalah penebusan adimansuia. Keenam, Orestes
terasingkan dalam masyarakatnya. Namun, dia menanggung beban dan limbah
mereka.
Orestes, bagaimanapun juga, berbeda dari ontologi Heidegger dan
adimanusia Nietzsche. Orestes adalah antroposentris (anthropocentric) yang
percaya bahwa keaslian harus selalu dijaga sedangkan Heidegger Ada-pusat
(Being-centric) yang percaya keaslian hanyalah bersifat sejenak. Jika Orestes
menganggap dirinya setara dan tujuan akhirnya ada pada masyarakat, adimanusia
Nietzsche mengkukuhkan tatanan tingkatan dan kepercayaan bahwa tujuan
masyarakat terletak pada pengkristalanya, kelahiran adimanusia.

xii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study
Jean Paul Sartre, a pioneer of existentialism which was very famous after
Word War II, conceptualizes and popularizes existentialist themes through his
philosophical treatises and literary works. However, he gains his popularity, along
with existentialism’s popularity, mostly from his celebrated literary works. He
was granted Nobel Prize for literature in 1964 although he declined for ideological
reason. In his literary work, Sartre succeeded in translating abstract philosophical
elaborations into a concrete manifestation that can be understood by many people.
The Flies, as one of Sartre’s literary works, manifests Sartre’s philosophy
about human ontology, mainly written in Being and Nothingness, and the ethical
dimension of such ontology, which he had never published in the form of a
philosophical treatise till his death. William Barret, in On Contemporary
Literature writes “Of his plays too, it may be said that his two earlier and shorter
ones-The Flies and No Exits- are his best. They are at any rate the things to
recommend to the reader who wishes to get the concrete drift of Sartre’s
philosophy but has no stomach for the elaborate dialectic of Being and
Nothingness.” (Barret, 1983 : 567). If No Exit speaks about intersubjectivity or the
subject relation to others, The Flies speaks about freedom and its place in human
ontology.

1 

 

2

Critics usually read The Flies in two dominant ways. The first understands
The Flies in its existentialism dimension. The example is Barret’s reading. He
argues that the play told about freedom and responsibility. He writes that in the
play Sartre’s main argument was that in discharging human freedom, man also
wills to accept the responsibility of it, thus becoming heavy with his own guilt.
(Barret, 1983:568). The second dominant reading sees The Flies in its sociohistorical context. The Flies was written and first performed during German
occupation in France and, therefore, it can be read as a protest against German
occupation. Even in Sartre for Beginner, a brief introduction of Sartre’s life and
philosophy, Palmer introduces The Flies as Sartre’s protest against Nazi. Palmer
writes that Sartre writes a play titled The Flies, that obviously contains anti-Nazi
messages” (Palmer, 2003:11)
Because there are only a few readings take another perspective, this study
strives to place The Flies in the contexts of tradition of western philosophy,
specifically in relation to Friedrich Willhem Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. It
explores the influence of those two philosophers to Sartre’s The Flies. By this
reading, there will be new meanings and perspectives to the reading of The Flies.
Furthermore, it can also correlate Sartre’s philosophy itself in the context of
history of western philosophy.
Why are Nietzsche and Heidegger chosen? Why are the other
existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Camus, Berdyaev, and Jasper excluded? The
main reason lies in the fact that both Nietzsche and Heidegger play radical and
influential role in the school of existentialism. Kaufmann, Nietzsche’s translator,

 
 

 

3

argues that Nietzsche has revolutionized ethics, and Heidegger was well-known as
the radical ontologist. Moreover, those two philosophers are rooted from the same
tradition with Sartre, which was western philosophy. Thus, they can be compared
one to the others.
Heidegger, famous of his radical ontology, determines to bring ontology
into its radix by asking the question of Being. Being is written in capital letters to
distinct it from being which means entity. Being is what makes being exists, not
the existence itself. This question, according to him, had been asked but then
forgotten in the history of philosophy during two millennia. In Being and Time, he
writes,
“On the basis of the Greeks’ initial contributions toward an
interpretation of Being, a dogma has been developed which not only
declares the question about the meaning of Being to be superfluous,
but sanctions its complete neglect” (Heidegger, 1962:21)

From the quotation above, Heidegger argues that Greeks had strived to interpret
Being, but then, the interpretation of Being covered by dogma. His attempt was to
unveil the question about Being to probe an interpretation of Being.
To fulfill his attempt, he chooses the Being of Dasein (human in
Heideggerian term). For him, the Being of Dasein is special among other beings
or entities. He wrote “it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very
Being, that Being is an issue for it”(Heidegger, 1962:32) Dasein is the only entity
that possible to quest Being because of the Being of the Dasein. “Dasein is
ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.” (Heidegger, 1962:32)

 
 

 

4

Sartre is influenced by such ontology in Sartre’s understanding about
human. The Flies places freedom as the heart of human existence. In it, Sartre
wrote, “I am my freedom” (Sartre, 1976:117). It says that freedom is not only a
characteristic of human, but human is freedom. Sartre placed human in a
distinctive way among other beings or entities. In The Flies, Orestes said to Zeus
“You are the king of gods, king of stones and stars, king of waves of the sea. But
you are not the king of man” (Sartre, 1976:117) For Sartre took Heidegger also for
his dictum that human’s existence precedes the essence. However, Sartre, who
was famous to misread Heidegger, was also possible to read it correctly but
modify to set up his own dictum.
Nietzsche, although never called himself existentialist, has been a
foundation of existentialism. S.T. Sunardi wrote that the strongest influence of
Nietzsche was felt in France. He became the symbol of rebellion. In youth
Nietzsche was very popular as a philosopher who was very cynical toward
religion. In philosophy his influence of rebellion appears obviously in Sartre and
Camus. (Sunardi, 1996:119).
Nietzsche declared at the first time in The Gay Science that “God is dead.
God will always stay dead. We have killed him” (Nietzsche, 1995:;30) The phrase
also reoccurs in Zarathustra, his masterpiece, for many times. By the death of
God, human is set free and he becomes the master of himself. The dead God
opens the possibility for man to be overman. Nietzsche has already predicted the
modern age where human no longer have certitude. Therefore, he has already
prepared the idea of overman to replace God.

 
 

 

5

Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger reacted to the same zeitgeist, or spirit of
an age, which was the modern optimistic spirit. Although Nietzsche wrote during
the end of nineteenth century, he foresaw what other people during his age did not
see, which was the decline of modern optimistic world. Kaufmann explains that at
that time, “science and technology were making the most spectacular advances;
and optimism was common. Nietzsche, however, stigmatized this age as
nihilistic”(Kaufmann,1969:96). He understood that the modern optimism was in
its decline toward nihilism. Nietzsche, therefore, offered his philosophy, which
included overman in it, as a way to cope with nihilism.
Heidegger and Sartre lived in the time which Nietzsche predicted as a
godlessness world. The destroyed modern spirit was marked by the World War I
and World War II. Here, European people experienced great loss in material and
spiritual aspect. Heidegger published his major work, Being and Time, in 1927
after the World War I which broke out from 1914 to 1918. In Being and Time
Heidegger seems to be pessimistic when he said that anxiety was the fundamental
mood of human being. However, Heidegger did not stand for certain ethical
position. He even “denied that the authentic-inauthentic distinction has any ethical
content”(Honderich, 2005:280). Sartre, unlike Heidegger, “explicitly presents
existentialism as an ethical doctrine”(Honderich, 2005:280). Sartre in several
senses adopted Nietzscheian solution for his nihilistic age where people no longer
sure where to go. Orestes in The Flies, is the man who conquered the remorse
spread by the god, which in the play represented by Zeus. The purpose of the
remorse is to control man. Here, we got the same pattern of Nietzsche’s overman

 
 

 

6

and Sartre’s Orestes. However, there will be a different in emphasis. Sartre
believed the existence of free-will and emphasized freedom of choosing.
Sartre was considered to be a voice of his era since he has represented the
spirit of France people toward the social condition of the post-war era. His
popularity was born by the need of his era. He was so popular that fifty thousands
of people followed his coffin. Michele Vian, Sartre’s Friend, in a documentary
movie by BBC on Sartre titled Human, All Too Human, describes that ‘it is not
his (Sartre’s) fault if people like us, who were not philosophers; who were not
thinkers, took him as a prophet.”(Wardle, 1999). His philosophy was considered
to be a hope for the post-war era. Jonathan Ree, a France philosopher comments
in Human, All too Human, that “everybody realizes that the old France with its
values...depended on old generations were collapsing and Sartre’s idea was
fantastic moral opportunity.”(Wardle, 1999). Sartre’s philosophy about freedom
has opened a new opportunity to break with past and start a new one. Therefore,
to research on Sartre’s ontological and ethical dimension also at once provides
information about people of his era.
How do those two contribute to Sartre in building his main character in
The Flies, Orestes? How does Orestes depict Sartre’s departure from Nietzscheian
overman and Heideggerian ontology? This works is an attempt to answer those
questions.
B. Problem Formulations
1. How is the character of Orestes characterized?
2. What are influences of Heidegger’s ontology in Orestes?

 
 

 

7

3.

What are influences of Nietzsche’s overman in Orestes?

4. How does the character of Orestes depart from Heidegger’s ontology
and Nietzsche’s overman?

C. Objectives of the Study
The main objectives of the study are to see influences of Heidegger’s
ontology, Nietzsche’s overman, and Sartre’s departure from theirs in The Flies
through its main character. The objective is fulfilled by describing the character of
Orestes. After that, influences of Heidegger’s ontology are described. Discussion
on influences of Heidegger’s ontology precedes influences of Nietzsche’s
overman because ontology bases the axiology, including the ethics. After that,
influences of Nietzsche’s overman are described. Finally, the last objective, the
way Sartre’s philosophy in the character of The Flies departs from their influence
can be answered by considering the second and third objectives.

D. Definition of Terms
In philosophy, it seems that each philosopher has their own language
games. Thus, these definitions of the terms are written to restrict the meaning of
the terms to specify the context. These definitions have over simplified the
concepts. Further explanation can be found in chapter II.
1.

Essence
“Sartre calls it man’s past. Since there is no pre-established pattern for

human nature, each man makes his essence while he lives.”(Sartre, 1976:631)

 
 

 

8

2. Freedom
“The very being of for-itself which is “condemned to be free” and must
forever choose itself-i.e., make itself. “’to be free’ does not mean ‘to obtain what
one has wished’ but rather ‘by oneself to determine oneself to wish’ (in the
broader sense of choosing). In other word, success is not important for
freedom.”(Sartre,1969:632)
3. The Will to Power
Will to power is “Nietzsche’s formula for what he took to be the basic
disposition manifested in all that transpires in human life and in all other
phenomena as well.”(Honderich, 2005:958).
4. Resentment
It is “a ‘reactionary’ emotions, a bitter but frustrated response to slights,
humiliation or oppression, ‘submerged hatred, the vengefulness of the impotent.’
In Nietzsche’s view, resentment is the mark of ‘slave morality’ (Honderich,
2005:814 )
5. Slave Morality
“Slave morality is a reactive morality originating in resentment of the
powerful on the part of the powerless.”

6. Master Morality
“determiner of values, he does not need to be approved of, he judges ‘what
harms me is harmful in itself’, he knows himself to be that which in general first

 
 

 

9

accords honor to things, he creates values. Everything he knows to be part of
himself, he honors : such morality is self-glorification.”(Nietzsche,1977:76)
7. Overman
“human life enhanced and transformed in a manner sufficient to render it
worthy or affirmation, in contrast to ‘all too human’ about it, dispensing with all
other-worldly

hopes

and

illusion,

and

overcoming

all

disillusionment.”(Honderich, 2005:903)
8. Ontology
“is the science of being in general, embracing such issues as the nature of
existence and the categorical structure of reality”(Honderich, 2005:670)
9. Character
“the persons represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are
interpreted by the reader as being endowed with particular moral, intellectual, and
emotional qualities by inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive
ways

of

saying

it—the

dialogue—and

from

what

they

do—the

action”(Abrams,1981:20)
10. Characterization
“The process by which an author creates a character”(Roherberger,
1971:20-21)

 
 

CHAPTER II
THEORITICAL REVIEW

A. Review of Related Studies
As mentioned earlier, major interpretations on Sartre's The Flies either
relate the play to Nazi occupation or Sartre’s existentialism. This part reviews a
sample of each major interpretation. The first discusses the allegory of The Flies
and the second the existentialism.
McCall, as an example of the first group, in The Theater of Jean Paul
Sartre saw Sartre's The Flies as a call for revolt through understanding the play as
allegory of Nazi occupation. He said that “When Sartre wrote The Flies, the play
had resonances that are lost to a spectator or reader today. In 1943, the French
were suffocating under Nazi occupation and the cult that Hitler's collaborators
tried systematically to instill in them” (McCall,1969:15).
Sartre uses allegory in order to hide his provocation from Nazi censorship.
McCall compared the characters with the situation of the occupied France as
follow:

Within the context of the Occupation, The Flies can be
read on one level as a kind of allegorical piece in which
Aegistheus is the German invader, Clytemnestra the French
collaborator, and Orestes the resistant. Zeus stands for their
"moral" commandments that the Nazis and their collaborators
sought to impose on the French people as absolute law. Electra
represents those who rebelled against the Vichy mentality but
lacked the will to translate their rebellion into action.
(McCall,1969:17).

10 

 

11

As Aegistheus in the play, Nazi desired a status quo so that they might rule
longer. Nazi and Aegistheus both ruled their area illegally. Nazi took the power
by invasion and Aegistheus by murdering Agamemnon, the former king of Argos.
After taking control, they also became tyrant and sought absolute control. They
created suffer through their power.
Like Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon or the former king, who
collaborated with Aegistheus to betray the former king, the French collaborator
helped Nazi to defend the status quo. Clytemnestra also stayed beside Aegistheus
to justify the Aegistheus as king of Argos by marrying him as the French
collaborator stayed beside Nazi. Both helped the ruler to build and prolonged the
control.
Zeus symbolizes the morality imposed by Nazi in the sense that both seek
justification for the ruling regime. Aegistheus built a statue of Zeus in Argos to
remind the people of their remorse. Similar to Argos, the ideas that Nazi deserved
the occupation and French people were weak and inferior toward Nazi were
echoing through the propaganda of that time. Zeus’ morality and the propaganda
of Nazi played the same role during occupation.
Although Electra and Orestes both represent the rebellion of French
people, both diverse in the radicalism, which reflect the source of French
rebellion’s' conflict. The radical in France, as Orestes, did not compromise the
ruler. Yet, the compromised French rebels, as Electra, did not have enough heart
to fight against their oppositions. Electra changed her mind when Zeus persuaded
her to repent, and the French compromised instead of confronting.

 
 

 

12

The murder of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra delivers Sartre's message of
rebellion. He, as Orestes did, suggested people of France to fight against Nazi and
the French collaborator and defeated them. That Orestes could defeat Zeus, who
was a god, by killing his collaborator, symbolized that French could defeat Nazi,
which seemed undefeatable. Sartre through The Flies suggested a radical rebel
against Nazi.
Timothy William's essay titled Sartre, Marcell, The Flies, as an example
of the second group of dominant reading, analyses The Flies from its existentialist
philosophy. Gabriel Marcell, French Christian existentialist, as quoted by Timothy
William, even writes that “The Flies as 'manifesto' of existentialism”(The
Midwest Quarterly, Vol 49: 377). William further writes that “reading The Flies
possibly is the best introduction to the philosophy of Sartre.”(The Midwest
Quarterly, Vol 49:377). He argues that The Flies represents Sartre's existentialist
philosophy about how existential freedom relates to values.
William examines mainly the character development of Orestes which
shows Sartre's existentialist position. At first, Orestes grounds all his values and
decisions on the direction of Zeus. After that, he realizes his freedom. At last, he
clings to his freedom and rebels against Zeus's authority. According to William,
Orestes is “emboldened by his new-found freedom, and declares that he will no
longer take orders, neither from men nor gods”(The Midwest Quarterly, Vol
49:379).
The first Orestes who grounds all his values on Zeus shows attitude of
common people. They, as Orestes does, believe that their life and values are

 
 

 

13

determined by external objective factors. Hence, Orestes asked Zeus' wisdom to
guide his life when he faces confusion whether he gets to leave Argos or not.
Then, Zeus shows him a sign and finally Orestes decides to go.
In second phrase, Orestes starts to acquaintance with his existential
freedom. However, he still does not realize his existential freedom. All Orestes
experiences, according to William, is “an enlightenment, a sudden awareness that
he is totally alone in an indifferent universe” (The Midwest Quarterly,Vol
49:389). This, according to William, is how Sartre defines a human being finding
one selves as completely free. Because human finds one selves as completely free,
one finds nothing or no one can justify but one own. At this point, one still does
not know what to do with the freedom. In other words, one needs to adjust one
self to the new realization.
Third, Orestes can create his own justification that grounds his values. In
other words, Orestes has been able to accept the freedom and faces the absurdity
of existence. As a result, he is sure of what he is doing while rebelling against
Aegistheus and Zeus. As he finds that no one can justifies him but himself, he
creates his own values through doing the opposite thing of what Zeus commands
him to do. Sartre suggests this self-creation as alternative of the nihilistic world
that one finds when realizing the total freedom.
In short, the study of Orestes by William shows Sartre's existentialist
philosophy. Sartre argues that human is completely free and that he should justify
his own freedom. Thus, human creates his own meaning and nature by choosing
and creating values as expression of his freedom through doing.

 
 

 

14

B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theories on Character and Characterization
Abram’s Glossary of Literary Term defines characters as “the persons
represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as
being endowed with particular moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by
inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive ways of saying it—the
dialogue—and from what they do—the action”(Abrams,1981:20). Barranger in
Understanding Play explains that characters have “complex personalities; they
represent a class of individual s, such as kings or servant”(Barranger,1994:338).
They also signify human predicament from the writer’s historical and
philosophical perspective. A character may remain stable, or undergo a radical
change, either through a gradual development or as the result of extreme crisis’
Abram divides character, following Foster, into flat and round character.
Flat characters are those “built around a single idea or quality” and without much
individualization. Thus, they can even be described in one sentence. Round
characters are complex in temperament and motivation. Thus, they can hardy be
described and they might surprise the reader.
Roherberger and Samuel Wood in Reading and Writing about Literature
defines characterization as “the process by which an author creates a
character”(Roherberger, 1971:20-21). Barranger writes “in drama characters are
traditionally defined by their physical characteristics, speech, and dress; their
socio economic status; their psychological make up; and their moral or ethical
choices”(Bararanger,1994:339). She offers four ways of how a character is

 
 

 

15

characterized. First is what the playwright says about them in stage direction.
Second is by hearing or reading what characters say about one another in
dialogue. Third is by noting general types-physical and psychological. Fourth is
by construe the moral or ethical choices (Barranger,1994:339)

2. Theory of Heidegger’s Ontology
a. Being (sein) and beings/entities (Seindes)
Heidegger makes an ontological difference to mark the distinction
between Being and beings or entities. The realm of Being is ontological and the
realm of beings or entities is ontic. Because in English both are the same, capital
letter is used to distinguish those two terms. Being is commonly written in
singular to refer to Being of certain being or sometimes Being as concept without
referent or without further a do. The German world for Being is sein. If sein is an
infinitive, Seind is Partizip I, just like English ing-form. There is activity meaning
contained in the Partizip I in German. (Hardiman, 2003:45)
Beings or entities are not merely things or concrete perceptual and
material stuff. Heidegger describes that “there are many things that we describe as
beings, and we do so in various senses. Everything we talked about, everything
we have in view, everything toward which we comport ourselves in any way, is
being; what we are is being, and so is how we are.”(Heidegger,1962:26) We are
surrounded by beings, and we are being. Beings can be concrete and abstracts.
Number, tree, gods, air, God, this writing, all are beings. Poetically, Heidegger
describes beings as all that we breath.

 
 

 

16

Being is described shortly in Heidegger’s division one of Being and Time.
“The Being of entity or beings “is” not itself an entity.” (Heidegger, 1962:25)
Being is not a group of beings or certain among of beings. Being props beings and
Being makes possible the being to be. It “Being determines beings as
entities”(Heidegger, 1962:25)
There is a vivid remark about Being written by Kaelin in his Heidegger’s
Being and Time. He writes that
Being of enteritis-be they persons, things, or tools-and being
without further ado (tout-court), to which Heidegger refers as the
transcendent pure and simple, that is, that which in every case transcends
the entity that displays it, but which itself is not an entity and so cannot be
treated as an object of ontological analysis in the same way entities are
(Kaelin, 1987:299)

Here, Kaelin notes that Heidegger uses Being in two ways. The first is Being of
being. It always refers to the Being of certain thing. When this term is used, it
will always relate to certain modes of Being; Presence-at-hand, ready-to-hand,
or Dasein. The second is Being as its own concept. It only talks the meaning or
concepts of Being without certain reference to certain entity or being. Here the
meaning of Being is transcendent pure and simple. Being is beyond the beings.

b. Dasein
Although Being is the asked about, the only way to reach the idea of Being
is through beings. He writes that “in so far as Being constitutes what is asked
about, and “Being” means the Being of entities, then entities themselves turn out
to be what is interrogated.” (Heidegger, 1962:26). Thus, to investigate the Being

 
 

 

17

of Dasein is through investigating Dasein. The investigation reveals the structure
of being-in-the-world as the Dasein’s constitutive element.
To start the investigation, Heidegger analyzes three modes of being;
present-at-hand, ready-to-hand, and existence. First is ready-to-hand, useful
beings for Dasein. In other word, this mode of Being is the way tools are.
Ready-to-hand serves Dasein’s purpose or toward-which. For example, hammer
is used to hit nail. Second is present-at-hand. This mode of Being is what
human do not use or cannot use for purpose. This being, however, does not
signify neutral pure being without Dasein’s contamination toward it. Instead,
present-at-hand usually reveals when ready-to-hand occurs malfunction. For
instance, hammer which is too heavy cannot serve Dasein’s purpose. As a
result, the mode of ready-to-hand has been changed into present-at-hand. The
toward-which cannot be served. Third is existence. Heidegger says that only
Dasein exists. Trees are, but trees do not exist. God is, but God does not exist.
This happens because of Heideggerian technical terms of existence. He urges
people to use existence with interpretation of the context of existence.
Existence, as a mode of Being solely belongs to Dasein, distinguishes
him from the rest of beings. Kaelin summarizes Heidegger’s argument of
human’s unique mode of being as follow:

“in term of categories fitting the subject; and when this is
done, the analyst is describing a state of Being of those entities, and
only those, that exist as projections upon their possibly. Given this
technical use of the term, it should now be apparent that only
human beings can be said to exist in this sense”(Kaelin,1987:28)

 
 

 

18

The existential nature of man is the reason why man can represent beings as
such, and why he can be conscious of them. Only human is conscious about his
future, and, therefore, he is the only being “exists.”
This mode of Being is associated by Heidegger through his diction to label
human being as Dasein. While Sein means Being, Da is an ambiguous sense in
German language. Kaelin writes “the da of Dasein, the German word for
existence or human being in Heidegger’s restricted sense,..., is ambiguous,
meaning both “here” and “there”(Kaelin,1988:98). Because of the ambiguity and
the nuance it takes, the term is usually not translated. Thus, Dasein literally means
Being “here” and “there.”
The “here” and “there” of da should be interpreted in Heideggerian
temporality and spatiality. Heidegger argues that “here” means the present
condition and “there” means the projected situation. Dasein always exists in his
fleeing in the space between “here” and “there”. In “here” Dasein projects into
“there.” In short, Dasein is always becoming. Dasein discloses its future self.

i.

Being-in-the-world and the Falling of Dasein
For Heidegger, Dasein’s basic state is being-in-the-world. Being–in-the-

world, although must be seen as a whole, has three constitutive elements; in-theworld, being-in, and entity or being (seind). From this ontical condition,
Heidegger defines Dasein.
First, In-the-world will be obvious after the worldhood has been explicit.
Worldhood in this sense is a world as not a literal world, earth. Worldhood is

 
 

 

19

totality of significance, the system of ready-to-hands constructed in their towardwhich. This constitutes a world where Dasein lives and inside the signification.
The example is the world of motor sport where a racer spends her life and
concerns about. It is impossible to separate a racer from the world of motorsport.
Every world has its own ready-to-hand which is different from other world. This
determines toward-which of entities. For example, a table, its toward-which of the
ready-to-hand is to place plate and glass, can be interpreted as an altar, its towardwhich of the ready-to-hand is to have ceremony, for culture which does not
recognize table. However, world is not always cultural. It is also personal world,
where we know that a world of a person is different from another. Man always
finds himself in-the-world. He is thrown into the world.
Second, Being-in is important constitutive elements in being-in-the-world.
Heidegger describes the “in” as “derived from ‘innan’-‘to reside’, ‘to
dwell.’...’An’ signifies ‘I am accustomed’, ‘I am familiar with’, ‘I look after
something’(Heidegger,1962:80). From the etymology, “in” means dwelling in
certain place where on is accustomed or familiar. The Being of Being-in,
according to Heidegger, is concern. In such activity like interrogating, Dasein has
its own concern. Third, entity which in every case has Being-in-the-world as the
way in which it is. Heidegger argues that Dasein is the only entity that has Beingin-the-world. This happens because Dasein has care as its Being.
The essence of a man lies in his Being-in-the-world. As man cannot be
separated from his world, to understand man means to understand the Being-inthe-world. This idea seems to provoke a possession of a world by everyman. It is

 
 

 

20

true. Yet, Being-in-the-world is not merely possession of a Dasein. It is Dasein
itself. Dasein is, without being united, Being-in-the-world. In projecting his
Being-there, Dasein creates and always creates endlessly his Being-in-the-world.
Dasein’s being-in-the-world indeed is inescapable. Being-in-the-world is
designed by Heidegger to refuse human as metaphysical soul and body or rational
being separated from the world that can see the world from outside. Heidegger
stands that being-in-the-world is unitary phenomena between Dasein and what it
encounters. Here, the essence of Dasein is not separated from the existence.
Dasein in any situation cannot find shelter. Dasein cannot hide from its Being-inthe-world as long as he lives. By creating term Being-in-the-world Heidegger
includes Dasein as being which has no difference with other beings. Although
Dasein is a unique, but he should not be separated from other beings.
When Dasein’s basic is Being-in-the world, Dasein can also be being-inthe-midst-of-the-world or falling. In this falling, Dasein becomes inauthentic
because it flees from himself and it is absorbed into das man or the One/the They.
When it happened, Dasein does not stand face to face with its Being because it
flees from it in order to be absorbed in falling.
Das man in German language means mankind or man as a species. It does
not refer to particular man but man in general. Olson mentions that “what
Heidegger had in mind in choosing this term was the German expression Man
Sagt, which means in English ‘one says’ or ‘they say’”(Olson,1962:136). “They”
is not unity of all individual nor particular man taking rule. “They” is impersonal
and anonymous. Heidegger says “Everyone is other, and no one is

 
 

 

21

himself”(Heidegger,1962:165). The subject of they “nobody to whom every
Dasein

has

already

surrendered

itself

in

Being-among-one-

other”(Heidegger,1962:163). Nobody creates certain values because they share it
together.
Heidegger mentions five characteristics of falling. First, Being-amongone-another dissolves Dasein’s into merely Others, and Dasein enjoy as They
enjoy the world. He writes “we take pleasure of enjoying ourselves as they take
pleasure; we read, see, and judge about literature and art as they see and
judge”(Heidegger, 1962:164). They prescribe the kind of Being of everydayness.
Due to there is no personal choice, as if there is no responsibility for Dasein.
There is also no self-reflection because the falling man thinks that is just how the
decision should be taken. Second, falling conditions people as if they have already
understood everything. This gets rid of doubt and hide ontological question such
as “who I am.” Hence, Dasein tries to escape his personal anxiety, which in fact is
inevitable. Third, since there is no doubt, Dasein is alienated from his own true
possibility. Fourth, the authentic possibly for human action is closed. Fifth, the
fall of the self into essentially foreign world is turbulent (Kaelin, 1987,114-115).
Dasein may also become inauthentic in activity of concern. This condition
happens when Dasein works and its existence melts with the ready-to-hand. For
example, when hammering, people do not feel separation between himself and
hammer. The hammer is he and he is hammer because of the routine activity. This
happens mostly in factory industry. In short, there is no self-awareness of
existence at all.

 
 

 

22

Inauthenticity for Heidegger is Dasein’s everyday condition. Heidegger
states that “Dasein is ‘they’, and for the most part it remains so” (Heidegger
1964:167) Most of Dasein’s time is spent in falling. Heidegger even “denies that
the authentic-inauthentic distinction has any ethical content”(Honderich,
2005L280). To be inauthentic is not important to avoid. Being authentic for a
very short time and inauthentic in most of the time is a natural condition of
Dasein.

Thus,

falling

is

“its

everydayness

and

its

averageness”(Heidegger,1964:168).

ii. Anxiety, Authenticity, and Care
Heidegger argues that a mood always fills our being-in-the-world. One of
the moods is anxiety which he uses to deepen his analysis into ontological
structure of Dasein. In its abandonment, dasein starts to feel its anxiety. Anxiety,
which is inevitable for Dasein, raises Dasein from his falling, and discloses care,
as Dasein’s Being.
When dasein searches for the source of values, dasein finds itself
abandoned. Abandonment is “a term used by Heidegger...to describe the absence
of any sources of ethical authority external to oneself”(Honderich, 2005:01).
Dasein seeks for ethical justification which may come either from religious belief
or certain concept of the nature of world. Yet, dasein meets nothing because in
fact those cannot justify its decision. This condition of having no external
justification brings man to anxiety.

 
 

 

23

Heidegger contrasts fear and anxiety to begin his analysis. Fear is ontical
mood that has an object. In the other word, it is always directed toward
something. For example, one might fear of chicken or darkness. Fear is fear
toward being-within-the-world. Although fear is distinctive, it is inauthentic way
of Being-in-the-world. Unlike fear that has object, anxiety does not have ob