Sartre and Foucault

Foucault thought that anything you believed, any opinion that you had, was taking a stand. To him there was no idle opinion, everything that you said created your subjectivity. Sartre believed that there are two kinds of men, the ones that sought for truth, and those such as the Anti-Semite, who took the easy way out and stuck to the herd. He believed that it was a choice to see the world as an Anti-Semite, a choice to not be free and not to learn. Sartre’s description of Anti-Semites painted them as objective beings, they hid in the masses and clung to safe opinions. To him to be subjective was to be a man of truth, to have the ability to be open and uncertain about one’s opinions, to be constantly changing.
I agree with Sartre, one truly becomes their own person when one chooses to think for himself. When a child is young he repeats whatever he has been told, trusting blindly, and then he slowly begins to observe phenomenons for himself, and that it is when he develops into his own person. It is possible for a person to have an opinion that he does not own and does not truly mean, unlike Foucault’s theory. If a person’s mind is too primitive to wake up and understand what they are saying and how to think then what they say is not part of their subjectivity. If a person doesn’t have their own opinions then they are not even subjective.
Foucault believed that privacy emerged at a place and time. He discussed how in The Care of the Self in the first and second centuries an emphasis was placed on using modesty to separate oneself from the herd. The focus on the self created a realm of privacy and a separation from oneself from society. Foucault followed Marx’s theory that everyone should be seen through a historical lens, and by going all the way back to the first centuries, Foucault put a date on privacy that will be at least a starting point for future philosophers.
Sartre described the Anti-Semites as choosing to place themselves in a herd, giving away their private reason, and not contributing to a public sphere of knowledge. Without the true existences of their subjectivities they’re private realms were insignificant, there is not much about these men that is below the surface. Sartre puts public and private in a historical sense by showing the inner workings of the Anti-Semites, showing how they think and why they choose to hide themselves amongst a crowd. Sartre’s work does not just denounce or support these men, but instead enlightens the reader on the reasons behind their choice to give up their private sphere and subjectivity.