Why Jean-Paul Sartre Refused the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature and the Institutional Critique Behind It

French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre is a towering figure in modern philosophy, renowned for his influence in existentialism, phenomenology, and Marxism. In 1964, Sartre, then a vocal opponent of the status quo and an staunch advocate for political and social change, astonished the world with his decision to decline the prestigious Nobel Prize in Literature. His deep-seated critiques about the nature of institutions and the role of writers played a significant part in his decision.

The Context

By 1964, Sartre had already moved significantly leftwards in his political views. He had long been wary of institutions that could potentially co-opt his message and validate his work through official recognition. This wariness was not new; in a letter to Le Figaro, dated October 23, 1964, Sartre explained, “I have always declined official honours.”

The Rationale Behind the Decline

In his famous letter, Sartre articulated his reservations about the prize: 'A writer who adopts political, social, or literary positions must act only within the means that are his own, and that is the written word. ' For Sartre, this meant that he should not allow himself to be turned into an institution. This perspective is rooted in his broader philosophical beliefs about the nature of literature and the role of the writer.

Personal Reasons for Declining the Prize

Writing in The Hindu, Sartre outlined several specific personal reasons for his decision. He stated, “A writer who accepts [official honours] would be compromising his personal integrity and associating it with the institution. This means allowing his work and his message to be co-opted by an institution that might deem it valuable for its own ends, rather than for what it truly is.”

Sartre also refused membership in the prestigious Legion of Honour and declined the opportunity to join the Collège de France, maintaining his stance that literary awards should not be seen as purely personal accolades. He wrote, “As a writer, I must remain true to my commitment to authenticity and self-creativity.”

Objective Reasons for Declining the Prize

In terms of broader objective reasons, Sartre expressed concerns regarding the Eurocentric nature of the Nobel Prize in Literature and its potential to perpetuate Western power structures. He pointed out that the prize had traditionally favored writers from the West or those with a rebellious stance in the East. Sartre noted that if the prize had been awarded during the Algerian War, where he stood in firm opposition, its acceptance might have strengthened his position in the struggle. However, by accepting it now, the award could have diluted his message. He feared that it would make him a less effective critic of such issues.

Additionally, Sartre dismissed the notion that the Nobel Prize could truly recognize a diverse range of ideologies and nations evenly. This concern highlights his understanding of the institutional biases that often inform such prestigious awards.

The Legacy of Sartre's Decision

More than 50 years later, Sartre's decision remains a testament to his unwavering commitment to maintaining the integrity of his message and his caution regarding the co-option of intellectual and literary achievements by institutions. As he wrote, “One must not allow one's work to become an institution; it should be a means to resist becoming one.”

In conclusion, Jean-Paul Sartre's refusal of the 1964 Nobel Prize in Literature was a profound act that underscored his deep convictions about the nature of institutions and the role of the writer in society. His decision continues to inspire discussions about the intersection of art, politics, and institutional power.