Review of General Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1–8 1089-2680/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.1 Why Hell Is Other People: Distinctively Human Psychological Suffering Jesse M. Bering Queen’s University Just as there is remarkable continuity between the structures, abilities, and behaviors of closely related species, so too are there equally remarkable differences. Because only our species has evolved the social cognitive mechanisms that enable a heightened sensitivity to the minds of others, only our species suffers the psychological conse- quences. Using Sartre’s famous play No Exit to illuminate the interplay between evolved psychology and social conscious experience, I show how theory of mind is both biologically adaptive and the common denominator in distinctively human types of psychological suffering. Keywords: social cognition, theory of mind, evolutionary psychology, loneliness, intersubjectivity You remember all we were told about the torture it would make even the most rapacious sinner chambers, the fire and brimstone, the “burning marl.” repent if only to escape the unbearable fate of an Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers. Hell is—other people! eternity spent with others. As a psychologist who studies social cogni- —the character of Garcin, in Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit tion within an evolutionary framework, I am In his play No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre (1946/ drawn to Sartre’s play because it serves to elu- 1989) introduces us to three characters who find cidate what I believe is a distinctively human themselves in the unenviable position of having type of psychological suffering, one that is so- just been cast to hell. There is Garcin, an assas- cial in nature. From a comparative perspective, sinated left-wing journalist and draft dodger the vulnerabilities of the characters are ubiqui- who believes he’s in hell because he mistreated tous among peoples from all human societies his wife; Inez, a sadistic postal worker with a but unique among the entire animal kingdom. penchant for seducing other women; and Es- Through the lens of Sartre’s characters, my aim telle, a pretty pampered debutante who killed in the present article is to bring to light some her baby and drove the penniless father to sui- sense of what it “feels like” to be a subjective cide. These three characters, strangers to one self amidst the company of other subjective another, find themselves locked up together in selves. Because only our species has evolved an aesthetically average drawing room with the social cognitive mechanisms that enable Second Empire furniture. By all appearances, such a heightened sensitivity to the minds of they are each intelligent, sane, and able to think others, only our species suffers the conse- rationally about the situation. For some time quences of these evolved mechanisms. The ca- after their deaths, they can even continue to pacity to think about others’ thoughts improved observe their friends and loved ones on earth. the human condition as well, of course, by en- So how is this hell? Sartre proceeds to paint a abling our ancestors to share their private scene for the audience that is so disturbing that worlds and to develop deeply intimate connec- tions with loved ones. These more salubrious effects, however, have already been discussed elsewhere (Damasio, 2002; Snyder & Lopez, Jesse M. Bering, Institute of Cognition and Culture, 2007). In contrast, the less attractive conse- Queen’s University. quences of evolved human social cognition on Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Jesse M. Bering, Institute of Cognition and subjective well-being have been inadequately Culture, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, addressed, both conceptually and empirically, Northern Ireland, UK. E-mail: [email protected] so these shall serve as my focus in the present 1 2 BERING article (for related nonevolutionary approaches, The concept of man in the mind of God is comparable see, e.g., Baumeister, 1990; Smart & Wegner, to the concept of paper-cutter in the mind of the man- ufacturer, and, following certain techniques and a con- 2000). ception, God produces man, just as the artisan, follow- Sartre’s existential allegory forces us to ex- ing a definition and a technique, makes paper-cutter. amine the subtle ways by which other people, Thus, the individual man is the realization of a certain through their sheer being, can cause us great concept in the divine intelligence. psychological distress. There are no mirrors or From a modern scientific perspective, Sar- windows in the drawing room, sleep is not tre’s “existence precedes essence” is almost cer- permitted, and the light is always on. The char- tainly correct. Based on the tenets of their acters’ eyelids are paralyzed, disallowing them trades, evolutionary scientists and existential even the luxury of blinking. Garcin reacts with philosophers agree that there is no special rea- muted horror to the prospect of being constantly son that human beings exist. We simply are— observed by Inez and Estelle, despite the pro- like any other organism. Recent evidence sug- fessed goodwill of both. gests, however, that this logical view of human GARCIN: Will night never come? life being without intelligent design is also INEZ: Never. deeply counterintuitive to human psychology. GARCIN: You will always see me? For example, findings by developmental psy- INEZ: Always. chologists reveal a strong, perhaps innate, tele- ological cognitive bias in children. When given It’s Only in Our Minds? the choice, preschoolers prefer to see rocks, clouds, and animals as being “for” something Sartre’s well-known phrase “existence pre- rather than just existing and, even in adults, cedes essence” means that the existence of hu- escaping this bias requires explicit scientific man beings implies no inherent meaning. We do knowledge (Kelemen, 2004). We may not, not exist as a species or as individuals “for” therefore, be as free to abandon our beliefs in anything in particular, according to Sartre, but essential purpose as Sartre’s humanistic stance rather invent an essential purpose—or borrow it presupposes (Bering, 2006). from others—and apply this constructed mean- The point is that natural selection made our ing to our personal existence. There is some species exquisitely—and painfully—aware of tension here, however, with contemporary cog- other minds, particularly other human minds nitive science, which is increasingly focused on (Guthrie, 1993). Consciousness is inescapable. evolutionary theory. Based on some of his writ- In No Exit, this hyperawareness is evident in ings, Sartre would likely have agreed that hu- Inez’s response to Garcin’s suggestion that, to man existence is governed by the same princi- avoid unwittingly serving as one another’s tor- ples of natural selection as is that of any other turers in hell, each person in the drawing room species. (His refusal to acknowledge a human should stare at the carpet and try to forget that nature was not anti-Darwinian but rather anti- the others are there. Inez quips: theistic; it was a rejection of the idea that man How utterly absurd! I feel you there, in every pore. had a nature predefined by God.) It is unclear, Your silence clamors in my ears. You can nail up your however, how recent findings from an evolu- mouth, cut your tongue out—but you can’t prevent tionarily informed cognitive science might have your being there. Can you stop your thoughts? I hear altered his philosophical views. them ticking away like a clock, tick-tock, tick-tock, and The fact that we are compelled to think about I’m certain you hear mine. [You’re] everywhere, and every sound comes to me soiled, because you’ve inter- the meaning of life, particularly in terms of cepted it on its way. design and purpose, reflects an ancestral past that carved out a specialized human capacity to Because they are already dead, the characters reason in these terms. It is from this capacity to in No Exit cannot even end the torture by killing reason about other minds that we infer design one another. Later in the play, when Garcin acts and purpose even when they are not there. Con- as if to strangle Inez after she so mercilessly sider, for instance, an example from Existential- torments him where he’s most vulnerable (on ism and Human Emotions, where Sartre (1957, the issue of his military desertion), she points p. 14) compares God to a common artisan: this fact out to him: WHY HELL IS OTHER PEOPLE 3 You’re a coward, Garcin, because I wish it. I wish beliefs about the world, this meant that they it—do you hear?—I wish it. And yet, just look at me, could also reason about others’ propositionally see how weak I am, a mere breath on the air, a gaze observing you, a formless thought that thinks you. Ah, held beliefs about other people in the world. they’re open now, those big hands, those coarse, man’s Because the individual person is the vehicle by hands! But what do you hope to do? You can’t throttle which genes are transmitted, natural selection thoughts with hands. would have favored the evolution of a subjec- tive self that was largely focused on others’ Why Do We Care What Other People thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge about it. This Think About Us? is because these psychological states could be manipulated and cause others to act in ways that From about 4 years of age, human beings are maximized reproductive success. This does not capable of thinking about others’ beliefs, even mean that individuals necessarily have insight when these beliefs are false or differ from one’s into the ultimate purpose of their own adaptive own beliefs (Flavell, 1999).