Existentialist philosophy often stirs discomfort, challenging the foundation of how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. One of its most unsettling concepts is the idea of freedom—and how our relationship to it can shape our lives and the very essence of who we are. Simone de Beauvoir, a towering figure in existentialist thought, explored this tension between freedom and how it is often rejected. Her ideas, particularly around the concept of the “subhuman,” provide a piercing lens through which we can examine our lives and the dangers of evading freedom. This is the existential crisis we can’t afford to ignore.
Freedom: A Gift and a Burden
Freedom is arguably humanity’s defining trait, setting us apart from other creatures. Unlike animals, who are driven by instinct and external stimuli, we can make choices, shape our own futures, and create meaning in an otherwise indifferent universe. This freedom is an immense gift, allowing us to break free from the shackles of fate, social expectations, and natural laws. However, with this gift comes an equally substantial burden—the responsibility that freedom demands.
To be free is to be confronted with a vast array of possibilities, none of which are predetermined. This is both exhilarating and terrifying. The existentialist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir explores this tension between the gift of freedom and the burden it carries in her work The Ethics of Ambiguity. She argues that while freedom allows us to define our lives and create our values, it also imposes on us the weight of choosing authentically, which is a constant struggle. We must navigate through life without any universal guide to what is “right” or “wrong” and without any absolute rules or instructions that tell us how to live our lives. The burden lies in making choices in a world where meaning is not given but must be created by each individual.
However, the very notion of being free is often a source of anxiety. Realizing that we are fully responsible for our choices—without a higher power or a divine blueprint to guide us—can be overwhelmingly paralyzing. This is why many people avoid freedom by clinging to external structures, pre-established values, and societal expectations. The weight of existential freedom is so great that it becomes easier to adopt someone else’s answers rather than risk finding our own. While this may provide temporary comfort, it ultimately leads to an inauthentic life because we are not living in alignment with our true selves.
The Subhuman and the Serious Person: Denying Freedom
In her exploration of human existence, Beauvoir identifies two primary ways people cope with the overwhelming anxiety of freedom: the serious person and the subhuman. These archetypes represent two distinct methods of avoiding the responsibility that comes with freedom. Both strategies deny freedom, albeit in different forms, and both are rooted in fear of confronting the ambiguity of existence.
The serious person seeks to remove the burden of freedom by surrendering their agency to external systems or values. This person might align themselves with a particular ideology, religion, or societal role to escape the uncertainty of making independent decisions. By dedicating themselves to something larger than themselves, the serious person feels a sense of purpose and meaning. They may devote themselves to a political cause, a religious belief, or even a family tradition, believing that adhering to these values transcends their own subjective existence.
However, this surrender to external values is not true freedom. The serious person still does not engage with their autonomy; they submit to a preordained structure that defines who they are. By losing themselves in these values, they avoid the discomfort of having to define themselves. They surrender their freedom to external authorities, whether religious dogma, societal norms, or the expectations of others. Although serious people may seem committed and purposeful, they relinquish their agency to beliefs or roles that are not theirs.
In contrast, the subhuman adopts a different approach to freedom—one rooted in total passivity. The subhuman refuses to engage with the responsibility that comes with freedom altogether. Instead of seeking meaning in external ideologies or roles, the subhuman denies their freedom entirely by accepting their circumstances without any attempt to transcend them. They passively accept the constraints imposed upon them by their biology, upbringing, social status, and environment and feel powerless to change their situation. The subhuman lives in a state of resignation, adopting a mindset of “facticity”—the belief that their circumstances are fixed and unchangeable.
Rather than confront their existential dilemma, the subhuman seeks refuge in distractions. Whether through the numbing effects of video games, television, social media, or other forms of entertainment, the subhuman keeps their mind occupied to avoid confronting the uncomfortable questions of existence. These distractions provide temporary relief from the anxiety of freedom but ultimately lead to a life devoid of meaning. The subhuman never engages with their freedom to choose; instead, they passively allow life to dictate their path. In doing so, they disconnect from their true selves and remain stuck in a life of inauthenticity and passivity.
The Danger of the Subhuman
Beauvoir’s analysis of the subhuman archetype highlights the individual’s surrender of freedom and the dangers this passivity poses to society at large. The subhuman is a figure who has ceased to question their existence, preferring to drift through life without actively engaging in the process of self-definition. This rejection of responsibility creates a dangerous passivity that not only robs the subhuman of any sense of meaning but also leaves them vulnerable to manipulation.
Because the subhuman is disconnected from their freedom, they are highly susceptible to external influences. In times of political upheaval or social turmoil, the subhuman is often the most malleable target for tyrants, demagogues, and oppressive systems. The subhuman lacks the critical capacity to evaluate the ideologies presented to them. Instead, they adopt them uncritically, often without understanding the consequences of their actions. This makes the subhuman particularly dangerous in the context of large-scale social movements, where they can easily become pawns in a greater ideological game.
The subhuman’s lack of self-determination makes them prone to ideological extremes. They are most likely to follow dangerous leaders or adopt harmful beliefs without questioning their legitimacy. As Beauvoir points out, the subhuman is recruited for violence and bloodshed in the name of a cause without ever fully understanding the moral implications of their actions. This can lead to catastrophic consequences, as the subhuman is easily manipulated into carrying out atrocities in the name of ideologies they have not personally examined or questioned.
Moreover, the subhuman’s passivity is not just a personal failing but a societal threat. As history has shown, those who reject their freedom and allow external forces to dictate their beliefs often enable oppressive regimes to flourish. They become complicit in the systems that strip others of their autonomy, all while believing they are simply following the status quo.
The Serious Person: A Step Toward Subhumanity?
While a serious person may appear more engaged with their freedom than the subhuman, Beauvoir suggests that they are not far removed from the passive existence of the subhuman. The serious person seeks to escape the ambiguity of freedom by dedicating themselves to an external system of values. They believe that they are living with purpose and meaning by subordinating their freedom to a higher cause. However, this reliance on external systems is ultimately a form of avoidance. The serious person is still not truly engaging with their freedom; they merely surrender it to something else.
A serious person’s identity is often tied to the values or roles they adopt. Whether it is a professional identity, a religious conviction, or a political belief, a serious person invests themselves entirely in the system they have chosen to align with. In doing so, they effectively give up their ability to independently question or define their existence. Their lives reflect their chosen values, and they derive meaning and purpose from these external structures rather than their subjective experience.
However, this strategy of avoidance has its inherent risks. The external systems to which the serious person clings are not immutable. They can crumble, become irrelevant, or be exposed as flawed. When this happens, the serious person is left without an anchor, and their identity can unravel. In moments of crisis or change, the serious person may be forced to confront the uncomfortable reality that their purpose was never truly their own, dictated by something external. In such moments, they risk falling into a subhuman state, unable to define themselves outside the framework they once relied on.
The Freedom to Choose
At the heart of Beauvoir’s existentialism is the idea that true freedom lies in the ability to choose. Unlike animals, bound by instinct and external forces, humans can create meaning and define our existence. This freedom is not absolute but profound. It means that despite the limitations imposed by our circumstances—biological, social, or historical—we still can shape our lives and identities.
This freedom to choose is both a privilege and a responsibility. It is not the freedom to do anything we want but to define what is meaningful to us and act accordingly. The existentialist’s task is to navigate the tension between the facts of our existence—the “facticity” of our lives—and the freedom to transcend these constraints. Facticity refers to the circumstances of our birth, our environment, and the external factors that shape our lives. While these factors may limit us, they do not fully define us. The true existential challenge is to act in the face of these constraints, to create meaning despite them.
For Beauvoir, this active engagement with freedom makes us fully human. We are not mere products of our environment or victims of our circumstances. We are, instead, agents capable of shaping our lives through our choices. To live authentically is to take responsibility for our actions and acknowledge that our choices have consequences for us and the world around us. Freedom is not a passive experience; it is active, requiring that we make choices that reflect our true selves and accept the responsibility that comes with those choices.
The Existentialist Solution: Embrace Freedom
The key to overcoming freedom’s existential crisis is to embrace it fully. Rather than running from it, as the serious person and the subhuman do, we must confront the ambiguity of existence head-on. To live authentically is to engage with the world as it is, to recognize the limitations imposed upon us, and to act despite them.
Beauvoir’s existentialism offers no easy answers or moral guidelines. Instead, it challenges us to find our path and to create meaning out of the chaos of existence. This is not a comfortable or easy journey, but it is the only one that leads to true freedom. By actively choosing, taking responsibility for our actions, and transcending the facticity of our lives, we create the possibility of living an authentic and meaningful existence. The subhuman and the serious person are both strategies of avoidance, ways to reject the burden of freedom. But the existentialist path is one of engagement—actively choosing, creating meaning, and living authentically. This path leads to a life that is truly our own.
Conclusion
In the face of existential freedom, we are confronted with a powerful and often uncomfortable choice: to engage with life authentically or to retreat into passivity. Simone de Beauvoir’s exploration of the subhuman and the serious person reveals the dangers of evading responsibility and avoiding the anxiety that comes with freedom. While the serious person seeks solace in external systems of meaning, the subhuman completely disengages, leaving both types vulnerable to manipulation and tyranny. The existentialist path, however, challenges us to embrace the ambiguity of freedom—to take responsibility for our choices and shape our lives despite our constraints. Only through actively engaging with our freedom, accepting its weight, and creating meaning can we live authentically. This existential journey is not easy, but it is the only one that leads to true self-determination, and a life lived on our terms. The choice is ours: to remain passive and be shaped by others or to step into the discomfort of freedom and forge our path.