Critique of Dialectical Reason
Critique of Dialectical Reason is Sartre’s large-scale attempt to rethink Marxism by grounding historical materialism in an existential-phenomenological analysis of praxis, scarcity, and social forms. He argues that dialectical reason—understood as the intelligibility of historical totalizations produced by human praxis—is a category of praxis itself, not a transcendental law of nature or an external logic imposed on history. Volume I develops a conceptual framework moving from individual praxis in conditions of scarcity, through seriality and alienated social relations, to the constitution and eventual disintegration of fused groups and organized groups (e.g., revolutionary parties, states). Volume II applies and extends this framework toward a more concrete theory of historical intelligibility, though in a fragmentary way, examining class struggle, bureaucracy, institutions, and the complex mediations through which history becomes thinkable as a totalization without closure. Across both volumes Sartre criticizes deterministic or teleological versions of Marxism, insisting instead on contingent, conflictual, and reversible processes in which freedom and constraint, subjectivity and structure, are dialectically intertwined. The Critique thus seeks to preserve both the primacy of lived praxis and the objective reality of social structures, proposing a non-reductive, open-ended dialectics of history.
At a Glance
- Author
- Jean-Paul Sartre
- Composed
- c. 1957–1960 (Volume I), late 1950s–early 1970s (Volume II, mostly unfinished)
- Language
- French
- Status
- original survives
- •Dialectical reason as a category of praxis, not of nature: Sartre argues that dialectical intelligibility belongs to human praxis and its historical totalizations. There is no independent, pre-given dialectic of nature; rather, dialectical reason is the way praxis unifies heterogeneous moments into meaningful historical processes. Marxism is therefore a critical, self-reflexive method grounded in human activity, not a closed science of objective dialectical laws.
- •Primacy of scarcity and practico-inert structures: Sartre contends that material scarcity is a fundamental condition structuring human relations, generating conflict, competition, and alienation. Human praxis confronts the ‘practico-inert’—the sedimented products of past actions embodied in institutions, tools, infrastructures, and inert social structures—which both enable and constrain current praxis. Historical dialectic arises from the conflict between living praxis and this practico-inert field.
- •From seriality to fused group and organized group: Sartre develops a typology of social forms. In ‘seriality’, individuals are linked only externally as interchangeable units (e.g., bus queues, consumers), unified by the practico-inert rather than by a shared project. Under certain conditions, such serial individuals can form a ‘fused group’ (e.g., an insurrectionary crowd), in which praxis becomes unified, reciprocal, and oriented toward common ends. Over time, fused groups tend to institutionalize as ‘organized groups’ (parties, armies, bureaucracies), which struggle with internal alienation and the re-emergence of seriality.
- •Rejection of deterministic and teleological Marxism: Sartre criticizes orthodox or dogmatic Marxism for treating history as governed by necessary laws leading inevitably to socialism or communism. He insists that historical materialism must acknowledge contingency, multiplicity of determinations, and the irreducible role of individual and collective freedom. There is no guaranteed revolutionary outcome; class struggle is intelligible but open-ended, and structural determinations never fully cancel praxis.
- •Totalization and the intelligibility of history: Sartre claims that history is a process of ongoing ‘totalization’—the unifying activity through which praxis integrates diverse events, structures, and projects into a meaningful whole. Yet totalization is never completed: it is always in process, revisable, and subject to counter-totalizations. This yields a conception of dialectics as a method for grasping layered, overdetermined social realities without subsuming them under a single final synthesis or fixed teleology.
Over time, Critique of Dialectical Reason has come to be seen as one of the most ambitious attempts in twentieth-century philosophy to rethink Marxism in light of phenomenology and existentialism. It stands as Sartre’s mature social ontology, complementing and in some respects revising the individual-centered analysis of Being and Nothingness. The work has been particularly influential in debates about agency and structure, theories of collective action, and the nature of social groups and institutions. Its concepts of seriality, fused group, and practico-inert have been mined by sociologists, political theorists, and philosophers concerned with mass society, bureaucracy, and revolutionary movements. Although eclipsed for a time by structuralist and post-structuralist critiques, the Critique has experienced renewed attention in late twentieth- and early twenty-first-century scholarship, especially in studies of Western Marxism, critical theory, and existential Marxism. It is now widely regarded as a central document in the development of postwar European philosophy and a key text for understanding the evolution of Sartre’s political thought.
1. Introduction
Jean-Paul Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason is a large-scale philosophical treatise that attempts to rethink Marxism by grounding it in an analysis of human action, social relations, and historical change. Written after Being and Nothingness, it reorients Sartre’s existentialism toward questions of collective praxis, institutions, and class struggle.
The work investigates how history can be intelligible without being governed by fixed laws, and how individual freedom can coexist with powerful social and material constraints. Sartre describes this mode of intelligibility as dialectical reason, arguing that it belongs to human praxis rather than to nature as such.
Within the broader landscape of twentieth‑century thought, the Critique is often situated as a key text of “Western Marxism” and existential Marxism. It engages with, but also distances itself from, both deterministic Marxist orthodoxy and purely subject-centered philosophies. The treatise is divided into two volumes: a relatively complete Volume I on praxis, groups, and institutions, and a posthumously published, fragmentary Volume II on the intelligibility of history.
Scholars generally read the Critique as Sartre’s mature social ontology and his most systematic attempt to articulate a non-dogmatic, open-ended dialectics of history.
2. Historical Context and Intellectual Background
2.1 Postwar Politics and Marxism
The Critique emerged in the late 1950s, shaped by World War II’s aftermath, the Cold War, decolonization struggles, and particularly the Algerian War. Sartre wrote against the background of:
| Political Factor | Relevance for the Critique |
|---|---|
| Stalinism and Soviet model | Prompted Sartre’s rejection of deterministic “scientific” Marxism |
| French Communist Party | Provided a reference point for debates on party, class, and praxis |
| Anti-colonial struggles | Informed his focus on violence, scarcity, and revolutionary groups |
Many commentators see the text as a response to the crisis of orthodox Marxism and to the need for a theory adequate to mass movements and bureaucratic states.
2.2 Intellectual Currents
The work also reacts to contemporaneous philosophical trends:
| Current | Influence / Contrast |
|---|---|
| Phenomenology | Husserl and Heidegger inform Sartre’s focus on lived praxis |
| Hegelian dialectics | Provides a model of historical intelligibility, yet revised by Sartre |
| Structuralism | Anticipated in early form; Sartre distances himself from its anti-subjectivism |
| Humanist Marxism | Figures like Lukács and Gramsci offer precedents for a subject-centered Marxism |
Proponents of “Western Marxism” frequently situate the Critique alongside Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness as a major attempt to think class struggle in non-economistic terms, while structuralist Marxists later criticized its humanist and phenomenological orientation.
3. Author and Composition of the Work
3.1 Sartre’s Trajectory
By the late 1950s, Jean-Paul Sartre was an internationally prominent existentialist philosopher, novelist, and public intellectual. Having analyzed individual consciousness and freedom in Being and Nothingness (1943), he increasingly turned to political engagement—supporting leftist causes, criticizing colonialism, and forging a complex, often tense relationship with the French Communist Party.
Many commentators treat the Critique as the point where Sartre attempts to overcome the individualism of his earlier ontology by elaborating a theory of social being and history.
3.2 Composition and Publication
| Volume | Period of Composition | Publication | Editorial Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | c. 1957–1960 | 1960 | Completed by Sartre, published by Gallimard |
| II | c. 1960s–early 1970s (fragments) | 1985 | Posthumous, edited by Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre |
Volume I, subtitled “Theory of Practical Ensembles”, was written relatively quickly but based on years of political reflection. Volume II, “The Intelligibility of History”, remained unfinished; notebooks and drafts were later organized by Sartre’s adopted daughter, raising questions among scholars about the exact order and completeness of his late project.
The work was explicitly presented by Sartre as a contribution to Marxism and as an effort to renew its conceptual foundations.
4. Structure and Organization of the Critique
4.1 Overall Architecture
The Critique is organized into two volumes with distinct but related aims:
| Volume | Main Focus |
|---|---|
| I | Social ontology of praxis, groups, institutions |
| II | Theory of historical intelligibility and totalization |
Volume I is comparatively systematic, moving from individual action to complex social formations. Volume II is more fragmentary, applying and extending the earlier framework to history at large.
4.2 Volume I: From Praxis to Institutions
Volume I is divided into two major parts:
-
Part One: From Individual Praxis to the Practico-Inert
Develops the ontological and methodological foundations: the notion of praxis under scarcity, the practico‑inert as sedimented social reality, and the basic parameters of dialectical reason. -
Part Two: From Seriality to Groups and Institutions
Traces a sequence of social forms—seriality, fused group, organized group, institution—and analyzes their internal tensions and transformations.
A set of concluding reflections links these analyses to Marxism and the project of an open, non-teleological dialectics.
4.3 Volume II: Intelligibility of History
Volume II does not follow a fully settled plan, but its published form is typically divided into:
-
Part One: The Intelligibility of History
Explores how multiple determinations (economic, political, cultural) coalesce into historical processes. -
Subsequent Sections (Unfinished Materials)
Drafts on classes, bureaucracy, and large-scale social structures attempt to concretize the earlier concepts, without reaching a final synthesis.
5. Central Arguments and Thematic Overview
5.1 Dialectical Reason and Praxis
A central argument holds that dialectical reason is not a law of nature but a mode of intelligibility rooted in human praxis. Proponents of this reading emphasize Sartre’s claim that only in and through practical activities—labor, struggle, institution-building—do historical totalizations become thinkable.
5.2 Scarcity, Practico-Inert, and Constraint
Sartre contends that material scarcity is a basic condition generating conflict and competition. Past human actions solidify into the practico-inert—institutions, tools, infrastructures—which confront agents as quasi-natural constraints. The dialectic arises from the tension between living praxis and this sedimented field.
5.3 Social Forms: From Seriality to Groups
Another major theme is the genesis and transformation of social forms:
- Seriality describes atomized, externally related individuals (e.g., consumers, commuters).
- Under certain pressures, serial individuals may form a fused group, characterized by intense unity and common project (e.g., insurgent crowds).
- Over time, groups stabilize as organized groups and institutions, reintroducing hierarchy and alienation.
5.4 Open-Ended Marxism and History
Throughout, Sartre rejects deterministic or teleological versions of Marxism. He argues that history is a process of totalization without final closure: structured and intelligible, yet contingent and reversible. Interpretations differ on how successfully the Critique reconciles this anti-determinism with strong claims about structural constraint and class struggle.
6. Key Concepts and Technical Vocabulary
The Critique introduces a dense network of terms; the following are especially central.
| Term | Brief Characterization |
|---|---|
| Praxis | Purposeful, projective human activity, always situated in material and social conditions |
| Dialectical reason | Mode of understanding historical processes as unfolding totalizations of praxis |
| Scarcity | Basic condition of limited resources structuring competition and conflict |
| Practico-inert | Sedimented products of past praxis (objects, institutions) constraining current agents |
| Seriality | Social being of atomized, interchangeable individuals linked only by shared situation |
| Fused group | Intensely unified collective formed in moments of common struggle |
| Organized group | Structured, durable group with roles, hierarchy, and norms (e.g., party, army) |
| Institution | Stabilized structure in which practico-inert logics dominate over living praxis |
| Totalization | Ongoing, never-complete unification of heterogeneous elements into a historical whole |
Specialists sometimes debate the exact scope of terms like practico‑inert and totalization, since Sartre uses them both descriptively (for social ontology) and methodologically (for historical understanding). Commentators such as Joseph Catalano and Thomas Flynn offer differing emphases on whether these notions primarily name objective structures or the way agents and historians make sense of them.
7. Famous Passages and Illustrative Examples
7.1 The Bus Queue and Seriality
Sartre’s analysis of a bus queue is among the most cited examples. Individuals waiting for a bus are linked only by their common situation and by the transportation system as a practico-inert structure.
We are united by our separation, each awaiting his own bus in the indifference of the others.
— Paraphrase of Sartre’s analysis in Critique of Dialectical Reason, Vol. I
This scene illustrates seriality: mutual isolation, interchangeability, and an impersonal unifying object (the bus schedule, tickets, money).
7.2 The Storming of the Bastille
In Volume I’s discussion of the fused group, Sartre analyzes the crowd that stormed the Bastille on 14 July 1789. The example shows how dispersed, serial individuals can rapidly form a unified group pursuing a shared goal—overcoming fear and division through reciprocal action.
Commentators note that Sartre uses this case to exemplify both the power and fragility of fused groups, which risk dissolving back into seriality or ossifying into organized structures.
7.3 From Revolutionary Group to Institution
Later chapters follow how revolutionary organizations gradually become organized groups and then institutions, dominated by bureaucracy and the practico-inert. Sartre’s stylized examples of parties, armies, and states illustrate processes of internal hierarchy, delegation, and the return of passivity.
These narratives have been influential because they provide a vivid, quasi-historical dramatization of abstract concepts, making the dynamics of seriality, fusion, and institutionalization more concrete.
8. Philosophical Method and Relation to Marxism
8.1 Regressive–Progressive Method
Sartre explicitly identifies his procedure as a regressive–progressive method. Analysis moves regressively from concrete situations back to the conditions that make them possible (scarcity, structures, prior praxis), and then progressively forward to the historical possibilities opened or closed by those conditions. Commentators frequently compare this with phenomenological “eidetic” methods and with Marx’s movement from concrete to abstract and back.
8.2 Dialectics as Method and Ontology
The Critique treats dialectical reason both as:
- a method for understanding complex, overdetermined social realities, and
- a dimension of reality emerging from the interplay of praxis and practico-inert.
Some interpreters (e.g., Jameson) stress the methodological side, whereas others argue that Sartre posits a real, though non-teleological, historical dialectic.
8.3 Relation to Marxism
Sartre situates Marxism as the “unsurpassable philosophy of our time,” yet seeks to renew it by:
- Rejecting economism and strict determinism
- Reintroducing subjectivity, lived experience, and freedom as central categories
- Emphasizing open-ended class struggle rather than guaranteed historical outcomes
Humanist Marxists have welcomed this as a defense of a “living” Marxism. Structuralist Marxists (notably Althusser and followers) criticize the Critique for residual existentialism and for underplaying the autonomy of structural determinants. The work thus occupies an intermediate position between orthodox Marxism and anti-Marxist currents, aiming at a critical, self-reflexive dialectical materialism.
9. Legacy and Historical Significance
9.1 Immediate Reception and Influence
Upon its 1960 publication, Volume I elicited mixed responses. Anti-Stalinist and humanist Marxists often praised its attempt to revitalize Marxism, while orthodox Communists and emerging structuralists criticized its emphasis on subjectivity and its conceptual complexity. Outside Marxist circles, the Critique was overshadowed by both Being and Nothingness and the rise of structuralism and post-structuralism.
9.2 Long-Term Impact
Over subsequent decades, the work came to be viewed as a major contribution to debates on agency and structure, collective action, and social ontology. Its concepts of seriality, fused group, and practico-inert have been taken up by:
- Sociologists studying mass society and bureaucracy
- Political theorists analyzing crowds, parties, and revolutions
- Philosophers of action examining collective responsibility
Volume II’s 1985 publication primarily affected specialized Sartre scholarship and historical studies of Western Marxism, given its fragmentary character.
9.3 Position in Twentieth-Century Thought
Many historians of philosophy now classify the Critique as a key text of postwar European thought, alongside works by Lukács, Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School. It is frequently cited in discussions of existential Marxism, the crisis of orthodox Marxism, and the transition from phenomenological to structural and post-structural paradigms.
While assessments diverge on its systematic success, there is broad agreement that Sartre’s Critique represents one of the most ambitious attempts to articulate a non-dogmatic, historically grounded dialectical theory in the twentieth century.
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this work entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). critique-of-dialectical-reason. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/works/critique-of-dialectical-reason/
"critique-of-dialectical-reason." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/works/critique-of-dialectical-reason/.
Philopedia. "critique-of-dialectical-reason." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/works/critique-of-dialectical-reason/.
@online{philopedia_critique_of_dialectical_reason,
title = {critique-of-dialectical-reason},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/works/critique-of-dialectical-reason/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}