Culture & Social Affairs

Han Kang’s noble Nobel stance vs Sartre's grandstanding

Unlike Sartre, the acclaimed Korean author didn’t claim any moral high ground. Instead, she conveyed her respect for the world's wounds, qualities reflected in her literature.

Left: A 1948 photograph of French writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Right: Writer Han Kang gives a speech in Gwangju.
AFP
Left: A 1948 photograph of French writer and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Right: Writer Han Kang gives a speech in Gwangju.

Han Kang’s noble Nobel stance vs Sartre's grandstanding

Abdulsalam Bin Abdulali
last update on

The Nobel Prize for Literature is rich with remarkable anecdotes. One of the most notable is the story of Russian writer Boris Pasternak, who in 1958 was compelled to reject the award under immense pressure from Soviet authorities.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, another celebrated Russian writer, has a different tale. Awarded the prize in 1970 while under house arrest, he was unable to travel to accept it. There were suggestions to hold a ceremony at the Swedish Embassy in Moscow as a compromise, but the Academy rejected the proposal. As a result, Solzhenitsyn had to wait four years before receiving his award in a formal ceremony.

Before Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn, George Bernard Shaw made headlines by refusing the prize money in 1926, claiming he "didn’t need it." He later reversed his decision, accepting the money and donating it to fund the translation of Swedish literary works into English.

In 1988, the Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz also did not attend the ceremony, not because he rejected the prize but because he was averse to travel. In fact, he had only left Egypt once in his life. Mahfouz sent his daughters to receive the award on his behalf, with Mohamed Salmawy delivering his acceptance speech.

Perhaps one of the more unconventional laureates was Bob Dylan, who initially avoided all contact with the Nobel committee and delayed formally accepting the prize. Ultimately, he declined to attend the 2016 award ceremony in Stockholm, citing "other commitments." Nevertheless, Dylan expressed pride in receiving the honour.

Quiet refusal

This year, South Korean author Han Kang, the first from her country to win the prize, took a unique stance. She declined to hold any celebrations or press conferences. She cited the tragic global events, including the war in Ukraine and the Israeli aggression in Palestine, as her reason for not celebrating.

According to the Korea Times, Han’s father, Han Seung-Won, explained that his daughter believed the award should serve as a call for greater awareness rather than an occasion for celebration. At a press conference, Han Seung-Won, 85, said that he had planned to hold a celebratory event but his daughter discouraged him: “She told me, ‘Please don’t celebrate while witnessing these tragic events’”, he explained, referring to the two wars.

He conveyed a statement from his daughter, who said: “The Swedish Academy didn’t give me this award for us to rejoice, but to remain more clear-headed.” While Han Kang did not reject the prize itself, she declined the formal ceremony.

Stunning rejection

Her approach evokes memories of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, who famously refused the Nobel Prize in 1964. The world was stunned when the man known as the “leader of intellectuals” publicly declined the Nobel in 1964. Sartre later explained his decision to Le Figaro: "I do not feel that I am being honoured, but rather that the prize is being used to honour the institution I represent or symbolise. A writer must refuse to allow themselves to be transformed into an institution by the practices and values of the established social order."

Despite his swift announcement, Sartre denied that it was "impulsive," emphasising that he had "always refused official honours." He referenced his earlier rejection of France’s most prestigious award, the Legion of Honour in 1945 as a precedent. Sartre even sent a letter to the Swedish Academy, forewarning them of his intent to decline the prize despite knowing that “the jury's decisions are irreversible.”

The letter stated: "According to the information I received today, it seems I may have a chance of being awarded the Nobel Prize this year. While it is presumptuous to predict the outcome of a vote yet to take place, I feel obliged to write to you in advance to avoid any misunderstanding.”

“First of all, Mr. Secretary, I wish to express my deep respect for the Swedish Academy and the prize it awards. It has honoured many writers whom I admire. However, for personal and objective reasons, I ask that my name not be included on the list of possible recipients, as I cannot and do not wish to accept this honour, neither in 1964 nor at any future time."

Han cited the tragic global events, including the war in Ukraine and the Israeli aggression in Palestine, as her reason for not celebrating

In statements to the press and in public comments, Sartre further defended his position, emphasising his refusal to be associated with any institution: "There is a difference between signing 'Jean-Paul Sartre' and signing 'Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Laureate.' A writer must reject being transformed into an institution, even one as honourable as this.

"My personal inclinations certainly lean toward socialism and the so-called Eastern Bloc, but I was born and raised in a bourgeois family... For this reason, I cannot accept honours from the highest cultural bodies, whether from the East or the West, even though I fully understand their existence."

"Despite my socialist inclinations, I could not accept an award like the Lenin Prize, even if it were offered, which it never was... During the Algerian War, when we signed the 121st Manifesto, I would have accepted the prize with gratitude, as it would have honoured not only me but the cause of freedom we were fighting for. But that did not happen, and the award was only offered after the conflict had ended."

The profound impact of Sartre's decision reverberated among intellectuals worldwide, not just in what was then known as the Third World. His stance solidified his image as a leftist intellectual—the very embodiment of the "committed intellectual."

It is true that in 1976, the author of Our Shame in Algeria, who was reported to have previously declined a chair at the Collège de France, accepted an honourary doctorate from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

However, at that time, no one questioned Sartre's position as a leftist intellectual or the embodiment of the concept of the "committed intellectual," nor did anyone—himself included—raise the issue of whether an intellectual should associate their name with an institution.

Existentialist morality is not founded on grand heroic gestures, let alone what might be described as illusions of heroism

The value of refusal

As I reflect on Sartre's stance and many of his other positions – especially in light of the Korean writer's recent rejection of the prize, which reminds us of his own – I find myself reconsidering my perspective.

Did Sartre reject the Nobel Prize, along with its monetary value, purely because of the reasons he articulated in his letter to the Swedish Academy, such as his fear of having his name linked to an institution or "becoming an institution" himself? Or did the quintessential leftist intellectual of the time recognise that the symbolic value of refusal far exceeded the material worth of the award?

It almost seems that the ultimate reward the author of Being and Nothingness sought was the opportunity to refuse such an honour, regardless of its material or symbolic significance.

I ask this question not only because Sartre, also the author of Anti-Semite and Jew, later allowed his name to be associated with an institution that stood for something he himself had long questioned. But also because existentialist morality is not founded on grand heroic gestures, let alone what might be described as illusions of heroism.

When Han Kang explained that she declined to celebrate her Nobel win because the Swedish Academy had not awarded her the prize "to rejoice but to remain more clear-headed," she stayed true to herself. She didn't need to grandstand about institutions. Instead, she conveyed her sincerity, deep concern for the world's suffering, and respect for its wounds—qualities reflected in her literature.

font change

Related topics nobel laureate Nobel Prize Nobel Prize-winning author
Related Articles
Editor's Pick