The We-subject experience is psychological, not ontological, and never truly unifies for-itselfs.

Evidence

This experience is of the psychological order and not ontological. It in no way corresponds to a real unification of the for-itselfs under consideration. Neither does it stem from an immediate experience of their transcendence as such (as in being-looked-at), but it is motivated rather by the double objectivizing apprehension of the object transcended in common and of the bodies which surround mine. In particular the fact that I am engaged with others in a common rhythm which I contribute to creating is especially likely to lead me to apprehend myself as engaged in a We-subject. This is the meaning of the cadenced march of soldiers; it is the meaning also of the rhythmic work of a crew. It must be noted, however, that in this case the rhythm emanates freely from me; it is a project which I realize by means of my transcendence; it synthesizes a future with a present and a past within a perspective of regular repetition; it is I who produce this rhythm. But at the same time it melts into the general rhythm of the work or of the march of the concrete community which surrounds me. It gets its meaning only through this general rhythm; this is what I experience, for example, when the rhythm which I adopt is contre-temps. Yet the enveloping of my rhythm by the rhythm of the Other is apprehended “laterally.” I do not utilize the collective rhythm as an instrument; neither do I contemplate it—in the sense in which for example, I might contemplate dancers on a stage. It surrounds me and involves me without being an object for me. I do not transcend it toward my own possibilities; but I slip my transcendence into its transcendence, and my own end—to accomplish a particular work, to arrive at a particular place—is an end of the “They” which is not distinct from the peculiar end of the collectivity. Thus the rhythm which I cause to be born is born in connection with me and laterally as the collective rhythm; it is my rhythm to the extent that it is their rhythm and conversely. There precisely is the motive for the experience of the We-subject; it is finally our rhythm. — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1034

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the We-subject as a psychological rather than ontological experience — a key distinction for the foundational framework.
• XREF: Connects to the rhythm-of-work theme in A Midwife’s Tale chapters on communal labor and to Heidegger’s das Man as the anonymous ‘They’. — connects to: The We-subject experience is a subjective psychological event, not an ontological relation — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1035; The ‘we’ is a contingent individual experience, not an ontological structure or collective consciousness.; The We-subject experience is unstable and carries no metaphysical weight — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1041

Broader Connections

• The We-subject experience is a subjective psychological event, not an ontological relation #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1035
• The ‘we’ is a contingent individual experience, not an ontological structure or collective consciousness. #corroborates (0.90)
• The We-subject experience is unstable and carries no metaphysical weight #corroborates (0.90) — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 1041