The Deluded Self

Everything has been figured out, except how to live.
-Jean-Paul Sartre.

Fear makes liars of us all.
-Carmen Maria Machado, In the Dream House.

Introduction

Humans in the modern world have grown to become smarter, with a mindset that constantly adapts to modern technology and new experiences. However, with the passage of time, we have also learned and developed ways of improving social relations and self-image, as the need for public approval and pride has become evident in recent times, such as through the use of Instagram and the rising popularity of content creators. Young people, who are still discovering their "truth", may find it compelling to strive for that endless validation. However, what many fail to realize are the implications this can have on a person's mental condition and morals - not only letting others validate them but also eventually becoming slaves to the pride that fears what the governing eyes of others may see and reveal.

Self-delusion has been, and will always be, an unconscious psychological behavior that people resort to in their daily lives. To delude your true self, creating a lie that allows a person to switch their "image," is more common than you might think, and it isn't necessarily bad. While we are lying to ourselves, it enables us to protect our vulnerable ego and our conscience from the pain of reality, boosting our ability to perform as self-delusion transforms into confidence. Moreover, by convincing ourselves of that lie, it becomes easier to convince others, as it now seems as trustworthy as any other belief.

However, there are cases when self-delusion reveals itself to be self-deception, a lie made with the sole intent of improving social status, stemming from the exaggeration of over-confidence and insecurity. These are cases where self-delusion becomes toxic to one's authenticity, blurring the lines between genuineness and "putting up an act", aiming towards desire and grandeur. We can see instances like these in the news, such as the case of Elizabeth Holmes. Through her strong self-belief in her potential to become a successful entrepreneur, she was able to do so, eventually being declared the youngest self-made billionaire in 2015. However, the public did not realize the fraud she had committed to achieve that status until 2018. The lies about her product went undetected due to her strong persuasion in attracting investors, sourced from being self-delusional. She even continued to exhibit this type of behavior during her trial when trying to justify her products, refusing to admit the lie when evidence pointed otherwise.

Texts

"Dream House as Choose Your Own Adventure" is a chapter in Carmen Maria Machado's memoir In The Dream House. The memoir recounts Machado's abusive relationship with an ex-girlfriend. Over the course of the narrative, Machado meets her girlfriend and finds herself rapidly infatuated, wooed, love-bombed, and then, eventually, the abuse begins. The memoir includes chapters that are iterations of the abusive account in different forms of storytelling. One of these is titled "Dream House as Choose Your Own Adventure," where the story is told from the perspective of the main character, Machado, with the reader determining the choices taken in the Dream House, thus affecting the "outcome" of the story. However, as with any toxic relationship, it proves to be a fruitless endeavor as the abuse repeats itself day after day. The reader either ends up restarting the day or meets an ending accompanied by harsh commentary from Machado herself about the course of actions taken.

The analysis of "Dream House as Choose Your Own Adventure" is based on an audio version of the story dramatized by Zoë Winters on the podcast This American Life episode 703: Stuck! during Act Two: You Can’t Go Your Own Way.

No Exit is a 1944 French play written by Jean-Paul Sartre, originally titled Huis Clos. It is an existentialist drama centered around three damned souls sent to a “hellish space”, condemned to be stuck together for the rest of eternity. They are Garcin, a revolutionary who betrayed his own cause and wants to be reassured that he is not a coward; Estelle, an egomaniac who killed her illegitimate child and craves the objectivity of attention; and Inez, a sadistic lesbian that takes joy in torturing others. Each of the characters requires another person for self-definition and their means of salvation, yet each is most attracted to the person most likely to refuse and torment them. Their inability to escape from each other guarantees their eternal torture, thus having “no exit” from their never-ending need for self-definition and rejection of the past.

The analysis of No Exit is based on the transcript of the play provided by the Internet Archive (https://ia800700.us.archive.org/11/items/NoExit/NoExit.pdf) and the 1964 cinematic BBC adaptation of the play.

Analysis

Key Terms

Before diving deep into analyzing both texts, there are a few terms that need to be emphasized and further analyzed to fully understand the stories:

Dream House

The Dream House, from my perspective, can be two things. One is a safe haven, the embodiment of our own secure, personal space from everything else - basically "the comfort of our own home". On the other hand, it can be a prison of our own making that becomes more torturous the longer we stay holed up in there. During the pandemic, for instance, when people were forced to stay at home for quite a while, they started out strong and happy to stay in the comfort of their homes. However, people became increasingly tired of always being at home and were actually relieved to finally be free after the pandemic ended.

Of course, a Dream House could mean someplace not real or intangible. Or, it could also mean a literal "dream house", a home where you would dream of having all your favorite things and making happy memories. But after listening to the transcript, I would say that she's metaphorizing this Dream House as a construct in her mind, conjuring the abuse that polluted the memory of the Dream House. Looking back and questioning the what-ifs while now being able to see it from the bigger picture of how her Dream House slowly shifted from a warm place to cold torture. It's ironic that she calls it a Dream House, as it now lingers as a hellhole. She could never claim it as her dream home, as it did not provide the love and security she needed.

The Fawn

The narrator compares, or rather contrasts herself to a fawn, reminding herself of the position she's in in the Dream House after trying to defy the actual course of actions. As we know it, a fawn is a vulnerable and fragile creature, a young deer that usually shies away from people and other foreign beings it might encounter. It understands its capability and weakness, so it's extremely cautious of any potential predators it might detect and puts an effort into trying to protect itself, usually by fleeing from danger. Machado depicted in the story, however, while being fragile and vulnerable, still decided to stay in the toxic relationship, justifying it as something that can be fixed even though signs that she was hurting were clearly visible. The narrator describes the fawn to help Machado realize this, but somehow, it is shown to be as if mocking her past self for being foolish.

The Box, The Clothes, The Dishes

She started off by describing the setting when she awakened, stating that despite how messy it was, she felt that warmth of innocence and glow of contentment in the room, up until she realized the existence of her partner there. Thus, voiding the light and warmth that was once in the room and leaving it with the disheveled mess it was originally. It clearly shows how messy their relationship was, with the Dream House being left in a mess and how there were no signs of ever cleaning it up, with the only time she does not acknowledge the presence of her partner being when the gloomy mess "disappears". This could be referencing her time during the relationship, how the only time she could enjoy her Dream House was when her partner wasn't in the picture, when she could be happy and forget the mess they made. Her partner only became a parasite to the Dream House, bringing harm and disorder into the relationship.

Mirrors

Mirrors are usually used to see yourself physically or meant as a window to see one's soul introspectively. Sometimes they're even used as a tool to reaffirm your own existence and essence, to fix and confirm your appearance on how others view you. Mirrors reveal a person's truth, which is their appearance, but ironically they are sometimes referenced as needed by characters to reflect what they "want" to see or hope for their lie to be the truth. They can be a symbol of pride in self-image and arrogance. And of course, most of the time it does not go accordingly. Say, for instance, think of how the Evil Queen in Snow White asked the mirror "Who's the fairest of them all?" with confidence that she herself is, but instead it shows the image of Snow White being the fairest. Then she goes on to mess with Snow White, which we all know did not end well for the Queen.

A mirror reflects our gaze back at ourselves, giving us reassurance of our existence and our "true" definition, as it is an object that shows the undeniable truth, or at least, the truth that we want to see. Now, what happens if we were to be deprived of mirrors or any tool to reflect on ourselves? Then it would narrow down our options to relying on other people's gazes to affirm our true selves. It would be fine if it were an accumulation of many different people's views, but how about limiting it to two? Now that would simplify the affirmation of your "definition" to something cruder and more untrustworthy. Almost like if you see a paper uses a lot of sources, then you can say it is reliable. But if it just uses two, then its credibility becomes questionable.

Freedom

The definition of freedom in the text is a bit twisted. For one, they all tried to live in freedom, free from the obligations of their crimes, free from the guilt of their past, and free from the consequences of existence. They were even provided freedom in Hell when the door to their room suddenly opened after Garcin's whines for escape. However, there is a difference between true freedom and the freedom we are comfortable with. The freedom we know of means to be free from obstacles that restrict our actions, to have the power to do, speak, and act the way we want, at least under the rules of law and order determined by a higher power, or essentially by others. True freedom, however, is a more reckless nature, where you are granted total liberty. To live life with no rules to define consequences, no one to dictate our actions, and no one to judge us except for us. But in return, we ourselves must become the regulator for our actions. Our whole life is our own, and the responsibility and obligation for our actions fall solely on us, with no one else to carry that burden, for with true freedom comes independence.

Huis Clos

As being the original, untranslated title of the play, Huis Clos roughly translates to "with closed doors", or "behind closed doors." This could be referencing literally to the overall setting of the story, as their torture is never-ending and their arguing is to be "behind the closed doors" of Hell for eternity, as their room was designed to be "life without a break" from the use of specific bad décor to the lack of use for the items in the room. Or, it could be the closed-off mindset of each character, the secrets and true nature they withheld throughout life. As we know each character (except for Inez) has an issue with their past, they succumb to this constant need for approval just to uphold the "closed doors" that separate their past from their delusions of self. The closed doors could also mean the separation between their self and reality, as they all fear the suffocating reality of freedom and the consequences of true independence when they were given the chance to escape. The closed doors are their only way to maintain their integrity and chance for salvation, nevertheless, it eventually proves to be their punishment. Which side of their reality really is behind closed doors, the choice of true freedom or their choice of eternal confinement?

The definition of freedom in the text is a bit twisted. For one, they all tried to live in freedom, free from the obligations of their crimes, free from the guilt of their past, and free from the consequences of existence. They were even provided freedom in Hell when the door to their room suddenly opened after Garcin’s whines for escape. However, there is a difference between true freedom and the freedom we are comfortable with. The freedom we know of means to be free from obstacles that restrict our actions, to have the power to do, speak, and act the way we want, at least under the rules of law and order determined by a higher power, or essentially by others. True freedom, however, is a more reckless nature, where you are granted total liberty. To live life with no rules to define consequences, no one to dictate our actions, and no one to judge us except for us. But in return, we ourselves must become the regulator for our actions. Our whole life is our own, and the responsibility and obligation for our actions fall solely on us, with no one else to carry that burden, for with true freedom comes independence. And that is what the characters of “No Exit” want but can never get because of what they would have to sacrifice to obtain that. They would need to leave behind their attachment for validation and acknowledge their past to be able to achieve their desires without consequence. Basically, they would need to get rid of their need for others to dictate their existence and stop trying to reject their past, something that they are evidently not willing to let go of anytime soon as they decide to stay stuck in the room together to continue fighting for each other’s validation.

Discussion

Machado Between the “I’s” and “You’s”

Machado begins the chapter by employing the second-person perspective "you," immediately establishing a distance between herself and the recounted experiences. This narrative choice also confers upon the reader a sense of control over "you"—Machado's younger self—which proves crucial to the chapter's choose-your-own-adventure format. As the narrative unfolds, readers explore the many possible actions available to the "you" character and witness the ensuing abuse from their partner, interspersed with occasional monologues. One such instance occurs on page 191 during an intimate scene that digresses momentarily, as if these scenarios were deeply ingrained in Machado's memory. This cycle persists, only to reset and reiterate the same choices anew.

However, when the cycle is disrupted—specifically, when the reader selects a previously unavailable option—the true puppeteer of the story reveals themselves. Page 186 unveils the narrator's inner dialogue, critiquing the "you" of the Dream House. This dissonance manifests between the present "I," introspectively observing the perpetual suffering of the past "you" still ensnared in the Dream House. Here, "I" represents the narrator and Machado's present self, while "you" embodies the naïve younger Machado, inhabiting her memory of the Dream House. It is this same "you" upon whom the reader attempts to project their autonomy, particularly when choosing to defy the partner—an action promptly rebuked by the present Machado as something she would "never do."

Further instances of this defiance emerge on pages 190 and 186, where an argument erupts as "you" attempts to deviate from the established cycle of pages. Nevertheless, the narrator reminds the reader—and by extension, "you"—of the immutability of these memories. In reality, their choices bear no significance in a narrative that persists as a lingering regret of Machado's foolish youth, asserting that "[they] can't make it not happen, no matter what [they] do." The prospect of escape serves merely as a red herring in this narrative.

As a construct of Machado's imagination, "you" is consistently portrayed as a distinct entity bound to the events of the Dream House, subject to criticism and emblematic of regrets from which the present Machado continually dissociates. Despite being merely a different iteration of herself, Machado rejects this past self, portraying her present self throughout the chapter as a superior entity to the Machado in the Dream House. This approach isolates the pain, confining it to her depiction of a younger self and never acknowledging her own identity as that once-foolish girl.

Prison of Her Own Making

Throughout the narrative, it becomes evident that Machado imprisons herself in guilt, in the trauma that breathes life into the Dream House. The localization of the abuse within the house is significant, as it delineates the boundaries of these memories and associated feelings, confining them to Machado and her partner. This domestic setting acts as a barrier between one's "outside life" and "personal life," preventing external interference with these memories and decisions. It also constrains her freedom of choice, contradicting the choose-your-own-adventure concept. Essentially, there is no genuine "choosing" in this story; Machado is limited to decisions provided by the house. This limitation is reflected in the endless game where leaving the house was never an option, only occurring when the author fabricated it, "pretending" that's what transpired during that period. The events of the Dream House are immutable, having transpired yet persisting in memory.

From the outset, we observe the real Machado as a domineering presence; because she knows the story's outcome, she puts down her younger self for her naivety. Her self-delusion has transformed her into both warden and inmate. Rather than embodying the once-foolish girl who endured abuse, she has assumed the mantle of abuse, even at the cost of her current mental well-being post-relationship. As the most vulnerable version of herself attempts to navigate towards resolution from the abusive relationship, the reader, Machado, and the lingering memories of her partner collectively constrain her, distorting the narrative and her choices. Whatever the young Machado constructs is destined to crumble under the inexorable influence and choices of others.

Delusion of Bad Faith

In a parallel vein, No Exit grapples with the characters' delusions of dissociating from their authentic selves and rejecting their past, particularly in the cases of Garcin and Estelle. Having led lives driven by selfish desires, these characters share a common fate: collective torture and isolation in a hellish realm. As the play progresses, the true nature of their "hell" becomes apparent. Both Garcin and Estelle exemplify victims of bad faith, relying on others' perceptions to validate their existence and deceiving themselves about the gravity of their committed responsibilities. They seek external justification for their misdeeds as a means of dissociating from their past transgressions.

The play gradually unveils this dynamic, beginning with Garcin's incessant inquiries about his colleagues' opinions in the real world, seeking confirmation of whether they perceived him as the coward he feared himself to be. His persistent need to justify his past cowardice evolves into a desperate defense of his "pacifist" life as an act of bravery. However, Inez alone recognizes his true nature, leaving him trapped in an endless cycle of seeking approval.

Estelle presents an even more severe case than Garcin, desiring to exist solely liberated from the obligations of subjecthood. She employs bad faith to relinquish her freedom, aspiring to become an object in others' eyes. Initially seeking a mirror to validate her existence as the object she wishes others to perceive, she eventually craves constant gaze and sexual attraction to affirm this objectification. Garcin becomes the focal point of this desire; he is the only man she "wants" so she may confirm her existence as an object of love. This blind pursuit of objectification and evasion of true freedom's obligations gradually reveals her delusional nature and the sins committed to maintain her previous life of leisure. Her actions extend to the murder of her illegitimate child, simply because she didn't want them. Her heartlessness is further evidenced by her indifference to the subsequent suicide of the child's father, dismissively stating that he "killed himself on [her] account." Consistently, she exhibits a lack of concern for her past actions, dissociating from them as if they held no significance and justifying them as means to her own ends.

Inez's Consequence of Authenticity

Inez's case stands in stark contrast to her companions. Despite her sadistic lifestyle, she accepts her hellish situation, acknowledging her misdeeds and stating that she's "always conscious of [herself] – in [her] mind. Painfully conscious." This self-awareness diverges from Garcin and Estelle's struggle to evade the reality of their crimes. Paradoxically, Inez emerges as the sole truly "authentic" individual in this scenario yet remains damned as a person tormented by her past existence. She requires others to fuel her reason for deserving damnation, a consequence of embracing her past nature. The question arises: how can one acknowledge being a sadist without someone to torture? This dynamic manifests in Inez's pursuit of Estelle's "love," which in reality is a desire to manipulate and torment her. A poignant illustration of this occurs when Estelle asks Inez to be her mirror, only for Inez to fabricate lies that distort Estelle's image and exploit her bad faith.

Ultimately, all characters engage in an endless competition for their own definition of authenticity, grappling for peace of mind, and preoccupied with rejecting the consequences of their freedom, even when presented with the opportunity to escape. Garcin and Estelle have become enslaved by desire, condemned never to attain closure regarding the past crimes from which they attempt to dissociate, with Inez serving as an anchor for their bad faith. This perpetuates the cycle, binding them to eternal isolation. Escape remains elusive.

A Cycle of Constant Rejection and Dissociation

The act of dissociating from one's past has propelled each character into a spiral of recurring torment, each trapped in a cycle of evading responsibility for their mistakes and trauma. Machado, though liberated from the abusive relationship, remains ensnared by its lingering trauma, clinging to the memory of the Dream House she now fears to revisit. This creates a chasm between her naïve younger self, compelled to relive the events of the Dream House, and her present self, who ceaselessly criticizes every misstep. She refuses to acknowledge her former naivety, as evidenced by her alternating use of "I's" and "you's" and her harsh self-commentary.

Similarly, the characters in No Exit dissociate from their past transgressions, rationalizing them as necessary or, more accurately, as pursuits of selfish desires. This rejection of life's obligations and consequences has led them to Hell, condemned to an eternal struggle to fulfill their desires, shackled by the very things they once primarily coveted in life.

Moreover, both narratives illustrate how each character resorts to deception as a means of self-delusion, spiraling deeper into painful lies and desperation, rendering the truth increasingly unpalatable. Machado attempts to deceive herself and revise the actions taken during her past relationship, while Garcin and Estelle endeavor to deceive their way towards a semblance of peace of mind.

Discussion questions

To analyze the concept of self-delusion in these texts thus far, here are a few questions to reflect upon:

Who do you think is Machado’s past self trying to deceive?
In what role does the reader play in Machado’s story? As the embodiment of her self-delusions, a passive bystander, or as the narrator that forces the torment of choice on her past self? Or, is there any other role not listed that you might agree with?
Why do you think Machado hasn’t given up on the nightmare? Is it guilt, is it self-justification, is it a responsibility?

Why is Inez the only one who hadn’t succumbed to self-delusion and is always self-aware? Why does she ultimately “win” in this ordeal?
Compared to the other two, Estelle died in a natural matter of pneumonia, while Garcin and Inez died in certain situations due to rejecting the consequences of reality. What made Estelle’s self-delusion and rejection of the past different than the other two?
Was Garcin’s punishment for cowardice deserving, or is his reason of self-delusion justifiable? Try being in his position and explain why.

Imagine a story element

Here’s an interesting group activity – together, try to pick out a few key words or element from each of the stories. Then, using an AI image generator, conjure up each your own depictions of these key elements, and present these images together. Have each group member discuss what prompt they used in the AI search description for their own images and discuss which image from the group closely resembles to their combined depiction of the key element.

Example Prompt: Joseph Garcin as a tall, mid-30’s, in a suit and tie, balding, with mustache, realistic art.

Create your own interactive adventure

Interested in Machado's storytelling concept of utilizing a choose-your-own-adventure format? Luckily, there is a free, online service in creating those type of stories! Inklewriter will enable you to write complex stories, branching decision-making, and overall an in-depth story of your own making, which you can even share to others to experience for themselves!

Here's an example of my own short interactive story using Inklewriter.

Further learning

On the behavior of self-delusion

David Robson, "How self-deception allows people to lie." BBC. This article explores self-deception, highlighting how individuals like Elizabeth Holmes and Anna Sorokin convinced themselves of their lies. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220525-how-self-deception-allows-people-to-lie

Angela Chen, “A Psychologist Explains Why We’re Probably All Delusional and How to Fix It.” The Verge, 21 May 2017. The article discusses psychologist Tasha Eurich’s book Insight, which explores self-awareness. Eurich argues that most people lack true self-awareness, leading to poor decisions and unhappiness. She suggests practical methods to improve self-awareness, such as asking “what” questions instead of “why” and seeking feedback from friends.www.theverge.com/2017/5/21/15660894/insight-self-awareness-psychology-tasha-eurich-interview.

Courtney Warren, "Honest liars -- the psychology of self-deception." This TED talk explores the tpsychology of self-deception. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpEeSa6zBTE