The Divergence of Existentialism and Absurdism: Characterizing Responses to Collective Othering

The Divergence of Existentialism and Absurdism: Characterizing Responses to Collective Othering By Yoonchan Woo

Abstract

This paper examines the philosophical divergence between Albert Camus’s absurdism and Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism through the lens of collective othering, analyzing how the protagonists in The Stranger and The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum respond to unjust social stigmatization. While both Meursault and Katharina Blum reject the false identities imposed by society, their modes of resistance diverge significantly. Meursault responds to judicial and moral framing with radical indifference and silence, embodying absurdist "rebellion" by maintaining absolute intellectual honesty in a meaningless universe. Conversely, Katharina Blum actively counters predatory tabloid press and institutional violence through meticulous factual corrections and targeted homicide, representing existential "projection" and "engagement" by subjectively defining her existence and bearing its ethical responsibilities. Ultimately, this comparative analysis demonstrates that while absurdism emphasizes internal revolt and the preservation of personal truth within an absurd reality, existentialism demands active meaning-creation and direct social intervention. These contrasting literary models offer profound existential insights for modern individuals navigating the threats of ubiquitous misinformation and systemic othering.

Introduction

In contemporary society, where digital technology has advanced significantly, othering through media—such as framing and witch-hunting—has become highly conspicuous. Media reports that incite the public by framing specific celebrities, as well as individuals who selectively understand only what they wish to see and hear, are easily encountered in our daily surroundings. This social othering of specific individuals or groups stems from an attitude that fails to respect them as unique human beings, instead reducing them to mere objects of consumption. As technology evolves, the media environment improves, and the speed of information accelerates, this social trend is further catalyzed. Because a greater volume of information circulates at a much faster pace than before, people treat each piece of news with increasing levity, perceiving it merely as a form of consumption. Consequently, rather than deeply contemplating or verifying the facts behind groundless slander and framing, many individuals succumb to confirmation bias and cherry-picking, synthesizing information strictly to suit their personal preferences.

Inspired by these chronic pathologies of modern society, this paper explores the topic: "The Point of Divergence Between Existentialism and Absurdism as Identified Through an Analysis of How Meursault in The Stranger and Katharina Blum in The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum Respond to 'Othering.'" Both The Stranger and The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum share an identical crisis wherein the protagonists are unjustly stigmatized due to collective othering. However, the ways in which these two characters respond diverge starkly—ranging from complete indifference to intense worldly engagement. This contrasting reaction provides an appropriate literary case study to contrast the practical differences between absurdism and existentialism.

In accordance with the aforementioned research topic, the research question of this paper is as follows: "Can the difference in the ways Meursault and Katharina Blum respond to 'othering' illustrate the divergence between existentialism and absurdism?"

Definition of Othering

As a philosophical term, "othering" is defined as an epistemological and social act whereby a subject places themselves or their ingroup at the center and marginalizes external objects by defining them as disparate, inferior entities distinct from themselves. The core logical structure of othering relies on an "us versus them" dichotomy, fixing the negative traits attributed to a specific group as an absolute truth of the target individual (Staszak). Several frequently occurring examples in modern society include framing, witch-hunting, and so-called "coordinated cyber-targeting." Framing is an epistemological mechanism that, when interpreting a specific event or individual, confines the subject within a particular template and induces the public to think and judge solely within those boundaries by highlighting only specific aspects advantageous for logical justification, without considering the essence of the situation or its multifaceted contexts. Witch-hunting and cyber-targeting are actions aimed at defining a specific target as an entity existing outside social moral norms and expelling them based on such frames (Staszak).

Absurdism

Absurdism is a philosophy pioneered by Albert Camus, a French author and philosopher active in the mid-1900s. Although widely viewed as aligned with existentialism, it actually exhibits profound differences in various respects. The core tenet of absurdism is as follows: "Human beings constantly crave meaning and value in life, but the world is inherently meaningless and remains silent to human demands." Therefore, the "Absurd" of which Camus speaks ultimately refers to the contradictory state where human reason, seeking clear meaning, collides with a silent universe. Camus advises against conforming by trying to find non-existent meaning and value, arguing that human beings can maintain a modicum of dignity only through "rebellion" (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus).

"Rebellion" is a life attitude that confronts the absurd reality head-on without evading or escaping it; it manifests as an intense awareness of reality, the exercise of existential freedom, and a passionate fervor for the present life. Camus defines a rebellious person as a "man who says no," refusing to submit to unjust demands or conditions. This refusal is not mere resignation or destruction; rather, it is a state of maintaining "intellectual honesty," wherein the moment a boundary is drawn, the rebel declares "yes" to the rights and human values they seek to protect. This honesty can only be preserved through an attitude that fully acknowledges reality as it is, without evading the world's absurdity or relying on alternative ideologies (Camus, The Rebel). Regarding rebellion, Camus rejected two erroneous attitudes: "physical suicide" and "philosophical suicide." Physical suicide is an attempt not to solve the problem but merely to eliminate it, while philosophical suicide entails maintaining physical life but masking the absurdity of reality by relying on absolute values such as God or ideology. This represents a passive stance that diminishes dignity, as it stems from an inability to endure irrationality and a desire to receive life's meaning from the outside. For Camus, the value of human life is not a "given value" that arises by chance; rather, it emerges from the very act of maintaining intellectual honesty by facing the meaningless and rebelling against it (created value) (Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus; Camus, The Rebel).

Existentialism

Existentialism is a philosophical movement popularized by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the mid-20th century, the same period when absurdism was first conceived. It is frequently conflated with Camus’s absurdism, yet several striking differences exist (Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism).

The proposition that most succinctly encapsulates the spirit of existentialism is Sartre’s dictum, "existence precedes essence." Here, "essence" signifies the function of an object, human identity, value, or the ultimate purpose of life, whereas "existence" refers to the raw state of a human being being cast into this world first, devoid of any prior purpose or value definition. In other words, Sartre and other existentialists argue that human beings are simply born into this world without any inherent purpose or identity, and for this reason, "man is condemned to be free." Existentialism posits that no absolute values, meanings, or purposes are provided to us by the world. However, this does not imply that life is meaningless; rather, it means that human beings must create meaning through their own choices and actions (Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism). In this light, existentialism asserts that human beings must confront reality and forge meaning—that is, their own "essence"—through "projection" (projet). "Projection" is defined as an autonomous act in which human beings do not settle within pre-established essences or limitations but cast themselves toward future possibilities based on free will. It can be described as a term symbolizing the uniquely human way of living by designing and constructing one's own future. Projection carries the weight of responsibility for exercising free will, because freedom is not an unrestricted right but a condition predicated on responsibility. Therefore, in existentialism, human beings are not merely entities that perceive a given reality, but beings who define themselves through their choices.

Sartre defines the act of participating in society through this projection as "engagement." While projection operates on a personal and ontological dimension (e.g., "What kind of person will I become?"), engagement concerns how one actually acts within the world. In existentialism, engagement does not signify simple social participation. It is the act of practicing one's freedom and values in reality, representing the manner in which human beings live as responsible subjects in relation to the world. Hence, engagement can be viewed as the concrete manifestation of projection through specific actions in the external world (Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism).

Theoretical Divergence between Absurdism and Existentialism

Absurdism and existentialism share a philosophical foundation in that both negate absolute values, reject established essences imposed from the outside, and emphasize individual subjective freedom. However, rather than focusing on their similarities, this study analyzes their philosophical divergence by focusing on the differences in the characters' modes of response and ultimate aims within the specific context of collective othering. Existentialism posits that human beings must not merely endure the meaninglessness of the world but must actively create their own essence and meaning of life through choice and action. This distinguishes it from absurdism, which emphasizes an attitude of rebelling within the absence of meaning while fully acknowledging it until the very end. That is, if the core of absurdism is "rebellion" against the absurd, the core of existentialism lies in the "creation of meaning" through free choice. While absurdist rebellion largely manifests as a "rejection of false narratives," existentialist projection and engagement materialize when one transcends simple refusal to actively forge meaning and identity through free will and concrete action. In short, absurdism focuses on the individual consciousness confronting the world and the absurd, whereas existentialism concentrates on how that individual subjectively constructs meaning. These theoretical differences between the two thoughts will be clearly illuminated through the subsequent textual analyses.

Manifestations of Othering in The Stranger

This paragraph discusses the manifestations of collective othering in The Stranger and analyzes Meursault’s response from a philosophical perspective.

In The Stranger, collective othering occurs because the court attempts to put Meursault's character on trial rather than the act of murder itself. While superficially appearing to dispense appropriate punishment for his homicide, an analysis of the prosecutor’s speech and presentation of evidence reveals that the prosecution actually constructs a narrative about what kind of person Meursault is to induce a specific verdict from the jury.

The prosecutor traps Meursault within the frame of “a monster" and selectively gathers circumstantial evidence to support this claim (Camus, The Stranger) One such piece of evidence is Meursault's behavior during and after his mother's funeral. Meursault's private daily routine and sensory experiences—such as his mother's funeral and going swimming with Marie the following day—bear no causal relationship to the murder itself. Nonetheless, the judicial apparatus ingeniously links these fragmented behaviors to narrativize him as a "heartless man devoid of morality." This demonstrates a typical epistemological mechanism of othering, where power arbitrarily measures an individual's essence. This narrative is subsequently used as the basis for the prosecutor to stigmatize Meursault in the courtroom.

Furthermore, Meursault's conduct during the weekend immediately following the funeral serves as a stronger basis for the prosecutor to convince the jury. The day after the funeral, Meursault enjoys swimming and sunbathing with his former coworker, Marie Cardona, and finds amusement in watching a comedy film. The next day, upon returning home from work, Meursault encounters his neighbor, Raymond, and dines in his room. On this occasion, he assists Raymond in ghostwriting a letter intended to exact revenge and inflict shame on Raymond's mistress. This depiction multi-dimensionally highlights Meursault's disposition as someone who lacks conventional morality and remains radically indifferent to others and the world.

As a result, Meursault’s character, which deviates from social standards and universal morality, becomes the core evidence in the trial addressing his homicide. Despite the fact that these actions have no direct relevance to the murder, the prosecutor presents them as critical proof. This reveals that the court is not judging the factual circumstances of the case, but rather defining and compartmentalizing Meursault as a human being. While it is true that Meursault shot and killed an Arab and must face appropriate punishment, a closer inspection reveals that the prosecutor merely defines Meursault as "a man whose expulsion from society is entirely justified."

...pointing his finger at me and speaking slowly and distinctly: 'Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother's death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy,for laughs. I have nothing further to say.' (Camus, The Stranger)

In conclusion, the jury is persuaded by the prosecutor’s argument that Meursault is "a heartless monster who did not even grieve before his mother’s corpse, and is thus capable of premeditated murder," resulting in a guilty verdict for "premeditated homicide” (Camus, The Stranger). The prosecutor effectively othered Meursault by imposing the frame of “a monster." To establish this frame, he interpreted Meursault's actions strictly within a specific context advantageous to his desired verdict, an act that can be characterized as confirmation bias.

Responses to Othering

Ultimately, throughout the interrogation process and within the courtroom, what is continuously demanded of Meursault is an answer to "why he killed the Arab" (Camus, The Stranger) However, as noted above, Meursault killed the Arab simply because "the sun was too bright." Incapable of enduring this gap, the prosecutor and the jury sentence him to death based on a fabricated, false narrative. In response, Meursault consistently adheres to "refusal," completely in line with his characteristically indifferent and contemplative attitude. He never acquiesces to the false narrative concocted by the prosecutor, nor does he actively refute it. Even when the prosecutor defines him as a "cold-blooded criminal who committed a premeditated crime," he responds merely with silence. While an ordinary defendant would claim innocence or actively counter the charges, Meursault makes no effort to explain why he acted the way he did during the trial, replying only that it was "because of the sun" (Camus, The Stranger). Meursault simply observes the entire process of the trial with amusement.

This is explicitly revealed in the following description: "Even in the prisoner's dock it’s always interesting to hear people talk about you" (Camus, The Stranger). This attitude recurs throughout the trial. Even when his court-appointed attorney asks "if he could say that that day I held back my natural feelings," Meursault simply replies, "No, because it’s not true" (Camus, The Stranger). Instead of performing false emotions to save his life or reduce his sentence, Meursault maintains an attitude faithful to his actual feelings until the very end. In conclusion, the court expects Meursault to exhibit regret and contrition for the murder, but he refuses to express emotions he does not truly feel. He does not conceal the fact that he did not grieve at his mother’s funeral, nor that he felt no particular guilt after killing the Arab. This is far from a strategic choice aimed at reducing his sentence. Rather, instead of conforming to the conventional emotional norms demanded by society, Meursault chooses to preserve the facts as they are and maintain his authentic state. Ultimately, Meursault’s response cannot be classified as an active refutation or justification, but rather as an attitude of refusal to accept the meaning and emotions demanded by the court.

An Absurdist Interpretation

The Stranger is a novel written by Camus specifically to explore absurdism and rebellion, and this study seeks to interpret Meursault's mode of response within the context of absurdist rebellion.

First, Meursault's indifferent attitude, displayed throughout the novel, demonstrates his refusal to interpret the world according to social conventions or moral values. Rather than assigning special meaning to events, he focuses on the raw sensations and facts he actually experiences. This explains why he refuses to cooperate with the court's narrative of premeditated murder and why he shows no regret or contrition. Viewed through an absurdist lens, Meursault can be evaluated as a character who embodies what Camus termed "rebellion." The moment Meursault conceded to such a false narrative, he would have surrendered his "intellectual honesty." Doing so would mean aligning with the court's fabrications, which arise from an inability to accept the world's meaninglessness merely to preserve his own life, and relying on artificial meaning instead of acknowledging the void. This attitude of Meursault cannot be easily interpreted as mere resignation or apathy.

While it is true that Meursault is indifferent to the world, he does not deny his situation or seek transcendent meaning even after receiving the death sentence. Instead, he accepts the fact that death comes to all human beings without exception. This represents the realization of the Absurd described by Camus. Meursault does not evade or deny the reality that everyone ultimately faces the same destiny in the face of death. He recognizes that his death is not uniquely unjust, but rather a fate that all humans will eventually encounter, and he paradoxically finds tranquility within that realization. In essence, he relinquishes any expectation that the universe will provide him with special meaning or justice.

This orientation of Meursault is vividly illuminated in the latter half of the book, during his conflict with the chaplain who visits him. The chaplain offers religious consolation and continuously urges Meursault to repent. Meursault initially responds with characteristic indifference and a highly sterile demeanor. However, when the chaplain asserts, "I am on your side. But you have no way of knowing it, because your heart is blind. I shall pray for you," Meursault ultimately erupts in profound fury, grabbing "him by the collar of his cassock" and shouting at him (Camus, The Stranger). Although no further physical violence occurs, Meursault's rage, which spans nearly two pages, signifies his potent will to rebel.

Here, Meursault’s act of rejecting the chaplain is not a simple anti-religious sentiment, but an expression of absurdist rebellion aimed at acknowledging the meaninglessness of the world until the end. He refuses to accept a fictitious meaning simply to obtain solace against death, choosing instead to remain faithful to his own experience and reality until the very end. What is particularly noteworthy is that Meursault does not reject the chaplain's proposal merely out of a dislike for religion. The chaplain offers the possibility of salvation after death through repentance and faith, which is an invitation to understand his current life and death within a larger framework of meaning. However, Meursault considers the transcendent values spoken of by the chaplain to hold no significance for his actual life. Therefore, the chaplain's words are not an enlightenment that reveals the truth to Meursault, but merely a system of meaning constructed to overcome the terror of death. Consequently, Meursault can be seen as an individual who actively rejects "philosophical suicide."

In conclusion, rather than trying to overcome the absurd or create new meaning, he is a character who accepts the absurd reality as it is and maintains his intellectual honesty within it. This absurdist response of Meursault—rejecting external, fictional narratives through silence and non-compliance—stands in stark contrast to the practical and active mode of resistance observed in The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum.

Manifestations of Othering in The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum

This paragraph discusses the manifestations of collective othering in The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum and analyzes Katharina’s response from a philosophical perspective.

In The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum, othering is primarily perpetrated by media outlets publishing false articles about her, the public incited by them, and judicial authorities, including the police. First, the most explicit and critically addressed form of collective othering in this text is perpetrated by the press. Katharina happens to meet Ludwig Götten, a wanted suspect for robbery and murder, at a carnival dance party, where she falls in love with him "at first sight" and dances with him all night. Götten also treats her with affection and sincerity, and they subsequently go to Katharina’s apartment to spend the night. At dawn the next day, Katharina helps him escape by informing him of a ventilation shaft and a secret passage. Thus, textually, it is only explicitly stated that Katharina met Götten by chance at a dance party, fell in love, and aided his escape.

However, Die ZEITUNG, a tabloid press that obtained this news, frames Katharina as his accomplice merely because she loved the fugitive Götten and aided his flight. Die ZEITUNG attaches sensational labels to Katharina, such as the "bandit's mistress" and the "terrorist’s bride," and uses testimonies from neighbors that she was usually diligent and meticulous to construct the frame of a "cold and calculating accomplice." The assets and apartment she had consistently accumulated through legal means are packaged as terror funds or "aid from political backers." Such framing and witch-hunting are representative characteristics of tabloid journalism, which mass-produces sensational articles for commercial profit without factual verification. Particularly in 1970s West Germany, the background of the novel, strong anti-communist sentiments were prevalent, so the frame defining her as a left-wing terrorist garnered immense public attention. In short, Die ZEITUNG effectively utilized a sensitive social atmosphere to impose a frame and generate commercial profit. Furthermore, when reporter Tötges requested an interview with Katharina's mother, he caused her—already frail and ill—death from shock, an event that can also be understood as an extension of this media othering.

In fact, even the judicial authorities in the book contributed to the collective othering of Katharina, as it was the police who initially provided the media with information regarding Katharina and Götten. The work implies a close sharing of information between the police and the press on multiple occasions. For instance, when the interrogation content, which should not have been disclosed externally, appeared verbatim in Die ZEITUNG just hours later, a description emerges of Katharina's lawyer protesting to the lead investigator and the prosecution. Furthermore, the police authorities align with the frame constructed by the media, conducting harsh interrogations and house searches to prove that she is a "helper of subversive forces." The interrogators conducting the investigation also repeatedly inflict sexual humiliation on her or artificially manipulate her testimony.

Another agent of collective othering appearing in the book is the public and the neighbors. The general public, uncritically accepting the media's frame, executes othering by expelling Katharina from the domain of "us." A clear example illustrating this is the anonymous threatening letters, sexually harassing phrases, and various vulgar printed materials stuffed into Katharina's apartment mailbox daily.

Between Friday and Saturday an immense amount of mail was either dropped into her mailbox or delivered by post, containing a vast quantity of sexual filth: mostly postcards or letters composed of words clipped from printed matter or newspapers, plus some obscene illustrative material. ...It all added up to a display of collective hate and terrifying threats (Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum). Even her neighbors and her employer, who cherished her, began to suspect or distance themselves from her after reading the articles in Die ZEITUNG. These behaviors represent an othering that seeks to expel an individual, who appears to deviate from general social norms, from mainstream society and confine them to the realm of "them."

Responses to Othering

Katharina’s general response to the othering by the media, police, and the public consists of active efforts to reject and rectify the frame, subjective isolation, and ultimately, homicide.

During the interrogation process, Katharina testifies relatively honestly about where she first met Götten, why she helped him, and what their relationship was. Rather than presenting only circumstances advantageous to herself, she simply provides the police with the unembellished past exactly as it unfolded. This can be interpreted as a measure to preserve her own integrity while simultaneously blocking distorted reporting. Furthermore, when interrogators consistently misrecorded her testimony during the questioning process, Katharina fixated on every single minor expression, demanding that the record be accurate. For example, when she testified that the gentlemen who frequented her house had made “advances” on her, the interrogators deliberately misrecorded this as "becoming amorous" (Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum). Katharina adamantly adhered to her own phrasing until the end. She actively resisted the police's manipulation, declaring that she would absolutely never sign a deposition containing the word "advanced" (Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum). However, as time passed and the media's misinformation and the othering by the incited public grew more severe, Katharina chose to sever ties and isolate herself.

"She said she had not turned on the radio since Thursday, had read no newspapers, ... She said she had no desire to know what was going on in the world outside" (Böll, The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum). While Katharina does not demand a retraction or fight the distorted reports directly at this point, she cuts herself off and maintains silence against the media and public that continuously impose a fictitious frame on her. This isolation is not mere resignation; rather, it can be understood as a choice to avoid entering the media's frame that constantly distorts her. Instead of repeating explanations and excuses demanded by the press, Katharina chooses to distance herself from the discourse they constructed.

Of course, her most powerful response to othering is undeniably the murder of reporter Tötges. When her mother, who was battling cancer, passed away due to Tötges's intrusive visit, Katharina's act of shooting him to death represents a potent rejection of and resistance against the mammoth tabloid media. This is because Tötges is not merely an individual journalist, but a symbolic entity of the media power that continuously distorted and consumed Katharina. Hence, his killing can be interpreted as both a personal revenge and an attack on the entire power structure that othered her. Furthermore, immediately after the murder, Katharina visits the police station to surrender herself, an act that can also be understood as an extension of her unique mode of response.

An Existentialist Interpretation

As previously stated, in existentialism, human beings are not entities defined by a fixed essence, but beings who forge themselves through their own choices and actions. Therefore, what matters is not how the external world defines the individual, but what choices the individual makes within such circumstances. From this perspective, Katharina’s mode of response discussed thus far can be interpreted based on Sartre’s existentialism.

First, Katharina’s primary response can be viewed through the lens of existentialist projection (projet). As examined earlier, projection is a personal and ontological framework regarding "what kind of human being will I become?" For instance, the moment the interrogators alter Katharina’s testimony into their desired language, they arbitrarily determine how she will be understood as a person. This is because the interrogation records are provided to the media and ultimately spread to the general public. Therefore, Katharina’s refusal of false descriptions about herself is a subjective effort to determine how she will be understood, making it a form of projection. Her demand for precision in the deposition transcends a primary legal response aimed at resolving personal unfairness by correcting facts. In Sartre’s concept, "projection" (projet) is an act of rejecting a pre-established essence imposed by others, choosing one’s own mode of existence, and planning oneself. Katharina's fixation on the accuracy of the records and her demand for revision can be interpreted as an existential choice to prevent external powers—such as the media and the police—from arbitrarily tailoring her identity, and instead subjectively define her own existence. Furthermore, her choice of separation and isolation from society is ultimately interpreted as an intention to detach her existence from the evaluation of the media and the public. This is because it represents an effort to protect her existence and subjectively define it, escaping from the media's framing that attempts to grant her a specific "essence," such as a left-wing terrorist, a lewd harlot, or a sympathizer of subversive forces. Thus, from an existentialist perspective, Katharina is a projecting human being who defines herself. Consequently, Katharina’s isolation can be understood not as an escape from the frame, but as a choice to reclaim the right to define herself. This demonstrates an existentialist attitude that rejects an identity imposed by others and decides one’s own mode of existence.

Next, engagement, as previously discussed, is an advanced form of projection that signifies practicing one’s values in reality beyond defining an individual’s essence. From this perspective, the event where Katharina murders Tötges can be interpreted in terms of engagement. Tötges is presented in the work as a figure symbolizing the distorted reporting and abuse of power by the tabloid press. Therefore, Katharina’s violence toward him does not stop at personal revenge but carries the meaning of resistance against media power. If the act of correcting false descriptions about herself and distancing herself from the public was a projection to protect her existence, her action toward Tötges can be seen as an act of practicing her value judgment in reality. Of course, the act of homicide, which deprives another of life, is distant from the essence of Sartre’s ideal engagement, which emphasizes freedom and solidarity with others and entails ethical responsibility for all humanity. Homicide is a destructive act that clearly violates universal ethics. Indeed, Katharina's murder of Tötges clashes in terms of ethical value with Sartre's ideal engagement, leaving ample room for counterarguments that it is merely a personal vendetta. However, in the preface to The Wretched of the Earth, Sartre distinguishes counter-violence against oppressive structures from mere crime, interpreting it as an existential act through which the oppressed reclaim their subjectivity. Hence, given that Katharina's murder does not stem from purely private malice but is a response to the structural violence of media power, and that she fully assumes the consequences of that act through her surrender, there is room to read this as a responsible existential choice in the Sartrean sense. What must be noted here is that immediately after murdering Tötges, she voluntarily visited the police station to confess her crime. As presented in existentialist philosophy, following engagement, one must bear the inevitable responsibility that accompanies free choice. From this viewpoint, Katharina’s surrender immediately after choosing murder can be understood as assuming the proper ethical responsibility. She shows no effort to flee or conceal the incident after killing Tötges with a gun. In other words, she did not blame others or society for the use of her freedom, but fully acknowledged it as her own choice. As a result, by enduring even the consequences brought about by her choice, Katharina exemplifies the existentialist human model that emphasizes the inseparability of freedom and responsibility.

The Shared Rejection of Othering

Meursault and Katharina reveal a commonality of "rejecting identity" in some of their responses. First, as examined earlier, Meursault rejects the frames of “a monster" and a "premeditated murderer" imposed by the court by refusing to conform to its narrative (Camus, The Stranger). Although he does not show active appeals or defense, he internally rejects the narrative given to him through his unembellished description of his emotions and his refusal of his lawyer's judicial compromises. Meursault neither performs emotions of regret or contrition nor agrees to strategies for his sentence reduction.

Meanwhile, Katharina also rectifies the misrecords of the interrogators through statement correction and deposition refusal. This can be viewed as Katharina’s effort to reject the identity imposed on her, countering the efforts to place a specific frame on her. Furthermore, her choice of self-isolation and disconnection when her story spreads to the general public through the media can also be termed an act of rejecting a series of identities that others attempt to grant. Therefore, both characters reject the essence and othering imposed by society, refusing to remain entities defined by the gaze of others.

Divergence in Modes of Response

While the two characters share these broad features, their concrete methods of resisting othering reveal meaningful differences.

The first fundamental difference between Meursault and Katharina Blum lies in their epistemological confrontation with the social gaze, illustrating the core divergence between Camusian absurdist detachment and Sartrean existential engagement. The core of Meursault’s resistance is characterized by radical non-conformity and passive indifference. Rather than actively voicing his opinion or participating in the judicial process, he responds to the framework imposed by the court with bystander apathy, treating the trial as an external spectacle that cannot alter his raw, immediate existence. For Meursault, the social definitions and the gaze of the Other hold no ontological weight; whether society labels him a cold-blooded monster is irrelevant to the authentic facts of his sensory experience. Thus, his absurdist rebellion manifests as a quiet refusal to perform false emotions of remorse simply to satisfy institutional demands. In sharp contrast, Katharina Blum perceives the social gaze not as a harmless illusion, but as a form of structural violence capable of destroying her concrete life and honor. To Katharina, an individual's essence is continuously negotiated within their situated reality; hence, the distorted media text is a lethal weapon that must be actively countered. Her mode of resistance is definitionally corrective and interventionist: she fiercely fixates on semantic precision during interrogations, demands record revisions, and refuses to sign manipulated depositions. While Meursault merely refuses to participate in the fabricated narrative to preserve his internal truth, Katharina actively fights to reclaim the autonomy of her definition, illustrating a clear clash between passive existential insulation and active defensive projection.

Furthermore, the two characters exhibit a decisive divergence in the ultimate targets and teleological purposes of their resistance, contrasting an absurdist revolt against cosmic meaninglessness with an existential action within society. Katharina’s counter-actions are directed against a concrete socio-political apparatus—specifically, the predatory tabloid press and the uncritical public consensus that systematically stripped away her dignity. Her ultimate purpose is inherently practical and restorative: she seeks to halt real-world defamation and salvage her compromised daily existence, an endeavor that tragically culminates in the targeted homicide of reporter Tötges to stop the violence. Her target is historical, structural, and social. Conversely, Meursault’s rebellion transcends specific social institutions or individual actors; his true target is the metaphysical Absurd itself—the human tendency to demand artificial meaning from an inherently silent and indifferent universe. The courtroom, for Meursault, is merely a micro-space where this universal absurdity superficially manifests. Consequently, even on the brink of execution, he does not seek to dismantle the judicial system or restore his social standing, perceiving no real loss in his social exclusion. His ultimate goal is to maintain absolute intellectual honesty regarding his own indifference, refusing to trade his authentic reality for the illusory comfort of institutional redemption. Ultimately, while Katharina’s resistance is a practical response to social violence aimed at changing reality, Meursault’s rebellion is a philosophical attitude aimed at acknowledging the meaninglessness of the world while refusing to change himself.

Conclusion

This study explored the practical point of divergence between absurdism and existentialism by comparatively analyzing how Meursault in The Stranger and Katharina Blum in The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum respond to collective othering.

The analysis revealed that both characters share the commonality of rejecting the identities and frames arbitrarily imposed by society. Meursault internally rejected the emotions and narratives demanded by the court, and Katharina rejected the frames imposed by the media and the public through statement correction and deposition refusal. Thus, both characters can be seen as sharing a basic consciousness of resistance against collective othering in the sense that they refused to be essences defined by the gaze of others.

However, their modes of response and purposes were fundamentally distinct. Meursault resists by refusing to participate in the system of meaning imposed by society. Acknowledging the absurdity of the world, he does not conform to fictional narratives and seeks to maintain intellectual honesty regarding his experiences until the end. Conversely, Katharina acts actively to rectify a distorted reality and restore her life and honor, culminating in the murder of Tötges. She attempts to determine her essence herself against the identity imposed by the media and the public, practicing that choice in reality and even bearing the accompanying responsibility. This difference clearly illustrates the point of divergence between absurdism and existentialism. While absurdism focuses on the attitude of "rebellion" that rejects fictional meaning while acknowledging the world's meaninglessness and human limitations, existentialism emphasizes "projection" and "engagement" that create one’s own identity and meaning through free choice and action. In short, Meursault is a figure who protects himself by accepting the absurd as it is, whereas Katharina is a figure who creates her own existence by intervening in reality. In today’s digital media environment, collective othering such as framing, witch-hunting, and online stigmatization occurs even more frequently.

In a situation where these social problems are growing increasingly severe, the two works present the possibilities of resistance through two different modes against othering. The Stranger demonstrates the importance of intellectual honesty, where one must remain faithful to one’s own experiences and emotions without being swept away by the gaze of others and false frames. The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum showcases a practical attitude of subjectively confronting and intervening in deliberate distortions of reality while simultaneously bearing the responsibility. This provides a profound philosophical insight to contemporary individuals living under the threat of incessantly pouring sensational information and indiscriminate othering, by presenting two existential attitudes: the internal conviction to reject a false essence imposed by others, and the courage to act to protect one’s identity.

Works Cited

Böll, Heinrich. The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum. Translated by Leila Vennewitz, Penguin Classics, 1975.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Translated by Justin O'Brien, Vintage Books, 1991.

---. The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. Translated by Anthony Bower, Vintage Books, 1991.

---. The Stranger. Translated by Matthew Ward, Vintage International, 1989.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Edited by John Kulka, translated by Carol Macomber, Yale UP, 2007.

Staszak, Jean-François. "Other/Otherness." International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by Audrey Kobayashi, 2nd ed., vol. 10, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 25–31.