The Language of ‘I’.

You seem to have considered the language used by Sartre in some depth and I have to agree with your point Helen that we only hear the voice of Sartre and not of the women in question. Solomon highlights the importance of language by saying:
Many philosophers, linguists, and social scientists would say that self consciousness is the product of language, and not just any language, but a special self-referring language. There must be first-person pronouns in some sense [...]. There must be not only some sense of self but also some conception of self, and this does indeed require language. (Solomon, 2006,p.140).
The whole point of the example is to show that the woman is acting in bad faith. But we are only told of her actions and her supposed consciousness through Sartre’s narration (he does not allow the man and women to become actors with dialogue, but keeps them trapped as mere characters). Not just the actions and thoughts of the women suggest a lack of ownership but the entire piece of writing itself. “She does not even give it a name” (Sartre, p.55). I understand that Sartre is saying the she does not acknowledge what is happening before her, and by not naming it she does not acknowledge that it is happening to her. But as I sit here and type this I am experiencing a terrible feeling of dread. Sartre, as the real man in this story, has ensured he holds all the power from the start. By not allowing us to hear the voices of his characters, especially the women, he has entrapped her never allowing her the possibility to escape her bad faith. “I have a choice to as to how to react about everything that happens to me, and how to come to terms with it.” (Alford, 2005, p.55). Sartre does provide us, the reader, with outcomes as to what will happen if the woman was to either keep her hand there or remove it. Both options presented, however, only provide us with bad outcomes; the reason why there are only bad outcomes Sartre suggests is because she is ‘all intellect’. Hence creating an act of disembodiment, during which time she goes on to talk about her life. This is the nearest we get to almost hearing her say the word, ‘I’. As I stated at the beginning, the use of such language would create her own self-consciousness. Thus acknowledging an awareness of who she is, and not just her essence, something that would seem so important to her, it culminates in an almost out-of-body experience. But this again allows Sartre to focus back to her hand. So we no longer hear her talk, or even think for that matter. She has once again been bereft of language, the ability to say the word ‘I’.