While reading a short story entitled “Augustine de Villeblanche or Love’s
Strategy” by the Marquis de Sade (not exactly a historical figure you would go
to for moral rectitude), I came across the following fascinating passages on
why human beings feel the need to judge, condemn, and censor others who hold
different beliefs and values from them:
The
most foolish thing of all … is to blush about the penchants that Nature has
given us. And to make fun of anyone, simply because his or her tastes are
unusual, is just as barbaric as railing against someone who was born lame, or
blind in one eye. But trying to convince fools of these reasonable concepts is
like trying to halt the stars in their courses. People seem to take a kind of
prideful pleasure in mocking “defects” that they themselves do not possess, and
they apparently derive such enjoyment – especially the halfwits – from this
sport … It serves as a pretext for maliciousness, witticisms, and poor puns;
and society, that is, a collection of people whom boredom has brought together
and stupidity has molded, enjoys nothing better than spending two or three
hours talking without saying anything, it delights in appearing brilliant at
the expense of others, in making a point of censuring a vice from which it
thinks itself free… (129)
The
“Nature” that the narrator above, a lesbian character, has in mind is the very
Nature that radical Christians and Muslims refer to when making a case against
the “abomination” that is homosexuality. On this subject, the character says:
If
you think about it carefully, you will see that all these imaginary losses (the
failure to reproduce – my addition) are completely indifferent to Nature, that
not only does she not condemn them but, on the contrary, she demonstrates by a
thousand examples that she wishes and desires them. Why, if these losses
irritate her so, would she tolerate them in thousands of cases? Why, if the
problem of progeny is so essential to her, would she have limited the length of
time a woman can bear children to only a third of her life? And why would
Nature dictate that half of those creatures to whom she gives birth leave their
mothers’ hands with a clear distaste for producing offspring, contrary to what
we have been taught are Nature’s demands. I shall go even further: Nature
allows the race to multiply, but she does not demand it and, thoroughly
convinced that there will always be more people than her needs require, she has
no desire whatsoever to oppose the penchants of those who refuse to conform to
society’s demands to procreate and will have no part of it. Ah, let Mother
Nature work her ways, let us be quite convinced that he resources are immense,
that nothing we do will outrage her… (127)
The
Marquis might not be the writer to quote when it comes to moral issues, but in
this supposedly enlightened age when there are still religions and cultures
around the world that condemn and execute those who do not conform, his words
ring truer than ever. The irony is: if a Frenchman writing towards the end of
the 18th century could embrace such liberal thoughts, why is it some
of us still insist on living in the dank cave of orthodoxy?
All page numbers refer to the 2000
Arcade edition of The Mystified Magistrate and Other
Tales, translated by Richard Seaver.
I look forward to reading the second part of your essay. You make some very interesting connections. I just wanted to let you know that I currently have two giveaways taking place on my blog. Particularly, I thought you might enjoy reading The Snow Child by Eowyn Ivey. Feel free to follow the link below to enter both giveaways.
ReplyDelete-Ethan
http://e135-abookaweek.blogspot.com/p/giveaways.html
Thanks for dropping by, Ethan! Yes, I will definitely check out The Snow Child.
Delete