Sometimes—in a fit of suppressed pedantry—I like to dream up
plans for courses I might teach someday on wildly unlikely subjects. One of the more plausible of these is a projected seminar on the “pro-evil”
tendency in literature and philosophy since Machiavelli. It would be called something like “Defenses
of Evil in Western Thought.”
"Has there really been
a “pro-evil” tendency in literature and philosophy?"—so I imagine my worldly-wise
Freshmen demanding on the first day of class.
At first glance, after all, it might seem that “evil” is a word like
“bad,” or “wrong”—something that can only be meaningful in reference to positions one
does not hold. No one could coherently
claim to hold “bad” or “wrong” ideas after all. If we honestly held our ideas to be bad or
wrong, we would already have ceased to hold them.
But evil is different.
Thinkers and writers and poets seem to agree on what evil looks like:
cruelty, violence, unbridled self-assertion, indifference to the pain and needs
of others—these are some of its features.
Evil, then, is a word with definite content. It is therefore possible to claim that evil is good, and some have done so. Friedrich Nietzsche—who would have to figure
pretty prominently in the course—had this to say about it: “pride, revenge,
cunning, exaltation, love, ambition, virtue, morbidity:—[…] on the soil of this
essentially dangerous form of human society […] man really becomes for the
first time an interesting animal,
[... Here] the soul of man has in a higher sense attained
depths and become evil—and those are
the two fundamental forms of the superiority which up to the present man has
exhibited over every other animal.” (Horace Samuel trans.)
So evil is a definite thing—a value system, a way of
life. And like any other value system or
way of life, it is possible-- however ill-advised-- to endorse it.
And running through Western thought ever since the Renaissance has been
a strand of thought that was willing to take precisely this plunge.
Machiavelli would have to be the first name on the syllabus as
the progenitor of this
pro-evil tendency. And I don’t think Machiavelli
would resent his inclusion. It is easy
to accuse Leo Strauss of hysteria or prudery when he taught his students at
Chicago that M. was the “teacher of evil,” but I’m not sure M. would feel he
was being maligned: this is the man, after all, who wrote in The Discourses that, “evil deeds have a certain grandeur, and are
open-handed in their way.” (Leslie Walker trans.) He, like
other modern writers, was willing to say some good things about evil.
But what on Earth for?
We have to acknowledge that this is all rather strange and
unprecedented. Most doers of evil in
history have not called themselves evil.
They have cloaked their cruelty in righteous fury or patriotic pride or
religious passion or pragmatic necessity—or else they have acted shame-facedly
out of desire for some immediate gain. “Evil”
is what evil-doers call their victims, not themselves. The crusaders butchering the children of
Jerusalem were righteous soldiers of God-- the infants they killed "evil." It was the shining “City upon a Hill” that
rained incendiary bombs on civilians in Japan and white phosphorus on the
people of Fallujah-- members of the "Axis of Evil." It is the “martyrs
of Allah” who watch over the progress of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, whereas the people languishing without hope in its prisons are the agents of the “Great Satan.” Given all this too-familiar hypocrisy, what
exactly could it mean when thinkers start announcing themselves openly as partisans of evil?
It could mean that the modern age is a uniquely depraved one. It can’t be a good sign, we might argue, that our age doesn’t even feel the
need to disguise with high-minded rhetoric what previous generations could only
bring themselves to do in ignorance or in deceit? This line of thinking would run something like
R.H. Tawney’s in Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism, where the author argued that modern capitalism did not invent greed, cupidity, the thirst for
lucre—but it changed our moral vocabulary in such a way that these human traits
could henceforth be held up as positive
goods-- they no longer needed to either restrain themselves or hide behind
hypocrisy.
There’s something to all this. But do we find ourselves a little bit
revolted by this nostalgia for an epoch of greater
hypocrisy? I know I do. But be careful—that’s
how the “teachers of evil” rope you in-- whence they derive their persuasive
power. More on that in a moment.
Critics of modernity, Leo Strauss among them, have seen this
defense of evil in Western thought since the Renaissance as cause for an indictment of
modern society—as the inevitable doppelgaenger of our diseased liberal
world. Here’s the argument: Though our
society presents itself officially as the opposite of “evil”—as compassionate,
as egalitarian, as open-minded, open-hearted, and open-handed: it is in fact
Janus-faced. Our apparent goods are
inseparable from our evident ills, and these both perpetuate one another in an endless
“dialectic of Enlightenment” (as the Frankfurt School put it). The vaunted compassion and empathy of human
rights regimes and the welfare state contain within them the dark underbelly of
modernity—wars, atrocities, technologies of death. There is a reason, according to
this way of thinking (which traverses the anti-modern right and the anti-liberal
left) that “teachers of evil” like Machiavelli emerged in the Renaissance
alongside proto-Enlightenment thinkers like Montaigne—and a reason why humanity
has been impaled on these two horns ever since.
Ok, the big problem with that argument is two-fold: first,
suppose we grant the (implausible) claim that discourses of compassion and
empathy necessarily give birth to “evil.”
Then it remains to be explained how we might oppose “evil”—what
ideals or aspirations we could invoke to combat it-- if we now refuse to invoke compassion and empathy in this endeavor. What watchwords would you
put in their place—and why wouldn’t these fresh slogans end up as mere synonyms of
the words they replace?
Secondly, let us suppose that the discourse of human rights did “give rise” in some sense to the
modern rehabilitation of evil. Well,
who’s to say this didn’t happen the same way a law gives rise to someone
breaking it. That is, who’s to say the second
didn’t arise as a reaction against the
first? And if that’s the case, how can
we blame one for the other? I suppose you
might perform some scholastic jiu-jitsu and rumble on about how “these
reactionary movements are themselves
the distinctive products of our modern era, which could only have come about in response to…” and so forth—but if you
go too far in this, you end up being unable to distinguish modernism from
anti-modernism and you lose the point you started with—which was a critique of
modernity.
So let’s run instead with this idea that the “pro-evil”
position is exactly what it appears to be—a reaction against the vaunted ideals of modernity—against compassion, against
empathy, against the rights of citizens.
Where does it come from? What rancor,
what morbid fixations, what weak-spirited resentment could lie at its
heart? I hinted at the answer above. At the very root, it seems, there may be no
more sinister thing than a deep disgust
with hypocrisy, a profound distaste for moral compromise. But what ghastly things can flower from that
innocent root!
Modern civilization—liberal civilization—is reared on a
compromise. The bloodshed of the Wars of
Religion in Europe had left the peoples of that continent sick to the bone of
violence and torture. No longer would
people be strung up from trees or burned at the stake of thrown into dungeons
because of their religious beliefs. Such
things were now deemed evil.
Montaigne speaks to us with the humane voice of this weary
epoch. We recognize in him the origins
of the liberal compromise. Montaigne
wished to have nothing to do with sainthood, asceticism, mortification of the
flesh, the whole grueling medieval saga of moral
perfectionism. Such a search leads
us into blind alleys, he insisted, of fanaticism and violence. Rather, we should be content to pursue our
own ends, even if they be niggling, petty-minded, self-interested ends. Such
self-interest, such meager pleasures, may function as a necessary release, a
safety-valve for our passions. What we
must not do is repress our passions
to the point that they boil over in more sinister ways—in ways that lead us
into cruelty, violence, and torture—into evil,
in short.
Here comes our modern
moral compromise. It’s okay to pursue your self-interest, your selfish
desires, we tend to think. But please,
we say: pursue them within limits-- in a way that does not conflict so deeply
with the interests and desires of others that it results in violence. You are allowed to be a self-centered
lout. Your are free to be a brazen and
foul-mouthed skinflint factory-owner who bleeds his workers dry. Just please don’t kill and torture and maim
anyone—at least not directly and by your own hands. Please just
don’t be evil!
It shouldn’t be hard to see why a second strain of thought
should have emerged just as this great compromise was being hammered out at the
dawn of modernity. There were bound to
be saints and sinners who didn’t want to make the compromise. And the saints—who found the concession to
limited self-interest intolerably bourgeois,
preposterously vulgar and ignoble—were not really
so far removed in their response from the sinners—who thought that evil at least had a potential for grandeur—something that mere vice—the déclassé sins of the tavern and gambling table and counting house—plainly lacked. The passage I quoted from Machiavelli above
appears in a chapter of the Discourses which is entitled, “Very rarely do Men know how to be either Wholly
Good or Wholly Bad.” (Walker tans., p. 177). Machiavelli clearly has some sympathy here for genuine
saints, as well as for thoroughgoing reprobates. What he can’t stand is the in-beweenness of the modern world—the
fact that “men” do not seem to know anymore “how to be either magnificently bad or
perfectly good.” (Walker trans., 178). M. is not
necessarily recommending evil. But he’s saying, if you’re gonna do it,
do it right. Go the whole hog.
I don’t think I’m being unfair to the saints in suggesting
their curious affinity to the sinners.
They both share M.’s insistence on frank whole-hoggery. They are both seeking after all-or-nothing
propositions. I think the syllabus to my
course would illustrate this well, if I ever were to write it. Very few of the readings about evil, after all, could be taken from
countries that didn’t also have established traditions of sainthood. Almost none could come from
the literatures of the Anglophone countries.
We are the ones who gave the world the liberal compromise in its modern,
Smithian, Benthamite form, after all. Our sins
therefore remain of the modest and retiring sort. Too much greed, too much fast food, a bumptious obliviousness to the needs of others. When we commit evil, it is in far-flung lands
where a sorrowing cosmic justice might sigh: “they know not what they do.”
For the real whole-hoggers, the Protestant lands—especially
this side of the English Channel-- are arid soil. The Catholic countries, by contrast, are as
fertile as they come. There you have the truly debauched libertines-- the ones who make the most dramatic conversions to abstemious
religiosity. You have the De Sades and
the Baudelaires who are so thoroughly convinced of their own damnation, of
their moral irretrievability.
If you want proud, self-affirming evil-- followed by the
equally confident volte-face into the
arms of the Church-- France in particular is the ticket. Joris-Karl Huymsans, the Decadent writer and aesthete of 19th-century Paris, has a character remark in his novel The Damned that “between the most
exalted mysticism and the most cynical Satanism there is but a thin dividing
line.” His is “a soul which
was already out of control, one which would stop at nothing, to indulge in
orgies of saintliness or in ecstasies of crime.” (Terry Hale trans., p. 45). Huysmans should know. The novel quoted here, etched throughout with
a visceral disgust for modern bourgeois life, is part of a series of novels
about occultism and Catholic conversion in 19th-century France. It straddles that alarmingly “thin dividing
line” between evil and sainthood.
I think I can understand the fundamental distaste that
underlies this reaction to the modern world-- to the compromises that were necessary to attain some detente in a war of incompatible ideologies. I too am unwilling to accept greed and
self-interest as inevitable facts of life, and I’ve tried to argue before on this blog that they are not necessary consequents of modern ideology. I’m also
troubled by the possibility that too much compromise over time will erode our
ability to distinguish genuine evil from minor failings when it does appear: Western intellectuals’ blasé attitude to
Stalinism and our country’s relative indifference toward the use of torture in
its War on Terror come to mind.
But I also think that an element of compromise is essential
to the formation of a healthy adult personality. Somewhere along the way we have to find it in us to accept our limitations, our imperfections. We have to find some compassion and love for ourselves and humanity despite them. We have to accept that living and doing the right thing are not "all or nothing" deals. This does not mean “excusing
ourselves” for anything. Sometimes, in
fact, attaining this acceptance is the only way to recognize the reality of our
failings and not delude ourselves with fantasies of perfection. The paradox of it is—and I’m going to wheel
out poor Erik Erikson again to do my heavy-lifting—that “relative
peace of conscience,” is ultimately attained “by submitting to, and even incorporating into [oneself], some harsh
self-judgments.” (Young Man Luther, p. 112).
I think it says something for compromise—and against the
aspiration to sainthood—that we can identify this alarming family resemblance between
the saints and the sinners—that they have even recognized this family resemblance
in each other! Perhaps the ultimate
symbol of their mutual regard is the uneasy alliance that obtained
between the Vatican and the fascist powers between the wars. It is no great secret of intellectual history
that there was cross-pollination between Catholic reactionaries
and secular Nietzscheans and Sorelian syndicalists in the early days of fascist
ideology—even though allegedly the former couldn’t stomach modern life for its depravity, and the second spat it up for its morality! These whole-hoggers clearly found something
to admire in one another. They shared
the same antipathies—toward liberal democratic society, toward secular tolerance; even
if they held these antipathies—on paper—for different reasons.
Be cautious, then. Certainly
be cautious when you find the partisans of evil—that is obvious enough. But be
cautious likewise when you meet the saints.
They, like the evildoers, are looking for a way out of the compromises
and constrains and limitations of modern existence. They, like the evildoers, want it all.
And there may not be enough to go around.
No comments:
Post a Comment