Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Simone de Beauvoir On Marquis de Sade PDF
Simone de Beauvoir On Marquis de Sade PDF
The decades immediately following the Second World War saw extensive interest in the
Barthes4, Jacques Lacan5, Gilles Deleuze6, Max Horkheimer, and Theodor Adorno7 published
on Sade in the post-war period. Existentialist thinkers were also interested in Sade and Sadean
topics. For example, Albert Camus writes on Sade from a political standpoint in The Rebel8;
Being and Nothingness.9 Like her intellectual companions, Simone de Beauvoir was also
interested in Sade. This interest resulted in the essay Must We Burn De Sade? which was
In comparison with the Sade studies of contemporaries like Blanchot, Deleuze, and Lacan,
Must We Burn De Sade? which will be discussed here offers a unique perspective. Indeed,
unlike her contemporaries who only discuss Sades literature11, Beauvoir focuses on Sades
life and also the relation between his life and work. The latter is interpreted in two different
ways. Thus, in Beauvoirs study, three approaches can be distinguished. The first approach is
biographical and focuses on Sades life and the mediating role of his crimes.12 The second
relates to Sades literary oeuvre: his motivation to write and the content of his work in the
context of his imprisonment. This analysis leads to the perspective that Sade would not have
written anything had he not been imprisoned. However, one can also find a third perspective
in Beauvoirs essay: that Sades imprisonment does not fully explain his literary output. These
three different approaches to Sade are not clearly distinguished in the commentaries on
1
Beauvoirs work. Although Beauvoirs essay has generated interest from a wide range of
thinkers and continues to generate controversy to this day,13 it is not always clear whether it is
her interpretation of Sades life or her conception of the relationship between his life and
work that is discussed by her commentators. Since a clear distinction between these three
approaches is necessary to understand Beauvoirs reading of Sade, the first objective of this
A further problem with the critical reception of Beauvoirs essay is that sadistic
enjoyment is rarely discussed, despite references to the enjoyment of the sadist throughout her
essay. Specifically, this enjoyment is explored in three different ways: in the experience of
pleasurable sensations, the transgression of the moral law, and in the sadists apathy or
insensitivity. The second objective of this paper is to clarify this trichotomy. It will be argued
that these various ways of understanding sadistic enjoyment parallel the three approaches
Beauvoir uses in her understanding of Sades life and work. Moreover, these three different
The paper is divided into four parts. First, Beauvoirs interpretation of Sades cruelty
during his life will be discussed and connected to the notion of enjoyment in terms of
pleasurable sensations. Second, we shall examine how Beauvoir understands Sades literature
as a reaction to his imprisonment and it will be argued that this explains Sades transgressive
enjoyment. In the third section we question the deeper motives of Sades literary output and
how this is connected to apathetic enjoyment. In the final section it will be evaluated how
Beauvoirs perspectives on Sades life and work are related to each other and how her
analysis of Sade integrates with her existentialism. We will also conclude that while
Beauvoirs existential approach to Sade is unique it also shares a formal characteristic with
the readings of her contemporaries, notably Jacques Lacan, Georges Bataille, and Maurice
Blanchot.
2
1. Sades sexual peculiarities
One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.14 With these famous words Beauvoir opens
the second part of SS, a book in which she attempts to eradicate the deep-rooted conviction
that woman is born with unchangeable essences. In particular, she advances the thesis that
should be understood in the same way. Sades deeds do not reflect an innate predisposition
but are instead a construction whereby he seeks to attain a specific goal. First, we will explain
what Sades goal is and how he tries to attain it. Second, it will be clarified how this is related
For most of his life Beauvoir emphasises Sade was a law-abiding person who
generally followed the customs of his society. In addition to obeying the laws of his time he
participated in cultural life, was an officer in the army, accepted various kinds of
1763. Beauvoir argues that despite following the rules and regulations of his society, Sade
dreams of an unbridled freedom that ignores the other and reduces the other to nothing.
Regarding this desire for an absolute freedom, Beauvoir says: There was only one place
where he could assert himself as such, and that was not the bed in which he was received only
too submissively by a prudish wife, but in the brothel where he bought the right to unleash his
fantasies. (MBS? 15) Soon after his marriage, Sade visits brothels where he abuses young
women. In the closed space of the brothel his dream of an absolute freedom was realized in
the figure of the tyrant. According to Beauvoir, Sade falls back upon his family history.
Indeed, Sade was the scion of an aristocratic and powerful family whose prestige and position
was waning. He relies on his familys past and brings it back to life in the brothel. However,
Sades behaviour is not an attempt to restore faded glory, nor is he solely determined by his
3
origins, rather he actively uses the past of his libertine and powerful family because in the role
freedom. However, she argues, this understanding clarifies only one side of Sades life.
Indeed, Sade is characterized by both a desire for the other and a lack of involvement with
others. Beauvoir links these aspects together with the claim that Sades violence functions as
a solution to his lack of empathy.15 She writes that his sadism strove to compensate for the
absence of one necessary element [empathy] which he lacked. (MBS? 33) Thus, although
Beauvoir conceives of Sades violent behaviour first as an expression of freedom she argues
that his tortures meet a desire for the other. This remarkable statement requires further
clarification.
Key to understanding Beauvoirs reading of Sade is her distinction between body and
flesh. She claims that during the intense sensation of pain the human body transforms into
flesh. A clarification of two aspects can help us to understand this distinction. First, in The
Second Sex Beauvoir suggests that the human body is not a dead thing but alive, which means
that the body is an expression of our personal desires, attitudes, and expectations (TSS 43).16
Therefore, Beauvoir calls the body the psycho-physiological unity of body and soul.
Consequently, people respond with a personal and involved attitude: one reads in the body of
the other specific desires and acts in accordance with the interpretation of an expressive body.
Second, we have all experienced the phenomenon of forgetting hunger while watching a
fascinating movie. This distance towards ones own body not only characterizes a certain part
of our activities but is a necessary condition for functioning during daily life. Too much
preoccupation with the body is a hindrance to our normal actions and is reserved for well-
defined places and moments. In summary, having a body implies both that it expresses a soul
(i.e., personal desires, attitudes etc.) and that it does not preoccupy ones attention
4
continuously. During the experience of extreme physical pain, however, both these aspects of
embodiment are missing. The hurting person cries, groans and screams. The face retracts into
a spastic cramp, an animal spasm that communicates nothing and where the recognizable
image is obliterated. Whereas in normal life the body expresses ones soul, in agony the
animated body is destroyed. Moreover, it is impossible not to focus on a wounded body. The
distance, which in everyday life keeps the body in the background, fades away and makes the
body come to the forefront as a haunting instance. Thus, pain means the destruction of the
body and the breakthrough of the flesh as the impersonal, anonymous dimension of existence
Applying this distinction between body and flesh to Sades work, Beauvoir reasons
that Sades violent deeds intend to reduce the other to flesh. However, she holds it does not
follow that Sade is ultimately focused on the victims death. Beauvoir points to the fact that
Sade himself never committed murder but rather stops his deeds at the moment his victim
collapses. This observation has a central place in Beauvoirs interpretation. The fact that the
victim as a person is almost disappearing, but is nonetheless still alive, makes possible a
relationship with the other. Thus, in order to retain a relation with the other Sade faces a
difficult task: he must balance reducing the other to passive flesh without sacrificing the
If Sade had killed his victims then he would have only faced mute objects without
freedom or the possibility of reaction. However, by reducing the other to flesh without going
to the end which is the others death he is able to hear the victims lamentations, cries, and
wails. According to Beauvoir, this is exactly what Sade wants. When Sade stops his deeds at
the moment before death when the other only feels pain he is searching for the victims
cries during their long drawn-out agony. The reason is that these cries, wails, and
lamentations express a reaction or resistance against Sades cruel deeds. Whereas death is the
5
radical destruction of freedom, the cries at the moment the victim is reduced to flesh express a
residue of freedom. Sade does not only want to reduce the other to flesh, he is also interested
in the victims freedom. But what then is the reason for this interest? Why does Sade,
although he reduces the other to an anonymous thing, want to perceive a glimpse of freedom
in the other? According to Beauvoir, Sade reasons as follows: In his revolt, the tortured
object asserts himself as my fellow creature. (MBS? 35) Besides passivity, Sade is also
looking for the victims resistance because the freedom entailed by this reaction reflects
Sades own freedom. Although their freedom is entirely different Sades is absolutely free
while the victim only expresses a last trace in crying the victim shares with Sade the very
fact of freedom. A crucial step in Beauvoirs argument is that this identification enables Sade
to see himself not only as free but also as flesh.18 It is first by reducing the other to pure flesh,
and then by perceiving his own freedom in the others cries that Sade becomes aware of his
own flesh. Through this awareness Sade recognizes that his life is embedded in an impersonal
dimension of existence the flesh which precedes his freedom. According to Beauvoir,
Sades longing for the other is satisfied herein. Indeed, from Beauvoirs perspective, it is only
by sharing the same unchangeable impersonal background, namely the flesh, that Sade
In this context Beauvoir pays attention to Sades enjoyment for the first time. Here,
she describes his enjoyment in terms of rage and fury. According to Beauvoir, the enjoyment
of Blangis in The 120 Days of Sodom can be understood as the literary representation of
Sades own enjoyment: Horrible shrieks and dreadful oaths escaped his heaving breast.
Flames seemed to dart from his eyes. He frothed at the mouthhe whinnied and he even
strangled his partner. (MBS? 32) These jubilant cries indicate that Sades enjoyment is
stronger than ordinary sexual sensations. The intensity of Sades enjoyment, Beauvoir
explains, rests in his extreme lack of empathy. Sades satisfaction of his desire for the other is
6
more intense because he breaks through the absolute isolation which in normal life hinders his
strong desire. Here we find Beauvoir making a direct connection between sadistic enjoyment
and the mediating role of cruelty: No one would seek sensation so passionately and
recklessly, even if it had the violence of an epileptic seizure. The ultimate trauma must, rather,
guarantee by its obviousness the success of an undertaking, whose stake exceeds it infinitely.
(MBS? 44) This undertaking is the revelation of the relationship with the other through
cruelty. Thus, when Beauvoir examines Sades life, she understands his enjoyment not as
related to extreme violence as such but to violence as far it makes possible a relation with the
On June 27, 1772, the Marquis life changes irrevocably when he gives some prostitutes
poisoned sweets. Sade is condemned to death but manages to escape and in the following
years succeeds in a sustained effort to mislead his pursuers. Five years later, he is imprisoned
in Vincennes and then moved to the Bastille. He is liberated during the French Revolution
when the Bastille is attacked by the rebels. Sades imprisonment occupies a central place in
Beauvoirs interpretation of Sades life. She directly links his literary activity to this fact.
Specifically, she understands a particular part of Sades literature, the philosophical aspect, in
terms of three reactions to his incarceration: defence, apology, and revenge. According to
Beauvoir, these reactions function as three different explanations of Sades literature, and this
literary activity also causes enjoyment. Before one can understand how Beauvoir understands
7
In Sades novel Juliette, we find the libertine monk Claude reading Therese the
philosophy and pornography is also found in Sades prose, which may at first sight be
surprising for those who have never read Sade. One expects violence and sex but no
theoretical reflections. However, those who are somewhat familiar with Sades oeuvre know
Philosophy in the Bedroom. This book includes one of Sades best known dissertations: Yet
another effort, Frenchmen, if you would become Republicans. The radical philosophy and
apology for murder which are exposed in this pamphlet are heavily influenced by the
Diderot, Jean Le Rond dAlembert and Paul Henri Thiry dHolbach comprise Sades
intellectual background.19 In her essay, Beauvoir pays a lot of attention to Sades philosophy.
For instance, Beauvoir points out that Sade attacks eighteenth-century civil society,
holding that the values and laws of society affirm and maintain established and unjust power
relations. For Sade, the altruistic virtues of brotherhood and charity are mere inventions of the
bourgeoisie in order to oppress the masses. However, for Beauvoir, Sades unmasking of
ideological mystification is not aimed at achieving social equality. The source of his attack
lies elsewhere; Beauvoir stresses that his aversion is grounded in his philosophy of nature.
Social order, for Sade, is not organized in conformity with natures laws. He attributes this to
a lack of insight into natures essence. In this context, Beauvoir quotes Sade: When we look
at Nature we readily understand that everything we decide and organize is as far removed
from the perfection of her views and as inferior to her as the laws of the society of blind men
would be to our own. (MBS? 65). In Sades philosophical dissertations both metaphysical
insight into Nature and reasons imperative to live in conformity with Nature are central.
From this perspective, Sades program is similar to the rationalist projects of Bacon,
8
When Beauvoir goes deeper into Sades philosophy of nature, she writes: Nature
retains its sacred character for de Sade. One and indivisible, it is an absolute, outside of which
there is no reality. (MBS? 65) As an exponent of modern thinking, Sade also replaces God by
Natura naturans constantly bringing matter into life. For Sade, Nature is a machine producing
new life continuously. Besides life, death is also an effect of Natures work. Nature needs
matter in order to continue her creative activity but since matter is not inexhaustibly available
Nature must destroy the products she first created. Destroyed life and freed matter enables
Nature to continue her activity endlessly. Thus, from natures perspective, death is a
necessary condition for nature and not merely an end. Death is a metabolic process which
enables dissolved matter to live in another form of existence. Sade says that what we call the
end of the living animal is no longer a true end, but a simple transformation, a transmutation
laws.20 In summary, according to Sade, Nature is the eternal movement of matter from one
form to another. This eternal movement is regulated by creation and destruction as the two
reason for his attack on eighteenth-century civil society and its values. The reason why Sade
wants to destroy virtues such as compassion and parental love is that they maintain social life.
However, Beauvoir points out that one ought to be careful here: Sades argument against the
stability of the power relations is not that it hinders social equality. Sade attacks the fact of
affirming social structures because this act is not in accordance with Natures cycle of life and
death. Indeed, what Nature wants is creation and destruction, the endless movement of matter
which is hindered by inert, stable structures and civil virtues. The affirmation of eighteenth-
century civil society is a coagulation of matters movement. The way the virtuous and morally
good Justine dies, Beauvoir argues, should be understood from this perspective. By letting her
9
die by lightning, Sade wants to indicate that life must be in conformity with Nature and that
Nature will inevitably take revenge when this requirement is neglected. On the other hand,
many of Sades philosophical dissertations are a long eulogy on vice. While from an
metaphysical perspective it is at the service of Nature. Destruction of life frees new material
which enables nature to continue its productive activity. Sade writes: Destruction being one
of the chief laws of Nature, nothing that destroys can be criminal; how might an action which
so well serves Nature ever be outrageous to her? (JNE 237-8) This is the reason why
murderous Juliette (Justines sister) is not punished, as expected, but rewarded. Juliette is the
real heroine of Sades universe because she helps Nature to destroy life. How does Beauvoir
When Sade is imprisoned he comes to recognise that his actions which he believes
to be innocent do not conform to the social order. He realises that if he wants to be included
in society he will need to ignore his individual pleasures. However, given the existential
importance of his sexual peculiarities with regard to his relations with others, he will not give
up his actions. According to Beauvoir, Sades literature is a means to defend his sexual
behaviour. Specifically, by writing his theoretical dissertations Sade tries to justify his strange
and cruel deeds by understanding them as part of a larger metaphysical project. Sade wants to
defend his bizarre behaviour by making his readers believe that his life is in line with Natures
need for destruction and his crimes motivated by the search for truth. This metaphysical
anchoring, Sade hopes, will convince society to accept his bizarre conduct. Thus, while Sade
realises that his actions are incompatible with the moral mores, his materialist philosophy is
aimed at the perpetuation of bizarre pleasures without danger of being imprisoned by the
authorities. In other words, Beauvoir argues that Sades philosophy expresses a desire for
10
Beauvoir also pays attention to those passages in Sades oeuvre which indicate that his
literature is rooted in another source. More specifically, she refers to the passages in which
Sades thinking clearly resembles the mechanistic world view of Julien Offray de La Mettrie,
author of Man the Machine. In these passages, Sade states that human life not only is a
product of Nature but that Nature is also at work in a persons life. A human being is in the
hands of Nature and Nature continues in the cycle of her own creations. This naturalisation of
human life not only considers a persons body but also a persons actions. This means that
cruelty does not have to be understood as a conscious choice to live in conformity with
Nature. Cruelty rather means the efficacy of Nature with the sadists as her servants. In
Juliette, for instance, one reads: But were one really to wish to persuade oneself that this talk
about freedom is all empty prattle and that we are driven to whatever we do by a force more
puissant than ourselves.21 It is in passages like these that the link between cruelty and
reader to help Sade free himself of guilty feelings.22 That Sade feels guilt, Beauvoir notices, is
beyond dispute. For example, she mentions the emotional upheaval that his imprisonment
causes: De Sade reacted at first with prayer, humility and shame. He begged to be allowed to
see his wife, accusing himself of having grievously offended her. He begged to confess and
open his heart to her. (MBS? 18) This feeling of guilt not only shows that Sade appreciates
morality and realizes his mistake, his regret also reveals his emotional involvement with
regard to society. In short, when Sade develops his metaphysical system, this is not only an
expression of his desire for the recognition of his autonomy as detached from society but also
Despite the fact that Sades literature expresses attachment to society no reader is left
untouched by his novels. According to Beauvoir, indignation arises because Sades literature
crosses the readers moral boundaries. At first sight, the turmoil caused by his prose seems to
11
be an unintended effect. For Sade, developing a cosmology of evil is the only way to justify
his actions: by doing so, Sade inevitably and unintentionally exceeds his readers moral
limits. However, Beauvoir claims that Sade is well aware of this effect; he knows his
audience and is very aware of his readers limits. Moreover, through his writings Sade
consciously violates the moral boundaries: uproar and indignation are not a by-product but the
explicit aim of Sades literary activity. The basis of this intended transgression is Sades
resentment, which, like freedom and guilt, is rooted in his incarceration. Sade wants to avenge
himself against the Old Regime which excluded him by putting him in jail. Consequently, the
develops an atheistic philosophy and apology for murder which defies moral boundaries
because by this transgression he can take revenge on society. According to Beauvoir, this
effects of truth. (MBS? 50). Although Beauvoir points out that Sade wants to live in
conformity with truth, she also stresses that he enjoys the fact that this truth defies society.
We may thus conclude that Beauvoir directly associates Sades enjoyment with his
she understands the relation between Sades life and work as contingent. Sade, as this
interpretation implies, would not have written if society had not imprisoned him. However,
Beauvoir argues that Sades literature has another, deeper cause. His imprisonment
12
accelerated his decision to write, but the real cause lies elsewhere, and therefore in fact the
link between his life and work is not contingent. In support of her argument, Beauvoir points
to the readers inability to identify with his characters. The reader cannot gain insight into
Sades libertines because the reader is not permitted access to their inner life and underlying
motives. Sades characters seem to be almost non-psychological entities. Beauvoir holds that
in Sades literary universe the libertines apathy is central.24 How should we understand the
strange but interesting thesis that the sadist is characterized by apathy? What is the origin of
this insensitivity? In what sense does this aspect of Sades literature suggest that Sade would
have written even though he was not in prison? Before answering these questions, the apathy
Normally, human beings live in mutual involvement with each other, which implies
that a person cares about whether her or his acts will be harmful to others or not. The one who
lives by mutual involvement takes into account the possibility that s/he will not be able to
continue her or his behaviour without hindrance. This personal involvement is associated with
an emotional, reactive attitude: one is responsive to the emotions and expectations of others.
For example, a person spontaneously shows compassion when her or his actions hurt someone
else. However, everyday life requires not only focusing on the other but also self-
involvement. Indeed, much of our natural affections cannot be understood as detached from
our self in a broad sense. Emotions such as shame and fear imply involvement with ones
body or self-image. This is the case not only for our emotions but also for our behaviour.
First, actions express personal interests and preferences, and thus involvement. Someone
becomes involved in what s/he does, and it is by this involvement in her/his actions that s/he
expresses her/his interests. Second, acts express self-interest: generally spoken, one is directed
13
In contrast with normal life, in Sades literary world the libertine is apathetic. This is
echoed clearly in the following passage wherein Clairwill says to Juliette: If after you have
done calculating you end by approving, as I am very sure you shall, the extinction of all
sensibility in a pupil, then the first branch to lop off the tree is necessarily pity. (JUL 281)
The sadists apathy means that he destroys the reactive attitude. The sadist is isolated from the
daily circuit in which people spontaneously engage with each other and anticipate each
others opinions, emotions, and expectations. However, according to Beauvoir, the libertine
does not merely destroy involvement with others. She writes that de Sade conceives the free
act only as an act free of all feeling. (MBS? 78) Beauvoir holds that Sades libertines not
only destroy pity but all feelings. This means that they also destroy their self-involvement,
i.e., the fear and shame that spontaneously arise in certain situations. According to Beauvoir,
this is another reason why Juliette, and not her sister, is the true heroine of Sades universe.
While Justine is suffering Juliette herself is not taken by the sensation of pain, and even
ignores it. According to Beauvoir, Juliette is the real heroine of Sades universe because her
insensitive attitude also implies that the sadist lacks the two aspects of self-involvement noted
above. First, the libertine eliminates his personal preferences and interests. If sexual
preference is normally given to ones wife, then the libertine also has to focus on his younger
sister or mother. Second, the sadistic crime does not aim at defending the sadists interests.
Sade is situated beyond personal selfishness. In particular, Beauvoir argues that sadistic
In claiming that in the sadistic universe apathy is central Beauvoir reminds us that the
sadist radically breaks with conventional attitudes. In ordinary life, one who assumes such a
detached, apathetic attitude is inevitably viewed as cruel and inhuman. Thus, the sadists
attitude is opposed to normal life and can be described as unnatural, forced, and a mere
14
construction. This implies, for Beauvoir, that the sadists libertinism is not a relaxation of
body and soul but requires training. However, Beauvoir pays no attention to the specific
methods the sadist uses to assume the unnatural, apathetic attitude. In this context, one may
refer to the Sade study of Klossowski: With quantity the objects are depreciated; the reality
both of the other and of the self are dissolved. (SMN 97). Here, Klossowski argues that it is
precisely the excess of criminal acts in Sades literature that permits the reduction of the other
to an object and the destruction of their concrete reality. Thus, the rapid succession and
repetition of crimes entails that the sadist will not be involved in the suffering of his victim. In
Sade one can read the same idea as follows: Well, this cure is quite as sweet as it is sure, for
it consists simply in reiterating the deeds that have made us remorseful, in repeating them so
often that the habit either of committing these deeds or of getting away with them scot-free
completely undermines every possibility of feeling badly about them. (JUL 17).
In her focus on the apathy of the sadist, Beauvoir appeals to the ethical notion of
apathy found in Kants Critique of Practical Reason.25 Kant holds that apathy is a necessary
condition for morality. The practical will of the moral individual may not be determined by
his pathological nature, i.e., his desire for pleasure and well-being. For Kant, apathetic
obedience to the moral law implies the efficacy of freedom understood in a negative way: one
may not be affected by and should be detached from spontaneous and natural desires.
According to Beauvoir, apathy in Sade is similarly grounded in freedom: the sadist distances
himself from any kind of spontaneous focus on the other or self. However, Beauvoir stresses
that in Sades literature the libertines freedom of involvement does not represent Sades own
emotional life. Despite his commitment to an unhindered freedom in the brothels, Sade cannot
free himself from his pity and remorse. Moreover, as we have discussed in the first part of our
essay, through his cruelty Sade is spontaneously searching for contact with the other. In short,
the sadistic universe contrasts with Sades life. The apathetic libertine in Sades literature
15
overcomes the spontaneous desire for the other which thwarts, in everyday life, Sades own
desire for freedom. Therefore, according to Beauvoir, we must understand the libertines
apathy as a literary, epic representation of Sades own thwarted desire for absolute freedom.
In his literature Sade projects a dream which he cannot realise in everyday life. While Sades
life is characterised by the desire for both unbridled freedom and the other, as the first reader
of his own prose, Sade can taste in the libertines apathy his own desired unbridled freedom.
This recognition of apathy, Beauvoir argues, implies that one cannot fully understand the
relation between Sades life and work if this relation is considered as merely contingent.
Sades prose not only is a reaction to a particular event his imprisonment but also a
compensation for what he is not able to achieve: unbridled and absolute freedom.
This leads us to the third kind of enjoyment Beauvoir mentions alongside enjoyment
in terms of the experience of pleasurable sensations and transgression. When Beauvoir goes
deeper into the libertines apathy in Sades prose, she writes: It is no longer excitement we
must seek, but apathy. (MBS? 77) In Sades prose, the libertine faces a special and
uncommon kind of enjoyment. Unlike the experience of enjoyment in normal life, Beauvoir
holds, sadistic enjoyment has nothing to do with the experience of pleasurable sensations.
sensations. According to Beauvoir, sadism rather has to do with insensitivity and the absolute
negation of sensations. However, this does not mean that the sadist enjoys his insensitivity
towards the pain of his victim. Indeed, this would imply that the sadists enjoyment, albeit in
a negative way, is still based on the relationship with the other. From Beauvoirs point of
view the sadists enjoyment should rather be understood as an effect of the awareness that he
acts independently of any involvement. The sadist enjoys the fact that he is able to act in
Sades literature she understands this as the enjoyment of unbridled freedom. Therefore, with
16
Beauvoirs thesis that Sades literature compensates for his lack of freedom in daily life, it can
be concluded that in her view, Sade himself enjoys his literature not only because of the
transgression of the moral boundaries but also because his literary universe is a reflection of
his dream.
Indeed, Beauvoir not only discusses Sades cruelty but also the relationship between Sades
life and work. Thus far these approaches have been clearly separated, and Beauvoirs three
ways of understanding sadistic enjoyment have been considered. It is clear that each way of
enjoyment corresponds to one of the three perspectives. However, despite this threefold
distinction, one can also perceive several similarities between the three conceptions of
It is often said that the main goal of the sadists life is enjoyment. As the common
sense conception of sadism holds, the sadist in the first place is only interested in enjoyment
and therefore, he is even able to enjoy the cruellest deeds. In Beauvoirs essay, this idea has
no central place. In each of her three perspectives enjoyment is not seen as a goal but only as
an unintended effect of a particular activity. Another similarity is found between the first and
third perspective. While the first understands enjoyment in terms of the experience of
pleasurable sensations, which is ignored in the third case, in both perspectives enjoyment is
effect of the experience of attachment to the other; the libertines enjoyment in Sades
literature and the way that Sade personally enjoys his own literature both relate to the
experience and reflection of absolute freedom. Besides this, there also is another similarity
17
between the first and third which makes them different from the second perspective. This
exceeding moral boundaries. From the second perspective, enjoyment and transgression are
directly linked. According to Beauvoir, Sade wants to take revenge on society. While writing
provocative literature Sade explicitly transgresses the readers moral categories and that
causes enjoyment. In short, Sade enjoys the transgression of the moral law. Neither
Beauvoirs first nor third perspective entail a direct link between enjoyment and
transgression. Although both Sade and the libertine are inevitably regarded as morally
reprehensible, they do not enjoy transgression of the moral law as such. Their enjoyment
rather has to do with the experience of a relation with the other or absolute freedom. Both in
the first and in the last perspective, transgression is not a goal but a by-product of the solution
Beauvoir mentions, one can also perceive a similarity between the three perspectives from
which she writes about Sade. In the first perspective Beauvoir focuses on the role of cruelty in
Sades life; in the second and third perspective she discusses the relationship between Sades
life and work. It will be argued that these three perspectives should be understood against the
background of Beauvoirs existentialist philosophy. In other words, she interprets Sades life
and the relationship between his life and work as a singular case which reveals in a magnified
way a more general existential problem. In order to understand this we shall now turn to a
Beauvoir explicates her existentialism for the first time in Pyrrhus et cinas and three
years later, in 1947, she presents a more developed version in The Ethics of Ambiguity. The
title of the latter work summarises the core of her philosophy, namely that human existence is
18
every moment, at every opportunity, the truth comes to light, the truth of life and death, of my
solitude and my bond with the world, of my freedom and my servitude.26 Freedom is a
central concept for Beauvoir, which she understands as the ability to transcend the facts of
ones existence. She posits that this freedom is expressed primarily in the desire for
autonomy. However, for Beauvoir human life is also based on attachment to facts which one
that precedes ones liberty. According to Beauvoir, a person not only gains insight into this
ambiguous condition but attempts to reconcile these two aspects. Love is cited as an
instructive example of this balancing act since it is primarily characterized by both preserving
ones singularity and being drawn into a dynamic which erases personal identity.27
Both freedom and attachment to an impersonal dimension of life take a central place
in the three perspectives through which Beauvoir interprets both Sades life and the
relationship between his life and work. Let us first examine Beauvoirs interpretation of
Sades life. Here, as we have seen, Sades deeds are interpreted by Beauvoir in two different
argues, Sades violent deeds intend to reduce the other to pure flesh. The ultimate goal of this
deed is to reveal that Sades life itself is embedded in and passively delivered to an
impersonal dimension, namely the flesh. In short, Sades deeds are an expression of the
ambiguity of life. In the second perspective Beauvoir focuses on the relation between Sades
imprisonment and his philosophical treatises. As has been shown, here she argues that Sades
philosophy has a double meaning. On the one hand, in writing his treatises Sade intends to
defend the sexual peculiarities that contradict existing moral codes. This means that Sade
wants to save his autonomy and freedom. On the other hand, Beauvoir holds that literature is
the means by which Sade tries to resolve his feelings of guilt. Although at first glance Sade
19
seems to be driven by hate and fury against society he is deeply involved in social values.
Sades life, Beauvoir argues, is embedded in the moral and juridical structures of society
which shape and precede his individual choice and freedom. Thus, as is the case with Sades
cruel deeds, the relation between his life and works expresses the ambiguity of life. Finally, in
the third perspective, Beauvoir focuses on the libertines apathy in Sades literature, i.e., the
radical detachment from others and the self which reflects Sades dream. This reveals that
Beauvoir examines the relation between Sades life and work from Beauvoirs existentialist
theme of freedom. Therefore, one should read Must We Burn De Sade? against the
background of the general existentialist schema in which she stresses lifes ambiguity, that is,
ones freedom and attachment to the impersonal dimensions of life. Our analysis suggests that
Beauvoir was especially interested in Sade because his life and the relationship between his
life and works reveal in a magnified way that which is central to her existentialist philosophy.
References
1
Pierre Klossowski, Sade My Neighbour, trans. by Alphonso Lingis (Evanston: Northwestern University Press,
1991). Hereafter SMN.
2
Georges Bataille, De Sades Sovereign Man, in Eroticism: Death & Sensuality, trans. Mary Dalwood (San
Francisco: City Lights Books, 1962), 164-76. Hereafter SSM.
3
Maurice Blanchot, Lautramont and Sade, trans. Michelle Kendall and Stuart Kendall Stanford (California:
Stanford University Press, 2004). Hereafter LS.
4
Roland Barthes, Sade, Fourier, Loyola, trans. Richard Miller (Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1989).
5
Jacques Lacan, Kant with Sade, in crits, trans. Bruce Fink (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006),
645-68. Hereafter KS.
6
Gilles Deleuze, Coldness and Cruelty, trans. Jean McNeil (New York: Zone Books, 1991). Hereafter CC.
7
Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality, in Dialectic of
Enlightenment, trans. by John Cumming (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), 81-119.
8
Albert Camus, The Rebel. An Essay on Man in Revolt, trans. Anthony Bower (London: Hamish Hamilton,
1953), 32-43.
9
Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. Hazel E. Barnes
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1963), 379-412.
10
Simone de Beauvoir, Faut-il brler Sade?, Les Temps Modernes, 74 (1951), 1002-33; Simone de Beauvoir,
Faut-il brler Sade? (fin), Les Temps Modernes, 75 (1952), 1197-1230. From now on the English translation of
Beauvoirs study will be used: Simone de Beauvoir, Must We Burn De Sade?, trans. Annette Michelson (New
York: Peter Nevill Ltd, 1953). Hereafter MBS?.
11
An exception is Pierre Klossowski, who briefly discusses Sades life. See Pierre Klossowski, Elments dune
tude psychanalytique sur le marquis de Sade, Revue franaise de psychoanalyse, 3/4 (1933), 458-74.
12
When discussing Beauvoirs reading of Sades life Sade will be used. On the other hand, the words sadist
or libertine are used when referring to the characters of Sades prose.
20
13
See Debra Bergoffen, The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir. Gendered Phenomenologies, Erotic
Generosities (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 113-38; Debra Bergoffen, Menage trois:
Freud, Beauvoir, and the Marquis de Sade, Continental Philosophy Review, 2 (2001), 151-63; Judith Butler,
Beauvoir on Sade: Making Sexuality on Sade, in The Cambridge Companion to Simone de Beauvoir, ed.
Claudia Card (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 168-88; Karen Green, De Sade, de Beauvoir and
Dworkin, Australian Feminist Studies, 15 (2000), 69-80.
14
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, trans. Howard Madison Parshley (New York: Vintage Books, 1973),
301. Hereafter SS.
15
In her essay, Beauvoir often stresses that Sade desires the other. Therefore, one cannot hold that Sade only
desires absolute freedom and that he neglects the other. However, Bergoffen holds that Sade neglects lifes
ambiguity. See Bergoffen, Menage trois: Freud, Beauvoir, and the Marquis de Sade, 159-61.
16
Here, Beauvoir uses Husserls distinction between material and living bodies. See Sara Heinmaa, Toward a
Phenomenology of Sexual Difference. Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2003), 21-51; Sara Heinmaa, The Body as Instrument and as Expression, in The Cambridge
Companion to Simone de Beauvoir, 66-86.
17
Although he does not discuss Sades life but the characters in his prose, Lacan also stresses that the sadist does
not want to kill the victim but keeps her/him alive. See Jacques Lacan, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis 1959-1960.
The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, trans. by Dennis Porter (Routledge: New York, 1992), 261. Hereafter EP. Lacan
relates this observation to the fact that the sadists project is still captured by the symbolic order and is not able
to reach the real object. For a thorough discussion of this reading see Marc De Kesel, Eros and Ethics.
Reading Jacques Lacans Seminar VII, trans. Sigi Jttkandt (Albany: SUNY Press, 2009), 135-140. Both
interpretations are opposed to Sartres interpretation of sadism which holds that the sadist reduces the other to a
mute object. See Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness, 379-412.
18
In her interpretation of Beauvoir, Bergoffen links this interpretation to Lacans mirror stage. See Debra
Bergoffen, The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir, 125. Since Sade identifies himself with his victim, this
reference to Lacan is not wrong. However, unlike Beauvoir, Lacan understands aggression as the effect of
identification.
19
For a historical introduction to Sades philosophy, see Caroline Warman, Sade: from Materialism to
Pornography (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002).
20
Marquis de Sade, Justine, philosophy in the Bedroom and Other Writings, trans. Richard Seaver and Austryn
Wainhouse (London: Arrow Book Limited, 1965), 330. Hereafter JNE.
21
Marquis de Sade, Juliette, trans. by Austryn Wainhouse (New York: Grove Press, 1968), p. 14. Hereafter JUL.
22
Bataille and Deleuze defend the opposite thesis. They hold that Sades philosophical dissertations arent
directed to the reader but deny them. Their argument is based on two observations: on the one hand, the fact that
the main literary technique of Sades prose is repetition which destroys all meaning and renders any normal
reading impossible; on the other hand, the fact that Sades cold, strict and abstract reasoning seems to exclude
the reader. See Georges Bataille, De Sade and the Normal Man, in Eroticism: Death & Sensuality, 177-96
(189); Gilles Deleuze, Coldness and Cruelty, 18-19.
23
The fact that Beauvoir understands Sades transgression as a reaction to a contingent circumstance (his
imprisonment) is obvious. Indeed, it is often said that transgression expresses an innate disposition or a natural
desire to transgress the moral law.
24
Not only Beauvoir, but also Bataille, Blanchot, Deleuze, Klossowski, and Lacan stress the sadists apathy. See
Georges Bataille, De Sades Sovereign Man, 171-72; Maurice Blanchot, Lautramont and Sade, 36-39; Gilles
Deleuze, Coldness and Cruelty, 26-30; Pierre Klossowski, Sade My Neighbour, 96-98; Jacques Lacan, The
Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 77-80.
25
Also Deleuze, Lacan and Foucault associate Kant with Sade: Gilles Deleuze, Coldness and Cruelty, 81-90;
Jacques Lacan, Kant with Sade, 645-668; Michel Foucault, Prface la transgression, in Dits et crits I,
1954-1975 (Paris: Gallimard, 2001), 261-278 (268-269).
26
Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, trans. Bernard Frechtman (New York: Citadel Press, 1976), 9.
27
This short introduction is not intended as a complete summary of Beauvoirs philosophy. Two central
concepts, which she repeatedly returns to in her essay on Sade, are explained. This should be sufficient to
understand the argument of the text. For a more extended introduction to Beauvoirs thought, see Barbara
Andrew, Care, Freedom, and Reciprocity in the Ethics of Simone de Beauvoir, Philosophy Today, 3/4 (1998),
290-300; Eva Gothlin, Reading Simone de Beauvoir with Martin Heidegger, in The Cambridge Companion to
Simone de Beauvoir, 45-65; Sonia Kruks, Beauvoir: the Weight of Situation, in Simone de Beauvoir. A Critical
Reader, ed. Elisabeth Fallaize (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), 43-71; Monika Langer, Beauvoir and
Merleau-Ponty on Ambiguity, in The Cambridge Companion to Simone de Beauvoir, 87-106.
21