Not just Free but Flesh

Simone de Beauvoirs Existentialist Approach to Sades Life and Work

The decades immediately following the Second World War saw extensive interest in the

literary novels of Donatien-Alphonse-Franois de Sade (1740-1814). Philosophers and critical

theorists as diverse as Pierre Klossowski1, Georges Bataille2, Maurice Blanchot3, Roland

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;

and Jean-Paul Sartre deals with sadism from a phenomenological-ontological perspective in

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

originally published in two parts in the journal Les Temps Modernes.10

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

essay is to distinguish them clearly.

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

approaches provide an insight into the various forms of sadistic enjoyment.

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

passivity is imposed on women by a patriarchal society. According to Beauvoir, Sades life

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

to the experience of enjoyment.

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

employment, and acceded to his fathers request to marry Rene-Plagie de Montreuil in

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

of the tyrannical despot he can express his desire for sovereignty.

Beauvoir interprets Sades behaviour as the manifestation of a desire for unbridled

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

in which one is passively delivered and which one cannot escape.

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

others life.17 How should we understand this?

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

experiences a relation with the other.

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

other. Sades enjoyment in terms of the experience of pleasurable sensations is an effect of

being able to feel the other.

2. Sades imprisonment and literature

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

the relation between Sades imprisonment, philosophy, and enjoyment, it is necessary to

summarise the main content of Sades philosophical writings.

7
 In Sades novel Juliette, we find the libertine monk Claude reading Therese the

Philosopher, in which pornographic and philosophical passages alternate. This mixture of

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

materialistic philosophy of the eighteenth century. The theoretical reflections of Denis

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,

Descartes and Spinoza: to destroy all illusions.

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

of matter, what every modern philosopher acknowledges as one of Natures fundamental

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

main laws of Nature.

According to Beauvoir, Sades materialist philosophical background reveals the real

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

anthropomorphic perspective, murder is considered as morally reprehensible, from Sades

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

relate this aspect of Sades literature to the vicissitudes of Sades life?

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

autonomy and the desire to have his individuality recognised.

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

personal responsibility is destroyed. According to Beauvoir, this amounts to an appeal to the

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

an expression of solidarity with and attachment to society and its values.

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

development of an immense philosophical system channels his resentment. Sade consciously

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

literary activity, driven by resentment, causes enjoyment: He delighted in the shocking

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

transgression of moral boundaries. In other words, when Beauvoir considers Sades

philosophy as an expression of resentment, she understands his enjoyment from the

perspective of the transgression of societys moral categories.23

3. Sades dream and literature

When Beauvoir explains Sades philosophical reflections as a reaction to his incarceration,

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

of the sadist will be discussed.

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

to what is good for one and ones interests.

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

radical insensitivity is an expression of the destruction of self-involvement. This apathetic,

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

negation should not be understood as a complacent affirmation of superiority.

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.

Indeed, this kind of enjoyment implies immediate self-involvement: these are my

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

absolute freedom. In summary, when Beauvoir pays attention to apathetic enjoyment 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.

4. Beauvoirs existentialist reading of Sade

In the secondary literature it is often unclear which of Beauvoirs perspectives is discussed.

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

enjoyment Beauvoir mentions in her study of Sades life and work.

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

related to an existential problem. From Beauvoirs perspective on Sades life, enjoyment is an

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

difference considers the relationship between enjoyment and transgression, understood as

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

of Sades existential problem with others and freedom.

In addition to the similarities between the different interpretations of enjoyment

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

consideration of Beauvoirs existentialist view.

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

characterized by an ambiguous condition. She writes: In spite of so many stubborn lies, at

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

cannot freely choose. Everyone is passively subject to an impersonal dimension of existence

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

ways. Although Sades behaviour is without a doubt morally reprehensible, Beauvoir

understands it as an expression of absolute freedom. However, at the same time, Beauvoir

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