The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.18 (2014): 1-12

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works
in Saint Genet
MORI Norihide

Yamagata University, Yamagata

In 1952, Sartre published Saint Genet, which was originally written as a preface to Jean
Genet’s Complete Works. This long critical essay deserves to be read from various perspectives,
but we should not forget the fact that in this period Sartre also developed his moral theory. (Thenotebooks he kept in this period were published as Cahier pour une morale (1983) after his
death.) Some parts of Saint Genet are obviously based on the thoughts developed in thenotebooks, and there we can find some clear development in Sartre’s ethical thinking.
In this paper, I analyze Saint Genet from the perspective of Sartre’s moral theory. Many
think that Sartre’s ethical philosophy gradually changes throughout his life, but how and when
it changes remains poorly understood. To make clear the process of this change in the 1940s and1950s is an important task for current Sartre studies [1].
The main aim of this paper is to analyze the development in Sartrean ethics in the light ofSartrean aesthetics through a study of Saint Genet. In this paper, I shall focus on how Sartre
relates “the aesthetic” and “the moral,” especially in terms of the morality of artworks. My aim is
to bring out the interrelation between aesthetic value, artistic value, and moral value in Sartre’s
aesthetics, at least insofar as such a connection is discernible in the period from 1940 through tothe 1950s [2]. This axiological analysis of Sartre’s aesthetic theory would also provide anotherperspective for Sartre studies [3].
Before commencing my discussion, I would like to indicate the limit of this paper, whose
focus is mainly on Sartre’s understanding of Genet. Consequently, I intend to neither explore
Genet’s actual aesthetics or philosophy nor verify Sartre’s interpretation of Genet [4]. This paper
is a philosophical examination of Sartre’s theory rather than literary research on Genet.
However, the results of this investigation should not be confined to the realm of Sartre
studies. This paper aims to provide some hints for considering a general question in moral
aesthetics: what effects are generated by describing evil actions from an evil position withrecognition of their malevolence, and how should we evaluate such descriptions morally,
aesthetically, and artistically? [5]1. Jean Genet and Saint Genet
To begin with, we should familiarize ourselves with some historical facts about Jean Genethimself and Sartre’s critical essay, Saint Genet.
Jean Genet was a French homosexual writer who was repeatedly arrested until into histhirties for stealing, drug trafficking, and male prostitution. His collection of poetry written in
jail, Le Condamné à Mort (1945), and a novel, Notre-Dame-des-Fleurs (1942), were highly

MORI Norihide2

commended by Jean Cocteau, and this recommendation opened the way for Genet to establish
himself as a new, unique writer in the French literary world. Genet still drifted into crime
repeatedly, and in 1949, a prosecutor demanded a life sentence for him. Jean Cocteau and many
influential people in the France’s literary establishment petitioned the judge for mercy, andthanks to these efforts, Genet escaped the life sentence. After that, he wrote many dramas andnovels that featured love, prostitution, stealing, and betrayal. Finally, a petition came from Sartre
and other writers had the French President grant amnesty to Genet, as a result of which he was
acquitted of all criminal charges.
Saint Genet (1952) is Sartre’s critical essay, originally written as a preface for a projected
Complete Works of Genet. The volume was so large (over 650 pages!) that, as a result, Volume Iof this Complete Works, curiously, consists of only the preface.
The core points of Sartre’s analysis are as follows:---

Genet had a complex about his origin, which was that of an illegitimate orphan. The factthat he was alienated from ordinary familial and social conventions was fundamental
to his existence.
In childhood, Genet was caught stealing his foster parent’s wallet. The foster parent’s
accusatory words at that time—“You Are a Thief!”—strongly influenced Genet’s
character for a long time to come.
According to Sartre, before 1952 Genet’s character underwent three key metamorphoses.
The first metamorphosis was the decision to be evil; the second was from an existenceof evil to that of the dreaming man, who sublimates evil in his dream-like imagination(Sartre calls this “the conversion to an aesthete”); and the final metamorphosis was theconversion to a writer, becoming one of those who creates something in order tocommunicate his dreams to readers.

Saint Genet is not merely a critical essay that analyzes the text of Genet’s books, nor does it
analyze Genet’s works purely in terms of his circumstances. Sartre analyzes the works from theexistential point of view. That is, Sartre focuses on how Genet has overcome his unfortunate
social situation through his choices and actions. In Saint Genet, Sartre attempts to reveal Genet’s“original choice” (his existential freedom in creating his own life) by analyzing his life from hischildhood, and, based on this analysis, Sartre demonstrates the importance and the role of his
oeuvre [6].

2. On what view are Genet’s works immoral?: Evil intentions and socially negative effects
How does Sartre read Genet’s work? What value does Sartre believe Genet’s works possess?
These are the main question of this paper. In order to consider them, we have to see why Sartre
considers Genet’s work to be immoral. In this section, we focus on the issue of immorality. In thefollowing section, we shall see the moral merits Genet’s works possess.
From the outset, we encounter some important questions: Are Genet’s works reallyimmoral? If so, what form of immorality is it? The answer to these questions is not immediately

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works in Saint Genet3

obvious. It is certain that in his works, many immoral characters (thieves and traitors) appear,
but this fact does not imply the work’s immorality. And Genet’s works do not overtly recommend
stealing or betrayal [7]. Moreover, as a historical fact, French society (at least until 1952) did notprohibit the publication of Genet’s work, and Genet himself was not arrested for writing suchbooks.
So should Genet’s works be seen solely as skillfully rendered aesthetic works? Did Genetmerely create beautiful writings, although their motifs are ostensibly evil?
Sartre rejects these views. According to him, Genet does not create merely beautiful art, so
it is inappropriate to step back from Genet’s more general appeal in order to appreciate only theformal features of his work: “So long as you play at amoralism you will remain at the thresholdof the work” (SG647/586).
Why is it inappropriate to appreciate only the aesthetic features of Genet’s work? There are
two main reasons. Firstly, it is because in presenting his work, Genet expresses his own
standpoint. “[H]e never speaks to us about the homosexual, about the thief, but always as a thief
and as a homosexual” (SG649/587). This position is significantly different from that of Proust(also homosexual), who wrote a story where a number of homosexual characters just appear. (Inthis sense, we may say that Genet’s style has artistic values derived from its originality,
sensationalism, or surprising effects.)
Secondly, Genet not only creates a story, but also presents it as an offering to his readers.
According to Sartre, given the third “conversion” from an aesthete [8] to a writer, we should not
only follow the text objectively, but also receive it as a present from one existent to another [9].
It should be noted that Sartre gives weight to the connection between the work and thewriter. This connection between the works and the writer’s intention and life leads Sartre toclaim that it is an insufficient response to step back from Genet’s message and read his books asmere fictions [10].
If the connection between the work and the writer’s intention is established, Genet’s works
are open to a moral assessment that goes beyond a merely conventional aesthetic appreciation.
It is because the author, in writing beautiful novels, attempts to express his very existence andoffer his original philosophy to the public. The works are not just representations but the resultof a project “to make himself understood” (SG473/425) and are the platforms from where heappeals to the public.
From this new perspective, we can establish reasons for viewing Genet’s works as immoral.
Sartre says that, firstly, what Genet created is an object through which we are forced to see Genethimself as a horrible and hateful person (SG540–3/487–490) [11]. By effectively utilizing thepoetic power of his works, Genet forces us to understand his unconventional viewpoint and he
attempts to disrupt and upset our traditional values. If Genet has such an evil intention, we havea reason to say that his works are immoral.
Secondly, as we read page after page, we find ourselves slipping into an attitude whereby weappreciate evil activities aesthetically. This is the intended effect of Genet’s contrivance. We
might have a reason to see Genet’s works as immoral, because if that appreciation has anundermining effect on our moral views, it might “undermine the foundations of our society”(SG539/486) [12].

4MORI Norihide

To sum up, Sartre views Genet’s works as immoral because of Genet’s evil intention to
disrupt our morality and on account of the negative educational effect created through anaesthetic appreciation of his works.

3. Moral Values in Genet’s Works: To realize “solidarity”
We should note, however, that Sartre does not see Genet’s works as entirely immoral: healso finds some valuable moral features in them. Of cause, we can find many aesthetic values in
Genet’s poetically embroidered text. But, beyond these, what moral values can we find in Genet’s
works?
3-1 Positive moral values for the author
Here, we should limit our discussion. Genet’s works have many values. Amongst these,
Sartre focuses on the value the creation of them has for Genet himself.
According to Sartre, Genet’s creative activity is undertaken as part of his existential identity.
As we saw earlier, the conversion to a writer was an important moment for him. This conversion
opened up the chance to cease being a dreamy, imaginative, and alienated man. This conversion
was a turning point that allowed the restoration of a connection between being a criminal andbeing a member of a social community, and to abandon an existence that had been alienatedfrom society [13]. (Nevertheless, it is important that his aim was not to justify or apologize forhis criminal past. We should not forget that Genet tries to get us to recognize his evil for what itis.) “[H]is aim was to force the Others to recognize his singularity” (SG480/432) [14].
3-2 The values that readers enjoy
This paper sets aside the values a writer holds [15]. Rather, I would like to focus on whatkind of values readers can find in Genet’s work.
We should now turn on to the last chapter of Saint Genet, entitled “Please Use Genet
Properly” [16]. In the last chapter, Sartre claims that there is a “proper usage” for Genet’s works,
and in doing so, combats the fact that they were strongly criticized as scandalous novels at theirtime of publication.
From the moral point of view, what kind of value do Genet’s works have? Let me answer
partially before going into discussion in detail: the moral value of Genet’s works consists in their
cognitive value. That is, Genet’s works expand our moral awareness.
But this is not to say that Genet’s works are useful as a textbook or manual for confronting
evil. Of cause, we can derive from Genet’s works some knowledge about criminal behavior andvocabulary in gay culture at that time in France. But Sartre’s appraisal is not intended to provide
answers for some social problems, or to be useful for socially alienated people.
What can we learn from Genet’s works? To explain this, Sartre introduces the concept of“solitude.” This “solitude” does not mean geographical solitude such as living on a deserted
island, nor the type of social solitude that results from intentionally breaking down social
intercourse. Of course, there is a genre of literature that represents a saintly solitude and tells usof its virtue, but such a theme is a classical and canonical one in literature. The significant value

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works in Saint Genet

5

of Genet’s works does not consist in depicting such a noble and classical solitude.
The “solitude” Sartre considers here is another attitude, that is, the attitude of those who
committed a crime and now recognize the disassociation between themselves himself and society,but recognize also that there is a reason that lead them to that crime [17]. Although the solitary
people understand the distance between social values and their values, they cannot help
enduring their current situation. Sartre thinks that Genet is the man who embodies this solitude,
and that his works present us with the solitary experience [18].
By representing such a solitary man, Genet’s works impose a significant fact, that is, the factthat the immoral values of this solitary man are not irrelevant to readers. Sartre says that thissolitude is “latent” in us (SG662). But what does it mean to say that a view is “not irrelevant to”
and “latent in” us?
According to Sartre, the fact that Genet’s works impose on us is that we cannot deny thepossibility for us to assume Genet’s values. It should however be noted here that those values are
not presented there as ones that we might endorse hereafter. We do not need to accept nor
endorse Genet’s singular philosophy. The important fact is that his sense of values is not one that
we necessarily would never have had. That is, what Genet’s works forces us to recognize is thefact that now we would not fall into his situation and we would not accept nor endorse his values,
but we cannot deny the possibility of having having chosen such values ourselves.
By analyzing the life of Genet, Sartre reveals how Genet arrived at his situation and hisvalues. From a balanced point of view, Genet’s “solitude” is not one that we can pretend not tounderstand how it may have originated. In this sense, although Genet’s situation is highly
singular, it retains a sort of universality. To recognize this counterfactual possibility as mine is
to gain cognition of myself and it is also to comprehend our possibility of choice in moral
situations. From this reading, we gain a form of moral cognition. Therefore, although Genet’s
works are immoral in one aspect, in another aspect, they have also positive moral values.
To sum up, the moral value of Genet’s works consists in broadening our self-awareness by
presenting to us his singular values which we ourselves might have chosen.

4. Moral effects derived from an aesthetic appreciation of Genet’s works
The fact that we can recognize this possibility does not imply that we should evaluate thework highly. The number of situations we might have arrived at are so innumerable that to knowof alternative possibilities is not that significantly valuable, although to know future possibilities
is somewhat valuable. Why should we thankfully accept the possible situation Genet presents tous?
Sartre thinks that the aesthetic feature of Genet’s works has an important role here. In thissection, I try to reveal the relation between the aesthetic experience and the moral value ofGenet’s works.
According to Sartre, it is not crucial just to know Genet’s form of solitude, but to realize
it [19]. Genet neither logically explains nor establishes the cause of the solitary position; hedescribes it poetically and brilliantly with beautiful metaphors and figures. Thanks to thiscontrivance, readers not only rationally understand the scenes, but also imaginatively appreciate

MORI Norihide

6them, so that readers can realize and “live” the character’s solitude. Sartre finds the value ofGenet’s works in this capacity to realize and experience that solitude, and thinks that to “useproperly” Genet’s works derives from this capacity. That is, Sartre thinks that it is from thisperspective that we can defend the apparent immorality of Genet’s writings.
What sort of experience is this “realization,” and how does it bring about expanded moral
cognition? By poetically describing the burglars, or metaphorically representing homosexual
love scenes with analogies of flowers, Genet evokes in us various complicated images. The
characteristics of Genet’s technique consist neither in the detailed description, nor in the speedychange of scene, nor in the feeling of suspense in scenes of criminality. The main technique in
his work is the capacity to evoke vivid images by means of saintly or botanical analogies so thatthe repulsion toward evil and ugliness is calmed. Admittedly, with this in mind, to read his books
is a form of aesthetic experience. As characteristic examples, I cite here two metaphoricaldescriptions from Genet’s works:“A cherry branch, borne up by the full flight of the pink flowers, surges all stiff and blackfrom a vase” (SG516/464. Citation from Notre-Dame-des-Fleurs. Note that this is a
description of a penis.)“[The cop] makes of the Black Maria a carriage of exile, a coach wild with grandeur, slowly
fleeing, when it carried me off, between the ranks of a people bowing in respect.” (SG380/341.
This is a description of being bundled into a police van.)Sartre claims the poetic effects of these descriptions do not function solely as an aesthetic
merit, but also as a means of request from Genet to his readers to consider his moral perspective [20], and thus they possess persuasive, as well as aesthetic power [21]. (Provided we uphold
Sartre’s earlier theory of the imagination, we may say that affectivity and kinetic feelings have an
important role in the evocation of images.) [22]However, the aesthetic experience of Genet’s works has one other important effect. The factthat we experience his works aesthetically compels us, in an unveiling manner, to find the natureof our morality. Let me explain in detail.
Sartre says normal people (Sartre calls them “the Just”) cannot aesthetically appreciate
Genet’s works [23]. Adding to this claim, Sartre says about the works: “If they move me, thatmeans they concern me. If they concern me, that means I can profit from them” (SG646/585).
How should we understand these claims?
To understand them, I would like to introduce the notion of “imaginative resistance.”
Imaginative resistance is the phenomenon where, under particular conditions, we cannot
smoothly imagine a sort of state of affairs. The phenomenon of imaginative resistance had
previously been suggested by philosophers such as Hume. Recently, many philosophers have
refocused this phenomenon, and the discussion of its characteristics and causes are ongoing [24].
We can see the concept of imaginative resistance behind Sartre’s claims. According to Saint
Genet, Sartre seems to think that if we try to imagine a moral attitude that is far from theimaginer, “resistance” occurs.

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works in Saint Genet7

It is important that “resistance” is not a voluntary decision based on the understanding ofimmorality, but an involuntarily occurring response in the reader. So, what the reader learns
here is not the validity of some form of moral thinking or moral judgment, but the nature of the
ethical attitudes the reader implicitly holds.
According to Sartre’s theory of the imagination, all aesthetic appreciation is based on our
imaginative faculty. So if we cannot smoothly imagine the actions or characters’ attitudes, wecannot appreciate the work, or at least that appreciation would be partially disturbed. Given this,from the fact that a reader could aesthetically appreciate Genet’s works, it follows that thereader’s morality is not so far from the attitudes described in the works. We can formalize theargument underlying here in this way:
I [Presupposition 1] To aesthetically appreciate the works, the reader has to exercise own
imagination (a basic thesis in Sartrean aesthetics).
II [Presupposition 2] If the ethical view described there is far from the reader’s, thereader’s imagination is disturbed by the involuntary resistance response evoked in him
or her. (The thesis of imaginative resistance.)
III [Fact] We can aesthetically appreciate Genet’s works.
IV [From I and III] Our imaginative faculty was therefore sufficiently exercised.
V [From II and IV] The ethical view described in the work was not far from our own [25].
In this way, the fact that we can aesthetically appreciate Genet’s work imposes on us theundeniable conclusion that we must accept that the values of Genet’s works are not irrelevant tous [26].
Three points should be noted here. Firstly, what this argument shows is, at best, that the
ethical view described is not so far from that of the reader. That is, it does not follow from thisargument that the reader implicitly holds the immoral view, nor that the reader feels sympathy
to that immorality. Sartre seems to fully understand this limitation of the argument. He does not
request readers to feel sympathy, nor to endorse Genet’s philosophy, nor to experience
identification with the characters in Genet’s works [27].
Secondly, some philosophers indicate that great artworks, by making full use of artistic technique, can conjure up images of immoral scenes that transcend resistance [28]. Provided this notion is true, the fact that we can appreciate aesthetically an immoral scene does not actually imply
that resistance does not occur. (On the formulation above, [II] and [IV] do not actually imply [V].
To lead to [V], [IV] have to imply that the resistance does not occur in our imagination; but, given
the notion above, [IV] does not imply that.) Whether Sartre noticed this problem is not clear. In
the last chapter of Saint Genet, Sartre seems to straightforwardly infer [V] from [II] and [IV].
However, since Sartre mentions everywhere in Saint Genet the feeling of aversion caused by
Genet’s works, he would not consider that everyone can smoothly imagine the scenes in Genet’s
writing. We can fairly say that Genet’s works contain many disgusting descriptions and that
Genet aims to create a response of aversion. We should not focus on the fact that we canaesthetically appreciate them, but on the fact that in some part, we can vividly imagine thedisgusting scenes beyond our resistance. From the latter fact, it follows either that the resistance8

MORI Norihide

did not occur or that the artistic technique was so excellent that we can imagine scenes beyond
any resistance that may occur. In each case, since the resistance was little more than the one that
we cannot go beyond, we can conclude that the ethics implied there was not one that we
immediately reject. In the end, since we can say that Genet’s artistic technique reveals the natureof our moral attitudes, our moral assessment of his works may not change.
There is a third point we should note. Can the moral merit generated through appreciative
reading (that is, broadening our moral cognition) overcome the moral defect mentioned above(the potential undermining of society)? Unfortunately, this is not clear. Sartre himself does not
explain how we should reconcile the discrepancy between the moral merit and defect. In effect,in the last chapter of Saint Genet, Sartre presents merely one new moral merit to counter theabundant criticism of Genet prevalent at the time in France [29].
To sum up, Genet’s poetic contrivances, by having readers realize the moral values of solitarycharacters and by enabling readers to imagine evil attitudes beyond their imaginative resistance,
effectively function to morally educate readers. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether this moral
merit can overcome the moral defect of undermining society to the extent that we can forgive thevice in Genet’s work.
Adding to this, we may draw a general lesson in moral aesthetics: by representing an
unorthodox moral attitude together with descriptions of compelling reasons to arrive at that
attitude, the works can have a moral value, and by aesthetically coloring the description, thecognition derived from its aesthetic appreciation may become more convincing [30].

5. On the relationship between “proper usage” and Genet’s intentions
At the end of our discussion, I would like to indicate an important point. When Sartre offers
a way to “use properly” Genet’s work, he not only separates the works from Genet’s intentions,but even does something opposite to them. In fact, Genet does not want any reading that draws
some moral benefit from his works. Sartre himself registers this difference. He states: “[Genet]
has never dreamed of making us better and he does not want us to profit from his instruction”(SG618/558).
Judging from a view that emphasizes the writer’s intentions, Sartre’s reading of Genet’s
works in the last chapter of Saint Genet is not based on a reading in keeping with Genet’s
purposes. It is, so to speak, an unauthorized reading. As we saw in Section 2, Sartre, based on
the writer’s intention, rejects the aesthetic-oriented reading of Genet’s works. When Sartre draws
some moral values from Genet, he encourages us to read against Genet’s wishes.
The “proper usage” Sartre recommends is one from which we can draw benefit, but it is nota “proper” appreciation of the works, in the sense that the reading is clearly against the writer’s
intention. Therefore, it might not be clear whether the moral merit Sartre tries to draw from
Genet’s works can be justifiably attributed to the works themselves [31].

6. Conclusion and an outlook for Sartrean moral theory
According to Sartre, Genet’s works possess the following characteristics:

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works in Saint Genet

9

1. Moral neutrality in terms of the representation of apparently evil characters (since there
are abundant works featuring apparently evil characters).
2. Aesthetic and artistic merits of originality or curiosity in scenes where Genet represents
the evil ethics as his own (but this artistic technique itself does not cause straightforwardly
moral problems).
3. Moral defects stemming from Genet’s evil intentions accompanying the depiction ofcertain scenes and characters, and the consequent negative effects on the value system of
our society.
4. Moral merit in broadening readers’ moral cognition in regard to the “solitary situation.”
5. A persuasive power derived from the aesthetic merit of Genet’s poetic skill.
It should be noted that it is not clear how the moral merit drawn from the reading opposite
to the writer’s intention could accommodate the work’s immorality. In this sense, we would haveto say that Sartre’s argument is in part insufficient.
In addition to this specific analysis, I would like to say something from the broader
perspective of Sartre studies. The discussion of this paper indicates that in the 1950s Sartre had
been considering the way to understand a person’s singularity. This consideration was not foundin the ethics that Sartre tried to construct in the 1940s, since the ethics of that period was oriented
in a form of human universality. By developing this consideration of singularity, Sartre opens
another aspect of his moral theory. That is, he starts to see each human as “the universal
singularity.” In this sense, we could see the consideration of a person’s existence in Saint Genetas an important turning point in Sartre’s philosophy [32].

Notes
[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]

Researchers of Sartre often use the category of “the first ethics” and “the second ethics.” The former
refers to the moral theory in the second half of the 1940s, and the latter refers to that of the 1960s(Anderson 1993). This paper might give some hints as to considering the difference between thetwo.
Takeuchi analyses Saint Genet in chapter 7, entitled “Beauty and Evil: on Saint Genet [in Japanese,
Bi to Aku: Sartre no Genet-ron ni tsuite]” in Takeuchi (1967). Takeuchi rightly indicates that Sartre
easily connects evil and beauty in terms of non-existence and anti-nature. The aim of Takeuchi
there is to analyze the action or behavior of Genet and the characters in Genet’s works. Comparedto this, my aim in this paper is to consider the behavior of Genet as a writer and the value of his
works.
For the influence from ethics to art theory in Sartre’s philosophy after World War II, see Mori
(Forthcoming).
Many researches indicate that Sartre’s analysis of Genet is historically incorrect. For excellent
historical research on Genet, see White (1993).
Recently, many aestheticians have written papers on the interrelations among aesthetic, moral, andartistic values. See Gaut (2007) and the chapter 12 titled “Interaction: Ethical, Aesthetic, andArtistic Value” of Stecker (2010).
Although Saint Genet is positioned as one of the most fruitful results of existential analysis, its wayof analysis is often criticized. For it is not obvious whether there is “original choice” at the base of

10

[7]

[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

MORI Norihide

our activity, and whether it is appropriate to analyze artworks from the perspective of the artist’s
original choice. For the relation between the original choice and morality, see Jopling (1992).
Simont (1992) and Mouillie (2011) give a good perspective on the development of Sartre’s ethics.
“[H]e does not say that one should steal. Quite the contrary, he knows that it is wrong of him tosteal and it is in order to be wrong that he steals. But he does not even ask us to be wrong: he asks
us nothing at all” (Saint Genet p. 646/585. Hereafter SG.) The page number in the French text isfollowed by the page number in the English translation. In some citation, I have slightly changed
the translation.)“[An aesthete’s] aim is to reduce the universe and man himself to the simple play of an imagination”(SG415–6/372).
“Genet, who offered himself to the readers as an object, suddenly transforms himself, as soon as
they have opened the book, into a subject, for the imaginary world which closes up about them, andwhich is this world become nightmare, shows the readers that it has an author” (SG610/551).
“Let there be no misunderstanding: it is not a matter of saving his life by making it the occasion fora beautiful book, the object of a beautiful song, but of dissolving it entirely in the magnifying song”(SG576/519).
Sartre never accepts the view of new criticism, which claims that we should separate art fromthe artists. This comes about as a natural result of Sartre’s “literature of engagement.” In this paper,
I shall not deal further with the relation between the author, the fictional works, and the custom of
fictional literature. (Milman 1991b deals with this relation from the perspective of Sartre’s drama
theory, although his analysis is confined to Sartre’s view in the 1940s.) But it should be noted thatprovided Genet’s aims, the circumstance of sexual culture in France in 1940s, and the scandalous
nature of Genet’s works at the time, we cannot see Genet’s description of evil and the sexual scene
as ones of picaresque literature such as Macbeth or of film-noir such as In Cold Blood.
“There are wild objects which embody persons. When one produces one of these object, one is an
artist, and when this object arouses horror, one is a criminal to boot” (SG543/489).
It should be noted that whether a work is produced from an evil intent and whether a work produces
an educationally negative effect are independent affairs. Whether the work is immoral and whether
it should be censored or banned are also questions at different levels. Nevertheless, it is not clear
whether Sartre clearly distinguishes these questions in seeing Genet’s works as immoral.
The question whether it is also an immoral activity to aesthetically appreciate evil is one of the
major questions in moral aesthetics, but Sartre did not seem to clearly express his view on this issue.
I also would like to remain open in regard to the answer to this question.
Sartre sees here a sort of therapeutic value (SG602/544).
Sartre understands Genet’s works as “[a]n inquiry by Genet as to his potentialities” and as “a valid
method of investigation” (SG621/562).
For the analysis of Genet himself and Saint Genet from this point of view, see White (1993).
Ringer (2000) says that this last chapter of Saint Genet is “an epilogue” (p. 34). Nevertheless, I would
like to focus on this chapter, since I think that from there, we can draw out Sartre’s importantargument in regard to moral aesthetics.
“[S]oliude is a certain aspect of our relationship to all, and this aspect is manifested by certain typesof behavior which we adopt toward society” (SG652/590). “Being a negation, [solitude] is thenegative of our loves, of our actions, of our personal or political life. It is neither subjectivity, in thestrict sense of the word, nor objectivity, but the relationship between the two when it is experienced
as a failure. It is born within communication itself, as poetry is within all prose, because the mostclearly expressed and understood thoughts conceal an incommunicable element: I can make thembe conceived as I conceive them but am unable to make them live as I live” (SG653/591); “One isalone when one has a fault and a reason at the same time: when one declares oneself right assubject––because one is conscious and lives and because one cannot and will not deny what one

On Sartre’s ‘Proper Usage’ of Immoral Works in Saint Genet

[18]
[19]
[20]

[21]

[22]
[23]
[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]

[30]

[31]

11

has willed––and when one declares oneself wrong as object because one cannot reject the objective
condemnation of all of society” (SG654/592).
“[T]he universal and incommunicable experience which [the books of Genet] offer to all as
individuals is that of solitude” (SG651/589).
“But awareness of [the solitude] is not enough; you must live it, must therefore make it”(SG654/592).
“Beauty is the project itself become exigency” (SG423/379); “Beauty is the law of organization of theimaginary world, the only one that establishes an order and subdues the part to the whole without
being good” (SG424/381); “[B]eauty presents itself as an absolute end: it is the free appeal thatcreative freedom addresses to all other freedoms” (SG551/496–497).
“If Genet’s fictions have sufficient power, they will compel recognition” (SG557/502). For the powerof conviction which beauty has in Sartre’s aesthetics (especially for his view among 1940s), see
Milman (1991a).
For the relation between aesthetic appreciation and dreaming, see Mori (2012).
“[I]n accepting [Genet] the just change, for one cannot be perfectly just and at the same time readhis criminal works” (SG631/571).
It was Moran (1994) and Walton (1994) who opened the contemporary discussion of imaginative
resistance. Recently many philosophers discuss this phenomenon in connection with philosophyof mind and current research in psychology. See Gendler (2000) and Stokes (2006).
Sartre arrives at this conclusion because he sees the cause of imaginative resistance in the distance
between the moral attitude of the character depicted and that of the reader.[V]. But if, as Walton(1994) proposes, we see the cause of imaginative resistance in whether the reader can endorse theethical view depicted, the conclusion [V] would change. In that case, the conclusion would be thatthe ethical view described in the work was not one that we cannot endorse.
“Poetic trap will captivate his freedom and will reflect it to him as being half his own and half alien.
He will be forced to see himself and will be able neither to recognize himself nor reject himself”(SG549/495); “Genet holds the mirror up to us: we must look at it and see ourselves” (SG662/599).
Of course, it is not impossible to empathize or sympathize with characters in Genet’s works. Sartre
himself says, “Let us try to understand, that is, to sympathize” (SG141/121). But what is attempted
there, broadly speaking, is to imaginatively sympathize to them. That is, we do not appreciate theworks with sympathy from the heart. I do not commit to the view that we should appreciatepicaresque literature in terms of “the original vice which all human beings internally holds”(Takeuchi 1967) or the sympathy evoked from this original vice. Nishimura (1993, 315–6) rightly
criticizes such a view.
Cf. Stokes (2006).
The fact that Sartre calls the ethics of Genet “the ethics of generosity” and indicates the limit of suchan ethics, seems to be important point in considering the development of Sartre’s ethics (SG639–
644/578–583).
This is the claim that to describe evil can enhance the value of the works. Recently, this view islabeled immoralism. But it should be noted here that if the description is made with the intentionof providing enhanced moral important cognition, the work could be rather morally meritorious.
We cannot see it being the case that description of vice enhance the the value of the work.
If we adopt the view that in appreciating works we should place more emphasis on the intention we
can hypothetically derive from the description rather than the writer’s actual intention, we mightsee Sartre’s theory about the “proper usage” of Genet’s works as legitimate. In fact, some recent
aestheticians support such a hypothetical intentionalism (see Levinson 1996). Nevertheless, it has
been indicated that such a view has problems. For example, it is not clear whether this view cansecure a legitimate interpretation from many arbitrary ones and justify the reading’s legitimacy.
(For the problems concerning hypothetical intentionalism, see Chapter 7 of Stecker (2010). Stecker

MORI Norihide

12

[32]

himself adopts the position called moderate actual intentionalism). Especially in a case such as
Sartre’s interpretation, that is, the case where his interpretation is clearly against the author’s
intention, the justification of his reading might be difficult.
This research is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science (JSPS).

References.
Anderson, Thomas. 1993. Sartre’s two ethics. Open Court.
Jopling, David A. 1992. “Sartre’s Moral Psychology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Sartre. (ed.)
Cristiana Howells, Cambridge University Press: 103–139.
Gaut, Berys. 2007. Art, Emotion, and Ethics, Oxford University Press.
Levinson, Jerrold. 1996. The Pleasure of Aesthetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Milman, Yoseph. 1991a. “The Moral Esthetic Imperative in Literature: A Study in the Basic Dualism of
the Poetics of Sartre in the Forties,” Obris Litteratum 46: 27–38.
———. 1991b. “Aesthetic Distance and the Moral Value of Drama in the Dramaturgy of Jean-Paul Sartre,”
Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, Vol. 22, No. 3: 148–157.
Moran, Richard. 1994. “The Expression of Feeling in Imagination,” Philosophical Review 103: 75–106.
Mori, Norihide. 2012. “The Image and the Real: A Consideration of Sartre’s Early Views on Art,”
Aesthetics 16: 11-24. (URL: http://www.bigakukai.jp/aesthetics_online/aesthetics_16/text16/
text16_morinorihide.pdf [2013/09/30])———. Forthcoming “The Development of Sartrean Ethics after World War II: Moral Attitudes in Artistic
Relation” Proceedings of The 18th International Congress of Aesthetics (Peking University).
Mouillie, Jean-Marc. 2011, “Vers une morale concrête,” dans Lectures de Sartre (eds.) Philippe Cabestan
et Jean-Pierre Zarader, Ellipses: 287–309.
Kiyokazu, Nishimura. 1993. Fiction no Bigaku [Aesthetics of Fiction], Keiso Shobo.
Ringer, Loren. 2000. “The imaginary Homosexual: Sartre’s interpretive grid in Saint Genet,” Sartre
Studies International Vol. 6, issue 2: 26–35.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1952. Saint Genet: comédien et martyr, Gallimard. (Saint Genet, Actor and Martyr.
trans. Bernard Frechtman. New York, Braziller, 1963.)
Simont, Juliette. 1992. “Sartrean ethics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Sartre, (ed.) Cristiana Howells,
Cambridge: 178–210.
Stecker, Robert. 2010. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art, 2nd edition, Rowman & Littlefield.
Stokes, Dustin. 2006. “The Evaluative Character of Imaginative Resistance,” British Journal of Aesthetics
46: 387–405.
Takeuchi, Toshio. 1967. Gendai Geijutsu no Bigaku [Aesthetics of Contemporary Art], University of Tokyo
Press.
Walton, Kendall. 1994. “Morals in Fiction and Fictional Morality,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,Supp. Vol. 68: 27–50.
White, Edmund. 1993. Genet, A Biography. Knopf.

* This is the English version of my paper in Bigaku 63, no. 1 (2012): 37–48, published by the JapaneseSociety for Aesthetics.