|
| From the archives of The Memory Hole |
Philosophical Egoism: Dora Marsden
The following is S.E. Parker's contribution to a little volume
published in the early 1980s celebrating the centennial of
Benjamin R. Tucker's well-known publication, Liberty.
The title of the volume is, Benjamin R. Tucker and the
Champions of Liberty: A Centenary Anthology. I would liked
to have been able to see more of Marsden sharp wit and less of
Parker's refereeing, but that's the way it is with egoists. If
you go here you will be able to realize this.
The New Freewoman: Dora Marsden & Benjamin R. Tucker
By S.E. Parker
After Tucker had stopped publishing Liberty and
settled permanently in France, he did not stop all his propaganda
activities. For nine months, from June 1913 to March 1914, he
was a regular contributor to The New Freewoman--later The Egoist--edited by Dora Marsden and
published in London, England.
Dora Marsden was born in 1882 and died in 1960. Her
close friend, Harriet Shaw Weaver, described her as "remarkable
person, a genius and very beautiful to look upon. She had a
hard bringing up, had won a scholarship for Manchester
University, taken a degree in arts, been a teacher for a few
years, thrown that up to join the Woman's Militant Suffrage
Society; had thrown that up before long, finding the leaders too
autocratic, in order to start a paper, The Freewoman."
The Freewoman , which first appeared in the
winter of 1911, was denounced as an "immoral paper" by Lord Percy
in The Morning Telegraph, no doubt because it allowed
space to such subjects as lesbianism, one of the great
"unmentionables" of the pre-1914 world. Despite Lord Percy, its
editor was undaunted and The Freewoman continued to
appear until October 1912 when its proprietor withdrew his
support. By June 1913, however, Dora Marsden had gathered fresh
support, and it reappeared as The New Freewoman whose
purpose was "to expound a doctrine of philosophical
individualism...[and] continue The Freewoman policy of
ignoring in its discussion all existing tabus in the realm of
morality and religion." By the time the third number had
appeared, Dora Marsden had declared herself an egoist and her
views at that period were clearly influenced by those of Max
Stirner.
It was not surprising, therefore, that Tucker saw in
The New Freewoman a suitable vehicle for his ideas, and
his first article was published in the issue for June 15, 1913.
But although he contributed frequently, most of his contributions
consisted of translations from the French press, often under the
general heading of Paris Notes or Lego and
Penso. From time to time he wrote a short piece of his
own--either a comment on a news item or a reply to a critic. One
curious piece concerned the contrast between the will of the
banker J. Peirpont Morgan and the last letter of A.
Monier-Simentof, one of the Bonnot Gang of
"anarchist-illegalists" who was guillotined in 1913. Tucker
wrote:
"One need not be an advocate of 'individual
resumption,' of 'propaganda by deed,' or even of 'direct action,'
in order to prefer the petty bandit who, having a social ideal,
seeks to further it by an isolated act of violence, though
knowing thereby he bares his neck to the knife, to the giant
bandit who, believing in society as it is, and having no ideal
but his own aggrandizement, realizes it by forging and wielding
the mighty weapon of legal monopoly to despoil a whole people of
their products and their liberties, and who, wolfish devourer of
the flock, continues, even after his death, to bathe in the Blood
of the Lamb."
Tucker's preference for someone who robbed banks to
someone who used banks to rob, reads rather strangely in view of
his violent denunciation, some 25 years earlier, of certain
followers of Johann Most who sought to further their "social
ideal" by insuring houses and then setting fire to them. Even
stranger was his use of this term, "social ideal," to justify his
preference, for such a moralistic evaluation hardly squared with
his claim to be Stirnerian egoist.
In another comment Tucker replied tartly and more
consistently to a Columbia University professor who had
complimented suffragettes on their "fibre" in taking the
consequences of their "crimes":
"To say that a rebel is bound in honour to take the
consequences is to declare the victim the tyrant's debtor, and is
superstition pure and simple! A rebel against the State is
contemptible if he complains of the consequences of his
rebellion, but certainly he is entitled to avoid them if he can,
and, in doing so, he shows not lack of fibre, but possession of
wit."
Dora Marsden made no comment on these early
contributions, but given her own Stirnerian approach it was only
a matter of time before the "social idealist" in Tucker provoked
her into a debate with him. And Tucker did just this in an
article published in the issue for October 1, 1913, entitled,
Proudhon and Royalism.
In this article, Tucker attacked the French royalists
gathered around Leon Daudet's paper L'Action Francaise.
These "neoroyalists" had enrolled Proudhon in the ranks of their
precursors and had founded a Cercle Proudhon which
published a bi-monthly review, Cahiers du Cercle
Proudhon. According to Tucker these "impudent young
rascals" wanted a restored monarchy to institute "a regime of
decentralization that shall guarantee numerous individual
liberties now more and more endangered by democracy and
socialism." Although he thought that the neo-royalists
appropriation of Proudhon would lead people to read the latter's
works, Tucker protested strongly against what he saw as their
one-sided presentation of Proudhon's ideas. "Democracy," he
wrote, "is an easy mark for this new party, and it finds its
chief delight in pounding the philosopher of democracy, Rousseau.
Now, nobody ever pounded Rousseau as effectively as Proudhon
did, and in that fact the Cercle Proudhon finds its
excuse. But it is not to be inferred that, because Proudhon
destroyed Rousseau's theory of the social contract, he did not
believe in the advisability of a social contract, or would uphold
a monarchy in exacting an oath of allegiance." Proudhon "found
fault with existing society" because it was not based on a
"social contract." Tucker wanted to "expose the fraud" of the
French royalists' championing of Proudhon and he sought to do so
by quoting a long extract from The General Idea of the
Revolution in the 19th Century, the conclusion of which
read:
"The law is clear, the sanction still more so. Three
articles, which make but one--that is the whole social contract.
Instead of making oath to God and his prince, the citizen swears
upon his conscience, before his brothers and before Humanity.
Between the two oaths there is the same difference as between
slavery and liberty, usury and labour, government and economy,
God and man."
As if anticipating sharp rejoinders from Stirnerians,
Tucker remarked of the extract as a whole: "Leaving out the
words 'good,' 'wicked,' 'brute,' and 'Humanity,' which are mere
surplussage here, this extract, I think, would have been
acceptable even to Max Stirner as a charter for his Union of the
Free.'"
Dora Marsden, however, was not convinced. In the
following issue, that for October 15, she wrote that Proudhon's
"outlined Social Contract" is "a very dragon, big and very
impossible in everything except words. If we outlined a scheme
for building a block of flats as high as St. Paul's, with
lily-stalks for materials, and carefully went into the joys of
living therein, and assessed the penalty for occupants who
damaged the joinery, may we say, we should consider we were doing
very similar to that which Proudhon does in outlining the social
contract. It need not be asserted...that we consider Proudhon
was a blazing light in a dark age, but the passage quoted...shows
him at his worst. If it were the boyish essay of a youth in his
teens, with the instinct of the pedagogue, we should put a pencil
through half of it as bombast and fustian. The half left would
consist of adjectives and prepositions. It is the kind of thing
that overpowers our mental digestion."
Tucker replied in the November 15 issue. Dora
Marsden's criticisms "seem to have been directed in part" at
Proudhon's "style and in part at his sanity." Regarding his
style "the competent of France generally class Proudhon with
Michelet and Balzac as prominent among those whom the Academy
ignored to its own disgrace." However, "of greater interest and
importance would be her contention that it is insane to suppose
that people can associate for mutual protection on the basis of a
contract defining the protective sphere if it were supported by
any reasons. But I find none in her paragraphs." Dora Marsden's
mistake lies in the assumption that "our evolution into a society
founded on contract involves...the necessity of erecting a new
social structure separate from that which now exists...The
passage from Proudhon wanted "a dissolution of government into
the economic organism" in which the functions of the State would
be gradually "lopped off" and those which were "useful and
non-invasive would be taken over by voluntary associations of
workers."
In the same issue Marsden retorted: "We frankly do
not understand why Mr. Tucker, an egoist, and Stirner's English
publisher, does not see the necessity of cleansing current
language of padding as a preliminary of egoistic investigation.
It is a task which pioneers of a new branch of science are always
faced with. Stirner himself worked like a navvy on the job. As
for Proudhon, we are entirely beyond the reach of the verdict of
opinion among 'those who know' [LOL, ed. :-)] and we are not
moved by the fact that Proudhon was at the 'zenith of his power'
when he wrote The General Idea. When he is looking at
things as they exist he is a strong searchlight; when he is
trying to woo his readers to his solutions, he uses method of
cajolery which are positively repellent, and makes style a thing
not to be mentioned."
Back came Tucker in the December 15 issue. He claimed
that he had succeeded in "having elicited from [Marsden] a new
appreciation of Proudhon, which, if still inadequate, is at least
more generously specific in its allotment to the credit side of
that author's long account." However, "as to the main
contention--whether it is crazy to think of voluntary
co-operation for defence, in conformity with a voluntary contract
fixing the limits of such co-operation, as a possibility of the
future--we are no further forward than before; for Miss Marsden
still neglects to supply a reason why a person who pursues that
ideal will find his proper environment within the confines of a
madhouse. Until such is forthcoming, the discussion cannot
proceed."
Tucker also introduced a new note into the debate. In
the October issue, replying to "some American friends," Marsden
had stated that her paper "stands for nothing...It has no
'Cause.' All that we require of it is that it remain flexible
and appears with a different air each issue. Should an influence
come in to make it rigid, as happens in all other papers, it
would drop from our hands immediately." Tucker challenged: "May
I ask for an explanation of the sub-title: 'An Individualist
Review'? And what did Miss Marsden mean when she said that the
paper was 'not for the advancement of woman, but for the
empowering of individuals'? My interest in the paper grows out
of my belief that it 'stands for' such empowering...If I am
wrong; if in truth, The New Freewoman is not, or is no
longer, a co-ordinated effort toward a definite end, but has
become, instead, a mere dumping-ground for miscellaneous wits,
then...my interest will diminish materially and speedily."
It was somewhat late in the day for Tucker to have
discovered that The New Freewoman was a "miscellaneous"
publication, since it had been that from the start, as indeed,
had been its predecessor. The reason for such a belated
discovery was, I suspect, a need to find an excuse for breaking
off collaboration with the paper, the article in which he made
the remark being the last he contributed.
Dora Marsden did not return to the debate proper until
January 15, 1914, by which time The New Freewoman had
changed its title to The Egoist. "Mr. Tucker," she
wrote, "has informed us that the argument cannot proceed until we
have explained" why "it is a sign of insanity for people to
'associate for mutual protection, on the basis of a contract
defining the protective sphere,' because we said that Proudhon's
outline of the Social Contract with the powers and penalties
attaching thereto seemed as valuable as a scheme for building
flats with lily-stalks." This was not the case. Contracts are
as natural to make "as it is for men to laugh, talk, and
sigh...But as a matter of fact we had not arrived at the point of
considering whether contracts were good or bad. The
theatricality of Proudhon's style with its faked matter and
pompous manner rendered it impossible... As for the
lily-stalks...they were intended to refer to M. Proudhon's
assumptions regarding human nature. We meant that the kind of
people he describes never walked on earth: figures with no
genuine insides, stuffed out with tracts from the Church of
Humanity and the Ethical Society." [LOL, ed. :-)]
Outraged by this rough handling of his hero, Tucker
wrote a letter to Marsden announcing that he was no longer going
to write for The Egoist. In the issue for March 3, she
took the occasion to develop her attitude towards anarchism.
Tucker, she stated, "who is perhaps the best-known living
exponent of Anarchism and hitherto an unwearying friend of
The Egoist has informed us that we are not Anarchist.
We are rather 'Egoist and Archist,' that 'combination which has
already figured largely in the world's history.' The first thing
to be said anent that is, that if it is so we must manage to put
up with it. If to be an Archist is what we are, then we prefer
Archism to Anarchism which presumably necessitates our being
something different."
The point at issue is "whether in Anarchism, which is
a negative term, one's attention fixes upon the absence of a
State establishment, that is the absence of one
particular view of order supported by armed force with
acquiescence as to its continued supremacy held by allowing it a
favoured position as to defence in the community among whom it is
established; or the absence of every kind of order supported by
armed force and maintained by the consent of the community, but
the presence of that kind of order which obtains when
each member of a community agrees to want only the kind
of order which will not interfere with the kind of order
likely to be wanted by individuals who compose the rest
of the community..The first half is what we should call Egoistic
Anarchism which The Egoist maintains against all comers.
The second, which is that of our correspondent,...has in our
opinion no claims at all that are not embedded in a hundred
confusions as to the label Anarchism. We should call it rather a
sort of Clerico-libertarian-Anarchism...It represents more
subtle, more tyrannical power of repression than any the world
has yet known, its only distinction being that the Policeman,
Judge, and Executioner are ever on the spot, a Trinity of
Repression that has a Spy to boot, i.e., 'Conscience,' the 'Sense
of Duty'...Compared with the power of egoistic repression the Ego
comes up against an ordinary 'State,' that which it meets in the
shape of conscience is infinitely more repressive and searching.
The Archism which is expressed in the Armies, Courts, Gowns and
Wigs, Jailers, Hangsmen and what not, is but light and
superficial as compared with our Clerico-libertarian friends."
Marsden declared herself in favour of anarchism if it
meant the abolition of the State, but not if it meant to
substitute for the State "the subtle and far more repressive
agency of Conscience with its windy words and ideas." The
trouble with the "clerico-libertarians" is that they want "the
self to 'rule' but it must first change itself." She
was not for such an idealized and illusionary "self," but for
"vulgar simple satisfaction according to taste--a tub for
Diogenes: a continent for Napoleon: control of a trust for a
Rockefeller: all that I desire for me: if we can get
them."
If the combination of egoist and archist "has already
figured largely in the world's history" it shows that it
works and if that is so then its analysis will indicate
"the reason why the libertarian, humanitarian, idealist cure-alls
won't go down: the reason why they won't and the knowledge of
what will." It is because socialists, communists and--"in the
main"--anarchists, surround the goods of the world with sacred
principles and want to make them the "property of all" that
things are as they are. "Whereupon the few 'respectless' ones
divide up the lot between them. The sooner the poor become
'Archists,' therefore, the better."
The issue of March 16 carried a letter from Tucker
accusing Marsden of "a most ludicrous misapprehension of the
Anarchist position." He had, however, no intention of setting
her right. If she found "Egoism and Anarchism" satisfactory
"Against what is The Egoist rebelling? Against
rebellion? Or, having discovered that you are not an Anarchist,
am I now to discover that you are not even a rebel?"
Marsden replied that she refused "to answer to
'Rebel,'" preferred "not to be called 'Pragmatist,'" was quite
willing to "not--according to Mr. Tucker--be called 'Anarchist,'"
but responded readily to "Egoist."
On that note the debate ended.
Had he also replied Tucker would no doubt have
repudiated Marsden's claim that he believed in such "spooks" as
"conscience" and "duty," and might have pointed out that such
beliefs could be more properly ascribed to "clerico-libertarians"
like Godwin, Kropotkin, and Tolstoy. Nonetheless, even if she
had not fully understood Tucker's anarchism, Dora Marsden had put
her finger on the curious blindness regarding Stirner's view of
Proudhon that afflicted Tucker and his associates--including even
the usually perspicacious James L. Walker, author of that
admirable complement to The Ego and His Own, The
Philosophy of Egoism. For it was not simply the
"surplussage of words" referred to by Tucker that Stirner found
unacceptable about Proudhon. Stirner's case against Proudhon was
that his doctrine was shot through and through with a moralism
that only differed from Christianity in the name given to its
"supreme being." All this is made very clear in The Ego and
His Own, wherein Proudhon is shown to be a moral fanatic
opposed to egoism and believing in such nonsensical abstractions
as "sacred duties" and "eternal laws."
It would have been interesting to see what would have
happened had not Tucker withdrawn from the debate before it had
run its course. Perhaps he sensed that it might have confronted
him with the failure of his attempt to synthesize the "prolix
pathos" of Proudhon with the tough-minded clarity of Stirner--a
synthesis which was and is impossible, as Marsden realized.
Although The Egoist continued publication
until 1919, Tucker never resumed his collaboration. Some of his
friends, like Stephen T. Byington, continued to cross
intellectual swords with the editor for a while, but the
honeymoon of the Tuckerians with The Egoist had clearly
ended. Unfortunately, Dora Marsden later lost her way among the
metaphysical puerilities of "christian gnosticism," about which
she wrote several obscure books after the end of World War I.
Had she kept her head, and developed the approach she displayed
in her joust with Tucker, she could have become an egoist
philosopher of the first rank. But that would have been another
story...
✳ ✳ ✳