Happy Halloween!
October 29, 2003 – November 13, 2003
In just a few years, this “nice little holiday” has become firmly established in our French culture. Even perfume shops have gotten in on it. It’s a fantastic marketing ploy. Just yesterday, walking down a street in my town, I saw a poster stuck on the door of a café; it was put up by a local nightclub. The poster showed a smiling skeleton wearing an American helmet, with the caption “Get bloody!” Just like in the United States, our children will go trick-or-treating, dressed as witches, devils, and hideous monsters, knocking on doors and demanding “candy or else!” Everyone will laugh and hand out sweets.
But what lies behind this Halloween celebration? The answer: the eroticization of death and evil, of everything monstrous. Last year, I found in a store a new version of the Scream movie mask, complete with a black cape. The manufacturer added a little gadget: a tube and a bulb. The character wearing this “party accessory” could, apart from looking like some kind of walking corpse... make blood drip down his masked face. Of course, it was made in the USA, imported in bulk or produced under contract, protected by international patents. Here’s a copy of the illustration showing this “costume accessory”:
Another photo shows how the user can make “blood flow” by squeezing the bulb:
I asked people present in that shop about it. I asked them if they thought it was okay to sell such an item. I reminded them that a year earlier a teenager committed murder while wearing such a mask: he stabbed a girl fifteen times, copying what he’d seen in the film. Everyone stared at me, wide-eyed.
There was a policeman there too. This happened in the village of Venelles, near Aix-en-Provence. I asked him for his opinion. The cop hid behind his “duty of discretion.” Right. I wasn’t asking him to speak as a lawman but as a man, a father. He bravely dodged the question, replying “there’s no law forbidding the sale of this item,” and the shopkeeper in Venelles chimed in: “this is a very popular product.”
That’s exactly how Americans react when someone points out something wrong: “It’s legal.” In the US you can do “anything that’s legal”: buy weapons, assault rifles, carry guns openly—even a big star like Charlton Heston, Moses of “The Ten Commandments,” became a champion of this “unalienable right enshrined in the Constitution.” Every year, 11,000 Americans are killed by gunfire; proportionally, that makes the US number one in homicide among all countries.
Halloween—what is it? It’s the eroticization of death, of evil, of monstrosity. Beware: if kids who play these innocent games ever take them seriously, we’ll be left wondering: “How could this young man have taken those movie scenes so seriously, when they were just fiction? We... don’t understand.”
Sex is mixed into everything. Sigmund Freud called this energy “psychosexual”; it can infiltrate anything, any act, any ritual. Example: Nazism. All Nazis were serious sexual deviants. Heydrich, assassinated by Polish partisans, was furious that his sadomasochistic sexual acts had been secretly filmed by police. Did you know that Himmler, promoter of the Final Solution, decorated his children’s room with furniture made from human bones and lamps whose shades were made from human skin?
You might think they were all like that. The real issue is where deviation begins and ends, and where its roots lie. If two people of the same sex make love and show affection without bothering anyone, without flaunting their private acts, nobody persecutes them. But a boundary soon appears. For torturers, inflicting horrific pain is intertwined with sexual pleasure. Sex can even lead to murder: some serial killers can only achieve orgasm when their victim dies. Psychologically costly...
How do sexual behaviors develop? Are they “genetic accidents”? Are people born homosexual, sadistic, pedophilic? At the embryonic stage, humans are asexual or... bisexual. Nature delays establishing gender identity quite late. Evolution specialists say ontogenesis and phylogenesis converge: embryonic development mirrors all of evolution, from fish to primates to humans. Psychically, a child has certain traits from birth and others acquired later. But what do we really know about this primitive psyche formed in the womb? Only recently have scientists begun to consider that fetuses can sense their environment, perceive tension, perhaps cries, feel maternal stress. Mammals give birth in secluded, dark places; mothers immediately mark their newborns by licking them and imprinting their scent. It took ages for humans to realize it might be better to deliver babies in dim light and let them meet their mother right away, rather than under bright lights and sterile conditions. How many births are traumatic experiences?
From all this, can we hypothesize that sexual polarity is still fragile at birth? Psychologists always preach that both feminine and masculine personalities coexist in each person: a feminine side in men, a masculine side in women. According to Freud, little girls don’t initially locate their hidden sexual organs; seeing those of a boy or their father, they associate sex with a penis. That’s what Freud called “penis envy.” It causes problems when they accept they have none. Boys experience castration anxiety; those without a penis dream of having one, while those with one fear losing it. All this persists until they manage to find their way through it all.
Against this backdrop, there’s also an identification process. Konrad Lorenz discovered that goslings identify their mother as the first creature they see after hatching. After acting as mother to a clutch, he showed them a lawnmower, making it roar nearby. Instant success. There’s a story about a pilot who went further: he got his goslings to follow his plane in formation. Children also undergo identification from birth; these first impressions are crucial. They instinctively seek answers: Who am I? Where ends my body? What’s the world like? Who’s Dad? Who’s Mom? Whom should I identify with and how? All sorts of mistakes are possible here. Some mental illnesses may stem from “hardware problems.” There are mentally ill people who perceive their hands as foreign bodies. But who can tell whether this comes from hardware or software—brain wiring and hormonal secretions are also shaped by experience.
Are there true hermaphrodites? Clinically, yes. But what about transsexuals? Innate or induced? Let me share a personal anecdote: as a child, I was brought to a house in La Baule where there was a kid my age—about eight. My family warned me: “Claude, that girl with the tartan skirt and braids isn’t really a girl; she’s a boy. His parents dress him like that because his mother wanted a daughter. They don’t want to upset him. Don’t ask questions, okay?” That’s induction at work. How does one become oneself when others induce certain behaviors? I’ve witnessed such aberrations. No need for clothing details; language, as Aesop noted, can be the best and worst thing. Well-chosen words from perverse parents can induce utter confusion, sometimes irreparable or hard to treat.
What becomes of a young male whose mother rejects him but finds “maternal tenderness” from his father or brother? Or who turns his own libido inward, fixating narcissistically on himself as his own “sexual object,” his mirror image? All this happens very early. I don’t rule out a genetic origin for homosexuality, or even a reincarnation effect. But other origins are possible: total failure of identification. Many homosexuals had “untouchable” mothers, loving but unreachable; fathers who were too perfect, too clever, too authoritarian—or the opposite. But saying this doesn’t solve their problem. Some behavioral patterns may be totally irreversible, incurable. The person has “structured himself” that way; nothing can be done. Psychotherapy has limits. And once sexual acts occur, it’s like what happened to Lorentz’s geese.
This is why I stress the importance of nurture, of lived experience. Parental messages can be extremely subtle—linguistic, for instance. I knew a homosexual who told me: “We were two brothers. I never heard my mother call me by name; she always said ‘the children.’”
What’s the future of our society? Should homosexuals be allowed to raise kids? To answer this, we must look at history. The Amazons, who treated men as livestock, really existed; until wiped out by neighboring Watusi tribes (closely related to the Maasai), they were ruled by a caste of homosexual men (see “King Solomon’s Mines,” a real ethnographic document). Greek warriors fought in pairs; their wives were kept in gynaecea. For centuries, marriage, a surname, and lineage were privileges of the wealthy; slaves gave birth and sold their offspring like cattle.
I recall a woman whose schizophrenic son founded an institution for such patients. Her second son was equally troubled. One evening I suggested a walk to the fourteen-year-old; his mother quickly replied, “He won’t come; he’s afraid of the dark.” I felt like yelling, “Shut up, you idiot!” Remember “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”: a nurse ruins all the good work done by a rebellious patient; a hospitalized young man, after sleeping with a friend, hears “What would your mother say about this?” and immediately starts stuttering again.
Many things, even grave ones, can be induced or created from scratch. Most psychologists agree that pedophiles were abused as kids and thus repeat the behavior. Want your child to be a pedophile? No problem: abuse him. Such people become socially unmanageable; their fixations may be irreversible. A brief anecdote: as a child I attended Saint-François-de-Salles Church in Paris; one day a pianist named Gilles, a notorious pedophile, appeared in a black velvet page costume with lace, white stockings, puffed breeches, and bright red lipstick, accompanied by his mother. Our priests in cassocks pretended not to notice. Why? Maybe the family donated generously to the parish. I’ll never know.
A few months ago, TV news reported that France’s famous church spokesman, handsome and media-savvy, was suspected of pedophilia; he vanished from view thereafter. The Vatican probably advised him to take a long vacation. Around the same time, a scandal erupted in the US involving high-ranking clergy involved in a pedophile network. All was quickly hushed up.
Church history is full of such scandals. Unless mistaken, the final step in papal installation involves a medical exam performed by cardinals themselves. This follows the legend of “Pope Joan,” whose existence is uncertain; some say she existed, others say it’s myth. Here’s what we know: after Leo IV died, a man called “John the Englishman” became Pope John VIII; after two years he was exposed when he gave birth to a girl, then executed along with his child. Yet he never appears in any official list of popes; it’s likely just legend. Still, until recently, the announcement of a new pope was: “Duos habet et bene pendantes”—“He has two [testicles] and they hang well.” I believe this phrase was used at John Paul II’s coronation. If true, the next millennium’s pope will be announced the same way; we shouldn’t miss it.
I’m skeptical of all institutions, especially those that can place themselves above the law. I recall meeting Le Troquer, then President of the National Assembly, at a red light; he’d recently been implicated in the “Blue Ballet” pedophile scandal involving many politicians. No one went to jail; he simply resigned.
Do you think sex is unrelated to politics? Clemenceau, “Father of the Nation,” was a notorious sex addict who needed “a woman a day” (like Simenon, our literary hero). Think of Kennedy, a womanizer; his latest lover, Marilyn Monroe, committed suicide after threatening to expose him—an act some saw as blackmail. Dangerous game indeed.
Soon you’ll learn Lenin’s true nature from one of his mistresses, Lise de K. Everyone knows Mao Zedong indulged in youthful sex until old age, while preaching chastity to his followers. Sex and politics? Sex and history? Ernst Röhm, head of the SA rival to the SS, was a “hardcore” homosexual with sadomasochistic tendencies; Hitler had him killed in the “Night of the Long Knives.” Who doubts that Nazism equals sadism, that it created an army of sexual deviants? Remember Dr. Mengele, smashing Jewish babies against walls at Auschwitz.
Before Nazism arose, Wilhelm Reich, a German communist and psychoanalyst, noticed that sadistic violence against Jews appeared in a country where paternal authority was extreme; a father could imprison his son on a mere whim. Reich saw this as cause and effect: oppressive upbringing led to sadistic reaction. He opened nurseries where kids could explore their bodies freely, instead of suppressing curiosity. Reich believed such upbringing produced balanced, non-aggressive adults; conversely, Nazi leaders had all been victims of severe sexual repression as kids.
It’s easy to see how sadistic and masochistic behaviors can be induced. The masochist links his sexual drive, his first expression of desire, to suffering, which then becomes a mandatory context for him. Sadism arises via identification and imitation; parental images play a huge role here. Both can also result from intense guilt: one reaction is extra-punitive, the other intro-punitive.
For half a century now, television has subtly shaped us without us realizing it. Who sows wind reaps storm; whoever spreads violence reaps its fruits. That’s what Halloween represents: the eroticization of death and harm one wishes upon others (“treats or curse!”). How can we laugh at kids knocking on doors shouting such things? How can we enjoy those grotesque faces, morbid pantomimes? Don’t imagine these things leave no trace on such young minds. Recall that teen who murdered after wearing a Scream mask. Consider what floods in from the US: a taste for the monstrous (“The Mummy’s Revenge”, Freddy series, etc.). Kids rush to buy these products; why? Their sexual connotation. Monstrosity, fear aren’t innate; they’re induced by our culture and amplified by media. It’s the eroticization of fear, pleasure in individual or collective rape. In the past, grandmothers told fairy tales full of murder and cannibalism (the ogre eating kids). Television has replaced this; it imprints images on children’s minds at the youngest age. Many psychologists, confusing cause and effect, claim these images help kids “get rid of innate violence.” But is that true? Is this violence innate or learned?
Prévert once wrote: “Some give children to cannons; others give cannons to children.” There’s a brilliant Hitchcock short: a six-year-old sees his uncle, a soldier, visiting; everyone greets him warmly. The boy reminds him of a promise to bring a gift. “Later,” says the uncle, then leaves with the family, leaving his open suitcase behind. Dressed as a cowboy, the boy finds a Colt and bullets; he imagines it’s his present. He loads one bullet and plays Russian Roulette around the neighborhood; shopkeepers pretend to be shot. At home, parents and uncle realize the gun’s missing and a bullet gone; panic ensues. The boy, terrified, breaks down crying. In ten minutes, Hitchcock shows how absurd it is to give kids toy guns.
Such “products” thrive thanks to the “golden calf” cult of market economy; American kids can buy perfect “special forces” costumes. You’ve seen those photos of very young Palestinian kids “dressed as suicide commandos.” These images point to no single culprit; they simply reveal the level of collective madness we’re sliding into globally, with no sign of abating. In rare countries where communities still live peacefully, terrorist attacks erupt to turn them against each other (as in Turkey last November). Tragically, no nation can claim moral superiority today. Communism collapsed due to Stalin’s millions of victims; how can we admire leaders whose fortunes reach billions? Religious leaders offer solutions taking us centuries back regarding women’s rights. This feels like a nightmare.
You mentioned globalization? I heard economists debating its merits; one argued that European manufacturers save money by outsourcing DVD production to China, dropping prices from 150 to 50 euros. Ignoring that China borders on slavery, he claimed liberalism benefits everyone: Chinese raise living standards via exports; French enjoy cheaper services. But with what wages? When all European production moves abroad, French workers must pay for services using what income? Globalization means poor countries become cheap labor reservoirs; rich nations export minimal social protections. To “keep pace with market demands,” rich countries weaken social safety nets; unemployment rises. Workers must bear the cost of job losses caused by moving factories to regions with lower costs. Basic economic logic.
Yesterday I heard economists fiercely defend pharmaceutical profits: “These margins drive research; without them, research stalls.” We live on a planet seeking morality. Who still believes market economy embodies highest moral values?
God is dead, Marx is dead; I myself don’t feel so well...
Back to the table of topics in “Briefs”