Shh!, the solution of a major newspaper for an unflushable essay on morality
Ferreira Gullar, a regular writer for Folha de S. Paulo, www. folha. com. br claimed, in his "Repressão e preconceito" [Repression and prejudice], published in that newspaper on Sunday, 24/02, p. E12*, that "everything is very wrong", while, very likely, the most severe problem can be traced back to the manners of companions of his, or simply guests, who would insist, "Why not defecating here, in your living room?"Bad for you, if you read Gullar's article anywhere else but in the bathroom. Too bad.
As a remarkable contrast to the recent Steven Pinker's "Moral Instinct" (New York TImes, Jan 13, 2008), the translation of it still in my suitcase (Folha itself, Feb 10), Gullar's arguments are disturbingly revailing of a mind that completely failed to grasp any sense of morality. Indeed, in view of his article, it is easy to deny the existence of anything akin to a moral instinct. But something turns out to be even more astonishing: Mr. Gullar - and the newspaper - got away with that all. Not even a single line commenting on that article did the newspaper involved seem to have issued. Then, even the ever-so- present-around-here Roman Catholic Church has apparently remained indifferent before what is detailed below. (or does She have a voice in the paper's scrap room?)
Gullar, under the tag of 'repression' and 'prejudice', has written:
a) on pedophilia: "If the individual was born a pedophile, why is his sexual preference considered a crime? Why punishing someome that simply obeys his innate impulses, that are imposed on the person by nature?" Well, yes, quite a redundant style, as it is. [emphasis is added]
b) on drug consumption:
"If [the guy] enjoys birita, marijuana, cocaine, crack or ecstasy, it is his business"... The author implies that, later on, crime follows drug addiction just because of the repression the person had been a victim of since the very moment s/he became a drug user, repression which, as he sees it, challenges the claims we live under democracy: "And then [they] complain the guy has grown into a criminal!""...[If the guy enjoys (drugs), it is his business.] Despite, father, mother, the police, the whole society rises against him. And on top there comes the daring allegation we live under democracy."
Next comes the writer's recipe of how to deal with such situation:
"If the guy smokes, gets crazy and goes round mugging the 'caretas' [slang for the well behaved, conventional people], it is his [the addict's] business. The mugged one is to help him/herself (let him/her virar-se)."
All Gullar's puzzle is over this: "I would like to know the reason for such prejudice against whoever enjoys drugs. Aren't there those who enjoy climbing... eating chocolate...? Gullar places the name of Nietzsche attached to his next argument (below). I cannot help thinking that it is good for Nietzsche to be dead for, otherwise, he might be so appalled - adding to the shock his failing to make Folha publish his reply - he could resort to 'natural impulses'...
On the law:
"Only the weak and coward need repressing laws to compensate for the natural superiority of the strong."
So, clear as it is, Gullar's allegedly Nietzsche-friendly 'thesis' proposes that the ones that "obey nature" are the Naturally Strong, and are the very ones society condemns and calls them 'criminals', 'the mentally ill', and so forth. The 'caretas' are the weak... Indeed, the latter need the law to protect them against crime, but relying on legal systems would not make them weak... Or so I would think so far, and presumed most would also stick to that. (Ah! Not a thesis at all, just a 'piece of art, of literature' that prevented any, any further comments? I am sorry, taking so 'strong' a point is not my cup of tea.)
Not a thesis, just 'art'?
The 'sound' of it: "It is all very wrong. Due to reasons I ignore but outright refute, men [literal translation, please read 'people' or, if you dare, 'humans'] have decided to repress their most genuine desires and their spontaneous way of life in favor of rules, discipline, values that, as Nietzsche put it, only benefit the weak and coward..."
So it seems that, by writing all those "deep" propositions, Gullar has convinced himself of his "strength", as he, we are left to realize, would be himself a pedophile and a drug addict or, as he prefers it, a natural, strong and wise obedient to nature impositions. So 'strong' in fact he may feel he could eventually regret he is unable to reconcile his 'strength' to whatsoever trace of beauty in the shape of either words or ideas, as he reaches the conclusion to his text:
The ending:
"Now if someone asks me whether s/he is allowed to defecate in my living room, and not in the bathroom's toilet, I retort that they must do so in the toilet. And that they must flush, right?"
Has his astonishing essay been just flushed itself? And democracy - or whatever - just goes on?
I guess Folha has become fond of what I recognize most vividly as the 'Vatican way' - the cover-up, or "nothing has happened at all'. Such silence, by the way, strongly disagrees with the fuss around the article by the TV presenter Luciano Huck, issued just a year ago, and, especially, the antithesis to such article, where it is claimed Huck, recently mugged and deprived of his Rolex, had nothing to complain about since what happened was a "fair exchange" - his offender (not so, according to Gullar) had not taken Luck's life.
The most-acclaimed Brazilian movie, still on, "My name is not Johnny" has not been addressed by Gullar, but it could have been the very drive to, probably, the most disgusting apology to fake freedom ever. The movie was generally received among us as a "lesson"; in turn, this "Repression and prejudice" - and all the silence, so far, around it - might lead to another production capable of eternalizing a "Ferreira Gump".
Meanwhile, I would suggest someone should try to welcome a whole new group of guests, ones who would not take asking dump questions as freedom.
