The power of ridicule.

— While reading a newspaper, we came upon this proverbial phrase: In France, ridicule always kills. This suggested to us the following reflections:

Why in France, and not elsewhere? It is because here, more than anywhere else, the wit, at once subtle, caustic, and jovial, seizes above all the cheerful or ridiculous side of things; it seeks it out by instinct, feels it, divines it, so to speak sniffs it out; it discovers it where others did not perceive it and brings it into relief with skill. But the French wit wants, above all, good taste, urbanity even in jesting; it gladly laughs at a fine, delicate, above all witty pleasantry, whereas insipid caricatures, heavy, coarse, point-blank criticism, like the paw of the bear or the punch of the brute, repel it, because it has an instinctive repulsion for triviality. It may perhaps be said that certain modern successes seem to belie these qualities. Much could be said about the causes of this deviation, which is indeed quite real, but which is only partial, and cannot prevail over the foundation of the national character, as we will demonstrate some day. We will only say, in passing, that these successes that surprise people of good taste are, for the most part, due to the very lively curiosity that is also part of the French character. But listen to the crowd as it leaves certain shows; the judgment that predominates, even in the mouth of the common people, sums itself up in these words: It is repugnant! and yet, one came, solely in order to be able to say that one had seen an eccentricity; one does not go back there, but, the throng of the curious once having paraded through, the success is made, and that is all they ask. The same thing happens with certain supposedly literary successes. The aptitude of the French wit for capturing the comic side of things makes ridicule a true power, greater in France than in other countries; but is it correct to say that it always kills?

It is necessary to distinguish between what may be called intrinsic ridicule, that is, inherent in the thing itself, and extrinsic ridicule, coming from outside and discharged upon a thing. Without a doubt this latter can be cast upon anything, but it wounds only what is vulnerable; when one attacks things that give no occasion for it, it slides off without harming them. The crudest caricature of an irreproachable statue takes nothing away from its merit and does not diminish it in public opinion, for each person is in a position to appreciate it.

Ridicule has force only when it wounds with precision, when it brings out with wit and finesse the small real defects: it is then that it kills; but when it falls into falsehood, it absolutely does not kill, or rather, it kills itself. For the adage above to be completely true, one would have to say: “In France, ridicule always kills what is ridiculous.” What is really true, good, and beautiful is never ridiculous. If one were to ridicule a notoriously respectable personage, the curate Vianney, for example, one would inspire repulsion, even in the incredulous, so true is it that what is respectable in itself is always respected by public opinion. Since not everyone has the same taste, nor the same way of seeing, what is true, good, and beautiful for some may not be so for others. Who, then, shall be the judge? The collective being that is called everyone, and against whose decisions isolated opinions protest in vain. A few individualities may be momentarily led astray by ignorant, malevolent, or unconscious criticism, but not the masses, whose judgments always end by triumphing. If the majority of the guests at a banquet find a dish to their taste, however much you say it is bad, you will not prevent them from eating it, or at least from tasting it.

— This explains why ridicule, cast in profusion upon Spiritism, did not kill it. If it did not succumb, it is not for lack of having been turned over in every direction, masked, distorted, grotesquely ridiculed by its antagonists. And yet, after ten years of relentless aggression, it is stronger than ever; it is that it is like the statue of which we spoke just now.

In the final analysis, upon what was sarcasm particularly exercised, with respect to Spiritism? Upon that in which it is really vulnerable to criticism: the abuses, the eccentricities, the exhibitions, the exploitations, charlatanism under all its aspects, the absurd practices, which are only its parody, of which serious Spiritism never took up the defense, but which it has, on the contrary, always disavowed. Thus, ridicule did not wound, nor could it bite into, anything but what was ridiculous in the manner in which certain ill-informed persons conceive of Spiritism. If it has not yet completely killed those abuses, it has dealt them a mortal blow, and that was just. True Spiritism could therefore only gain by ridding itself of the sore of its parasites, and it was its enemies who took charge of that. As for the Doctrine properly speaking, it is to be noted that it almost always remained outside the debate, although it is the principal part, the soul of the cause. Its adversaries well understood that ridicule could not reach it; they felt that the fine blade of witty mockery slid off the breastplate, which is why they attacked it with the bludgeon of coarse insult and the rustic punch, but with so little success.

— From the beginning Spiritism seemed to certain poor wretches a fertile mine to be exploited on account of its novelty; some, less touched by the purity of its morality than by the chances they glimpsed therein, placed themselves under the aegis of its name, in the hope of making it a means. These are those who may be called Spiritists of circumstance.

What would have happened to this Doctrine if it had not used all its influence to thwart and discredit the maneuvers of exploitation? One would have seen charlatans swarming from all sides, making a sacrilegious alliance of that which is most sacred—respect for the dead—with the suspect art of sorceresses, soothsayers, fortune-tellers, clairvoyants, supplying the Spirits by fraud when these do not come. Soon one would have seen the manifestations carried onto the stage, associated with conjuring tricks; offices of Spiritist consultations publicly advertised and resold, like employment agencies, according to the size of the clientele, as though the mediumistic faculty could be transmitted in the manner of a business concern. By its silence, which would have been a tacit approval, the Doctrine would have become jointly responsible for these abuses; we will say more: an accomplice. Then criticism would have had a fine game, because, with full right, it could have attacked the Doctrine which, by its tolerance, would have assumed responsibility for the ridicule and, consequently, for the just reprobation cast upon the abuses; perhaps it would have taken more than a century to rise from that failure. One would have to fail to understand the character of Spiritism and, still less, its true interests, to believe that such auxiliaries can be useful to its propagation and are fit to regard it as a holy and respectable thing. In stigmatizing exploitation, as we have done, we are certain to have preserved the Doctrine from a real danger, a danger greater than the ill will of its avowed antagonists, because it was heading toward its discredit; for this very reason, it would have presented them with a vulnerable side, whereas they were halted before the purity of its principles. We are not unaware that we have raised against ourselves the animosity of the exploiters and that we have estranged their partisans. But, what does it matter? Our duty is to safeguard the interests of the Doctrine, and not theirs, and that duty we will fulfill with perseverance and firmness to the end. It was no small thing to struggle against the invasion of charlatanism, in a century such as this one, especially a charlatanism stimulated, often instigated, by the most implacable enemies of Spiritism, for, after having failed by arguments, they well understood that what could be most fatal to it was ridicule. Therefore, the surest means would be to have it exploited by charlatanism, in order to discredit it in public opinion.

All sincere Spiritists understood the danger we point out and seconded us in our efforts, reacting on their part against the tendencies that threatened to develop. It will not be a few cases of manifestations, supposing them real, given as spectacle, as a lure for the minority, that will give true proselytes to Spiritism, because, under such conditions, they authorize suspicion. The incredulous themselves are the first to say that, if the Spirits really communicate, it will not be to serve as stooges or accomplices at so much per session; that is why they laugh at them; they find it ridiculous that respectable names should be mixed into such scenes, and they are a hundred times right. For one person who is led to Spiritism by that route, always supposing a real fact, there will be a hundred who will turn away, not wanting to hear it spoken of anymore. Different will be the impression in circles where nothing equivocal can cast suspicion on the sincerity, the good faith, and the disinterestedness, where the notorious honorability of the persons commands respect. If one does not come away convinced, at least one does not carry away the idea of a charlatanry. Thus, Spiritism has nothing to gain, and could only lose, by leaning on exploitation, while it is the exploiters who would benefit from its credit. Its future does not lie in the belief of an individual in this or that fact of manifestation; it lies entirely in the ascendancy it will conquer by its morality. It is by this that it has triumphed and will yet triumph over the maneuvers of its adversaries. Its strength lies in its moral character, and that is what they will not be able to take away from it.

Spiritism enters a solemn phase, but one in which it will still have great struggles to sustain; it is necessary, therefore, that it be strong by itself and, to be strong, it must be respected. It falls to its devoted adherents to make it respected, first by preaching it through word and example; then, by disapproving, in the name of the Doctrine, of everything that could harm the consideration with which it ought to be surrounded. It is thus that it will be able to confront intrigues, mockery, and ridicule.