Raymond &#038; Polanski vs. &#8220;Mr. Society&#8221;
<p>In my previous post, <em>Why Artists Defend Roman Polanki</em>, I analyzed the flap over the Roman Polanski arrest as a case of artists arguing for a privilege to behave like shitheels without being held to account for it.  I advanced this as an explanation because I think it covers the facts better than some of the culture-war political narratives being bandied about, especially by conservatives, but I deliberately did not take a position on the rights and wrongs of the arrest or whether I think Polanski should be prosecuted at this late date.</p>
<p>Now I&#8217;ll do so.  I expect it will startle almost all of my regulars and offend a good many of them, but I think Polanki should be let go.</p>
<p><span id="more-1271"></span></p>
<p>Yes, Polanski is a contemptible scumbag, and no, I don&#8217;t buy the notion that artists should be exempt from civilized standards of behavior, and no, I&#8217;m not basing my  evaluation on some legal technicality or the rumors of judicial misprison around his 1977 trial. No; my position is that Polanski should be let go because <em>that&#8217;s what Samantha Gailey says she wants</em> &mdash; and, as the victim of his rape, hers is the only choice that I think should  matter a damn. </p>
<p>If Gailey were calling for Polanski to be chemically castrated or executed, my position would be identical.  In fact, if she were calling for him to be executed, I&#8217;d cheerfully shoot the bastard myself, and not be too concerned about sparing any of the slimy Hollywood apologists for him who might happen to be in the line of fire.</p>
<p>What I am specifically concerned to deny is that &#8220;society&#8221; has any legitimate interest in punishing Polanski. There are at least two dangerous fallacies in that theory, one implied by the word &#8220;society&#8221; and one bound up in our notions about punishment.  It is really to address the first issue that I am writing this mini-essay; I&#8217;ll attack the second one some other time.</p>
<p>The problem with asserting that &#8220;society&#8221; has an interest in punishing Polanski is that &#8220;society&#8221; as people want to use it in claims like these doesn&#8217;t exist &#8211; it&#8217;s a semantic spook, a floating abstraction with no actual referent. Samantha Gailey exists; she&#8217;s a real person with a real grievance against Polanski. But no matter how hard you hunt for &#8220;society&#8221;, all you&#8217;ll ever find is individuals practicing ventriloquism &#8211; invoking the spook to justify what they want to do or think they have to do.</p>
<p>This is why there are no ethical claims in which the term &#8220;society&#8221; appears as a meaningful referent.  You&#8217;ll find, if you try inventing some, that they fall into two categories: (a) disguised claims about the rights and duties of each and every individual in the society, or (b) vague and ominous nonsense.</p>
<p>This notion, that &#8220;society&#8221; actually exists as a sort of huge fictive person with rights, needs, and wants that are separate from and supersede those of individuals, is &mdash; and I&#8217;m choosing my words carefully here &mdash; evil and dangerous. It&#8217;s a way for power-seekers and parasites to cow others into submission, arrogating for themselves privileges nobody would grant them if they admitted wanting to meddle in order to gratify merely their own desires.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve learned, painfully, over the last 400 years, that <em>raisons d&#8217;etat</em> is too dangerous and sweeping a pretext to let stand &mdash; that whenever you treat the authority of &#8220;government&#8221; as a solvent that trumps individual rights and claims, you are no more than a breath away from odious and grinding tyranny. The fictive personhood of &#8220;society&#8221; needs to be shot through the head for precisely the same reason.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s why I reject any argument that Polanski should be imprisoned after his victim has said she wants the matter dropped &mdash; because allowing <em>anyone</em> the privilege to coerce Polanski on behalf  of &#8220;society&#8221; is a threat to everyone far more severe than one superannuated jailbait-jumper could ever be.</p>
