The Permissive Trap and Why Unchecked Freedom Breeds Collective Ugliness

Modern society, in its relentless pursuit of individual freedom, has ironically fallen into a trap of pervasive aesthetic and social ugliness. This deep guide explores Alain Soral’s provocative critique of “democratic ugliness,” examining how the erosion of shared standards, from elite dress codes to public decorum, has led to visual chaos and a profound sense of collective malaise. We will confront the uncomfortable paradox: when everything is permitted, do we truly lose the possibility for anything meaningful?

The Unsettling Paradox of Unfettered Liberty

We live in an age that champions individual freedom above almost all else. The promise was that liberating ourselves from restrictive codes and traditions would unlock a vibrant tapestry of human expression, a more diverse and beautiful world. Yet, what if this very liberation has led us down a path not of enrichment, but of profound aesthetic and social decay? This is the core of a provocative critique that argues modern democratic society, in its unbridled permissiveness, has cultivated a widespread “democratic ugliness.” It’s a concept that forces us to question the true cost of our cherished individual liberties.

Alain Soral, a controversial French essayist, presents a stark vision: a world where the permission for everyone to express themselves freely has not led to a vibrant, colorful, or beautiful reality, but to a visually chaotic, spiritually depressing, and collectively anxious environment. His argument is not merely an aesthetic judgment but a profound indictment of a societal trajectory that prioritizes individual impulse over collective harmony, convenience over discipline, and superficiality over substance. My aim here is not to endorse Soral’s political views but to dialectically engage with his challenging insights into the hidden costs of our modern freedoms, exploring a thesis, an uncomfortable antithesis, and a synthesis that might illuminate our current predicament.

The Erosion of Elite Standards: A Descent into Aesthetic Anarchy

Soral’s critique begins with what he identifies as a fundamental “mutation” within the modern elite, the bourgeoisie. He argues that this class, which once embodied and enforced strict moral, educational, and aesthetic codes, has abandoned its role as a cultural standard-bearer. Once, these were the “guardrails” that maintained broader societal standards. Now, Soral sees a global, amorphous “jet set” – a bizarre mélange of coke dealers, rappers, and even royalty – whose defining characteristic is not adherence to a high code, but the raw possession of wealth.

Consider his stark illustration of the dress code at luxury hotels. In a bygone era, perhaps the 1930s or even 1950s, to enter a prestigious establishment like the Muris, a man was required to wear a tie and jacket. This wasn’t merely about fashion; it was about enforcing an elite code of appearance and conduct, a sign of respect for the institution and for oneself. It created a subtle barrier, maintaining a sense of occasion and exclusivity.

Today, as Soral points out, an individual can enter virtually any five-star hotel in a “fluorescent yellow jogging suit.” Their entry is not contingent on adhering to a social code, but simply on possessing a credit card with sufficient funds. This seemingly minor shift, for Soral, is emblematic: the dissolution of a restrictive elite, one that upheld a certain level of decorum and taste, removed a crucial anchor for broader societal standards. This decay at the top, he argues, has not democratized beauty but instead paved the way for a generalized decline into ugliness throughout the population. As G. K. Chesterton presciently observed,

The less people have of authority and tradition, the more they will have of convention.

– G. K. Chesterton

We’ve swapped the conventions of discipline for the conventions of permissiveness, and in doing so, lost a critical form of beauty.

The Visible Cacophony of Democratic Ugliness

Following the collapse of these elite standards, Soral posits that a pervasive ugliness has infected society at large, leading to what he terms “democratic ugliness.” The promise that individual “freedom” to look and act however one pleases would lead to a beautiful diversity has, in his view, resulted only in visual chaos and vulgarity. He attributes this to a “generalized de-education,” where the shared civic space is desacralized; people feel free to “fart, burp, and pick their nose” in public, no longer bothering to cover their mouths when they cough.

This isn’t genuine freedom, he contends, but a superficial appropriation of symbols and colors – much like the hippies, in his view, borrowing the vibrant palette of India without understanding its deep ritualistic context. This leads to disharmony, not genuine expression. Consider the dramatic contrast Soral draws:

• The Harmonious Past (e.g., 1930s): People wore uniform social attire, like workers in matching coats and caps, creating a sense of visual harmony. Crowds displayed a consistent appearance, with properly cut hair and a general lack of physical extremes. This visual consistency and discipline contributed to an inherent beauty and order.

• The Disharmonious Present: Individuals dress in a random assortment of styles, often sportswear, with no regard for a collective aesthetic. The public realm is filled with what Soral sees as visual flaws: widespread obesity, random tattoos, and unkempt hairstyles.

The core insight here is that the visual harmony of past societies, rooted in shared codes and discipline, has been replaced by the anxiety-inducing ugliness of a chaotic and unrestrained individualism. This shift, Soral believes, doesn’t just assault the eyes; it assaults the soul, producing anxiety and depression through its sheer visual disharmony and lack of decorum. It’s a societal mirror reflecting a profound internal disarray.

A Controversial Aesthetic Ideal: North Korea’s Provocative Order

Having established this modern Western decay, Soral introduces a truly shocking and provocative counter-example: North Korea. He presents this nation, widely condemned as totalitarian, as the primary example of a beautiful, orderly, and “soothing” society that stands in direct opposition to the chaos of the democratic West. This assessment is, of course, deeply controversial, and it is crucial to analyze it not as an endorsement of totalitarianism, but as a dialectical device to expose our own assumptions about freedom and order.

Soral’s positive assessment hinges on three key observations he claims:

1. Beauty Through Uniformity: The universal use of well-designed uniforms, from schoolchildren to military personnel, creates a powerful visual harmony. He provocatively notes that female uniforms are designed to be “sexy” to encourage family formation, explicitly contrasting this with the stereotypical “Soviet woman in overalls with iron teeth who drives a tractor.” This suggests a calculated aesthetic that serves a societal purpose, rather than individual whim.

2. Pervasive Peace and Order: The atmosphere is “soothing,” he argues, due to the absence of common urban stressors: no loud noises, no police sirens, no overt violence, no pervasive graffiti, and no litter. This tranquility is attributed to the “self-discipline of the citizen-soldier,” who maintains collective order without the need for ubiquitous policing. It’s an order enforced internally rather than externally, he implies.

3. Absence of Modern Flaws: North Korean society, according to Soral, is defined by the absence of the very elements he identifies as central to modern “ugliness.” There are no obese people, no individuals with brightly colored hair, and no tattoos.

The provocative conclusion drawn here is that a society condemned as unfree can, in Soral’s view, produce more genuine peace and aesthetic beauty than a modern “free” democracy. This unsettling comparison is designed to force us to confront uncomfortable questions about the relationship between liberty, discipline, and collective well-being. It asks us to consider what we might be sacrificing in our relentless pursuit of absolute individual freedom, and what the true psychological cost of visual chaos might be.

Tattoos as a Modern Cultural Scar

Among the myriad visible manifestations of what we might call democratic ugliness, tattoos serve as a particularly potent symbol. Soral argues they embody a profound lack of foresight, a divorce from cultural grounding, and an impoverished aesthetic sense that pervades contemporary society. I’ve often seen this in my own observations, where a once ritualistic art form has become a canvas for arbitrary, often regrettable, choices.

The critique here isn’t against tattoos themselves, but against their modern appropriation. A Maori tattoo, when worn by a Maori person, carries with it centuries of cultural context, meaning, and aesthetic harmony within its specific heritage. But Soral argues it becomes grotesque and ridiculous when plastered on, say, a European bank employee, devoid of its original significance. It is a superficial borrowing of form without any understanding of its spiritual or historical function.

Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of modern tattoo choices highlights a broader decline in aesthetic discernment. Soral points to women adorning themselves with meaningless and aesthetically displeasing designs – a “Mickey Mouse… a frying pan… [or] Simone de Beauvoir on the chest.” He grounds this critique in a visceral, personal anecdote: experiencing erectile dysfunction (”tu débandes”) during sex upon seeing the name “Mouloud” tattooed on his partner’s lower back – an homage to her deceased brother she admitted she got because she couldn’t think of anything else. This raw, personal detail underscores the argument’s emotional fire, connecting a grand philosophical point to a very human, very awkward reality.

Finally, the permanence of tattoos serves as a powerful metaphor for our societal failure to plan for the future. The quintessential example Soral offers is the young skinhead who impulsively gets a swastika tattooed on his head, failing to realize he will one day go bald and have to “look for a job with a swastika on your skull.” This image, at once darkly humorous and deeply tragic, encapsulates the lack of long-term thinking, the self-defeating nature of impulsive, ungrounded choices that define much of what Soral identifies as modern ugliness. It’s a permanent mark of ephemeral thought.

Everything Permitted, Nothing Possible: Navigating the Paradox

The entire critique culminates in a profoundly unsettling paradox, captured perfectly by the statement: “Everything is permitted, but nothing is possible.” This isn’t just a clever turn of phrase; it’s a diagnosis of a society that has, in its quest for total freedom, inadvertently foreclosed the very possibility of true human flourishing and collective beauty. It implies a kind of psychological and spiritual entrapment.

Think about it: citizens are granted a dizzying array of superficial freedoms. You can get any tattoo you desire, wear whatever outlandish outfit you choose, express yourself without traditional constraints, even indulge in behaviors that were once considered crude or vulgar in public. But the collective sum of these individual permissions, Soral argues, isn’t a liberated society. Instead, it’s a disharmonious, visually chaotic, and ultimately ugly one that literally induces depression.

I’ve felt this myself, just as Soral describes his own experience. Spending an hour in a modern supermarket, bombarded by discordant visuals, garish packaging, and a palpable lack of collective decorum, can leave one with a sense of profound malaise. It’s not just an aesthetic discomfort; it’s a spiritual one. In this environment, the truly meaningful possibilities – such as living in a beautiful, harmonious, and soothing community; forging deep, shared cultural meaning; or aspiring to collective excellence – are systematically eroded by the relentless chaos of total permissiveness. We are free to do anything, yet find ourselves unable to create something genuinely beautiful or enduring together.

Everything has been permitted, save only to create.

– Albert Camus