The Soul of Man Under Socialism

Content Warning: This section references institutionalized anti-gay prejudice.

Socialism and (especially) anarchism were radical philosophies in 19th-century England, particularly in Oscar Wilde’s elite social circles. Wilde’s essay uses two distinct strategies to render its ideas more palatable to such readers: satire and the lens of artistic criticism.

Where the former is concerned, Wilde uses irony and humor not only to make his points memorable but also to add an element of playfulness that takes the edge off his more biting remarks. In fact, with his reputation for extravagance and iconoclasm, the more scathing Wilde is, the more he blurs the lines before an earnest appeal and self-deprecating joke. Readers can, if they wish, dismiss Wilde’s arguments as a mere exercise in imagination and his authorial persona as a character—a man so concerned with aesthetics that he dabbles in “dangerous” ideas merely for their charm.

The opening attack on the idea of charity is a good example. In discussing the idea that charity, by virtue of being an obligation, inhibits the full personal development of those who practice it, Wilde writes: “[Private property] involves endless claims upon one, endless attention to business, endless bother. If property had simply pleasures, we could stand it; but its duties make it unbearable. In the interest of the rich we must get rid of it” (9). In the context of an essay on socialism that has just delineated some of the evils of poverty, Wilde’s conclusion that socialism alone can secure the well-being of the rich verges on absurdity. Wilde’s discussion of the lower classes is similarly tinged with satire. When he talks about the “virtuous poor,” he writes that “one cannot possibly admire them” and that “they have made private terms with the enemy […] They must also be extraordinarily stupid” (11). The harsh invective would be easy to chalk up to humorous exaggeration, but Wilde in some sense means it; part of his critique of capitalism is that it so degrades the lower classes that many lack insight into their own condition.

The fact that Wilde also focuses on how Socialism Supports Aestheticism further distances his ideas from whatever preconceptions people have of them. Wilde’s support of “art for art’s sake” was common knowledge by the time he published this essay. Within this context, one can view Wilde as embracing socialism not out of any deep-seated commitment to changing society but rather as an aesthetic. Once again, this is in some ways true, but not because Wilde is disinterested in the real world. Rather, he wants to pattern the real world after art. This is what he means when he claims that “The future is what artists are” (77). If artists are the only thing approaching individualists in current society, and if socialism facilitates true individualism, then in a socialist future, everyone will be the “artist” of their own life. By lingering on what a reader might consider merely frivolous—the “beauty” of socialism—Wilde encourages readers to confront his ideas independent of preconceived ideas about their dangerousness or violence, sidestepping any emotional response that might hinder critical thinking.

These framing devices reflect Wilde’s audience: England social elite, including other intellectuals and artists. Wilde was independently wealthy, having inherited an estate from his father, and his wit and theatricality made him a favorite in high society. That the elite were the essay’s intended readership is clear from other rhetorical choices as well, including Wilde’s use of allusion. Wilde anticipates being understood by readers when he references historical figures like Marcus Aurelius or contemporaneous writers like George Meredith.

Though he was privileged in some ways, Oscar Wilde’s status as an iconoclast was informed by his Irish heritage. Ireland was at the time part of the United Kingdom; though nominally represented in the British Parliament, the country’s cultural and religious differences and England’s economic exploitation of its people and resources made its true status more akin to that of a colony. Wilde’s probable orientation—though married with two children, Wilde had several affairs with men—is another relevant contextual factor. Sexual relationships between men were illegal in Victorian England, having been subject to capital punishment until the mid-19th century. For all his success, Wilde would therefore have recognized both his outsider status and the harshly punitive forms attempts to enforce conformity could take. An awareness of how physical violence can be used to discipline individuals permeates Wilde’s account of The Danger of Authority. An example is Wilde’s discussion of the press’s frequent attacks on artistic expression: “If the English had had any idea of what a great poet he [Percy Bysshe Shelley] really was, they would have fallen on him with tooth and nail” (21). Though Wilde is likely speaking figuratively, his sympathy for those who have committed crimes evinces similar concerns. Wilde argues against harsh punishments, suggesting both that such acts tend to spring from external conditions and that rehabilitation is a more appropriate response.

Nevertheless, Wilde makes clear that authority does not need to rely on physical force to do violence. The main problem with authority, in Wilde’s telling, is that it limits The Cultivation of Individualism. This idea of individualism is key to Wilde’s vision of socialism—indeed, he embraces socialism because he sees it as potentially facilitating individualism—and Wilde uses the word in a quite specific sense. Encompassing ideas of both independence and nonconformity, Wilde’s individualism proposes that each person should be free to grow in accordance with their own temperament, passions, beliefs, etc. until they become the fullest possible version of themselves. Authority can suppress individualism through force (e.g., the law), but it can also discourage it through subtler forms of coercion, such as social pressure. For this reason, Wilde embraces a libertarian or anarchic vision of socialism; material security is a necessary precursor to individualism, but it alone is not sufficient.