DEFENDING DEVIANCE IN THE AGE OF RISING CONSERVATIVISM

Exploring the controversy surrounding Crowley’s work amidst the surge of Ultra-Traditionalist movements

The fervour of outrage directed at literary works like Leah Sublime and White Stains by Aleister Crowley, which delve into the realms of sexual “deviancies” among consenting adults, raises profound questions about the nature of freedom of expression and societal tolerance.

These works, undoubtedly controversial and designed to provoke, have become lightning rods for debates on moral standards and the boundaries of artistic freedom. The intense reactions they evoke suggest a deeper undercurrent of societal discomfort with exploring or accepting the full spectrum of human sexuality within the confines of consensual relationships.

This reaction, which can be characterised by some as stemming from bigotry or fanaticism, highlights a broader cultural and political phenomenon: the rise of ultra-reactionary movements. These movements, gaining momentum across the globe, often glorify a return to so-called traditional values, rigidly defining societal norms and roles, especially concerning gender and sexuality. The “Trad Wife” movement, which has found a platform on social media outlets like TikTok, is emblematic of this trend. It romanticizes traditional gender roles, advocating for women to embrace domesticity and subservience in stark contrast to the feminist gains of the past decades.

The backlash against works like Crowley’s and the popularity of the “Trad Wife” movements serve as harbingers of a more extensive societal pushback against the liberties gained in the realms of free expression and gender equality. Such a pushback is often packaged in a veneer of nostalgia for simpler times or a return to order, appealing to those disenchanted with the current state of societal flux and the perceived erosion of traditional values.

However, this nostalgia belies a troubling inclination towards curtailing freedoms and homogenising acceptable cultural and personal expressions. The outrage against Crowley’s poetic explorations of sexuality, under the guise of protecting moral or societal values, essentially challenges the very essence of freedom of expression. It posits that there are, or should be, limits to what can be explored or expressed in art, literature, and personal life, especially when it deviates from the mainstream or challenges conventional mores.

Such a stance threatens to stifle creative and personal freedom, setting a dangerous precedent for censoring and silencing dissenting voices and non-conformist ideas. In a world increasingly polarised and influenced by the rise of ultra-reactionary ideologies, the defence of artistic and personal freedoms becomes not just a cultural battle but a necessary stance against the encroachment of authoritarian and regressive ideologies.

In my personal journey as a “public Thelemite,” I’ve found myself at the epicentre of the very outrage I critique. My openness about following Aleister Crowley’s philosophy has attracted criticism from a wide spectrum of detractors, ranging from fellow Freemasons whom I respect to fringe conspiracy theorists who interpret Crowley’s writings as literal and irrefutable evidence of “inexcusable behavior.” This polarisation highlights the breadth of misunderstanding and prejudice surrounding Thelema.

Moreover, my experience during a recent podcast appearance encapsulates the underhanded tactics of those resistant to open dialogue. The host, while seemingly respectful during our conversation, evidently harboured reservations, opting not to voice them directly to me — presumably for fear of my potential departure from the interview.

Instead, they chose to append a highly critical introduction and outro to the episode, a move I discovered only upon its release. This experience underscores the challenges faced by individuals who publicly align with misunderstood or controversial philosophies. It reveals a broader societal reluctance to engage in genuine discourse, preferring instead to retreat into echo chambers of agreement or, worse, engage in deceptive practices to undermine opposing viewpoints.

Listening to the “alarm bells” sounded by outraged reactions to works that challenge societal norms is crucial. It serves as a reminder of the fragility of the freedoms often taken for granted. In defending the rights of artists like Crowley to explore the boundaries of human experience and expression, society defends the broader principle of freedom of expression. This principle is foundational to a vibrant, open, and progressive society, capable of accommodating a diversity of lifestyles, beliefs, and artistic expressions. The challenge lies in resisting the urge to retreat into the comfort of the familiar and the traditional and, instead, embracing the complexity and diversity of human experience.