The story of
the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission shows that its two titular
guiding lights need not be seen as naturally standing in mutual opposition. That
it need not be so perceived is further testified to by the fact that following its institution in
1996 there have been several similar bodies created around the world. But while its idea remains a beacon of hope for many, lack
of unanimous approval regarding both its method of restorative justice and
perceived results sounds a clear note of caution.
The COV&R “Mimesis,
Creativity and Reconciliation” conference held in Canada in 2006 was a venue
where those two powerful sources of inspiration and motivation faced each other
off in a context of mimetic theory, the whole exchange recorded in Part Two of On Violence
and Religion, a CBC documentary both summarizing that conference and containing
some additional interviews. The broader context obviously differed from that of
South Africa, being much more theoretical than the Commission’s excruciatingly
practical one of restoring justice. And Rene Girard, present at the
conference, certainly did not need to play there the role of either Desmond
Tutu or Nelson Mandela.
“The truth is
something you do… we have to have truth as our goal. And it will be the truth
that we do, but on the other hand you don’t want to substitute something else
for truth. I wouldn’t want to put peace in the place of truth, I wouldn’t want
to put reconciliation in the place of truth. …getting to the truth, …
scrutinizing things, thinking about things, clarifying, especially clarifying
one’s categories, trying to see what’s actually happening, as opposed to seeing
something according to the spirit of the age… a certain amount of intellectual rigor
that’s not overly influenced by a preordained, moral or sentimental position,
is very important. …I would be a little cautious about too much of a turn
towards activism.”
The above is
Gil Baillie’s response to a critique of mimetic theory’s view of human origins
and nature presented by Rebecca Adams and Vern Redekop during the conference. As
if trying to stave off a perceived danger of MT’s being potentially adulterated
by scope being given to such elements of human nature as would make man capable
of his exceeding strictly mimetic horizons (not necessarily the view of Adams
or Redekop), Baillie recoils and urges that we stress truth as the ultimate standard
and motivation of man’s activity – as opposed to the reconciliation and creative
mimesis proposed by Redekop and Adams, respectively, as man’s indispensable and
crucial guiding lights.
Given the title
of the documentary, which invokes images of conflictual mimesis, stressing
truth as the preeminent line of man’s pursuits seems misguided at best. Of
course there are truths that may be investigated in the light of mimetic
theory, and then there is the grand truth of MT itself (that is what Baillie seems to
be referring to, but there is considerable and inevitable overlap between those
two categories); as well as those truths that lie entirely outside MT’s
purview.
Seen through MT’s
lens most truths do not seem amenable to dispassionate inquiry; they must be recognized
as strongly mimetic, squarely situated within the theory, their public vindication
being anything but rational (as on some level--and in many a debate--inevitably
must also be the case with the truth “of” MT itself). Mimetically mediated
truths, products of veritable contests for recognition as being in the right --especially
morally or politically--trap people in perspectives sorely in need of being transcended.
One way out of
it is always trying to act in a spirit of reconciliation, which motivation must
also be acknowledged as a potent creative mimetic force in and of itself. However
one may look at it, we should remember how strongly pessimistic about
humanity’s future Girard was in his last works, and be wary of being party to self-fulfillment
of MT’s prophecy of an impending apocalypse. Reconciliation on the other hand
is capable of creating new unanticipated possibilities and a growth of love
that might just steer us clear of conflictual mimesis and out of harm’s way. And
help restore hope.
Girard himself,
when quoting Pascal in Battling to the End, (“It is a strange and tedious war
when violence attempts to vanquish truth. All the efforts of violence cannot
weaken truth, and only serve to give it fresh vigor. All the lights of truth
cannot arrest violence, and only serve to exasperate it.”), expressed his
unease on the issue of truth: “Here we find a much more essential reciprocity,
a ruthless fight between violence and truth. Truth is in a defensive position,
in the Clausewitzian sense. It is thus the one that wants war. Violence reacts
to truth, and it is thus the one that wants peace. Yet it knows very well that
it will never have peace again because its mechanisms have been revealed. This
is the true and only duel that runs through all of human history, to the point
that we cannot say which opponent will win.” Girard clearly sees here that
humanity has progressed to the point that truth on some level is virtually
undistinguishable from its opponent, if not that they practically reversed
their positions.
Violent (or
hateful) truth is no better than a violence that sues for peace. It is obvious
that truth-claiming in a context of internal mediation is extremely conducive
to mimetic rivalry. That is what the Pascal quote is all about. And if it ties in
with social justice or moral issues, even more so. The same goes for religious
truth.
But aren’t we
all for justice, even if it’s supremely conflictual? And shouldn’t we stand up
for the truth of our religion, regardless of consequences? Yet furthering truth
via violent means is not a Christian way, not today, not any more. It is also extremely
important to stress that staying within a plain MT narrative on the issue of
truth may in fact result in a complete loss of hope in man and his future (as
might also be the case with some other aspects of man’s motivations), especially
as long as one happens to be on the receiving end of the argument.
Truth for the
Christian must not be abstracted from the person of Jesus Christ. He claimed to
be the Truth (and the Way, and the Life) after all. If it is, it surely becomes
my truth against yours, and then sure enough it is me against you, pure and
simple: conflictual mimesis reigns supreme. Do we really need MT to assert
that? Or to be able to clearly see dangers inherent in such a stubborn
approach? Maybe so, but that is as far as the theory goes here, apart from its pointing
to the person of Jesus Christ.
Instead of
truth, or rather truth-brandishing, being a third point and the de facto apex
of our mimetic triangle, an unstable--now controlled by you, now by me--yet destructive
force acting between us – before the whole triangle collapses in hatred, in
order to restore hope the Christian needs to bring in a benevolent third force,
a spirit of reconciliation that would be conducive to the growth of the Kingdom
of Heaven in us, mediated by Jesus Christ, our innermost model of humble forgiving
love, through the Holy Spirit. And if the reconciliation can only be introduced
into our mimetic equation as a sacrifice of unmitigated forgiveness on the part
of at least one of the mimetic agents, true to form the cross will be making
its appearance as well.
If mimesis is
as powerful a human propensity as it is claimed to be, this latter force should
be able to prevail even if it is animating only one side of the mimetic
exchange. It should prevail, that is, if I am able to avert my gaze from (the
source of) a purely human truth--even if it concerns things divine--that is
vying for recognition and the upper hand no matter what, and turn it toward
Truth Incarnate to let it keep replenishing me with love. That is a hope well
worth harboring.
No comments:
Post a Comment