We
have argued that Guilt is the principium individuationis of Western
Judaeo-Christian civilization: the Original Sin is at once the central myth of
our religion and the most potent confirmation of how guilt is its quintessential
notion. (It is not true to surmise, as does Zizek in The Indivisible Remainder
that the deepest essence of the self is the Lie. This facile conundrum belongs
to the anti-scientistic querelle of the most juvenile instincts of the young Nietzsche –
the mythology of the Mask from The Birth of Tragedy to On Truth and
Lies. The true, unequivocal, systematic Nietzsche dating from Beyond
Good and Evil is the one who adroitly identifies the essence of
self-reflection as guilt, and its institutional excrescence in Christendom.) For there to be a Self there must be an “agency”.
And all action implies the possibility of error. And consciousness of error
engenders guilt. Guilt implies remorse. And remorse in turn implicates conscience
or self-reflection and self-doubt. To feel guilty, one must have a notion of conscience
– whence “the genealogy of morals” (Nietzsche’s sequel to Beyond Good and
Evil) - as well as a doubt about the morality of one’s prior
actions. Western civilization is the only human koine’ or cultural
entity characterized by guilt. That is why our civilization has one other
central element called “tolerance” that contains both an element of self-doubt
and a component of cowardice. And self-doubt and cowardice feed on each other.
Western
civilization in its twin moments of guilt and tolerance suffers mortally
from what is widely known as “the Stockholm Syndrome” – which is where
cowardice comes into play. One of the most puzzling human phenomena that has
come recently into focus is the manner in which Western people who are harmed by
others especially in a manner that involves their forceful “abduction” – their
lengthy removal from their normal social environment – how these hostages come
at some point of their imprisonment or confinement not just to sympathize with
their abductors but indeed, much more, to share their beliefs and to espouse
their cause – even to the point of turning into active militants for that
cause against the interests of their own social values and institutions. Indeed,
folly of follies, against the very guilt and morality that led to their being victimized
by their abductors and that enabled their “sympathy for the devil”! The
Stockholm Syndrome is indeed puzzling. For we must ask: how can people who have
been abducted and removed from the protection of Western society and values
whose very origin in the sense of guilt gives rise to tolerance – people who
are then put in a situation of real potential and immediate harm by their
abductors – how can these people then over time come to embrace the
revendications of their guilt-free and intolerant, self-righteous captors
and – most puzzling of all – even turn into active fighters for what by all
means should be their mortal enemies?
Evidently,
there are two ingredients or elements at the heart of the Stockholm Syndrome:
the first is guilt and the second is cowardice. Guilt does not only or merely
make us doubt the “rightness” of our past actions; it also introduces the
possibility of tolerating and even sympathizing with or sharing the values and
interests of the entities against which we took our past actions that now
induce our guilt and remorse. It is this “sympathy for the devil” that we must
now understand and confront. We must avoid the Judaeo-Christian guilt trap whereby
to understand everything is to forgive everything. Because if the purpose of
understanding is to tolerate and forgive, then if we are truly confident in the
superiority of our values – which include also legitimate tolerance for the
tolerable – we cannot stretch those values to the point where we tolerate the
intolerable and we forgive the unforgivable! There must be some inimical
people and values that are so destructive of and antithetical
to our own tolerant values that we can neither forgive them nor tolerate
– that we must simply crush and annihilate. There are some enemies in life that
we must simply kill.
What
characterizes Identity Politics could be interpreted as a specific expression
of the Stockholm Syndrome. First, there is the guilt element. Then, there is
the need to atone for past sins, real or perceived. Next, comes the revulsion
and hatred for those other “whites” who hypocritically deny the sins of
the past. Of course, there ensues the “identification” with the so-called
“victims”. But this identification with victims requires that the Westerner who
feels guilty and wishes to atone for this guilt must join the so-called victims
in the assertion of their revendications or “rights” against “third parties”
who continue to perpetrate the alleged sins or oppression – the unrepentant “white
supremacists and nativists”. It follows that the very first talismans of
Identity Politics guilt-laced hatred are those very institutions that, through
their origin in guilt, gave rise and inspired Identity Politics in the first
place – chief among them and first in line, of course, is the Church, followed
with less intensity but equal ferocity by the institutions of Judaism, the
Israeli State and the Jewish diaspora.
But
we have not yet touched upon the final crowning achievement or rather
self-immolation more than self-chastising of Identity Politics. And that is the
attribution of greater worth to the intransigently intolerant values, customs
and tenets of the enemies of Judaeo-Christian civilization than to the latter civilization
whose original and distinctive historical mark is to have elevated the notions
of self-doubt, guilt, remorse and tolerance to the highest and noblest measures
of human civilized life and dignity! In other words, the highest achievement of
Identity Politics is to denigrate, combat and ultimately obliterate the very
Judaeo-Christian morality that alone could give rise to anything remotely
resembling the values and goals of Identity Politics! Less obliquely put, the
infamy of Identity Politics is that – not hypo-critically but hyper-critically
– it devours the very morality and values on which it is supposed to stand! It
is thus that Identity Politics devours itself and obliterates the
very “identities” that it wishes to champion and impose!
No comments:
Post a Comment