Ritual killing - the logic of Sacrifice

Résumé du document

Sacrifice usually involves violence and is thus morally problematic. On the other hand, something new and presumably good comes into being through this violence. This paradox has been at the core of many interpretations since the logic of ritual violence exists since the beginning of times as an ordinary feature of our being. Sacrifice is commonly known as the practice of offering food, objects, or the lives of animals or people to the Gods as an act of propitiation or worship. The violence linked with sacrifice is thus a symbolic process because it triggers off a sort of communion with gods, or Supreme Being. In a way, it was what we would call today "creative destruction". Even if this theme is present in Ancient Greek myths or in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the slaughters of the XXth century and more recently, the September 11th tragedy and the daily suicide bombers in Iraq have underscored the importance of understanding the meaning of sacrifice.

Extraits

[...] The fundamental need of human beings to purge and renew do not take the form of State violence nowadays, but take the form of terrorism, sacrifice and martyrdom. Terrorism is the re-imposition of a sacrificial logic onto a political apparatus that refuses to admit its inner violence. Terror uses the fact that nation-states, as political communities, cannot be totally stable[13]. Massacre in this case is a ritual form of purificatory sacrifice through which the troubled society is deconstructed and their new society arises. [...]

[...] Thus, according to René Girard, because of human nature, societies inevitably create internal tensions through an anthropological process of conflict. The purpose of sacrifice will be restore harmony to the community, to reinforce the social fabric”[4]. Nevertheless, sacrifice does not resemble criminal violence. The violence linked with sacrifice is not rational. The individuals composing society do not have a good reason to kill the scapegoat. Violence, in the process of execution, brings a ritual and solemn touch. In primitive societies, the risk of disorder in case of internal tensions is so great that the emphasis naturally falls on prevention. [...]

[...] In his view, the religion justification of sacrifice seems to be a hypocritical way to hide an arbitrary and essentially political decision. To nuance this statement, Girard believes that sacrificial process requires a certain degree of misunderstanding”[6]. In other words, if people understand the role of their sacrificial act, internal tensions will remain through vendetta. Here, the theological basis has a very effective role in fostering this misunderstanding because it let people clear of their responsibility. But how is the victim chosen? First, he or she cannot embody some particularly endangered individuals, because tensions between groups would remain. [...]

[...] Bartholomew's day massacre is the epitome of a political slaughter aiming at insuring traditional order. This occurred at the climax of the development of tensions between the Catholics and the Protestant. Forms of mimetic desire between those two groups are numerous. Socioeconomically, they both wanted to be at power; geographically, they wanted the same lands; they were also both competing to impose their cultural styles etc. As the Protestants had put themselves by their religious choice on the margin of community rites, feasts or games, they put themselves outside traditional community, what made them perfect victims for sacrifice, according to Girard's definition: the Protestants were in all points similar to the Catholics, but by their religious choice, they did not have strong social bonds with them. [...]

[...] Ultimately, for Girard, albeit ineffective in the long term, sacrifice permits to protect society from its own violence. As sacrifice is inevitable, he affirms that a form of scapegoating is always useful because it is a feature of human life and society's survival, even if justice put an end to ritual bloody sacrifices. According to Girard, modern movements on behalf of oppressed peoples, even though often outside or opposed to established Christianity, are the heirs of the Hebrew prophets and the New Testament. [...]