earticle

영어

French anthropologist René Girard takes very strong stance on the religious legitimization of social violence. Girard argues that mimetic desire gives rise to latent hostility within a group and that mounting aggression is then alleviated by the “scapegoat mechanism,” through which collective anger is displaced onto a random individual, for whom the sacrificial victim is the acknowledged replacement. For theologians, Girard’s theory is significant and evocative in understanding the ambivalent facets of sacrifice because theological debates about sacrifice are naturally directed at the violence inherent in it. Even though Girard is criticized for over-generalizing, his theory is valuable in pointing to how a sacrificial narrative has legitimized sociopolitical violence.
The subject of sacrifice has been a scandal in the theological sphere and includes many complicated issues. Contemporary theologians, especially feminists and liberation theologians, have argued that the doctrine of vicarious atonement and sacrifice have cultivated and legitimatized human victimization and our acceptance of abuse. When Jesus took the side of the minorities, marginalized groups drew their ethical strength from the power of sacrifice. However, it is a great irony that they themselves became the victim of this sacrifice narrative. Jesus’ sacrifice became the origin and proto-example of their sacrifice and the very reason to accede to the present unjust social mechanism.
This paper argues that the passion story can be misused in a process of self-deception and violence. The sacrifice narrative has been used to legitimize another sacrifice of marginalized groups in our society. We have seen how the same narrative can produce totally different ethics and actions according to who is doing the interpretation. The same narrative can be seen in contradictory ways according to its context and different interpreters’ ideology and theology. This is why the surrogate victim mechanism creates ambivalence in terms of violence. Girard’ theory of sacrifice has ambivalent implications in terms of the legitimization of violence and power in society.
Ambivalence arises when people are committed to certain values and convictions related to sociopolitical interests.