In Jordan Peterson’s lectures he makes a great deal of his interpretation of sacrifice as a dramatization of the fact that short term loss, especially of an ideal (perfect lamb, unblemished bull, etc) leads us to an ideal future. Or rather, sacrifice is a symbolic habit of future orientation as a result of human self-consciousness and fear of death. I would be hard pressed to think of an Old Testament scholar who puts it exactly that way. Peterson isn’t diminishing the fact that the ancients believed that sacrifice worked because of the gods. But he is pointing out that the principle motivation behind it comes from a line of reasoning that is profound and extremely powerful for civilization and individual self-realization.
I’ve written about how sacrifice is built into life and my view of sacrifice is similar to Peterson’s. I’ve thought for years that the Biblical evidence points to the idea that man, not God, invented sacrifice. But what are some precursor’s to seeing sacrifice as a dramatization of a psychological reality, and therefore efficacious independently of supernatural activity? My discovery of Jordan Peterson has led me back to the great writers in psychology and psychotherapy: Freud, Jung, Rogers, Paiget, Ellis, Seligman, and the greatest of them: James. Now, I’ve read James’ works periodically since high school, but they’ve taken on more significance to me lately. For instance, these paragraphs were just throwaways for me about 5 years ago:
In each kind of self, material, social, and spiritual, men distinguish between the immediate and actual, and the remote and potential, between the narrower and the wider view, to the detriment of the former and advantage of the latter. One must forego a present bodily enjoyment for the sake of one’s general health; one must abandon the dollar in the hand for the sake of the hundred dollars to come; one must make an enemy of his present interlocutor if thereby one makes friends of a more valued circle; one must go without learning and grace, and wit, the better to compass one’s soul’s salvation.
Of all these wider, more potential selves, the potential social self is the most interesting, by reason of certain apparent paradoxes to which it leads in conduct, and by reason of its connection with our moral and religious life. When for motives of honor and conscience I brave the condemnation of my own family, club, and ‘set’; when, as a protestant, I turn catholic; as a catholic, freethinker; as a ‘regular practitioner,’ homoeopath, or what not, I am always inwardly strengthened in my course and steeled against the loss of my actual social self by the thought of other and better possible social judges than those whose verdict goes against me now. The ideal social self which I thus seek in appealing to their decision may be very remote: it may be represented as barely possible. I may not hope for its realization during my lifetime; I may even expect the future generations, which would approve me if they knew me, to know nothing about me when I am dead and gone. Yet still the emotion that beckons me on is indubitably the pursuit of an ideal social self, of a self that is at least worthy of approving recognition by the highest possible judging companion, if such companion there be. This self is the true, the intimate, the ultimate, the permanent Me which I seek. This judge is God, the Absolute Mind, the ‘Great Companion.’ We hear, in these days of scientific enlightenment, a great deal of discussion about the efficacy of prayer; and many reasons are given us why we should not pray, whilst others are given us why we should. But in all this very little is said of the reason why we do pray, which is simply that we cannot help praying. It seems probable that, in spite of all that ‘science’ may do to the contrary, men will continue to pray to the end of time, unless their mental nature changes in a manner which nothing we know should lead us to expect. The impulse to pray is a necessary consequence of the fact that whilst the innermost of the empirical selves of a man is a Self of the social sort, it yet can find its only adequate Socius in an ideal world.
All progress in the social Self is the substitution of higher tribunals for lower; this ideal tribunal is the highest; and most men, either continually or occasionally, carry a reference to it in their breast. The humblest outcast on this earth can feel himself to be real and valid by means of this higher recognition. And, on the other hand, for most of us, a world with no such inner refuge when the outer social self failed and dropped from us would be the abyss of horror. I say ‘for most of us,’ because it is probable that individuals differ a good deal in the degree in which they are haunted by this sense of an ideal spectator. It is a much more essential part of the consciousness of some men that of others. Those who have the most of it are possibly the most religious men. But I am sure that even those who say they are altogether without it deceive themselves, and really have it in some degree. Only a non-gregarious animal could be completely without it. Probably no one can make sacrifices for ‘right,’ without to some degree personifying the principle of right for which the sacrifice is made, and expecting thanks from it. Complete social unselfishness, in other words, can hardly exist; complete social suicide hardly occur to a man’s mind. Even such texts as Job’s, “Though He slay me yet will I trust Him,” or Marcus Aurelius’s, “If gods hate me and my children, there is a reason for it,” can least of all be cited to prove the contrary. For beyond all doubt Job reveled in the thought of Jehovah’s recognition of the worship after the slaying should have been done; and the Roman emperor felt sure the Absolute Reason would not be all indifferent to his acquiescence in the gods’ dislike. The old test of piety, “Are you willing to be damned for the glory of God?” was probably never answered in the affirmative except by those who felt sure in their heart of hearts that God would ‘credit’ them with their willingness, and set more store by them thus than if in His unfathomable scheme He had not damned them at all.
So, as far as William James is concerned, sacrifice/substitution is a process of seeking greater ideal selves by means of seeking approval great higher and higher social ideals.
This seems correct. But how to reconcile it with the theological and anthropological interpretations given to Old Testament sacrifices and those of their neighbors? Hmm.
Leave a Reply