At
Elijah’s request, we’re currently watching our way through several films in the
Marvel Cinematic Universe (Captain America is the first Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtle, right?).
Last
night, we watched Avengers: Age of Ultron.
Tony
Stark builds a system to protect the earth, but when the system becomes
new-born sentient, it concludes that it is the Avengers from whom the earth
needs protecting, and so they must be destroyed. Further destruction follows.
It
got me thinking about mass shootings, suicide bombings, and white supremacy;
none of which I think we understand correctly.
When
a brown-skinned young man commits an atrocity, we say they have been radicalised.
When a white-skinned young man commits an atrocity, we say that they were very
mentally ill; and then we might point to how rare it is for mentally ill people
to kill others to emphasise how they were so very ill, there was nothing anyone
could have done to prevent it: we are not at fault. But these political moves
are an exercise in missing the point.
Like
those who embrace white supremacy, or indeed misogyny (think The Handmaid’s
Tale), those who seek to destroy others are not immoral. Indeed, quite the
opposite.
We,
humans, are moral beings, with moral desire, along with a longing for order and
a place to call home. You have, in fact, to work very hard to kill that desire,
to be a true psychopath.
This
(almost) universal moral desire is, I think, what people have in mind when they
tell me that most people are, fundamentally, good. But we are not fundamentally
good; we fundamentally possess moral desire: a desire that can be turned
towards good or evil.
Our
moral desire is undifferentiated in its form, and in need of a framework. In
the absence not only of a robust framework but also of patterns of initiation—in
a highly individualistic society where we are largely left to fashion our own
morality—the vacuum is unsurprisingly filled by those who will offer a moral
certainty and the promise of a world in which we might experience order and a
place to call home. Certain groups—women, non-whites, those of a particular
religion, those who reject religion—are presented as a threat to moral
behaviour, that needs controlling, or removing. This is reinforced by
honour-shame structures, in which the accommodation of such ‘shameful’ people
shames our own honour.
What
is lacking is not a moralistic pattern. Indeed, moralism, which works on the
basis that others are immoral, is the oxygen of evil. Instead, we need to
recognise that people are naturally possessing of moral desire, that needs to
be robustly ordered. (Politically, the Right fails to recognise that all people
possess moral desire; while the Left fails to recognise the difference between
moral desire and essential goodness.)
The
so-called Golden Rule—do to others as you would want them to do to you; or,
treat others in the same way that you treat yourself—is, arguably,
foundational. But even this is inadequate, in a context where we are left to
work out for ourselves how we ought to be treated. If, for example, we believe
ourselves to be in need of ‘tough love’ we will treat others harshly. Often the
Golden Rule is adapted to, ‘Do what you like, with consent, so long as no-one
else gets hurt.’ But this raises complex questions as to the nature of consent,
and of hurt, and of who gets to decide.
What
is missing is not a global monitoring system, but communities of intentional
discipleship, where we might wrestle with our moral desire and longing for
order and a place to call home, together, honouring and refusing to shame one
another, so that we might learn from our mistakes and failures. Where we might
come to discover difference not as threat but as a source of wonder, and,
indeed, strength. Where we might come to know self-giving, for others, as
glory.
The
Avengers are as dysfunctional a family as you could hope for. But, we are all
heroes, in search of home.
No comments:
Post a Comment