Commenter Scott Gray left a detailed comment on a recent post, which I thought deserved to be highlighted in a post of its own. The original post asked whether it is appropriate to “do violence to” violent texts. Scott explored some of the different types of “peace” and “warfare” that one might engage in with respect to texts:
a few thoughts on textual violence:
‘hot peace’ baseline: interactive collaboration; mutual prosperity; no mistrust or suspicion; absence of violence or intimidation: “honor thy father and mother, and their heritage and traditions, especially their sacred texts.”
‘cold peace’ baseline: mutual indifference; no mistrust or suspicion; no violence or intimidation: “ignore thy father and mother, and their heritage and traditions, especially their sacred texts.”
‘cold war’ baseline: antagonism without open conflict; armed truce; mutual intimidation prevents violent engagement; mistrust and suspicion on both sides; feeling of immanent violence if conditions change and one party sees the possibility of an advantage; no covert violence: “be wary of thy father and mother, and their heritage and traditions, especially their sacred texts. and be ready to pounce when conditions are favorable. p.s: parodies and other forms of ridicule are ok.”
‘hot war’ baseline: violent warfare; the destruction or violent suppression of one’s opponent: “kill and burn thy father and mother, and their heritage and traditions, especially their sacred texts.”
it’s difficult, actually, to engage in ‘hot war’ with the texts, unless they are suppressed, or the object of a book burning, or banned, or the authors have jihad placed on them.
so the best we can do for ‘violence’ is cold war. parodies. cartoons about the characters. political responses, filled with fallacies and emotionally charged rhetoric.
oddly enough, the ‘honorers’ of the sacred texts view ‘cold peace’ as violence. in fact, they seem to view anything less than ‘honor’ for the text as ‘hot war.’ when these texts are not available for worship, evangelization, or other forms of ‘honor,’ in public school, say, it is viewed as suppression or book banning.
actually, the dismissal of these texts in school is ‘cold peace.’ the texts are ignored. or the texts are given the same degree of ‘honor’ as any other text—something to be studied.
What do you think? Is the analogy between war/violence and the ways we treat and interact with texts a helpful one?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In