Human sacrifice can easily be dismissed as a savage act by power-hungry religious leaders securing their place at the throne--or can it? In a world where human sacrifice is seen as some horrendous act, it's cultural significance within the context of its time periods means it cannot be ignored at the tables of history. Nor can it be misrepresented. So then, what exactly drove past civilizations to sacrifice human lives, and what continues to fuel the desire to kill fellow people?
There are a number of theories out addressing this issue. J. Z. Smith wrote a work on the subject which has very interesting points. It is noted that in the initial stages of civilization, before agrarian societies developed, there are no known instances of animal sacrifice among related cultures, while after societies settle down, sacrifice seems to develop in most of them (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). The sacrifice seemed to have been, "For the domesticator, killing is an act of precise discrimination with an eye to the future" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Essentially, Smith states that sacrifice was a method of weeding out the weak animals, keeping the strong ones fit for reproductive purposes while killing off the lesser breed. This is, essentially how human sacrifice seemed to develop as well. Those that did not confine to the boundaries laid out by a group, a people, a country, or a civilization were taken care of by making an example of them, "domesticating" the rest to conform or suffer a similar fate.
So why is there a connotation of sacrifice with primitive groups? An interesting things Smith points out in this respect is that there is no emphasis on the primitive nature of "initiation" rituals found within certain groups. Yet, throughout history it is found that "where there are elaborate initiatory rituals, sacrifice seems relatively undeveloped; where there are complex sacrificial cycles and ideologies, initiation seems relatively undeveloped" (Smith: The Domestication of Sacrifice). Smith suggests the opposite; that sacrifice is in fact the product of an advanced civilization. It comes about when a group becomes large enough to warrant fractioning and division within itself; at this point, sacrifice is found necessary to try to hold the group together. After a while, the divisions may grow to large, at which time people move groups, and the process restarts.
So is this still valid in today's world? Most certainly yes. Even in the progressive nations that exist today, human sacrifice exists and is supported often by majorities of countries in the form of capital punishment and war. As authors Carolyn Marvin and David W. Ingle point out, the nation is the most prominent proponent of sacrifice (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). They take it a step further, stating that the desire to kill keeps everyone working together, but "the group must sacrifice its own to survive [this] secret" (Marvin and Ingle: Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Revisiting Civil Religion). This has some interesting consequences. The group wants blood, and therefore supports seemingly irrational policies like the death penalty and war. This truth can be seen in a comparison of wars taken on by the United States: on one side, there was the Civil War and World War II, which had massive American casualties as well as a high approval rating by the American public. On the other hand, the Gulf War, which had only 147 American casualties, was lacking in support by its end. When sacrifice is not sufficient, it does not bring the group together.
When it is channelled well, however, the results are astounding. On September 10, 2001, terrorism was a moot point in American politics. The next day, the spilling of blood of thousands of lives prompted a nation of almost 300 million people to support a war against a vague target in the Middle East. Sacrifice is a strong tool, and it is still used in many ways.
Therefore, it is false to call sacrifice a savage power-mongering tool used by certain individuals. It is a methodical, well thought out process that serves a distinct purpose with intent on bettering the whole--or at least keeping it in check.
No comments:
Post a Comment