Abstract
In this Niebuhrian perspective on hostile and violent discourse the author utilizes H. R. Niebuhr's fourfold notion of responsibility and his concept of evil imagination to examine relations marred by protracted hostility toward hated “other” or “others.” The author argues that violent and hostile discourse manifests a particular form of responsibility whereby persons expressing hostility toward hated “others” construct, by way of negative representations, maligned histories and identities for the “other” and at the same time construct an idealized or glorified history and identity for themselves. These positive and negative representations and histories, then, are utilized to answer questions regarding interpretation, accountability, and solidarity. Niebuhr's concept of evil imagination is employed to hypothesize about the intransigence of this form of responsibility and to suggest reasons why elevated and maligned representations, identities, and histories are, more often than not, inextricably and tragically linked.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
SeeConfronting a Culture of Violence. Washington: Office for Publishing and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1994.
On the use of metaphors and models in relation to human behavior see Thomas Szasz,Insanity: The Idea and Its Consequences, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1987; Roy Porter,A Social History of Madness, New York: Dutton, 1989; Michel Foucault,Madness and Civilization, New York: Vintage Books, 1965.
Francine Prose, “Protecting the Dead,” inTestimony, ed. David Rosenburg. New York: Times Books, 1989, p. 100.
Ervin Staub,The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p.91.
H. R. Niebuhr,The Responsible Self. New York: Harper and Row, 1963, p.47.
While Niebuhr's concept of evil is not explicitly associated with violence and hostility there is evidence to suggest that Niebuhr would understand some forms of violence to be linked with evil imagination. More recent discussions of the concept of evil and its relation to aggression, hostility and violence in human life have been of interest to a number of scholars in various fields of inquiry. For example, in theology see Hans Schwarz,Evil: A Historical and Theological Perspective, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), and Edward Farley,Good and Evil: Interpreting a Human Condition, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); in social psychology see Ernest Becker,Escape from Evil, (London: Free Press, 1975); in philosophy see John Kekes,Facing Evil, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990); in anthropology see David Parkin,The Anthropology of Evil, (New Yor: Basil Blackwell, 1985).
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, pp.61–68.
Ibid., p. 63.
Ibid.,pp.149–160.
Ibid., p.154.
H. R. Niebuhr,Meaning and Revelation, (New York: Collier Books, 1941, pp.67–99, and Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, p.61. A detailed discussion of Niebuhr's understanding of epistemology and its relation to faith can be found in his last work; H. R. Niebuhr,Faith on Earth, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, pp. 111–115.
Ibid., pp.90–107.
Ibid., p.63.
A criticism of Niebuhr is that he does not adequately attend to the differences between memory and history. Both are very complex topics. While these are important I will not attempt to distinguish between them. I simply acknowledge that while there are similarities between them they are different. Interestingly, Niebuhr's perspective on perception, memory and the use of patterns in interpreting sense data has some parallels with the empirical research of psychoanalyst Daniel Stern,The Interpersonal World of the Infant, (New York: Basic Books, 1985). Stern argues that the interactions of the mother and infant are formed into representations that have been generalized (RIGs) and into working models. These become the building blocks of memory, which continue to be used consciously and unconsciously to interpret sense data.
I utilize the operationalized definition of intersubjectivity by Tervarthan and Hubley (1978) found in Stern,The Interpersonal World of the Infant, p. 124. That is, intersubjectivity involves persons holding and sharing, through some form of communication, a distinct yet similar mental state. Niebuhr's view of social solidarity as sharing objects, images, and language in common, I believe, corresponds to this definition of intersubjectivity.
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, pp.71–78.
Ibid., pp.59–60.
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, p.64.
Alex Haley,The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine Books, 1964. The examples selected are taken from Malcolm X's adolescence. The book offers numerous examples of mutual protracted hostility and violence between whites and African-Americans and between males and females. My intention in selecting Mr. Ostrowski (and social workers in Michigan) is to illustrate dynamics that are manifested by almost all of us and at various times in our lives. Stated another way, my intention is neither to demonize nor assign all responsibility to any particular person or group. As Niebuhr points out inFaith on Earth, “There is no way of carving an individual self out of the web of responsible social relations and setting it before the bar of justice alone.... none fall in solitude.”
Ibid.,. p.36.
Ibid.,. p.37.
Ibid.,. p.21.
See Peter Gay,The Cultivation of Hatred, for his lucid discussion on the use of alibis of hate by individuals and governments in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These alibis were used to rationalize and justify the marginalization of the violence toward particular groups of people, e.g., Jews. See also Sandor Gilman,Difference and Pathology: Stereotypes of Sexuality, Race and and Madness. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, p.112.
Ibid., p.112.
Niebuhr,Faith on Earth, p.66.
Niebuhr,The Responsible Self, p.114.
Niebuhr,Faith on Earth, pp.74–5.
Niebuhr,Meaning and Revelation, p.118.
Ibid., p.56, 109.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lamothe, R. Responsibility and evil imagination. J Relig Health 34, 207–218 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248759
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248759