|
The Crucifixion and Escapism: Theories of Karl Marx and Mircea Eliade
In analyzing Jesus crucifixion with regard to Karl Marx and
Mircea Eliade, I found a startling similarity: the deep desire
to escape the world. The cross symbolizes and encompasses this
desire, although the two theorists define its manifestation
differently.
As always, Karl Marx interpreted most issues of his time using
the concept of social struggle. There was always an ongoing
battle between workers and their capitalist oppressors. Society
was fundamentally corrupt so long as a minority (the
middle-class capitalists) had an economic advantage, a sense of
superiority, over the masses (the workers). Marx dreamed of a
classless society where everyone was treated equally, fairly,
and would be completely satisfied both in their work and in
their relationships with each other.1 But the economic reality
of society in his day caused alienation between workers and
their true selves.
Alienation occurred because capitalist economics took
production of labor, the very product supposedly reflecting the
workers true self-expression, and transformed it into a
material object that is bought, sold, and owned by others. This
economy gave the workers product to the rich middle-class who
was able to buy it and thus ruled and oppressed the working
masses. 2 Physical, social, economic, and spiritual oppression
was the result of this alienation, and religion was the way out,
an escape:
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the
opium of the people.3
Success: By The NumbersWhat is "success"? Why does it seem everyone wants "success"? What does "success" mean to you? Do you need "success"? Do you ..... The drug opium lessened pain and created fantasies. Marx
compared religion to opium because he saw religion playing the
same role in the life of the poor. Through religion, the pain
workers suffered in a cruel and exploitative world was eased by
the fantasy of a supernatural world void of all sorrow and
oppression. It is pure escapism.4 This escapism shifted the gaze
upward to an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-enduring God who
occupies a perfect Heaven.
For Marx, the essence of religion, and for purposes of this
paper, Christianity, is its voice of suffering, its crying out
against the realities of capitalist exploitation and
degradation.5 The cross is the ultimate symbol of pain and
suffering. Marxs working class would identify with this symbol
and cling to it with hope of a better life, a better world, to
come. Jesus suffering and death on the cross, and his eventual
resurrection, would be proof to the workers that if they just
endure this worldly suffering and oppression with patience and
long-suffering, they will too be rewarded eternal life in Heaven
when they die. The poor would also identify to the humiliation
Jesus suffered at the hands of the Romans even before he died.
They would say, Hey, the humiliation that happened to Christ is
happening to us. He did nothing to stop it. He endured all the
pain and suffering with strength, courage, and patience. If we
do the same in our situation, if we imitate our Lord, we will be
rewarded in Heaven. Everything here on earth passes away; it
doesnt matter. And, they are even forced to recognize and
acknowledge the fact that they are dominated, ruled, and
possessed as a privilege from Heaven.6
Marx would say this hope in the cross and in Heavenly salvation
are all negative concepts that paralyze and imprison. For him,
desire for Heaven made the poor content with their situation on
earth. It promoted oppression by presenting a belief system
(Christianity) that made poverty and misery acceptable and
allowed ordinary people the resignation to their lot in life. By
keeping their eyes on the symbolic suffering of the cross and
staying content with the thought of the next life, what energies
will the poor ever put into changing their circumstances?7
Not only does belief in the cross have negative connotations,
it has evil consequences as well:
The social principles of Christianity declare all vile acts of
the oppressors against the oppressed to be either just
punishment for original sin and other sins, or suffering that
the Lord in His infinite wisdom has destined for those
redeemed.8
It is the most extreme version of ideology, of a belief system
whose motive is simply to provide reasons, excuses even, for
keeping things in society just the way the oppressors like them.
For the non-oppressed, for those lucky enough to control the
means of production, this belief system was used to remind the
poor that all social arrangements should stay just the way they
are.9 In this sense, religion was the ultimate form of control.
Again, the poor would look to the cross for answers: they would
look to forgiveness: Father, forgive them, for they do not know
what they are doing. [Luke 23:34]
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs in the kingdom of
Heaven. [Matthew 5:3]
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. [Matthew
5:5]
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 5:10]
You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate
your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in
Heaven. [Matthew 5:43-44]10
By adopting this mentality, the oppressed would constantly
forgive their oppressors, thus giving their oppressors even more
reason to persecute them. The middle class would be surrounded
by lower class, factory-oriented doormats who, in theory, would
permit the middle class to walk all over them.
Mircea Eliades ideology does not reduce religion (or in this
case, the cross) to economic misery; he doesnt reduce it to
anything. For him, in order to interpret the importance and
significance of religious experience, we must step out of modern
Carelessness"For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisors make a victory sure." --Proverbs 11:14, ..... civilization and enter the world of what he calls archaic man.
When we do this, he says, we find these primitive people living
on two markedly different planes: the sacred and the profane.
The profane realm consists of the everyday, normal business
people attend to each day and is relatively unimportant. The
sacred is just the opposite. It is the realm of the
supernatural, of things extraordinary, memorable, and momentous.
While the profane is the arena of changeable and chaotic human
affairs, the sacred is the sphere of order and perfection, the
home of ancestors, heroes, and gods, of beings not of this
world.11 The role of religion in archaic life is to promote
encounters with the sacred, to put people in touch with
something otherworldly in character; this character makes them
feel like they have brushed against a reality unlike any other.
Its felt as a dimension of existence alarmingly powerful,
enduring, and strangely different. When archaic people set up
their villages, they do not choose just any place, a place with
simple profane surroundings. A village must be founded at a
place where there has been some sacred appearance, or
hierophany. Thus, the authority of the sacred controls all
decisions. The community can then be built around this center to
show its divinely ordered structure its a sacred system.12
The language of the sacred can be found in symbols and in myth.
Here, certain things are seen to resemble or suggest the sacred;
they give a hint to the supernatural. In a village, this symbol
may be a pole, tree, or stone situated at the center of the
village. The Dome of the Rock is another example. Myths are
symbolic as well, but in a more complicated way. Where poles and
trees are more material and concrete symbols, myths are symbols
put into the shape of a story. But stepping outside of all this
and entering the realm of the profane for a moment, Eliade notes
that most of the things making up ordinary life are in fact
profane; they are just themselves taking up space, nothing more.
But at the right moment anything profane can be transformed into
something more than itself something sacred. Once recognized
as a sacred symbol, an object acquires a double character.13
This seems to be the case with the cross.
In Roman times, crucifixion was a very popular way of putting
criminals to death. Before the time of Christ, the cross was
merely two pieces of wood nailed together; it was something very
profane used to crucify mere men, nothing more, nothing less.
However, with Christs death, a transformation, or dialectic of
the sacred, occurred: the ordinary cross became a holy object by
the infusion of the supernatural. No symbol manages to bring
divinity close to humanity as the figure of the savior-god, the
divinity who shared in mankinds sufferings, died and rose from
the grave to redeem them.14 When one looks closer at the
crucifixion, Jesus was by all means not considered sacred by
Romans and Jews alike. Even while on the cross, he was still, in
theory, a mere man being punished for a crime. So how did the
cross become such a powerful symbol of the sacred? When did this
dialectic of the sacred take place?
And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up
his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in
two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The
tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died
were raised to life. When the centurion and those with him who
were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had
happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, Surely he was the
Son of God! [Matthew 27:50-54]15
Occupying ForcesFar too many Christians today, like the first century disciples, have a faulty view of the future. ..... It seems as though the above quote, coupled with Jesus
proclaimed resurrection, caused the simple profane cross to be
transformed into the most sacred symbol of Christianity. And the
myth, the story of the crucifixion, makes the material symbol of
the cross even more sacred by bringing it to life. Symbols and
myths rarely exist in isolation. They seem to always be part of
larger symbol systems. Ever since the cross was declared the
symbol of the divine, it has been carved into walls, worn as
jewelry, or put on display in churches all over the world. Its
gestures like these that give the cross its universality: when
people see the cross, most know the sacred symbolic nature of
it. In this way the cross, even the crucifixion, is personified
and the stories about it and its adventures come to expression
in myth.16 And to take it further, we hear claims that Jesus
crucifixion and resurrection defeated death. Christians would
see the cross in general as a symbol that has truly defeated
DivinationDIVINATION: "A LOST WORLD OF SOUL When you hear the word 'divination', chances are ..... death. For Eliade, it has defeated the profane. Now on to
Eliades theory of escapism. For archaic believers, the events
of ordinary profane life, the daily rounds of labor and
struggle, are things they desperately wish to escape. They would
rather be in the perfect realm of the sacred. This is the most
insistent and heartfelt ache in the soul of all archaic peoples:
to return to that point when the world began. A constant theme
of archaic ritual and myth is the desire to occupy the world as
it came from the Creators hands-fresh, innocent, and strong.
These believers long for permanence and perfection, as well as
escape from their sorrows. In profane life, existence is drab
and primitives have to deal with empty routines and daily
irritations. Through symbol and myth, they reach back to the
moment of perfection when life starts over, full of promise and
hope. 17 Eliade would interpret the crucifixion in the same
light. While attending a church service on Good Friday,
Christians immerse themselves in the myth of Jesus death by
performing rituals pertaining to the cross. These rituals
transport the observer to the time when Christ actually died,
taking them out of the troubles and trials of the present day
and reliving the events that brought the promise of hope and
joy.18 This would be considered the ultimate form of escapism.
With Eliade, however, I dont believe he would interpret this
escapism as something negative, like Marx would. Obviously
Eliade doesnt consider religion an illusion.
The interpretations of Marx and Eliade hold many truths for me,
and although I will defend Marx to the end I dont think Eliade
was necessarily wrong. The idea of the sacred and the profane
makes perfect sense: a cross is simply a cross until something
supernatural is attached to it. It is then regarded as holy and
is seen in a whole new light. When people observe the cross,
most know what story is attached to it and its this myth that
brings the cross to life and gives meaning to what was once
considered something profane. He does make me wonder, however,
if his study and theory of myths has roots in his past.
With the ruinous events of the 1930s, Eliade and the rest of the
new generation became casualties of history. Small wonder that
he displays little enthusiasm for retelling and hence reliving
his own anguish.19
Perhaps his theories helped him deal with, even escape, his own
history in the world, to escape his pain? There comes a time
when a person must deal with and eventually accept his own
reality, and escaping to a beginning, a time of innocence,
doesnt help.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.Web Site 2.Seven Theories of Religion, 141 3.Marx on Religion,
167 4.Seven Theories of Religion, 141-142 5.Marx on Religion, 8
6.Ibid, 173 7.Seven Theories of Religion, 142-143 8.Marx on
Religion, 185 9.Seven Theories of Religion, 138, 142 10.The NIV
Study Bible, 1444-1445, 1584 11.Seven Theories of Religion,
163-164 12.Ibid, 165-167 13.Ibid, 169-170 14.Ibid, 170, 172
15.The NIV Study Bible, 1485 16.Seven Theories of Religion, 176
17.Ibid, 179-180 18.Four Theories of Religion, 75 19.Ibid, 78
REFERENCES
1. "Marx on Religion." edited by John Raines. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press, 2002.
2. Barker, Kenneth, ed. The NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
3. Pals, Daniel L. "Religion as Alienation: Karl Marx." In Seven
Theories of Religion, 138-42. New York/Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1996.
4. Pals, Daniel L. "The Reality of the Sacred: Mircea Eliade."
In Seven Theories of Religion, 163-80. New York/Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1996.
5. Strenski, Ivan. Four Theories of Myth in Twentieth Century
History. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.
6. www.faithnet.org.
About the author:
About the Author Kathy Simcox, Columbus, Ohio, United States
hrdude28@hotmail.com
Kathy works as an Administrative Assistant in the College of the
Arts at The Ohio State University. She holds a BA in Psychology
and is currently working on a second BA in Religious Studies. In
addition to writing, her passions include hiking, biking,
kayaking, photography, and singing in her Lutheran church choir.
She is also known to read an occasional book.
|
