Trying to comprehend the significance of it all
Self-flagellation is a good thing.
There are elements of the Zaidi case that will sound familiar to those who grew up in a Punjabi Shia household. There is nothing odd in the father of the household engaging in this particular practice. But I have personally never seen anybody coerced into it, although coercion can, admittedly, take many indirect forms.
Nothing odd, that is, in the father of the household engaging in self-flagellation. Well that depends on what you mean by ‘odd.’ It may be something one has seen before, but that doesn’t mean it’s not odd. I’m going to go right out on a limb here and say that whipping one’s back with knives is, indeed, odd, also stupid and undesirable, especially when done in front of other people, especially when some of them are children. The Dinonysian is not something to be messed with.
[T]he danger of this case is that the ritual of self-flagellation itself is demonised. Those adults who engage in self-flagellation with knives, chains or blades, do so with a consciousness of the ceremonial nature of the act, keenly watched by onlookers, children and adults alike, who, though they have seen it all before, continue to be mesmerised by the sheer spectacle of it – the display.
Exactly; hence the danger and the lack of desirability. It’s not a good (a humane, a responsible, a fair, a decent) idea to stage mezmerizing spectacles of severe self-injury in front of children, or anyone else either. There are things one ought not to mesmerize other people into wanting to do themselves; self-injury is one of those.
This excitement is, for most, mixed with an actual sense of profound identification with the suffering of Imam Hussain…[I]n an age where Muslim communities appear to be in a state of flux, it is this very sacrifice of Hussain that, paradoxically, provides an antithesis to extremism and violence. How? Because it gives a powerful sense of meaningful identification to those, especially among the younger generations, who see beyond the self-inflicted scars and the rituals themselves, and who in some way try and comprehend the significance of it all.
Paradoxically indeed; so paradoxically that it makes no sense. A sense of meaningful identification for those who see beyond the self-inflicted injuries and who in some way try and comprehend the significance of it all. Yes but in what way? And what is the significance of it all? And whatever it is why can’t it be comprehended without the blades hitting the back? If there’s something to be comprehended why can’t it be comprehended in a literal direct explicit rational way? And where – really, where – does the antithesis to extremism and violence come in?
One interesting aspect of the story is that the Crown Prosecution Service is very careful to say that they are not criticising the practice of self-flagellation in honour of Imam Hussain; they are simply concerned with the element of coercion in this particular case. The question they should be asking about this case, and many others is: When does religious indoctrination of any kind become coercion? This is especially relevant to destructive, silly practices like self-flagellation. It’s like the idiots in the Philippines being crucified on Good Griday. But most religious indoctrination amounts to coercion. This is just a particularly salient example.
That’s where the trick cyclist makes his appearance. They ‘see beyond the self-inflicted scars and the rituals themselves, and … in some way try to comprehend the significance of it all.’ Religion all over! They do it in churches and Sunday Schools and Sabbath Schools and mosque schools (or whatever they are called) all around the world, telling stories over and over so that kids are forced to at least try to make some sense of it all. You have to. Adults, after all, are trustworthy. They wouldn’t tell you a lot of hokkum, or make you do silly things. So it must all make sense – right? And when you have been forced often enough to do this, the story ‘takes’, and the kid is trapped. Even years later people will try to make sense, not only of the old old stories of Jesus and his love, or of the hidden imam, but of their own lives, and this effort at trying to find the significance will simply fall right into place. The grooves (or the scars) are there so that you can simply slot them in. It happens all the time.
Perhaps, as Dawkins points out, we should look much more carefully at how religion is used on children, not just in terms of dotty things like cutting yourself with knives, but also in terms of things like shredding your mind with fairytales.
I know, I found what the CPS said very irritating – the case was purely one of child cruelty. So it’s perfectly all right for people to pressure adults to whip themselves with knives? The hell it is! That guy didn’t just make the whip available, he shouted at the boys for not using it. He has no business shouting at anyone for not using a whip made of knives! It’s grotesque!
I don’t think you can really blame the CPS for not criticising self-flagellation in general. They would be accused of overstepping their role since self-flagellation itself isn’t illegal.
But the issue isn’t self-flagellation, it’s pressuring other people to self-flagellate. Since the CPS took the trouble to say the issue was child cruelty, I think it’s fair to point out that there’s really no reason to think it’s okay to coerce or pressure adults to harm themselves. It’s no longer ‘self’-flagellation when it’s a matter of yelling in someone else’s face ‘Just do it, just do it.’