I, like many people, crave the feeling
that comes from thinking of myself as being good. This need can be difficult
for me to satisfy because I am both flawed as well as virtuous and my habitual
self-criticism and insecurities tend to focus more on the former than the
latter. Some people, including bigots[i],
in their efforts to think of themselves as good, designate someone else as a
scapegoat to take the blame for the existence of their shortcomings.
Scape-goating is part of both Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sander’s appeal
to at least some Americans. Either foreigners or bankers are blamed for
America's problems. This tactic is far from new and in fact when we re-examine
the origins of this concept, there are dramatically different approaches to the
topic of “scapegoating”.
We first read about the scapegoat in
Leviticus: “Aaron shall lean both of his hands upon the live male goat's
head and confess upon it all the wilful sins of the Israelites, all their
rebellions, and all their unintentional sins and he shall place them on the he
goat's head, and send it off to the desert...[ii]”
The concept of transferring blame
implicit in scapegoating is strongly rejected by one of the greatest Jewish
authorities of all time, Maimonides. He wrote that ‘sins are not burdens
that one can transfer from the back of one person to that of another, but
(rather) all these actions are all meant as lessons to bring about fear in
one’s soul, until one repents[iii]’. In this approach,
the destroyed goat is an illustration of the evil within each individual
themselves, that can only be removed by personal change and improvement. The
goat is at least in part an aid to the imagination just as the ceremonial
“tossing our sins” into the sea by emptying our pockets at the edge of a body
of water does not substitute for the hard work of changing habits and repairing
our relationships with our fellow humans or God.
In contrast to the view of Maimonides,
the symbolism found in at least one commentary of this ritual appears to
reflect the modern concept of a ‘scapegoat’. This interpretation implies that
sins can indeed be transferred from one person to another. It symbolically
links the two goats and the twins Jacob and Esau[iv]
who are seen as ancestors and therefore symbolic of the Jewish and Roman
nations respectively. Despite the similarity of two ordinary goats as
well as the twins Jacobs and Esau Jews, Jacob is seen to be held close to God,
while Esau is distanced from God. This choice is articulated by God through one
of the prophets in the statement: “Is it not (true) that Esau is a brother
to Jacob said God, yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau[v]”. Mirroring this
apparently arbitrary selection of Jacob by God, one goat is selected to be
offered in the holy temple. The other goat, is sent to a forsaken area in the
desert which mirrors the fact that Esau, the archetypal Roman, himself was a
man of the field, distanced from God, “bitter, brazen (עז)
in strength and wickedness”.
If we take this commentary at face
value, it implies that the Jews can pass on their sins to Rome! Despite my
preference for Maimonides’ approach that affirms personal responsibility, I
think that sometimes there is in fact merit in assigning shared responsibility
to parties other than the direct perpetrator. For example, if members of
oppressed minorities commit crimes like burglary, it makes sense to combine the
principle of personal responsibility that holds the robber accountable with
assigning some responsibility to those who created the unjust circumstances in
which those crimes are committed, such as colonialism or institutional racism.
This theme is alluded to (in the commentary about the scapegoat) when
Esau/Rome, cries out in protest as the crimes are loaded onto him: “how can
I bear all these sins?” The complaint is explained as an argument against
shifting blame for sins that are not attributable to oppression such as sins of
lust[vi].
The implication is that culpability for some sins can be justly
attributed to the oppressive, “brazen” state and only some “responsibility
re-assignment” is unjustified.
For me, I believe the most useful thing
to do in relation to my self-concept is firstly to combine acknowledgement of
my shortcomings with appreciation for my positive aspects. There is no need,
benefit or justification to blame others for one’s own faults. There are times
when I can use my imagination in a process of moving on, just like the goat
ceremony might help someone work on their self-improvement. For example, I can
externalise my habitual self-criticism and imagine it coming from a harsh
unreasonable judge or a personalised “inner critic” who needs to be told to
back off. Religious Jews often talk about the “evil inclination” as if it was
another person. This is ok as long as we don’t forget we are just pretending
and that in reality the “inner critic” and evil inclination is part of us. In
the broader context of inter-group relations, I think the concept of the
scapegoat can be, at times ridiculous bigotry and at other times, a rightful
redistribution of a fair share of responsibility between those who take harmful
actions and those who, through greed, arrogance, stupidity and injustice
contributed to the circumstances that made that harm likely.
