Wonder Woman, Paul Ricœur, & Refusing the Second Naïveté (Holiday Post #3)
SPOILER ALERT: If you have not seen the 2017 film, Wonder Woman, the following may contain spoilers.
As I did last year, I'm using the holidays to stray a bit from the topic of biblical allusions in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Besides my posts about Hamlet Had an Uncle and "the jade's trick" in Much Ado, I will be making a few other posts before twelfth night (the day before Epiphany), including a post about Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.
Gatherings with family members during the Christmas season usually includes, for us, taking in some films (either in a theater or at home). This year it has included a number of films, including Wonder Woman (2017), which we viewed again at home with... let's say it was with representatives of a younger generation.
[Promotional image via Comicbook.com]
The film is set during World War I, known then as "The Great War," and Wonder Woman (played by Gal Godot) believes the war is being caused by Ares, god of war. Just defeat Ares, and the war will end, problem solved. Or so she thinks.
Her new friend, Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) is skeptical about this but goes along with it to a point, at least so that he can get from Wonder Woman's island, back to Europe, and do more to overcome the enemy.
There comes a point in the film where Wonder Woman's literal belief is shaken, and Steve Trevor expresses for her that perhaps the point is not a literal belief in a god of war, and perhaps the causes and solutions to war are more complicated.
This is a wonderful moment that many people come to in their religious belief, especially as they become young adults. Are the stories about Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and other gods literally true, or are they fictions constructed to convey deeper truths?
In the United States, there was a famous exchange ("Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus") where an 8-year-old girl named Virginia wrote a letter to a newspaper, asking if there really was a Santa. The paper replied, stressing the importance of belief, but unfortunately, not explicitly moving the readers to a new kind of relationship to the myth beyond a child-like literal faith. (You can read the full text of the editorial HERE.)
French Philosopher and hermeneutics scholar Paul Ricœur also wrestled with questions of how people mature and achieve a new relationship to old, once-literal religious belief. For Ricœur, in the modern world, skepticism is too strong for many adults to continue to cling to a child-like, literal faith. He uses the examples of Marx, Nietzche, and Freud to show how skepticism properly reveals illusory aspects of religious literalism, but also shows how these can be transcended.
G.D. Robinson puts it this way:
Marx's analysis of religion led him to the conclusion that while religion appeared to be concerned with the lofty issues of transcendence and personal salvation, in reality its true function was to provide a "flight from the reality of inhuman working conditions" and to make "the misery of life more endurable."[7] Religion in this way served as "the opium of the people."[...]
Similarly, Nietzche's understanding of the true purpose of religion as the elevation of "weakness to a position of strength, to make weakness respectable" belied its apparent purpose, namely to make life for the 'slave morality', the weak, the unfit, a little more endurable by promoting virtues such as pity, industry, humility, and friendliness. Thus Nietzche unmasks religion to reveal it as the refuge of the weak.[...]
Likewise with Freud, the same pattern of "unmasking" to reveal and distinguish "the real" from the "apparent" is evident in his analysis of religion. So, while religion was perceived to be a legitimate source of comfort and hope when one is faced with the difficulties of life, in reality religion was an illusion that merely expressed one's wish for a father-God.[10] It was only a small step for Ricoeur to recognize the suspicion of religion and culture offered by the heroes and then apply the same principle to the act of communication under the rubric of a hermeneutics of suspicion.
Furthermore, Ricoeur insisted that it would be a mistake to view the three as masters of skepticism. Why is this? Because, while it is true they are involved with destroying established ideas "All three clear the horizon for a more authentic word, for a new reign of Truth, not only by means of a 'destructive' critique, but by the invention of an art of interpreting."[...] In other words, each of the masters have, in their own way, unmasked a false consciousness, a false understanding of the "text" (society) by systematically applying a critique of suspicion, with the result that the true understanding, one that more faithfully tracks and correlates with the real situation now becomes unmasked and revealed. All three, for Ricoeur, "represent three convergent procedures of demystification."[...]
Such a hermeneutic when applied to a text gives rise to the possibility of a "second naivete"[...] whereby the goal of interpretation may be reached, namely "a world in front of the text, a world that opens up new possibilities of being."[...] What is an appropriate response to Ricoeur's analysis from an evangelical perspective?[...] It seems to me that Ricoeur's insight here is an essentially valid one. It is simply too easy when reading a (biblical) text, especially one that we are familiar with, to do so with a rigidity and complacency that tends to "freeze" its meaning irrevocably. To approach the text with suspicion - to query whether what the text appears to say really does correspond with its true message - seems to be both a valid and necessary hermeneutical process.
Ricoeur's three masters highlight another important aspect of this question of suspicion, namely that suspicion needs to operate with a bi-polar focus. Just as Marx, Nietzche and Freud in their own contexts criticized both the participants (society at large, or individuals) and "the system" (religion), so we too need to be aware that suspicion has a dual focus as we approach a text; I need to apply suspicion to myself -am I imposing a meaning upon this text?[...] And a suspicion to the text - is the text really saying this? Both poles of suspicion are valid and necessary....
Steve Trevor helps Wonder Woman to come to that turning point where she might question and transcend her literal belief. Paul Ricœur would refer to this as moving from a first naïveté of childhood to a more mature "second naïveté" whereby one can appreciate and gain from the stories, but not get stuck in the literal meanings.
But oops... The superhero film is too deeply tied to its premise of a literal Ares god, so, sorry, the movement to Ricœur's second naïveté has to be refused.
For me, this becomes almost a kind of "breaking the fourth wall," where we see the thinking of the film-makers at work, creating the illusion of the superhero story, full of special effects, like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz.
We know it's an illusion, but then the wall is rebuilt because, for the sake of a superhero blockbuster, Wonder Woman must defeat Ares in a climactic scene.
It was good to watch the film again over the holidays and recall that scene.
"Yes, Wonder Woman, there is an Ares?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All six of my holiday posts:
Twelfth Night & Epiphany, Malvolio & the Cecils, and Antonio & Essex (Holiday Post #6)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/twelfth-night-epiphany-malvolio-cecils.html
Rise of Skywalker, Oedipus, & George Eliot: Saved by Heroes or Collective? (Holiday Post #5)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/rise-of-skywalker-oedipus-george-eliot.html
Frozen II: Dams, Aboriginal Peoples, & Addressing Historical Injustices (Holiday Post #4)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/frozen-ii-dams-aboriginal-peoples.html
Wonder Woman, Paul Ricœur, & Refusing the Second Naïveté (Holiday Post #3)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/wonder-woman-paul-ricur-refusing-second.html
Much Ado & the "Jade's Trick"— as coitus interruptus? (Holiday Post #2)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/much-ado-and-jades-trick-as-coitus.html
Hamlet Had an Uncle: A Comedy of Honor—J.B. Cabell (Holiday Post #1)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/hamlet-had-uncle-comedy-of-honorby.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
My current project is a book tentatively titled “Hamlet’s Bible,” about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
As I did last year, I'm using the holidays to stray a bit from the topic of biblical allusions in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Besides my posts about Hamlet Had an Uncle and "the jade's trick" in Much Ado, I will be making a few other posts before twelfth night (the day before Epiphany), including a post about Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.
Gatherings with family members during the Christmas season usually includes, for us, taking in some films (either in a theater or at home). This year it has included a number of films, including Wonder Woman (2017), which we viewed again at home with... let's say it was with representatives of a younger generation.
[Promotional image via Comicbook.com]
The film is set during World War I, known then as "The Great War," and Wonder Woman (played by Gal Godot) believes the war is being caused by Ares, god of war. Just defeat Ares, and the war will end, problem solved. Or so she thinks.
Her new friend, Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) is skeptical about this but goes along with it to a point, at least so that he can get from Wonder Woman's island, back to Europe, and do more to overcome the enemy.
There comes a point in the film where Wonder Woman's literal belief is shaken, and Steve Trevor expresses for her that perhaps the point is not a literal belief in a god of war, and perhaps the causes and solutions to war are more complicated.
This is a wonderful moment that many people come to in their religious belief, especially as they become young adults. Are the stories about Moses, the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and other gods literally true, or are they fictions constructed to convey deeper truths?
In the United States, there was a famous exchange ("Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus") where an 8-year-old girl named Virginia wrote a letter to a newspaper, asking if there really was a Santa. The paper replied, stressing the importance of belief, but unfortunately, not explicitly moving the readers to a new kind of relationship to the myth beyond a child-like literal faith. (You can read the full text of the editorial HERE.)
French Philosopher and hermeneutics scholar Paul Ricœur also wrestled with questions of how people mature and achieve a new relationship to old, once-literal religious belief. For Ricœur, in the modern world, skepticism is too strong for many adults to continue to cling to a child-like, literal faith. He uses the examples of Marx, Nietzche, and Freud to show how skepticism properly reveals illusory aspects of religious literalism, but also shows how these can be transcended.
G.D. Robinson puts it this way:
Marx's analysis of religion led him to the conclusion that while religion appeared to be concerned with the lofty issues of transcendence and personal salvation, in reality its true function was to provide a "flight from the reality of inhuman working conditions" and to make "the misery of life more endurable."[7] Religion in this way served as "the opium of the people."[...]
Similarly, Nietzche's understanding of the true purpose of religion as the elevation of "weakness to a position of strength, to make weakness respectable" belied its apparent purpose, namely to make life for the 'slave morality', the weak, the unfit, a little more endurable by promoting virtues such as pity, industry, humility, and friendliness. Thus Nietzche unmasks religion to reveal it as the refuge of the weak.[...]
Likewise with Freud, the same pattern of "unmasking" to reveal and distinguish "the real" from the "apparent" is evident in his analysis of religion. So, while religion was perceived to be a legitimate source of comfort and hope when one is faced with the difficulties of life, in reality religion was an illusion that merely expressed one's wish for a father-God.[10] It was only a small step for Ricoeur to recognize the suspicion of religion and culture offered by the heroes and then apply the same principle to the act of communication under the rubric of a hermeneutics of suspicion.
Furthermore, Ricoeur insisted that it would be a mistake to view the three as masters of skepticism. Why is this? Because, while it is true they are involved with destroying established ideas "All three clear the horizon for a more authentic word, for a new reign of Truth, not only by means of a 'destructive' critique, but by the invention of an art of interpreting."[...] In other words, each of the masters have, in their own way, unmasked a false consciousness, a false understanding of the "text" (society) by systematically applying a critique of suspicion, with the result that the true understanding, one that more faithfully tracks and correlates with the real situation now becomes unmasked and revealed. All three, for Ricoeur, "represent three convergent procedures of demystification."[...]
Such a hermeneutic when applied to a text gives rise to the possibility of a "second naivete"[...] whereby the goal of interpretation may be reached, namely "a world in front of the text, a world that opens up new possibilities of being."[...] What is an appropriate response to Ricoeur's analysis from an evangelical perspective?[...] It seems to me that Ricoeur's insight here is an essentially valid one. It is simply too easy when reading a (biblical) text, especially one that we are familiar with, to do so with a rigidity and complacency that tends to "freeze" its meaning irrevocably. To approach the text with suspicion - to query whether what the text appears to say really does correspond with its true message - seems to be both a valid and necessary hermeneutical process.
Ricoeur's three masters highlight another important aspect of this question of suspicion, namely that suspicion needs to operate with a bi-polar focus. Just as Marx, Nietzche and Freud in their own contexts criticized both the participants (society at large, or individuals) and "the system" (religion), so we too need to be aware that suspicion has a dual focus as we approach a text; I need to apply suspicion to myself -am I imposing a meaning upon this text?[...] And a suspicion to the text - is the text really saying this? Both poles of suspicion are valid and necessary....
Steve Trevor helps Wonder Woman to come to that turning point where she might question and transcend her literal belief. Paul Ricœur would refer to this as moving from a first naïveté of childhood to a more mature "second naïveté" whereby one can appreciate and gain from the stories, but not get stuck in the literal meanings.
But oops... The superhero film is too deeply tied to its premise of a literal Ares god, so, sorry, the movement to Ricœur's second naïveté has to be refused.
For me, this becomes almost a kind of "breaking the fourth wall," where we see the thinking of the film-makers at work, creating the illusion of the superhero story, full of special effects, like the man behind the curtain in The Wizard of Oz.
We know it's an illusion, but then the wall is rebuilt because, for the sake of a superhero blockbuster, Wonder Woman must defeat Ares in a climactic scene.
It was good to watch the film again over the holidays and recall that scene.
"Yes, Wonder Woman, there is an Ares?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All six of my holiday posts:
Twelfth Night & Epiphany, Malvolio & the Cecils, and Antonio & Essex (Holiday Post #6)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/twelfth-night-epiphany-malvolio-cecils.html
Rise of Skywalker, Oedipus, & George Eliot: Saved by Heroes or Collective? (Holiday Post #5)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/rise-of-skywalker-oedipus-george-eliot.html
Frozen II: Dams, Aboriginal Peoples, & Addressing Historical Injustices (Holiday Post #4)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/frozen-ii-dams-aboriginal-peoples.html
Wonder Woman, Paul Ricœur, & Refusing the Second Naïveté (Holiday Post #3)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/wonder-woman-paul-ricur-refusing-second.html
Much Ado & the "Jade's Trick"— as coitus interruptus? (Holiday Post #2)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2020/01/much-ado-and-jades-trick-as-coitus.html
Hamlet Had an Uncle: A Comedy of Honor—J.B. Cabell (Holiday Post #1)
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/hamlet-had-uncle-comedy-of-honorby.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
My current project is a book tentatively titled “Hamlet’s Bible,” about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider subscribing.
Comments
Post a Comment