Customer Reviews

The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

While frequently very western in scope and perspective, this book offers a unique view of the formation of identity within the framework of competition that has been the calling card of monotheism since the beginning of recorded history. She quotes the bible and related texts familiarly and, without apology, draws attention to the paradigms that are built and followed throughout. The writing is flawless and edgy, very flowing and logically directed, and, if anything, she is too kind to her subject, willing to accept the undeniability of certain facts, even outside the influence of monotheism (important since identity seems to be a secular goal as well, a national goal...) Maybe some readers would be more content to have her draw more solid lines between competitive identification (deFacto creation of an "Other" within a closed system) and violence, but I found that the connections were readily available, especially to anyone familiar with contemporary church teachings. Her discussions of Ownership and Land are the most unsettling and satisfying, while the attention paid to homosexuality (and the innately un-biologically sponsored disgust of manufactured by monotheists) is thin and frustratingly incomplete. But that is not a flaw. This is a large subject, one not lending itself to easy interpretation. Most exciting, I think, is the evidence supporting her claim that Monotheism is a philosophy of scarcity,not just regulated inclusion. There are powerful images there, especially when seen alongside the newly revived evangelism of many protestant religions. You realize in the face of that movement, it is bound to fail because it is not built to succeed. Their God is not meant to be a God patronized by everyone, however, he is meant to be a God superior to everyone. This is necessarily a violent dynamic, if even ideologically. A very insightful book, even handed and reasonable. In a larger format, it would have been fascinating to see more pieces drawn from other monotheistic religions...

Almost every page of Regina Schwartz' book on the Hebrew Bible flashes with startling insights. Her most basic (and I think most helpful) overall observation is to note the pervasive issue of scarcity functioning throughout the Old Testament. Land is scarce, blessings are scarce, and this scarcity drives characters into conflict, and conflict leads to concerns over identity and possession (Who's in and who's out? Who gets what?). Hence her chapter headings run like this: "Inventing Identity", "Owning Identity" etc. Schwartz' "scarcity leading to identity formation" key for reading the Hebrew Bible opens a great deal of fresh interpretive space. Get this book, then reread the Old Testament again, as if for the first time.

"The issue I am focusing attention on is the price of imagining collective identity under one principle and banishing the rest--it doesn't have to be one god, it can be one nation, one kinship group, one territory." Regina Schwartz



Violence and Monotheism:
Monotheism is a deep, complex concept with a multifaceted history, complicit with violence, and the demand of allegiance to one god, is accompanied by aggression against those of other beliefs, is Dr. Schwartz conclusion, based on her study relating violence to Monotheism. Unfortunately, tales of violence may have been exaggerated in the Hebrew narratives to impress, while it receded when Hebrew Monolatery developed into Monotheism. Sometimes peoples that have a monotheistic religion are in fact very pluralistic and tolerant.

Violent Interpretations:
"Biblical narratives are infinitely interpretable, and interpretations of the Bible have been put to any and every political purpose. The number of ante-bellum clergy who used the Bible to justify slavery is astonishing." Regina Schwartz, a promoter of Ethics and Non violence says, adding, "The Bible..., not only as a spiritual guide and a handbook of truth, but also as a manual of politics. As though all this authorizing of scripture doesn't make biblical interpretation hazardous enough,..."
She interprets the Bible as describing peoples who were in conflict, competing for their needs, of material resources, in the ancient world, as they are today. Biblical narratives reflect that violence against peoples who worship other deities, leaving us a legacy of intolerance, and sometimes authorizing such intolerance as God's own command.

Themes and Findings:
The author's scheme is logical, analytical and thematically compelling, briefly; Violence, in search of identity, Covenants to confirm identity, Land to conserve identity, Legislation to guard identity and limit internal conflict, Nationalism to strengthen identity, Memory to preserve identity.
She proposes that the injunction "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" promotes intolerance to other people, and their beliefs. The Bible, debates Dr. Schwartz, has bequeathed not only narratives of violence, but has promoted an ethic of charity and social justice; taking care of the widow, the orphan, and the poor. The Bible also offers alternative visions toward the neighbor, of peace and generosity, of forging alliances with the foreigner, and we could highlight them. The prophets emphasized visions of bounty and peace, of the lion laying down with the lamb, thus, overwriting the violent themes of winners and losers.

The Curse of Cain:
The Curse of Cain invites a fresh analytical re-reading of the Hebrew Bible narratives without prejudice or bias. Dr. Schwartz proposes Cain's violence was the first sin against God and humanity. Her study plan is impressive, and her interpretation of the narrative is both bold and lucid, analyzing the perplexing stories to discover a psychological motive for the unjustified violence, and evaluates its implications.

Schwartz makes many valid points, but she doesn't deliver on the promises implied by her title. In a book about "the violent legacy of monotheism" I would have expected a discussion of "monotheism" per se, but this book is exclusively about the impact of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and specifically its scripture, on Western culture. Also, to cover the "violent legacy" of monotheism you would need to spend as much time talking about specific acts of violence on either the national or personal level and detailing how you can trace their causes to monotheism. Schwartz does extremely little of this. She mentions examples like Bosnia and Israel, but she does so relatively infrequently and devotes very little effort to substantiating her assumption that it was in fact "monotheism" that caused the violence.

The book is really not about monotheism but about the impact of different methods which the biblical texts use to foster a sense of group identity among their adherents. A chapter is devoted to each method: covenant, territory, kinship, nation, and collective history. Aside from covenant, which may arguably be especially linked to monotheism, the others have no special link to monotheism or to Judaism or Christianity. Judaism and Christianity use them, but so have other groups throughout history.

It is really one theme that is repeated over and over again throughout these chapters: these methods of building group identity cause people to define an in-group and an out-group, which inevitably leads to violence. Schwartz summarizes clearly in her introduction: this book "locates the origins of violence in identity formation, arguing that imagining identity as an act of distinguishing and separating from others, of boundary making and line drawing, is the most frequent and fundamental act of violence we commit. Violence is not only what we do to the Other. It is prior to that. Violence is the very construction of the Other." (p.5) She sees the Bible as a major force in causing this kind of boundary-making. Granted, religious values are weakening today, but the same way of looking at things continues in modern nationalism.

Methodologically the book is inconsistent, writing off the original intent of biblical texts at one point in favor of talking about their "reception", and at other points stressing the original intent if it fits the author's agenda. If a given text doesn't quite fit, it is shoehorned into place: to show that the story of Adam and Eve's transgression is really an attempt to insist on patriarchal authority, Schwartz writes that although Eve wasn't a child rebelling against the father, the "male impulse to defy the father" is evident in the "serpent/phallus that is cast as the source of the entire rebellion". (p.113) Regulations against homosexuality are interpreted similarly: "... it seems that there is a palpable fear that when men love one another, they will overthrow their fathers. And so the biblical norm of paternal dominance deliberately promotes rivalry, not love, among brothers." (p.110)

The impact of the book is weakened by the preaching tone it takes so often, with frequent recourse to flights of rhetoric. "But people do not possess land. Such a notion of land possesses them, for the land becomes soaked in the blood of the peoples who claim it." (p.41). "As one Native American has phrased it, 'As long as people believe in the Yahweh of deliverance, the world will not be safe from Yahweh the conqueror.'" (p.58) These may have elements of truth in them, but the sermonizing tone is tiresome at best.

There are many valid points here, but it will take a book written more dispassionately, and with more academic rigor, to make them be convincing for people who don't already believe them; and those who do believe them already don't really need to read this book.

I wanted so much to like this book. The author makes that very difficult not only because of her strained sentence constructions that all but defy parsing in some places but because the book so rarely lives up to its title. Had it been titled, "My Beef with Judaism," I would probably be more satisfied. But then I wouldn't have bought the book.

Specifically, the author's central premise that there is no such thing as kinship defies explanation. Is she really serious in this assertion? Am I really not kin to my parents or my brothers and sister? Is blood really just metaphorical? Professor Darwin, call your agent.

She so labors the point that the Bible (somehow wrongly) is premised on a psychology of scarcity (as if such a thing didn't exist) instead of on plenty that one would think the reader would finally be won over just by weight of words. However, her arguments are not convincing.

The author is a scholar and I am not. Perhaps if I were wiser, I would like her book. I do not.

This is a truly brilliant book.

The author like so many others lumped all Christian denominations and seeminingly monotheistic religions together as one. No, not all Christians are the same. Furthermore, the author took many verses in the Bible out of context, rather than choosing to see it as a whole, he instead sees it in pieces, as being contradictory, not bothering to take seriously WHY the Bible made certain statements.