Between Transcendence and Violence: Gianni Vattimo and René Girard on Violence in a Secular Age

INTRODUCTION

Violence is one of the crucial issues that always dominates modern theological discourses. However, the discussion is not limited to theological discourses because violence is one of the most prominent problems for human beings today, religious and irreligious alike. Violence manifests itself in various forms, including the use of religious outlook for support. Perhaps this means that violence is pervasive in the nature of human being since it always occurs again and again in human history without any possibility to fully eradicate it. Perhaps the best way that humans can do is to minimalize or restrain it.

Among contemporary thinkers who have written on the problem of violence, René Girard’s understanding of mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism is the most plausible and convincing. Girard has been influential across disciplines, and his ideas have been discussed for many years. Gianni Vattimo, another prominent scholar, also develops ideas about violence. Vattimo insists that the root of violence is metaphysics; as such, the only way to stop it is to move beyond metaphysics.

These two scholars met and exchanged their views.¹ While the discussion on violence is not exhaustive, the two thinkers agree on a theme closely related to violence: transcendence. In this paper, I highlight some aspects of Vattimo’s and Girard’s ideas of transcendence and violence. I assert that they have produced interesting frameworks and analytical tools for people who live in today’s secular age. However, I have to express disapproval toward Vattimo’s suggestion to abolish metaphysic as a way to diminish violence. I argue that Girard’s framework is better in comprehending and dealing with violence. This does not mean that I agree with all his thoughts, however.

The direction of this article is as follows: A description of Vattimo’s arguments on transcendence and violence will be outlined in the next section. It is then followed by Girard’s position of the same issues. The third section is a comparison and analysis between the two thinkers. Finally, I shall show that their views on the role of Christianity in the secular age are of importance to understand their arguments.

“WEAK THOUGHT,” THE RETURN TO RELIGION, AND VIOLENCE

Gianni Vattimo’s whole project can be summarized as “weak thought.” This idea is derived from his reading of Heidegger and Nietzsche. “Weak thought” is a proclamation of the dissolution of every absolute thought in philosophy. This is an interpretation of Nietzsche’s famous statement “God is dead.” For Vattimo, this statement is a not a claim that God does not exist, but an announcement “that our experience has been transformed such that we no longer conceive ultimate objective truths, and now respond only to appeals, announcements.”² In this reading, the dead “god” is synonymous to every idea that is perceived as an absolute, objective truth. In other words, the announcement is about the incapability of human beings to conceive God in the absolute sense as they used to do. To replace this, there are only interpretations, or, in the words of Vattimo, “What used to be considered facts are now taken as interpretations.”³ In The End of Modernity, Vattimo argues that Heidegger and Nietzsche were not pointing out to civilizational decadence but, rather, the “‘positive’ moments for philosophical reconstruction.”⁴ This can be seen as tension because, although the solid ground of philosophical thinking has vanished, one still needs to formulate critical thinking even on the shaky ground of today’s world. In this, “weak thought” is the answer to create such a delicate balance. He writes, “Its [weak thought’s] content is an ontology of weakness . . . because thinking is no longer demonstrative but rather edifying, it has become in that restricted sense weaker.”⁵ Then, what about the notion of transcendence? Is it still a viable option?

Vattimo asserts that transcendence is not something beyond history but an integral part of history. Here Vattimo interprets Heidegger’s realization of Being as an historical event.⁶ Thus, he criticizes transcendence as something apart from history. Beside Heidegger...