There is one video – linked in my last post – that keeps coming back in my mind. I am talking about that tv clip showing how the sculptor Cosimo Cavallaro got attacked by a representative of a religious group, who in the name of their version of Catholicism and rigid moral order, launched a series of bullying tactics and threatening acts against everyone associated with Cavallaro’s work: a statue of Jesus made by chocolate.
The scandalous point for that religious group was not its chocolate nature of course. It was its anatomically correct representation.
I’m glad that Cosimo Cavallaro has eloquently exposed the morally and conceptually empty stance of his attacker during the TV interview. Yet, if the latter believes that this is “one of the worst assaults against Christian sensibilities ever”, (as reported in the news), an assumption which he then conveniently uses as a pretext in order to justify a wave of violent reactions; should we overlook with disdain his behaviour for obviously manipulating reality and ends, or start worrying about the state of our political thought and the undermined role of art?
I am wondering how to perceive this whole incidence. For example, as evidence of some remaining parochial figures which keep providing a source of identification for easily-led authoritarian personalities? Or, given their apparent capacity to terrorise, to threaten with violence or enforce economic boycotts, is this evidence of the continuing political power and effectiveness of extreme right-wing groups and their discourses?
For many, this represents a kind of anachronism within modern society. Certainly, an example of its current contradictions. Many sociologists, such as Giddens, have viewed these groups in terms of modern fundamentalisms. They try to defend tradition but in such a rigid way that they refuse public dialogue and examination of their ‘truths’. Nevertheless, as it is asserted, we live in times and places where truths have to be decided. Consequently, these fundamentalist movements, following religious, national or other traditional discourses, could often lead to violence, as in our example here.
Violence is in the air, no doubt about it. Although, I would say that this violence arises, not only from the non-dialogic position of such traditional groups (of religion, nation, sexuality, gender, etc), but also from the emotion-based and non-rationally understood reactions of the threatened individuals which comprise them. (In other words, their intolerance might not be responsive to rational approaches, and it seems to me this is the case here too).
Now, whether these individuals of fundamentalist groups face real or actually imaginary threats to their beliefs and identities, which they seem capable to push them into insular and defensive positions, could be the next big question. In other words, is there really any threat to Christian religion by a chocolate statue made of the anatomically correct features? Or, some groups and individuals use such instances as a pretext to cover up their psychological inability to face bigger destabilising questions and their social difficulty to coexist with others in a democratic society? I leave it to everyone to think about it, whether being one of those individuals or not.