Research Articles

Self-Purification and Social Dramatization; from Simone Weil to Martin Luther King Jr.

This article begins with an analysis of Simone Weil’s notion of “impersonality”, which implies disengagement from earthly attachments, deep introspection, and connection with an “anonymous” God, that is, with an imagined spiritual force of purity, located beyond the observable secular world. “Impersonality” encourages purification (or catharsis) from frantic passions (excited by such attachments); it inspires love, which Weil associates with respect and selfless devotion to social justice. My goal is to identify a shared set of similarities between Weil and Martin Luther King Jr. on the issue of individual catharsis, acknowledging also important divergences. King—contra Weil—claimed that rejection of frantic passions is incited through connection with a “personal” (rather than “anonymous”) God, with a high moral power, which responds to individual prayers and leads men and women into the path of love. Like Weil, King associated love with mutual respect and social justice. Both Weil and King believed that individual catharsis should lead to civil disobedience, whose ultimate objective is collective catharsis, that is, the abandonment of deeply rooted attitudes and beliefs (on behalf of a collectivity) that (sometimes unknowingly) perpetuate injustices, causing great suffering. By reflecting on the viewpoints offered by these thinkers, the present study will attempt to shed light on the process by which collective catharsis shifts public attitudes. The aim of civil disobedience, I will explain, is to dramatize social evils (such as racism and social exclusion), making large portions of a society aware of their passive reproduction of attitudes that contribute to the perpetuation of such unjust practices.

Research Articles

Ἡ βαθειὰ ἀνθρωποκεντρικότητα τῆς λαϊκῆς εὐκοσμίας καὶ ἡ ἐλευθερία ὡς κάθαρση

Κύρια ἐπιδίωξη τοῦ φιλελευθερισμοῦ, κατὰ τὸν Bertrand Russell, εἶναι ἡ ἐξασφάλιση τῆς ἀτομικῆς ἐλευθερίας, ἡ ὁποία προϋποθέτει προστασία τῆς ἀτομικῆς ἰδιοκτησίας καὶ περιορισμὸ τῶν ἐξουσιῶν μιᾶς κυβέρνησης1 βάσει ἑνὸς συνόλου κανόνων κράτους δικαίου2 . Στὴ ρεπουμπλικανικὴ καὶ δημοκρατικὴ παράδοση, ὅπως ἐκφράζεται μέσα ἀπὸ τὴ σκέψη τῆς Hannah Arendt, ἡ ἐλευθερία ταυτίζεται μὲ τὴ συμμετοχὴ στὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως3 . Πιὸ συγκεκριμένα, ἡ φιλελεύθερη κατανόηση τῆς ἐλευθερίας ὡς χειραφέτησης (ὡς liberation, μὲ βάση τὴν Arendt) ἀφορᾶ τὴν προστασία τοῦ ἀτόμου ἀπὸ τὶς αὐθαιρεσίες μιᾶς ἐξουσίας. Ἀπὸ τὴν ἄλλη, ἡ ρεπουμπλικανικὴ ἐλευθερία (γιὰ τὴν ὁποία ἡ Arendt χρησιμοποιεῖ τὴν ἀγγλικὴ λέξη freedom) δὲν σχετίζεται μὲ τὴν ἀποδέσμευση τοῦ ἀτόμου ἀπὸ ἐξουσιαστικοὺς περιορισμοὺς ἀλλὰ μὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπο ὡς πολιτικὸ ζῶο καὶ ἐνεργὸ μέλος μιᾶς δημοκρατικῆς πόλεως.