Little Men and Godzilla
Humanity has been given great power and authority over the earth. Our dominion over the world comes to us as an obligation for the earth; it is not meant to be used for our sake. We are not meant to enslave the world and the powers of nature, but rather, to oversee them and to make sure the world remains pure and good. We have great power over the forces of the world; science shows us how great an authority we possess due to the intellectual and spiritual capabilities God has given us. The more we explore the world and how it works, the more power we find we have, and the more we can affect and change the world around us. When we try to use our authority for self-deification, the world shudders and everyone, including us, feels the detrimental effects of our megalomania. The world suffers, the world cries out, the world rebels, and the world kills. We, who would like to reign like gods, find ourselves trembling at the hands of the forces we unleash.
The original Godzilla film, Gojira, is easily seen as an allegory of nuclear power, and the destructive assault Japan experienced at the hands of the atomic bomb. Yet, the film created a character, Godzilla, who could be and would be seen as something more than the atomic power which humanity had unleashed on the world. More than atomic power, Godzilla represents the power of nature devastated and tampered with by humanity: nature becomes augmented, much more powerful than before, but so does all the cruel tendencies found within nature. When not respected, Godzilla is out of control; when Godzilla is befriended and guided by respect (if not love), Godzilla, augmented as he is, becomes a force for good – protecting humanity from the devastating effects of its own inhumanity. Godzilla becomes a hero, protecting the earth – capable of joy as he wins victory after victory for the sake of humanity:
Godzilla, in his turn from a force of destruction to a force for good, was asked by humanity to help save the world. Godzilla, with Rodan, at first declined, saying that ever since he emerged upon the earth, humanity had been seeking his own destruction. He saw no reason to help those who sought him harm. But he is convinced when he realizes it his own world, his own earth, which is threatened. And, even as he turns into a hero, Godzilla is a force of nature, capable of working with humanity, but he is never a force which can be perfectly tamed. Godzilla, even when defending the world, is wrecking destruction. Godzilla’s brutality remains an ever-present fact; Godzilla enjoys the fight. Nature revels in its ability to create and destroy. It needs guidance.
But such guidance cannot be had in the creation of a simulated nature, in overcoming nature by simulacra. Mechagodzilla is, in many respects, the greatest representation of humanity’s Faustian designs. Mechagodzilla is the attempt to create a false, simulated Godzilla, one which is meant to be more powerful than the original. And in many ways, it is, but yet in many other ways, as a simulacra, it is weaker, capable of being defeated by the prototype. Moreover, it continues to have the same weaknesses of the original: it is brutal, it wrecks havoc over the world, and it is easily manipulated and controlled by those who have no moral scruples. Mechagodzilla can become a greater terror than the original:
The original is in a way subsumed by its simulacra. In all appearances, Mechagodzilla is a heightened, augmented Godzilla. And yet, its derivative nature indicates that appearances are not everything. Recreating and enhancing something in nature does not end up being super-natural, but really, sub-natural. The integral, organic power of an original creation is lost. The raw potency which was needed to create the original nature might be imitated, but the original is able to tap into it in a way which no imitation can. Imitation, even when it is enhanced, can never equal the original, for the hidden essence of the original can never be imitated, but only approximated. Mechagodzilla, though it can cause Godzilla great distress, can never have final victory, just as subcreation can never overcome creation. There is always the hidden reserve of the original which can surprise us in its ingenuity:
Godzilla represents nature in all of its fierceness, but also, in the good which lies behind it. Nature needs loving respect in order to attain the good intended. Without it, nature can be – and will be – a force of great destruction. And humanity, in its power over nature, is able to imitate it; the creation of a simulacra of nature can be seen as the work of Anti-Christ, of Anti-God, of humanity trying to become god without need for the one, true God. The beast comes out of the sea and into the earth as a result of our combined tampering with and reconstruction of nature. Humanity has been given cosmourgic powers; as Sergius Bulgakov points out, it can lead to one of three different ends:
But human cosmourgy is subject to spiritual self-determination, for it can mean different things: It can be miracle-working in the Name of Christ, in fulfillment of His commandment; and it can be a further submergence into the world, with spiritual enslavement by its elements and service of the lust of the flesh and of the eyes; and finally it can become a false miracle-working, with false signs and directed against God.[1]
This third kind, where we find simulacra created in order to pretend to be like God, is Satanic to the core:
Thirdly and finally, cosmourgy can become a pathway of theomachy, a satanical antagonism toward God and an exhibition of signs of human power, where man considers himself to be a god. And since, when it has awakened to a certain degree, the human spirit cannot remain neutral, this power becomes the throne of ‘the kingdom of the beast,’ i.e., of theomachy.[2]
Mechagodzilla represents the power of the beast, which imitates the power of nature, which in many ways appears greater than the power of nature, and which yet fails to meet the original.
And yet, as Bulgakov points out, there is a third condition which we have yet to express. It is of humanity worshiping nature, of being enslaved by it. Nature clearly is good in creation, and so is good in what it can give, but it is unable to control itself, unable to transcend itself in God. Humanity is needed for nature. Many, seeing this, have wrongly worshiped nature as God. Though erroneous, human worship of nature shows that nature, giving what it can for humanity, does so because humanity has first turned toward it. Nature can and does give what it can when respected, though of course, it finds its gifts limited. It dies and is reborn, time and time again, limiting the gifts it can render to humanity, and yet, when it thrives, when it is at its height, nature works great wonders, even defending humanity from the dark underbelly of itself. Thus, we have Mothra:
Humanity was created to tame nature, to keep it under control, not to dominate it so as to become gods over the earth, nor to worship it and become enslaved by its dictates. The Godzilla films represent, at their best, the consequences of a false relationship with nature. They warn us of the havoc we are creating, of the monsters we are unleashing when we try to dominate or recreate nature, but also when we let ourselves become enslaved by it. We have been given great authority over nature, but when that authority is engaged outside of a proper relationship with nature, hell will come upon the earth. Little men and women next to Godzilla must realize, size doesn’t matter if we show love – but if we neglect the path of love, if we neglect the path God intended for us in nature, then size really does matter and we will find ourselves squashed by the brute force of nature.
[1] Sergius Bulgakov, “On Miracles” in Relics and Miracles. Trans. Boris Jakim (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2011), 93.
[2] Ibid., 93.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
Interesting reflection, with which I agree generally. Yet this “use the world as we wish” notion did not come out of nowhere. So, I wonder where you put the history of the Roman Catholic Church’s close identification with the often destructive and abusive powers of the world for most of its history?? Kyrie Eleison, indeed, Even reactionaries like George Weigel now refer to the Church’s close identification with these powers as its “Babylonian Captivity.” Leave aside for a moment whether Weigel’s views holds water historically; at the very least it says a change is recognized even by apologists. Given that, what measure can the polity of the church, which has NOT changed utterly in this regard (there still are Vatican ambassadors, etc), be tied to the outcomes in the modern world. As a balancer, let me add that many, like myself, might be inclined to lay a lot of blame on certain “downsides” of Enlightenment thought. But clearly not all. The close identification of the church with the state, has evolved terribly in some less critical minds, in denominations that are ultimately off-shoots of the Church’s original conception. Thus, I think there is every reason to see the views of the “Dominionists” in relation to the long history of the church’s identification with power. Even though, I emphasize, the Catholic church is AT THIS POINT far ahead of that primitive viewpoint. But the fact that due to the continued presence of often very smart people attracted to the Church, the Catholic viewpoint is more “enlightened” on such points nowadays, does not mean such can be read anachronistically into its past positions, which were anything but. This is not an idle worry, for it is happening all the time even today on right-wing reactionary Catholic sites like the “Mirror of Justice”. Rick Garnett, the Editor of the thing, just recently put up this very comical comment:
“For nearly a thousand years, the tradition of Western constitutionalism – the project of protecting political freedom by marking boundaries to the power of government – has been assisted by the principled commitment to religious liberty and to church-state separation, correctly understood. ” [He also recently opined similarly that Las Casas was the originator of "human rights". Not.]
I suppose this is meant to somehow indicate that the Church somehow came up with this decent constitutional viewpoint. Further, that a whole raft of decent limitations on what we all can do to each other and our world (your point here) would flow from that. But it has no basis in historical fact. The constitutionalism and restraint that existed was largely in the form a de facto pacts between monarch and the gentry or aristocracy. As in the very famous one that existed in Spain before the ascension of Ferdinand and Isabella. It had quite charming phrases like: “We who are no less than you ” (to the king) and “You who are better than us”…. pledge or agree to such and such. Of course when the “Most Catholic Kings” got done with things, all those guarantees had vanished. And the new more absolutist era had dawned. This is the same sort of “absolutism’ that flowered in the Gallican Catholic church under Richelieu. The dark side of Enlightenment absolutism is heavily indebted top these Catholic progenitors, though surely it was an admixture. Here I agree with Burkeans that the atheistic, proto-nihilistic tropes of some corners of the Enlightenment only made things a lot worse. So, the absolutist view you critique here– absolutist in relation to our very environment– has a least some of its basis in the history of the Church. Though certainly the Church has changed, and that is to its credit. If only that change would make it firmly rein in Catholic libertarian types like robert George and others who hold forth shilling for big business on the aforementioned site.
Well, nothing is ever straightforward, just as Godzilla is not.
I know many in the Church look at the world as something we should just use, as raw material for our desires. Many saints, though they transcend this in their own lives, still seem to accept it as a norm. This is again the nature of Godzilla as we have been given it. Godzilla is not just the nature of the world, but our own nature. Even when we are doing deeds for ourselves, we can end up heroes even if we do not intend it. This is one of the things I find marvelous with Godzilla as a whole – there are many ways we can engage the story depending upon our starting point.
My own discussion here is about human relationship with nature, with science at a whole. Science is magic; it is white magic and black all in one. Bulgakov, in the same work on miracles, talks about this. “Science is accomplishing true miracles. works of love and mercy, but at the same time it is serving human egotism, pride, and evil passions. In itself, magic (i.e., man’s power over nature), belongs to man from his creation; it is connected with his dominant position in the world and cannot be taken away from him, although its pathways can differ” (53 from op. cit.).
I am not really looking at the state per se, as much as humanity and its relationship with nature. The state as a whole, no matter what system, from dictatorship, to monarchy, to democracy, to anarchy, can in its way, follow with a benevolence and work with nature, or dominance and dictatorship with nature. Dominionism is anti-Christian though it portrays itself as Christian; it’s anti-Christian nature follows through with a dualistic, anti-worldly aspect behind it. One of the thing an authentic Christian position must contain is an acceptance of the world and a work with the world. Authentic Christian can be found in any political system, but not in any social construct. Political systems can be found with any social construct, and cause confusion. For the Christian, it must always be an attempt to find the best approach to help heal the world, but not one which denies free will (even if some Christian systems seem to deny free will). That at least is how I see it.
This allows a Christian way to be seen sometimes as a political system, and sometimes then, confusing a political system as Christian. I do think, however, Christianity must always follows the social doctrine; even if it fails, even if people misinterpret the ends, if people accept the right foundation, I think it will work for the betterment of the world — though of course, it is better if people think ever level of such doctrinal positions than just some.
I myself follow quite a bit from Tolkien and Ellul, combined with de Maistre and Catholic Social Doctrine. One can have personal preference, but one most relativize it. That, of course, is the issue. Relativism in the positive sense: subjective dimensions must be given value, and this is not what we always see. Systematic representations of truth have their positive gain and we should look to understand them; but history often is the development of systems and the attempt to put them into action despite the subjective elements which don’t fit. This often leads to the tragedy which seeks to destroy, to reduce everything to a system, and this reduction is what we have had to face and overcome. Catholics might not always see this, but I do think the core within helps explain why Catholics end up being able to reinforce it.
“Dominionism is anti-Christian though it portrays itself as Christian; it’s anti-Christian nature follows through with a dualistic, anti-worldly aspect behind it. One of the thing an authentic Christian position must contain is an acceptance of the world and a work with the world. Authentic Christian can be found in any political system, but not in any social construct.”
–Wow! I agree with that. If the Catholic Church were to keep strictly to that, and keep to its Rerum-Novarum-esque type of thought, and anathematize those who veered away from it, then you would have a much more coherent looking Catholic church in our time.
–It seems implicit in your point about the fact that Christianity is not to be found in just any social construct, that certain social constructs are antithetical to Christianity. It would also be a corollary of that that if the Catholic Church supported such antithetical systems in its history, it was perforce not Christian while doing so.
–I like the Godzilla image. But remember, Godzilla was an atomic mutant. Therefore, it is not a sure fit to represent normal human affairs, or even lesser sides of those affairs. What the image points to is that some mutant sense of human life has entered the picture. My own view is that fanatical religion is part of that mutant equation. That is the real danger to human affairs and life. By the way, is all of this what has turned nice potentially married women into Bridezillas??
Sorry for the typos in my reply (when doing comments, I am not as clear as I would like, and don’t edit as much as I should). Nonetheless, I’m glad you understood the general gist of my comments. I’m very anti-dualistic, anti-Gnostic (in the dualistic sense), though one who appreciates the good even in such positions (without which one would become a dualist once again). It’s a difficult place to be, in the middle path.
I would certainly agree certain social positions are fundamentally opposed to what Christianity should bring about, but I also think (as I think you capture) that Christians living in such situations should strive for the best in their circumstance. They shouldn’t dualistically reject everything before them, but they should be critical of those aspects which run against a true Christian humanism.
And yes, Godzilla is a “mutant,” but as you also see, I think there is, within human nature, that mutant strain as well; it is not all bad, nor all good, but it certainly shows the violent aspect of human nature as nature (outside of grace). Within grace, it can be turned toward the good, and I think Godzilla shows this (though of course, one must see it as an allegory).
As for Bridezillas, I think that is due to Frankenstein ;)
Henry,
I wanted to share this video with you and get your reaction. It highlights the the concerns you address but shows it in terms of current examples of bioengineering and biotechnology.
I’m not great at embeding videos into comments so I’ll just paste the link.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_question_bio_engineering.html
I have general concerns with all kinds of technological advances, and agree, we must look with wisdom to what we are doing. I think Catholic leaders sometimes do not consider everything they should — look, for example, with stem cell research. The controversy has been always with embryonic stem cells, but in my view, while it has its own evils which must be pointed out, it doesn’t free the non-embryonic stem cell research from becoming Frankenstein’s monster. I fear it will slowly lead to such a problem; so we do need to be concerned with the new environment we are making and put in all kinds of groundwork now before it is too late (if it is not too late). Designing and altering the forms is dangerous, and it really will strike us back. Genetic manipulation is better to be stopped.
Also, if you have not looked into them, I think you would probably like the works of Ellul and Virilio, both are a major influence on my own thoughts on the matter.