Dying for What? Secular Transformations of Martyrdom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My only concern with your article is that in my opinion you have not spent enough time in exploring the political dimensions of martyrdom in its classical religious context. In Masada in the Jewish context, and even the martyrdom of Paul and Peter in the Christian apostolic era, their deaths at the hands of the state had unquestionably political dimensions and so we must not isolate these from the religious and theological understanding of martyrdom. Very well written, and makes a good contribution to the secularized use of religious ideas in the modern political context. I recommend publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my article and for your comment. I have added a few lines, including one on Masada. I agree that the political dimension has been part and parcel of the martyrdom-tradition in the West from its beginning in the early centuries and I have articulated this in an additional sentence. Thank you for bringing this under my attention!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay is very good, although it does not bring much novelty to the subject of the persistence of the idea of martyrdom in the secularised world. The two cases analysed are very interesting. I would suggest adding some bibliographical references on the age of the French Revolution, in addition to Buc. It is too important a moment (see for example the studies of David Bell) 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading my article and for your comment! The French Revolution marks indeed an important transition. It is unfortunate that I didn’t have the space to elaborate on the term terror/ism as opposed to Jacobin interpretations of martyrdom but that would also have been an interesting point to mention. Anyways, I have added 2 biographical sources and dive into Robespierre’s discourse with one line. Thank you for Bell! That’s a very interesting good read! I’ve included one of his studies in the text. I really like his writing style.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has identified and here explores an important modern phenomenon – the secular appropriation of the category of ‘martyr,’ and its deployment in ways that reinforce the legitimacy of state sovereignty overall and the legitimacy of particular regimes. The author explores the ways in which martyrdom has been evacuated of some – but not all – of its theological meaning, and how some religious/theological overtones of martyrdom infuse contemporary secular discourse by various actors in the public realm. 

Let me say at the outset that this article wrestles with significant and important questions, and can make a useful contribution as it stands, without major revisions. My questions and suggestions are intended as friendly interventions that might give the author an opportunity for further clarification, perhaps a modest adjustment of categories, and topics where deeper exploration would be worthwhile.

 

1.       I understand the author’s goals in constructing and employing the categories here, but I remain unsure about the ultimate utility of a few of them. I think that ‘passive’ martyrdom (from early Christian history, in opposition to the authority of ruling sovereigns) contrasted with “active” or “assertive” martyrs of the post-Crusades and modern era is unsatisfying for a few reasons. Besides presuming that refusing to employ violence is itself a ‘passive’ matter (which privileges the activity of wielding violence as active, with violence thereby enjoying the positive connotations attached to activity, agency, and will), the categories assume what in other contexts would need to be demonstrated – for example, that being killed in odium fidei  is logically and theologically consonant with being killed while having taken up arms against the enemies of the Church, state, or empire.  By the end of the article, it still seems unsatisfying to ascribe ‘passive’ contemporary martyrdom to Fortuyn and Hamel, and ‘active’ martyrdom to dead soldiers – I get it, but I wonder if there’s a better way to conceptualize matters. 

Clearly, the author states the desire to avoid such definitional (and theological) questions by insisting that this article “is not concerned with the question of what martyrdom is, but with the question of when people are called martyrs and what historical shifts we can observe in the socio-political and religious contexts in which this term occurs” (p. 2 of draft). Fair enough. However, as the author notes later, even in secular discourse about martyrdom, “this does not mean that the Christian elements of martyrdom have completely disappeared from secular interpretations” (p. 8).  The ‘elements’ that remain are unavoidably tied up in definitional choices and disputes; this can’t help but affect discourse in ecclesial and secular circles, and can only be deferred (not avoided) by refusing to engage them.  

2.    One of the strengths of this article is its use of Cavanaugh (and Kantorowicz) on the ‘migrations of the holy’ and how that might help explain the propensity of state actors to drape their actions and origins in religious justifications, legitimations, and practices.  Clearly the exploitation of martyrdom language by state actors shows itself repeatedly in modernity, as the author notes. However, the author seems to give an incredibly irenic cast to this on page 17, where the text refers to Dutch commemorations of people killed in the Second World War “and on other military missions elsewhere in the world.”  Were this latter phrase unpacked to refer explicitly to the vicious Dutch counterinsurgency war against Indonesian independence, the author would have had an opportunity to point out how the ‘discourse’ of martyrdom could be subverted beyond recognition in the service of imperial ambition. Doing so, however, would have involved the author in wading into ‘definitional’ waters rather than staying on the safe short of ‘phenomenological’ observation.  Cavanaugh, for one, would be able to name such a use of ‘the sacred’ as an ignoble exploitation of Christian categories and practices.

 One implication of things like the Dutch whitewashing of its imperial operations is to recognize that even though states have claimed and adjusted the notion of martyrdom to fit its needs, martyrdom remains a contested category – secular critics are not always fooled by state-sponsored martyrdom language aimed at sanitizing armed aggression, and Christian communities still exist that sometimes still grapple with state and secular actors over the use of the term in contemporary contexts. For example, secular and ecclesial actors in El Salvador fought for decades over whether Archbishop Oscar Romero should be considered a subversive traitor (the state position) or a martyr (the position of many church leaders and most of the lay community). The author’s paper sometimes gives the impression that state usurpation of martyrdom discourse is complete and often uncontested – not always, perhaps.

3.       It may or may be useful to the author to be mindful that the language of ‘heroism,’ while relevant to secular uses of martyrdom, is something of a misfit in Christian theological discourse. As theologian Stanley Hauerwas once remarked, heroism is not a Christian virtue but a pagan one; courage, on the other hand, is the traditional Christian virtue (which means something different than heroism).

 4.       One thing the author might find useful is attention to the matter of ‘reception’ in the discourse of martyrdom. Whether religious or secular, a martyr needs a community capable and willing to accept his/her sacrifice within the categories of martyrdom (rather than those of a fanatic, a misguided individual, or deserving of being ignored altogether).  No community is naturally or inevitably capable of such reception – it itself is a product of social or religious formation, created by practices/rituals/exemplars over time. Social and religious formation is always contested, with multiple voices/institutions/traditions seeking to form communities of discourse, reception, and practice across time. 

In this, perhaps a look at Craig Hovey’s book, To Share in the Body: A Theology of Martyrdom for Today’s Church (Brazos, 2008), might be helpful.   

5.       On page 16, in discussing how the United States incorporates the death of soldiers into an affirmation of sovereignty, the author mentions things like the Pledge of Allegiance. I like the example, and would encourage the author to make explicit the liturgical meaning of “collect” as used in this paragraph. I doubt many readers will appreciate the allusion to Christian prayer practices conveyed in the notion of a collect.

 As noted above, these observations are meant to offer points of reflection for the author. I support publication of this article, and appreciated the opportunity to read it.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your very considerate and sharp observations and suggestions. These are all highly appreciated. Based on your comments I have made a few adjustments and sharpened the text at several points. 1. I have tried to make clear that the passive martyr is not in definition a pacifist and also has a political side. This might help a bit to understand passive/assertive not as a duality as there have been and still are many hybrid forms. I also sharpened the context a bit better, in order to understand how the concept of martyrdom changed parallel to developments in our perception of the state. 2. I have made clearer that the term also remains active within a consistent Christian tradition where it is debated based on theological perspectives and presumptions. 3. I have added the Dutch colonial war against Indonesian independence (thank you for reminding me of this!) without jumping into definitional questions on martyrdom. 4. As it was not my purpose to construct an uncontested secular understanding of martyrdom, I have added a few lines on this to make clear that discussion on what a martyr is, still prevails. 5. I have added a line on heroism as I fully agree that this is not a term that enlightens Christian perspectives on martyrdom. On the contrary. Thank you for reminding me! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf