I didn't plan on writing a review of In the Shadow of the Banyan
(by Vaddey Ratner). I read it to pass the time, rather than as part of
some kind of study or writing program. But now that I've read it, I have
some thoughts about it.
The book is a novel, based on the author's actual experiences as a
young girl, member of the Cambodian royal family during the time of the
Khmer Rouge, an anti-royal, anti-Western Communist revolutionary group
that killed millions of Cambodians through purges, overwork, and
underfeeding. She journeys from a relatively sheltered situation at
the beginning of the book (a child who lives in the imaginal and
familiar world of family, stories, Asian
Buddhism, Hindu myths), through a series of progressively darker
dislocations and losses, until she is struck dumb. She manages to
survive (mirroring the author's survival) and make it out of Cambodia
with her mother.
I thought of not writing this review, because the thoughts that
I had feel like ones that are underdeveloped at this point, or that
might not fit what I want to write about in this chapter of the blog,
but something insists in me that I do write, and maybe I'm writing
notes for later writing that explores the following subjects in more
detail.
I identified with three themes that I saw in the book: The imaginal
world, the Revolution, and the cross.
--
The spiritual/imaginal world was something that the narrator's
grandmother, and the narrator, both spent a fair amount of time in,
as though when we are new to the world, or not long left in it, we
are better able to see things like tevodas (angel-like beings),
ghosts, or connect with the story of Indra, with mythical explanations
for things. I don't remember there being any moments where the imaginal
world appeared in the sensory world (the "real" world), but the grandmother
and narrator were able to see it. I think that there is a part of me that
lives in that world -- in fact, that's the world of philosophy, though
it often presents itself prosaically and mechanistically. And, I
sometimes feel (sometimes too much) that I belong there more than I do in
the sensory world. I'm not sure I have much of a point to make in
bringing this up, but that was my reaction.
--
The Revolution spoke to me, because of how much the revolutionaries
were into willing and working. The book shows how some of them were
heartless, psychopathic, and corrupt, and this makes me think that the
revolutionary spirit is dangerous.
I know that some of my past writing (notably How Can We Love?)
could, perhaps in its emphasis, if not its text read carefully, be
considered a broadly left- (or "revolutionary humanist"-) leaning thing.
It has some of the spirit of Revolution, even though it says on the surface
of it things that go against Revolution. I think I would say now
that the book is flawed, to the extent that it lends itself to a
revolutionary humanist reading, because that was not my intention.
But it is a somewhat revolutionary thing and that gives me one reason to
want to think about the dangers of the revolutionary spirit.
In the Shadow of the Banyan mentions that there was a
split within the Khmer Rouge between the Cause and the Party. The Cause
was idealistic, but the Party took over. Causes tend to draw on one
kind of energy, that of ordinary people, non-psychopathic human desires.
But parties can focus on their own well-being, rather than devoting
themselves fully to a cause, and outcompete groups still into causes.
This is a pessimistic thought, and it's worth noting that there are a lot
of places where parties exist but do not wipe out idealism.
(Moloch seems like an undefeatable dynamic, but
for some reason it doesn't always rule.) There is a tension between Party
and Cause tendencies in a society, and it's wise to be concerned about
how any cause could turn into a purely partisan thing.
I know that the revolutionary spirit is dangerous, but, as long
as the status quo needs to be changed in some way, it is necessary,
and perhaps revolutions, or the spirit of revolutions, is needed
to maintain the status quo (if you don't fix things, you decay,
and some fixing is "microrevolutionary"). A Communist rejoinder
to a book speaking of the horrors of the Khmer Rouge might be
"fair enough, they were corrupt and captured by psychopathy, and
the empowerment of the corruption and psychopathy was enabled by
the revolutionary spirit, but you should also do a calculation,
alongside that of the death toll from the Khmer Rouge, of the lives
lost due to the corruption and psychopathy that prevents capitalist
society from doing the most it's really capable of doing to help the
poor". (This sounds like something an effective altruist or EA-type
person might try to calculate, or already has.) It may turn out to be
the case that revolutionary Communism always turns out to be worse
for people, but capitalism (or "capitalism+" (plus civil society? the
state?)) that isn't doing its best also (less visibly) has blood on
its hands.
As is often the case, formulas are dangerous. If you're
into Communism or capitalism, you need to be into the good version of
that, because the bad version is as bad as the ideology you reject,
or perhaps worse.
Should we think in terms of "blood on people's hands"? I think
there is an awful truth to it. The moral truth is something that,
when comprehended, causes people to do the moral
thing. Is it perhaps misleading to talk about "blood on people's hands",
is that a deceptive truth? Perhaps for
some people, it is deceptive, and for others, it is basically non-misleading.
I think that we gaze at the harshest moral truths and then walk away from
them to do our relaxed versions of good. (I think that the Drowning
Child Illustration is one of the harshest moral truths and generally
EAs walk away from it to do their relaxed version of good, as much as
that relaxed version of good might burn them out.) If we never gazed,
we might never change into the much more mundane, if still countercultural,
versions of ourselves that live in the shadow of the gaze.
I try to focus on saying what's true (because I'm a writer, and I
feel like that's my "professional" responsibility). I don't think that
the Khmer Rouge's worldview is correct, as much as they might be on to
something when they see the moral truth of people held down by the
ruling classes, or suffering or dying prematurely. For instance, this
life is not the limit of our existence, as they thought, and so purity
is something that is not desperately urgent. Purity is something that
is necessary, and will come in its time -- the sooner the better, but
not desperately soon. I think that MSLN / New Wine
System-descended thinking is good for addressing both revolutionary
humanism and traditional evangelical religion in their crazily desperate
(and on their view, completely necessary) sense that they have to do
radical good (on a societal and personal level) NOW, that time is running
out for people who must get the essential good (a nice life, or conversion
to Christianity) in this life, with death coming all-too-soon.
I understand that the Khmer Rouge, as Communists, were atheists.
I believe that God exists, and if I'm correct in that belief, then
the emphasis on human well-being found in Communism (as well as in
other forms of humanism) could easily be misguided if it ignores
God, how our relationships to God are the most fundamental
field of altruism. Much of what revolutionary
(or microrevolutionary) humanists want to achieve is somewhat
orthogonal to people's relationships to God and may not be as
valuable, necessary, or urgent as it seems. Making things better
from an atheistic standpoint could, in some cases, be dangerous
or harmful from a theistic standpoint.
I feel a strong momentum in the direction of secular humanist
altruism. For instance, it's relatively easy for me to feel a sense of
outrage, or something like that, at things like physical poverty. I
think I am somewhat wired to responding to the vivid, loud, and obvious,
as I suppose most of us are. The habit of wanting to remove
suffering or prolong life, in this life, is not the worst habit.
But I have to remember that there's more to the truth than this
life.
--
Finally, I saw the cross
in Ratner's/the narrator's experience. Not that she pursued the cross,
although her father did in a fairly obvious way, but in that she
underwent the cross. There was a moment toward the end where, to
me, it seemed like the narrator died inside in a somewhat good way,
and thenceforth had nothing to lose, and little (or less) to fear.
(See chapter 29, pp. 295 - 296 in first hardcover edition.) That is one
dimension of undergoing the cross, that it pushes us to the point that
in some sense we are okay with dying or our death (maybe this is something
I can validly connect to the moment in the novel). We are made to
be willing to die by being forced close to death, and having "died",
we are free. Maybe we have some free will in the matter? I'm not
sure, but the narrator was given a gift at that moment of "survivable
death" (again, if I'm reading this right). I may want to look at
In the Shadow of the Banyan when I someday write a proper
book on the cross.
