![]() It is justified by repeating the stories that create and then reinforce the image of the scapegoat as being a person who is worthy of disdain and disparagement. It is done more by consensual and habitual shunning that becomes an unspoken code of behavior: one person is chosen to bear the brunt of any psychological discomfort experienced by the family as a whole. In a family system, the selection process is less overt than Aaron’s. ![]() In dysfunctional families, for reasons similar to those Aaron devised, there can also be a designated person selected for the role of scapegoat. It faced dangers from predators difficulty finding food, sustenance, and shelter and it lived the constantly woeful insecurity of a herd animal without a herd. But once the ashes were cold on the rituals of dispatching it, the goat found itself alone in the wilderness, isolated from its herd, in unknown territory, suddenly forced to fend for itself. The goat had done nothing to merit banishment. It was selected from the herd and sent forth into the wilderness for reasons having to do with the sins of others. Why question an agreed-upon means of making everyone feel better? If this spurious logic was obvious to anyone, it was not discussed. They had simply agreed to hang them on the goat. The members of the tribe were then at great ease, having been freed from their cast-off sins-whatever those sins may have been.Įveryone felt better, though they had neither identified their specific sins nor atoned for them. In biblical lore, Aaron selected a goat on behalf of the entire tribe, cast upon it the sins of all members, and then banished it alone to the wild.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |