Stl Thesis the Cross and the Vietnam War Final Version 2008

7/30/2019 Stl Thesis the Cross and the Vietnam War Final Version 2008

1/118

THE CROSS AND THE VIETNAM WAR:

A NARRATIVE FOR PEACE

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

LICENTIATE IN SACRED THEOLOGY

WESTON JESUIT SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

April 2008

By

HOA TRUNG DINH, S.J.

Director of Thesis:

LISA SOWLE CAHILL

Second Reader:

THOMAS MASSARO, S.J.


2/118

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..3

Chapter 1: BACKGROUND: THE VIETNAM WAR AND ITS AFTERMATH6

I. Two Master Narratives7II. The Legacy of War22III. The War Narrative and Meaning.. 27

A. The Lure of War.. 29B. The Corruption of Morality. 30C. The Enduring Legacy of War.. 31

Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY: THE NARRATIVE APPROACH TO ETHICS.. 34

I. Narrative, Meaning And Ethics 34

A. Self-Conception, Moral Agency And The Narrative ...36II. Narrative Ethics And The Good... 40

A. Alasdair MacIntyre And The Collective Narratives.431. Epistemological Crisis And The Construction Of New Narratives.46

B. Hilde Lindemann Nelson and Counterstories...49C. Paul Ricoeur: The Ethical Criteria53

1. Narrative and the Ethical Aim.532. Defining the Ethical Aim of Life.56

III. Ethical Criteria and Master Narratives..61

Chapter 3: GOD WITH US: IN SOLIDARITY WITH VICTIMS66

I. Theologies of the Cross: The Ethical Criteria.......66A. J. Denny Weaver: The Nonviolent Atonement....67B. Two Defenders of the Satisfaction Theory.......69C. On Redemptive Suffering: The Suffering Servant of DeuteroIsaiah....76

1. Jesus Christ and the Suffering Servant ...79II. Jon Sobrino: The Crucified Christ and the Victims in History.80III. Jurgen Moltmann and the Crucified God..84IV. Jesus Christ in Context..86

Chapter 4: THE CRUCIFIED JESUS AND THE VIETNAM WAR89I. Re-membering Our Past: A Call to Repentance . .90

A. Conflict Narrative and the Cycle of Violence..93B. Grief and the Path to Reconciliation....95

II. The Missing Faces of War Victims...97III. Forgive Us Our Sins: The Cross and Reconciliation...106IV. Reconciliation and the Process of Democratization109

CONCLUSION..111SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY.115

2


3/118

INTRODUCTION

On April 30, 1975, the Peoples Army tanks crashed the gates of the Presidential Palace Dinh

c Lp, claiming the final victory for the revolutionary forces against the South Vietnamese

Administration and its allies. The thirty-year war which consumed over two million lives

ended in total victory for the Revolution, and annihilating defeat for the Republic of Vietnam.

Thirty-three years after unification, something of the War still lives on. The ongoing enmity

between persons who align themselves with the opposing sides of the war has effectively

delayed the economic and social development of the nation. A significant step toward social

cohesion, solidarity and national strength would be a process of reconciliation, the healing of

old wounds which resulted from war. This thesis aims to provide a theological foundation for

the work of reconciliation that must take place between the two sides of the Vietnam War.

In this thesis I will demonstrate that the cross of Christ is a powerful theological

resource for the work of reconciliation between enemies in the context of war. The thesis

will focus on the Vietnam War and its aftermath. Though the Vietnam conflict is unique in

some way, it exhibits emblematic features of the many wars of our time, including the current

war in Iraq. We have the benefit of hindsight in studying the Vietnam War, especially the

wounds and division it left in its wake decades after the fighting.

From the narrative perspective, the tools which are used to promote the cause of war

and help sustain it are identified as war narratives. Collective narratives are powerful moral

resources that help articulate the groups heritage, identity, and communicate shared values

and aspirations. A war narrative explains the necessity of the use of force and mobilizes

human resources for the war effort. It defines the group as a political entity and gives it a

mandate for action. In some cases, the war narratives live on even after the gunfire has

3


4/118

ceased. I shall argue that, in order to put an end to the lingering enmity between the two

sides of the Vietnam conflict, the war narratives themselves must be put to rest.

The thesis has four chapters. The first chapter will discuss the background of the

Vietnam War (1945-1975) and its aftermath, focusing especially on the two master narratives

that shaped public opinion and policies in the war era and decades afterward. There is ample

evidence to suggest that both the Vietnamese government and the diasporic communities are

still holding on to the war narratives. These narratives are in fact the most enduring legacy of

the War, because they continue to give meaning, identity and directives to individuals and

polities. That is why to put to rest these master narratives would involve the monumental

task of constructing a new narrative which can transcend the current ideological boundaries.

The second chapter will discuss the nature and dynamics of the narrative, focusing on

its role in personal and public life. The works of Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor and

Paul Ricoeur have laid firm philosophical foundations for a narrative approach to ethics.

Though narrative ethics is still in its embryonic stage, there are emerging features that help us

distinguish between different approaches. A survey of the different theories will be made,

which is centered around the question, What makes a narrativegood?

Chapter three will discuss the different interpretations of the cross and the way they

affect ethics. A number of contemporary liberation theologians have called for a

reexamination of the traditional theologies of the cross because, as they point out, theology

inevitably has ethical implications. Certain interpretations of the cross may provide the basis

for ongoing oppression and violence against women and children, ethnic groups and the poor.

The cross has also been used to promote the holy war motif, and to justify violence.

Alternatively, a theology of the cross may be a guiding light for the liberation of human

beings from violence. This chapter will demonstrate that the cross has specific meanings for

the current socio-political context of Vietnam. The works of Rita Nakashima Brock, M.

4


5/118

Shawn Copeland, Lisa Sowle Cahill, Denny Weaver, Mary Vanderberg, Hans Boersma, Jon

Sobrino, and Jurgen Moltmann will be discussed. The Suffering Servant motif, especially in

the way it has been used by Christian communities in reference to Jesus, is a significant

resource in the development of a contextual theology of the cross. Based on Moltmanns

view, I will argue that the cross manifests both Gods solidarity with war victims and

atonement for the guilty. For this reason, the cross can offer us a new vision for Vietnam

beyond all conflicts and divisions.

The fourth and final chapter will weave together a theology of the cross and the story

of a people polarized and decimated by war. If the task of theological ethics is to link

Christian doctrines with praxis in a way that is both faithful to the tradition and sensitive to

the historical context, then this task involves identifying the face of Christamidst the million

faces of war victims. Once this identification occurs, our story is transformed, bursting with

meaning and moral significance. Christ, the Crucified One, becomes our redeemer in a most

tangible way. The face of the suffering Christ in the midst of human suffering exposes our

sins and calls us to repentance. We can stand togetheronly when we stand as sinners in need

of forgiveness. This emerging narrative helps free us from the shackles of the war mentality

that has enslaved us for over half a century. It redefines our identity and sets us on a new

path. The Christian community is able to fulfill its role as an agent of reconciliation in the

face of human conflict, because we offer an alternative to enmity and blame: a narrative of

peace.

5


6/118


7/118

Every war is sustained by a narrative which explains the conflict and the necessity of the use

of force. In order to understand the origin and nature of the Vietnam conflict as well as the

ongoing enmity between the diasporic Vietnamese community and the present Vietnamese

government, we must go back to the master narratives of the Vietnam War (1945-1975) and

the socialist revolution in the 1930s.2 Within our context, two master narratives, each in

direct opposition to the other, played crucial political roles during this formative period of

Vietnamese history. They helped mobilize human resources and form support bases for the

war efforts. Each narrative has served as the lens through which the assembly understands

itself as a polity. It defines an us that consists of persons who share a common history,

common values, aspirations and interests. At the same time, it excludes those who are

outside the bounds of its defining criteria. The narrative binds the group together and

explains its mission by identifying for them who are friends and who are enemy. In short,

each narrative shapes a political entity by defining an us and excluding others. The

narrative gives individuals and groups a clear sense of solidarity and purpose. It gives them a

mandate for action.

On one side of the Vietnam conflict, it is the narrative of the working classs

revolution to overthrow the exploitative feudal system and the French colonial power. This

revolutionary force was the working classs movement, to serve the interests of the working

class. In H Ch Minhs words,The Communist Party of Indochina is now formed. It is the Party of the working class. TheParty will provide guidance to the proletariat for their leadership of the revolution, fighting forthe rights of all the oppressed and exploited people of this land. From this moment on, we must

join the Party in order to fulfill these goals: 1. To overthrow French colonial powers,feudalism, and the anti-revolutionary aristocracy. 2. To restore total independence to Indochina.3. To form a government that belongs to the workers, farmers, and soldiers.3

2 Some authors refer to the First Indochina War (1945-1954) and the Second Indochina War (1960-1975). TheIndochinese Communist Party was formed in 1930 to organize the resistance forces against the French. NguynGia King, Whence Whither Vietnam?: A New Assessment of Vietnams Predicament, tr. by Nguyn Ngc

Phch (Paris/ Melbourne: Nguyn Ngc Phch & Canh Nam Publishing, 2005), 138.3 ng Cng sn ng-dng c thnh lp. l ng ca giai cp cng nhn. ng s du dt giaicp v sn lnh o cch mng u tranh cho quyn li ca ton th nhn dn b p bc bc lt. Ngay t by

7


8/118

As a new political force, it took on a nationalistic role in the context of French control and

Japanese occupation to become a force for national liberation. Its mission was a nation-

wide revolution to seize control of the government and the military from the hands of foreign

powers. In 1941, H Ch Minh wrote to his comrades,

At present, national liberation is our ultimate goal. Let us all unite! With the union of will andstrength, let us work to overthrow the Japanese, the French and their hound dogs, in order tosave our people from the current ordeal.4

The revolution indeed seized political power in August 1945, after Japan surrendered to the

Allies. According to H Ch Minhs analysis, the August Revolution claimed victory

because it had all three essential elements for a successful anti-colonial revolution: it was led

by the working class; it formed a nationwide anti-colonial front; it was an armed struggle.5

After World War II, the French sought to consolidate their colonial power in Vietnam. In

response, the revolutionaries called for a nationwide uprising. H Ch Minh wrote,

In order to secure peace, we have given in to their demands. But the more we gave in, the morethe French colonialists increased their demands, because they are determined to seize control of

our country once more. No! We would rather sacrifice everything, than lose our country; wewill not be turned into slaves. Compatriots! We must rise up! No matter men or women,elders or youths, no matter what religious or political affiliation, no matter what ethnicity, everyVietnamese person must stand up and fight the French colonialists to save our nation. If youhave guns, use them; if you have swords, use them; if you have no sword, use hoes, spades,

poles and sticks, every single person must fight the colonialists to save our nation.6

gi, chng ta phi gia nhp ng ng thc hin nhng khu hiu sau y: 1. nh quc Php, chngha phong kin v giai cp t bn phn cch mng Vit-nam. 2. Lm cho ng-dng c hon ton clp. 3. Thnh lp chnh ph cng, nng, binh. Nguyn i Quc (aka H Ch Minh), Li Ku Gi Nhn DpThnh Lp ng Cng Sn ng-dng (18-2-1930) in H Ch Minh, L Dun, Trng Chinh, V Nguyn

Gip, Nguyn Ch Thanh, Vn Tin Dng, Song Tho,Bn V Chin Tranh Nhn Dn v Lc Lng V TrangNhn Dn (H Ni: Nh Xut Bn Qun i Nhn Dn, 1966), 12.4 Hin nay vn dn tc gii phng l cao hn tt c. Chng ta hy on kt li! ng tm hip lc nh

Nht, Php v bn ch sn ca chng, cu dn ta khi nc su la nng. Nguyn i Quc, Th t ncngoi gi v (1941) in ibid., 13.5 Cch mng thng Tm thnh cng v c c ba iu kin khng th thiu c vi bt c mt cuc cchmng phn no mt nc thuc a: l s lnh o ca giai cp cng nhn, s thnh lp mt mt trndn tc phn rng ri, khi ngha v trang. H Ch Minh, Quc khnh ln th mi ca nc Vit-namdn ch cng ho (thng Chn, 1955) in ibid., 12.6 Chng ta mun ho bnh, chng ta nhn nhng. Nhng chng ta cng nhn nhng, thc dn Php cngln ti, v chng quyt tm cp nc ta ln na. Khng! Chng ta th hy sinh tt c ch nht nh khng chumt nc, nht nh khng chu lm n l. Hi ng bo! Chng ta phi ng ln!... Bt k n ng, n b,

bt k ngi gi, ngi tr, khng chia tn gio, ng phi, dn tc, h l ngi Vit-nam th phi ng ln

nh thc dn Php, cu T quc. Ai c sng th dng sng, ai c gm th dng gm, khng c gm thdng cuc, thung, gy gc, ai cng phi ra sc chng thc dn cu nc. H Ch Minh, Li Ku Gi TonQuc Khng Chin (20-12-1946), in ibid., 13, 71.

8


9/118


10/118

In the late generals mind, there was no distinction between the revolution and the people. It

was the peoples revolution. To him, the revolution was inevitable because it was ordained

by the law of history. The life of the Communist Party was aligned with the spirit of revolt

among oppressed people. He reasoned that the life of the Party is unquenchable, as is the

spirit of the oppressed people. Similarly, H Ch Minh saw the revolution as the embodiment

of the aspiration and will of the entire nation:

The entire people of Vietnam are of one mind: to reject slavery,Of one will: to oppose foreign domination,Of one goal: to fight for national unification and independence.9

After crushing the French military powers at in Bin Ph (1954), the revolutionary force

Vit Minh took control of the major cities of North Vietnam. By defining itself as a working

class movement, the revolution saw as its enemy persons who existentially were in opposition

to the proletariat by virtue of their social position. The ruling class and the land owners were

especially considered the enemy of the people. Furthermore, as a national liberation force, it

declared war on any persons who aligned themselves with the colonial power. The feudal

system, which was regarded as the support base of the colonial power, was to be obliterated.

Beginning in 1953, H Ch Minh called forci-cch rung-t, a land reform program in

regions controlled by the revolutionary force. The aim of this land reform, as H Ch Minh

explained, was to strengthen the peasant farmers commitment to the revolution.10 This Land

Reform program was vigorously implemented over the next decade in North Vietnam,

leading to the execution of tens of thousands of landowners and the incarceration of many

more.11

9 Ton dn Vit-nam ch c mt lng: Quyt khng lm n l, Ch c mt ch: Quyt khng chu mt nc, Chc mt mc ch: Quyt khng chin tranh th thng nht v c lp cho T quc. H Ch Minh: Li kugi nhn dp k nim 6 thng khng chin in H Ch Minh, et al,Bn V Chin Tranh Nhn Dn v Lc

Lng V Trang Nhn Dn, 70.10

H Ch Minh, Bo co c trc Quc hi nc Vit-nam dn ch cng ho hp k th ba (1953), in ibid.,75.11 Nguyn c Phng, Chin Tranh Vit Nam Ton Tp (Toronto: Lng Vn, 2001), 19.

10


11/118

From 1954 onward, in the new context of American imperialism, the leaders of the

revolution with the support of their Chinese and Soviet comrades took on a new mission: to

lead the nation into a new war against American imperialists in order to liberate and unite the

nation. To H Ch Minh, Vietnams war against American imperialists was in sync with the

worldwide movement of oppressed peoples demanding freedom and independence from

imperialist powers, which were led by America.12 In his view, the war against American

imperialists was born of the common desire of Vietnamese people for peace, independence

and unification in response to American aggression. He wrote,

After the Geneva Convention, our people should have lived in peace and security to rebuild ournation. But the American imperialists and their puppets have trampled upon that Agreement,divided our nation, causing a devastating war in the South. They burned villages, murdered

people, incarcerated and raped, disemboweled and decapitated the young along with the old.Their crimes against humanity angered the civilized people of the world. That is why the 14million compatriots of ours in the South are determined to stand up and fight till the end.13

Thepeoples warstrategy, which proved itself very effective during the anti-French war, was

now being utilized against a new foreign power. The focal point of thepeoples warwas the

civil populations within the enemys territories. In the new context of the North-South

division, thepeoples waraimed to turn South Vietnam into a battle field. L Dun, the

General Secretary of the Communist Party wrote,

The peoples war, using guerilla warfare, is truly powerful because characteristically it is therevolutionary war of millions of people who actively employ military strategies and tactics thatinvariably give them a superior position in offence as well as in defense.14

Within the mandate of thepeoples warstrategy, the National Liberation Front of South

Vietnam (NLF/SVN) was formed in 1960. Guerilla warfare was employed to inflict maximal

12 H Ch Minh, Bo co ti Hi ngh chnh tr c bit (1964), in H Ch Minh, et al,Bn V Chin TranhNhn Dn v Lc Lng V Trang Nhn Dn, 14-15.13 ng l th sau hi ngh Gi-ne-v, nhn dn c nc ta c th yn c lc nghip, xy dng nc nh.

Nhng bn quc M v b l tay sai ph hoi hip ngh , chia ct nc ta, gy ra cuc chin tranh tnkhc min Nam. Chng t ph lng mc, git hi nhn dn, giam cm hm hip, m bng cht u, trkhng tha gi khng n. Ti c ty tri ca chng lm cho c loi ngi vn minh sc si cm gin. Chnh vvy m 14 triu ng bo min Nam ta kin quyt ng dy khng chin n cng. H Ch Minh, Bo co tiHi ngh chnh tr c bit (1964), in ibid., 15.14

Chin tranh nhn dn, chin tranh du kch mnh tht s v c im ca n l mt cuc chin tranh cchmng ca hng triu ngi vi nhng chin lc v chin thut qun s c th lun lun ch ng, trong thtin cng v phn cng lin tc. L Dun, Ta nht nh thng, ch nht nh thua (1965), in ibid., 76.

11


12/118


13/118

According to Vn Tin Dng, a revolutionary armed struggle must begin with small units,

then follows the formation of brigades and large divisions working together in order to

destroy the enemys forces. Finally, the revolutionary force must fight into the cities to

destroy the enemys central powers so as to liberate the nation.19 To serve this military

campaign, the revolutionary force constructed the famousH Ch Minh Trailwhich extended

over 20,000 km from North to South, over the Trng Sn Mountain Range, utilizing the

labor of over 30,000 soldiers and youth workers between 1973 and 1975. This allowed the

rapid transport of vast quantities of military supplies to the battlefields in the South in

preparation for the great campaign. On April 30, 1975 the revolutionary forces which

combined both the Peoples Army of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front claimed the

final victory over the American imperialists and their puppet Government. The thirty-year

military campaign against the two great military powers in the world ended in total victory.

The nation is once again united.

In fighting the war of liberation, the revolutionaries saw themselves as the authentic

bearers of Vietnamese cultural heritage: patriotism, deep love of freedom and self-

determination. H Ch Minh wrote,

Patriotism and solidarity among our people constitute an enormous, invincible force. By thatforce our ancestors defeated the Mongolian and the Ming invaders to secure our freedom andself-determination. By that force our revolution has claimed victory and secure ourindependence. By that force, our revolution continues to grow in strength. By that force oursoldiers and people are determined to endure all hardship and deprivation, hunger and grief inorder to destroy our enemy.20

Furthermore, in General Trn Vn Trs view, the revolution was the true custodian of the

Vietnamese values and morality. He described the bloodless transition of Saigon from war to

19 Ibid., 20.20Lng yu nc v s on kt ca nhn dn l mt lc lng v cng to ln, khng ai thng ni. Nh lclng y m t tin ta nh thng qun Nguyn, qun Minh, gi vng quyn t do, t ch. Nh lc lngy m chng ta lm cch mng thnh cng ginh c c lp. Nh lc lng y m sc khng chin ca tacng ngy cng mnh. Nh lc lng y m qun v dn ta quyt chu ng mun ni kh khn thiu thn, i

kh, tang tc, quyt mt lng nh tan qun gic cp nc. H Ch Minh, Li ku gi nhn dp k nim sunm thnh lp nc Vit-nam dn ch cng ha (1951), in H Ch Minh, et al,Bn V Chin Tranh Nhn Dnv Lc Lng V Trang Nhn Dn, 73.

13


14/118


15/118

connected with thestatus quo. Though working for change, the revolutionaries saw

themselves as those who continued the mission of their forefathers in defending their

homeland against foreign invaders. As this became the dominant narrative of the state after

unification, it discriminated against many persons for reason of their social background or

political view. Those individuals who were not part of the us must be educated and

reformed in order to live in the new society.

Against this dominant narrative were voices of dissent. North Vietnamese poet

Nguyn Ch Thin, whose works have been warmly received by the overseas community

since 1979, is an example.22 Another prominent dissident writer, Dng Thu Hng, a

former soldier of the Peoples Army of Vietnam and member of the Communist Party has

been able to give an insiders view of the revolution and its impact on the lives of ordinary

people.23 A recent example is Fr Nguyn Vn L, the Catholic priest who have called for

democracy and freedom of speech in Vietnam. He was sentenced on March 30, 2007 to

another eight years of imprisonment.

To the South of the 17th Parallel, between the years 1954 and 1975, it was the story of

the nationalist movement to defend their homeland, their freedom and democracy against the

communist forces from the North, and the Vit Cngguerilla fighters from within their

borders. Alongside their American ally, they engaged in a fight for survival against

communist aggression. Their war was understood to be more than a civil war. It was the

clash of two worlds, two ideologies. As H Ch Minh and his communist Party, with

generous aid from their Chinese and Soviet superiors, waged the war to further the cause of

International Communism, seeking to subdue all of Vietnam and Indochina under

22 Among the published works of Nguyn Ch Thin areFlowers from Hell: selected and translated fromVietnamese by Hunh Sanh Thng, (Yale University Council on Southeast Asia Studies, New Haven, 1984);

Blood Seeds Become Poetry: a selection from the Flowers of Hell II translated into English by Nguyn NgcBch, (East Coast USA Vietnamese Publishers Consortium: Arlington, Virginia, 1996).23 Some of her works have been translated into English, for example, Duong Thu Huong, Paradise of the Blind,

tr. by Phan Huy Duong and Nina McPherson (New York: Penguin, 1994), Beyond Illusions, tr. by NinaMcPherson and Phan Huy Duong (New York: Hyperion East, 2002),Novel Without a Name, tr. by Phan HuyDuong and Nina McPherson (New York: W. Morrow, 1995).

15


16/118


17/118

opponents and Buddhist groups.27 Though there are various opinions about the Presidents

declining popularity, no one denies the fact that the U.S. authority supported the coup, and

that this support played a decisive role in his overthrow.28 Following the coup was a period

of great turmoil in South Vietnam. During the two years before General Nguyn Vn Thiu

became Head of State in 1965, the head of South Vietnamese Government was changed six

times: the succession of Nguyn Ngc Th, Nguyn Khnh, Trn Vn Hng, Nguyn Xun

Onh, Phan Huy Qut and Nguyn Cao K.29

Along with the sporadic attacks by VC guerillas on U.S. personnel and military bases,

the PAVN also began to send troops to fight in South Vietnam as of Summer 1964.30 The

Vietnam conflict entered a new phase. On February13, 1965, in response to VCs attacks on

U.S. bases in Pleiku and Quy Nhn, President Johnson formally authorized a prolonged

bombing campaign on North Vietnam. This bombing campaign, known as Rolling Thunder,

extended from March 1965 to November 1968. It mobilized 304,000 strategic flights and

2,380 B52 flights, and dropped a total of 643,000 tons of bombs in North Vietnam,

destroying significant sections of military materiel, fuel storage facilities, power plants,

bridges and railroads.31 This campaign was waged with three goals in mind: to boost the

morale of the people and army of South Vietnam; to punish the North Vietnamese acts of

aggression in South Vietnam and to reduce their military capabilities; to show the North

Vietnamese leadership the costs of their campaign and to force them to the negotiating table.

Robert McNamara recalled the discussions that led to this campaign,

Because no better alternative appeared to exist, the majority of the group meeting in Saigonfavored such attacks! This was the sort of desperate energy that would drive much of ourVietnam policy in the years ahead. Data and analysis showed that air attacks would not work,

27 Nguyn c Phng, Chin Tranh Vit Nam Ton Tp, 21-25.28 Seth Jacobs,Americas Miracle Man in Vietnam, (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2004), 263-276.29

Ibid., 25.30 R. Shaplen, The Lost Revolution: Vietnam 1945-65 (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1985).31 G. Gurney, Vietnam: The War in the Air(London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1985).

17


18/118

but there was such determination to do something, anything, to stop the Communists thatdiscouraging reports were often ignored.32

Along with the bombing campaign, Johnson also committed more U.S. ground forces to

South Vietnam, raising the total of U.S. troops from 23,000 in mid-1964 to 184,000 in late

1965.33 Referring to the decision to escalate, McNamara wrote, Those who leaned toward

support of such action including Mac, Max Taylor, and me believed it would increase

South Vietnams confidence in Americas willingness to fight on its behalf, thereby

strengthening its morale and political structure.34 South Vietnam became more a fortress of

the free world, and less a sovereign nation. South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia

and New Zealand also committed troops to Vietnam. The nationalist cause, which had been

President Ng nh Dims major concern in the fight against the revolutionary forces, was

not a concern for the U.S. policy makers regarding Vietnam,35 largely because of their belief

in the superiority of U.S. military powers.

In 1965, the North Vietnamese troops began major offensive campaigns against a

number of South Vietnamese provinces. The Republic forces fought alongside their allies in

defense of their homeland against Communist invading forces. In October 1966, after many

fierce battles which resulted in heavy losses on both sides, President Johnson proposed a

withdrawal of U.S. troops if North Vietnam agreed to withdraw their troops and abandon

their offensive campaigns. This proposal was rejected by H Ni.36 Into 1967, the Strategy

of Attrition continued to be implemented as General Westmoreland aimed to destroy the

Communist forces at a rate that would exceed North Vietnams capacity to replenish their

troops. However, during the three years 1965-67, though North Vietnam lost a total of

344,000 soldiers, their troops continued to increase from 180,700 in 1964 to 261,500 in

32 Robert McNamara,In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, 114.33 Nguyn c Phng, Chin Tranh Vit Nam Ton Tp, 26.34

McNamara,In Retrospect, 170.35 Ibid., 112.36 Nguyn c Phng, Chin Tranh Vit Nam Ton Tp, 31.

18


19/118


20/118

aggression. In summer 1972, in the context of Nixons re-election campaign, the Communist

forces waged another major offensive campaign against targets in South Vietnam. They were

again defeated by the ARVN and sustained heavy losses. In response to H Nis aggression,

President Nixon ordered the bombing of North Vietnam with B52 bombers. However,

hoping to run again for a second term, Nixon tried to end the War. In January 1973, the Paris

Peace Accords were signed after negotiations between U.S. Secretary of State Henry

Kissinger and North Vietnams L c Th. The Paris Peace Accords, which was devoid of

South Vietnamese representation, was a major political victory for North Vietnam. The

signatories of these Peace Accords practically denied the legitimacy of the Republic of

Vietnam in stating that The people of South Vietnam will determine the political future of

South Vietnam by a general election that is truly free and democratic, with international

supervision.40 What this means is that the Government of the Republic of Vietnam will be

replaced by a democratically elected government that will represent the people of South

Vietnam.41

Following the Peace Agreement, U.S. and other ally troops were totally withdrawn

from Vietnam within 60 days. South Vietnam was becoming an abandoned fortress of the

free world, while its sovereignty was further undermined by its trusted ally. Meanwhile, the

PAVN continued to receive massive military aid from their Chinese and Soviet comrades

which allowed them to conduct major assaults in South Vietnam. Now free from U.S. air

strikes, the PAVN rapidly repaired and extended the H Ch Minh Trail to allow the transport

of military materiel into the South.

Though abandoned by their ally, the Republic Army continued to fight with

outstanding bravery. The massive military expenses, however, could not be sustained

without foreign aid. The Republic soldiers had to fight with severe reductions in

40 The Paris Peace Accords, Chapter IV, Article 9b.41 Nguyn c Phng, Chin Tranh Vit Nam Ton Tp, 39.

20


21/118

ammunition, transport capabilities and fuel. In January 1975, the Army of North Vietnam

overran Phc-Bnh District. As the Republic Army was not able to withstand the massive

assaults of the Communist forces, other Northern Provinces fell into the hands of the enemy.

In March 1975 Ban M Thut fell and began the massive withdrawal of Republic troops and

people from the Central Highlands to the South. April 21, President Nguyn Vn Thiu

resigned. On April 30, 1975, when North Vietnamese armored vehicles reached the

Presidential Palace Dinh c Lp, the Republic of Vietnam fell into the hands of the

Communists.

During the War years, the dominant narrative of South Vietnam was the nationalist

movement in defense of their homeland against Communist aggression from the North. The

us defined by this narrative was based on the criterion of political loyalty: the nationalist

us (phe quc gia) against the Communist them (phe cng sn). Against this dominant

narrative, there were voices of resistance as well as dissent. The Buddhist monk Thch Nht

Hnh and other South Vietnamese peace activists denounced the War as inhumane and

fratricidal.42 Thch Nht Hnh was exiled, some others were incarcerated and the movement

was dispersed. The late song writer Trnh Cng Sn protested most strongly against the war

by exposing the devastation caused by the war, and its immense impact on the lives of

combatants as well as civilians. One of his recurrent themes was the depiction of war as a

force that enslaved the entire nation under its claws.43

II. THE LEGACY OF WAR

On April 30 each year we commemorate the anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. For

many who took part in the revolutionary war, it celebrates the final victory in the war of

42 Apart from denouncing the War, Thch Nht Hnh also criticized the Ng nh Dims Administration as an

oppressive and unjust regime. Thch Nht Hnh believed this added to the popularity of the Communist cause,and also led to the presidents downfall. Thch Nht Hnh, Vietnam (London: SCM Press, 1967).43 See especially his war-time albums, Ca Khc Da Vng IandII(Saigon: Hng Xa, 1970).

21


22/118


23/118


24/118

Vietnamese Government. Their sacrifice became an inspiration for many young Vietnamese

living abroad.

Since 1988, the dream of many exiled Vietnamese to overthrow the Communist

regime by force has somewhat dissipated, and found expression only in literature and arts.

The political organizations, such as Vit Tn (the Vietnam Reform Party), founded by Lt.

Gen Hong C Minh in 1986, are now advocating for democracy, human rights and an end to

the single-party mode of government. Many organizations and individuals are demanding

religious freedom, free speech, and the release of religious leaders and dissidents. Though

their political objectives have changed, the political view and language have remained

unchanged. Many Vietnamese believe that they must keep fighting for a free and democratic

Vietnam, by bringing about the downfall of the Communist regime. In a recent article, author

L Vn n questions the Vietnamese Catholic bishops silence in the face of the arrest, trial

and incarceration of dissident priest Nguyn Vn L. To L Vn n, leaders of the

Vietnamese Catholic Church ought to take a proactive role in bringing about political

changes in Vietnam, rather than adopting a silence that could be construed as a sign of

consent to the crimes of the Communist regime.46

Each year the exile communities demonstrate against the Vietnamese Communist

Regime at the Vietnamese Embassies in North America, Europe and Australia on April 30 th.

People demonstrate against Vietnamese government officials who come to the U.S. People

also demonstrate against artists who come from Vietnam to perform, because it is believed

that such performances are means of propaganda orchestrated by the Communist

Government.47 In some way, we are still at war, because we are still carrying the mindset of

war. The William Joiner Center, a Boston-based center for the study of war and its social

46 L Vn n, Th ng gi Hi ng Gim Mc Vit Nam Ngy 08-03-2007 in on Thanh Lim, Vi Anh, Anh Ti, Hong Qu (eds) V n LM Nguyn Vn L v Lng Tm Cng Gio (Garden Grove: Thng

Tin, 2007), 38-44.47 In late April, 2007, a group of artists from Vietnam went to Australia to perform, but had to cancel theirperformance because of public protest by the local Vietnamese communities.

24


25/118

consequences, in the last decades has facilitated dialogue between persons who had been on

opposite sides of the Vietnam war. The Center has worked with the Rockefeller Foundation

to bring Vietnamese artists, poets and academics to the U.S., to facilitate cultural exchange in

order to further mutual understanding between persons who were enemies during the war.

There have been numerous allegations against the Centre and its activities, accusing it of

cooperating with the communist regime. Their real crime, I think, is to blur the dividing line

between us and them, and to contradict the continued efforts of thousands of Vietnamese who

are still fighting for freedom, democracy and human rights in Vietnam.

The current prayer vigils which have been held by Catholics since Christmas 2007 at

the confiscated Apostolic Nuncio Building in H Ni have stirred much ardent reaction

among the diasporic communities. The demand of Catholics of the Archdiocese of H Ni

for the return of this piece of Church property by the local government has been interpreted

by many exiled Vietnamese as an act of defiance. Many observers have read a resistance

motive into these prayer vigils. Behind such interpretations is the war polarity with clear

demarcations between us and them, good and bad. For example author Thanh Sn wrote,

Our opponent is the Vietnamese Communist Government. Like all communist governmentsaround the globe, old and new, the Vietnamese Communist Government has never changedtheir Communist character. It means that they are not persons who act according to reasonand morality48

Among the exile community, this anti-communist stance which is consistent with the

narrative of the former Republic of Vietnam has been the dominant narrative up to the

present time. However the Vietnamese overseas community is not a uniform whole. There

are persons with moderate perspectives as well as those with more conservative outlooks.

While the conservative wing holds fast to the war narrative and resists any call for change,

the moderate group is more open minded and receptive to signs of good will from the

48i phng ca chng ta l nh nc cng sn Vit Nam. Cng nh tt c cc nh nc cng sn khc trnkhp th gii, t trc ti nay, nh nc cng sn Vit Nam lun lun vn khng bao gi thay i c bn sc

cng sn ca h, tc: h khng phi l nhng ngi hnh x theo l tr v l phi; Thanh Sn, To KhmS, mt nc c kh, VietCatholic News, Wednesday 06/02/2008 atwww.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=52034.

25
http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=52034http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=52034http://www.vietcatholic.net/News/Clients/ReadArticle.aspx?Id=52034


26/118


27/118


28/118

historical status. It justifies us and our action. It comforts and gives assurance of our

rightness. Hedges describes the role of myth in this way:

The potency of myth is that it allows us to make sense of mayhem and violent death We are

elevated above the multitude. We march toward nobility Science, history, and psychologyare often twisted to serve myth By finding our identity and meaning in separateness themyth serves another important function: it makes communication with our opponentsimpossible.54

The state often spends enormous amounts of resources explaining and promoting the cause of

war.55 Wars myths are also disseminated by the press.56 According to Hedges, most war

reporters see their mission as sustaining public morale. They often choose to report events

and images that are consistent with the accepted myth, and ignore the less attractive aspects

of war. The public is often kept in this mythic perception of war. Only when the myth is

ruptured does the public begin to see, often to its astonishment, the ugly faces of war.57

We often allow ourselves to be seduced by the myth, and become locked into a certain

worldview created by this myth. The mythic world is essentially a battleground between

good and evil. We are seduced by the clarity and simplicity which war provides. Once we

succumb to its seductive power, it takes hold of our reason and judgment.

A. The Lure of War

War has the sinister power to draw us in because it gives us purpose and direction. War

unifies us in a common cause, and elevates us above our mundane concerns. War is

seductive because it satisfies our deepest human need, namely the need for meaning. Hedges

writes,

War makes the world understandable, a black and white tableau of them and us. It suspendsthought, especially self-critical thought. All bow before the supreme effort. We are one. Mostof us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuingsuffering as necessary for a higher good, for human beings seek not only happiness but also

54 Chris Hedges, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning(New York: Public Affairs, 2002), 23-24.55

Ibid., 146.56 Ibid., 22.57 Ibid., 21-22.

28


29/118


30/118


31/118


32/118

the overwhelming sense of purpose and meaning created by war. It is the simplicity of a

world of black and white, friends and foes, us and them. We need the war to give us

direction. We need a sense of purpose, an urge to push forward, to succeed. We need a

cause for which to make sacrifices. Without the war we are lost. Life in its ordinariness is

unbearable. We cling to the war in order to make sense of our lives. We are still reluctant to

let it go. We need the simplicity and clarity of war. We are choked by the ambiguity and

uncertainty of the world. War gives us the moral resources we need in order to live, to

differentiate right from wrong. When the war ends, we face a crisis of meaning, and its

burden is too hard to bear. This is why, for war survivors, to let go of the war would involve

a radical reconstruction of meaning. In a very real sense, it involves a death, and a rebirth.

The old structures must be laid to rest. Persons must find new ways to live and to relate to

others, including their former enemy. The construction of new systems of meaning may be

part of a psychological and moral conversion, which may involve a process of grieving.

The most durable legacy of the Vietnam War is neither the toxic effect of Agent

Orange, nor the physical and psychological wounds the War has left on millions of

combatants and civilians. It is the war narratives and their impact upon perception and

behavior. The collective narrative of a society is both authoritative and resilient because it

defines the groups identity and gives it moral bearings. The war heritage adds further

durability and sacredness to the narrative. The greatest inadequacy of a war narrative,

however, is its failure to account for the experience of countless numbers of human beings

who are victimized by the war. The counter-story therefore must begin with the experience

of the victims of war.68

If the moral authority of war lies in the narrative which justifies and sustains it, in order to

put an end to the Wars lingering effects so as to allow the healing process to begin, we must

68 Cf. Hilde Lindemann Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair(Ithaca and London: Cornell UniversityPress, 2001). Nelson proposes the construction of counter-stories in response to oppressive narratives.

32


33/118


34/118


35/118


36/118

understanding, values and aspirations because it would violate the integrity of a set of moral

laws which she, as part of a faith congregation identifies herself with. The act ofmaking

meaningof a situation is personal because it is a process by which the subject perceives her

experiences in relation to her as subject.78

The central concept of the narrative approach to ethics is that persons seek to

understand not only the meaning of their experiences and circumstances but also the meaning

of their actions, because they continually seek to integrate them into their life narrative. An

action chosen by the agent is ethically significant because it inevitably impacts upon her

narrative, which affects her self-understanding and her moral perception. In other words, my

past actions which I freely chose and abidingly endorsed become precedents in my decision

making history which represent my beliefs and values.79 When I am presented with a new

moral choice, my narrative serves both an epistemological function and an ethical one. Each

action in turn leaves its mark on the individuals narrative and moral framework. Each free

act will be either a confirmation, a modification, or a significant departure from subjects pre-

existing self-conception and moral structure.80 On the other hand, an individual narrative

does not occur in a vacuum. It is invariably interconnected with other narratives and

networks of relationship in which the subject finds herself.

A. SELF-CONCEPTION, MORAL AGENCY AND THE NARRATIVE

In their work on the subject of individual autonomy, feminist philosophers Catriona

Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar emphasize the social dimension of the subjects capacity for

autonomy. To them, the moral agent and her capacities cannot be understood apart from the

78 Cf. Taylor,Human Agency and Language, 45-76.79 This is what narrative ethics has in common with casuistry. Cf. Anne Hudson Jones, Darrens Case:

Narrative Ethics in Perri Klasss Other Womens Children, 267-268.Also Ronald H. McKinney. The New Casuistry Vs Narrative Ethics: a Postmodern Analysis inPhilosophyToday. Celina: Winter 1995. Vol. 39, Is. 4, 331-345.80

There is some parallel between the personal narrative and Stanley Hauerwas theory of character. SeeHauerwas, Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection (Notre Dame, Ind. : University of NotreDame Press, 1981), 62-75.

36


37/118

social and historical contexts in which she is located.1 Her moral choices within such

contexts, as well as her own sense of self are socially constituted.2 To feminist authors, both

agency and identity are relational notions for a number of reasons.3 First, moral agents are

intrinsically relationalbecause their identities are constitutedby elements of the social

context in which they are embedded.4 Second, agents are formed by the social values,

practices and aspirations of their communities. In other words, they are causally relational

because their natures are produced by certain historical and social conditions.5 Third, they

are socially motivated by the care and concern for the welfare of others. 6 As a response to

individualistic conceptions of autonomy, they promote the concept ofrelational autonomy

which would more adequately account for the interpersonal nature of human agency and

identity. In emphasizing the importance of interpersonal relationships, feminists seek to

combat the traditions of thought which devalue women, and expose the oppression to which

women are subjected in many forms of relationship.7 They also examine the various ways in

whichsocialization may impair or enhance autonomy.8 They are also concerned with the

development of certain competencies and capacities which are necessary for the exercise of

autonomy, such as self-reflection, self-direction and self-knowledge. To them, there are

intrinsic links between the agents self-conception, her social setting and her capacity for

autonomy.

In line with the feminist perspective, narrativists maintain that the process of

socialization has a major role in the formation of a person and her capacities as a moral agent.

Paul Benson in his article, Free Agency and Self Worth asserts that a necessary condition

1 Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar (eds.),Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy,Agency and the Social Self(New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 21.2 Ibid., 22.3 Ibid., 21-23.4 Ibid., 22.5 Ibid.6 Linda Barclay, Autonomy and the Social Self in Mackenzie and Stoljar (eds.),Relational Autonomy, 58-61.7

Cf. Friedman, Autonomy, Social Disruption, and Women in Mackenzie and Stoljar (eds.),RelationalAutonomy, 36.8 Mackenzie and Stoljar,Relational Autonomy, 22-23.

37


38/118

for autonomous agency, in addition to other competencies, is the agents sense of her own

worth as an agent.9 In his example, taken from the 1944 film Gaslight, a woman is

systematically deceived by her evil husband into believing that she has gone crazy, and that

her judgement is not trustworthy. By successfully destroying her sense of self-worth, her

husband has dramatically reduced her capacity to judge and act as a free agent. 10 Her

autonomy has been gravely restricted by her husbands deception. In this tragic end product

where the self is destroyed and her capacities as an agent are diminished by a faulty self-

conception that has been ingrained into her, Benson sees reflections of the plight of many

women victims of oppression which feminist writers have sought to expose. This faulty self-

conception has been enforced by her trusted ones through persistent conditioning, which

gravely impairs her freedom to act.11 Such faulty conceptions about oneself, ones status and

capacities are parts of what Hilde Lindemann Nelson refers to as the infiltrated

consciousness, the result of persistent oppressive socialization.12

While closely agreeing with Bensons view regarding the effect of socialization on

identity and agency, as a narrativist Nelson perceives the process of socialization in terms of

stories, ornarratives. Because stories are vitally important in the construction of ones

identity, oppressive stories create what Nelson regards as an oppressive identity,13 which is

imposed upon the oppressed by their oppressors.14 To Nelson, identity is understood as the

interaction of a persons self-conception with how others conceive her.15 To Alasdair

MacIntyre, the agent can only understand who she is and what she ought to do by

understanding the stories of which she finds herself a part.16 According to MacIntyre, we

enter human society identifying with one or more characters (or roles) in the stories of our

9 Paul Benson, Free Agency and Self worth in The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 91, No. 12, Dec., 1994, 650.10 Ibid., 655.11 Ibid., 656-657.12 Hilde Lindemann Nelson,Damaged Identities: Narrative Repair, 28-30.13 Ibid., 6.14

Ibid., 20-22.15 Ibid., 6.16 Alasdair MacIntyre,After Virtue, 211-212, 216.

38


39/118

society, and by knowing what they are, we will be able to understand the way others relate to

us, and how we ought to relate to them.17

Such stories which belong to a community and convey the communitys shared

understandings are often referred to as master narratives.18 To Nelson, master narratives

contain archetypes of characters and plots which convey the communitys moral concepts and

norms in a readily accessible form.19 These stories help us make sense of our experience and

tell us what we ought to do in a given set of circumstances.20 In MacIntyres view, master

narratives may therefore be used as an epistemological tool, as well as an ethical tool to

justify our actions.21

On the other hand, Nelson alerts us to the fact that certain persons are subordinated or

excluded by the communitys master narratives.22 Master narratives in certain communities

may lead to damaged identities and impair the agents capacity for autonomy if the persons

find themselves excluded by such narratives. Nelson therefore advocates the construction of

counterstories among those who are marginalized, which can identify them more accurately

and fairly.23 Counterstories are constructed by bringing together the fragments of various

narratives that have constructed their oppressive identity and challenging the unjust

assumptions that lie hidden in those narrative fragments.24 To tell a counterstory is to resist

an oppressive identity, and to replace it with one that commands respect.25 To Nelson,

counterstories have the power to reidentify people whose identities have been damaged by

oppression.26

17 Ibid.,p. 216.18 Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 6.19 Ibid., 6-7.20 Cf. MacIntyre,After Virtue, 216.21 Ibid., 211-216.Cf. Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 54-57.22 Ibid., 54-68.23 Ibid., 6.24

Ibid.25 Ibid.26 Ibid., 36.

39


40/118

Nelson thus concurs with other feminist writers view that identity and agency are

both interpersonal notions.27 As a narrativist, she believes the narrative both constitutes the

self, and determines its capacity for autonomous agency. There are good, truthful narratives,

as well as deceitful, oppressive ones. As Nelson points out, this is precisely why it is vital to

tell truthful stories. In the face of enslaving self-conceptions created by oppressive stories, to

tell counterstories has a healing power that repairs the self and reclaims its moral agency. 28

II. NARRATIVE ETHICS AND THE GOOD

The survey to this point has highlighted some features peculiar to the nature and function of

the individual and collective narratives. Narratives are important moral resources because

they serve as both epistemological and ethical tools. Narratives can assist or hinder the

persons capacity for autonomy, because they define the individuals identity and role within

a socio-historical context. Collective narratives do not merely serve as inanimate vessels that

carry the communitys values and norms, they also shape individuals and community,

affirming some while excluding others. Certain master narratives, as Nelson points out, can

damage the individuals identity and diminish her agency.

We now come to a key metaphysical question relating to the moral evaluation of the

narrative. If collective narratives are the frame against which the morality of an individuals

act is judged, can the narratives themselves be subjected evaluation? If there are narratives

that need to be challenged and changed, by what criteria can we evaluate them? How do we

substantiate the concept of the good in relation to the narrative?

In general narrativists stress the significance of the narrative context of an act. To use

the previous example, for a Jehovahs Witness to refuse a blood transfusion will be

significantly different from the case of a non-believer declining a blood transfusion.

27 Ibid., 34.28 Ibid., 1-34.

40


41/118

Narrativists therefore would defend a degree of relativity in regard to moral norms because of

the narrative background of each concrete situation. But would the emphasis on the narrative

context amount to a defense of relativism? If the narrative can be used to justify a particular

choice against the ruling of socially dominant ethical frames, there is a danger that this

approach will justify too much. Most writers in narrative ethics are aware of the danger of

falling into relativism, but the search for a viable solution is no simple task. There are a

number of reasons for this. First, if the narrative is to be subjected to a normative concept

derived from another ethical theory, the danger is that the narrative perspective will be

collapsed into this preexisting moral framework. For example, if the Kantian concept of a

categorical imperative is to provide the normative content to a narrative scheme, this version

of narrative ethics may be understood as just another way to promote Kantianism. Second,

there is generally a resistance among narrativists against any concept of normative criteria

derived from an analytical framework. Anne Hudson Jones, a contemporary author in

narrative bioethics resists the concept of any externally imposed criteria and insists that we

begin with the particulars of a specific case rather than abstract rules or principles.1 Jones

however does not reject the concept of normativity. She maintains that because principles

such as beneficence, autonomy and justice are highly valued in an Anglo-American culture,

they are also important to narrative medical ethics as ideals inherent in the cultural context

of a case rather than as absolutist principles to be rigidly adhered to.2

In a similar vein, Stanley Hauerwas, a Christian narrative ethicist, emphasizes that

Christian ethics (especially social ethics) must be consistent with the story of Jesus Christ, the

foundational story of the Christian community. The normative criteria of the Christian

narrative are derived from this paradigmatic story. Hauerwas emphatically stresses that

moral norms are unintelligible without the narrative context. He rejects the concept of

1 Anne Hudson Jones, Darrens Case: Narrative Ethics in Perri Klasss Other Womens Children, 268.2 Ibid.

41


42/118

objective criteria to assess the truthfulness of narratives, There is no story of stories; i.e. an

account that is literal and that thus provides a criterion to say which stories are true or false.

All we can do is compare stories to see what they ask of us and the world we inhabit.3 If, on

the other hand, narratives are largely self-referential and subjective, then narratives become

unintelligible to anyone outside of that given community.4 In this scenario, how would

narrative ethics distinguish itself from relativism? Hauerwas is not unaware of this problem

in his theory, yet he is prepared to defend a more benign form of relativism. He insists that a

peoples morality is the product of the ongoing experience and conversation that enable them

to have a history sufficient for community identity, and that there are often tragic and

unbridgeable divisions between people such that moral norms arisen out of one social

context cannot be applied to another. 5 From a metaphysical perspective, Hauerwas

theoretical framework has one overarching evaluative criterion: internal consistency. For

Hauerwas, that the life of Jesus provides the basis of the good is the truth to be accepted and

proclaimed, rather than defended philosophically.

To Howard Brody, a clinician and a prolific author in narrative ethics, the healing

impact of the narrative approach lies in the encounter with another person which resides in

the very act of relating a personal story. According to his view, for a patient to tell her

personal story to an empathetic listener is a healing experience, because to be listened to and

understood validates ones story and ones sense of self.6 The concept ofthe goodis thus

understood as something intrinsic to the encounter between two persons. Similarly, Helen

Andersson stresses the significance of the act of narration through which comes the

3 Stanley Hauerwas,Truthfulness and Tragedy: Further Investigations in Christian Ethics(Notre Dame, Ind.:University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), 78-79.4 See Rufus Black, Christian Moral Realism: Natural Law, Narrative, Virtue and the Gospel(New York:Oxford University Press, 2000), 186-187.5

Hauerwas,A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame, Ind.:University of Notre Dame Press, 1975/1985), 101-108.6 Howard Brody, Stories of Sickness (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1987), 21-22.

42
http://208.240.177.195/uhtbin/cgisirsi/iO8K6VOlU0/SIRSI/77930027/18/X245/XTITLE/Truthfulness+and+tragedy+:http://208.240.177.195/uhtbin/cgisirsi/iO8K6VOlU0/SIRSI/77930027/18/X245/XTITLE/Truthfulness+and+tragedy+:http://208.240.177.195/uhtbin/cgisirsi/iO8K6VOlU0/SIRSI/77930027/18/X245/XTITLE/Truthfulness+and+tragedy+:http://208.240.177.195/uhtbin/cgisirsi/iO8K6VOlU0/SIRSI/77930027/18/X245/XTITLE/Truthfulness+and+tragedy+:


43/118

recognition that every human being, whatever her qualities, has her indispensable splendour

in a personal identity that is irrefutably her story.7

J. McCarthy on the other hand speaks ofthe goodin terms of narrative justification.

According to his view, personal stories are to be tested against various criteria, such as stories

of others, how an individuals life story fits into the dominant narratives of the community,

and the individuals self-conception.8 More substantial accounts of the good may be found

in the works of three narrativists, Alasdair MacIntyre, Hilde Lindemann Nelson and Paul

Ricoeur, to which we now turn.9

A. ALASDAIR MACINTYRE AND THE COLLECTIVE NARRATIVES

MacIntyre inAfter Virtue proposes a narrative theory in which the good is identified with

Aristotles telos or end of human life. He argues that without this telos, the Enlightenment

project of justifying ethics is doomed to fail. To MacIntyre, we need to find new ways to

contextualize this concept of the human good. In his view, two concepts are central to a

narrative approach: narrative unity and a practice with goods internal to it .10 First, as

discussed above, an action is made intelligible only within the context of a unified narrative.11

In other words, we can only understand an action when we place it within the narratives in

which it is a part. Second, the goods of a community are grounded in a set of practices found

in its tradition.12 MacIntyres central thesis is this:

Man is in his actions and practice, as well as in his fictions, essentially a story-telling animal.He is not essentially, but becomes through his history, a teller of stories that aspire to truth.But the key questions for men is not about their own authorship; I can only answer thequestion What am I to do? if I can answer the prior question Of what story or stories do Ifind myself a part? We enter human society, that is, with one or more imputed characters roles into which we have been drafted and we have to learn what they are in order to be

7 Helen Andersson, The Moment of a Star: The Ethics of Narration in Studia Theologica 54 (2001), 44-63.8 Ibid., 71-72.9 I am here indebted to Hilde Lindemann Nelsons analysis of the concept of the good in different narrativetheories. Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 36-68.10

MacIntyre,After Virtue, 2nd

ed. (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 228.11 Ibid, 209-212.12 Ibid. Cf. Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 54.

43


44/118


45/118


46/118

starting point.25 The individual to MacIntyre is part of a collective history, and whether she

likes it or not, she is one of the bearers of a tradition. 26

1. Epistemological Crisis and the Construction of New Narratives

So far, MacIntyres view may be summarized as follows: as moral agents we belong to

certain communities which have their particular stories and practices. Our life understood as

a narrative is situated within, and is dependent upon the stories of our communities. We learn

how to act by understanding the practices of the communities, and the roles and norms which

we assume within these practices. As an individuals act is made intelligible by the

individuals narrative context, the practices and norms of a community are made intelligible

by its collective narratives. This is a narrative perspective which emphasizes the importance

of thefoundcommunity with its stories and practices, of which the agent is part. The

communitys narrative is oriented toward a telos, or the human good, which provides

normative bearings to the communitys practices and actions. One may raise doubts about

whether the grafting of this normative concept into the narrative framework is viable. A test

case for the viability of this theory is to ask whether the community is able to radically revise

its stories and practices when their self-understanding and practices come into a serious

conflict with the ideals of the human good. MacIntyre believes it ought to. In many cases,

the communitys foundational stories may create tension with other communities and

traditions. What we collectively inherit from our tradition may be a heritage of hatred and

conflicts with other groups which are different from ours ethnically, politically, religiously or

otherwise. What is handed down to us may be a heritage characterised by persecution and

exclusion. Where the master narratives of rival groups simply create further conflicts, these

stories can no longer provide the moral resources necessary for the group to find a solution to

25 Ibid.26 Ibid., 221.

46


47/118


48/118

resources that made it possible for the community to resolve the epistemological crisis then

become part of the tradition.

MacIntyre however rejects any concept of universal standard by which one can

evaluate a tradition. He maintains that it is an illusion to suppose that there is some neutral

standing ground, some locus for rationality as such, which can afford rational resources

sufficient for enquiry independent of all traditions.33 He insists that each tradition has its

own standards of rational justification, and adherents of that tradition will judge according to

those standards. The person who appeals to universal standard independent of all traditions is

in fact adopting the standpoint of a tradition, either unknowingly or deliberately deceiving

herself and perhaps others into believing in such neutral standing ground. MacIntyre stresses

that no rational debate between two different traditions can occur.34 A tradition may be

evaluated by how adequately it responds to epistemological crises.35

MacIntyres understanding of the telos or the human good is therefore not as an

external criterion by which we can evaluate a collective narrative. The concept of the good,

and as such ofrationality andjustice are dependent on the tradition in which we stand.

Though emphasizing the context-relative nature of any conception of the good, MacIntyre

distinguishes himself from frank relativism by describing the epistemological crisis as the

time when the tradition ceases to make rational progress through its trusted methods of

enquiry. Such a crisis would signify the failure of the traditions resources as judged from a

perspective not strictly dependent on, or determined by, that tradition. Furthermore,

MacIntyres notion of new narrative constructions to capture the communitys visions and

values in response to the crisis appeals to the concept of the good that is not confined to that

tradition. MacIntyres significant contribution is his belief that adherents of a tradition can,

and ought to, reconstruct their narrative in time of crisis in order to rise above the existing

33

Ibid., 367.34 Ibid., 348.35 Ibid., 366.

48


49/118


50/118

be called into question by some members of the community all of the time, and by all

members in time of crisis.41

Nelson rejects MacIntyres idea that action itself has a basically historical

character.42 To Nelson, actions, experiences, relationships are not stories in themselves. We

make them stories by selecting, interpreting and representing them in a narrative form.43 The

act of constructing a story from individual experiences, or shared experiences of the group, to

her is a moral act in itself. This is why Nelson advocates, among those who experience

oppression or subordination, the creation ofcounterstories which place them in a better

position than what is presented by the existing master narratives.44

This view resonates strongly with what we have previously discussed about the act of

constructinga narrative. I think Nelson rightly identifies the fundamental nature of the act of

narration, which in itself is primarily a moral act. In narrating ones story, the agent exercises

her capacities as a moral agent, who is self-interpreting and self-creating. However, we now

encounter a question: if we turn our back on MacIntyres concept of the master narratives as a

means of moral justification while we construct counterstories, how are these stories

themselves to bejustified? Nelson believes that there is a fundamental continuity between

counterstories and the master narratives:

The teller of a counterstory is bound to draw on the moral concepts found in the masternarratives of her tradition, since these played a key role in her moral formation regardless ofhow problematic her place within that tradition has been, but she isnt restricted to just theseconcepts. To the extent that her experiences of life and considered judgments make themavailable, she can also help herself to alternative understandings of lying, heroism, fairness, or

propriety, testing her conceptions of these things for adequacy against conceptions offered bypeople within both her found communities and her communities of choice.45

In other words, because counterstories serve as alternative means of justification, they

themselves have to be justified by the moral concepts and norms that are acceptable to the

41 Ibid., 61.42 MacIntyre,After Virtue, p. 212.43

Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 62.44 Ibid., 1-6, 66-68.45 Nelson,Damaged Identities, Narrative Repair, 67.

50


51/118

agentsfoundorchosen communities, or both. In so far as they are constructed using the

moral resources possessed within the community, counterstories are understood as

alternative bearers of the communitys moral norms and traditions. To take this further, it

can be said that counterstories are acceptable in a community in so far as they are compatible

with the foundational values of that community.

At this point we come to a new question, By what criteria can these stories be

considered as better than the existing narratives? Underlying Nelsons critique of thefound

master narratives are indeed ethical concepts which need to be elucidated: oppression,

subordination, unjust marginalization or exclusion of individuals from the community. Her

critique invokes ethical criteria such as equality, equal participation, and a certain notion of

justice. These normative criteria need to be grounded in a substantial account of the good

which is connected with the narrative paradigm. While Nelson questions the adequacy of

MacIntyres view that the master narratives function as a means of justification for members

of a community, her own concept of counterstories as alternative means of justification lacks

the basic foundation derived from a viable account ofthe good. Without elucidating this

metaphysical basis, her claim is not sustainable.

At this stage, it becomes apparent that master narratives are important moral resources

which bear the communitys values and aspirations, and serve as means of justification for

members of the community. If this is the entire claim of narrative ethics, then the concept of

the goodis intrinsic to the values and norms contained within such narratives. There would

be no external criteria against which narratives can be evaluated. This is the core of the

descriptive approach to narrative ethics. But we must face is the fact that some narratives,

thought of as self-contained units, are hopelessly inadequate for the needs of the community.

In certain cases, they are overtly destructive. The critique of these narratives must invoke

some normative criteria which are connected to some account ofthe good. In response to this

51


52/118

dilemma, MacIntyre suggests the construction of a new narrative, at the time of an

epistemological crisis using procedural criteria of adequacy and continuity. To MacIntyre,

the concept of the good, which is identified with the human good, is inherent in the tradition.

The new narrative must be in continuity with the tradition, and more adequately express in

the new context the values and visions embraced by the community. To Hilde Lindemann

Nelson, this solution is still wanting. The adequacy of collective narratives must be judged

by the experience of those who are oppressed and marginalized by such narratives. Nelson

implicitly invokes some standard of justice understood as equality, and equal participation in

her evaluation of collective narratives. Nelsons view breaks out of the descriptive model

and constitutes a strongsubstantive approach to narrative ethics. In my opinion, while

Nelsons suggested criteria for the evaluation of collective narratives are good criteria, they

themselves need to be justified by a certain account of the good. This brings us to the works

of Paul Ricoeur, who substantiates the normative criteria for the evaluation of narratives with

his own standard of the good.

C. PAUL RICOEUR: THE ETHICAL CRITERIA

1. Narrative and the Ethical Aim

Ricoeur argues that, though MacIntyres concept of the narrative unity of life is exceedingly

complex because of the organic nature of a persons life, it is an intelligible concept. 46

Ricoeur sees such a unity manifest in the life plans, which include for instance family lifeand personal education. These life plans constitute the intermediary zone of exchange

between the guiding ideals and the particular practices. Though the persons life plans may

be considered in a certain sense ends in themselves, they are ultimately oriented toward the

ethical aim.47 Ricoeur shares MacIntyres view that the narrator is at most a coauthorof her

46

Paul Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, tr. by Kathleen Blamey (Chicago/London: The University of Chicago,1992), 157-159.47 Ibid.

52


53/118


54/118

accountable for which together signify self-constancy. Ricoeur maintains that the identity of

the self is constituted between sameness (idem) and otherness (ipse).52 He later explains that

selfhood is determined firstly by its contrast with sameness, and secondly by way of its

dialectic with otherness.53

Yet the self, according to Ricoeur, ought not to become the source of the individuals

ethical motivation. Rather, the narrative imagination should help bring forth a dialectic

between ownership and dispossession, between self-affirmation and self-effacement.54

Ricoeur stresses the primary significance of the other,

The self, stripped bare in this way should make it clear to us that the issue here is the ethicalprimacy of the other than the self over the self. Even recognizing this, it is still necessary thatthe irruption of the other, breaking through the enclosure of the same, meet with the complicityof this movement of effacement by which the self makes itself available to others.55

Ricoeur develops the concept ofthe self as anotheras the foundation for his ethical theory.

The dialectical opposite ofthe selfis the otherin its various forms. Ricoeur defines the other

as the variety of experiences of passivity, intertwined in multiple ways in human action.56

For Ricoeur the notion ofpassivity is a crucial aspect in the understanding of human action,

and of the subjects dialectical relationship with the other. Actions not only involve the

dynamic interaction between the agent and his or her circumstances, but also the passive

reception of such actions. To exercise agency is to exercise poweroverthings and overother

people.57 Any consideration of the power to act in whatever manner, must take into account

the powerover. The self cannot be considered without taking account of the other. Action

ought not to be understood without a consideration of thepassion suffered by the other.58

52 Ibid., 115- 139.53 Ibid., 297.54 Ibid., 165.55 Ibid., 168.56 Ibid., 318.57

Ibid., 256 -257.58 Cf. John van Den Hengel, Paul Ricoeurs Oneself as Another and Practical Theology in Theological Studies55 (1994), 458-480.

54


55/118

This innovative concept provides the backbone to Ricoeurs narrative ethics. To

support his ethical framework, Ricoeur in the final study articulates an ontological structure

of the self based upon a threefold experience of otherness or passivity.59 The first passivity-

otherness is identified in the experience of ones own body. The body participates in both the

self and the world, both action and passion. For this reason ones body plays a intermediary

role between the self and the world.60 The second otherness-passivity is the otherness of

other people. The other is distinguished as a separate subject in the way he or she exerts

influence on me as subject. The experience of another as anothersubjectis awakened in my

response to the others call.61 The third otherness is the passivity from within identified as

conscience. It is the sense of indebtedness to oneself, the power of judgment over the self

and at the same time part of the self.62 Ricoeurs dialectic understanding of the self and the

other, of action and passion greatly enriches the concepts of identity and agency. This

understanding substantiates his proposed ethical criteria of a good narrative.

2. Defining the Ethical Aim of Life

Having clarified the narrative unity of life Ricoeur then makes a distinction between ethics

and morality. Ethics is related to the aim of an accomplished life, understood in Aristotelian

terms. Morality on the other hand is connected with the norms in the Kantian sense. Ricoeur

makes three proposals: firstly, the primacy of ethics (aim) over morality (norms); secondly

the ethical aim must be embodied in the norm; and thirdly, recourse to the aim is made when

the norm leads to an impasse in practice.63 Ricoeurs dialectic approach aims not to substitute

Kant for Aristotle, but to establish a relation involving both subordination and

59 Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, 297-356.60 Ibid., 319-32861

Ibid., 339.62 Ibid., 341- 355. Cf. John van Den Hengel, Paul Ricoeurs Oneself as Another and Practical Theology, 469.63 Ricoeur, Oneself as Another, 169-170.

55


56/118


57/118

Ricoeur here presents a structure which clarifies the meaning of the good life and the

relation between key concepts in his theory. The structure he proposes closely connects the

self with the narrative through the act of interpretation. For an agent to interpret his or her

action is in fact to interpret himself or herself. Self-interpretation has ethical significance as

it becomes self-esteem.71 Because self-esteem is related to interpretation, it can provoke

dispute where there is conflict of interpretations. Adequate interpretation must therefore

involve the exercise of judgment against that of others, or at least against ones own

experiential evidence. He then concludes,

This experiential evidence is the new figure in which attestation appears, when the certainty ofbeing the author of ones own discourse and of ones own acts becomes the conviction ofjudging well and acting well in a momentary and provisional approximation of living well.72

If devoid of a solid ethical content, this narrative framework would tend dangerously toward

relativism or subjectivism. That is why Ricoeur proposes a substantive version of narrative

ethics based on the next two criteria.

Ricoeurs second criterion, with and for others goes beyond the concept of the

necessity of friendship in an egoistic sense. Otherness, Ricoeurs key concept, is connected

with notions of capacity and realization, of power and act, through which the self is defined.73

Ricoeur stresses that friendship requires reciprocity. Reciprocity which at the time of

violence is required by the Golden Rule and the categorical imperative would guard against

egoism. Mutuality is understood by Ricoeur as the touchstone of justice, where each of two

friends rendering to the other a portion equal to what he or she receives.74 To see oneself as

another becomes an ethical criterion because,

Similitude is the fruit of the exchange between esteem for oneself and solicitude for others.This exchange authorizes us to say that I cannot myself have self-esteem unless I esteem othersas myself. As myself means that you too are capable of starting something in the world, ofacting for a reason, of hierarchizing your priorities, of evaluating the ends of your actions, and,having done this, of holding yourself in esteem as I hold myself in esteemBecoming in this

71 Ibid.72

Ibid., 180.73 Ibid., 182, 297.74 Ibid., 184.

57


58/118


59/118

of a strictly diadic dialogic relation. The plurality includes third parties who will never befaces.78

This third criterion is therefore a plea for the anonymous who are often barred from our

conversation and moral awareness. For Ricoeur, the inclusion of the anonymous third party

is a crucial part of the aim of the true life. True inclusion of the third party must not be

limited to a particular project, but must be maintained over time. 79

In conclusion, Ricoeur stresses that while solicitude is key to interpersonal relations,

equality is vital to institutions because, Solicitude provides to the self another who is a face

Equality provides to the self another who is an each Justice in turn adds to solicitude, to

the extent that the field of application of equality is all of humanity. 80 Ricoeurs ethical aim

is thus built upon the concept of inclusivity in the broadest sense.

Ricoeurs three criteria connect Aristotles telos with the narrative structure and gives

it a normative content. The first criterion identifies the ethical aim with the human good in

Aristotelian sense. The second and third criteria outline what are integral to the human good:

mutual respect, equality, justice understood as appropriate use of power and equal

participation. As these criteria are part of the teleological framework, they do not function as

moral norms in the deo

Stl Thesis the Cross and the Vietnam War Final Version 2008

Documents

Transcript of Stl Thesis the Cross and the Vietnam War Final Version 2008