|
Function in society
In
some societies, it is believed that the punishment in revenge should be
more than the original injury, as a punitive measure. The
Old Testament philosophy of "an
eye for an eye" (cf.
Exodus 21:24) tried to moderate the allowed damage, in order to
avoid a
vendetta or series of violent acts that could spiral out of
control—instead of 'tenfold' vengeance, there would be a simple
'equality of suffering'. Detractors argue that revenge is a simple
logical fallacy, of the same design as "two
wrongs make a right." Some Christians interpret
Paul's "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Romans
12:19,
King James Version) to mean that only
God has the moral right to exact revenge. Indeed, every major
religious system contains some method for the mediation of disputes and
for the limitation of vengeance by imputing a sense of cosmic justice to
replace the often faulty justice systems of the human world.
Of the
psychological, moral, and cultural foundation for revenge, philosopher
Martha Nussbaum has written: "The primitive sense of the
just—remarkably constant from several ancient cultures to modern
institutions…—starts from the notion that a human life…is a vulnerable
thing, a thing that can be invaded, wounded, violated by another's act
in many ways. For this penetration, the only remedy that seems
appropriate is a counter invasion, equally deliberate, equally grave.
And to right the balance truly, the
retribution must be exactly, strictly
proportional to the original encroachment. It differs from the
original act only in the sequence of time and in the fact that it is
response rather than original act—a fact frequently obscured if there is
a long sequence of acts and counteracts" .
History of revenge
In ancient
societies, in particular those with weak central justice systems, the
method for deterring murder was to allow the victim's family to avenge
the killing. However, if the families of the killer and victim disagreed
in their moral assessment of the killing, they would most likely
disagree as well in their assessment of any revenge actions which were
taken, and a blood feud might ensue.
Vendettas or
"blood feuds" are sequences of acts and counter-acts motivated by
revenge and carried out over long period of time by familial or tribal
groups in a quest for justice or retaliation; they were an important
part of many pre-industrial societies, especially in the Mediterranean
region, and still persist in some areas. During the Middle Ages, most
would not regard an insult or injury as settled until it was avenged,
or, at the least, paid for — hence, the extensive Anglo-Saxon system of
"wergild" (literally, "man-price") payments, which placed a certain
monetary value upon certain acts of violence in an attempt to limit the
spiral of revenge by codifying the responsibility of a malefactor. The
story of Wimund the Bishop illustrates the typical implacability of the
time: Its hero, though blinded and imprisoned, would avenge himself
against his enemies "if he had even but the eye of a sparrow".
In Japan's
feudal past, the Samurai class upheld the honor of their family, clan,
or their lord through the practice of revenge killings, or "katakiuchi".
These killings could also involve the relatives of an offender. Today,
katakiuchi is most often pursued by peaceful means, but revenge remains
an important part of Japanese culture.
The goal of
some legal systems is limited to "just" revenge — in the fashion of the
contrapasso punishments awaiting those consigned to Dante's Inferno,
some have attempted to turn the crime against the criminal, in clever
and often gruesome ways.
Modern Western
legal systems usually state as their goal the reform or re-education of
a convicted criminal. Even in these systems, however, society is
conceived of as the victim of a criminal's actions, and the notion of
vengeance for such acts is an important part of the concept of justice —
a criminal "pays his debt to society" evinced by countries such as the
United States continuing the practice of capital punishment.
Interestingly,
psychologists have found that the thwarted psychological expectation of
revenge may lead to issues of victimhood.
The first
written appearance of the proverb "revenge is a dish best served cold"
is often credited to the 18th century novel Les liaisons dangereuses,
but since it doesn't actually appear in the original French language
text, the validity of this attribution is unclear. The English version
of this phrase in that exact wording can be attributed to The
Godfather by Mario Puzo, a major bestseller in 1969. However, the
phrase appeared in the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets as
"revenge is a dish which people of taste prefer to eat cold". The more
well-known wording of this quote is also featured in the title sequence
of the Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill: Vol 1, accredited as an
"Old Klingon Proverb", referencing the phrase's usage in Star Trek
II: The Wrath of Khan, where it is similarly cited as such. It means
that to be successful, revenge should be a considered and planned
response enacted when the time is right, rather than a hasty and
'hot-blooded' action which will increase the chances of failure.
|