Ouphilpo

Derrida’s very intentional remark of forgiveness forgiving only the unforgivable concerns forgiveness as both the agent and symptom of forgiving for the creation of a realm where pure forgiveness qua forgiveness exists independent of linguistic structures. The downfall of linguistic structures, specifically the Latin-based, comes with the necessity of a speaking subject, an I that does things. However, if the unforgivable is the only forgivable subject, language structures stagnate, and the paradoxical adorn rising stock. Backed by Western imperio-capitalist top hats and parish alike via consumerism and diplomacy, the simulacrum of forgiveness rose to precedence through an instituted social ‘savoir-faire,’ involving the expected and almost obligatory outcome of forgiveness referencing the re-enactment of these imitations. The pervasive effects of the refractory nature of these linguistic grammatical structures make themselves evident when inspecting the way power unfolds in these imitations.
Indeed, “Western man [sic] has become a confessing animal,” and by placing confession as the paramount and foremost course of action towards achieving forgiveness (Foucault 59). The genesis of these imitations of forgiveness is no peculiarity, given their roots in Western theological unconditional forgiveness, where one unambiguously believes in retribution or forgiveness simply on the basis of their enactment of a confession. The subject matter at hand is the cause of this expectation, as the only events which call upon confession are those which deviate from the good, the comfortable, or the statu quo. “The confession was, and still remains, the general standard governing the production of the true discourse on sex” (Foucault 63). Those which confess on deviation from the good usually do so in a religious context, confronting their transgressions upon whatever faithful ideal they ‘possess.’ The uncomfortable confessions come when the confessing party feels the need to get something off their chest, similarly to those against the statu quo, who confess to broken laws, unethical acts, or immoral behavior. As social fabrications, these ‘issues’ that oblige someone to confess are of a reciprocal nature, using an arbitrary and imitative social institution to atone for an arbitrary and utterly human event in itself. The confession has no higher value outside of humanity, resulting in the spectacle evolving into a progressively hegemonic illusion, coercing one to forgive, just like Christ.
Similarly, for Derrida, to “ask for ‘forgiveness’… [is done] in an Abrahamic language which is…that of the dominant religion of their society… [and] has become the universal idiom…at the same time the agent and symptom of this internalization” (Derrida 28). Much like the way in which advertisements create the lifestyles that they sell back to consumers, the spectacles of forgiveness, with a catalyst of confession, create a necessity for themselves through their imposition on society, based heavily if not entirely on the Western idea of unconditional forgiveness. The worst governments are the ones that think they are the best, and the worst power structures are the ones pompous enough to impose themselves upon the production of truth. The language structures in which one articulates must have the ability to effectively and uniformly convey facts or descriptions, if not objective truths, so the very real implications of Western language structures becomes most evident in the context in which one confesses in the spectacle of confession. The act of confession is to reveal information that was previously unknown to the subject seeking this confession, in hopes of retribution or repentance. However, the information may have already made itself known to the party seeking the confession, leading one to only desire a confessor in order to fulfill an end designated by the subject seeking confession. These ulterior motives serve as the second horn to the paradox of the nature of confession as a means to forgiveness within the structure of Western language.
The problem with this obligatory, unconditional forgiveness comes with the way in which postmodern era nation-state diplomacy seems to rest on the notion of confession as forgiveness. That is not to say that merely confessing to a crime becomes one’s alibi, however, a confession in the court of law is seen as a way to invest one’s own faith in the system, acting as a symbol of obedience and submission to the all-powerful judge, the proxy of the people. By enacting a confession, language’s power structure appears in the form of a seraph versus a servant, the confessor enacting the latter, where the victim is in the right (for the moment), and the guilty seeks to imitate the right ways of the other party, through the spectacle and imitation of forgiveness. These implications lead Western (specifically American) powers to shun all moral responsibility in the face of confession as synonymous to forgiveness, almost as if taking responsibility for starting unfounded wars is punishment enough, despite failed efforts by the West to ameliorate certain political situations.
When looking at popular American culture, celebrities, who serve as the epitome of humanity for most of the general population, need only to admit to their offensive statements, in order to regain status as an icon of perfection or talent in a particular aspect. By merely admitting to their actions and stating an, “I’m sorry,” celebrities serve only as a perpetuation to this system of expected forgiveness, based on their preconceived notions of their perfection by the mainstream public, often times leading to their lax verdicts (in comparison to the masses who would otherwise follow sentencing protocol). The celebrities, with their supposed infinite social aptitude, should get a lighter sentence, in order to serve as yet another example of what the observing public should do-submit. Submission to the system is the chassis, and the confession is the engine which makes it run.
These power relations are kept in place by a long-established structuring of language, in which forgiveness demands the need for just and unjust, right and wrong, separate and distinct parties. The notions of right and wrong which are utilized are merely established for human ends and thus serve no higher or grander scheme than for one to believe that they are indeed redeemed, based on the enactment of their confession alone. However, forgiveness is not unconditionally given by human parties, due to certain prejudices or biases within the social situation. I said I’m sorry, what more do you want? What is wanted is the unattainable ideal situation where the transgressions were not to happen, a reversal of history. What is wanted is pure forgiveness; possessed, merely simulation.