Now then, now then, now then; can we be both sinner and saint?

What to make of the scandal surrounding the late Jimmy Savile? Certainly, it appears that he was a predatory paedophile. It also appears that others knew of this and for varied reasons (benefitting financially, or because they were also abusers), Jimmy was given the impression he was untouchable and not alone in his preferences (Gary Glitter was arrested on Sunday).

[he] raised an estimated £40 million for charities

In what light do we now cast his accomplishments?  The money he raised, the causes he supported  – were they all just an excuse to get close to children?

He sponsored medical students at the University of Leeds to perform undergraduate research in the Leeds University Research Enterprise scholarship scheme, donating over £60,000 every year.[52] In 2010, the scheme was extended with a commitment of £500,000 over the following five years.[53] Following Savile’s death in October 2011, it was confirmed a bequest had been made to allow continued support for the LURE programme.

Or, uncomfortably, do we have to acknowledge that despite this despicable unforgivable side (which could have been stopped and should have been stopped), there was also a caring side, one that felt compassion for the underdog, wanted to help his fellow humans?

Jung postulated the self was made up of two distinct sides, residing in an uneasy compromise we call personality.

Unfortunately there can be no doubt that man is, on the whole, less good than he imagines himself or wants to be. Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is. If an inferiority is conscious, one always has a chance to correct it. Furthermore, it is constantly in contact with other interests, so that it is continually subjected to modifications. But if it is repressed and isolated from consciousness, it never gets corrected.

Freud talked about a similar dark side to our personality he called the id – the child within us, selfish and cruel, uncaring of its effect on others.

The id operates based on the pleasure principle, which demands immediate gratification of needs.

For some, childhood does not provide the nurturing environment from which our ‘ego’ the part of our personality that straddles both dark and light sides of our soul, grows strong enough to keep these two forces in check. Because our saintly side, if allowed to run rampant, can be as equally destructive – think of Norman Bates in Psycho. He may be a fictional character but he personifies an individual with weak ego strength. His overly dominant super-ego, an internalisation of his cold and dominating mother’s voice, led him to murder the ‘fallen’ girl his id desired.

A lifelong bachelor, Savile lived with his mother (whom he referred to as “The Duchess”) and kept her bedroom and wardrobe exactly as it was when she died. Every year he had her clothes dry cleaned.

For Jimmy Savile, being ‘nearly’ caught out (others knew what he was doing at the BBC) but not punished, freed his shadow or his id. The taciturn turning a blind eye to what he (and others at the BBC) were doing created the ideal conditions for a sexual fantasy to become a sick reality over and over again, but that does not mean he didn’t also want to do good.

An uncomfortable truth or a warning? No one is all good and no one is all bad. If paedophiles really all looked like Jimmy Savile, they would be easy to spot. Unfortunately they don’t. The recent case of April’s abduction, a tragic case in point. The man who is charged with her murder is related to April’s family. He wasn’t a creepy looking guy, with a comb-over and trousers too high on his waist. He was a father, a boyfriend, a colleague, a friend, an uncle, and a step uncle.

What Jimmy Savile’s  terrible crimes remind us is bad people don’t do bad thing 24/7. People aren’t born bad (though they may have genetic predispositions), rather they are warped by deprived childhoods, by institutionalised abuse, by members of their own family, who themselves were damaged by their pasts. These people do not have an integrated personality, rather they deny their shadows and in doing take no responsibility for its actions, when it rears its demonic head. They console themselves with the good things they do as if this balances out the bad. They throw themselves into helping others, join the clergy, raise money for charity.

But it is our shadows that allow these people to carry out their depravity unchecked. Jimmy Savile abused his own niece. Do we really believe no one in his family ever suspected? Or did a shadow, called greed and complacency, step into the light.

It is easy to do nothing. What you do might not be popular, might expose you in a bad light, might ruin your reputation,might halt a cash flow you rely on, or, as is the case with a lot institutional abuse, might not make any difference.

Ah, the shadow of indifference. Are we all not guilty of that?

The BBC’s shadow is now under the spotlight, will they take their part of the blame (and change), or paint Savile to be the ultimate villain, evil to the core. The devil incarnate, who they were unable to stop.

If we don’t acknowledge the shadow in each of us (and embrace it), then nothing will really have changed.

Jimmy Savile was certainly a sinner, but in his lifetime, many would have argued he was also a saint. Can we be both?

What do you think? All views welcomed.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Now then, now then, now then; can we be both sinner and saint?”

  1. Thank you Juli – I’ve been watching the news, feeling incredulous and yet like I always knew (like all of us always knew). We do need to stop typecasting people as wholly good and evil. Comic books have always recognised the duality of the person – real life needs to follow suit.

  2. Yes, your view is a wise one and very well written. I wish I could wholly endorse it and then feel better about the news contents of late. Maybe there’s a teeny, tiny wannabe saint in me that needs to come down on the side of feeling that Savile was an evil, predatory devil and that no amount of good works could compensate the destruction he performed. I would rather no scholarships donated, no causes espoused, no donations to charities than have one child touched by such a monster. Evil is evil and I can’t believe there’s a scale out there somewhere on which good works outweigh or recompense evil.

  3. thanks for your comment, Pat. My post is not condoning Saville’s actions in any way, however, I do think it isn’t easy to spot ‘evil’ precisely because people exhibit both light and dark sides to their personalities.

Love to hear from you

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s