Narcissistic Diplomacy Versus the Scripture: Understanding Conflict in Robert Bolts’ A Man For All Seasons

Abstract

Human existence is rooted in conflict, and monotheistic religions have historically played dual roles in promoting both conflict and peace. Scriptural verses have often been referenced, interpreted, appropriated and manipulated to fuel violence or justify it. A recent example can be seen in the Israeli Prime Minister’s invocation of scripture to rationalize Israel’s consequent attacks on Gaza, demonstrating a blatant appropriation of biblical and scriptural context to bypass or breach customary expectations to satisfy a vengeful appetite. Claiming that in Robert Bolts’ A Man for all Seasons (1960) an attempt to disassociate from an over reliance on the Church and its doctrines, while simultaneously drawing on its teachings to achieve that, instigates narcistic attitudes. This contradiction results in the creation of opposing camps, each striving to pass as more righteous or dismiss the authenticity of the other, ultimately resulting in conflict. This paper investigates the tension and conflict that arise as a result of scriptural referencing and interpretation, influencing State decision making and international relations. Given that much of decision making about the State relies heavily on the doctrines of the Church, personal interest is prioritized over national interest in the midst of contradictory biblical verses. With an application of theoretical tools from the New Historicist approach, the analysis is geared towards exploring the role of scripture in preventing or facilitating tractions in human and international relations. The paper reveals the following findings: 1) Both the contradictory nature of scripture, along with its usage intensifies conflict. 2) Narcissistic diplomacy undermines unity and 3) the scripture retains potential as a reconciliatory force, though its misuse often outweighs its capacity to foster unity.