”The narrative of Cain and Abel from a narratological and psychological perspective”
University of Glasgow
Centre for the Study of Literature, Theology and the Arts
Friday 26th April
John McIntyre Building, Room 210
Professor Staffan Olofsson
As an Old Testament exegete I am of course fascinated with some biblical texts and I
became especially interested in a famous short text, the story about Cain and Abel in
Genesis 4, which has been much discussed. I will present the text from a
psychological perspective, the theory of dysfunctional family systems. Although my
interpretation is based on some theoretical and methodological presuppositions I only
have a short introduction of them in the beginning of my paper, and only a few
quotations and references.
This lecture is a summary on a more elaborated paper, based on a presentation at a
conference about children in Gothenburg. Therefore I have unfortunately to exclude
the interpretation of the relation between Adam and Eve as a couple and their relation
to God, which is of course, is fundamental for my argument.
I will base my presentation on an interpretation of Cain and Abel as children, as
the sons of Adam and Eve. The text is read solely as a literary text, and presupposes
Wolfgang Iser’s idea of gaps in the text, which must be filled by an ideal reader for
good communication to take place, and a narratological approach to the text. I will be
using the method and terminology of narrative analysis, and display a few basic ideas
in the theory of dysfunctional family systems.
Although the Bible has been studied from psychological perspectives, hardly any
exegete has interpreted biblical texts based on the theory of dysfunctional families, as
Gunar Kravalis noted in his dissertation A Study of Biblical Families from the
Perspective of Family Systems Therapy:
Biblical scholars may hesitate to employ family systems concepts as a
hermeneutical tool because they may not know of them, lack sufficient expertise
to employ them, or fear such concepts may be reductionistic (Kravalis 1997, 17)
On the other hand, the first family presented in the Bible (Adam and Eve, Cain and
Abel) is sometimes used as a prototype for a dysfunctional family, both in
psychological literature (e.g. Kravalis 1997, 26), and in fiction. Fiction can be
exemplified by J. Steinbeck’s book.
East of Eden presents Steinbeck’s most thoroughgoing and complete
investigation of breakdown in the family unit. That his topic is dysfunction in
the family is made obvious in numerous ways. To begin, there is the informing
myth that envelops the novel. The title makes clear to us what Steinbeck’s plot
will allude to. We are dealing here, not just with any family, but with the first
family of Western Judeo-Christian mythology and theology (Ariki, Li, Pugh
2007, 59).
I will commence with a common presupposition in theories of dysfunctional family
system, that a child needs rules and boundaries paired with a great deal of love in
childhood in order to grow up to a mature adult and find his own identity (e.g.
Bradshaw, 2005, 68).
A central component in dysfunctional families is the so-called toxic shame. This
shame lies deep in the personality and creates behaviour at odds with reality, and to
protect himself man creates psychological defence mechanisms, as isolation,
projection, denial, regression, sublimation, and in the end a false self-image, a
pseudo-self (Bradshaw 2005, 20-157). Veikko Tähkä, Psykoanalytisk psykoterapi,
Stockholm: Natur och Kultur, 1987, 41-­‐51
A deeply shameful human person lacks an accepted identity, and therefore, it is
difficult for him to express his feelings, to take responsibility and to admit guilt.
Toxic shame may even lead to lethal violence because the shame strongly affects
personality and self-image. This is especially true if the shame is exposed on a public
arena, as was the case with Cain and Abel (Garrity 1991, 367-370; Nauta 2009, 6970).
Another important building stone in my investigation is Wolfgang Iser’s
perspective that all literary texts have gaps that must be filled by an ideal reader for
an effective communication to take place. He strongly emphasizes the importance of
the missing elements in the text for understanding and describing them as a focal
point around which the relation between text and reader develops (Iser 1980, 166169).
This knowledge is easy to apply to Gen 4 because the text has several distinct
ellipses. The most obvious in this text is that Cain and Abel are first born and then
they are suddenly adults or at least they have professions of their own, without the
slightest hint of the time elapsed, and that their parents are nowhere to be seen, even
after the murder of Abel.
A third important methodological tool in my investigation is narratology, with its
reading of texts as literary texts, as narratives, with for example the separation of the
characters from the narrator of the story, the separate point of view of the characters
in the story.
Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I
have produced a man with the help of the Lord.’ Next she bore his brother Abel.
Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. In the course
of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel
for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord
had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no
regard.’ (Gen 4:4-7, New Revised Standard Version).
God rejects Cain’s offering without any explanation. Cain sought acknowledgement
and recognition from God by a sacrifice, which was also something he expected, but
God did not look with favour on it, and even more humiliating, God at the same time
accepted his younger brother Abel’s sacrifice!"
Since there is no explanation for God’s judgment in the text of the Bible both
Jewish and Christian tradition has tried to give explanations based on the premise that
it is something wrong with Cain’s sacrifice or he is regarded from the outset as an
evil person, but none of them is warranted by the Hebrew text. Thus my
interpretation is in contradistinction to the most common interpretation of Cain and
Abel, but in harmony with the view of man in the Old Testament, although it is the
question of a different perspective, a psychological instead of a theological or ethical
perspective.
The perspective that is my basis, the psychological perspective, supplies an
alternative interpretation. With such an approach, there are no innocents in this story:
The story of Cain and Abel demonstrates that there are no innocents. Every Abel
needs his Cain in the struggle for recognition and admiration if he is to take
pride in himself. (Nauta 2009, 68)
It is a family drama in which all persons are deeply involved in crisis and conflict,
not only Cain and Abel, but also Adam and Eve. The idea that a single individual in a
dysfunctional family becomes the symptom bearer for family problems and thereby
prevents a critical analysis of the other members’ guilt is a fundamental idea in this
type of relationship psychology. This is a possible understanding of Cain.
Since it is uncertain what role God plays in this story we will take God’s actions as
the basis for my analysis, since his actions are hardly ever discussed from a
psychological perspective.
We will first see what happens with Cain when God did not accept his sacrifice. Cain
gets ”very angry” (wajjiḥar ... me'od), and ”his countenance fell” or ”he looks down”
(wajjippelû pānājw). When Cain's offer is rejected ”he looks down"”, which is a
typical shame reaction.
The Bible and many other religious traditions certain body parts are crucial for
communication and identity, as the face and the eyes. This is also the case in this text,
which is emphasized by e.g. Albers.
The Scriptures are replete with references to the role of the eyes, the face, and
the countenance as revealers of a person’s inner being (Albers 1995, 34)
If one looks at the text from a psychological perspective, we emphasize, ”Shame is
about eye contact. We lower our eyes, avert our gaze when embarrassed” (Albers
1995, 53). From a psychological perspective, the focus of the text is not God’s
criticism of Cain’s sacrifice, but Cain’s reaction of being criticized. From a family
perspective, it is God who enters the role as Cain’s parent. And God indirectly asks
Adam and Eve: Where are you in this situation? They are in fact completely absent in
the crucial hour of Cain.
God as a parent needs to test the child’s reactions. He wants to find out what
relationship Cain has to himself, to Adam and Eve, and Abel. The main idea of the
text is that Cain does not show his true colours, that he does not express his anger
towards God and Abel.
”YHWH begins his conversation with Cain by asking him to express and explain
his anger: ”So YHWH said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your
countenance fallen. These questions appear to be an invitation for Cain to express
his anger, to confront God like Job, or the psalmists.” (Schlimm 2008, 220). God of
the text is trying to get Cain’s feelings to come to the surface. What does Cain really
think and feel. Cain is not communicating at all with God before the murder. He does
not respond to God’s questions and he does not express his feelings himself. The
narrator acts as the spokesman of God and describes Cain’s emotions ”Cain was very
angry” (4:5). In fact, Cain does not know himself what he feels. But God sees Cain’s
wrath. God asks Cain: Why do you not take responsibility for your anger and ask
me: ”Why do you not accept my sacrifice”?
A possible background for Cain’s behaviour is that he wants to identify with Abel
in order to acquire his parent’s (God’s) approval, but he is ambivalent. He hates that
God affirms his brother, but he is not, but he cannot express it either to the parent
(God) or to the sibling (Abel). Cain’s anger is an expression of betrayed love. Cain
gets betrayed in his love for God because his brother Abel takes his place. Cain is
jealous of his brother who appropriates what he thinks rightfully belongs to him, to
be loved and accepted by God (Nauta 2009, 69).
Cain has a typical shame reaction. God’s complaint concerned a specific act, but
Cain interprets it as a condemnation of him as a person. He cannot distinguish
between the act and himself. God who entered the role as a parent denounces him. He
feels annihilated, he feels dead! He trusts neither in God nor in Abel. Otherwise he
would have been able to communicate with both.
Cain’s deadly violence is not difficult to understand if shame characterized him
from his childhood, and this shame is reinforced by the public humiliation: at least
one fourth of humanity saw that God did not accept Cain’s sacrifice! (Nauta 2009,
70). However, God’s communication with Cain had not the intended effect. Instead,
it strengthened Cain’s impression that he was not accepted and his shame his shame
leads to murder.
In the Hebrew standard text the murder of Abel came as a bolt from the blue,
which fits well with my understanding of the murder as a reaction of shame. Cain’s
action reflects a suppressed rage that is not directed against God, who is the real
cause of Cain's anger, but against Abel, and his anger is therefore difficult to control.
According to my overall interpretation Cain get a new chance for growth and
development when God asks him after the murder:
The Lord said to Cain, ”Where is your brother Abel?”. He said, ”I do not know;
am I my brother’s keeper?’”(4:9)
Now he answers God’s question, but the answer is a lie ”I do not know”. He employs
denial as a defence mechanism, but reveals indirectly his feelings towards
Abel ”Shall I take care of my brother?” Maybe his feelings are now beginning to
surface? But what he says reveals indifference and lack of mutuality, love and trust.
The answer may, however, be interpreted differently. It is possible to see the
answer as an expression of another defence mechanism, isolation, since he so
separates reason from emotion. Cain intellectualises in order to avoid expressing his
anger over God and his brother. Perhaps his feelings are now beginning to surface.
Cain converts infantile forces as anger and jealousy into more socially accepted
forms.
God did not answer Cain’s question, since it is an absurd question in this situation,
but focuses on what really counts, the murder of his brother: ”Listen; your brother’s
blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (4:10). Now Cain’s deed is exposed.
It is possible to understand Cain’s answer as a token of responsibility. ”My crime
is too great to be forgiven (gādôl ‘awônî minneśo’)” (New International Version).
With this interpretation, he admits his guilt, but the term can be understood in other
ways, and the most common interpretation from older to modern translations is that
the punishment is too hard: ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear!” (New
Revised Standard Version)
Since capital punishment was otherwise the obvious consequence for murder in the
OT, the answer is narcissistic and hardly expresses any remorse but is typical for an
unwillingness to take responsibility for his actions. Not even God managed to let
Cain to take responsibility for the murder.
Cain’s actions show three main disruptions in communication in a dysfunctional
person:
He does not communicate what really matters
He does not show his feelings
He does not trust anyone. (Hellsten, 1998, 34)
How has Cain’s defence strategies arisen? Has Adam and Eve created a family
situation where there was a lack of communication and lack of understanding, is it a
breeding ground for a dysfunctional family? My answer to this is. Of course! But I
have not time to develop my argument in this short presentation. As other
dysfunctional families, they use different defence mechanisms to try to preserve their
dignity and integrity, mechanisms these defence mechanisms include rationalization,
denial, projection, isolation, repression, regression, sublimation and displacement,
which we can see at work in Gen 3-4.
I will quote Gunar Kravalis who argues:
Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel may be a mythological family but they exhibit
many symptoms of a clinically troubled family: conflict in the couple subsystem,
distant father and non-nurturing mother, possible mother-son fusion, lack of
parental responsibility, overly rigid boundaries between father and everyone else,
family violence, an identified patient. All these dysfunctions will pass to the
next generation (Kravalis 1997, 27.)
The outcome can thus be described in psychological language, ”Genesis suggests that
four relationships were broken by Adam’s toxic shame: the relationship with God,
the relationship with self, the relationship with brother and neighbour (Cain kills
Abel), and the relationship with the world (nature).” (Bradshaw 2005, 160). However,
it can also be described in theological language, that the rebellion against God’s will
leads to conflicts between man and woman and man and God: ”The family develops
after the rebellion of Adam and Eve. Its dysfunction results from human sin and the
curse of God” (Kravalis 1997, 25). The situation outside the Garden of Eden is thus
constituted by conflicts in all relations, as is easily seen in the rest of Genesis.
Literature referred to
Robert H. Albers, William M. Clements, Shame: A Faith Perspective, New York:
Haworth Press, 1995.
Kyoki Ariki, Luchen Li, Scott Pugh, (eds.), John Steinbeck’s Global Dimensions,
Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2007.
J. Bradshaw, Healing the Shame That Binds You, rev. ed.: Deerfield Beach, Fl:
Health Communications, 2005.
Garrity R.M., ”Shame, Dysfunctional Families and Lack of Due Discretion for
Marriage,” The Jurist 51 (1991) 364-389.
T. Hellsten, Flodhästen i vardagsrummet: om medberoende och om mötet med barnet
inom oss, Stockholm: Cordia, 1998.
Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading. A Theory of Aesthetic Response, Baltimore &
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.
Gunar Kravalis, A Study of Biblical Families from the Perspective of Family Systems
Therapy, Theses and Dissertations, (comprehensive), paper 825, 1997.
Rein Nauta, ”Kain and Abel: Violence, Shame and Jealousy,” Pastoral Psychol 58
(2009), 65–71.
M.R. Schlimm, From Fratricide to Forgiveness: The Ethics of Anger in Genesis,
Duke University, Dissertation, ProQuest, Ann Arbor, Mich., 2008.