Monday, August 3, 2026

The Rashomon Effect

The most accessible way to understand the Rashomon Effect [1] is to watch the movie Rashomon [2]. A movie about contradictory eyewitness statements on who should be blamed for the murder of a Samurai. The parable of how the blind men described an elephant is frequently used to explain this phenomenon [3]. You might be aware of the Rashomon Effect, but have you considered the possibility of its ability to explain situations that cross social science into the realm of religion? Or why it is important to do so in a world that is becoming more contradictory to beliefs that we hold dear to us?

A few months ago I witnessed a principal of an underprivileged school in the shadow of the Colombo port give a motivational speech to the children of his school. He finished his speech by alluding to an instance of social justice that most of us adults had heard about. He claimed in that instance meritocracy prevailed. He used the phrase “සුදුස්සා ට සුදුසුකම ලබා දීම” (equipping the most deserving person with the eligibility for success). The situation he referred to was about whether an individual was worth being accepted as an equal into society over another. When accepting that individual would have severe social and financial consequences a segment of that society would be responsible for. Later I thought that this was probably the conception the segment of society he represented had of distributive justice, that meritocracy is a necessary illusion. That if they had known about Rawls’ theory of justice, they would have thought Rawls’ difference principle justifies stealing from the supernaturally well off if that’s what it takes to advance the ones who don’t have such advantages. I do agree on our country’s current need for an egalitarian view on justice, but I disagree on the rules that should define who should have an entitlement for expectations on rare circumstances like this one [4], given we all have a similar idea of what a good life is. I should not share the details of the situation with everyone for the same reason why I shouldn’t share my conception of what the rules of evaluation should be, because the information is not meant for everybody. But if you think you qualify, send me a request by following this link. Still, I do think it is required for me to at least give you an idea why there can be an overwhelming consensus on an instance of justice being served, but for the outcome to be unjust.

Plato claimed society was broken, and that a new society should be built. He proposed “The Great Elimination”, a rigorous process where a new generation is nurtured, taught and sieved according to capabilities. He claimed in order for justice to prevail between the classes in this new society a noble lie called the Myth of the Metals” should be introduced [5]. This myth, he claimed, would keep the classes in place, and provide meaning to the members of each class. In this society Plato envisioned, the lower classes significantly outnumbered the other classes, and as their truth was built on a partial lie, in order for society to function, the lie had to be upheld by the uppermost class. This framework might have worked in the Hellenistic times, but it is too simplistic and impractical to enforce in our time. It is still a good analogy to understand the structure of our modern global society. With this analogy in mind I would categorise society as seen below. 

#

Socio-religious Category

Description

1

The Clueless

These are individuals who are yet to be accepted as equals into society (such as youth, and outcasts). As such they are dependent on others and their opinions on topics such as morality and justice are not heard. 

2

Fundamentalists

Their views on morality and justice are shaped by the scriptures of their religion (and they are often intolerant). They take direction from community leaders, supernatural signs, visions, and voices.

3

Shell Theists 

These individuals have left fundamentalist communities because of circumstance or because of their own preferences. But they still take direction from their own interpretations of their religions and from trusted fundamentalists. 


They have learnt how to coexist with people from different cultural and religious backgrounds as they need to cooperate with them in organisational environments. These individuals might compromise on their values because of economic realities. But it is unlikely that they would see the other (xeno) as more than a metaphor or accept anything more than a jockey and horse relationship (xenophobia).

4

Post Theists (Atheists)

These individuals are educated, and they have consciously moved away from “Fundamentalists” not because they think they are wrong, but because they think their world views are incomplete. Unlike the “Shell Theists” they have built their lives in such a way that they don’t have to compromise on their values. Their views on morality and justice are based on Philosophy, Religious Studies, and Science.


They might err on the side of social solidarity, but they acknowledge religions may be interdependent by design. They acknowledge there can be multiple narratives related to a particular situation each true, each describing realities that fit together to create a whole. ←The Rashomon Effect.

5


Fundamentalist Buddhists

These are the average Buddhist followers who stay true to the scriptures and accept the interpretations that are provided by their community leaders (Buddhist monks). They are secure in their identities and can’t be assimilated. 

6

Proper Buddhists

Because of the prerequisites that need to be satisfied to gain the insights the Buddhist scriptures promise, few can experience concepts like Anattā (non-self). That the eyes I see through in my dreams are not my eyes. Or get insights into the futility of striving against a cyclic and deterministic nature of fate. 


These individuals' (mostly monks) understand that the truth of the other (xeno) can be valid because I have enough subjective experiences to think it to be true. But their truth fits within my truth and it doesn’t invalidate it. ←The Rashomon Effect.

7

Shell Buddhists

Like the “Shell Theists” these individuals are in a state of distancing themselves from the fundamentalists of their religion out of narrow self-serving intentions. But because of the power structures they drift away much faster and may lose their cultural identities. They are often the recipients of saddles.  

8

Everyone Else


These individuals are outcasts and do not belong in other categories. They have in possession the perspective of the “Proper Buddhists” or the “Post Theists”. But unlike them these individuals did not reach this state by following generally accepted means. They might have gained esoteric knowledge through the internet and popular media which was unregulated till recently. Some of them might have learnt by association, or through their efforts for self-improvement, or because of other circumstances.


They are the least protected by the safety religion and culture provide. And they are also most vulnerable to be forced into immoral acts that defy the reality of the members of some of the other categories. ←The Rashomon Effect.


As seen in the table above, members of three of the categories are able to recognise the Rashomon Effort in matters of Moral Desert [6]. For the rest (which makes up the vast majority) there is only one narrative, one truth and justice is served on this truth alone. In Plato’s utopia, the ruling classes had to prove their mettle over a lifetime of commitment before they could become the guardians of the noble lies. But some members of the 8th category are not governed by such moral purity. Out of ignorance they might use their knowledge for personal profit, or group advancement.

The person the school principal referred to in his speech was framed to make it appear to the rest of the categories that he is not as deserving as the person they support. Occasionally, someone like this person (from a category where the Rashomon Effect is recognised) might find himself on the receiving end of the profiteers in the 8th category. This can lead to a situation that snowballs out of control and the only way the person who is being framed could exonerate himself (or avoid the plight of Socrates) would be to disclose the noble lies that keep society together. This can cause catastrophes that might look arbitrary to some.

It would have been ideal if an intergovernmental organisation like the UN had an arm that could intervene in rare situations that have the potential to snowball into global incidents. But to my knowledge there is no such organisation. So the responsibility falls on religious institutions and corporations to proactively identify such situations. The intolerant moral antagonists should be made to understand by the authority the institutions carry that their judgement about the individual in question is incorrect, even if it doesn't make sense to them, or even if it is against religious dogma. The institutions should help their members self-regulate their thoughts and actions towards the individual in question. The institutions might also need to help the individual move to some other community where the environment is better suited for them, and allow their members to heal faster.
Posted by at
Labels: