Re: [Marxism] Theocracy

[Greg McDonald <sabocat59@xxxxxxx>]

Haines Brown wrote:

<I fear you are shifting the ground here a bit. When we normally speak
of theology, do we not employ an ontological presumption that there
_is_ a supernatural force or being? On the other hand, a discussion of
myth is a discussion of a counter-factual with no implication that the
counter-factual referent actually exists, although the myth itself may
represent a real constraint. It makes a difference if we see religion
as myth-making - the creation of lies or as behavior in relation to a
supernatural force or being that is presumed real. I suspect I
misunderstood you here.>

Actually the study of theology does not presuppose a belief in the  
existence or non-existence of a deity. I believe it was Gordon  
Kaufman at Harvard who referred to theology as "talk about god".   
Belief in god implies faith. Theology may discuss issues such as  
theodicy, and or the rational or irrational grounds for belief in a  
deity, but such discussion does not imply faith in god. Any atheist  
can take a class in theology. Belief is not a litmus test.

I would argue that myth-making is inherent to being human. Myths are  
necessary fictions. Of course, one can choose to believe or dis- 
believe certain obviously false myths on rational grounds, but I  
would actually take the discussion to a different level. I would  
focus on peoples' everyday activity. That is where you see what  
people really put their faith in, regardless of what they say. In the  
USA civil religion is very important to upholding the idea of  
american exceptionalism, for example. So the state becomes god for  
those people who identify themselves with the activities of the USA.

Whether or not we believe that certain myths are healthy or  
pernicious, I would maintain that myth-making is indeed inherent to  
what it means to be human. And if people are not buying in to certain  
myths which have been passed on from previous generations, they are  
in fact still busy creating other myths.

Haines B. wrote:

<I'm having trouble following you. Are you implying that spontaneous
myth-making that arises from the people is healthy, but a myth
intentionally created by a particular agency is not? I'm not sure I
would agree with the implied natural/artificial dichotomy here when we
study myth-making closely, for society consists of social
agents. Doesn't myth-making start with the action of a particular
agency that other agencies happen to find congenial? If you had
introduced the word "state" here as the particular agency solely
responsible for the creation of irrational and alienated myths, I
would be more sympathetic, for I suppose that all state-sponsored
myths are necessarily hostile to the working class almost by
definition.>

Civil religion is precisely the creation of state-sponsored  
mythology.  It is perhaps close to the marxist notion of ideology.

Haines B. wrote:

<The word "rational" has acquired other meanings, but none of them
strike me as appropriate when applied to myth-making. If myths
represent the imposition of a lie on others in support of their
exploitation, or if a myth is a self-delusion that makes life more
comfortable for us, what does either have to do with rationality
beyond perhaps the point that a myth has a function? But the word
rationality in origin did not imply a functional relation, but one in
which outcomes (an increase in talents) were greater than the sum of
inputs (i.e., surplus value). Yes, I know I've complicated things
here, so take what I say as merely a suggestion that your choice of
words may generate more fog than admit illumination.>

If a lie serves to give comfort and create meaning, then it does  
serve a function. I agree that rational/irrational dichotomy muddies  
the water.

Haines Brown wrote:

<Your statement above seems to imply that a myth serves to legitimate
political norms. Yes, but I still don't quite understand. The civil
rights movement implied that the civil rights built into the
Constitution should be extended to include all citizens. Where's the
myth? It seems to lie more in the Constitution itself as being a
social contract than the struggle for civil rights. Strauss taught
that the greatest benefit to the citizenry would result from the
state's being independent of the norms that constrain citizen
behavior. His point may be incorrect and or politically unwise, but
where's the myth? Assuming he was sincere, as I must suppose he was,
he is only guilty of error or class bias, neither of which are myth.>

I would go back and read MLK's speeches, and watch some old  
documentaries of people kneeling in the street to pray before being  
attacked by cops. The primary myth has talmudic origins, and suggests  
the theme of a people being delivered from bondage. You know, Moses  
leading the Jews out of Egypt, the parting of the red sea, the  
prophetic voice in the wilderness(I have been to the mountain top  
etc.). The idea that god is a just god and that justice will prevail  
in the end perhaps served to steel peoples' nerves and prepare them  
for the racist onslaught. It also served top create a new public  
morality that anti-racism and the extension of franchise to former  
slaves was an organic part of US history and judeo-christian thought.  
Thus the creation of new norms from which flowed civil rights  
legislation.

Greg




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism