Re: [Marxism] Theocracy

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> And I am also unsure about this human nature thing. I do agree with
> the plasticity of human nature, but I've also studied enough pre-
> history and history to know that religious projection for humans is
> as common as the desire to look at oneself in the mirror while
> grooming.

This brings up an issue which (until some distractions) I was
pursing. We have the sociological approach, which looks at the
function of religious belief or behavior, and the anthropological
approach that looks at the reasons why a need for the supernatural
was once necessary.

In a Marxist context, human nature is usually seen as socially
constructed, or, to use a broader term, as historicist. Nevertheless,
I've no doubt that some aspects of human nature are hard-wired -
genetically determined. Self-preservation, might be an example, which
is overridden only under exceptional circumstances.

However, the fixed aspects of human nature strike me as related
primarily to our biological existence, and Marx offered a distinction
between our biological nature and our social nature. If I'm not wrong,
he dismissed the former as being marginal, or of lesser interest. That
is, capitalism tends to reduce us to our biological existence, which
he seems to have viewed in negative terms. Simply put, his concern was
with social dynamics and the capacities that people enjoy as a result
of living in a developed society. What determines the course of
history is our social being, not our biological being (vs Dawkins et
al).

Relevant, therefore, seems to be the anthropological approach to the
question of religion, although Marxists seem more often to look at the
sociological-functionalist approach. I'm not sure the two are
necessarily incompatible.

> We seem to need to bounce our unfulfilled hopes and yearnings off of
> some ever-receding horizon which changes over time as our natures
> change, that process we call "belief in god".

A common approach is to suggest that the further we go back in
history, the less mankind has power over its future, and as a result
must project these unfulfilled hopes onto the supernatural plane. Such
a projection seems an "opiate" only in the sense that they are
disconnected from material reality, when in fact the working class
enjoys a real capacity to change things. I don't know that "opiate"
would therefore be an appropriate term when, in the dim dark past,
people in fact _couldn't change things very much.

I tend therefore not to dismiss religion in general as an illusion,
but as remaining important as an aspiration that can't be
fulfilled. Perhaps one reason for my attitude is that, while an
atheist myself, I'm deeply in love with an evangelical minister. In my
relationship with her (now a quarter century in duration), I can't
dismiss my wife's commitments as merely an opiate (a pathology), but
must find a certain legitimacy in them - that what she seeks is
fundamentally legitimate, but perverted by a lack of power to achieve
them in material terms.

> Since we are not really exposed to talk about god anymore, except
> before sporting events or while listening to some politician, it
> seems we need a new vocabulary to describe this process of
> projection, feedback, projection.

Agreed, which is why I like to use the word "supernatural". It's a
broad enough category to encompass a multitude of sins, while marking
it off clearly from a Marxist materialism.

> It's almost like an internal call and response thing, wrapped up in
> all of the negative emotional experiences of alienation and
> anomie. Maybe we should just call it the blues and have done with
> it. Really, blues musicians are my favorite preachers...

I'm nervous about the words "alienation" and "anomie" when not in a
specific context, especially alienation. Technically, if one seeks to
transcend circumstances (anthropologists often like to categorize
circumstances as being primarily death), and lack the power to do
anything about it, to transform the world to make it an expression of
self, would be alienation. But I feel that it is better to express
the idea in other and more specific terms than that.

The most fundamental religious form seems to be shamanism, and I think
we could learn a lot by studying it. I once wrote a very amateurish
article on Korean shamanism that people often use (I google now for
"korean shamanism" and see it listed as #3), and this notoriety is
embarrassing. I have a Korean friend who grew up quite poor and in
the countryside, and although her description of her grandmother's
behavior strikes me as related to shamanism, she denies knowing of
shamanism in the culture of her youth. I suspect she is mistaken, but
I don't like to press her on the subject.

> Bellah is an interesting guy. He was a member of the CP while at
> Harvard, but I do believe he was also influenced by Talcott Parsons,
> so interesting that you picked up on the functionalism.

Interesting. I look forward to reading Bellah.

> Actually Bellah has said that he thought that his writings on civil
> religion in the late 60's marked a kind of Minerva's owl of that
> close functional fit. Obvious. Importation of foreign religions,
> massive drug experimentation (the original religion if you ask me),
> war in Vietnam, generational discord, etc.

Don't quite understand your point here. To refer to civil religion in
relation to Hegel's Owl of Minerva seems only to suggest that it was
long implicit, but in Bellah's day had become explicit.

I don't think drug "experimentation" was the original religion, but
drugs (what the American Indians called "sot weed") was a tool to
achieve a transcendental state. There are plenty of other means to the
same end, such as dancing, chanting, etc. The drug was neither an end
in itself nor an experiment, but a vehicle. In Haitian culture, one is
'mounted" by a supernatural being and for the time becomes the vehicle
through which that being expresses itself. I've marked up some
material on this:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/index-faa.html

> King tried to straddle the reformist, revolutionary wings of the
> civil rights movement, and although he succeeded in incorporating
> the main reformist thrust of the movement into commonly accepted
> beliefs of american civil religion, his plans to put the next phase
> into motion with the poor people's movement got him shot, as you
> know.  Hell, I was a kid when all that was going on and you were
> there, and here I am telling you to check out videos of folks
> praying in the street. How embarrassing!

Sorry if I gave the impression I was there during King's struggles in
the South. I was living in Germany at the time. My reference was to
many years before while King was still in school. King attended Boston
University as a student and studied under Howard Thurman, who was the
Buddhist-Christian pastor of Marsh chapel. I sang in the Marsh Chapel
choir in part because I found Thurman's sermons fascinating.

> Yes, how class fits into all this is rather complicated. I think
> most white working class folks still buy into the civil religion,
> maybe precisely because of the severe psychic disruption created by
> the distinction between what is and what should be.

I feel considerable social pressure and am very uncomfortable when I'm
in a situation where a prayer is said or a pledge to the flag. I
mention this because I suspect that a lot has to do with the pressure
of social conformity. To not conform is to offend, and that I don't
like to do. I participate in a submarine veteran's organization, and
they always are quick to wave the flag. However, when I was on a sub,
leadership consisted largely of World War II veterans, and they tended
to have a strong animosity to war because so many of their buddies
were lost. I can only conclude they have changed over the years and
conveniently forget their past attitudes.

I don't understand your point about psychic disruption,
however. Undoubtedly there's a gap between what is and what should be,
but hopefully that would result in a certain psychic energy and
ultimately action. But how does civil religion fit in to it? I
suspect, although I'm not sure of course, that people feel comfortable
bonding, and such ceremonies are one way to bond. While such a bond in
principle should make constructive action possible (such as perhaps
the sense that it is one's duty to vote), it seems that in the case of
civil religion that the bond becomes an end in itself, offering
psychic relief rather than lead to action. I'm only speculating out
loud here.

> Don't most people still stand at attention and sing along during the
> national anthem before the big ball game? Do they do it because they
> believe, or because of peer pressure? Hell I don't know. It's all
> worth checking out though.

I've no idea. How would one find out? I know of no one who attends
such things, and so can't very well ask. No one in my community ever
attends ball games. Basketball, yes. When I find out that an
acquaintance has attended a basketball game (assuming there is some
kind of quasi religious ceremony at the beginning, which I don't
know), I'll ask. But I suspect the answer is that they are conforming,
but to good purpose. One of my daughers (an ordained evangelical
minister) is into such things, and I will have no hesitation grilling
her about it.

Haines Brown

________________________________________________
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