From: "Roy W. Reese" <roywreese-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: [BOU:] Religion and the Right -- Beyond L'affaire du Foulard Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 16:54:10 -0500 It has been, on the whole, stimulating to see the Bourdieu list come alive in the both calm and vituperative parries over the French ban on the foulard in the schools. If I may hazard a generalization, it seems some of the disagreement affirms an incomensurability of eastern and western doxa. In doing so, it reaffirms the value of journeys over destinations (an imperfect metaphor I fear will be misinterpreted, perhaps I should say the limits of each person's cultural vistas and the need for other such vistas). I do not know how much I have to contribute, but the debate about first the veil specifically, then Islam and fundamentalism and capitalism more generally, makes me yearn to hear more thoughts regarding the "uses" or manipulations of religion more generally. As an opener, I will return to the following quote from Bourdieu: "Si la resistance a l'imperialisme economique et culturel des pays occidentaux et en particulier des USA a pris la forme d'un fondamentalisme religieux, c'est peut-etre parce que les pays touchis par cet imperialisme ne disposent d'aucune autre ressource culturelle mobilisable et mobilisatrice. On peut diplorer -- et beaucoup d'arabes et de musulmans le font -- que la resistance contre l'hegimonie et l'imperialisme n'ait pas trouvi d'autre moyen d'expression que celui qu'offre la tradition religieuse, souvent dans sa formule sevevre et archaoque." While at a visceral level I nod in agreement -- and analogies encompassed by the book title "Weapons of the Weak" and the phrase "nativist movement" come to mind -- fairly or not, I find the observation problematic. Although offered in the context of the Middle East and Islam, Bourdieu's comment begs the question of what "cultural resources" other than religious or archaic ones exist even within the *western* domain to mobilize the masses. It also raises the question of the ways in which the Right in the West uses religion. Less problematical for me, it underscores the totalizing nature of religion and the nature of religious symbols. Some "Journalistic" Background At the moment I live in a small, rural southern US (North Carolina) community at the social, economic, cultural, and (especially) intellectual margins. It is one where "capitalism" is embraced (without even an elementary understanding) and fundamentalist, Protestant religion reigns -- a flavor of Christianity that is both wed to capitalist visions and manipulated by the political Right. The manipulation takes two forms. First, at the local level, identification with the "Christian right" (a term I prefer to fundamentalism as I see *most* of both the Christian and Islamic manifestations that are so labeled as being strongly shaped by specific political interests rather than remaining "purely" theological in nature) is used as a way to appeal to voters. So strong is the identification with rightist visions of Christianity that the local Congressman here actually bragged about his ties to the "Christian Coalition" -- a bone-chilling performance that I witnessed in the fall of 2002. Second, at the national level, we see the political Right using religion not only as an electioneering tool, but as a red herring (not an opiate) to divert attention from its political economic agenda. So we watch and protest as Bush opposes stem cell research, cuts funding for aid to international programs promoting birth control, and promotes "faith-based" initiatives -- and the US Congress protests a well-argued and supported judicial panel finding that the phrase "under God" added to the national pledge of allegiance violates US constitutional protections. Today I received a link to this preposterous tidbit: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17476 Such events mark yet another stunning low in political discourse in the US. They also keep the populace distracted while its collective pockets are being picked. As a results we face daily survey findings showing that those citizens most harmed by current US policies are most supportive of the administration that is the source of the harm. Some Questions Without belaboring the specifics of the situation here any more, the situation raises troubling intellectual and political questions. 1) It shows the hold of religion. It is not "mere" ideology, it is an all-encompassing ideology filled with emotion-evoking symbols. Mobilizing the masses means engaging their emotions. *Perhaps* with the exception of the French revolution (I am far from my past readings there) I simply do not find good historical examples of interests or "cultural resources" that can motivate beyond religion or nationality (ethnicity, if you prefer) -- or both combined. Need we look further than the Middle East and Eastern Europe to see this? The hold that religion has I would contend comes from the indeterminate -- or. better, multivocal -- nature of it's symbols. They are mostly non-linguistic symbols that allow plenty of room for individual interpretations -- and, as a result, can pull disparate individuals and groups together. Unlike the priestly caste -- or the members of this list, believers tend not to "put too fine a point" on the meaning of their religion's symbols. In this regard, religious symbols and practices allow observations such as the one from Akbar Ahmed -- ". . . I gradually perceived the deeper significance of the prayers" -- where religion comes to feel personalized. At this point I think two points are apt. a) I must join a prior poster in noting that my interest here is in the power of religion as a motivator -- and that, in labeling it ideology I do so without regard to the content, truth value, or possible personal benefits of any or all religions. b) I believe it is the history of religion, frequently its ties to personal and group identity, and the inherent power of its symbols that make it a powerful ground for contested political territory -- both capitalist and anti-capitalist. 2) Given that religion is used by both capitalist and anticapitalist interests, any consideration of the uses of religion in the cultural, political, and economic confrontations must be able to account for both uses. Here I would ask: Is it merely the power of the symbols, the tie to identity, the extra-rational locus of belief that accounts for the ways in which groups and individuals fall back on religion? 3) What cultural resources exist beyond religion and ethnicity that *can* mobilize people against westernization, globalization, capitalism? In asking this I note that the first quote that Par Engholm provided from Marx came from an introduction to the latter's critique of Hegel. I would suggest the quote be read with an eye toward the historical context in which written -- 19th century Europe and its disruptions. Marx remained acutely aware of the French revolution and later uprisings that appeared at least incipiently class based. However, later historical experience has shown that class interests remain obscure and unmotivating to most -- while earlier "traditions" of religion and nationalism come to the fore again and again in motivating and organizing. Question for List Members So I repeat: what resources are there beyond religion and nationalism? What evidence do we have that the shifting alliances among religion, nationalism, and capitalism in the post-modern world leaves us any space for hope, for something better beyond? The answers to these questions -- which I wish I had -- are certainly beyond intellectual interest. They speak to the real need we face in the US to replace an administration that is undermining our most fundamental, constitutionally granted democratic protections -- and leading the country to outlaw status in the world. They speak to the need for others, as well, to find a progressive, competing model. Roy PS As a secular example of the power of symbols, at the end of the Congressman's presentation covering (anti)environmental, economic, and international topics to which I referred above, he invited questions. The first question came from a town alderman and military veteran who wanted to know "whatever happened to that bill to ban flag burning." For him the flag represents a sacred national symbol. For me legislating the inviolacy of a piece of cloth at once works toward making it a "secular religious" symbol, elevates its role in political confrontations, undermines the most important principles for which it should stand -- and serves as a red herring deflecting attention from the real threats we face. It also negates the hope I would like to feel for a better future. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/03 ********************************************************************** Contributions: bourdieu-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Commands: majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Requests: bourdieu-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005