Stanley Fish wrote an article about a
"student at Florida Atlantic University who complained when his
instructor asked members of the class to write the name “Jesus” on a
piece of paper and then step on it."
He writes that the instructor
"took the exercise from teaches at a Catholic college and explains
that the purpose of the exercise is to get students to think about the
power of cultural symbols. Most students, he reported,
“hesitate” to step on the paper, and many decline. (No one is forced to
participate.) “In fact,” he adds, “the point is knowing that they won’t
do it. I accept that and then ask them ‘Why won’t you do this?’ Then
they reaffirm their faith.”"
More here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/stepping-on-jesus/
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Aslan and his book
Given the popularity and the virality of the interview Fox news had done with Reza Aslan, I feel somewhat obligated to post the interview here:
Aslan, as most academics should, requests that the arguments of the book be engaged with as opposed to his conversion to Islam (from Evangelical Christian) and his intentions about writing a book about historical Jesus.
*Update: Over at the Religion Bulletin:
"In his Fox News interview, Aslan went to bat for the academic study of religion, asserting time and time again his academic qualifications to discuss a subject that the interviewer thought his religious identity disqualified him from raising in the first place. He refused to let the interviewer’s ignorance be equal to his training. Is this not an issue all academics, especially those of us studying religion, face all the time: friends, family, students, and strangers not recognizing the difference between a simple opinion on religion and an opinion formulated by and grounded in the type of historical critical research to which we have devoted most of our adult lives?"
The topic of historical Jesus is a valid one and the discussion is alive and well in many religion departments. I asked a friend who did his dissertation on the topic, which is now a book you can find here, and he informed me of several scholars who have also written on the subject back in the 80s, with the earliest dating back to the 1700s but not published until the 1970s.
So if you haven't read Aslan's book, Stephen Prothero (Boston University) gives "7 things" from the book here
And the LA Review of Books posted a review by Scott Korb (New School and NYU) here
I suppose the attention Aslan is getting is just as much about U.S. society, culture, and the incredible wave in which something like this can go viral effectively boosting the publicity of a book. Social commentary?
*Update: So...does this mean that a Christian with a PhD can't write a book about Muhammad?
Or a Native American about U.S. History?
*Update: Aug. 5, '13; Prothero writes a review of Aslan's book here
*Update: Le Donne writes a review here
Aslan, as most academics should, requests that the arguments of the book be engaged with as opposed to his conversion to Islam (from Evangelical Christian) and his intentions about writing a book about historical Jesus.
*Update: Over at the Religion Bulletin:
"In his Fox News interview, Aslan went to bat for the academic study of religion, asserting time and time again his academic qualifications to discuss a subject that the interviewer thought his religious identity disqualified him from raising in the first place. He refused to let the interviewer’s ignorance be equal to his training. Is this not an issue all academics, especially those of us studying religion, face all the time: friends, family, students, and strangers not recognizing the difference between a simple opinion on religion and an opinion formulated by and grounded in the type of historical critical research to which we have devoted most of our adult lives?"
The topic of historical Jesus is a valid one and the discussion is alive and well in many religion departments. I asked a friend who did his dissertation on the topic, which is now a book you can find here, and he informed me of several scholars who have also written on the subject back in the 80s, with the earliest dating back to the 1700s but not published until the 1970s.
So if you haven't read Aslan's book, Stephen Prothero (Boston University) gives "7 things" from the book here
And the LA Review of Books posted a review by Scott Korb (New School and NYU) here
I suppose the attention Aslan is getting is just as much about U.S. society, culture, and the incredible wave in which something like this can go viral effectively boosting the publicity of a book. Social commentary?
*Update: So...does this mean that a Christian with a PhD can't write a book about Muhammad?
Or a Native American about U.S. History?
*Update: Aug. 5, '13; Prothero writes a review of Aslan's book here
*Update: Le Donne writes a review here
New Report on Religion and International Relations
Report comes from Notre Dame's Mellon Initiative on Religion across Disciplines. The Immanent Frame reports: http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2013/07/31/new-report-on-religion-and-international-relations/
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Pope Francis on homosexuality, women, and the vatican bank
From the NY Times: here
On Homosexuality
"Pope Francis on Monday said that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” [...]
Francis said he had investigated the reports ["gay lobby"] and found them groundless. He added that while such a lobby would be an issue, he did not have anything against gays and that their sins should be forgiven, media reports said. He said that homosexuals should be treated with dignity and that no one should be blackmailed or pressured because of sexual orientation.. However, nothing in what he said suggested acceptance of anyone, priest or otherwise, engaging in homosexual acts."
On women in the Church
"The pope also told reporters that while Pope John Paul II had definitively closed the door to female priests, Francis sought a “theology of women” and a greater role for them inside Catholic life"
*Update: critique and commentary here from the LA Times about the "nod" to women.
On the Vatican Bank
"Asked about the Vatican Bank, Francis said, according to The Vatican Insider: “Some say that it’s better to have a bank, others that it would be better to have a fund, still others say to close it. I trust in the work of the people at the I.O.R. and of the commission that’s working on it. I can’t say how it will end.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html
On Homosexuality
"Pope Francis on Monday said that he would not judge priests for their sexual orientation. “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” [...]
Francis said he had investigated the reports ["gay lobby"] and found them groundless. He added that while such a lobby would be an issue, he did not have anything against gays and that their sins should be forgiven, media reports said. He said that homosexuals should be treated with dignity and that no one should be blackmailed or pressured because of sexual orientation.. However, nothing in what he said suggested acceptance of anyone, priest or otherwise, engaging in homosexual acts."
On women in the Church
"The pope also told reporters that while Pope John Paul II had definitively closed the door to female priests, Francis sought a “theology of women” and a greater role for them inside Catholic life"
*Update: critique and commentary here from the LA Times about the "nod" to women.
On the Vatican Bank
"Asked about the Vatican Bank, Francis said, according to The Vatican Insider: “Some say that it’s better to have a bank, others that it would be better to have a fund, still others say to close it. I trust in the work of the people at the I.O.R. and of the commission that’s working on it. I can’t say how it will end.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/world/europe/pope-francis-gay-priests.html
National Geographic: "Inca Child Sacrifice Victims Were Drugged"
Some amazing data using hair follicle tests
(don't know if the narrative is correct, up to the domain of other experts, but the biological data is definitely interesting)"Mummy hair reveals that young victims were heavy users of coca and alcohol"
From Nature on the same subject:
http://www.nature.com/news/incan-child-mummies-show-evidence-of-sacrificial-rituals-1.13461
From Archaeology.org:
http://www.archaeology.org/news/1136-130730-argentina-llullaillaco-maiden-coca-alcohol
http://www.nature.com/news/incan-child-mummies-show-evidence-of-sacrificial-rituals-1.13461
From Archaeology.org:
http://www.archaeology.org/news/1136-130730-argentina-llullaillaco-maiden-coca-alcohol
Monday, July 29, 2013
Alan Badiou on 'being happy', ethics, and money
Badiou on the philosophy of money (video, french w/ english subtitles):
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/alain-badiou-on-the-philosohy-of-money/2013/07/26
Saturday, July 27, 2013
The Chomsky-Zizek Show
Act I.
In an interview, Chomsky expresses his opinion of Lacan, Derrida, and Zizek as empty posturing. His attack is, in a way, on the culture of French philosophy. Foucault once mentioned that a degree of obscurity and layers of analysis is necessary for the French to respect philosophy (don't remember the citation here). I was also told that the culture of writing philosophy in France is to state one's position but also address several levels of critique, which tends to obscure but that this was the practice of writing (not sure about the extent of this - I, unfortunately, don't read french). But Chomsky takes a jab at that tradition and calls "theory" as posturing and with little empirical testability.
Chomsky to Zizek:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html
Act II
Zizek is made aware of Chomsky's comment during a conference and states that he has never known an academic so "empirically wrong". This was recorded and transcribed by a PhD student from the University of York (though, I think Zizek says that this was incorrectly transcribed...).
Zizek to Chomsky:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html
Intermission
Note: There is the issue of translation and hearsay. One person relays what somebody else says. So miscommunication is possible and both may be addressing very different things.
Some commentary and advertisement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong
Act III
Chomsky writes a brief response to Zizek's comments from the transcript above. And still maintains that Zizek has nothing empirical to offer or any corrections. Shit is getting serious...
Chomsky to Zizek
http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/194150
Act IV
Zizek responds to Chomsky. Zizek perks up to attention here and gives an essay with citations and empirical references. Shit just got real...
Zizek to Chomsky
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications
*Note: so after the miscommunications are cleared and the real jabs have been thrown instead of a shadow boxing through hearsay. The debate is now legitimate and has taken on some academic value. I hope Chomsky responds and takes this further... shit's better than television.
Assessment by PEL; podcast:
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/30/chomsky-vs-zizek/
*Update: another podcast on the debate by 'Diet Soap Podcast', posted by critical-theory.com
*Update: Commentary by Greg Burris, 'What the Chomsky-Zizek debate tells us about Snowden's NSA Revelations'
In an interview, Chomsky expresses his opinion of Lacan, Derrida, and Zizek as empty posturing. His attack is, in a way, on the culture of French philosophy. Foucault once mentioned that a degree of obscurity and layers of analysis is necessary for the French to respect philosophy (don't remember the citation here). I was also told that the culture of writing philosophy in France is to state one's position but also address several levels of critique, which tends to obscure but that this was the practice of writing (not sure about the extent of this - I, unfortunately, don't read french). But Chomsky takes a jab at that tradition and calls "theory" as posturing and with little empirical testability.
Chomsky to Zizek:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html
Act II
Zizek is made aware of Chomsky's comment during a conference and states that he has never known an academic so "empirically wrong". This was recorded and transcribed by a PhD student from the University of York (though, I think Zizek says that this was incorrectly transcribed...).
Zizek to Chomsky:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html
Intermission
Note: There is the issue of translation and hearsay. One person relays what somebody else says. So miscommunication is possible and both may be addressing very different things.
Some commentary and advertisement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong
Act III
Chomsky writes a brief response to Zizek's comments from the transcript above. And still maintains that Zizek has nothing empirical to offer or any corrections. Shit is getting serious...
Chomsky to Zizek
http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/194150
Act IV
Zizek responds to Chomsky. Zizek perks up to attention here and gives an essay with citations and empirical references. Shit just got real...
Zizek to Chomsky
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications
*Note: so after the miscommunications are cleared and the real jabs have been thrown instead of a shadow boxing through hearsay. The debate is now legitimate and has taken on some academic value. I hope Chomsky responds and takes this further... shit's better than television.
Assessment by PEL; podcast:
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/30/chomsky-vs-zizek/
*Update: another podcast on the debate by 'Diet Soap Podcast', posted by critical-theory.com
*Update: Commentary by Greg Burris, 'What the Chomsky-Zizek debate tells us about Snowden's NSA Revelations'
Epistemology of Religious Diversity in Contemporary Philosophy of Religion
Religious Epistemology discussion with Sosa, Plantinga and others, here: http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2013/07/religious-epist.html
*Continuing Bonds in Cuzco: Skulls at Home
The skulls of loved ones are kept at home in Cuzco:
This strikes me as a good example of 'continuing bonds' (1996) in grief theory by which the bereaved maintain a link with the deceased and go on to create new relationships with them. One of the more predominant paradigms is to consider death in terms of 'loss' - a consequence of 'love' and 'attachment.' The theory of continuing bonds maintains that the concept of 'loss' is not a necessary discourse but can instead be considered in terms of renewal, reconstruction, and a continued relationship by which the dead play an active role in the mundane.
Of course this is a different form of logic and cosmology/practice (about the dead) than what most western folk are used to. Anthropologist Evans Pritchard noted the differences in the logic behind tragedy and causation. While a scientifically minded non-religious (as opposed to secular) individual may consider the collapse of a beam due to natural causes (old wood, termites, gravity, shit happens). Another way of conceiving the physics of causation is to look at who was hurt and who held malicious intent towards that person. This places physics in the realm of human intentions and unseen forces that emanate from them. What's funny about this is that this form of thinking about causation still persists in the "secular" (as opposed to non-religious) world today: 'The Secret' (youtube clip here). It's been often referred to as the "law of attraction" that is akin to putting out "good vibrations" of what you want and the universe responds. It made a lot of money; endorsed by Oprah; and became a hit in the mid 2000s ('06 I think). And of course, people today talk about putting out "bad vibrations" as well ("don't bring that negativity here!"). The epistemology is, in a practical sense, irrelevant. There is a rationality behind "irrationality". One of the problems is that we like to look at isolated scenes, events, or episodes within a relatively short period of time. Looking at it solely within a single frame is going to raise issues of misconstruction and misinformation.
The initial reaction to exhumation practices or placing the skull of an ancestor in the home may be one of disgust or disrespectful and appalling. It's so taboo to "disturb the dead" in the West. However, the logic of maintaining a relationship with the deceased is not something foreign. Placing flowers on grave sites, praying to a deceased grandmother, keeping an urn of cremated ashes in the home, having an altar, a lock of hair, an ossuary, etc. etc. are all practices of keeping relations. Of course the theory of continuing bonds is just one of many about grief and the bereaved. But I find it to be a useful one.
"An ancient tradition, this comes from our ancestors. In Inca times the
mummies of the dead Emperors would be kept in homes and maintained a
very important role as leaders in Cuzco. Even though half a millennium
has passed, we still keep an intimate relationship with the bodies of
some of our dead. People say the skulls of loved ones are good company
to have in the house. They draw love, memory, and affection, at the same
time, just as they living, they are expected to do important things
around the home.
People live with the skulls of their dead. They make altars for them and
give them flowers and light candles for them. They pray to them so that
they will watch over the home and make everything go well for the
family."
http://www.cuzcoeats.com/2013/07/loved-ones-skulls-protect-homes-in-cuzco/This strikes me as a good example of 'continuing bonds' (1996) in grief theory by which the bereaved maintain a link with the deceased and go on to create new relationships with them. One of the more predominant paradigms is to consider death in terms of 'loss' - a consequence of 'love' and 'attachment.' The theory of continuing bonds maintains that the concept of 'loss' is not a necessary discourse but can instead be considered in terms of renewal, reconstruction, and a continued relationship by which the dead play an active role in the mundane.
Of course this is a different form of logic and cosmology/practice (about the dead) than what most western folk are used to. Anthropologist Evans Pritchard noted the differences in the logic behind tragedy and causation. While a scientifically minded non-religious (as opposed to secular) individual may consider the collapse of a beam due to natural causes (old wood, termites, gravity, shit happens). Another way of conceiving the physics of causation is to look at who was hurt and who held malicious intent towards that person. This places physics in the realm of human intentions and unseen forces that emanate from them. What's funny about this is that this form of thinking about causation still persists in the "secular" (as opposed to non-religious) world today: 'The Secret' (youtube clip here). It's been often referred to as the "law of attraction" that is akin to putting out "good vibrations" of what you want and the universe responds. It made a lot of money; endorsed by Oprah; and became a hit in the mid 2000s ('06 I think). And of course, people today talk about putting out "bad vibrations" as well ("don't bring that negativity here!"). The epistemology is, in a practical sense, irrelevant. There is a rationality behind "irrationality". One of the problems is that we like to look at isolated scenes, events, or episodes within a relatively short period of time. Looking at it solely within a single frame is going to raise issues of misconstruction and misinformation.
The initial reaction to exhumation practices or placing the skull of an ancestor in the home may be one of disgust or disrespectful and appalling. It's so taboo to "disturb the dead" in the West. However, the logic of maintaining a relationship with the deceased is not something foreign. Placing flowers on grave sites, praying to a deceased grandmother, keeping an urn of cremated ashes in the home, having an altar, a lock of hair, an ossuary, etc. etc. are all practices of keeping relations. Of course the theory of continuing bonds is just one of many about grief and the bereaved. But I find it to be a useful one.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Some questions for religion, law, and governance
From Hong & Provost on Religion in Contemporary Law & Politics:
- Has "religion" indeed taken the place of "culture" as a center of political tension and social integration?
- How have liberal democracies faced the rise of religion in the age of multiculturalism?
- Do religious and ethnic groups pose similar challenges to modern liberal societies, or are these challenges significantly different?
- Has the traditional struggle for "religious freedom" been transformed to a struggle for political recognition in line with the more contemporary "politics of identity"?
- Are contemporary discussions of a "post-secular" society similar to those of "multi-cultural" societies?
- Are notions of religious belief being merged with cultural practices to enlarge the constitutionally protected autonomy of minorities?
- Can this destabilize societies viewing themselves as multicultural by relying on a common foundation presented as secular?
- Can the notion of "citizenship" escape any religious overtone, given the significance of religious beliefs in the identities of so many groups constituting modern societies?
- Is "secularization" itself, as some have argued, "culturally biased"?
- Is "culture" in the final analysis nothing more than a "secularized" version of (Christian?) "religion"? More generally, what is the philosophical and legal sense of "religion" and "culture"?
- Have these concepts and the phenomena they represent undergone a historical change?
- Are we in need of new concepts, doctrines and theories to comprehend and resolve the new challenges of religious revival in the post-multicultural age?
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Lienhardt on the Dinka
“The Dinka have no conception which at all closely corresponds to our
popular modern conception of the ‘mind’, as mediating and, as it were,
storing up the experiences of the self. There is for them no such
interior entity to appear, on reflection, to stand between the
experiencing self at any given moment and what is or has been an
exterior influence upon the self. So it seems that what we should call
in some cases the ‘memories’ of experiences, and regard therefore as in
some way intrinsic and interior to the remembering person and modified
in their effect upon him by that interiority, appear to the Dinka as
exteriorly acting upon him, as were the sources from which they derived.
Hence it would be impossible to suggest to Dinka that a powerful dream
was ‘only’ a dream…They do not make the kind of distinction between the
psyche and the world which would make such interpretations significant
for them.”
-Godfrey Lienhardt (1961:149)
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Stanford Prison Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment
"the Zimbardo study sheds the harshest light of perhaps any research ever done on the nature of power and its pervasive corruptive powers.
From the standpoint of the guards, the pathology of power led them to exert an “unprecedented degree of control” that was “self-aggrandising” and “self-perpetuating.” Prisoners in the real world want to wrest back some of this control by any means necessary, and so when released, they “will take action to establish and assert a sense of power.”
While in prison, though, the loss of personal identity and control led the prisoners to adopt the pathological prisoner syndrome a reaction that took several forms of coping strategies. They went through stages from disbelief to rebellion; when these didn’t work, they tried to work the system (the “grievance committee”). When those efforts to gain control failed, it was every man for himself as each tried to find ways to preserve their own self-interests and identity. For some, this meant further rebellion and for others it meant becoming excessively obedient, even to the point of siding with the guards against intransigent prisoners.
Zimbardo and his co-authors hoped that the emotional and human price of the study would provide a model for improvements in the penal system as a whole. You might not agree with his conclusion, but it’s a thought-provoking one, so I’ll offer it here: “… since prisoners and guards are locked into a dynamic, symbiotic relationship which is destructive to their human nature, guards are also society’s prisoners.” "
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201307/the-rarely-told-true-story-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment
Zimbardo also wrote a book called 'The Lucifer Effect', which focused on why good people do bad things. The book is based on his famous Stanford Prison Experiment and his experience as an expert witness in the Abu Ghraib trial against an "all-american" prison guard.
"the Zimbardo study sheds the harshest light of perhaps any research ever done on the nature of power and its pervasive corruptive powers.
From the standpoint of the guards, the pathology of power led them to exert an “unprecedented degree of control” that was “self-aggrandising” and “self-perpetuating.” Prisoners in the real world want to wrest back some of this control by any means necessary, and so when released, they “will take action to establish and assert a sense of power.”
While in prison, though, the loss of personal identity and control led the prisoners to adopt the pathological prisoner syndrome a reaction that took several forms of coping strategies. They went through stages from disbelief to rebellion; when these didn’t work, they tried to work the system (the “grievance committee”). When those efforts to gain control failed, it was every man for himself as each tried to find ways to preserve their own self-interests and identity. For some, this meant further rebellion and for others it meant becoming excessively obedient, even to the point of siding with the guards against intransigent prisoners.
Zimbardo and his co-authors hoped that the emotional and human price of the study would provide a model for improvements in the penal system as a whole. You might not agree with his conclusion, but it’s a thought-provoking one, so I’ll offer it here: “… since prisoners and guards are locked into a dynamic, symbiotic relationship which is destructive to their human nature, guards are also society’s prisoners.” "
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201307/the-rarely-told-true-story-zimbardo-s-prison-experiment
Zimbardo also wrote a book called 'The Lucifer Effect', which focused on why good people do bad things. The book is based on his famous Stanford Prison Experiment and his experience as an expert witness in the Abu Ghraib trial against an "all-american" prison guard.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Archbishop of Milwaukee
"On April 3rd, I informed you of my decision to authorize the release of
documents related to diocesan priests with substantiated allegations of
sexual abuse of a minor. These documents are scheduled to be posted to
the archdiocesan website next week and I’m sure they will generate many
stories in the news."
http://www.archmil.org/Our-Faith/Blogs/Archbishop-Listecki/JEL-20130626.htm
Archdiocese of Milwaukee documents here:
http://www.andersonadvocates.com/Archdiocese-of-Milwaukee-Documents.aspx
and...in California some legislature: http://wwrn.org/articles/40249/
http://www.archmil.org/Our-Faith/Blogs/Archbishop-Listecki/JEL-20130626.htm
Archdiocese of Milwaukee documents here:
http://www.andersonadvocates.com/Archdiocese-of-Milwaukee-Documents.aspx
and...in California some legislature: http://wwrn.org/articles/40249/
"Jesus People" Rockstars
Article from the OUP on the Jesus People movt.
The stars of Christian Rock
The church community investigated in, anthropologist, Tanya Luhrmann's 'When God Talks Back' is said to draw its roots to this community.
The stars of Christian Rock
The church community investigated in, anthropologist, Tanya Luhrmann's 'When God Talks Back' is said to draw its roots to this community.
Growing up in a religious cult
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130712084501.htm
"In her research Jill Mytton worked with 262 adults (95 women and 167 men) who had lived in a religious group as children. Around 70 per cent of the sample lost their family on leaving, 27 per cent reported child sexual abuse and 68 per cent had found the experience of leaving traumatic."
Jill Mytton says: "Second-generation adult survivors of high-demand groups face particular difficulties, not only during their childhood, but also upon leaving the group, because they face assimilation into a culture that is not just alien to them but also one that they have been taught is wicked and to be hated."
"In her research Jill Mytton worked with 262 adults (95 women and 167 men) who had lived in a religious group as children. Around 70 per cent of the sample lost their family on leaving, 27 per cent reported child sexual abuse and 68 per cent had found the experience of leaving traumatic."
Jill Mytton says: "Second-generation adult survivors of high-demand groups face particular difficulties, not only during their childhood, but also upon leaving the group, because they face assimilation into a culture that is not just alien to them but also one that they have been taught is wicked and to be hated."
Korea: Christian woman "evangelizing" a Buddhist monk
The woman is telling the monk that he's going to hell and how jesus gave him life and can take his life. Monk says that it's ok if he goes to hell lol.
Of course, this doesn't represent all Korean Evangelicals but you have to wonder the extent to which her ideas pervade the Korean Christian, and even the global Christian, community.
Silcott, William & Jens Kreinath. 2013. Transformations of a ‘religious’ nation in a global world: Politics, Protestantism and ethnic identity in South Korea. Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal 14(2):223-240.
Abstract: In an increasingly globalised world, matters of national identity are no longer confined solely to domestic politics. This paper proposes that Christianity in South Korea is engaged in a mutually reinforcing relationship with the construction of Korean national identity, particularly concerning historical dynamics of both Westernisation and the formation of nationalism. In positioning the role of religion in the creation of a national image, the conflicts and contestations between religious groups will become politically effective. As actors in the political and religious field attempt to reflexively create an image of Korea that transcends national borders and anticipates to overcome domestic and ethnic divides, religion becomes more than an article of faith through its entanglement with national politics. By recognising the impact of Westernisation and its historical implications for this process, it becomes possible to approach the formation of Korean identity from a new angle by accounting for the efficacy of the self-reflexive image.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Art and Religion VIII: Appearance
From the Clay Club:
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance."
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance."
-American philosopher, Will Durant
Art and Religion VII: Hopi Artifacts Returned
Cool: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/hopi-artifact-is-returned/
"70 sacred artifacts returned one of the masklike objects to tribal elders on Monday at their reservation in northeast Arizona. [...]
"The Hopis say the items of religious headwear are sacred beings imbued with divine spirits and have never been intended as art objects. During the court case in Paris, the Hopis said they regarded their public promotion and sale as “a desecration to our religion.” Art dealers have sold similar Hopi religious relics a piece or two at a time during the last half-century, but the Paris auction was by far the largest sale ever held."
"70 sacred artifacts returned one of the masklike objects to tribal elders on Monday at their reservation in northeast Arizona. [...]
"The Hopis say the items of religious headwear are sacred beings imbued with divine spirits and have never been intended as art objects. During the court case in Paris, the Hopis said they regarded their public promotion and sale as “a desecration to our religion.” Art dealers have sold similar Hopi religious relics a piece or two at a time during the last half-century, but the Paris auction was by far the largest sale ever held."
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
What's funny about death?
Increase in humor when primed about death?
"For their study, Long and Greenwood subdivided 117 students into four experimental groups. These groups were confronted with the topics of pain and death while completing various tasks. Two of the test groups were exposed unconsciously to words flashed for 33 milliseconds on a computer while they completed tasks -- the first to the word "pain," the second to the word "death." The remaining two groups were prompted in a writing task to express emotions concerning either their own death or a painful visit to the dentist. Afterward, all four groups were instructed to supply a caption to a cartoon from The New Yorker.
These cartoon captions were presented to an independent jury who knew nothing about the experiment. The captions written by individuals who were subconsciously primed with the word death were clearly voted as funnier by the jury. By contrast, the exact opposite result was obtained for the students who consciously wrote about death: their captions were seen as less humorous.
Based on this experiment, the researchers conclude that humor helps the individual to tolerate latent anxiety that may otherwise be destabilizing. In this connection, they point to previous studies indicating that humor is an integral component of resilience."
"For their study, Long and Greenwood subdivided 117 students into four experimental groups. These groups were confronted with the topics of pain and death while completing various tasks. Two of the test groups were exposed unconsciously to words flashed for 33 milliseconds on a computer while they completed tasks -- the first to the word "pain," the second to the word "death." The remaining two groups were prompted in a writing task to express emotions concerning either their own death or a painful visit to the dentist. Afterward, all four groups were instructed to supply a caption to a cartoon from The New Yorker.
These cartoon captions were presented to an independent jury who knew nothing about the experiment. The captions written by individuals who were subconsciously primed with the word death were clearly voted as funnier by the jury. By contrast, the exact opposite result was obtained for the students who consciously wrote about death: their captions were seen as less humorous.
Based on this experiment, the researchers conclude that humor helps the individual to tolerate latent anxiety that may otherwise be destabilizing. In this connection, they point to previous studies indicating that humor is an integral component of resilience."
Chimpanzee economics
The Ultimatum Game: What Primates Can Teach Us About Inequality
"And chimpanzees go even further. With chimpanzees, the one who gets the grape may refuse the grape until the other one also gets a grape. So they have a sense of fairness that even goes into the other direction where it benefits. Well, it’s not a benefit for me but I want to have an equal situation between the two of us. We recently played the ultimatum game with chimpanzees which is the ultimate test of the human sense of fairness and the chimpanzees passed the test in that particular game. They chose for the fair options.
And so inequity is problematic. It is part of our economy
to create inequalities but I think just like the primates we have
strong aversive reactions to it. And so it puts the stress on our
social system, I think, to create inequalities. And we study this in
the primates. People study it now in children and the sort of general
consensus that we have is that we’re not particularly happy with unequal
distributions. That doesn’t mean that to some degree inequalities are
not needed in the economy. I think some level of inequality is always
needed because you want to have incentives for certain people to do
certain things. But if it gets too big I think it damages the social
relationships."
-Frans de Waal
Neuroeconomics: brain, decision-making and emotion
The Ventromedial prefrontal cortex has been cited on numerous occassions of its involvement with decision making and emotion regulation.
"[A]fter a series of experiments in which subjects were asked to modify how they felt about something either positively or negatively, the Duke group is arguing that emotional and economic calculations are more closely related than brain scientists had realized. The study appears July 3 in the Journal of Neuroscience."
From science daily
Abstract From the Journal of Neuroscience:
"results suggest that the vmPFC encodes a domain-general value signal that tracks the value of not only external rewards, but also emotional stimuli."
An article from medical news today
"[A]fter a series of experiments in which subjects were asked to modify how they felt about something either positively or negatively, the Duke group is arguing that emotional and economic calculations are more closely related than brain scientists had realized. The study appears July 3 in the Journal of Neuroscience."
From science daily
Abstract From the Journal of Neuroscience:
"results suggest that the vmPFC encodes a domain-general value signal that tracks the value of not only external rewards, but also emotional stimuli."
An article from medical news today
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Panel on "What is Morality?"
On February 23, 2007
Panel: What is Morality? The Philosophical and Theological Foundations of Moral Debate
--Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Louisiana State University
--Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University
--Prof. Robert Burns, Northwestern University
--Prof. Michael J. Perry, Emory University
--Moderator: Prof. Richard Garnett, University of Chicago
Panel: What is Morality? The Philosophical and Theological Foundations of Moral Debate
--Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Louisiana State University
--Prof. Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University
--Prof. Robert Burns, Northwestern University
--Prof. Michael J. Perry, Emory University
--Moderator: Prof. Richard Garnett, University of Chicago
Monday, July 1, 2013
*A Footnote to Secularization
The "secular" has been discussed primarily within a Christian context and indeed its geneology is traced back to Christian discursive practices. In this sense the "secular" has most often been implicitly referred to as non-christian or a de-christianization of society.
But if we can reappropriate the concept of the "secular" and "tolerance" to different contexts. For example, if we place the term "secular" within the Islamic context then "secular" comes to mean non-Muslim and the de-Islamization of a society. "Tolerance" then, stems from a Muslim point of view and it refers to religious traditions that are not Islam and in this sense Christianity (and other non-Muslim traditions) will be that which is tolerated and included in the "secular". The same goes for societies that are primarily "Hindu" and those that are primarily "Buddhist" or "Confucian" (which has its own history - most countries deemed "Confucian" have actually gone beyond into other forms of "Confucianism").
In this sense the terms 'secular' and 'tolerance' are lexicons of perspective. And so limits the applications of the term to be context-dependent or rather perspective-dependent on what the dominant heuristic and mode of being is in a given society.
It would also seem that there is a tendency to discuss the 'secular' in terms of not-religious but this in itself becomes problematic when cultures are so embedded with values that stem from their religious traditions. Much of the discourse on human rights is quite Kantian looking for absolute applicable morals for everyone. Now this doesn't demean or make the universal human rights that are sought after any less valuable but rather points out that the values emphasized come from a particular western context of what it means to have human rights. So talking about 'secular' in terms of non-religious doesn't quite work as it is extremely difficult to separate religion from culture in terms of a strict dichotomy. The discussion of that which is non-religious is rather a discussion in reaction to the right-wing Christian agenda that has pervaded much of U.S. politics with Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, etc. However, this only one form in which Christianity has been politicized. If we can remember Jim Jones, he held a very left-wing agenda associated with his brand of Christianity. His paranoia ultimately led to the biggest mass (coerced) "suicide" but his polticization of Christianity to a left-wing formula is the inverse of what Graham and Falwell did. So there are issues with delineating between religion and culture as well as religion and secular.
But if we can reappropriate the concept of the "secular" and "tolerance" to different contexts. For example, if we place the term "secular" within the Islamic context then "secular" comes to mean non-Muslim and the de-Islamization of a society. "Tolerance" then, stems from a Muslim point of view and it refers to religious traditions that are not Islam and in this sense Christianity (and other non-Muslim traditions) will be that which is tolerated and included in the "secular". The same goes for societies that are primarily "Hindu" and those that are primarily "Buddhist" or "Confucian" (which has its own history - most countries deemed "Confucian" have actually gone beyond into other forms of "Confucianism").
In this sense the terms 'secular' and 'tolerance' are lexicons of perspective. And so limits the applications of the term to be context-dependent or rather perspective-dependent on what the dominant heuristic and mode of being is in a given society.
It would also seem that there is a tendency to discuss the 'secular' in terms of not-religious but this in itself becomes problematic when cultures are so embedded with values that stem from their religious traditions. Much of the discourse on human rights is quite Kantian looking for absolute applicable morals for everyone. Now this doesn't demean or make the universal human rights that are sought after any less valuable but rather points out that the values emphasized come from a particular western context of what it means to have human rights. So talking about 'secular' in terms of non-religious doesn't quite work as it is extremely difficult to separate religion from culture in terms of a strict dichotomy. The discussion of that which is non-religious is rather a discussion in reaction to the right-wing Christian agenda that has pervaded much of U.S. politics with Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, etc. However, this only one form in which Christianity has been politicized. If we can remember Jim Jones, he held a very left-wing agenda associated with his brand of Christianity. His paranoia ultimately led to the biggest mass (coerced) "suicide" but his polticization of Christianity to a left-wing formula is the inverse of what Graham and Falwell did. So there are issues with delineating between religion and culture as well as religion and secular.
*Reflections 2 years Post Egypt's Revolution
It has been exactly a year since current president Mohammad Morsi took office in Egypt and a little over two years since Egypt's revolution. Now they are back on the streets to express their discontent. Brazil continues to resume their portests as the finals are staged for the confederations cup. Protests are happening in Turkey. Saudi Arabians are being jailed for urging protest on facebook. A poet cries out that the world is misinformed about Syria. Air strikes are happening in the district of Homs of Syria. Bombs. A car bomb kills 46 in Pakistan on the day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and British Prime Minister David Cameron met to discuss security.
The Vatican is stirred by gossip of a lobby of gay, senior churchmen inside the Vatican, running a network of patronage, a convicted paedophile priest accussing Vatican clergy hiring underage rent-boys for sex. Thailand is shaken by their buddhist monks indulging in iphones and starbucks coffee in the U.S.
German prosecutors looking over allegations of the U.S. spying on its allies. The U.S. is both enraged over voting rights/racial issues and jubilant (or annoyed depending on the political/religious spectrum one is on) about the recognition of gay marriage (although not without a stint from Prop 8 supporters, which was rejected by SCOTUS). Meanwhile, San Diego is prosecuting anti-bank slogans scribbled in chalk in front of Bank of America (like wtf?). And President Obama is in South Africa, paying his respects to Nelson Mandela and simultaneously facing protests for the hypocrisy of U.S. imperialism.
In South Korea, U.S. soldiers are being reported of drunken disorderly conduct - fighting Korean civilians and one U.S. solider strangling, yes strangling, a taxi driver and punching him while the man was driving! Just passing the anniversary of the Korean War, the U.S. recently misrepresented its role in the Korean War attempting to subvert responsibility and claim that their troops are under UN control.
The news have never been so juicy with social and political upheaval. There's nothing explicit that connects all of these recent events of the past couple days. But what underlies them all is the manifesting cultures/habits of power and reactions to them. Violence and discontent pervades the world. We are witnessing people all over the world upset at current systems and a demand for a more participatory democracy outside of the singular act of voting. The Vatican is in a process of cleaning house and the fact that these accusations of sex-rings are surfacing within the Vatican are indications that it is indeed a new era of Catholic leadership. The entitled status of U.S. soliders and the degrading manner in which they conduct themselves in South Korea is not new to Koreans. Their drunken acts of violence have been around for quite some time. A by-product of U.S. troops occupying another country as a result of war.
A little over two years ago, I wrote a piece for the Simpleton, a post-revolution critique of Egypt highlighting the divide-and-conquer tactics via religion and voting, which was coupled with the potential recurrence of corruption from a superficial change in governance. From the revolution in Egypt:
"Some of the demands included: "changing the constitution so as to mitigate the president’s sweeping powers, dismantling the former ruling National Democratic Party, the trial of all corrupt figures including the ousted president Mubarak, ending the state of emergency, releasing political prisoners and lately many have been demanding an end to military prosecutions of civilians, after it had become a common phenomenon since the military took over power."
What was interesting during this time was the use of religion to divide the people. Initially there was a unified front of discontent with the government. Both Christians and Muslims embraced each other. However, with allegations of one side attacking another: "The pendulum swung from the time of a unified front composed of both Muslims and Christians during the period of revolution, to a position of amnesia. Violence in the name of one is quick to nullify the bond built amongst two. The situation is a statement of in-group/out-group dynamics." From the beginning of such divisions, we observed that the candidate (current President Morsi) upholding the interests of the Muslim brotherhood win the election. A year later we are witnessing the same discontents and the product of a created division (via media and religious loyalty) rebounding to another mass protest. It would seem that the culture and habits of power in Egypt had not changed and we are seeing the discontents with its reconstitution. From the article, I highlighted Foucault's critique of revolution, which I'll repeat (emphasis is added):
"One of the most
urgent tasks, before everything else, is that we are used to consider,
at least in our European society, that power is in the hands of the
government and is exerted by some particular institutions such as
local governments, the police, the army. These institutions transmit the
orders, apply them and punish people who don't obey. But I think that
the political power is also exerted by a few other institutions which seem to have nothing in common with the political power,
which seem to be independent but are not. We all know that university
and the whole education system is supposed to distribute knowledge, we
know that the educational system maintains the power in the hands of a
certain social class and exclude the other social class from this
power. Psychiatry for instance is also apparently meant to improve
mankind and the knowledge of the psychiatrists. Psychiatry is also a
way to implement a political power to a particular social group.
Justice also.
It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions, that appear to be both neutral and independent;
to criticize and attack them in such a manner that political violence
has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so
that one can fight against them. If we want right away to define the
profile and the formula of our future society (without criticizing all
the forms of political power that are exerted in our society): there is a risk that they reconstitute themselves."
- Michel Foucault, from the Chomsky-Foucault 1971 debate
Indeed, what is happening in Egypt is that reconstitution. From here I would wonder about the tensions created by making religious differences apparent and the reproduction of a culture and habit of power. In this sense I wonder what is happening in Libya post Gadaffi? What about the protests in Turkey? Montreal in Canada? And the protests of Toma la Plaza in Spain? And where is the Occupy movement of the U.S.? What happened in these movements or rather, what did the government do in these movements to quell discontent? Are things any better?
While religion does not strictly play a role in all of these movements, but the ideologies behind money and value is certainly there. In this sense it may be appropriate to talk about a religion of money and how different cultures and different socio-economic classes hold ideologies about currency as well as its place in society as the form of merit. My question would then be: what does this kind of religion entail for the culture and habits of power that we see manifest and reacted against so readily represented in the news today?
Luhrmann on "Making God real"; prayer may contribute to healing
copied from: http://anthrocybib.net/2013/06/30/luhrmann-making-god-real-and-making-god-good-some-mechanisms-through-which-prayer-may-contribute-to-healing/
Luhrmann, “Making God real and making God good: Some mechanisms through which prayer may contribute to healing”
Luhrmann, Tanya. 2013. Making God real and making God good: Some mechanisms through which prayer may contribute to healing. Transcultural Psychiatry published online 21 June (Early View). DOI: 10.1177/1363461513487670.Abstract: Many social scientists attribute the health-giving properties of religious practice to social support. This paper argues that another mechanism may be a positive relationship with the supernatural, a proposal that builds upon anthropological accounts of symbolic healing. Such a mechanism depends upon the learned cultivation of the imagination and the capacity to make what is imagined more real and more good. This paper offers a theory of the way that prayer enables this process and provides some evidence, drawn from experimental and ethnographic work, for the claim that a relationship with a loving God, cultivated through the imagination in prayer, may contribute to good health and may contribute to healing in trauma and psychosis.
Emotions and Faces: Challenging Ekman
Paul Ekman is renown for his work on emotions and facial expressions. The view that these expressions are cross-culturally identifiable is now being challenged.
Lisa Barrett from Northeastern is challenging this theory:
the academic papers are referenced here at Neuroanthropology as well as review from Ekman
And the article from Boston magazine
Lisa Barrett from Northeastern is challenging this theory:
She returned to those famous cross-cultural studies that had launched Ekman’s career—and found that they were less than watertight. The problem was the options that Ekman had given his subjects when asking them to identify the emotions shown on the faces they were presented with. Those options, Barrett discovered, had limited the ways in which people allowed themselves to think.
Barrett explained the problem to me this way: “I can break that experiment really easily, just by removing the words. I can just show you a face and ask how this person feels. Or I can show you two faces, two scowling faces, and I can say, ‘Do these people feel the same thing?’ And agreement drops into the toilet.”More here at mindhacks
the academic papers are referenced here at Neuroanthropology as well as review from Ekman
And the article from Boston magazine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)