Calvin and Hobbes; Consumerism: Religion of Capital

History of Sociology of Religion (UK) by Theme

2015 Hoddesdon; Foundations and Futures (Conf)
         London; The Ethics of Representation (PG & Early Career study day)
2014  Brighton; Religion and Crisis 
          London; Achieving Gender Equality in the Academy: Intersections, Interrogations, and 
                         Practices  
2013 London; Islam and the University Curriculum: Experiences of Teaching and learning in 
                        HE
         London; Making Sense of the Census (socrel response)
         Durham; Material Religion
2012 London; Religion and Citizenship: Re-Thinking the Boundaries of Religion and the 
                        Secular
         Chester; Reliigon and (In)Equalities
2011 London; Teaching and Studying Religion: Choices and Challenges
         London; Religion and Social Action
         Birmingham; Religion and Social Theory: Developing a New Agenda for the Sociology of 
                              Religion
         Machester; Religion, Conflict and Violence in Historical and Contemporary Perspective 
2010 Oxford; Methodological Challenes in Doctoral Research on Religion
         Edinburgh; The Changing Face of Christianity
2009 Nottingham; Researching Sexuality and Spirituality
          Durham; Religion and Knowledge
2008 Brighton; Belief and Identity in Late Modernity: Transcending Disciplinary Boundaries
         Birmingham; Religion and Youth
         Bristol; Eleventh PG Conference
2007 Bristol; Religion, Spirituality and Gay Sexuality
        Oxford; Religion, Media and Culture
        Bristol; Tenth PG Conference
2006 London; God Talk - in Sociology and Theology
         Manchester; Religion and the Individual
         Bristol; Ninth PG Conference
2005 Canterbury; Religion, Film and Popular Culture
          Lancaster; Religion and Gender
         Bristol; Eighth PG Conference
2004 Oxford; The Study of Religions: Mapping the Field
         Bristol; A Sociology of Spirituality
         Bristol; Seventh PG Conference
2003 Kingston; Religion and Marginalisation
        Oxford; Text and Religious Contexts
2002 Birmingham; Religion in an Urban Ecology
2001Oxford; Materialising Religion: Expression, Performance and Ritual
2000 Exeter; Prophets and Predictions
1999 Durham; Religion and Identity
         Bristol; Teaching Sociology of Religion
1998 Edinburgh; Making Sense of the Body
1997 Bristol; Religion, Modernity and Ethics
1996 Strawberry Hill; Religion, Culture and Ideology
1995 Lincoln; The Future of Main-line Religion
1994 Preston; Religion, Sexuality and Gender
1993 Bristol; Postmodernity, Sociology and Religion
1992 Strawberry Hill; Religion in the Common European Home
1991 Lincoln
1990 Lincoln
1989 Strawberry Hill; Religion and Power
1988 Nottingham
1987 Preston
1986 Southampton
1985 Durham
1984 Birmingham
1983 Leeds
1982 Bristol
1981 Lincoln
1980 Birmingham
1979 Surrey
1978 Cambridge

Calvin and Hobbes on Tragedy

*A few thoughts on 'Emancipatory Politics'

Recently Stephen Feuchtwang and Alpa Shah edited a volume entitled Emancipatory Politics: A Critique (2015), which you can download (for free) here.

At present, there is a seminar discussion on the text over at the Open Anthropology Cooperative but I thought I'd first entertain a few preliminary thoughts here and watch that space as it unfolds before deciding whether or not I want to, or even feel capable of joining that conversation (I am no political anthropologist or an economic anthropologist but rather trained in the study of religion with a philosophy, psychology, and anthropology background). Moreover, I don't want to leave any long-winded posts in that forum as I write out my thoughts.  

So first, a definition and some themes that are laid out in that volume. By 'emancipatory politics,' Feuchtwang and Shah mean:  

"political activities that aim to end exploitation and enhance participatory democracy through which leadership can be held to account on a daily as well as periodic basis, in the workplace and beyond".

The three, inter-related, themes identified are:

1. The tension between mass organization and the party in charge of the armed force. Democratic centralism may lead to an inflexible inability to accommodate local conditions.

2. This raises the question of the relationship between democracy and emancipatory politics. The party sometimes becomes unaccountable to the people it claims to serve. 

3. Analysis of the classes, issues and alliances involved in the struggle for emancipation is essential. 

The Marxist-Leninist and Maoist movements discussed in these texts are of much intrigue and at the heart of each movement is the fight against capitalist-imperialist structures within their respective countries. This edited volume begins with the premise that violence is sometimes necessary; armed revolt as a means to end violence and oppression against the people.

However, given the next step I'll be taking as a post-doc, I want to think about these revolutionary movements in a different way. That is, are revolutionary movements not fighting against the misuse of money’s transformative power such that people are subject to oppression and violence? Is it not a fight against economic hegemony and discrimination that perpetuates the struggle?

Within this framework, I want to pick out three issues that will be of relevance to the three inter-related themes discussed above: (1) the role of money in this discussion of ‘emancipatory politics’ as a form sustaining revolutionary movements and the dominant structures they are fighting against; (2) whether it is still plausible to discuss these case studies in isolation without considering foreign influence and international relations; and (3) the political task of scholars as persons who are invariably a part of ‘world society’ (as the historian Howard Zinn says, “you can’t be neutral on a moving train”).  

To expand a bit further, with regard to the first, I understand that the focal point of the volume was on the political end of things but in many ways it is difficult to take the role of money out of this discussion. For example, in a study by Gilens & Page (2014), they show that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial impact on US govt. policy while the impact of average citizens and mass-based interest groups are minimal. In cruder terms, money has a greater influence than the people in US legislation. Democracy doesn’t dictate the terms but rather the money involved in politics holds the greater persuasive power.

In this sense, I wonder if ‘democracy’ continues to hold analytical utility and descriptive accuracy in the discussion of emancipatory politics or even politics in general. Is ‘democracy’ not a normative ideal of political philosophy rather than a descriptive practice of government and its relationship to the people? This begs the question whether there ever was (and this may simply be my own ignorance) a ‘democracy’ that we can meaningfully speak of that was successfully held accountable by the people without impunity.

In terms of the second, I’m thinking specifically about the economic interests of colonial countries, the ties between them, and their relationship to previously colonized countries. Can we talk about an emancipatory politics without discussing these international networks? In South Korea, trade agreements between Australia and the U.S. enabled the importation of rice which are priced lower than the rice from local farmers. You can imagine the consequences. If I recall correctly, this also occurred in India. I don’t think there is one country in the world that is economically isolated in terms of trade (even North Korea, arguably the most isolated country in the world).  

Lastly, before reaching the point of violence and the discussion of Fanon and Arendt (in the volume), I am keen to introduce Foucault’s proposal. In a discussion with Chomsky (1971 debate), Foucault argued that political power is also exerted by institutions that seem to be independent of the prevailing political powers. He states “the 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 excludes other social classes from this power. I think many disciplines - more notably philosophy departments – and the student protests in South Africa are confronting the issue of social class and political power within universities. This is applicable not only with regard to the academy but also local governments, the army, police, hospitals, judicial systems, etc. Foucault then concludes by stating that the “real political task” 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 these seemingly neutral and independent institutions are not addressed – I would also add that if we do not critique the ‘culture’ of power (the exchange of favors, the management of money, where they receive money, who they give money to and for what ends, and how deals are struck) within these neutral and independent institutions as well as governments – “there is a risk that they reconstitute themselves.”

 While the use of violence and the sacrifice of people for the solidification of sovereignty is indeed an important discussion, I wonder if this doesn't jump the gun before thinking more critically about why persons are taking up arms, the structures that perpetuate those conditions, and how to change those conditions either through structural reform or abolishing them. What would a economy and government that is truly for the people and held accountable by the people look like? How do we install a system that can provide a meanignful work economy (that doesn't concentrate wealth, which invariably leads to corruption, and doesn't advocate a hoarding of money), and provide non-discriminate healthcare, food, housing, and education for the people?

Thus far, people all around the world have been, to some extent, effective in mobilizing against injustice and discontent with government. However, there has been a lack of engagement with method after the overthrow of corrupt and ineffective government. I think this is where the concern between "democracy" and 'emancipatory politics' comes in by which the demands advocated by the uprising/revolution are thwarted by a political culture of "electoral politics." This was decidedly the case in South Korea and much more recently in Egypt (I write about it here and here). After the overthrow of Mubarak, they engaged in elections which proved a return to the same culture of governance and the demands of the revolution are unmet.

The 4.19 uprising in Korea, which brought down the first president/dictator Rhee (who was renounced by the Korean Provisional Government during the colonial era but placed in power by the U.S.; a presidency characterized by mass killings, corruption, hoarding money, and rigged elections), only placed another politician (Heo Jeong), as caretaker, of the same political camp and incompetent to move government. This was also the case for Chang Myeon, another prime minister who took the reins for a minute, as well as Yun Bo-Sun (the second President), and before a democratic system for the people could take over the 'anti-communist' dictatorship of Rhee, the military stepped in and took over government under Park Chung-hee (father of the current South Korean President). Each of these figures (Heo, Chang, Yun, and Park) continued to participate in a culture of politics that engaged with the U.S. and ignored the people. Violence against the people and armed counter-violence by the people persisted throughout this era and indeed continued under Park who would run the country from 1962 to 1979 when he was assasinated (My parents immigrated to the US in 1984 and our family would embark on a journey oscillating between the two countries, living intermittently for several years in one country and then the other).

One of the key components to the early years of South Korea was the use of pro-Japanese colonial figures in politics and police. In other words, the remnants of Japanese colonialism were still present which undermined the development of a truly Korean government on its own terms. Moreover, the rich capitalists who would spearhead the jaebol class were practically granted impunity for their roles in corruption and collusion for the sake of economic development. The trade-off, in retrospect, is South Korea's great economic development (which no one can dispute) at the consequence of a greater disparity of income across the Korean people. Inheritance is the greatest transmitter of wealth and we are now seeing the consequences of a senior class in poverty and an increased rate of suicide among them. Given the emphasis and respect for the elderly in Korean society, this is a damn shame. Our grandparents and grandmothers should not be living in poverty nor should they be committing suicide because of their self-perceived burden on society and their children. This is, arguably, the gravest offense for a highly Confucian country like Korea. But I digress. What I am arguing here is the re-constitution of a 'culture of power' and the use of money to perpetuate those systems.    

Revolt and uprising are only the beginning points. The real task is the question of what happens after bringing down those in political power such that the same forms of oppression do not re-constitute themselves. This edited volume is asking those questions and I appreciate it all the more for it. Something that I would like to see more is a discussion of money in politics and how do we change the transformative power of money towards the well-being of all people and the eradication of oppressive structures?

*Weber on Salvation

After leading several seminars on Weber's view of salvation (Ch. 10 of The Sociology of Religion trans Ephraim Fischoff. Intro by Parsons), I figured I'd summarize it here and make a few interspersed comments. 

In a brief nutshell, in this chapter, Weber aims to distinguish between ritualistic religions that don't contribute to ethical behavior and religions that do contribute to ethics; all of which is done within the purview of salvation.

First, he argues that salvation is an individual endeavor. One path to salvation is through "purely ritual activities and ceremonies: "ritualistic salvation." He states that this form of religion, which stresses the development of a particular "ephemeral subjective state" and experience, holds the effect of ex opere operato (from the work worked; emphasizing the efficacy of the ritual itself, i.e. salvation is obtained by participation): "Their typical intention is the accomplishment, by the sheer sacredness of their manipulations, of redemption from grace and the distribution of sacramental grace." Once the ritual has passed, however, Weber claims that there is a "negligible effect on behavior." He places "the Hindu and others in the Orient" and "the majority of non-Christian ancient mystery cults" into this category of "pure ritualism" (certainly problematic, to say the least). Moreover, he argues that animism focuses on this-world or 'immanence' and use the inducement of 'ecstasy' as an "instrument of salvation or self-deification." Again, for Weber, this has little to no positive effect on everyday ethical behavior. This carries several implications for the discussion of conversion and the role of religious experiences (although I don't think it contributes anything new to that discussion, at least where it stands now).    

By contrast, Weber distinguishes "pure ritualism" from Christian faiths which qualifies the efficacy of the sacrament "to bring salvation" only to those who are "ethically purified in the sight of god," which are associated with moral codes of behavior; prescriptive rules. We begin to see how Weber is setting up his view of religious "rationalization" and "systematization."  

One way by which ritual can exert an ethical effect is through education and the systematization of moral codes or a "body of law." A systematization of "good works" that can take one of two forms: an emphasis on individual actions (Weber includes: Zoroastrianism, Hinduisim, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism and the "oriental Christian churches") or an emphasis on a "underlying ethical total personality." In the case of the latter, he goes on to describe this as an "ethic of inwardness," which is developed either as a product of education - "through a training of goodness" - or as a product of "a divine gift" (but this is problematic, given the nature/nurture debate - we can wonder to what extent we can even talk about 'nature' as we are necessarily born within a specific historical, cultural, and social context). In either case, the prescribed views of "religious good works" become "instruments of self-perfection," self-deification, a process of "sanctification." 

This process of rationalization, a methodological account toward salvation, is codified in ethics; to "become his [god's] instrument or to be spiritually suffused by him." This method and rationalization in effect combats the "average habitus of the human body and the everyday world as those are given by nature." The negation of this-world, in yearning for salvation, induces the ethical behavior for this world. In other words, the end motivates the means to achieve the end.

While Weber highlights "method" over "religious experience" regarding their effect on everyday behavior, his protestant upbringing can't help but include a specific experience, an emergent "subjective condition" - the assurance of grace - that has a significant impact on consciousness and becomes a "foundation for the conduct of life." It renounces "irrational" behaviors of nature, not only from the view point of hygiene (we can branch into Freud here if we wanted) but also "sensual pleasures" which do not lead to salvation.

Rationality, for Weber, in the context of religion, is therefore intimately tied to salvation and ethical behavior, which is also to say that 'rationality' is connected and beholden to prescriptive codes of behavior and methods of thought provided/mandated by the systematized path to salvation of religious traditions (in response to much of this we could bring in Nietzsche's critique of power and morality as well as Marx's critique of social conditions that motivate religious thought, as well as post-colonial critiques in Weber's thought).  

Lambek: On Being Present to History

Cultural Identity

"Cultural identities come from somewhere, have histories. But like everything which is historical, they undergo constant transformation. Far from being eternally fixed in some essentialised past, they are subject to the continuous 'play' of history, culture and power. Far from being grounded in mere 'recovery' of the past, which is waiting to be found, and which when found, will secure our sense of ourselves into eternity, identities are the names we give to the different ways we are positioned by, and position ourselves within, the narratives of the past."

-Stuart Hall, 1990

Racism on TV in Great Britain

Malcolm X at Oxford Union

Afro Buddha

read about it here

Harlow's Monkey Studies - wired v. cloth mother

History of Buddhism and Politics in Korea - Sem Vermeersch

"A look into South Korea reveals a confusing number of influences: the society is commonly described as Confucian, the politics are clearly influenced by Christianity, yet visit South Korea and you may think Buddhism is the religion of the land – there are temples virtually everywhere. Almost a quarter of the Korean population define themselves as Buddhists.

Yet how can we explain Buddhism’s seeming lack of power and influence in shaping contemporary Korean politics and society? Why are there no strong Buddhist political parties or charismatic Buddhist leaders setting the agenda?"

"In Korean history, mostly Buddhism didn’t play an active political role […] I cannot think of any examples of Buddhists pushing their own agenda into the political world  so I don’t see that happening. But the profile of Buddhism is changing."

source

19th C Korea

"The late 19th century in Korea was a period of political and social turmoil. Japanese interference culminates in the assassination of Queen Min and King Kojong later seeking refuge in the Russian legation. At the same time, Korea is confronted with vast scale civil strife as Koreans hostile to the growing influence of foreign nations foment riots and angry mobs roam the streets of Seoul.

This is the Korea the Sills witnessed between early 1894 and the later months of 1896. John Sill, who had been sent to Seoul as Ambassador of the United States, and his wife, Sally Sill, wrote a steady stream of letters to their children and acquaintances who had remained in America. The Sills’ correspondence is a remarkable account of the lives of Westerners in Korea; the tensions between Western influence and traditional values; Japan’s gradual power grab on the Peninsula; and of the dying days of the Joseon dynasty."

You see the great white knight coming all the time [with their mission civilisatrice]. It’s a constant thing.  “You people need to be civilized!” What is civilization? It’s a matter of perspective. Korea was a very civilized country at the time – but it wasn’t western civilization.

source
 

Morality of the State

"When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches and honours are things to be ashamed of."

- Confucius (Analects, bk. viii., c. xiii., v. 3.)

Money and its redemption

Speaker(s): Dr Laura Bear, Professor David Graeber, Professor Bill Maurer
Chair: Reverend Dr Giles Fraser
Recorded on 7 May 2015 at Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House
Can “bad money” be made good? Leading economic anthropologists will debate the morality of money, philosophies of philanthropy, and the lure of redemption.

Laura Bear is Associate Professor of Anthropology at LSE.

David Graeber (@davidgraeber) is Professor of Anthropology at LSE.

Bill Maurer is Professor of Anthropology and Law at UC Irvine.

Giles Fraser (@giles_fraser) is a Priest, former Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s Cathedral and Guardian columnist.

Listen here