Religion and modernization.

This article by Prof. Sam Crane over at his blog “The Useless Tree” got me thinking about the role of religion and modernization. I’ll post a copy of the article below, but the blog contains some interesting hyperlinks worth reading:

And here is the NY Times article referenced:

I’ve bolded a sentence in the NY Times article that I find to be of particular interest. I don’t think I’m saying anything too controversial when I suggest that religion plays an important role in a community, it is often the central metanarrative that ties otherwise very distinct individuals together. Likewise, as modernization (and the anomie that follows the sunderings it brings) takes hold religiosity tends to either fade or take on a different, more individualized character. Yet this individualized character also undermines the authority of the religious leaders. The spirit medium of priest could serve to adjudicate between disagreeing parties using their authority to resolve problems. But as our problems become less community oriented, the nature of problem-solving also becomes problematic. After all, if the problem is intersubjective, using a third party to resolve the dispute is an effective means of doing so. Right? But if the problems are personal, bringing in an outside party becomes a much less effective means of actually solving the problem.

This undermines the authority of religious figures. After all, if they in fact are less able to solve problems, they will also be perceived as being less able to solve problems. And if they are perceived as less able to solve problems, people will lose respect for them on other levels as well. While that tit-for-tat philosophy is somewhat distasteful, it is one of the primary means that people interact with authority figures. Why submit to someone if you don’t get anything from it?

But what is the nature of an authority like Chang Yin’s (Ji Gong’s)?

At the end of the day I’m not so sure people care much whether they believe in the supernatural or not. It’s kind of a moot point on many levels, and it’s certainly not the essence of what ties together a community.

I think it often is what ties communities together; though there are, of course, other means of doing so. Religion often fills that role, that is all I was saying. As for Ji Gong, he is a well known and respected Bodhisattva. Part of what makes his character so intriguing is how he would transcend normal rules of behavior to illustrate a point. It is both a very Buddhist and very Daoist (Zhuangzian, really) sentiment. No need for authority figures to be austere, though the two often go hand-in-hand.

I just think the accoutrements are the means, not the essence. That’s why they can change and modernize. Religious forms will come and go. Yes, religion often does fill that role, but the outer forms of religion aren’t what truly bind people together.

Daoism especially makes this point:

This may or may not be a good translation - I just picked the first one to come up on Google. It’s close enough for government work.

I personally think the anti-ritual stance is a bit overstated in the quoted text given that ritual can be very helpful and in the service of the essence it helps to transmit, but nonetheless ritual is not itself the point. In Buddhist language ritual is considered skillful means, and skillful means is all about pliancy and context.

I thought the relationship between skillful means (the “hand”) and wisdom (the “heart”) was very well expressed by Chang Yin/Ji Gong. That message transcends any questions or changes introduced by modernity.

I can agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Except for the central thesis, that the communal aspect of religion is an aside. If it is an aside, I have to ask: what is central to religion?

To which religion? “Only you can open your heart” seems to me an excellent pithy summary of Buddhist worldview for example. There’s a level of paradox involved - it goes against the grain of the frenzied social milieu we have such an uneasy relationship with. I’m thinking of by coberst for instance.

I didn’t really think my central thesis was that the communal aspect of religion is an aside - more that religious forms seek to transmit something, and that something can potentially be transmitted in an infinite variety of ways. I think opening one’s heart is really the essence of any community. Whether anyone else is around or not.

I’d agree that opening one’s heart is the essence of community, after all, one’s heart has to be open to something or, more importantly, someone. While I agree that religion does transmit ideas, but I’m not so sure that is really what it is about. To me, that is the aside. The DDJ passage you offered actually supports that worldview. The essence of moral education isn’t the data passed along (the ritual), but rather the types of behavior it encourages.

Hmm, I wasn’t really emphasizing ideas or behavior. I think what is ideally transmitted is a basic view of reality, based in lived experience. If that is transmitted, and better yet fully realized, ideas and behavior become like royal servants, in the service of something more essential and valuable. With that experience, everything hangs together and becomes more workable, without the all too common neediness and clinging to communal ideals, which ironically can be what leads so powerfully to communal conflict and even violence.

Isn’t this one of those disputes where the solution is “both and…”? I tell you, when I actually feel that I am in the presence of the answer to the question of religion, part of me despairs knowing that I won’t be able to communicate it adequately to anyone.

Most of what I read about what Christianity (my particular obsession) by both the so-called Christians (myself included) and the so-called Non-christians doesn’t capture the “essence” of what it is. I think it would sadden Jesus to learn that he is associated the problem of hell in the minds of so many people today.

Anyway thanks for the articles. Philosophy seems to happen when people realize that religion points to something beyond its self and they can’t identify exactly what it is.

Anon,

Sure, religion is a metanarrative, but I don’t think of metanarratives as being inert. I think that the essence of a thing exists when it is a verb. We need to delve into what “to religion” means as opposed to merely “religion”. Does that make sense?

Felix,

While I have certain issues with Legge’s translation, like yourself, he is a Christian and so perhaps it is appropriate that I use it here:

Part of the process of unceasing learning is recognizing that it is, in fact, unceasing – there is no end point, you cannot reach it. It is humbling, but also really exciting. That all the answers aren’t out there gives me some hope that I might find something!

Good read…thanks for posting it.

Now to your postings…namely, there’s nothing off on anything you are stating except this:

I pose this differently:

Or rather, Why would religion inherently demand submission to someone?

Well, to me, the very nature of orthodoxy demands that someone, besides you, is correct. This is a situation that is absolutely invaluable in so many areas in life, yet people seem unwilling to recognize its value in the religious realm, which I think is a pity. Who am I to say I’ve got a better grasp on things than the consensus that has been reached from over 5000 years of sincere study?

I know that my own knowledge is quite limited. While the notion of the Imperial Examination is (sadly) archaic, I know that I wouldn’t even be able to pass the first level of it, and for a modern I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp on the texts in question. Given that, I should be willing to admit, even excited to admit, that there are others who know more and who I can learn from.

Why submit to authority? Why not? It is incredibly beneficial!

I suppose I see the concept differently then.

For me, submission to authority is to not question the assertions of; or to place that person higher on a scale of religious value than another.
For me, I cannot do either.

I cannot appreciate that one man is more authority inherently than another by religious placement, and I cannot bend to any man in submission of their authority.

What I can do, is seek out their advice and see if it helps and if I agree with it.
If I agree with their advice, which often occurs as they do tend to be wise considering their calling, then it is from my understanding and agreeing with their advice because it makes sense or sounds right to me.

I have heard religious authorities state, “Who are you to ask? What authority do you have to question? Go and _____ to (make up for asking)”

Or I have seen men kiss rings of religious leaders, which I cannot comprehend as the man is no more holy in religion than purity in heart by the individual.

So for me, I do see a problem submitting to authority religiously as it means to allow a human to control you through your belief spiritually; this I cannot allow personally.

Am I reading the concept of submission incorrectly that you are using?

There was a good thread Ned Flanders made back-in-the-day about this subject. But since the update has left that in limbo, I’ll present this rather suboptimal thread. Pay attention to the discussion I have with Ucci starting at around the second page. I actually link the Flanders thread later on, but lordy-loo, that is a lot of crap to wade through.

My basic position on authority is a recognition of my own limited nature and a respect for others who know more. So when I have a question about a specific system or text, if my interpretation disagrees with a respected authority (or merely an authority I respect), I will have to seriously examine that position with a critical eye towards my own position. I have to assume I am in the wrong when I disagree with a valid authority. Occasionally, I find that my own position holds, at which point I examine the authority’s position in further detail to make sure I really understand it and I try to see why I am wrong in light of the authority’s position. After I have done all that, it sometimes turns out that I am right and the authority is wrong. But that is relatively rare.

I’d rather have a humble attitude about it since I am more often wrong than right. If I am right, time will vindicate me, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves because if I am wrong, I would greatly benefit from having the correct explanation provided for me.

Part of it, too, is personality and the Mean. I am, by inclination, given to flights of fancy and will construct grand theories which often diverge from the standard understanding. It is therefore beneficial for me to have something to ground me. Someone who is, by nature, dogmatic would benefit from an ideology that allowed for free-expression and novel interpretations because that would correct their deficiency. One isn’t better than the other, they are both deviations from the Mean. We just need to recognize what our own tendencies are.

Gotchya, that’s why we see it different then.

Thanks.

shrug well, I would state that it’s pretty accurate on reflection to think that Religion has gone from macro-management to micro-management as modernization occurs.

I actually have a difficult time trying to visualize the world under the reign of religion those years ago.
I simply cannot fathom the life…it is beyond me to understand or relate to walking in a town with the given of religion.

One day, someone will say the same about walking in the town without robots.

Even in Wasilla? Really?

I can safely assume everyone in Indianapolis is Christian, heck, everybody does do that (much to the chagrin of myself and my g/f). I mean, she said she was Buddhist and a co-worker of mine (who is by no means uneducated, though she is something of a yokel) looked at my g/f like she was from space. Literally, I think that same expression would have been given had my g/f said she grew up on Mars.

I’m not so sure we are so distant from those days.

Meaning, I don’t think of saying something sacrilegious as death and eternal fire, here comes the police.
I don’t go shopping and find everyone looking at the latest arrivals of holy relics.

That’s what I mean.

As to the “alien”, yeah…I get that myself now, being LDS. Most people look at LDS as the weird Mormon cult of paligimy and the further educated think of it as that crazy religion about God being an alien on a planet and everyone dying and becoming gods of their own planets and all translated from some stone sunglasses worn by a supposed 14 year old kid named Joseph Smith.

shrugsigh… oh well.

I don’t know what you’re getting at with the “metanarrative” thing, and also with the reference to inertia.

I can imagine that “to religion” really does mean something. What does it mean?

Anon,

I guess I’d say that something that “transmits a basic view of reality” is a metanarrative. Wouldn’t you agree? And while I agree that religion is a metanarrative, I think it is a specific type of metanarrative and it is made distinct by the degree of encumbrance it demands. And it is living in that encumbered manner that is ‘to religion’, if you will.

That wasn’t what I meant at all. Just to stick to how we’ve already talked about things here, would you call “opening one’s heart” a metanarrative? Yet it is part and parcel of a basic view of reality. I think metanarratives are useful to a point, but in the ultimate analysis may be highly suspect - what is a great help can sometimes be a hindrance. I think wisdom is in part the awareness of when a narrative is helpful and when it isn’t. At the same time a good narrative helps to develop wisdom. I think of it kind of like medicine - for a healthy person (or community for that matter) medicine is poison - it can be regressive.