”The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.”
Salman Rushdie
Any kind of institutionalised spirituality – more commonly known as 'religion' – can never be anything else but idol-worship. In the following I will explain why all religions in their essence are based on idol-worship and elaborate on the consequences of such idol-worship.
Institutionalised religion is by definition a set of rules for expressing one's spirituality. The focus of such institutions is on clearly defined norms, the objective of which is to function as forms of expression for certain values. Some examples of such norms are going to church on Sunday, being confirmed, praying 5 times a day, going on pilgrimage to Mecca, not eating pork, circumcision, resting on the Sabbath, giving offerings to a higher power and lighting incense in a temple. Let me start with an example from one of life's religious-cultural spheres.
Faith and Values are Substance, Norms are Mere Symbols
Quite a few Muslim men and women defend the use of the Burqa by describing it as a sign of respect – A burqa dressed woman is not likely to be looked at as a sex object and is therefore liberated. In the West, the same people would likely claim that the woman is not free to walk about as she pleases, as she is constantly exposed to men's judging looks. Beauty contests are often drawn into the discussion as examples of institutionalised western oppression of women. According to this line of thought, it is the western women who are oppressed and the burqa dressed women who are liberated. On the other hand, many westerners believe that women's liberation is about equal rights and duties to men and women. Respect for women is expressed by placing the responsibility for their lives on their own shoulders and letting them participate in society on equal terms with men. Anything else is seen as oppressive.
Here we have two contradictory ways of expressing the same value – respect for women. The disagreement does not revolve around faith and is not an expression of a value conflict, as both parties argue for the same value. The dispute is sooner about the way in which to express the value at hand; not about substance and content but about symbolism. It is therefore futile to launch a discussion about the right or duty to wear a burqa from the angle of gender equality. If we are to understand each other across cultural barriers, we should disclose the reason for which we choose two such conflicting forms of expression for the same value.
If the belief in certain values is the substance of spirituality, then the belief's forms of expression – the following and emerging norms – are the shape of spirituality, its superficial façade. In the example above, the value 'respect for women' is immanent in the practised norm, regardless whether the norm is a forced dress code or the freedom to wear what one pleases. It is this immanence that renders 'norm' and 'value' inseparable. With time the norm becomes the object of idolisation rather than the value. We know only too well how some 'rebellious' women get punished in some traditional societies for breaking the dress code, as well as we know the automatic reaction of modern feminists to all that seems like a compromise on the norms '68-generation has fought for. Both groups idolise a norm, which at times is no more than an inane symbol. None of them is willing to acknowledge that the values they believe in can be practised in innumerable ways.
That is how respect to the individual and the individual's freedom evaporates in the name of freedom and gender equality in some Muslim societies as well as in the modern western society. In the name of respect for the individual's freedom, both groups forbid a real practice of that freedom and do not allow any deviation from the norm. That is how traditions emerge – people repeat the same arbitrary rituals, regardless whether these rituals still serve their original function. This is the dangerous element in such 'sacred' traditions: Society is ever-evolving. Norms that are meaningful in a certain context might – and often do – loose their meaning in a different context. Sticking to particular norms for the sake of sticking to the known and familiar with the argument that they are part of one's tradition – a symbol of culture, ethnic affiliation and identity – can only result in the practice of norms that have lost their meaning and validity, have become obsolete and inexpedient.
Such a development expresses a belief that if only one sticks to a specific dress code, reads up particular texts or avoids eating certain kinds of food, if only one does as one always has done, then one lives up to the ideals defined by god, by spokesmen for some more or less violent revolutions, or of other authorities of questionable relevance for the individual's life situation. Norm-worship is thus in its essence not different from idol-worship, which particularly the monotheistic religions claim to distance themselves from.
Why is idol-worship unavoidable?
I have in the above explained one of many aspects of the tight connection between the faith in particular ideologies and values, and their arbitrary forms of expression. It is after all possible to be a god-fearing man and act accordingly without meeting the formal requirements made up by god's representatives on earth to practice more or less obsolete and empty symbolic acts. That would of course cost the person at hand some social standing. In the same way, a non-believer can go to church every Sunday, light incense or pray five times a day without exception and thus achieve high social standing, which is purely based on superficial and empty gestures.
Religions – the different forms for institutionalised spirituality – tend to emphasise the symbol, the show, the act of worship, and not substance and authenticity. This tendency is of course not exclusive to religions – many institutions emphasise norms such as presence, dress-code and other behavioural patterns without regard for these norms' relevance to the individual and the individual's position on these symbolic norms. There is a good reason for this. Unlike the body, the soul can not be controlled by external forces. As the old saying goes - “They can send me to school, but they can't make me think!”
The goal for many institutions is to tame and control the soul through rules that control the body. As controlling others' souls and minds is unachievable, institutions have to compromise on aiming for the second best – to control the body and regard any natural, voluntary or forced behavioural patterns as expressions for certain values. Corporal actions are therefore sanctioned or rewarded, while their emic meaning, as ascribed to them by the individual is ignored. There are two reasons to take this into consideration when one is dealing with spiritual institutions.
First of all, spiritual institutions often demand monopolistic control over numerous aspects of life – language, dress-code, hair-style, food and drinks, social relationships and more.
Secondly, spiritual institutions consider themselves god's representatives on earth, and as such, their word is god's word, an indisputable, absolute, universal truth, which we, mortal earthlings should follow, but which we cannot and should not try to understand in its entirety.
In their pure form, bodies of institutionalised spirituality stipulate comprehensive and absolute demands to the individual's life style. This entails a high risk for focusing on actions, which are understood as expressions of a full hearted and intended belonging to a certain denomination, but which away from their original context are meaningless and even harmful. Unless of course they serve a different goal than the explicated ones.
Religious precepts serve the same purpose as football
Do obsolete norms that have been ripped out of their original context serve different purpose than the explicated ones? Yes, they do. By definition. They serve the same purpose as football.
Norms are a wonderful thing. Without them we cannot navigate in the world. The term 'norm' comprises many written and unwritten rules about how one should act in certain social and private situations. Norms emerge often from our own or others' experiences that have taught us the most appropriate ways to act in different situations. Norms emanate through repetition which creates recognition, predictability and safety, or at the least allow some peace of mind. They are such a fundamental element in our lives, that we don't notice them unless we, or others, deviate from them. Except from making the world feel safer, due to the predictability they create, they also create a feeling of belonging, of social affiliation, unity, solidarity and a confirmation that we live our lives as we should – as we can see that we live in the same way as those around us.
Humans are gregarious creatures that live in flocks. A 'flock' is about more than just numbers and the search after groups to assimilate into. 'Flock' is about being able to recognise oneself in the others' way of living. The tendency to flock with like-minded people, the need for recognition and predictability is the explanation for the feelings that arise when we take part in large gatherings, where a large audience has certain pronounced common interests. Singing with several thousands at a football match. Shouting catchwords at a demonstration. Repeating a slogan interminably. Singing at a big concert. Following a clear precept of dance moves such as the macarena-dance. All these are examples of a self confirmatory flock behaviour, which provides security due to its predictability and recognisability. The obverse are for example situations where one confronts the school yard bullies, cheers for Manchester United when all around support Chelsea, or turns up for a BNP convention wearing a burqa. These situations where one, either alone or in a group, breaks the status quo, can have far-reaching and immeasurable consequences. Deviating from the norm costs energy. On the other hand, going with the flow comes naturally and satisfies some existential psychological and social needs. Unity, solidarity, recognition and safety are all feelings that arise through common norms – regardless of the values the individual believes these norms reflect. Therefore, a gradual evolution and change of norms should not be considered as a threat to society, but rather as a society's tenaciousness, development and survival in spite of change in the surrounding social circumstances.
Sanctification backfires
The idea of the sacred – in the name of religion, nation, culture or any other ideal is a sign of weakness. It is a sign that one either does not understand or is reluctant to explain the idea behind 'the sacred'. It is therefore disrespectful to one self, to one's fellow human beings and last but not least , it is disrespectful to 'the sacred'. Sanctification rips a certain life style from its context, where it was expedient, and fossilises it across time and space with no regard to its relevance. Inevitably, this brings about detrimental consequences for the individual as well as for the society and culture, which one wants to preserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment