Tweet
I am posting this because I want help with all of these questions. I'm not studying any of this at the moment, so I don't have class or professors to help me, but I really wish I had someone to discuss these issues with (or at least someone who can recommend reading material). Reading is great but discourse is equally as important, and at the moment here is the only place. Sad, really. Though it's really long and at times poorly written (I tried to simplify a lot to keep the length down), can someone please at least read a little bit and respond? Especially someone from a Scandinavian country? There's a section on Scandinavia that I'll put in bold which I'd really like help with from the many Scandinavians here, since they definitely know way more about their countries' histories than I do and can perhaps help me explore some of the questions.
I'm definitely not asking you to read the whole thing since hardly anyone would, but a few sections would be nice. I really don't think it's unreasonable, should take about 5-10 minutes to read. In the scheme of things that's not very long at all, other than news flashes nothing can be covered in a short post. But the internet and places like apolyton make everything so short that our attention spans are all gone. Anything worth discussing has enough depth to fill much more than a few short paragraphs. Anyways, written at 7AM, here are a lot of the questions I've been dealing with recently. Oh and by the way I didn't write this for the purpose of Apolyton, I wrote it because listing all of the questions you've been having is an amazing thing to do. Helps put your thoughts in order and see where you have to go next. Anyways:
One of the biggest issues facing religions worldwide today is the cultural effects and changes brought about the economic development resulting from globalization, particularly in the neo-liberal form. Originally, the secularization thesis stated that the freek market and secularism (ideologies taken to be universal, scientific, and not a product of culture and superior to all others) would replace religion. Of course the violent religious conservative reactions against the spread of this ideology proved it wrong, or at least that a more nuanced approach needed to be taken. The Middle East was a particular hotspot with nations such as Iran reverting to religious fundamentalism and theocracy in a violent reaction against secularist political ideologies and economic ideologies of various types.
But why were such violent reactions less occurent within Christianity (or maybe the same did happen to the same extent but farther in the past, leading my rusty European history to forget)? Even if such reactions did occur to a similar extent in the past, why do we have nations such as the US with religious conservatives strongly in favor of the market? Consumerism has turned us into a more sexed crazed, decadent, and amoral (pursuing the maximization of profit has become a God for many and the Bible sure isn’t too big on it) society, complaints social conservatives routinely make, but it is never blamed on the market-it’s blamed on gays, other races, or hippies. How has the free market combined so successfully with Christianity in America? Is it for purely historical, economic, and political reasons? Theological reasons? Cultural reasons? And in the cases of Christian nations gone aetheist, was it due to the free market? Also, I’ve been using consumerism and the free market interchangeably since the former seems to come hand in hand with the latter, but should I do a better job of a making the distinction?
The first Christian reaction against the freek market that I can think of would be the Calvinists and their descedents such as the Puritans. They weren’t opposed to the free market per se, and of course there’s Weber’s argument that the daily teachings and manifestations of their theologies lead to cultural practices that enabled capitalism to develop (frugality, hard work, the ‘rationalization’ of daily life that he describes as a stringent ordering of all behavior). (I personally love Weber but don’t buy his argument because the same claims can be made of Catholicism and because we should see statistical tendencies of the Protestant countries being more productive than the Catholic countries, and I’ve seen statistics that measure the claims of Weber showing absolutely no statistical correlations.)
But the ways in which Calvinism was anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist are many, mainly its asceticism and the idea that all work should have the purpose of serving God (thus the pursuit of the maximization of wealth for the sake of making money was deemed highly immoral). There was also a great suspicion of any type of decadence or frivolty and consumer behavior for the sake of enjoying consumption was considered highly immoral. As for why consumerism and the industrial revolution developed in England despite this background (yes, unlike what economists say, the industrial revolution did not come about simply by technological advancement, there needed to be demand for consumer goods for such industries to grow and if such behavior was considered highly immoral a great cultural change must have occured) I won’t get into it since I’d be writing pages. But if you’re interested definitely take a look at The Romantic Ethic and Spirit of Modern Consumption by Colin Campbell. Perhaps the best non-fiction book I’ve ever read.
In the case of many Catholic countries, the rise of secularism and liberalism eroded the power of the church greatly. The ideology of capitalism comes from liberalism and such strong belief in the individual, though not sure if it would necessarily follow. But I don’t remember enough about the French Revolution. Was it very capitalist in nature? Was the Catholic Church strongly opposed to capitalism and/or consumerism? If a better historian could help me out I’d be greatful. In Spain, the rise of liberal, secular government (with economic tendencies more to the left, meaning less capitalist?...but still capitalist?) brought strong conflict with the Catholic Church. The conservatives won and a Fascist government was in place until 1976. I don’t know enough about the ideology behind Spanish fascism but from what I know the Italian brand is the one type of Christianity that understood that capitalism could erode culture, and it championed the society over the individual and held the idea that the market needed to be kept in check to make sure decadence and the erosion of culture didn’t happen. So here’s a strong reaction to capitalist and a recent one two.
What about some of the other nations? Italy and other almost-entirely-Catholic nations (places like Argentina) have seen a great erosion in religious fervour with the last generation. Was this due to economic development and the rise of the free market/consumerist ideology? Or was it due to the religious homogenity of these nations? In one of my religion classes we read ideas stating that religious plularism actually strengthens religions since they are in conflict (which breeds strength) and the people use them to define themselves apart from other parts of the population. Was it simply because in nations where the religion didn’t face competition there lacked reasons for maintaining the fervor, leading to its demise?
If so, why aren’t we seeing revivalist reactions like in the US after religion declined? What about the growth pentecostalism and evangelism in Latin American and Africa? In class we read a book about how the ideologies of these religious groups fit in very well with capitalism (both individualist and pentecostalism doesn’t have social justice critiques of capitalism, the believe is that if you are saved and transform your life you can work hard and make it in the market-sounds like a very successful fusion to me). How will the growth of these religions influence Catholicism? Will the challenge strengthen Catholicism? Will there be a Catholic reaction to the growth of these religions? If so, how will this Catholic reaction view the state and economics?
Does the religious-homogenity-causing the decline of religion argument apply to Scandinavia as well? Since there are lots of Scandinavians here I’d love it if someone with a better understanding of the histories of these nations responded. I read two arguments about the rise of the huge welfare states there (can’t remember the specifics of each country though). One said the growth of this huge welfare state was due to the alliance between the rural and urban labor movements (which apparently didn’t happen in other nations) that lead to a very powerful force that defeated ruling class ideologies. Not sure if it said this but at least implicitly you’d take the logical step that the growth of this secular state eroded the religion.
The other argument stated that it had to do with the existence of the state religion there. It goes something like that in other countries the religion fought against the secular state where the latter won with the former very reluctant to give up social services such as charities, hospitals, and schools (particularly with the Catholic countries) since giving up the services would cause them to lose relevance in the daily lives of the people. But in the case of Sweden (I think it was), the religion and state were the same, and the church didn’t resist the nationalization and state control of these services, leading to a giant welfare state with expansive social programs. Again not sure if he makes the connection but I think you can easily make the step that since it was the state that provided the means to live, the religion lost importance and eventually faded into a highly secular state only Lutheran in name.
So what caused the demise of the religion in Scandinavian countries? The state providing these services and the decline in the economic importance of the church? And why then didn’t the religion stay since it fused so well with the state (isn’t its peaceful fusion with the state what would keep it alive much better than the conflicts between religion and the state in other European nations where the latter won)? Or perhaps the conflict between the state and religion strengthened the religions of those countries, whereas in Scandinavia the lack of conflict lead to a lack of reason to keep the religion alive (very similar to the religious pluralism argument). Why don’t we see a highly religious Sweden with a state church with its heavy involvement in the daily lives of the people? Since the community is so strong there, why wouldn’t the church stay? Isn’t it individualism and the liberal principals of free choice what erodes religion? Shouldn’t the strong emphasis on community lead to the strength and importance of the community’s values, such as religion?
Whatever the case, was it the remaining of the economic importance of the church in places such as Italy (or perhaps Catholics in American, who are surviving much better than their mainstream protestant counter-parts) that helped the church survive? I like this argument, since the presence of religion in such important matters should bolster its performance and help foster religious community, and having children brought up in religious communities leads to them keeping the religion. The best example would be the schools. I think the survival of Catholicism in the US while evangelicalism is on the rise and mainstream protestantism on a strong decline is due to the schools. Catholic schools are cheap, great, and numerous, and I think their mainstream Protestant counterparts aren’t up to snuff. But having Catholic schools means that the children are socialized in a non-secular environment and brought up in a Catholic community. People follow what the rest of their community does, and the existence of the schools builds community and keeps the Catholics alive.
Why then the mix of capitalism/consumerism in America? Is it due to the common history of both in that country leading to a fusion between the two? Is it due to something about dissident Protestant ideology? How does these ideologies interact with capitalism, consumerism, and the state in similar religious sects in other countries? Because the individualist, liberal values leading to (or a foundation of, not sure how this reaction works) or growing from dissident protestantism were the same that found capitalism? I think capitalism grew from the enlightenment, so we should see a similar fight between religion and these ideals, right? Or was it that there was a convergence in values leading the acceptance of one another? Was American democracy a cultural outgrowth of dissident protestantism or from other factors? If the former, it could be that this democracy jived very well with enlightenment liberal values, leading to a fusion of the two.
Perhaps the capitalist culture was simply a result of the individualism of an immigrant nation where people came in search of the American dream, with religious freedom an equally important part, leading to their fusion? I think we should compare the USA to similar nations, immigrant nations with British heritage, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Unfortunately I know nothing about the religious cultures of those nations. What I do remember is that Australia and Canada, though more closely tied to Europe than the US, have more similarities in their welfare system (along with the UK) than other nations in Europe-they’re all ‘liberal’ welfare states, with welfare functioning as that safety net. I very capitalist ideology. Was this caused by their history as immigrant nations founded by people trying to economically better themselves? Shared cultural heritage (dissident protestantism)? And what about New Zealand, aren’t they really socialist? That may be due to the small size of that country.
The historian in me wants to say that you have to look at the particular circumstances of each country and go from there. I agree, but then the political scientist in me says there has to be some universal concepts and tendencies at work here, the different historical factors and the collision of all of these concepts producing unique situations in each country that make the universalities difficult to discover but still important to understand. Can we use some of these ideas with the Middle East? My middle eastern history is absolutely terrible so even though it’s the point of the thread I’m not really going to write about it. But what is the future of Islam? How will it interact/react with the state and the free market? How will it interact/react with consumerism? What types of states will develop, neo-liberal ones (my guess due to the powers that be backing them)? Or will there be a strong reaction to the imposition of such ideologies (the unpopularity of the war in Iraq is definitely a strong reaction to the imposition of neo-liberalism)?
Will something else develop? Will Islam mix with the free market and survive? Islamic banking comes to mind. Will the free market be rejected? In favor of what? For social justice or religious reasons? I just haven’t read enough to get some of the answers to these, in the most economically developed Muslim nations, how do religion, the state, and economy interact? I do know that Iran, the poster child of Muslim fundamentalist government in the Middle East, has a gigantic young population that doesn’t seem to care too much about religion. Similar to this generation of Catholics in places like Italy and Argentina. Iran’s youth I believe are more interested in the West and consumerism and capitalism. So what’ll happen? If there is economic success I could easily see it become a secular, market driven nation. But if not? Will Islam rise since the secular, capitalist government can’t provide for the welfare of the nation (it’s only goal since it doesn’t have a spiritual background? Will we see secular, social justice driven economic movements?
And here’s a big one, how is it that soft power works? Why is it that consumerism and capitalist culture has such an appeal? It’s westerness? Technology? Western, particularly American, cultural superiority is strong in all parts of the world. In places like south America anything American is highly sought out. Will there be a pattern between the increasingly secular youth of Muslim nations and the increasingly secular youth of Christian nations? Will we eventually see the market and neo-liberal ideologies dominate the world, with religion only surviving in the places the two successfully mix? Places such as the USA, perhaps pentecostalist and evangelical religious groups in Latin American and Africa, and whatever mix arises in the Middle East?
I'm definitely not asking you to read the whole thing since hardly anyone would, but a few sections would be nice. I really don't think it's unreasonable, should take about 5-10 minutes to read. In the scheme of things that's not very long at all, other than news flashes nothing can be covered in a short post. But the internet and places like apolyton make everything so short that our attention spans are all gone. Anything worth discussing has enough depth to fill much more than a few short paragraphs. Anyways, written at 7AM, here are a lot of the questions I've been dealing with recently. Oh and by the way I didn't write this for the purpose of Apolyton, I wrote it because listing all of the questions you've been having is an amazing thing to do. Helps put your thoughts in order and see where you have to go next. Anyways:
One of the biggest issues facing religions worldwide today is the cultural effects and changes brought about the economic development resulting from globalization, particularly in the neo-liberal form. Originally, the secularization thesis stated that the freek market and secularism (ideologies taken to be universal, scientific, and not a product of culture and superior to all others) would replace religion. Of course the violent religious conservative reactions against the spread of this ideology proved it wrong, or at least that a more nuanced approach needed to be taken. The Middle East was a particular hotspot with nations such as Iran reverting to religious fundamentalism and theocracy in a violent reaction against secularist political ideologies and economic ideologies of various types.
But why were such violent reactions less occurent within Christianity (or maybe the same did happen to the same extent but farther in the past, leading my rusty European history to forget)? Even if such reactions did occur to a similar extent in the past, why do we have nations such as the US with religious conservatives strongly in favor of the market? Consumerism has turned us into a more sexed crazed, decadent, and amoral (pursuing the maximization of profit has become a God for many and the Bible sure isn’t too big on it) society, complaints social conservatives routinely make, but it is never blamed on the market-it’s blamed on gays, other races, or hippies. How has the free market combined so successfully with Christianity in America? Is it for purely historical, economic, and political reasons? Theological reasons? Cultural reasons? And in the cases of Christian nations gone aetheist, was it due to the free market? Also, I’ve been using consumerism and the free market interchangeably since the former seems to come hand in hand with the latter, but should I do a better job of a making the distinction?
The first Christian reaction against the freek market that I can think of would be the Calvinists and their descedents such as the Puritans. They weren’t opposed to the free market per se, and of course there’s Weber’s argument that the daily teachings and manifestations of their theologies lead to cultural practices that enabled capitalism to develop (frugality, hard work, the ‘rationalization’ of daily life that he describes as a stringent ordering of all behavior). (I personally love Weber but don’t buy his argument because the same claims can be made of Catholicism and because we should see statistical tendencies of the Protestant countries being more productive than the Catholic countries, and I’ve seen statistics that measure the claims of Weber showing absolutely no statistical correlations.)
But the ways in which Calvinism was anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist are many, mainly its asceticism and the idea that all work should have the purpose of serving God (thus the pursuit of the maximization of wealth for the sake of making money was deemed highly immoral). There was also a great suspicion of any type of decadence or frivolty and consumer behavior for the sake of enjoying consumption was considered highly immoral. As for why consumerism and the industrial revolution developed in England despite this background (yes, unlike what economists say, the industrial revolution did not come about simply by technological advancement, there needed to be demand for consumer goods for such industries to grow and if such behavior was considered highly immoral a great cultural change must have occured) I won’t get into it since I’d be writing pages. But if you’re interested definitely take a look at The Romantic Ethic and Spirit of Modern Consumption by Colin Campbell. Perhaps the best non-fiction book I’ve ever read.
In the case of many Catholic countries, the rise of secularism and liberalism eroded the power of the church greatly. The ideology of capitalism comes from liberalism and such strong belief in the individual, though not sure if it would necessarily follow. But I don’t remember enough about the French Revolution. Was it very capitalist in nature? Was the Catholic Church strongly opposed to capitalism and/or consumerism? If a better historian could help me out I’d be greatful. In Spain, the rise of liberal, secular government (with economic tendencies more to the left, meaning less capitalist?...but still capitalist?) brought strong conflict with the Catholic Church. The conservatives won and a Fascist government was in place until 1976. I don’t know enough about the ideology behind Spanish fascism but from what I know the Italian brand is the one type of Christianity that understood that capitalism could erode culture, and it championed the society over the individual and held the idea that the market needed to be kept in check to make sure decadence and the erosion of culture didn’t happen. So here’s a strong reaction to capitalist and a recent one two.
What about some of the other nations? Italy and other almost-entirely-Catholic nations (places like Argentina) have seen a great erosion in religious fervour with the last generation. Was this due to economic development and the rise of the free market/consumerist ideology? Or was it due to the religious homogenity of these nations? In one of my religion classes we read ideas stating that religious plularism actually strengthens religions since they are in conflict (which breeds strength) and the people use them to define themselves apart from other parts of the population. Was it simply because in nations where the religion didn’t face competition there lacked reasons for maintaining the fervor, leading to its demise?
If so, why aren’t we seeing revivalist reactions like in the US after religion declined? What about the growth pentecostalism and evangelism in Latin American and Africa? In class we read a book about how the ideologies of these religious groups fit in very well with capitalism (both individualist and pentecostalism doesn’t have social justice critiques of capitalism, the believe is that if you are saved and transform your life you can work hard and make it in the market-sounds like a very successful fusion to me). How will the growth of these religions influence Catholicism? Will the challenge strengthen Catholicism? Will there be a Catholic reaction to the growth of these religions? If so, how will this Catholic reaction view the state and economics?
Does the religious-homogenity-causing the decline of religion argument apply to Scandinavia as well? Since there are lots of Scandinavians here I’d love it if someone with a better understanding of the histories of these nations responded. I read two arguments about the rise of the huge welfare states there (can’t remember the specifics of each country though). One said the growth of this huge welfare state was due to the alliance between the rural and urban labor movements (which apparently didn’t happen in other nations) that lead to a very powerful force that defeated ruling class ideologies. Not sure if it said this but at least implicitly you’d take the logical step that the growth of this secular state eroded the religion.
The other argument stated that it had to do with the existence of the state religion there. It goes something like that in other countries the religion fought against the secular state where the latter won with the former very reluctant to give up social services such as charities, hospitals, and schools (particularly with the Catholic countries) since giving up the services would cause them to lose relevance in the daily lives of the people. But in the case of Sweden (I think it was), the religion and state were the same, and the church didn’t resist the nationalization and state control of these services, leading to a giant welfare state with expansive social programs. Again not sure if he makes the connection but I think you can easily make the step that since it was the state that provided the means to live, the religion lost importance and eventually faded into a highly secular state only Lutheran in name.
So what caused the demise of the religion in Scandinavian countries? The state providing these services and the decline in the economic importance of the church? And why then didn’t the religion stay since it fused so well with the state (isn’t its peaceful fusion with the state what would keep it alive much better than the conflicts between religion and the state in other European nations where the latter won)? Or perhaps the conflict between the state and religion strengthened the religions of those countries, whereas in Scandinavia the lack of conflict lead to a lack of reason to keep the religion alive (very similar to the religious pluralism argument). Why don’t we see a highly religious Sweden with a state church with its heavy involvement in the daily lives of the people? Since the community is so strong there, why wouldn’t the church stay? Isn’t it individualism and the liberal principals of free choice what erodes religion? Shouldn’t the strong emphasis on community lead to the strength and importance of the community’s values, such as religion?
Whatever the case, was it the remaining of the economic importance of the church in places such as Italy (or perhaps Catholics in American, who are surviving much better than their mainstream protestant counter-parts) that helped the church survive? I like this argument, since the presence of religion in such important matters should bolster its performance and help foster religious community, and having children brought up in religious communities leads to them keeping the religion. The best example would be the schools. I think the survival of Catholicism in the US while evangelicalism is on the rise and mainstream protestantism on a strong decline is due to the schools. Catholic schools are cheap, great, and numerous, and I think their mainstream Protestant counterparts aren’t up to snuff. But having Catholic schools means that the children are socialized in a non-secular environment and brought up in a Catholic community. People follow what the rest of their community does, and the existence of the schools builds community and keeps the Catholics alive.
Why then the mix of capitalism/consumerism in America? Is it due to the common history of both in that country leading to a fusion between the two? Is it due to something about dissident Protestant ideology? How does these ideologies interact with capitalism, consumerism, and the state in similar religious sects in other countries? Because the individualist, liberal values leading to (or a foundation of, not sure how this reaction works) or growing from dissident protestantism were the same that found capitalism? I think capitalism grew from the enlightenment, so we should see a similar fight between religion and these ideals, right? Or was it that there was a convergence in values leading the acceptance of one another? Was American democracy a cultural outgrowth of dissident protestantism or from other factors? If the former, it could be that this democracy jived very well with enlightenment liberal values, leading to a fusion of the two.
Perhaps the capitalist culture was simply a result of the individualism of an immigrant nation where people came in search of the American dream, with religious freedom an equally important part, leading to their fusion? I think we should compare the USA to similar nations, immigrant nations with British heritage, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Unfortunately I know nothing about the religious cultures of those nations. What I do remember is that Australia and Canada, though more closely tied to Europe than the US, have more similarities in their welfare system (along with the UK) than other nations in Europe-they’re all ‘liberal’ welfare states, with welfare functioning as that safety net. I very capitalist ideology. Was this caused by their history as immigrant nations founded by people trying to economically better themselves? Shared cultural heritage (dissident protestantism)? And what about New Zealand, aren’t they really socialist? That may be due to the small size of that country.
The historian in me wants to say that you have to look at the particular circumstances of each country and go from there. I agree, but then the political scientist in me says there has to be some universal concepts and tendencies at work here, the different historical factors and the collision of all of these concepts producing unique situations in each country that make the universalities difficult to discover but still important to understand. Can we use some of these ideas with the Middle East? My middle eastern history is absolutely terrible so even though it’s the point of the thread I’m not really going to write about it. But what is the future of Islam? How will it interact/react with the state and the free market? How will it interact/react with consumerism? What types of states will develop, neo-liberal ones (my guess due to the powers that be backing them)? Or will there be a strong reaction to the imposition of such ideologies (the unpopularity of the war in Iraq is definitely a strong reaction to the imposition of neo-liberalism)?
Will something else develop? Will Islam mix with the free market and survive? Islamic banking comes to mind. Will the free market be rejected? In favor of what? For social justice or religious reasons? I just haven’t read enough to get some of the answers to these, in the most economically developed Muslim nations, how do religion, the state, and economy interact? I do know that Iran, the poster child of Muslim fundamentalist government in the Middle East, has a gigantic young population that doesn’t seem to care too much about religion. Similar to this generation of Catholics in places like Italy and Argentina. Iran’s youth I believe are more interested in the West and consumerism and capitalism. So what’ll happen? If there is economic success I could easily see it become a secular, market driven nation. But if not? Will Islam rise since the secular, capitalist government can’t provide for the welfare of the nation (it’s only goal since it doesn’t have a spiritual background? Will we see secular, social justice driven economic movements?
And here’s a big one, how is it that soft power works? Why is it that consumerism and capitalist culture has such an appeal? It’s westerness? Technology? Western, particularly American, cultural superiority is strong in all parts of the world. In places like south America anything American is highly sought out. Will there be a pattern between the increasingly secular youth of Muslim nations and the increasingly secular youth of Christian nations? Will we eventually see the market and neo-liberal ideologies dominate the world, with religion only surviving in the places the two successfully mix? Places such as the USA, perhaps pentecostalist and evangelical religious groups in Latin American and Africa, and whatever mix arises in the Middle East?
Comment