Politics : Entry 6 : My Opinion : Religion

This will be my last entry in this series of politics as a polarised entry. I could have done social stratification vs social progressivism but I did not feel it was relevant to put it as a polarised entry but rather an in depth analysis of it and if I agree with it or not. So for now, this will be my last entry for the year, so I wish you all Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and Happy Hanukkah. I will now write on my opinion on religion.

Religion

Summery

I will summarise on what I have written on the Left Wing approach on this subject. The original French left-wing was anti-clerical, opposing the influence of the Roman Catholic Church and supporting the separation of church and state. Today in the Western world, those on the Left usually support secularization and the separation of church and state. Religious beliefs, however, have also been associated with some left-wing movements, such as the African American civil rights movement and the anti-capital punishment movement.

Other common leftist concerns such as pacifism, social justice, racial equality, human rights, and the rejection of excessive wealth can be found in the Bible. In the late 19th century, the Social Gospel movement arose (particularly among some Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and Baptists in North America and Britain) which attempted to integrate progressive and socialist thought with Christianity in faith-based social activism, promoted by movements such as Christian Socialism. In the 20th century, the theology of liberation and Creation Spirituality was championed by such writers as Gustavo Gutierrez and Matthew Fox.

Other left-wing religious movements include Islamic socialism and Buddhist socialism. There have been alliances between the Left and anti-war Muslims, such as the Respect Party and the Stop the War Coalition in Britain. In France, the Left has been divided over moves to ban the hijab from schools, with some supporting a ban based on separation of church and state, and others opposing the ban based on personal freedom (1)

I will now summarise on what I have written on the Right Wing approach on this subject. Government support for an established religion was associated with the original French right wing. Religious fundamentalists frequently feel that governments should enact laws supporting their religious tenets. The Christian right is a major force in North America. They generally support laws upholding what they consider religious values, such as opposition to abortion, contraception, sex outside marriage, and to same-sex marriage, and reject scientific positions on evolution and other matters where science disagrees with the Bible.

Outside the West, other religious and ethnic groups are considered right-wing. In India, Hindu nationalism is sometimes considered a part of the Right. The Hindu nationalist movement has attracted privileged groups fearing encroachment on their dominant positions, and impoverished groups seeking recognition around a majoritarian rhetoric of cultural pride, order, and national strength. Many Islamist groups have been called “right wing” including the Great Union Party in Turkey, and the Combatant Clergy Association in Iran and the Islamic Society of Engineers of Iran giving just a few examples.

The term “family values” has been used as a buzzword by right-wing parties such as the Republican Party in the United States, the Family First Party in Australia, the Conservative party in the United Kingdom and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in India to describe support for traditional families, and opposition to the changes the modern world has made in how families live. Right-wing supporters of “family values” may oppose abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, divorce, teenage pregnancy and adultery. (2)

Introduction

I will continue by looking at religion, and to consider if having religion as a basis to set up political policies is correct or not and also I will talk about religion in various fields.

The definition of religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural, or the commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, or even a personal set or institutionalised system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. (3) In this entry, the definition that is most relevant will be the institutionalised system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

Sociology of religion

Sociology of Religion is the study of the beliefs, practices and organizational forms of religion using the tools and methods of the discipline of sociology. This objective investigation may include the use of both quantitative methods (surveys, polls, demographic and census analysis) and qualitative approaches such as participant observation, interviewing, and analysis of archival, historical and documentary materials.

Sociologists of religion study every aspect of religion from what is believed to how persons act while in worship and while living out their stated convictions. They study the changing role of religion both in the public arena (political, economic and media) and in intimate interpersonal relationships. Global religious pluralism (this is an attitude or policy regarding the diversity of religious belief systems co-existing in society.) and conflict, the nature of religious cults and sects, the influence of religion on racial, gender and sexuality issues, and the effect of the media and modern culture has on religious practices are all topics of interest in current sociology of religion research. (4)

Modern academic sociology began with the analysis of religion in Émile Durkheim’s 1897 study of suicide rates among Catholic and Protestant populations, a foundational work of social research which served to distinguish sociology from other disciplines, such as psychology. The works of Karl Marx and Max Weber emphasized the relationship between religion and the economic or social structure of society. Contemporary debates have centred on issues such as secularization, civil religion, and the cohesiveness of religion in the context of globalization and multiculturalism. The contemporary sociology of religion may also encompass the sociology of non-religion (for instance, in the analysis of secular humanist belief systems). I will expand on this in a future blog entry.

Anthropology of religion

Anthropology of religion is the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices across cultures (5)

Anthropological studies of religion had their beginnings in the late nineteenth century with the seminal works of Max Müller, W. Robertson Smith, Edward B. Tylor, and Sir James G. Frazer. These scholars, of course, were not the first to take an interest in the comparative study of religion, nor were they the first to speculate on the religions of pre-literate and tribal peoples. What set these men apart is that they were the first to suggest that tribal religions might be amenable to study following the rules of the scientific method, and the first to specify methodological procedures for the comparative analysis of religious beliefs and practices. (6)

People living in the West tend to have a clear idea of what religion should look like: it tends to take place in a building set aside for the purpose (a church, synagogue, mosque, temple etc.), revolves around appeals to a higher, all-powerful deity and involves the articulation of beliefs (often set down in texts) to which the general population may or may not subscribe. Anthropologists have studied such religions, but they have also examined contexts where religious practice looks very different. In many cultures and societies, the idea of a single God may not be present, and the notion of reading a sacred book like the Quran or the Bible would seem very strange, not least because writing and reading may not play any part in people’s lives. Even the western notion of ‘belief’ does not make much sense in contexts where ideas about gods and spirits are taken for granted, and are not challenged by other faiths or the conclusions of the natural sciences.

Anthropologists of religion are not concerned with discovering the truth or falsehood of religion. They are more interested in how religious ideas express a people’s cosmology, i.e. notions of how the universe is organised and the role of humans within the world. Many study rituals which incorporate symbols, and note how these often help to bring communities together in times of crisis or special points in the calendar. The actions of religious specialists, whether these are priests, prophets, shamans or spirit mediums are also examined. In many societies, such specialists have important political and economic as well as religious roles to play.

Politics of Religion

Debates over the role of religion in the public sphere look certain to be one of the central and defining areas of political life in the 21st century. At the present time there are few countries in the world that can claim to possess a fully secular separation between the state and religion and the influence of the latter in the public realm is one that continues to grow. The topic of religion is one that has also attracted an intense amount of academic attention, traversing a variety of disciplines, often with an overlap between them, including anthropology, sociology, law, history, philosophy, psychology and political science.

As the principal means by which those advocating a public role for a particular faith seek to promote and legitimise this end, (since the point of having a public role means the political group who are advocating religious based policies can carry it out as a measure of governance.) a public discourse of religion is necessarily based on a mutually shared interpretation of the main problems and challenges that such objectives face, as well as the most appropriate and effective method of dealing with them. Emerging, on this basis, through a process debate, the discourse (which exists only as a societal relation between different groups, and which is independent of those from whose efforts it arose) denotes an attempt to shape, mould and frame both the terms and content of public debate. (7)

The relation between religion and politics continues to be an important theme in political philosophy, despite the emergent consensus (both among political theorists and in practical political contexts, such as the United Nations) on the right to freedom of conscience and on the need for some sort of separation between church and state. One reason for the importance of this topic is that religions often make strong claims on people’s allegiance, and universal religions make these claims on all people, rather than just a particular community. For example, Islam has traditionally held that all people owe obedience to Allah’s will.

Thus, it is probably inevitable that religious commitments will sometimes come into conflict with the demands of politics. But religious beliefs and practices also potentially support politics in many ways. The extent and form of this support is as important to political philosophers as is the possibility for conflict. Moreover, there has been a growing interest in minority groups and the political rights and entitlements they are due. One result of this interest is substantial attention given to the particular concerns and needs of minority groups who are distinguished by their religion, as opposed to ethnicity, gender, or wealth.

While the topic of establishment has receded in importance at present, it has been central to political thought in the West since at least the days of Constantine. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, European societies struggled with determining exactly what roles church and state should play in each other’s sphere, and so the topic of establishment became especially pressing in the early modern era, although there was also substantial discussion in the middle ages.

The term “establishment” can refer to any of number of possible arrangements for a religion in a society’s political life. These arrangements include the following:

• A religious body may be a “state” church in the sense that it has an exclusive right to practice its faith.
• A church may be supported through taxes and subject to the direction of the government (for example, the monarch is still officially the head of the Church of England, and the Prime Minister is responsible for selecting the Archbishop of Canterbury).
• Particular ecclesiastical (relating to the Christian church) officials may have, in virtue of their office, an established role in political institutions.
• A church may simply have a privileged role in certain public, political ceremonies (for example, inaugurations, opening of parliament, etc.).
• Instead of privileging a particular religious group, a state could simply enshrine a particular creed or belief system as its official religion, much like the “official bird” or “official flower.”

Note that these options are not mutually exclusive, a state could adopt some or all of these measures. What is central to them is they each involve the conferral of some sort of official status. As European and American societies faced the growing plurality of religious beliefs, communities, and institutions in the early modern era, one of the paramount social problems was determining whether and to what extent they should be tolerated.

My opinion

My initial position of this, was one of plurality and neutrality and thus I was passive towards the issue. But it was a position leaning towards secularism. Although secularism is proceeding rapidly in many of the world’s societies, and although this trend seems connected in some way to the process of economic development, nevertheless religion continues to be an important political phenomenon throughout the world, for multiple reasons. Even the most secularized countries (Sweden is typically cited as a prime example) include substantial numbers of people who still identify themselves as religious. Moreover, many of these societies are currently experiencing immigration from groups who are more religious than native-born populations and who follow religions that are alien to the host countries’ cultural heritage. These people are often given substantial democratic rights, sometimes including formal citizenship. This causes disenfranchisement towards the more religious immigrant groupings by the native born population since they cannot relate to it and this then becomes polarised opposites of each other.

In my opinion, religion should not be a factor on the political processes, since I feel that having a political discussion on each position and discussion from an informed public would be better suited to the types of policies that can occur. In a general population, people will have many differing opinions on multiple topics and thus a bias towards one religious grouping makes no sense if the purpose of the society is equality between all members. Even if one position was unanimous from all religious factions, it should still be discussed by an informed public so an acceptable position can be reached.

So to conclude, I feel religion should not be part of the political spectrum and religious entities and the state should remain separate.

References

1. https://salsahavok.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/politics-entry-1-the-left/
2. https://salsahavok.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/politics-entry-2-the-right/
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
4. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/sociology/about_the_field.html
5. http://global.britannica.com/topic/classification-of-religions
6. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Anthropology.htm
7. Kettell, S. (2009). On the Public Discourse of Religion: Politics and Religion, pp 420 – 443.

Politics : Entry 5 : My Opinion : Nationalism

I will now write on my opinion on nationalism.

Nationalism

Summery

I will summarise on what I have written on the Left Wing approach on this subject. During the French Revolution, nationalism was a policy of the Republican Left. They specifically endorsed civic nationalism which is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers, who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.

One alternative to this is the Marxist theory of proletarian internationalism which is a socialist form of internationalism, based on the view that capitalism is a global system, and therefore the working class must act as a global class if it is to defeat it in class conflict. Workers thus should struggle in solidarity with their fellow workers in other countries on the basis of a common class interest, to avoid continued subjugation via divide and rule

Another perspective is the European social-democrats who strongly support Europeanism (which is a term that encapsulates the norms and values that Europeans have in common, and which transcend national or state identity. In addition to helping promote the integration of the European Union, this doctrine also provides the basis for analyses that characterise European politics, economics, and society as reflecting a shared identity.)

There is also the Modern day left nationalism which is described as form of nationalism based upon social equality, popular sovereignty (the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected representatives, rule by the People, who are the source of all political power.), and national self-determination. It has its origins in the Jacobinism of the French Revolution. Left-wing nationalism typically espouses anti-imperialism. It stands in contrast to right-wing nationalism, and often rejects racist nationalism and fascism, although some forms of left-wing nationalism have included intolerance and racial prejudice

Then you have a small but rising group called Third Worldism which has a tendency to regard the division between First World developed countries and Third World developing countries as being of primary political importance. Third-Worldism supports Third World nations and national liberation movements against Western nations and their proxies. (1)

I will now summarise on what I have written on the Right Wing approach on this subject. In France, nationalism was originally a left-wing and Republican ideology. After the period of rise of revanchism (which is a term used since the 1870s to describe a political manifestation of the will to reverse territorial losses incurred by a country, often following a war or social movement.) during the French third republic (context being the Franco-Prussian war in 1870-1871) and the Dreyfus Affair (It was a political scandal that from its beginning in 1894, which divided France until it was finally resolved in 1906. The affair is often seen as a modern and universal symbol of injustice, and remains one of the most striking examples of a complex miscarriage of justice, where a major role was played by the press and public opinion.) Nationalism became a trait of the right-wing after this event.

Right-wing nationalists sought to define and defend a “true” national identity from elements deemed to be corrupting that identity. Some were supremacists who, in accordance with Social Darwinism, applied the concept of “survival of the fittest” to nations and races. Right-wing nationalism was influenced by romantic nationalism, in which the state derives its political legitimacy from the organic unity of those it governs. This generally includes, the language, race, culture, religion and customs of the “nation”, all of which were “born” within its culture. Linked with right-wing nationalism is cultural conservatism, which supports the preservation of the heritage of a nation or culture, and often sees deviations from cultural norms as an existential threat. (2)

Introduction

So to continue I will be talking about nationalism and how it is perceived in various fields then give my opinion at the end.

Nationalism is defined as an ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass all other individual or group interests.

I would talk about the history of nationalism but that would be too big and would warrant its own entry just by itself.

Nationalism in Social Psychology

Nationalism becomes a social-psychological phenomenon to the extent that individuals develop attitudes about their own and other nations. Such attitudes reflect the feelings that the person has toward their country and their sense of loyalty to them. These feelings of attachment are at the heart of nationalism. Groups in general are organized to meet human needs, their structures and processes are in part moulded by these needs. The nation achieves personal relevance for individuals when they become sentimentally attached to the homeland, motivated to help their country, and gain a sense of identity and self-esteem through their national identification. The groups function this way because they are attractive to members, accomplish things and solve problems, and provide status for members. People see the nation as providing them and their progeny (descendants) with security and safety as well as status and prestige in return for their loyalty and commitment.

Theories of cognitive development such as that of Piaget (1965) suggest that children typically move from a focus on themselves to identifying with those who are important to them in their surroundings. Thus, building attachments to groups is part of the normal socialization process as individuals move toward adulthood. It is the way we learn to understand and function in the world around us. As a result, as children grow older, they become less focused on themselves and more focused on themselves as part of a larger social setting. These theories highlight the importance of self-definition and emotional identification with objects in early learning. Gradually, individuals develop a sensitivity to the needs and interests of others.

It has been argued from the perspective of evolutionary psychology that co-operative behaviour promotes individual survival and that groups composed of members who are co-operative are more effective than those with members who are less co-operative. Such behaviour also contributes to a person’s sense of identity by distinguishing them from those who are like them and those who are not, between friends and foes. The co-operative behaviour displayed between members of one’s own group, strengthened by pressures of conformity to group norms, is rarely seen in relations between members of different groups. As individuals move from themselves to others, they also begin to distinguish among the others, becoming more attached and sympathetic to some and more critical and detached from others. The groups they belong to through birth or through early experience have an impact on which groups they deem to be relatable to them.

When people are told that they are representatives of a group and are perceived to stand for a group, research suggests their loyalty constrains behaviour. In effect, individuals designated as representatives of groups reached fewer agreements and were more competitive than individuals acting on their own behalf. The studies compared individuals negotiating on behalf of a group with those negotiating on behalf of themselves. As the individual’s accountability to the group increased, as the outcome became more important to the group, and as the chances that the group would know what happened increased, the representative felt more and more tied to the goals, norms, and values of the group. In a sense, these individuals perceived themselves more as agents of the group than representatives, with little room to manoeuvre. Their loyalty was always in question and they could do hardly anything without undergoing scrutiny.

In the world of international relations these variables can be manipulated by groups or their leaders to produce the “desired” degree of loyalty. They can also be manipulated by third parties who are asked to mediate conflicts between groups or nations. Note that to prove their allegiance members of terrorist groups are often required to kill, kidnap, or rob one of the enemy. In effect, these findings draw attention to ways of increasing or decreasing actions taken by individuals on behalf of a group. As the demands for loyalty and commitment increase, the tendency is to defend the group’s position and to gain something for the group in any negotiation. These effects are not only found in the representatives’ behaviour but in their perceptions of what is happening. They report stronger loyalty and commitment as the pressures on them mount. Their perceptions and feelings mediate between the demands of the group and their behaviour. The perceptions and feelings help to “justify” the behaviour. (3)

Nationalism and Economics

Economic Nationalism is the position that a nation’s economy should be run for the benefit of its own citizens. Economic Nationalism is also used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labour and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. This broadly includes such policies as Protectionism, Import Substitution, Mercantilism, and Planned Economies. Although there are many broad forms, policies, and applications, it does not necessarily mean all or any of them at once. Applying a policy in its purest sense would actually never work in real life. Economic Nationalism calls for a Mixed Economy that has parts of many economic policies combined together.

An example of Economic Nationalism such as “restrictions on the movement of labour” from the above paragraph would be such as enforcing the law against businesses hiring illegal immigrants. Another part of Economic Nationalism is often called economic patriotism which is the co-ordinated and promoted behaviour of consumers or companies (both private and public) to actively favour purchasing the goods or services produced in their country.

Therefore, this will result in an economic system under a tariff protected economy (protectionism) that is guided by national interest. This includes re-industrialization, protecting national jobs from outsourcing, offshoring, and cheap labour imported, and also promoting domestic based manufacturing, creating domestic jobs, and strengthening the national economy. Nearly all great economic powers in modern times rose due to practicing Economic Nationalism such as the United States, Germany, South Korea, Japan, and China. (4)

My Opinion

For me to answer if I have a nationalist position, I would have to look at the different forms of nationalism. I do not agree with Civic Nationalism (state) because the wisdom I have is, how can I be totally for the country I am staying in and have the disposition to be xenophobic to people I have never met? When I was a teenager I did exactly that and the hatred I had for 2 countries in particular made no sense. The civic nationalism is only of value when you are being attacked and are on the defensive. But saying that, it should not be the basis to build policies on, except when it deals with the matter of independence. Am I against the notion of civic nationalism? In some cases it does make sense but because it tends to be interlinked with ethnic nationalism, which is what I will next go into, I cannot back it.

But how would I respond to the question of what about those states where historical injustices have occurred? This is an interesting question and it depends on the circumstances of the injustices and the interaction they have now with the country that carried out the injustices. The following question would occur, should countries in the past that carried out injustices pay reparations? I would argue no, since how far back would you go? If you were to take it on aggregate then every country would be paying reparations to another country. Why you ask? It is because injustices have been carried out all over the world by different factions. I am of the opinion that people like to be the victims but very rarely take responsibility of being the oppressor at one stage of history. Although saying that there is some cases where I would agree for the reparations.

I do not agree with ethnic nationalism either, but I would understand why someone would want to be an ethnic nationalist. If people are not happy in their designated state and there is enough people to run the area they are in as a country then I would not begrudge them of aspiring to reach objectives for the goodness of their ethnicity. An example would be the Kurds.

But my perception is ethnic nationalism is racialized and causes harmful divisions and treating anyone not in that race as second class citizens. Which is why I would promote multiculturalism, but I also understand that although this has promoted tolerance and equality of different races, this has caused disillusionment and self-segregation which brings tension between the communities. Although people interchange civic and ethnic nationalism in cases such as Basque nationalists.

Then there is the case of cultural nationalism which, is probably the fairest of all nationalistic positions, since this unifies races and transcend hatred for other countries, my problem with this is the perception of the self-culture being the best culture making other cultures inferior and/or barbaric. When in reality the other culture is simply another method of living. It does not make the other culture wrong or backwards.

Although I understand economic nationalism, I cannot reconcile the fact that it is too similar with fascist economics. A fascist economy is an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private individuals being allowed property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state. (5)

But looking at this with a critical mind, I would have to ask, apart from the visceral reaction that you will get from the term fascist economics, is it actually bad? The economics works out if it turned for example germany from a third world country in the 1920 to 1933 to a superpower. Although I would not have even thought of that to be the case if western countries were not doing it in practise to some degree without attributing the name to it. It seems we are more fascist economically than we like to admit due to having a mixed economy which is what they advocated.

Gladly we have not gone all the way and still holds counter positions against it, So we cannot call it fascist if there are some positions that goes against the fascist economic model. But I am fundementally against big governments controlling and regulating every aspects of our life so I cannot back fascist economics, neither can I be for economic nationalism.

There are other strands of nationalism but I will just conclude here. My position is the internationalist position. Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and peoples. (6) Internationalists generally believe that the people of the world should unite across national, political, cultural, racial, or class boundaries to advance their common interests, or that the governments of the world should cooperate because their mutual long-term interests are of greater importance than their short-term disputes. Although I don’t put the Marxist spin on it so it can only just benefit the working class. It is to benefit all its citizens.

References

1. Retrieved from https://salsahavok.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/politics-entry-1-the-left/
2. Retrieved from https://salsahavok.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/politics-entry-2-the-right/
3. Druckman, D. (1994). Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective. Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 43-68.
4. Retrieved from http://www.nationalistpartyamerica.com/economic_nationalism
5. Gregor, J. (2006). The Search for Neofascism Cambridge University Press. The Use and Abuse of Social Science, p.7.
6. Arora, N. D. (n.d.). Political Science, McGraw-Hill Education. p.2.