There's something wrong with this.
Ideological explanations necessarily locate
religion's starting point late in human culture since they begin by
attaching, or equating, religion to ideology. Ideology, however --
understood as a rationalization, and camouflage, for class and gender
exploitation -- could hardly have originated before the division of labor.
But that left dangling the question of whether religion itself existed prior
to class society.
I don't recall how Marx and Engels handled this, but I would say this is
demonstrably false. Ideology is manifested in class society but clearly
cannot originate there. Nor can there be a demarcation of religion and
ideology, for all religion is a manifestation of ideology, i.e. mystified
consciousness. People could not have started out as rationalists and then
been hoodwinked by religion. They were always superstitious, but the mode
of production and the organization of society transformed their
superstitions into new systems and institutions, and in these new
incarnations the ruling classes justified their rule.
But that left dangling the question of whether religion itself existed prior
to class society. If so, it could not be explained as an ideological
construct, and its existence would precede, perhaps even run separately
from, the dialectic of class struggle that for Marxist theory provides the
motive force of social development. [. . . . ] Was religion, then, moving
on a track separate from the rest of
human history? But that would not be an attractive alternative for
nonbelievers, because it came perilously close to concurring with an
idealist notion of religion.
This is all rather confused. Saxton is arguing as if ideology is merely
manipulative deception and hence all the ideational content inherited by
societies are predicated on the intent to deceive alone. His logic is
based on false premises. The liberatory content of religion, such as it
is, is hardly an anomaly. Saxton completely misunderstands his subject matter.
They needed a secular (materialist) account of the origin
of religion separate from the origin of ideology. This would allow religion
to function (later on) as the keystone of ruling-class ideology, yet not
preclude explaining its liberationist phases by reference to particular
historical circumstances (such as colonial regimes, for example, or the
importation of slaves, or "guest" workers). At the same time, and perhaps
more important, it would situate religion in the earliest stages of human
development, before division of labor and the advent of class society.
This is mistaken. Ideology cannot possibly originate with class society,
and in any case, the allegedly non-class character of primitive societies
needs to be looked at more carefully, in terms of the relation between men
and women, youth and elders, rivalries and witchcraft, etc.
At 11:12 AM 12/11/2006 -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
The Problem of Liberation Theology
Marx and Engels both portrayed early Christianity as driven by the
desperation of enslaved and exploited populations in the Roman empire;
Engels represented the Hussites and Anabaptists as religiously inspired
rebels fighting to liberate peasants from feudalism. Why might not religion
then inspire working-class rebels against industrial capitalism? The fact
is it has done so -- a dramatic (and recent) example being that of
liberation theology in Latin America. While it is true that most such
movements were crushed by their respective ruling classes and dominant
clergies, these outcomes could be explained by pointing out that wherever
religion became institutionalized, it generated privileged clerical
hierarchies that merged into the existing ruling class. Marx and Engels
usually (but not always) characterized religion as reactionary because it
was prone to being captured by ruling-class ideologies. Ideology they
treated invidiously, as obscurantism intended to conceal class exploitation.
They sometimes spoke of religion and ideology as identical or of the one
(religion) as contained within the other. They even suggested that religion
had been invented for ideological purposes.
All this made for an empirically based and politically powerful explanatory
system, yet contained two big difficulties. The first was the absence of
any satisfactory way of accounting for instances (acknowledged by Marx and
Engels both), when religion actually functioned as a liberating rather than
repressive force. The second difficulty is more complicated, but takes us
to the heart of the matter. Ideological explanations necessarily locate
religion's starting point late in human culture since they begin by
attaching, or equating, religion to ideology. Ideology, however --
understood as a rationalization, and camouflage, for class and gender
exploitation -- could hardly have originated before the division of labor.
But that left dangling the question of whether religion itself existed prior
to class society. If so, it could not be explained as an ideological
construct, and its existence would precede, perhaps even run separately
from, the dialectic of class struggle that for Marxist theory provides the
motive force of social development. "The history of all past society has
consisted in the development of class antagonisms," Marx and Engels wrote in
the Communist Manifesto, ". . . whatever form they may have taken, one fact
is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by
the other." Was religion, then, moving on a track separate from the rest of
human history? But that would not be an attractive alternative for
nonbelievers, because it came perilously close to concurring with an
idealist notion of religion.
Given the gift of hindsight, it is not difficult to specify what they needed
at this juncture. They needed a secular (materialist) account of the origin
of religion separate from the origin of ideology. This would allow religion
to function (later on) as the keystone of ruling-class ideology, yet not
preclude explaining its liberationist phases by reference to particular
historical circumstances (such as colonial regimes, for example, or the
importation of slaves, or "guest" workers). At the same time, and perhaps
more important, it would situate religion in the earliest stages of human
development, before division of labor and the advent of class society.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
