Monday, April 25, 2005

sacrilicious

I can be pretty hard on religion here sometimes, and I appreciate the fact that my more religious readers have been tolerant of that. In a way, I’d like to think I have a balanced view because I’ve been on both sides of theism in my life. I do think it’s true that religion gets a bit of a bad rap from the perspective that there are a lot of religious organizations who are doing a lot of helping in the world – in particular, the ones who help without actively proselytizing seem very admirable. And there are a lot of people who go to church with the goal of becoming better, more prosocial people and who in many ways succeed in that goal. But, the more I began to think of religion as a means of social control, the more suspicious I started to become. Indeed, the American religious right can righteously be called out on this front. Right now, they’re arguing that the senate rules on filibusters are a religious issue. Things that make me go, hmmmmmm. And, of course, religion wields a big hammer in terms of its ability to control people. Imagine if people believed that if they didn’t do what you told them, their soul would perish in a lake of fire. For one thing, I’d have The Simple Life cancelled, but that’s beside the point.

Strangely enough, I’ve learned that I really like old churches. This is one of those things I could never have learned through introspection, but only became clear in watching my behaviour on vacation. I think I like looking at what people do with sacred space. They also tend to just be beautiful buildings, since that was something people could agree on pooling their resources for.

I really cemented this idea that I like old churches when we were in Tasmania, and came across a pretty old stone church with beautiful stained glass. One of the decisions they’d made about accounting for the sanctimony of the sanctuary was to put up the 10 commandments. It was while looking at these that for the first time I considered the role of the 10 commandments in social control, and in particular, in keeping lower classes content with their position. Bear with me as I share my thought process (or don’t, you know, whatever).

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

Pretty obvious, this one, you’re obligated to stick with this belief system, or it’s the lake of fire for you.

2. No worshipping graven images.

See above, or it’s the lake of fire.

3. No taking the Lord’s name in vain.

When I was in Catholic high school, they told us this meant that you couldn’t swear. Bunch of fucking liars, it doesn’t say that at all. Fuckwits. Anyway, this is still pretty much the same as the first two, and really shows a bit of insecurity that I thought would have been staved of by the omnipotence thing. They seem to think it’s pretty important to make it clear that you shouldn’t play for another team, then have to go to the lengths of saying that you have to take this team very seriously. Or it’s the lake of fire.

4. Don’t work on the sabbath.

Now, this is interesting because on its face it seems to be giving working people a bit of a break. Hurray, a day off! But of course, it implicitly suggests that you should be working six days. Maybe, historically, this was a big deal to be told to take a day off, I dunno. My goal here is to put a social control spin on it, even if it means playing devil’s advocate. Literally, I suppose. So relax on Sunday, or it’s the lake of fire!

5. Honour your mother and father.

This really seems like a big ask some days, doesn’t it. And a direct form of social control – obey your elders, or it’s the lake of fire for you.

6. You shall not murder.

Obvious social control, but also a rule in pretty much every culture you come across that hasn’t wiped itself out at the annual Murder-Fest celebrations. Of course, there are some people who argue that violence is justified as a means of overcoming repressive regimes. Fine and dandy, if you don’t mind the lake of fire.

7. No adultery.

I’m not sure if I can think of a classist element to this. Regardless, it’s comforting to know that Jerry Fallwell is heading to the lake of fire.

8. No stealing.

Okay, blatantly classist. Who has stuff to steal except people who have stuff? Nobody. Hands off the rich people’s goods, unless you like lakes of fire.

9. No lying.

Again, this is a common theme across many cultures. It’s also good for commerce, and sets up a nice advantage in a prisoner’s dilemma sense if the commoners play by the rules (while the elites don’t, sound familiar?). Because the lake of fire would suck.

10. No coveting your neighbour’s stuff.

Again, it kind of sounds prosocial, but you can totally see how this would serve as social control of the poor. Every now and then you might feel like it’s not fair that others have yachts on which they talk about taking away your Medicare. But you know what will make that go away? The lake of fire.

Anyway, I don’t really know how seriously I’m willing to stand by this analysis. But to the extent that here’s a grain of truth in it, it’s interesting that so many powerful people in the States are getting worked up about putting the 10 commandments everywhere.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, there is social control in the fourth too. When it was written, it was a big deal to take a day off. But the day you were taking was meant to be spent in religious contemplation, so in effect by observing the sabbath, you were sacrifing some of your own personal welfare to reinforce the power of the church.

See? I can play too....

10:54 p.m.  
Blogger H. Now said...

good work tim, although you lose marks for not using "lake of fire." for your homework, have a social control analysis of the beattitudes in my comments by monday.

thanks for stopping by, beth.

9:36 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't do homework right now... any extra responsibility and my brain will explode.

Anyway, you haven't written anything about the cats' latest project!

10:35 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, now that I think about it, you're using your power as blog author to socially control me by forcing me into your 'lake of fire' discourse!

So I'll revise my earlier, more conciliatory response to this:

Fuck off!

11:09 a.m.  
Blogger H. Now said...

it's funny you say that, because i thought much the same thing when i posted my comment. good grades go to those who adhere to the values of the system. forunately for you, the word "fuck" is highly valued in this system, so you are going to get bonus marks. Maybe you can trade those marks for less time in the lake of fire.

12:25 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great analysis, SS. The one thing that always strikes me about the religious right is that they're supposed to be "Christians" but their ideals seem to be very Old Testament driven. Having been raised quasi-Catholic (and given your high-schooling, I suspect we could swap stories at great length), the focus for the catechism I was taught put an extreme emphasis on the New Testament. In short, notions of loving, helping, sharing, forgiveness, non-judging, and avoiding hypocrisy. Not behaviors I really see with the religious right. I wonder if an analysis of the New Testament yields the same types of social control or is it a manifestation of the poor person's religion?

Oh, yes. And "lake of fire" for one bonus point.

12:35 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wo'DNA - that's an excellent point about the old testament-ness of the fundamentalists. I think you're exactly correct in that analysis.

But personally, I'm docking you a point for succumbing to the 'ring of fire' pressure..... :-)

9:47 a.m.  
Blogger David Collett said...

No adultery.

I always saw this one as a means of social control of women. Chattels and all of that - so don't cheat on your husband or it's the lake of fire for you.

And about the creating of a 'family' unit - ie 1 mum, 1 dad, some children - which probably produces the most controllable children for the church.

And also connected with limiting the transmission of VDs.

Also, wouldn't you get used to the Lake of Fire after some time in it, like sitting in a hot bath. After a while you wouldn't feel it anymore.

10:01 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's an excellent point Dave about getting used to the Lake of Fire. It would be even worse if it were some kind of progressive thing. Say, everyone starts out in the Pond of Lukewarm Tepidness, and as each major transgression is judged, the temp is increased until it eventually becomes the Lake of Fire. Then you'd be just like a frog being boiled... you'd hardly even notice!

I quite enjoy your blog by the way - you're writing some interesting stuff...

6:46 p.m.  
Blogger H. Now said...

wife-o: thanks, and you're totally right. it's weird that they ignore the guy they say is so important, and all that goofy "the meek shall inherit the earth," and the turning of the money changers' tables in the temple, et al. full marks for lake of fire, although I'm very surprised at you for not saying "fuck." are you sick?

dave: good point about the ban on adultery contributing to the notion of the family unit, and hence patriarchy. it bothers me when i hear people say that the nuclear family is somehow "natural." not if you look at hunter-gatherer societies that continue to exist, and probably best represent the social structures of our ancestors. there's all kinds of family structures (although my understanding is most of them do coalesce around kind groups with some kind of patriarchal control), but not the nuclear family. in general, i think it's interesting how we are encouraged by norms to separate from extended family and form new living units - i still say that works to the advantage of business by leading to a lot of purchasing of things that we could otherwise share with our kin. and sadly the prophecies say your soul perishes before you get a chance to get used to the lake of fire.

tim: wassup?

8:45 p.m.  
Blogger H. Now said...

wife-o: i forgot to mention that the 10 commandments lets them couch things in "judeo-christian" terms. funny, coming from people who often consider jews to be jesus-killers.

8:46 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ss - re. lack of my use of the word fuck. that was rather odd, eh? especially since i'm sure if i'd said "fuckin' lake of fire", i might have really upped those bonus points rather like using zed or q in scrabble.

1:47 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, you get HUGE bonus points for saying 'zed'! :-)

11:06 a.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoa! Jewish Law seen as social control....go figure! Isn't that what laws are for?

Anyways.... NO ADULTERY as a means of controling women? I didn't realize that adultery could only be committed by women (Cool, I will have to tell my wife that). Geez!

The Fourth: when it was written I am not sure the "church" actually existed to yield power over the new Israelites. As far as there personal sacrifice I am not they minded taking a breather from there labours in the desert. It was likely a time to be together and worship and to forget about there hardships. Maybe even criticize Moses and his rules.

7:36 p.m.  
Blogger H. Now said...

whoa! it's not just an anlysis of social control, but social control of the poor by the elites. why wasn't one of the 10 commandments thy shalt share with they neighbour?

and the emphasis is more on how it's used now than what it was originally developed for.

if you want to argue that men's sexuality is more controlled than women's (or even as controlled), go ahead. Sure are a lot of skimpily clad men dancing around in beer commercials, eh? Oh, wait a minute.

6:18 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home