PDA

View Full Version : The Ju Ju of War



goesh
09-15-2007, 04:16 AM
So what really happens when those who believe the Divine is on their side and is absent from the side of thier opponents? If we don't carry with us accoutriments and rhetoric of divine favor and will onto the field of battle, does the enemy automatically have the psychological edge? If we face an enemy who regards us as Godless in all respects, are they more, or less, willing to negotiate and compromise, or does it drive them to intensifying their violence? I think the tendency is to minimize this dynamic in our opponents and explain it away but in some ways I think it is like driving a tank into a swamp expecting and planning on mobility.

tequila
09-15-2007, 12:43 PM
If we don't carry with us accoutriments and rhetoric of divine favor and will onto the field of battle, does the enemy automatically have the psychological edge?

No. Good training, discipline, and unit cohesion matter more than amorphous religious faith. I'll take a squad of Godless, whoring, cursing Marines over the most motivated pack of jihadis any day of the week.

Tom OC
09-17-2007, 02:14 AM
Interesting twist toward magic this thread took. Maybe it was my mention of Skorupski, but in any event, I will go out on a limb and say that in war, it is important for forces to carry with them some symbolism of divine favor. Otherwise, the opponent has an advantage. I dunno how Prof. Tyrrell will respond to this. He seems pretty smart, but as for this prof., I would argue that accoutriments and rhetoric of divine favor go a long way. Again, a Durkheimian sociology of religion approach might be helpful. I often remind my students that on page 14 of Durkheim's book on religion, he says "no social institution can rest on a lie" and if a thing persists, it must be for some reason, so if you can understand the part of it (the kernel) that isn't a lie, you will truly understand the reason. I find this works for many things strange and inexplicable, or at least it makes my students think I'm smart. Skorupski, Douglas, and the like make a lot out of purity/impurity rituals of course, and the connection with order/disorder is obvious as is the sacred/profane juxtaposition found throughout almost all sociology since Durkheim. Attitude change under this conception occurs during the metamorphesis in passing from the sacred to the profane. Hence, the key to religious ritual success is bringing the other-worldly down to earth, and I would argue that interpretation or content doesn't matter because what matters is the enactment of the ritual or the sense of bonding which occurs among a group when something significant (something cosmos changing) has happened. All for one, one for all. Now, one could bring in criminology here about bond theory, but more relevant is the Durkheimian idea of a normative moral bond which consists simply in the feeling that something significant happened which had a community effect and made people feel obligated to respect it. Call it magic, or whatever, but it would work. Love is supposed to work like this, as do rites of passage and some entertainment blockbusters. Wish I could tease out some specific applications.

goesh
09-17-2007, 12:17 PM
Godless, cursing, whoring Marines don't necessarily make for good COIN ambassadors and implementers nor does marching into battle with a man bleeding and nailed to a cross inspire much respect in enemies and I am not trying to disparage Christianity here. It's sort of like taking the family to some foreign land for a visit, deciding to spend a day on the beach, arriving and finding that the locals all go to the beach naked - it just ain't easy under such circumstances to establish repoire and interaction. Technology certainly can't bridge the gap and fill the vacum and being respectful of another's spirituality in no way communicates that the other's beliefs are understood. Better training, unit cohesion, discipline, technology and logistics give us the edge but local support of an insurgency can check that advantage and a common denominator in that equasion is shared spirituality. It is an equalizer IMO. From a schematic view, the line dominates as it penetrates the circle and as it exits but it remains contained by 358 degrees of the circle at all times. Our linear orientation, from their perspective, is that of those with no Divine assistance penetrating those with Divine assistance, penetrating, not meeting.

marct
09-17-2007, 03:15 PM
Hi Tom,


Interesting twist toward magic this thread took. Maybe it was my mention of Skorupski, but in any event, I will go out on a limb and say that in war, it is important for forces to carry with them some symbolism of divine favor. Otherwise, the opponent has an advantage. I dunno how Prof. Tyrrell will respond to this. He seems pretty smart, but as for this prof., I would argue that accoutriments and rhetoric of divine favor go a long way.

Actually, I would agree with you, but with some caveats. First off, there is the danger of making AQs charges "real" - i.e. that the Coalition is really nothing more than the Crusades come again. Second, most Western societies are secular, rather than religious (Austria is an exception, but it really isn't a major player right now). This is exacerbated in the case of the US where you have an official separation of Church and State and I'm not sure how many thousands of officially recognized religions (it was over 5,000 in 1986 and I haven't seen a number since then). What religion would provide the symbol system? While most Americans are loosely Christian, in a very broad sense, there is no overarching "orthodoxy" that could cement even core symbols (viz. Mormons and Unitarians as examples of "non-orthodox" Christians). Furthermore, I would suggest that any overt use of Christian symbolism to achieve such a purpose would be unconstitutional. So, there's a bit of a problem :wry:.

The main way of resolving it is to attempt to use some form of "secular religion" - which is exactly what President Bush tried to do, at least at the level of unifying rhetoric. I'd say the jury is still out on that one, but the close ties made between the rhetoric and the form of "victory" have, IMO, been a major problem (i.e. a republican form of government structure). It's too bad, because if he had stuck with the primary philosophy and left the form to be self determined, I think it would have worked better.

Back to motivating symbols of divine favour...

So, you have an interesting situation where there can be no official religion but you need a "religion" (in the Durkheimian sense) to act as a motivational force. Well, one option is to leave it at the individual group level, which is pretty much what has been done from what I can see, while the group uses the civil religion rhetoric. On the whole, I think that's the best balance achievable.


Again, a Durkheimian sociology of religion approach might be helpful. I often remind my students that on page 14 of Durkheim's book on religion, he says "no social institution can rest on a lie" and if a thing persists, it must be for some reason, so if you can understand the part of it (the kernel) that isn't a lie, you will truly understand the reason.

I've got my own quibbles with Durkheim's interpretation of religion. For one thing, his data sources for Elementary Forms of Religious Experience were truly terrible. To give a modern analogy, it is as if he had analyzed the war in Iraq relying solely on MSM reports. Second, since he was aiming most of his work as a foil to Marx, he was much more concerned with examining the sources of social order than he was with producing a general theory of society. Third, his entire reliance of concepts such as the conscience collectif is rather bizarre and, I would suggest, more in keeping with Von Humbolt's concept of volksgeist.

Still and all, I think that Durkheim got it about 80% correct; at least for the special case of a culture being roughly equal with a society. And this, IMO, is the greatest flaw I see in the application of his arguments to the present day: his argument that religion is society worshiping itself is only valid when you have a fairly mono-religious society (and a mono-cultural one to boot). You certainly can extend the arguments, as Mary Douglas (especially Purity and Danger and How Institutions Think) has in a number of works, but it means that you have to develop the theoretical model well beyond the special case covered by the original.


Attitude change under this conception occurs during the metamorphesis in passing from the sacred to the profane. Hence, the key to religious ritual success is bringing the other-worldly down to earth, and I would argue that interpretation or content doesn't matter because what matters is the enactment of the ritual or the sense of bonding which occurs among a group when something significant (something cosmos changing) has happened. All for one, one for all.

How very Durkheimian of you :D. Well, in a strict Durkheimian sense, even if we expand it to include Mary Douglas' extended form, you are quite correct. I will disagree with you about whether or not interpretation matters - the only time it doesn't is when you have an orthodox interpretation that is shared by the vast majority of the populace. As an example of why it matters, how do you think an Asatruar group would view references to orthodox Christian statements such as "we are not worthy..."? Having know a bunch of them, I suspect they would laugh themselves silly, as would most Wiccans (and in case you didn't know it, there are a fair number of both in the US forces).

Let's flip that around and ask ow many orthodox Christians wold react well, especially, say, Southern Baptists and pentecostal evangelicals, to the idea of raising a cone of power to send out a hunter-killer daemon against UBL? I'm pretty sure that the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan wold appreciate it (they're convinced he is a djinn), but I doubt that most Christians would approve.


Now, one could bring in criminology here about bond theory, but more relevant is the Durkheimian idea of a normative moral bond which consists simply in the feeling that something significant happened which had a community effect and made people feel obligated to respect it. Call it magic, or whatever, but it would work. Love is supposed to work like this, as do rites of passage and some entertainment blockbusters. Wish I could tease out some specific applications.

Check out Robert Bellah and Phillip E. Hammond, Varieties of Civil Religion (http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=3041) for some specific case examples. I'd also recommend Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy (http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Canopy-Elements-Sociological-Religion/dp/0385073054) as a good one to get a handle on this issue outside of the Durkheimian special case. The trick is to come up with a symbol system hat is "non-religious" in the limited sense, but acts as if it were religious in the broader (Geertzian) sense.

Marc

Tom OC
09-20-2007, 02:26 AM
Marc, you're absolutely right about Durkheim being too volkgeist oriented, but I've often found the civil religion folks are likewise fuzzy, although I have to admit I hadn't read Hammond's take on it (thanks for the link) but you can probably guess what I think of Berger. When General Boykin got in trouble for his remarks that the enemy was satan and our God was bigger than his, I thought he was on to something, and frankly, I hoped for much more reaction. I also think that GWOT has a distinct religious dimension that we need to own up to. Watering it down in a secular direction with rule of law/education projects (as the civil religionists would have it) would diffuse and minimize the impact that a true religious ritual would have. Someone please point me to where we might have had this kind of discussion before, if any. We're kinda getting off the topic of social contagion, and I'd welcome a discussion about the global ecumenical movement's role (perhaps a new thread?)

marct
09-20-2007, 04:44 AM
Hi Tom,


Marc, you're absolutely right about Durkheim being too volkgeist oriented, but I've often found the civil religion folks are likewise fuzzy, although I have to admit I hadn't read Hammond's take on it (thanks for the link) but you can probably guess what I think of Berger.

LOLOL - I can probably guess :D. Honestly, I find them somewhat fuzzy as well, but I think that they are, in their own structural functionalist way, getting at a "truth" that stands behind Durkheim.


When General Boykin got in trouble for his remarks that the enemy was satan and our God was bigger than his, I thought he was on to something, and frankly, I hoped for much more reaction.

I remember that. I also remember thinking that he was nuts - an emotional reaction rather than a thought out one :wry:.


I also think that GWOT has a distinct religious dimension that we need to own up to. Watering it down in a secular direction with rule of law/education projects (as the civil religionists would have it) would diffuse and minimize the impact that a true religious ritual would have.

I think it does as well, but I also believe that, baring a state religion, it cannot be fought on religious lines. Furthermore, while I do view the entire GWOT as essentially "religious", I do not view it as one religion vs. another but, rather, as one worldview of religion vs. another. To be specific about it, I view the GWOT as a war against thought control and dogmatism in all of its forms, religious or civil.

Does this reduce its impact? Yeah, it does. But I think that there is something to be said about a conflict that unites many religions, and this has/had the potential to do that. I have too many friends from various religions who are involved in it to view it as a simplistic my God is bigger than your God argument. IMO, any deity that needs to start wars to prove their mojo is just a fake (BTW, check out the Gospel of Norea for a good example).

Maybe I've read too many Gnostic texts, but I view this as a war between those who would tell people what to think and those who would see people freed from that. This isn't, BTW, a simplistic us vs. them argument; IMO it is a philosophical fight where the proponents of mental slavery are on both of the official "sides" as are their opponents.

Anyway, it's late and I've been up too long - I think I may be blithering again :wry:.

Marc

Rank amateur
09-20-2007, 05:10 PM
it is important for forces to carry with them some symbolism of divine favor.

The corollary is that religious tolerance is important in establishing peace. Which is why "reducing sectarian killing" doesn't automatically lead to peace.

Religious tolerance is also probably very important in establishing democracy too, but that's only relevant is we ever decide to get back in the democracy spreading business.

Tom OC
09-22-2007, 02:32 AM
Religion in war is pervasive, and depending upon the spectrum of a conflict has the potential to escalate into a war of religion. We've been discussing the symbolic things that fighters carry with them, but there are some very tangible things as well; e.g., troops praying, services being held, missionaries visiting the field, charitable aid relief being delivered, etc., etc. Holidays tend to be as important as anniversaries in this war on terror. I wonder if it wouldn't be good strategy to just open up the religious aspects a bit more. I'm sure it could be done in a tolerant way.

marct
09-22-2007, 04:56 AM
Hi Tom,


Religion in war is pervasive, and depending upon the spectrum of a conflict has the potential to escalate into a war of religion. We've been discussing the symbolic things that fighters carry with them, but there are some very tangible things as well; e.g., troops praying, services being held, missionaries visiting the field, charitable aid relief being delivered, etc., etc. Holidays tend to be as important as anniversaries in this war on terror. I wonder if it wouldn't be good strategy to just open up the religious aspects a bit more. I'm sure it could be done in a tolerant way.

There's still that assumption of a common religion that would, IMO, cause a problem. I've been involved in some ecumenical work (spent a year on the Ottawa Inter-Faith Council), and the while the communications can work, hey can be very tricky. Personally, I would ban missionaries in the field completely; I think they are an irritant to the locals and an IO disaster waiting to happen. The rest, I would have no problem with if there was no attempt to require it and if everyone was able to do so within their own belief system. Given that DVA only allowed pentacles on Wiccan burial stones (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/washington/24wiccan.html?_r=1&ei=5087%0A&em=&en=b32d06a7c7b02220&ex=1177560000&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190436605-C5TXgfu114KLjaAL4mlWwQ) as of April 23rd this year, I'm not exactly sanguine about "tolerance":wry:.

Tom OC
09-23-2007, 07:01 PM
We have a somewhat significant presence of Wiccans here at Ft. Campbell. My previous experience with them has been that they are just lapsed Christians or someone who stopped going to church and/or always had some kind of nativist/paganist philosophy amenable to the love of nature (or something). However, what I've observed locally is relatively good-looking Wiccan women working in the local coffee shops and retail stores proselytizing the soldiers who patronize the stores. Then, one soon starts to see Wiccan decals and things on the vehicles the soldiers drive to the stores. I must say I find the process interesting to watch. I would say that in an average week's time, about two or three soldiers get converted. Now, I don't know enough about it to say if it's threatening or not. I've tried reading up and learning about it, but get all confused with the likes of Norse mythology and my hands full studying other, more threatening phenomena, but I'd love to hear your perspective on it, Marc. Perhaps they have some ju-ju that is of some value.

Culpeper
09-23-2007, 07:32 PM
There are no athiests in foxholes. Many people rely on the Divine to survive. It doesn't matter that the enemy may be doing the same practice of praying and so forth when death is near. It doesn't matter that one side may be using the Divine as a rally cry. A lot of Axis and Allied Forces did a lot of praying in Normandy fighting in the French bocage but neither side was contesting each side's religious beliefs even though each side were murdering POWs for whatever reasons. As for Allah Akbar. That only goes so far. It is one thing to be brave before Allah and another thing when Allah's soldiers with AK47s run for their lives after keeping a Marine patrol pinned down until the Marines run low on ammo, had enough, and fix bayonets.

MattC86
09-23-2007, 09:17 PM
No. Good training, discipline, and unit cohesion matter more than amorphous religious faith. I'll take a squad of Godless, whoring, cursing Marines over the most motivated pack of jihadis any day of the week.

Unfair comparison. It's like saying "Sure, I'll take the Yankees over the Kane County Cougars A team."

I think perhaps Goesh's question would be better asked, "all other things being equal, what kind of factor would religious faith or determination be on the battlefield?"

Matt

marct
09-24-2007, 02:51 AM
Hi Tom,


We have a somewhat significant presence of Wiccans here at Ft. Campbell. My previous experience with them has been that they are just lapsed Christians or someone who stopped going to church and/or always had some kind of nativist/paganist philosophy amenable to the love of nature (or something).

That's not that surprising given the prevalence of Christianity in NA societies :D. Most of my own data, back from my MA, indicates that there are a lot of ex-Jews involved in the neo-pagan movement - disproportionate to the demographics.


However, what I've observed locally is relatively good-looking Wiccan women working in the local coffee shops and retail stores proselytizing the soldiers who patronize the stores. Then, one soon starts to see Wiccan decals and things on the vehicles the soldiers drive to the stores. I must say I find the process interesting to watch. I would say that in an average week's time, about two or three soldiers get converted.

Proselytizing? Hmm, weird - that's usually not kosher in the Craft. Then again, I've seen similar things as well.


Now, I don't know enough about it to say if it's threatening or not. I've tried reading up and learning about it, but get all confused with the likes of Norse mythology and my hands full studying other, more threatening phenomena, but I'd love to hear your perspective on it, Marc. Perhaps they have some ju-ju that is of some value.

Norse mythology? That sounds more like Asatruar than Wicca in any of its forms. Actually, that wouldn't surprise me since I've know a couple of Asatruar who have been in the US forces since the 1980's (I've also known Craft people in the forces since the 1980's as well).

Personally, I think that a number of the neo-pagan movement have a lot of ju-ju to offer to he current fight. How they could help would require a major discussion :wry:. The simplest version is that if you can get people who know how to use what is generally called "magic" you can use them to operate against other people who believe in magic.

tequila
09-24-2007, 03:18 PM
There are no athiests in foxholes. Many people rely on the Divine to survive. It doesn't matter that the enemy may be doing the same practice of praying and so forth when death is near. It doesn't matter that one side may be using the Divine as a rally cry. A lot of Axis and Allied Forces did a lot of praying in Normandy fighting in the French bocage but neither side was contesting each side's religious beliefs even though each side were murdering POWs for whatever reasons. As for Allah Akbar. That only goes so far. It is one thing to be brave before Allah and another thing when Allah's soldiers with AK47s run for their lives after keeping a Marine patrol pinned down until the Marines run low on ammo, had enough, and fix bayonets.

In general I agree with you that religious faith on the battlefield is generally either a nonfactor or a tactical detriment.

That being said I know a decorated combat veteran of the Korean War who is a determined atheist - though he was on the Chinese side and still a fierce Marxist. Other forms of ideology can substitute for religious faith.

Steve Blair
09-24-2007, 03:52 PM
In general I agree with you that religious faith on the battlefield is generally either a nonfactor or a tactical detriment.

That being said I know a decorated combat veteran of the Korean War who is a determined atheist - though he was on the Chinese side and still a fierce Marxist. Other forms of ideology can substitute for religious faith.

The key factor is faith...but it clearly can't be tied to ONLY religion (which is your well-put point, tequila). Faith in the cause is important, be it Marxist, Hoist, Maoist, God, Allah, Rah, or whatever. Faith in your buddies, your unit, is also an important factor.

tequila
09-24-2007, 04:34 PM
The key factor is faith...but it clearly can't be tied to ONLY religion (which is your well-put point, tequila). Faith in the cause is important, be it Marxist, Hoist, Maoist, God, Allah, Rah, or whatever. Faith in your buddies, your unit, is also an important factor.

I would say faith in unit/unit cohesion comes first. Even this most dedicated Marxist confessed with unabashed pride that he was involved in the "fragging" of a political officer who was in the habit of ordering one too many frontal assaults while hanging to the rear in most un-democratic fashion (his words --- one of his more fascinating relevations of the Chinese "volunteer" corps in Korea 1950-1951 was that frontline soldiers often voted on tactical approaches at company level and below, depending on unit).

wm
09-24-2007, 05:40 PM
one of his more fascinating relevations of the Chinese "volunteer" corps in Korea 1950-1951 was that frontline soldiers often voted on tactical approaches at company level and below, depending on unit).

On the above idea, here's an interesting quotation from Evelyn Wood's 1897 Achievements of Cavalry, pp 7-8. He is referencing the French Army in the 1790s.

“. . . Citizen David, who accompanied General Pichegru in the 1794 campaign,
tells the following story :—* "
A soldier, serving in the brigade commanded by
Colonel Valetau, was placed in arrest for having left
his garrison, without permission, to make some
political speeches. The soldier wrote to General
Souham, who commanded the district, demanding
that Valetau should be dismissed as an aristocrat, and
suggested himself as the colonel's successor. General
iiron and his Staff made every effort
to arrest the panic, but the soldiers ran over his body,
Souham answered the soldier to the effect that' the
complaint savoured rather of passion and revenge
than of true patriotism.' The soldier then addressed
the Administrators at Lille, but getting no satisfaction,
denounced Colonel Valetau to the ' Committee
of Public Safety ' in Paris, and an order was promptly
sent to dismiss the colonel from his command "!!
Now, under such circumstances, even the best
officers could not have effected much with trained
troops. . . .
*Pichegru Campaign," by Citizen David, published in 1796.

tequila
09-24-2007, 05:49 PM
Now the PVA didn't get to pick their officers, but they did often select NCOs by vote, usually when previous NCOs died. As noted, officers in these units could also be selected out by rifle.

Both the French Revolutionaries in the 1790s and the Chinese Communists from 1945-1951 experienced great success with these type of armies.

Tom OC
09-25-2007, 06:28 AM
The more I think about it, the more I'm sold on this civil religion thing. Christianity (which I'm assuming is prevalent), or Wicca (what have you), can be something running private and independently of whatever other related sensibilities a warfighter carries with them. Ritual expressions of patriotism can be religious in this sense, but I'm worried about the effects of cognitive dissonance. I've often thought that the jihadists have an advantage over us because the socio-political expressions of their religious mantle are more consonant; i.e., their God is more warrior-like. I would imagine transmutations of that sort take place among Christian warfighters, but don't know for sure. I would say there's a drive towards ju-ju (there, I used the word), a need for something magical, if you will, something that connects or integrates all the reasons together and seems cosmic at the time. Such "flashes" of insight could very well be the social cement that Rousseau and Durkheim were trying to get at. Perhaps there is some sense in keeping one's religion private.

marct
09-25-2007, 03:33 PM
Hi Tom,


The more I think about it, the more I'm sold on this civil religion thing. Christianity (which I'm assuming is prevalent), or Wicca (what have you), can be something running private and independently of whatever other related sensibilities a warfighter carries with them.

I think the last figures I saw for the US placed Christianity (very broadly construed) at about 85-86% of the population with Judaism, Islam and Hinduism making up the bulk of the remainder. The last figures I saw on neo-Paganism (including Wicca in all its forms) put it at around 3-400,000 in the US, or about 0.1% of the population (there are all sorts of problems with that figure).


Ritual expressions of patriotism can be religious in this sense, but I'm worried about the effects of cognitive dissonance. I've often thought that the jihadists have an advantage over us because the socio-political expressions of their religious mantle are more consonant; i.e., their God is more warrior-like.

In the interests of accuracy, I think it would be better to say that their Prophet was more warrior-like, although I think that distinction is lost on too many people on all sides <sigh>. I think you are right about the potential for cognitive dissonance as well, but I think that can be fairly easily countered in the US case.


I would imagine transmutations of that sort take place among Christian warfighters, but don't know for sure. I would say there's a drive towards ju-ju (there, I used the word), a need for something magical, if you will, something that connects or integrates all the reasons together and seems cosmic at the time. Such "flashes" of insight could very well be the social cement that Rousseau and Durkheim were trying to get at. Perhaps there is some sense in keeping one's religion private.

My own guess is that it is a form of the panenhenic experience, which is the most common, and universal, form of mystical experience. I think that the type Durkheim was alluding to was a combination of that with some forms of the polytheistic variants (cf his introduction to the Division of Labour in Society, 2nd edition ref. the role of intermediary structures in modern societies and, especially, his discussion of the medieval guild structure).

This is one of the areas where I think the Regimental system is better than the current US system. It is a form of totemism focused on the Regiment in a manner similar to the Roman Legions focus on their Eagles or the Napoleonic Regiments focus on theirs. In Durkheiman terms, it is an intermediate structure that is intensely "civil" while, at the same time, being "religious".

skiguy
09-25-2007, 04:10 PM
I've often thought that the jihadists have an advantage over us because the socio-political expressions of their religious mantle are more consonant; i.e., their God is more warrior-like.
Not according to the OT. This misguided theology that Jesus is (was) this noviolent pacifist is wrong. I've stated my beliefs here a few times, and another one is that God did not change from the OT to the new. (Christian pacifists really get on my nerves because they can't grasp this concept. We are to fight evil, not sit there and take it on the other cheek. Romans 13: "IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, live at peace with one another." I interpret that as "when it's not possible, fight back") Not getting into the theological reasons for his first coming (think sacrifice), but his second coming,according to some beliefs, is going to be quite a difference. (and a big shock to these pacifists)

The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting. Marc says Christians make up 85-86% of the population. I don't doubt that, but how many are Catholics or JW's or Mormons, etc? I have vast differences with those three I mentioned.
JMO.

tequila
09-25-2007, 04:22 PM
The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting.

Hmmm ... are you really sure about this, given the fact that Sunnis and Shi'i are murdering each other by the dozen in Iraq every day, w/similar simmering sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.

marct
09-25-2007, 04:30 PM
Hi Skiguy,


The 'problem' with Christians is there are so many different interpretations out there. Muslims seem a little more united in their belief system, and I find that interesting. Marc says Christians make up 85-86% of the population. I don't doubt that, but how many are Catholics or JW's or Mormons, etc? I have vast differences with those three I mentioned.
JMO.

That was why I used the phrase "Christianity (very broadly construed)" :D. I think you are correct in saying that Christianity is somewhat more divided that Islam but, then again, Christianity is a lot older than Islam and developed in a very different social environment. In particular, there was no equivalent of the expropriation of Christianity as a state religion during the Tetrarchy (Constantine and his buds), so you don't have the same history of state enforced definition of orthodoxy (and orthopraxy) in Islam that you do in Christianity.

One of the more fascinating things about Islam is its concentration on the "community" (as opposed to the state), and I believe that this is one of the mechanisms that has allowed Islam to develop conflicting interpretations without getting into the heresy model that plagued Christianity. It is quite possible for one Muslim to hold a position that is diametrically opposed to another Muslim without viewing the other as a heretic - a major strength IMO.

marct
09-25-2007, 04:35 PM
Hi Tequila,


Hmmm ... are you really sure about this, given the fact that Sunnis and Shi'i are murdering each other by the dozen in Iraq every day, w/similar simmering sectarian conflict in Lebanon, Bahrain, Pakistan, etc.

It really isn't dissimilar to what Christians were doing in the 11th to 16th centuries. The fracture lines, at least amongst the Sunni, tend to be more on emphasis than basic beliefs. The Sunni-Shia split is, definitely, about a limited number of basic beliefs but, I would argue, is a less radical split than the Unitarian-Trinitarian split inside Christianity, let alone the Gnostic-Orthodox split.

tequila
09-25-2007, 04:53 PM
The difference between orthopraxic and orthodoxic is key in the lack of sort of witch-hunt mentality in classical Islam. However there have been definite cases where there was out-and-out persecution based on matters of belief. The Kharijites and Azraqis are examples. The modern-day takfiris are another. Sufism danced close to the edge until al-Ghazali definitively integrated them into sharia. The Qizilbash movement that eventually purged Sunni Islam from Persia is perhaps the most consequential example.

Marct - I agree that overall the split is less radical in terms of belief, but it is more violent at the moment. Far less so than the religious wars of Europe, though. Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

skiguy
09-25-2007, 05:08 PM
Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

Interesting. I never thought of that.

tequila, I wasn't saying there is no violence between them. Of course I'm aware of that. But from what I basically know of Islam, their belief system is more united than Christians. They all have the same view of the Qur'an, Allah, and, to some extent, Mohammed. If I'm not mistaken, and outside of the twelvers (?), they all share the same eschatological beliefs. (correct me if I'm wrong) Ask a Catholic what the end times will be like, then ask a fundamentalist...the answers won't even be close. Some Christians don't believe the Bible is innerant or that Christ is God, some do. (That's a quite an important theological difference, IMO)

skiguy
09-25-2007, 05:45 PM
Here's where I'm trying to go with this. It's perhaps simple-minded and maybe even insane (but it's well thought out insanity).
What if I (who leans towards a fundamentalist belief) and a Catholic are on the same peacekeeping team who meet up with a Muslim religious leaders/spokespeople. We start an open dialogue and the Muslim may ask a question like, "But your Bible teaches xxxxx". One of us will say, "That's what he believes, but I don't, yet we still like, respect, and accept one another." The conversation alone may not solve the problems of the world, but it's still a good example of respect for one another. And the main thing is, it starts an open dialogue. People have done this before and it worked.
Does this make sense, or am I way out in left field/unreality land?

To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

marct
09-25-2007, 05:57 PM
Marct - I agree that overall the split is less radical in terms of belief, but it is more violent at the moment. Far less so than the religious wars of Europe, though. Ironic that Islam is about as old as Christianity was during the Reformation.

Oh, I agree that it is more violent now and, yes, I had noted the relative times :wry:. Speaking of which, have you noticed that Al Ghazali, Maimonides and Aquinas all show up at roughly the same period?


tequila, I wasn't saying there is no violence between them. Of course I'm aware of that. But from what I basically know of Islam, their belief system is more united than Christians. They all have the same view of the Qur'an, Allah, and, to some extent, Mohammed. If I'm not mistaken, and outside of the twelvers (?), they all share the same eschatological beliefs. (correct me if I'm wrong) Ask a Catholic what the end times will be like, then ask a fundamentalist...the answers won't even be close. Some Christians don't believe the Bible is innerant or that Christ is God, some do. (That's a quite an important theological difference, IMO)

If by "view of the Qur'an" you mean the equivalent of the Christian concept of innerancy, then yes. If you mean interpretation, then no. Part of the key to that, however, is that the Qur'an is not the Qur'an if it is translated - something that has caused immense problems for Christians. Just to give one, Christian, example, the phrase "the Kingdom of God" shows up in a lot of English translations of the Gospel of John. The original koine word, however, is "imperium" which is better translated as "sphere of influence" as opposed to "basileon" or kingdom (sorry, I don't have a greek TT font here).

Another difference is that, by and large, Islam doesn't engage in theology. Theology, as a practice, is "heretical" to Islam in that it presumes that one can "know the mind of God". The vast majority of Islam engages in "law", not theology, which is attempts to interpret the Qur'an and Hadith in a logical manner, but always recognizes that such interpretations must, inevitably, be flawed since they are the work of mortals, not God.

This is distinctly different from the concept of "continuing revelation" that exists within Christianity. With a couple of very minor exceptions, and I believe the Hashashiyan was one, anyone who says "God has told me thus and so" would pretty much be killed outright - which certainly isn't the case in Christianity!

marct
09-25-2007, 06:04 PM
Hi Skiguy,


Here's where I'm trying to go with this. It's perhaps simple-minded and maybe even insane (but it's well thought out insanity).
What if I (who leans towards a fundamentalist belief) and a Catholic are on the same peacekeeping team who meet up with a Muslim religious leaders/spokespeople. We start an open dialogue and the Muslim may ask a question like, "But your Bible teaches xxxxx". One of us will say, "That's what he believes, but I don't, yet we still like, respect, and accept one another." The conversation alone may not solve the problems of the world, but it's still a good example of respect for one another. And the main thing is, it starts an open dialogue. People have done this before and it worked.
Does this make sense, or am I way out in left field/unreality land?

Works for me :D. Then again, one of the corollaries of that is to keep missionaries out of the field since they will act as a poison against that very position. Furthermore, the very assurance that they need in order to be effective missionaries is the very same arrogance in the rectitude of their own beliefs that will sour most people who hear them.


To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

Agreed totally and,yes, that is exactly how the psychos in AQ want to construct this.

Rex Brynen
09-25-2007, 06:07 PM
To comment on the original post: do not take any "side". This should not be a "my God is better than your God" conflict. Isn't that what the extremists want us to think? We are not at war with Islam.

I agree with you, skiguy.

There's an interesting paradox in here, actually: unless he's a hardline takfiri or some other manner of xenophobe, your Muslim interlocutor ought to accept your Christian belief, since after all Christians and Jews are ahl al-kitaab —"peoples of the book"—worshipping the same god. In his religious view (simply put), your heart is in the right place, but Christianity misunderstood the message of the prophets (including Jesus), hence the need for the Prophet Muhammad to provide a final, definite revelation of God's word as the "seal of the prophets."

On the other hand, Christianity—doctrinely—ought to have a harder time accepting Islam, since it rejects any notion of Muhammad as a prophet, or of Islam being a divinely revealed religion.

In practice, however, this isn't quite the situation you might find. He may (depending on where we're talking about, and the extent of his interaction with local and outside non-Muslims) harbour deep suspiccion about non-Muslim beliefs, even monotheistic ones. You, on the other hand, have likely been socialized into an environment in which religious pluralism, even multiculturalism, is a civic norm.

I suppose what I'm saying is that your example raises some interesting questions about the extent to which the dynamics of inter-religious dialogue are shaped by local societal and cultural context as much, or more, than it may be shaped by the core theological doctrines of religion.

skiguy
09-25-2007, 06:28 PM
I don't think anyone, Christian, Jew, or Muslim, has to deny their beliefs. It's learning to accept. I will never accept what's in the Qu'ran, but there's no reason I can't be friends with a Muslim (or Jew). Similarly, there's no reason a Shia can't be friends with a Sunni (and it's not like that isn't happening anyway).

Marc...no missionaries!! Keep them away! No trying to convert others. I'm thinking of this solely in a COIN context. However, I think this should be primarily a civilian job.

Rank amateur
09-25-2007, 07:53 PM
Not according to the OT. This misguided theology that Jesus is (was) this noviolent pacifist is wrong.

IMO, don't resist those who crucify you and you'll be reborn doesn't leave a lot of room for different interpretations, but I guess I'm probably wrong because there does appear to be many different interpretations.

skiguy
09-25-2007, 08:25 PM
IMO, don't resist those who crucify you and you'll be reborn doesn't leave a lot of room for different interpretations.

You have to put that in context with the whole Bible. And does "love your enemy" mean blowing kisses at a suicide bomber as he's driving into the village where I'm working? I don't think so. My intent to want to shoot him is not hatred or murder, it's to protect myself and/or others. This is my problem with the no-kill-under-any-circunstances organizations like CPT. They "get in the way" of the American troop who is trying to stop the VIEB. I don't understand that type of thinking. To me it's immoral. Yet they say the troop is immoral for killing him. And I'm serious, they really do and think that. I've argued with a few of them about this. Welcome to la-la land. :eek:

Rank amateur
09-26-2007, 01:48 AM
You have to put that in context with the whole Bible.

There's a reason they put a cross at the front of every church and good Friday is a holiday.

Ken White
09-26-2007, 03:30 PM
seven churches -- I looked, only two had crosses visible.

Good Friday may be a holy day but I've never known it to be a holiday...

marct
09-26-2007, 03:52 PM
One of the things I find so fascinating about Canada, and Ontario in particular (because I know it best), is how differently we handle the issue of religion from the US. First off, unlike he US, there is no central group/organization that recognizes religions. "Recognition" is handled in a very weird way via individual recognition by varying levels of government departments. The key ones are Corrections (both Provincial and Federal), marriage licensing (Provincial), and the Canada Revenue Agency (definer of non-profit status). It is actually quite possible that a religion is "recognized" in one province, unrecognized in another, and illegal in a third (it's happened :wry:). BTW, only about 50% of Canadians self identify as "Christian" (loosely construed).

Holidays, at least in Ontario, are based on the Christian religious calender, but provisions are also made, and required by law, for holidays from any religion so long as the practitioner identifies them to the concerned party - say employer or university prof (e.g. I cannot schedule exams for a religious holiday if one of my students self declares as being a part of that religion).

This has created a very interesting cultural atmosphere surrounding "religion" in Canada; one that I suspect goes back to a) our frontier society roots and b) our extremely cold winters (before global warming :D). On the whole, I would say that most Canadians are more likely to agree to compromise on symbol systems in any secular ritual (e.g. the opening of Parliament), to shy away from most confrontationalist types of public rituals and to have more ecumenical (very broadly defined) public rituals.

This has led to some very "odd" public rituals. I remember one from about 20 years ago, an Earth Day public ritual, that had components from every major Christian denomination, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Ba'Hai, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism - quite the event!

Tom OC
10-03-2007, 05:26 AM
Been thinking about Ju-Ju lately, and the problems of mono-religious cultures versus multi-religious cultures, in the context of COIN, engaging the mosque, and all that. It seems quite the project to get religious tolerance and religious liberty in place when a conflict presents all sorts of obstacles, including foundational ones, in the way. I've thrown out my best Durkheimian solution, which would be to come up with something spectacular along the lines of a civil religion event. Now, I'd like to throw out a Weberian solution. It's precisely relevant because Weber saw an intimate connection between magic and religion, a parasitical connection if you will, that underscores some deep deficiencies with theocracy, or the irrational ways law can go wrong when controlled by religion. Now, my intent is not to trigger a church and state separation discussion, but if one ensues, so be it. My intent is to propose that the iron cage of rationalization can be used to some advantage. To do this might require a reversal of strategy. Instead of trying to find common ground and instead of trying to find any moderate core or mainstream, one could instead encourage specialization over very narrowly defined areas of theology (the sacred) and very narrowly defined areas of law (the profane). Weber said the first specialists were religious practitioners, and that these models of other-worldly spheres of competence would emit this-worldly specialists once the intellectual division of labor was exhausted with the former. The key to all this, of course, requires an exhaustion of the spiritual mind. When there's nothing more to think about spiritually, the mind turns to the secular.

marct
10-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Hi Tom,


Now, I'd like to throw out a Weberian solution. It's precisely relevant because Weber saw an intimate connection between magic and religion, a parasitical connection if you will, that underscores some deep deficiencies with theocracy, or the irrational ways law can go wrong when controlled by religion.

Not sure I would have used the term "parasitical"; possibly "symbiotic" would be more apropos. Then again, that depends very heavily on how the terms "religion" and "magic" are defined. I tend to use Geertz's definition of religion as my "default":


(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic

This definition is quite different from Durkheim's one:


a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them.

For the term "magic", I use Dion Fortune's definition of magic as


the Art and Science of causing changes in consciousness in accordance with will.

In part, I use this definition because it is one commonly accepted as at least moderately valid by most practitioners of Western Magic while, at te same time, it bears at least a passing resemblance to most non-Western magical and mystical traditions (including Sufism and Buddhism). Another reason I use it is because it meshes conceptually very well with Geertz's definition of religion and allows for the development of some pretty sophisticated analyses. The final reason for using it is that the two together actually mesh very well with recent findings in cognitive neural structures (a link brought out fairly early in Charlie Laughlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Laughlin)'s theory of Biogenetic Structuralism (http://www.biogeneticstructuralism.com/)).


Now, my intent is not to trigger a church and state separation discussion, but if one ensues, so be it.

Most discussions of religion seem to bring that out :wry:. Not really that much of an issue in Canada per se, but definitely a major one in the US.


My intent is to propose that the iron cage of rationalization can be used to some advantage. To do this might require a reversal of strategy. Instead of trying to find common ground and instead of trying to find any moderate core or mainstream, one could instead encourage specialization over very narrowly defined areas of theology (the sacred) and very narrowly defined areas of law (the profane).

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here, Tom. Could you expand on it?


Weber said the first specialists were religious practitioners, and that these models of other-worldly spheres of competence would emit this-worldly specialists once the intellectual division of labor was exhausted with the former. The key to all this, of course, requires an exhaustion of the spiritual mind. When there's nothing more to think about spiritually, the mind turns to the secular.

He also argued that there was a continuous flow from the sacred to the profane via prophets, as well as a continuous "secularization" or "hardening" of charisma into rational-legal authority. In which respect, it might be better to go back to his original, German term, stahlhartes Gehäuse and translate that as "steel hard shell" rather than "iron cage"; there are some implications on the relative adaptability of consciousness that are significantly different between the two translations.

Marc

goesh
10-03-2007, 06:36 PM
" It seems quite the project to get religious tolerance and religious liberty in place when a conflict presents all sorts of obstacles, including foundational ones, in the way." (Tom OC)

I would add " and the ability to manipulate both " after the words "religious liberty" in the above quote. COIN attaches theory to the method at times ex post facto, born of necessity on the street. COIN advocates the mundane, that the interpretation of radical Islam is not the rationale and justification for insurgency and terrorism, but rather insurgency/terrorism is naught but a grab for power, wealth and social control. This exposes the likes of AQ as common thugs and criminals but in so doing, it makes the ju-ju mundane, not the go-between. The more COIN can apply 'Islam' in its tactics and strategy, the more successful they can be but that path is fraught with moral, political and spiritual implications and unanswered questions. The most successful COIN men in our history were the mountain men/trappers but they assumed in large part Indian identities and lived the lifestyle.

To end my rambling, I would say the spiritual mind will never exhaust itself given the abundance of variation and deviation in traditional and non-traditional approaches to spirituality and new sects and intpretations continue to crop up. Wicca and paganism for instance saw a whole plethora of intepretations once they became born again, no pun intended.

Tom OC
10-05-2007, 12:31 AM
If not the iron cage, then basically I am suggesting an application of the ideas in Weber's Protestant Ethic for battling Islamist extremism. My reasoning goes like this. Since any theocratic system, in order to exist, must have convenience for a politico-economic system, then the more specialization that occurs on the theological side of the house, the more bureaucratization, and hence more modernity, occurs on the politico-economic side of the house. This should explain or expand on what I suggested. In practical terms, it means encouragement of sectarianism, as well as other forms of specialization, rather than discouragement of theological differences. The resultant tendency of the spiritual mind to "exhaust" itself, so to speak, while trying to comprehend all the theological specialties would force a "practical" turn toward secularism. I'm just applying Weber as I understand that kind of sociology.

tequila
10-05-2007, 02:03 AM
That sounds somewhat disturbing in practice. The sort of spiritual "exhaustion" that accompanied the turn towards the Enlightenment in Europe (certainly not the Reformation) came atop the corpses of a third of Germany's population, to mention just one of many sectarian conflicts in Western European Christianity's past. The sort of upheaval that sort of "exhaustion" would entail would not be tolerated by the West, not least for the disruptions it would cause the world economy.

This idea that Western secularism holds the magic key for a Middle Eastern future strikes me as a little implausible in the short term, the short term being defined as anytime in the next fifty years or so. It was once viewed that way before. Not so coincidentally, fifty years ago the most popular and powerful Shi'i movement in Iraq was the Communist Party, as Hanna Batutu (http://www.amazon.com/Social-Classes-Revolutionary-Movements-Iraq/dp/0863565204) documented in exhausting detail. Western secularism is identified today in the Arab world with dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Bashir al-Assad. Not the best or most popular models.

Tom OC
10-06-2007, 07:07 PM
I was just pondering some application of Weber's ideas. There's no necessity for "exhaustion" nor sectarianism. The goal of inner-worldly asceticism could be accomplished by other means. For example, a plain ole work ethic might do. One of the appeals of Islamist, other-worldly mysticism is the principle of least effort, a kind of non-participation, if you will, driven by hedonistic desires. In my mind, it was Parsons who had Weber down the best in this regard, not so much in reconciling hedonism with sociological peace, but in devising a system of action (adaptation) involving willful participation in community affairs. However, as Parsonian systems rely so heavily on pre-existant norms and roles, the problem comes back to conflict with customs and folkways (or maybe I've got this conflict stated wrong). I only have an undergraduate degree in anthropology. Can somebody fill me in on what conflict I'm doing so badly at describing?

Rex Brynen
10-06-2007, 07:46 PM
One of the appeals of Islamist, other-worldly mysticism is the principle of least effort, a kind of non-participation, if you will, driven by hedonistic desires.

This hardly seems to describe any of the Islamists that I know...

Tom OC
10-07-2007, 02:22 PM
Well, Rex. Sorry that other-worldly mysticism and non-participative least effort doesn't seem to describe any Islamist you know, but the processes I'm describing operate at a level which is not manifested in full consciousness. This is to say that the Islamists themselves would not be aware of them. A similar and related process would be cognitive dissonance. However, I will point out some features that are more manifest. The other-wordly mysticism feature is most apparent in the Sufist and Mahdist sects, but also among jihadists as an interpretation of Koran 78:31 pointing to the reward of virgins in heaven for martyrs. A good book that covers the cosmic overtones as they apply to all Islamists is Juergensmeyer, M. (2001). Terror in the mind of God. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. With regard to what I meant by non-participative least effort, the more visible part would be attributional error and bias, such as a tendency to blame others for what are essentially one's own problems. The tendency to "take the easy way out" both in interpretation and attribution has been discussed by both Gerges, F. (2005). The far enemy: Why jihad went global. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, and Roshandel, J. (2006). Jihad and international security. NY: Palgrave Macmillan. In my field of expertise (criminology), non-participativeness is like being a dropout from society. It involves a withdrawal of legitimacy or sense of alienation from existing institutions and creates a mindset of anticipatory failure if one were to try participating to change things via the status quo. Hence, terrorism is a lot like crime in this regard, but getting back to Weber, it would seem that affording wannabe jihadists some inner-worldly preoccupations (like the study of psychology or social science) along with affording more opportunities to participate in community groups would go a long way. That's all I was suggesting.

skiguy
10-07-2007, 03:50 PM
This is to say that the Islamists themselves would not be aware of them. A similar and related process would be cognitive dissonance

That doesn't really make sense. If going by the standard definition of cognitive dissonance, then how can they not be aware? The same can be said about the Christian religion too.

Rex Brynen
10-07-2007, 04:07 PM
I think we probably have to differentiate here between Islamists and Islamists.

There are those Islamists--al-takfir wa-l-hijra in Egypt in the 1980s being the most obvious example, but including many AQ elements--for whom separation from society, and other-wordly rewards, are of importance.

However, the vast bulk of Islamists--including not only Muslim Brotherhood non-violent types, but also (say) armed groups like Hamas and Hizbullah—are deeply engaged in their societies, at all levels. They are, to borrow Putnam, certainly not "bowling alone." Indeed, much of their broader popular appeal is due to their perceived social commitment and "work ethic."

marct
10-07-2007, 04:39 PM
Hi Tom,


If not the iron cage, then basically I am suggesting an application of the ideas in Weber's Protestant Ethic for battling Islamist extremism. My reasoning goes like this. Since any theocratic system, in order to exist, must have convenience for a politico-economic system, then the more specialization that occurs on the theological side of the house, the more bureaucratization, and hence more modernity, occurs on the politico-economic side of the house.

Honestly, I think you are misreading Weber, here. His Protestant Ethic was an explanation (erkennen) situated in a very specific space-time locus. It was not a generic explanation but, rather, a particular one centered around the development of a theological justification for a way in which people could find clues to their salvific status. In order to operate, it requires that individual knowledge of salvation be a) predestined and b) not specifically knowable (i.e. unachievable via works or practice). And yet, the second criterion is contradicted in almost all branches of Islam.

Secondl, you are assuming tat theocratic systems must "have convenience for a politico-economic system", but this is not true. It relies on two assumptions that are invalid: a) that the social system that is quite bounded and, b) that the political-economic system dominates the symbol system. Neither of these assumptions is valid at the present time. For example, economic globalization disproves the first, while there are countless examples disproving the second (in all cases, the symbol system creates alternate political-economic systems that eliminate the ones that disagree with them).

Third, the belief that increasing specialization leads to increasing bureaucracy is also invalid: Islam has a far greater range of law that Christianity does, and yet it has not produced many secularized states.


The resultant tendency of the spiritual mind to "exhaust" itself, so to speak, while trying to comprehend all the theological specialties would force a "practical" turn toward secularism. I'm just applying Weber as I understand that kind of sociology.

Honestly, I just don't see that happening. Why would this happen? Historically, there are very few societies that have highly significant percentages of their populations involved in "spiritual" matters (pre-invasion Tibet was one). The far more probable result, at least historically speaking, is the development of either an ecclesiam type of structure or a mass fragmentation.


One of the appeals of Islamist, other-worldly mysticism is the principle of least effort, a kind of non-participation, if you will, driven by hedonistic desires.

I think that this is a characteristic of almost every religion, at least in potential. Still and all, it is also usually held by a very small percentage of any population.


In my mind, it was Parsons who had Weber down the best in this regard, not so much in reconciling hedonism with sociological peace, but in devising a system of action (adaptation) involving willful participation in community affairs. However, as Parsonian systems rely so heavily on pre-existant norms and roles, the problem comes back to conflict with customs and folkways (or maybe I've got this conflict stated wrong). I only have an undergraduate degree in anthropology. Can somebody fill me in on what conflict I'm doing so badly at describing?

Well, there is an argument, which I tend to agree with, that Parsons systematically "slanted" his translations of Weber to mesh in with his own models. Also, as an historical note, Parsons really didn't have that much to do with Anthropology. He spent one term studying with Malinowski at the LSE (Michaelmas term, 1927), and never really got what Malinowski was saying.

A large part of Parsons' problem was that he was locked into a top-down model of functionalism. So, using your example, he sets up a conflict between norms and roles on the one hand with customs and folkways on he other. Unfortunately, what he never got was that neither of them is "naturally" better or more apropos - they are, in actual fact, exactly the same thing differing only in where they derive their legitimacy from (tradition or imposition).

Tom OC
10-08-2007, 03:56 AM
Regarding Parsons (forgetting Durkheim and Weber for now), isn't it true that a symbolic media of exchange, like making money or engaging in legitimate economic behavior, serves to connect components of the social action system? And, that socio-political justifications for this kind of legitimate behavior serve to create more generalized norms and values that move a society from reliance on traditions, customs, and folkways into a more modernized, organic solidarity form? I would agree that a crude application of Durkheim or Weber's ontology would be disasterous. The real ju-ju is where the money is. Can I talk Parsons here, as it applies to say, modernization or nation building?

marct
10-08-2007, 05:42 PM
Hi Tom,


Regarding Parsons (forgetting Durkheim and Weber for now), isn't it true that a symbolic media of exchange, like making money or engaging in legitimate economic behavior, serves to connect components of the social action system? And, that socio-political justifications for this kind of legitimate behavior serve to create more generalized norms and values that move a society from reliance on traditions, customs, and folkways into a more modernized, organic solidarity form? I would agree that a crude application of Durkheim or Weber's ontology would be disasterous. The real ju-ju is where the money is. Can I talk Parsons here, as it applies to say, modernization or nation building?

Always glad to "talk Parsons" :D. I spent a couple of years early on in my Ph.D. studies reading his work (an that was a fight, let me tell you!). I came to the conclusion that there were several fatal flaws in his model, the most glaring of which was its top-down formulation and extremely narrow limits of applicability. Put simple, it's excellent for post-diction and lousy for prediction (i.e. statistically indistinguishable from random chance for prediction). It took me a while to figure out why this was but, once I did, it became glaringly apparent: Parsons had inverted social causality (I often suspected that this is why Merton pushed mid-range theory so much).

So let me answer your questions in order, but from a Malinowskian perspective.


Regarding Parsons (forgetting Durkheim and Weber for now), isn't it true that a symbolic media of exchange, like making money or engaging in legitimate economic behavior, serves to connect components of the social action system?

For Malinowski, symbolic media are fairly high order cultural responses that serve to integrate institutions. But "integration", for Malinowski, is not the same as symbiosis; there can (and will) be conflict between institutions, and the very basis of institutions are subject to change brought about by shifts in their operational environments. This creates a "social action system" (to use Parson's term) that is radically different from the type that parsons conceived; it is more fluid and unstable.


that socio-political justifications for this kind of legitimate behavior serve to create more generalized norms and values that move a society from reliance on traditions, customs, and folkways into a more modernized, organic solidarity form?

Again, for Malinowski, the generative source of norms, values, customs, traditions and folkways is the same: institutions. As institutional conflict changes the relative social status of institutions, some of these gain greater influence than others, but that influence is dependent upon the continuing influence of their institutional base (as a note, Andrew Abbott's work on Professions falls in here quite nicely).

The shift to "modernized, organic solidarity" is, in many ways, a chimera. If we go back to Durkheim's original formulation of these categories, it's readily apparent that it is a distinction built on "0" and "everything else", where "mechanical solidarity" = 0 differences, and organic solidarity = everything else. But, since Durkheim didn't bother to actually look at any of the fieldwork coming out at the time, he didn't realize that even the most "primitive" groups (e.g. the Andermani Islanders according to the then in vogue classifications) had a quite complex system of social stratification and, to use his own terms, "organic solidarity". He had fallen into a classical trap of assuming Rousseau's "Noble Savage" was the true state of primeval man, which it wasn't.

As a result of this mistake, Durkheim ended up creating a dichotomous analytical variable, mechanical vs. organic solidarity, that had no basis in actual fact. I think he actually recognized this problem with his introduction to the 2nd edition of The Division of Labour in Society when he introduced the concept of intermediate organizations and, de facto, converted mechanical and organic solidarity into a sliding scale rather than a crisp dichotomy.

Parsons seems to have built on this sliding scale version but, IMHO, he completely missed the ball on the actual role played by Durkheim's "intermediate structures" (Malinowski's "institutions" more or less). He then compounded this error but adopting an uncritical and highly biased reading of Weber's concepts in routinization of authority. In particular, notice that Parsons ascribes charismatic authority to past operations and seems to leave out its potential for current or future operations. This was probably his most serious flaw, and it is my guess that this is the man reason why Parsonian theory was pretty much tossed on the scrap heap during the 1960's.

A second major flaw in Parsons theoretical model was that, because of his misreading of Weber and Malinowski, he assumed a unilineal form of evolution for societies from "traditional" to "modern". (I suspect that if Parsons had been better read in history he would not have fallen into that trap but, as one of my old mentors once noted, he had an ego the size of Texas ;).) His belief that society would become more "modern", and his assumptions as to what that meant, made his theoretical model unable to withstand the rapid shifts that happened in the 1960's and 1970's.

One of the most pernicious assumptions of his model was his assumptions about the locus of the generation of consciousness in individuals. There's too much to go into in a post, so I'm attaching a part of my dissertation on the subject.

Marc

Tom OC
10-10-2007, 05:02 AM
Marc; I hope it's not just you and I having this conversation. Not that I don't mind the company, but I'd love to hear from some others too because some of the prior comments about my (ontological) take on Durkheim and Weber were helpful to me. Anyway, regarding Parsons, my first-ever peer reviewed article long ago was on him, called A Neofunctionalist Model of Crime Control. It touched on terrorism, and I plan to do an updated presentation at ASC next month with even more such focus. I'm impressed with your knowledge of the topic. That attachment of yours clearly resonated with me re: the Unified Social Science Movement and neo-evolutionary theory. Anyway, let me throw out some starting points: One, I am going to assume functional prerequisites are fulfilled by new kinds of institutions (neofunctional ones). Two, I am going to assume a media of interchange between these institutions. Once the model is constructed (and yes, it will have cybernetic action properties), I will test it against some trend data in the directions of more and less stability in a COIN operation. Does this make sense, and do you know what I'm trying to do?

Rob Thornton
10-10-2007, 10:46 AM
but there are plenty of us who benefit by listening in:D - Its kind of like science C-Span - you learn allot, but don't have to say much.

Best Regards, and Thanks, Rob

marct
10-10-2007, 02:27 PM
Hi Tom,


Marc; I hope it's not just you and I having this conversation. Not that I don't mind the company, but I'd love to hear from some others too because some of the prior comments about my (ontological) take on Durkheim and Weber were helpful to me.

As Rob noted, "others are listening" :D. I suspect that our current conversation is sort of acting like a round table discussion for our ongoing "graduate seminar".

[quote=Tom OC;28222]Anyway, regarding Parsons, my first-ever peer reviewed article long ago was on him, called A Neofunctionalist Model of Crime Control. It touched on terrorism, and I plan to do an updated presentation at ASC next month with even more such focus.

I'd love to see a copy of it if you don't mind shooting it my way.


I'm impressed with your knowledge of the topic. That attachment of yours clearly resonated with me re: the Unified Social Science Movement and neo-evolutionary theory.

I've always been favourable towards some form of functionalism. Over the years, I read quite a bit of it, but I always felt that most of the Sociology side of it tended to be wearing some heavy blinders where both biology and pre-industrial societies where concerned. I mean, really, if the goal is to create a GUTE (Grand Unified Theory of Everything), then we really have to include both biology and pre-industrial societies in our models (along with Psychology, History, Economics, etc.) :wry:.

On the whole, that led me to looking more closely at Malinowski's work, which seemed to be the only real attempt to tie everything together in a manner that would cover both pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial societies. Not that he didn't have a lot of theoretical problems, he did. Probably the worst of which was that there wasn't a mathematical language that could describe his insights. Also, his level of biological knowledge, while it was definitely up to speed for the 1920's and 1930's when he was writing, has been so far surpassed these days that it is almost laughable (especially in the neuro-cognitive area). Still and all, I think his basic outline works (with one major and some minor adjustments).


Anyway, let me throw out some starting points: One, I am going to assume functional prerequisites are fulfilled by new kinds of institutions (neofunctional ones). Two, I am going to assume a media of interchange between these institutions. Once the model is constructed (and yes, it will have cybernetic action properties), I will test it against some trend data in the directions of more and less stability in a COIN operation. Does this make sense, and do you know what I'm trying to do?

Yup, it makes sense to me and I do know what you are trying to do. Let me toss out a couple of suggestions that you may have already thought about and just not included in the above.

1. Institutions operate in environments and the vast majority of their "sensory mechanisms" are aimed at those parts of the environment that assure their survival and replication. This means that the strongest media ties will be with those institutions that are most likely to help or hinder that survival and replication and not, necessarily, with their ostensive social function. BTW, a really useful distinction that Malinowski made regarding institutions was between the Charter (sort of a combined foundation myth and official function) and the function (what they actually do). This becomes especially important when the two diverge under environmental stress. Even more importantly, for Malinowski at least, institutions may destabilize their social environments catastrophically under their own survival imperatives (Mary Douglas argues much the same and, IMO, makes a much better case for it that Malinowski did, in How Institutions Think (http://www.amazon.com/Institutions-Think-Frank-Abrams-Lectures/dp/0815602065/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-7116961-4293239?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192025052&sr=1-1)).

2. Cybernetic loops are fine, but they only operate well if the elements in the loop refer to the same "level" of social reality. Any really good COIN model operates either fractally, such as Dave Kicullen's one here (http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf), or on an assumed (if not always stated) 4D model (e.g. Mao, Lenin, etc.). This means that you are going to ave to account for emergence from one level to another and for miscommunications between levels (i.e. stuff like the irhabi spin playing out on al-Jezira and finding its way into CNN).

Marc

Tom OC
10-11-2007, 06:06 PM
Marc, I sent a copy of that old paper of mine to you by email. I couldn't get around the file size limitations here.

marct
10-11-2007, 06:31 PM
Hi Tom,


Marc, I sent a copy of that old paper of mine to you by email. I couldn't get around the file size limitations here.

I just got it. I probably won't get a chance to read it until tomorrow (I'm swoting a paper for tonight right now).

I've got to say that I really do enjoy these discussions. Nobody at Carleton will really talk functionalism at all - the vast majority just seem to dismiss all forms of it as a "given" ("That? Who reads Parsons anymore?!?"). I have a few colleagues who are "familiar" with the models but, on the whole, no one who I can really hone my ideas against :D.

BTW, I notice the file is larger than the post limit here. Did you want it posted and linked through to this discussion?

Marc

Tom OC
10-12-2007, 10:13 PM
Well, I don't know about posting the whole article. It was written a long time ago and is a very rudimentary expostion of Parsonianism applied to a Filipino insurgency problem. I can try to attach an excerpt from it, but I would probably rather move on and post bits and pieces from my presentation next month. The image portrays some of the system dynamics, but I think I've got the I and L cells misplaced.

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/images/diagrams/neofunctionalistimage.jpg