Interesting read

Although this may only intersect with my paper, I thought it was a really interesting read on how technology and religion actually work in harmony...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-osler/spiritual-facebook_b_5509875.html

Different

Just a little something I wrote to reflect on the recent outbreak in NYC and around the country regarding the Garner case. 

            I used to be an active member of Black and Hispanic Student Association (BaHSA) at my high school. During the election for a leadership position I told an anecdote that still stays with me. The summer after my first year at a boarding school, I was staying with my grandparents for a week or so in Korea. As my grandfather and I watched TV, out of the blue he grabbed my hand and very seriously told that I must not hang out with black people. “We’re just too different my dear,” he said. “Promise me you’ll never hang out with them.” At the time, I was dating a Hispanic boy and my best friend was black. I remember swallowing my tears and heading to the bathroom to get myself together. I couldn’t tell him he was wrong. I knew too well his angry, self-righteous response that would’ve followed. I shared my hope in my speech that if I continued to be educated and advocative of cultural and racial traditions and equality, someday my grandfather could notice the truth in our voice.

            This past Thanksgiving break, after watching the movie “Dear White People,” and hearing the Ferguson verdict, my moral discussions and concerns were stirred. “Dear White People” portrays and makes fun of the “bourgeois” micro-aggressions, and some times flat-out racisms happening on American collegiate institutions. It also portrays white institutional stake-holders as blind capitalists.

            The friend I was staying with during Thanksgiving was anxious all day when the Ferguson verdict was due. When it came out, he was disappointed but not surprised. I shared his sentiments.

            Now with the recent outbreak of the Garner case, and what seems like an explosion of anger and demand of consolation of all the overlooked past racial injustices, I want to remind myself to not loose hope. Humans in the modern day, (and yes this is a gross generalization) are addicted to verdicts –the truth that will blame and punish one person, and with the “criminal’s” pain, somehow the “victim’s” pain is compensated.

            I spent this morning reading up on the Garner case. In one video by the NYTimes, I was struck by Garner’s parents’ stance on the heat of protests and outrage. “Do it in peace,” the mother said. “Whatever you do, if you don’t do it in peace, don’t do it.” And another father asking an outraged man verbally attacking the police system on the streets, “please stop.”  Their wishes should be protected. It’s one thing to demand a re-evaluation of the US police-system, but when the popularity of this outrage is under the name of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, the family’s wishes is so crucial to protect.

            I am disturbed. Less by the two recent cases. Because at the end of the day, we don’t know what actually happened. We can investigate endlessly but the connection of self-defense and racial discrimination in such deaths will never be absolutely certain for us. I am sad that this is affecting so much people, and I am concerned that the way that people are expressing anger isn’t the most sensitive or effective way to bring change. So as a source of hope I turn to faith and the divine. Despite our differences and statement of differences, we are governed by the one divine. The way we connect to, celebrate and call the divine might be different. But what we have faith in must be the same. 

Where religion and social media intersect

Here is another instance where religion and social media battled themselves. In this case, religion trumps social media:
https://www.change.org/p/youtube-to-remove-katy-perry-s-dark-horse-video-depicting-name-of-god-allah-youtube-to-remove-katy-perry-s-video-dark-horse-from-their-website

Dualities

I thought that Luhrmann's discussion regarding Evangelical Christians marking their own bibles and making it personal was very interesting. There is a certain duality to this. The words written in the bible don't vary from bible to bible. In some religions, as Luhrmann shows, sacred texts are kept with the utmost care, kept in particular places, and handled in certain ways. The text doesn't change and therefore, followers should all fit into the mold that their religion's sacred texts teaches them to.

However, the consistent words in the bible affect people differently, because they are going through various, unique, personal experience in the moment that they read a certain text. As a result, I thought that even though scripture doesn't change,  because human lives are inconsistent and always changing, belief in certain religion, no matter how similar the end goals are, or how homogeneous the paths are to achieve these end goals, is an extremely personal experience.

God as Immanent

Luhrmann describes the utility of the physiological phenomena of absorption in religious practices, by religious practitioners:  

"He [the absorbed person] lives within his imagination more, whether that be simple mindfulness or elaborate fantasy, and he feels that the experience happens to him, that he is a bystander to his own awareness, more himself than ever before, or perhaps absent, but in any case different (Tellegen and Atkinson 1974; Davidson and Davidson 1980; Luhrmann 2005)... And as the absorption grows deeper, people often experience more imagery and more sensory phenomena, sometimes with near- hallucinatory vividness (Fromm and Katz 1990). The techniques which encourage absorption are the techniques of intense, focused prayer... (Luhrmann, p. 5)

As Marlene points out, there is an overlap in defining characteristics between schizophrenia and all-inclusive absorption of intense prayer. This overlap engenders an interesting question - that is, whether God, the notion of God, of divine entity that is supra-human and stands as the ultimate in the hierarchy of beings, is an immanent notion, a notion that derives from within the human subject. Further, that God and man are, rather than being composed of distinct substances, composed of single universal substances - and in that sense immanent. (This notion is different from the idea of transference [I think] that we as human beings extrapolate our condition to image an higher being).In relation to schizophrenia and prayer, the action becomes not an act of externalization, of communicating (of information exchange) with an external, supra, conception, of something transcendent - in rhetorical terms, as a dialogue - but rather, as information exchange within the manifold layers of the self - in rhetorical terms, as a monologue. Prayer: not as a dialogue, but as a monologue.

(The science fiction writer Philip K Dick writes of this notion of immanent God [to some extent] in his essay "Man, Android, and Machine") 

Learning to Pray

I found this article to be a particularly interesting read. Most notably in the concept of learning how to pray. The article specifically mentions four keys of dialogue with God. These are “learning how to recognize God’s voice in your everyday thoughts, learning to go to a quiet place and be still, attending to dreams and visions, and writing down the dialogue so that you remember it and it becomes real for you.” As I was reading this, I couldn’t help but to compare this understand of prayer to my own personal understanding of prayer. In my religious understanding, I have always considered prayer to be a conversation with God. A time to be give thanks for the blessings in you life, a time to reflect on his glory, a time to make requests, and a time to repent of sin. But not once have I ever thought of prayer to mean a checklist of four criteria. In my understanding, just as a conversation with a friend can have many different forms, so too can prayer take on many different forms. Prayer can often include journaling, or a quiet place, or a social context, but that does not mean that you are doing it wrong if these elements are not present. At least in my opinion. So if prayer is designed to be communion with God, then can there really only be one way to do it right? Can we really learn to pray?

Prayer Journals

Since it's so difficult to concretely manifest a person's interaction with God, seeing how he's everywhere, yet he cannot be seen, touched, smelt, etc., I find it very interesting, and quite effective that members of the Vineyard are encouraged to keep this prayer journal. This tool, by writing down things they have asked for, or hoped for, and going back every once in a while to see which have been answered, allows for a quantitative manifestation of what would otherwise be seen as time-wasting meditation. However, all I have to say is that correlation does not mean causation. Just because a person prayed, and an event takes place, doesn't necessarily mean that the prayer caused the event to take place. Perhaps, from a goal-setting and visualization standpoint, manifesting something like a goal on an MCAT score by writing that goal down on a piece of paper would thus make the goal or desire concrete, and thus facilitate the person to achieving that goal. Such practices, goal setting of both short term and long term, are used all the time by athletes to promote not only looking for the end result, but also understanding the steps that need to be taken to achieve it. As a neuroscience major, and someone who understands some principles of motivational psychology, I would have to attribute the writing down of prayers to the psychological effects they pose towards a positive outcome, but wouldn't necessarily give them much concrete weight towards the power of God.... although correlation certainly doesn't rule out causation.

Experience

“Participation captures the central experience of divinity for many American evangelical Christians: that humans can experience divinity intimately, and that in such intimacy the internal mind and an external reality in someway participate in each other.” Having an “experience” of the liminal space of reality and divinity is pretty tempting. Reading the text reminded me a lot of my experience at the mega church I went as a child. I looked up the vineyard foundation website with the warm welcoming accounts from the “national director” of the vineyard movements. The vineyard worships well documented on youtube also reminded me of my old church, how moving it was to be a part of congregation singing one song. A good band and singer added to that emotional resonance. I have now shifted my faith practices to more personal ways. I’ve found that there’s a hypocrisy in “experiencing” the divine so intimately during services that are designed to make me feel that way, while my personal relationship with God wasn’t sustained by my own will and belief. I’m hesitant to say that such evangelical, new-age way of faith is wrong, but I definitely do think there’s an interesting dichotomy to be examined.

Neuroscience Things

This was a very interesting read and one that struck a cord. For one I talk to myself, a lot. Probably to the point where some of my friends find me slightly crazy, but it's fine. It is an organizational tool, I use it to study, plan my day, and for a whole host of other reasons. In fact my thinking to myself is really the norm for me. I find it interesting the way the reading put an emphasis on fleeting thoughts and pointed out how congregants dissassociated these thoughts from themselves, connecting it instead to an outside force.

Also being a Neuroscience major I found the mind, body talks very interesting. This reading made me bring to question if these thoughts still hold for those with mental disorders. What about schizophrenia and other disorders that produce intense hallucinations (auditory and visual). Does this participation with God get lost? Enhanced? For these communication to happen do congregants believe the brain must function normally, and that somehow the brain is the direct connection to the Lord? Although the paper explicitly stated Prayer as the form of communication, the implications it brought up made me really think about the brain's/minds role in all this.

Who is to say what God is?

While I found the article to be interesting and informative as a whole, I was irritated by the second test participants used to decide if God was talking to them. This test was to check and see if what the person was hearing is "what God would say."

I think this gets at one of the fundamental reasons religion is the root of so much heartache and violence. When participants think they know what God does or does not want, what God does or does not think, what God does or does not say, what God does or does not like, etc., they are a) demeaning God and b) creating a dangerous, elitist mindset.

By thinking that we, as mortals, can know God's heart--who He is, what He thinks, what He wants, etc.--we are taking a being that is supposed to be greater than our comprehension and trying to squeeze him into a box of our choosing. We are making the flawed and supposedly-sinful thoughts and desires of humans and that of a perfect God. How do we think that our small and feeble minds can interpret what the great and everlasting God would say?

And not only are we taking away the glory of God, but we are making it to seem that we are the mouthpieces of God. That we know what God is saying and what God wants. That we are the voice of moral reason. This mindset, and not being able to entertain other ideas or humble oneself leads to egotistical behavior and strong-armed religious action between two people who are overly confident that they know the truth.

Granted, it is true that the examples given in the article are ones that most people would agree with. (God doesn't want us to hurt ourselves or others, etc.) However, I do not think it is out-of-the-question to assume that they would apply this attitude to more controversial things like gay marriage, abortion, child-rearing. Because even if participants want to give human qualities to their God, and it is very much within their rights to do so, the outward effect of being self-righteous in their beliefs can cause much harm.

The Impersonality of Religious Thought

I found Luhrmann's discussion of the process of discernment to be extremely interesting and important for understanding religious processes of thought. Luhrmann discusses how the process by which Evangelicals determine if their thoughts are their own or God's, is socially constructed. Individuals learn how to interpret their thoughts and learn specific practices to help them decide on the thought's origins. Individuals cannot a priori evaluate their own thoughts, instead utilizing normalized structures for understanding. Something as personal as one's own thoughts becomes controlled by accepted social norms.

Ridiculousness

In most religions, some teachings or practices might be thought to be ridiculous from an outsider's point of view. For me, something ridiculous was that a "man might believe that his enemies would have power over him if they simply knew his name". That just sounds irrational and illogical to me, but then again, some people may think that the things I do are illogical and irrational. How can we draw the line of when something in religion is ridiculous versus just different than our own? Can we really criticize others' "different" points of view?

 

Delivered from Homosexuality

This video has been going viral for about a week. It basically shows a man giving testimony of being delivered from being gay. Although the attempt from the church may have been serious social media has made the video more of a joke. I think the first place I saw it was on twitter or vine and the intent was to make me laugh because of his over-dramatization. Once again this just brings up the whole battle between religion and media, and how religious attempts of using media have backfired.

http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/church-of-god-pray-gay-away/

What is normal thinking?

"Since "belief" is irrational, some sort of suspension of normal thinking must have taken place and caused the convert to his or her grip on reality,"(p.168) 

I find this quote from Harding's article to be self critical and hypocritcle . We discussed in class yesterday how she herself was very close to converting herself during the course of her 20 year research and for her to say that belief is irrational is an insult to herself and an insult to those she is researching because of the way she defines it. What is normal thinking? What is normal? They are relative mental and social sets that don't really have a basis in reality at all. There is no such thing as normal and therefore for there to be a suspension of the normal thinking there would have ahead to previously been a normal state which doesn't exist. I think converts experience a suspension of their previous way of thinking that challenges them makes them think. They have now experience another way of thinking to the point where they are now questioning whether their previous way of thinking is correct for them, and for some it may not be and those are the ones who convert and for others it's not so they return to their previous ways of I thinking. However because they have experienced this challenge of self they don't really return to the way the previously ythought with 100% faith, nor do they convert with 100% faith because once you've lived a train life it leaves a mark on you and thus it is always there in the back of your mind. I believe that open should always challenge their way of thinking because if they don't then there is no growth of the mind or growth of their belief or faith to their way of thinking. If you are challenged and still believe your way is right for you then you have only strengthen your ay of thinking not weakened it.

Ciara Williams 

Conversion as an Occupational Hazard of Anthropology

     The main focus of Harding's article is the power of rhetoric and the role it plays in the conversion process. Towards the end of the article in the conclusion she says , "Crises, transitions, and upbringing as such do not lead you to convert; they may make you more likely to listen and anything that makes you more likely to listen, including the work of ethnography, is actually what makes you susceptible." This stood out to me because in our previous lecture we we're talking about riding the line between belief and non-belief. It got me thinking that in order for one to make the conversion to belief they must first be willing to listen and it would follow that ethnographic field work would fall into that category. It would seem that Harding and I are in agreement about this and I think it raises  quite a few questions in my mind.

1. Can an ethnographer truly understand a movement or culture without going to the bring of a, what I'll call conversion-crisis?

2. If you believe the answer above is no, then is it fair to say that conversion, as in the case of evangelicalism, is an occupational hazard of being an ethnographer and that every time you go into the field you run the risk of going native?

3. And finally, do/should ethnographers set up "mental blockades"/deploy other tactics to avoid going native or riding the line in order to prevent their work from being criticized as biased?

     Also, in looking at her above quote about susceptibility. It reminded me a lot of genetic predisposition, not in the sense that someone is predisposed to becoming religious, but in the way that you can be predisposed for an illness, say schizophrenia, and without the accompanying environmental stimuli never develop the disorder.

The Need for Tension

Reading this article by Susan Harding really made me think more about our discussion in class on Wednesday regarding the role of the ethnographer and the authenticity of their account being determined by whether or not they experience the tension towards conversion. I think that Harding has a very interesting quote in her article that speaks to this. She writes, “There is no such thing as a neutral, ‘participant observer’ position, no place for an ethnographer who seeks ‘information’. Either you are lost, or you are saved”. I think that there is a lot of truth to Harding’s statement here. In observing a particular religious community, especially for extended periods of time, I do not believe that neutrality is really possible. Either the ethnographer will maintain somewhat of a defensive attitude for the beliefs that they individually held prior, or they would be at least somewhat swayed towards the beliefs of the culture that they are observing. But in moving the conversation forward, would it really be all that harmful for an ethnographer to be somewhat swayed towards that particular religion. As a society, we don’t discredit a scientist because he/she believes in the accuracy of the idea they are presenting, and how is the legitimacy of an ethnographer any different? In many ways, isn’t this tension to convert a sign of true understanding and therefore a marker of legitimacy in an ethnographic work?

Absolutism in Fundamentalism

In Harding's article it became clear to me that Fundamentalist Christianity conceives of two positions in this world, the saved and the lost; an individual has either witnessed the gospel or they have not. I found Cantrell's ability to place Harding within his own narrative to be quite astonishing, and potentially powerful. Despite her role as an ethnographer, Harding was unable to remain outside of what she was studying. She was listening to Cantrell and in Fundamentalism, you listen from a position of lostness and speak from a position of salvation. The very act of conducting ethnography and needing to listen placed Harding in a position of needing to be saved and placed her on a path to conversion, irregardless of her motives.

Lostness and the Implantation of Need

At several points during life, especially those that are stressful and/or require a lot of decision making, I like to think a person will wonder what their purpose is in life. They might even think that their life is lacking direction or meaning; what could possibly be the good out of all the suffering that he or she is putting his or herself through? They might even feel "lost". Personally, I've found that this feeling passes, however. When you again realize that purpose or meaning, whether it be to help others, making a friend or family member proud, or simply because the satisfaction of accomplishment brings me joy, that panic goes away and you regain focus and direction.
This "need for salvation", however, could possibly be either something created by the church to take advantage of moments of weakness as I just mentioned, or something generated by the follower amongst their moment of panic and weakness. Judging by how the concept was brought up by the "speaker", Reverend Cantrell, one would have to guess it was the former. By discrediting everything that the listener has done up until that point in his or her life, the reverend is able to present this single notion of God, and, with it, a type of deeper meaning that couldn't have been offered by any experience the listener had been part of beforehand. Yet, I don't understand, how with a single sweep, I can be "emptied, stripped of all vestiges of personality and uniqueness". By the nature of my being after death being brought into question, someone cannot simply deem all of the endeavors taken by another to be without meaning. Also, it escapes me how someone could be so thoroughly convinced of such a notion.

Speaking and Listening in Religion

Ownership is a really crucial aspect particularly in religion, and I've blogged about this before. How are we able to take large, powerful, doctrine- and scripture- and prophet- based religions and make them our own? Faith is a deeply personal thing, but religion as a whole seems ironically unipersonal. It is an organization, in essence. A business.

I appreciated what Harding mentioned in relation to this concept about the dialogue of the speaker being internalized by that of the listener. It is an interesting concept. When someone is listening to and analyzing and hearing something, they are in the process of being converted. They take the words and ideas of someone else and turn them over in their minds. However at this point, they are still the words and ideas of someone else. The key point in making the religion their own, however, comes when they begin to take these ideas and words and beliefs and speak them themselves. Their words and ideas become the words and the ideas of the person that was the speaker prior. This helps each person to feel a sense of ownership over ideas that may be universal in a particular religion. When we are able to change our inner voice, we identify more deeply and profoundly with whatever it is we are converting to.

I was also interested by the concept that one cannot passively observe and analyze a religious experience. As Harding said, she could not expect to be able to go in and immerse herself in this religious culture, but keep her thoughts and feelings and ideas separate. As humans, we become involved no matter how much we try to keep ourselves away. I think this is an important aspect of anthropology. We cannot expect to conduct research and learn, without addressing the effect our subject matter will have on us. And I would argue that this isn't something we should avoid. We are human and prone to feel and relate and be changed. It adds a personal and honest element to the research. Instead of trying to stay detached from the research, we should acknowledge the effect it has on us and try to understand why.

Rhetorical Movements

This article was very relevant for me because I identify myself as a born-again Christian, but there was never one discrete moment when I was converted. For most of my life I was what the author describes as "Susceptible", passively listening to sermons, although not fully believing, until Christianity seemed like the one truth in my life. This article made me recount what my conversions story was, and how there are some constants among all conversions to Christianity.

The other reason I found this so interesting was because my Final project is a study on the techniques used by Churches to draw students into their communities. I found this article very relevant because the anthropologist attempting to study the fundamental Baptist Church was actually converted and has a unique perspective towards all of these things. For example he can recollect what specifically about the church and his interactions within it made him convert.

Additionally, he was able to recount some of the rhetorical movements that the Reverend he interacted with used: "equating his present listener with the listeners in his stories, defining the listeners as lost, defining the speaker as saved, transforming his narrative listener into speakers, exhorting his present listener to speak" (171). Because there is a nuanced approach to even the rhetoric that the Reverend uses, and there are various steps that are involved, it will be interesting to see if the people I interview have ever experienced these strategies and exploring how it affected them.

The Holy Spirit

This article did well to bring up to the forefront the idea of religious rhetoric. Reverend Cantrell was pictured as a master of words, effectively using adverbs, metaphors, and allusions together. By weaving together his personal narrative, the Word, and, slowly establishing Susan as the listener he was able to infuse the ideas of born-again Christianity into Susan. What I have a question of is the Holy Spirits role. If left without the addition of the Holy Spirit Cantrell could be likened to a demagogue. He could simply be seen as a person with the ability to craft language well enough to convince people of almost anything. In the article it says that the "Holy Spirit uses Reverend Cantrell's speech" to "remodel his listener's inner speech". Does this mean the communication is happening through the Spirit and not the Reverend himself? Or is it the Spirit that allows the words of the Reverend to be taken to heart? What is interesting to understand is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the non-believer, because to not believe seems to suggest that the Holy Spirit cannot interact with you, yet there must be something to bridge the gap (whether that be the preacher, or other elements). Yet if the preacher is the one bridging the gap, and he/she is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, then is there any gap bridged at all?

Reaffirmation

   Before reading this book I had to look up what Fundamentalism with a capital "F" meant. It refers to a group of Christians who call themselves Bible-believing and whom refuse to accept modern history, science and modern ideology's such as feminism. Jewry Falwell seemed to me as someone who capitalized on this movement as it was beginning in America and thus rode its cost tails into great influence. He was full of contradictions, just as any religion is, and thus his followers had to "decide to believe in him over and over, must ceaselessly read the gaps not as ploys or lies or sins, but as little miracles, as signs of election, as travails of a monumental man, and in doing so join him in a kind of divine complicity," (p. 104). To me if you have to repeat yourself over and over again then that means that your message wasn't getting through to people, however, in this case Jerry Falwell wasn't necessarily repeating himself, but rather in an effort to reaffirm their believe in Fundamentalist Chrisitanity believers had to "re-believe" him everytime he preached a sermon in person or over the radio. This is remarkable to me because its a way of reaffirming ones faith that very few seems to partake in. While I also believe that in reaffirming ones faith one should question it, the Bible-believing Chrisitans aren't attempting to have a deeper understanding of their faith, but rather reinstate its already expected value and rituals into their minds everytime they hear Jerry Falwell speak. 

-Ciara Williams 

Contextualizing Secularism/Religiosity

Perhaps we are overly concerned with the most visible manifestation/point of tension between secularism/religion - namely, in the political sphere. The issue of whether the political apparatus was structured and underpinned in religious ideology and dogma is an issue, not irrelevant, but not as  pressing as the cultural manifestations/the extent to which our culture is imbued and defined in terms of religious discourse/ iconography; in other words, it seems the culture rather than political structure to a greater degree is underpinned in religious ideology (yet, I am not a historian and do not know the extent to which our found political documents employ a religious language - something to research.) The paradigm of the "Protestant work ethic" seems so deeply engrained in our national consciousness/identity - the whole notion of "picking oneself up by their own bootstraps" (even though, as logical fallible as it is) dominates the formation of our national identity. In a sense, even though it can be construed as intensely secular (that is, entirely individualistic without assistance in divine intervention), perhaps when situated in certain contexts (manifest destiny) becomes a certain religious modality of representing fate and providence. It is interesting to see the point at which the secular political apparatus (supposedly) and the secular cultural body (supposedly) intersect, engendering a sort of formation of intensely providential sentiments.

The Question of Creationism

One of the consequences of the Fundamentalist movement that Harding explored was the resurgence of "special creation". By 1991, 47 percent of all American surveyed by Gallup pollsters reported that they believed in this special creation; that God created  man in its present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
I thought this was very interesting because Harding argues that the scientists who made this view popular actually emphasized the scientific aspects of creationism. They brought up the fact that Noah's flood in Genesis could have actually created many of the geological patterns that exist today. Because of this, they were able to teach creationism in schools under the very guise that tried to expel it. It's premise was that, if the bible is true, then everything will provide evidence of the Bible's truth. When there were conflicting views regarding the literal interpretation of the science, they made new science to respond.
This act of melding science to explain the bible is very salient, even today, because the reason so many people believed in this special creation research was because they believed that in some way, it could be tested using the scientific method, and one of the consequences was that many Christians today believe in this one interpretation of the creation story.
I'm curious to see if science implements itself in another Christian revival to encourage new born again Christians, and if so, in what capacity?

A Secular President?

Americans claim that their country is secular even though all Presidents have been Christian. No candidates have ever been outwardly Muslim or Jewish, right? Why is this? Is it that Christians are drawn to becoming President or is it that America is more prone to elect Christians?

Charismatic Master of the Microphone

If you look on daytime television today, many channels, religiously aligned and secular, have slots for televangelists to preach their sermons. I find this endlessly fascinating: wherever a congregation may be found, someone will be there to preach the Word. Even on Charles Street in front of the Mattin Center, there is occasionally a man with a microphone delivering the word of God without a breath.

What contributes to this kind of zeal? During the height of his power, it seemed evident that Jerry Falwell had financial and political goals in mind. But to do this despite the contradictory nature of politics and preaching seems so strange to me. Below is a video from Jerry Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour.  Clearly the man is a master of charisma, able to grasp the audience's attention and swipe away anything in his way. Even while delivering news that is so boring and financially worrisome, he manages to insert God and make everything seem less harsh than it really is. I wonder what social and psychological factors play into the creation of this kind of economic faith-based empire creation? Clearly it isn't going away any time soon.

Can Harding's Understanding Apply Elsewhere?

In the reading this week, we are offered an explanation for how the Christian Fundamentalist movement became so powerful in the US and why it attracts members. Harding explains that Falwell placed utilized a discourse grounded in the bible and based the movement on the language in the bible. He fashioned the Fundamentalist movement using a biblical narrative and convinced people that his was the ultimate way.

I found this account very interesting, especially if we look to compare it with what we have focused on the past few weeks, ISIS and Islamic Fundamentalists. We discussed reasons, varying from a need for life purpose to powerful propaganda, for people to join ISIS. Perhaps we could also look at ISIS's doctrinal argument to see how they might be using a biblical narrative similar to Falwell.

Seperation

The Book of Jerry Falwell had many points made throughout it. From language, faith, power, and media these chapters touched on a wide variety of key topics. What was particularly interesting in this weeks readings was the connection between religion and politics/law. In the introduction and the first chapter there was a lot of discussion about how the "post-fundamentalist" or "evangelical" leaders were aiming to bridge the gap between church and state. Leaders were charismatic and aiming to lobby and directly convert millions of Americans. They seemed to be working hard to delete the separation of church and state, even to the point where early fundamentalist views were discarded and replaced by a combination of evangelical and modern views. Teachings made sure to include public opinion as well as adapted business models to keep everything relevant to the time point.

All of this makes everything interesting in terms of the law. When the book brought up the Scope case and how it provided a "win" for the secular it made me question who has the authority in the relationship between church and state. It seems that overall it is the government who allows and disallows the use of religious ideology and practice to intersect with large public domains. When you think of this it makes sense why there was such a big push of Evangelicals to in a sense start using the strategies of the state to almost beat them at their own game. What does this mean to the faith? Does this take away from it? In the search for power and influence do the leaders of these huge evangelical movements compromise the Word they preach so highly of?

Choice

   There is choice in religion. The choice of how to worship ones god (s).The choice however is individual and often times stays hidden and locked away in that individuals mind. The most likely reason for hiding that choice is because every religion has a set of spoken and unspoken rules that are supposed to dictate how you worship and celebrate your god(s). However choice is also a strange word and for Muslims "choice is understood not to be an expression of one's will but something one excercises in following the prescribed path to becoming a better Muslim," (p.85). For many in the West this seems almost a violation of ones individual freedom because choice tends to mean that it is ones will, but choice and freedom are different. Choice is restricted by how you choose to use your freedom. Choice also involves sin. If one behaves unknowingly a certain way that can be seen as sinful then it's not them making the choice to sin it's those around them, those who follow the same religion. "Among the mosque participants, a persons failure to enact a virtue successfully is perceived to be the maker of an inadequately formed self, one in which the interiority and extenriority of the person are improperly aligned," (p.164). 


-Ciara Williams

Let's give it up for our gifted classmate, Marlene!
http://hub.jhu.edu/gazette/2014/november-december/datebook-marlene-kanmogne-book-story

Necessity of male/female interaction

In late chapter 3, Maryam makes an interesting argument against the need for women to avert their gaze when interacting with men. She says that if she is well acquainted with said male, that he is respectable, and that the intentions of the woman are pure, then there should be no need for the woman to look down when addressing him. To this, her effective "teacher" argues that even the wives of the Prophet were told to avert their gaze, to which Maryam argues that the Quran also says that characteristics/rules that are applied to the Prophet and his kin should not be directly applied to the Muslims of the world, and so the vast majority of women in Muslim history are not affected.
So, the bigger idea here is the contextualization of all inter sexual interaction. Generalizations cannot be made based on single verses in the Quran; every situation has to be taken on a case by case basis. The ability of people, especially women such as Maryam, to make arguments such as this in a culture that often promotes the submission of females to their male counterparts, or to the everyday interactions that are had with them, is promising when looking forward to the progression of the Muslim faith, and its interpretation of Quranic verse.

What causes the difference?

     In reading the Politics of Piety, I was intrigued by the idea that the incorporation of religion into public education could actually serve as an effective means by which religion was transmitted. And for that matter, that the mass publication of religious text could actually have an effect of continuity on a population as a whole for a particular religious movement. When we compare this to the trend seen here in the United States, we see a stark contrast. For example, religion is not even permitted to be an integral part of the public education system. And although religiously affiliated schools do exist, their use is not widespread, nor does it ensure a movement of genuine faith. In addition, when we look at the nature of religious texts today and compare that to the old and new texts that were readily available to ordinary citizens, we again see a distinct difference in the effect of these texts. In the Islamic faith, these texts appear to have a positive effect in uniting a group of citizens towards a particular religion. However, in the market economy of today in America, although there are hundreds of books that are readily available to the general public, these books range drastically on their goal or religious affiliation and therefore do not have a unifying effect. So what exactly is it that causes the difference?

Choice

I found it really interesting that both Hajja Faiza and Umm Faris used the same reasoning to defend their teachings of Islam. The women came from very different backgrounds, but still followed the same logic when defending their teachings. How does this methodology come about for two women with such different backgrounds? Where do they learn it?

I also thought it was interesting the way Hajj Faiza discussed choice as being permissible only among issues that were not strict commands, and only among the certain opinions prescribed by one of the four schools of thought. Her commentary that it didn't matter whether the choice was supported by the majority or not, as long as it was within one of the four schools, seemed rather contemporary and radical to me. I tend to think of doctrine as a very rigid set of rules, but her allowance for a little bit of wiggle-room in the doctrine was very profound. However, it was tempered by the fact that some commands were non-negotiable, and the ones that allowed for choice only allowed it within parameters. This blend of the freedom to choice amongst a set of restrictions is very interesting to me. It seems to be a sharp, and perhaps even seemingly-contradictory, blend of two ideas. However, perhaps it is the freedom to choose, even if the options are limited, that help participants to take ownership of their own faith. This brings up an interesting concept that transcends many, if not all, religions. For something as broad and all-encompassing as organized religion, what are the various ways in which people make their religion "their own"? How can they turn the macro and turn it into the micro?

Modernity's Role

In this weeks readings of Politics of Piety there was a huge discussion of language and the way in which it used to convey religious messages. What i found interesting was the way in which language was used to modernize the religious teachings. Instead of old scripts now new manuals and pamphlets that are easier to understand and employ colloquial language are used. Mahmood even used the cassette tapes as an example of the modernization of Islamic teachings. What does this modernization do to the religion? Does it make it more engaging or like other cultures/events touched by modernity cause the authenticity of the religion to be compromised?

Another interesting idea presented was that of freedom. It seems that a key to any form of communication of the religious teachings and practices is that followers must adhere to the prescribed path to becoming a better Muslim. Within those boundaries there is choice, but choice is does not include the ability to choose to not adhere to those set rules and standards of becoming a better Muslim. Is this really freedom? And also it seems that even this new way of thinking about choice is modern in comparison to older teachings. Is this the way modernity has touched the belief?

Is Choice Really Choosing?

The question of wearing hijab for the women of the Cairo mosque movement during Mahmood’s ethnographic visit was not one which she explored much. For the women she got to know, wearing hijab was not seen as optional, yet she mentions in previous chapters that some women who attended lessons in more upper-middle-class mosques did not wear hijab. The idea of choice is discussed as less of a choice than a series of options down prescribed paths defined by religious scholars.

I am interested in how this conception of choice and wearing hijab intersects in a post-9/11 society. Is choice more influenced by media and outward perceptions? Can this really be considered choice if social pressure, rather than piety, is the determining factor?

NPR interviewed a series of women who chose, after some time, to “de-veil” or not wear hijab during their daily lives but only during prayer. Their stories are really telling of the variety of reasons for not wearing hijab, but one striking commonality is the assurance of piety. Faith is not disrupted by no longer wearing hijab, it is simply a personal choice that is exercised with complete freedom. 

Who explains the religion?

In the context of doing something for religious purposes that others don't understand, it is true that many people on the other side will lash out and ask, "Why?". Is it the duty of the followers to explain what they are doing and why they are doing it? Or, would that detract from the time of doing the act themselves.
It seems that it doesn't work if some religions explain what they are doing and others don't. It may lead to skepticism against those who don't explain. But, they may just be using that extra time to do those religious practices...

Religious Homogeneity

In this weeks readings I was interested in the idea of religious homogeneity that was brought up. Mahmood speaks on secularism and how the mosque movement was challenging the way in which secularism aimed to separate religion into its own social sphere. The movement instead wants to bring religious aspect into all parts of life. For example, establishing schools in which Islamic teaching are found. This reminds me of the cassette tapes we previously read about. Also it made me once again think about how belief is tied to habits, and Habitus. Belief is something it seems that must be intimately connected to behaviors and practices. So much so that many different systems of belief demand that their practices be apart of other social spheres (education, economics, law). This was something seen in Becoming Frum as well.

What does all this mean for a feminist? What does all this mean for the freedom of the women in the mosque movement. I think a main point Mahmood was trying to address was that what this means for the women in the movement, doesn't necessarily need to match with what it would mean for a "Western feminist". If this is the case does that mean these women have their own version of feminism that must be defined? What for them is deemed as equality?

Positive and Negative Freedom

Freedom, in all sense, should be a positive occurrence, or so I thought, before reading Saba Mahmoud's book, Politic of Piety: the Islamic revival and the feminist subject. In her book, Mahmood presents two ideologies of freedom which I had not read of before: the theories of positive and negative freedom.

Negative freedom, according to Mahmood, is the "absence of external [forces or] obstacles that would prevent one from acting the way the person desires, whereas positive freedom is a person's ability to develop his/her "self-mastery or self-government" with the influence of "self-interest" or a "universal reason" (Mahmood, 11). I do agree with Mahmood that the idea of positive freedom could be applied to  or used to explain the islamic revival in Egypt. She explains that the women in the islamic world, who were also involved in the movement, established gatherings in the mosque led by women and other teachings done by women to their fellow women, on how to be more submissive to authorities (most likely male authorities) and how to perform their duties as women in their families.

Just as Mahmood commented on such an agenda of the revival, I also found it difficult to understand why such a large movement that gave women freedom to gather and teach themselves, which was entirely not the case before, could be used by these women to learn how to become more tied and bonded to the rules of tradition and religion. Mahmood further gives examples of the different definitions of freedom other feminists have fought for. For some their freedom meant release from domestic duties or stringent expectations to perform them. However, in the 1970s, others, such as Native and African American women, saw their freedom as their ability to have a family and become wives and mothers since the "long history of slavery, genocide and racism" had worked to break up their families.

Such contradictions in the ideologies of freedom can mean that whether or not freedom will be considered positive or negative depends on the historical and cultural context with which the desire for autonomy stems from and not necessarily a central dogma of what freedom should be.

Religion and Culture

The tension surrounding the veil as a custom/habit or as a religious object points towards a deeper/more fundamental tension: that is, between religion and culture, their intertwinement and co-constituting positions. Mahmood writes: "[Mosque] movement participants argue that ritual acts of worship in the popular imagination have increasingly acquired the status of customs or conventions, a kind of "Muslim culture" undertaken as a form of entertainment or as a means to display a religio-cultural identity." (Politics of Piety, p.48) Here, Mahmood points towards (implicitly) an issue of production; that is, does custom/habit produce or become taken and inflected through religious structure, or does religion propagate culture and inform cultural practices? How discrete of an entity is religion from culture, how distant? Or can we not separate the two so definitively, but rather the demarcation between them (religion and cultural practice) continually made porous and shifting? Essentially, where do religion and culture lie in relation to each other (Is this even a productive question, or is it a moot point?)?

The Definition of Freedom

"Freedom...consists in the ability to autonomously "chose" one's desires no matter how illiberal they may be," (Mahmood 12).

Out of the two chapter I read from Politics of Piety by Saba Mahmood this one sentence truly hit home. Today, we live in a world of absolutes when it comes to feminism, christianity and liberalism. Either you are, or you aren't. The gray area which contains the largest portion of people is being squeezed and pushed out of the picture. Even worse is that if you are part of the non-feminist, non-liberal, non-christian group you are immediately wrong in everything you do, everything you say, everything you stand for. That way of thinking is closed minded, almost as closed minded as modern day liberals, feminists, and multiple Christian groups across the United States are to those who do not fit into their ideal world, who do not agree with their way of thinking. This is important to remember as people continue to do ethnographic and anthropological research. One can't let personal thoughts and feelings perforate their observations on the group or groups that they are observing. Wield it is nearly impossible to eliminate the ethnographers voice in their studies and work it can be brought down to a dull hum rather than shouting.

We live in a country whos base is freedom, and as such freedom is the right to chose to do as you please, which is not what most people take the definition of freedom to be. Freedom isn't simply liberal thinking its an individuals thinking. Freedom allows an individual to think how they wish and if they want to think that women should play the subordinate role to men then they should be allowed to do that without judgment or condemnation. 

-Ciara Williams 

Progression of Faith

     In chapter 2 of Politics of Peity, I was particularly drawn to the character of Hajja Faiza. The text explains that she is a woman who is known for “both her scholarly erudition and for her dedication to providing lessons to women since the inception of the mosque movement approximately twenty-five years ago”. As I was reading of her, I was intrigued to understand just what would prompt her to become so active in the teaching of women and the mosque movement in general. Certainly there was some danger that she was inherently placing herself in by taking a role in the forefront of this movement. Therefore, what could have prompted her to take this risk? Could it have been her desire to see the progression and “secularization” of the Islamic faith? But for that matter, is this secularization really a good thing? In the perception of Hajja Samira, this secularization is causing a transformation of popular religiosity that may not necessarily be desirable. Her quote regarding this particularly resonated with me. She states, “the difficult question that confronts us today as Muslims is how to make our daily lives congruent with our religion, while at the same time moving forward with the world, especially given that the present period is one of great change and transformation”. I find this process of how the progression of society and the progression of religion in relationship to society to be particularly interesting, especially for religions that are rooted in traditions of the past. Is it possible for these two movements to coincide? Or at some point will one movement dominate? And if so, what factors would determine which movement that would be?

Women's Organizations

I wanted to focus on the women's organization called the Society of Muslim Ladies, created by Zaynab al-Ghazali. It was initially formed to provide charitable services to poor women and children, but the Society later grew into training women in the art of preaching. Through this training, women could train other women on topics like basic rules of Islamic jurisprudence and exegesis of the Quran. They could provide lessons to other women in state run mosques.

This was interesting to me because like the Urapmin people in becoming sinners, these women were being very active in studying their faith and beliefs and one of the consequences was a greater role in this patriarchal, increasingly secular society.

Even though many of the practices were received with skepticism by the male population, this represented a marginalized group's attempt to begin to assert themselves as important, required parts of the community.

I was particularly intrigued by the idea: "The kind of agency I am exploring here does not belong to the women themselves, but is a product of the historically contingent discursive traditions in which they are located. . . . Self-reflexivity is not a universal human attribute here but, as Foucault suggested, a particular kind of relation to oneself whose form fundamentally depends on the practices of subjectivation through which the individual is produced" (32). It ties in with the opening of the chapter when the author discusses the difficulty feminists have in understanding and supporting these Muslim women who have taken a more active role in their faith, but are still abiding by the general rules and expectations imposed on them. 

As much as we may see these ideas of modesty and submissiveness as hindering to a woman's freedom, it's important to keep in mind why these aspects of the faith don't perturb these women as much as they may some of us. Being raised in a culture where those things are celebrated amongst women would create a certain mindset in a young girl. Muslim women can see modesty and humility as freeing, whereas we view it just the opposite. Perhaps understanding this fundamental difference could lead to a more open and understanding discourse on the topic. 

  

It's Not Easy Being a Muslim Woman in the 21st Century

Obviously, I am not Muslim, but the women Mahmood describe in her book who visit mosques for teachings on the Qu'ran from other women must face some challenges. As Mahmood pointed out, post-9/11 Islamaphobia and now the Internet age in full swing, misconceptions about Islam and the rights of women are widespread. There is already a  tension between feminism and the feminine ideal propagated and exploited by popular culture that pits women against women. Add on top of this the extreme fear of fundamentalist Islam--Muslim women appear to be viewed as not in control of their lives because of the religion they have "chosen" (though whether this is viewed as a personal choice, or "positive freedom" as Mahmood defines, versus an obligation is debatable). One has to wonder how the role of Western media has influenced women's role in Muslim countries and what kinds of subversive practices they have taken up which would battle this image (perhaps not in a direct response to this image, but certainly in opposition).

I am embedding a video from a PBS documentary called "The Light in Her Eyes" about women in Muslim countries in the 21st century and the problems that they face within their own culture and against it. If it doesn't work, here's a link! Video Clip: The Biggest Challenge

Different Arguments, All In Favor of Veiling

I found Mahmoud's discussion about the various reasons that exist in support of veiling to be very interesting. She discusses three differing reasons for supporting the practice. One justification for support is that veiling expresses national and cultural heritage, a second is that veiling is an important part of the process through which the pious individual is created, and the third is that veiling helps enforce a way of acting and being. The second reasoning is the one that is invoked by the mosque movement. Mahmoud discusses that the movement is a response to secularization, but interestingly not in opposition to the secular. Rather the mosque movement wants religious understanding and reasoning to operate within the current institutional structures of society. This is a very intriguing alternative to jihadism and revolutionary movements. Perhaps the mosque movement is an example of a middle ground, one that could result in less animosity.

Norms, belief

            Collaboration is powerful because I alone am limited in my own norms and beliefs. The way I was brought up, when and where I was, and countless other things have contributed to my personal normalcy. So without the willingness in my heart to be open and curious instead of evaluative or prejudiced, I will be limited in experiencing the present through the narrow lens of my past.  

            It triggers me to try to understand the co-existence of contrasting ideas or values. I don’t like to be wrong. It’s challenging to accept that what I believe is wrong can be right. If I go to far with this train of thought I sometimes experience a mini existential crisis. If everything has equal weight, if there is no right or wrong, nothing matters!

            But I know that isn’t true, and I pull myself out of that vicious cycle by reminding myself of the preciousness of humanity. For pretty selfish reasons, I continue to battle with opening my heart, so I can experience life fully.

            The first chapters of the Politics of Piety triggered my sense of protection acceptance and non-judgment. The opening chapter describes “the strong responses from feminists.” “Women Islamist supporters are pawns in a grand patriarchical plan, who, if freed from their bondage, would naturally express their instinctual abhorrence for the traditional Islamic mores used to enchain them.” This kind of argument, which I am not surprised by, completely corrupts the integrity and autonomy of these Muslim women, for the sake of satisfying a mere “Western-savior” complex.

           

Nature versus Religion

Mahmood claims that "there is something intristic to women that should predispose them to oppose the practices, values, and injunctions that the Islamic movement embodies" (2). This is a surprising claim to me, though, because things that aren't inherent aren't often accepted. For example, processed foods are generally accepted. Volleyball moves, or basically any sports movements, are not inherent but they are taught and accepted. G-d isn't an inherent thought, but is very widely accepted. Thus, I don't understand why even if something is not inherent, it can't be accepted smoothly.

Interesting addition to our conversation about US media coverage

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/when-conspiracy-theories-dont-fit-the-media-narrative-midterm-election-tom-cotton-joni-ernst/382209/?single_page=true

Who Are We to Choose Who Mattters

http://zeroanthropology.net/2014/10/26/useful-atrocities/

I read a blog called Useful Atrocities by Eva Bartlett whose blog was about Western medias obvious choice of who counts as an atrocity and who doesn't. Her argument is based off of Western medias preference towards the average white christian and making their tragic deaths more important than those who are not white and christian. This is a tragedy because every human life is important regardless of their religious persuasion. Currently ISIS is killing because they feel that those they are killing are either "bad muslims" or non-muslims all of whom are considered threats to their cause and as such they should either be converted or eliminated. Religious disagreement over the years has been a source of violence and a way to segregate people. What makes it okay for one religion to say that others are not as important or not worthy of life? This question is something that I'm sure many religiously motivated events are based on, and which, obviously, some have less of an issue with than others. The other question that I personally have is related to why violence, and more particularly religious violence is more prominent in areas where there is poverty? Also why it is the wealthy media broadcasters who aren't at the front lines are the ones deciding who and what is important to report? Who's death is more important? The choices they make help to perpetuate the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Islamic culture and religious belief.

-Ciara

American Exceptional-ism and Cultural Exchange

Doostdar writes: “The novelist and journalist Michael Muhammad Knight has recently argued that his own flirting with jihad in the Chechen war of the 1990s did not grow out of his then commitment to Salafi Islam, but from American values: ‘I had grown up in the Reagan ‘80s. I learned from G.I. Joe cartoons to (in the words of the theme song) ‘fight for freedom, wherever there’s trouble.’ I assumed that individuals had the right—and the duty—to intervene anywhere on the planet where they perceived threats to freedom, justice, and equality’” How can Doostdar’s use of the phrase “American values” be perceived, understood: ironically? a self-indictment? a sardonic critique of what is assumed uniquely American? Incidentally, Doostdar’s invoking of a notion of values as uniquely American in itself points towards the very thing she criticizes: that is, the reality of events, or simultaneously the irreality of events, being solely disseminated and comprehended through a Western/American ideological framework (the structure of which is continually implemented and perpetuated by transparency of Western media). The phrase itself again points further towards the notion of cultural exchange: more precisely, what becomes invisible/obscured/lost in cultural exchange?