
"He (Karl Marx) is talking about Roman-Catholicism, which is an external religion and appropriate for a monetary system, in contrast to Protestantism, which is the appropriate reflex of the internalised world of credit and commodities..."
Roland Boer throws out yet another insightful and provocative post on Marxism, religion and the like, this time addressing 'vulgar' marxism. The above comment caught my attention. Responding to statements made by Marx in Capital 1, that religion is a reflex of the real world, Boer makes this distinction about the role of certain incarnations of Christianity in terms of economic systems. I find this fascinating, because I think the current financial crisis/shift is precipitating much of our changing views on religion and its ability to address need. Our relationship to money, to capital, is undergoing a shift, and has been for longer than the current financial crisis. The dawn of the digital era precipitated a shift in conceptions about money--it's movement to digitality--from paper to vapour if you will--heralds not only changes in how we think about money, but perhaps, how we think about the world. It's not the only reason, but I think economics plays a role in religious associations (economics certainly played a role in the Protestant schism--the sale of indulgences etc., which is a matter of money as well as theology).
I have been reading Simon Critchley's Faith of the Faithless, in not one, but two, different reading groups, and am enjoying it immensely. Critchley makes the statement that philosophy emerges from religious disappointment. It might also be that this disappointment also manifests in the appropriation of other forms or expressions of the religious in our lives--i.e. we may not move away from religion, but we might look for other iterations of it, that would seem more expressive of our disappointment, not just with the failure of religion to address, but with the failure of a particular form of religion--this might in some way address the religious shuffling that seems to characterize our time)spiritual/religious-old religion/new etc.)--trying to find the right approach. Of course today, a blend of both internal and external--the catholic and the protestant--in all forms of religion, seems to be the order of things, but that in and of itself, feels a little insufficient.
Critichley also addresses mysticism in his book, spending some time with St. Paul and offering some great insights into the apostles view of mysticism. I find all this extremely interesting as I contemplate my own place within the various religious schema, as well as the ongoing and shifting dynamics of religious expression in cultural life. Dominant in thinking or action in the past decade or so, has been a 'return to mysticism' by certain Protestants--particularly evangelicals and non-denominational types--this is not enough in my mind. It might be a first step, a direction to take when ones certainty takes a hit, but it's not the end, as far as I am concerned. I have been speaking about this a bit in my lecturing, usually beginning withthe emergence of contemporary Christian forms and music from the late 60s psychadelic counter-culture--pitting ecstasy against incarnation. Increasingly, as my own views have become freed from metaphysics and more earthbound if you will, I am ready to say that mysticism is a step, but not the final step in the religious process--it is not enough for the economic environment we live in, much as the economic reads of salvation, atonement and the Cross, are not sufficient for the present age.
Boer also makes this statement,
"the famous opium statement is usually taken as an example of Marx’s vulgar approach to religion. So it is worth noting that in contrast to our own associations of opium with drugs, altered states, addicts, organised crime, wily Taliban insurgents, and desperate farmers making a living the only way they can, opium was a much more ambivalent item in nineteenth-century Europe. Widely regarded as a beneficial, useful and cheap medicine at the beginning of the century, it was gradually vilified by its end by a coalition of medical and religious forces. In between debates raged: it was the subject of defences and parliamentary enquiries; its trade was immensely profitable; it was used for all manner of ills and to calm children; it was one of the only medicines available for the working poor; it was a source of utopian visions for artists and poets; it was increasingly stigmatised as a source of addiction and illness. In effect, it ran all the way from blessed medicine to recreational curse."
I appreciated Boer's softer read of this Marxist statement, which has often been used to villify and dismiss Marx. One generation's medicine is the next generations illicit, escape hatch from reality, but the realities are more complex. And one final statement,
"Lose the vulgarity and you lose the Marxism" again, I think the same could be said of Christianity, lose the vulgarity and you lose the religion--it's a profane faith in some ways, we are called to be the trash, the shit of the earth---that's vulgar, and its the heart and rule of the game, and of course, this throws out the idea that it is in post-mystical epxressions that a faith for our time might be found?