Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Chameleon project  
Ovi Bookshop
Finland for thought
Ovi Language
Chameleon Project
The Breast Cancer Site
Buy Jack Wellman's book from Lulu.com
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Heroic Materialism in Western Culture: A critique 1/2 Heroic Materialism in Western Culture: A critique 1/2
by Emanuel L. Paparella
2007-08-27 10:10:52
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

What I’d like to propose, and I am fully aware that it goes against the grain nowadays, is that religion may well be best overlooked remedy for the recovery within Western civilization of a lost cultural vibrancy and the sense of the transcendent. The symptoms of such a loss are the observable despair and cynicism, boredom, and a general despondent nihilistic attitude among the young generation; a generation which has all the technological gadgets imaginable to play with, but believes in precious few values.

I'd like to suggest that the loss of humanistic modes of thought within Western civilization may well be due to the fact that we live and have our being in a wholly horizontal, immanent culture which misguidedly assumes that it is possible for Man to live by bread alone, and has considerable difficulty in imagining a social paradigm that goes beyond material prosperity, scientific formulas, manipulation of nature and society and a Machiavellian real politick paradigm.

The paradigm of heroic materialism which is so prominent in Marx's ideology (and is usually accompanied by state atheism) has turned out to be not so heroic after all; the emperor was in reality naked. It did not create the famed "workers' paradise on earth." To the contrary it created untold misery. The People's Republic of China is now embarked on the same materialistic experiment; it has joined the rat race with the West. Dejà-vu?

It seems to me that the very first question that needs to be raised on the above mentioned issues is this: What is the cause for this reluctance within Western development thinking to bring in the same field of vision political and religio-cultural components? A preliminary consideration could be that the myopia in this regard is due to the fact that modern Western Civilization, beginning with Descartes’ rationalistic philosophy, and the subsequent advent of the industrial revolution, has opted for a system of cognition and a structure of knowledge which is partial and incomplete, clever by half so to speak, in as much as it privileges the socio-economic component at the expense of the spiritual.

The result of this reductionism leads development specialists to function as one-eyed giants, purveyors of science bereft of wisdom. They analyze, even prescribe and act, as if human destiny can be stripped down to mere material dimensions. Science is seen as what makes this paradigm possible. Trouble is that it truncates the holistic humanity of Man by failing to integrate its three realms: the spiritual, the intellectual, the material.

It may be appropriate here to pause for a reflection upon the high rate of suicide in developed countries. It is quite interesting that Finland, for example, has the highest rate in Europe for attempted suicides in 1989, as per the latest available statistic. World-wide, Finland had 37.2% of all attempted suicides in the world, which is to say 314 over 100,000 people per year. Those rates are much higher in Europe than in Asia. They suggest a nexus between suicide and hopelessness which has little to do with mere material prosperity. More specifically, they hint at four things:

1) that material abundance may be less essential than the presence of meaning in one’s life; that people lose even the willingness to survive once they have lost the meaning of their destiny (See Man’s Search for Meaning, by Viktor Frankl)

2) that ultimately, a meaningful existence is the most basic of human needs

3) that awe and mystery and a poetic vision are as integral to human existence as rationality and material comfort

4) that the future prospects of the human species depend upon internalizing an essentially religious perspective able to transform what is by now the dominant, materialistic, secular outlook.

It would be enough to read a book such as Jeff Haynes’ Religion in Third World Countries (1994) to become convinced that indeed most people in developing countries derive their primary source of meaning from religious beliefs, symbols, and mysteries. They sense that no Marxian ideology or promise of material paradise will ever abolish life’s tragic dimensions: suffering, death, wasted talents, hopelessness; that to insist that it can be accomplished with material prosperity alone in a valueless society, is to trivialize life itself.

Moreover, the sociologist Peter Berger in analyzing the link between modernity and secularization arrives at this conclusion in his book titled A Far Glory: The Quest for Faith in an Age of Credulity (1992): “there are vast regions today in which modernization has not only failed to result in secularity but has instead led to reaffirmations of religion … It may be true that the reason for the recurring human outreach toward transcendence is that reality indeed includes transcendence and that reality finally reasserts itself over secularity” (pp. 28-29). An intriguing question which cannot be settled by facile caricatures of religion as the promoter of ignorance and obscurantism, not to speak of the "fear of the gods" of Lucretius.

A similar judgement is expressed by Ramgopal Agarwala, a World Bank officer, when he declares in an essay which appeared in Friday Morning Reflections on the World Bank: Essays on Values and Development (1991) with the title "A Harmonist Manifesto. Hindu Philosophy in Action”, asserting that “A society based on harmonism will be more than just a ‘sustainable society.’ There have been many primitive societies which were sustainable. Instead, it will be a sustainable society, with a cutting hedge at spiritual advancement that will provide the excitement that has been so painfully lacking in recent years. Spiritual advancement is the antidote to the boredom that lies just below the surface of many of the ills of the modern world.” This echoes Dostoyevsky's insight that if one places Man in a wholly deterministic universe, he will blow it up simply to prove that he is free.

So much for the theory; the more challenging task in a world with a pervasive secular outlook, is to promote development in practice, while respecting religious and indigenous values. The first pitfall that needs to be avoided is that of treating values in a purely instrumental fashion, as means to goals outside the value system in question. This is the equivalent of using religion to engineer popular compliance with a modernization program.

A better stance is the non-instrumental one that begins with an abiding respect for the inner dynamism of traditional values serving as springboard for modes of development which are more humane then those derived from outside paradigms. This is more desirable because indigenous values are the matrix from which people derive meaning in their lives, a sense of identity and cultural integrity, not to speak of the experience of continuity with their environment and their past.

In this regard, let us take a close look at an appropriate example derived from the Islamic religious tradition. Because the Qur’an condemns interests as usury, Islamic banks neither pay interests to depositors nor charge it to borrowers. Since banks need to operate as viable economic enterprises in a modern world, one may wonder as to how they are able to solve this conundrum. They simply spread the risks flowing from their borrowing and lending. They receive a share of the profits earned by their borrowers and pro-rata shares of these profits are then distributed to depositors. This is a clear example of how a religious norm can alter a modern practice, instead of the other way around.

PART ONE
PART TWO


Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(13)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Sand2007-08-27 11:15:34
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Usury & Interest




[2:275] Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, GOD permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with GOD. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever

The Quran forbids usury, not interest. Quite a few states in USA have laws against usury. Usury is defined as excessive interest. A Dictionary defines usury as "an excessive or inordinate premium for the use of money borrowed", "extortionate interest", or "the practice of taking exorbitant or excessive interest." The Arabic language also makes distinction between interest (Fa'eda) and usury (Reba). The Quran forbids Reba or usury.

Earning interest and paying interest is perfectly acceptable, as the Quran has not prohibited interest. Interest is an essential component of the financial aspect of an individual or an organization. Individuals may need to save money in a bank, may carry a credit card for convenience, or may borrow and pay interest for an automobile or to own a house. Borrowing money and thus paying interest for business loans is an essential component for business and organizations. Thus paying interest, as long as it is not considered excessive by the standard of the day and community, to a credit card company, to a financial institution for a loan of any kind (business, car, house mortgage) is allowed and perfectly legal from a Quranic point of view. Also earning interest from a financial institution like a bank or bonds or mutual fund is also fine.

As defined above usury is excessive interest. Unlicensed or illegal moneylenders (mafia as a well known example) charge usury, excessive interest. Such unlicensed or illegal moneylenders are all over the world and can easily be accessed by a few inquiries. For those who live in USA, any individual can find out about these moneylenders by asking about them within their ethnic business community. These illegal moneylenders have entirely separate standards for making loans - they charge excessive interest (usury) and usually rely on someone's life (guarantor) as collateral. The Quran forbids in dealing with usury - borrowing money and paying usury or earning money by charging usury. The Quran specifically states that usury cannot be equated to commerce or taken as a normal business practice. The practice of usury, unfortunately, is prevalent all over the world with individuals and business engaged in this practice.

In practical terms as long as we are dealing with any state-licensed institution like a bank, Mortgage Company, Credit Card Company, etc., we are not violating any Quranic commandment as these institutions usually follow the law of the land and do not charge excessive interest. They calculate their interest rate on daily basis considering the status of the economy and the need of the society. However, if we deal with the illegal moneylenders who practice usury, we are in violation of clear Quranic commandments. This is not to say that one may not borrow or lend money to a friend or relative and even charge interest. Such transaction must be in writing as the Quran cleary commands in verse 2:282 and may involve interest, to at least pay for the cost of the loan to the lender if any, and compensate for any change in the value of the currency over the time of the loan, but should not involve usury.

[2:282] O you who believe, when you transact a loan for any period, you shall write it down. An impartial scribe shall do the writing. No scribe shall refuse to perform this service, according to GOD's teachings. He shall write, while the debtor dictates the terms. He shall observe GOD his Lord and never cheat. If the debtor is mentally incapable, or helpless, or cannot dictate, his guardian shall dictate equitably. Two men shall serve as witnesses; if not two men, then a man and two women whose testimony is acceptable to all. Thus, if one woman becomes biased, the other will remind her. It is the obligation of the witnesses to testify when called upon to do so. Do not tire of writing the details, no matter how long, including the time of repayment. This is equitable in the sight of GOD, assures better witnessing, and eliminates any doubts you may have. Business transactions that you execute on the spot need not be recorded, but have them witnessed. No scribe or witness shall be harmed on account of his services. If you harm them, it would be wickedness on your part. You shall observe GOD, and GOD will teach you. GOD is Omniscient.

A note should be made that the Quran, which spells out religious laws for our great religion, removes the shackles and burdens imposed on us by the ignorant scholars and religious leaders. Most of the "Muslim" countries have various laws against interest and have sham "interest-free banking" reflecting their ignorance of this simple Quranic truth. Unfortunately, quite a few of those who call themselves Muslims fall victims to the falsehood spread by these religious leaders.

[2:276-280] GOD condemns usury, and blesses charities. GOD dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. O you who believe, you shall observe GOD and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from GOD and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew.

[3:130] O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe GOD, that you may succeed.

[4:161] And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution.

[30:39] The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at GOD. But if you give to charity, seeking GOD's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward manifold.

[7:157] "(4) follow the messenger, the gentile prophet (Muhammad), whom they find written in their Torah and Gospel. He exhorts them to be righteous, enjoins them from evil, allows for them all good food, and prohibits that which is bad, and unloads the burdens and the shackles imposed upon them. Those who believe in him, respect him, support him, and follow the light that came with him are the successful ones."


Paparella2007-08-27 11:53:28
A note on the editorial cover pictures on the article by its author:

It bears noticing that the article above is not about Christ or its role as redeemer, neither is it about Christianity per se, but more generally about religion as a source of values and an antidote to a pervasive nihilism in Western culture. As implied at the outset, the very word religion nowadays, especially in Europe, is a red flag of sort. One can safely expect an immediate knee-jerk reaction as soon as it is proposed as a subject of study and observation. Those who propose an Epicurean way of life believing that religion is the source of all misery in the world usually adopt as a strategy the disparaging of the icons or the personality of a particular religion: for Judaism, Moses, for Islam, Mohamed, for Christianity, Christ. One cartoon currently making the rounds is that of Michelangelo’s Adam raising his middle finger at God the Creator.

Nevertheless, I am the first to admit that those two contrasting pictures presented by the magazine do provoke some reflection and therefore are valuable as such. I commend the editors for choosing them. I trust it will provoke some discussion on the subject which, as mentioned, is not about Christianity but about the phenomenon of religion declared by Jung so much part of human nature that when it is thrown out the window, it comes back the back door via an ideology or a fanatical cult of sort. (continued below)


Paparella2007-08-27 11:54:29
(continued from on top) Indeed, the pictures of Christ chosen represent two radically different redeemers. The first one is a suffering powerless redeemer: a loser of sort, who gets himself tried, convicted and nailed naked to a cross without anybody coming to his aid, not even his God whom he calls Father. The other is the more contemporary and more acceptable Christ: the Super-Christ a la Nietzsche’s ubermansch, all powerful, able to provide bread and entertainment for the masses, able to eliminate evil and evil doers from the world with a snap of his fingers, somewhat like Zeus and his thunderbolt on Mount Olympus. He is, in other words, the Christ who has succumbed to the third temptation in the desert: to rule the world with power and bread; or better, bread and circus, rather than with love and compassion.

Within the parable of the Grand Inquisitor which Dostoyevsky places in the mouth of Ivan in The Brothers Karamozov, the Grand Inquisitor who has Christ jailed when he returns to Seville Spain), visits him and explains to him patiently that he should go away and never return again because he has misunderstood human nature: people are willing to settle for security and bread rather than freedom. They are perfectly capable to live by bread alone and provide to their own happiness. In other words, they need no transcendence and no redemption from sin. Jesus utters not one word in the whole episode but simply kisses the Inquisitor and walks away. One is bound to ask here: would the Grand Inquisitor have accepted Christ as Super-Christ or would he have seen him as a competitor or sort? I tend to think he would have accepted him. What think ye of the Christ and the Grand Inquisitor?


Thanos2007-08-27 13:54:59
I have the sense that somehow you share the world in religious and Marxist applying Marxist theories to atheist or agnostics like myself; please believe me that not necessarily every atheist and agnostic is a victim to materialism, don’t forget some of the best creators in the last centuries were one or another dedicating themselves to anything else than materialistic acts. To be humanitarian, philanthropist, doesn’t necessary mean to be religious.

But lets not stop to that, the churches often have been proven more materialistic than anybody else. I take the example of the Greek Orthodox Church that I am familiar with; involvement with politics to the point to bless the death of people who were opposing a dictatorial state just because this dictatorial state was funding endlessly the church, despite the main mission to help the poor the Greek orthodox church is one of the richest institutions if not the richest in Greece owning from land to industry. The leaders of the church live a life provocatively rich in a country with over 10% unemployment and nearly 5,000 homeless. If that is not materialistic I’m wandering what is. And this is just one and very poor example.

Using the word ‘institution’ I have the feeling that I have put in the right perspective to what I feel about the church. Of course there is always the argument that the church is one thing and believe is another. I do understand the argument and respect it but the same time I do feel disappointed of the fact that the ones who represent the religion with their acts become the worst enemies of the church and not atheist and agnostics like me who believe that everybody has the right to believe what they want, I do respect it and often I defend their right to do so despite the fact that I don’t agree with them, an attitude the church hasn’t show often.


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-27 15:09:03

Indeed, Thanos, I could not agree more: free speech means that one defends others’ right to express their opinion and beliefs even when one disagree with them, and you are to be commended as an editor for holding free speech as a value. As I have previously opined, it is what makes Ovi a culturally vibrant magazine. I also agree with you that not all humanitarians and philanthropists are religious, and, of course, vice-versa. Nowadays, even religious people would agree not only with the concept of free speech but also with that of religious freedom: faith is freely accepted or it is not faith.

Like you I do not believe that to be a Marxist or an agnostic or an atheist is to be ipso facto a materialist. Similarly, I do not believe that to be religious is ipso facto to be a spiritual person. The habit does not make the monk. As you know, I have previously expressed admiration for George Santayana in this magazine. Despite his atheism he remained a great intellectual, meaning that he never reduced Christianity to a caricature of sort, and in fact proclaimed that without a deep knowledge of Christianity’s role one will understand precious little of what makes the West tick. With Santayana and with you I can have a fruitful dialogue at any time despite disagreements. Surely you’d agree that to resort to ad hominem arguments, insults and caricatures is to trivialize not only religion but humanism (correctly understood) and the intellectual life too. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-27 15:10:15
I also fully understand and in fact share your anger and disappointment at the hypocrisy of those who preach spirituality and practice materialism. As you surely know Christ called those “religious people” white tombs, beautiful on the outside and full of vermin on the inside. But, as you yourself hint at, the Church is much more than a building or an institution for that matter: it is the mystical body of Christ, (not the superman but the one on the cross), unfortunately lead at times by deeply flawed men who are far from being saints and are in fact sinners like all human beings. The Romans had a saying: corruptio optima pessima: the corruption of the best is the worst. Indeed. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa says that the abuse does not take away the use. The fact that there are drunkards in the world does not give anybody the right to prohibit the use of wine. The same applies to religion in general: the abuses of religion do not take away its use and the recognition of its beneficial effects.


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-27 21:41:26
Serendipitously, today I bumped into this relevant quote perhaps worth discussing and which I’d like to share with the Ovi readership. It is found in a June 9, 2004 report in the European Policy Center in Brussels. In it Dr. Jocelyne Cesari, a senior research fellow at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in both Paris and Harvard University has this to say:

“Europe is the only part of the world which has a general hostility toward religion. Europeans tend to explain every sign of backwardness in terms of religion…The European tendency to equate Muslim religion with fanaticism—already present in Voltaire’s “Mahomet, of Fanaticism (1745), still lives on.” She goes on to trace this tendency to the Enlightenment era, which leads one to wonder if the Enlightenment needs to still enlighten itself.


Thanos2007-08-27 22:15:00
So lets start with the things we agree, we agree that our society suffers from over-consuming behavior (the use of the words is pure semantics), I think we would both agree that this a phenomenon started in the mid-fifties increasing radically and overwhelming in many senses including ideas. And we both agree that faith is one thing that keeps the spirit and hope alive. Our difference is in what we lead this faith, I strongly believe in the human race and science (please don’t confuse it with scientologists - another unfortunate semantic) and that because science is a result of observation and questioning something that religion often denies expecting unquestionable faith often against the facts, please don’t forget that often the churches went blind to the simplest scientific facts like the shape of earth. But I presume in this case the argument returns again to the human factor! But don’t you think that regarding religious and churches we are returning too often to the human factor?

Regarding now to respect and the example of the caricatures, apparently I think that most religions have shown more tolerance towards people and their passions. Apparently I think what happened with the Mohammed cartoons was just a case of some opportunists from both sides that cleverly manipulated everybody questioning the freedom of speech and basic institutions of democracy (that’s another interesting point, how we mean democracy, I always thought that democracy is exactly what the word means, the last few decades we found out that there is western style democracy, Islamic style democracy …semantics again). As an example of religious tolerance, as I’m sure you know, during the period of the emperor Alexander Komninos in Byzantium there were a lot of workshops that made copies of the Bible, I was lucky enough a few years ago in a visit to Agion Oros to see, hold even read a bible that was decorated with sketches caricatures made that period, and these caricatures were in the limit of been cartoons. I don’t think it did any damage or shown any disrespect, on the contrary they made reading more attractive even for somebody like me.

Last, thank you for understanding my disappointment regarding the churches and the clerics, but I have one more question despite the fact that the churches are going through the best of their times with all the scandals coming out all around the world isn’t it a wander why more and more young people join? Do you think they find the truth or is it because this over whelming over consuming society and the financial insecure future leads them to a faith that can give them a better future even if that is coming after death?

P.S. thank you for your good words, freedom of speech in any coast has been our aim from the beginning of this publication. Regarding the conversation... after golf, chess has always been my favorite game! :)


Thanos2007-08-27 22:24:12
Dr. Jocelyne Cesari’s comment I think is a bit unfair because Europe has shown more tolerance than any other place, don’t forget that even Khomeini found settler in Europe and I wouldn’t be surprise if Taliban clerics will do the same in the near future. This minute in UK there is a Muslim cleric that blesses the London bombers and the official state respecting his right to say what he wants doesn’t even advice him to lower his preaching.


Sand2007-08-27 22:37:41
Cesari Jocelyne : curriculum vitae

Tuesday 8 March 2005, by Cesari Jocelyne
imprimer

Dr. Jocelyne Cesari’s training, professional experience, and academic expertise are in political science, the Middle East and Islamic studies. She is a Senior Research Fellow at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Paris and University La Sorbonne.


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-28 10:21:44
Indeed, democracy and science begin in the West, in Greece, and those require freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. No disagreement on that. The unfairness, in my opinion, consists in the cavalier and contemptuous ignoring of religious freedom as required by democracy and free inquiry and as accepted by the Church itself since Vatican II. That means that, despite the past reprehensible repression of inquisitors, religious and non religious, that there is no authentic faith without freedom to accept and practice, or deny and refuse to practice that faith. To impose atheism on people is just a repressive and reprehensible as to impose a religious belief on them. No disagreement there. Moreover, the unfairness is in some cultural anthropologists’ blaming religion for all the gross excesses and barbarities of Western civilization; or the Enlightenment’s bracketing some 13 centuries of Christianity in Europe as if that heritage is unimportant and can be safely ignored, that we can safely skip from Constantine to Voltaire and we have lost nothing but obscurantism and ignorance. That is simply not the case since the very word Renaissance means rebirth of the lost ancient manuscripts (both Greek and Latin) which were stored in Christian monasteries. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-28 10:22:31
That kind of preposterousness and can only be asserted by those who have an ax to grind against religion or are ignorant of the full history of Western Civilization. As mentioned, an atheist such as George Santayana never made that kind of bracketing and intellectual blunder. He had read Augustine and Aquinas, just to mention two, and the numerous other doctors of the Church, and knew that there was nothing specious or fraudulent in their reasoning and that respect for truth implies that reason cannot contradict faith and vice-versa, that they complement each other rather than being mutually exclusive; when they appear to do so, then somebody is not playing with a full deck of cards. Santayana remained an atheist but did not make the mistake of considering an Aquinas an ignoramus simply because he reasoned about the highest subject that can be dealt with, as per Aristotle, namely natural theology.


Emanuel Paparella2007-08-28 10:36:13
P.S. On the future coming after death as a sort of pie in the sky,Madelaine O'Hara, used to go around preaching religion as a sort of crutch which is ok for impaired people but not for the healthy. If, as you imply, young people are finding religion simply as a support system, a crutch to help them get limping into heaven, then they should heed the advice of O'Hara and throw away the crutches and bravely attend to the secular task of saving the earth which is also a Christian task, albeit a penultimate one.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi