Please help support Intercultural U.

The following is comments posted originally on the InterculturalRelations.com site.

=========================

From: Scott Robbins <srobbins@lanl.gov>
To: William Hart <wbhart@hart-li.com>
Re: Response to William Kelly and William Hart

In the title for their recent contribution to The Edge Bills Kelly and Hart raise the provocative question, "What a religion says about intercultural relations?" To my mind the question is important and complex. It is important for at least a couple of reasons. First, the question is important because most people living today count themselves as members of a religion. This factor implies a high degree of relevance of religious doctrine and behavior to intercultural relations for religion is heavily involved when individuals construct the two broad psychological categories of "self" and "other." The resulting structure of this intercultural project lies at the core of intercultural behavior. A second reason the question is important is that it dares to call religion into the light of academic discourse. Though religious texts are, in themselves, relatively benign, religious behaviors account for much of the hatred and discord that continues to rake over the peoples of the world. If academic illumination can in any way temper historical patterns of religious sociopathology, it will be well worth the effort.

The complexity of the question springs from the idea that a religion "says" anything. How is it that a religion speaks? Kelly and Hart tentatively open the discussion by focusing on bits of text demonstrating at least one way by which a religion speaks. Religions, we may assume, speak by way of their scriptural body. In addition to this first and most obvious voice, I would propose two additional voices with which religions speak. Religions speak through the actions of their adherents. This dimension of voice is recognized and established in religious texts themselves. "By their fruits you shall know them" goes the familiar example taken from the Christian bible. Any meaningful examination of religious voice as it relates to intercultural relations must consider this second voice. Religion speaks through the behavior of the adherent.

The third voice by which religion speaks goes beyond both text and behavior. Religion speaks within the psyche of each individual human member. The voice of religion rumbles within the depths of an archaic human mind. At this level religion speaks of the unity of subject with object, the reconciliation of self-consciousness with pure being. At this level religion speaks of a self immortal and at this level, religion speaks of the righteousness of one's ways. This voice is terribly important because it is the foundation upon which all religion rests. The second voice, the religious behavior of the believers, is the ritualized codification of the inner discourse. The espoused and textualized voice is the simple and external storage of those aspects of culture coded by religion.

These three different voices are interwoven in a tight fabric which binds not only groups of people but also the psychological identity of individuals. Religions are primarily evolved sociocultural group forms designed to demarcate boundaries separating one group from another. Compared to other sociocultural group forms, such as states and nations, religions have proven to be extremely resilient. Where the life span of nations have yet to demonstrate viability beyond hundreds of years, religions have the power to traverse millennia. Though other factors are involved in the definition of "self" and "other" and though other factors may be held to account for the prevalence of hatred, selfishness and cruelty in the world, religion and behaviors related to religious indoctrination must be cast into the light of analysis.

The Voice in Text

With regards to intercultural relations, the espoused spiritual traditions of India cited by Kelly and Hart are similar to some I have encountered in my examination of the Koran and the Christian Bible. There are bits of text promoting tolerance, acceptance and/or love of unlike neighbors in all three examples of religious scripture. At the same time, it is not difficult to see how these religious texts allow for the alienation of the believers from the infidels. There are two primary ways by which the texts promote this alienation. First, in some instances the believers are cast into violent confrontation with the non-believers. A second and less obvious way that religious texts promote alienation is in the selective exaltation of the adherents.

War and slaughter abounds in the Old Testament. The Old Testament God was himself prone to wrathful spasms of violence. The New Testament is set in a historical context where believer subjects groan under the rule of pagan Roman occupational forces. The Book of Revelations promises war between the righteous and the "others" even in the utter ends of time. In the Book of Mormon, one of the principal religious texts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the same violent backdrop punctuates the narrated epic of the supposed pre-Colombian cultures inhabiting the Americas. In this voice, religions say that violence is a legitimate climax to intercultural relations. The believers are absolved of guilt in cases where murder and mayhem serve in the larger battle between "good" and "evil" which are defined by religious texts.

The differential exaltation of the righteous as compared to the "unclean" also speaks to intercultural relations. Because postmortem social status is said to depend on Earthly behaviors which are prescribed in religious texts, those who fail to embrace the prescribed rituals are immediately cast into a sub-member category. Not only do the prescribed behaviors define the exclusive road to exaltation, they also conveniently provide a means by which members may be distinguished from non-members. According to the texts of the most prevalent monotheistic traditions, religions are designed and intended to ensure the eternal well being of members. In some cases, the "chosen" are given cause to believe that obedience to "universal laws" will also bring about blessings on this side of the veil. In all cases, the result is, at its best, an institutionalized sense of pity for those outside of the fold. At its worst, the non-members are assumed to be better off dead.

The Acted Voice

I found it ironic that Kelly and Hart selected bits of religious text from the religious traditions of India at a time when the governments of India and Pakistan were engaged in a thermonuclear pissing contest. This exemplifies the common disjunction at the interface between the predominant religious traditions of a people and political actions of their secular leadership. In most cases these secular leaders claim to embrace the same religious traditions as those they lead. This situation suggests a degree of hypocrisy somewhere within the complex relationship between a people as a religious body and the same people when cast into the form of a body politic. From a historical perspective this condition is not particularly notable. Indeed, history would suggest that moments of consistency between scripturally espoused belief and lived public behavior are rare exceptions to a norm where inconsistency and hypocrisy predominates.

Part of the problem leading to this unseemly and confusing state relates to the nature of printed text in the first place. As mentioned above, the sacred texts of the "Big Three" monotheistic traditions can be read to support tolerance of strange neighbors or to justify their genocidal annihilation. It all depends upon the reader and the context in which the scripture is read. In this way, the scriptural voice is mediated by the member who uses the text to direct as well as rationalize behaviors. The text, then, functions in both an immediate and retrospective fashion. It speaks through the present as well as the past behaviors of members.

Another way by which religious texts speak through action applies to the behaviors of the non-believers. Members use the scriptural body to make sense of the behaviors of non-members. From the member's perspective, not only does the scriptural text guide their behavior and account for their past actions, it also explains why the "other" behaves in the manner observed by the member. Their deviant behavior may be attributed to the presence of an externalized evil in the "other's" being. For the believer, the nonconformance of the heathen and unclean masses speaks with the voice of the devil, the voice of darkness. The pagan's misfortunes in war, famine or pestilence speaks of the reward God bestows on the deviant. When the non-members experience material success or excess, the religious adherents hear the tales of the material decadence of the great whore...Babylon. They succumb to their socioeconomic oppression with self-congratulatory confidence in the system of just rewards to be disbursed in a subsequent state of mindful existence.

The Voice Within

Religion serves to pacify the tumultuous psychic conditions arising from ancient existential anxiety. As the human mind took form and the sense of "I" emerged, some very compelling questions arose. Examples include: Where am I in relation to the other? Why am I? What is the purpose and fate of the I? This is the domain of philosophers, psychologists and scholars of the evolution of mind. What is generally acknowledged is that the emergence of human self-consciousness lies at the root of all distinctions between self and other. This evolutionary moment constitutes the birth of the primordial dialectic upon which all subsequent distinctions are based. Our disposition with regards to all categories of "other" may be traced back to this momentous transition. This includes our disposition towards others of different cultures and alien religious persuasions.

With regards to the psychic distress of a self-aware hominid religion says plenty. Where am I in relation to the other? Religion says, "If I conform to 'universal' standards, I am blessed, privileged and better." Why am I? Religion says, "I am for the glory of a higher 'other' who counts me and mine among his friends." What is the purpose and ultimate destiny of the I? Religion says, "To strive within an externally imposed and defined order so that I may transcend the material form in which the "I" resides." In these examples it becomes obvious what religion has to say about intercultural relations. Religion says that ethnocentrism based upon religious institutional affiliation is not only allowable but, in some cases, mandated. The separation and elevation of the self from others is required by an ego which is insecure in its own sense of permanence and distinction.

Religion is old. Some paleoanthropologists provide evidence indicating the existence of religious behavior among the Neanderthal branch of the hominid tree over forty thousand years ago. From the explosive proliferation of artifactual traces of subsequent versions of Homo sapiens it is undeniable that religious systems predate all systems of text which do not appear until approximately ten thousand years ago.

From somewhere between forty to one hundred thousand years ago religion made its debut alongside other events constituting what is thought of as culture. It is at this time that the sophistication of language and art forms explode. It is also during this time frame that human group forms become capable of incorporating multiple clans and nuclear family units. What evidence seems to suggest is that religion was called to serve in the cohesive binding of human individuals to create persistent group forms at the most ancient evolutionary roots of culture.

From an evolutionary perspective religion resides at the core of culture. From this position it installs a membrane used to distinguish "we" from "they." As such, there is no way that religion, particularly of the monotheistic versions dominant in the West, can ever hope to serve in the bridging of different cultures. Though printed texts may be profitably mined for hints of the unity of the species, these traces are overwhelmed by text used to reinforce chauvinism and conquest. For thousands of years now, history has demonstrated the divisive power of religion. In its most basic existence religion says, "We are different and in possession of the code justifying our superiority and bigotry."

Where to Turn?

The critique of religion is easy. A more difficult question pertains to the possibility of hope. Does religion identify a source of hope? For most religious systems and individual believers I have encountered there is only one hope which religion itself can offer. The hope lies in universal persuasion or in other words, the dissolution of religious diversity. For all believers, ultimate peace, happiness and utopia depends on the prevalence of their own religious code. Religious ideology is posited to a place beyond reason, beyond time and beyond space. The dogma is universal and yet it is infinitely accommodating. If only the non-believers will depart their wicked ways (otherness), then the world would experience unprecedented peace and contentment. For religious adherents this is enough, end of story. The persistence of otherness cannot be distinguished from the persistence of evil. Though they may tolerate and embrace the non-believers as tentatively human, they are most invigorated by the incorporation of the other. The problem with religion-based solutions to intercultural strife should be obvious. Religion-based hopes for intercultural harmony are typically ethnocentric and exclusionary.

Kelly and Hart suggest that it may be fruitful to look beyond or around science for guidance to help us better understand intercultural relations. The point of my foray into the topic should make clear my skepticism of the value of religious-based inquiry. Scholars have probed religious texts for millennia and what they have learned is typically what they expect to learn. Religious doctrines are most commonly used to accentuate difference and deny commonality. For the purpose of seeking guidance to aid in intercultural interactions I would therefore challenge the value of religious inquiry.

What is needed is a common ground on which people of all cultures and religions may stand as equals. This place will necessarily require the abandonment of all divine plans and universal laws. Religions must here be cast into their proper roles as tools to assist in binding culture and soothing the troubled psyche. For believers of the predominant Western religions this will amount to deicide for once the system is drawn into its human and evolutionary origins exaltation becomes a hollow promise, eternal salvation an illusion. This is not easy to accept.

The way it appears to me, it is not necessary to look beyond science for accounts to promote intercultural harmony. What is needed is a particular refashioning of science, not its abandonment. Indeed, science at the end of the 20th century provides considerable promise, more so than in the past. From evolutionary psychology and advances in brain studies comes the possibility of accounting for the mind, "soul," and adaptiveness of religious striving. From advances in physics comes the recognition of the contingency of objective reality. From evolutionary biology and ecology comes the recognition of the unity of all life forms and the plausibility of Earth-bound creation scenarios. In these examples it is possible to see how an inclusive paradigm may be taking shape. Though the answers provided by science depend on a common perspective which is definitely "Western" in its style and origins, science does not divide. Science does not exalt one culture over another. It is merely an assemblage of techniques for answering difficult questions in a way most conducive to common comprehension.

As an assemblage of techniques, science alone promises only part of a solution for resolving intercultural strife. What is needed, in support of science, is a transcultural ethical system which is both accessible and compatible with elements familiar to the world's people. A life-based ethic holds the promise of providing the ideological foundation upon which a sustainable global culture may be established. A life-based ethic is characterized by the following features:

• Humankind becomes embedded in the global biosphere as an instance of the innovativeness of terrestrial life.
• The dichotomy distinguishing mankind from nature is dissolved. That which is "manmade" becomes natural and the knowledge of that which is seen as natural becomes recognized as being "manmade."
• Recognize the tentative position of the human species in the evolution of terrestrial life forms. Evolutionary processes do not end with the human species. Though temporarily installed at the heights of cognitive sophistication, we are being superseded by our own sociocultural systems which are becoming increasingly elaborated as living systems or beings beyond human kind.
• All divine plans are called to Earth and situated in an evolutionary dialectic encompassing biogenetic, cultural, ideological and technological innovation.

A life-based ethical system reaches beyond religion in time but is clearly bound, spatially, to Earth. As human kind, our technological artifacts and sociocultural overbeings fill the place up we must become more attentive to our terrestrial origins. Projecting hope and accountability beyond the scope of life is a denial of our origins, a denial of the only thing holy which is tangible to all. By recognizing the holiness of our own biological origins and the magnificence of living forms around us we may begin to see a glimmer of hope beyond our present predicament.