Fiorina, Morris P., Samuel J. Abrams, and Jeremy Pope. 2005. Culture war? : the myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.
Such confess - “Jesus Christ changed my life” – is widely observed in American and also in my home country. Especially, the name of Jesus, at least in South Korea, is contested by itself. The name of Jesus is equated with American Solider, and frequently American President. Usually, Jesus followers are very extremely anti-communistic (most South Koreans are very anti-communistic, due to the Korean War), and very negative towards Russia and China, and also emphasize the blood-relationships with the US. Religion, whatever morals it argues and takes and propagates to the public, is not unrelated with politics because religion believers are also voters who can determine the political power.
Personally I believe culture war exists. Also I assume some arguments are seriously overblown as the authors (Fiorina et al.) pointed out. However, in my opinion, culture war can be serious if some situations come (Probably no one knows the day!). Why? First, even if there were only some people who cause culture war, they hold high solidarity, indicating that their power could be more than dispersed or heterogeneous others. In an emergency, the small but well-connected fews dominates the large but isolated manys, as shown in Animal Farm or in Nazi. (Be careful, I am not negative toward certain religions. I self-identified myself as a god-believer).
Second, the winning margin in duopoly system like the USA, small number of supporters – who do not change their minds in whatever situations – are attractive, giving politicians safe political bulwarks. Consider LDS (frequently called Mormons). I believe if they were scattered across the continent, their political power would not be so influential. While the geographically concentrated particular religion believers may hurt their success in nation-wide politics (e.g., Romney), it is also true that such loyal and well-predicted success warrants the survival of certain morals that a religion wants to hold.
While I read the authors’ findings and arguments, I agree with their conclusion but I do not think their findings are truly enough to deny ‘culture war’ ideas. Some of the findings (especially, the figure) seem inappropriate because the vertical axis (i.e., Y-axis in XY coordinate) is assumed to have the full scale, which, in turn, hides any subtle (but could be substantial in real world situation) differences between so-called two sides. I think their way to provide their findings has some problems..
Also, as a media scholar, I have to point out their assumption on the role of media. As a one factor creating the illusion of culture wars, the authors mentioned the media which almost give up providing meaningful neutral information by emphasizing the entertainment value of the contents. However, I am less inclined to agree with this point. First, I am not sure why the ‘commercial’ media should have such norms. Their purpose is to make money, not to report facts. Second, without people’s preexisting stereotyped culture-war idea, the media can make such illusion?
Despite some disagreements of mine, I believe their conclusion should be seriously taken because of the danger of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Showing posts with label Identity politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Identity politics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics - Edited by Jeffrey Haynes (2010)
Haynes, Jeffrey, ed. 2010. Routledge Handbook of Religion and Politics. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Handbook is the great guide for the beginner of the field, like me who are recently interested in the relationship between politics and religion. My approach (not yet self-assured) assume that religion is a machine of ethical messages which regulate or guide people’s judgment over social objects; and also assume that politics is a symbolic process created by political actors whose messages combine materialistic interests, moral superiority, and constructed social knowledge over the natural and cultural world. With the message as the conceptual link, I believe (or assume) that religion and politics reciprocally influence (actually, nearly all social scientists know that they are under mutual influence).
Anyway, the coverage of the handbook is so huge. Except the introduction chapter authored by the editor, there are four parts, as follow:
Part I: The world religions and politics
Part II: Religion and governance
Part III: Religion and international relations
Part IV: Religion security and development
I skipped all the chapters, but I do want to make an index what chapters might be re-read in the future (if my interest is maintained in the near or distance future)
Chapter 2: Buddhism and politics (by Peter Freidlander): Why? 1) S. Koran has lots of Buddhists. 2) Mostly known as its non-violent tendency (compared with other religions).
Chapter 3: Christianity: Protestantism (by Paul Fireston): Why? 1) the traditional topic since Max Weber’s intellectual invention. 2) the religious majority in US
Chapter 4: The Catholic church and Catholicism in global politics (Allen Hertzke): Why? 1) the biggest religious institution in the world 2) in S Korea, Catholic’s social contribution is most prominent (pro-democratization)
Chapter 5: Confucianism, from above and below (Michael Barr): 1) is it religion? (I don’t think so) It seems more likely to be an ideology like Liberalism, Maxism, etc. 2) basically ambivalent, and under-developed political ideology which can be both progressive and recessive.
Chapter 7: Islam and Islamism (Andrea Teti & Andrea Mura): 1) I am very ignorant of Islam and its culture
Chapter 10: Secularisation and politics (Steve Bruce): 1) Interesting and also important topic in the relationship between politics and religion, 2) secularization, in my view, is contested concept. Not sure what is secular and not sure whether ‘secular’ is distinguished from ‘sacred’ in terms of spirituality or religiosity.
Chapter 11: Religious fundamentalisms (Jeffrey Haynes): 1) Rising political tendency
Chapter 15: Religion and civil society (David Herbert): Personally, I read this chapter with the biggest interest and fun.
Chapter 16: Religious commitment and socio-political orientations: Different patterns of compartmentalism among Muslims and Christians? (Thorleif Petterson) 1) Model paper dealing with the effect of religion on politics using quantitative data. 2) good study to counter-argue over-exaggerated differences between Christians and Muslims.
Chapter 23: Religion and women: Canadian women’s religious volunteering: compassion, connections and comparisons (Brenda O’Neill): Good study showing the ambivalent characteristics of religion and its role in civil society (positive because it educates females as connected and communitarian citizens; negative because its role is highly concentrated in family and other conventionally women’s roles).
Chapter 25: Changing the climate of religious internationalism: evangelical responses to global warming and human suffering (Noah J. Toly): Dealing with the connection between religious messages and environmental issues (global warming). Personally more interesting because of the re-modeling four rivers in S. Korea despite the majority’s opposition, especially led by religious leaders who are Buddhist monks and Catholic priests including only a few Protestant pastors.
Handbook is the great guide for the beginner of the field, like me who are recently interested in the relationship between politics and religion. My approach (not yet self-assured) assume that religion is a machine of ethical messages which regulate or guide people’s judgment over social objects; and also assume that politics is a symbolic process created by political actors whose messages combine materialistic interests, moral superiority, and constructed social knowledge over the natural and cultural world. With the message as the conceptual link, I believe (or assume) that religion and politics reciprocally influence (actually, nearly all social scientists know that they are under mutual influence).
Anyway, the coverage of the handbook is so huge. Except the introduction chapter authored by the editor, there are four parts, as follow:
Part I: The world religions and politics
Part II: Religion and governance
Part III: Religion and international relations
Part IV: Religion security and development
I skipped all the chapters, but I do want to make an index what chapters might be re-read in the future (if my interest is maintained in the near or distance future)
Chapter 2: Buddhism and politics (by Peter Freidlander): Why? 1) S. Koran has lots of Buddhists. 2) Mostly known as its non-violent tendency (compared with other religions).
Chapter 3: Christianity: Protestantism (by Paul Fireston): Why? 1) the traditional topic since Max Weber’s intellectual invention. 2) the religious majority in US
Chapter 4: The Catholic church and Catholicism in global politics (Allen Hertzke): Why? 1) the biggest religious institution in the world 2) in S Korea, Catholic’s social contribution is most prominent (pro-democratization)
Chapter 5: Confucianism, from above and below (Michael Barr): 1) is it religion? (I don’t think so) It seems more likely to be an ideology like Liberalism, Maxism, etc. 2) basically ambivalent, and under-developed political ideology which can be both progressive and recessive.
Chapter 7: Islam and Islamism (Andrea Teti & Andrea Mura): 1) I am very ignorant of Islam and its culture
Chapter 10: Secularisation and politics (Steve Bruce): 1) Interesting and also important topic in the relationship between politics and religion, 2) secularization, in my view, is contested concept. Not sure what is secular and not sure whether ‘secular’ is distinguished from ‘sacred’ in terms of spirituality or religiosity.
Chapter 11: Religious fundamentalisms (Jeffrey Haynes): 1) Rising political tendency
Chapter 15: Religion and civil society (David Herbert): Personally, I read this chapter with the biggest interest and fun.
Chapter 16: Religious commitment and socio-political orientations: Different patterns of compartmentalism among Muslims and Christians? (Thorleif Petterson) 1) Model paper dealing with the effect of religion on politics using quantitative data. 2) good study to counter-argue over-exaggerated differences between Christians and Muslims.
Chapter 23: Religion and women: Canadian women’s religious volunteering: compassion, connections and comparisons (Brenda O’Neill): Good study showing the ambivalent characteristics of religion and its role in civil society (positive because it educates females as connected and communitarian citizens; negative because its role is highly concentrated in family and other conventionally women’s roles).
Chapter 25: Changing the climate of religious internationalism: evangelical responses to global warming and human suffering (Noah J. Toly): Dealing with the connection between religious messages and environmental issues (global warming). Personally more interesting because of the re-modeling four rivers in S. Korea despite the majority’s opposition, especially led by religious leaders who are Buddhist monks and Catholic priests including only a few Protestant pastors.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The enemy: an intellectual portrait of Carl Schmitt - Balakrishnan (2000)
Balakrishnan, G., & Schmitt, C. (2000). The enemy : an intellectual portrait of Carl Schmitt. London; New York: Verso.
Actually, Carl Schmitt did not (and does not) come to me as a name of respected man. As the common nickname (= Crown Jurist of Nazi), all writings of Schmitt have to be suspected regarding to the Nazi and all of its negative connotations.
However, my first impression of Carl Schmitt was very fascinating. When I was in Seoul (Seoul National University), I encountered his book, Political Theology, and I thought that the guy is very smart, provocative, thoughtful and radical. However, my enthusiasm at that time was easily changed into disappointment after I learned basic bio of Carl Schmitt.
After six years later, I re-picked up one more book which introduces the whole trajectory of Carl Schmitt’s writings. Although I am not much aware of the author (Gopal Balakrishnan, I infer this author as Indian because the first name is so familiar in India), I am sure the author has able enough to write Schmitt’s biography and writings. His writing is excellent and I believe the author’s evaluation is appropriate and valid
The first dimension of Schmitt’s academic career starts with dictatorship. Simply put, when the dictatorship starts and how it can be justified with whose decision? Actually, this question, I believe, goes beyond my ability because I have the slightest background of legal studies. The book, The Dictatorship: From the Beginnings of the Modern Conception of Sovereignty to the Proletarian Class Struggle, represents this stage.
The second is the religion and law. Put simply, the law is the secularized religious concepts. This thesis, while controversial, seems very valid intuitively to me. The book, Political Theology, represents this period.
The third point is critics of modern parliamentary democracy. Simply, the consensus building or majority rule based on popular representatives are not sufficient, realistic, or desirable. Very radical point, but valid argument. Probably, some modern political theorists who heavily relied on Carl Schmitt (e.g., Mouffe) are fascinated by this criticism. Whether this is right or wrong, his critic of parliamentary democracy explains many political or civil controversies clearly, and the fragile nature of modern pluralistic democracy. Probably, Roman Catholicism and Political Forms, and Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (The author prefers the directly translated title “The Intellectual: Historical Condition of Contemporary Parliamentarism”) represents that.
The fourth point is the meaning of “the political.” Personally, the birth of “the political” ranks the second in Western Political Thoughts (The first, in my view, is Machiavelli’s thought). “The political” is freed from any normative constraints, but finally goes to the strongest form of norm for any political action or behaviors. The political is distinguished from ‘politics’ but it makes politics ‘work’ and ‘meaningful’ (at least for Schmitt). This concept is powerful in modern ‘new’ politics, neo-Nazi, racism, religious politics, and others. There are many things in modern world which cannot be understood as utilitarian theory (e.g., Downs’s model). The book, The concept of the political, (I swear by myself) is a book that should be read and read several times, but with the greatest care. As G. Lukacs concluded (though I have no capability to agree or disagree), Schmitt’s intuition can be easily turned into intelligence of evil.
The fifth point is legality versus legitimacy. This question arises again in Harbermas and other modern thinkers. Legality and legitimacy can be distinguished (should be)..
Other dimensions are about his relationships with Nazi (esp. with Goering and other Nazi Scholars), and his readings of other classic thinkers (e.g., Hobbes, Machiavelli, Spengler, Weber, de Tocqueville, etc.). Especially, the chapter 16 (The Leviathan Myth) was interesting, but my knowledge over the Leviathan was not so deep… In the future, I should read Hobbes and de Tocqueville with more care.
Before closing, I think the title is So Great! The ‘enemy’ seems the best summary of Schmitt’s writings. The enemy is not evil, dirty, disgusting. The enemy is needed, respected, and warrants my positions. This is so realistic, but very dangerous….
Anyway, good book, interesting… As a final word, I think any readers should distinguish Schmitt from Schmitt’s messages. Personally, I believe Carl Schmitt was a dirty person like me and others who pursue self-interests (e.g., more publications, higher academic positions,…) However, his messages have some virtues that should be eschewed. Although his intelligence, probably some of his intelligence, comes from devil’s whispering, I believe it has something we can learn from the bad thing.
Actually, Carl Schmitt did not (and does not) come to me as a name of respected man. As the common nickname (= Crown Jurist of Nazi), all writings of Schmitt have to be suspected regarding to the Nazi and all of its negative connotations.
However, my first impression of Carl Schmitt was very fascinating. When I was in Seoul (Seoul National University), I encountered his book, Political Theology, and I thought that the guy is very smart, provocative, thoughtful and radical. However, my enthusiasm at that time was easily changed into disappointment after I learned basic bio of Carl Schmitt.
After six years later, I re-picked up one more book which introduces the whole trajectory of Carl Schmitt’s writings. Although I am not much aware of the author (Gopal Balakrishnan, I infer this author as Indian because the first name is so familiar in India), I am sure the author has able enough to write Schmitt’s biography and writings. His writing is excellent and I believe the author’s evaluation is appropriate and valid
The first dimension of Schmitt’s academic career starts with dictatorship. Simply put, when the dictatorship starts and how it can be justified with whose decision? Actually, this question, I believe, goes beyond my ability because I have the slightest background of legal studies. The book, The Dictatorship: From the Beginnings of the Modern Conception of Sovereignty to the Proletarian Class Struggle, represents this stage.
The second is the religion and law. Put simply, the law is the secularized religious concepts. This thesis, while controversial, seems very valid intuitively to me. The book, Political Theology, represents this period.
The third point is critics of modern parliamentary democracy. Simply, the consensus building or majority rule based on popular representatives are not sufficient, realistic, or desirable. Very radical point, but valid argument. Probably, some modern political theorists who heavily relied on Carl Schmitt (e.g., Mouffe) are fascinated by this criticism. Whether this is right or wrong, his critic of parliamentary democracy explains many political or civil controversies clearly, and the fragile nature of modern pluralistic democracy. Probably, Roman Catholicism and Political Forms, and Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (The author prefers the directly translated title “The Intellectual: Historical Condition of Contemporary Parliamentarism”) represents that.
The fourth point is the meaning of “the political.” Personally, the birth of “the political” ranks the second in Western Political Thoughts (The first, in my view, is Machiavelli’s thought). “The political” is freed from any normative constraints, but finally goes to the strongest form of norm for any political action or behaviors. The political is distinguished from ‘politics’ but it makes politics ‘work’ and ‘meaningful’ (at least for Schmitt). This concept is powerful in modern ‘new’ politics, neo-Nazi, racism, religious politics, and others. There are many things in modern world which cannot be understood as utilitarian theory (e.g., Downs’s model). The book, The concept of the political, (I swear by myself) is a book that should be read and read several times, but with the greatest care. As G. Lukacs concluded (though I have no capability to agree or disagree), Schmitt’s intuition can be easily turned into intelligence of evil.
The fifth point is legality versus legitimacy. This question arises again in Harbermas and other modern thinkers. Legality and legitimacy can be distinguished (should be)..
Other dimensions are about his relationships with Nazi (esp. with Goering and other Nazi Scholars), and his readings of other classic thinkers (e.g., Hobbes, Machiavelli, Spengler, Weber, de Tocqueville, etc.). Especially, the chapter 16 (The Leviathan Myth) was interesting, but my knowledge over the Leviathan was not so deep… In the future, I should read Hobbes and de Tocqueville with more care.
Before closing, I think the title is So Great! The ‘enemy’ seems the best summary of Schmitt’s writings. The enemy is not evil, dirty, disgusting. The enemy is needed, respected, and warrants my positions. This is so realistic, but very dangerous….
Anyway, good book, interesting… As a final word, I think any readers should distinguish Schmitt from Schmitt’s messages. Personally, I believe Carl Schmitt was a dirty person like me and others who pursue self-interests (e.g., more publications, higher academic positions,…) However, his messages have some virtues that should be eschewed. Although his intelligence, probably some of his intelligence, comes from devil’s whispering, I believe it has something we can learn from the bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)