01-19-2006, 11:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In order to keep the discussion tightly focussed and to best serve the
interests of this thread, I will not be touching upon (or answering)
several issues raised either in my earlier posts, or by the readers.
*I promise, however, to return to them at the appropriate time*. I had
begun my earlier mail with the intention of tackling three points with
respect to the picture that Rajiv sketches: (a) how *not to* analyse;
(b) how to analyse; © what should we be doing? To briefly
recapitulate what I have so far done. Regarding (a), I suggested that
what Wendy and her children do should not be seen purely as an
orientalist, or a Eurocentric or a racist exercise. In my previous
post, regarding (b) I suggested that there is a deeper process at work
here, which I called `secularisation' of Christian theology. In this
post, I will complete this part of the argument by trying to
(partially) answer one question: why is this process not `visible' to
the Western intellectuals? In my next post, which I hope to compose
before the weekend, I will focus on ©, i.e. what should we be doing?
In a way, the answer can be provided in a single sentence: the
research questions and the research framework of many-a-social science
were set up *explicitly * by Christian theologians using the resources
of Christian theology. (I am using `theology' as a general term here.)
Both the questions and answers have retained their intelligibility,
even though the `explicit' theology has faded *into the background*. A
theological question does not cease to be theological just because the
one who answers it does not know much about theology. The very fact
that such questions *make sense at all* (and do not appear
nonsensical) is the *proof* of the fact that the questioner remains
within the ambit of a religious framework. (If you have no clue about
Physics, the question `when does some stellar object become a quasar?'
will not make much sense. To answer it, if you can answer it at all,
you need to draw upon the resources of theories in Physics.) However,
this single sentence answer fails to capture the complexity and
diversity of the process. Therefore, let me just *illustrate* what
this process really means, or has meant. (I will be taking random
examples, and of different *kinds* just to *indicate* the depth of the
process. If one intends doing more than this, one will have to write
umpteen books!)
1. Consider, to begin with, the very notion `the west' or `the western
culture'. During the first 800 years (after the year 300 C.E. -
`Common Era', which replaces AD that meant the year of the Lord, Anno
Domini), it was `Eastern Christianity' (i.e. the Christianity of the
Byzantine Empire with its centre in Constantinople) that dominated the
Christian communities. The Church in Rome was merely one of the
churches within Christianity. The `evangelization' of Europe really
begins in earnest after 900 C.E. This was a process launched by the
Church in Rome, and it occurred in areas to `the west' of Rome. For
this reason, this Christianity came to be called `Western
Christianity' and the emergence of this Christendom to the west of
Rome is the emergence of `the West'.
2. Consider these two famous research questions about the `transition'
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'
3. Consider the emergence of the Legal System in the western culture.
Its origin does not lie in the Roman Law but in the Church. The
theologians of the Roman Catholic Church *turned* to the Roman jurists
in their attempts to build a legal structure for the Church. (This is
called the famous `Gregorian reformation' of the Catholic Church.)
Thus a complex system of laws and *their justifications* (including
terms that are fundamental to the modern jurisprudence) arose, called
`The Canon Law'. The `Civil Law' (using this as a general term) was
built by *the theologians* by modelling it after the Canon Law. Till
the 18th century, `the faculty of law' was a part of the `faculty of
theology' in the western universities and taught *only by
theologians.* To this day, in many universities in Europe this
theological heritage is still maintained in the way the law faculties
are called: `Rechtenfaculteit' (`Rechten' is the plural of `Das
Recht'), referring to the two laws - the canon law and civil law.
4. Consider too, for example, one of the notions fundamental to Modern
Jurisprudence: `will'. There have been umpteen discussions about this
notion in Philosophy, Law, Psychology, etc. Clearly, or so we think,
human beings have a will and exercise it as well. What is the origin
of this picture of human beings? Till 300 B.C.E. this notion was
`absent' in what we call the western culture today. Neither the Greek
thinkers (like Plato or Aristotle), nor the Roman jurists (who wrote
their law digests) had such a notion or such a picture of human
beings. The first person to struggle with this notion and write tracts
about it was Saint Augustine, one of the most influential Fathers of
the Christian Church. Why did the Christians find this notion
important? Because, they think, the universe exemplifies the Will of
God and human beings should subordinate themselves to this Will. That
is to say, the human will must subordinate itself to the divine will.
What is human `will' then? What does this subordination consist of?
These and many similar questions arose *within* the ambit of Christian
theology, presupposing a Christian picture of Man. (A picture that was
neither Greek nor Roman, and is definitely not Indian.) Yet, how many
of us do not practice Law, read and write about human will and even
assume *as an empirical fact* that it is in the nature of being human
that we have will? (This is no *fact*, but a Christian theological
picture of man.)
5. Take, as another kind of an example, the issue of `freedom'. This
issue is a central one in Philosophy, in moral theories, in political
theories (about Stat e and society), in legal theories, and
psychological theories, etc. If you were to blandly state this issue
in a single sentence: it is a good thing that people are `free' and
that every one `ought' to be `free'. In ethical theories, for
instance, a moral action is an action of choice, made freely without
coercion. In fact, in the absence of `freedom' morality is not
possible. Let me just draw a contrast between this way of thinking
(which appears to be true on the basis of `universal consent') and our
ideas about `karma' and `rebirth'. (You need not assume the `truth' of
*punarjanma* in order to follow my point.) If the fruits of one's
action do not track (very strictly) the agent across several lives,
the idea of both `Karma' and `rebirth' become senseless. Somehow or
the other, these notions are parts of our (i.e. Indian) understanding
of morality. That means to say, if there was no binding and strict
*determinism*, ethics is impossible. Here, then, the contrast:
according to the western culture , moral action is impossible if it is
not `free'; according to us, without strict determinism, moral action
is impossible. Yet, how many of us do not act as though `freedom' is a
`self-explanatory' concept? Do you know what the origins (it has
multiple theological loci) of this problem are? God created Man and
gave him the `freedom' to choose between God and the Devil. (In
secularised terms, between `good' and `evil'.) The possibility of
`salvation' (i.e. of being `saved' from the clutches of the Devil)
depended on this `free choice'. Therefore, theological issues arose:
What then does `human freedom' mean? Why did God give `freedom' to
man? Are we `condemned' to be `free'? etc. etc. Our *svatantra* does
not mean `freedom' as its contrast term *paratantra* indicates. Our
`gods' are *sarva tantra svatantara*, i.e. beings for whom all
*tantras* are their `own' (sva). What exactly are we doing then, when
we discuss about a `free society', `freedom' of individuals, etc, etc?
6. Instead of carrying on in this vein let me round off in a different
way. Fundamental to Christianity is its belief that there `ought' to
be scriptural sanction for actions in the world. In other words, this
religion makes one seek scriptural foundations for one's actions
(whether for `sacred' ones like `worshipping' or to `secular' ones
like the attitude one should take regarding `strangers' ). The
scripture is one kind of `revelation' of God's will; the Nature also
reveals God's Will. One studies both in order to find out what God
Wills so that one may become a part of God's purposes (for human kind)
on earth. The Church, as a social organism, confronted many social and
political problems during its history. Whether it was a revolt of the
peasants, or a fight with the monarchs about the nature of political
authority, these phenomena were conceptualised as problems within
theology. That is to say, both the way the Church formulated the
problem and its responses were founded on the scriptures (and the
writings of t he church fathers). The problem of state and society,
the limits of political power, etc. were actual issues that the Church
confronted. The way it formulated these issues and the kind of answers
it sought, etc. were theological in nature. These very same questions
and answers (and the underlying framework) have been taken over by the
so-called social sciences. So, when they further go on along this
track, all they are doing is further embroider Christian theology. No
matter what they *think* they are doing, they *are not doing science*.
Even when they speak of things that become totally *nonsensical*, if
and when *explicit theology* is left out, they continue to talk as
though it makes sense.
For an example of this sort, take the notion of `polytheism' that
anthropology of religion, practitioners of `religious studies',
sociologists, etc. use. This notion is *contradictio in teminis*, that
is to say, it is internally contradictory. `Polytheism' refers to a
doctrine that countenances multip le `gods'. What does it mean to
speak of multiple `gods'? It is to say that there is more than one
`God'. (There must be at least two). However, who or what is `God'
that there may be more than one? If, in order to answer this question,
one refers to the meaning of this word, unsurprisingly it turns out,
the dictionary meaning is also the meaning of Christian religion.
Amongst other things, `God' is the creator of the universe. If this is
what God means, there cannot be more than one `God'. (How can one make
sense of the statement that there are multiple `creators', when `God'
refers to that being which created the Universe?) How, then, can one
speak of `polytheism'? Only if one *assumes* that there is one `God'
and some several other creatures who are *other* than this `God' and
yet claim the status of `godhood'. The claim of such creatures *must*
be false: because the very definition of `God' attributes this status
to only one entity. Or, there must be one `true' God, and many `false'
gods, who a re different from and other than the True One. This is
precisely what Christian theology says: there is but one `true' God,
and there are many `false' gods (the Devil and his minions). A
`Polytheist', then, worships these multiple `gods' (and not the True
One). That is to say, a polytheist is a `heathen' who worships the
devil. This is what Christianity said of the Roman religions, the
Greek religions, the Indian `religions', etc. How is it possible that
`scientific' studies take over the word `polytheism' and blithely use
it without *recognising* that it is senseless to do so without
assuming the *truth* of Christian theology?
7. What I am saying, in other words, is that the western intellectuals
are blind to secularised theology, because that is all they know. This
is their tool, and they have no other. Only when we develop
*alternate* manners of theorising about Man and Society will they too
be able to see the theological nature of their thinking. Until such
stage, all they can do is to ridicule the suggestion that they are
merely embroidering theology.
8. The process of secularisation of Christianity is complex, rich and
varied. In each of the domains I have researched, the form of
secularisation of theology has been different. The routes travelled
have been varied: but the results have been the same. But this should
not transform my suggestion into a mantra. We need to plot out the
rich and varied contours of the process of secularising of
Christianity. When we do so, we will truly be initiating a revolution
in human thinking: at last, one can begin to speak in terms of the
*sciences* of the social. Until such stage, all we have are bad
Christian theologies *masquerading* as `social sciences'.
9. I sincerely hope that this post does not sidetrack the discussion.
In my next, and for the time being the last post on these matters, I
will take up the issue of what we should be doing. I want to thank you
all for reading these long posts with patience, taking the troubl e to
reply to them both publicly and privately.
Thus far we have seen that the western representations of India do not
so much express the perfidious intentions (or subconscious desires) of
the writers as much as the secularised Christian theology that guides
research. If this is true, there arise other questions that beg
clarification: what, then, could we say about the *Indian* writings in
Indology, sociology, etc? Are the Indian writers too not influenced,
whether directly or indirectly, by the very same `theories' that
incorporate the secularised Christian theology? If they are, surely,
there will be but a thin dividing line between the Indian
representations of India and the western ones. If they are not, how
could *they* be impervious to and unaffected by secularised Christian
theories, while their western colleagues are? Despite the *enormous*
importance of this theme, I shall leave it aside for now: as indicated
in my previous post, other occasions are going to present themselves
where such reflections will be in their place.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
interests of this thread, I will not be touching upon (or answering)
several issues raised either in my earlier posts, or by the readers.
*I promise, however, to return to them at the appropriate time*. I had
begun my earlier mail with the intention of tackling three points with
respect to the picture that Rajiv sketches: (a) how *not to* analyse;
(b) how to analyse; © what should we be doing? To briefly
recapitulate what I have so far done. Regarding (a), I suggested that
what Wendy and her children do should not be seen purely as an
orientalist, or a Eurocentric or a racist exercise. In my previous
post, regarding (b) I suggested that there is a deeper process at work
here, which I called `secularisation' of Christian theology. In this
post, I will complete this part of the argument by trying to
(partially) answer one question: why is this process not `visible' to
the Western intellectuals? In my next post, which I hope to compose
before the weekend, I will focus on ©, i.e. what should we be doing?
In a way, the answer can be provided in a single sentence: the
research questions and the research framework of many-a-social science
were set up *explicitly * by Christian theologians using the resources
of Christian theology. (I am using `theology' as a general term here.)
Both the questions and answers have retained their intelligibility,
even though the `explicit' theology has faded *into the background*. A
theological question does not cease to be theological just because the
one who answers it does not know much about theology. The very fact
that such questions *make sense at all* (and do not appear
nonsensical) is the *proof* of the fact that the questioner remains
within the ambit of a religious framework. (If you have no clue about
Physics, the question `when does some stellar object become a quasar?'
will not make much sense. To answer it, if you can answer it at all,
you need to draw upon the resources of theories in Physics.) However,
this single sentence answer fails to capture the complexity and
diversity of the process. Therefore, let me just *illustrate* what
this process really means, or has meant. (I will be taking random
examples, and of different *kinds* just to *indicate* the depth of the
process. If one intends doing more than this, one will have to write
umpteen books!)
1. Consider, to begin with, the very notion `the west' or `the western
culture'. During the first 800 years (after the year 300 C.E. -
`Common Era', which replaces AD that meant the year of the Lord, Anno
Domini), it was `Eastern Christianity' (i.e. the Christianity of the
Byzantine Empire with its centre in Constantinople) that dominated the
Christian communities. The Church in Rome was merely one of the
churches within Christianity. The `evangelization' of Europe really
begins in earnest after 900 C.E. This was a process launched by the
Church in Rome, and it occurred in areas to `the west' of Rome. For
this reason, this Christianity came to be called `Western
Christianity' and the emergence of this Christendom to the west of
Rome is the emergence of `the West'.
2. Consider these two famous research questions about the `transition'
in history (of both the `leftist' and the `rightist' variety): when
and how did transition from `slavery' to `feudalism' occur in Europe?
This issue was discussed by theologians and theological historians for
a long time in the following form: how did Christianity put an end to
the Pagan Rome? The historians discussed precisely this issue, and in
this form, till the end of the eighteenth century as well. The
division they made between `epochs' (a word coined by a French
Christian Priest called Bossuet during the 18th century) was the one
between pre-Christian (pagan) Rome and the post-Christian Rome. The
very same issue, with the *very same* division has now become a
`scient ific' question in the guise of: how did feudalism put paid to
slavery? The same can be said about another transition question that
bothers Marxist historians: how did feudalism (an `epoch' of social
production) give way to Capitalism in `the West'? Do you know what
this question is a complex translation of? `Why did the Protestant
reformation against the Catholic Church gain foothold?'
3. Consider the emergence of the Legal System in the western culture.
Its origin does not lie in the Roman Law but in the Church. The
theologians of the Roman Catholic Church *turned* to the Roman jurists
in their attempts to build a legal structure for the Church. (This is
called the famous `Gregorian reformation' of the Catholic Church.)
Thus a complex system of laws and *their justifications* (including
terms that are fundamental to the modern jurisprudence) arose, called
`The Canon Law'. The `Civil Law' (using this as a general term) was
built by *the theologians* by modelling it after the Canon Law. Till
the 18th century, `the faculty of law' was a part of the `faculty of
theology' in the western universities and taught *only by
theologians.* To this day, in many universities in Europe this
theological heritage is still maintained in the way the law faculties
are called: `Rechtenfaculteit' (`Rechten' is the plural of `Das
Recht'), referring to the two laws - the canon law and civil law.
4. Consider too, for example, one of the notions fundamental to Modern
Jurisprudence: `will'. There have been umpteen discussions about this
notion in Philosophy, Law, Psychology, etc. Clearly, or so we think,
human beings have a will and exercise it as well. What is the origin
of this picture of human beings? Till 300 B.C.E. this notion was
`absent' in what we call the western culture today. Neither the Greek
thinkers (like Plato or Aristotle), nor the Roman jurists (who wrote
their law digests) had such a notion or such a picture of human
beings. The first person to struggle with this notion and write tracts
about it was Saint Augustine, one of the most influential Fathers of
the Christian Church. Why did the Christians find this notion
important? Because, they think, the universe exemplifies the Will of
God and human beings should subordinate themselves to this Will. That
is to say, the human will must subordinate itself to the divine will.
What is human `will' then? What does this subordination consist of?
These and many similar questions arose *within* the ambit of Christian
theology, presupposing a Christian picture of Man. (A picture that was
neither Greek nor Roman, and is definitely not Indian.) Yet, how many
of us do not practice Law, read and write about human will and even
assume *as an empirical fact* that it is in the nature of being human
that we have will? (This is no *fact*, but a Christian theological
picture of man.)
5. Take, as another kind of an example, the issue of `freedom'. This
issue is a central one in Philosophy, in moral theories, in political
theories (about Stat e and society), in legal theories, and
psychological theories, etc. If you were to blandly state this issue
in a single sentence: it is a good thing that people are `free' and
that every one `ought' to be `free'. In ethical theories, for
instance, a moral action is an action of choice, made freely without
coercion. In fact, in the absence of `freedom' morality is not
possible. Let me just draw a contrast between this way of thinking
(which appears to be true on the basis of `universal consent') and our
ideas about `karma' and `rebirth'. (You need not assume the `truth' of
*punarjanma* in order to follow my point.) If the fruits of one's
action do not track (very strictly) the agent across several lives,
the idea of both `Karma' and `rebirth' become senseless. Somehow or
the other, these notions are parts of our (i.e. Indian) understanding
of morality. That means to say, if there was no binding and strict
*determinism*, ethics is impossible. Here, then, the contrast:
according to the western culture , moral action is impossible if it is
not `free'; according to us, without strict determinism, moral action
is impossible. Yet, how many of us do not act as though `freedom' is a
`self-explanatory' concept? Do you know what the origins (it has
multiple theological loci) of this problem are? God created Man and
gave him the `freedom' to choose between God and the Devil. (In
secularised terms, between `good' and `evil'.) The possibility of
`salvation' (i.e. of being `saved' from the clutches of the Devil)
depended on this `free choice'. Therefore, theological issues arose:
What then does `human freedom' mean? Why did God give `freedom' to
man? Are we `condemned' to be `free'? etc. etc. Our *svatantra* does
not mean `freedom' as its contrast term *paratantra* indicates. Our
`gods' are *sarva tantra svatantara*, i.e. beings for whom all
*tantras* are their `own' (sva). What exactly are we doing then, when
we discuss about a `free society', `freedom' of individuals, etc, etc?
6. Instead of carrying on in this vein let me round off in a different
way. Fundamental to Christianity is its belief that there `ought' to
be scriptural sanction for actions in the world. In other words, this
religion makes one seek scriptural foundations for one's actions
(whether for `sacred' ones like `worshipping' or to `secular' ones
like the attitude one should take regarding `strangers' ). The
scripture is one kind of `revelation' of God's will; the Nature also
reveals God's Will. One studies both in order to find out what God
Wills so that one may become a part of God's purposes (for human kind)
on earth. The Church, as a social organism, confronted many social and
political problems during its history. Whether it was a revolt of the
peasants, or a fight with the monarchs about the nature of political
authority, these phenomena were conceptualised as problems within
theology. That is to say, both the way the Church formulated the
problem and its responses were founded on the scriptures (and the
writings of t he church fathers). The problem of state and society,
the limits of political power, etc. were actual issues that the Church
confronted. The way it formulated these issues and the kind of answers
it sought, etc. were theological in nature. These very same questions
and answers (and the underlying framework) have been taken over by the
so-called social sciences. So, when they further go on along this
track, all they are doing is further embroider Christian theology. No
matter what they *think* they are doing, they *are not doing science*.
Even when they speak of things that become totally *nonsensical*, if
and when *explicit theology* is left out, they continue to talk as
though it makes sense.
For an example of this sort, take the notion of `polytheism' that
anthropology of religion, practitioners of `religious studies',
sociologists, etc. use. This notion is *contradictio in teminis*, that
is to say, it is internally contradictory. `Polytheism' refers to a
doctrine that countenances multip le `gods'. What does it mean to
speak of multiple `gods'? It is to say that there is more than one
`God'. (There must be at least two). However, who or what is `God'
that there may be more than one? If, in order to answer this question,
one refers to the meaning of this word, unsurprisingly it turns out,
the dictionary meaning is also the meaning of Christian religion.
Amongst other things, `God' is the creator of the universe. If this is
what God means, there cannot be more than one `God'. (How can one make
sense of the statement that there are multiple `creators', when `God'
refers to that being which created the Universe?) How, then, can one
speak of `polytheism'? Only if one *assumes* that there is one `God'
and some several other creatures who are *other* than this `God' and
yet claim the status of `godhood'. The claim of such creatures *must*
be false: because the very definition of `God' attributes this status
to only one entity. Or, there must be one `true' God, and many `false'
gods, who a re different from and other than the True One. This is
precisely what Christian theology says: there is but one `true' God,
and there are many `false' gods (the Devil and his minions). A
`Polytheist', then, worships these multiple `gods' (and not the True
One). That is to say, a polytheist is a `heathen' who worships the
devil. This is what Christianity said of the Roman religions, the
Greek religions, the Indian `religions', etc. How is it possible that
`scientific' studies take over the word `polytheism' and blithely use
it without *recognising* that it is senseless to do so without
assuming the *truth* of Christian theology?
7. What I am saying, in other words, is that the western intellectuals
are blind to secularised theology, because that is all they know. This
is their tool, and they have no other. Only when we develop
*alternate* manners of theorising about Man and Society will they too
be able to see the theological nature of their thinking. Until such
stage, all they can do is to ridicule the suggestion that they are
merely embroidering theology.
8. The process of secularisation of Christianity is complex, rich and
varied. In each of the domains I have researched, the form of
secularisation of theology has been different. The routes travelled
have been varied: but the results have been the same. But this should
not transform my suggestion into a mantra. We need to plot out the
rich and varied contours of the process of secularising of
Christianity. When we do so, we will truly be initiating a revolution
in human thinking: at last, one can begin to speak in terms of the
*sciences* of the social. Until such stage, all we have are bad
Christian theologies *masquerading* as `social sciences'.
9. I sincerely hope that this post does not sidetrack the discussion.
In my next, and for the time being the last post on these matters, I
will take up the issue of what we should be doing. I want to thank you
all for reading these long posts with patience, taking the troubl e to
reply to them both publicly and privately.
Thus far we have seen that the western representations of India do not
so much express the perfidious intentions (or subconscious desires) of
the writers as much as the secularised Christian theology that guides
research. If this is true, there arise other questions that beg
clarification: what, then, could we say about the *Indian* writings in
Indology, sociology, etc? Are the Indian writers too not influenced,
whether directly or indirectly, by the very same `theories' that
incorporate the secularised Christian theology? If they are, surely,
there will be but a thin dividing line between the Indian
representations of India and the western ones. If they are not, how
could *they* be impervious to and unaffected by secularised Christian
theories, while their western colleagues are? Despite the *enormous*
importance of this theme, I shall leave it aside for now: as indicated
in my previous post, other occasions are going to present themselves
where such reflections will be in their place.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->