10-26-2010

So, Joshua Alston, I’d argue that religion on television looks to live long and prosper on TV. Broadcast and cable channels offer a rich array of shows asking religious questions, exploring religious themes, and providing religious alternatives to secular norms. Several, obliquely commenting on consumerist culture, even mount a subversive charge. This is the more surprising since television, like newspapers, is all about advertising wrapped up as infotainment. It’s not supposed to challenge basic societal assumptions that keep us in a constant state of wanting and needing to buy more. But even as the economic downturn makes consumerism less practical, few political or religious leaders are challenging the notion that spending leads to happiness. How ironic that television is, in some instances, addressing the very spiritual and ethical issues on which our religious and political institutions appear to be taking a pass.

Winston, Diane. "Give Me that Small Screen Religion." Religious Dispatches. 27 Jul. 2009.

C: In this passage, Winston argues that religious work and religion are very different--although these are not her direct words. What she states is that without being explicitly religious, television "[explores] religious themes," and goes so far as to be subversive against the consumerist culture that funds it. Culturally, Winston argues that religion on television, though subtle, is really taking on the roles and battles of more classical notions of religion.

10-24-2010 [a.k.a--the first day I saw "monstrous vagina" in writing]

"The monster, in her argument, is the emblem, not of "the mother," but of that really scary figure in the world made by what she calls "phallic materialism": the lesbian. The lesbian/monster is all that is "unassimilable, awesome, dangerous, outrageous, different"--in short, all that is unfuckable, all that remains chaotic beyond the ordering, taming, controlling power of what she calls the "cock" (ibid.). The lesbian/monster, the fusion of the maiden, beast, and nature, according to Harris, represents the greatest threat to patriarchal men's social problems."

Caputi, Jane. Goddesses and Monsters.

In this article, Caputi refers toBertha Harris' claim that the gynecological monster we often encounter in science fiction not only represents the power and fear of the female sex, but homosexual sexuality as well. Thus, cultural media not only seeks to create hegemonic androcentricity, but hegemonic heterosexuality as well; that the strong female is threatening to the male-order of the world, but lesbianism separates itself entirely from androcentrism, as it is both independent in gender and sexuality.

10-21-2010

"There is a deep vein of androcentrism and phallocentrism in Christian ideologies where a male human-divine figure (Jesus), acting on the wishes of a male creator God, offers hope and promise of a better world, along with truth, wisdom, and salvation for both women and men."

Nye, Malory. "Religion: The Basics." New York: Routledge. 2008.

In this passage, Nye argues that Christianity is inherently androcentric, in that it hinges upon both a male creator and male prophet/salvation/avatar figure. He argues that ultimately this lack of a female presence contributes to the oppression of Christian women, as men are always in hierarchical positions of power, while women are subservient. Even in Catholicism, he argues, women are without a realistic female model of Mary, as she is a virgin and represents an untouchable level of chastity.

However, I wonder if this is accurate--after all, Christ was a virgin for life, unlike Mary, who did bear children later. In fact, Christ is only man in the sense of sex--he really carries out no male gender-roles, and he has no sexuality. In fact, he broke many gender-rules. This is what makes him divine--it is only his flesh and phallus that makes him a man. So, in a sense, Christ was almost the first gender-bender, and though we cannot deny that the Church has placed women into a domestic role, we must also recognize that the androcentrism we see in the New Testament is really caused by the momentum of its presence in the Old.

"Baseball is not a religion," said Lisle Dalton, a professor of religious studies at Hartwick College in Oneonta, N.Y., about 30 miles from Cooperstown. "But if you look at the way people put their emotion and energy, their intellectual ability, into sports, they start to look a lot like people who used to put all that into religion in an earlier era."

C: I've been waiting a really, REALLY long time for someone to write something like this. Basically, Dalton argues that baseball is infused with the same energy of a religion, but it is not--likely, though unexplained by the author, due to the fact that baseball lacks large components key to most definitions of religion: sacred texts, almost otherworldly transcendence, etc. Many of the authors we've read thus far have been seeming to be mistaking simile for metaphors: baseball is like a religion vs. baseball is a religion. Dalton can admit that baseball has religious qualities--totemic connections to the sacred, as Durkheim would argue--but she keeps a certain distance.

A part of me wonders if faith must be integrated into a definition of religion, or belief--something that cannot be proven, but only seemingly felt or experienced by the practitioner.

10-18-2010

Second, baseball supports a sense of uniformity, a sense of belonging to a vast, extended American family that attends the same church. As journalist Thomas Boswall reports in his detailed discussion of the church of baseball, his mother was devoted to baseball because "it made her feel like she was in church." Like her church...baseball provided his mother with "a place where she could--by sharing a fabric of beliefs, symbols, and mutual agreements with those around her--feel calm and whole."

Chidester, David. "Authentic Fakes." Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

In this passage, Chidester is discussing baseball's religious like qualities, and in particular to this passage, baseball acting as a community. In particular, it seems like Boswall--quoted here--is channelling Durkheim, as for him the "sharing a fabric of beliefs" is central to baseball as a religion. Thus, one's baseball team, colors, mascot, etc. becomes the "totem," uniting a stadium full of people in one unified belief.

However, Chidester argues this totem is national, if not international--that baseball itself is the totem. Recalling my own experience with sporting events, and watching people supporting different times brawl because, well, they were one different teams, I believe that the totem of baseball is on a much smaller scale--it is to the individual team, and not the sport as a whole. Or, perhaps the religion is baseball, and the team is the denomination, so to speak.

Also, do other countries have this relationship with, say, cricket? Rugby?

10-10-10

"If we ask why animals and plants should be the most common totems, that too is clear. The clan does not want as its symbol something distant and vague; it needs an object that is specific, concrete, and near at hand, something closely tied to its daily experience.

Pals, Daniel L. Eight Theories of Religion. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

C: In this passage, Pals discusses Durkheim's argument about totems, and in particular the earthiness of their symbology. The passage argues that the symbol chosen for totems is so terrestrial as a means of avoiding the vague of the beyond; as it is the symbol of their tribe, it must be something real, something tangible they can share. This likely strengthens their covenant with the object, as it reflects a reality they understand.

However, I wonder why the Abrahamic religions cast aside this earthiness, directly forbidding the embodiment of the spiritual in the physical. At most, the Jews had their Ark and the Muslims the black-rock--yet both of these embody the higher, more ethereal power of God. Perhaps this furthers the importance of their god's omnipotence, but I wonder how this helps their culture stay unified socially.

"In the new context of the costly victory of the North, the national flag acquired a special status, even a presence as the effulgent symbol of national unity."

Morgan, David. The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. Berkley: University of California Press, 2005.

Though an admittedly short passage, this single sentence spoke to me more than most others I read. In it, Morgan argues that the American flag took on its greatest meaning following the civil war, and that its value was related to this cost. This is reminiscent of Chidester's belief that, for religious work to occur, there must be a degree of sacrifice; that one must suffer or die for the greater, and that in doing so is venerated. Perhaps the flag takes on a symbol similar to a cross to those who are patriotic: it becomes a symbol of many soldiers' sacrifices, and the freedom that sacrifice offers.

Oct 5. 2010

"For Packard, matters came down to the authority to be instilled in students as the principal require to making good citizens of the republic. He elaborated the implications of authority and firmly charged the public school as the state's instrument fro achieving the benefits to be had by inculcating submission to authority. "To this end," he reasoned, "[students] should assuredly be taught that supreme authority is in the Creator and Governor of the world. and that earthly potentates are but his vicegerents and subject to his law."

Morgan, David. The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. Berkley: University of California Press, 2005.

In this passage, Morgan is referring to Packard's belief of necessitating religious education in school; this passage occurs as one example of many showing how Protestantism became a national religion unofficially, and likewise tried to influence the republic. Thus, as we see in this passage, there is a blending between the nation and religion; that religion does not exist solely for itself, but for the good of the republic, and vise versa.

Interestingly, this recalls the Pledge of Allegiance from my memory, and how it is almost an echo of Packard. True, we have removed most religious connotations from it (minus the Under God), but there is still the call for total allegiance to the state. I think this is a great exercise in showing Marxist hegemonic powers.

8-3-2010

"Bringing their Christian values into the workplace, they sought to serve others selflessly and cheerfully. Moreover, as many were already familiar with the religious concept of male headship, they had no problem taking orders from a male manager who might be new to the company or many years their junior. (Managers, for most of Wal-Mart’s history, were not just male, they were white males.)"

Winstson, Diane. "To Serve God and Wal-Mart." Religious Dispatches. 21 Jun. 2009. 3 Oct. 2010.

In this passage, Winston argues that Wal-Marts succeeded by incorporating Christian values into their design; relying upon and perpetuating former inequalities to make it seems appealing and similar to the system of a church. Winston deems this unfair, as it makes white males superiors over women and other races--much like the church, she feels.

I see her similarities, but I feel like she's missing a very, very important detail: at the time of Wal-Mart's inception, ALL businesses were operated like that. Men and women operated separate spheres; different races, though technically equals, likewise did different and often voluntarily segregated work. WalMart very well may have perpetuated this phenomena, but it did not start it nor can be blamed for it. Businesses rarely makes fads and patterns--it is difficult to shape an entire market, but it is simple to observe a preexisting market and sell to it. Wal-Mart simply is a reflection of the society surrounding it.