History

Encounter Magazine uploaded by World of Good via Flickr

History is the study of past (and arguably present) ideas, objects, people and events. Scholars usually credit the Greek Heroditus (c. 484 BCE – c. 425 BCE) as the founder of historical writing.

History often involves a particular narrative style that categorizes and describes according to certain time periods and geographical limits. For instance, Lord Kenneth Clark‘s groundbreaking Civilization series for BBC TV pretty much ignored the achievements of ancient China and several other cultures. This is because history must be selective.

Clark was well aware of these shortcomings and, in his view, overcame them by insisting that the series be entitled: Civilization: A Personal View.

More recently, the presentation of history has been popularized by time-charts, point form outlines, multimedia and other innovative techniques which have expanded our definition of the “narrative.”

Feminists often say that history is biased by patriarchy. It’s written mostly by men about men or by men interpreting women’s experiences from a male perspective. Feminists also suggest that female writers of history often adopt a stereotypical male attitude (i.e. sexist).

One strategy that feminists have used to further their agenda is to call history “herstory.” This is an effective contemporary word play, but has been criticized for ignoring the etymology of the word history. The Greek word historia translates to “inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation.”¹

Michel Foucault via Wikipedia (follow link for fair use rationale)

The French postodern thinker Michel Foucault argues that history is about the interpretation of not only discovered but often selected forms of knowledge. For Foucault, past events and items are often selected and interpreted to make them seem significant for the benefit of those with social power, while other events and items that would challenge their power are routinely ignored.

According to this view, history is a kind of collective myth. Or more correctly, it’s an ongoing struggle for legitimacy among several competing discourses (a popular term among postmoderns) of power. So in a nutshell, the cleverest myth-makers benefit most.

On the other hand, the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung says that myth is history because it depicts mankind’s collective psychological past.

Two important points to consider with regard to the postmodern view are:

1. Are the best mythmakers conscious of being such, or do they, perhaps, simply create and perpetuate relative “truths” out of ignorance.
2. Not entirely unlike Karl Marx‘s  notion of false consciousness, postmoderns believe that prevailing social myths spread throughout a culture so that even those who don’t benefit will believe in and espouse those social “fictions,” as Foucault once put it. And some may believe in a culturally relative discourse which is actually harmful to them.

A good example for #2 would be gays and lesbians before the American Psychiatric Association voted in 1974 that homosexuality wasn’t a mental disorder.² Prior to that time, many gays and lesbians would no doubt have questioned why they were apparently “wrong,” blindly believing in the psychiatric biases of the day.

Related Posts » Archaeology, Counter-discourse, Dialectical Materialism, Forces of Production, Hegel (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich), Intercession, Jewish Mysticism, Joachim of Fiore, Language, Lévi-Strauss (Claude),  Moses and Monotheism, Myth, Nietzsche (Friedrich), Occam’s razor, Relations of Production, Scholarship, Sign

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History

² Chuck Stewart, Homosexuality and the law: a dictionary, p. 41.

Related articles

• Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• Histories and freedom of the present: Foucault and Skinner (2011) (foucaultnews.wordpress.com)
• Poststructuralist/Postmodernist History: LOL, What? (tinfoilhatman45.wordpress.com)
• Discourse Analysis (ischool.utexas.edu)
• Postmodern Theology – Who’s got the power? (epages.wordpress.com)
• why foucault is frustrating (orgtheory.wordpress.com)
• Key thinkers – Michel Foucault. Interview with Stephen Shapiro (2011) (foucaultnews.wordpress.com)
• The Product of Text and ‘Other’ Statements: Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault (2011) (foucaultnews.wordpress.com)
• Foucault & the History of the Human Sciences (ahp.apps01.yorku.ca)

Hegemony

Philip II of King of Macedon, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek via Wikipedia

Hegemony is a political science term with ancient roots.

In the Greco–Roman world of 5th century European Classical antiquity, the city-state of Sparta was the hegemon of the Peloponnesian League (6th – 4th centuries BC); King Philip II of Macedon was the hegemon of the League of Corinth, in 337 BC, (a kingship he willed to his son, Alexander the Great).¹

In the 19th century historians used the term to describe one nation’s power over another, and by implication, the whole notion of Imperialism.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891 – 1937) was the first to use hegemony to describe the idea of a ruling class socially and economically dominating others within a given society.

The contemporary sociological meaning of the term hegemony points to an entire system of cultural values and practices existing within interconnected and (apparently) legitimate social institutions (e.g. markets, legal system, government, education, religion and media) which the powerful allegedly use to oppress the powerless.

Image by AFSC Photos via Flickr

Along these lines, the French social thinker Bourdieu, Pierre (1930-2002) introduced the idea of “cultural capital” to try to explain the complex relations contributing to societal inequity, discrimination and domination.

For all its flaws, the recent “Occupy movement” (where protestors are sweeping the globe in protest of being “have-nots” apparently marginalized by a few wealthy “haves”)² raises the question of institutional legitimacy, which just a few decades ago, was certainly not a mainstream issue and hardly questioned by most people in the G8.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

Related Posts » Discourse, Foucault (Michel)

Related articles

• US Hegemony and Global Power Relations: Now What? (atthefootnote.com)
• Can America function without a dominant culture? (demolishingdisparity.wordpress.com)
• Behold the Awesome Power of Demographic Hegemony (chariotofreaction.blogspot.com)
• Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Alien Tort Statute Claim (volokh.com)
• Gramsci and Foucault: A Reassessment. Call for chapters (2011) (foucaultnews.wordpress.com)
• The Meanings of Space (scienceray.com)
• The Salad Days: Hegemony Rome (rockpapershotgun.com)
• What was the result of Peloponnesian war for Athens and Greece (wiki.answers.com)
• Why I don’t write (chariotofreaction.blogspot.com)
• WHY DO JOURNALISTS love Twitter and hate blogging? “Blogging was a direct attack on MSM hegemony at… (pajamasmedia.com)

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

G.W.F. Hegel portrait by Jakob Schlesinger 1831 via Wikipedia

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a German philosopher often associated with idealism.

Hegel is arguably misunderstood by many, especially by those who suggest that he advances an elaborate metaphysical system without providing any real empirical support for it.

This kind of critique of Hegel’s “grand theory” isn’t necessarily fair. If one takes the time to go to his actual works, we find that Hegel takes great pains to support his theories with actual historical examples.

His influential theory of history, for example, could be taken as a scientific attempt to develop theory from observation. Here Hegel sees pure Spirit manifesting itself within a teleological human history.

Any given moment in history is a necessary but imperfect manifestation of Infinite Spirit. Historical events observed in the material world are progressively transformed through an ongoing dynamic known as the dialectic.

Although Hegel never used the words “thesis,” “antithesis” and “synthesis” to describe his own theory, they’re often used by academics and writers when trying to explain his idea of dialectical becoming. This kind of usage has been roundly criticized. Walter Kaufman, for example, argues that Hegel’s system is far more complicated than a simple triad moving towards perfection.¹

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis.²

Because the city of Jena was occupied by French troops under Napoleon in 1806, G.W.F. Hegel was forced to leave the city. But he did witness Napoleon's entry into the city and, as an admirer of the French Revolution, was delighted to witness first-hand this "world spirit on horseback" passing by. Image from Harper's Magazine, 1895 via Wikipedia

Hegel himself spoke of “overcoming” (Aufhebung) the negative in the march of human history. This overcoming of resistance to the good has also been translated as “sublation,” both terms trying to express the idea that the essential, positive core of something is retained while its limiting factors are left behind.³

While critical of generalizing triadic thinking to all of Hegel’s thought, Kaufman does, however, concede that Hegel shows a marked tendency toward it.⁴

So a Christian theological application of the Hegelian dialectic could go as follows: Jesus Christ enters the world as the perfect Son but meets opposition from less than perfect people living during the Roman occupation of Israel under the Emperor Tiberius.

The “thesis” of the perfect, human Christ is physically destroyed by the “antithesis” of the evil actions of the people around him. But Christ’s bodily resurrection and ascension signifies an overcoming, and the conflict between thesis and antithesis is surpassed.

This example is not too far fetched. Hegel was a baptized Christian and has been roundly critiqued as a theologian posing as a philosopher, a critique that arguably exhibits the narrow and reductive thinking of some but certainly not all philosophers.

Hegel’s thoughts on the person of Jesus Christ stood out from the theologies of the Enlightenment. In his posthumous book, The Christian Religion: Lectures on Philosophy of Religion Part 3, he espouses that, “God is not an abstraction but a concrete God…God, considered in terms of his eternal Idea, has to generate the Son, has to distinguish himself from himself; he is the process of differentiating, namely, love and Spirit”. This means that Jesus as the Son of God is posited by God over against himself as other. Hegel sees both a relational unity and a metaphysical unity between Jesus and God the Father. To Hegel, Jesus is both divine and Human. Hegel further attests that God (as Jesus) not only died, but “…rather, a reversal takes place: God, that is to say, maintains himself in the process, and the latter is only the death of death. God rises again to life, and thus things are reversed.” Hegel therefore maintains not only the deity of Jesus, but the resurrection as a reality.⁵

Hegel lecturing, sketch by Franz Kugler, ca. 1830 via Wikipedia

Many commentators today say that the triadic dynamic in Hegel’s work had a profound influence on Karl Marx, who adapted it to his own, entirely materialistic theory of history.

Also, Hegel’s dialectic arguably had an indirect effect on Michel Foucault. For Foucault, the idea of dialectical tension could be improved upon by explaining history through a more open-ended, discontinuous outlook, one characterized by struggle.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis#cite_note-0

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

³ “Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

⁴ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis,_antithesis,_synthesis#cite_note-0

⁵ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

Related Posts » Counter-discourse, Panentheism, Pantheism

Related articles

• The Same Tolstoy and Hegel (slog.thestranger.com)
• More on Hegel (nplusonemag.com)
• Nature in Whitehead, Hegel, and Schelling (footnotes2plato.com)
• After Hegel: An Interview with Robert Pippin (readysteadybook.com)
• Types of Explanation in Whitehead and Hegel (footnotes2plato.com)
• Zizek’s Hegel in The Parallax View (teresawinter.wordpress.com)
• talking hegel (3quarksdaily.com)
• Notes on the Dialectic of Lordship and Bondage in Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (teresawinter.wordpress.com)
• The End of American Conservatism (rogueoperator.wordpress.com)
• On Zizek and the London Riots (nplusonemag.com)

Ideology

A segment of a social network via Wikipedia

The word ideology is fairly well known today but not too long ago its mention, except among sociologists and historians, would probably have been met with a blank stare.

Ideology refers to a body of social, economic or political ideas and beliefs informing a person, a group or a nation. At least, this is the standard dictionary view. Social thinkers – who tend to question dictionary definitions – argue that ideology is an often deceptive set of beliefs willingly or possibly unwittingly advanced by those with the social power to do so.

According to Karl Marx, Roland Barthes and, to some extent, Michel Foucault, the unwitting masses tend to reproduce ideologies until the point where they become aware of the shallow and deceptive character of a given ideology.

At this time the so-called ordinary person, and not just the so-called intellectuals, may try to change or even revolutionize ideologies.

It’s been argued that all religions contain an ideological component. And this may be true. But to reduce the spiritual aspect of religious experience to mere ideology is probably a mistake or, at least, incomplete.

Academic treatments of the idea of ideology are often complicated and extensive. And, one could say, that although they may appear radical and progressive to naive young students, in reality the academic treatment of ideology is still, for the most part “safe,” and thus ironically reproduces the very social structures and attendant issues which are outlined in class (along with those issues that are overlooked).

That’s a cynical view, of course. And like any opinion, it’s biased and incomplete. Another view is that it’s better to talk about some things than entirely ignore or deny their existence. And social change need not be revolutionary but can, in fact, be gradual or subtle. So, university is not necessarily just “finishing school” but can help to spark young minds into positive action.

Another thing to consider about ideology – or, more properly, academic views about ideology – is that it need not be an evil or sinister process. Ideologies can be good or, at least, better than competing ones. This point is often overlooked by derisive professors who seem to be lopsidedly critical and unfairly trash the very system that gives them their bread and butter.

In the arts, Canadian musician Bruce Cockburn had this to say in the 1980′s song, “Call it Democracy.” I’m not sure what his stance would be today.

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament –
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called “developed” nations’
Idolatry of ideology.¹

¹ Full lyrics and subsequent author comments (up to 2005) here: http://cockburnproject.net/songs&music/atcid.html

Related Posts » Advertising, Corruption, Discourse, False Consciousness, Hegemony, Symbol

Related articles

• My Political Ideology (palakmathur.wordpress.com)
• The Tea Party continues to show its intellectual,ideological and moral bankruptcy (thekeyview.com)
• Modernizing and liberalizing the Communism – releasing socialist activists linked to communists. (eekaa.wordpress.com)
• How do we take control of the agenda from the GOP? (americablog.com)
• The Ideology of the London Riots (forbes.com)
• Ideological Inebriation on Capitol Hill (nader.org)
• The Willful Ignorance of Positive Thinking Ideology (scotteriology.wordpress.com)
• Ideologies 101 (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
• Yet the Left Wonders Why the President Spurns Them?: (brothersjuddblog.com)
• Ideology Serves No One (albw51.wordpress.com)

James, William

Portrait of William James and Josiah Royce via Wikipedia

William James (1842-1910) was an American pragmatist philosopher/psychologist and the brother of the famous novelist Henry James.

James suffered poor health and frequent bouts of psychological exhaustion but this did not adversely affect his work. His Principles of Psychology (1890) became a popular textbook for psychologists, influencing Carl G. Jung among others.

His collected lectures on religion, published as The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), remains a classic in religious studies.

James was raised in an affluent and literary Presbyterian family in New York City, later moving to various European cities, Boston and eventually Cambridge Massachusetts. Prominent guests frequented his New England residence, to include statesmen and intellectuals.

This diversity of blue chip characters and opinions likely influenced his outlook. Jung says that he was struck by James’ curiosity and fresh approach to psychology, calling him one of the few open-minded psychological researchers of his era.

James’ theory differentiates the personal and social dimensions of religion. He advocates a religious plurality to accommodate the specific needs of diverse individuals.

In describing direct, unmediated religious experience (i.e. mysticism), James, like Rudolf Otto, says the Godhead possesses a mysterious, non-discursive authority. His ‘Four Marks’ of mysticism have become standard fare in university religion courses.

James says these four marks of mysticism are

1. Ineffability: Mysticism must be experienced first-hand, it cannot be adequately described to others through language
2. Noetic Quality: The experience is accompanied with an increase in knowledge that cannot be obtained through discursive reasoning
3. Transciency: Mystical experiences do not last very long (nuns, monks, yogis and some religious persons would likely disagree on this point)
4. Passivity: While bodily exercises or meditation may prepare, facilitate or, perhaps, generate an experience of mysticism, the experience itself is overwhelming, rendering one a passive receptor

James also makes a distinction between “healthy-minded” – i.e. positive – approaches to religion and the morbidly pessimistic “sick soul.”

His comments about the value of saintliness reveal a materialistic bias, especially in his discussion of St. Teresa of Ávila. In keeping with this bias, James’ Principles of Psychology outlines a functionalist approach.

Related Posts » Active Imagination, Alien Possession Theory, Discourse, Functionalism, Hick (John), Holy, Mythic Dissociation, New Age, Religion, Teresa of Ávila, (St.), Wach (Joachim)

Related Articles

• On This Day In Psychology History – April 22 (psychology.about.com)
• Death Followed by Life (psychologytoday.com)
• Stob, “‘Terministic Screens,’ Social Constructionism, and the Language of Experience” (631rhetoric.wordpress.com)
• Those Fabulous James Boys (psychologytoday.com)
• Poppy Field (bethparkerart.wordpress.com)
• Research linking booze and cancer won’t put us off drinking, because alcohol gives us a religious experience (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Bibliography: History of Functionalism (ahp.apps01.yorku.ca)
• Wisdom (Week 2 – Day 1) (celestialpsychology.com)
• Sunday Devotional: Authentic Mystical Experience by Richard Rohr (zoecarnate.wordpress.com)
• Study of Vision Tackles a Philosophy Riddle (thehandiestone.typepad.com)

Language

Kerouac On the Road scroll by emdot via Flickr

In the academic world it’s often assumed that the acquisition of different languages makes for a better, more valuable scholar. While this often may be the case, it’s not always.

Pierre Bourdieu notes that language, itself, has become a worldwide commodity. And in keeping with Foucault’s idea of discourse, Bourdieu says certain languages have more clout than others.

For Bourdieu and other sociologists like Max Weber, social institutions – like universities – tend to legitimize themselves. Western universities, for example, are compelled to justify high tuition fees coupled with boring, run of the mill professors exhibiting mediocre analytical skills and a limited ability to think creatively.

As socially recognized and highly competitive organs of knowledge dissemination, universities strive to produce a certain quota of publications. Meanwhile, many scholars and the reading public tend to uncritically associate the knowledge of original languages with rational, coherent thought and scholarly legitimacy.

Wendy O’Flaherty, although an exceptional researcher and writer, in part falls into this legitimacy trap. In the Introduction to her translation of the Rig Veda O’Flaherty writes:

This is a book for people, not for scholars. Real scholars will read the Sanskrit; would-be scholars, or scholars from other fields, will fight their way through the translations of Geldner (German), Renou (French), Elizarenkova (Russian) and others; they will search the journals for articles on each verse, and on each word; they will pore over the dictionaries and concordances (Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, The Rig Veda, London: Penguin, 1981, p. 11).

And in footnote:

See appendix 3 for a bibliography of translations into European languages (Ibid).

While O’Flaherty lists noteworthy Asian commentators and Asian translators who render the Veda into European languages, interestingly enough, no mention is made of translations into contemporary Asian languages like Japanese, Korean or Mandarin.

She says the European translations are intended to encourage the “would-be scholar to make a better guess” than her own “educated guess on several problematic points” arrived at “by using the available scholarship” (Ibid., p. 12).

Does O’Flaherty contradict herself by elevating the ability of so-called “real scholars” while conceding that knowledge of an original language does not guarantee “correct” understanding?

If knowledge of original languages did guarantee correct understanding, the meanings of specific words and phrases in most ancient texts would not be continually debated and re-translated. By way of example, there’s no need to try to figure out what Sir Isaac Newton was trying to say with his three laws of motion, because we all get it. Ancient words and phrases, however, are continually being reinterpreted by self-proclaimed experts on the basis of new archeological findings, shifting academic approaches and societal changes.

With the exception of O’Flaherty and a handful of others, most translators go to great lengths to try to justify their particular rendering of problematic terms. They attempt to convince the reader that their ability to discern original meanings is as strong or stronger than all the other ‘specialists.’

And not only that. Many scholars push narrow-minded or far-fetched claims to make their translation of certain terms conform to their own point of view. In short, linguists and translators can disagree quite dramatically. These conflicted meanings arguably arise partly from incompetence, ignorance, ambition, and opinionated or wishful thinking.

Translation is clearly subject to human bias. Even with concerted and informed attempts to offer accurate translations, it’s doubtful that these biases may be eradicated. And even if translators could go through a time machine and be present when the ancient texts were actually written, the central obstacle to a precise and exact understanding of certain terms would persist: The translators themselves did not write the original text.

It seems safe to say that one can, in most instances, never fully understand another person’s mode of thinking and intent. To complicate things, consider contemporary English literature about which English-speaking scholars produce seemingly endless commentaries about the actual or “intended” meanings of certain English words and symbols. These intense debates occur within the very same language as that of the original texts.

Here, the student of religion may argue that religious texts differ from fiction because the former refer to fixed, unalterable truths. But this claim is complicated by the fact that the meaning of some religious terms change over time-such as angel and asura.

Moreover, the religious believer could say they have an advantage over regimented scholars because they possess higher forms of perception-that is, the alleged true meaning of a term is revealed or infused by God, even when reading that term in translation.

The scholar of religion cannot really prove or disprove such a claim. But scholars do point out that many apparently ‘revealed truths’ among believers often seem to contradict one another.

Meanwhile, several postmodern writers intentionally write texts with open-ended, ambiguous meanings. This creates, they say, a living dialogue between writer and reader instead of a dead monologue from writer to reader. The result, they seem to believe, is a ‘literary novel’ of higher value than say, ‘trashy pulp fiction.’ But arbitrary distinctions like this can become ingrained among literary circles, and are often loaded with unsavory, elitist connotations.

Another point to consider is that some believe that writers, themselves, may not be fully aware of their own intended meanings. And this is the underlying basis to a psychoanalytic approach to literature.

Clearly, scholars can and do produce insightful works without much knowledge of original languages. A good example would be John Kerr’s A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein (1993). Kerr openly admits to drawing upon the work of several translators. And perhaps this is a stronger method than merely relying on one’s own particular and possibly idiosyncratic translation of original texts.

Related Posts » Advertising, Anthropology, Aramaic, Burrows (William S.), Derrida (Jacques), Hebrew, Latin, Lévi-Strauss (Claude), Linguistics, McLuhan (Marshall), Mead (George Herbert), Nietzsche (Friedrich), Pali, Representation, Rosetta Stone, Ryle (Gilbert), Sanskrit, Saussure (Ferdinand de), Scholarship, Universalism, Wittgenstein (Ludwig), Zeno

Related Articles

• The Relevance of Sanskrit Language in The Modern World (socyberty.com)
• ‘Speak’ Foreign Languages with Google Translate (labnol.org)
• Computer program deciphers a dead language that mystified linguists [Mad Linguistics] (io9.com)
• Luxembourgish Language Course in Central London (prweb.com)
• Back to Babel (online.wsj.com)
• Once upon a time, there was a language textbook with a small, boxy declension table… (ask.metafilter.com)
• The Last Lingua Franca by Nicholas Ostler – review (guardian.co.uk)
• Israeli scholar takes ancient Talmud to the masses (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Useful Tips in Learning a Foreign Language (socyberty.com)
• Clownfish, Automatic Skype Chat Translations (ghacks.net)

Myth

Image via Wikipedia

The word myth is derived from the Greek mythos, meaning anything passed on orally.

Homer used mythos to signify stories and conversation based on fact instead of fiction. Later, Plato used mythos to refer to discourses containing shades of truth but which, for the most part, are fiction.

Among its contemporary meanings, myth often points back to a quasi-historical epoch or heroic character.

The term mythology may be used synonymously with myth or, more commonly, with a body of myths. ‘Mythology’ also involves a somewhat analytical (as in scholarly or philosophical) view of myths. A mythologist is someone who studies myths in this way, whereas a mythographer is more a compiler of myths.

Some mythologists trace historical conditions and archeological findings under the assumption that myths are just stories loosely based on historical events (as with the Hindu Ramayana).

In The Greek Myths Robert Graves says this about all myths—i.e. myth is something like a political cartoon.

Some rationalists contend that myth is an early protoscience that attempts to explain natural mysteries, not unlike contemporary science.

The functionalist theory sees myth as serving a positive social purpose. Emile Durkheim, for instance, argued that so-called primitive religion bonded community members and defined precise social classes and roles. The notion that social roles are defined and legitimized by mythology and sacred scripture seems to be partially supported by the Hindu caste system, by Greek and Nordic social stratification and by the Bible and the Koran.

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory views myth as a folk tale that reveals more about psychological than historical truths. Freud sees myth mostly in terms of wish-fulfillment, denial and sublimation.

Despite Robert Graves’ attack on C. G. Jung for being too metaphysical, Jung himself says myths are “psychological truths” that are historical because they reveal the attitudes of a group at a particular juncture in history. Interestingly, Jung admits to creating his own modern myth through his psychological theories. He also admits to using scientific language to convince otherwise skeptical readers as to the relevance of his ideas.

In a sense, then, Jung’s approach to myth-making could be seen as somewhat postmodern in that he knows full well he’s creating a social truth, if not a permanent truth. While some third-rate thinkers may see this as some kind of moral threat, it’s not that at all. Jung’s goal in myth-making is to create a sense of meaning and purpose appropriate to his times.

Joseph Campbell notes that myth, in combination with rites and ceremonies, serves a pedagogical function. Campbell says myth provides a thread of sensibility running through various stages of life, teaching us how to belong and contribute to society, from birth to childhood, adolescence, adulthood, middle age and eventually to the grave.

In the Tibetan Book of The Dead, the importance of myth extends beyond the grave.

The structuralist theory of Claude Levi-Strauss looks at myth as something arising out of pre-set, universal linguistic structures. For Levi-Strauss, meaning is not separate but explicit to the structure of myths, which apparently pose a series of binary oppositions (e.g. good-evil, male-female, hot-cold, helpful-harmful) that demonstrate how the human mind thinks.

Levi-Strauss’ views have been challenged by Sir Evans Pritchard who says not all mythic systems are constructed in simple binary oppositions. Other opponents say that meaning may exist on top of structure. The statement “the yellow laugh looked wet” for example, is grammatically correct but most would see it as meaningless.

The poststructuralist Michel Foucault sees practically all statements and related practices in terms of myth or ‘fictions.’ For Foucault, societal morals, scientific truths as well as economic, ideological and political imperatives are myths which, when invested with social power, exhibit tangible effects. Sometimes these very real effects of myth are pleasurable and other times not.

Related Posts » Barthes (Roland),  McLuhan (Marshal)

Related Articles

• Into the Mythic: A fresh look at some old ideas (earthpages.org)
• E2.0: Enabling Digital Realities, Embracing Myths (fastforwardblog.com)
• DVD Review: Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers (blogcritics.org)
• Review: A Short History Of Myth (runesoup.com)
• Vamsee Juluri: Writing Mythology in an Age of Reality Crisis (huffingtonpost.com)
• Mistletoe (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• DVD Review: Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth with Bill Moyers (writer.fitzhome.com)
• Joseph Campbell: The Power of Myth from Greyhawk Grognard (greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com)
• Beyond belief: why Egyptian art outlives its myths | Jonathan Jones (guardian.co.uk)

Mental Illness

1857 lithograph by Armand Gautier via Wikipedia

Some contemporary discourse about so-called mental illness arguably simplifies this complex physiological, psychological, sociological, spiritual and perhaps evolutionary issue.

Undoubtedly, individuals suffer who find themselves significantly different from the cultural norms in which they live. And sometimes this suffering escalates or develops into behavior patterns that their society deems deviant, in the negative sense, and not just different, in the non-judgmental sense.

In addition, the afflicted individuals, themselves, often see it this way. But several questions remain open to interpretation and debate:

• Why are these individuals different?
• Why do they suffer?
• What does it mean?

Spiritually based answers from various world traditions tend to focus on ideas of sin, taking another’s sins, intercession, impurity, spiritual attack (or ‘spiritual warfare’), obsession, possession, evil, ignorance, deception, curses, spiritual pollution, karma and karma transfer.

Sociological perspectives include factors such as cross-cultural norms, economic disparity, gender, race, violence, hypocrisy, corruption and the role of social power in defining so-called mental illness as an illness, per se.

Psychological studies tend to focus on a person’s genetic predisposition (nature) and his or her social conditioning (nurture).

Biological accounts emphasize factors like genetics, physiology, diet, environmental pollution and possible substance abuse.

The Catholic view tends to outline a combination of current scientific and traditionally understood spiritual beliefs. In fact, Catholics try to distinguish among redemptive suffering, avoidable suffering and suffering due to mental illness. Whether or not they’re always successful in getting it right here is a matter open to debate.

The Catholic catechism also defines certain lifestyle choices and their related behaviors as “grave disorders” and sometimes as “perversions,” which may include the concepts of sin, nature, nurture, as well as negative spiritual influences–that is, the invisible influence of Satan. Two good examples of this are homosexuality and masturbation, which for the Vatican are both unacceptable.

In actual practice, which arguably is not always the same as an official teaching, it seems that some priests and Catholic writers lean toward their spiritual tradition by emphasizing the idea of ‘spiritual warfare,’ while other Catholics emphasize a biogenetic or developmental aetiology for so-called mental illness.

Other leading figures combine several approaches, which seems most sensible.

More recently, the importance of the idea of mental injury in contrast to mental illness has arisen. The notion of ‘injury’ seems to connote a greater possibility for full recovery, while the sociologist Erving Goffman says that the tag ‘illness’ stigmatizes individuals. Moreover, Goffman says institutionalized treatments may involve not just a potential cure but, on the down side, a “destruction of life chances.”¹

Futurists and visionaries tend to focus on the interpretive aspect of the phenomenon of mental illness. If someone, for example, really does receive other people’s thoughts but grows up in a culture that doesn’t understand nor accept this ability, they might feel unhappy and perhaps develop of full-fledged mental illness.

But what if, the theory goes, in a thousand years time humanity has evolved to a point where mind-reading is a cultural norm? In this scenario, the person who doesn’t read minds might be seen as mentally ill. And 31C historians would possibly look back at some of today’s so-called mentally ill as tragic pioneers, treading along a thorny path strewn with cultural bias and ignorance.

In short, the idea of mental illness is probably best seen as a complex and ever-changing issue, one that involves nature, nurture, community, ideology and belief.

—

¹ Erving Goffman, Asylums, New York: Anchor Books, 1961, p. 344.

Search Think Free » Athleticism, Demons, DSM-IV-TR, Foucault (Michel), Illness, Laing (R. D.), Madness, Occam’s razor, Shaman, Suffering, Szasz (Thomas)

Related Articles

• How our genes set us up for mental illness. (psychologytoday.com)
• DJ Jaffe: People with Mental Illness Shunned by Alternatives 2010 Conference in Anaheim (huffingtonpost.com)
• You: Giving voice to coping with mental illness – Tidewater News (news.google.com)
• Mark Becker’s family to participate in mental illness walk (thegazette.com)
• Psychologically Unstable Toys – Mental Illness Stuffed Animals are Great for Young Freudians (GALLERY) (trendhunter.com)
• Bell announces $50M investment in mental health (ctv.ca)
• Explode the mental illness stigma (theglobeandmail.com)
• Book Review: My Schizophrenic Life: The Road to Recovery from Mental Illness by Sandra Yuen MacKay (seattlepi.com)
• Book Review: My Schizophrenic Life: The Road to Recovery from Mental Illness by Sandra Yuen MacKay (blogcritics.org)
• You: Stigma for Mental Illness High, Possibly Worsening – PsychCentral.com (news.google.com)

Add more, report errors or voice your opinion by posting a comment

Meme

Atheist Bus Campaign creator Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins at its launch in London by Zoe Margolis via Wikipedia

The idea of the “meme” was first introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene (1976).  Dawkins’ idea was adapted by Daniel Dennet and recently popularized by psychologist Susan Blackmore.

The meme is a hypothetical unit of imitation. Like the analogous term, gene, memes compete among themselves in an attempt to copy human behaviors, artifacts and ideas.

Replication need not be perfect but only an approximation of the original–just as this entry approximates ideas forwarded by Blackmore.

Theorists like Stephen J. Gould say the meme is a “meaningless metaphor” but Blackmore contends that no metaphor can be meaningless.

One shortcoming of meme theory is that it overlooks several possible dimensions within the process of replication. It doesn’t explain why some behaviors, artifacts and ideas are unsuccessful in replicating when placed alongside those that are successful. For instance, why do some pop music songs become hits and others duds?

Moreover, meme theory mentions a cultural element but, at the same time, tends to downplay the role of unequal degrees of social power, the taint of corruption and so on.

Meme theory also cannot account for C. G. Jung‘s observations regarding the independently arising mandala–or, for that matter, any recurring pattern that cannot be explained by imitation.

While Blackmore is a gifted popularizer, self-promoter and perhaps inspirational role model for some women and men, like so many contemporary psychologists her analysis seems unduly simplistic.

The index of Blackmore’s book, The Meme Machine (1999), for instance, doesn’t list Michel Foucault with regard to discourse nor C. G. Jung for archetype, two well-known figures whose ideas could significantly enhance her theory.

Related Articles

• Copy That: A Response (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Tweets: New Vehicles for Meme Replication (phaneron.rickmurphy.org)
• HumanistLife : Sue Blackmore changes her memes about the viral nature of religion (humanistlife.org.uk)
• The Third Replicator (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
• susan blackmore: the third replicator (toomanytribbles.blogspot.com)
• Susan Blackmore: Memes, temes and the ‘third replicator’ (sentientdevelopments.com)
• Blackmore: I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind (sentientdevelopments.com)
• You: People, Not Memes, Are the Medium! (neuroanthropology.net)
• Where Did That Meme Come From? (socialtimes.com)
• Why I no longer believe religion is a virus of the mind | Sue Blackmore (guardian.co.uk)

Add more, report errors or voice your opinion by posting a comment

The New Age

Search For Infinity: Christian Halderman

Some contend that the idea of the ‘New Age’ originated as a marketing category in the 1980s, with New Age style  ideas going back, of course, to the 70s and 60s.

Others note, more comprehensively, that the media also uses the term, as do many individuals and organizations. Whatever its origins, the ‘New Age’ refers to almost anything relating to contemporary spiritual discourse and practice.

New Age books, music, lectures, workshops, videos and websites deal with humanity’s development, usually with the goal of self-actualization and sometimes global transformation.

At the outset of the 20th-century, the American psychologist and philosopher William James outlined his The Varieties of Religious Experience several innovative spiritual trends remarkably similar to today’s concept of the New Age:

…for the sake of having a brief designation, I will give [it] the title of the ‘Mind-Cure movement.’ There are various sects of this ‘New Thought,’ to use another of the names by which it calls itself.¹

From the 1980s to around the new millennium religious fundamentalists, especially of the North American Christian variety, targeted the New Age as the workings of Satan. Important figures like C. G. Jung, Rudolf Steiner and Fritjof Capra were caricatured as Satanic hostiles to apparently ‘true’ fundamentalist versions of the Christian faith.

However, the emphasis of fundamentalist reactionary attacks has arguably shifted from perceived psychological and spiritual threats to scientific ones. Believers in evolution sans God are the new devils in the flesh to be countered and corrected by those single-minded Fundamentalists who believe they have a privileged interpretation of Christian scripture.

This shift is probably due to recent advances in mapping and sequencing genomes. The possibilities of this technology are staggering, and the new is always scary to those deeply entrenched and invested in longstanding cultural biases.

—

¹ William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, Penguin, 1985 [1902], p. 94.

Search Think Free » Akashic Records, Chakra, Channeling, Da Free John, Darwin (Charles Robert), Druids, Eno (Brian), Heart Sutra, Kali, Magnetizers, Maslow (Abraham), Medicine Wheel, Moses and Monotheism, Neo-Paganism, Pantheism, Peebles (Dr. James Martin), Platonism, Prime Directive, Reincarnation, Remote Viewing, Roberts (Jane), Rock and Roll, Spirit, Sufism, Third Eye, Transubstantiation

At Earthpages.org

• “The New Age and Remote Viewing“

Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion by leaving a comment