In this month’s Smithsonian Magazine ,
there are two articles about two countries experiencing burgeoning
economies, social transformations, and cultural revolutions in very
different parts of the world. The countries are Iran and Ireland.
I am an expert on neither, but I noticed in reading the articles some
broad parallels between these two countries in particular, and in
general, countries who have (have had) capitalist “emerging economies.”
As
casual observers, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint which comes
first – burgeoning economy or cultural revolution – in this increasingly
common international narrative, although Iran and Ireland do, surprisingly, have several notable correlations. For instance, both have substantially youthful populations. In Iran,
writer Afshin Molavi tells us, 70 percent of the population is under
30. Joseph A. Harriss tells us that 45 percent of the Irish population
is under 25. To say youth is the wellspring of revolution is as
redundant as observing water is wet.
Still,
these two countries share other striking characteristics. A casual
student of history and news can’t help but notice that following any
society’s embrace of capitalism there are several “cultural” martyrs in
the wake. Two of these cultural casualties often include tradition and
religion. Tradition seems the obvious of the two: Progress and tradition
– however they are conceptualized – at first blush to a revolutionary
are fundamentally oxymoronic.
So, for instance, we learn in Molavi’s article that, in Iran,
the demise of tradition translates into youths’ departure from the
vehement anti-American propaganda machine in place most of their lives
(i.e. tradition in their sense of remembered time). It also means off
with burqas and on with the blue jeans. In Ireland,
Harriss tells us, the demise has resulted in a growing oblivion
regarding traditionally significant archaeological sites (in threat of
being razed and/ or paved over) and, most troubling to some Irish women
of the wiser generation, the loss of the traditional art of Irish
knitting.
Straightforward
enough, but it seems a bit more complex as to why capitalism seems to
routinely encompass secularization (at least outside of America;
I’ll come back to this a minute). Why should this be? In the case of
these two countries, another striking similarity is a past where
religion and politics are flip sides of the same coin. In Iran, the situation can be illustrated with a simple equation: all things held constant, Ayatollah Khomenei = anti-American. In Ireland,
we have the centuries-old battle between British Anglicans and Irish
Catholics (a redundant term Harriss reminds us) inherently tied to
political strife (not to mention perennially strained relations between
protestant Northern Ireland and Catholic Ireland).
However
– and I speak here acknowledging I am not an expert political theorist
or historian – I’m not certain this can be completely understood or
rationalized away from the viewpoint of church and state marriage as
some may be tempted to think. Even in European countries long observing
the separation of church and state, there remains the fact of prevalent
secularization after relaxing market barriers to investment and trade.
In fact, a cursory consideration of the current Western geopolitical
environment reveals that America
stands as a (perhaps not the only) paradox to this seeming pattern in
modern history. Despite our (American’s) strong allegiances to
separation of church and state as well as capitalism, the majority holds
fast to personal and social religions. The context of our founding
seems to offer a logical, at least partial, explanation.
So
what of all the other countries who seem to fall rank and file into
this pattern of capitalism and secularization? I speak broadly – and
perhaps stereotypically – here of European countries. To my eye there
seems at least three possible explanations as to why this is. (And,
again, I am not a professional economist, historian, or political
scientist, so if some scholar has made these points before – and I
wouldn’t doubt that someone has – I am unaware of it.)
1)
Generally speaking, it seems capitalism requires a movement away from
predominantly agrarian economies to predominantly manufacturing-based
economies. In modern times, this movement’s natural evolution continues
into high-tech economies.
Perhaps
the shift away from working with and on the land – a shift that so many
lament for many, many reasons – frees people from the constant reminder
that you are one flood, one drought, or one pest infestation from
financial devastation. In agrarian economies, nature dictates economic
(and physical) survival. Since God – in whatever conception – is so
commonly associated with nature, even equated with nature, and viewed by
many religions as working through nature, perhaps this economic shift
away from agrarianism in turn allows people to more easily sidestep the
idea that livelihood depends on the grace of climate or the whim of a
god.
2)
Capitalism’s most fundamental premise is that anyone – anyone at all –
with a good idea and/ or a good work ethic can, theoretically at least,
succeed (broadly defined).
This
fundamental principle naturally removes the necessity for any perceived
reliance on a mythical or supernatural force and places responsibility
and prosperity squarely on an individual’s shoulders. Of course, it is
not uncommon for people, especially Americans, to still attribute
success (or ruin) back to God (i.e. blessings of ingenuity, intellectual
prowess, personality traits, etc.), but ultimately, capitalism only
requires your individual talent and work ethic to “succeed.” Divine
blessing and/ or curse is irrelevant to capitalism, in theory. Because
so many religions associate nature with God, it is perhaps more
difficult to differentiate the two in agrarian economies.
There
are a million other ways people can (and do) find ways to directly or
indirectly implicate God in their success or failure in capitalist
markets, and again, to my mind – contrasting mainly with Europe here – this seems distinctly American (thinking very broadly and stereotypically).
3)
There are fewer motivators more powerful than hunger, to paraphrase
Hemingway. Therefore, people of all kinds and from all places with
unbelievably varied religious worldviews flock to capitalist countries,
where the best opportunities are perceived to be, namely because of
number two.
In (largely) culturally homogenous societies – such as Ancient Greece, or Ireland up to 30 years ago (as the article mentioned), or contemporary Vermont
– it is easier to locate what Greek philosophers called “self-evident
truths.” (If I hear Howard Dean talk about his accomplishments in race
relations in Vermont one more time… You’d have to be Hitler or George Wallace not to accomplish this in Vermont, Dr. Dean.)
However,
when you start diversifying the ole cultural pot, then all viewpoints –
specifically religious – become less “self-evident.” When not everyone
is White Episcopalian Vermonters, or white Irish Catholics, or believers
in Zeus, things can appear more relative or at least more uncertain.
Consider the myriad parallels and similarities (on the “self-evident”
level) between Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism for a minute, and then
attempt to make a definitive, logical argument for why one is “superior”
or “more right” than another. Of course, if you could, you’d perhaps
win the Nobel Peace Prize. We also perceive fundamental differences in
the details of each of these (e.g. denominations in Christianity, etc.).
So how does a society reconcile fundamentally different worldviews each
person holds as “self-evident” to her/himself, despite their
“self-evident” differences?
Inevitably,
capitalist markets will eventually diversify in the religious
worldviews of its members. For anyone human, this raises a specter of
uncertainty regarding “correct” or “more accurate” worldviews. Tolerance
(and I don’t at all mean to sound like I’m writing from the DNC’s
“talking points” here) becomes necessary, and from there it can be
convenient for a substantial portion of a society to embrace secularism.
It
is not my intent to go further with this here, although we could write
book upon book on this subject and draw from what seems infinite
examples to support or undercut these claims. All of these points are,
of course, tentative and very general. This subject just happened to be
on my mind after reading those articles, so I thought I’d share. 
No comments:
Post a Comment