Tyranny and Freedom

The religions that existed before the rise of protestantism were an obstacle to the formation of capitalist mentality. Capitalism is all about placing the satisfaction of human needs above all, and the dietary, sartorial, amorous, etc restrictions placed by religion stood in the way. Religious institutions were competing for power with capital, arguing that there is an authority that’s higher than the God of human “I want.”

The liberation from religious strictures first by protestantism and then by the Enlightenment forgot to ask the question “what is the end goal of this liberation?” The tyranny of religion was swapped for the tyranny of capital but the paradox is that people see the compulsion to buy – be it objects, identities, body parts, family members, or anything else- as the greatest freedom of all.

Rebellions against this tyranny are puny and pathetic. People who rant against “cultural appropriation”, for instance, desperately want to believe that there is something that is not entirely for sale. The same goes for people like me who are opposed to wombs for hire and to buying children. But these rebellions will fail until we dare to question the entire concept of the primacy of human whims over absolutely everything else.

Rate this:

31 responses to “Tyranny and Freedom”

danmillerinpanama

January 15, 2017

The liberation from religious strictures first by protestantism and then by the Enlightenment forgot to ask the question “what is the end goal of this liberation?” The tyranny of religion was swapped for the tyranny of capital but the paradox is that people see the compulsion to buy – be it objects, identities, body parts, family members, or anything else- as the greatest freedom of all.

Do you actually know people who view the alleged “compulsion” to buy “as the greatest freedom of all”? Where do freedom of speech and the like rank?

People who espoused views about the Trinity or disagreed with the Pope on other theological matters were routinely tortured and/or murdered. Today, people who express views on Islam inconsistent with those of Islam’s papal equivalents still are. People who decline to buy Hershey bars or Ford cars are not. Generally, they are not even shunned by their peers.

Do you consider this a distinction without a difference?

(PS: Perhaps I should disclose that I am an Agnostic, have been for more than half a century and have expressed my views quite freely. I have never been threatened by a Christian or Jew for expressing my opinions on the subject. Nor have I threatened them for expressing theirs. If I lived in Iran, Saudi Arabia or other Islamist nations my fate would likely have been very different.

LikeLike

Clarissa

January 15, 2017

Did you hear what happened when the owners of a pizza parlor mildly suggested that they won’t cater to those who might potentially buy a gay wedding from them? Their refusal to honor the freedom to buy cost them plenty. And did you hear about the toilet wars? People who dare to suggest that biological sex is not for sale soon discover that this is not an opinion they are free to have. There’s a professor who said it might be possible to question the holy right to buy womanhood or manhood. He doesn’t have a career any more.

Freedom of speech works but only until you question people’s right to buy whatever they wish.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 15, 2017
  
  More examples: the Pope – even the Pope – is moving towards sanctification of adultery because the right of consumers to consume as many partners as possible is sacred.
  
  The Pussyhat protesters arent planning what song they’ll sing at the march. They have settled instead on an object that will mark them as people who have either money to buy or leisure to make something so trivial.
  
  And there are endless examples.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. el
    
    January 15, 2017
    
    \ the Pope – even the Pope – is moving towards sanctification of adultery
    
    How? What do you mean by it?
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      January 15, 2017
      
      The Pope has allowed adulterers to come to communion. The import of this for Catholicism- or rather its imminent demise – cannot be overstated.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
  2. Shakti
    
    January 15, 2017
    
    More examples: the Pope – even the Pope – is moving towards sanctification of adultery because the right of consumers to consume as many partners as possible is sacred.
    
    Those have already happened. Those are called “dispensations” or “annulments”. If you’re rich enough you can buy as many annulments as you want.
    
    The whole “priests and nuns are celibate” rule in Catholicism arose from the real concern the priests would pass on their property to their children instead of leaving it to the Church.
    
    And then there’s sekha
    
    This idea that it’s some capitalistic innovation religion avoids is…quaint. Considering that marriage literally arose as a property exchange, the dichotomy between “capitalistic marriage” and “religious marriage” doesn’t really…exist.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      January 15, 2017
      
      It does, though. A partner a union with whom literally brings you into a union with God is different from a dispensable toy that will be ditched the moment a more satisfying, convenient model becomes accessible. We come up with our own meanings. And the current consumerist model has come up with nothing than this pathetic meaning of human unions.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. Shakti
        
        January 15, 2017
        
        A partner a union with whom literally brings you into a union with God is different from a dispensable toy that will be ditched the moment a more satisfying, convenient model becomes accessible.
        
        I think such unions are far more elusive and rarer than most people are willing to admit. If your marriage brings you into union with God, it hardly matters to that relationship what other people are doing in their marriages.
        
        Also I see far too many examples in which the “will of God” is language to reify “my personal whims and desires” or “my family’s whims & desires” to really see a difference in the institutions.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        January 15, 2017
        
        “I think such unions are far more elusive and rarer than most people are willing to admit. ”
        
        They can only happen between deeply religious people who belong to a specific religious tradition. It’s either this or consumerism. We have all collectively chosen consumerism in the name of freedom. And that’s great, as long as we remember what we all gave up in return.
        
        LikeLike

valter07

January 15, 2017

Let’s approach it from another end… How do you imagine the society that is closer to your ideals? What should be the purpose of the humans?

LikeLike

Clarissa

January 15, 2017

Oh, I love capitalism. It rocks around the clock. But true love is clear-eyed. I don’t love it blindly. 😆

LikeLike

Reply

valter07

January 15, 2017

Still, what did you have in mind when you said “…dare to question the entire concept of the primacy of human whims over absolutely everything else”. What was that “else”?

LikeLike

Z

January 15, 2017

I would say, preserving the planet. Not drilling for oil in national parks. Etc. These things are more important than shopping.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 15, 2017
  
  Yes, consuming the environment would be a great example.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Clarissa

January 15, 2017

Just one example- and there can be a million others – why should the whim of rich Europeans or Americans entitle them to buy babies from wombs for hire? Why should tearing babies away from mothers should be so sanctified just because sated consumers think a baby is a cute accessory?

There was a woman on Facebook who very sincerely ranted against women who get abortions. She’s infertile, she said, but desperate for a baby and they keep aborting. The implication being, how dare they discard a toy she wants but can’t get.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  January 15, 2017
  
  Or a much more trivial example. I can’t tell a student that he should drop a course or switch to another program. Consumers’ wants are above all, and everybody should keep silent when a consumer has a whim.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

DWeird

January 15, 2017

Okay, so, two notes.

Assuming that catholicism wasn’t actually put into place by a higher power… How did it get to be such a huge deal pre-capitalism if it did not have anything to do with satisfying human needs? And if it did have something to do with satisfying human needs, then that cultural aspect of capitalism loses the feature that makes it different.

You could tell me that the worldview from which my question stems is so shot through with capitalistic presuppositions that I can’t even imagine a state in which “word of god” or such is not itself a proxy for human needs. Sure, maybe. But what, then, is the alternative? (Also, substituting “whims” for “needs” in the last sentence is cheating a bit.)

Second, the historical part of this seems uncontroversial at first glance and therefore suspect. I haven’t quite gone to the lengths of actually reading Luther or Calvin, but from just casual knowledge, describing what they were proposing as “liberation” is pretty weird. If anything, they tried to re-impose a far stricter order with dietary, amorous and sartorial concerns included in the package.

“The liberation by X and Y forgot to ask the question” – liberation is like an elephant, it never forgets. The end goal of protestants was to remove the corruption of the church and re-establish christianity as it should be. The end goal of the enlightenment was to create a world in which humans would live guided by their own reason.

Not saying that this process of liberation without end is not part of our current culture, just that people in these historical movements did in fact have end-goals in mind.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Clarissa

January 15, 2017

The main difference between catholicism and protestantism is that the need for an intermediary between a person and God is eliminated. Anybody can stand on the corner and preach. Anybody can start a church. Anybody can forgive their own sins by declaring that they have been born again. You don’t need a community or an authority. It’s perfect for societies of alienated, atomized consumers who see themselves as the highest authority.

I don’t want it to seem like I’m bashing protestantism. It was necessary for capitalism which, in turn, brought us feminism. And blogging. So I’m all for it. But religion is ultimately dead in consumer societies. And we are seeing the results of that.

LikeLike

Reply

Lear

January 15, 2017

“The religions that existed before the rise of Protestantism were an obstacle to the formation of capitalist mentality” mmm What made the transition to capitalism possible was technological evolution! This also made possible a different philosophical thinking systems e.g. Protestantism.

LikeLike

Clarissa

January 15, 2017

I’m not sure what you mean by technological evolution if Martin Luther wrote his theses in 1517.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Lear
  
  January 15, 2017
  
  More and better techniques to extract and manipulate iron lead to the need of specialists in this area e.g. blacksmiths and development of tools to improve many areas. Services and work is no longer focused around agriculture. The printing press appeared! Huge revolution! Way before Luther wrote a single word or anyone was able to read it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    January 15, 2017
    
    This is what we call dragging things in by the ears.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

Lear

January 15, 2017

The liberation from religious strictures first by Protestantism and then by the Enlightenment forgot to ask the question “what is the end goal of this liberation?

The leaders of those movements did indeed have goals as someone mentioned before however these movements are a result of the environmental circumstances, what happened was just an ideological alignment to the new technological capabilities and work organization forms that came as a result. There’s no liberation as such. A large elite exists, better living conditions become prevalent but ideologically society is as much as attached to the system as ever if not more.

LikeLike

sheddingkhawatir

January 15, 2017

Have you read Empire of Things? It has an interesting discussion of this religion/consumption/individual freedom idea.

LikeLike

Clarissa

January 15, 2017

No, I haven’t but I’ve wondered if I should. Do you recommend?

LikeLike

Reply
1. sheddingkhawatir
  
  January 15, 2017
  
  I do! It is long, but I can’t imagine that’s a problem for you. It’s also filled with the minutia of consumption. I found this sort of fascinating, but other people might find it tedious. I also found the arguments compelling (which probably means you will disagree, but I think you would still find it interesting).
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    January 15, 2017
    
    Sounds like a book I’d love. Thank you!
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

January 16, 2017

I want to read it too.

LikeLike

Stringer Bell

January 16, 2017

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/820137756559081474

LikeLike

Shakti

January 16, 2017

Are you sure this isn’t another Theranos venture, Elizabeth Báthory? #RejectedTrueBloodStoryLines

LikeLike

Reply
Clarissa

January 16, 2017

I wrote about this kind of thing in my book. It started in Europe during the crisis. Spanish authorities would calmly explain that the unemployed should sell their blood to supplement the insufficient benefits.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog