Marxian Notion of Religion: After analysis religion to a deep extent, Karl Marx said that religion is also dependent upon material and economic aspects.
As per Marx, religion is functional in nature and is an illusion full of reasons and excuses. Religion, according to Marx is irrational as it hides the underlying reality, also religion is alienating as it alienates people from their ideals and forces them to worship an alien and unknowable being i.e. God.
Religion is hypocritical in nature as it professes valuable principles and also sides with the oppressors. As per Marx, religion is an illusion for the poor. Since the poor are deprived of the economic realities, they find little true happiness in their life.
Religion helps them find true happiness by reasoning that it is not correct or true because in their next life they will find the true happiness, Religion hides the realities of the social life by providing temporary relief to the suffering person. Religion helps in forgetting the pain temporarily.
RELIGION – AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION
Karl Marx had a theory of religion which everyone knows about from his phrase “opium of the people.” Even with this negative view, the social theory of Marxism would eventually intertwine religion and economics from that point afterward. Marx never bothered with a true theory of religion, since it was going to be naturally eliminated anyway. It rested on a foundation which was going to be removed anyway, thereby taking religion right alongwith it.
Starting out as a Young Hegelian, where idealism reigns, he would later turn to materialism. The idealists saw a two story universe, where the material world on earth was made to function by the thoughts and ideas from the World Spirit. John Locke actually had a concept of consciousness which made him an idealist. Marx turned this on its head, with his transformative method” or direct inversion of the idealist position. Materialism believes in a one story material universe, like Hume.
The ideas and thoughts from the brain were just that, results of material forms, without any spirit or soul involved. This very thinking led to sociology, and Marx applied it to the workers of the Industrial Revolution going on at the time. The economic basis of human life were social processes in themselves, the distribution of materials and goods.
A hierarchy emerged between social functions of base and those of the superstructure. Base or substructure functions included physical necessities like food, clothing, and shelter. This went against the prevailing thoughts of the day, where spirit was the real necessity, and physical aspects were on the level of the animal. Superstructure functions were more like add-on features, dependent on the base, but not truly necessary. Art, philosophy, culture, and religion are such examples which Marx deemed as less important. Since Marx saw human history as the struggle between workers and owners, the latter could use the superstructures to create an ideology which they effectively used against the workers.
It was similar to the medieval divine right of kings, where the subjects had no choice but to put up with the natural power of the ruler. This reminds me of the Great Chain of Being, not the Great Being of Comte. Religion was used as a justification of the owner’s theft of the worker’s labour, since the promise of future salvation was to compensate.
Thus, a docile and compliant worker would not complain or change anything, exactly like the Great Chain. Political order and class structure was not something to be changed, without dire consequences. Religion was not revealed according to Marx, so its own account of its very own origins was not viable. A book by Ludwig Feuerbach was soon published called The Essence of Christianity, with which Marx wholeheartedly agreed. Religion was a human projection of its highest qualities; wisdom, justice, and mercy. Religion was thus an illusion, an opiate of the people. This theory was not enough for Marx, as he wanted to further examine the social function of this illusion, in order to expose religion and lead it to a downfall.
His transformation method led to another inversion. The abolition of religion was needed since it was the illusionary happiness of the people instead of genuine true happiness. The demand to give up this illusion, involves a demand to give up on a condition, which demands illusion. Yet like we mentioned already, Marx saw no need to directly attack the epiphenomenon (secondary) of religion.
When the base functions were transformed by placing the proletariat in power, the old European religion would naturally collapse along with it. Frederich Engels saw religion as a step in the right direction, so it was beneficial at times in history. This reminds one of Comte, who saw the theological stage as a sign of progress towards the other subsequent stages. The Book of Acts pointed him towards how people lived in early Christianity, sharing property and private things.
Religion undid the damage from the previous treatment of property as something private. Slaves were also to be treated decently pointing to religion as being something for the oppressed people of society. It was a march up to the slave and worker’s paradise. This was perverted by missionaries which led it to be something for kings and commoners, instead of the very lowest. Thus, religion was changed by those upper classes into something used to keep down the lower, working elasses.
Antonio Gramsci attempted to organize the Italian peasants against the land-owning classes, yet realized that religious elements had to be approached if Marxism was to succeed. He knew it would be futile if he simply demanded the peasants to stop attending church, so he turned to the Old Testament prophets. Justice was the main theme, where the poor were to be cared for. He rails the rich as the oppressors which they are, turning religion into a positive force, as an amphetamine of the masses instead of an opiate.
These Marxist critiques run into obvious trouble since the Marxist theory was an actual experiment in 20th-century government. The melt down of the Soviet Union leads to a bankrupt theory in historical respects, but not all. Religion can still be critiqued as a theory outside of the governmental aspects, Richard Comstock reports that a simple inversion of religion, will still end up looking like religion.
Charles imagines a negative photograph, where we still know who the person in the image is. Using the transformative method on Marxism, one can see a movement towards a final paradise of sorts, where the workers are governed via a proletariat dictatorship. This may be related to Marx’s Jewish upbringing, where there is a trajectory towards an end paradise.
Marx used the transformative method on the idealist world to the material, but there was still very much a religious feel to the materialist world. James Boon points out that the distinctions between base and superstructure are blurred. The ideas and concepts are in the superstructure, but the religious practices and rituals of the people are in the base. The economic landscape also enters into the picture, to the degree that if religion were removed, there would be drastic economic repercussions.
This implies religion is not necessarily all superstructure. Rodney Stark argues against Engels’ view that religion was intended for the slaves. The Roman Christians were a middle and upper class who did not need any such opiate, thereby disproving the Marxist analysis. Marxism is still compelling since religion does affect material wealth and comforts.
Certain upper classes have been shown to use it to their advantage over the lower. Liberation theology with its combination of Marxism and the justice of the Old Testament. Marxism does show that religion cannot be separated from economic reality.
THE DOMINANT IDEOLOGY – RELIGION
Marx pointed out the difference between ideologies and science. As per his analysis ideology is illusionary and non-verifiable in nature whereas science is real and verifiable. Moreover, ideology is a negative concept as it involves distortion in the form of contradictions.
Also ideology is a restricted concept as not all kinds of errors and distortions are covered in it. Let us now see how Marx was influenced by the religious conceptions of Feuerbach.
Influence of Feuerbach on Karl Marx
Marx got influenced by two important works on religion i.e. “The Essence of Christianity” which focuses on the essential; elements of human nature and “Lectures on the Essence of Religion” which talks about the sources of religion in human dependence on nature.
• Religion is created by humans as per the image created in their own mind.
• Humans remain connected with the religion till the illusion of their dreams stick to them.
•The self-conscious efforts of a human being gave rise to religion.
RELIGION AS SUPERSTRUCTURE
For Marx, societal superstructure rested upon production relationships, i.e., class relationships. The superstructure was not an autonomous entity. It followed class developments and the conflicts of therein. Religious institutions, being part of the superstructure, were no exception to this rule.
And of course, if we look to history, this fact has proven to be true. Within feudal Europe, the church as an institution held vast land estates. It was the pope who crowned the kings of Europe. Kings Justified their rule through divine right–that is to say, God granted them the right to rule. Within the feudal superstructure, religion developed with these legal and political institutions, but in the end, rested upon the relations of that day.
This changed during the French Revolution. The bourgeoisie revolted in France, refusing to acknowledge the divine right of the king and demanded legitimacy of their 3rd estate. Religious hierarchy splintered into groups that sided along with their class interests. Bishops, archbishops, etc., sided with the former feudal powers. Parish priests on the other hand, sided with the growing bourgeoisie because they more closely identified with them. It is no coincidence that when Napoleon was crowned emperor, he crowned himself in front of the Pope, refusing to allow the pope to crown him. Religion shifted with the entirety of the bourgeois superstructure.
Now, look at present times. Small priests that grow up around impoverished people are some of the most vocal advocates of egalitarian change. Liberation Theology has gripped poor countries on multiple continents. If, hypothetically, a proletarian-dominated economy developed that suppressed bourgeois society and bourgeois superstructure, how is it not logical under Marxism to assume that religion, as a cultural institution would not also shift with the changing production relations?
Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE
For PDF copy of Solved Assignment
WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)
0 Comments
Please do not enter any Spam link in the comment box