I was going to write about incest after this article, then decided not to due to lack of what I would consider good information on the internet, then I thought: 'sod it!'.
The woman of the article on the Times justifies her sexual relationship with her brother on the basis of consent. I have not come across any psychological studies on ‘consensual incest’, where there is no force or abuse. This means I’ll make up my own ‘psychological’ take. I believe that when children (perhaps from birth to puberty) our sexual boundaries are not yet developed. The first sexual sensations happen very early in life, although they are very different from adult sexuality. For Melanie Klein, at least, babies’ sexual sensations would start at four months. No idea what is the latest thought on this as academic journals are generally not free to access. (Some exceptions: Directory of Open Access Journals, Academic Open Internet Journal, HighWire Press).
Going back to my ‘theory’, growing up means developing one’s identity and its foundation is probably sexual identity. We separate from our parents and ‘find’ our body. Like Adam and Eve, we suddenly discover ourselves naked.
Alas, it means we stop running around naked on the beach as we did as children! ;) We develop our own space not to be transgressed although constantly negotiated and re-negotiated. I assume we stop feeling comfortable naked in front of our parents, who generated us, and yet, when grown up, quite at ease with someone from outside the family.
There have been many cases of ‘genetic sexual attraction’ often resulting from the reunion of siblings after being separated at birth or when very young. Whatever the reason, I believe the taboo is still valid. I don’t think the taboo is there because of the possibility of genetic defects in off-springs. I don’t think it’s just due to an evolutionary need of widening the genetic make-up of the population, although there is probably an element of it.
I think incest does undermine our identity. The problem now is that the internet seems to justify the practice and as long as there’s a ‘community’ where it is deemed ‘all right’, anything goes. I beg to differ.
They seem to focus on the ‘consensual’ nature of the relationship to make it all right. I think ‘consent’ in these cases is more a symptom of something gone awry in the development of one’s persona. Of course, I don’t think it should be criminalised (I don’t think they should go to prison if there’s no abuse) but medicalised.
Maybe if psychiatrists and psychologists contacted these online communities to research the phenomenon, we might get a better picture of what lies beneath these relationships.
I suppose there will always be a part of our psyche yearning for ‘home’, for the type of close relationship we (primarily) experienced with our mother. Incest might always find its way into our imagination, but I believe art, literature and cinema are the places of our imagination where we act out our desires and exorcise them at the same time. That’s Aeschylus’ greatness.
31 July 2008
30 July 2008
Is Google making us stupid?
Atlantic Monthly reflects on how the internet is changing our brains. We seem to be lacking the necessary concentration to read a book or even a lengthy article. We seem to be drawn to quick answers rather than depths.
The article reports that in a recent research study at UCL “scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:
We might read more because more is available at our fingertips, but we read differently.
I believe we are at the height of a technological revolution; in fact it has already happened. It will take a long time to see how this is going to change our minds and our surroundings, but I think we can already begin to see how people are reacting, adjusting and embracing the new world.
‘Religion’ is coming back to the fore and I sincerely hope there will be an opportunity for the development of a liberal morality. We need to abandon our false liberal ‘neutrality’ and enrich liberalism with ethical values. We also need a morality that is not predicated on the control of women’s sexuality or rigid ideas of femininity and masculinity.
I suspect we’ll see a lot of fundamentalism trying to appropriate the empty space left by political ideologies. As more and more people will have access to the ‘shared space’ of cyberspace, institutions, opinion formers and ‘politicians’ (meaning all those who engage in some form of politics) will need to be more malleable to a variety of interests, overlapping identities and priorities.
Modernity has placed the individual at the centre. It is unthinkable for any leader (political, religious …) to impose their interpretation of reality as the only one. People are becoming more and more knowledgeable and duly question authority. The point is for the ‘authorities’, especially religious authorities, to grasp this as an opportunity and work with their members rather than impose dogmas (more on this later!).
In the meantime, I wonder how ‘scientists’ will wield their power (which is much more than that of any religious group) and play their cards. I’m not convinced that there is enough transparency and clear information on research and experiments, for example. I’d like to see Journalists/bloggers specialise more and start writing about topics they understand to ensure better scrutiny … which won’t leave me much to write on ;)
The article reports that in a recent research study at UCL “scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site. Sometimes they’d save a long article, but there’s no evidence that they ever went back and actually read it. The authors of the study report:
It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as users “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.”
We might read more because more is available at our fingertips, but we read differently.
When the Net absorbs a medium, that medium is re-created in the Net’s image. It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed. A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.
I believe we are at the height of a technological revolution; in fact it has already happened. It will take a long time to see how this is going to change our minds and our surroundings, but I think we can already begin to see how people are reacting, adjusting and embracing the new world.
‘Religion’ is coming back to the fore and I sincerely hope there will be an opportunity for the development of a liberal morality. We need to abandon our false liberal ‘neutrality’ and enrich liberalism with ethical values. We also need a morality that is not predicated on the control of women’s sexuality or rigid ideas of femininity and masculinity.
I suspect we’ll see a lot of fundamentalism trying to appropriate the empty space left by political ideologies. As more and more people will have access to the ‘shared space’ of cyberspace, institutions, opinion formers and ‘politicians’ (meaning all those who engage in some form of politics) will need to be more malleable to a variety of interests, overlapping identities and priorities.
Modernity has placed the individual at the centre. It is unthinkable for any leader (political, religious …) to impose their interpretation of reality as the only one. People are becoming more and more knowledgeable and duly question authority. The point is for the ‘authorities’, especially religious authorities, to grasp this as an opportunity and work with their members rather than impose dogmas (more on this later!).
In the meantime, I wonder how ‘scientists’ will wield their power (which is much more than that of any religious group) and play their cards. I’m not convinced that there is enough transparency and clear information on research and experiments, for example. I’d like to see Journalists/bloggers specialise more and start writing about topics they understand to ensure better scrutiny … which won’t leave me much to write on ;)
19 July 2008
The envy of the womb
The FT had a few good articles on religion last week. Richard Tomkins took a look at the Church of England’s finances and found it to be in recession. Christopher Caldwell asked more or less rhetorically why sex is such a big issue in religion today, to which Mr Cesar A. Garcia, an FT reader, (Letters, 19th July), replied that it says so in the Bible. In a few sentences he managed to wipe out 2,000 years of theology and biblical commentary and deconstruct organised religion in a way anti-religionists could only dream of.
Until the Enlightenment, the Bible was considered the ‘word of God’, and it was for that reason that it could not be interpreted literally; rather the aim was to discover the truth about human nature and the divine concealed by the text. Biblical exegesis quickly became the fundamental activity on which to construct religion, including its legal systems and theology. It was also the way through which societal changes and evolutions were ‘ratified’. For example, the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye”, at least since the inception of rabbinical Judaism, has always been interpreted as ‘the value of an eye for an eye’, thus encouraging restraint rather than vengeance. The ‘Law’ (Jewish halachah, Catholic canon law etc.) has always changed and developed although in recent times some authorities have become rather static in their approach to it. A monolithic approach to the interpretation of texts and the laws deriving from them prevents dynamism, which is essential if the tradition is to be retained in the future, and can lead to dogma. This is exactly what we are facing today. The only way forward is liberalism! If a tradition is not open to and inclusive of all its members, it becomes radicalised and reactionary; it stifles dissent and reinforces the power of the hierarchy.
Until recently, only men were allowed to study and interpret the text, set the civil and moral laws based on it, and thus establish and confine power. The control of sexuality, aimed at determining societal boundaries, rules of entry and exit, and the preservation of the community, played a key role in reinforcing such centres of power. This is how the hierarchy retained power and this is why the hierarchy cares so much about sex, although one sometimes wonders whether there are deeper psychological conflicts … it’s the envy of the womb! (Freud’s views on circumcision come pretty close to it, but that’s another story).
The fact that traditionalist religion seems to draw more followers should worry us all. Overpopulation and its effects on the environment, for example, will not be tackled as long as women’s bodies remain a political battleground between the North and the South of the world.
Until the Enlightenment, the Bible was considered the ‘word of God’, and it was for that reason that it could not be interpreted literally; rather the aim was to discover the truth about human nature and the divine concealed by the text. Biblical exegesis quickly became the fundamental activity on which to construct religion, including its legal systems and theology. It was also the way through which societal changes and evolutions were ‘ratified’. For example, the biblical phrase “an eye for an eye”, at least since the inception of rabbinical Judaism, has always been interpreted as ‘the value of an eye for an eye’, thus encouraging restraint rather than vengeance. The ‘Law’ (Jewish halachah, Catholic canon law etc.) has always changed and developed although in recent times some authorities have become rather static in their approach to it. A monolithic approach to the interpretation of texts and the laws deriving from them prevents dynamism, which is essential if the tradition is to be retained in the future, and can lead to dogma. This is exactly what we are facing today. The only way forward is liberalism! If a tradition is not open to and inclusive of all its members, it becomes radicalised and reactionary; it stifles dissent and reinforces the power of the hierarchy.
Until recently, only men were allowed to study and interpret the text, set the civil and moral laws based on it, and thus establish and confine power. The control of sexuality, aimed at determining societal boundaries, rules of entry and exit, and the preservation of the community, played a key role in reinforcing such centres of power. This is how the hierarchy retained power and this is why the hierarchy cares so much about sex, although one sometimes wonders whether there are deeper psychological conflicts … it’s the envy of the womb! (Freud’s views on circumcision come pretty close to it, but that’s another story).
The fact that traditionalist religion seems to draw more followers should worry us all. Overpopulation and its effects on the environment, for example, will not be tackled as long as women’s bodies remain a political battleground between the North and the South of the world.
06 July 2008
How to appoint a priest
The Anglican Church seems to be at the end of the line over their policy on the appointment of priests. Traditionalist bishops have set up the Global Anglican Future Conference in protest to the consecration of gay and women bishops. Over 1,300 bishops are threatening a schism over this matter while others seek to form a church within the church (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans). Among the moderates, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Rev Alan Harper, has advocated a re-interpretation of scripture in defence of homosexuality. Whilst Anglicanism has usually come in many varieties, it seems that these days fragmentation might be inevitable. So, how do you appoint a priest?
In the Bible, priesthood is reserved for the tribe of Levi. The (chief) priest used to be appointed according to seniority. Moses breaks with the tradition, bypasses Korah, and appoints his brother, Aaron (not very subtle nepotism). Korah doesn’t take it very well and organises a protest. Korah and his chums are punished: some are swallowed by the earth, others are killed by fire or plague.
Korah had made a very good point though: he challenged the authority and affirmed the equality and value of all the Israelites, “for all the community are holy, all of them”. Yet, he didn’t take it forward. He didn’t championed democracy nor anti-discriminatory laws. He merely fought against a decision that denied his own privileges. As such, the rabbis considered the dispute 'not for the sake of heaven'. The protesting bishops are similarly fighting to retain their power and privileges (and bigotry) and they don't seem to be saying anything construtive.
The current storm seems to highlight a disconnection between the hierarchy and the churches, and the churches and its congregants. The hierarchy might be afraid that fragmentation would diminish the Church's relevance in society. This is so, however, only if we measure relevance by column inches on the national press.
Simon Jenkins rightly points out in the Guardian that churches are community institutions and play a vital role in society. It would thus be helpful if local churches (and synagogues and mosques) had a little more autonomy in interpreting tradition and were freer to act according to the priorities of their congregants. Religious institutions should be inspired to exercise their mission rather than be subject to political feuds. It is even more worrying to see the leaders of the 'Global South' of the Anglican Communion grounding their message on misogyny and homophobia. Had their put their communities first, they would have realised that the most pressing issues they face, such as inequality, overpopulation and poverty, have all a gender dimension. Women’s representation in those communities would be key in empowering their members. Believers ought to be allowed to play a more prominent role in the decision making processes of their communities and in holding accountable their leaders.
In the Bible, priesthood is reserved for the tribe of Levi. The (chief) priest used to be appointed according to seniority. Moses breaks with the tradition, bypasses Korah, and appoints his brother, Aaron (not very subtle nepotism). Korah doesn’t take it very well and organises a protest. Korah and his chums are punished: some are swallowed by the earth, others are killed by fire or plague.
Korah had made a very good point though: he challenged the authority and affirmed the equality and value of all the Israelites, “for all the community are holy, all of them”. Yet, he didn’t take it forward. He didn’t championed democracy nor anti-discriminatory laws. He merely fought against a decision that denied his own privileges. As such, the rabbis considered the dispute 'not for the sake of heaven'. The protesting bishops are similarly fighting to retain their power and privileges (and bigotry) and they don't seem to be saying anything construtive.
The current storm seems to highlight a disconnection between the hierarchy and the churches, and the churches and its congregants. The hierarchy might be afraid that fragmentation would diminish the Church's relevance in society. This is so, however, only if we measure relevance by column inches on the national press.
Simon Jenkins rightly points out in the Guardian that churches are community institutions and play a vital role in society. It would thus be helpful if local churches (and synagogues and mosques) had a little more autonomy in interpreting tradition and were freer to act according to the priorities of their congregants. Religious institutions should be inspired to exercise their mission rather than be subject to political feuds. It is even more worrying to see the leaders of the 'Global South' of the Anglican Communion grounding their message on misogyny and homophobia. Had their put their communities first, they would have realised that the most pressing issues they face, such as inequality, overpopulation and poverty, have all a gender dimension. Women’s representation in those communities would be key in empowering their members. Believers ought to be allowed to play a more prominent role in the decision making processes of their communities and in holding accountable their leaders.
Sharia - a point of law
One wonders what point Lord Phillips was so clumsily trying to make. Was he misunderstood or pre-empted?
While Charles Moore shouted extremism on the Telegraph, Madeleine Bunting defended Lord Phillips, Alexandra Fawcett worried that if religions were granted legitimacy in the public realm, it would lead to discrimination (ignoring current legislation). Matthew Parris on the Times warned that the application of Islamic law would be a charter for male dominance while Inayat Bunglawala praised Phillips.
It seems to me that they are all mostly wrong and miss the key points in the debate. The main problem is that each paper reports the lecture rather differently, so it's a bit difficult to guess what he was on about. Respectfully, however, I think that this is a lot of self-righteous tosh on a non-issue (see below).
As reported by Bunglawala, Lord Phillips said:
“Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”
The fact is that this is already the case, as it is already the case that religious authorities or establishments are exempted from some legislation. This is why the law cannot force the Catholic Church to accept women as priests and so on.
More importantly, sharia is not a juspositivistic system, nor is Torah (and even Canon Law for the matter). It is a code of life, not a codified law. There are many strands of jurisprudence and its application varies from country to country. The problem lies in the implementation by secular authorities, which too often reflects cultural norms that discriminate against women or violate human rights, such as the practice of stoning. Many Islamic jurists, however, would deem such practices as contravening Sharia. The problem arises when it’s applied according to discriminatory practices. Taking Orthodox Judaism as an example, the problem of agunah (the deserted wife who cannot remarry) is clearly a relic of times now past and is deeply discriminatory, although there are entire centres trying to overcome the problem. That’s what happens when the letter of the law trumps the spirit of the law. The eligibility to priesthood is another interesting area, but that’s another story (more on this later). Sharia, as all religious laws, aims to develop principles affirming social justice. Lord Phillips, however, although referring to the principles of sharia, didn't seem to highlight current UK legislation that goes against those principles.
Furthermore, UK and European law guarantee freedom of religion, thus allowing religious people to profess their faith (including follow the principles of that faith) and outlawing discrimination on the basis of their religion. It is, therefore, unclear what aspects of Sharia Lord Phillips would want to see recognised beyond the current situation and according to which jurisprudence. In society (rather than law), there have already been adjustments to respond to cultural preferences. For example, financial establishments have been quite successful at introducing Sharia-compliant products. If other such proposals are deemed important they can be lobbied for and suggested to Parliament if additional legislation is needed. However, according to a Guardian report, Lord Phillips did not make any detail suggestion. Instead he suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements. Does he not realise that, whilst Islamic divorces could be recognised as contracts, as they are in Norway, marriages cannot be deemed valid unless they comply fully with UK law, thus renouncing the possibility of polygamy?
The most irritating aspect of all this nonsense is the lack of concern for diversity and equality. This self-righteous crusade to change laws that need not be changed is deeply hypocritical. If Lord Phillips really valued diversity, he would have called for more prominence to be given in the media and public life to different strands of interpretation, to different movements and traditions within a particular culture and faith. If he cared about equality, he would have attacked the widespread discrimination against women which goes beyond class, religion and ethnic group. Instead, his understanding of religions as codified monoliths only further entrenches the power of religious establishments vis-à-vis the individual. Does power always ally with power?
While Charles Moore shouted extremism on the Telegraph, Madeleine Bunting defended Lord Phillips, Alexandra Fawcett worried that if religions were granted legitimacy in the public realm, it would lead to discrimination (ignoring current legislation). Matthew Parris on the Times warned that the application of Islamic law would be a charter for male dominance while Inayat Bunglawala praised Phillips.
It seems to me that they are all mostly wrong and miss the key points in the debate. The main problem is that each paper reports the lecture rather differently, so it's a bit difficult to guess what he was on about. Respectfully, however, I think that this is a lot of self-righteous tosh on a non-issue (see below).
As reported by Bunglawala, Lord Phillips said:
“Those who, in this country, are in dispute as to their respective rights are free to subject that dispute to the mediation of a chosen person, or to agree that the dispute shall be resolved by a chosen arbitrator or arbitrators. There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales.”
The fact is that this is already the case, as it is already the case that religious authorities or establishments are exempted from some legislation. This is why the law cannot force the Catholic Church to accept women as priests and so on.
More importantly, sharia is not a juspositivistic system, nor is Torah (and even Canon Law for the matter). It is a code of life, not a codified law. There are many strands of jurisprudence and its application varies from country to country. The problem lies in the implementation by secular authorities, which too often reflects cultural norms that discriminate against women or violate human rights, such as the practice of stoning. Many Islamic jurists, however, would deem such practices as contravening Sharia. The problem arises when it’s applied according to discriminatory practices. Taking Orthodox Judaism as an example, the problem of agunah (the deserted wife who cannot remarry) is clearly a relic of times now past and is deeply discriminatory, although there are entire centres trying to overcome the problem. That’s what happens when the letter of the law trumps the spirit of the law. The eligibility to priesthood is another interesting area, but that’s another story (more on this later). Sharia, as all religious laws, aims to develop principles affirming social justice. Lord Phillips, however, although referring to the principles of sharia, didn't seem to highlight current UK legislation that goes against those principles.
Furthermore, UK and European law guarantee freedom of religion, thus allowing religious people to profess their faith (including follow the principles of that faith) and outlawing discrimination on the basis of their religion. It is, therefore, unclear what aspects of Sharia Lord Phillips would want to see recognised beyond the current situation and according to which jurisprudence. In society (rather than law), there have already been adjustments to respond to cultural preferences. For example, financial establishments have been quite successful at introducing Sharia-compliant products. If other such proposals are deemed important they can be lobbied for and suggested to Parliament if additional legislation is needed. However, according to a Guardian report, Lord Phillips did not make any detail suggestion. Instead he suggested sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements. Does he not realise that, whilst Islamic divorces could be recognised as contracts, as they are in Norway, marriages cannot be deemed valid unless they comply fully with UK law, thus renouncing the possibility of polygamy?
The most irritating aspect of all this nonsense is the lack of concern for diversity and equality. This self-righteous crusade to change laws that need not be changed is deeply hypocritical. If Lord Phillips really valued diversity, he would have called for more prominence to be given in the media and public life to different strands of interpretation, to different movements and traditions within a particular culture and faith. If he cared about equality, he would have attacked the widespread discrimination against women which goes beyond class, religion and ethnic group. Instead, his understanding of religions as codified monoliths only further entrenches the power of religious establishments vis-à-vis the individual. Does power always ally with power?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)