Religion and Fascism
I was recently reading an essay entitled "Productive Noncontemporaneity" by Johann Baptist Metz, the Catholic theologian with links to the Frankfurt School, which describes among other things how three social systems respond to religious "noncontemporaneity," i.e., religious thought and practice that stand apart from, and are often critical of, contemporary culture. (In a different context, one might translate "noncontemporaneous" as "prophetic.") The three social systems are 1. bourgeois-liberal society ("liberal" in the Lockean sense of universal natural rights, representative government, individual sovereignty, etc.), 2. Marxist socialism, and 3. fascism. In the first case (bourgeois-liberal society), religion is privatized--the legacy of Schleiermacher. Where Marxist socialism (the second case) has not simply dismissed religion as pernicious alienation, the religious dimension of social life has entered into the dialectical process of a socialist history of liberation. The messianism present in Marx's writings is no doubt involved here. Finally, with fascism we find the following: "time and again it has attempted to politicize and exploit its populist manner of cultural and political resentments often bottled up in a religion owing to its noncontemporaneity, such as its latent animosity toward enlightenment and democracy."
Does the converse of each conditional hold as well? For example, if the society is bourgeois-liberal, then religion will be privatized; does that mean that if religion is privatized, then our society is bourgeois-liberal?
More to the point, if a society is fascist, then the political leaders will politicize and exploit the dominant religion's cultural prejudices especially its latent animosity toward enlightenment and democracy; does that mean that if the political leaders are politicizing and exploiting the dominant religion's cultural prejudices especially its latent animosity toward enlightenment and democracy, then our society is fascist? If so, it would seem that we are living in a fascist society.
Does the converse of each conditional hold as well? For example, if the society is bourgeois-liberal, then religion will be privatized; does that mean that if religion is privatized, then our society is bourgeois-liberal?
More to the point, if a society is fascist, then the political leaders will politicize and exploit the dominant religion's cultural prejudices especially its latent animosity toward enlightenment and democracy; does that mean that if the political leaders are politicizing and exploiting the dominant religion's cultural prejudices especially its latent animosity toward enlightenment and democracy, then our society is fascist? If so, it would seem that we are living in a fascist society.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home