[FRA:] Max Horkheimer on Religion

[Kenneth MacKendrick]

Ralph,

Practices and discourses about compassion, justice, freedom, autonomy,
interiority, recognition, reciprocity, and egalitarianism are indebted and
entwined with the history of religions. I don't think the concept of justice
fell on our generation out of the ether for the first time. Maybe it was the
ether. Maybe it was Hunter S. Thompson. Maybe these noble ideals are
functions of the market system which happens to be a function of the
interiority of Protestantism. I recall not too far in the distant past that
you went after Habermas for saying that the ideals of the Enlightenment were
indebted to the religious heritage of the west, "salvation history." He is,
of course, correct. This doesn't mean he's saying they are dependent on
those religious concepts / practices or that they haven't changed. In the
same breath he notes that modernity must create its normativity out of
itself. Yet, some of us are convinced that the history of religions tells us
about the history of political economy. Dan Morgan, Rising in the West is an
amazing book documenting how Pentecostalism fuels the economy, and how the
economy fuels Pentecostalism. Look at David Martin's writings on religion in
Latin America to see the byproducts of the Protestant work ethic alive and
well.

Aside from this, critical theory IS consonant with religion, in more than a
few areas. Most liberative movements are. No, critical theory does not
overlap with religion completely. Yes, when you treat "religion" or
"critical theory" as totalities then you can say they have nothing in
common. But that would be weird.

I don't know where critical theory is heading or headed. In general I think
critical theory really underestimated the importance of careful historical
research; and, their collective understanding of the nature of religion and
religious movements was naïve on numerous counts. To be fair, they dealt
mainly with 19th century anthropology, early 20th century sociology of
religion, and early 20th century theology and/or philosophy of religion.
Today "the study of religion" is branching our reflectively criticizing our
legacy. 

As far as I can see critical theory has two tasks: explanatory-diagnostic
critique and anticipatory-utopian critique. There are religious practices
that overlap with these interests. Take Pentecostalism: explain the
successes of secularism, criticize them in the name of Jesus. You can't say
this is wholly unlike and wholly unrelated to explaining and criticizing
domination. The modality of critique shares an affinity. The affinity is
ancient.

Ken
Dept of Religion (the STUDY of religion, not the practice)
University of Manitoba

:::::GO FURTHUR::::::


-----Original Message-----
From: theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org
[mailto:theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
Dumain
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:40 AM
To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
Subject: Re: [FRA:] Max Horkheimer on Religion

Dept. of religion?  Perhaps this explains the insipidity and shoddy 
reasoning of your response.  Naturally theologians will exploit 
critical theory as they will exploit all other tools they can find to 
undermine reason.  After all, if the common enemy is 
"positivism"--conveniently conflated with "science"--the process of 
probing the enemy's weak points on the part of 
religionists--Catholics have set up all their universities to do 
this--means the enlistment of all "continental philosophy" has to 
offer to support the cause of reaction.  Critical theory's own 
weaknesses are also the obscurantists' strengths--flawed works like 
Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer's senescent writings, Bloch's 
mystical crapola--their record is not unblemished.

You can call a "religious impulse" anything you like.  My last bowel 
movement could be described as a religious experience; that, however, 
does not make me a theist.  A "religious impulse" among critical 
theorists does not make critical theory consonant with religion in 
any way, shape, or form.

Furthermore, critical theory has long ceased being critical; it like 
everything else has been processed like so much sausage by a 
generation of second-rate academic hacks who have nothing fresh to 
say about anything.

At 08:21 AM 1/31/2008, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org
>[mailto:theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
>Dumain
>Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:22 AM
>To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
>Subject: [FRA:] Max Horkheimer on Religion
>
>In re:
>Brittain, Christopher Craig. "Social Theory and the Premise of All
>Criticism: Max Horkheimer on Religion," Critical Sociology, vol. 31,
>no. 1-2, pp. 153-168, 2005.
>
>
>As for Brittain's agenda:
>
>"Although many of these reflections remain fragmentary and
>undeveloped, Horkheimer's reflections on religion suggest avenues for
>an ongoing and fruitful dialogue between historical materialism and
>religion."
>
>Horseshit!
>
>Ralph,
>
>I think you're underestimating the "religious impulse" the underlines the
>bulk of Frankfurt School theorizing. Hegel was a CHRISTIAN theologian. Marx
>didn't really do much de-Christianizing of his dialectic. Most of the
entire
>project of critical theory has religious underpinnings, as Brittain
>suggests. These roots and tendencies and inspirations are _ambiguous_ in
the
>Freudian Totem and Taboo sense of the term. This genuinely means an
affinity
>between critical theory and religion. All of the critical theorists - all
of
>them - saw a future either for religion OR the history of religions in
>modernity. See Hans Kippenberg's Discovering Religious History in the
Modern
>Age for a possible explanation why.
>
>Theologians and religious adherents will inevitably be drawn to critical
>theory as modernity erodes its object domain (technology replaces the
>supernatural, so the theologian must retreat to the places that technology
>has not yet occupied, freedom, justice, spirit). Of course there is an
>ongoing and fruitful dialogue between historical materialism and
religion...
>maybe more fruitful for religion than historical materialism though. But -
>you MUST recognize - religious language remains inspiring for many. Not
>supernatural contact or miracles - but the rejuvenating power of religious
>metaphor. I've noticed your use of the term horseshit, the same shit from
>which the devil sprang? And masturbation, one of the deadly sins? The
>language of condemnation - the graphic imagery - is religious in its legacy
>and efficacy. You use it on the list all the time. Why? Because it sets
>people on edge. It gives you a means of expression that is poignant (and
>something to sound off about).
>
>The Protestant Reformers and the Student Revolts had far more in common
that
>many would like to admit. Both opposed ritual, institution, and dogma. Both
>spiritualized their discourses with the Holy Ghost (Luther), LDS (Kesey),
or
>the Spirit of Utopia (Bloch). All turned toward the interior self as a
means
>of resisting external reality. I learned this from Mary Douglas, Natural
>Symbols, someone else who thought that religion had a future.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I'm a secularist through and through, but the
secularist
>position is also ambivalence. It does depend on a shoring up of religious
>sentiment in the private sphere, and I know what that means: JERRY FALWELL.
>
>Lupus in fabula,
>Ken
>
>Dept of Religion
>University of Manitoba
_______________________________________________
theory-frankfurt-school mailing list
theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school