Don Libby wrote:
> So we agree there is an association with level of socioeconomic development
> and the prevalence (or dominance or strength) of patriarchal religion. But,
> still too soon to conclude there is a causal relationship.
OK
> No doubt fear and terror are effective means of behavioral control. So are
> guilt and shame, but their link to violence is less clear; they seem more
> strongly related to social approval or disapproval.
The desire for approval or fear of disapproval by religious authorities
(e.g., priests, pastors, ayatollahs, etc.) can be even stronger.
> I appreciate and applaud your search for evidence - indeed that is what
> holds my interest here. I hope you don't mind my "oppositional" rhetoric,
> it is simply an exercise in skepticism such that we may learn something from
> explanations when they are called for.
Agree, I welcome your feedback whether positive or negative.
> One bit of logic calls for explanation: how may a constant explain change?
> Sections 1 and 4 speak of "ubiquitous" violence - everywhere, and for a very
> long time. If there has been a regime of ubiquitous patriarchal violence
> for something like 2000 years, how can that explain the massive global
> changes of the past 200 years, measurable by such indicators as the size of
> the human population, atmospheric CO2 concentration, or global average
> surface temperature?
Two thousand years doing something wrong is no justification to keep
doing it. In my book, violence is always wrong -- in principle.
My personal impression is that changes for good are seldom induced by
violence, patriarchal or otherwise. Conversely, bad changes (and
refusal to implement good changes) are most often induced by violence.
Again, most violence has patriarchal roots. Now, what is good and what
is bad for humanity is hard to define and impossible to calculate. But
if we act in conscience, we generally know what is good vs.what is bad.
> I think we may have to seek material explanations (the industrial
> revolution) and point to "patriarchally dominant" religion as a drag on
> industrial development, rather than a driving force of change. Technical
> change leading, cultural change lagging, or in more anthropological terms:
> material culture changing more rapidly than immaterial culture. Seems there
> is a story to be told of the patriarchal mind set replaced by the "western
> liberal" mind set, accompanied as it has been by "the protestant ethic and
> the spirit of capitalism", to coin a phase.
All forms of violence and, in particular, all forms of religious
violence are bad regardless of religion or social customs.
> Have you encountered Alex Inkeles' "psychological modernity" theory of
> development?
I just googled him ... can you recommend a short intro or tutorial?
Recently I have been reading the writings of René Girard about the link
between violence and religion. Are you familiar with Girard's work?
Luis
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
