One other thing that really stuck with me that I think deserves more attention is Blair's idea about religion being a tool used by people to, more or less, guilt themselves into being good and virtuous. Thoughts?
I concur. The comment made about religion was very interesting and Blair made a very good connection to the topic at hand. Putting personal beliefs aside, I agree that one could certainly argue that religion is or could be used a tool to persuade or manipulate oneself (or others) into conducting oneself in a certain manner. Many who are religious follow a moral guideline outlined by the bible, for example, or thats which is emphasized by a priest, imam, rabbi or etc. Within religion, individuals follow and live by this strict guideline as they believe this is the manner in which God expects them to conduct themselves, and as he is always watching over them, one must always act accordingly. This being said, religion could be seen as a method of 'observation' that in which one is always being watched and should therefore always act in a certain manner, just like driver's on the road who afraid of being pulled over a police officer if they speed; or shoppers who do not steal, in fear that there may be surveillance cameras watching them.
I just noticed this discussion and had one or two things to say. You guys have it exactly right about it possibly being an early from of a panopticon, and that it is a method of observation. What I want to pose is whether this shows that humanity wants to be watched. Most religions assume a God or Gods which watch or watches over our actions from above. So it seems that humans could create concepts like that for a few different reasons. The following are ones I have thought of sitting here now, but there may be more. One is that people are easily manipulated, for this reason one person or a group of people use religion as a way to control others. Another is that humans want to be watched, either this makes them feel important, or they believe that if they are watched then others are too. This would help to assure them that other humans will behave in ways that are not too unpredictable, rather stable and safe. Another is of course, to explain things which people could not explain. However, this has no relation to the panopticon, and the idea of a God who is watching seems not to follow from trying to explain some natural phenomenon. I think it may have been the first two reasons. I might want to write more on this later but for now I want to work more on my rough draft.
The same more or less goes for Santa Claus! His ability to constantly surveil is supposed to motivate children to alter their deviant behavior. Even if they misbehave and get coal one year they are spat back into the naughty/nice system, just ad the carceral system never excludes it's failures. It's pretty funny to think about in this context, but definitely similar.
I can see why you might view it that way, but to be honest I don't think its a perfect analogy because (and I have no statistics to prove this, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt) for the most part I don't think that the vast majority of Christians strictly follow the Bible. They basically pick and choose what to follow which usually just corresponds either with our laws or what is socially responsible/acceptable. Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, so clearly there are going to be some people (and with a religion that big, some people = A LOT of people) who allow it to strip away their freedom, but I think that's just a side effect of how many people are part of it. The average person (I think) just labels themself a Christian basically because their family is and they don't care enough to question it.
I think this is an interesting question. If you were to look back at the "creation" of religion, I highly doubt that people designed it with the thought of controlling. Has it been used to control, most definitely. But I can't help but wonder if this was the original intent.
With that said, I believe there are two questions to ask. Did the originators feel that they were being watched, that their actions has a lasting affect, and thus described God as a being who was omniscient? Or did they have a desire for everyone to behave therefore they designed a religion in which God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?
Another thought I had with regards to this subject are those who are born into a hyper-religious family and as such are raised to believe that the restrictions and truths presented by a specific religion are as true and even more important than the laws set by society. Is it possible to say that their compliance and belief in the religion is due to their desire to constantly be watched? That they have an innate wish to be controlled?
I think it is difficult to look at religion now and answer these questions without knowing the motives of the creator.
I see religion as a government of sorts. In the form of Thomas Hobbe's people choose to relinquish their freedom in exchange for other privileges. Now to be controlled, not because they want to be watched at all times, but because they desire more from this world than a day to day existence and they have hope in the illogical idea that there is a being that exists who use their life for a purpose.
With all of that said, I do agree that religion can be viewed as a panopticon of sorts. At the same time, I find it important to attempt to find the contrasting elements.
I concur. The comment made about religion was very interesting and Blair made a very good connection to the topic at hand. Putting personal beliefs aside, I agree that one could certainly argue that religion is or could be used a tool to persuade or manipulate oneself (or others) into conducting oneself in a certain manner. Many who are religious follow a moral guideline outlined by the bible, for example, or thats which is emphasized by a priest, imam, rabbi or etc. Within religion, individuals follow and live by this strict guideline as they believe this is the manner in which God expects them to conduct themselves, and as he is always watching over them, one must always act accordingly. This being said, religion could be seen as a method of 'observation' that in which one is always being watched and should therefore always act in a certain manner, just like driver's on the road who afraid of being pulled over a police officer if they speed; or shoppers who do not steal, in fear that there may be surveillance cameras watching them.
ReplyDeleteI just noticed this discussion and had one or two things to say. You guys have it exactly right about it possibly being an early from of a panopticon, and that it is a method of observation. What I want to pose is whether this shows that humanity wants to be watched. Most religions assume a God or Gods which watch or watches over our actions from above. So it seems that humans could create concepts like that for a few different reasons. The following are ones I have thought of sitting here now, but there may be more. One is that people are easily manipulated, for this reason one person or a group of people use religion as a way to control others. Another is that humans want to be watched, either this makes them feel important, or they believe that if they are watched then others are too. This would help to assure them that other humans will behave in ways that are not too unpredictable, rather stable and safe. Another is of course, to explain things which people could not explain. However, this has no relation to the panopticon, and the idea of a God who is watching seems not to follow from trying to explain some natural phenomenon. I think it may have been the first two reasons. I might want to write more on this later but for now I want to work more on my rough draft.
ReplyDeleteThe same more or less goes for Santa Claus! His ability to constantly surveil is supposed to motivate children to alter their deviant behavior. Even if they misbehave and get coal one year they are spat back into the naughty/nice system, just ad the carceral system never excludes it's failures. It's pretty funny to think about in this context, but definitely similar.
DeleteI can see why you might view it that way, but to be honest I don't think its a perfect analogy because (and I have no statistics to prove this, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt) for the most part I don't think that the vast majority of Christians strictly follow the Bible. They basically pick and choose what to follow which usually just corresponds either with our laws or what is socially responsible/acceptable. Christianity is the largest religion in the United States, so clearly there are going to be some people (and with a religion that big, some people = A LOT of people) who allow it to strip away their freedom, but I think that's just a side effect of how many people are part of it. The average person (I think) just labels themself a Christian basically because their family is and they don't care enough to question it.
DeleteI think this is an interesting question. If you were to look back at the "creation" of religion, I highly doubt that people designed it with the thought of controlling. Has it been used to control, most definitely. But I can't help but wonder if this was the original intent.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I believe there are two questions to ask. Did the originators feel that they were being watched, that their actions has a lasting affect, and thus described God as a being who was omniscient? Or did they have a desire for everyone to behave therefore they designed a religion in which God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?
Another thought I had with regards to this subject are those who are born into a hyper-religious family and as such are raised to believe that the restrictions and truths presented by a specific religion are as true and even more important than the laws set by society. Is it possible to say that their compliance and belief in the religion is due to their desire to constantly be watched? That they have an innate wish to be controlled?
I think it is difficult to look at religion now and answer these questions without knowing the motives of the creator.
I see religion as a government of sorts. In the form of Thomas Hobbe's people choose to relinquish their freedom in exchange for other privileges. Now to be controlled, not because they want to be watched at all times, but because they desire more from this world than a day to day existence and they have hope in the illogical idea that there is a being that exists who use their life for a purpose.
With all of that said, I do agree that religion can be viewed as a panopticon of sorts. At the same time, I find it important to attempt to find the contrasting elements.