A theory of literature

Literature, I am learning, is the narrative response to individual narrativity. By this I mean that Literature takes up the stories we experience or tell our selves, or have overheard, and through analogies twists these stories into shapes that we wouldn't expect.

I put this differently in notes earlier today:
Great Narratives (novels, film, autobiography, some poetry, philosophy, theology, theory) take up our daily narration through close approximations of our stories (analogies)and puts them in a "whirlwind", returning our narratives in new forms. When we engage these Great Narratives we construct a new narrative figuration of common stories about life, psychology, the social realm, politics, ethnicity, culture, theology, religion...

Stressed

The day of judgment is upon us. The "us" I refer to is my phd cohort at WLU/Waterloo in Religious Diversity in North America. Tomorrow we write our general comprehensive exam. I'm a bit of a wreck. I've been reading too late at night which gives me these academic dreams. I wake up at five or so and realize that I've been thinking about say the plethora of names in Prebish & Baumann's Westward Dharma: Buddhism beyond Asia anthology.

I'm beginning to forget that which I have already put to memory. I've already studied these books sufficiently, say Casanova's Public Religions in the Modern World, and now my mind is rearranging his argument. I have a tendency to forget the shortcomings of a book. I like to idealize the texts I've read. I think it has something to do with managing cognitive dissonance. If I like part of an argument, I begin to intentionally "forget" those elements that I don't find harmonious. It's like purgatory.

The other thing I've been thinking about is conferences in May. There are three that I want to attend. The first one is The Atlantic Canadian Studies Conference in Halifax on May 3-5. The topic is "knowledge in action" which seems like a title dreamed up by someone who is ignorant of Foucault and Said. I've submitted an abstract on the Catholic imaginary in Ann-Marie MacDonald and David Adams Richards. These are two of the authors I am working on in my thesis, and so my work will be productive. Second conference I want to apply to is the regional AAR in at U Waterloo held on the same weekend. The paper I want to deliver is on secular theology in "indie" music with a glance at the cultural habitus, and subjectivity of ipod users (and the subgroup of "indie" music listeners). The songs I have in mind are 1) "Saint Simon" by the shins, which uses a Zizekian model of subjectivity to talk about an encounter with the sublime; 2) "We are no where and it's now" by Bright Eyes, which addresses the problem of place in a imaginary that has disavowed God; 3)"Ocean Breathes Salty" by Modest Mouse, which uses an image of an earthy Eucharist (Ocean Breaths Salty want to carry you in in my head in my heart in my soul) yet ends on a faithless note. I'm captivated by the God talk in this secular space, and I'm also interested in the social-cultural impact that the ipod has had. I think the ipod makes hyper-subjective communities that are a mix of private and public - perhaps priblic, or pubvate, in that one purchases music, is part of some imagined community of listeners, and has no contact with them what so ever, except at a concert. Also, this public commodity reshapes the internal realm and becomes a type of language that expresses one's interiority: note song lists on myspace (yes I've fallen for this trick). Anyway, if I can't present this at the AAR, which is likely, I'll try to submit it to the CSSR in Saskatchewan, May 27-30, though my wife wants me to be at her cousin's wedding in Colorado that weekend. My poor beautiful idea of secular theology may go to waste. It's sad isn't it...

One Punk Under God

So it seems that Jay Bakker, son of the swindlers, wants to be representative of a "revolutionary voice" in Christianity.

Revolution, used here, seems so culturally contextual (how could it not). I mean, Bakker has a church in Atlanta, the Southern Baptist Mecca, and he thinks that accommodating the church to liberal norms is revolutionary. Well it might be for Atlanta, but I'm not too sure it will play in TO. To me it seems like NYC hegemony interpolating the young southern baptist with a new version of uncle sam: "Only you can prevent conservatism" (Ok so there is a bit of smoky the bear in there too).




Here's a section from the wiki sketch on Jay:

"Because his philosophy of inclusiveness extends to gays and gay marriage, Bakker falls outside of the beliefs of many in the conservative Christian community. When Larry King asked him if he was "part of the liberal sect of Christianity?", he said that he was. [4] He also decries the influence of politics in religion, saying that it prevents civil discussion of topics such as homosexuality and abortion. [5]"

Now I don't want to demonize Jay. In deed, I think that conservative churches do need to be more "open" to homosexuals, and I have never been a proponent of banning abortion. However, I also think that the 21st century's ideology of "inclusiveness" might not be the same type that Christ preached (for instance how do 21st century proponents of "free love" feel about Christ's dialogue with the woman at the well). I think any doctrine of catholicity (unity..."inclusiveness") needs be supported by a notion of authority. If the church can't stand for anything on moral grounds then what is the use of it standing? Also, Christ encouraged his followers to be as shrewed as snakes and as innocent as doves...which means that Christians need to have a nice healthy dose of skepticism with their innocence (Christians need a good deal of work here as well).

So here is my healthy dose of skepticism: mightn't Jay be a political tool for transforming conservative protestantism? The US is full of theological tools for transforming Islam, just read Saba Mahmood's latest article in Public Culture. Indeed these tools were sharpened in the protestant cultural arena. If Jay is such a tool (which is quite likely...there are lots of edgy preachers around to make documentaries about, but Jay's pedigree draws much more attention...He's a Paris Hilton of the South), then what is the "good" around which his audience is being oriented. This is assuming that "Jesus" is often co-opted for the goods of one political ideology or another, which leads me to one of my favourite quotes of 2006:

"I always think of Jesus with big eagle wings, as the lead singer of Lynard Skynard...and he's got this angel band...and I'm in the front row, just hammered ..."

And when I laugh at this let's just say I'm using my shrewdness. But conflating the Christ with the American Eagle is a bit of a mistake...though Lynard Skynard might make it past the pearly gates ...I wanna fly-eye-ayeye free bird, woaw,..

Question for Larry King: Just which "sect" is the liberal sect of Christianity?

The One Book Meme

Here's a game I like:

1. One book that changed your life:
Graham Greene, The End of the Affair

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Virginia Woolf, Mrs. Dalloway

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
The Riverside Shakespeare - lots of time for soliloquies

4. One book that made you laugh:
John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany

5. One book that made you cry:
Douglas Coupland, Life After God

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Paul of Tarsus, Epistle to the Postmoderns

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
Russel McCutcheon, Manufacturing Religion

8. One book you’re currently reading:
John Updike, In the Beauty of the Lilies

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
Randy Boyagoda, Governor of the Northern Province

10. Now tag five people: In the hope of getting this meme started, I’ll tag anyone who happens to read this! [This was part of the post I ripped the template from. I hate to put pressure on people, but I can't mess with a good ending]

Ayles ice shelf , An Inconvient Truth and the need for a robust inner-city bus system in Southern Ontario

I heard that Ayles ice shelf separated from Ellesmere island over the Christmas break. That is only when it symbolically separated for the general public. It actually snapped free on August 19, 2005, proving we do have a bit of a time lag in our media reportage.

The Ayles ice shelf was the size of 11 000 football fields, or 60 km squared. I'm getting concerned about the environment. A month ago Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth was shown during an environmental rally at Wilfrid Laurier University. It freaked me out for two reasons:

1) The climate change thing is real - it's above zero in January in Waterloo Canada right now (and it certainly ain't El Nino!). New Brunswick, where I would have been snowboarding in at least 3 feet of snow 10 years ago, has about an inch of snow. Ski hills from Ontario to NS can't open.

2) I've known about the green house effect since I was in grade 5 (1990) and I was somehow able to forget about the environment (at a political level) for the last 5 years. How was this done? 9/11. The old 9/11 smoke screen, erected so that a few key players can shovel shitloads of money into their portfolios while those poor enough not to be able to afford international space travel are left to sink in the global titanic.

Here's what pisses me off: Stop and go traffic 45 minutes outside of Toronto. I was looking around during the drive back from North Bay last week. I realized that the car is the shape of the nuclear family. We have the infrastructure to support a robust intercity bus system that would reduce traffic from the Waterloo, Guelph, London, Cambridge, etc... to Toronto by at least half, if it was subsidized by the government, and made as affordable as driving your own car. The Koreans have done it; albeit they are much more communitarian then we are. But I could do with being a bit more connected to people. The social element of modernity (or hyper or post - whatever) sucks. The bus would bring a little Durkheim back in our lives, a little society. And here is the selling line: you gain an extra two hours of productivity because the bus could be wifi compatible. Bring your laptop on the bus, do your business shit, read the paper. Screw the pooch on YouTube, at least you're not popping the clutch between first and second, stalling the car in stop and go (and inadvertently undermining the polar ice cap)

The infrastructure is there, it just needs to be utilized. The truth is the inconvenient truth isn't even all that inconvenient.

Geertz Smeertz

Cultural anthropologist Clifford Geertz died not long ago. The next day one of my profs sent a note to the religion and culture email list that was dripping with sadness. Something like: Clifford Geertz died last night (with a link to an article)...I thought you would want to know".

Now, I'm not one for undermining human dignity, but my mind went to Steven Lewis and kids with AIDs in Africa (kids with AIDs period - cut the colonial melodrama Andrew), and I thought -- yeah religious studies (the old guard anyway) has succumbed to a type of a political neo-romanticism. A friend of mine says they're all hippies who can't help reverting...I wonder. Anyway, they are retiring and their idols are, well, cashing in on the big pension in the sky...

When I was studying English, I was enamored with Michael Winter's One Last Good Look, a pseudo-fictional glance at Newfoundland, which was highly influenced by thick description. My wife was studying social theory, and I had a new jewel in my mouth - Geertz. High on a pedestal. I thought thick description was divine revelation, and Geertz was some sort of Gabreel.

A good prof of mine, ole (level headed) R. Mas burst that bubble. Sent us home to read Talal Asad on Geertz. Asad claims that Geertz reduces all life to text, leaving anthropology in a bit of a quagmire - having no person left to act (I've re-read Asad - his complaint about Geertz is more nuanced then I have portrayed it. It has more to do with Geertz' naivety about knowledge-power relations in pre-modern Christianity and contemporary Islam. Geertz' is influenced by protestant views on belief, separation of church and state and power in general). I tend to agree. After Asad, Geertz is dead.

Anyway, H. and I were going over Geertz' definition of religion for the upcoming comprehensive exam. If you don't know it already, here you are:

[A religion is](1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Geertz 1985: 4).

I was struck by what an absurd definition this was for an anthropologist to write. The system acts while the people have no agency. Their moods and motivations are implanted in them (similar to Foucault here) from an anthropomorphic system which formulates order clothed in an aura of factuality (clearly the natives are deluded)* and convinces the poor sods of some foolish mobile in the sky.

And the icing on the cake: this was considered science...

I call it poetry, and bad poetry at that.

[I realize that I may sound like a champion of science...I'm not. Nor do I disparage poets -- except perhaps Keats and Christopher Dewdney -- I'm just struck by the childish language games that are played in the social sciences about religion. But you know what? I still like Geertz' concept of deep play in the Balinese cockfighting article; however, I'm done with his definition of religion.]

* Asad critiques Geertz thus: "The paradox results from an ambiguous phenomenology in which reality is as once the distance of an agent's social perspective from the truth, measurable only by the privileged observer, and also the substantive knowledge of a socially constructed world available to both agent and observer, but to the latter only through the former" (52). This, Zizek would claim, is possibility of subjectivity - that representation and object are unequal.

Religion as Imagination

"Musn't the ability and the will to adopt a religious standpoint be present prior to the ritual performance" (Asad 1993:50)

Since I started in religious studies I have abhorred the idea that religion needed to be defined. Coming from literary studies, deeply influenced by post-colonial critiques of power-knowledge, I found that definitions are instruments of control that attempt to limit phenomenon by explaining them. I think that this attempts to reduce mystery to something consumable. That is to say that I think religion, while a very basic concept of our world, in the end, remains mysterious. But I have come to see the advantages of having a provisional definition of religion, one that remains "always-already" partial, yet orienting. So with out further ado...

My always-already partial definition of religion:
Religion is a product of the imagination. A religion is a social-imaginary, an object created by multiple imaginations coming together for the hope of a common purpose. Religion also includes an element of bodily action; however, this element is secondary to the imaginative possibility of action. Imagination is primary because one must have a glimpse of possible action before purposeful action can take place. When Abraham leaves his known locality of Ur to search for the city of God, he must have a image of this city in his mind before his pilgrimage can be undertaken. This image need not be accurate, but it must exceed his immanent knowledge. It must push him beyond.

This is to say that the possibility of action must exist before action takes place. Religious action always takes place in the space created by the free play of the imagination. This is the case when someone innovates, and also when someone conforms to pre-imagined constructs of religion (as is the case with tradition).
Habits are fostered which reform life-worlds, subjectivities and bodies, yet the ability to form habits is contingent on one's potential to imagine ways of conforming to habit. Conformity, in the creation of habitus, is imaginative activity.

One might say that this concept of religion is a theory of subjectivity that can be applied to any human capacity: politics, culture, economics, travel. To this I say yes. I claim that imagination is religious because it is mysterious (as the history of psychoanalysis in the 20th century will testify to, along with surrealism, and post-modern attempts to negate the imagination - Zizek), yet not so mysterious that it is unknowable in entirety. The totality of the imagination may not be understood, but certain process can be approached in part. As with the subject, so with the social: the social element of religion can have a symbolic shape, yet the this symbolic shape will never represent the sum of religious possibility, because of the mysterious excess of its parts (constitutive subjectivities). Without such subjectivities, religion would not exist. Thus a theory of subjectivity is the basic starting point of a definition of religion.

The symbolic "structure" of religion, embodied in buildings, texts, and selves is real, yet created (note: This is not to align the "real" with the "true"). It is fashionable to claim that products of the imagination are abstractions, as say Benedict Anderson claims regarding the nation; I assert that imagined products are real: I drive one everyday; I am using one to write this blog. Both the car and the computer are imagined products, as are movies, literature and theatrical performances. Cathedrals and the texts which inspired them are equally real. Temples and sutras are as real as the monks and nuns that use them.

Still the question remains: what makes Mahayana Buddhism different then a cultural product, say the film "Spring, Summer Fall, Winter, Spring" (a Korean film about a Mahayana monk and a young boy)? I would say that this question (which tries to get at the distinction between religion and culture), is conceptually problematic. The film is religious, yet the form is modern. We like to think that modern cultural products are areligious, however this idea is false. Is there a difference between religion and culture? Yes, but it exists in the interplay of transcendence and immanence. We imagine culture to be constrained by the immanent (the given), while religion keeps the immanent and transcendent in tension. We call things religious for many reason:
A) because they privilege this tension of the immanent and transcendent
B) because they are traditional
C) because they are routine
(feel free to add to this list)

Faith is the actuality of synthesizing a transcendent vision with the immanent. Bad faith is unsuccessful because one's vision is shoddy. Good faith is successful because the object of vision has fidelity with the real.

Because the imagination is mysterious we never limit agency to the human. There is a possibility that something other then human interacts with imagination, just as the same possibility exists that the world is founded on something we cannot conceptualize in total. Whether we can speak about this other intelligently is still out there...