Is it just "culture"?

In the New York Times earlier this week, Slavoj Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, defended the Chinese Government's recent efforts to regulate religion--including Order No. 5, a law covering “the management measures for the reincarnation of living Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism.” One of Zizek's more provocative arguments is that even in the West religion is largely becoming a mere matter of culture, rather than faith:

It is all too easy to laugh at the idea of an atheist power regulating something that, in its eyes, doesn’t exist. However, do we believe in it? When in 2001 the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan, many Westerners were outraged — but how many of them actually believed in the divinity of the Buddha? Rather, we were angered because the Taliban did not show appropriate respect for the “cultural heritage” of their country. Unlike us sophisticates, they really believed in their own religion, and thus had no great respect for the cultural value of the monuments of other religions.

The significant issue for the West here is not Buddhas and lamas, but what we mean when we refer to “culture.” All human sciences are turning into a branch of cultural studies. While there are of course many religious believers in the West, especially in the United States, vast numbers of our societal elite follow (some of the) religious rituals and mores of our tradition only out of respect for the “lifestyle” of the community to which we belong: Christmas trees in shopping centers every December; neighborhood Easter egg hunts; Passover dinners celebrated by nonbelieving Jews.

“Culture” has commonly become the name for all those things we practice without really taking seriously. And this is why we dismiss fundamentalist believers as “barbarians” with a “medieval mindset”: they dare to take their beliefs seriously. Today, we seem to see the ultimate threat to culture as coming from those who live immediately in their culture, who lack the proper distance.

Perhaps we find China’s reincarnation laws so outrageous not because they are alien to our sensibility, but because they spill the secret of what we have done for so long: respectfully tolerating what we don’t take quite seriously, and trying to contain its political consequences through the law.

Read it all here.

Comments (1)

I have heard Zizek lecture and he can be good when he talks about things he knows. But this piece is bad because he Christianizes Buddhism by assuming that Buddhists believe in the divinity of the Buddha: "When in 2001 the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan, many Westerners were outraged — but how many of them actually believed in the divinity of the Buddha?" It has escaped him that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion. Reminds me of the days when people used to call Islam Mohammedism. Unlike Jesus, Buddha doesn't do anything for anyone so there is no need to believe in him. One has to follow his example. Zizek's views on religion in this piece seem to be the mirror image of Evangelical Christianity in the assumption that religious language describes reality rather than expresses an attitude toward life.

Gary

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space