Religion And Social Solidarity

By Daniel Larison • January 15, 2010, 1:04 PM

David Brooks is right that culture and habits matter, but this one line rang false:

There is the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile.

Of course, it seems odd to count the first part of this statement against practitioners of voodoo at the present time, since a natural disaster is one of the most obvious ways in which we see the capriciousness of life on display, but more important it seems to me that Brooks’ description simply gets voodoo wrong. He is describing these beliefs as if they were fatalistic, when practitioners of voodoo believe that they can use their rites to influence things and be empowered.

There is also something about this remark that reminds me of old, fairly absurd stereotypes of Catholic societies as stagnant and uncreative. Haitians are also overwhelmingly Catholic, and many of them practice voodoo as well, but why should we assume that their religious practices are the destructive influences in their society? Isn’t it just as plausible that the social function of voodoo is attempt to reclaim some power over circumstances amid misfortunes and adversity? Viewed in that way, it could be seen at the very least as a socially stabilizing mechanism for coping with life’s burdens. The line rang false all the more because it was followed by the far more significant observation that “[t]here are high levels of social mistrust.” When trying to discern reasons for social dysfunction and weak institutions, social mistrust would seem to be the overwhelmingly more relevant factor. Further, it is probably the case that shared religious beliefs are a source of social solidarity and cohesion, and so would potentially be a means of building social trust, which would make such beliefs part of any larger solution.

11 Responses to Religion And Social Solidarity

Grumpy Old Man says:

January 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm

Candomblé, the Brazilian syncretism between West African religion and Catholicism, is largely an attempt to commune with the spirits, identified with Catholic saints. Xangó=Saint Barbara (thunder deity, patron saint of artillery), etc. Haitian vodun and santería are substantially similar. There are propitiatory sacrifices, which seems a bit strange to Europeans and Americans. Certainly not fatalistic, though hardly the bourgeois striving of Max Weber’s Protestants.

After Haiti won its independence from Napoleon, France and to a lesser extent Britain, starved her and bled her dry, and a succession of local lords of misrule made things worse. American occupation and tutelage didn’t make Haiti safe for democracy, and the place was deforested by charcoal-making and destructive gardening practices.

Although Haiti is an economic and political basket case, its people are charming and artistically and musically creative.

Most of the advice they’ve been given over the years has been bad, and the substantial foreign aid ill-spent or stolen. Fifty monasteries, microloans, reforestation, and sustainable small-scale horticulture might be a start, while the billion dollars a year sent back by émigrés sustains the place. That, and no visas for the Jeffrey Sachses of the world.
Rowan says:

January 15, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Don’t forget not one but two US-backed coups in the last twenty years, to bring in and then kick out the exact same guy. I can’t help but think that that may affect stability somehow.

Perhaps slightly more than ancient stereotypes that black people, er, I mean, people associated with a country associated with voodoo, are ruled by caprice instead of logic like the white man.
conradg says:

January 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Not that Brooks probably has a clue about Voodoo, but there are ways in which it has created dysfunctional societies not just in Haiti, but back in Africa where it is called Ju-ju. The basic belief is that the world is ordered by supernatural spirits which influence and control virtually everything around us, and which we have to placate or defend against if we want things to work out, and when things don’t work out, there is a search for some human being who has either fallen in with evil spirits (witches) or who has offended the spirits (blasphemers, apostates, and outsiders, as well as people who simply act wrongly in relation to the spirits). This leads to massive blame-games and scapegoating, and that can seriously disrupt the social order. But you are quite right that none of that is fatalism. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a belief that human beings and the quality of their relationship to the spirit world are to blame for everything that goes wrong in the world, and that we must find those who are responsible and punish or isolate them.

That, plus the polytheism inherent in this religion, makes it difficult to centrally organize a society. Monotheism is much more capable of ordering a society around a central authority, because that is how it views the universe – a single God, whom all must obey and worship and placate. It doesn’t entirely eliminate the scapegoating principle, as the history of Monotheism well shows, but it does create a more stable social order around it, which of course sometimes simply makes the scapegoating more organized and efficient.
Rowan says:

January 15, 2010 at 8:42 pm

conrad, I think you may be mixing correlation and causation. It could just as easily be said that societies ordered around central authority are more likely to adopt monotheism. What’s cause and what’s effect? Probably neither, and the Chinese example sticks out like a sore thumb when claiming that ordered societies and monotheism go together.
conradg says:

January 15, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Rowan, I’m not suggesting that monotheism is the only way for ordered societies to come into being. All the earliest civilizations were polytheistic. But their polytheism was ordered in hierarchies, rather than in anarchic and random ways, as is the case in Voodoo and Ju-ju. One can argue all night about causation and correlation, and in the end it doesn’t matter, what matters is what kind of society is able to organize itself in a manner that serves the needs of the community. Animistic cultures such as Voodoo and Ju-ju are able to serve the needs of particular kinds of societies, that kind of which early tribal cultures were composed. But when those societies try to fit into the modern world, which is ordered much more centrally and hierarchically, it just doesn’t work anymore and becomes dysfunctional. If Haiti were still a jungle tribal society, it would be more than adequate to the social needs of that culture, but it isn’t, it’s trying and failing to work as a densely populated modern society that demands a very different structure and hierarchy. So I think it’s true that the culture of Voodoo is part of the problem, just not in the way that Brooks thinks it is.

I have nothing against animism or polytheism, by the way, and I don’t consider monotheism to be superior. It’s just important to recognize how inseparable religion and culture are at so many basic levels of society, the one feeding off and feeding in turn the other. When a society becomes dysfunctional, often something is off in these basic areas. Trust problems don’t magically appear because of political conflicts, they are often rooted in the dysfunctional relationship of the key elements of the society, such as religion and social hierarchy and the organizational ethics they impart.
Rowan says:

January 16, 2010 at 12:00 am

I don’t think you were – it’s a touchy subject and easy to call someone out for being a racist or religionist or whatever. I don’t think that was the case here.

I just think that it’s equally likely that religion and culture are so intertwined that one really can’t make the argument that one style of religion is better suited towards, in this case, western modes of development. I think the religion/culture would reorganize into the nominally stable hierarchies as the western modes of development started occurring.

I think most all major religions have pulls towards both hierarchy and anarchy. One of the major roles that religion fills in a society is stability, but one of the major ways that it helps stabilize society is by assuring the individual of their worth and/or importance. When the latter becomes more important, the religion trends towards anarchy. But I just don’t think that religion alone will make the push towards anarchy on its own.
conradg says:

January 16, 2010 at 1:18 am

I agree that religion and culture will eventually find some kind of stability and balance, but that’s not yet happened in places like Haiti, or parts of Africa, because the introduction of western culture was so sudden and violent and did not allow for an ordinary process of adaptation.

And yes, I do make the argument that certain kinds of religion are more suited towards the western mode of development, precisely because the western mode developed over such a long period of time and has been able to sustain itself through religious modes that have nurtured that growth. Monotheism, and Christianity in particular, have both been so successful precisely because they have been able to produce the kind of centrally organized and authoritative forms of culture and government that can produce the modern style of life, including science and technology. That’s why a lot of people in developing nations are turning to Christianity – not because it’s inherently superior, but because it is definitely superior in the context of the modern world much of the developing nations are trying to adapt to. I’m not sure I know enough about Haiti to say how helpful the Catholic influence has been there, but my guess is that it’s not quite as strong as it might be. My sense is that the Voodoo culture and cognitive process is still very much in place even among those who are nominal Catholics, as is common in Africa. Some regions persist in their traditional modes in spite of the advantages they could have if they abandoned them, simply out of habit and religious preference. But that persistence has serious consequences in the ability of the society to deal with the modern world in a way that meets even basic needs, such as food, shelter, economic independence, and the ability to deal with emergencies like this earthquake. At a certain point, failure and collapse either just wipe out the indigenous culture, or it leads people to convert to something else that will work better for them. That’s largely how Christian missionaries are succeeding in finding so many converts in third world countries – not, as they might like to think, because of the inherent truth of their message.
Dan W says:

January 16, 2010 at 2:04 pm

This post and these comments are by far the most sensible I have read about Haitian society and religion. Thank you all.
J says:

January 17, 2010 at 10:30 am

That’s why a lot of people in developing nations are turning to Christianity – not because it’s inherently superior, but because it is definitely superior in the context of the modern world much of the developing nations are trying to adapt to.

Some of my relatives, who are in the missions biz, have admitted as much to me.
Rowan says:

January 17, 2010 at 12:56 pm

I had a longer response but accidentally clicked on a link and lost it. Ah well. As I recall, my main points were:

In terms of missionary success, historically Catholicism and its stable of saints have been very effective at pushing to convert polytheistic peoples, as saints and deities can be conflated. Sometimes this is a little bit too effective (like the conflation of the Virgin Mary with the Buddhist goddess Kuanyin). Voodoo and voodun are especially able to syncretize with Catholicism. Like the Chinese example, this may have unintended side effects.

Second, there are often specific practical benefits for non-Christians in weak positions to convert to Christianity, just like prisoners who become deeply religious may be paroled earlier. This isn’t simply cynicism – the faith may be genuine – but the practical gains may encourage the initial exploration. This doesn’t mean that Christianity is power, but it does recognize that many of the most powerful states and persons in the world are Christian.
Glaivester1 says:

January 17, 2010 at 6:58 pm

That’s why a lot of people in developing nations are turning to Christianity – not because it’s inherently superior, but because it is definitely superior in the context of the modern world much of the developing nations are trying to adapt to.

Although this raises the question of whether the world they are trying to adapt to is inherently superior to the world whence they came.