I wrote this today while I was out on a job for my dad. There was a lot of down time, so I decided it was an opportune time to write something new.
* * *
It has been a little while since my last post. A number of things have kept me away from the blogosphere, including, but not limited to, an insane work schedule and, in a fortunate turn of technological fate, a new computer! Since my old computer has five years worth of my life on it, however, the transition has left me a bit distracted during my free time. It is now time to get back on track. My boss is out of town (again) for an entire month, which means that, as long as I am getting my work done, I am pretty much left to my own devices. In fact, right now, I am working on a job for my dad. It’s pretty boring–so much so that I am writing this by hand in the field.
By “the field,” I mean a condominium complex in the bowels of Kendall, the absolute epitome of the soul-crushing, horrifically vanilla American suburb. It is mostly cars, houses, and strip malls with very little redeeming cultural value other than its place as a perfect sociological study of American complacency. Meanwhile, there is seemingly a revolution fomenting halfway across the globe, in Iran. The cable news (surprise, surprise) does not talk about it in any serious depth, but something incredible is happening there. Whether it results in a full-on regime change remains to be seen. For all we know in the United States, this could be yet another instance of politicians taking advantage of a people who are thirsty for change when, in truth, they are only in it to grab power for themselves. Replacing corruption with different faces doesn’t change the nature of an entire political system.
On the other hand, I would like to think that this time is different–that the Iranian people have a thoroughly 21st century sensibility that is winning against the medieval ideology sucking their civilization dry for the past 30 years. Young Iranians have been given unprecedented access to the wider world through technology, a venue for speaking as a people, not as a polity. I honestly don’t know enough about Iranian society beyond the snapshots I receive in Western media (and through the graphic novel and recent film representation presented in Persepolis), to say whether or not this is a true ideological shift. Intuition, however, tells me that the tide really is turning in a profound way.
The uprising of people in the streets makes me think this has been coming for a long time. Pictures of mass demonstrations all over the alternative media sites has made me reflect on what it must be like to live in a dictatorial theocracy. Even though Iran is a majority Muslim country, it is unrealistic to expect such a degree of ideological agreement from an entire nation of people. In theory, I can see how theocracy is a very appealing way to organize a government. That may be a strange thing for a largely secular/agnostic person to say, but hear me out:
When deciding how to craft good law, one must weight a number of different factors, depending on the nature of what is being legislated. Whether or not you think this ought to be, the root of many laws is an ethical or moral dimension. In the United States, a society that strives to be fairly pluralistic, our lawmakers must weight a number of competing moral/ethical perspectives. When you consider the rights we have to choose our own moral code (as long as it doesn’t involve cannibalism, ritual sacrifice of domestic animals, or forcing women and children into sexually suspect compounds), it is actually pretty astounding that we, as a society, agree on anything at all.
Theocracy takes away the whole messy business of deciding which ethical/moral code is superior or most appropriate for a particular legal issue, at least in theory. In practice, of course, it discounts the very important fact that within a single “ideology” or “religion” exists radically different interpretations and modes of applying a doctrine, text, scripture, holy book, etc. Putting that huge pitfall aside for a moment, however, theocracy could be an appealing form of governance if there were to be enough ethical consensus among a population. Everyone would agree on things like ritual practices, on how resources should be allocated, on the role of individuals, on societal institutions, and on how conflicts should be resolved, to name a few.
But like all ideas that sound wonderfully perfect on paper, it practice, theocracy ends up sabotaging the very end it seeks. Rather than lead to moral consensus, it encourages a religious power struggle over whose version of [insert religion here] is purest, most authentic, or most holy. It takes something that is supposed to be a framework for living ethically with other people and instead creates a market for martyrs. Proving the holiness of one’s particular dogma becomes inextricably bound to the power one has in society. Maintaining that power, the supremacy of one’s exegesis, becomes more important than the very purpose of religion itself.
In America, politicians frequently switch their political loyalties when they see it as smart strategy to get a pet project placed in a bill, to get a piece of prized legislation passed, to get a political appointment for a friend, or to improve their chances of winning an upcoming election. If “clergy” is synonymous with “politician” or “official,” should people really trust them for moral or spiritual guidance, which they are purportedly ordained to provide? As far as I’m concerned, a life career dedicated to a religion is a serious undertaking that should mean a lot more than politics often do.
On a related note, another problem I see with the conflation of religion and politics is the risk of creating yes-men (or women) who don’t give a shit about ethics or morality, but who are willing to play the part for political gain. In the case of Iran, how many of those clerics in the highest echelons of society do you think wear a beard, spew verses of Qu’ran, and, meanwhile, couldn’t care less about any of its real meaning? My guess is that it is a lot more prevalent that we’ll ever really know. If the number of kids I watched sit glassy-eyed, deathly bored, and clearly indifferent to religious instruction taking place in my Hebrew School days is any indication, I doubt the “Islamists” are radically different than other religions.
Granted, the U.S. is a far different society, perhaps incomparably so. But maybe the biggest difference between the U.S. and Iran is not an inherent inclination toward religious piousness in the latter nation, but that in the U.S., children are generally brought up with an awareness that other options can exist. Religious instruction is not the only future for education and personal advancement. When one lives in a theocracy, however, the available realms of success are far more limited (and more often than not, this only exists for 50 percent or less of the population, anyway). So, why not fake it?
The thing about faking faith, though, is that people will eventually catch on and call out those who are in power. Principles based on dishonest performance are unsustainable. As the generations pass and fresh ideas make their way into a society, people begin to identify fraudulence. Sure, some new moral salesman will come along, but hopefully in the context of a much wider marketplace of ideas. In the case of Iran, I hope that religion can find its place in a society among a plurality of perspectives, and that the fundamentalists who have systemically victimized their people will be pushed out of the mainstream by a new, more open ethnical consensus.
