Jackson Pollock as Universalist: Response to Chris R.

I would like to respond to Chris's blog on Jackson Pollock.

I think that sometimes we confuse complete abstraction, or the absence of a recognizable form, in artwork for a lack of meaning and purpose. While Pollock's work is definitely abstract, it is most definitely not devoid of meaning or purpose. Chris pointed out that his work was meaningful, but he says only as a side-affect of Pollock's purpose of painting a "whirlwind of nonsense…[and a] more and more random combination of…material." However, I would argue that not only does Pollock's abstract art have meaning, Pollock also intended it to have purpose.

I'm not sure any serious artist creates what they do without purpose. Neither did Jackson Pollock. While he didn't intend a specific meaning, he was part of a movement—Abstract Expressionism—that included Barnett Newman (above), which strived for universality in their works. By taking away recognizable forms that might not be meaningful for some, they purposely tried to make the artwork meaningful for everyone: everyone can relate to color, shape, and form. Yes, whatever the viewer takes out of the painting is largely his or her own interpretation, but that does not mean the painting did not have an original purpose.

The universality theme throughout the Abstract Expressionism movement also often had a spiritual side. The art gallery had in the mid-twentieth century had become a place where one should be quiet, and contemplate the art works: benches were placed in front of artworks so that viewers could sit for a long period of time and stare at artworks. Both Pollock and Newman wanted the viewer to obtain some sense of enlightenment, or at least think, “aha!” I see this as a way of meditation, and, as we learned in class, meditation is often a spiritual experience. So, while Pollock did not intend a specific meaning in his painting, he did intend it to be purposeful, and perhaps even slightly spiritual.

Note

So, I've posted quite a bit today, but I'm really interested in what people have to say on the Religion and Obesity post...it's such a curious topic!

Fraternities' fraternity

I was looking around this evening, and came across J.B.'s post on fraternity. At the top was a picture of the Eta Alpha Gamma Fraternity. I was expecting his post to connect the idea of fraternity (as in the movie red) as serving the same purpose as religion to the (capitalized) Fraternity, like the one pictured, as sometimes being a religion-like. While he talked about his ideas on the former, he did not discuss the latter, making the picture almost unnecessary. I'd like to briefly share my naïve ideas on the matter.

Besides the bonds of fraternity similar to that found in any other group of friends, Fraternities often employ different rituals and bonding activities, not unlike religious tradition. I recently had the pleasure (?) of witnessing some such display. While sitting in Riverview, I watched as many young initiates were led blindfolded (and likely drunk) to the top of Union Hill and rolled down the hill (yes, still blindfolded). When at the bottom they lit the campfire, and hooted and hollered at the end of each sentence in the reading of a text by a black-robed figure. The reading of a specific text is obviously religious-like, and creates a sense of unity among members. But as to the stranger ritual, I asked myself, "Why would one do such a thing?" The answer lies in the name of the organization—Fraternity. While one might say that fraternity, or human connection, can be found outside a Fraternity, I can understand the bonds that ritual and long tradition can create. It is the same as in any religion—engaging in acts that are specially reserved for members of a specific group (well…I wouldn't expect many other people to roll down a hill blindfolded) create a stronger group identity, and thus stronger fraternity. I suppose, then, it's a matter of whether you're willing to partake in the ritual in order to receive the fraternal benefit.

More Food and Religion: Kosher Diet

It's crazy how much different subjects overlap…

Again in my Nutritional Anthropology class we talked about food and religion. (If you haven't already, you should read my earlier post on religion and obesity…and please comment…I'm quite curious). This time, though we talked about religious dietary restrictions, specifically the kosher diet for Judaism, and its possible motivation. We looked at a couple different interpretations, including symbolic and ecological. But, adding a perspective from religious studies on why we have religion and how religions survive, I've come to an encompassing conclusion of my own.

The symbolic interpretation says that the dietary restrictions, or laws on which animals are clean or unclean for consumption, are allegorical for social order and moral codes. It likens the body to a temple—only pure things may enter each. Only the physically pure (those without physical deformities) may enter the temple. Also, those who have touched or eaten unclean foods may not enter the temple. Pigs and camels are seen as unclean because they do not fit into the category of clean animals—"Whosoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." The pig is not allowed because he "cheweth not the cud," or in other words is not a rudiment. The camel is not allowed because he "divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you." This is also seen as symbolic of the social hierarchy and staying within one's own class. Those who don't are seen as not whole, and thus unclean. The pig and camel symbolize this because while they fit part of the clean definition, they do not fit the entire definition, and thus are not actually in a category. This non-classification is seen as abominable, both between human classes and animal classes. Thus, by creating written dietary laws, they strengthen moral and social codes.

The ecological interpretation explains that the dietary laws were based on cost and benefit survival schemes that were already in place at the time, and therefore did not impose a burden upon the Israelites when the laws were codified. The land in the Middle East was, and is more-so today, better suited to raise cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals have four stomachs, allowing them to digest cellulose-dense foods such as shrubs and grasses, which made up most of the landscape in the Israeli area. Pigs have stomachs much more like humans (they cannot digest those cellulose-dense foods), and are better suited to forest landscapes which were sparse in the region. Also, pigs put another burden on those who wished to raise them—pigs demanded foods that humans needed to eat themselves. So, raising pigs was much more costly than raising ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats. The same types of analysis can be applied to other animals which the kosher diet forbids, and the results will likely be that it was more beneficial at the time to follow the dietary laws anyway.

While there is truth to the different interpretations, there's got to be some motivation from those in charge of the religion to make these dietary laws. When making new laws, it would not go over well to forbid eating any of the ruminants—the result would be too-high priced food, and likely not enough to go around. A law like this would overturn the entire society. People would have learn entirely new ways of raising livestock (most of which would be costly and unsuitable to the environment), or else revert to hunting. This complete change in a way of life would also affect social and economic status—some who previously were doing well raising ruminants might not still be the best when raising animals like pigs. Adding a law that did not fit with the current way of life would have effectively caused a major lens shift for the Israelites, one through which the religion might not have survived. No, if the religious leaders were to make dietary laws, they would not ban the very foods the society depended upon.

But why make dietary laws at all? If we look at what "wrong" laws could do to the society, we can imagine what the "right" laws would do. Dietary laws that fit with the best strategy of life, while at the same time strengthening moral and social codes already in place would create a stronger society. First, by encouraging the most beneficial livestock-raising strategy, it would create a better economy. The strengthening of moral and social codes would reduce dispute between people. This is done through the elimination, or reduction of the amount of people and behaviors occupying the "unclean" space in between different classifications: it would give people an easier-to-read more black-and-white view of the world. Lastly, it creates cohesion throughout the entire group by distinguishing the Israelites from others around them. Thus, the kosher dietary laws, at the time, created a better whole society.

References: Harris, Marvin. Food and Culture: A Reader. "The Abominable Pig". New York and London. Routledge. 1997

Jane Addams: Secular Fellowship

In this post, I would just like to comment a bit on the question of whether Jane Addams' motives were religious or secular. I believe that her motives were secular, but she found inspiration in religion: she understood the benefits of religion to the individual, and transferred those ideas to Hull House.

As we have talked about in class, one of the characteristics of organized religion is that it gives members a sense of identity—that, among the wide array of people, there are those that share similar, if not the same beliefs. This comradery is strengthened by the identification of a meeting place which all the members share. Over time, however, in some religions, the comradery stems mostly from the outward traditions, not always the inward beliefs. It is this "fellowship" that can strengthen communities, thus creating a more efficient society.

Jane Addams recognized this advantage to religion when she joined the Presbyterian church. Although she did not agree with all of the doctrine, she "long[ed] for an outward symbol of fellowship, some bond of peace, some blessed spot where unity of spirit might claim right of way over all differences." She realized that it was not really strict adherence to doctrine (although some adherence is necessary) which brought the members of the Presbyterian church together, but simply that they all outwardly identified with the same institution.

At Hull House, Addams realized that this kind of fellowship was needed in the neighborhood. She hoped, "that it should unite in the fellowship of the deed those of widely differing religious beliefs." While this at first may seem to be a religiously motivated statement, it is actually secular. She wanted those who previously identified themselves with different groups to realize that one of the reasons for religious identification was the benefit of fellowship, and that fellowship could be found anywhere, and among people an individual had previously thought to have nothing in common with. Therefore, while she recognized fellowship among religious groups, one of the reasons Addams founded Hull House was to create a similar fellowship free from specific religious association.

Jerry Falwell: Religion and Obesity

I found this interesting…

In one of my other classes, Nutritional Anthropology, we are reading a book called "Fat Land", by Greg Critser. It attempts to explain the growing health issue of obesity in the US. In the first couple chapters, two each explain the questions, "Who got the calories in?" and "Who let the calories in?" The first question's answer is about the marketing strategies of food companies who made it possible to buy very calorie dense foods and very cheap prices. The second is different, in that it explains how family, school, culture, and even religion (aha!) allowed these cheap, high-calorie, low-nutrient foods into so many Americans. I wanted to make the distinction between the two chapters so that the idea that religion allowed calories to be taken in was not mistaken for religion promoting the calories to be taken in.

What the author of "Fat Land" argues is that there was a switch between (mostly Presbyterian) ideologies in the past fifty years (between the boomer and X generations) which made it okay for people to disregard their health in terms of weight. When boomer generation was growing up, Critser argues, there was the ideology of the "body as a temple", and taking care of it is just as important to living a good life as your actions in relation to others. Many, including Sylvester Graham, inventor of the graham cracker, thought, "overeating was a form of oversimulation," which could then lead to other kinds of sinful, indulgent activities. Others linked religion as a positive force for loosing weight, such as Charles Shedd, who wrote Pray the Weight Away. It included prayer-focused activities and exercises, and was used into the 1970s.

When the X generation began to be born, things were changing both in the secular world, and in the religious world. As we have discussed with other religion's changes, these changes came from a need to keep afloat in the changing environment of the secular world. Because the secular world was becoming more enticing as a mold to form your life into, religions needed to change in order to keep people coming to church. Two things happened—1. Churches began to allow slips on the smaller sins, like gluttony, and began advocating against larger sins, like abortion, and 2. There began the rise of the Fundamentalist movement, separating the body and soul, thus allowing the "natural" form of the body to take shape (which was usually overweight, because it's just all too easy to become fat in America). Churches changed their stance on sins like gluttony because they needed to "[hold] the flock together." One way of doing this was to be more all-inclusive, and not to point out differences between people among "the flock." In terms of weight, this showed itself in turning obesity into a self-help, or self-acceptance issue instead of a sin. The positive attitude change allowed people to feel okay with being overweight within their moral circle. Thus, Religion (as stated, mostly Presbyterian) had a role in allowing people to eat so many calories, and thus contributed to the current obesity issue in the US.

I would really like to hear others' opinions on this theory. I think it has some weight, but that religion was not a major player in allowing obesity. I think the other causes (family, school, and culture) had bigger roles. The discussion made our class think about the recent death of the prominent televangelist Jerry Falwell. He died of heart disease, likely caused by obesity. But, was his strong religion a major contributing factor to his ultimate death?

Quick Response

Response to Kelly D. and Sarah J.

Both Kelly and Sarah talked about how Rastas do not "seem to want to see cannabis become fully legal. They accepted that there were laws prohibiting the use; it seems they thought the ban was necessary." I understand that this view has come from the wikipedia article, but I would like to disagree to some extent on this. While some Rastas may have come to terms with the illegality of cannabis, there are definitely many who advocate for its legalization:

(I was going to have a link so you could hear the song right here, but I will just have to tell you about it, and you can find it yourself on iTunes or something.)

The song I immediately thought of was "Legalize It", by Peter Tosh. If the title isn't obvious enough already, here are some of the lyrics:

Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.

Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it marijuana
Some of them call it ganja
Never mind, got to...

Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.

This is not the only song of the kind. I do not mean to say that this is common, and I definitely don't mean to say that it is advocated by all Rastas. It is simply common enough to take note of.

Reggae and Christian Rock

In class on Wednesday, we discussed the similarities and differences between Christian Rock and Roots Reggae (Reggae specifically associated with the Rastafari movement). The class seemed to agree that Reggae was more integral to Rastafari than Christian Rock was to Christianity. At the time I was skeptical, but did not have enough information to disprove this theory. Well, I have done a bit of research, and have concluded that Roots Reggae and Christian Rock do serve the same purpose for Rastafari and Christianity, respectively.

Here are three ways of looking at our misconceptions:

1. First, I believe that this misconception of Roots Reggae comes from our lack of understanding of other cultures' music. We know first hand that there is more to Rock than Christian Rock (most of you have probably just exclaimed, "duh!"). However, when we only know surface bits of a culture, we automatically assume a very serious connection between all the bits, likely stemming from the serious nature of studying. While we should not discount anything we learn while studying, we should not automatically assume that all Rastas are serious about reggae just because we have suddenly become so.

2. Another misconception that comes with our lack of knowledge is the assumption that Reggae music was conceived of as religious music, and had thus had religious roots. I'm not sure if anyone specifically stated this in class, but it is a logical next step, assuming the class's logic. We assume this because of this all-encompassing grouping of Roots Reggae and Rastafari. We have decided that Roots Reggae is integral to Rastafari, thus we might assume that it could only have been conceived of as Rastafari music.

3. I also feel that we translate the popularity of the music (or our own level of liking the music) into a measurement of the affect or importance the music has to the group it is associated with. We young Americans generally like reggae music. Because it was built upon hip-hop, R&B, and soul, you could say it is a cousin of modern American popular music. When we learn that much of it is spiritual music, we automatically assume that all Rastas love it also (both because it is "their" spiritual music, and because we happen to like it). But, just because Bush supports the Iraq war does not mean the war will automatically support him. This is a case of unrequited love.

I do not mean to say by this that those who play and listen to Roots Reggae are not serious in their meaning, feelings, and beliefs. I mean to say that Roots Reggae, while important to some, is not integral to the entire religion—and thus is not taken seriously by all Rastas. In fact, "some orthodox Rastas disdain reggae as a form of commercial music and a 'sell-out to Babylon.'" While many of the creators of Reggae were Rastas, it was, and is not an entirely spiritual music. The ancestors of Reggae music are also not entirely religious—original Reggae was inspired by ska, which was in turn inspired by popular American music and African rhythms. "But Roots Reggae is entirely spiritual", you say. Yes, but it is not the main spiritual music for Rastas, and it is not spiritual to all Rastas. The main spiritual music, the kind used in worship ceremonies is called nyabinghi, and "is the most integral form of Rastafarian music." It has its roots in East Africa between 1850 and 1950. Use of nyabinghi in the Rastafari movement includes rhythmic chanting of many Christian texts, including Psalms and hymns.

Thus, it seems that Roots Reggae actually serves quite a similar purpose to Christian Rock. They are both emotionally spiritual, and inspire many people around their respective religions, but they are harmonically and rhythmically secular. * Also, they are not spiritual to all in their respective religions. There is a traditional form of spiritual music for each religion—nyabinghi for the Rastafarian movement, and traditional hymns or Latin chants for Christianity.




*The base of both Roots Reggae and Christian Rock are secular, but some artists may choose to integrate spiritual music (hymns or nyaginghi). This does not mean that the music itself (not the text and emotional content) can be classified as completely spiritual.