Opiate of the masses

Great Debates
1

I imagine that the truly religious find Marx’s conclusions regarding the nature of their faith very insulting. The implications of clouded judgment and blithe acceptance of unfortunate circumstances (not to mention the possibility that the perseverance of faith is similar to a sustained addiction) would anger me if I chose to view the world through a faith that I felt was intellectually justified.

Being faithless, however, the notion of religion=powerful mind control has a distinct appeal. If one accepts the notion that societal features persist throughout the ages, then taking the roots of religion to be a primitive form of governance, allowing leaders of nascent religions to exert control over the masses largely for personal gain goes a long way in explaining the origin of at least judeo/christian/muslin faiths.

Is there a convincing argument refuting the claim that religion, historically, developed to promote subjugation (or even benevolent subjugation)? Is there a “meta-bible/koran?” A text describing the motivations of the author(s) of modern Western faith?
I found a thread discussing a similar topic here, but IMHO, no satisfactory conclusion was reached.

2

This is the sort of subject for which there is really no “satisfactory” conclusion to be reached, I think. Religion is a touchy subject for most folks at best, with those who believe strengthened by their belief (for the most part) and those who disbelieve strengthened by their lack of belief (similarly, for the most part, and IMHO).

As far as “metatexts” go: I don’t think anyone has discovered such a text, but may I recommend A History of God and The Battle for God both of which are written by Karen Armstrong. She discusses the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam both as separate entities and as intertwined belief systems in A History of God. I have not yet read Battle but suspect it would also be useful in your search.

Of course, these texts do not discuss any other faiths in anything other than a cursory matter, so the question for Hindis, Buddhists and all manner of other faiths remains just that. But, it’s somewhere to start, anyway.

For myself, I believe not because someone told me I should (quite the opposite, in fact, I had no faith for a long time) but because I believe (in the words of Oliver Wendell Jones, from Bloom County): “The universe is just a little too orderly to be a big accident.” But I don’t believe in the J/C/I sense, either.

3

One might start with the assumption that Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, etc. didn’t all march happily off to their deaths because they were trying to manipulate people.

Although… perhaps they were all just dupes. Jesus could have been some guy who duped people into giving him and his followers free food, and just got a little caught up in things. But if he was doing what he was doing out of greed, and he did indeed go willfully to his death (he had ample opportunity to realize people wanted to kill him but he might not have known when to call it quits) the two ideas conflict.

But, if you do believe in the miracles and the resurrection, the whole idea of greedy manipulation becomes bunk.

And, if you believe, as some sects of Christianity do, that Christ’s whole message was that it is perfectly OK to continue in sin as long as you utter some magic spells once in a while, then it certaintly becomes an opiate of the masses. Marx was probably most familiar with those sorts of schools of Christian thought. I don’t think that world has changed vastly in that regard in the past 120 years!

The refutation though is what Paul said: “anyone who sins is a slave to sin,” or as Jesus said: “you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.” You could argue that not sinning makes you a slave to God, but if sinning makes you a slave to someone or something else why is that such a bad deal?

4

Another point to bear in mind is the social attitude towards opiates in Marx’s day. They weren’t considered the social evils they are today, and recreational drug use was quite common among the wealthier segments of society. Drug use was considered to be a way of not only relaxing, but also of stimulating and expanding the mind. A scene from one of Conan-Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories springs to mind, in which Holmes was high as a kite on Opium and claimed that he did it regularly when not working on a case to keep his mind active.
Considering the social attitudes towards drug use in Marx’s period his comment about religion being the opiate of the masses takes on a whole new meaning. Poor people couldn’t afford laudanum and opium as a form of release and stimulation, but religion allowed them a way to unwind, face the pressures of life and expand their minds. Marx wasn’t entirely supportive of this because it took the edge off peoples desire to improve their lives, but I don’t believe that the comment was meant to be as resounding a criticism of religion as we in a later and more ‘enlightened’ era have taken it to be.

5

Just a slight hijack re Blake’s post:
IIRC, Holmes used cocaine, not opium. Cocaine is a stimulant, opium is a narcotic and was used in Marx’s day the same way a narcotic would be used now, to deaden pain and make one sleep. Not something used to expand the mind but to dull sensation. I think we are not misunderstanding Marx’s meaning.

As for the OP, religions generally start out being one thing, but become something very different once they are acceptable enough to the masses to be used by the cynical as a politcal tool. What better way to keep your serfs in line than to tell them that God has created them serfs, intends them to be nothing but serfs, but don’t worry, you’ll get your proper reward for being a good serf after you’re dead.

6

Well, it’s true that opium is a narcotic, but I agree with Blake when he says that Marx’s comment isn’t completely negative. What he actually says is

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”

For Marx, popular religious believes are adaptive, I think. The great mass of people, realizing that they don’t have power, but not yet coming together as a class, not yet mobilizing, feel helpless. Because they feel helpless, they turn to religious belief, because it tells them that there’s a reason they feel that way…they don’t feel useless anymore. It’s not that Marx sees religion as good…it’s false consciousness. He does, however see religion as helpful to the religious person, even if it makes him complacent.

7

Just to clarify, and perpetuate a hijack, Holmes used both morphine (an opium derivative) and cocaine.
From “The Sign of Four”:

“Which is it today”, I asked “morphine or cocaine?”
He raised his eyes languidly from the old black-letter volume which he had opened.
“It is cocaine”, he said, " a seven-per-cent solution. Would you care to try it?" ……
“Perhaps you are right, Watson,” he said. I suppose that its influence is physically a bad one. I find it, however, so transcendingly stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its second action is a matter of small moment."
My mind," he said, "rebels at stagnation. Give me a problem, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram, or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants.

I know it’s a bit tangential, but it does point out the social attitude of the day to the use of drugs, and the parallel Marx was probably drawing with religion.

Opium and the People
“At the start of the 19th century, opium was extensively used in Britain for reasons ranging from recreational use and the doping of babies to a host of medicinal purposes. Acceptance of opium was so general that horticultural societies gave awards for growing the poppy and medical practitioners were among the prize-winners.”

Many of the romantic 19th century poets, novelists and painters used opium, not to deaden the senses, but to ‘enhance’ them and free the mind. Coleridge was an opium fiend who used opium to expand his mind and anyone who has read his works on Kubla Kahn or The Ancient Mariner will know how well this worked.

Opium in the 19th century was used as a tranquilizer/analgesic, but not exclusively or even primarily so. The use of opium was as much for its mind expanding, clarifying and revelationary powers as it was for its cruder narcotic and euphoric effect. Opium use was socially acceptable, and while its negative effects were known, it was not considered evil in its day any more than was alcohol whose negative effects were more widely seen by the general public.

8

Judging from context, I don’t think this is really what Marx meant.

From A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Karl Marx

This is what Marx was getting at.

I think jmullaney has had a good take on this issue.

I don’t know of any evidence that demonstrates that religions were created to supress the will of the people, although I suppose it could be lost in the mists of history. The supression of new religions by the existing order, and their development in new and unpredictable ways (if ancient records are to be believed), is a powerful arguement against their having been developed for the purposes of control.

However, have pre-existing religions been subverted for the purposes of control? I doubt you would find anyone who would disagree with that.

9

To put the quote in a still larger textual context (emphasis in the original):

Blake is correct in saying that equating something with opium in the 1840’s would be very different from making the comparison today, and while their is certainly an amount of ambivalence in Marx’s thought, he clearly tends to think ill of religion (if only in a secondary way).

As for the OP, I’m not sure that even Marx would argue that religion was “developed,” per se, in order to subjugate the masses, but rather that the means of production necessitated some method by which to exert said subjugation and that religion was a convenient means (regardless of the intent behind its founding). I’m no Marxist, but I have no trouble believing that religion has been (at the least) appropriated as a means of subjugation (which neeed not carry a negative connotation in this case) by those who seek to subjugate.

10

I’m reminded of a Calvin & Hobbes comic. Calvin reads the passage “Religion is the Opiate of the Masses” and wonders aloud what it means. In the background, a smirking TV thinks to itself “It means that Karl Marx hadn’t seen anything yet!”

Cheers,
Hodge

11

Is the only source of these historical facts the Bible? Any independent corroboration? Forensic evidence? I’m not trying to be obtuse, I really don’t know the answer.

I’m willing to accept that Jesus and Co. were the modern day equilvalent of a revolutionary political movement. But aside from the Bible (which clearly takes a pro-son of god slant), how can we know of their inner motives?

Consider the scenario of modern political dissidents. I submit that if they’re imprisoned, if there’s a price on their heads, or if they are assasinated, they are not happy about the scenario. However, for many, probably including jesus and co., the prospect of posthumous salvation, makes the sacrifice less onerous. But do we really know that they were in control of their fates, or does the story have greater romantic appeal if the history is so rewritten?
**

Again, this notion could greatly benefit from some corroboration.

**

**

I acknowledge that with our changing views toward drug use since the time of Marx, our notion of what he meant by, “…opium of the people.” may be somewhat different than what he intended. I appreciate the hijack aimed at defining his use in it’s historically relevant context.

Thank you VarlosZ for posting the opuim religion metaphor in it’s entirety. It does seem to be a general condemnation of religion. I think the statement,

**
is particularly telling. From here the interpretation of “opium of the people”=illusory happiness of the people" is only a stone’s throw.

12

Well, the condemnation isn’t of religion…it’s against the society that produces religion…the religion itself is just a creation of a non-scientific society, for Marx, as the quote shows.

“It is the fantastic realisation of the human being because the human being has attained no true actuality.”

Marx’s answer isn’t, “Burn down the church”, it’s “Educate people to their actual condition so that churches will be unneccesary”

13

For arguments sake – and to prevent a hijack – let’s just say not.

But even if it is all a myth, Jesus’s teachings are anti-thetical to control. I wouldn’t say that makes Jesus a revolutionary in the modern sense, as revolution generally employs violence – and when they finish nothing has changed.

Again, there is no way to know, nor is what occured so long ago that important. But, the example presented in the text has inspired others to follow the example therein, regardless of the bunkiness of history.

14

It’s tough to stay with the O.P. on this one: I don’t think that there’s any way to conclusively refute the claim that “religion, historically, developed to promote subjugation (or even benevolent subjugation)?” IMHO, I don’t think we have enough background to say what was motivating the founders of the big religions.

To slightly hijack, I’m glad that Hodge brought up the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. I would have done that yesterday, but there wasn’t even one reply to this thread and I didn’t think the timing was appropriate. Bill Watterson has a point however: if one views religion as entertainment, the cartoon loses a bit of its humor and hits a bit closer to the mark of this thread.

When Marx was observing society and developing his ideas, what were the entertainment vehicles for the masses? I’d guess there were some village dances, traveling shows, and trips to the city for a lucky few. Even in metropolitan areas there wouldn’t have been much theatre for the “masses.” Religion, however, provided theatre, spectacle, and ritual (at least for the church-going).

I noticed this with our kids: we don’t watch any T.V. (we recently started watching videos on Friday nights so that they won’t be totally clueless about popular culture). At the time we attended a large, old-line, Episcopal church in Raleigh. Big stone church. Stone carvings inside, stained glass, candles, polished brass, big, long procession, vestments, pipe organ, choir, the whole catastrophe. The kids would play church! They’d sing, chant, pray, etc., etc., mimicking the theatrical aspects of the ritual of the church service. We could only figure that the service was the most spectacular part of their week. Might that have been the case for many folks in Marx’s time?

Also, Sunday would have been the only day of rest that might be possible for many of the masses. As such, the theatrical aspects and break from work might not have been so much subjugation, but rather a brief escape from the toil and rigor of their condition. The fact that it also tied folks to the supernatural (birth, death, marriage, etc.) would have made religion more of an opiate than we can imagine it today, and, if Watterson’s right, T.V. has taken over much of that role for our “masses.”

Finally, perhaps religion wasn’t originally intended to subjugate the masses, but evolved to fill that capacity as grander and grander churches were constructed and the liturgy grew from a few folks joining together in prayer to the spectacles we know today - - and the fact that secular society now offers so many more exciting alternatives to religion (science among them) perhaps that’s why religion is losing importance in America today.

I’m sorry if this is long and WAY off the mark of the O.P. Just my two cents’ worth. YMMV and all that.