Anthropology examines human behavior with particular consideration given to “how” and “why” people act in certain ways. It tracks history and tries to put science and theory together to solve an intricate puzzle. What was it about particular times and environments that made humans commit genocide, believe in Zeus, or begin to treat women with more respect? These are difficult questions, and political and religious questions are particularly interesting. The intersection of religious movements and politics is an interesting topic. What is the relationship between, say, a religious sect and the political realm?
Historically, religion and politics have intertwined with one another in many ways. Separation of church and state is in many ways a modern ideal rather than a practice. For instance, tax exemption status is given to churches with the presumption that they will refrain from influencing the votes of their congregation. However, this is practically impossible when considering that if a person believes “X is against the will of God” it’s difficult to imagine them voting in favor of a politician that supports X.
Additionally, ancient history is filled with spiritual figures holding powerful influence sin politics. For example, Henry VIII’s contribution to the Church of England’s separation from the Catholic Church’s leadership. This was as much a political maneuver to deny papal authority as it was a personal issue. Furthermore, rules have appealed to Zeus, God, or other deities in an attempt to justify their actions or rule. Bush believed God was on his side and monarchists in the feudal ages thought they were chosen by God to rule over the people.
Of course, the more interesting questions are “how” and “why.” The “how” is perhaps answerable with respect to the nature of power and human psychology. Individuals taught to believe something are often inclined to accept it as true without evidence. This often occurs when someone of power teaches them from an early age what to believe. While parents might object to a certain ruler, children given a public education may be instilled with values supported by a corrupt ruler or leadership. Child soldiers are often the result of manipulating human psychology in its most vulnerable stages, the developmental periods of youth.
Originally, one could explain religious beliefs in a variety of ways. People come up with answers based on more than information that’s available. Scientists won’t admit it, but they are guilty of putting together theories without all the facts. We want something to believe at least “until” we find out more. In the past, there was little to no scientific method. Even though scientific methods were employed, they were not universally promoted. People are used to learning things from religious sources and believing that was true. It had worked for them up until then, they thought, so why change?
Scientists will object, but many of them share the same dogmatism. If I said “astrology will replace science, they will object.” They will explain in scientific terms why I am incorrect. Religious individuals explained in religious terms that science was incorrect. One needs to appeal to some fundamental aspect of human reason to unite us – if such a thing exists. I side with the scientists in their skepticism of astrology, but people are nonetheless inclined to accept their viewpoints dogmatically regardless of what those viewpoints are.
People want explanations that can satisfy their curiosities and potential benefit them. How do I grow an apple tree? Well, I’ll quickly learn that praying to the Gods isn’t an effective way to grow an apple tree. But until someone shows me the technique, I may stick with my method. Even when shown, some people are incredibly resistant to change. This is perhaps a desirable evolutionary trait in some respects as it promotes stability, but it’s likely a disadvantage in most circumstances. A willingness to accept new ideas and better techniques helps us succeed, but overambitious behavior can lead to disasters such as failed governments and experiments.
Overall, religious movements and political movements have struggled for power in some cases and cooperated in others. It often depends on whether the interests of the particular “ideology structure” is being met. For example, religious leaders may be so devout as to accept doctrine even if it makes them miserable. The same may be true of a pessimistic global warming researcher. Even if a new idea comes around that looks promising, their already held beliefs reject it by default. Political movements can have ideologies linked to religious belief or distinct from it. The fiscal conservative will explain how every economic problem is the result of human error rather than the market system, but the socialist will blame inequalities.
Anthropology shows us that people have always and continue to disagree about the relationship that should or shouldn’t exist between the religious realm and the political realm. Some thing one realm should rule over the other, some think one realm should disappear, and others don’t want politics and government both gone. Whether we’re closer to agreement is hard to say, but continuing research into anthropology should provide interesting ideas on the matter.
