An analysis of the Star Wars-related TV series "The Mandalorian" from the viewpoint of anthropology and religious studies.
OK, so I have a few objections...
I never watched "The Mandalorian", so I have zero opinions on that one, but what about the anthropology? It simply can´t be true that the strictest religions are the most succesful ones. The most extreme cults (say the Exclusive Brethren or Heaven´s Gate) are always much smaller than the less strict ones (say the Presbyterian Church USA or some New Age network). Or take the Catholic Church. Most Catholics aren´t monks or nuns, obviously. The strictest monastic orders are the smallest ones (the Carthusians). Maybe the *illusion* of strictness is more succesful than outright "liberalism", but that´s a different proposition entirely. The illusion of strictness is good for identity politics, just blending in with broader society isn´t. To maintain the illusion, some "creds" have to be thrown in, but not nearly as many as in a *really* and grimly strict group. "Fish on Friday" isn´t the same thing as veganism or fruitarianism.
Or what about "the routinization of charisma"? The first generation of a religious group might be super-committed, but in order to survive beyond that initial charismatic push, it needs to create institutions which overtime will become bureaucratic, et cetera. It struck me when watching the video that some of the strict religious groups mentioned probably solve the problem by becoming free riders on the rest of society. How hard is it *really* to be an Orthodox Jew if you don´t have to do military service, get welfare money for your large family, and so on? I´m sure the Amish are free riding in some way, too. It´s just that US media are too uncritical and romantic in their attitudes towards them, so we haven´t heard anything about it.
Finally, a complaint about "fictive kinship". Sociologists and anthropologists usually assume that this somehow overrides biology. But does it? First, most fictive kinship systems seem to be practiced within the same population, which means that there *is* a level of genetic kinship between the participants. Group selection could explain this. Second, even when "fictive kinship" is practiced more broadly (say in a missionary religion), the converts will tend to marry other people of the same faith, which means that the kinship ties will become genetical in the normal sense over time. Again, no mystery for evolutionary theory.
In the science fiction TV series "The Mandalorian", one of the characters apparently adopts a baby of an *entirely different species*, treating him as his own son. Which is *highly* unlikely from an evolutionary viewpoint. Showing us that it´s indeed science *fiction*...
So nah, not convincing.
I´m not even sure if it´s true that strict religious communes survive longer than secular ones. I discussed this years ago with a person on Amazon, who pointed to Walden Two as a long-lived secular commune. Who wasn´t super-duper-strict.
ReplyDeleteEven more. Overtime, sects and cults tend to adapt to majority society, simply because they wouldn´t be able to grow or even survive otherwise. The Hare Krishna are a good example. Christianity is (of course) another. I mean...dude!
ReplyDeleteAgain: it´s at bottom an identity thing.
ReplyDeleteIs it really a co-incidence that all the "savages" are young? Both males and females. The fanatics of any movement (including secular ones) tend to be teenagers and young adults. A religion which can succesfully "tap" that youthful energy can indeed survive longer *if* it also redirects these people to more moderate pursuits once they turn 25 or 30.
ReplyDelete