So, after having discussed Philosophy of Science, and the involvement of pre-empirical presuppositions in Science and later politics, I would now like to expand on the third part of my proposal of studying religion and politics as a joint field - as if they are the same - and what implications this would have.
But for those of you who haven't read the first two parts, here are the links so you can catch up.
Now, once you've caught up on the previous reading material, let's get started. :)
When I say that politics is based on pre-empirical notions of what it is to be human, and how we ought to live, this doesn't mean that politics doesn't deal with science at all. On the contrary, the state comission surveys and expert research in various field all the time. In Sweden these are called Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU) and are ways in which the state collects data in order to make a more informed decision. But (as reader of the first part will know) the question here is off course: how does one decide what research to comission in the first place? As I've argued previously what guides science in this case can be summed up as finding out how we can best implement our ideology in the current society.
There may be research on the table that may be discussed, but what it says will always be weighed against what the political party is trying to achieve; i.e. (taking a purely hypothetical example) getting grades from an early age in schools seem to encourage students to work harder but also apply more stress - now, how do we as social democrats approach this empirical evidence, in order to make society more equal, and generally more educated? Or taking a more sinister turn, the case may be that social democrats comissioned the reserach, and are only interested in early grades effect on education - and not in the least on how it affect students' stress levels; then this may not even be a parameter measured in the survey!
So what about religion? In Sweden, academic theology is not to be confessional. This means, that it is set on par with religious sciences in general, where the question of truthclaims within religion, is not judged (how can it, empirically?), but instead what is studied is part of (for example) Christianity: its history, sociology, psychology och religion, dogma and systematic theology, etc. More then seldom I've come across (both in litterature and verbally) people claiming that when religious science gets too interested or attached to a subject matter, it becomes poor religious science, which to many scholars equals theology. The distinction here is one where some scholars try to claim that they are utterly objective, but is that really possible? Again, lets remember what I wrote in the first part about all this - that what questions science engages in rests upon an idea of what things are worthwhile spending time on in life, in the first place. If we were to take scholars argument of total objectiveness this means that they really have no interest in the subject at all - because you cannot be both objective and attached to a question at the same time. If you are utterly objective, it wouldn't matter to you, whether you were researching the field of Islamology, Cancer, or how to produce a seedless watermelon.
What I'm trying to say here is not that science is worth less, because people don't deliver on the strictest form of objectivity. On the contrary, I think it's imperative for science to be guided by passions, ideas about how to make things (society, life, stuff in general) better, and last but not least; morals. A science without morals is a science that can lend its expertise to anything; You want me to build an atombomb? - Pay me, and I'll do it! I don't care who you use it on, I'm just a scientist, and the science of making an atombomb has nothing to do with then using the finished product! It is not that science hasn't operated this way some times, but the point is that it shouldn't. Especially, science can't extricate itself from being complicit in the things it has been an instrumental part in producing, and the results of such a production. The same goes for the production of information really. If a survey states that all members of group x hate group y, then this will have an impact on society. Group x may be looked upon with disgust and group y may all of a sudden recieve police protection, or new laws may be passed to support or supress one or the other... You get my point.
As you may have gathered by now, my general argument points to the likeness or correspondance between politics and religion. In politics we can separate ideology from SOU's - although SOU's are always guided by the morals and ideas in ideology. Similarily, theology and religious science have the same connection. Although, if it's not theology (with its morals and ideas) guiding religious science, there is always something else - and here is where it gets really interesting!
Above I wrote that Swedish academic theology and religious studies are non-confessional. So what are they guided by? The answer is politics. Every year there are new directives from the state, regarding how science should be done and taught. And when its not leaning directly on the curriculum - such as: all courses in religion/theology are "miljömärkta" at University of Gothenburg and must discuss ecological questions. (You can really se how this is helpful for a course in the History of Early Christianity, can't you?!) - it's governed by what institutions gets funding. For instance, more than once in my academic career, there has been no new doctorate studies-position offered. This means that no one can recieve a higher education than a masters level in all of Gothenburg that year - on any topic relating to religion! Instead, money are directed towards other disciplines; technology of different sorts tends to be hugely favored over humanities in general. This is for sure a way in which ideology guides science, and not only the science it comissions but ALL science in a community.
My focus is not to moan at humanities being overlooked as an academic discipline. However, my suggestion of leveling the playing field of political ideology and religion, based on accepting that both categories deal in the "currency" of what life is about, what it is to be human, and what society we want to create. I believe that this would create a discourse (societal and academic) where we accept that science never leave the arena of poligion (the name I suggested for the field), but are always guided by it - and that this is as it should be. The implication is also that different perspectives from religions and ideologies can be discussed, mixed, sometimes discarded and sometimes accepted.
This is also a way of saying that the Swedish (for instance) historic legacy is not one of suchandsuch. It is a "poligious" syncretism where Roman jurisprudence, protestantism, socialism, marxism, liberalism, feminism, and other poligions have been instrumental guiding principles that are by now so intertwined that it is often hard to separate what is what anymore. This, I believe, is also a positive thing, because it sheds light on the fact that Sweden has more than one "culture" informing it. This, most likely, is a perspective where it is less intimidating to let new/other actors on to the stage; such as biologism, islam(ism), confusianism (given Chinas rising influence in the world) etc... It makes us more open to realize that these "systems" are not entities trying to replace the "totality" of Swedish culture, but merely to challenge things, in the instances where we have given certain cultural feats priority over others without realizing it or why (such as politics over religion). In short, the perspective of poligion makes for a less frightening world, with a more generous measure of equality.
Best
Jonatan
_______________________________
You can also read slightly shorter text by me on twitter.com/jonatanbackelie :)
