» Protectionism or just delaying the inevitable?
society
The Unfortunate Case of Mrs Teddy Bear
The unfortunate case of Mrs Teddy Bear, Gillian Gibbons, recalled memories of the assassination of famous film director Theo Van Gogh. Theo filmed a ten minute short called Submission, a literal translation of ‘Islam’ into English. He raised the awkward question of violence to women in Islamic societies and ultimately paid the price for it whilst strolling through Amsterdam, having been murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri. Perhaps there is something tragic about the Van Gogh lineage. Perhaps it was because the killer was called Mohammed.
Both Gillian and Theo managed to stir mass hatred through the unintentional and intentional dissection of religion. Undoubtedly some kind of group level hysteria is at issue here. But it made me think two things. Firstly, it made me concerned for Mrs Gibbons and secondly, it made me question the cyclical nature of our society.
To elaborate, consider the keyboard. Why QWERTY? Why not a more efficient arrangement of the keys? The original reason is that the old typewriters were extremely mechanical and the design was such so as to decrease the rate at which the typist worked. With the advent of computers and super typewriters this old age problem has disappeared but we’re still left with the same set up. This path dependence is vital to the problem.
We all know of the universal nature of mathematics, but is there a universal moral code? Although I’d like to believe in one, the trial and error approach to applying said moral code to society has led to many variations of the same ideology. Take religion. Avoiding entirely the main questions of (a) is there a God(?) and if so, (b) what is his name(?), religion has served a more immediate purpose for some time. It avoided the Hobbesian nightmare of the fraudulent man wheeling, dealing, cheating and stealing his way through life. Avoiding economic malfeasance in the early years of society (when we couldn’t just pick up a phone and dial 999) involved strong social ties as well as Institutions to act as independent bodies. The only problem with an Institution, however, was the initial start up costs: it was expensive. One of the best routes was religion. It promised gargantuan rewards in the next life for adherence to a set of moral codes and what’s more it did so at zero monitoring costs. This came with the omnipresence of a superior being. Henry VIII created a new religion so he could get divorced. A famous academic wrote on the positive effects of this newly formed religion and its strong ‘ethical’ code as partly responsible for a period of great prosperity.
The fundamental role played by religion in developing the modern world may, several centuries later, ultimately be its undoing. For no other cause has been responsible for the greatest bloodshed in the history of the world than religion.
Maybe the best thing to take away from this discussion is that nothing lasts forever. Another might even come from Shakespeare: ‘what’s in a name (?) that which we call a rose but by any other name would smell as sweet’.
I think you’d have an interesting debate with C.S Lewis in that in his book Mere Christianity, he suggests that the existence of “universal morality” is “proof” of religion (rather than the causality you suggest). I.e. human beings’ inate understanding of right and wrong points to a superior being who has created said principles…not necessarily views I espouse you understand…
Interesting, although the fact that C.S Lewis is dead would be a slight drawback here…although who knows what’s possible with a ouija board and a bottle of rum.
He wasn’t creative enough to start up a new religion so he just created a new church which is not quite the same thing. But overall good point. Your Durkheimian approach sounds a bit similar to Jonathan Haidt’s notion of moral-communal capital, but I suppose your conclusions are different.