Re: original sin

I appreciate Boris Stremlin's critique of my comments. I don't think my
comments adhered to a strict recital of
a mechanistic "base-superstructure" theoretical framework, but certainly,
how ideas are nurtured by class interests is one of the more important
questions to examine when we examine why certain ideas proliferate and
others fade away.

There are contradictory aspects to all theories. While I generally believe
that Darwin's theory of natural selection gave the most accurate accounting
to date of how creatures evolved, there was enough ambiguity in that theory
to allow racists and extreme bio-determinists to use that rhetoric, just as
there is enough ambiguity in certain theological doctrines to allow those
who believe in "free will" and those who believe that "God will call me when
He wants to" to coexist as branches of the same doctrine. At the level of
the lay person, there are all kinds of contradictions in how people apply
these ideas to understanding social processes. All these theories are
contradictory and it is how ASPECTS of those theories are developed and used
that is interesting to explore.

I think that extreme positivistic bio-determinism, extreme post-modernism,
and extreme religious fundamentalism all debase humanity, even as all three
of them consider themselves absolutely opposed to the other two. But Boris
is right in insisting on more than just sloganeering.

Alan Spector



-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Stremlin <bc70219@binghamton.edu>
To: Spectors <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Monday, May 22, 2000 12:08 AM
Subject: original sin


>On Sun, 21 May 2000, Spectors wrote:
>
>> 1) ON PAPER, sociobiology is the opposite of extreme fundamentalist
>> Christianity and its doctrine of "Original Sin."  The "OS" doctrine is
most
>> commonly associated with pre-capitalist Roman Catholic theology, but many
>> conservative, fundamentalist Protestant groups adhere to this also, while
>> not necessarily using the same rhetoric.
>
>A variety of religious groups believe in original sin (I'm not sure where
>people get the idea that only Calvinists do).
>
>> 2) While it is important to explore the inner logic of various arguments,
it
>> is especially important to understand that what nurtures socio-political
>> arguments the most is whether or not someone believes that these
arguments
>> serve certain interests. The most important of these are class interests.
>
>Now that, to me, sounds like a doctrinaire statement.  And since this is a
>world-systems list, I'll also add:  the critique of the base
>superstructure model and economic determinism has been one of the
>mainstays of world-system analysis.
>
>> What is the role of particular arguments in supporting various class
>> interests?
>
>Why should this be the only question one asks about a theological
>doctrine?  How is it different from the sociobiologist who discounts any
>role besides the genetic in answering questions about human behavior?
>
>> 3) Obviously, the doctrines of "Original Sin" and "Predestination" in
>> general served to bolster the status quo of pre-capitalist societies. I
>> don't think this statement is controversial enough to require an
explanation
>> here.
>
>Obviously, the doctrine of original sin (not the same as predestination)
>has been used to bolster a variety of interests.  What interests did/does
>it bolster when the groups that adhere to it do not hold power?  Think how
>you would have responded to a claim that the doctrine of unequal exchange
>was used to bolster the legitimacy of the Soviet state before 1991.
>
>I'm no expert, but as I read original sin, it says that human beings are
>in the state they are in because they presume to have ultimate knowledge
>of the world, to decide what is good and what is evil on the basis of,
>that's right, interests.  It is prideful to assume that you are better
>than the next person because of your skin color.  It is prideful to put
>economic growth ahead of ecology.  And most importantly, original sin, the
>assumption that human beings can attain godlike knowledge, is the product
>of free will and the temptation of ultimate power.  You have the potential
>to atone for original sin if you freely relinquish your claim to absolute
>knowledge.  I don't know how much more further one can get from the claims
>of some sociobiologists that human behavior is hard-wired and that one day
>we will have a completely predictive social science.
>
>(In case my "interests" in making the above statements becomes suspect, I
>should say that I am not a Christian, nor a practicing Jew).
>
>--
>Boris Stremlin
>bc70219@binghamton.edu
>
>