Saturday, 26 June 2010

Meditations: Religion and the Lack of It

I wrote earlier about how Stalinist the city is, and part and parcel of that feeling is atheism. Mongolia, or at least Ulaanbaatar, appears to be pretty irreligious. This isn’t entirely recent; the most prominent faith in Mongolia was generally Buddhism, which is pretty different from a “religion” as Westerners see it, and even when the great Khans were in power and had access to three major religions (Nestorian Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism), there was never a national dedication to any of them. 

So when Stalin came in, destroyed the monasteries, and attempted to eliminate religious practice, it was pretty effective, and much of the population of Ulaanbaatar today is practically atheist/agnostic. This isn’t noteworthy, I guess, but what is noteworthy is that it shows. My first couple days here, it struck me that the city was missing something, and I couldn’t quite figure out what. But then I realized: No church bells or calls to prayer, no cathedrals standing as a testament to a formerly religious world , no mosques. It might only be noticeable because of the other places I’ve been in the past year. Oxford is in some ways a collection of churches, with bells ringing most of the time (especially when you’re trying to study); Istanbul is defined as a meeting-point of different religions; and in Egypt, when the muezzin called, people made a point either to find a mosque or they got down and prayed where they were.

So this sudden lack of religious institutions—I’m feeling it. Of course, many parts of the US are irreligious, but New England still has its charming churches, Chick Fil-A is still closed on Sundays, and crosses dot the Midwest. Even New York and LA are marked by different types of worship; the skyscrapers of New York are a testament to commerce, and LA’s billboards (Lose one million pounds with Lap-Band!) and malls (from Armani to Abercrombie & Fitch outlets) display its worship of materialism and other superficial stuff. So it may not be religion exactly, but there’s an argument to be made that it is. (In 1989, Jill Dubisch wrote an article saying that the health food craze had all the necessary aspects of a religion; I’d like to see the same for NYC’s commerce or LA’s… LA-ness.)

Ulaanbaatar, then, is the first place I’ve been where I really felt the lack of religion. Where it really felt that they were missing something. So forget all the arguments you usually hear about religion and its benefits/downsides, about moral repercussions, inevitable conflict, self-righteousness, charity, etc. etc. This question is all about culture (as poorly defined a term as that is): What benefits does religion give to a society’s culture, its institutions and architecture and rhythm, and can those benefits be gained by a substitute instead? In today’s world, should those benefits be gained by a substitute instead?

 Not pictured: Churches, temples, or mosques.

2 comments:

  1. But if you're making evidence of worship metaphorical in places like LA, with a worship of materialism, is it possible that Mongolians have some sort of metaphorical worship too? Is what you mean when you talk about a substitute, or something different? And given that LA's "worship" as you define it isn't literally religious either, could saying Ulaanbaatar is less metaphorically religious than such places be simply denying its cultural distinctiveness? Does it feel soulless? Because I would totally get that much more amorphous term - I think I'm doing that humanities thing where I create arbitrary categories for the sake of using them to make an argument. This is all super interesting since you've described the shamanic religious stuff in the countryside. Is it that the city yields the religious stuff to the countryside?

    Seriously though, I love this blog so far! Beautiful pictures, entertaining writing, and STALIN!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's possible that there is a metaphorical worship in Ulaanbaatar, but the difference is that I'm just not seeing it. It's not obvious in the way that NYC's is obvious. And as for LA... I'm actually not even sure that LA's worship is as well-defined as I said it was, and maybe that's part of what weirds me out about LA. Like, I don't like LA, and I'm never quite sure why, exactly. Maybe it is that there doesn't seem to be anything motivating people. And maybe that's why it's so "chill." I guess the thing is, that I might not like places so much that don't have that "religious" (literally or like NYC) aspect. But other people might LOVE places like that. And that's LA-- some people LOVE LA, and maybe part of it is that people are really laid back, and maybe part of that is their lack of concerning themselves so much with religion/commerce, whatever. But that's a lot of maybes, and I'm not sure.
    Actually, the word "soulless" is what made me think of LA. And then I realized that my definition of LA's "religion" wasn't really concrete.
    I'm not sure about the literal statistics re: religion and the countryside/city, but the shamanic stuff is def more country, and esp. in certain areas. The city does have some Buddhism, but it doesn't seem like a lot. I'll get to that more later, though...

    ReplyDelete