Oates

Carrette and King’s Postmodern/Marxian Perspective of Neoliberal “Spirituality”

In the introduction of Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, Jeremy Carrette and Richard King pose the central questions that the work attempts to address:  “What are the socio-political effects of the decision to classify specific practices or philosophies as ‘spiritual’ and who benefits from such constructions?”  (p. 3 – 4).  C&K tackle these issues from a postmodern perspective, wherein “no interpretation of reality can ever be conditioned by certain universal, absolute, and objective grand presuppositions.” (Pepa)  Therefore, they  ask us to “accept two basic principles: first that how we think is formed through interaction with the social world and its institutions; and second, that power is exercised by a network of institutions, with the aim of directing the flow of information and shaping public perceptions of what counts as truth” (p. 11).  Wielding this power themselves as scholar/authors, Carrette and King inform us that the book has more than an analytical/informative agenda, as:  “The book seeks to address the ‘politics of knowledge’ surrounding the idea of spirituality and draw attention to the pernicious social effects of neoliberalism and the corporate takeover of society that such shifts represent,” (p. x)  “consider[ing] the relations of power  the word [“Spirituality”] sets up rather than what it means” (p. 30).  Therefore, Carrette and King’s goal is to change the reader’s perspective of “spirituality” into one that should include how the greater powers of Capitalism are redefining spirituality into the commodifcation of all that the concept entails – a sort of Marxian critique.  This review will gauge how C&K go about this and if Selling Spirituality is successful in its endeavor.

 To begin, C&K state that “In writing this book we hope to. . . extend the scope of the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ to so-called secular ideologies and regimes of thought-control in a contemporary context” (p. 24), furthering their ambitious postmodern interpretation/agenda.  According to Ricoeur, the ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ is "a method of interpretation which assumes that the literal or surface-level meaning of a text [or in our case, a word] is an effort to conceal the political interests which are served by the text [“Spirituality”]. The purpose of interpretation is to strip off the concealment, unmasking those interests" (Pepa).  How do C&K attempt to reveal these political interests?        

Firstly, C&K set up their working definition of ‘Spirituality’ by examining its meaning throughout history, designating the slippery modern usage as “a merchandising label for all sorts of undefined ideas about the inner-self, wholesomeness, and quality of life” (p 53).  In this context, they claim that “the market is able to dictate the cultural and political agenda and take over the processes of socialization,”   . . . and “in such a climate, ‘spirituality’ . . . becomes a new means of thought-control” (p. 45).  Thus, ‘spirituality’ becomes a manipulative term used by capitalists to placate a society of consumers who are reaching for salvation or nirvana via the almighty dollar, euro, yen, etc, transforming the word into a commodity itself.

Secondly, to support these claims, C&K also assert that “spirituality is now a private, psychological event that refers to a whole range of experiences floating on the boundary of religious tradition” (p. 73). Taking the reader through a selective interpretation of the history of Western psychology yet recognizing that “the "instability" of the knowing subject, which can no longer base its historical narrative upon a solidly grounded identity,” their historiography adopts this postmodern posture of “retrojective self-recognition” (Pels).   In other words, the persuasive maneuvers are very deliberate when C&K surmise that “in effect, the territorial takeover of religion by psychology (individualization) is the platform for the takeover of spirituality by capitalism (corporatization)” (p. 79) which creates “a ‘spirituality’ that is separate from questions of social justice [and] is a sedative for coping with an oppressive and difficult world” (p. 85). 

Not going so far as to imply that ‘spirituality’ should imply ethical standards, they go on in chapter three to examine the Asian wisdom traditions of Yoga, Buddhism, and the Tao Te Ching through their postmodern Marxian lens, concluding that neoliberalism has commodified these in terms of Western ‘spirituality’:  “Much of the contemporary literature on ‘spirituality,’ rather than picking up the richness and complexity of Asian wisdom traditions, privatizes them for a western society that is oriented towards the individual as consumer and society as market” (p.  121-2).  As an example they argue that Buddhism is redefined in the West as focusing solely on the individual self instead of all beings, thus clouding and transforming the original meaning.   Perhaps “What can Buddha do for me?” becomes the question for contemporary Westerners, according to C&K.

Drilling the second part of their double-edged thesis into our minds that “capitalism in effect is the new religion of the masses – the new opium of the people – and neoliberalism is the theological orthodoxy that is facilitating its spread” (p. 138), C&K’s “(re)description of the world co-produces reality itself” (Pels).  Taking the reader on an analytical trip through modern corporate culture, they state that, “in such a climate, ‘spirituality’ flourishes as a new ‘brand’ to be consumed by Thatcher’s and Reagan’s children. . .” (p. 162).   This statement hints at criticisms of the 1980’s conservative icons’ “free-trade” policies, and lets the reader know the author’s progressive political leanings.

To conclude, “the principle of knowledge politics introduces performative representations that urge the transformation of reality” (Pels).   In this sense, C&K have taken the notion of ‘spirituality,’ redefined it to suit the purposes of their thesis, and taken selective interpretations of history to support their main claims.  Written in a scholarly, watered-down academic fashion to presumably appeal to a wider audience,  C&K quote liberally (like this review) from their philosophical forerunners (such as Foucault, Nietzsche and Marx) and other sources;  therefore C&K’s  “performative representation”  becomes grounded in the loose frameworks of these philosophies/modes of criticism (giving the work a postmodern/Marxian perspective).  Selling Spirituality is successful in making these points in its circular way , and passes on to the reader a healthy skepticism of ‘spirituality’ when used in the modern context of neoliberalism.  In the end, C&K spur us into action by aligning themselves with the alter-mondialiste movement. 

 

 

Works Cited

 

Carrette, Jeremy and Richard King.  Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion.  New York:  Routledge, 2005.

Pels, D.  “The politics of critical description: Recovering the normative complexity of Foucault’s pouvoir/savoir.”  1995.  American Behavioral Scientist, 38, 7, 1018-41

<http://www.cts.cuni.cz/~konopas/liter/Pels_The%20Politics%20of%20Critical%20Description.htm>.

Pepa, Ruel F. "Nurturing the Imagination of Resistance: Some important views from contemporary philosophers." Philosophos.com. 2004. Trinity College of Quezon City (TCQC), The Philippines. 28 July 2004 <http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_85.html>.

---