« Fleeting Demos (How I learned to love democracy) | Main | Schmitt, Partisans, and Hezbollah »
Democracy in Practice: Intelligent Design v. Evolution
I'm currently reading Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. The book is a terrific read and a complete horror show. In a chapter on so-called intelligent design, Goldberg discusses a document called "The Wedge Strategy," a five year plan for attacking evolution and pushing so-called intelligent design. She writes:
The plan, then, is to undermine the Enlightenment conception of the physical world as a prelude to undermining the Enlightenment's social legacies. What the authors of "The Wedge Strategy" want to discredit isn't just Charles Darwin--it's the very idea that truth can be ascertained without reference to the divine. Religious law makes much more sense when religion is seens as the foundation of reality.
Goldberg explains how the plan, and the larger movement, relies heavily on electoral strategies, particularly those targeting local school boards, as well as on the production of alternative experts, books, institutes, etc. These experts, not surprisingly, appear as talking heads on cable news. Their writings are invoked by politicians. Describing Republican strategist's Jack Burkman's appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Goldberg notes the rhetorical role of democracy in the movement against evolution. In Burkman's words:
Why should the state and federal government have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science? I see no problem with presenting a creationist view in the schools, given that 70 percent of Americans want that. The law should reflect democratic desires. It should reflect public desires.
By Jodi | July 25, 2006 in Democracy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/5511575
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democracy in Practice: Intelligent Design v. Evolution:
Comments
Jodi,
This is very interesting. I am particularly intrigued by Burkman's linkage of democracy and desire ("The law should reflect democratic desires. It should reflect public desires").
On a slight tangent (or not), I was just re-reading Nancy's critique, in The Inoperative Community, of Bataille's argument that "community was first and finally the community of lovers":
In spite of Bataille, and yet with him, we should try to say the following: love does not expose the entire community; it does not capture or effect its essence purely and simply--not even as teh impossible itself... The kiss, in spite of everything, is not speech..... In the City, on the other hand, men do not embrace. The religious or political symbolism of the kiss of peace and of the accolade indeed indicates something, but merely a limit, and most often a comical one.
Posted by: crojas | Jul 25, 2006 2:41:46 PM
It doesn't seem to be the case that a 'democratic' decision to close-off democracy is at all or in any way 'democratic.' Democracy cannot be divorced from self-instituting or self-constituting, despite the rhetoric of these people.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 25, 2006 10:32:04 PM
Craig--I don't see how theirs is a decision to close off democracy. They aren't blocking people from voting; nor are they limited their own rights to vote and participate. That's why I think this is an interesting case for supporters of democracy. Is school curriculum somehow off limits to democracy? Why? Does it make sense to have non democratically chosen experts, or even the state, determine how future citizens of a democracy are educated? I guess I don't see their views simply as rhetoric.
CRojas: What did you have in mind when you drew out the link to desire? I've tended to read the statement rather flatly, myself, so I'm intrigued by your effort to open it up.
Posted by: Jodi | Jul 26, 2006 8:53:05 AM
Jodi,
The Burkman passage underscores a conundrum similar to that which we find in the Arendt passage passage Angela cited a little while ago (although the stakes are considerably higher in the latter): namely, what are the implications for democracy of “democratic” decisions (i.e., made by the majority) with (what we perceive to be) decidedly undemocratic results.
The paradox is particularly acute in both of these cases because decisions would entail results which would likely have the effect of further entrenching the “anti-democratic” sentiments at stake (in the first case, by gaining greater control over the pedagogical process, and in the latter by literally exterminating entire constituencies who might disagree with the majority sentiment).
How might we explain the possibility of these sorts of eventualities? This is where Burkman’s language strikes me as (unintentionally) revealing. “Desire” is frequently perceived as being fundamentally irrational, a libidinal force to be carefully checked. (This, I believe, is related to what Nancy is getting at, in the passage I cite above, when he opposes “the kiss” (i.e., amorous discourse) with political speech).
Of course, the question that is begged in the above remarks is how, precisely, to distinguish between reason and desire, rationality and passion? And, are there not many imminently democratic goals which are themselves pursued quite passionately?
Posted by: crojas | Jul 26, 2006 11:05:59 AM
The answer, Jodi, is in the first passage you cite: inserting God as the ground and cause of reality. This is fundamentally incompatible with democracy - in democracy, 'the people' (or, if you will, 'the multitude') must be the ground and cause of reality. These people want to substitute God for our own creative power - what they want is absolutism, not democracy.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 26, 2006 11:19:52 AM
The wedge strategy is indeed an eye opener. To check out an excerpt from chapter 1 of Barbara Forrest's book on the wedge, go here:
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Wedge.cfm
To read an essay by Philip Johnson that details the development of the wedge technique see here: (Johnson was the originator of this wedge business):
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/12.4docs/12-4pg18.html
The Johnson essay is old, and the science not good. The Forrest book is well worth reading for those interested in this issue of Intelligent Design.
Burkman has engaged in a lot of reduction indeed. It doesn't seem to me that the state and federal government have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science, although they obviously have power to legitimate certain work over other, and to denigrate studies, and as we've seen with global warming, pull the plug on researchers, undermine reporting, change reports, etc.
Burkman's strategy is to misplace the definitional work of what is science and scientific to the state and federal government because he knows that becomes a better target to mobilize the ire of some folks. With that sleight of hand he erases scientific history and institutions as crucial in this issue. He also reduces the scope of the debate to the libidinal desire of 70% of Americans, by 1) not explaining that that 70% do not agree on a simple creationist view, 2) that in fact the "creationist" view being argued for is a Christian perspective only, 3) that a creationist view is not science and thus should not be part of the science curriculum (also that 70% of Americans believe in God or creation does not mean they see it as scientific, nor agree that it should be taught in schools. Many religious folks want nothing with the state explaining religious positions; 4) that other democratic arguments obtain, such as neutrality by the state and not gaining rights by oppressing the minority. In short, the issue is not what 70% of Americans want (if the number is even correct), because our system does not work that way. His so called "democratic desires" does not necessarily democracy make, and we ought not take them as "democratic" until we really look deeply at those desires.
Finally, it seems he is using "public" as part of the "people's" business. Yet, the problem with religious claims is that they ultimately are not open for discussion in the public. At some point religious beliefs recede into revelation and faith, public deliberation is neither desired, nor welcome, and rational engagement that challenges its presuppositions is eschewed. Tis an interesting position that many religious folks argue for not being excluded from the public square, only to proselytize, since they have no interest in their beliefs being challenged. As I have mentioned in my blog on various entries on these issues, there is much danger to taking religion as an unalloyed good, which is seemingly a foundational belief of many.
N
Posted by: Nacho | Jul 26, 2006 5:32:14 PM
I guess I am a lone voice on this one. So far, I don't find the responses that these folks aren't democratic or they are closing off democracy persuasive. And, I guess I don't think they are persuasive because I don't see why the presumption is that democracy goes together with science and enlightenment. If the majority find the word of God a compelling source for law, and they use democratic means to insure that the laws made by democratically elected law makers accord with Biblical truth, why aren't they democratic? I guess I take them at the their word when they say that they want their religion to be part of the so-called public square or public sphere.
Posted by: jdean | Jul 26, 2006 11:34:45 PM
Jodi,
These are interesting questions. It seems to me that democracy implies not simply majority rule, but also 1) protection of minority rights against a potential tyranny of the majority; and 2) the existence of a public sphere within which ideas and opinions can be exchanged and debated freely.
It is for these reasons, therefore, that liberal democracies like our own make an effort to establish a boundary between Church and State, because a) very few societies are religiously homogenous, and a State which allies itself too closely with the religion of the majority runs a real risk of infringing on the religious freedoms of the minority; and b) because the intrusion of religious convictions into public debate risks (I believe) shutting down valid lines of discussion.
Finally, to return to the specific example you introduce here, the question Burkman raises is not whether "democracy [must] go[] together with enlightenment and science," but rather whether "the state and federal government [should] have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science." The answer to his implicit question is, I think, quite obvious: No, the state and federal government shouldn't have such a monopoly, but the scientific establishment should be allowed a reasonable voice in determining "what constitutes science" (and, as we know, the scientific establishment is essentially unanimous that life on earth evolved into its present form over the course of several billion years).
[p.s., in response to Nacho's questions about the 70% statistic, several recent polls indicate that as many as % of Americans feel that some form of creationism should be taught in schools (though not necessarily to the exclusion of evolution). Interestingly, less than 50% "accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life". See here.]
Posted by: crojas | Jul 27, 2006 12:21:14 AM
Jodi - It is the following that I find anti-democratic (from the first passage you quote): "What the authors of "The Wedge Strategy" want to discredit isn't just Charles Darwin--it's the very idea that truth can be ascertained without reference to the divine." And, of course, the thought that immediately follows: "Religious law makes much more sense when religion is seens as the foundation of reality." The whole point of democracy is that it is self-instituting; a religious, divine basis is other-instituting. Put another way, a constitution is negotiable and revokable; God isn't. On my reading - and, admittedly, I've only read what you posted here! - but this is nothing short of a demand for absolutism.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 27, 2006 12:29:37 AM
The very idea of a self-instituting people is the secular form of theology, which is to say, it remains theological in its logic and claims. Which is also to say, 'our creative power' requires somewhat more attention to who or what this 'our' is, its boundaries, history, proprieties, etc. This 'our' isn't undetermined and self-causing in the least.
Posted by: s0metim3s | Jul 27, 2006 2:21:14 AM
I don't think I implied that the "us" or "our" or "self" is uncaused, primal or primordial and, most certainly, there is an a-theological aspect to democracy. The question, perhaps, is whether the subject of democracy, that is, the subject that institutes democracy, is as fixed, absolute, and sedimented as God. It seems to me that not only is this not the case, that it is entirely impossible. Again: the Law and the laws created by the demos are negotiable in a way that they are not with God - a Constitution can be modified, re-written, re-enacted, destroyed and re-created; the Ten Commandments cannot!
Posted by: Craig | Jul 27, 2006 3:51:08 PM
Craig, that the idea of a secular self-instituting people is still theological -- as A. suggests -- is perhaps a more intractable idea than you seem to believe.
In one of your above comments you want to place this self-instituting people in the exact place 'vacated' by God, i.e., ground, foundation, and precisely self-instituting. In another comment you refer to THE subject that institutes democracy? Do you not hear in this a desire for THE absolute self-instituting subject? And if - as you suggest - this absolute desired subject finds it impossible to fill the place of God, that does not diminsh the desire and the drive, on the contrary it excarbates it.
You mention the democratic constitutions supposedly written by 'we the people'. who signs the constitutions? we the people?
as for the self-instutiting people vs divine other-instituting, this again begs the question of whether what you call the democratic subject is an indivisible auto-constituted subject or whether it is a tissue of 'relations', and if the latter then there is irreducible heteronomy in autonomy, no?
"whence comes among men the sickly desire that there be the One and nothing but the One."
(Holderlin)
"to not be alone is divine."
(Jean-Luc Nancy)
(um, the quotes/translations are from memory so might be in need of correcting. as no doubt might this entire comment.)
Posted by: | Jul 27, 2006 5:38:02 PM
oops, this not-so-absolute subject forgot to sign its comment.
Posted by: Amie | Jul 27, 2006 5:42:11 PM
Crojas--with respect to intelligent design, science does have a say. The ID people are just saying that it should not have final say. They would also not reject the notion of a public sphere that you invoke--in fact, they scream against the way that religious claims are disallowed within the public sphere and have worked to change the contours of such a so-called public so that their views would be allowed. You also seem to be defending liberal democracy exclusive of other notions of democracy.
Also, Craig, I'm not convinced of your emphasis on self instituting; and, presumably, you aren't either: you would likely reject claims that are democratically justified but radically anti science.
My view is that all this religion should be disallowed in school and politics for good old Leninist reasons--but I'm not a democrat. In fact, I think home schooling and private schools should be disallowed until people are at least 18.
Posted by: jdean | Jul 27, 2006 6:21:06 PM
Jodi: I don't think my claim turns on science (as you continue to interpret it) and I'm not sure why you are stuck on that particular aspect. Yes, your post was about democratically selecting bad science (intelligent design) over good science (evolution) - yet another specific example to underline the general feature of democracy that it can lead to anti-democratic decisions. Certainly, this is granted: democracy isn't infallible - the "we" isn't the Pope, as it were.
The issue I raise is different: as I understand the quotations you provide, these people need God in order to render religious laws sensible. God must be the foundation of the political order such that religious law and positive law become co-extensive: our law is also God's law. That is, the political order must be organized in such a way as to render God's power present and visible in the order itself. This is absolutism. The issue, then, is as follows: can absolutism be democratically chosen? will that absolutism be democratic? The answer is clear in both cases: no.
As Amie and Ange point out, this is a secular political theology - the question, then, is secular political theology all we have? Can we have something else? What is beyond secular political theology? What sort of politics is associated with the beyond of secular political theology?
As a good Durkheimian, I'm inclined to believe that there is nothing beyond this secular political theology; that all collective representations are inherently 'religious.' But, what secular political theology allows - something that religious political theology does not allow - is, at the very least, the illusion that we can self-institute; that we do not need "Nature" or "God" to construct a political order.
Even if, as Amie points out, there is no such thing as an autonomous society, one can, nonetheless, attempt to purge all forms of heteronomy - God included.
Posted by: Craig | Jul 27, 2006 11:36:39 PM
Craig: this is what I disagree with: you write--"yet another specific example to underline the general feature of democracy that it can lead to anti-democratic decisions." I don't think there is anything anti-democratic about ID over evolution and don't see why you claim that there is.
I also reject this as anti-democratic: "our law is also God's law. That is, the political order must be organized in such a way as to render God's power present and visible in the order itself." If the fundis use a pre existing political order that is ostensibly democratic for getting their laws passed, and if they continue to use this order for passing laws rather than, say, abolishing it, then the order continues to be democratic. They are not wiping out the current order for one ordained by God; they are using the order already there.
Posted by: jdean | Jul 28, 2006 10:40:08 AM
Well, I'm no "good Durkheimian" certainly, but Craig's point does seem clear enough to me.
At the same time, illusions that may be put to work, not least of all toward the task of infinite perfectibility (to channel–without embarrassment–someone or other), while remaining still possible to describe as illusions, may well be worth defending!
In any case, this does seem without any exaggeration to be rather the question, the principle tension and paradox, of democracy, no? Allowing a quote from those more intelligent than myself:
I had to cite Tocqueville...the question that has [been torturing me]...what structures a particular axiomatic of a certain democracy, namely, the turn...the ipseity of the One, the autos of autonomy, symmetry, homogeneity, the same...and even finally, God, in other words everything that remains incompatible with, even clashes with, another truth of the democratic, namely, the truth of the other, heterogeneity...disseminal multiplicity, the anonymous "anyone," the "no matter who," the indeterminate "each one." For the democratic God of which Tocqueville speaks, this sovereign cause of itself and end for itself, would also resemble, and this resemblance never ceases to motivate thought, pure Actuality, the energia of Aristotle's Prime Mover (to proton kinoun). Neither moving itself nor being itself moved, the actuality of this pure energy sets everything in motion, a motion or return to self, a circular motion, Aristotle specifies, because the first motion is always cyclical. And what induces or inspires this is a desire....
It goes on. Maybe I'll try to post more thoughts on this "anyone" that is not just anyone, later, time-permitting. In any case an openness that does seem rather unique and rare, as one feature, one open promise, of democracy that may remain essential for any future.
I would apologize for lengthy blockquoting–bad form I know, and in comments especially–but they too, so deployed quickly lose their meaning and grow tired.
Posted by: mchristie | Jul 28, 2006 7:45:42 PM
Deconstructing the Dominionists
Posted by: | Jul 29, 2006 3:44:08 AM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
