Allow me to preempt someone from asking why I chose to write this story. No, really, let’s get it out of the way, this nimisham:
• Did this really have to be blogged?
• Slow news day?
• Aren’t X,Y and Q more important?
• And furthermore, doesn’t your lack of blogging X,Y and Q indicate that you are a heartless bitch who doesn’t care about Pakistan/the Nuke Deal/the environment/immigration??
Yes,
maybe,
perhaps and
refer to my finger, for that last one. It’s an extra-challenging week at work, so I can’t write anything dazzling, not that the performances which I usually phone in are sublime. I don’t have much time, but when something’s on my mind, it’s easier (read: cathartic) to type, so a “Musings†post it shall be.
Unless you were the last person to be found during hide and seek yesterday, you have heard the cringe-inducing-on-so-many-levels news about an Indian man “marrying†a dog (thanks, Aggiebabe). It is somewhat like the whole “Aish weds trees…twiceâ€-fiasco…except in TMBWITW’s case, she was doing it to compensate for her apparently unfortunate nakshatram and not because she had killed two trees.
An Indian man has “married” a female dog, hoping the move will help atone for stoning two other dogs to death.
P Selvakumar, 33, said he had been cursed since the killings, suffering paralysis and a loss of hearing.
The wedding took place at a Hindu temple in Tamil Nadu state. The “bride” wore an orange sari with a flower garland and was fed a bun to celebrate.
Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses.[BBC]
Buried among the hundreds of jokes which punsters are giddily guffawing over (enjoy your free pass to bitch about how the bride is a bitch…but more on that later) is to me the most appalling aspect of this story; this man killed two innocent, defenseless creatures.
I didn’t know how he killed them until I settled in to my seat on the subway this morning and found out that he had stoned them. That detail bothered me so much, because my imagination doesn’t need any assistance in recreating actual events. Have you ever seen an animal cowering in front of a human? Yelping and whimpering out of fear and pain? It’s heartbreaking, but that’s what this so-called man saw, as he brutally stoned two dogs. I remember the way our late German Shepherds looked terrified and anxious, when they were merely being scolded…and that was after they had committed capital offenses, like uprooting our only curry leaf plant.These dogs must have been perplexed as to why they were being hunted down by this sadist. The whole crime makes that red, squishy thing in the middle of my chest ache a little bit. Achtung, it’s lame that I have to assert this, but I’m not some granola-lite, bleeding heart Aggie who puts the welfare of puppies over people—no, I’m someone who, like most of you, is well aware of the connection between perpetrating violence against animals and committing it on humans.
Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last 25 years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty. The FBI has recognized the connection since the 1970s, when its analysis of the lives of serial killers suggested that most had killed or tortured animals as children. Other research has shown consistent patterns of animal cruelty among perpetrators of more common forms of violence, including child abuse, spouse abuse, and elder abuse. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder. [woof]
Dogs and cats are simple, available targets, and practice makes perfect, if the definition of perfection involves torture and murder. What else has this person done? And to whom? And I recognize that I was born here, in the first world, that I am privileged because of that and thus view this news story through my very American eyes, but at least I’m aware of this heinous flaw o’ mine. At least I am ashamed that I have this privilege to be bothered by what some consider a triviality.
But he killed two dogs. That’s all my mind returns, when I pause between Outlook storms. Maybe I should add the Humane Society to my slowly-expanding list of Causes on Facebook, since I’m obsessed with this. And dogs in general (and this cat, but she’s the exception which proves the rule).
Back to our story- after slaying two canines, the groom lost his hearing and according to most stories I’ve read, became paralyzed. Obviously this is divine retribution for being such a flaming merde-bag, oui? Oui. How could one fix this? But of course! Have him marry a dog! Easy atonement, even as such atoning is gleefully retold the world over, ensuring that some desi kid at a less progressive, less diverse school– like the ones I went to– will be having a GREAT recess and lunch period.
Crowds cheered the newly-weds at the end of the ceremony in Sivaganga district, about 50km (30 miles) east of the city of Madurai.
The “bride”, who is called Selvi, was led to the temple in Manamudurai wearing a sari before vows were exchanged in a traditional Hindu ceremony.
A relative of the groom who attended the wedding said he hoped Mr Selvakumar would now be cured.
“Fifteen years back Selvakumar was physically fit. But, once he attacked a pair of dogs and thereafter Kumar could not move his limbs freely,” the relative, Ramu, told the BBC.
“He tried every cure for his ailment but could not be rid of his disability.
“On the advice of an astrologer and others, he decided to marry a bitch to get cured. Then we arranged Selvakumar’s marriage with a bitch.” [BBC]
Who is going to look after that bitch and protect her from abuse–no, I don’t want to get in the possibilities– or is the prevailing assumption that he’s learned his lesson and now will behave? Speaking of “bitchâ€, that is the final snag on my mental stockings—the B word. Is “bitch†commonly-used in India? Does it have the same connotations? Yes, it’s an even more trivial triviality, atop that other triviality, i.e. my soft shpot for dogs.
This entire story leaves me feeling weird and I don’t feel like I have the “privilege†to explore one of the other aspects of it, which is bothering me- religion. I don’t know enough about Hinduism and though I eat like one, I’m certainly not Hindu. What does this story tell the world (or us, or martians, or…) about religion and what we are willing to tolerate within it?
Then again, maybe there’s some weird Christian tradition that makes even less sense to some girl in Madurai*, I don’t know. Maybe she’s not even thinking of such things. Maybe she’s already rolled her eyes, written this off as mega-superstitiousness which has nothing to do with her or the life she leads, and moved on. I wish I could shake this or make sense of the maelstrom this story evoked within, as easily.
*the closest city to where this happened, I think.
what’s interesting is to note the difference in the manner two equally “bizarre” religious beliefs are treated by the bbc or by their separate correspondents.
the indian man marries a dog story has this headline: “Barking Mad? Man marries dog to ward off curse.”
a story about a british jehovah’s witness woman who refused a blood transfusion due to her religious belief and then died after giving birth to twins has this headline: “Mother dies after refusing blood”
in the first story we have this to explain the man’s action: “Superstitious people in rural India sometimes organise weddings to animals in the hope of warding off curses.”
in the british story, we have this to explain the woman’s action: “We follow the Bible and abstain from blood and I’ve got no reason to believe that Emma didn’t share those views,” the friend Terry Lovejoy added. and “Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin.”
there is no mention of the word “superstition” or “mad” in the british story or any attempt to portray her unusual and some would say, abnormal, belief as anything other than “normal” and appropriate to her personal faith. but peopel in rural india are superstitious (a loaded term). one is portrayed as superstition and the other as a belief.
in the end, whose “superstition” or “bizarre” belief proved to be the more harmful? and how come brits aren’t worried about how weird/bizarre their country must seem to the rest of the world?:)
Let’s you and me make a deal: I will continue to assume that these outlying, sensational stories are nothing more than just that– and you don’t associate me with deluded people who deny their family members blood transfusions, life-saving meds, etc. 😉
I agree that the standards are unfair and I’m the first person to push back, when I can. I don’t think the Jehovas Witness case is less appalling. No shortage of outrage in these knickers, no.
i think one can interpret a term like superstition through analyzing along two dimensions of variation: class & culture.
if a practice is associated with individuals in a lower class then it is more likely to be labeled superstitious. e.g., faith-healing tends to be lower class practice in the united states, associated with “holy rollers.” it is superstitious. on the other hand, the miracle of the eucharist is not superstitious because large segments of the elites accept its supernatural validity. substantively the eucharist is also wrapped up in some pretty deep greek philosophical garb. the “common sense” fundamentalism of many faith healers is pretty unsophisticated and seems to be easily superseded by modern medicine, but an understanding of the molecular and atomic nature of matter hasn’t swept aside the ancient platonic derived explanations of how the eucharist enacts its miracle.
in regards to the cross-cultural aspect, i think something like astrology is a good example of a “superstition.” in the western tradition astrology was associated with pre-abrahamic societies (babylon, etc.) and magic which was outside of the church’s purview. it also seemed to contradict the omnipotence of the one god. in many parts of catholic christendom the belief in astrology is very low precisely because the church proactively preached against its validity. it was marginalized as the domain of marginal rustics or heretical esoteric philosophers (astrology is obviously intuitively appealing because it has cropped up over and over again as an interest among western intellectuals, even among those who considered themselves orthodox christians). in contrast in indian religion astrology is a mainstream part of the dispensation, and not a superstition at all. the scientistic fringe of hindutva even claims it is a science which on the same level of validity as astronomy.
First of all, is this part of Hinduism? Yes? No? What the hell is Hinduism in the first place? Hinduism, being one uniform religion, is a recent concept. If you do not accept such views, then you can say that this kind of ceremony as some sort of karmic payback is limited to that one form of Hinduism which is localised to a few villages and is more a function of local norms . Who cares. It is clearly an exception. But it is still part of the religion as it has come to be – a religion with some essential texts but possesess a lot of variety when it comes to beliefs, rituals and customs. I think the religion as it has come to be allows for many niches. This is one tiny niche.And nothing wrong with commenting on this niche.
I always get amused when people of any religion deny that some practices is not real Christianity or real Hinduism or real Islam. Religions are man made. It’s not like Bible never went through revisions by different men. Same with the emergence of new sects in Islam or the coopting of new tribal Gods or Goddesses into Hinduism. Like it or not, if something goes into practice for many years, it becomes real for the adherants of that religion. At that point, who cares what the real intent of the original religion was. It is that way with casteism. I dont give a damn what th eoriginal intent was. What it became is what is real and Hindus should take responsibility for it. Same with muslims who believe in a greater Islamic empire taking precedence over nation states. There are enough people who believe in that I do not believe it suffice to say that it is anti Islamic for someone to believe in it.
Anyway, I went off on a tangent as this specific case does not warrant such a rambling analysis.
I would like to see some wideangle shots of that ceremony because I am willing to wager that there are some people laughing in the background. And let’s face it. It is harmless as far as religious weird behavior goes. Besides, it is a very interesting way of dealing with the situation if you can remove from one’s mind any funny references to bestiality. (Seriously, try staring at that picture and not laughing.)
But let’s not get so defensive about such practices whether you are a Hindu trying to disassociate oneself from this practice or a Christian trying to comment on this.
amen pravin!
“and you don’t associate me with deluded people who deny their family members blood transfusions, life-saving meds, etc. ;)”
you assume incorrectly. i wasn’t associating you with anyone. i was associating the bbc with a sort of double standard, even if it was unintended and unconscious, in reporting similarly “weird” religiously-motivated actions in very different manners. these are not outlying, sensational stories. these are things that people do outside the bubbles we all live in. to them, there’s nothing weird about it. even calling it sensational is to buy into the bbc headline. i was just pointing out that bizarre is in the eye of the beholder. sacrificing millions of animals for a religious feast, or pardoning one of them as if the others are going to be grateful:) – i believe that’s coming up soon, could also be seen as bizarre by others, but i don’t think the bbc is going to report it like that.
don’t take this the wrong way, but frequently on this site there is exasperation expressed over the real or perceived exotification of indian culture/customs/religions. but i think reacting to some of these stories by saying — “This is yet another story about the weirdness of India. The story alone will not result in people making up their minds one way or the other, but it will certainly add to ‘India the weird’ perception that people have of India.” or by saying “When a tip is sent in repeatedly and I hesitate to blog it because my inner fourth-grader is all, “omg, what will white people* think!”, that’s disturbing and telling. I shouldn’t care what people think, about me, my croc MJs, my ethnicity et al. I shouldn’t care what people think about India. But I do. ” — is to buy into that exotification or is almost tantamount to the exotification that is complained about. these “weird” stories are being seen as “exotic” and not “real india” and “outlying. ” If people were just reacting to the manner in which the story has been reported, that would be fairer, but inevitably they react more to the poor soul who decided to do something not considered “kosher” halfway around the world.
it seems some people see it as weird or worry about how they are going to be perceived by americans because they are seeing these happenings in india through the eyes of the very people they criticize for exotifying india, in either a bad or good way. snake charmers do exist in india. there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that, yet so many indians in the west recoil in horror as if it was “weird.” there is a temple in india devoted to rats. to be embarassed/irritated by someone mentioning that is also to exotify india and pretend that it’s not the “real” india. well, it is very much part of the real india and there’s nothing to be ashamed about. i agree with your sentiment about the cruelty of stoning anything or anyone to death. i think that’s far more bizarre behaviour than marrying an animal and which, if publicized around the world, is far more worthy of being worried about as a story that tarnishes india or indians. my point with the bbc comparison is that sometimes it’s more important to worry about how reporters present things than to worry about the alleged “weirdness” of the thing itself, as long as the thing itself hasn’t really caused anyone/anything any harm (and i guess that’s my own hypocritical standard). why should the man who married the dog face more scorn from some (not you) than the reporter/agency who truly does sensationalize/stereotype some people and gives other people with “weird” beliefs – including ones seen as more conventional than the Jehovah’s Witness ones — a more respectful presentation to the world?
How about Jerry Falwell? Or snake handlers? 😉 :p (j/k)
That is what I meant- animals treated badly, as strays are in India, are more prone to becoming violent and hostile.
Also, excellent analysis in #101.
Whose God is it anyways?, it’s about norms. brown folk raised in the west internalize its about shared norms, it’s natural. i’ve heard shia who are raised in the west distance themselves from some of the bloodier aspects of ashura. for hindus one manifestation of this is the attempt by some to declare that hinduism is really monotheistic. norms don’t always make sense. but it seems there are strong psychological tendencies for all humans to conform (and those who don’t conform often do so consciously with intent to transgress).
Whose God, you raise some excellent points. There is a definite bias in how the two stories are presented by the same news source (although I have to give pungroan points for “Barking Mad”). “Bloody Hell” might have been a good parallel for the JW case. And yes, there is a double-standard (e.g. it’s weird to marry a dog, but eating the body of your saviour every Sunday is so a-ok that it doesn’t get a mention at all). For anyone poised to take offence this is not intended to bash any particular religious doctrine, but just to agree that filtering through the lens of one’s one biases and a corresponding predisposition towards defining “normal” and “weird” definitely occurs. I think it cuts in all directions though–witness the revulsion and outright horror some Hindus express about consumption of beef by other people while happily devouring their lamb korma.
I think Indians are in the process of developing a tougher skin regarding the judgement of others through exposure and through the rapid gains they have made in the last while. I think this also holds for people of Indian descent–while there are similarities, the situation of Indian descent children today in North America is far more favourable then what it was even twenty years ago. I agree that you don’t want to unnecessarily expose vulnerable people such as children in schools to attack for their “otherness”, but I think the best way to do that is to be aware of and ready to point out the absurdities of the culture making the judgement and to be so damn successful and happy with how you’re living your life, that at best the comments look like sour grapes. Plus, as been noted, everything is grounds for attack (do Hindus stop worshipping Ganesha too because of all the oh so witty “please do not feed my God a peanut?” repartee?
Double-standard or no, I do also feel that helps to keep an open mind, just in case the comments have some merit. In this case, yeah it’s weird to me personally, but to the extent no one is being hurt (and if it’s similar to the marrying of a tree to ward off bad luck in anticipation of another marriage), whatever. I do feel terrible for the killed dogs though (assuming there was no risk of harm from the dogs) and for that I think the guy is getting off pretty easy (again, I acknowledge that this is filtered through my own personal bias).
ente, i think india’s diversity means that the sample space of behavior is stretched so that you’ll get more stuff like this happening. and anyway, there is a relatively push toward homogenization of norms on particular topics. think of polygyny. in some ‘modernizing’ muslim nations, like malaysia, some segments of established society are trying to make the case that it is not acceptable even though religious law legitimizes it. the anti-dog meat consumption movement in places like korea is also part of the world-wide trends.
what do you think the chances are of upper/middle class indians-in-india internalizing western norms? (& looking down on hindus with revulsion)
what do you think the chances are of upper/middle class indians-in-india internalizing western norms? (& looking down on hindus with revulsion)
they’ll just change what “hindu” is. compare roman catholicism in africa and roman catholicism in europe. some european priests experience culture shock when they are relocated to africa because exorcism is part of the job description there for a cleric. and though i use the short-hand “western” i think i’m pointing to more global trends that occur when people urbanize, modernize, move away from the land, switch to literacy and become part of the material consumption culture.
you have more faith in the decency of the indian bourgeoisie than i do 🙂
by the way, this is nothing new. if you look at the ancient greco-roman literature you do see that they view the rural folk as little above animals compared to the urbane residents of the polis or the capital. similarly, the early christian inheritors of this tradition characterized the rustic pagani who lived away from the cities where the material superstructure of the new religion was extant as heathens who were barely above beasts, not even worthy of salvation and incapable of comprehending the good news. the elites always tend to have a whiggish view of history, they are the apotheosis of human cultural attainment, the culmination of civilized aspirations toward grace and beauty.
you have more faith in the decency of the indian bourgeoisie than i do 🙂
well, i just mean that they will define their own practices as true hinduism, and the practices of the rural majority as “debased” and “degenerate.”
I’m sorry if it came out that way. 🙂 I knew you weren’t actually associating me with anything.
I’m glad I blogged this, even if haphazardly, because some of the comments (especially yours WGiiA, as well as those from Razib and Pravin) are wonderful– and exactly what I love about SM.
I was on IM with a fobtastic friend and he was expounding on the canine aspect of this story; he patiently pointed out that I’ve never encountered strays in TN (or India, for that matter) and that I’m conflating those apparently menacing mutts with my beeeyootiful, brilliant German Shepherds/the Shiba Inu puppy who lives next door/every other dog I coo over here in Dupont Circle. Not quite the same, it turns out. 🙂 It’s hard for me to not focus on the mental image of this guy stoning animals when I stop and pet every dog I see. Western mindset, now I know.
hey, that’s not too different from the red state-blue state divide 🙂
but i think there is a certain segment of the upper/middle class for which aping what they see in western media trumps any religious beliefs they were raised with, so if it involves disavowing hinduism as as ‘backward,’ i think they would do it. just based on some people i met when i was in delhi a few years ago. maybe i just met some a$$holes though.
Thanks wgiia. You said all I wanted to say, and so eloquently.
No that is not a western mindset. I am as desi as they come (or at least so I believe), and I was traumatized by that image too. And that after i was mauled by a rabid dog in India when I was six, and had to go through the whole injection routine. I still love dogs like crazy. 🙂
eek, you are a more forgiving woman than me. my friends think i’m a freak b/c i don’t like animals. (but i wouldn’t stone then either)
I am a man. Damn, I need a different handle. What was I thinking. 🙁
your were obviously distracted by cute fluffy dogs
but i think there is a certain segment of the upper/middle class for which aping what they see in western media trumps any religious beliefs they were raised with, so if it involves disavowing hinduism as as ‘backward,’ i think they would do it.
cultural context matters. 1) the data i’ve seen does not suggest large scale conversions correlated with high SES (you can see something like this in south korea, but not india) 2) i really don’t think western media lionizes christianity either. perhaps it isn’t mocked as weird because the consumer base wouldn’t tolerate it. there is also a positive SES correlation with conversion to eastern religions in the west, so a particular form of hinduism (think something along the lines of theosophy) is actually quite appealing to some segments as more ‘spiritual’ and more ‘rational’ than faith-based christianity
razib, I didn’t suggest conversion (I don’t think those would occur among the subset I am talking about), I’m just talking about a secular looking-down-on-the-backwards-masses attitude.
come to think of it, it is almost exactly like the coastal urbanites looking down on the ‘heartland.’ so whaddaya know, we’re all human.
razib, I didn’t suggest conversion (I don’t think those would occur among the subset I am talking about), I’m just talking about a secular looking-down-on-the-backwards-masses attitude.
oh, i assumed that was already true. but yeah, if it isn’t happening, it will. it’s all relative.
There was a clear line between the elite and the hoi polloi in India a few decades ago, and there was also disdain for the weird polytheistic religion of the masses. But this line has been getting kind of blurred with increasing social mobility. There’s currently a temple in Andhra Pradesh dedicated to the god of H1-B visas to the US : something like this would have been unthinkable for people who came to the US on tech visas a few decades ago. Of course one might argue that money does not buy class, but money makes a lot of weird things respectable. You can see some of that happening on this site: people are a lot more willing to assert that there’s nothing wrong with all these weird things that are part of hinduism. I think that kind of confidence is a good thing.
I was on IM with a fobtastic friend and he was expounding on the canine aspect of this story; he patiently pointed out that I’ve never encountered strays in TN
Is your friend right or wrong.
Both.
True, there are lot of stray dogs in India. For that matter, I have seen lot of stray dogs in Naples, Italy.
True, a lot of these stray dogs in India get maltreated.
True, a lot of stray dogs live off garbage, meat shop’s throw aways, dhabas left overs (road side reststops).
But
A lot of these stray dogs also live off the kindness of poor people living in juggi pattis, shanty towns, and small businesses, and form companionships.
There are organizations in India that try to get these strays adopted. There is a woman in Bombay who has achieved national prominence, and she only focuses stray dogs.
A stray dog in India is a symbol of lost soul looking for friendship, and giving love without even food in return. Often in Raj Kapoor movies, when he played Charlie Chaplin like characters, he would share moments with a stray dog – telling them his heart, sharing food, or singing songs with them.
This also feeds into the ‘old money’ vs. ‘nouveau riche’ thing. The newer generation of H1’s are more likely to be among the first or second generation of the family after it urbanized and moved from the farm to the big city.
This is true. It’s also true of the desperately poor (especially the homeless wanderers) in India actually; they also get helped out by many Indian families.
I’m first going to get all the bad jokes I’ve got for this story out of my system:
Will the bride love the groom enough to fetch his slippers?
When they consummate the marriage, will they do it doggy style?
If she’s not in the mood, will she play dead or just bark at him to go away?
Will she ever leave him for another dawg?
Also, marrying a dog at the behest of an astrologer to atone for past sins sounds like the astrologer’s dogma is chasing the groom’s karma.
Yes. It will be interesting to see how the next generation goes. I feel it might be less influenced by the west when it comes to religion, etc, even though they may look and act more western superficially.
But seriously, I see no basic reason to disbelieve this story. It will definitely be reported in the media, because “Man marries dog” has a very ironic journalistic twist to it and because it confirms the stereotypes that people hold about strange, faraway, foreign places. It’s like how I like to believe that Florida has alligators that go door-to-door. But one can always preempt the inevitable jokes, and make them one’s own, before they are told against one.
The question of should a known animal killer be allowed to take care of a dog? Probably not a good idea, but then we are talking about a state where it is widely considered an appropriate punishment for a rapist to be forced to marry his victim, her wishes be damned. (I don’t know if this attitude is specific to Tamil Nadu or not, and I have met too many people with this attitude to think that it is not isolated). Given that’s thought acceptable, I see how someone might think that marrying a dog for killing two other dogs might be appropriate.
Also, meet Abodh Aras – the CEO of the Welfare of Stray Dogs (WSD).
There is a huge Jain hospital in Old Delhi, near Chandini Chowk where any animal – bird, dog, cat – stray or not stray will be treated free.
And I too am glad you are blogging this. Even those who disagree somewhat with your viewpoint will agree that its great to have a place where we can discuss these issues in a sane manner. Sane places are so rare on the web nowadays.
Yes. It will be interesting to see how the next generation goes. I feel it might be less influenced by the west when it comes to religion, etc, even though they may look and act more western superficially.
hm. i think the semantic issues here are important. the abrahamic religions emerged out of the cauldron of semitic paganism* (in the case of christianity strongly tempered by greco-roman culture and philosophy). brahmanical hinduism organically emerged from the diversity of south asian religious traditions. similarly, buddhism emerged out of south asian culture, but in its east and southeast asian environments it has developed its own aspects (e.g., chan buddhism [zen] might borrow much of its nature from daosim, and tibetan buddhism is partly synthesized with bon-po). confucianism is basically the largest stream within the corpus of elite chinese thought which crystallized before the first emperor, and so on. but, in many ways i think these “high” religious traditions share more in common with each other than they do with their antecedents in their characteristics. their terminology is fundamentally different, the philosophical gibberish that their priestly castes use to justify their mediating role if you will, but the functional role they play in the lives of citizens of any given civilization is pretty much the same. the names for the various gods are different, but the city-based religions with their professionalized priests and philosophical accoutrements all fill the same consumer niche. so i think though religion will naturally evolve in india, i think it is strongly likely to be reshaped toward the outlines most pleasing toward urban and cosmopolitan society. one can see this occurring in the evangelical subculture, as conservative christians have urbanized and entered the professions they’ve started demanding a different sort of religion and toned down the harder edges of their sects.
We really dont know enough about this story to comment in any authoritative way. In popular hinduism, for me personally the neat part, relationship with animals is an important aspect. I remember well being sent out of my home as a child to feed the local dogs, crows and cows with bits of roti. Once the animals were fed which always followed the completion of my grandmas puja, we would be served lunch.
At one level, this person has had some kind of realization about his wrong-doing, he is atoning for it in a symbolic way that makes sense to him. Has he really changed his ways? I dont really know. Will he take care of his bride? I sure hope so.
Is factory-farming – the systematic cruelty towards chickens and cows as practiced in the US an essential component of christian culture? Does it indicate some innate tendency towards sadism within Christianity? I personally think its silly to “essentialize” stuff like this.
More on Jain Bird Hospital
It will certainly tone down, but I doubt it will go back to the v toned down monotheistic version that was common among the elite a decade or two ago. That was essentially a reaction to the West. I attended a really big puja at the opening of a new business when I was in India a few months ago, and I was surprised at how well many gods fit in that kind of set up. The panditji essentially assigned a god to every problem, or everything you needed to work well, as part of the business, and you just prayed to them one by one. I could see the appeal of that, and couldn’t see how appeasing a single god would ever be as comforting. 😉
I could see the appeal of that, and couldn’t see how appeasing a single god would ever be as comforting.
back to semantics: catholics and muslims have their saints. so psychologically the difference might be minimal. even protestant’s have the book of martyrs.
It will certainly tone down, but I doubt it will go back to the v toned down monotheistic version that was common among the elite a decade or two ago.
btw, i find the idea that there will be indigenization totally plausible and likely. my only point is that there are likely particular macrosocial forces that will change the mass religion so it approaches some of the same tendencies as elite religion.
But from the point of an ordinary christian or muslim, the difference would still seem huge.
I hope so. Personally I as an atheist I am much more comfortable with the elite form as it pretty much borders atheism in practice.
But from the point of an ordinary christian or muslim, the difference would still seem huge.
there is a difference in terms of markers and semantics. tribalism, how you identify outgroups. but when psychologists actually probe into how people personally conceptualize their gods they’re pretty similar. e.g., most christians accept the athanasian formula about god the father, son and holy ghost, but they really don’t understand it on an intuitive level (which is why it’s wrapped up in greek philosophical language about essences and substances). it’s like saying you believe in higher order dimensions (which many physicists do) without being have to actually imagine what that means like you can imagine the 3 spatial dimensions you experience. in the ancient times people killed each other over whether jesus christ was a created being or always preexistent with god, or whether the koran was created or eternal. these disputes have power to mobilize emotion, but most people can’t follow the philosophical details (remember that in the pre-modern era most people were also illiterate). so my point is that psychologically and sociologically many of these religions are actually filling the same roles and exhibit similar characteristics. i’m speaking as an outsider observing the phenomena, not from the perspective any particular believer (who imbues their own belief system with ontological significance blah blah). those religionists who say that all believers worship the same truth are expressing something very banal, but from a psychological perspective there’s a lot of truth in that insofar as the human mind can only conceptualize in particular ways, and so no matter the philosophical definitions of the gods to which they are devoted the typical believer converges upon the same traits cross-culturally.
“That is what I meant- animals treated badly, as strays are in India, are more prone to becoming violent and hostile.”
nala, that’s true. but some badly treated strays also just wither away and don’t have the will to fight back. they are very much like humans in that respect- some have the will, some don’t.
razib, i agree about pressure to conform and norms. having experienced some of it, but thankfully not much, i certainly am not making light of other people’s experiences in school etc. and the desire to “fit in”. each to their own and how they want to adapt, and adaptation is important to a certain extent. what’s interesting to me is that even if you leave out indian/indian-american non-hindus, because their beliefs are different and their reaction to certain “hindu” practices will be understandable, and even if you leave out american-born and raised hindus, i still find some indian-born and raised hindus who suddenly become uncomfortable and defensive and almost ashamed the minute they step out of india (and not just about “religious” practices), if they weren’t already defensive even when they were in india. i guess that’s what you mean when you say ” and anyway, there is a relatively push toward homogenization of norms on particular topics.” and i would be hypocritical if i didn’t admit to not minding a certain convergence of opinion on certain things that are important to me.
“for hindus one manifestation of this is the attempt by some to declare that hinduism is really monotheistic. “
yes, this bothers me. first of all, the monotheistic concept in hinduism, to me at least, is nothing like the monotheistic concept in other religions and shouldn’t be equated with them. secondly, what’s wrong with polytheism, even if hinduism isn’t strictly polytheistic either?
“For anyone poised to take offence this is not intended to bash any particular religious doctrine, but just to agree that filtering through the lens of one’s one biases and a corresponding predisposition towards defining “normal” and “weird” definitely occurs.”
ente, i agree. i do it. we all do it. and it’s not as if i expect reporters to be above human nature and not filter things, even unintentionally and without any intent to “demean”, via their own cultural/political/religious biases. it’s not as if indians don’t, fairly and unfairly, find the goings-on in other countries/cultures/religions/even amongst themselves “bizarre.” but i’ve noticed this lack of resilience and knee-jerk tendency to see oneself through the eyes of others more in colonized countries (although the u.s. was once one too), although i think this attitude is shifting. it is useful to see ourselves through the eyes of others so we don’t become myopic and do see our flaws, but we don’t have to accept everything they say:)
“In this case, yeah it’s weird to me personally, but to the extent no one is being hurt (and if it’s similar to the marrying of a tree to ward off bad luck in anticipation of another marriage), whatever.”
well i told this story to my mother, a huge dog lover, and she laughed and thought the advice was misguided and unnecessary, very different to my more nonchalant reaction. she too felt that he got off too lightly (which is true) and the true test of his atonement would be not whether he gets over his “curse” because of a symbolic marriage but how he treats animals from now on. but she also didn’t care about what people were going to think about india and didn’t find it weird. and she’s had to deal with a lot of “stupid” but innocent and well-meant questions about india and also with a lot of venomous questions designed to humiliate.
“I’m sorry if it came out that way. 🙂 I knew you weren’t actually associating me with anything.”
anna, whew!:) internet conversation really is no substitute for real-life interaction and misunderstandings are so easy in this artificial, tone-deaf bubble.[but having said that, keep on blogging:))
“and that I’m conflating those apparently menacing mutts with my beeeyootiful, brilliant German Shepherds/the Shiba Inu puppy who lives next door/every other dog I coo over here in Dupont Circle. Not quite the same, it turns out. :)”
nothing against the beautiful pure breeds, but i’m going to have to stand up for the mutts:) they have to be tough to survive and many times their menacing is provoked by even more menacing humans. they are also smart and resourceful. and i completely agree with kush when he says “A lot of these stray dogs also live off the kindness of poor people living in juggi pattis, shanty towns, and small businesses, and form companionships.”
i’ve seen this not only in india but in many places. the poorer and those from more humble backgrounds often show far more compassion and generosity towards these strays, no matter how little they may themselves have, whilst some with far more money — and “fancier” dogs — threaten to shoot or otherwise kill them in quite inhumane ways.[but the opposite can be true as well] strays also act as companions to homeless, often mentally ill people – for some reason they latch on to these types of people. it’s not unusual to see a “family” of strays looking out for one another and for whichever human they have latched onto.
“Often in Raj Kapoor movies, when he played Charlie Chaplin like characters, he would share moments with a stray dog – telling them his heart, sharing food, or singing songs with them.”
i remember amitabh doing that in a movie as well. and i agree with most of the last paragraph in that post on the Jain Bird Hospital.
But what does that say about atheists? Why do they not converge upon the same beliefs?
oh, and to give a specific example of what i’m talking about re: macrosocial forces. the centrality of books and texts to religious experience is preconditioned widespread literacy and printing. medieval catholicism was an extremely imagistic religion which focused on relics and pilgrimages. early modern protestantism was a faith which was in part predicated on close reading of the bible in the vernacular. in a society where books were expensive because there wasn’t any printing something like early modern protestantism, sola scriptura, would make no sense. even if everyone was literate, very few people could afford books (people like john wycliff anticipated protestantism, but their ideas probably didn’t flourish in part because of the lack of printing to facilitate the form of worship they favored). with printing the form of christian religion which focuses on scripture study is possible because families of modest means could at least purchase a bible. so you see here a wider change in early modern europe, printing presses, resulting in conditions for the development of other social phenomena, including a particular form of religion. with the spread of literacy in india vedic fundamentalism is likely going to become much more pronounced, the kind of thing promoted by dayananda saraswati and his followers.
But what does that say about atheists? Why do they not converge upon the same beliefs?
you don’t avow the beliefs, but can conceptualize them. some of the same cognitive biases which work toward making religious belief likely in the typical human are at work among atheists too. e.g., if you are walking through a dark forest and see something out of the corner of your eyes you’re likely to be spooked, even though you know rationally that there aren’t spooks in the night. the main exception to this model might be some types of autistic people, who may very well lack an intuitive way to model supernatural agents in their heads because they can’t model other independent agents period.
btw, i think the dichotomy between explicit philosophical expositions of the gods that higher religions are supposed to believe in and the reality of the typical believer in terms of what they can and do conceptualize is a serious problem for many atheists. we take believers at their word and too often waste our time “refuting” the philosophical god concepts as if that will move theists in our direction, but the reality is that it seems that most subconscious religious processing assumes a different implicit concept which we aren’t addressing.