The amalgamation of religion into mainstream culture was inevitable. The sacred and profane had integrated into each other’s spheres before the institutionalisation of religion, despite theologians constructing otherwise (McDannell, 2012: 139). As a society we are sucked into the gravitational pull of religion. We discuss, read, write, paint, blog, sing, hypothesize and dissect it. This is because our laws, culture, societal practices and languages are derived from it, regardless of whether we want it to be or not. It is a broad reaching representation of the masses.
In Scrambling the Sacred and the Profane, McDannell states that popular opinion, otherwise referred to as the masses, was ignored by theorists in the early twentieth century (McDannell, 2012: 142). This is due to theorists believing the masses were uneducated, therefore they were weak willed and susceptible to coercion from the “culture industry” (McDannell, 2012: 141). The “culture industry” was considered an alluring business that was constructed to control the submissive for capitalistic endeavours (Adorno et al, 2008:18). So when popular opinion showed interest in iconography, this was considered sacrilegious as it was mixing of the sacred and the profane. Additional to this, it demonstrated the weakness of the masses in not understanding the need for the separation and the fact that their depiction of God was considered crude. The masses produced popular opinion and popular opinion was not considered exclusive enough. Alongside this was the belief that popular opinion was controlled by “culture industry” and was imposed to create profit for those who decided what was to be considered popular (McDannell, 2012: 142). It had not been generated from the few who were chosen to be the intellectuals and authorities on the subject by the Church. This self branding of Christianity being an exclusive faith meant the opinions and beliefs of the masses were not considered but also undervalued.
This approach to popular opinion in regards to Christian belief, which began to dissipate in the 1960s – 1970s, cheapened the representation of the masses. I believe popular culture and opinion expresses the general values and interests of a society. It does not aim to “crush beneath it everything that is different” (McDannell, 2012: 142). In fact what we understand about popular opinion and culture is that it continues to develop and envelop ideas from a variety of other sources. What may be considered popular one week, may be deemed ghastly the next. Yet the beauty of popular opinion is that it allows opinions to be heard by the minority of those who tend to run our country, devise our clothes, create our art and attempt to design our beliefs. In essence popular opinion is a vehicle for change and representation. If it helps explain the evolution of belief through the many mediums that popular opinion expresses itself in now, I believe we are closer to understanding then what motivates all of us. A unique, yet slightly unorthodox representation of how the profane and sacred can work well together.
After reading Scrambling the Sacred and the Profane (McDannell: 2012), I reflected on this traditional segregation of terms. The sacred is the exciting and awe filled experience, where as the profane is a mundane everyday activity (McDannell: 2012, 135). Being raised in a religious household I understood this differentiation, yet my intrigue lies in the amalgamation of the two in modern culture, especially when referring to Christian virtues.
Qualities such as compassion should be awe inspiring events that are enacted everyday. So essentially a combination of the sacred and the profane, rather than a grand one off gesture now and then. When I think of compassion I do not necessarily imagine a God whose omnibenovenlence is going to save us all, but rather of a person who shows mercy and kindness without hesitation. This personable concept of compassion however doesn’t seem to hold the same significance it used to in a religious and popular culture sense. In popular culture we suffer from “compassion fatigue”. People are exposed to tragedy and atrocities daily via the media and after a while, there is only so much you can care or empathise with a situation. We seem to be only prompted into compassionate action when something is truly horrifying or when we see someone else doing something to rectify it (compassion guilt). Compassion is sadly, no longer an everyday activity. In fact there is cynicism surrounding it. For people to give charity (a donation in this case) they want to be sure that their compassionate action is making the greatest impact. This is understandable as in this technological age we are able to track our donation. Nolan Watson, the CFO of Silver Wheaton presented at TEDxVancouver a speech entitled, “Compassion Kills”. An unconventional title for an excellent story. Nolan discusses that compassion often enables people to not help themselves, when ideally we should be educating them so as to create sustainability. This viewpoint is an interesting perspective on compassion. To a certain degree it is ruthless, but an opinion that is starting to represent the level of compassionate involvement we are willing to give without exhausting ourselves.
Reference:
Adorno, TW., Rabinbach, AG. "Culture Industry Reconsidered." New German Critique 6. New German Critique, 2008.
McDannell, Colleen. "Scrambling the sacred and the profane." Lynch, Gordon, Jolyon Mitchell and Anna Strhan. Religion, Media and Culture: A Reader. Oxon: Routledge, 2012.
Images:
Compassion:
Courtesy of Craig Dramrauer
http://www.morenewmath.com/all/
