Social Hierarchies Create A Cycle Of Poverty

Early signs of social class systems can be traced back to the beginning of history. These social hierarchies have shaped the structure of societies for thousands of years and continue to do so. For example, the caste and feudal systems are two influential social systems that millions of people lived with through long stretches of history. Even today, these class systems leave their mark on the way our society is divided into distinct social groups.

            In a basic sense, I find the moral reasoning behind a rigid social system opposed to modern day ideals of equal human rights and opportunity.  Yet I do see traces of a social hierarchy and limited social mobility in our society today. Though our society prides itself on allowing everyone access to education, and on the idea of working hard and achieving success, I believe that there are many individuals who are born into difficult circumstances that they can not necessarily escape from. Some people are caught in a cycle of poverty similar to the untouchables in the caste system. Being raised in a very poor family in the United States is often a setback even before a child has had the ability to make any choices of his or her own.  Yes, many schools offer a high quality education. But many do not, and college is getting more and more expensive. Because of the very high cost of college, a little more than a quarter of Americanxs (about 28 percent) get to go and few Americans are well educated.  The lack of a strong education often makes it more difficult to find a will-paying job.  Many generations of a family may therefore go through the same cycle of poverty.

            The United States is supposed to be different from many other places in the world because it gives people from all backgrounds an opportunity to get ahead based on hard work and merit. In theory, the children of laborers that work some of the toughest jobs in the country can get an education and move up in the socio-economic hierarchy. In reality however, this is difficult to do as a quality education is not always available.  The nation-wide rising cost of education is an impediment to moving up social classes.  I fear that if we continue on this path, much of our society will fall into a cycle of poverty not unlike the untouchables in the caste system. 

Religious Manipulation By The Powerful

For thousands of years, individuals have interpreted religious texts to justify who should hold power in society and who should remain powerless.  For example, monarchs wishing to maintain their authority in medieval times used the divine right of kings to claim that god supported their right to be in power. Individuals have manipulated religion to support their beliefs and interest throughout history.  So, I pose the question, why has religion been so easily manipulated to serve the interests of the powerful? What has stopped the people in lower social classes from challenging the religious backing that powerful individuals have claimed to have?

To address the questions at hand, I believe that it is important to look at one of the main underlying similarities between the individuals that have claimed that their position in society was justified by religion.  What did they all have in common that allowed them to support their beliefs with religious justification? The answer is their education and their ability to read religious texts. Thousands of years ago, most people did not have access to education and consequently were illiterate. They could not claim that they understood religious texts because they had no way of reading them.  This automatically gave the educated people in society the ability to use religious justification for power.  This left the uneducated unable to oppose the social order imposed by the educated. The powerful and educated could then continue the cycle of a divided social class system that deprived lower societal classes of educated. This therefore left these individuals without the ability to question this so-called religious justification because they were never given the education to do so.

An example of this cycle occurred during the years of early Hindu society, called the Vedic Society. During this time period, a social class system known as the caste system arose. It was made up of five different castes, each defining a separate societal class.  At the top were the Brahmins.  These were the priests, teachers, and highly educated scholars.  The second caste consisted of the Kshatriyas, the warriors and royalty.  The third caste was the Vaishyas, the traders.   Next but definitely not least, sat the Shudras, the farmers, service providers, artists, and laborers.  The fifth caste was made up of people that were believed to be “too dirty for casted Hindus.” These people were titled the untouchables.  The untouchables were deprived of many luxuries and rights that casted members were given such as (very intentionally) education.  The untouchables were unable to oppose the rules and religious justifications for laws made by the members of higher castes because they were not educated enough to do so.  They were given the dirtiest and most difficult labor and had no way to refute the belief that there was a religious purpose for being put in the lowest caste. A law in the caste system stated that one could move up a caste level.  Once born into the untouchables, one stayed an untouchable.  Therefore, the offspring of these individuals were treated in the same manor as their parents had been.

In addition to depriving the powerless of an education, the powerful have often promulgated self-benefiting interpretations of religion to maintain distinct social classes. Simply depriving people of education would likely not have completely eliminated the incentive of lower class members to challenge their social status in society. So, throughout history, the powerful have taught the lower social classes that they would be punished or rewarded based on their compliance with the rules of the existing social system.

Once again, an example of the powerful manipulating religion to their advantage is apparent in Hinduism’s caste system.  The members of the highest castes, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, taught members of the lower social classes that if they remained in their caste without challenging their position in society, they would be rewarded by moving up a caste level in the next life.  This was hard to argue with when the alternative was to be born once again into an equally low caste level.  By using this reasoning, the members of higher castes could further keep members of the untouchables from opposing their beliefs about the social order.  Members of the untouchables were frightened to oppose the beliefs of the higher castes in fear that they would not move up a caste in the next life.  This highlights how the powerful and educated people have used religion to keep the uneducated from challenging their social status.

Throughout history, the powerful members of society have used religion as justification for the social status quo. For thousands of years, the powerful have been able to maintain the social hierarchy in society.   By depriving the lower social classes of education and threatening them with divine punishment for disturbing the social structure, the powerful and educated have kept the powerless from demanding an equal society. 

Religion, Cults, Prophets, and Missionaries

A group is determined to be either a cult or a religion based on how the surrounding population views the members and beliefs of that group.   In other words, whether followers of a belief system make up a cult or a religion is determined by the people outside the group looking in on the group’s structure and ideology.

The word cult is generally used derogatorily to refer to a group of people with a belief system that threatens established ideas, and whose leader holds a seemingly dangerous amount of influence over the members. Groups with certain ideologies are often labeled cults because people outside of the group believe that the group’s ideology is destabilizing to society.  People believe that the group’s belief system defies the norms of accepted belief systems, and may cause trouble to existing ideologies and bring chaos to society.  For example, when Christianity was just being established, the Romans looked at the early followers as a cult because their devotion to Jesus threatened loyalty to the Roman government and leadership. 

In addition to being fearful of the belief system, people outside of the cult worry that a cult leader can rule his/her members with a dangerous amount of influence. Leaders of cults are believed to control their members to the point where they position themselves to be as important as the ideology itself.  This is thought to be dangerous because if a cult leader is too powerful, the members of a cult lose their ability to think for themselves.  They begin to follow only what the leader tells them to do.   In a way, the leader has absolute power.

Religion, on the other hand, is thought of as a belief system where no leader or figure is more important than the deity and the ideology overall.  Unlike a cult, religious beliefs are not seen as undermining the norms and laws of society, but are often the basis of them.  For example, the Ten Commandments, a religious code of laws recognized by both Jews and Christians, do not defy law and order in the Judeo-Christian American society, but rather are the backbone for them.  Furthermore, followers of a belief system make up a religion when their beliefs are shared by a larger number of people.  In a way, a necessary condition for a belief system to be considered a religion is if enough members support it and believe in it.

The main difference between cults and religions has to do with how people outside of the group view the structure and belief system of the group. However, I believe that a cult can turn into a religion and a religion can turn into a cult.  If a cult’s belief system gradually spreads and becomes more widely accepted, similarly to how Christianity spread in ancient Rome, it will gradually be looked at as a religion.  As the ratio of believers to non-believers increases, the cult becomes less threatening and dangerous to societal norms.  Yet at the same time, a religion may suffer a decrease in believers and followers.  For instance, if a new religion is beginning to spread in an area, the religions that were previously accepted and followed may become less observed.  This radical change may bring the population to view these shrinking religions not as religions any longer, but rather as cults that defy society’s status quo. 

__ __ __ __

I believe that the difference between a prophet and a missionary is related to the person’s communication with god and the person’s reason for spreading the work of god.

Historically, individuals who have called themselves prophets have been people who preach the direct word of god that they have personally heard from the deity. For example, in Islam, Mohammed is considered a prophet because god speaks directly to him and he relays god’s messages to the rest of the world.   Furthermore, a prophet’s motivation for spreading god’s words is generally based on the idea that it is his or her purpose in life to do so.  The prophet’s responsibility is not to keep a religion alive, or to convert individuals to a certain belief system, but rather to tell others exactly what god wants them to do.  It is a prophet’s duty to help humans live more righteous lives in the eyes of god.

In distinction to a prophet, a missionary does not receive god’s words directly from the source, but rather from religious texts, teachings, or even from the words of a prophet. Therefore, a missionary’s connection to god is more distant than that of a prophet.  In addition, missionaries spread religious beliefs and ideas for the purpose of converting people to their belief system.  Their basic motivation for teaching religious ideas is that it is their duty to expand the number of followers for the good of the religion and the good of the individuals being converted.  In contrast to a prophet who seeks to spread the word of god, a missionary seeks to persuade others about the truth of a specific religion as well as about god’s teachings. 

All in all, the main differences between prophets and missionaries revolve around communication with god and the motivation for spreading god’s word.  Though both types of religious figures work to bring god’s words to a broader public, prophets work to improve humanity and missionaries work to promote a specific religion. 

Abraham: A Vessel For Peace

Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is a significant figure in the history of religion, and in world events, because his story provides the basis for religious conflicts, but at the same time his role as a common ancestor may be the key to reaching worldwide religious tolerance. Abraham’s close relationship motivates these three main monotheistic religions to identify with him and his descendants, creating the possibility of a family bond that could be used as a “vessel” towards peace.

The fight over which religion is most legitimate – whose connection to Abraham is strongest – can be looked at as a violent family feud. The beginning of this religious clash is seen in the text itself, and has carried on over the centuries. In the story, god states that he will make both of Abraham’s sons into great nations.  However, in the story of Abraham, when Isaac and Ishmael get older, they grow to be bitter enemies. Over centuries and millennia, this conflicted relationship turns into violent wars between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  For Christians, Abraham becomes a figure to minimize the religious importance of Judaism, as the story of Isaac’s sacrifice foreshadows Jesus’ (god’s son) crucifixion. In the early years of Islam, Mohammed preached that god’s covenant and relationship with Abraham was open to all religions. However, as Islamic beliefs spread and Islam became a powerful religion, many Islamists began to “elbow” the Jews out of the story and insist that the text was trying to show the importance of Islam.  They started to preach that Abraham actually loved Ishmael more than Isaac.  Many even said that rather than almost sacrificing Isaac, Abraham actually chose Ishmael when god asked Abraham to sacrifice his favorite son.  Religious persecutions, the crusades, and religious extremists have been the products of this early religious conflict.

Though Abraham’s figure brings religious conflicts, he also may be the key to religious tolerance and peace.  Abraham is the greatest link between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  He is the forefather of these religions and thought of as a leader and a role model.  More importantly, he is thought of as the biological father of these religions.  In the story of Abraham, it states that when Abraham dies at 175 years old, his sons, Isaac and Ishmael who are enemies of opposing nations, come together and bury their father side by side.  They coexist because of a common father who they love.

It is interesting that rather than appreciating a common ancestor and role model, religions battle over who is connected to the “true Abraham.”  Yet, I believe that the only route to religious tolerance and peace is for people to give up the idea that they hold the only truth and to accept that opposing interpretations are inevitable.  It is useless and inhumane to combat people who believe differently because there will never be only one view of Abraham.  As said in the podcast, Abraham is the best vessel we have to accomplishing peace throughout religions.

Abraham's Role In Cultural Diffusion

The story of Abraham is a well-known tale in modern society. It is a complex story that highlights both a profound connection between god and a human, but also shows controversial moral problems with Abraham’s character.

It is therefore puzzling why Judaism, Christianity and Islam would choose to associate themselves with this man. This story is part of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, and each of these major monotheistic religions all associate their origins with this story. I find this interesting because this story does make Abraham out to be a completely righteous person. He makes many decisions that today would be looked at as inhumane such as almost sacrificing his own son, and casting out one of his wives with another one of his children.

In a basic sense, the common tradition of the Abraham story is an example of cultural diffusion. Abraham is considered the founding father of the Jews and the story is incorporated into Christian and Islamic texts. Usually one culture will adopt an idea from another culture if it feels that the idea will be beneficial or meaningful to the culture.  Yet, Abraham is not a man full of righteousness and morality, but rather a devoted religious figure that has made some very radical decisions. So why is he given such a special place in the history of Christianity and Islam if he is not a completely righteous person? 

I believe that the answer highlights an interesting incentive for a type of cultural diffusion. One would think that the incentive behind purposefully adopting ideas from other cultures would be to bring something meaningful and helpful to the culture. However, in this case, these immerging religions chose to identify with a controversial figure. I believe that writers of Christian and Islamic texts might have chosen to do so for the purpose of, for lack of a better term, marketing appeal. Abraham was a well-know religious figure in the times of Jesus and Mohammed.  If newly forming religions could count him among their ancestors, it probably made their emerging ideas seem less controversial to the surrounding population. I believe that this form of cultural diffusion can be looked at as a type of marketing decision.  Even though Abraham was a controversial figure, his fame may have helped the early followers of other religions spread their appeal. 

Cultures adopt ideas from each other consciously and subconsciously.  I believe that the story of Abraham may have been adopted by Christian and Islamic texts, despite Abraham’s flaws, for the purpose of appealing to a broader community. 

The Motivation For Humans To Interact

This week we examined the spread of different cultures’ religious beliefs and practices around the world over time.  We determined that human interactions have been the engine of history. That is, everyday interactions between humans, some notable and some routine, have triggered every (human related) event, belief, and value in both local communities and broader regions. Our world most likely would not function the way it currently does if humans had not started interacting thousands of years ago.

Human interactions have been so significant because they have led to cultural diffusion.   Cultural diffusion is the sharing of ideas between individuals of different cultures. It can happen purposefully as when people have the incentive to learn from each other, or can happen accidently because of exposure to other cultures that inevitably result in new ideas.  Cultural diffusion can be seen in the earliest of times.  When people came together to hunt or protect their children or even to reproduce, cultures fused ideas together and advancements were made.  Hunters learned how to make sharper weapons by learning from each other.  Women learned how to look after their children by learning from other mothers.  Cultural diffusion, a product of human interaction, is what allows our world to advance.  It is more difficult for a single man to produce new ideas than for ten men to work together. 

Yet, there must be a reason that motivates humans to work together, and ultimately that leads to cultural diffusion. I would argue that instinctually, humans have a natural drive to survive both on an individual and communal level. Human decisions are consciously or subconsciously made with the purpose of living an easier, healthier, happier, and more prosperous life.  The development of the Silk Road, one of the most identifiable examples of cultural diffusion, can be analyzed from this perspective. This major trading route between Asia and Europe, was created because humans believed that they could live more prosperously and healthfully by trading goods such as jewels, fabrics, and spices.  It was a creation motivated by the desire for more prosperous lives.  The human instinct to survive more easily is reason for all human decisions and actions. 

            Of course, the human drive to survive does not always result in positive advancements for humans. Sometimes, the instinct live more prosperously can lead to actions that many make the lives of some much worse. An example of this is war.  Wars over religion, land, power, or other resources come from the idea that a conflict must take place in order for a nation to live more prosperously. In order to live in a better world, one religion must destroy another religion, or one country must destroy the government of another country.

            Human interactions lead to cultural diffusion, which then leads to new ideas and events. Yet, it is the natural human instinct to survive that motivates humans to interact with each other.  It is the basic psychological motivation that has led to both the greatest human achievements and the most violent acts.  

Inevitable Religious Assimilation

In the chapter titled Akhenaton and Historical Diffusion, the textbook explains that the ideas that led to the development of early religions were often based upon the beliefs of other religions that had influence in the same area.  For instance, Judaism’s belief in one god may have been influenced by Akhenaton’s monotheism in Egypt under his rule.  In this case, the belief in one all powerful god may have been adapted by the Jews in the area. Egyptian Jews were exposed to the idea of having one god by living within a culture where the dominant religion was monotheism (under Akhenaton’s rule). This is an example of how ideas and beliefs spread in ancient times because of the proximity of one ethnic group to another. 

            Currently, it is difficult to find a belief or idea that hasn’t been shared or spread across different regions among different culture groups. Worldwide media such as the Internet and television have made beliefs widespread and accessible around the globe.  Though this globalization has brought connection, community, and education throughout the world, it has also made it nearly impossible to avoid the ideological influence of Western culture.

            The quick and easy spread of Western ideas has led to opposition against this natural blending of ideas between cultures. It has led to a struggle for many to maintain an original belief system. For example, Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda are largely motivated by the concern that Western culture has had too much influence on Islamic society.  They believe that modern Western life has corrupted many Muslim governments, many Muslim people, and much of the world. They feel that it is their religious duty to combat Western culture and therefore the Western world.  This is a case where the spread of ideas and culture is unwanted and has led to violent conflicts. 

            Today, many followers of religions and cultures attempt to keep what they believe to be their core ideas and beliefs separate from assimilation.  In a world where ideas easily fuse and a range of cultures are apparent all over the world, many are facing the struggle to maintain a pure and original belief system.