The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by Irvan Hutasoit, 2023-10-16 19:44:21

The Mediatization of Religion: When Faith Rocks

40 The Mediatization of Religion However, it is this link that Clark finds to be one of the most striking aspects of the contemporary world. As these authors have shown, traditional religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism have been in touch with modern technology communication devices, and have been using marketing techniques to get their messages across. The website Stuff Christians Like is an example of this: Stuff Christians Like Does the stuff we like ever get in the way of our relationship with the God we love? That’s the question Stuff Christians Like is all about. It’s also about booty, God, booty. And surviving church as a single adult. And knowing how metrosexual your worship leader is. And how serious a serious Wednesday can be. And hilarious/insightful comments from readers around the world. And how laughter is a gift from God and when we refuse to accept it, it makes Him want to take it back. Like the unicorns. (http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchristianslike/about/) Clark argues that, in many cases, as the modern media communication are seen more and more as a powerful tool by the different religions, the more religious goods— books, CDs, gadgets and so on—are sold every day. Thus, the two spheres—the “spiritual” and “material”—seem to have merged into a unique practice. This raises a number of questions, though. First, it would be possible to ask what the best way of interpreting the phenomenon is. Has religion surrendered to market demands and media techniques? If yes, is this a sign of the “weakness” of religion, evidence that even the most “ethereal” human practice must be subject to the laws of a liberal market and a powerful media? On the other hand, have the market and the media been appropriated by religious concerns? (Stolow 2005: 96). Is this actually a sign of the power of religion in the contemporary world, notwithstanding those who argue about its decline? (Meyer and Moors 2006; Stout and Buddenbaum 2008). However, it is also possible to address a question to the idea of these concerns: are religion and the media/market really two separate spheres? Is there a necessary separation between these elements that would make it impossible to think about the relationship between media and religion without a paradoxical framework? The question seems to take for granted a necessary conflict between religion and the social-historical context in which it actually belongs. Moreover, the way this question is posed seems to imply that media, market and religion are independent and autonomous spheres, a point that Meyer and Moors stress: Religion, we argue, cannot be analyzed outside the forms and practices of mediation that define it. This means that the current adoption of electronic and


What Makes Religion Suitable for Mediatization? 41 digital media by Islam, Evangelical Christianity, and Judaism should not be regarded as an anachronistic combination of matters held to belong to different domains, namely, religion and technology. Rather, the point is to explore how the transition from one mode of mediation to another, implying the adoption of new mass media technology, reconfigures a particular practice of religious mediation. (2006:7) If one takes into account the fact that religion is not only related to the “sacred” but also to everyday practices, it may be easier to understand that there is no contradiction between religious concerns, media and market. As a result, as Clark argues, the paradox dissolves itself when one looks at the relationship between media and religion from a historical perspective, and understands religion as a social practice that can only take place in this context. There is no religious practice outside a particular context, and each context leaves its own mark on religious practice. Instead of taking religion, media and the market as separate agencies or autonomous social institutions therefore, Clark proposes the concept of “mediation” to understand the relationship between these three elements. All are part of a broader context. None can be taken as a single entity. Religion, the media and the market are all inter-related parts of everyday life, mediating social relations and able, at least in part, to frame people’s deeds and actions. As a result, instead of thinking about the media, the market and religion as different or even opposing elements, Clark prefers to study their inter-relations, their mutual influence and the exchanges among and between them. Moreover, she also frames the question in a historical perspective to show that the idea of “opposition” is nothing more than a modern construction, and that the relationship between the three is a long-standing one. What is new, she believes, is the dimension of this relationship and the presence of a new kind of media, digital and electronic, which together have altered the links between the three. Clark (2007) stresses the importance of the concept of “mediation” to understanding the relationship between the media and religion. She argues that there is no religion without a kind of “mediation” between the two elements: religion itself claims to be the “mediator” between ordinary life and the transcendental experience that can be reached only through certain practices monopolized by religion. As a mediator, religion thus presents itself as a bridge between the ordinary and the transcendental. This mediation, however, is only one aspect of religious practice. Religion is not only a matter of communication with the transcendental, but also of sharing the experience with other people, creating a community, spreading the transcendental message as widely as possible. In this way, religion is also a mediator between the transcendental and the community of worshippers. As a result, it is not only about reaching something called “the sacred,” but also reaching the religious community as a whole. As a “mediator”—that is, “something that stands in the middle”—religion is by definition a communicative entity that should be able to get in touch with both extremes of experience—the transcendental, on the one hand, and ordinary


42 The Mediatization of Religion people, on the other. Thus, while the study of religious practices may belong to anthropology and/or theology, the study of how religion communicates to people, and how people experience religion in their everyday lives, appears to raise important sociological questions that can best be answered by looking at the mediation process by which religion gets in touch with people. Religion is always framed in the broader context of everyday life. There can be no religious experience out of context, and people can only experience religion inside the context of their everyday lives. Clark argues, therefore, that the study of media and religion cannot flourish without taking this into account—that religion is an experience lived in everyday life, inside a context that frames religious experience in broader references. She brings back the historicity of religion: there are no religious practices and beliefs out of a time and a space; there is no religion without the chain of events that characterizes everyday life. Religious experience is not free from the constraints of everyday action, the prevailing political and economic situation, psychological limitations, and social demands. In this sense, she argues, most people who hold a religious belief are not specifically “religious” 24 hours a day. They live in a real world, with real worries and real concerns, which at the same time is a mediated consumer society. The relationship between media and religion must consequently be framed in everyday life practices. As a result, transformations in the relationship between media and religion do not indicate either that religion is stronger or weaker. They do not show that market demands or media techniques have conquered religion. Instead of rejection, it is possible to identify contact, and the question therefore is to what extent contact and approximation have transformed religion’s core practices and beliefs. The central question that Clark’s work raises, and which underpins this book as well, is thus to what extent the adoption of practices alien to the original context of religion are able to change the notion of religion itself? Taken together, studies such as those by Babb, Clark and Meyer and Moors suggest that religion has adopted elements of media culture and that religious denominations have learned how to produce and use some codes of contemporary mediated culture, such as popular music and television programs, to convey their ideas. In Religion and the Public Sphere, Meyer and Moors (2006) argue that media use has been one of the distinctive characteristics of religious denominations since the early 1990s. They claim that the use of media communication has allowed religion to thrive in the public sphere, that is, to have influence in public affairs such as politics, education and the government. They consider this to be an indirect process: mass media use helps churches to attract more worshippers; the more worshippers a church has, the bigger its importance in the public sphere. Meyer and Moors suggest, therefore, that an initial analysis would indicate that media communication is a crucial tool for religious denominations to convey their ideas, beliefs and values to the public sphere. In the next chapter I will focus particularly on how mediated religion has articulate its presence in the public sphere by drawing on Habermas’ (1989, 1992, 2006) seminal works.


Chapter 3 Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society: The Public Visibility of Religion What makes mediated religion important in the contemporary Western world, among other elements, is that it may affect directly the way people act in the public space, that is, the capability of religion to be a relevant actor in public decision-making. Supported by a media apparatus, denominations may state to a very considerable audience the grounds on which they should build their views about public issues— and, more important, they may tell people how to set their opinions and beliefs regarding public affairs—not only those concerned particularly with moral questions such as those most frequently associated with religious views on abortion or samesex marriage, but the whole range of political decisions. Consequently, religions’ opinions go beyond the sphere of private decisions. They transcend the space of personal decision-making and reach into that of public discussion. The Poptheology website emphasizes the importance of mediation by highlighting how media content can be adopted by churches to explore their theological concerns. They write: Pop Theology It is often the case that when a song or a television show seriously explore the human condition, theological questions can’t be far behind. It is not only our desire to bring these questions to light but to offer one (and sometimes more than one) perspective among many on these issues. (http://www.poptheology.com) Democracy, at least in theory, means that people should be engaged in discussion about public affairs. It means that all (or at least a great deal of) opinions, ideas and views should be allowed space in the debates on public issues (Held 2006). However, political theory has debated this principle as a central feature for any democracy, there is at least an agreement one key principle: to be debated in public, any idea must first reach the public. There can be no public debate about an issue or question that everybody ignores. Thus, information about what is going to be discussed is a vital element to any discussion. If any religious denomination wants to be part of the political debate, it must first put its views publicly, something which may be done by any member of that denomination. Indeed, the individual’s public behavior is one of the main concerns of most religions, since, as Durkheim pointed out long ago, this is somehow the embodiment of the religious principles he or she claim to share. It requires individuals to publicly take sides in discussions that involve moral matters and even campaign


44 The Mediatization of Religion for what they think it is right. Religion can therefore reach the public debate through the personal engagement of the members of their congregation. But how far can a single person, or even a group, go in sharing their beliefs with a greater number of people? If a hypothetical denomination wanted to make the case against, for example, homosexual rights in a city like London, New York or Sao Paulo, based only on the personal contacts of their believers, how far could they go? How many new supporters would the denomination gather? Church members would have to rely on their interpersonal and would probably have only limited success. Even if the church members were able to employ their best and most effective rhetoric, they could only share their ideas with a handful of people—and not all of their personal contacts may be interested in what they have to say about gay rights, let alone change their views on this. The members, and the denomination itself, would still lack the power to be seen by a large number of people, a power that can only be acquired using media communication. It does not mean that the importance of personal engagement has diminished in any way. On the contrary, mediated religion may only be effective with the personal commitment of its members and supporters. Mediated religions rely on the worshipper’s religiously oriented engagement in public affairs. The believers’ actions are the flesh and bones of religious views in the public space. However, from an institutional point of view, it does not matter how much a believer’s behavior is “right”—that is, in conformity with the denomination’s rules—if this righteousness cannot be claimed by the church as the result of its good influence on his or her life. Interpersonal relations may be a good way to show the claimed benefits of belonging to a church, but only to a local audience. If a denomination wants to be known in public space, it must turn up and become mediated. And why is it so important for a church to have a great number of worshippers to engage in public affairs? This question takes us back to politics. In democracy, as Plato argued, quantity may be a source of power. If I belong to a church that forbids same-sex marriage I will probably feel bound to obey this principle in my personal life. If questioned, I would offer my views about it, but for the most part my personal opinion will matter only to me and to what I do in my own life. However, if the debate reaches Parliament and I know that MPs are going to vote on a law that allows gay marriage, it is no longer a question of personal opinion. As a church member, I should fight for what I think is right. I must win other people’s support to the cause; I should mobilize people and tell them my point of view. The more people I convince, the more powerfully I can lobby against the law. If I could reach millions of listeners, readers or viewers, I would probably be able to convince many more than I would do by arguing with a handful in my local pub. It would be perfect, therefore, if I had a television channel, were able to use online social media and so on. My argument may become public, I could win more supporters and, eventually, I could change the way MPs would vote. In this sense, quantity means power of action.


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 45 Mediation seems to represent an element of common ground in the relationship between religion and politics since it deals with the way some matters reach the public space. Religion might be a question of private concern, but, becoming mediated, it may have influence in public affairs. In order to be taken into the account in public affairs, it is important, therefore, that religious views appear in the public space. It is therefore possible to state clearly and boldly that a religion can engage in public affairs when its opinions about anything reach the public space through the media. An article published on Christianity Today in July 2003 addresses this very issue: Evangelicalism’s Dark Side and Popular Culture Evangelicalism’s emergence as a cultural force has, to an unprecedented degree, placed the concept of the battle between good and evil on the public agenda. Once concerns with evil entered the public imagination, evangelicals could no longer control how people chose to respond to the evil that many agreed existed. It was not only the responses that could not be controlled, however (http://www. christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/77-52.0.html). In the Yahoo Answers website, a forum where people can ask and answer any sort of question, there is an example of the way media communication may engage people in public debate. The site allows anyone to ask a question, and other Internet users are expected to answer. A person with the username “Unsolved Miseries” asks: [Unsolved Miseries] “Why does Catholic pop singer Lady Gaga tell homosexuals that God approves their lifestyle?” Ten people engaged in the debate offering answers that varied from simple marketing ideas to further considerations about the Catholic Church (the words in brackets are the people’s usernames): [Catholic Truth] First off your [sic] either stupid or totally illiterate in History as a simple reading of the ante nicene Fathers would tell you much different. But I suspect you only threw the Catholic history comment in as an insult. As far as lady GaGa goes she does not represent the Catholic Church nor it’s [sic] teachings. She if she did make such a comment is no different than millions of people who are what we call cafeteria Catholics in that they pick and choose what they want to believe, including there [sic] own personal interpretations to suit their values not Gods. [Kard] Assuming this is true, Lady Gaga obviously doesn’t mind homosexuality. I don’t see why anyone would, honestly. Those who oppose it so vehemently are usually closet homosexuals themselves. [Anonymous] Because she is Robert Stack reincarnated.


46 The Mediatization of Religion BTW, god made all people. If he hated homosexuals so much, LGBT wouldn’t exist. [Kevin S] Why do you make stupid, hateful, and historically unsupported statements about religions you clearly don’t understand? [Anonymous] Because she has a brain. [Steve’s web Hosting] Some people are able to be Christians while still not being bigots. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110214185041AAfzeVt) Mediated denominations may have, at least nominally, more influence in politics. This can be seen not only in the common matters of government, elections and parliaments, but also in the broader meaning of the word—in the way personal and group identities and representations are constructed and set in public space, and on questions of gender, minorities, multiculturalism and human rights. As Hoover and Venturelli (1996: 260) argues, “presence in the sphere of public discourse is a socio-political currency now controlled by the contemporary guarantors of the public sphere: the media.” Religious leaders long ago realized the power of mass communication to spread their ideas to an anonymous public as a way of quickly attracting new supporters. What could be called the “golden age” of televangelism, the years between 1950 and 1980, especially in America, was the first attempt to reach the new ground of the wider public space. Mediated religions go a step further in this direction (Bruce 1990). The presence of religion in public affairs would not be a surprise in those countries where the process of secularization—the progressive loss of public importance of religion—did not occur in the same way as it happened in the Western democracies. Particularly, Clark and Hoover (1997: 16) criticize the “tacit acceptance” of the theories of secularization. Instead, they argue that religion is still integrated in everyday life, although “not necessarily in the forms assumed by conventional scholarship.” What has somewhat been intriguing a number of researchers is the relevance of religion in public affairs in secular democracies— the main example would be the United States. The separation between Church and government is one of the fundamental principles of most Western democracies. As it was firstly stated in the U.S. Constitution, the government would respect all faiths and promote none. This means, from the start, that no faith would have any sort of privilege, and the debate about public issues would not take into the account arguments grounded exclusively on faith matters. Civic life, if is not entirely incompatible with faith, at least would relegate religion to a marginal place: the issues of civic life must be discussed based on civic, secular, arguments and facts. In such a secular state, how can religion interfere in the public debate concerning collective issues? What would be the weight of an argument, grounded on faith, in the civic discussions? How might a believer bring his or her concerns about moral questions to the public debate, since the civic space is not to pay


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 47 attention to religious arguments? How could religious people, or the churches and denominations themselves, reach the public space, and get succeed in bringing their demands and ideas to a public discussion? The Secularization Issue The discussion on the religion’s shift from the public space to the private life is another factor that can be articulated aiming some understanding with the studies about the secularization. It would be hard to consider the dynamics of presence/absence of religion in the public space without taking into the account the perspective of a progressive loss of influence in public affairs—one of the main aspects of the secularization thesis. One of the main researchers in the process of secularization, David Martin (1991) argues not only against a certain mechanistic or linear perspective in studies, but also criticizes the absences of empirical research confirming the secularization as a homogeneous phenomenon. Conversely, if it is possible to identify it in some dimensions as in the mentioned separation of Church and state or in the decreasing of the number of regular churchgoers, on the other hand it is possible to note the maintenance and success of religious beliefs and practices in different societies. The sociology of religion has the secularization process as one of its main concerns. Secularization can be understood as the progressive loss of social space by religions in modern Western world (Berger 1971). Sociology has dealt with secularization mainly from a political, economic or social perspective (see Aston 2006; Hadden 1987; Dobellaere 1981; Martin 1991; Wilson 1982). Here, one would like to suggest yet another approach, a communication approach, based on the use of communication methods or devices by religions. Recently, there have been some attempts to relate secularization and the mediation of religion (Stolow 2005; Hjarvard 2008b) One kind of study is concerned with the effect of the growth of mass media in the named secularization process. The main argument is that the invention of press, in the fifteenth century, has contributed to the loss of social space by religion in the West. Supporters of this argument suggest that the invention of printing has challenge the religious monopoly of knowledge by the churches, mainly the Roman Catholic, which has led to a loss of their importance in society. Habermas (1989) claims that the mass media has led to a “structural change” in the public sphere. This includes a decrease in the importance of religion. On the other hand, Stolow (2005) argues that there is no evidence of a direct relation between the expansion of the press and the diminishing of religious space. In what follows, I briefly discuss how mediation may have influenced the space occupied by religion in society. In order to understand these variations, it is possible to identify at least three major moments of this use. First, during the Middle Ages, Christian religions had the monopoly of organized social communication. Second, after the sixteenth century, the invention of a device, the press, altered


48 The Mediatization of Religion the relationship between communication and society. The religious monopoly was broken and the media became an autonomous social institution. Third, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the mass media are the “central operator” (Luhmann 1995) of social dynamics—and, from this moment on, religions have no option but to adapt themselves to the media if they want to reach the public sphere. These arguments will be further developed. This kind of investigation is framed in one of the main debates in the sociology of religion, the discussion about the secularization. Briefly, the question is in which measure (if any) religion has actually lost it place in modern society. For some researchers, secularization is an inexorable process and it will continue until the end of religion. They gather evidence from many sources: the decreasing in the number of churchgoers in many Western countries, the growing number of atheists, the birth of secular alternatives to religion (non-governmental organizations, ecological movement) and the decreasing importance of religious arguments in political arguments on contraception, divorce, abortion and gay marriage. On the other hand, a number of scholars have claimed that there was no “secularization” process at all, since religion has never lost its space in society. For Martin (1991), there was no “golden age” of religion that allows anyone to talk about a “loss” of space. Luckmann (1970) argues that religion has only become a “personal matter” and it continues to exist; in the same way, Berger (1971) says that religious belief is now occupying new places and it still is important to frame many people’s life. Some defenders of this argument argues that, even if there is a decreasing in the number of churchgoers, personal belief in God is still strong around the world, and religious arguments are still taken in account in political and social matters. As an example, Martelli and Cappello (2005) say that the existence of political acts in the name of religion, even if they are terrorist acts, proves the strength of religion. Religious message has been packaged for centuries in the form of sermons, prayers and devotions. In the Western Christian case, this package worked well for nearly a thousand years, from the end of Roman Empire to the beginning of the sixteenth century. Along with this, a considerable part of mediaeval literature, philosophy, music and painting—in a word, culture—were created both by religious demand and drawing on religious inspirations. However, at the end of the Middle Ages, this monopoly had been challenged and eventually broken. The end of this monopoly is commonly named as “secularization” by sociologists (Berger 1971; Martin 1991). Among other aspects of secularization, one would like to underline two moments from the point of view of communication. The first are the alterations inside the religious field. The second one was the advent of the press. These two factors are close in space and time, as some dates, gathered from Bettenson (1999) and Kilman (2005), could show: Johannes Gutenberg invented the press in 1439. Martin Luther wrote his “95 theses against the indulgences,” generally seen as the origin of the Protestant Reformation, in 1517. In 1534, the Act of Supremacy made King Henry VIII the head of the Church in England. Finally, in 1605, the first newspaper was issued in the Netherlands. In an interval


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 49 of nearly 150 years, the main ideas concerning the communication and religion had changed, as it never had during the previous 1,000 years. Commenting this process, in an attempt to define the concept of public sphere, Eder (2006) underlines the transformation of the “symbolic unity of the space” in society. For him, “a symbolically constituted space which gave meaning to all, that is, a religious space” was slowly replaced by political and private space. Inside the religious field, two main changes during the same period also deal with communication. The first was the translation of the Bible to vernacular languages (into German, by Luther, in 1522; into French, by Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, in 1523; into English, under the supervision of Thomas Cromwell, in 1538). It opened yet another channel to anyone with the proper literacy to read and interpret the religious message at will. The second is related to the religious service. In the Reformed churches, the Mass celebrated in Latin was replaced for the vernacular service. The use of national languages allowed an increased number of people to understand the religious message in their own way, instead of following the institutional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church (Berger 1971). Briefly, it could be said that from the sixteenth century on, religion had gradually lost its importance in Western society. From the point of view of a communication relationship, it could be argued that the way religious institutions used to pack their message—prayers, sermons, devotions, symbols—could not work anymore in the dynamic public sphere created by the newspapers. At the same time, the increasing number of religious denominations had changed the religious monopoly of the pre-modern world into the competitive religious field of modernity (Iannaccone 1992; Dekker 1975; Bourdieu 1971). Religious institutions had no more the monopoly of the message. In order to reach the public sphere, religious messages had to compete with non-religious issues, represented by lay books and newspapers, and also with other religious messages delivered by concurrent religious institutions. Among other factors, the invention of press had a decisive role in the end of this monopoly. The press mined the Church monopoly of knowledge in two ways. First, the printing of books increased the access of knowledge. Second, it could be said that the development of newspapers had opened new channels to spread ideas in society without religious control. Religious groups were not anymore the “gatekeeper” of the knowledge in society. The public sphere is “protected from the power of the Church” (Garnham 1992). The replacement of a religious cosmology by other explanations of the reality would be only possible if people had access to these explanations, and that was the role played by the printing (McKee 2005) and the newspapers (Williams 1992). The presence of secularization theory in the media/religion question has also led to a dichotomy. In one side, those who argue that the presence of religious subjects in secular media (that is, movies, songs and television series) and the use of mass media techniques by religious institutions are an indication of the force of the sacred in modern society. Other researchers, however, interpret these same


50 The Mediatization of Religion elements as an evidence of the loss of “sacredness,” since religious subjects are treated as any other. It would be easier, perhaps, to understand secularization by relating it to the question of the presence/absence of religion in the public space and its visibility/ invisibility in the media. Mediatized public visibility is not necessarily linked to a particular church or denomination. A small church may be highly visible by mediatization. On the contrary, in Brazil, the hegemonic Catholic Church, during the 1980s and early 1990s lost visibility to its mediatized Pentecostal competitors, which had diligently invested in media communication. However, it can be argued that the visibility of religion in the public space does not necessarily mean a setback in the process of secularization. Rather, as argued by Hoover and Venturelli (1996) and Martelli and Capello (2005), this phenomenon can be read from the changes that churches need to do themselves for their accommodation to the new media environments through the use of media. Martelli and Capello (2005), for example, show how the Catholic Church in Italy had second thoughts on how to make some of its practices more suitable for television broadcast. Referring to the start of the transmission of religious ceremony of the Jubilee 2000, the authors point out: In the broadcasting of the Opening of the Holy Door, for example, the director Ermanno Olmi adopted several changes in order to make the ceremony more intelligible and tele-communicative. Other changes were made by the Vatican itself in line with the liturgical reform introduced by the Vatican Council II, but also with an eye to the needs of television communication. (Martelli and Capello 2005: 243) Thus, before being considered in terms of a contradiction in the process of secularization, the notion of mediatization shows that “secular” media-related practices may be fully adopted by religious denominations in a secular society. The latter concept must be taken cum grano salis. By “secular society” I do not mean a society lacking religious elements and values. I would argue, rather, that society comprises inside complex and contradictory elements, including religious ones, which are articulated in the mosaic of individual and collective everyday practices. Thus, as noted by Martin (1991) it would be necessary to speak of “secularization” in absolute terms to show the loss of importance of religion in society as a whole, and this does not seem to happen. By contrast, in empirical terms it seems possible to verify the presence of religion in social practices and identity, especially considering the public presentation of religious products. Another issue concerning secularization must be explored. Among the characteristics of modern democracy as developed in the West in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there is the split between religion and state. Secularization does not necessarily mean the disappearance of religion or religious orientation of the actions, as noted by Max Weber, but the progressive loss of importance of religion as a privileged actor in the public space. Instead,


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 51 in a secular state, religion competes with other groups to pressure and influence political decisions, and it cannot take its interests to the public space but from the compliance and acceptance of democratic rules. Modernity, understood as the period beginning in the eighteenth century and marked by an intense appreciation of reason as a fundamental value of the human condition, brought about significant changes with regard to the presence of religion in the public space. At least in the West, religion seemed to shift from public affairs to the sphere of individual concerns, that means, a move highlighted, for example, by the separation between religion and state. Many sociologists identify this process as a part of the “secularization.” The classical theories of secularization do not advocate the end of religion as a symbolic system, but they note the decline of its influence in public affairs as a formerly privileged actor in the process of decision-making. However, classical theories about secularization have been subjected to major revisions in order to add other dimensions in the process, which defies any a linear interpretation. One of these dimensions emphasizes the mediatization of religion as a factor to think about its (re)integration and presence in public space. Thus, although in Western democracies religion has gradually lost its prerogative to define public issues and is not close to government anymore, religion does not fail to maintain its influence in the public space, but now as actor among others. That is why Thomas Luckmann advocates the idea of “privatization” of religion in secular societies. Without losing the ability to define the principles of individual practices, religion would have ceased to be a valid argument for the definition of public actions. This “privatization” has meant above all the exclusion of religion or at least of using religious arguments as defining elements of decision-making in public affairs. In a secularized society, the moral ground of everyday interpersonal relations cannot be related to any theological or metaphysical elements since these may not be shared by everyone else. As Habermas argues (2006: 21), with the “collapse” of a religious ethos due to the process of secularization, it was necessary to find another legal basis of social interactions. However, the complexity of the issue cannot be left out when we consider the notion of the disappearance of a religious ethos, according to Hurd (2004), indeed a very fluid notion in the field of international relations. The religious monopoly of moral grounds has been broken, so that the public sphere becomes an arena of secular discussion (Thompson and Sharma 1998). However, this process does not happen in the linearity that could be expected. Rather, it has been noted since the 1980s a gradual return of a religious discourse to the public sphere, justified as a religious discourse without necessarily adopting any specific discursive rationalizations. If on the one hand, as argued by some researchers, this could mean a turning point in the process of secularization with the return of religious elements to a prominent position, it should be noted however a crucial factor: a considerable part of the religious discourse that inhabits the public space has its origin in highly mediated religious institutions.


52 The Mediatization of Religion Mediated Religion in the Public Sphere The public sphere may be defined as the place for debates concerning issues related to the political life of a community. By “political life” we may understand those particular issues which are not directly concerned with personal and intimate life but those subjects relevant to the group. The notion of “public” sphere may be easily understood when contrasted with the “particular” or “private” one, the dominion of “intimacy” and of particular reasoning, which has nothing to do with the community next door. At its simplest, the public sphere is the place where a close notion, “public opinion,” may be shaped as the outcome of the free debate among equals. As it is, there seems immediately pointed out that there is some “idealism” in this notion, since many aspects of this definition may be—and may have been— disputed as impossible to achieve in real life. The “free debate among equals,” for example, has been subject to a number of criticisms, which states that real equality cannot be achieved, or that definition does not takes into the account that there have been groups that have never been given the right to “free speak,” such as women and others historically made subordinate communities, for example. In spite of the criticism it has attracted, the idea of “public sphere” has proved to be one of the most successful concepts to describe a number of events that have taken place in contemporary societies, such as the shaping of public opinion and the development of democracy. As the corresponding opposite of the “private sphere,” the “public sphere” has been understood as the place where arguments may be rationally stated, debated and accepted or rejected on mainly rational grounds. In the Middle Ages people may be have been known as “believers,” but modernity has changed them into the “public”: “Publics are not bounded entities but rather are involved in continuous process of construction and reconstruction, of negotiation and contestation” (Meyer and Moors 2006: 12). Religion, to Habermas, is particularly excluded from this discussion. The emerging public sphere could only thrive in a secularized society, in the sense that only by giving up the influence of religion, or any other constraint that transcends the society, it is possible to engage in a serious discussion of a subject. In other words, the classic public sphere has allowed practically no place to religion. The concept was implicitly ground on the notion of a secular society, where religious beliefs were confined to the private sphere. However, his thesis has been subjected to criticism. Zaret (1992) points out that religion was a major force in the formation of the public sphere. Actually, it was one of the leading subjects in any discussion. Moreover, he insists in the fact that the public sphere emerged mainly from a religious background and coexisted with religious thought for a long time. Habermas’ arguments “glosses over the relevance of religion for the emergence of public sphere in politics at a time when religious discourse was a, if not the, predominant means by which individuals defined and debated issues in this sphere” (Zaret 1992: 213). Calhoun (1992: 35) actually mentions Habermas’ “blind spot” on the role of religion both as a central thematic topic in the early public sphere and as one of


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 53 its enduring institutional basis.’ Religion may well provide a particular ethics for individual behavior, and even a worldview for its followers, but neither would be able to overcome the boundaries of private issues and thrive in public life. That was reinforced by the discussion rules that Habermas also claim to have identified in the public sphere, which will be part of his version of a “discourse ethics.” Religion came back in the discussion about public sphere, democracy and pluralism in the early twenty-first century. The events of 9/11 were but a drop of what would has been a much broader issue concerning the presence of religion in politics, not only in the West but also in other parts of the world. The concept of a public sphere in secular society has left little place for religion, but it does not necessarily meant a decline of religion as a major social force responsible to frame the personal life of many people, even in secularized societies. As Kolakowski points out, the decline of churchgoing is only one of the several aspects that religion may took in a society, and it would be somehow precipitated, he argues, to dismiss religion altogether as an important aspect of public life. Meyer and Moors (2006: 11) believe that “the presence of mediated religion in the public sphere is both constitutive of and constituted by political activism, especially identity politics or the politics of difference.” They argue that contemporary religion “refuses to be bound” to a particular “religious sphere” and “appears to be intermingled with politics and sometimes violent political action” (Meyer and Moors 2006: 11). Engaged in a discussion on religion and public sphere, Hoover (2009: 127) remembers that “the development of the bourgeois public sphere, also a creature of printing and publishing, was accompanied by the emergence of a religious discursive culture that gradually intellectualized, differentiated, and instrumentalized religion.” However, the question still remains: how can religion have any influence in secular public life? It could be agreed that religion may have a role in personal life, but the logic of the secularized debate about political affairs does not imply that religion should be given any particularly good place in it. On the contrary, it seems that religion, by its very nature, would collide with the main statements of the notion of democracy in the public sphere. The possibility of religion thriving in the public sphere accordingly to the rules of free debate among equals, from the habermasian point of view, would be doomed from the start, since the core of religion is mainly a group of statements that cannot—or must not—be discussed. Discussion the public sphere requires that all the contenders may participate in equal terms, and basically in the same way. This claim immediately asks for, at least, some political equality among all the participants—no one could claim the superiority of its arguments prior to the debate, based on any sort of classification—in order to be effective, there must be no a priori difference among those who want to take part in the dialogue. By its own nature, religious arguments do not necessarily follow the same logic of secular ones. Actually, it would be particularly striking if a church or a denomination would offer a completely secular argument to support or criticize


54 The Mediatization of Religion any issue. It would be, after all, not a religiously grounded argument, but only a secular statement made by a church—it could have been made by any other agent, after all. The differentia specifica of the religious arguments, at least of the three main monotheists religions, is that they are based on a set of beliefs that are external to civic life—or, at least, have become external since the modernity. The religious argument towards how one is to direct his or hers own life derives, in the monotheists religions, from something transcendent that came from some “outside” to be applied in this world. It is sustained, in its core, by the “revelation” of a certain truth, which cannot be dispute since it is not open to dispute—it is the dogma. How can something that should never be discussed put to a debate in the public sphere? To what extend can a believer divide the religious beliefs from the civic concerns? After all, Habermas (2006: 8) argues, “a devout person pursues her daily rounds by drawing on belief. Put differently, true belief is not only a doctrine, believed content, but a source of energy that the person who has a faith taps performatively and thus nurtures his or her entire life.” The answer provided by Habermas includes a reference to the practical reason attached to religious values. Religion, at least the three main monotheists, is not only concerned with transcendent questions. On the contrary, it also proposes some moral rules to be followed by the believers—the religious practical reason is not founded mainly on the free logical reasoning hired from evident, or at least empirical, truth, but on the choice made by the faithful when he or she decides to accept some transcendent and/or metaphysical concept as a the meaning provider to conduct life. If religion was restrained to the “revealed” aspect, or if it was limited to one’s private life, it would be difficult to extrapolate its boundaries and matter in the public space. Accordingly to Habermas (2006: 5), “Citizens of a democratic society are obliged to provide reasons for one another, as only thus can political power shed its repressive character.” However, the religious practical reason, as much as the ethical and interpersonal concerns developed by religions may be detached from the metaphysical core of religion. I do not need to be a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim to share some values that, in my opinion, are relevant to conduct my life—for example, forgiveness and mercy. Since these values reach the public space, however, they must be rationally justified, and, from this moment on, the evaluative transcendence of religion will not help to provide any a priori valid argument. In the public sphere, transcendence does not guarantee validity. Otherwise, the inequality would prevent some of the participants to state their opinions in good faith, since they could feel constrained by the presence of others. As a result, any difference between the contenders must be reduced to a common denominator. It does not, however, occur when a doctrine previously establishes the place of the individual in terms of the existing link with some transcendental element. The only way to achieve a real debate in the public sphere is to consider all the contenders as “citizens,” that is, equally able to sustain their rights before the law and the state.


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 55 All the other disagreements between the debaters, however strong they might be, could not ignore the fact that they are equally citizens and, therefore, able to conduct a rational discussion. However, in some ways religion seems to do exactly the opposite. By definition, the monotheist religions carefully state a different condition to those who join them and those who do not. Although this may also occur between denominations inside the same religion—for example the differences among Christian churches, or between different currents of thought amongst Muslims or Jews—it is historically more likely to discriminate the “believers” from the “unfaithful” and assign a different end to each one of them—generally, salvation for the true believers, damnation for the others. On what grounds can a believer debate in “equal conditions” with someone who is, from the believer’s point of view, “damned” from the very moment he does not accept some basic principles? Habermas argues that religious arguments can actually have a place in the public sphere, but as much as it meets the demands of rationality and reasonability asked by the normative claims of a discussion. Religious argument cannot be stated per se, as the result of an otherworldly origin (Habermas 2006: 4). As a result, no religious statement would be valid only because it is grounded on a “divine” command; in a secular society it is not going to be tolerated since this claim is not universally accepted. The idea of a universally valid argument is particularly important in a multicultural, plural and global society as ours, where difference is one of the key points of any sort of relationship. To be valid, a statement must be able to find a common ground through the cultural, political and religious differences. In a multicultural society, religion is not anymore an evenly accepted element; on the contrary, it might well be—and frequently is—a place for controversy. The disagreement among religions or denominations would be confined to theological speculation if it does not interfere on other aspects of individual and community life. However, since there are people who take religion as a stand point for their everyday lives, the question becomes political—it goes beyond the borders of a religious discussion and turns out to be a social problem, which must be solved equally based on the social reasoning of any questions. As a result, in the public sphere, any argument concerning a religious disagreement should be confined to the social, ethical and legal norms that rule over a community or a society, not to the doctrine of a religion or a denomination. This is why, Habermas argues, religious claims cannot enter the public sphere as such; they must, on the contrary, be adapted to the argumentative rules of debate (Habermas 2006: 10). Even if an argument has a religious or transcendental origin, it must be “translated” as a pre-condition to enter the public sphere debate. Its validity claim can only be met after this “translation,” which means that a religious argument must give up its metaphysical origin in favor of more “rational”—that is, rationally satisfactory—aspects of it. As a result, Habermas does not identify any


56 The Mediatization of Religion incompatibility between secularization, modernity and the presence of religious arguments in the public sphere as long as these arguments are “translated” into a secular language. The rational discourse is the pattern to frame religious arguments, even if it means that something will be lost in translation. I would add another element to this argument: this “translation” of religious arguments into the language of a secular discourse does not only occur in terms of the contents, but also in terms of form. I mean, particularly, that in the contemporary Western world—although it could also be seen in some non-Western cultures— this discursive translation is accompanied by a process of mediatization of religion in the public sphere. Mediated Religion and Visibility in the Public Sphere The visibility of an issue can be boosted by its presence in the media—actually, in contemporary society, one would be authorized to include the entertainment as the locus for this public display, as Van Zoonen (2004, 2005) claims it has done about politics. Accordingly to Murdock (1997: 90), denominations “found themselves in an open marketplace, competing for people’s time, money and allegiance. Their vigorous efforts to sell themselves promoted a consumerist relation to religion, in which denominations took on the appearance of brands.” “Public religion,” Meyer and Moors (2006: 6) argue, “is not a relic of a premodern past that should ideally be confined to the private sphere.” Instead, it is important to notice that religions have rearticulated with globalization. From his point of view, “the identities they offered could be tested, tried for a time, and discarded.” It is a form of “fast-food religion” (Martino 2003). The presence of religion in public affairs is not due exclusively to its mediatization, but it would be difficult to deny that its public visibility, and consequently its capability to be known by a large number of people, depends on its media exposition. “Religion has both private and public faces; at the same time, media, while often consumed privately, are also a dominant feature of the public sphere” (Hoover 2001: 3). Some of the religious conflicts in the early twenty-first century seem to have been amplified by its considerable presence in the media. As an example, I could mention the distress caused by Pope Benedict XVI in September 12th, 2006, after the publication of a lecture of his in the University of Regensberg, Germany. He quoted a fourteenth-century Bizantine emperor, Manuel Palealogus, who said that “what could come from the Islam which is not evil and inhumane?” If the lecture had been confined to the walls of a theological seminar as a particular issue, it would have probably caused no harm to anyone. Nobody would have known that issue outside the university and nothing would have happened. However, his lecture was published and, soon afterwards, the media, especially television and newspapers, started to broadcast the issue. As a result, there was a considerable reaction by some Muslim communities, which have been offended


Mediated Religion in a Mediatized Society 57 by the statement. Once mediated, the lecture has reached the public sphere and became a public affair. It is possible that nothing would have occurred had the lecture remained an academic discussion about religion. The religious issue was not only translated into a secular and political discourse—it was mainly portrayed by the media as a political conflict between communities, as suggested in a still unpublished research conducted by Lee Marsden and me—but also adapted to the needs and forms of media communication. The public debate was justified on political and identity grounds. Real events might find a broader repercussion when they are mediatized. In the public sphere, mediatized religion finds a new place to spread its ideas and concerns. Any religious issue, translated to the critical reasoning of the public sphere by some alteration in its cognitive and ethical concerns, might yet be mediatized to reach the common discussion ground of public sphere (Martino 2012a, 2012b). Inside a mediatized society, marked by the ubiquitous presence of media communication in a number of devices, from gigantic public displays to small mobile phones, the public sphere is also pulverized into a myriad of places that allows individuals and communities to easily stick to public affairs, but as long as these affairs have become publicly visible. In this context, mediatized religion has been more successful in reaching the public sphere and making its issues subject to public debate. This is not to diminish the importance of “real” events or to claim that media themselves are the only responsible to bring an issue to the public sphere. Of course reality goes far beyond the media, and it cannot be reduced to that. However, as Gerbner (1998) says, a good deal of our knowledge about the world came to us in the form of “stories we tell,” narratives, and, especially, mediatized narratives, that is, stories that are spread throughout society by media communication. It would be hard to have any knowledge about “what is happening” outside the physical limits of the senses without narratives. For a long time in history, narratives had been mostly oral or written, and its range has been equally limited. However, since the invention of the printing press, narratives has become “mediatized” in a new sense, which means the quality of being spread through a means that does not entirely depend on the human body to be carried on, as it happens in written or oral communication. Moreover, it can be mass-reproduced, and be disseminated to a considerably broader audience. The mediatization of religion is one of the main aspects of contemporary social and political issues, and its relevance in the public debate could hardly been denied. It is through media communication that religious issues and concerns reach the public sphere and may be subjected to the collective debate. However, this is not a one-way process, since if religious arguments are to thrive in the contemporary multicultural public sphere, they have to be translated into a statement that might be rationally justified to match the requirements of a universally recognized validity. Although it has not been a major issue in the scholarly debate about the concept of public sphere, the process of mediatization of religion has recently attracted the attention of a number of researchers interested in understanding how religious-


58 The Mediatization of Religion grounded arguments can thrive in a secular debate. The answer, it has been argued, might include the use of media communication as another sort of “translation” into the style of modern media discourse. However, they point out that the use of media devices such as television and radio is not enough to enable a church to enter and influence the public sphere. Having the tool is only the starting point: in the last 20 years, religions have learnt how to use the tool. Consequently, religious denominations have adapted their message to media, especially radio and television, learning how to broadcast their message in a “style grounded in popular culture,” which the authors define as the culture created by or associated with the mass media. As a result, Meyer and Moors claim that mass media usage has also changed religion into a new “mediated religion,” that is, a new form of religion in which practices and organization draw on popular culture—particularly television shows and other kinds of entertainment. Mediatization guarantees visibility and the possibility of bringing issues to the public debate in a way that is suitable for any member of the audience. Of course there is no assurance that visibility itself is enough to gather attention to any particular issue, but it seems to be clear that it is even more difficult to attract public attention without being seen on the media. Visibility, in this sense, means power, an element that seems to directly match the needs of religious denominations to thrive in contemporary world.


Part II Mediated religion, religious Practices and Culture


This page has been left blank intentionally


Chapter 4 High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations In the churchyard of the beautiful medieval church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Cromer, Norfolk, a banner advertises the religious services held there. It reads something like this: “Sunday Services – 9 am Quiet and More Traditional – 10.30 am All-Age and Contemporary – 7.00 pm Relaxed and Informal.” All three kinds of service are held in the same parish and offer a good example of the main argument of this chapter: that churches and religious denominations have been changing their style according to the audience they want to target and attract. In what follows, I argue that it is possible to differentiate between them according to mediation. Thus, high-mediated churches are more open to practices associated with, or spread by, the radio, television, the Internet—briefly, what would be roughly called “popular culture”—such as the importance of image, fashion, consumption of goods, and other elements. More importantly, I will suggest that there is a relationship between media use and the style used in the church not only in how it conducts its services (a theme that will be developed in later chapters) but also in how churches deal with and articulate some of their religious beliefs. To do this, this chapter examines a number of religious denominations from the point of view of the differences among them concerning media use. It will show that although all promote a similar agenda, especially regarding their concerns over moral questions, the doctrine of high-mediated churches tend to be more liberal towards other aspects of contemporary non-religious society, for example with regard to their congregation’s appearance and body-care. The evidence of this differentiation can be found in a comparison of the rules and codes of practice of high-mediated and low-mediated churches. One of the main aspects of all religions is the existence of a set of rules and beliefs which provide the core structure or doctrine around which everything else is developed (Kolakowski 1982; Wilson 1982). They are an essential element since from these come all the main aspects of the religion’s personal and institutional practices. Indeed, they might best be seen as the nuclear element responsible for supporting the whole group of practices. They say what is right or wrong, what must be done and what is forbidden. They also discriminate between the rewards for those who observe and follow the religion’s principles, and the punishments for those do not (Aldridge 2000; Davie 2007). Drawing on Michel Foucault’s definition (1975), religious doctrine can thus be seen as a “discursive formation” concerning power and control on one’s life by creating cognitive and practical principles. These principles support an interpretation of the everyday


62 The Mediatization of Religion world, explaining reality by framing it in a broader cosmological narrative, where everything makes sense. Every action is thus justified as part of the master plan of another dimension (Trigg 2007). The evidence for any religious rule is always presented as existing beyond the real world as a question of belief not proof (Kolakowski 1982: 165), but they remain highly influential on worshippers’ daily lives nonetheless. As Durkheim (2005) points out, religion is mainly a social practice and consequently implies some normative dimension (Habermas 2006; Jenssen and Verggehen 1997). The study of this normative dimension allows one to understand a church’s position towards reality as it says something about the structure of a religious denomination. The way a church pictures the world reveals a great deal about itself. In matters of belief, both high-mediated and low-mediated churches have strict positions concerning how the believer should behave, and dealing not only with intimate questions regarding sexuality, clothing and language use, but also bigger issues such as the worshipper’s political behavior and attitude towards the government. As was said in the previous chapter, Pentecostals, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, believe firmly in the direct influence of the Holy Ghost in daily life. Thus, the “Pentecostal” approach to life implies a strong supernatural presence (the Holy Ghost) in the details of ordinary existence. It also requires a deep commitment from the worshipper and there is a strong sense of “belonging” and “community” among these churches. (The differences between the Roman Catholic Pentecostals and their Protestant counterparts will be highlighted only when necessary.) The strong belief both Catholic and Protestant Pentecostals hold in the power of the Holy Ghost means that people can experience this power in their day-to-day lives, as is said in the Bible to have happened with the Apostles on Pentecost Day (according to the Bible, in Acts 2: 16–18 and 8: 16–18)—hence the name “Pentecostalism” (Martin 1991). Pentecostals also believe that experience with the Holy Ghost is personal, and can only be lived through a very particular contact between the individual and the Holy Ghost. More generally, both low-mediated and high-mediated Pentecostal churches share a common doctrinal background concerning many of the practices of daily life. For example, they hold a particular position concerning the civil rights of minorities, especially regarding homosexuality and women’s rights. They are also against practices such as pre-marital sex, abortion and the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. Some believe in Creationism—they do not even mention “intelligent design”—and in a particular interpretation of the Bible. The following passage, taken from the Brazilian Pentecostal newspaper Universal News in August 25th, 2002, illustrates this: The Bible does not mention that humans came from apes or from an ape’s image. It says that God created humans and gave them power to control everything on the Earth. Humans have the same Spirit of God, which was breathed in the human’s nostrils. All these wonderful teachings are in the Bible. But humans are still trying to find out the origins of life in meteors, fossils, archaeology


High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations 63 and extraterrestrials. They like to believe that they came from apes instead of believing that they were created like God’s Own image. Many churches try to influence their worshippers’ lives as a way to keep them away from what are considered worldly threats. Particularly problematic in this regard is the issue of pre-marital sex. The following text concerning dating appears on the United States’ Assemblies of God website: What is the Assembly of God’s position on appropriate and inappropriate intimacy for Christians in dating and in premarital courtship (engagements)? It is commonly believed among Assemblies of God constituents that lenient attitudes toward sex before or outside of marriage are completely contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture. It is also felt that uncontrolled and irresponsible expressions of affection and sexual permissiveness are directly responsible for the breakdown of much in our society. (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/relations_02_datingintim.cfm) Generally speaking, while low-mediated churches still quite reserved in their attitudes to some aspects of everyday life, the high-mediated do not seem to hesitate in taking full advantage of modern technology and adopting the practices and habits of modern society as their own. Thus, the high-mediated often seem to be very much in tune with the prevailing political, social and cultural environment. They are generally better connected to the practices and codes of contemporary society, and thus able to give them a religious interpretation and explanation. Broadly speaking, we can say that while the low-mediated try to keep their distance from some more worldly practices, their high-mediated counterparts seek to subsume these practices into their own structures and practices, and giving them religious meaning. We must be careful, though, to draw a clear distinction between the high and low-mediated churches’ practices. For example, a different branch of the Assemblies of God, this one in Van Buren, Arkansas (U.S.A.), has enthusiastically embraced technology that has altered the church building itself in order to provide what is expected to be a new technological experience to the faithful: Technology features – The church is in the process of building a new state of the art sanctuary. Their media ministry is second to none in the state. The church offices are on a newly installed gigabite network consisting of several servers and dual-core workstations as well as several thin clients, making many of the church’s operating duties incredibly efficient. Designed by Omrinet, Inc (a technology company located in Van Buren, Arkansas) the church continues to add new technology such as 20 new 50” plasma monitors rather than typical projectors seen in modern churches due to their extreme brightness and clarity. Additionally the church is installing a two-sided 60sf LED outdoor screen that will display its services live for passers-by as well as advertising events and


64 The Mediatization of Religion activities. The 16 million pixel color screen, capable of live video, is one of the state’s first, especially for this type of application. All video and audio post production is also done in-house using a variety of software suites and platforms such as Apple’s Logic for audio post and Adobe’s Premier Pro, Avid HD Suite, and Apple’s FinalCut Pro for video production. (http://www.facebook.com/ pages/Van-Buren-First-Assembly-of-God/115704215113739) Indeed, there are at least three doctrinal elements where clear distinctions can be drawn between high- and low-mediated churches. These are in the recommended attitude towards politics, body appearance and the consumption of goods. Each one will now be discussed briefly. The Political Agenda One of the key areas of difference between high and low-mediated churches is in their attitudes towards politics. Essentially, the high-mediated are more likely to be engaged in politics than their low-mediated counterparts. One of the best examples of a group of high-mediated churches with a strong political goal is the so-called “Christian Right” in the United States (Marsden 2008). They hold a conservative political agenda concerning some aspects of everyday life, particularly relating to what might loosely be considered social and cultural questions. They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. They are not an organized movement but rather an amorphous group of organizations, churches and para-political organizations. They match Evangelism and Political Doctrine—as much as evangelization and political inculcation. (The media, it is worth noting, is a powerful channel for both purposes.) They do not hesitate to make alliances with other religious, secular and even anti-religious groups to achieve particular goals. And, as Connolly (2005) argues, some denominations in the “Christian Right” portray any measure against them, or any electoral defeat, as “persecution” or “prejudice,” often presenting themselves as the “victims” of an enemy (Patean 2000). Outside the range of the “Christian Right” influence, the link between highmediated churches and politics seems to be strong. The American Assemblies of God website lists some of the reasons. Although they define themselves as “apolitical,” the website provides an explanation of their political concerns which in essence declares that the moment politics deals with moral issues it becomes a matter of interest for religion also: In recent years in America, however, the relationship between church and state has become increasingly complex and estranged. The reason for this change is a growing trend in government to redefine and politicize moral issues. This wholesale sell-out of these once concrete and absolute moral values comes in direct opposition to the message of the church as found in Scripture.


High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations 65 The alarming shift from a Judeo-Christian philosophy to secular humanism as the foundation of American government has created profound problems for all Bible-believing churches. More and more, government is defying biblical principles and interpreting sinful behavior as civil rights, i.e. abortion and homosexuality. The church as the body of Christ is obligated to respond. (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/contempissues_10_politics.cfm) Religious presence in politics is by no means new in other parts of the world either. As Levine (1981: 3) remarks, ever since the sixteenth century in Latin America, “religion and politics have been closely intertwined,” which has provided both with “ideological, material and institutional support and legitimat[ion].” What is new, however, is that from the 1980s onwards there has been a growing presence of religious office holders inside politics (Ziel 1999). According to 2005 statistics, Evangelicals made up nearly 16 percent of the Brazilian Parliament, and a good deal of these politicians belong to high-mediated churches. It is possible to find a doctrinal explanation for this. While for the lowmediated churches politics has generally remained a matter of personal choice and has little to do with religion, for the high-mediated it is seen as a way to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Where the low-mediated have understood politics as a “devilish” subject, for the high-mediated it is a way to fulfill God’s commandments on Earth. Politics, they claim, is the way to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth and also the way to save lost souls from Hell. As a leading preacher from the Universal Church exhorted in the May 28th 2000 edition of the Universal News, the church’s weekly newspaper: “Let’s transform men! Let’s change the politicians, let’s sanctify politics …” The gospel is thus seen as bearing both a religious and social message. The Scriptures are understood to convey not only a moral message, but also instructions on how to lead a country, and political actions are understood as part of the responsibilities the Christian holds concerning the Church and its followers. A political decision in Parliament or a vote in an election is not merely the expression of a “political” attitude. In this context it is also a movement in the eternal cosmic dispute between Good and Evil. As a Pentecostal MP states in the Universal News: It is unbelievable, but there are still politicians that do not even believe in God! A nation without God cannot be prosperous. In Brazil, in spite of the Pentecostal growth, there is still idolatry and wizardry. Because of that, there is still violence and poverty. (October 2000) The author of these lines, a top-level leader of the Universal Church, seems to find the causes of “violence and poverty” not in historical or social circumstances, but in “idolatry” and “wizardry.” From their point of view, social problems have not only social causes, but also spiritual ones. The link between politics and a moral agenda may occur in other ways also. In 2007 the Brazilian government started a programme for the free distribution


66 The Mediatization of Religion of condoms with the objective of reducing rates of HIV infection and teenage pregnancy. The topic was discussed in the web-forum of the Snowball Church, a high-mediated Brazilian church, and the comments are representative of the doctrinaire position about sexuality and body control of many such churches: What do you think about the free distribution of condoms by the Government? Do you think that it could encourage young people to have sex before marriage? Isn’t it just an illusion to resolve the problem? Once again, the question of sex before marriage is central. A response from another churchgoer, seems to agree with the decision to launch the programme, but only because of the need to protect people who ‘do not accept’ the Word: Unfortunately they [the Government] think this way. But while people do not accept our Lord’s words they would do better protecting themselves with the condoms … (http://www.boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9) Thus, while there is no condemnation for those outside the church who uses condoms, concern with the behaviour of worshippers regarding the body and premarital sex is underlined once again. Doctrinal differences between low-mediated and high-mediated occur not only in political matters but also in economic attitudes, especially where consumption is concerned. While the practices of everyday life in both groups are framed in religious terms, the difference is that while the low-mediated tend to adopt a position of refusal, the doctrine of the high-mediated seems to be one of openness to innovations. The following sections therefore focus first on expected economic behavior and then on the worshipper’s appearance. Both these elements are constantly highlighted in the churches’ doctrinal texts. At the same time, we may link these elements—consumption and appearance—as forms of popular culture since they are related to the territory of “media culture” (Kellner 1995). Religious Rules and Worshipper’s Consumerism As Turner (2004) notes, historically Western religion has been concerned with controlling desire. Because of this, it seems to be important to focus on the difference between the low-mediated and the high-mediated towards consumption in everyday life. In general, while scholars approach this topic from many different directions, there seems to be a consensus among them about the centrality of consumption in contemporary society. Authors such as Baudrillard (1968), Aldridge (2003) and Lury (1996) each highlighted the centrality of consumption in modern life, and there is an extensive literature pointing out that consuming is not only a matter of necessity, but also a cultural practice with political and social effects. Basing himself partially on


High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations 67 Marx (1975), Debord (1996) argues that what matters in consumption is not the good itself, but the product’s appearance, its image. Meanwhile, Belk (2000) notes that the focus of modern consumption is not primarily on what one needs, but on what one desires. It is possible to say that the low-mediated recommend the faithful to be discrete and moderate in their consumption of goods. Professional success is seen as an end in itself, but should not lead to ostentation. In this context, success is regularly seen as a sign of God’s blessing—a sign of salvation and commitment to religion. They generally think that consumption and shopping are good things, and they have no problem with wealth itself. However, these churches usually consider any ostentation as a sign of pride or vanity, and therefore contrary to God’s commandments. In the low-mediated, a blessing is therefore something to be felt and received but without a great public demonstration (Pierucci and Prandi 1996b; Mariano 1997). On the other hand, the high-mediated churches strongly encourage consumption among their worshippers, including expensive clothes, cars and all kinds of technological gadgets. As Aldridge (2003: 10) says, consumption is also a way to communicate, and high-mediated churches seem to have taken this idea fully onboard. They do not see ostentation or the display of goods such as expensive clothes as vanity or pride, but rather as a way to show everybody God’s intervention in one’s life. In the high-mediated churches, the size of a blessing is something to be shown publicly as much as possible. Indeed, the power of a blessing can be evaluated according to its image, as the worshippers present it. Religious consumption norms provide a solution to the knowledge problem. Each religion typically provides a distinct set of consumption norms that become the blueprint for its followers. For example, Muslim women wear headscarves to cover their hair, and Jewish men similarly wear yarmulke for religious expression. Other examples of religious expression include distinctive styles in clothing and grooming, necklaces with the cross, household decorations, and items like candles and ornaments that mark religious holidays. Understanding the consumption of these items invites an analysis based not on the preferences or incentives of individuals but one based on identity, commitment, and expression. (Cogel and Minkler 2004: 343) In both high and low-mediated churches consumption is framed by doctrinal rules. According to Suaud (1982), the reward for the worshipper’s commitment is access to all the goods of high capitalism. Sometimes, as happens in some North American Pentecostal churches (Marsden 2008), “commitment” is a euphemism for financial donations to the church itself. Indeed, the whole process has been described by some scholars as like investing in a bank account (Robertson 1992; Iannaccone 1992): financial support to the church will be given back to the faithful as an even larger sum of money. A number of authors such as Mariano (1996a) have identified strong traces of self-help in these ideas. Other scholars (Pierucci and Prandi 1996a; Prandi


68 The Mediatization of Religion 1997) have named this process “Prosperity Theology” as a kind of contrast with “Liberation Theology.” Kramer (2005: 37), for instance, mentions that “many newer Pentecostal Christian denominations” preach “a gospel of prosperity promising instant wealth and health.” In the low-mediated churches, doctrine reinforces the view that religion is something only to be lived, an ethos for everyday life. High-mediated churches, meanwhile, seem to understand that religion is not only to be lived, but also to be shown. Indeed, attitudes towards consumption and ostentation in high-mediated churches are linked to their attitudes towards image, which they emphasize to their congregations as being an important factor. Given that in the logic of media, as defined by Meyer (2002) and Van Zoonen (2005), everything must be converted into a media product—into something to be seen and exhibited—a believer’s success must be seen as an indicator of the church’s efficacy. This reflects one of the main differences between high and low-mediated churches: concerns over the boundaries between what belongs to the religious dimension and its opposite, what is said to be “of the world.” It could be said, with a number of thinkers (Durkheim 2003; Otto 1958; Radin 1953; Eliade 2003) that the frontiers between the “sacred” and the “profane” (Eliade 1996) are some of the codes that define what kind of behavior, taste, action and practice are going to be seen as “correct” to the faithful. The Everyday (Sacred) Life There is a text, published on the Brazilian Assemblies of God website, that can be seen as an example of the differences between high and low-mediated churches towards some general practices concerning body use, consumption, youth behavior and, particularly, popular culture consumption, especially music. The author, a member of the Assemblies of God, condemns a particular range of practices that are allowed and even praised by heavy-media user churches. His target is the use of the word “gospel” as a label to justify any kind of action by the faithful, especially the youth believers. The text is written in the first person and has two parts. The first describes a day in the life of an Evangelical young man. He finds an Evangelical girl—described as a “gospel girl”—on a bus and is attracted to her. They spend some time together, go to a nightclub and end the night in her house, where they smoke pot, listen to popular music and have sex. The second explains why such a life is not suitable for a Pentecostal for the reason that being religious implies breaking with some practices, and it is impossible to be both “worldly” and religious. This discourse seems to be chiefly aimed at the high-mediated churches, where some of these practices are allowed and encouraged. Before reading a complete quotation from the text, though, we must keep in mind that the word “gospel”—written in English in the text—has become an important brand in international religious marketing. Such a label guarantees that


High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations 69 whatever comes after it—a CD, book or DVD, a dancing night or even a rave party—would be “suitable” for religious people, meaning that it would involve nothing that could be considered as alien to religious doctrines. For some highmediated churches, there is nothing wrong in worshipping whilst wearing a t-shirt, and it is possible to pray using popular music with religious lyrics. However, the author from the Assemblies of God strongly disagrees with this. His main argument is that under the “gospel” label everything is allowed to the faithful, even practices that would normally be considered inappropriate for religious people. From his point of view, “gospel” is only an excuse to bring inside the church all sorts of tastes, practices and behaviors which are wrong, as if the adjective “gospel” was enough to “purify” these of their worldly references. In the text, we can be observe a major difference between heavy and light media-users towards some practices that are sometimes related to popular culture. The author ironically praises this lifestyle as valuable and good. In the second part, he explains why, from his point of view, it would be wrong for a Pentecostal to live a life like this and why religious people must break with “the world” by abandoning all preceding practices: I woke up this morning, said my gospel prayer, turned up my CD player with a punk-rock gospel song. I dressed with gospel clothes and then went for a gospel walk. On the paper shop, I bought some gossip gospel magazines and a games gospel magazine. I took the bus to the city centre where I was to meet my gospel skater friends. I quit reading when I saw a gospel girl, really fit, wearing a gospel piercing, a gospel mini-skirt and also a gospel top. I started a gospel fancy and asked her for a gospel kiss. We had some gospel drinks just after, in a gospel pub. After that we went to a hotel and made gospel love. I couldn’t let the whole thing end like that, so I walked her home. She showed me her gospel bedroom: the walls were filled with gospel artist posters. And then her collection of gospel records: gospel reggae, gospel rap, gospel electronic. We locked the door, smoked gospel pot, and went to bed again to have a little gospel sex – oh, boy, she had a gospel tattoo on her leg! I just love being gospel. I am so sorry for my parents and my older brother: there was no such a thing like “gospel” when they were young. There wasn’t a gospel lifestyle like this. My girlfriend is gospel, my nights out are gospel, what I buy is gospel, what I consume is gospel, so there is no sin, uh? No problems, man: if it is gospel it’s alright! (http://www.assembleiajaiara.com.br/vida_crista_detalhe.php?id_vida_crista=53) This document is an example of the difference between low and high-mediated churches because it subtly condemns a lifestyle that is “inappropriate” for those who have decided to make a religious commitment. What makes it even more important is how vehemently it criticizes many elements that would be allowed


70 The Mediatization of Religion in high-mediated churches, such as goods consumption, body-care and use, and some sorts of popular culture practices. Essentially, it is condemning the appropriation of “worldly practices” under the label “gospel” by some churches, and thus the lack of an intersection between what is said to belong to a “religious” dimension and what is “worldly.” For the author, there are clear borders between what sits “inside” the dimensions of a religious life and what lies outside it. It seems, however, that high-mediated churches have tried to bring these “worldly” practices inside religious boundaries by giving them a religious meaning. This is particularly important when the author mentions the appropriation of popular culture elements by the girl: “gospel reggae,” “gospel rock,” “gospel punk.” Immediately the author associates these tastes with other practices, as they are in the next paragraph: the fictional couple, after listening to “gospel pop,” smoke “gospel pot” and made “gospel love.” As a result, according to the author, there is a link between a particular cultural taste, reggae and rock music, drugs consumption and a particular body use. The connection suggests that drugs consumption, pre-marital sex and listening to reggae or rock belong to the same kind of sin, as if these practices were of the same degree. While drug consumption is a crime defined by the federal law, there is no prohibition concerning either sex pre-marriage or musical taste. However, in the eyes of the author, all these practices can be presented as part of “sin”: All of these religious popular cultural artefacts have a close relation to what has been called the “lived” or “vernacular” religion, or “the religion of the streets” … Religion is lived out in everyday life, and, as such, there are objects and practices that have become a part of religious practices both formally and informally conceived. (Clark 2007: 5) Still, the use of “cultural artefacts” is one of the points of disagreement between high and low-mediated churches. The quotes above suggest that permeability to this “vernacular” religion is greater in the high-mediated, while members of their low-mediated counterparts would be better living without these practices. In high-mediated churches, rules and beliefs are more related to visual elements, such as public exposition of riches, goods and commodities, and also the worshipper’s body appearance. Indeed, it is possible to say that high-mediated churches have changed the very core of religious doctrine, to make it more suitable to the needs of an image-mediated society. While maintaining strong links with the low-mediated churches in what is to be done by the worshipper, for the high-mediated what is to be shown and seen is also extremely important—in a word, image. This is not to suggest that media use has caused any theological alteration in low-mediated or in high-mediated churches. Neither does it seem to be possible to argue that doctrinal concerns alone have led the high-mediated to fully employ media communication. There seems to be a dialectical relationship between a doctrine that sticks to those aspects of contemporary society concerning image and


High-Mediated, Low-Mediated, and Some Differences among Denominations 71 the visual, on the one hand, and media use, on the other. As Debord (1996) argues, media communication is not responsible for creating spectacle, but reinforces the omnipresence of image, the pre-requisite to any spectacle: The immediacy of visual images in our perceptions of the world probably has much to do with the enormous popularity and impact on popular culture of film and television everywhere in the world. (Babb 1995: 12) As high-mediated denominations employ contemporary practices, such as ostentation, consumption and body-care, they also change some of their own ideas and principles to find doctrinal legitimacy for these actions and explain these attitudes as part of belief. An Australian website named Pop Culture Christ offers a good example of this. It describes itself as follows: Pop Culture Christ What is Pop Culture Christ? Jesus is everywhere. He’s in movies, TV shows, music, books, everywhere. But sometimes it feels like no two depictions of Jesus are talking about the same guy. What does our culture think about Jesus? Who is he? What has he done? Why should we care? Is the Jesus of the world, the Pop Culture Christ, the same as the Jesus we find in the Bible? Pop Culture Christ is a website about Jesus. It’s also about pop culture. It’s about exploring what popular culture thinks about Jesus and everything that is associated with him – the Bible, Christianity, faith, salvation, etc. And it works the other way as well. What does the Christian faith have to say about our world’s pop culture? (http://joelamoroney.com/about/) The comparison between low-mediated and high-mediated churches suggests a parallel between media use and a doctrine that highlights the visual. As Meyer and Moors explain: The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God in Rio (Brazil) asserts its presence through a strong emphasis on visibility. Also in Brazilian society it appears increasingly difficult to maintain in a compartmentalized order, with neat boundaries between the spheres of politics, religion and the economy that characterizes modernist, liberal views of society. (Meyer and Moors 2006: 8) The more a religious denomination uses media technology, the more its doctrine will justify and highlight the adoption of other aspects of contemporary society, such as consumption, professional success, beauty and health, wealth and bodycare. High-mediated churches give a religious meaning to codes and practices of contemporary society, particularly those concerned with image and consumerism, which are explained and justified inside a religious context. These practices,


72 The Mediatization of Religion such as consumption or the wearing of expensive clothes, are framed as part of a broader religious issue. For example, spending money on expensive things is seen as a “blessing” in high-mediated churches, meaning that the consumption of material things is thus re-signified inside a religious frame. Debord’s (1996) notion of “spectacle” means that the essence of things is changed into something to be seen in a society where the greatest value is image. The concept of spectacle means not only the religious image transmitted by the media, but also emphasizes the visual aspects of religious practices themselves, as is stated in high-mediated doctrine. They match a full media use with a liberal attitude towards visual aspects of everyday life. High-mediated churches are thus more likely to adopt contemporary practices and codes, as well as contemporary devices. Intensive media use seems to be framed in a doctrine that privileges the utilization of images and the visual, not only from the media, but also in terms of body language and fashion. They therefore share some of the values of the surrounding society, which Wood (1999: 314) describes as “shared meaning,” arguing that: Vague acceptance of shared symbols or meanings can help a group cohere during calm times, but in the more raucous waters of political engagement, with the constant threat of fragmentation through conflict or dissipation through loss of commitment, more deeply held cultural elements become important for holding a group together. So the group must develop intensely shared cultural elements sufficient for stabilizing the group. On the one hand, low-mediated churches seem to be more conservative in what concerns the worshipper’s behavior and attitudes, especially those related to consumption, body-care and ostentation demonstrations of wealth and success. On the other hand, high-mediated denominations seem to encourage their people to maintain some of the practices of contemporary life, particularly those related to youth culture, for instance wearing fashionable clothes, tattoos, piercing rings and so on, and, especially, the consumption of cultural goods such as popular music, television shows and movies. Media use has broadened some of the differences between high- and lowmediated churches. In the next chapter, I will argue that at the same time it has also been an influence on the process of homogenization among the high-mediated churches, since they have all drawn some of their practices from the media. We have outlined, in this chapter the aspects of media and religion that concerns to the institutional aspect of churches, that is, what happens with the high-mediated churches as a social agency with its own rules and hierarchy. In the next chapter, we move to a more individual approach in order to outline the rules high-mediated churches that deal with the worshippers’ body and appearance.


Chapter 5 The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion1 Every time I walk in London, Paris or in my hometown, Sao Paulo, I am always surprised by how many visible signs of religion can be found even in secular societies. I do not mean the architecture of the religious buildings or the sparkling enthusiasm of youth religious groups, but the way so many people still dress according to their religious beliefs. The Jewish kippah, the Sikh turbans, the veils required by some Christian denominations—all these items are signs of something deeper and more significant: the way religion has sought down the centuries and in so many societies, to rule the physical body. It is safe to assume, whatever your faith (or even if you have none), that while reading this book you will be clothed. What is interesting, however, is that not only the fact that you are wearing clothes but also what you have chosen to wear will be in accordance with a set of rules that, even if not always written, are powerful. Furthermore, the manner in which you put on your clothes is related to the way you understand your own body. This underlines the point that although the body seems to be the most personal and intimate component of a person, and therefore not subject to anyone else’s control but our own, in fact we are not free to do with our bodies what we choose. The human body is always framed in much larger terms by the societies we live in. In other words, the body not only “acts,” it has “meaning” and throughout history, human societies have developed ways of controlling the body by defining and determining this “meaning.” It is irrelevant how liberal you are if, for example, one hot and sunny day you decide to run around naked in front of the Westminster Abbey: you will very quickly be arrested and prosecuted. You will be not given the opportunity to argue that it is hot: you will have misused your body and consequently you will be punished. And yet, there is little natural reason for us to control our bodies. Of course we need protection from the heat and from the cold, but there is no need to wear a particular fashion or type of clothing. Yet we are incessantly told what to do with our bodies. In the past, body control was easier to notice. Enslaved people, for example, were not owners of their own bodies and often they bore physical marks on their bodies as evidence of this lack of freedom. 1 An early and quite different version of this text was published as a Working Papers in Media, Politics and Culture, University of East Anglia, 1/2008.


74 The Mediatization of Religion Today society is largely free of such formal social control. There are no official rules concerning what we do with our bodies, and no democratic constitution would ever provide rules on this, except perhaps in the case of prisoners. However, informal means remain as strong as ever. This highlights the point that our bodies carry a message. A quick look at someone’s body very quickly tells us about the ideas or attitudes of the person: the hair of a Rastafarian is completely different from the hair of a Franciscan monk; whether the body is overweight or overly thin says something about a person’s health, just as the state of their teeth can tell us about their diet. At the same time, the body’s aesthetic is connected with social forces beyond itself. Beauty and ugliness, far from being only natural conditions, are strongly connected with the social environment, as shown by the fact that the concept of “beauty” has changed so much through history. One only need look at any Renaissance Madonna to see why she would not succeed as a top model on the contemporary runways. But equally, the body can be changed to look beautiful whether by choosing a particular outfit or using make-up. We can even elect to have cosmetic surgery if we believe nature has been particularly unfair to us. After all, why are other people so interested in what we do with our bodies? A first answer is that ruling our attitudes towards our bodies is an easy way to keep us under control. If, by any chance, you live in a society where sexual intercourse is only permissible after marriage, the state, the Church or any other person or institution which holds the power to marry people is indirectly in charge of your sexual life—at least the official one. Thus, the way we deal with our own bodies is framed by sets of incorporated rules that we are taught from the moment we first become members of society. A baby is completely free to do as it pleases with its body. The sign of the child’s entrance into the “world” comes with their ability to control their own body—not only the sensorial and movement skills, but also in the way an “educated” and “polite” person must behave. The very word “incorporated” means, from the Latin, “to become part of the body,” and this says a great deal about the power of the rules that govern our bodies. While the body is the expression of our natural selves, the way we deal with it is not. But if we can find rules concerning the body everywhere in society, the important question is who is setting these rules? It is not difficult to create a list of suspects: our parents, the fashion industry, traditions and customs of long standing. And of course, one of the strongest forces in determining how the body is dealt with in society has been, and remains, religion, whether it is dealing with “moral” questions of premarital sexual relations, abortion or homosexuality, or more “superficial” matters of clothing, aesthetics and our appearance. This is the point that will provide the central focus of this chapter. How the human body has been seen and understood down the ages is a question that has attracted the attention of many scholars. As Shilling (2007b) points out, the relationship between body control and power has been one of the main issues both in the social sciences and in philosophy. They seem to be interested predominantly in the how a specific kind of power flows through body control—that is, how the


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 75 social or institutional power seems to be embodied by controlling people’s use of their own bodies. A significant number of studies of concerning the body’s use have been dedicated to understanding the relationship between body control and religion. Turner (1983), for example, outlines how Christianity has controlled the worshipper’s body throughout history, while McGuire (1990) and Kovach (2002) provide historical outlines of the study of body inside religious matters. Keenan (1999) emphasizes the religious aspect of how the body is clothed. All these studies seem to be concerned mainly with the practical use of the body—in other words, what the individual can or cannot do with their body. Sullivan (1990: 87) encapsulates this well: The body is constructed, dismembered, or repaired in ritual (indeed, the bodily changes of the life cycle – the moments of birth, growth, death, pollution, and purification – are often the key moments of communal symbolic action and reflection). The senses are reoriented and the bodily perceptions are corrected or rearranged through ritual contact with the sacred beings who appear in myth. Moreover, critical knowledge of the body is frequently related to critical experiences that are religious. There are also studies concerning how different religions understand the body and even research on how the body has been religiously transformed throughout history. This type of research deals mainly with the practical dimension of body—in other words, the way people understand and use their own bodies (Turner 2006a; 2006b). However, the literature on the body and religion does seem to have largely neglected another important dimension. As Turner (2006c) remarks, the body is not only a “natural” human attribute, but also a communication device. When one mentions the body in the sense of “communication,” this reference is not simply in a metaphorical sense. As Beckford (2003a: 206) notes, current research has forgotten the communicative body dimension. He goes on to say: There is either the cultural analysis of the body as a system of meaning that has a definite structure existing separately from the consciousness and intentions of individuals, or there is the phenomenological study of embodiment that attempts to understand human practices or the performativity of the body. These two perspectives are distinct, but not necessarily incompatible. (2006c: 223) Barnard (1996) stressed that our appearance is also a way of communicating with other people. The way we use, mark, transform and clothe our bodies sends important messages to those around us. Therefore, what I argue here is that body control by religions has at least two dimensions: a practical one and a visual one. To date, the literature has only really concentrated on the former. Here, I focus will focus on the latter—the communicative dimension of the body as highlighted, for example, by Turner (2006b) and Beckford (2003).


76 The Mediatization of Religion Following Goffman (2006) and Santaella (2004), it is possible to identify at least two main communicative aspects of the body. The first is related to how the body is to be used in religious ceremonies to send and/or receive some religious meaning. The second deals with how the body is to be seen according to religious rules concerning clothing. These two dimensions of body performance have been combined in the discourses of most religions. It could be argued that both are ways of exercising power. However, by controlling how the body should look, the domination seems more explicit than only seeking to control how the body should act—indeed, the latter is closely related to controlling how the body should appears in the public space (Foucault 1976). In this chapter, the focus will be on the difference in conceptions and use of the body in several Pentecostals denominations. All of them hold what could be termed “conservative” positions concerning politics and social questions (Pierucci and Prandi 1996b; Martin 2003: 53–8) and as “Pentecostals” believe in the direct intervention of the “Holy Ghost” in the life of the individual. They also have a strong and doctrinaire control over body use. However, in spite of these important similarities, they are quite different is dealing with questions related to body appearance. While some denominations sought to control both the practical and aesthetic dimension of the body, others, while seeking to fully control body performance, are not interested in the body visual. It is this apparently paradoxical situation that makes this case particularly interesting in terms of our understanding of the many dimensions of body control. Two aspects in particular—fashionable clothes and body use—are highlighted because of their expressive dimension and, as Arthur (2004) says, their relationship to religious practices. It is important to notes, as well, that there are a wide range of theories concerning the relationship between the body, control and religion. Here, I draw mainly upon the works of the philosopher Michel Foucault concerning the body and power, and on the ideas of sociologist Bryan S. Turner (1983, 2004, 2006) regarding body and religion. These scholars were chosen because of the way they stress the relationship between the body, control and communication. While Foucault (1975, 1976) understands the body as a type of discursive social creation, Turner (1983, 2006a) highlights the body’s use to convey meanings, or, as Poole (1975: 101) states more directly, to “communicate.” I will start, therefore, by setting out the theoretical framework of the study of the body, expression and control, drawing mainly on Foucault’s work. I will then present and discuss some of the empirical data gathered in support of these ideas, drawn from the official websites of the religions and denominations analyzed here. The Framed Body One of the key texts on the relationship between the body and power is Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. The author argues that the human body has always been subjected to the exercise of power. In the past, the individual was rarely free to


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 77 dispose of his or her body as he/she wanted. There were always rules concerning body use and body appearance: what could be done was closely related with what could be shown or displayed in public. What is more, punishment meant the destruction of the body. Foucault suggests that there was an important shift in attitudes from the seventeenth century onwards, however. The physical destruction of the body was replaced by mind control reflecting a change in the nature of punishment. In modern times, this no longer meant the suppression of the body physically, but the breaking of an individual’s will. Foucault also claims that contemporary society has developed more subtle ways of doing this, again not be destroying the body of the individual but by prescribing how the body may be used. Foucault identifies at least two explicit forms of body control. The first is the retrospective physical punishment of the individual’s body by the legitimate power agents of the society. The destruction of the body is the consequence of our actions; we are punished for what we have done, and this is an explicit way of controlling the body. The authority is visible—it is actually embodied in the physical experience of being punished—and in the book, Foucault shows how the punished body is shown in a public space as an example to other people. Shilling (2007a: 8) summarizes it thus: Instrumental here were Foucault’s analyses of how the creation of the modern subject was accompanied by a shift in the target, object and scope of governmental disciplinary regimes during which the fleshy body gave way to the mindful body as a focus of concern, preoccupation with matters of death was replaced by an interest in controlling details of life, and the control of anonymous individuals was replaced by attempts to manage differentiated populations. The second form Foucault identifies is the prescription of rules concerning the prospective use of the body. This seems to be a more subtle form of control which tells the individual what to do with their body, what can be shown publicly and what should be kept hidden from public view. Moreover, the prescriptive form of power tells the person why one should or should not use the body in a particular and specific way. It provides an explanation concerning the control and tells people under which parameters the body should be used. According to Foucault, both are ways by which institutional power manages to get into everyday life. This institutional power, at the macro-level (that is, social institutions, the state, and so on), is translated to the micro-level (personal life, family life and body control) through the setting and application of rules to all in society. Foucault does not seem to locate power in only one place in the society, claiming instead that it is a kind of “net” or “web” (from the French réseau). Therefore, it is possible to say that Foucault’s concept of “power” is concerned with the “microlevels” of power in everyday life where prescriptive rules are transformed into practical actions by the individuals. As a consequence, institutional power becomes a lived experience embodied as a social action. The power becomes real when it is carried out by people.


78 The Mediatization of Religion As Foucault points out, the formation of this “web of power” allows each and every one to be at the same time active and passive before power. This is the reason, he argues, why people allow themselves to be ruled over by others. There seems to be a kind of mutual surveillance that allows everybody to feel the “empowerment” of dealing with the power, and those who refuse to do so are subject to punishment. Therefore, to “discipline” and to “punish” could be seen as two aspects of the way power flows inside a society. The many aspects of power seem to be linked, in Foucault’s works, to the various aspects of authority and control of social practices. Moreover, the more an arbitrary social practice is socially invisible (that is, it appears as “natural” and “unavoidable”) the more powerful it is. The original French title of Foucault’s book, Surveiller et punir (literally “To watch and to punish”) stresses this visual dimension of control, and this is an important aspect of religious efforts at body control. Seeing is not a free act: what can be seen is actually related to a society’s morals and ethics. Thus, being permitted to see the body, especially that of another person, is subject to a large set of rules in many societies, and the act of seeing seems to be directly related to the concept of intimacy, understood here as something “extremely personal” and the opposite of “public.” Thus, from Foucault’s perspective, body control was also related to what could be shown as a body. In his La volonté du savoir (1976) (“The will to know”), he outlines how discourse production on the body throughout history could be understood as an attempt to keep the human body inside a set of rules. The uses of the body, especially the sexuality, seem always to have been under a particular discourse designed to control. Thus, he argues for example that the elaboration of a medical discourse about the body has been an endeavor to de-eroticize it, on the one hand, and to keep it under a “scientific view,” on the other. Among the many discourses on the body and its uses, the religious discourse seems to have been and be one of the most important in Western culture. As Turner (2005) notes, body control has remained an essential issue for many religions. He argues that through the strict regulation of people’s bodies it is easier to keep them under authority, stating that “[s]ince the body expresses both sacred and sexual power, this control involves sovereignty over sexual and religious expressivity” (Turner 2005: 5). Consequently, many of the world’s religions have found a prescriptive formula to deal with the body in order to keep people inside specific religious parameters. The way an individual uses their body is thus not a personal decision but a social and, particularly, a religious matter. In short, he argues that, throughout history, religions could be defined by their attempts to create a set of rules concerning the individual’s body in order to dominate the person’s mind. For him, physical punishment—fasting, self-flagellation and the many kinds of religiously motivated mortifications—are simply ways that religions have found to keep their worshippers’ minds under surveillance. He states that in some Christian churches there seems to be a strong belief that body destruction could lead to spiritual salvation: to deny the body is to save the soul.


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 79 The Bible itself offers the first evidence of this. In the book of Genesis, after eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve are suddenly aware that they are naked and are expelled from the Garden of Even. At least in some interpretations of Christian doctrine, consciousness of the body seems to be closely related to the idea of “sin” and “The Fall.” The first attitude of God is to provide clothing for Adam and Eve: they are instructed to hide their nakedness after the Fall. There seems, though, to be a debate inside a number of Pentecostals churches concerning how their worshippers should use their bodies. It is possible to identify at least two main opinions in this regard. In some churches, like the Assemblies of God and the Brazilian Christian Congregation, the faithful are told how to dress and how to deal with their bodies. In others, like Rebirth in Christ or the Snowball Church, however, in spite of a strict control concerning body use, there is little or no instruction on appearance. In many churches, body use is strictly ruled by a set of beliefs and interpretations regulating the way the individual may use his or her own body, ranging from dispositions on how to dress to instructions on sexual practices. Thus, it is possible to identify two main dimensions of the body communication in churches: a practical dimension, concerning how the body should be used and a second, aesthetic, dimension which sets out how the body should appear. The Uses of the Body and the Unveiled Sexuality This next section discusses some aspects of practical body use in some churches, both high- and low-mediated. By “practical use,” I mean what the worshipper is allowed and not allowed to do with his or her own body. If one assumes that body control is a way to discipline the person, it is possible to understand the used of the human body inside the churches as a strategy to keep the worshippers under control. It is important to mention here that “control” does not only mean prohibitions, but also indications and rules on what should be done with the body. The examination of the literature and the religious websites suggests there are two main forms control of practical body use employed by religions. The first concerns the uses of sexuality, while the second deals with the way the body is used as a medium during religious services and ceremonies. Sexuality is arguably the first and main concern about body use for many churches. As Turner (2006c: 226) comments: There have been, in the history of human societies, a number of important, more or less permanent, connections between religion, the body and sexual reproduction. For him, generation and regeneration is one of the main “cosmological connections.” The main sexual rule concerns marriage: sex is only allowed after the wedding. The marriage is thus the limit of sexuality. Any kind of pre-marital or extra-conjugal


80 The Mediatization of Religion sexual practice is thus a “sin.” Concerns over this are expressed clearly in the following preacher’s instruction on the American Assemblies of God website: Why is maintaining sexual purity so vital to the life of a Christian? What constitutes sexual immorality? According to the Bible it includes adultery, fornication, homosexuality, incest, prostitution, rape, and lust. The popular culture around us is suggesting with a loud voice that anything short of sexual intercourse is not sex and therefore not sinning. But that definition of sex does not line up with the Bible. Jesus said, “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt. 5: 28) (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/charctr_05_sexual_purity.cfm) The preacher is not condemning sex and sexuality per se, but saying they should be kept inside marriage. This attitude seems to be framed in a broader concept of the body as an “enemy” or something that should be avoided. On the website of the Brazilian International Church of Grace, a preacher claims that body is to be kept under control: It is very important for you to re-programme your mind with God’s concerns and keep your body under its dominium. (http://www.ongrace.com/mresponde/ler.php?id=2644) The body thus seems to be framed in a set of rules, one of the most important of which seems to be its characterization as an instrument of sin. Indeed, by reading such religious websites, marriage is repeatedly referred to as the solution to the problem of sexual desire. It is perhaps interesting to notice that marriage is said to have strong symbolic power, since there is no such obligation in cohabitation. This discussion on the Brazilian Universal Church web-based forum between a churchgoer and a bishop illustrates these questions well: Dear Bishop: I and my girlfriend have a problem. We kiss and hug each other, and sometimes we have some intimacy. She’s getting scared with all this. How far can we go before getting married? My friend: Surely you must be on fire and that’s why the consciousness of sin is haunting you. You’d better get married. If you don’t have enough money to get together, each one of you could still live with your parents until things get better. You cannot keep yourself on fire. (http://forum.arcauniversal.com.br/viewtopic.php?t=524) “To be on fire” is a biblical expression that is used as a metaphor for sexual desire. Moreover, it seems important to note that sometimes having “correct” sex is the only purpose of marriage. Indeed, this rule suggests that this is the only acceptable situation under which any kind of sexual practice may be performed, and there


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 81 are echoes here of a strongly imagined causal relation between sex and family values (Mirola 2001: 174). Even inside marriage there are rules concerning sexual practices. Some modalities of sexual intercourse are not allowed even between married partners. An International Church of Grace preacher, for example, explicitly condemns sexual fantasies. On the website, a worshipper asks about sexual fantasies he wants to play out with his wife. The answer is as follows: You should be very careful in this concern. Why should a husband imagine his wife in costumes? I wonder if by seeing his wife dressed like this he wouldn’t be thinking about other women. I think that when a husband and wife love each other they know how to have a good sexual life without these unreal and dangerous things. (http://www.ongrace.com/mresponde/ler.php?id=5913) Thus, to deny pleasure is wrong and to have pleasure in marital sex is a practice encouraged by church leaders, but people are encouraged to find such pleasure inside certain limits. In the Snowball Church, a high-mediated Brazilian Pentecostal group that mainly focuses on young people, the rules concerning sexuality are as strict as in any of the other churches mentioned here. For example, the worshippers must ask permission from the preacher even to date someone, and if the person being asked for the date does not belong to a Pentecostal church, no permission will be given. Meanwhile, before starting the relationship the believer should pray to God asking for a “signal” that the person they wish to date is “the right person” to live with. Thus, it could be said that any kind of relationship is directed towards marriage, as no one can date anybody else without the intention of ultimately getting married. Furthermore, during the dating period, no kind of intimacy is allowed, and the worshippers are instructed to “run away from the temptation.” The U.S. website of the Assemblies of God is strict on whom its worshippers may have relationships with, stating that all such relationships must be kept inside the denomination: Why does the Assemblies of God oppose the practice of dating unbelievers and marrying non Christians? Not only should Christians avoid dating and marrying non-Christians, 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 would seem to indicate they also should not become involved with people who say they are Christians but do not live godly lives. (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/relations_01_unbelievers.cfm) One last aspect on body use to be considered is the strict prohibition on homosexual practices mentioned by all churches. While there are no exceptions to this, it is possible to find varying levels and degrees of condemnation of homosexuality. On the American Assemblies of God website, for instance, homosexual relationships are framed as a clearly religious matter:


82 The Mediatization of Religion Homosexuality is both a sin against God and mankind. It runs contrary to the divine plan, purpose, and will of God who created us in His image (Genesis 1:27) and redeemed us so that this image, marred because of sin, might be renewed (Colossians 3:10). Most fundamentally, homosexuality is sin because it perverts the created order of human sexuality, the heterosexual fulfilment of both man and woman (1 Corinthians 7:2-5). (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/topics/relations_11_ homosexual.cfm) On the Brazilian Assemblies of God website, meanwhile, the homosexual is compared to a drug addict or a criminal: The Bible says that God created man and woman. Male and female were made. Any kind of alteration in this principle is an abomination before God. A homosexual can accept Christ and become a church member. Just as any drug addict gives up drugs or a criminal abandon its previous life of sin and becomes a servant of God, so the homosexual can abandon its sinner practices and assume its real identity. (http://igrejaassembleiadedeus.org/posicao_da_ad.htm) Overall, the rules concerning homosexuality seem to be the one of the most explicit concerns in all the churches mentioned here. There are also more subtle principles concerning the way the worshipper’s body should be used particularly related to how they are used inside the churches. Body use during religious ceremonies has attracted the attention of a number of scholars. There are studies concerning body movement (Motta 2005) and the use of the body in rituals to express or communicate the religious message (Synnott 1993). Turner (2005: 6) reminds that: Because the human body is, as it were, the most readily available instrument by which to convey meaning and emotions, the body played a critical role as the expression of society as a whole. It has an immediate capacity to express sacred values, sexuality and power … Traditional societies harnessed the body to express the sacred authority of the group or society, and hence there is a close relationship between the body, the sovereignty of a king and the notion of sacredness. He argues that in the Western Christian religions, the bodily dimension has been neglected. However, it is possible to find a sort of ritual body use in many situations during the religious services and we can argue that each group of churches has found a particular way of dealing with worshippers’ body in the context of the religious service. A brief description of the main aspects of a religious service in each group of churches illustrates the many ways the body is used. In the Roman Catholic Church, for example, worshippers are asked to stand up when the priests enter the Church to begin celebrating Mass, then during the Holy Communion, they get down to their knees in reverence. In this context, the body


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 83 could be said to be an instrument to represent devotion—a tool that reinforces the link with the sacred. And while there are no explicit rules on how people should dress for these celebrations, they are expected to wear “appropriate” clothes. The situation shifts to another level in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal according to a study by Prandi (1997). During the celebrations, people are allowed and encouraged to shake hands with each other, sing along with the band and can even express their devotion by dancing. Sometimes even the priests do the same or at least encourage the worshippers to do so. Fr. Marcelo Rossi, a chart-topping singing priest, often leads this kind of celebration. Indeed, some broadsheets have described his celebrations as “ShowMass” (Souza 2005). At first sight, the body of the typical worshipper seems to be completely undisciplined in these types of ceremonies. However, it is possible to identify some kinds of choreography and synchronized movements performed by the faithful. For example, one of Fr Marcelo’s refrains is “raise up your hands and cry ‘Glory to God’” and is immediately accompanied by the suggested hand movement by the worshippers. In seeking a clearer definition or characterization in the context of the discussion of power and control, it is possible to identify this particular use of the body as a form of “light” control. From the very beginning, the importance of appearance and making a strong visual impact was recognized by some of the most famous American televangelists: from Billy Graham to Joel Osteen, they seldom appeared before an audience without wearing a suit. This was regarded as the way to catch the eye of the audience and emphasize their “respectability,” giving the viewers a feeling of safety. Meanwhile, the highly theatrical nature of their preaching—using monumental churches, arenas and stadiums—also reinforced the aesthetic element employed to package their messages. As the time has gone by, different visual and emotional appeals have also been tried by churches, priests and preachers to attract new audiences. Catholic priest Fabio de Melo, for example, also sings on popular non-religious television shows clad (like many pop singers) in leather—a particularly striking aspect of highmediated churches. Similar situations can be also found in other high-mediated churches. On the religious websites it is possible to find quite detailed information about how the body should be used, how it should be exposed, and how others should see it. However, it is not only through its movements and uses inside the church or in worshippers’ sexual lives that the body is expected to convey messages. It is also in everyday life which we turn to now. The Aesthetics of the Body and the Uses of Beauty The previous section dealt with the body’s practical use, meaning how the physical interactions are controlled and used by religious denominations. Yet, body control is also strongly related to what we might call the aesthetic dimension—that is, the way corporal beauty is permitted and controlled. Thus, if we accept that body aesthetics are an important component of the eroticization of the body, the corollary is that


84 The Mediatization of Religion in order to de-eroticize the body, it is useful—and necessary—to control also the body’s aesthetical aspects. As with issues of body use, it is possible to find concerns about this aesthetic aspect on the church websites as well as in the literature. In general terms, it is possible to identify a permanent preoccupation with how one is dressed and whether one’s clothes accord with the biblical interpretation of each church. As suggested earlier, body control seems to be related to the way the religious message, as expressed by the worshipper, is controlled. To borrow from Foucault again, the “body discourse” should be kept under strict religious control in order to transmit the church’s expected and true message to the wider world. In this way, how we dress could be seen as part of the “common narrative” that underlines religious concerns, or, in Grant’s (2001: 235) words, our lived experiences have “a ‘storied’ quality and can take on shared meaning in large part because they are interpreted through the lens of a common narrative.” The way one dresses also reflects a concern about the way and extent to which the body should be hidden or revealed to the others. The rules concerning how one is supposed to dress could be framed in terms of the “visual control” mentioned by Foucault (1975) as one form of control. Here, control over sexuality finds its counterparts in aesthetical domination. The rules seek to control the way one is seen by the society, with each churchgoer effectively a “living message” or a “living media” that should transmit the correct message through their own way of showing or hiding their body. Unsurprisingly, on the churches’ websites and web-based forums it is possible to find numerous discussions concerning how one should dress. Most involve particular concerns relating to a specific kind of clothing. However, it is also possible find more general concerns about clothing and body care. For example, in the Proclaimers Church, a Norwich-based high-mediated denomination, most religious services will include elements performed by a pop-rock band. The audience is allowed—indeed encouraged—to sing along with the band or the singer, shaking and clapping their hands and even dancing with some kind of choreography. In this church, the body is free to do whatever it wants inside these religious celebrations. They also have light rules about the way believers should dress: What do I wear? Wear whatever you feel comfortable in: casual, smart, smart-casual it doesn’t matter—we love diversity—be yourself! (http://www.proclaimers.com/smartweb/ new/faqs) On the Brazilian Assemblies of God’s Ministry website, meanwhile, it is possible to find a set of rules concerning how the worshipper should dress, with a detailed list of strict prohibitions: 1. Long hair, by male members 2. Use of male clothes by women


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 85 3. Use of any kind of cosmetics by women 4. Women cannot have their hair cut 5. Women cannot try to paint they eyebrows 6. Women cannot use mini-skirts 7. Members will not watch television. It is recommended not to watch television because of the inferior quality of TV shows and because television watching could lead to health damage. (http://www.adrestauracao. com/?secao=textos&link=modus_vivendi) This set of rules could be understand in the terms of Turner’s argument (2006b), which in turn draws on Durkheim (2003), that “religion is the most fundamental classificatory system of any society, and therefore religion and law can never be separated.” Thus, this list can be seen as representative of body control as it is exercised not only in the Assemblies of God but also in other Pentecostals churches like the Brazilian Christian Congregation, the Brazil for Christ Church and the God is Love Church. In this context, it is important that the body of the female worshipper is completely devoid of any kind of attractiveness and women should avoid using any kind of resource to increase their beauty. This suggests that the process of deeroticization thus starts by giving up any kind of aesthetic care for the body. The female body should not be outlined by clothes; rather, dressing should only protect and cover the body. While “beauty,” as with any other aesthetic concept, is entirely subjective and cannot be defined objectively, it is possible, nevertheless, to argue that in the Pentecostal churches even efforts towards beauty by the worshippers are not allowed. By prohibiting cosmetics and particular clothes, the church does not allow the female believers to seek any kind of beauty. Although a discussion of the sexism inherent in many of these rules is beyond the scope of this book, it is still interesting to note that of all the rules concerning clothing, only one is directed at men: the requirement that they do not have long hair. Otherwise, the advice is little more than the recommendation that they wear suits in discrete colors. This underline the argument made by Rayburn (1999: 150) that “patriarchal religions have defined and reinforced women’s ‘natural’ inferiority by conditioning them to long for paternal, spiritual, and bodily salvation.” Another rule of note is the reduction of public exposure of the body to the absolute minimum, with only the worshipper’s arms, hands and face to be seen by others and everything else should be hidden under the protection of clothing. In essence, the observation of such strictures becomes in itself the embodiment of the religious message of morality and respect. The situation is somewhat different in the other churches, however. In the youngest denominations, like the British Proclaimers, the aesthetic dimension seems not to be strictly controlled, and there is little mention of this aspect of their congregation’s everyday lives. As Foucault (1975) argues, discourse is always a device to control, an instrument to convey power. In this message it is possible to identify the discourses as


86 The Mediatization of Religion representatives of the many institutional powers that lie beyond the written text; it is possible to read this message as the convergence of an external field of forces; and it is possible to say that the internal conflict inside the religious field is made objective at the micro-level of personal relationships. Once again, it is possible to identify a clear relationship between the adoption of media and doctrinaire concerns regarding clothing and the exercise of control over the body. The debate on how far a church can go in adopting secular practices – which means not only the media, but now also fashion and cosmetics – thus seems to be directly linked with the ‘colonization’ hypothesis discussed earlier. By using secular practices, a church could be said to have been ‘colonized’ by these practices and codes. An example of this is the use of tattoos and piercings, a secular practice which is vehemently condemned by the Assemblies of God but is, however, allowed in the Snowball Church. In the web-based forum on the Snowball website, there is a discussion thread about tattoos with only three posts. In the first message, a Snowball church tattoo-maker offers his services to other. Then, another worshipper writes an 1824 word response attacking tattoos. The extracts from this discussion (quoted below) reveal interesting examples of the mediation of a religious discussion, showing how certain aspects of everyday secular life – which the author terms ‘worldly practices’ – are used by religious groups. The author starts by declaring: In the last decades, the Church has been the target of a powerful Devil attack. Sometimes he has been explicit, sometimes he has been implicit and people could not see it immediately. One of his most efficient actions is to introduce ‘mundaneness’ inside the congregation. It all begins as if it were innocent and inoffensive. However, as the time goes by, it catches up every mind … (http://www.boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=234) The use of the word “mundaneness” by the author is important here. Later in the text the author will identify the “mundane” with having tattoos and piercings, using slang and wear fashion clothes. It is also worth noting that the author is member of the Assemblies of God—a low-mediated church. This could suggest that the relationship between body control and media use are related to doctrinaire questions concerning the adoption of contemporary practices. The author goes on: Consequently, we see completely permissive churches. These churches accept the way of life of those who live “in the world”, far from the principle of one living God. The servants of God must watch out what they do. (http://www. boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=234). Here, he seems to be equating “permissiveness” with those who are of the “world.” A few paragraphs later, the author then defines what he understands by “worldliness” and by “living in the world,” practices which are to be closely linked with the devil. He continues by saying that:


The Politics of the Body, Appearance and Aesthetics in Mediated Religion 87 When we are aware that we are slaves of God we understand that our will must be subjected to His. We also learn that our body is a Temple of God’s Spirit. To use piercings or tattoos is to start a rebellion against the Lord … Sanctification should fill every part of our being. (http://www.boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=234) The “sanctification” message, as it is stated in the web-forum, should be conveyed not only by those preaching, but also by the faithful themselves. The worshipper’s whole life must be understood as an activity of “sanctification,” which means the abandonment of worldly practices. A few paragraphs later the author asks: Why should a servant of God want to wear fashionable clothes? Why should one spend money on such vain things? Fashion generally wants to make the body evident. (http://www.boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=234) This series of assertions could be summarized as a continuous attempt to equate the contemporary codes, techniques and practices (use of slang, piercings, tattoos, fashion clothes and so on) as the infiltration of evil—a “powerful Devil attack”— inside these churches. This in turn echoes Turner’s (2006a) perception that “[f] undamentalism is in this sense an attempt to control the consumerist spiritual market place.” Countering this, a member of the Brazilian Snowball Church responds: With all respect: What makes the difference for a Christian is not to wear a suit and consider himself always right. This is just to act like a Pharisee. I do not evaluate a person because of the clothes they wear. Some people wear suits, other people wear shorts and so on! It doesn’t matter if you use slang when you’re talking to other people. It is what you say that matters! While we are stuck inside these small problems the Devil is outside doing whatever he wants! (http://www. boladenevechurch.com.br/forum/viewtopic.php?t=234). There is thus a clear a contrast between the two messages. While the Assemblies of God member argues that religious behavior should mirror religious doctrine, the Snowball churchgoer sees no problem in adopting modern practices and methods since there is no alteration in the religious message. This brief examination of these churches’ concerns about the human body regarding both its practical and aesthetical dimensions enables us to identify a relationship between body control and other aspects of the doctrinaire and practical life of each religion. In particular, the high-mediated generally to have adopted a doctrinal direction that privileges the utilization of all modern communication devices, including body language and fashion. Wood (1999: 314) characterizes this as “meaning sharing” arguing: Vague acceptance of shared symbols or meanings can help a group cohere during calm times, but in the more raucous waters of political engagement, with the


88 The Mediatization of Religion constant threat of fragmentation through conflict or dissipation through loss of commitment, more deeply held cultural elements become important for holding a group together. So the group must develop intensely shared cultural elements sufficient for stabilizing the group. This relationship can be also seen as a way to understand the dialectical relationship between modernity and religion. For Turner (2006a: 441), media adoption is a key factor in changing many religions. He claims that: In the modern world, the laity have some degree of literacy and they can access radio, the Internet, TV, travel and mass consumerism. The globalization of popular religion makes it increasingly difficult for the virtuosi to regulate the mass. In Thailand, popular Buddhist charismatics sell magical charms and amulets over the Internet; on Muslim websites, popular American mullahs offer fatwas on every aspect of daily life. The growth of global spiritual marketplaces means that ‘religion’ constantly transforms itself, becoming increasingly hybrid and reflexive. In general, it seems that doctrine concerning the worshipper’s appearance represents another crucial difference between the high-mediated and low-mediated churches. Although both groups keep a strict control over the bodies of the faithful body in anything that concerns sexuality, the high-mediated are far less strict in terms of clothing, jewels, tattoos and other ways of regulating their worshippers’ appearance. While the low-mediated have a set of doctrinal rules concerning appearance and clothing, in their high-mediated counterparts a worshipper is free to create their own image. Indeed, in some churches the faithful are even encouraged to follow the latest trends in fashion and style, and also to take care of their bodies’ appearance by exercising. In low-mediated churches the body is hidden, while in high-mediated churches it can be shown as part of the religious practices. Rules concerning appearance can thus be understood in Turner’s (2006b) contention that “religion is the most fundamental classificatory system of any society, and therefore religion and law can never be separated.” Body and fashion control can thus be seen an example of how contemporary religious denominations appropriate secular instruments to convey religious meaning. As Burdick (1999) states, this could be seen as a kind of all-encompassing effect: by adopting techniques of modernity, these churches allow their worshippers to use any “worldly” practices, but inside a frame of religious ideas. In other words, a new wrapping for an old meaning. The human body is one of the most visible aspects of religious affiliation in everyday life, and its use by the high-mediated churches indicates that it is important to control it in order to keep this visibility accordingly to their rules and concerns. In the next chapter, we move towards another institutional aspect of high-mediation, the borrowing of ideas from the media, particularly from television programs—what Fiske (1989) calls “semiotic codes” by some of the high-mediated churches.


Chapter 6 Borrowing Styles from the Media Many years ago, I was delivering a lecture at the University of East Anglia on the subject, which would go on to become this book. As part of that, I showed the audience the picture of a brunette man, wearing a black suit and a white shirt, looking candid. I asked the audience what they thought this man’s profession was. There were many answers. “Actor?” said one. “Pop singer?” guessed another. Someone at the back of the audience even cried: “Movie star?!” Then I showed a picture of the same man wearing ecclesiastical clothes and answered: “He is a priest. A Roman Catholic priest,” I said. There was some disbelieving laughter. “He is a priest and a top hit singer,” I assured them. “So why does he look like a TV star?” someone then asked. This chapter sets out to answer this question. In the preceding chapters I have examined some of the differences between highand low-mediated churches from several different points of view. In general, the more a religious denomination is mediated, the more it is keen to adopt the style of media and popular culture. At the same time, there is a partial differentiation between the two groups: the high-mediated tend to be more “liberal” in their practices and less rigid in their teachings concerning elements related to popular culture and/or media practices regarding matters such as consumption and appearance. In this chapter, I shall focus only on the high-mediated churches to argue that there is a sort of “homogenization” among them in the way they frame some of their rituals and services around modern media communication: that is, using practices and techniques strongly reminiscent of popular television shows, popular music and entertainment. In particular, I will argue that modern media communication has become the model or framework used by high-mediated religious denominations. This draws on the argument made by Meyer and Moors (2006: 8) that media use has generated “new forms of religious experience that cast believers as spectators, spectacles as miracles, and God’s blessing as prosperity.” Thus, high-mediated religious services are deliberately structured to resemble popular television shows; preachers have become celebrities; marketing techniques, brands and merchandizing are widely used; and, finally, worshippers tend to behave like fans. To demonstrate this, I will focus on the religious services and liturgies of highmediated churches to stress the similarities between these religious practices and some television programs, particularly factual news, reality shows, game shows and live programs.


Click to View FlipBook Version