It seems that no matter where we look, we are confronted with alliances between the religious right and the political right. The Christian right in the U.S. sees Donald Trump and his administration as some sort of a messiah for white Protestant Christianity. In Muslim-majority Southeast Asian states like Malaysia and Indonesia, various levels of government are finding it hard to not acquiesce to the demands made by conservative Muslim groups on matters related to condemning the LGBTQ+ community. Perhaps such incursions by the religious right into politics have become more prominent recently because they are abetted by the ascendancy of the authoritarian and anti-intellectual personality.
Politics, religion, and the authoritarian personality
The Romanian sociologist Zevedei Barbu once described the authoritarian personality as one who is “pervaded by extreme emotions... the feeling of unlimited power alternates with the feeling of impotence, the feeling of insecurity is carefully covered by an inflated sense of adventure, the fear of chaos is strongly repressed by rigid organization.”
Because of this constant state of internal dissonance and anxiety, such a personality is not only intolerant of dissent, but also tends towards anti-intellectualism – refusing to acknowledge their ignorance on matters while also insisting that their existing knowledge is sufficient and, above all, true.
To that end, the authoritarian personality shows a proclivity towards demagoguery; their anti-intellectualism means that they are uninterested in, or even incapable of, robust debates and arguments. They lack the tenacity to argue in a manner sustained by logic. Instead, to galvanize support, they depend on stirring up emotive responses. In addition, these personalities tend to not have ideological loyalty; their ideology is whatever serves them best and brings them closer to power in a particular moment.
If in our present circumstances we see such personalities adopting religious language, it is because they recognize the capacity of religion to elicit emotive responses, especially at a time when there is a lot of religious anxiety within society. This works particularly well when dominant interpretations of a religion within society are also those that are authoritarian and anti-intellectual in nature.
Often, this is marked by a literalist approach towards Scriptures, which are regarded as textual artefacts which are not only timeless and immutable, but also transparent and beyond questioning. In more conservative hands, Scriptures become a blueprint to diagnose and offer prognosis on society. Destructive events may be attributed to divine retribution, being the result of a community tolerating “sinful” acts. In more antagonistic readings, the Scriptures also offer ready-made enemies to be identified as mortal threats which need to be resisted or annihilated.
What this invariably does is to normalize the dehumanization of the Other, which not only refers to those who do not profess to be part of a religion, but also the marginal groups within it: the LGBTQ+ communities, the sectarian minorities, the religious “liberals.” For the authoritarian personalities in politics and religion alike, there is no need to justify or explain their arguments and positions; it is sufficient for them to regurgitate lines from Scripture while hiding behind the irreproachable visage of religion.
Pushing back with theology
How then are we to deal with such personalities? Maybe the best way is for us to redirect our efforts towards the communities they are trying to win over. In order to do so, we must acknowledge the centrality of religion in the everyday lives of individuals in societies, even in secular democracies where there is a separation of religion and state. To completely exclude or shut down opinions from religious perspectives will only serve to antagonize these groups further, especially when they are already feeling sidelined by the existing democratic processes. Such an acknowledgement may tone down the religious anxiety felt by these groups, limiting room for their sentiments to be manipulated by authoritarian political personalities for personal gains.
Moreover, we have to allay concerns about the presence of religion in the public domain being necessarily detrimental. Instead, when harnessed in a manner that prioritizes ethics and respect for human dignity, religion can be a positive force for society’s progress rather than treating them as a hindrance. After all, what is creating tension between religions and norms and laws of a democratic system is not so much religions themselves, but the dominance of literalist and exclusivist interpretations. Thus, if dominant interpretations by religious conservatives tend towards maintaining a binary in how society is perceived, often by casting people of other faiths as a potentially antagonistic Other, then alternative interpretations by religious progressives must seek to defy it.
One way to defy authoritarian religion is to draw from the ideals of liberation theology found within various faiths. Regardless of their specific religion-bound terminologies, central to these liberation theologies is the belief that religion and religious institutions can – and should – be advocates for the poor and marginalized, and see to it that their rights are protected, rather than being complicit in oppressing them even further.
However, it is not enough merely to stand in solidarity or speak up for the poor and marginalized within each religion’s congregation. If we are serious about standing up against oppression, and against how religion has been used to dehumanize those beyond our congregation, we must see to it that we develop a multi-faith liberation theology.
This would mean liberation theologies extending their applicability to include those outside the faith, to be what Father Frances Clooney terms “inclusivist theologies...[that] draws what we learn from another tradition back into the realm of our own.” Through this process, it can also carve space for what Azhar Ibrahim describes as democratic theologies, which admits of multiple paths to reach the divine instead of the singular path to salvation often prescribed by religious interpretations of an authoritarian bent.
Even if neither of these aims is realized, at the very least such a multi-faith approach reaffirms that at the heart of religion is respecting and upholding the dignity of human life, regardless of which god they profess their faith to. It is in the form of such ethics that religion can have a place in the public domain, including in societies with clear religious majorities. Religion may be a tool for authoritarian personalities, but we also find in religion the humanistic ethos necessary to resist them.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
