Marx’s concept of religion is situated within his philosophy of historical materialism. It means his understanding of religion is integral to his criticism of capitalism that divides society into capitalist class and working class. Religion takes part as legitimation force for reproduction of this exploitative system of life-world that conditions proleteriats to finds solace in religion (Marx: 164-229).
He locates religion as superstructure out of which its complicity with the system should be unveiled and unpacked. The term, religion as the opium of the people, is understood as smoke screen that not only legitimizing the system but also disenable religion to be critical and to resist it. At this point, emancipatory content of religion is repressed within historical development guided by economic determinism.
Moreover, it is interesting to look at Marxian and Postmarxian reading of his concept. Andrew Mckinnon (2006:11-29), for instance, argues that we need to take up Marx’s concept of religion as metaphor. For Marx, in capitalist society, religion, by taking it as metaphor, reveals its contradictory tendency.
The first tendency is to mask the underlying logics of oppresion (conventional marxian reading), and the other one is its messianistic, emancipatory power, that lies precisely in its political theology. Political philosophy of marxism remains entrapped in the primacy of reason as guiding principle as it tends to bracket religion in ‘superstructure’, as ideological backbone of capitalism.
What is missing is Marx’s analysis of religion in dialectical strategy and reasoning. The term or metaphor ‘opium’ includes two possibilities, ideological and utopia, total surrender and hope. This reminds us of Gadamerian and Ricoeurean reading of culture, between prejudice and tradition.
The latter dimension, the emancipatory content of religion, nowadays is indicated by the rehabilitation of Marx criticism of religion in postructuralist-continental philosophy and contemporary social theories. We can take two prominent examples.
First, the rise of liberation theology in Latin America and its replication into contemporary struggles such as Black Theology, Feminist Theology, and many others that characterise postcolonial reclamation of christianity as critique againt neoliberal hegemony of post-industrial capitalism around the world (Gustavo Gutierrez, 1999:19-37; Sugirtharajah, 2004:175-274).
Second, development of Islamic political theology offers radical critique againts neocolonial power (Dabashi, 2008: 25-58). Both strands of polical theology underpin Cold War and Post-Cold War resistance in time when orientalism and new orientalism have been naturalising the supremacy of late capitalism, secularism and consumer culture around the world.
Similar treatment of religion or religious movement can be found in Indonesian experience of political revolution for national independence from colonialism. Soekarno (1978:42-48) in his famous defence oration makes clear that historicity of religion is historicity of resistance for justice and equality. He refers to genealogy of christianity, Judaism, and other religious milenarian movements in Middle East and Asia.
Concerning the rise of religious millenarian movements such as Ratu Adil as response to colonialism, He writes as following, “This Popular Movement is the product of national misery; our influence over the people is also the product of national misery!” (p 48). This is Soekarno’s Marxism at its best. To add into this, his appraisal of marxism indicated in his variety of speeches where he understands Islam as compatible with socialism and communism.
Drawn upon presentation above, we argue that marxian and postmarxian reading of religion remain highly relevant for our study of religion in Indonesia. How is it possible?
Let us briefly return to the strengths of Marx’s concept and its revival by his successors. Alineation, embedded in economic and political activity, calls for rethinking about what are revolutionary and utopian contents of religion capable of making more sense for us to cope with social-economic injustice and political discrimination and violence. He argues that both proletariat and capitalist are prone to experience false consciousness. It implies that revolutionary and emancipatory content of religion should be directed to both classes.
Future research on religion will surely benefit from marxian and postmarxian reading of religion. The rise of religion as ‘mere politics of identity’ at global and national level hides potentials of conflicts among cultural-religious groups.
Indonesia case today shows clearly the absence of justice and equality issues in the articulation of identity politics as indicated by the deadlock of our multiculturalism project today. This is our task to develop analytical framework for future study building on these perspectives. That is the very reason we take up topics of Indonesian multiculturalism, particularly, Islamic and Christian contribution to nation-state building project since revolution period up to the present.
Reference
Dabashi, Hamid. Islamic Liberation Theology. See Chapter I, “Resisting The Empire”, pp 25-58. London: Routledge, 2008
Gustavo Gutierrez. “The Task and Content of Liberation Theology”, pp 19-37, in Christopher Rowland, The Cambridge Companion toLiberation Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
McKinnon, Andrew. “Opium as Dialectics of Religion: Metaphor, Expression and protest”, pp 11-29, in Warren Goldstein, Marx, Critical Theory and Religion. Leiden: Brill, 2006
Marx, Karl. Karl Marx: The Essential Writings, (edited, Frederic Bender). See “Essential of the Theory”, pp 164-229. (Taken from Course Compedium).
Sugirtharajah, R S. The Bible and The Third World: Precolonial, Colonial & Postcolonial Encounters. See Part III, “Postcolonial Reclamations”, pp 175-274. Cambdridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004
Soekarno. Indonesia Accuses! Soekarno’s Defence Oration in the Political Trial of 1930, (edited Roger Paget). London: Oxford University Press, 1975