Abstract
Reviewed by Paul-François Tremlett and Claire Wanless , The Open University, UK
This book should be read by anyone interested in intersections of religion and political dissent. Although the global dynamics of Occupy are not ignored, it is principally a theologically oriented reflection on the Occupy movement in America. It is grounded in empirical research gleaned from official and independent media sources, interviews, and field work seamlessly woven together by Rieger and Kwok to offer a rich account of the movement. It is further contextualized in terms of Christian theology (Korean and Western), and the American culture wars.
Towards the end of the book, Rieger and Kwok suggest that “the old hierarchical models of the church seem outdated” and that in order to imagine an alternative it will be necessary to draw not only from theology but also from “organizational theory” (120). For Rieger and Kwok, this is the point of bringing “religion” and “Occupy” together—to enable the emergence of an alternative imaginary for Christianity that moves away from the exhausted hierarchies of top-down power and towards a model of “decentralized networks” (121) defined by relationality and a rhizomatic or “heterogeneous organizational structure” (130). This alternative imaginary (of power) is to define a “theology of the multitude” (6) and it is precisely these forms of power and types of structures—decentralized, relational, rhizomatic, and heterogeneous—that, according to Rieger and Kwok, defined the Occupy movement and its experiments in community and anti-capitalist dissent across digital and urban spaces around the world (40).
This review must necessarily position itself outside theology, and the question with which we engage is the extent to which these alter-organizational forms are sustainable over time. We address this question by positioning Rieger and Kwok’s work on Occupy in terms of secularization theory, specifically with respect to (i) the problem of religion and modernity and (ii) the problem of the transmission of religion. Although these problems are not the explicit terrain that Rieger and Kwok seek to occupy, it seems fruitful to position this review there so as to generate what may be a useful dialogue concerning their argument that “other,” non-hierarchical senses of the sacred have emerged in re-enchanted urban spaces facilitated by the Occupy camps, as well as Rieger and Kwok’s remarks concerning self-organizing, decentralized networks.
The strong secularization thesis anticipates the effective disappearance of religion from society. The argument goes that as religion shifts from public to private realms and its functions are displaced by secular ones, its institutions surrender their authority over their members or cease to function altogether, leaving it unable to transmit its values from generation to generation and so reproduce itself.
Arguably, the strong secularization thesis works with a rather narrow conception of religion. Supporters usually define religion in terms of beliefs in the “supernatural.” They tend to view the process of secularization as a zero-sum game: as scientific understanding grows supernatural beliefs decline, since the two are mutually exclusive, they cannot coexist. In more Weberian terms, the disenchantment of society is inevitable given processes of rationalization. The problem with such an all or nothing approach is that it rather precludes (a) the emergence of religious forms that do not fit supernatural-oriented definitions of religion and/or (b) the possibility that religious and secular ideologies and forms, far from being mutually exclusive, can combine to generate new hybrid formations. These points are important because whatever else Occupy was, its occupation of—and community-building in—urban spaces hitherto purified of activities or interactions not associated with capital, made available experiences of the city beyond Georg Simmel’s “blasé attitude.” It is precisely in such experiences that intimations of “otherness and transcendence” (75) might, as Rieger and Kwok recognize, be found.
The secularization thesis’ narrative of decline also constitutes a theory of religious transmission, albeit one predicated on the assumption that religion will not be transmitted unless it has institutions that can exercise some kind of hierarchical authority over its members. Without this, it is assumed, there is nothing to control and enforce what the religion sees as right or to sustain the level of consensus and coherence needed for a shared religious life. If individuals feel free to make decisions about belief for themselves, an inevitable and ever increasing eclecticism will ultimately tear the movement apart. If this kind of account holds, then Rieger and Kwok’s alternative imaginary of a decentralized Christianity will be unsustainable. Since engagement with the specific issue of sustainability is outside of the core terrain Rieger and Kwok set themselves, it is addressed only obliquely. Their argument that horizontal leadership models are both necessary “at a time of great power differentials” (121) and facilitated by today’s digital and Internet technologies (41, 118) suggests the existence of a niche waiting to be filled (112), for which they offer two images. One is at the level of community, illustrated using Letty Russell’s “church in the round,” in which action and reflection takes place in a “spiral process,” and members act as equals, varying their roles and functions (120). The other, at the level of the network, comprises starfish-like organizations consisting of independent but cooperative arms and no central command, such that power is evenly distributed and each node is capable of regenerating the whole (121). Of course, the extent to which these and related forms are or will be adopted, and the extent to which they would function successfully and sustainably are questions susceptible to theoretical and empirical research. Thus, they provide an important ground upon which to test whether such forms of religion can transmit themselves through time or whether the assumptions of the strong secularization thesis do in fact hold.
Rieger and Kwok acknowledge that the organizational forms they advocate are not entirely novel to the sphere of religion, citing for example various forms of liberation theology (59, 117) and the early Church movement (113, 121). However, the project they advocate is avowedly experimental in nature, taking in notions such as “polydoxy” (128), radical diversification of power (28-29), a merging of the rituals and symbols of widely varying traditions that goes beyond interfaith towards innovation (49), and a sense of ongoing challenge to common notions of God and religion (83, 88). The potential tension between the relativism implicit in these notions and the authors’ advocacy of particular theologies is addressed by their acknowledgement that theirs is not the definitive theology of the multitude (133). In doing so, they recognize the necessarily fluid nature of its transmission. While it may be possible for forms such as those discussed in this book to be transmitted over time, this will also lead the forms to mutate and change. Whether that will constitute a process of fragmenting decline or one of dynamic adaptation is, again, an open question.
To conclude, not only does this book provide important contributions to the study of the Occupy movement and intersections of religion and political dissent, it also opens out wider sociological questions about religion, organization and transmission, and religion and modernity. Its contribution to theology is beyond the expertise of this review. However, its contribution to religion and social theory is certain.