This pathetic royal wedding: A state religion of celebrity?
- Details
- Category: Culture
- Created on Thursday, 28 April 2011 08:47
- Written by Gary Leupp
"What function does monarchy play in modern society? We can say it’s an “antiquated” institution, and confidently predict its historical demise. But we should try to understand its lingering basis of strength too."
by Gary Leupp
I wasn’t going to write anything about this, or read or watch anything about “the royal wedding.” It’s all so pathetic. On the other hand I have a few thoughts so here goes…
* * * * * * *
Kingship is as old as class society, and compatible with all kinds of class systems. What all forms seem to have in common is some sort of religious legitimization. The Japanese emperor is supposed to be a descendent of the Sun Goddess, the Chinese emperor was the Son of Heaven possessing the Mandate of Heaven, the Dalai Lamas are incarnations of the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, caliphs derived authority from their descent from Muhammad, European kings possess the “divine right of kings” and are appointed by God (Romans 13:1), etc. Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Church of England.
The connection between religion and rulership is indicated by the evolution of the priest-king in ancient Sumeria into the king-priest; the sacerdotal function, initially primary, becomes secondary and the method of control evolves from use of magic and spiritual control to use of armed bodies of men. This suggests that the figure of the shaman, whom in pre-class societies with minimal social distinctions has a special status, merges with that of the chief and evolves into the king.
While kingship did not prevail everywhere (as Plato points out in the Republic, there was a wide variety of political forms including oligarchy and democracy in ancient Greece) it was the global norm into modern times when it accommodated itself to capitalism. Engels (I think) writes somewhere about the near-equal balance of power between the French aristocracy and bourgeoisie during the period of absolutism, and Marx and Engels wrote about the accommodation between the German bourgeoisie and aristocracy with its dukes and princes after 1848.
The question that interests me is: what function does monarchy play in modern society? We can say it’s an “antiquated” institution, and confidently predict its historical demise. But we should try to understand its lingering basis of strength too.
Prachanda in an interview some years ago, during one of the periods of talks between the Nepali Maoists and the regime then in power, suggested that the party might drop its insistence on the immediate establishment of a republic if the other side agreed to a Constituent Assembly. Maybe he was just indicating flexibility on the point for tactical reasons. He noted that (what he called) communist parties had worked with or compromised with monarchy before. (He was referring as I recall to the Khmer Rouge alliance with Prince Sihanouk and the Pathet Lao’s inclusion of Prince Souphanovong.) Perhaps King Gyanendra might have retained some symbolic role. I think the point was, the preservation of some form of monarch does not necessarily prevent the establishment of popular sovereignty. It might be retained as a concession to the monarchist faction including the large Congress Party, and to the religious views of those Hindus who view the monarchs of the Shah dynasty as incarnations of Vishnu. (Of course this didn’t happen; the king was unceremoniously deposed and the republic proclaimed in 2008.)
Monarchs’ positions within a polity vary greatly. In Japan, up to 1945, the emperor was sovereign, with absolute veto powers over the Diet. Advocacy of popular sovereignty—“democracy”—was prohibited by law, and no one was allowed to criticize the “kokutai” or “national essence,’ meaning essentially the divinely-ordained imperial institution. Japanese military leaders might very well have agreed to surrender to the Allies before August 1945 had the U.S. agreed to preserve the institution in some form—as they in fact did after establishing the “unconditional surrender.” Gen. McArthur, head of the Occupation, called Emperor Hirohito the “queen bee” meaning that by manipulating him the occupiers could receive the cooperation of the Japanese people. So the monarchy fulfilled a function, although constitutionally redefined; the current, U.S.-scripted Japanese constitution defines the emperor simply as the “symbol”—not the head—of the state while bestowing sovereignty on the people.
Most Japanese are (in a western sense) irreligious, and few believe the emperors are descended from any gods (the Occupation authorities pressured Hirohito into publicly denying claims to divinity in 1946). But the emperor continues to perform Shinto rituals connected to the first planting and first harvest every year, and the coronation ceremony is a thoroughly religious event. The coronation of current emperor Akihito in 1990, attended by “world leaders,” produced much opposition ranging from Christians protesting that the rite violated the constitutional separation of religion and the state to quasi-Marxist anarchists (such as the Chukaku-ha) opposed to the imperial institution entirely. The dominant reaction (as I saw it) was indifference. But many found the pageantry interesting, even inspiring. Somehow the religious charisma surrounding the throne has been replaced with entertainment value.
But in Japan the monarchy is “above the clouds” and a compliant press corps basically leaves it alone. It doesn’t hound the royals, looking for scandals and headlines so much. The marriage of the crown prince, Naruhito, to now-crown princess Masako in 1993 was a huge news story, but the press gently handled the issue of Masako’s subsequent mental illness (“adjustment disorder”) and the imperial family members aren’t subject to paparazzi intrusions or the sort of treatment that destroyed Princess Diana.
The House of Windsor
In Britain, the monarchy seems to serve various functions. I recall visiting Buckingham Palace as a child during the changing of the guard and enjoying the “pomp and circumstance.” It was theater, and the repository of interesting tradition. How you react to such displays perhaps depends on your own relationship to British imperialism.
There’s the soap-opera function. The cult of Princess Di (seen as a victim of the royal family, although herself depicted as somehow regal, “the people’s princess”) suggests that many people dissatisfied with their own lives want to fill their own emotional voids by following and fantasizing about the lives of their “betters.” It is the same type of alienation that produces other kinds of fandom. Meanwhile the antics of Prince Charles and Princess Camilla, Andrew and Fergie, Princess Margaret etc. produce huge profits for the tabloids.
Also, the monarchy personalizes patriotism; the military is Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. Maybe it feels a little different feeling to be fighting in Afghanistan for the Queen, as opposed to the forbidding figure of Uncle Sam? My point is just that, however rooted in concepts of inherent privilege and divine right that most people on the planet probably now reject as antiquated, it’s being used successfully by the (very modern) British bourgeoisie.
A recent poll showed that 63% of the British people think the country’s better of with the monarchy while only 26% want to get rid of it.
In constitutional monarchies where the royals are basically display pieces, family events can generate substantial political discussion. When Princess Masako “failed” to produce a male heir, feminists (and others) in Japan campaigned to change the law to allow for the next emperor to be female. (The campaign fizzled after Naruhito’s younger brother’s wife bore a son. He’s now next in line.) In Sweden, the parliament changed the succession law in 1980 such that the eldest child of the monarch inherits the throne. So Princess Victoria rather than her brother Carl is to be the next monarch (despite the reported opposition of her father King Carl). Of course feminists and other progressives have better things to do than campaign for changes in royal succession laws. We should get rid of monarchs entirely. (I don’t mean kill them; I have major issues with the Bolsheviks’ execution of the entire Russian royal family including children, with servants, in 1918.) But there have been these interventions into the shaping of monarchy by sections of the people that haven’t been entirely meaningless.
I was talking to my mother late last night. Over 80, she’d just gotten out of the hospital so I was checking up on her. Was I watching the royal wedding? she asked. I was struck by the fact that in her condition of stage-four cancer she was interested in something so trite. But the fact that she is (and that so many people in the U.S. follow such events with rapt interest) shows that the existence of especially privileged “beautiful” people retains a mystical value, even if it’s basically these days one of entertainment and fantasy projection. How to combat it? I guess one needs to find a way to fill the void that celebrity worship, like other forms of religiosity, seems to fill.
People in this conversation
Comments (13)
-
Guest (jfsp)
PermalinkI'm at a loss at the fascination the media has for this. I just passed the Breakroom and on TV they were discussing the type of wedding cake, Ugh. Maybe since I was born here and my anscestors came from a country without a Monarchy in the recent past and have been under represstion for most of the 20th century I have nothing but disdain for it. I say turn it all into museums.
0 Like -
Guest (dodge)
PermalinkChoose your words with care Gary.....
“With a noose around his neck, Cooke looked up at clouds heavy with rain and stepped into thin air. The rope pulled tight about his neck and he briefly blacked out, but the hangman quickly cut the rope and his body crumpled onto the ground. The assistant took the tongs and pincers and one held a flaming torch. John Cooke was quickly stripped and bent over backwards, as his genitals were cut off with a sharp knife. He was held up, conscious, while they were dangled in front of his goggling eyes before the hangman threw them into a bucket.
<blockquote>“The captain of the guard, egged on by the crowd, ordered that the cowering Hugh Peters (next to be executed, and the only terrified republican) be untied and brought forward, forced to watch the disembowelling. ‘Come, Mr Peters: How do you like this work?’ laughed the hangman. His assistants pulled on the halter that brought the judge (Cooke was a high court judge) forward: the hangman inserted the burning corkscrew into his anus and expertly twisted out the lining of the inner bowel: Cooke was then bent backwards again to watch as his entrails were put to the torch.
“The executioner would normally at this point end the excruciating suffering by cutting out the heart, but this executioner wanted Peters to observe Cooke in conscious agony for as long as possible. The stench became sickening as the yards of bowel were slowly burned – ladies clasped scented handkerchiefs to their noses as the wind carried the smell to the residential apartments overlooking the gallows. Eventually, Cooke expired: his heart was cut out and exhibited, still pumping, to the approving crowd, the executioner holding it high around the scaffold on his knife before casting it into the bucket.”
The Tyrannicide Brief, by Geoffrey Robertson, Chatto & Windus. ISBN – 0-701-17602-4.
</blockquote>
The fate of Cooke, son of a Leicestershire workman. He had been chosen to be the prosecutor in the trial of Charles 1st, who was beheaded. On Cromwell's death Charles 2nd returned, and many connected to the trial met the same fate as Cooke. The fate decreed for traitors, not of high birth!
I imagine Cooke's end at the hands of a venal King would have concentrated the minds of revolutionaries in Russia debating the fate of a Csar, albeit his family too. In fact any possible successor.
Born 1947, I have spent as much time preoccupied thinking about my sovereign as she has spent time thinking of me, Gary.
She of course 'rules' with our consent. We tolerate her as we endure a parasitical religion and a putrefying Westminster. Some love the glitter, pomp and ceremony, others are left cold. National pastime of building people up then tearing them down applies to footballers, celebs and minor royals alike. Religion would be buried but for crafty state subsidy, Dead. 15,000 told the pope to bugger off on his official visit....the rest of us just yawned. Consent....that's about all I can offer, Gary. I read all the posts with interest and yes the Nepal gains are a gigantic leap forward, what took us centuries to achieve a party and people have achieved in decades.0 Like -
Guest (Gary)
PermalinkI did choose my words with care, Dodge, when I said I had issues with the extermination of the Tsar's whole family.
Your feelings about the person you call "my sovereign," the ruling class she represents and monarchy in general are no doubt totally valid. Maybe they even make you sympathetic towards measures against the whole house of Windsor like those the Bolsheviks took towards the Romanovs (in which case you'd best choose YOUR words with care for obvious reasons). If so, permit me to disagree.
I prefer the method of treating the patient to cure the disease, as was applied in China towards the former emperor Pu-yi.0 Like -
Guest (dodge)
Permalink'I prefer the method of treating the patient to cure the disease, as was applied in China towards the former emperor Pu-yi..'
Yes I would hope that the above, gary, goes for us all who post here.(we don't need a vote on it)
My light attempt to make you (others) aware of the perils of going against 'the king'..."choose your words carefully"...crashed.
It seems I should be the one to follow my own advice!
As has been said there is a world of difference between a royalty that has been tamed ie constitutional monarchy, infact also a religion that has been tamed , and one that has not. A rational person can readily spot that. i do see the fates of an emporor, a WINDSOR a CSAR..in context and setting. In short it is a tactical question.
The fate of the Emperor was welcome...a keen gardener myself...socialism needs gardeners....even inbred ones.
I hope I gave some glimpse of another time where vile methods were employed in upholding and destroying a social system. The mindless glitter was not always the style of monarchy.....we had to tame them!0 Like -
-
Guest (Gary)
PermalinkOops, I identified Camilla as "Princess Camilla" whereas I notice glacing over the wedding news this morning that she's just "Duchess Camilla." Duchess of Cornwall, to be exact.
The Duchy of Cornwall dates to the 14th century and is officially a private estate that funds the activities of the Prince of Wales (now prince Charles) although Cornish nationalists noting Cornwall's unique Celtic identity consider it a nation.
I wonder how the good people of Cornwall feel about having a duchess.
My sincere apologies to Camilla and the entire royal family for my error.0 Like -
Guest (jp)
Permalinkthere is a movement for independence in cornwall, although it doesn't seem particularly left, and the census there allows for self-identifying as 'cornish' as of march 27, 2011.
i favor independence movements for these small geographic entities because i think that, logistically, it is easier to move a smaller country leftward.
confederations of these small entities would then be in order; e.g., an independent puerto rico in confederation with other caribbean island nations and, eventually, with the alba nations, and eventually... etc.0 Like -
Guest (Gary)
PermalinkFascinating video, Dodge. Thanks for sharing.
I'm sensitive to the "cargo cult" spiritualism, the kava usage (there's some in my cupboard right now from Vanuatu---it's legal, helps you sleep, and produces very pleasant dreams!), the ceremony using those beautiful conch shell flutes etc. (I spent most of my youth in Polynesia.)
I disagree with the anthropologist who calls the Melanesian people of this small republic "deeply philosophical" and who disagrees with the characterization of this Philip cult as "ridiculous." It IS ridiculous! The post-modernists' (should I say SOME postmodernists') notion that any kind of belief is as legitimate as any other and that to suggest otherwise is "Euro-centric linear thinking" etc. is also ridiculous.
On the other hand, you have to sympathize with these people, whose specific history has produced a language (Bislama) which is basically (as the Scottish boy's address shows) a pidgin mix of English words and Austronesian grammar, who produce this odd confusion.
Are they victimized by it, in the sense that it makes them unhappy? Probably not. Are they victimized by it in other ways? I think so. Just like they're victimized by the John Frum cargo cult
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum
The Scottish boy (no doubt well-meaning, and I admire his cultural immersion) finds it a good thing that the people of Vanuatu feel good about white people and their supposed kinship with them---as a result of this delusion.
It would be much better if they developed a sense of proletarian internationalism. But here's no proletariat there (yet).
There's the small tourist industry, small-scale farming of coconuts (copra production), taro, sweet potatoes, etc., forestry (sandalwood) and fishing. The people lack an effective education system; one Christian "relief organization" estimates youth literacy at 34%.
Rather than exploiting the people's evident naivete (here depicted as charmingly amusing), wouldn't it be better to prepare a statement in Bislama to the effect of:
The white man came 300 years ago and because he wanted our sandalwood and wanted indentured laborers colonized these islands. The French and British both owned us to 1980, and the U.S. has exploited us too. White people aren't bad in general, not our enemies. But we shouldn't revere any of them, and there are no "spirits" in this world.
Anyway that's how I'd start.0 Like -
Guest (Otto)
PermalinkI haven't read all of this but I tip my hat to him. I managed to get only a paragraph together for this stupid Royal Wedding for all the fairy tail doped up Americans and maybe some Brits Also.
Monarchies suck and it is that simple.
I could go on, but this guy already said it all.0 Like -
Guest (Harsh Thakor)
PermalinkReally sad to see the overwhelming response of the people world over including the common people who celebrated the wedding like a once in a lifetime experience.It just tell us how much the old colonial thinking is still so prevalent in people who simply idoloze glamour and pomp.It is significant that the English working class still supports a monarchy which tells us the extent to which they lack class consciousness and posess the hangover of the colonial days.Great Britain is a true bourgeois democracy but still such feudal outlook persists in the common British People,that too when experiencing the worst of recessions.Lack of a progressive,mass based movement world-wide ,particularly in big cities and the trend of mass media to promote glamour at any cost is the cause of this.This is reflected in the fashion shows and beauty contests in 3rd world countries which even enamour the common man.It diverts people from their true problems.
It is so ridiculous that people in the 'largest democracies' are celebrating such an event and forgetting the political events world over.Have 3rd world people forgotten the opression of the British colonial power?0 Like
Sustain Kasama
Latest Comments
Nat I mostly agree with what you are saying. So I dont want to split hairs. I want to leave it there and call it a good...
Communism abolishes all forms of oppression
The thing is the revolutions, esp. in Russia and China, didn't outright lead to 'tyranny.'
Sure, in Russia there was t...
For what it's worth, the Cliffite tradition is attempting to do the opposite of demoralize young radicals. They, and man...
You're right Keith, I don't agree with the idea of the notion of an "indecipherable mass", nor do I think that is what A...
I am really baffled and infuriated by the way the ISO seems so dedicated to attacking every single revolutionary movemen...
Ok, I see.
So, I am not sure how you think of Althusser. I think he is pretty different thinker than Marx. Maybe tha...
Keith, my point is is not that capital is in insoluble contradiction with any form of oppression other than the exploita...
I am not sure I follow your argument, Nat.
Ending the wage relation would end the exploitation of labor, right? That...
Good piece. Recently I received an article by Maoistroad in response to articles such as the one cited above. Tithi Bhat...
Latest Open Threads
Kasama is a communist project for the forcible overthrow and transformation of all existing social conditions. We are open to learning, unafraid to admit our own uncertainties. We will not shrink from what we do know: the solutions cannot be found within the current world order or the choices it provides. We are for revolution. We seek to find the forms of organization and action for the people most dispossessed by this system to free themselves and all humanity.
To take this road, we need a fearless, open-eyed debate, discussion and engagement. We need fresh analyses of the rapid changes shaping the world around us. We need to sum up a century of revolutionary strategies and attempts, victories and defeats – instead of the conventional wisdom and facile verdicts that paralyze our movements. We need to re-imagine a radical politics that can take life among people and move mountains.
Dig in.