Religion, Politics, History, and Culture

Abstract

Abstract In his critique of my 2007 monograph Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: a Critical History of Religion and Related Categories, Daniel Miller attributes me with the error of transcendental historicism and an illusion of cultural authenticity. Miller’s challenge leads me to the question ‘what is history?’—what does it mean to be ‘in history’, or to be ‘out of history’, or to be a ‘historical agent’? I also defend myself against the charge of cultural essentialism by questioning the essentially empty term ‘culture’. First, though, I challenge Miller for his continual insistence that my work is ‘political’. Miller seems to accept at least some aspects of my critique of ‘religion’. However, he does not mention that DCB is as much concerned with the invention of a noun word discourse on ‘politics’ as it is with the invention of ‘religion’. ‘Politics’ and the ‘nation state’ were invented by men of substantial property ambitions to organise, normalise and protect male private property accumulation. Rather than being the foundation of our democratic rights, a gateway to equality and emancipation, ‘politics’ promotes and globally facilitates the processes of ‘accumulation by dispossession’.