CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF The Critical Theory

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF The Critical Theory Of Religion: Frankfurt School BY RUDOLF J. SIEBERT.
Professor Rudolf J. Siebert is German-born American philosopher who has studied a range of disciplines that give considerable weight to his opinion on different. “He was born in “Frankfurt, Germany,” where he studied “history, philology, psychoanalysis” before moving on and taking an interest in theology and philosophy and which he studied at the “University of Munster” and the “Catholic University” situated in America.“Professor Siebert is widely acknowledged lecturer, teaching, and lecturing in many institutions globally such as in Dubrovnik in Former Yugoslav where he was the director of the course “Future of Religion” at the “Inter-University Center for Post Graduate Studies.” Furthermore, Siebert is an accomplished author who has authored various books and journals that have gained wide acclamation.”
From the endeavors of the “Frankfurt School,” Professor Siebert came up with “The Critical Theory of Religion.” Based on the endless intellectual debate with sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, theologians, the professor developed a theory that “emphasizes that based on the past and current societal trends,” religion has three alternate futures, each with varying possibilities and realities. The alternative possibilities of religion rely on the futures of religion that are; Future I – An entirely administered, with cybernetics being commonplace and technology being a vital component of this world.

Future II- a totally militarized society where after a while nationalism will cease to exist with humanity becoming a military hegemony and Future III a community that encourages open dialect between the two antagonistic forces of religion and secularism but has a well-moulded form of religion and wider perspective and enlightenment.
Analysis of the Title
“The Critical Theory of Religion’ by Siebert is a thoughtful and renowned book that gives a deeper understanding of various issues about the past, present and futures of society as we know it and religion. The book’s title From Critical Political Theology; Personal Autonomy and Universal Solidarity is honestly, quite a long title. However, the Siebert must have purposefully chosen the title to show the broad nature of his work in the book. The title begins with the words From Critical Political Theology, notifying the reader that of the extensive work in the book that explores the fractious relationship between religion, civil society, and politics. The book is filled with famous historical incidents and references that further serve to convey the author’s message. Professor Siebert explores the various theories put ahead by prominent scholars such as Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche and Freud.
The title continues to state Personal Autonomy and Universal Solidarity, which correctly shows the prevalent theme in the book, a message of reluctant hope by the Professor, who hopes that humanity, will somehow achieve the two in the third Alternative Future. The title shows the socio-political leanings of the author who encourages the spirituality of religion while condemning its divisive qualities. Furthermore, by seeking universal solidarity and all-inclusiveness, the author is discouraging nationalistic tendencies that have become so prevalent with the advent of globalization.
Fundamental structure of the book
As a non-fiction work, Professor Siebert’s book employs a particular structure that explores the various relationships between the facts represented. In his book, Prof. Siebert arranges his ideas in a clear and structured manner that assists the reader to understand the book’s theme and message. The reader can quickly identify four relationships that outline the fundamental structure that holds all the facts and evidence in the book together.
For instance, the first variable is time order (sequencing); which highlights the order in which things took place, then he employs comparisons between his ideas and those of other prominent scholars from different disciplines globally. The third factor is cause and effect; Professor Siebert explore various causative agents for various societal issues we face as a species, and finally another style that is prevalent in the book is the use of question and answers by the author. Siebert often asks a question related to the subject matter before providing various solutions based on his opinion and that of other thinkers, regardless of their schools of thought. Fundamentally, the book employs the various factors that enable the author to relate the different facts and ideas throughout the book.
Central thinkers in the book
Throughout the book, Professor Siebert utilizes the thoughts and ideas of many great thinkers, ranging from “ancient philosophers like Plato and Socrates to influential modern scholars such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Sigmund Freud Karl Marx, Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Max Horkheimer.” However, the reader can easily see that the writer is a defender of a quasi-socialist ideology of living that draws inspiration from the work of Karl Marks and other left-leaning thinkers. However, due to his war tie introduction to the works of Christian idealist and humanist G.W. F. Hegel, the book relies on much of Hegel’s vision of the world, more so his denouncement of the fascist ideals of Nazi Germany under the new Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.
Professor Siebert utilizes the various experiences and ideas of influential German thinkers, especially those from the “Frankfurt Institute” who were still trying to accept the situation of the immense violence witnessed during the first global conflict, World War 1. The book highlights the thoughts of various critical theorists who were hoping to discover the various socio-psychological, economic, political and other root causes of the first global conflict. Furthermore, Professor Siebert explores the ideas of the same thinkers during the Second World War, the restoration period after that and the Cold War period that engulfed the world. According to Siebert, by critically studying these root causes, they hoped that they could help to prevent murder and other atrocities on the scale witnessed in the wars.
One of the most prominent thinkers often mentioned and quoted by Siebert is Max Horkheimer, who developed the field of “critical theory” at the Social Research Institute at the “Frankfurt University,” Germany. The book talks about Horkheimer’s various works and ideas, with Siebert frequently talks Horkheimer and Adorno’s thesis in their collaboration The Dialect of Enlightenment, which identified various societal institutions such as family, religion, and military as being an extreme rationalization of the modern civil society. Siebert analyses Horkheimer’s different ideas on the effect of globalizing capitalism and its rationalization of two bourgeois wars, religious divisions, and extremism, the advent of neo-fascism in Asia and Europe, the Cold war between the Capitalist West and the Socialist regimes of the East among many other social systematic disintegration.
Antagonisms in civil society
In his book, Professor Siebert identifies fourteen antagonisms that affect modern civil society. The section explores the various relationships that have significantly influenced modern man’s thoughts and actions. Furthermore, the book notes that the fourteen contradictions are quite similar and have many different variations globally, for instance, the antagonism that exists between religion and secularism is no different from classes’ struggle. Fight as critical theory, according to Siebert does not draw much positivity from this battle. Be it among revolutionary lines or authoritarian, the wealthy and the have-nots, between the issues of gender and other erupting conflicts since the magnitude of people suffering witnessed in the fifth between these contradictions is too high to bear.
Furthermore, Siebert posits that despite any positive results from these struggles, critical theory of religion advocates for the end of these conflicts in two ways according to Siebert. Whereby in Future I, the feeling of having core values in the society being meaningless will come to an end, and in Future II, where the human presence and existence is wiped from the face of the earth which is not an option or Future III, where the world becomes united and reformed. More so, the professor is a staunch supporter of the third conclusion in which a radically reformed religion exists in a demilitarized society spurred ahead by secularism and free thought from social enlightenment. Some of fourteen antagonisms that affect modern civilization, according to Siebert and other thinkers from the Dubrovnik Conferences are explored below;
The division that exists between the profane and the sacred.
Here, the author “explores the relationship” between what is considered sacred and secular or profane in varying societies globally. Professor Siebert acknowledges that all religions underwent differing paradigm shifts, where the new religion overtook the previous one or assumed a new form. Furthermore, the professor identifies the deep antagonism between the “sacred” religion and “profane” secularism, which has increased in the west due to modern scientific advancement and enlightenment which attacked religious mythologies.
The contradiction depicted between nature and man.
In his book, Professor Siebert explores the antagonistic relationship between man and nature, noting that the advent of modernity and globalization has only served to widen the gap. With capitalism encouraging commoditizing and extreme exploitation of natural resources, humanity has only become more predatory with the author theorizing that maybe Nature is avenging herself against man and his aggressive form of “civilization” through epidemics and other incurable diseases such as AIDS and cancer.
Active hostility between the genders.
According to Siebert, the Critical Theory of Religion is painfully aware of the patriarchal domination of most societal sectors of life, with many religions advocating for the superiority of the male gender over women. However, the author states that he does not support for a romantic regress to pre-patriarchal and matriarchy led religions, he feels much sympathy for the feminist struggle and he stands for equality between all genders.
The isolation between the generations.
According to Siebert, the discourse at Dubrovnik did not critically analyze religious factors alone, but “they also gave much attention to the generational issue that is prevalent in the modern days’ society.” He notes that, after the war, the student movements of the time were annihilated and reabsorbed into what Max Weber identified as the iron age of capitalism. He notes that every generation mostly prefers the “old ways” while the new generation of their sons and daughter preferred a new mode of seeing and doing things.
The paradox that exists between the races.
Professor Siebert, being a widely read and experienced man, painfully acknowledged the tragic role of race in many of humanity’s strife and conflict. He also notes that at the Dubrovnik discourse, the critical theorists of religion were also aware of the deep involvement of religion in the conflict between the races. While accepting the real diversity of the races, the author notes that physiologically, humanity is the same, with no distinct differences between the different races are not different species. Finally, he pointed out that despite being divisive, religion could also act as a catalyst for racial reunification.
A form of hostility between the nations.
Quoting Horkheimer again, Siebert notes that he had the know-how of love and hate. For instance, he knew that he loved his wife but hated the “honorable and “dignified’ nationalists who were bloodthirsty, eager to wage bloody wars in uniforms while acting as social judges of morality while encouraging cruelty and domination of other people, who only happened to be on the wrong side of the border. Professor Siebert also notes that nationalism cannot have any form of ethics that govern its narrow and divisive ideology. Furthermore, he also notes the crucial role of religion in promoting and ending nationalism.
The profound difference between the person and the human population.
The author acknowledges the need for self-actualization and for the needs of the individual to be paramount and them to be reconciled with the needs of the “human collective.”
The difference between the classes in the society.
During the Dubrovnik discourses, the professor was enlightened and realized that the theorist of religion did not forget to highlight one of the significant struggles that have much of humanity’s so-called “civilization,” the class conflict. The fight between the wealthy and the poor for centuries utilized religion to help in the fight, with the rich, often using religion to oppress and subjugate the weak.
The fight for the Right and Left.
When the author was addressing the present conflict of people who were considering themselves sacred and the unreligious people, he notes that the fight between “the bourgeois right and the socialist left” has defined much of human interaction and behavior for a long while. He notes the Right considered religious mythologies to be historically factual, with the left considering religion to be just mythical. Siebert additionally notes that both the right and the left opted to adopt Hegel’s philosophies as they saw fit.
The tension and strain present between social order and progress.
Another critical conflict that Siebert covers is the constant rumbles and struggles between the bourgeois social order of the modern society and the “progressive socialist revolutions.” The author quotes Karl Marx who felt that “it was good reason to identify the forces that were productive as a primary category of social change.” He also notes that scholars involved in the theory had a feeling of religion being “highjacked” by the private bourgeois class, but along with technology and public debate, it can be a catalyst for social progress and dynamism in the modern society.
The conflict between the personality of authority and the revolutionary personality.
In this section, Professor Siebert notes of the differing personalities prevalent in humanity, with a fight between the dominant authoritarian and the rebellious personality. He observed that, often, the “authoritarian personality” had traits that drew back to the gender differences. Horkheimer’s concept of good and bad religion, which either abolishes or maintains the status quo.
The struggle between the person and the consciousness and the collective subconscious.
Professor Siebert acknowledges the important work of Sigmund Freud, who highlighted the squabble between the conscious and subconscious of a person. He notes that “Freud and Jung agreed apart from the individual there existed a pooled subconsciousness.” Furthermore, he states that Jung felt that modern man was in strife since he was unable to reconcile the personal subconscious with the collective. Finally, Siebert agrees that the critical theory of religion shares Freud’s Enlightenment vision that was all about “knoti se auton!” (Knowing yourself!).
13. Conflict of memory, language ability and the evolution of work and tool.
One of the last conflicts that Siebert explores is the current tension which Hegel identified as the grapple between human potential based on our grasp of language along with increased memory capacity against the evolutionary ethics of hard work and tool adoption. The theory agrees that much of humanity’s civilization was determined more by the capability of work and tool performance with rational thought and decisive action serving as foundations. However, he theorizes that humankind’s advocacy for language and memory in the modern society was more likely to result in alternative future 1.
14 . The wrestle between the community and the nation.
Lastly, Siebert identifies the continuous grapple that existed between state and society in a conflict that was always resulting in more antagonism. He notes that Hegel was aware of the continuous intervention by the state into class conflict, with religion playing a significant part too. He notes that due to this antagonism, the bourgeois class was driven by its class antagonism into more conflict, manifested in colonialism, imperialism, and other global issues.
Finally, Siebert notes that, only by resolving this antagonism, can the society together with religion attain the desired future alternative, the utopian Future III, where there exist the unity and reconciliation of both, with respect for both the individual and the human race as a whole being paramount. The leading thinker, who is Max Horkheimer, posits various ideas that can help resolve the various antagonisms that humanity struggles with. However, it should be well known that only the central thinker has no ability to address or providing solutions to the challenges. Every aspect of human life must radically shift with an emphasis on the well-being of both the individual and the collective being paramount regardless of any variables, such as ideology, gender, race and other divisive factors. Throughout the book, Professor Siebert can be clearly seen as an advocate for the third option despite the obvious hurdles.