Celebrity worship... just a phase?

When reading and learning about celebrity worship I began to think about many people are just going through a phase and how many people actually suffer from a obsession they can't, and possibly don't want to, get rid of. I think that the age of the fans and type of celebrity being worshiped affects if the worship is temporary or permanent. For example, the young teenage girls who obsess over Justin Beiber would possess many of the qualities that celebrity worshipers have, but does this mean that they are automatically classified as people who use celebrities as a religion? I believe that you need to be of a certain age and maturity to be classified as a 'celebrity worshiper' rather than a 'fan who worships a celebrity.' For teenagers, being obsessed with a celebrity figure is just a part of growing up- we almost all have a list of celebrities we were obsessed with, and even worshiped in a sense. For example, during grade 9 and 10 I absolutely loved 'My Chemical Romance,' in particular the singer Gerard Way. I not only used their music to give me hope and direction in life but also looked to images, videos, and articles about them for this purpose. I was obsessed for a time, but this does not mean that I was a celebrity worshiper in any way- for me, it was a phase. If I was still like that now I think it might be a different story. My point is that people should be careful at labeling celebrity worshipers, as idolising celebrities can be a positive part of growing up, developing your interests, and connecting with others who feel the same way. As long as it does not become a permanent part of your life that stops you from being your true self I feel that a little celebrity worship can't hurt!



Image: http://music.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=728188&showcomments=true

Celebrity and Religion

In his article 'Celebrity and Religion' (2007) Chris Rojek opens the readers eyes to just how excessive a fans devotion to a celebrity can be, so much so that it becomes a religious relationship for them. One of the most startling points Rojek raises is that obsessive individuals can begin to imagine sexual relations with the celebrity, even when being intimate with their own partner (Rojek). This not only affects their ability to emotionally and physically engage with their partner, but makes them become trapped in a delusional world which will never be real for them. At least organised religion offers people hope and faith throughout their whole lives; what happens when a celebrity someone worships religiously dies or ends their career? This could leave the 'believer' feeling helpless and as if the person they put their faith in has let them down. Rojek asks if we should postulate the connection between celebrity culture and religion. To help readers answer this question he looks into the secularization theory. He approves the theory, yet points out that it exaggerates the extent of how religion has been replaced by scientific modes of thinking (Rojek). An interesting point he brings up is how celebrity worship is not the only form of religious thinking which is culture-based. Other examples, some of which are culture-based; some nature-based, are spectator sports, animal rights campaigns, and ecological movements (Rojek). Rojek references Neal Gabler, who ascertains that celebrity religion is overtaking organised religion due to the amount of written and visual sources on celebrity religion. Rojek believes that celebrity worship is dangerous. It causes people to seem superficial, trivial, and obsessive; this can affect their own life goals in many ways. Although celebrities may bring fans up with them they can also take them down. Celebrities can descend to the underworld and drag their fans with them (Rojek). 


Image: http://theschooloflife.typepad.com/the_school_of_life/2010/05/brett-kahr-on-celebrity-worship.html


Source: Rojek C. 2007. Celebrity and Religion. In S Redmond and S Holmes. Stardom and Celebrity: A Reader. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

The white parrots at UQ lakes

I love animals. It's a fact. Give me a kitten to cuddle and you won't see my happier. I have come to realise this is where my spirituality lies: it's what makes me...me! I was always an outdoors kid. The amount of pets I had deserve their own blog altogether. My love of all kinds of creatures has been etched into my heart since being a child, and this is why moments like seeing the white parrots at UQ make me feel content, in the moment, glowing, and in awe. That's spirituality for you. Isn't it? For me it is.

I caught the 109 bus the other week instead of the 412, so I had a bit of a walk (alone) from one side of campus to the other. I got off the bus and the first thing I heard was squawking (no, not I am not talking about the students). As I emerged from the path to the lakes bed I saw over 100 white parrots having a jolly ol' time by the side of the river. A circus had come to UQ- they rolled over one other, clawed at seeds, and swung backwards on dangling branches. People were scattered around taking photos of the birds. I found my own space, quite close to my new feathered friends, and felt happy, relaxed, and lucky to be in such a beautiful world. Take a look at them below... maybe they are there all the time, but I still think they're pretty special anyway. Here, take a peek...

Pop music is more than it seems

In his chapter 'Popular music, affective space and meaning' Christopher Partridge 
raises the point that there needs to be more of an "appreciation of music as a dynamic medium in the construction of social and personal identities" (Partridge 182). An interesting point Partridge brings up is the lack of research and theory about the practices of listening and dancing in response to music, its aural properties, and how music can aid in constructing one's self identity. Instead, the focus around music research is   towards analysing the musicians' religions and their lyrics. Music is real, full of emotion, and livid; it is only through such an understanding of music that one can begin to understand its cultural, personal, and religious significance--its affective space as Partridge explains it. Partridge writes about sociology, emotion, and popular music. The focus on popular music draws away from the opinion pre-1970s that the supposed effects of pop music are deduced from the music itself, as opposed to the affective space the music creates. Although popular music is a part of the everyday lives of people recreationally, for example via the radio or an IPOD, it is also a way in which agency and identity are created (Partridge). Partridge pushes the reader to take pop music seriously, as it is provides connections between social situations, identities, and beliefs. 


Image: http://summerwrites.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/pop-music/


Source: Partridge C. 2012. Popular Music, Affective Space and Meaning. In Lynch G. and J. Mitchell with A. StrhanEds., Religion, Media and Culture: A Reader. 182-193. London and New York: Routledge.

How can one word take on so much?

This course has opened my eyes to just how much can be defined as spiritual. I previously did not feel I was a very spiritual person, as I am not religious, but I now know that I find spirituality in other things: animals, the ocean, and writing to name a few.

Although I feel positive about my new-found enlightenment about what is spiritual to me, I still struggle to come to terms with how one word can sum up so much. Spirituality does not just mean religious views, but also everything in between. Does it mean that everything I am passionate about actually all lends back to my spirituality? My beliefs and what made me the way I am? I feel like the word spirituality has the world on its shoulders and could tip over at any moment.

One concern that I have with acclaiming that so much is in fact spiritual is that it does not leave room for much else. Or does it? For example, if I enjoy a sad song could that just be an emotional connection I feel with it, or is it spiritual? Or emotional and spiritual? But if it is in fact both do I feel spirituality from the emotions... or emotions from the spirituality? I am getting myself into a 'chicken or the egg' conundrum here...

Likewise, how about the ethical side to things. If I believe something is spiritual, then what right does someone have to say it's not? Correct? Yes. However, if something they deem to be spiritual is in fact the very opposite to what I believe spirituality is (for example, terrorism), am I to just accept that we are sharing the same word for such a different belief and purpose? I think the line here is that something can be un-spiritual to me, but not to another, and in that way our use of the word can be poles apart but still be relevant to our different beliefs.

All in all I love that I have found a more spiritual side to me in this course- I think I will just have to come to terms with how broad the term spirituality is. I will have to accept that it is different for everyone, and never claim that something should not be spiritual for someone else, even if it is not for me and I don't agree with it. Maybe one day I will discover just where my spirituality is rooted, but for now at least I know it is there.


Image:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1366&bih=624&tbm=isch&tbnid=x7s-UH6342plNM:&imgrefurl=http://www.uuworld.org/spirit/articles/23898.shtml&docid=8oZwxcItjUHMLM&imgurl=http://www.uuworld.org/spirit/articles/asset_upload_file177_23898.jpg&w=500&h=370&ei=sMGzT5aNKsSWiQf8qNS1CQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=757&vpy=147&dur=802&hovh=193&hovw=261&tx=195&ty=98&sig=104359019194838969665&page=1&tbnh=129&tbnw=187&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:78

Defining religion and spirituality

In their article entitled Spirituality and the re-branding of religion (2012) Jeremy Carrette and Richard King explore how religion and spirituality can not have one single definition as they are forever changing and function differently for each individual and society.The article opens ones eyes to the way spirituality can no longer be defined by one set term; it is used for personal fulfillment of individuals as well as for corporations (to promote corporate efficiency). Carrette and King bring to the fore another key point- that spirituality has become a cultural addiction and remedy for everyday perils. It is fascinating that spirituality has been adopted in so many ways, but there is a problem with  the lack of clarity surrounding the word spirituality and religion, as people try to define something that is ultimately undefinable. 


The definition of religion has been something mankind has obsessed about since the Enlightenment (Carrette & King). This is an interesting point, as it positions our own modern day questions about 'what is religion?' with those asked centuries ago. The article makes the reader consider that such a question can never have a conclusive answer, as different cultures and societies view religion in a different way. This is not only apparent through the different practices, beliefs, and traditions of religions, but in a political, economical, and corporate sphere too. There can be no definitive definition to religion and spirituality (Carrette and King). It is interesting, then, that religion has become so deconstructed and given names and values for its different uses. Humans want the definitive, and if this cannot be achieved they will find ways of filling in the gaps--this could be how spirituality has played such a big role in new-age and individualistic religion recently. 


One point that comes up in the article is that the religious and spiritual should not stand separately from social, political, and economic concerns (Carette and King). This is important as society often feels that religion trumps all, and can overwrite, for example, economic concerns. However, as religion and spirituality are intertwined with branches such as economics a neglect of the latter's importance could also be detrimental to the former. Carrette and King delve into the emergence of neo-liberalism and capitalist spirituality. They bring up the dilemma of people labeling such sectors as not 'true' or 'real' spirituality (Carette and King). This is problematical as if something is not 'true' spirituality, then it means something else is. If this is the case, then spirituality and religion would be able to be definitively defined. Because spirituality has woven itself with peoples everyday lives, so much that it is an obsession, one can not justly say that something is un-spiritual as spirituality is different for every individual--no ones daily lives are exactly the same, so how could their spirituality be exactly the same?

Carette and King make it clear that spirituality and religion can not be defined merely by their terms in the dictionary. The construction of each depend of the different individuals and societies, and what spirituality is to them. This is not only applied to the every-day person finding spirituality in their lives, but also in economics, politics, and corporations. 


Image:


http://www.spirituality.in/definitions-of-spirituality/


Sources:


Carrette J and R King. 2012. Spirituality and the Re-branding of Religion. In Lynch G. and J. Mitchell with A. Strhan. Eds., Religion, Media and Culture: A Reader. 59-70. London and New York: Routledge.

Sharing Poetry (and chicken with a possum)

Through an open window the smell of tasty chicken grabs the possum's attention.

My friend splits her stomach open and destroys the furniture with her ferocious laugh that thunders through the house.

The possum runs, herded by the natives, into my bedroom and out onto the balcony.

He eyes the banana tree, wondering if its too far, and timidly takes a leap of faith.

Potter- Panic

Danielle M. Soulliere's article Much Ado about Harry: Harry Potter and the Creation of a Moral Panic reveals the extent of the Potter debate over the last decade. Controversy stirred within Christian communities as various individuals and groups saw Harry Potter as a celebration of witchcraft and the occult. This created a moral panic that has labelled Harry Potter as offensive and out-of-bounds for many young readers.

Soulliere raises many significant issues in her article, but the problems that banning certain fantasy material from children could have been more readily addressed. For example, how can parents, educators, and religious critics and communities take a piece of fiction and blame it for executing a certain truth? The definition of fiction in itself shows that fictional novels do not convey the truth:

Prose literature, esp. short stories and novels, about imaginary events and people. Invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.

In Harry Potter the main message does not tell youth to worship the devil and perform magic, but encourages people to believe in themselves and always trust in your friends and family as love conquers all evils in life. If this is not a Christian message, then what is? Soulliere presents the idea that “even though these others (pro-Potter critics) have presented sound reasoning and evidence for their counter-claims that Rowling infuses Christianity into the Harry Potter books, anti-Potter critics have continued to maintain that the books are diametrically opposed to Christianity” (Soulliere 8). The mere fact that Harry Potter is a work of fiction and fantasy, as opposed to documentaries such as Zeitgeist which are vividly anti-Christ, re-works the definition of fiction. If fictional stories have to be molded to present a perfect engagement and respect for the world we live in, for example a worship of Christ, then a fantasy world can never be truly created for the reader.

The second point Soulliere could have incorporated into her article more is how Harry Potter encouraged (and still encourages) children to read who were previously disinterested in the world of fiction. Harry Potter allows kids and teenagers to escape from reality and explore a world which will teach them valuable life lessons that do in fact draw from a Christian world view as “Rowling has cleverly packaged a Christian story through the Potter tales by presenting a redemptive moral story that has Christian undertones, despite the series’ ostensive witchcraft wrapping.”

Image:

http://broknangelz.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/myth-of-harry-potter-devil-worshipers.html

References:

https://www.google.com.au/webhp?rlz=1C1PRFA_enAU435AU435&sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=sea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&sa=X&pwst=1&rlz=1C1PRFA_enAU435AU435&q=fiction&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&ei=l6NpT5uyDMiViAezkI2bCg&ved=0CCkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=ee2e20a284eabb8b&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1366&bih=624

Soulliere, Daniel. 2010. “Much Ado about Harry: Harry Potter and the Creation of Moral Panic.”Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 22 (1).

Week Three Reflective Piece- Finding Peace by UQ Lakes

While I was sitting outside next to the lake I was reminded of my childhood home, where there is a dam dotted with ducks and the odd paper-bark tree. I was relaxed by thinking back to the days I would spend catching fish in the dam and walking on tip toes-- trying not to startle the eels and turtles soaking up the sun in the shallows. I remember thinking about how if there was no paper I would always be able to use the soft bark from the paper-bark trees to write down my thoughts...

They are made of paper

And have tiny green fingers

Which are always relaxed.

They talk to each other; lean on each other.

The V of their many necks,

And long white arms

Stretch upwards

Like a yawn.

They are never tired, but always sleepy

They are never lonely, but always waving.

Insects burrow into their sides,

Leaving trails of stories.

Generations of moths sleep under

Their folds of white skin.

Lizards scuttle up their sides with tickling claws and

Birds laugh on their arms and sometimes

Make nests out of their hair.

But me, I sit beneath them

My legs getting imprinted with a mirage of sticks and leaves

And as I look at the paperbark-tree

I know I am home.

Image:

http://eddcross.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/some-wildlife-at-university-of.html

Birgit Meyers article Media, aesthetics, and the study of contemporary religion made me consider what makes a space sacred. I was also fascinated by the idea that "the disposition of the lonely individual in search of God is part and parcel of a discursive, and hence shared, cultural construction" (Meyer 159).

The above quote sparked my interest as I have always viewed religion as being flexible in the way an individual can choose to be a part of a religious community or, alternatively, search and connect with God in their own way. Meyer has made me realise that even an individual who may be struggling to find belief, or only ever embraces spirituality alone, is still a part of a large religious discourse and is connected to fellow believers- whether they are searching for answers in solitude or sitting in Mass with the community. This idea of being a part of something larger, even if you do not desire to be, is further shown by Meyer who states "without the particular social structures, sensory regimes, bodily techniques, doctrines, and practices that make up a religion, the searching individual craving experience of God would not exist" (159). This is something I am eager to explore further this semester as I tackle the question whether an individual can find religion without identifying with the masses and cultural constructions around their faith.

Meyer's discussion of sensational forms, a term I was previously unfamiliar with, made me think about what makes a space sacred. As I read the article I considered the role of the Church as a sacred space as opposed to the television box. Meyer revealed the importance of the Church as a sensational form as "they not only generate but also heat up and intensify religious feelings" (160). I feel Church is a sacred space as it brings devout individuals together, is a physical site of worship, and offers an escape from the outside world in order for communities and individuals to reach a state of spirituality. I find it difficult to understand how a television box can offer individuals the same connection with God; I am looking forward to learning about religion and media in this course so I can grow more of an appreciation of the television as a sensational form too. The reasons why I am apprehensive about the television as a sensational form is because I believe people will watch television as a pastime, and to relax and escape reality. If this is the usual attitude believers have to their TV set, how can they switch from watching shows for leisure to a religious service and still feel that the television box can be a sacred space, too?

Reference:

Meyer Birgit. 2012. "Religious SEnsations Media, Aesthetics, and the Study of Contemporary Religion". In G. Lynch and J. Mitchell. Religion, Media, and Culture: A Reader. London and New York: Roulhedge. (159-170).

Image:

http://www.hfreunion.org/InsideChurch.htm

Response to blog on low key religion

I would like to respond to the question do you think that a course covering the diversity of world religions, including contemporary spiritualities, is important?


YES. Although my family is not religious I was sent to a Catholic primary school and high school. I loved studying Studies of Religion as the history of religion and rituals and beliefs of different cultures fascinates me. It is understandable that not all children have the opportunity to be sent to a private school, where a religious education is a given, and I believe that public schools should consider this and make religious subjects more accessible and appealing to students.


I believe a course on World Religions is important for the following reasons:
1) It gives students a better understanding and appreciation of other cultures and how to respect peoples beliefs.
2) Religion is a major part of history and students deserve to not be left in the dark about world religions in the past and present.
3) It offers answers to questions students might have about religion that cannot be answered in any other environment, especially if they come from a family where one religion is considered to be correct and other religions are wrong or if they come from an atheist background where religious views are dismissed.


I am torn between whether students should have a right to decide not to attend classes on religion. Yes, I believe they should be offered as an elective but should there be a compulsory religion class, too? If the class is strictly about the history of religion and the practices of different world religions (that is, the class does not just solely look at Christianity) I feel a compulsory class could open the eyes of many students. If a religious dialogue is not available to students at home then they may never know how fascinating and important a knowledge of religion is until they are sat down at school and taught this.


Image:

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/susan-jacoby/faith-based-folly