Page 156 - Key Words in Religion Media and Culture

Practice 139

by literate men. Coining such phrases as “lived religion” (Hall 1997) and
“domestic religion” (Sered), scholars of a wide variety of religions have
gravitated to the concept of practice as a tool for not simply developing
a new analytic approach to their data, but for instigating an intervention
that would reshape what counted as legitimate sources, methodologies, and
topics in the study of religion more generally (Lopez 1999; Maffly-Kipp et
al. 2006; Hoover and Clark 2002).
An early contributor to the concept of practice was Karl Marx, whose
notion of “praxis” sought to bring together thought and action at two
levels. Defining practice as “sensuous, human activity” (McLellan 1977:
1
156) that was the ground of thought, social relations, and change, Marx
argued that any analysis of human activity needed to place it in the context
of social relations that were deeply conditioned not just by ideas but by
material conditions. Under capitalism, Marx argued, whichever group of
people (or class) controlled the making and selling of commodities had
substantial power over those who did not have such resources (or capital).
At the same time, the dominated classes maintained some power based in
their own labor—or more broadly, their own practices. Arguing against an
intellectualist view of history that saw ideas as the primary motor of social
change, Marx asserted that “social productive forces are produced not only
in the form of knowledge but also as the direct organs of social practice; of
the real life process” (McLellan 1977: 381; italics added). Religion, according
to Marx, grew out of and mirrored the social practices of human beings: “All
social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism
find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of
this practice” (157). Practice—sensuous human activity—was the starting
point of all critical analysis for Marx and, more specifically, the starting
point for critically analyzing religion in particular. 2
Marx argued that praxis was not simply a conceptual tool meant to clarify
the social world around us, and he charged social critics with their own
fusion of thought and action—“the philosophers have only interpreted the
world, in various ways; the point is to change it” (McLellan 1977: 158).
The prescriptive, activist flavor to Marx’s praxis shaped the later concept
of practice, which held the promise of bringing to scholarly attention the
lives of those ignored by traditional scholarship and thereby contributing
to the transformation of the social structures and practices that colluded in
their oppression. In media studies, the legacy of Marx’s practice has been
especially fruitful for scholars analyzing the ways in which various forms
of media—whether advertising, entertainment, or state-run broadcasting—
have shaped and been shaped by the material conditions of capitalism (e.g.
Lears 1994; McClintock 1995). Taking a page from these studies, analyses
of religion and media could benefit from more attention to the material