The question is, how do we engage our spirituality as a space of the internal rather than as an object harnessed by the external–by institutions like religion and education?
and that every action taken in the name of our interconnection
–every action that brings us closer to ourselves, to each other, to the plants–
births a better world.”
by Syracuse Cultural Workers (the week of August 11-17)
*
*
THE INTERNAL, THE EXTERNAL & INSTITUTIONS^
Some of us struggle to understand how the internal (spirituality) is relevant to so-called “real-life” and not as an exclusively institutional matter. I’m using the phrases “the internal” and “the external” to distinguish “spirituality” from “religion”, the latter being an institution not a relationship (though we have relationships to institutions). Institutions of Government, Religion, Education, and Marriage are interrelated or networked, meaning that they function one within another (i.e. Marriage is officiated by Government and Religion; Government and Religion conduct Education).
Unlike institutions, the internal is a space from which active listening or learning happens, not passive hearing that fosters formulaic behavior. Consider some examples: Prophet Jeremiah of the ancient Hebrews straining to hear the voice of Yahweh as a whisper at the mountaintop, their exchange revolving around Jeremiah’s community; Quaker-founding-father George Fox identifying “the light” within every person as God, opposing the Middle-Aged Catholic and (at the time, newborn) Protestant doctrine that divine access happens under steeples.
Listening-as-learning is a position of reception that facilitates participatory perception, a process through which knowledge “happens” in relationship. Such listening may be directed at an ancestor in Santeria; nature in Wicca; the Tree of Life in the Qaballah, or the World Tree (Yggdrasil) in Norse or Teutonic mythology; the Goddess and the God in Celtic mythology; journeying in astral projection and shamanism. Yet such an exchange is impossible when one is closed to possibility, when a person’s space of the internal is fixed in a place, i.e. an institution.
As (external) networked places occupying spaces, institutions indoctrinate the internal–one’s spirituality or knowledge. By “occupying” the internal–a space moving between various places, institutions affix relationships and the knowledge informing them. Related to my 4-Aug column, institutions render knowledge as absolute or capital-T Truth rather than curiously seeking knowledge as lower-case-t truth.
COLLISIONS
For the vocabulary at hand, I draw upon a certain convergence of moments: the colliding of my spirituality or knowledge (the internal) with institutions (the external) of Religion and Education, particularly Protestant White Middle-Class Church (discussed in 4-Aug post) and Academe.
As I attended church and graduate school at a nearby university at the same time, practices collided philosophies within these institutions. I came to regard knowledge as possibility (or curiosity, or listening-as-learning), which interrupted my reception of formulaic lessons about the Bible. Neither context of pulpit or small study group shifted the institutional position of absolute certainty, such as “salvation in Christ” based upon a closed – or (de)finite – knowledge.
Simultaneously, I observed academics hacking certain words from spiritual frameworks of texts they regarded as foundational. Individuals focusing on economic justice from the work of Christianity-inspired Paulo Freire and on indigenous feminist invention from the work of spiritually engaged Gloria Anzaldua, more often than not, outright ignored the spirituality basic to each author’s body of work. In such circles, spirituality ironically was anathema to (de)finite knowledge valued by academe.
And I wasn’t alone in these observations. (Hey you’s, hope you share your thoughts on the blog!) Conversations with academics who were or had been attending Church also recognized the patterns. Yet none of us made it a matter of our “work” within either institution to expose these conflicts. Some of us attended one or both institutions or none. Apparently, institutions daunted all of us to the point that our negotiations “happened” within ourselves – the internal, our spirituality, our knowledge.
LISTENING-TO-LEARN
In my case, separation from both institutions occurred: I left one, and the other really booted me (another story for another column). Not all the dust has settled, but I made peace that pursuing knowledge, or spirituality, requires independence from institutions and their fixations.
Meanwhile, I haven’t abandoned the external, as in institutions. Fewer years apart from (Protestant White Middle-Class) Church and (U.S.) Academe than within them reminds me: there is ample opportunity to listen anew to ongoing collisions of practice and philosophy.
Overall, institutions are fixed upon capital-T Truth and conformity, which yields denial and vanity (selfishness), while lower-case-t truth offers growth in openness and humility. On this journey, answers are not dead ends but intersections. I hope to keep moving in the curiosity of questioning. How about you?
^NOTE: This conversation is an attempt to rearrange my thoughts into a coherent fashion, drawing upon my familiarity with certain theories about knowledge (or epistemology), institutions, and spirituality. By no means do I wish to reinvent the wheel or mean to present myself as doing so. And if you stick around, in time coherence may evolve into cogency!
*********************************************************************
Breaking the Silence is a series of essays by Melissa Dey Hasbrook. The series’ concept is explained here: What Do You Think?.
Post updated: 28 January 2009.
Spirituality & Religion II by Melissa Dey Hasbrook is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
