Religious Traditions and Social Boundaries: How Body Politic Metaphors Shape Community Policy

Sickness and Health in the Body Politic: Religious Traditions of Social Boundaries, Justification, and Policy Allison K. Ralph, Ph.D. Research Fellow October 2023rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization © 2023 The Center for Faith, Identity, and Globalization. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Center for Faith, Identity, and Globalization (CFIG). Please direct inquiries to: The Center for Faith, Identity, and Globalization 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 T (202) 429-1690 E cfig@rumiforum.org This publication can be downloaded for free at https://www.rumiforum.org/cfig. Limited print copies are also available. To request a copy, send an e-mail to cfig@rumiforum.org. Disclaimer The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the official opinions or positions of the Center for Faith, Identity, and Globalization (CFIG), its members, or its inspiration. Any content provided in this research was not sponsored by any religious or ethnic group, organization, nation-state government, company, or individual. The prescriptions made in this publication and the facts presented therein are not meant to detract from the political neutrality of the CFIG and are incorporated only insofar as the integrity of that political neutrality is not compromised. The reader is encouraged to arrive at his or her own conclusions and interact firsthand with sources and information presented in this research. The reader is also encouraged to understand that the views presented hereafter are those of the author and fellow collaborators and that the condition of facts presented is complex, dynamic, and ever-changing. Thank you for your assistance in acknowledging and helping to preserve the political neutrality of the CFIG while allowing it to support the research of its fellows, associates, and contributors. rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization Sickness and Health in the Body Politic: Religious Traditions of Social Boundaries, Justification, and Policy Allison K. Ralph, Ph.D. Abstract The social body, also known as the body politic, is a compelling root metaphor for creating social boundaries, justifying them, and prescribing policy. Body politic rhetoric draws on ancient religious, philosophical, and cultural understandings of what causes disease. Two primary ways of answering that question, or disease etiologies, lead to different policy outcomes. 1) Invasion etiologies stress internal community purity and boundary control. 2) Harmony etiologies stress careful management of diversity through differentiated, usually hierarchical, roles. This paper explores the effects of these etiologies of disease through three case studies of religious and cultural traditions of the body politic and their modern policy outcomes. The most extensive investigation is on the Christian communities, but South Asian and Chinese traditions and policies are also briefly highlighted. In all three case studies, the etiology of disease shaping local body politic traditions has had profound ongoing effects on modern policy. Keywords: Body Politic, Metaphor, Invasion, Harmony, Body of Christ, Rhetoric 1 rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization Table of Contents Abstract 1 1.Introduction 3 2.Disease or Unity in the Social Body 4 3.Members, Disease, & Harmony – Rhetorical Tropes of the Body 8 4.Boundaries, Safety, & Policy 9 4.1 Boundaries 9 4.2 Justification 10 4.3 Policy 11 5.Religious Traditions of the Body as Society 12 5.1 Ancient Greco-Roman and Mediterranean Traditions 13 5.2 Christian Traditions 15 5.2.1 Body of Christ 16 5.2.1.1 Invasion 16 5.2.1.2 Harmony 17 5.2.2 Cyprian of Carthage and the Shift to Harmony 18 5.2.3 Roman Catholic Hierarchy and Harmony 20 5.2.4 Protestantism and Purity 21 5.2.5 American Body Politic 23 5.2.5.1 Islam as Cancer and the “Muslim Ban” 23 5.3 Hindu and Chinese Traditions 24 5.3.1 Hindu Traditions 25 5.3.2 Chinese Traditions 26 Conclusion 27 Bibliography 28 2 rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization 1. Introduction umans are a social species. Whom to include or exclude in our communities, why, and what to do about it are perennial human problems. Constantly forming groups and sub-groups gives us our sense of belonging, of being “in,”... but always by keeping “them” out. Many fields of work attend to inclusion and exclusion – intergroup contact theory and other wings of sociology and psychology , hate crimes studies and prevention work, movements creating empathy, and a multi-billion-dollar diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) industry. 1 However, one familiar frame profoundly shapes how people form groups that none of these fields consider: the root metaphor of the social body. The social body, or body politic, is frequently used to visualize society and its boundaries. Metaphors might not seem powerful, but the science of cognitive linguistics argues otherwise. Theory in this field says that humans create their reality through metaphors, which make incomprehensibly complex ideas accessible through simpler concepts. That theory also says the metaphor we start with is often the metaphor we are stuck with. So, we tend to provide 2 solutions to a metaphorical construction of the problem rather than the objective problem. Just for example, out of endless literature on these topics: Intergroup contact theory: Loris 1 Vezzali and Sofia Stathi, eds., Intergroup Contact Theory: Recent Developments and Future Directions (2017). Hate crimes studies: Aaron T. Beck M.D, Prisoners of Hate: The Cognitive Basis of Anger, Hostility, and Violence (2000). Movements for empathy: “Home,” Empatico. DEI industry: “Global Market for Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) to Reach $24.3 Billion by 2030,” Yahoo Finance. Donald A. Schön, Generative Metaphor: A Perspective on Problem-Setting in Social Policy 2 (1993); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980); Tim Cresswell, Weeds, Plagues, and Bodily Secretions: A Geographical Interpretation of Metaphors of Displacement (1997). 3 rumiforum.org/cfig ...humans create their reality through metaphors, which make incomprehensibly complex ideas accessible through simpler concept s.” Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization Finally, while every individual can use the body metaphor to envision their ideal society and advocate for it, only some have the power to enact those boundaries. So, it is worthwhile to examine the root metaphor of the social body and the ways that its themes, such

Social Policy 2 (1993); George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980); Tim Cresswell, Weeds, Plagues, and Bodily Secretions: A Geographical Interpretation of Metaphors of Displacement (1997). 3 rumiforum.org/cfig ...humans create their reality through metaphors, which make incomprehensibly complex ideas accessible through simpler concept s.” Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization Finally, while every individual can use the body metaphor to envision their ideal society and advocate for it, only some have the power to enact those boundaries. So, it is worthwhile to examine the root metaphor of the social body and the ways that its themes, such as disease, contamination, or harmony in the body, are used to decide who is in or out of a group, why, and what to do about it. To do so, I first offer some examples to show how the body metaphor viscerally justifies social policy. I go on to describe some rhetorical tropes and how they define community boundaries, provide justification, and prescribe policy. I then give a short history of the religious roots of this metaphor from several diverse global traditions and how these traditions influence religious and political policy. Because my training is in Christian history, I focus on those traditions, but I point to two other traditions to encourage further exploration of these issues. 2. Disease or Unity in the Social Body Members of the public who have been chosen for reeducation have been infected by an ideological illness. They have been infected with religious extremism and violent terrorist ideology, and therefore they must seek treatment from a hospital as an inpatient. ... If we do not eradicate religious extremism at its roots, the violent terrorist incidents will grow and spread all over like an incurable malignant tumor. – Chinese Communist 3 Party (CCP) radio message This pestilence [communism] will ask no man’s permission to put an end to the democracies ... there must be an immunization of the people against this poison while the international carrier of the bacillus must itself be fought. Only when this Jewish bacillus infecting the life of peoples has been removed can one hope to establish a cooperation among the nations which shall be built up on a lasting understanding. – Adolf Hitler 4 Sigal Samuel, China Is Treating Islam Like a Mental Illness, The Atlantic (2018). 3 Haig A. Bosmajian, The Magic Word in Nazi Persuasion, (1966). 4 4 rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization We are facing another ‘ism,’ just like we faced Nazism, and fascism, and imperialism and communism, ... This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised. – Michael Flynn 5 Trump Is a Cancer in American Politics: Only Indictments Can Treat the Disease. ... If you doubt that the sickness has metastasized, consider that the Republican National Committee censored Republican Senator Liz Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger for serving on the January 6th Committee that is investigating the insurrection, ... The Department of Justice (DOJ) is key to excising Trumpism from our body politic. ... Without indictments in the near future, Trumpism will continue to spread throughout American politics. – The Santa Barbara Independent 6 Each of these four quotes epitomizes the use of the social body metaphor to establish: 1) Boundaries – who should be out of a society; 2) Safety – why some people are safe or dangerous; and 3) Policy – what to do about it. 1) Each statement establishes boundaries by defining some individual, group, and/or idea as a dangerous and spreading sickness: Uighur Muslims, Communism and Jews, “Islamism,” and Donald Trump and his supporters. 2) They each state why that individual, group, or idea is dangerous: violent terrorist incidents will spread, Communism or Jewishness will destroy civilization, Islamism is implied to be opposed to democracy, and the breakdown of democratic processes as epitomized by the January 6th insurrection will spread. Andrew Kaczynski, Michael Flynn in August: Islamism a ‘vicious cancer’ in body of all Muslims 5 that ‘has to be excised,’ CNN (2018). Robert H. Sulnick, Trump Is a Cancer in American Politics, The Santa Barbara Independent 6 (2022). 5 rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization 3) Each argues for some policy outcome, stated or implied. The first two are fully 7 actualized examples: Uighur Muslims have been segregated and “reeducated” in ways intended to erase their culture and belief systems, and Jews and Communism were destroyed like a “bacillus,” meaning that Jews and Communists were murdered en masse. The last two are incomplete in that the policy outcome has not been fully enacted: the cancer of Islamism has to be “excised” or destroyed, and Trump-style politics must be “excised” through the legal system. Each of these examples uses the body and related metaphors of disease to exclude certain people. On the other hand, the body politic metaphor can also be used powerfully to create a deep sense of belonging. Inclusive body rhetoric also tends to reiterate social norms as the “why” of the statement and even policy implications. Two quick examples: Before the arrival of European settlers, five Indigenous nations made peace after a time of war, encouraged by the Peacemaker. The Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca agreed to end their fight, uniting the five tribes into a whole, with each maintaining a unique role. For examples of other policy outcomes, see, e.g., Cresswell, Weeds, Plagues, and Bodily 7 Secretions, (1997). 6 rumiforum.org/cfig Each of these four quotes epitomizes the use of the social body metaphor to establish: 1. Boundaries – who should be out of a society; 2. Safety – why some people are safe or dangerous; and 3. Policy – what to do about it. Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization When the peace was made between the 5 nations, the Peacemaker told us to think of us all living together under one longhouse. Just like a longhouse, every nation will have their own council fire to govern their

see, e.g., Cresswell, Weeds, Plagues, and Bodily 7 Secretions, (1997). 6 rumiforum.org/cfig Each of these four quotes epitomizes the use of the social body metaphor to establish: 1. Boundaries – who should be out of a society; 2. Safety – why some people are safe or dangerous; and 3. Policy – what to do about it. Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization When the peace was made between the 5 nations, the Peacemaker told us to think of us all living together under one longhouse. Just like a longhouse, every nation will have their own council fire to govern their people. But they will govern their people under one common law, one heart, and one mind. 8 In 1977, the U.S. Special Assistant to the President addressed the Board of the UN Children’s Fund, pledging increased U.S. support and urging other nations to follow. The nations of the world must acknowledge their interdependence and join together to dedicate their minds, their hearts, and their talents to the solution of those problems which threaten the survival of us all. ... We must establish a world order of peace, justice, and compassion in which we acknowledge that we are one body of people with shared problems dependent on one body of resources. 9 In both cases, defined boundaries include the five Indigenous nations or all nations in the Board council, social health is defined by inclusivity and collaboration of these nations, and policy is recommended on these bases. As these few examples show, the idea of the social body powerfully influences community understanding of who in the corporate body is dangerous or safe, why, and what to do about it. To dive more deeply into how this rhetoric works, we must review the extensive sets of language or rhetorical tropes associated with it. A beaded belt, showing five separate symbols united in a line gives a visual representation. 8 This text is a modern description of that visualized unity based on the oral tradition. Hiawatha Belt, Onondaga Nation,(2014). Peter G. Bourne, Bourne Speech to UN Childrens Fund Board, Annual Meeting of the 9 Executive Board of the United Nations Children’s Fund, (1977). 7 rumiforum.org/cfig “...the idea of the social body powerfully influences community understanding of who in the corporate body is dangerous or safe, why, and what to do about it.” Nicholas Berente, Agile Development as the Root Metaphor for Strategy in Digital Innovation, 10 (2020). For more information on the technical terminology of body rhetoric here, see Allison K. 11 Ralph, The Functions of Homonoia in the Rhetoric of Constantius II: Persuasion, Justification of Coercion, Propaganda, (2019). 8 rumiforum.org/cfig Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization 3.Members, Disease, & Harmony – Rhetorical Tropes of the Body The social body is simply the aggregate of people in a population. It is also a root metaphor, “a taken-for-granted system of language that shapes how we think about a phenomenon.” 10 Most Western uses of social body language can be traced to Greco-Roman culture. However, the concept is so intrinsic to the embodied human experience that similar metaphors have emerged independently in cultures worldwide. The social body root metaphor uses extensive networks of related rhetorical tropes. 11 Some of these are obvious: the leader is the head, individuals are members or limbs of corporate bodies, and we speak of social ills that need a social cure. “Some of these [rhetorical tropes] are obvious: the leader is the head, individuals are members or limbs of corporate bodies, and we speak of social ills that need a social cure.” Other tropes are less overtly anthropomorphic, including concepts of social purity or contamination, thought contagion, concern over boundaries, and interest in harmony or unanimity. Even these non-anthropomorphic terms of balance and harmony were historically understood to apply to the body so that the traditions of meaning are rooted in the same issues and function rhetorically in the same ways to justify social policy. The social body is also complex in ways that are intuitive to our embodied experience. We quickly recognize the body’s porous, changeable, and vulnerable nature. We also recognize its sub-units, organs or limbs, that have their own uses and boundaries that might be further subdivided. Center for Faith, Identity and Globalization This complexity suits the reality of human social life where a population is subdivided by differences like caste, religion, behavior, or just by specific interests. Each subgroup also tends to control its boundaries. But unlike the human body, the social body is profoundly always a united whole and a separable collection of individuals, each of whom might influence the whole. 4.Boundaries, Safety, & Policy Body politic language allows anyone to envision their own social body and argue persuasively for it. Some people have more power than others in making or enforcing those visions of: 1)Boundaries – who is in or out of their community 2)Safety – why people are safe or dangerous 3)Policy – what to do about it. 4.1 Boundaries Social boundaries can be constructed of almost any difference, including immutable characteristics like race, ethnicity, or national origin. Social boundaries can also be based on whether individuals believe or do certain things—like believing Catholic doctrine or Communist ideology on the one hand or doing things like stealing or disruptively protesting on the other. Subgroups have their own in-group fights over boundaries as well. Social boundaries are profoundly important to human well-being. We are social animals, and the fields of psychology, anthropology, and sociology note the pull for any group of individuals to develop a set of rules for who gets to be “in,” and then to protect those boundaries instinctively and at personal risk. This is called “groupiness.” 12 This is not to suggest that social boundaries are important to humans because of the social body root metaphor. Rather, the metaphor provides a universally available way of imaginatively constructing those boundaries. Rachel Kranton, Matthew Pease, and Seth Sanders, Deconstructing bias in social 12 preferences reveals groupy and not-groupy behavior, (2020). 9 rumiforum.org/cfig 1)Invasion: