On Religion, Cults and the Economy: Book Review of The Wealth of Religions

Ever since reading Max Weber’s The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, I have grown very interested in the link between religion and economy. When I received the offer to review the book The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro published by Princeton University Press, I did not waver: I was more than thrilled to accept. This book is not only filled with a wealth of knowledge and information, but it is also very timely and relevant as religion continues to have significant effects and influence on our mindset, lifestyle, and actions as well as political choices and decisions.

In his influential and ground-breaking book, Max Weber claims that religious beliefs encourage and foster certain characteristics, such as work ethic, honesty, and thrift, which then contribute to economic growth. The driving idea is that if people believe that they can improve their chances of a better afterlife and attain salvation, i.e. that they gain access to heaven instead of ending up in hell, they would embrace moral values more willingly and dedicate themselves more fully to work and career. These behaviors are then increased with the belief that idleness is sin and that God is watching and keeping count and score of each person’s thoughts and actions.

Furthermore, since for many believers, economic progress and success in this life signified and meant that they were blessed by God, it propelled them to further action. Not only did they accumulate wealth on Earth, but they assumed that they would be similarly increasing their spiritual worth in heaven. It became a religious duty to follow one’s vocation and to do one’s daily work and tasks, whether as a provider and regulator of the family, in one’s job or in the vicinity of the home.

The second book that is of great importance and influence for the authors of this work is Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, which looks at the world through an economic lens. This classic book is also in part responsible for the given title here, namely The Wealth of Religions, as religion is used and viewed as an economic item, commodity, and necessity. This also underscores that religion is not so much approached on its beliefs and dogmas, but rather it is analyzed on its effects and influences on wealth and economics.

When analyzing religion, researchers McCleary and Barro break it down into different belief categories: there are those who hold strong and steady religious beliefs, those who score moderately high on religious beliefs, the liminals, who sometimes embrace religion while at other times they do not do so, as well as the nones, who are not necessarily atheists – they may consider themselves spiritual or agnostic - but they do not have a clear association or relationship with a given religion.

In the United States, 70 % define themselves as strong believers, about 10 % never had a religious affiliation while 20% tend to be on the moderate liminal side. In fact, the number of nones is slated to be rising over the next years as most millennials tend to identify as such.

Nonetheless, there are certain trends and tendencies within the moderate groups of believers; for instance, some of them prefer to pick and choose aspects and elements of different religious beliefs, a kind of amalgam or mix and match that is referred to as religion à la carte. This belief system seems closest to my own modus operandi when it comes to religion: I do not fully commit to one religious group but appreciate and value parts of various religions across the board.

For someone like me who finds it difficult to embrace and swallow religious doctrines and ideology wholesale without the opportunity of doubting or questioning them, I find it rather surprising, if not disconcerting that a large majority of people not only embrace religion and its ritual practices but that they do so willingly and unwaveringly by accepting and adopting its imposed restrictions and limitations. This ranges from prescriptions or set rules on lifestyle, be it regarding the regulation of sexual activity, entertainment choices or personal appearance to certain restrictions on food items, such as pork, beef or meat in general to the practice of regularly scheduled prolonged fasting throughout the year.

Moreover, religion may also limit, if not completely ban certain beverages, such as alcohol and coffee. I often ask myself how and how come people accept to forgo such common practices and willingly implement into their daily lives such prohibitions, challenges and sacrifices that come with adhering to a given religion.

The economist Laurence Innacone proposes an interesting theory, which does not merely point to cases or instances of brainwashing, lack of will or simply following the herd or majority, but rather gives a plausible and reasonable explanation of the psychology behind adopting a religion. Surprisingly, if not shockingly, the mechanism and the psychological underpinnings of joining a major world religion and joining a radical sect and cult are not that different from each other. What they all have in common is that religious groups, regardless of ideology, essentially provide services for people to consume.

The stricter the goods, the more distinct the group becomes, and the more closely people shall identify with their own religion. For instance, certain types of clothing and looks, generally referred to as stigmata, make a group distinct and more easily identifiable, such as the Hare Krishna with their unique clothing and hairstyle, the Mormon businessman attire or Muslim women with their veiling. As a result, these religions manage to stand out and unequivocally communicate and profess their religion to others.

This adherence to and acceptance of rules and behaviors are similar to the “club model,” which tends to be inherently exclusive and restrictive; put differently, in order to become a member of and to pertain to a chosen club or religion, one needs to fulfill a number of prerequisites as well as engage and pass certain requirements. In fact, religious groups may endorse and enforce stricter requirements to ensure and ascertain that only a select few and dedicated individuals make the cut and become part of the group, a kind of elite carefully chosen from the crowd that are in turn given the distinction to represent the given religion.

While this process would instill pride and a sense of accomplishment within its chosen and accepted members, it would at the same time effectively discourage any “free riders” or less enthusiastic people from joining the group. In fact, requiring strict adherence and commitment only manage to elevate the religious experience of its members by creating a closer bond among the group and by increasing one’s feeling of separateness in terms of uniqueness, while at the same time providing personal satisfaction and a firm and strong sense of belonging and of being one and in harmony with the group.

Once one has managed to be inside a given group, acceptance by one’s fellow believers becomes paramount and more important than acceptance and approval by outsiders, i.e. those situated outside of the religious group, including family and friends. This was something I noticed in a Mormon church group I once attended at the behest of one of my classmates. People tended to dress and talk similarly, and they used to follow the doctrines of their church very closely, regardless of and immune to what non-affiliated friends or family members thought or may have thought about the issue.

For me, the idea of renouncing coffee seems unbearable and a huge sacrifice, but I was also alarmed about the lack of individuality, diversity, and openness on my first and only experience of their group. A place where everyone dresses, eats and talks the same is not an ideal place in my mind, but it was apparent that the church itself encouraged and fostered not only networking among its members but also dating and marriage within the group itself to enhance and strengthen the bonds with the religion and its doctrines.

Although ideologically different, the process between religious groups and cults and terrorist groups are not that different. Cults tend to physically - and later spiritually - separate individuals from their home and surroundings and undertake what is commonly referred to as brainwashing, a denial and rejection of one’s previous form and existence of life replaced with the full and unquestioning acceptance and adoption of the new lifestyle.

One’s focal point and indeed world have shifted and are now often solely and exclusively focused on the sect or cult itself; the chosen religious group provides and represents shelter, safety and clarity in the member’s mind as well as a promise of social networking, professional and spiritual growth as well as confidence and reassurance. In such cases, one’s religion often turns into an obsession, especially if outside voices and influences, such as access to the Internet, press and other viewpoints are being controlled and manipulated or have been silenced by the religious group.

In a similar vein, the Islamic rebel groups want to attract the most trustworthy and loyal prospective fighters; to identify them while minimizing defections, such radical groups make membership costly and difficult, especially by binding its members to strict religious codes that have no direct bearing on an individual’s fighting abilities. In return, members receive benefits, such as salary, material goods, insurance and medical care as well as support for one’s families, especially after instances of martyrdom.

When we see religion less as a set of philosophical and ideological beliefs but rather as a mixture of political conviction driven by economic need and necessity, we would see more similarities between major world religions and their radical offshoots. In either case, there are certain trade-offs when it comes to religion.

If we see religion as a rational choice, we may weigh the costs and benefits and then reach a decision whether a religion suits us more than others. In other words, we may choose or opt for a religion that brings us the most personal benefits, a kind of conscious utilitarian cost-benefit perspective. This would then work best in places where religion follows the market model and one can freely “shop” according to one’s personal needs and preferences.

However, matters are more complicated due to our surroundings. Some may grow up in families that raise them firmly steeped within a religious background and context while actively attending and participating in religious organizations, such as churches or schools. At the same time, some countries may even have a state religion that exclusively promotes and encourages its own respective brand.

Religious choice and practice are often related to and associated with whether an official state religion has been adopted or not and about 40 % of the world has an official state religion. As a rule, countries with high and low population tend not to have a state religion. When most people in a country belong to one and the same religion, the possibility of adopting it as a state religion is incidentally higher. This is the case in Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark and Sweden as well as in many Muslim countries around the world.

However, having a state religion is not automatically equated with higher religious engagement and participation. For instance, in the previously mentioned Scandinavian countries, religious activities are much lower than in their Muslim counterparts. Part of this is often due to the restrictions and regulations imposed upon the populace. This exists to a less restrictive extent with the existence of Blue Laws in which certain behaviors are discouraged or disallowed, such as the consumption of alcoholic beverages or shop closures during designated times and periods.

In many Muslim countries, in which religion has been tied more closely with political power and control, prohibitions are supported and enforced by the law. That would often lead to a complete ban of perceived secular activities, such as dancing at night clubs or the open and public consumption of alcohol; by reducing the choices and alternatives for entertainment within the populace, the residents will feel obliged to attend religious events and ceremonies.

Since there is a monopoly that is supported and reinforced by the state and there is no open market for religion, hence no other religion to choose from, the available resources and money of the government often go into non-secular education, which benefits that religious brand, hence shaping and modeling future adherents and members.

In the United States, there is no established state religion. Although American colonies used to have their own state religions, this practice was abandoned with the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Many Americans are still religious, but the country’s foundations and beliefs have favored the religion market model in which religion, like any other commodity, is allowed to compete with other religions, while education has officially attempted to remain neutral and secular in that regard.

As a result, the US has become an example of religious diversity, in which different sects and factions were given space to compete and to please their members with specific religious brands. Although this may equate religious offerings with selling brands of toothpaste, there is a certain truth to it as religions in the New World tended to be more fluid and flexible compared to more fixed and traditional countries and societies around the world.

According to the secularization hypothesis, an increase in income, education, urbanization, and life expectancy would lead to a decrease in religiousness both on an individual as well as state level. Although there is no clear indication that education reduces religiosity, there is evidence that as a country becomes richer, participation in religious activities as well as engagement in personal prayer tend to decrease.

In fact, economic development has often been tied to religious practices. When societies moved away from agriculture to the greater security of advanced, urbanized economies, religion did not play such an important role in people’s daily lives. This occurred mainly for two reasons. One, with greater economic security, people do not need to turn to supernatural powers and beings for assurance. In agriculture and agricultural societies, farmers are more vulnerable to natural disasters, floods, and droughts that may lead to the destruction of crops and harvests; hence, they would embrace religion for comfort and security. Even in modern times, rural societies tend to be more religious than their urban counterparts.

Secondly, as people lack a diversity of entertainment options, such as cinema, restaurants, night clubs and bars, they would spend their leisure time often in religious programs and activities. In the city, on the other hand, people would often be occupied and choose other preferred forms of spending their time at the expense of religious participation. Also, time becomes a precious commodity in urban areas as there are more commitments, tasks and chores, while in rural societies, people may have a more leisurely-paced lifestyle with fewer options and more time to spare.

Finally, being in a more diverse and active environment in which different nationalities, cultures and religions interact with each other, more flexible and more inclusive viewpoints are often adopted. People in urban settings tend to be more tolerant and accepting of different norms and practices than in rural settings where there is a general lack of opportunity to engage with people from different backgrounds and experiences.

This divide between rural and urban areas may be a decisive factor why the US still embraces religion despite its overall economic advances. It may also be the main reason why the country is segregated and divided on various issues finding itself at an important and decisive crossroad. Part of this may be generational, but another part is related to the growth of ethnic minorities; they are effectively changing the make-up and fabric of the country, and shall, alongside the millennials, affect and influence the outlook of the country.

The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro has been an eye-opening experience for me, while also providing stimulating information and food for thought. There are connections I had not previously seen between economics and religion, but it is important to acknowledge and be aware of this potential link and association. In fact, there are so many more interesting facts and tidbits that I have not been able to discuss here in this review, but I shall follow them up with an article on the history of religion, while trying to shed more light onto the connection between religion, education, and capitalism.

The Social and Political Destabilization of Western Democracy or Why I do not like Anarchy

Part of me has a certain affinity if not downright sympathy with anarchy and what it stands for. It is indeed the ultimate form of rebellion, the overturning of established political structures with a seemingly boundless expression of freedom and liberty. It promises a wholesale change, a revolution that takes out the old, stale, and corrupt and replaces that with invigorated ideals. It is the very opposite of The Who’s fear and concern that we would get fooled again as the new boss might be just like the old one.

And yet, I say that only part of me finds agreement because a larger part of me is in fact against anarchy and the expression thereof. While the violent act of smashing the established order may be cathartic, preservation of established law and its authority is the preferred choice. There is something about the Law that is appealing, fascinating and, most importantly, comforting in my mind. This may come as a result of my German upbringing, but I have a deep respect for rules and regulations provided they are fair and respectful to begin with.

I might sympathize, embrace and flirt with anarchy on ideological grounds; nonetheless, I generally dislike disobedience and destruction and shall remain married and committed to the harmonious promise of law and order. Anarchy might look like a romantic solution to one’s problems and it may carry with it the whiff and promise of an unrestrained boundless freedom, but in practice, I find it messy, of poor taste, and even inherently disrespectful. I much prefer order not in the sense or at the expense of stifling differing viewpoints and opinions, but more along the lines of everything falling into place, existing in relative and overall harmony and not interfering with or being damaging to other parts or beings.

I do not think that rules merely exist to be broken, but that rules are there to ensure harmony and stability across the board and for everyone involved, the same way traffic lights and signs precede and presuppose the smooth flow of traffic. In fact, rules are not to be broken but ought to be respected, again provided they make sense or have utility and that they are not only a means of controlling and subduing others. The Law ideally uses rules to create harmony and to ensure that democracy is upheld and that nobody's toes or any other body parts are hurt or trampled upon.

The Law is supposed to give structure and is ideally enforced by legitimate authorities; hence, the latter deserve our respect while they are following and applying the law equally and impartially. Corruption and abuse should be the exception and not the rule, so that the public and the citizens continue to trust and have faith in the authorities. Otherwise, mistrust, distrust and even rebellious acts could be fostered and encouraged to rectify the imbalance and moral void caused and left behind by misuse and abuse.

That said, we ought to tread most cautiously when it comes to rebellion and rebellious acts. It could lead to the proverbial throwing out the baby with the bathtub; if we are not careful, we might end up being worse off than before. We have evidence of this in various movements that have led to revolutions. In many of those cases, there has been violent uprising against and overthrow of the state and the status quo but at the expense of well-being, freedoms, and human rights.

Some revolutions were fought in the name of freedom and democracy, but often they would lead to tyranny and bloodshed. A coup d’état can have disastrous consequences and end up as totalitarian regimes. We may oust one leader but then inadvertently open the pathways to one who may be much worse.

The French revolution with its idealism of fraternity, equality and liberty was waged with unprecedented violence, resentment and cruelty upon the reigning nobility. The Iranian revolution replaced a monarch with an even more restrictive clergy; the Arab Spring revolution may have brought some positive and necessary changes in some countries, but in others, it led to bloodshed and more restrictions than before.

Currently, there are waves of dissent challenging governments and authorities. This is now on a global scale, not only in the Middle East and Latin America, but also in clearly established and generally robust democracies of affluent Western countries. This is an era that has given us Brexit, Trump, riots in France as well as spats, trade wars and ideological differences with China and Russia. In each of these cases, the authority, and worse, the legitimacy of the state and government has been put into question.

In cases where fresh blood is pumped into a tired, biased and unfair system, this could potentially represent a good thing; yet if it means overhauling something that has passed and endured the test of time, if it entails completely or largely rewriting constitutions and dispensing with pillars of freedoms and rights established in the codes and fabric of one’s nations, then we could be facing serious problems and issues.

It brings us back to the Law, not just as a compilation of rules and laws but as the state’s very foundation: it is the beating heart that with freedom of speech and freedom of the press shall ensure that we have a voice and that we are allowed to and continue to be allowed to speak and write our thoughts and minds.

 
Nonetheless, certain movements disguise themselves as being free and liberal-minded, when they are nothing of that ilk. In fact, they hide a hideous and cruel face. This is the promise of tackling corruption, of draining the swamp or making the country great again; this is waving the banner of equality or fighting climate change when the ultimate aim is to gain access and control of power; this is choosing and electing authoritarian-leaning individuals over democratic and fair-minded government representatives. This is not unlike national socialism that brought to power one who had touted law and order but who used that for his own benefit, namely to undermine and destroy the rights and freedoms of its people alongside all the other citizens of the world.

It is the duty and responsibility of the press to inform, but since humans cannot be entirely objective, we cannot expect their reporting to be either. Add to that, personal agendas of individuals and publishing companies combined with the need and desire to make money, and we will have distortions of mirrors within mirrors. But the main issue should be ethical integrity; the press ought to be at least ideologically if not financially independent from the state and should not merely represent the state’s interests or worse be its mouthpiece; the press should not engage in control nor should it feed its citizens rehashed propaganda and misinformation. 

This is where things have become more confusing and complicated since the advent of the admittedly ingenious term of “fake news” and “alternative facts.” First off, in an offbeat postmodern vein, these terms have been driven by the assumption that truth is subjective and open to interpretation. Now this may be true to a certain extent and more so in certain fields and domains than others, but facts are not debatable opinions and are not open for discussion. In fact, postmodern thinking has been put on his head in true Orwellian fashion.

Casting doubt upon this vital distinction between fact and opinion / wishful thinking while simultaneously and indiscriminately accusing the press of being a constant source of falsehood and misinformation, and worse, designating it as the enemy of the people is indeed a trademark move of dictators or wannabe dictators. However, when significant swaths of the population take these statements at face value, journalism becomes eyed and viewed as the supposed embodiment of fake media and becomes the breeding ground for suspicion; this, in turn, seriously undermines freedom of the press as well as democracy itself.

In fact, apart from books, universities and intellectuals, the entity of the press is a thorn in the side or a pebble in the shoe of every aspiring and conspiring dictator. The press if it is not merely praising their leader can and will question the legitimacy of the state and government. It is the real weapon for ensuring democracy, more so than the right to own guns.

Incidentally, gun ownership as per the US constitution was considered a potential safeguard against corrupt, ineffective and illegitimate governments and gave the people the choice to rise and stand up to the state; nonetheless, we should keep in mind that the pen is mightier and more effective than the sword or any other weapon for that matter.

A common trend nowadays is a mainstream acceptance of anarchy in its various shapes and guises. These ideas of anarchy generally tend to lead to the destabilization of democratic governments. Democracy may be imperfect and have its share of flaws, but it essentially guarantees people the right to choose the government they want.

The majority would choose the party or leader they would prefer to helm their country. Their choices may not be in the best interest of their own nation, and the majority can be wrong or make terrible decisions, yet this is the beauty of democracy, the will of the majority will be respected and followed upon.

Whether it is a Trump presidency or Brexit, it is the majority that has spoken. But there is a caveat. What if the decision of the people has been coerced and manipulated in ways unknown and imperceptible to them? What if the fake news is propagated by the very same people who wish to come to power? Or what if the aim is not so much to get certain people elected but to destabilize the nation at hand?

In fact, I was shocked to hear that on the day of Trump’s presidency there were two protests organized online by the very same entity: one that was supporting the president, the other that was opposing him. The goal may not have been to have that candidate in question as president but rather to have one that is seen as divisive and controversial and the seeds of doubt have been placed into the nation’s soul.

The current impeachment process follows similar lines. On one side, it is the constitutional right of politicians to free themselves from a president who has engaged in misdemeanors and felonies so long as it is based on substantial and credible evidence. As we speak, the Democrats have finally taken the measure and initiative to follow upon the impeachment of Trump.

It is their right to do so, and it should not be stifled as it is a guarantee encompassed and enshrined in the constitution. The process should not be mocked, ridiculed or dismissed by the accused but it should be taken seriously and be treated with respect as no one is or should be above the law.

Evidently, the guilty party would view trials with suspicion and mistrust and label them a priori as unfair and biased against them, even before a verdict has been proposed or reached. Doubting the result and outcome of trials before a verdict is reached is questioning the very fabric of the courts as an upholder of justice and democracy. 


Yet at the same time, the circumstances of the impeachment, however noble and justified, arise out of dubious circumstances. The fact that Trump is accused of overriding channels and overreaching and extending the laws and regulations of his office is a serious matter; the power of the commander-in-chief has to account for some necessary checks and balances to ensure that democracy is functioning unimpeded and the way it should. But since the spark or final straw was a matter of great personal importance to the political party itself, namely the proposed investigation of corruption of one of their own top candidates, i.e. Joe Biden in the upcoming presidential elections next year, it emits an unfortunate air of partisanship.

Put differently, if the Democrats had chosen to impeach the president much earlier on any other grounds and offences, they might have had a better standing and reputation with the public than with an incidence that has personally affected their hopes in the upcoming presidential election. Moreover, the fact that this whole initiative is merely symbolic in gesture and will be most likely defeated in the Senate, which is run by Republicans, undermines its sting and effectiveness.

Are the impeachment efforts then just mere showmanship? Is impeachment undertaken to gain favor with the voting public? Is it to ensure that their own candidate will be safe from onslaughts of accusations, justified or not? In the end, what we may end up with is the exact opposite. This right to impeach and remove a supposedly rogue president from office may backfire in the sense that it would only add to the destabilizing elements of the nation.

If the people alongside their own divided and divisive government cannot trust their own elected official at the top, what are we left with than chaos and anarchy? Would the real enemies of the state, those who reap discord and havoc in order to break up democratic foundations not come out as the eventual and veritable winners in this conflict? Would our democracy weather the storm or would it become an unfortunate victim or collateral damage to these onslaughts, which could potentially have disastrous consequences not for the nation herself but for the entire world?

In fact, the controversial and unprecedented presidency and its shocks and after-effects are not the only eroding tendency at work here. The Me Too movement started off as a credible, noble and respect-worthy endeavor of exposing those who commit atrocities and hide behind wealth and political influence. However, the recent bombshell that the women who initiated the movement have settled with the alleged perpetrator Harvey Weinstein has been a serious blow to their credibility as well as their motivations.

At the same time, the movement itself is getting out of hand and out of control and is now blindly and haphazardly attacking men with accusations that do not always stand up in court. That is where the real witch hunt is occurring nowadays where accusations are taken as, equated with and even taken in lieu of court verdicts.

What this essentially does is undermine the legitimacy of the court, even more so than the aforementioned impeachment process, as it affects not only politicians but all of society. Currently, people are accused and persecuted via social media and media networks concerning misdemeanours, which they may or may not have committed. But the fact that any accusation immediately equals conviction is a mob mentality that should not be a sign of these modern and supposedly more enlightened times.

Indiscriminately, prematurely and carelessly destroying people’s reputation without given them due representation in court is not only what occurred during times of revolution and revolt, but it happened in the darkest ages of history. A just and peaceful society cannot exist in an environment that is running on hatred, chaos, and instability. Anarchy is then not the solution but is the cause of disorder, especially if it is unbridled, indiscriminate and disrespectful of established law and order.


That is also why what is currently occurring under the banner of feminism is a dangerous and destabilizing concept. Feminism should be the fight for equal rights, i.e. men and women have access to the same opportunities, but the way it is waged, it reveals other objectives and hidden agendas. It is run with the belief that women are essentially superior to men and are always right in their views and endeavors and that their fight against the male patriarchy is just and justified.

Ironically, these radical feminists - also referred to as femi-nazis - have chosen to copy and embody the worst and most toxic aspects of male chauvinism, such as aggression, violence, and utter insensitivity. The toppling of the perceived patriarchy is ideologically akin to the Storm of the Bastille, and it is waged without a plan or strategy; it indiscriminately wishes to empower one side of humanity by pitting it wholesale against its other half. It would lead to even more chaos and destruction with its plan to throw out everything, bathtub, water and boy, with nothing concrete to replace it with.

Viewing men as suspicious and threatening is not only a projection of paranoia, but it is discriminatory in nature and essence; likewise, the perspective that women are the superior race is totalitarian and certainly not egalitarian in its mindset. If this mistrust, frustration and anger was currently directed at and waged upon ethnic minorities, we would immediately rush to stop it, but since it is undertaken by women, many tend to applaud and encourage it. Those women – incidentally, they are not the majority - support this radical form of feminism tinged by acts of anarchy, disorder and destruction while wanting to undermine all types of authority and government, as they see it as a mere embodiment of male power and chauvinism.

This movement also wants to dispense with court and often accuses men based on hearsay and gossip without providing credible evidence. No doubt, there are many women who have suffered and continue to suffer injustices under the hands of their male counterparts, but women are not infallible nor saints either; they should not be automatically sided with based on their gender. They are human beings and like men they also contain the whole gamut of existence, the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful. The claim of righteousness and superiority is a serious case of distortion and misjudgment.

When we choose to fight against injustice, we need to focus on what it is and equally who it is that we are targeting. Sexual assault as well as corruption and abuse of power and authority sadly exist in all societies around the world, and we need to tackle this with fervor and conviction.

We need to ensure that human rights are protected and respected by all and everyone and that includes children, women as well as men. It is an odd and disconcerting by-product of today’s world that men’s rights have become an issue, and even more so, that there are anti-feminist movements. The latter are often led by women who disagree with and criticize these radical, gender-divisive and discriminatory views.

To have democracy, we need a strong foundation, which is symbolized in trust and respect for law and authority in the form of constitutions and the courts. The latter are certainly not infallible; they have led to mistrials and wrongful verdicts, but they stand hand in hand with our democracy and are the best we have got under the circumstances.

Instead of ignoring, disregarding or discrediting them, we should bolster and fortify our courts and laws so that our system becomes stronger, sturdier and more just and so that they do not succumb to vain and destructive attacks of anarchy and of radicalism. 

Prisoner of Oneself: A Psychoanalytic Reading of The Little Stranger

Filmmaker Lenny Abrahamson may be best known for his intricate and claustrophobic kidnapping drama Room (2015), but his best film to date is the Gothic drama / horror film The Little Stranger (2018).  One of the issues with his most recent film is also its inherent strength: it defies genre convention and is, as a result, hard to define or place. 

Although it has elements of horror, it is not a horror movie per se and may be akin to Wuthering Heights in its mood and sensibilities. Nonetheless, the filmmaker ingeniously uses horror tropes to not only shed light onto issues of class, society and tradition but also to highlight the role of personal trauma and suffering.

Briefly put, the center premise is that the crumbling mansion Hundreds Hall is past its prime and heydays, and it is being haunted by the ghost of a little girl who had died there various years ago. The current inhabitants are comprised of the mother Mrs. Ayres, her two adult children, Caroline and Roderick as well as their housekeeper Betty, and they all alternatively experience odd sensations and witness intermittent paranormal events and sightings. When the young ambitious country doctor Faraday enters this secluded and sheltered family, soon enough he also becomes aware of and attuned to an ominous presence.

Despite it all, none of them seem capable of escaping the grounds and premises, and in many ways, they end up projecting their own fears, longings and frustrations onto the ghost. Put differently, the little stranger comes to represent different subconscious facets of each of the individuals, while they are bound both physically and psychologically to the confines of the mansion and their own intangible desires.

I will give a brief description of each of the main characters here alongside their mainly unconscious fears and desires that they project onto the entity within the mansion. Please bear in mind that I have not read the book and that I watched the movie only once, so most likely there will be details that will have escaped me. 

Nonetheless, I was so impressed with the film and its themes that I felt compelled to write about it in some detail. Each main character will be given their own section, but there will be some overlap among them as they interact with and are in relation to each other.

Dr. Faraday

First off, I shall start from the periphery with the country doctor Faraday who enters the fray as the narrator of the film. He is called upon to treat the housekeeper Betty, but it turns out that her health is perfectly fine; her unease stems from being in the mansion, a place that frightens and unsettles her on a periodic basis. That piques the interest of Faraday, but in fact, the mansion has held a special place in his heart and mind for various years.

Indeed, that was not the first time he had entered the sheltered and reclusive mansion. As a child, he had managed to get a glimpse of Hundreds Hall; he even found a way in via his mother, a housemaid who used to work there in its glorious days while the little girl was still alive. Faraday’s mother fostered and flamed his childhood longings of the joys, privileges and entitlements that came with being part of the higher class and nobility, and hence, since his childhood, the mansion itself was imbued and filled with awe and magic in Faraday’s mind.

To the same extent that he admires the place and people, he also resents them. After Faraday as a young child enjoys sweets and candy that have never been accessible to him before, he walks off and wanders around in the mansion - something he is not allowed or permitted to do - and then he rips off an acorn from a wooden carving as a potential keepsake. However, his action is seen by Susan, often referred to as Suki, the girl that is the little stranger of the movie. In fact, when his mother finds out about his transgression, she chides him there and then and slaps him in the face.

However, he never returned the stolen piece; it was thrown into the fire and burnt down to ashes. But Faraday’s longing to be part of the household and its attached prestige has stuck with him for all the years; it has pushed and motivated him to work hard and to become a doctor, and yet, throughout all this time, he carries with him and cannot shake off his guilt for his childhood transgression.

After one of his doctor’s visits, he confesses to Caroline that he felt guilty about the incident, and she quickly forgives him. But he also let her know that his parents slaved away all their lives and had died in poverty to make his education possible; it was through their constant efforts that his career had become a reality. In fact, he wants her to know that, unlike the Ayers family, he had to work hard to reach his position and entitlements.

Throughout his life, Faraday kept alive the memory of this supposedly magical place; he wished and dreamed that one day he would be part of the mansion and that he would be respected by everyone. His colleague warns him to stay away from this family, but Faraday is intrigued and fascinated by what the place and family stand for. He keeps up his visits by first treating the invalid brother’s leg and then by asking for Caroline’s hand. Faraday also discovers that he is depicted in one of their family photos, but only his shoulder is visible as his head is eclipsed by the young girl who now haunts the premises.

Regardless his efforts, Faraday is rejected by them all. At a dinner party, the other guests reject and dismiss him as only an employee of the family and not deserving of being considered a veritable guest. Caroline rejects his wooing and says that although she likes and respects him as a friend, she would not marry him nor would she be happy living with him. In fact, his proposal was never even mentioned to Mrs. Ayers since she would immediately turn it down, at least according to Caroline.

When Faraday finally manages to have the brother locked away in an insane asylum, and after the mother commits suicide, Caroline herself dies under suspicious circumstances. But in the end the mansion Faraday strolls in is an empty and desolate place, mere ruins of what he had hoped for or imagined in his childhood. The nobility with all its glamour turns out to be empty façade and essentially meaningless and incapable of bringing joy or happiness to any of the individuals involved.

All these years, Faraday had been a prisoner of a fictitious idea and when he has his wish, he is still left with longings and desires, and he still is not accepted by society. Worse, in pursuit of his futile dream, he has sacrificed his own chances at a successful career in medicine; instead of moving to London, he remained put in his village. Like in the family portrait, he is and remains eclipsed by the Ayers family and their legacy.

Roderick

The brother Roderick has never overcome his trauma nor his visible but more importantly invisible scars of his service during the war. At one point, Faraday attempts to treat his leg, but he notices that there are deeper psychological issues at stake. However, the brother would have none of it. Instead, he holds onto the drink and reluctantly but painfully begins to sell parts of the property so they can earn some necessary income for their livelihood. He rarely goes out and does not mingle with others, mainly due to his deformity but also because of his depressed mental state.

He complains that he cannot leave the place but that he perceives an evil presence that hates him. At other times, he would complain about the smell of fire. In fact, his trauma, his pain and suffering from the war have been left unprocessed and undigested. He has never come to face his inner demons from the atrocities of the war, and he projects those unwanted and subconscious feelings onto the ominous presence of the little girl.

In fact, his final mental breakdown occurs in the form of fire; he sets his own room on fire symbolically re-enacting the same way he has come to his injuries during the war. He remains a prisoner of his own trauma and is suffering from continuous bouts of PTSD. Nonetheless, unlike the other members of his family, he manages to escape from the premises since he ends up being taken away to a mental asylum.

Mrs. Ayers

The mother, the matriarch, is the stronghold of tradition and a symbol of a bygone era. She tries hard and one might add desperately and vainly to hold onto the remains of happier and more prosperous times for the higher-class elite. As such, she still invites and entertains her noble friends even though some seek and engage in business abroad, such as the United States and Canada and despite the fact that wealthy business people are beginning to intrude and infringe upon this privileged space once solely designated to and reserved for nobility.

We do not have much backstory about the mother nor about the death of her young child Susan, often referred to as Suki, but it is apparent that the mother is loaded with guilt and apprehension regarding her untimely death many years ago. Mrs. Ayers has not only been unable to process and digest the loss of her beloved daughter, but she has trouble acknowledging and accepting it. In fact, Mrs. Ayers claims that she is still in contact with her daughter and that Suki is sometimes upset and angry with her.

It is not clear to what extent the mother was or was not responsible for the girl’s death, but it is evident that it has left an indelible mark on her psyche. In addition to that, Mrs. Ayers has to deal with the gradual demise of her status as well as the forced selling of various parts of the property to make ends meet; it comes then as no surprise that Mrs. Ayers is filled with guilt, trauma and anxiety. She is a recluse who remains adamant in preserving the mansion to the best of her abilities as it is not only a symbol and a remnant of her once glorious past but also the physical and current spiritual abode of her beloved girl.

These pangs of guilt and denial come to haunt her to such an extent that she ends up feeling overwhelmed by the presence of the entity in the mansion, and, at one point, she even gets unexplained physical marks on her body, which are supposedly inflicted by her daughter. Faraday cannot find plausible explanations regarding what is happening before his eyes, and he asks Caroline to seek psychological support for her mother.

Not long after that conversation, they find Mrs. Ayers’ lifeless body in what must have been a case of suicide; she was desperately clutching onto a broken photo of her daughter at the bedside. Mrs. Ayers most likely used the shards of that frame to cut open her veins hence connecting the image of her daughter with her own death.

Caroline

Last, but not least, there is Caroline, the daughter who supports her mother while also playing a maternal role in her relationship with her invalid brother Roderick. She rarely leaves the premises and has never married, nor does she seem to be looking for suitors. The only time she leaves the mansion is with Faraday and, in a moment of longing and desire, she almost has sexual intercourse with him in his car but then reconsiders and says that she simply cannot.

However, this only intensifies his desires for her. Then he proposes to her. At first, it appears that he has feelings for her, but they are for the most part tinged by his desire for what Caroline represents to him, namely higher position and standing in society. He unconsciously believes that by marrying her, he would attain his goals of acceptance and fulfill his lifelong dream of pertaining to the higher echelons of society.

Throughout his wooing, Caroline remains cool and distant. He is the one who is pressing her to tell her mother and to make some arrangements for their upcoming wedding. Faraday even sneaks out to obtain a wedding dress for her (with the help of Betty, the housemaid, he secretly snatches one of Caroline’s dresses for measurement at the tailor’s), and then Faraday gives her the ring of his mother. 

This is another important clue that his love for her is intimately connected with his mother’s shadow.

When Caroline suggests moving to another place, Faraday is abhorred by the idea. But Caroline, especially after the death of her mother, sees no motive to remain there and as she has no more ties with the mansion, she plans to leave Hundreds Hall. In fact, Caroline is displeased with the fact that Faraday has turned down an opportunity to work as a medic and researcher in London, which was done apparently for her sake. Caroline does not want to be tied down to anybody anymore and since she does not need to take care of neither her brother nor her mother anymore, she is free to leave; she feels elated about the fact of finally leaving the mansion behind.

Yet the past still haunts her one last time as she dies from a mysterious fall from the stairs. The fall may or may not be provoked but it happens at the onset of a surprising apparition to which she claims “you” in both surprise and anger, and as she walks back a few steps, she falls to her death.

It is evident that contrary to what Faraday says, this was not an act of suicide and quite distinct from her mother’s demise. Although the movie hints at the possibility that the doctor may have had something to do with her death, I do not think that he physically pushed her, but he certainly may have desired that outcome, especially after she rejected him and his advances and made him feel even more inferior. Sadly, even though Caroline comes close to escaping her past and the prison, she remains unsuccessful and loses herself in her own mix of desires of responsibility and duty and the incapacity of living an authentic life, mostly due to her higher standing in society.

Final Thoughts

One of the questions that the film never fully or clearly answers is whether the ghost is a figment of their imagination or whether it exists on its own right. However, the film implies that there is some paranormal presence at play. This starts with the foreboding sense of Roderick that something evil is about to occur and the subsequent vicious attack of a young girl by the family dog. We also witness a scene in which the mother is harassed by an evil presence and where the bells ring although the rooms are empty at the time. The feeble excuse that it must be the rats while there is no shot of the rodents is simply not enough to dispel the mystery.

There are also certain scenes that Faraday witnesses that are not compatible with science and reason. One of his colleagues claims that these paranormal incidents are the manifestation of subconscious fears and harmful desires that make their presence known to the people of the mansion. An entity may exist, but it would also be fed and magnified by the negative energy and thoughts and feelings of the people around it. This is the most plausible explanation of these supernatural events and serves to demonstrate how each character is caught up in a web of trauma, deceit and suffering, which they then project upon the little stranger.