The Life and Times of Thomas Jefferson: Book Review of Art of Power

Of all the American founding fathers, the one that has always caught my eye and interest is Thomas Jefferson. Not only did he pen the Declaration of Independence, but he also served as a Congressman, he was an ambassador to France, the first Secretary of State, the second Vice President, and he became the third president of the freshly minted country, following upon the foot steps of George Washington and his friend-rival John Adams.

What Thomas Jefferson has done and achieved for his country knows no limits and boundaries, and yet, the man also has some failings and shortcomings. How could he possibly oppose slavery and yet keep his own six hundred slaves? Why did he not take a more decisive and aggressive stance on the matter, especially since he himself stated that all men were created equal?

Moreover, how come he never openly disclosed but effectively downplayed and hushed the fact that he had an intimate relationship and children with his slave Sally Hemings, his wife’s half sister? This fact was corroborated through DNA evidence of 1998 causing a pent-up backlash of criticism and creating a well of doubt vis-à-vis the cherished founding father.  

These were questions that preoccupied me as well and I was hoping that Jon Meacham’s bestselling book Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power would address and perhaps even answer some of them. And it did. 

His book is not only a fascinating and enthralling read - it borders on and comes close to a historical novel - but it also gives a panorama of the life and times of the man; they were at time in opposition to each other, while at other occasions, he simply echoed and embodied the zeitgeist and was the product of his times.

There are also recurring real-life historical figures who either helped or opposed Jefferson and his plans and ideals  – and in some cases, like John Adams, were fluctuating and pending between both poles. The fact that my knowledge of American history and politics is limited was actually not an impediment in understanding the issues presented in the book; in fact, it only served to enhance and magnify my enjoyment as I was often surprised or shocked about facts and issues hitherto unknown to me.

I am wholeheartedly recommending this book, and would like to share some of my personal highlights and observations with you here. They are limited in terms of scope and depth, but I would also like to draw and underscore parallels between the foundation period and the current political climate in the United States. 

It might explain or at least shed some light on the divisions and the divisive nature of what is currently happening in the country. In fact, bitter ideological partisan rifts and rivalry among political factions are nothing new and they existed also in the heydays of American politics, which even included talk of impeaching the very first American president George Washington!

As someone who loves, appreciates and practices psychoanalysis, I am even more cognizant and aware of the important effects of the past and history upon the present experiences and worldview, and it is my belief that by understanding, acknowledging and appreciating that link and connection, one can pave a better, more confident and assured path into the future. 

Before I delve into some of the facts about Thomas Jefferson, I would like to give a brief psychoanalytic overview about tendencies that will hopefully help us understand him a little better. There are indeed two poles in his life that keep recurring at various moments and instances, and they - at least subconsciously - influence his outlook as well as actions.

On one hand, there is the strict and demanding father who instills both fear and respect. This is projected by Jefferson not only upon his own family, but also upon his political career, and it is further reflected within his fears and anxieties toward the British king and the potential threat and take-over of the mother country. 

On the other side of the spectrum, there is his love of and appreciation for his mother, which is extended to his country and his fellow citizens and adds a need to protect and take care of loved ones.

The paternal aspect comes out in the hard work and discipline that has always characterized Thomas Jefferson and that has to a large extent been adopted by the country he helped shape. Jefferson would work frantically and would always try to improve upon his skills and knowledge as he considered laziness and idleness a sin. Health permitting, he would study fifteen hours a day by reading up to 2 am; when in office, he would work over ten to thirteen hours per day.

Jefferson was afraid of and looked up to his father throughout his life. He admired his father’s physical strength but had also adopted and instilled Peter Jefferson’s strong sense of authority and responsibility as well as his democratic ideals and aspirations. 

When Jefferson was ten years old, Peter Jefferson sent him to the woods, all alone and armed with a gun and his “assignment" was to prove to his father that he could survive on his own in the wild. He ought not to come back without having a hunted animal to show for.

Peter Jefferson was a staunch Whig supporter and that means he was more inclined towards the people and the parliament as opposed to the more conservative Tories who upheld the king. These democratic beliefs and notions alongside the belief of independence from authority and authority figures were passed onto his son. 

As a result, Jefferson himself would not only wish to encourage and propel self-government, but he was also constantly paranoid about the British king potentially taking over his mother country. It was this looming threat that shaped and characterized many of his political fears and decisions.

When Jefferson was fourteen, he had his first overwhelming sense of being in charge after his father suddenly passed away at the age of 49. This made Jefferson, the eldest son, all of a sudden the man of the house, and he had to quickly copy and pattern himself after his father’s model. This stern sense of command alongside the necessity of discipline and hard work were embedded into the fabric of his personality and outlook.

The mother, on the other hand, is exemplified in his love for his native country. Incidentally, he considered it a duty to be subordinate to the mother country, while also explicitly stating and affirming that without liberty, there was no life. 

Jefferson was close to his mother throughout his life, and in fact, he lived at a close distance to her: it was only a half an hour drive from his estate Monticello, Italian for little mountain, to his mother’s abode.

His mother Jane Randolph Jefferson played an important role in his life, and her death affected him very deeply. It came at a tumultuous time: He was 33 and he was working on the Declaration of Independence. This signified a full break from his parents and of being thrown into complete independence, a struggle that was reflected in his quest for independence from British colonialism.

To Jefferson, federalism, a paternal symbol, would always be considered a looming threat to the status quo. This fear would haunt him all his life and would often put him at odds with some of his fellow founding fathers, including George Washington and John Adams. 

Jefferson feared federalism because of its ties to Britain and the royalty, namely its king. Independence for him meant breaking off the ties and chains to the former father country, and that the ex-colony would become independent and self-sufficient by walking and acting on its own and out of and for its own self-interest and benefit.

It is important to note that federalism was not an imagined threat. The British continued to be present up north in Canada and they could have invaded and attacked the United States at any point, even long after the US had attained independence. 

Moreover, in Jefferson’s native country, there were continuous factions between the two different parties regarding that matter and it so happened that even within his own party, there tended to be disagreements on that topic. 

It was Jefferson’s profound belief that to keep his country with its experiment in liberty and democracy safe, alive and thriving, this entailed keeping hereditary rights and privileges at bay; this would be, according to him, the best way to ensure and guarantee people’s democratic rights.

Nonetheless, at times and undertaken with conscious and deliberate political intent and motivation, these freedoms and rights had to be curtailed by the government and authorities themselves. That may make Thomas Jefferson appear hypocritical, but it was indeed the inherent nature of the game and the art of politics, which is a complex and delicate endeavor.

For instance, the hesitation of downright outlawing and abolishing slavery was driven by various issues and considerations. First off, at its onset, there was significant resistance from the union regarding that issue. The South, which was making steady use of the practice, was actively and ideologically opposed to the freedom and emancipation of slaves.

In order to get them onboard with his ideals, Jefferson had to make a sacrifice and reduce some of his demands. This led to slavery being allowed below the 36^th parallel (with the exception of Missouri) but it was effectively outlawed any farther north. 

This was a compromise that Jefferson had to accept since there was the danger that Southern states could break off from the rest of the union, and even worse, perhaps join the British, all of which would have put Jefferson’s achievements and strive for unity into jeopardy.   

There was also a different kind of compromise, the constitutional three-fifths clause, which meant that for purposes of more balanced electoral representation, a slave was calculated and counted as three-fifths of a person. This clause upset many federalists, and they called Jefferson, who ended up winning the election, the “Negro President” as that was purported to tilt the presidency in his favor.

Furthermore, from a more personal standpoint, Jefferson himself had a lot to lose as he had about six hundred slaves working for him at Monticello. Abolishing slavery would have significantly cut down his income, and this was an important matter because of his constant expenses. 

He may have appeared frugal in office, by not wearing the prescribed gowns and not abiding by regal formalities, such as forgoing the sword-swearing ceremony that his predecessors had embraced and selling Adams’s coaches and silver harnesses, but he had expensive tastes in his private life, whether it came down to gourmet food, drink, wine, and coffee, or paintings and decorations in his office and on his estate.

In the end, it was the sad irony of his life that he would end up dying in debt, and his beloved Monticello and his slaves (whom he had not freed with the exception of the Hemings’ line) had to be sold after his death. 

Yet he remained steadfast and true to being modest and humble since there was nothing showy or grand about his coffin or his burial, and he was laid to rest in his cherished retreat from the world on the slopes of Monticello, right next to his mother and his wife.

When it come to democratic precepts and actions, Jefferson would occasionally feel it necessary to cheat a little to get things done. This is apparent with the Louisiana purchase. As it was a significant if not surprising offer by France, he had to act fast. 

It was a time-sensitive matter; there was no time for necessary constitutional amendments, so Jefferson jumped a few democratic procedural hoops to be able to sign the treaty in time by holding a quick congressional vote instead. It would be a matter of means justifying the end, a motif that would appear at various times during his life making some of his actions and decisions questionable.

Jefferson would also make unilateral decisions without the previous approval of congress, such as ordering the military to be ready as a result of the attack on the USS Chesapeake in 1807, which was deemed an act of war and which led to an embargo aimed at harming the British.

Furthermore, Jefferson refused to testify in person at Aaron Burr’s trial, his previous Vice President who had killed ex-Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton during a duel and who was arrested for charges of treason in 1807. 

Despite being subpoenaed by the US attorney George Hay, the president did not appear in court as he did not want to set a precedent. This essentially signaled that Jefferson saw himself beyond and above the law. Burr was eventually acquitted, which went against the wishes and desires of President Jefferson.

Politically, the foundation years were strange and volatile times. The country as a unified whole had to balance and weigh various decisions and strategies to remain strong and to be perceived as powerful and to be taken seriously as a budding new nation. They would have to flex muscles without embroiling themselves in military conflict that they would not be able to sustain or win.

At the same time, more than ever before, the United States needed to find strategic allies to support their cause and ideology in the world. Jefferson’s battle against monarchy and monarchical tendencies was life-long, and he tried hard to ensure that his achievements and accomplishments would be safe and secure even long after his lifetime; as a result, he trained and put people of confidence in important political positions.

The times were also filled with strife, intrigue as well as manipulation and fake news. Jefferson, who was a strong believer in freedom of the press, had to endure calumny through politically motivated rumor, gossip, and misinformation. For instance, on the fourth of July in 1800, the Baltimore American published that he had died at Monticello. This was not true, but eerily enough he would end up dying on the same date and at the same place twenty-six years later.

Even during the early days of the American nation, there was a divided and divisive culture and environment, while newspapers would tend to publish opinions instead of facts. In addition, political conspiracies and maneuvering that were led and bolstered by political ideological factional differences between parties resulted in entrenching and further dividing the nation.

The election process was also far from ideal. For instance, there was no campaigning at the time. Moreover, during the presidential votes, until the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, the first placed would become president, while the second would automatically qualify as vice-president, regardless of their political persuasion or party. That could potentially create uncomfortable and untenable dynamics, which would lead to friction within each administration.

Jefferson’s life-long relationship with his slave Sally Hemings was a driving force in his personal life but it was also fraught with complications and contradictions. When his wife Martha died, Jefferson, who has 39 at the time, was forced to make an oath to never remarry, and the solemn pledge was incidentally witnessed by a then ten-year-old Sally Hemings. 

As he was a man of his word, Jefferson would not remarry. Yet that did not stop him from engaging in a long-term relationship with the significantly younger Sally Hemings, the half-sister of his wife and his personal slave.

When Jefferson was living in France as the American ambassador under the George Washington administration, he asked his daughter Polly with her teenage caretaker and servant Sally Hemings to cross the ocean to come and stay with him. In Paris, Jefferson must have been taken in by Sally’s beauty, and he began a long-lasting romantic relationship with her.

Yet it came with a caveat. When they were about to return to the United States, Sally, who was pregnant at the time, expressed a desire to stay in France with her brother James, who was staying at the Hôtel de Langeac. 

The issue was the following: Since France did not have or allow slavery at the time, she and her brother could both apply for their liberty and become free citizens in the country regardless of what their master thought about it.

That is when Jefferson offered a deal to sway her decision and to make her change her mind. If Sally agreed to return with him to Virginia, he would allow her children to become free at the age of twenty-one. She agreed, and Jefferson would as a matter of course keep his word and promise. 

This shows his willingness to compromise, but at the same time he had his own interests in mind, while probably being left with no other or little choice in the matter. Apart from the Hemings’ family, Jefferson would not free any other of his slaves, whereas Sally herself was declared free upon his passing.

One of the other constants in his life was his love and admiration for France, which he considered the "most agreeable country on earth” and only second to his native home. Although his ideology was largely influenced by the Scottish philosophers of the Enlightenment, there were quite a few French thinkers that must have influenced his outlook as well, such as Montesquieu Montaigne, and Voltaire.

But with France he had an important political and ideological ally. In the heydays of the American Revolution, France was strategically positioned against the British Empire. The latter tried hard not to lose their colony by even siding with slaves, promising them freedom if they enlisted in the fight against Americans, while the French used their connections with Indians to ensure that the British would not succeed.

There was also significant financial and even military support from the French to help the American colonies. For instance, Marquis de LaFayette enlisted in the war against the British. The outcome of the American revolution set the stage for the experiment in liberty, as it not only removed royalty from the throne of government but it also nullified or erased hereditary rights and privilege and put in place a new experimental system, self-government through democracy.

This made an impact on French society and politics in more ways than imagined. First off, the financial support and aid that the American union received from France brought about economic hardship for the French. Circulating ideas of democracy and individual human rights combined with widespread hunger and anger over the wealth being concentrated in the hands of the nobility managed to topple the monarchy via France’s very own revolution of 1789. This was to a large extent inspired and brought about by the Americans who had essentially paved the way with the previous financial and military aid and support provided by France.

Secondly, the emancipation and independence of colonies and the widely influential French Revolution came back to haunt France in Haiti, then known as Saint-Domingue, where its enslaved residents headed by a former slave revolted against French occupation to gain liberty and to abolish slavery. The political and economic instability in the region further weakened France’s position in the New World and was a contributing factor for Napoleon selling off the state of Louisiana to the Americans.

Interestingly, LaFayette ended up fighting in both revolutions, while Jefferson had a hand in penning both. After the storming of the Bastille, Lafayette was in charge of writing the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which was influenced and inspired by the Declaration of Independence, while he personally sought Jefferson’s help and counsel who was stationed in Paris at the time. It shows how intricately woven and interconnected the two governments and revolutions were.

Jefferson himself was also a lover of French art, food, and wine. He would have French cuisine served at his estate and during government dinners. At times and more pronouncedly during his later years of political management, he was forced to strategically side with the British, but in general, he remained quite loyal and faithful to France as well as French culture and tradition.

Finally, when we look at and talk about Jefferson or any historical figure for that matter, we must take into consideration their time and context as well. Before we state that Jefferson is a hypocrite, we must consider him also as a fallible human who lived in tumultuous times of gradual change. His ideas were generally good and inspirational, but the truth remains that he did not go far enough, nor did he enforce them sufficiently.

Jefferson often claimed that more needed to be done in regard to slavery but that this was something later generations needed to tackle for themselves; he used this statement as a means of and excuse for postponing his own involvement and action on the issue. Jefferson himself could not envision colored and white people living together in peace, and he often toyed with the idea of resettling black residents somewhere across the ocean.    

Like any politician, he had to make strategic and politically motivated decisions that were meant to appease some and not offend others. There were often compromises that needed to be made, even if they were far from ideal. 

Apart from this, he lived in different times. He wanted to protect his ideas and had to face and endure serious oppositions and challenges from others. To keep the union intact and in harmony, he often had to make decisions that went against his own wishes and desires.

Finally, he had his fair share of personal trauma and suffering. His wife died young, and he made an oath that essentially barred him from later marriage. He also lost various children to disease, something that was quite common in those days where science and medicine were not as developed or as effective as they are today. 

Then he also had his own medical conditions, such as unbearable periodical migraines that appeared during and were conditioned and propelled by times of stress and turmoil, which at times made it impossible for him to work and function in daily life.

It is my guess that Jefferson must have been an HSP, a highly sensitive person. Since these persons are wired differently, neurologically speaking, they are not only more perceptive, but also acutely sensitive and emotional and prone to worry, anxiety, and restlessness. As a result, they tend to be more empathetic, which is why they are often referred to as empaths.

Since Jefferson felt his emotions more strongly, be it pleasure or pain, he would have more empathy and consideration for others as he would intuitively know what it feels like to suffer or to feel rejected. At the same time, empaths are more susceptible to any forms of criticism and will try hard to please others to gain their approval. 

It cost him a lot of effort – through a vast amount of energy and self-discipline - to control his emotions and reactions, while it was difficult for him to accept and swallow criticism, disapproval, and animosity. In fact, HSPs prefer avoiding any types of conflict as they strive for order and harmony in their personal as well as professional lives as much as possible.

In conclusion, here we have a founding father who has shaped the country in many influential and inspiring ways. He had like many of us flaws and weaknesses, and like many of us, he has made errors in judgment, but his influence on the nation’s fabric and soul is beyond doubt and question. Jefferson was much more than a president; he actively participated in the shape, form and maintenance of his beloved country. 

Ironically, he died on the same day as John Adams, which turned out to be the fiftieth anniversary of independence. Jefferson was quite ill at the time, but in a typical combination of discipline and willpower, he kept himself alive long enough so that he could experience that moment of celebration, and this only serves to underscore his symbolic association and personal entanglement with his beloved country, the United States of America.

Freedom and Bondage: The Dark Origin of Wonder Woman

My knowledge of Wonder Woman (and by extension, comic books) is severely limited. This is partly due to my overall lack of interest in them both now as well as during my childhood. Although I would occasionally dress up as Spiderman, Zorro and a few times as a cowboy, I did not find having superpowers or being invincible particularly appealing. My childhood ideals ranged from Russian writers like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Scandinavian philosophers and filmmakers like Kierkegaard and Bergman to French directors like François Truffaut and Eric Rohmer all of whom were making waves in cinema, literature, and philosophy. There was neither room nor interest for the likes of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. I am neither proud nor ashamed of my lack of knowledge regarding comics and superheroes but just state it as a case and matter of fact.

Since then, and more so in recent times, I have tried to fill some of my gaps – while others are still sticking out like a sore, if not broken thumb – and yet, Wonder Woman has been the most enigmatic and mysterious character to me. Especially considering that she is held up and lifted as an emblem of the current strand of modern feminism, I wanted to know more about her by getting to know a bit more about her background.

As a result, a night before this year’s celebration of International Women’s Day, I decided to watch Angela Robinson’s movie Professor Marston and the Wonder Women available on Netflix. I chose to watch it for two reasons: one, it was made (written and directed) by a woman, and secondly, as I was curious about the background and origin story of Wonder Woman, it fit my purposes like a glove since it could potentially conceal my “wounded thumb.” All I knew about this character was limited to Patty Jenkins’ movie version, which, to be honest and hype withstanding, I found rather underwhelming both in terms of story as well as filmmaking.

In contrast, Robinson’s film was impressive, especially considering that this young aspiring filmmaker has not made previous feature films before. The acting was also quite good, and there were evident moments and pieces of dialogue that made it clear that the film was not only made by a woman but that it was meant to prop up and support the feminist movement and ideology. Case in point, it starts off with a strong female character, Elizabeth Marston, who initially appears to be more knowledgeable and capable than her husband, the eponymous professor actively teaching at Harvard.

She should be the one to receive a doctorate, but the university refuses to hand them out to talented and deserving women and are even less likely to hire females and give them a permanent teaching post at the time. Elizabeth also seems to be the one in charge of the relationship, wearing the proverbial pants in the marriage. As they are looking for an assistant to help them with research of the newly invented lie detector, the professor’s evidently lust-tinged eyes fall on a gorgeous blond student of his.

His wife is not so thrilled at the beginning and perceptively and intuitively calls him out on this. He defends himself, but only feebly so. Then she agrees and relents, and this gives us the impression that they are in an unorthodox open marriage, meaning each member has the freedom and possibility of dating others outside of the relationship. Yet in a subsequent scene and after she has just declared to her husband that she does not care, she bluntly, blatantly and cruelly confronts the young female student Olive telling her not to even think of having sex with her husband. This disconcerts the sensitive student, and she runs out crying.

This was a first instant where words did not correspond with actions, and the gap and hypocrisy go deeper in another scene. During an unintentionally awry discussion regarding Freud’s term of penis envy, Elizabeth takes this literally and claims that women have no desire of having such a member for themselves. Professor Marston needs to step in to correct his wife that Freud’s statement was not meant as a literal thing but rather as a symbolic quest for power and dominance.

The fact that Elizabeth as a trained psychologist would confuse this and see Freud’s idea merely as women wanting to have and physically acquire the male organ borders on a surprising and unexpected level of ignorance given her position and standing. This put a significant dent into and creates doubts about her supposed and self-proclaimed claim of brilliance and of being ready to receive a doctorate. Other incidents and situations in later scenes of the movie would only serve to support and confirm this suspicion.

Although it may look otherwise, at least at first sight, it is really the man, the professor who is in control of the situation and the relationship. He has received help from his wife to fine-tune the lie detector, and the women, or at least one of them, may have inspired him to come up with the character of Wonder Woman, but most noteworthy, he is the only person out of the three to have accomplished something in his life.

Olive basically resigns herself to becoming a live-in domestic partner / homemaker who would engage in regular threesomes and sexual acts of bondage, while his wife, despite having so much potential, ends up as a stenographer to support this unorthodox family. Professor Marston may have lost his position at Harvard due to his extracurricular activities in his private life, but in the film, it is he who comes up with the Wonder Woman idea. In fact, not only is it another man, the creator of Superman, who helps him realize this dream, but his own wife discourages him from the get-go. When he tells her of his initiative of making a feminine comic superhero, she scoffs at him and dismisses his idea, and given perfect hindsight, we can all realize how wrong she is.

But I have two concerns here that the movie does not demonstrate or delve into. One is about the abuse of authority; the second is the dubitative message and legacy given to young and impressionable children via the character and actions of Wonder Woman. As said before, Professor Marston constantly ends up getting his own way, and he might have sneakily managed to follow and exercise his own theory of DISC theory, which stands for dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance.

He effectively uses his theory both on his wife as well as his new-found mistress, and none of them seem to fully realize this as they merely buy into and comply with his schemes and suggestions. He may appear submissive and compliant to their desires, but it is he who induces and dominates the two women that are part of his life. I am not so sure that the filmmaker realizes these tendencies herself.

Be it as it may, in the end both accept and encourage this three-way relationship. Yet the married couple of psychologists should know better and must be aware that they are taking advantage of a young impressionable woman. Their victim Olive is a young student who has had her fair share of trauma. Her mother has left her, and her aunt, a famous and rich feminist, wants to have nothing to do with her and prefers to continue with her own life and career; her aunt does not to tarnish her reputation as a feminist and refuses to help or support her niece in need. As a result, Olive grows up in a convent and is emotionally vulnerable and susceptible. Although she may think she is strong and independent, she is easily swayed and controlled by this experienced, knowledgeable, and manipulative couple she meets at the university.

Not having any parental guidance, she is easy prey. They are much older than she is, and she is their student who looks up to both, more so to the female counterpart whom she falls in love with. Elizabeth is most likely a representation and projection of Olive’s own missing mother. Yet Olive is indignantly refused and rejected by Elizabeth on various occasions, while Elizabeth always ends up giving in both to her own as well as her husband’s desires. At first, Elizabeth denies her own sexual attraction towards Olive and women in general and later she kicks Olive out of their home only to accept her back in after her dying husband pleads with her.

Yet none of this makes their combined blatant abuse of authority acceptable; in fact, their actions toward Olive are reprehensible and unethical. Not so much the act itself, their choice of having an unorthodox family, which I disagree with personally as a matter of taste and opinion, but the fact that they abuse their position of authority to satisfy their own sexual needs and desires with a vulnerable young woman. That should not be glorified, much less in our day and age, but unfortunately the filmmaker chooses to side with them and presents them as rebellious heroes to follow and emulate.

And the same applies to the legacy of Wonder Woman. She was born, it turns out, not as a liberating symbol of female empowerment but out of the lusty eyes of an unscrupulous man. It is during an experimental bondage session that he is most inspired. He dresses his Wonder Woman the same way he has seen and experienced Olive - sexually suggestive with a whip in hand. This dominatrix is seen, held up and glorified as a sign of female empowerment, but is, in fact, a sexual object, a sexually charged fetish of one man’s imagination.

It is furthermore disconcerting that the comic has so many references to sexual acts of bondage. In this twisted imagination, freedom becomes bondage and bondage freedom. The full spread of the Disc theory ranging from domination to submission, inducement to compliance is being applied to all of us, and we do not even realize this.

As an adult, one may engage in these practices - and I am in no position to criticize what people choose to do in their own private lives - but presenting and including these types of ideas and behaviors in a comic that is predominantly targeted for and read by children is morally irresponsible and unacceptable. I am aware that I will be accused of siding with the unfavorably portrayed judge Josette Frank in the movie, but the sad reality is that she is in the right and he is wrong. And this is not only the family man and parent within me speaking, but I believe it is our moral obligation to do our utmost to protect our children and youth, at least during those impressionable age brackets.

Professor Marston may say he is liberating children and young girls, but in the end, he is captivating and capturing them with sexually suggestive images, and by turn, he is enslaving them. It entails the move from being seen and referred to as a sexual object to becoming a sexual object but remaining an object, nonetheless. Wearing a superhero cap or holding a whip in your hand does not give you superpowers and does not contribute to fulfilling your inherent potential. To have women hold up Wonder Woman as a symbol of freedom and liberty and to use it as a form of female empowerment is the ultimate irony that emerges from this movie.

The Economic History of Religion

In the book The Wealth of Religions: The Political Economy of Believing and Belonging by Rachel M. McCleary and Robert J. Barro, religion is viewed and defined not as a philosophical system of faith and worship but rather as a historical entity with economic ties and connections to respective countries and regions. Religion has certainly played a significant and vital role in history and has had far-reaching consequences on politics, ideology and the economy, and it continues to influence our mindset, our way of thinking and interpreting the world.

This perception is certainly not new, and it has been discussed to some extent in Max Weber’s influential and ground-breaking book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, but it is both helpful and useful to gain a better, wider and more through understanding of religious beliefs as well as how and why they shape and impact world economies as well as current political realities. 

The outcome of this analysis is the inherent hope to overcome enmity and intolerance by focusing on more thorough and less biased knowledge and information while at the same time attain a clearer and more balanced perspective and understanding of the past.

Essentially religion, not unlike science or philosophy, attempts to make sense of the world, yet its focus is less on material aspects but rather on the unseen spiritual world connected to questions of meaning, existence, and death. 

Religion may be better suited for certain questions than others. When it comes to assumptions about the physical world, such as the age and shape of our planet, one ought to naturally turn to science for answers, but other areas that pertain to subjective as opposed to objective issues or phenomena, such as the existence of an afterlife or of spiritual entities are – at least under current standards and methods - outside of the scientific realm and inquiry, and hence, religion could help to fill in the blanks or connect the dots.

However, the history as well as the economics of religion are less interested in the truth or validity of religious concepts, doctrines or dogma, but religion is treated in an objective manner by examining and analyzing its effects and repercussions on other fields and areas, such as its evolution, influences, and development of and by economic, political, and social forces.

Previously, I discussed economist Iannaccone’s analysis of religious movements, particularly radical sects and cults and its relation to the economic club membership model. In a cost and benefit analysis, religion is deemed as valuable in terms of its products and services – the benefits - it can provide to its adherents minus the sacrifices – or costs – this may entail.

One’s choice of and identification with a certain religion would often be influenced and set in terms of overall fears and beliefs of the times. For instance, in the 50s and 60s, there was a growing movement towards rejection or revision of established norms and lifestyles; that could range from the hippie movement with its re-definition of moral and sexual values and fashion to a growing attraction for unorthodox movements and cults, whether it was Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple, Hindu ashrams with Indian gurus, or even membership within the Charles Manson cult. In modern times, discontent and instability has led to the practice and formation of Islamic or far-right terrorism with each feeding, preying and playing upon its members’ anxieties.

In each of the cases, people identify with and embrace services that these movements and religions offer them. In other words, people become consumers of a brand that personally appeals to them, and it may be part of a trend, a by-product or a paradigm of the times, but it is almost always driven and fueled by strong emotions. 

In fact, the more extreme the thoughts, ideas, and actions, the stronger and more daring one’s personal identification with a given marginal group will be, and it will be harder to wean them off from the movement in question or to change their mindset about the group’s actions and practices, no matter how immoral they are or seem to others.

Due to the high cost of associating with aggressive or unorthodox marginal groups, many will turn away and be turned off by them, but a minority will find it even more appealing and will embrace it ever more tightly. In each of these groups, whether it is Osho’s ashram of Rajneeshpuram as depicted in the documentary Wild Wild Country or the way the Manson family dressed and talked, they not only tend to physically and often mentally separate themselves from mainstream communities, they also tend to stand out more distinctly in their habits and customs and establish a closer bond with their fellow members even at the expense of immoral deeds and crime. 

In fact, the acceptance of their fellow members becomes more vital to them than that of other peers, friends or family members, hence turning them into more deeply entrenched members and followers of a given cult or sect.

For our purposes here, I would like to focus on two important aspects that both influenced religion and the economy both in direct and indirect ways, namely interest and property rights as well as literacy and individuality.

Interest and Property Rights

One of the most puzzling aspects of the history of religion has been regarding the matter of Islamic civilization. During the Middle Ages, while the West was shrouded in what is known as the dark ages of history and civilization, especially in relation to science and knowledge, Islam was thriving and flourishing in science. How and why was it that their advancement came to a halt with the West overtaking Muslim countries in terms of economic wealth and development after the Renaissance and more visibly during the Industrial Revolution?

Among the simplest answers to explain Islamic economic stagnation and decline relative to Christian countries was the issue regarding interest and property rights. Interest is a necessity when dealing with commercial and financial transactions, and it is often regulated and controlled by authorities. 

In the West, during Calvin’s lifetime, one was allowed to charge up to five percent interest, which was later, after his death in 1564, raised to ten percent by the Genevan government; anything above that amount was considered excessive and designated as usury and could be banned and punished by the Consistory. As a standard of comparison, credit cards nowadays may charge up to twenty percent, which shows how companies have been given relatively free reign in modern capitalist markets. 

Yet it was from the eleventh to the sixteenth century that Muslim regions excelled in scientific discovery and military prowess. This demonstrates that inherently Islam is not incompatible with nor opposed to advances in the pursuit of knowledge and science. The golden age of Islamic cultures was around the 11^th century during which Muslim scholars referred to, worked with and built upon discoveries of the Greek and Latin texts, especially when it came to the fields of medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and optics.

Nonetheless, the scientific production in Muslim countries came to a standstill partly due to the growth of religious elites that aimed to suppress independent thinking and judgment. In fact, schools shifted away from fostering critical thinking to embracing more passive and less innovative forms of knowledge, such as rote learning and memorization.

As a result, investigation and innovation were hampered as these new measures and methods stifled and stunted curiosity and research. This led to an intellectually rigid system that depended upon given and ready-made interpretations and that underscored the importance of obeying and submitting to the religious authorities. Disobedience in any form and whether justified or not was not only frowned upon but forbidden and prohibited and interpreted as a sinful act of aggression against the divine as well as an attack on universal social harmony.

In contrast, Western Europe was more conducive to the rise of capitalism since individualism was valued and promoted; that led not only to diversification and expansion of knowledge, research, and mass communication but also to a legal system that tended to reflect and inscribe those values, all of which were supported, fostered and propelled by the invention of the printing press.

These movements also had serious repercussions in terms of corporate law and governance. Muslim countries had declined economically since the Industrial Revolution because they were set back by rules and restrictions of inheritance, credit and insurance markets, and contract enforcement, and these regulations would restrain markets and hinder economic growth and development.

In Western Europe, however, legal systems were put in place that allowed and gave room for contracts, the enforcement of contract provisions, and property rights alongside a general absence of restrictions vis-à-vis credit and insurance. Interest within reasonable sets and parameters were not prohibited neither by law nor by the Scriptures, and it was only its more excessive from as usury that was discouraged.

All in all, this created an environment that helped businesses grow and flourish. As such, modern corporations can be considered a Western European concept and invention. In fact, corporations were not recognized in Islam, at least not until 1908. While non-Muslims were permitted to form corporations, this was only allowed under the legal systems of their own country abroad, which led to corporations that were then headquartered in Paris or London and not on Islamic lands.

As Christians and Jews were exempt from stifling local laws, they tended to outperform their Muslim counterparts in those Islamic countries. Since followers of other religions ended up gaining wealth and prosperity on Muslim soil, this was fodder for an underlying resentment against those groups and religions, which may, at least in part, explain why anti-Christian and antisemitic sentiments and movements tended to arise and expand in those given areas.

Moreover, unlike Islam, in Western societies even religion was not immune to social, political and legal changes and challenges; in fact, reforms and revolutions were to occur as a result of them. One notable case of rebellion came during the Reformation in which Martin Luther dissented and disagreed with established doctrine and dogma, and this gave way to the Protestant movement.

Literacy and Individuality

­­While the Catholic church insisted that ultimate authority was and would reside with the Church and its priests, with its highest representative the Pope considered and revered as God’s personal ambassador, Martin Luther would reject those views. In that sense, the Protestant movement was an act of rebellion that led to greater expressions of liberty as well as more freedom and flexibility.

The Protestants encouraged literacy since they wanted each, both male and female adherents to read the Holy Scriptures for themselves and to reach their own conclusions and interpretations; as such, schools were not only established but they were viewed and deemed as compulsory starting from a young age. 

In addition, the relationship with God shifted from the confines and premises of the church - both as a place of worship as well as an institution that would convey, transmit and often filter information - and gave way to a more personal relationship with God and His word via the Bible, which was then written and available in the vernacular and studied not only during service but also at schools and at the comfort of one's home. 

Moreover, Protestant beliefs also fostered traits like work ethic, honesty and thrift, which contributed greatly to the growth of economic prosperity during and after the Industrial Revolution. Protestantism also provided and extolled moral discipline and a psychological compulsion to work hard. In fact, individual intention and responsibility more than good works, compliance and charity, stood at the forefront and core of this religious belief system. Put differently, one was personally accountable not only for one’s actions to oneself and society but to God as well.

While economic failure could be viewed as not fulfilling one’s obligations as devotedly as possible, success and prosperity were considered a sign and blessing from God and fostered the belief that one was chosen and elected by divine providence and would be able to attain salvation in the afterlife. 

This devotion to making money through one’s “calling” - a divine ordinance from God regarding a person’s obligations in the material world - alongside fulfilling one’s vocation would later become more secularized and would be viewed as distinct and independent from religious beliefs and doctrine.

Interestingly, the compulsion to work has rested with us since then. This may come from an inherent aversion to idleness and of being viewed as lazy and unproductive. During Calvin’s times, this was a form of sin because when one was not busy, one had a higher risk of succumbing to temptations, bodily urges and physical pleasures. 

But by constantly working and being on the run, those sins could be left at bay. We have currently swallowed and ingrained those values by stating to ourselves both consciously and unconsciously that time is money and that more time could be spent making more money at the expense of a more balanced and satisfying life.

As a result, we tend to engage in overwork and try to amass more wealth than is necessary for a healthy life. At the same time, we often look down on those who are destitute, poor and living in poverty as we assume that it is due to their personal failings and shortcomings that they are and keep remaining in such a deplorable state. 

However, an analysis of the historical past and a better understanding of religion and its ties with social, political and more specifically economic structures can indeed be helpful to expose those underlying currents, beliefs and misperceptions that may have risen and accumulated over time.