Blood Sacrifice and the Nation by Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle: A review and response

Publisher: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999
414 Pages

Agama resmi Amerika ya Nasionalism. Begitu salah satu myth orang-orang Amerika. Lewat media apapun nasionalim menjadi ciri utama "American religiousity" Ini-lah yang mungkin disebut Robert Bellah sebagai new civil religion of America. Dengan unik dan narasi yang matamorik, Carolyn Marvin mengupas tentang "American totem" yang menjadi penemena yang sangat kuat di U.S.


If there are book authors discussing wars, sport games, or championship in unique way here are Carolyn Marvin and David Ingle. Both authors see a kind of bloodletting which their main aims is to obey the totem; flag. It is the flag the symbol of American civil religion; nationalism. Their argument is very simple. The totem can provide what the religion and the United States (Christianity?) cannot.

Starting from Durkheim thesis in the Elementary Forms of Religious Life, that religion is the important factor that provides meaning and purpose for the society, the authors develop their idea that the flag is a totem that provides that meaning for Americans. Because of this totem the authors see metaphorically that blood sacrifice in American wars and massive armed forces as well as in sports are imagination of relating each individual with the totem. Flag gives something for people which religion cannot afford for. It is because of this flag not religions America grows to be the most powerful nations in the world.

The idea is kind of speculative. I think Marvn and Ingle do not seriously talk about American nationalism : flag. They both just make a kiddings if what American look at their national flag is similarly to the traditional society looking at their totem. I think the authors just want to say America has its own totem, it does give evidence that it has protected America. So the living religion of America actually is its nationalism.

It is interesting that the authors try to compare this religion of nationalism with that of Christianity. In that sense, it seems that the author say that the stateand religion imitate one another. Both need sacrifices and both provide a protection for it members. I don't understand this context. I think religions do not imitate state but both have their different characteristics. In the US, I think people have very great nationalism as American just like other countries people because the country has provided its responsibility for its members. Therefore people is staging the flag in order to express their belong-ness.

I feel uncomfortable to say that violence is also a ritual to the totem. In this case I feel, the authors do not differ what is violence and what is not violence. It seems the authors generalize all religions are tolerant to the violence. The most evident of this is a suicide bomber. In fact it must be different.

Tempe, march 2, 2006