Displacing the Confessional
Resistance to Orthodox Christian Governmentality
The following text will provide a critical reflection on the social and political context of the Georgian Orthodox Christian Church as an extension of the state-apparatus. Looking briefly at the history, the global/local political climate and the role of the Church in Russia-Georgia relations, we will continue to discuss internal state politics and the problem of religious-nationalistic and xenophobic propaganda by bearing in mind the specific social practice of confession within the institution of the Church. In order to perform this short analysis, we will draw most prominently on the works of the French theorist Michel Foucault. The goal is to provide an institutional critique, a type of genealogy and offer possible horizons for resistance. The parresiastic practices of truth-telling, self-care and alternative lifestyles offered by the later works of Michel Foucault should prove especially conducive to suggesting a way of reversing the power-relationships inherent to confessional practices. The question in short, will consist in trying to understand what type of governmental technique (or governmentality) is presented by the discursive practice of confession within a very particular context of Georgian identity-formation and the vastly complex power-relationships that bind, construct and subjugate the Georgian identity to external institutional forces. How are Georgians made into religious Subjects and how are they subjected to themselves through the practice of confession and the internalization of pseudo-spiritual values by the Orthodox Christian Church?
In her article “The Georgian Orthodox Church and its involvement in national politics”, Carolin Funke writes about the role of the Georgian Orthodox Church and its influence on the political climate in Georgia. Specifically, the case of Bishop Jacob who publicly denounced the Georgian oppositional party (the United National Movement), expressing a clear political leaning against it. This was rightfully condemned and declared unacceptable as an instance of “election campaigning” (Funke 2014).
Another clear instance of Church involvement in politics was the protest against the legal bill that banned discrimination against sexual minorities. “The GOC tried to intervene in the legislative process and wanted to block the bill, claiming that it would legalize homosexuality, which it considered a “deadly sin.” While the bill was a requirement for Georgia to be granted a short-term visa-free regime by the EU, the GOC massively influenced the wording and control mechanisms of the new law, which was eventually passed unanimously by the parliament with 115 votes against 0” (Funke 2014).
According to Funke, the Georgian Orthodox Church is explicitly opposed to Georgia-EU integration. The GOC exerts powerful influence over the Georgian elite, the masses and even the economy, as it possesses copious amounts of land and resources. The GOC is also opposed to religious pluralism, promoting xenophobic views against Georgia’s Muslim neighbors. It promotes totalizing, outdated religious and nationalistic narratives to the detriment and exclusion of all religious, sexual and ethnic minorities. It plays a significant role in spreading conflict and separatism among the people of the Caucasus, playing into Russian political interests.
An excellent resource on the history of Georgian identity is Ronald Grigor’s book “The making of the Georgian nation”. We will consult the book in order to shed some light on the history of Russian and Georgian relations and the role of the Orthodox Christian Church in trying to keep these relations intact. Russian domination over Georgian territory dates back to much earlier times than the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. In fact, at the beginning of the 19th century, Georgia was under complete Russian monarchical control. There were substantial insurrections, as well as strong opposition coming from a significant part of the Georgian aristocracy, but many representatives of the higher echelons and the Georgian Orthodox Church in particular played a significant role in establishing and securing Russian rule: “The Orthodox Georgian Church was to remain autocephalic, and the catholicos was to receive a seat on the holy Synod of the Russian church” (Grigor 1994, 64). After the collapse of the Soviet Union with 74 years of atheist party rule, there was a strong backlash of religious fundamentalism as a short-sighted affirmation of a “true” Georgian identity. This led to a blind-spot in the collective self-perception; an Orthodox Christian Georgian identity, somehow independent of Russian influence.
Many Georgians are known to hold very intimate relationships with their priests, also known as Modzghvaris. Modzghvaris occupy a position that lies at the boundary of priest, teacher and life-coach. In fact, the role they play in individual spiritual tutorship is very similar to the types of practices that Foucault refers to throughout his series of lectures at the College de France “The Hermeneutics of the Subject” when discussing the Master-Apprentice relations in ancient Greece. But the type of techniques of the self that the Georgian Orthodox Church imposes on its subjects are neither liberating nor particularly beneficial to their recipients. In fact, they only serve to intensify the relationship of domination which leaves individuals both helpless and embittered. It spreads ideologies of hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, religious fundamentalism, overall ignorance and radical right-wing conservatism. Meanwhile accepting monetary and material offerings from its subjects most of whom are already living in desolate poverty. The relationship between a Modzghvari and the confessor is highly mobile. It involves an ongoing panopticonic relationship of constant surveillance and reporting of personal matters, including diet, consumption patterns, examinations of conscience, relationships with other people etc. It is a gradated system of incremental punishments and rewards which shows great potential of aligning itself with the contemporary Neo-liberal forms of governmentality and consumerism — a topic for a different occasion.
Through the simultaneous work of an overarching meta-narrative ideology of religious nationalism and a scaled surveyability of individual bodies using continuous confessional practices, the Georgian Orthodox Church exerts an incredibly powerful hold over its subjects, playing into Russian interests of anti-European attitudes and rendering individuals helpless, docile, aggressive and obedient, all at the same time. How does the Orthodox Georgian clergy achieve this? What type of meaning-system is at play in the production of an Orthodox Georgian Subjectivity? Israela Silberman’s article “Religion as a Meaning System” could shed some more light on the question. Using Silberman’s reflections on religion, I argue that the reason why GOC has had such major success in governing the Georgian population lies within two essential characteristics of religion. First, its accessibility; religion is a universal phenomenon that can articulate and rearticulate its symbolism at every intellectual and cultural level, it cuts across social strata and adapts to every and any social group or lifestyle. Second, the flexibility of its meaning-system can be molded and reshaped in a way that any and every action could be justified. From guided meditation, unconditional empathy and the love of one’s neighbor to exclusion, murder and terrorism. “any goal, ranging from goals of benevolence (Schwartz & Huismars, 1995), forgiveness (Tsang et al., this issue), and altruism (Batson et al., 1993) to goals of destruction and supremacy (e.g., Hunsberger et al., this issue; Martin, this issue), could take on religious value by virtue of connection to the sacred (Silberman et al., this issue)” (Silberman 2005, 646). The flexibility of a mythical understanding provides the tools for both the grand narratives of a lost kingdom as well as individualized discipline in diet, prayer and household management.
To conclude: How does one offer resistance to Orthodox governmentality? How can we speak truth to power? The key to effective resistance is offered by the Foucaultian strategy of parresia and alternative forms of self-care. Techniques of the self which are directed at self-mastery can offer a particular form of self-governance which will break the confessional bond between the subject and the Mozghvari by appropriating the technique and re-deploying it within a non-hierarchical autonomous community, while secularizing the technique at the same time. To quote Stephen Legg’s “Subjects of Truth,” this would involve “alternative pastoral traditions” and “forms of self-making that refuse[d] societal norms and their attempts to fashion the individual” (Legg 2019, 28). This would result in a peaceful yet effective subversion of the Church, and the formation of an inclusive, de-institutionalized society. One must displace the confessional, so to speak.
References:
1. Andronikashvili, Zaal, and Giorgi Maisuradze. “Secularization and its Vicissitudes in Georgia.” Identity Studies in the Caucasus and the Black Sea Region 2 (2010).
2. Foucault, M. (2011). The courage of truth. Springer.
3. Funke, Caroline. “The Georgian Orthodox Church and its involvement in national politics.” The Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, August 14 (2014).
4. Gros, Frédéric, Michel Foucault, Graham Burchell, François Ewald, Alessandro Fontana, and Arnold I. Davidson. “The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982.” Trans. Burchell, G. New York: Palgrave Macmillan (2005).
5. Legg, Stephen. “Subjects of truth: Resisting governmentality in Foucault’s 1980s.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 37, no. 1 (2019): 27–45.
6. Suny, Ronald Grigor. The making of the Georgian nation. Indiana University Press, (1994).
7. Silberman, Israela. “Religion as a meaning system: Implications for the new millennium.” Journal of social issues 61, no. 4 (2005): 641–663.
