Rastafari: Because I Can't Think of a Title

One question that came up in class that I found very interesting was: without the oppression (or downpression) and persecution that the Rastafarian people experienced, and that Bob Marley wrote about, would the Rastafarian religion exist? and if it did to what degree would the religion be different than it is now? I think it is very interesting to think about the "what ifs" of this situation. I think that if the aforementioned oppression (downpression) had never occurred Rastafari would still exist as a modern religion. But to me, it seems, the religion would not be as widespread without this cultural aspect, because the main conduit through which the world learned about Rasta culture was the music of Bob Marley. Marley's music quite possibly could have been drastically different (at least lyrically) or even been nonexistent if he didn't have the angst caused by downpression. At the very least, without oppression, Rastafarian culture would just be less well known to the world than it is today. I don't think the oppression affects the size of the religion's population in either direction because even though there are people all over the world who are persecuted that could fit into the Rasta mold, but because of the exclusivity of the religion they wouldn't be able to be a part of it. If the oppression had never happened there would likely have been much less press coverage, keeping the religion more of a secret.


Another related idea that came up in class referred to the Rastafari ideal of seperating themselves from mainstream society. The question that was posed was: what would happen to the Rastafarian religion if mainstream conformed to their ideals and became Rastafarian. I think, first of all, that this isn't completely possible. It would be possible for everyone to convert to a similar lifestyle to the one that the Rastafarian people live, but the Rasta people would not let certain people partake in their religion. If this happened, as unlikely as it is, it would not destroy the religion. No doubt, though, it would be a devastating blow to the aims of the religion. Currently, a great deal of the Rastafari people's efforts are focused on being their own culture and shunning what is "Babylon", taking away that aspect of their religion would alter the nature of their religion a great deal.

During this unit on Rastafari and Rastafarian culture in general, we haven't talked a great deal about the book itself or the main ideas presented by Ennis Barrington Edmonds within it. I think that Edmonds' approach to Rastafari was very interesting. He was essentially using the religion to shoot down Weber's theories of charisma and routinization, but at the same time he revealed some interesting things about the Rasta culture. The middle section of the book (excluding the first and last chapters) were a very objective look at Rastafari and the culture that surrounds it. He does a good job of separating what he wants to apply Rastafari to and the description of what it is, so that the religion itself tells a story, and then Edmonds explains why it proves his point. A really interesting side affect of the book is how it shows the isolation of Rastafari as a religion. Weber made a generalization about religions when he posed his theories of charisma and routinization, Rastafari is simply one of the exceptions to this generalization, an outlier when it comes to religion. This highlights what is important in Rastafari culture. Rasta culture is based on the fact that they aren't like everyone else, they aren't Babylon. Because being out of the mainstream is what Rastafari is all about, it isn't surprising that it doesn't coincide with a theory that was made to apply to more mainstream religions.