Letters
Public responses
Exorcism, not gospel
D+C/E+Z 2013/05, p. 199 f., Carlos Albuquerque: “Gaining ground”
I want to correct some of Carlos Albuquerque’s euphemisms and belittlements. I have attended services of some Evangelical or Pentecostal groups in Brazil. Their practice seems to be quite different from their doctrine and the public image they project. Some terms Albuquerque uses, though common in Brazil, are misleading for German readers. The label “Evangelical” means little because the salvation these groups promise is not the forgiveness of sins within a Christian community in line with the New Testament. Instead they almost exclusively refer to the Old Testament, stressing their identification with the chosen people in the sense of being opposed by “all others.” Most of their preaching evokes a populist God-and-Devil conflict. However, the Holy Spirit, prominent in Albuquerque’s reference to these groups, is hardly ever mentioned in practice. “Pleasing God” is considered an individual effort with a concrete, personified, paternal God in mind.
Albuquerque mentions “priests”, but most of them are just shrewd orators with minimal theological background. What they make happen in their services adds up to exorcism. Several times during a service, such a “priest” typically escalates rhetoric and voice to climax, holding a microphone. His words are about sins, the devil, faith as the antidote and advice on how to behave in daily life. The sound-level and the vocabulary both remind one of punishment. There is groaning and squealing in the audience. What Albuquerque calls euphoria could well be understood as a sado-masochistic trance. The overwhelming motto is obedience – to God and to the organisation. These groups act like private businesses with top-down management, and they are financially non-transparent. Even the terms “Protestant” and “Church” are misleading to the extent that, in Europe, they refer to institutions that are rooted in the community and controlled by their followers.
Albuquerque states that “some of the Pentecostal leaders have made large fortunes”, but he fails to add that, in effect, they sell absolution from sin. Some groups insist they do not ask for money, but as money is mentioned constantly, there can be no doubt about how God’s forgiveness can be bought. Some even promise economic success on earth as a reward for “pleasing God” this way. In some cases, defectors successfully claimed such donations back at law courts.
Albuquerque calls the Evangelicals’ power in politics a “success” as if it was the result of bona-fide convincing voters whose social demands are represented, as is normally done in democracies. Instead, the Evangelicals‘ power is based on blackmailing their followers on moralistic grounds and on literally demonising opponents. They make educated Brazilians worry about personal liberties and human rights.
Dirk Belau, Brasilia, São Paulo
Innovative farmers
D+C/E+Z 2013/04, Editorial, Hans Dembowski: Appropriate business environment
You mentioned a reluctance of farmers to adopt new approaches and technologies. This reluctance often results from the manner in which innovations are developed and extended. The introduction of “new technology” involves four major stake-holders: scientists, policymakers, providers of infra- structure and services and, finally, the farmers themselves. The interests and perspectives of the stakeholders diverge. If things go wrong, the consequences for the farmers are dire, whereas the other three groups are not affected much. Ultimately, the farmers are the ones who shoulder all risks.
Researchers and extension people often focus on specific crops or livestock, but fail to take into account the peasants’ whole farming systems. For good reasons of risk management, farmers in developing countries diversify their activities. They will not accept innovations that do not fit in. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that farmers’ individual situations (in regard to family size, resource availability, education et cetera) differ widely even within a single village. That researchers, policymakers and extension people have a habit of looking down on peasants obviously does not help.
New approaches are more likely to be adopted by farmers if they are:
feasible in the current setting of a given farm,
- economically attractive,
- socially acceptable,
- environmentally friendly and
- relatively risk-free.
Accordingly, innovations are more likely to succeed if they are incremental refinements of current practice and match the existing peasant environment.
My point is that farmers are intelligent and innovative. They normally operate at near optimum within their constraints. That is how they survive. They are keen on improvements even though their knowledge and technology may be “traditional”, but they decide for themselves what works for them. Anyone who wants to modernise and enhance agriculture, must take them seriously. Technology transfer is not a one-way street.
Prof. Dr. Ramesh C. Agrawal, Berlin, rcagrawal@hotmail.de