Opium of the people

Template:Short description Template:Marxism sidebar The opium of the people or opium of the masses (Template:Langx) is a dictum used in reference to religion, derived from a frequently paraphrased partial statement of German revolutionary and critic of political economy Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people." In context, the statement is part of Marx's analysis that religion's role is as a metaphysical balm for the real suffering in the universe and in society.<ref>"Marx and the 'Opiate of the Masses'." LibreTexts. 2021 February 20. Retrieved 2021 May 17.</ref><ref name=":1" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":2">Rogers, M., and M. E. Konieczny. 2018. "Does religion always help the poor? Variations in religion and social class in the west and societies in the global south." Palgrave Communications 4(73). {{#invoke:doi|main}}.</ref>

This statement was translated from the German original, "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" and is often rendered as "religionTemplate:Nbsp[...] is the opiate of the Template:Em."<ref>Marx,K.1843.Critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'.P.131 </ref> The full sentence from Marx translates (including italics) as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Template:Em of the people."<ref name=":3">Marx, Karl. [1843] 1970. "Introduction." A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, translated by A. Jolin and J. O’Malley, edited by J. O’Malley. Cambridge University Press. – via Marxists.org.</ref>

The quotation originates from the introduction of Marx's work A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, which he started in 1843 but which was not published until after his death. The introduction to this work was published separately in 1844, in Marx's own journal {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, a collaboration with Arnold Ruge. Often quoted only in part, the interpretation of the metaphor in its context has received much less attention.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Full quotation and history

Marx wrote this passage in 1843 as part of the introduction to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, a book that criticized philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's 1820 book, Elements of the Philosophy of Right. This introduction was published in 1844 in a small journal called {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}; however, the book itself was published posthumously. As the journal had a print run of just 1,000 copies, it had no popular effect during the 19th century. The phrase became better known during the 1930s, when Marxism became more popular.<ref name=":0" />

The quotation, in context, reads as follows (italics in original translation):<ref name=":3" />

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Template:Em, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But Template:Em is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is Template:Em – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an Template:Em, because they are an Template:Em. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the Template:Em of the human essence since the Template:Em has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle Template:Em whose spiritual Template:Em is religion.

Template:Em suffering is, at one and the same time, the Template:Em of real suffering and a Template:Em against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the Template:Em of the people.

The abolition of religion as the Template:Em happiness of the people is the demand for their Template:Em happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to Template:Em. The criticism of religion is, therefore, Template:Em of which religion is the Template:Em.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Metaphor

Marx used the phrase to make a structural-functionalist argument about religion, and particularly about organized religion.<ref name=":1">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name=":0">Template:Cite news</ref> In his view, religion may be false, but it is a function of something real.<ref name=":4">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Specifically, Marx believed that religion had certain practical functions in society that were similar to the function of opium in a sick or injured person: it reduced people's immediate suffering and provided them with pleasant illusions which gave them the strength to carry on. In this sense, while Marx may have no sympathy for religion itself, he has deep sympathy for those proletariat who put their trust in it.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":4" />

At the same time, Marx saw religion as harmful to revolutionary goals: by focusing on the eternal rather than the temporal, religion turns the attention of the oppressed away from the exploitation and class structure that encompasses their everyday lives. In the process, religion helps to foster a kind of false consciousness that emboldens cultural values and beliefs that support and validate the continued dominance of the ruling class. It thereby prevents the socialist revolution, the overthrowing of capitalism, and the establishment of a classless, socialist society.<ref name=":2" /> In Marx's view, once workers finally overthrow capitalism, unequal social relations will no longer need legitimating and people's alienation will dissolve, along with any need for religion.<ref name=":2" />

Interpretations by subsequent communist leaders and theorists

Subsequent communist leaders and theorists have reflected and expanded on Marx's metaphor and considered it in the context of their own national conditions.

Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin, speaking of religion in Template:Transliteration in 1905,<ref>Novaya Zhizn No. 28, December 3, 1905, as quoted in Marxists Internet Archive</ref> alluded to Marx's earlier comments:<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people [[[:Template:Transliteration]]]. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image [[[:Template:Transliteration]]], their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Kim Il Sung

North Korean leader Kim Il Sung's writings addressed the "opium" metaphor twice, both in the context of responding to comrades who object to working with religious groups (Chonbulygo and Chondoism).<ref name=":5">Template:Cite book</ref> In the first instance, Kim replies that a person is "mistaken" if they believe Marx's proposition regarding "opium of the people" can be applied in all instances, explaining that if a religion "prays for dealing out divine punishment to Japan and blessing the Korean nation" then it is a "patriotic religion" and its believers are patriots.<ref name=":5" /> In the second, Kim states that Marx's metaphor "must not be construed radically and unilaterally" because Marx was warning against "the temptation of a religious mirage and not opposing believers in general."<ref name=":5" /> Because the communist movement in Korea was fighting a struggle for "national salvation" against Japan, Kim writes that anyone with a similar agenda can join the struggle and that "even a religionistTemplate:Nbsp[...] must be enrolled in our ranks without hesitation."<ref name=":5" />

Academic interpretations

Roland Boer argues that Marx's depiction of religion as opium has been largely misinterpreted, and that at that time opium was both valued and denounced for its medicinal qualities and its addictive potential.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

In other academic work, Robin Dunbar has used the idea of religion being "the opium of the people" to suggest that group religious practice may lead to the body's natural release of endogenous opioids, known as endorphins.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Multiple studies have been conducted attempting to test this hypothesis. In one such series of studies, Sarah Charles found evidence that religious ritual did lead to the release of endogenous opioids, which was directly linked to participants' feelings of bonding during the group religious practice.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Similar statements and influence

The same metaphor was used by many authors around the 19th century.

In 1798, Novalis wrote in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} ('Pollen'):<ref name="O'Brien1995">Template:Cite book</ref>

{{#invoke:Lang|lang}} [Their so-called religion works simply as an opiate—stimulating; numbing; quelling pain by means of weakness.]{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

In 1840, Heinrich Heine also used the same analogy, in his essay on Ludwig Börne:<ref>Heine, Heinrich. 1840. Ludwig Börne - a Memorial.</ref>

Welcome be a religion that pours into the bitter chalice of the suffering human species some sweet, soporific drops of spiritual opium, some drops of love, hope and faith.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

The writings of Bruno Bauer are a key influence on the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Marx's metaphor is anticipated in two of Bauer's works: {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}. In the former work, Bauer talks of religion as a cause of "opium-like stupefaction;" in the latter, Bauer mentions theology's "opium-like" influence.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>

Charles Kingsley, a canon of the Church of England, wrote the following in 1847, four years after Marx:<ref>Selsam, Howard, and Harry Martel, eds. 1987. Reader in Marxist Philosophy: From the Writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.</ref>

We have used the Bible as if it were a mere special constable's hand book, an opium dose for keeping beasts of burden patient while they were being overloaded, a mere book to keep the poor in order.<ref>F. D. Maurice (Leaders Of The Church 1800-1900)- C. F. G. Masterman (1907). pp. 65-6</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Miguel de Unamuno

Miguel de Unamuno, the Spanish author of the Generation of '98, focused his nivola {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} around the theme of religion's opiatic effect on the people of rural Spain. In the book, the protagonist Don Manuel is a priest who does not believe in God, but continues preaching because he sees the positive impact he can make in the lives of his parishioners. Religion in this way also serves to cure his own deep depression, through the happiness he feels from helping the people of Valverde de Lucerna. Unamuno makes direct reference to Marx when Don Manuel explains:

Yes, I know that one of the leaders of what they call the social revolution has said that religion is the opium of the people. Opium ... opium, yes! Let's give them opium, and let them sleep and dream. And with this crazy activity of mine, I have also been using opium.<ref>Miguel de Unamuno, San Manuel Bueno, Martír (1930). p.14</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

Modern comparisons

Some writers make a modern comparison of the phrase "opium of the people" to that akin to sports fandom, celebrities, the distractions of television, the internet, and other entertainment, etc.<ref name=":0" /><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> This can be seen as a parallel to the concept of bread and circuses.

In 2016 in the Atlantic and on the PBS show hosted by Charlie Rose, prior to being elected senator or nominated to be Donald Trump's running mate, JD Vance called Trump "cultural heroin"<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref> and "an opioid of the masses."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

See also

• Criticism of religion
  • Antireligion
• Faith and rationality
• God helps those who help themselves
• Marxism and religion
  • Marxist–Leninist atheism
• Noble lie

Further reading

• Abrams, M. H. [1934] 1971. The Milk of Paradise: The Effect of Opium Visions on the Works of De Quincey, Crabbe, Francis, Thompson, and Coleridge. New York: Octagon.
• Berridge, Victoria and Edward Griffiths. 1980. Opium and the People. London: Allen Lane
• Marx, Karl. 1844. "Introduction | A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February.
• McKinnon, Andrew M. "Reading ‘Opium of the People’: Expression, Protest and the Dialectics of Religion." Critical Sociology 31(1/2)
• O’Toole, Roger. 1984. Religion: Classic Sociological Approaches. Toronto: McGraw Hill
• Rojo, Sergio Vuskovic. 1988. "La religion, opium du people et protestation contre la misère réele: Les positions de Marx et de Lénine." Social Compass 35(2/3):197–230.
• Luchte, James. 2009. "Marx and the Sacred." The Journal of Church and State 51(3):413–37.

External links

• Template:Wikiquote inline