Is the NHS Our New National Religion?

Scrolling through my Twitter feed during the current COVID-19 pandemic is not a great idea. Nonetheless, I recently stumbled across an interesting tweet from the Religion Media Centre (RMC). They describe themselves as ‘Independent and impartial – providing the media with information, context and expert comment’. The tweet regards a virtual panel discussion examining the following question: ‘Is the NHS [National Health Service] our new national religion?’

The sentiment of wanting to appreciate an underfunded NHS, struggling with a lack of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) supplies and adequate staffing during traumatic times, is reasonable, if not vital. But this blogpost is not a critique of Conservative party policies and public complacency about the NHS. While my caveat is that I do not know exactly what was discussed by the RMC virtual panel, I argue that this a deeply flawed question that we should not be asking. It is worth stating that I am not challenging personal views. Instead, I am problematizing this question being asked by an “independent” group that claims an ‘ability to engage with journalists, drawn from any faith background or none’.

Firstly, asking whether the NHS is the “new national religion” disregards critical Study of Religion theory, albeit, even if it seems fashionable to pay lip-service to it - cite Foucault and Bob’s your uncle, you’re a critic! This reminds me somewhat of teaching first year Religious Studies method and theory classes, whereby students would get caught up about whether football is or is not a “religion” according to the “measuring stick[s]” [definitions] of Edward B. Tylor, Clifford Geertz, and Sigmund Freud. As I often tried to explain, the point is not to examine whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit, but rather, consider why individuals and groups might classify it as one or another. Why? Because as Jack Lewis Graham and I argue [among several others], ‘“religion” should be conceived of as a social construct, a product of language, particular histories, and intertwining relations of knowledge and power’.

Secondly, this question problematically implies that the NHS is itself an “actor” or abstract reality that transcends human consciousness. Rather, the NHS is comprised of dedicated and diverse individuals and communities that embody the idea of a free at point of delivery healthcare system in Britain. Imposing the classification of “religion” on the NHS whitewashes the range of identifications that people who constitute the NHS have, including those who actively distance themselves from that and related terms. Moreover, we ought not forget the troubled history of the category of religion, specifically, its use in Colonial periods by the British Empire who violently and coercively classified India as having many “religions”. Consequently, it seems that a timely reminder is needed: words are not neutral and ahistorical descriptors, but rather political.

For example, take Noam Chomsky’s view of socialism and the Soviet Union (1986). Arguably, he states: ‘The Soviet leadership … portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense … to forestall the threat of a more free and just society’. Chomsky’s quote exemplifies the ways in which categories function, for instance, being weaponized by the state. Other examples include terms such as “Cult”, “Trotskyist”, “Democracy”, and even "human" and "animal". If we are going to partake in language games, there are likely better and worse ways to use these terms. Nonetheless, it ought not detract from the view that they are ultimately socially constituted and discursive. I use the term “ultimately” here to semaphore more than just a fleeting mention of social constructivism and discourse analysis, and then expecting to find “real” religion in some mysterious place, if only we dig deep enough.

Thirdly, and following nicely on, it is apt to briefly examine claims as to why the NHS may be the new national religion. According to a short report on the Religion Media Centre website, arguments in support may include citations to theories of “collective effervescence” (see Durkheim, 1912) and “vicarious religion” (see Grace Davie, 2007). Like other typical definitions of religion (belief, ritual, morality, sacred, goddess, spiritual, myth, community) they are not immune to being dismantled (see Craig Martin’s critique of “colloquial” definitions of religion). This is because these alleged definitions and terms are social constructions rather than neutral descriptors of “true realities”. For instance, we tend to conceptualize myths as stories about gods and goddesses. While this might be a useful example of a possibly functional classification (I might use this term in studies of literature but accept that it’s a social construction), we should not assume that “myth” exists before language. In other words, discourse brings the category and concept of myth into existence.

In the critical Study of Religion, we are reminded that definitions both serve and say more about their authors, than they do classifications (see Russell McCutcheon). When academics and practitioners argue for or against the question of the NHS being a new national religion, they willingly engage in debates about truth, that are far from neutral, but rather political. Would these same commentators say that Muslims who do not read and speak Arabic are not true Muslims? Would they claim Catholics as heretics, and therefore, bad religion, or not religion at all?

Similarly, it is reminiscent of debates about whether Atheism is a religion or not, and if Choral music is “sacred” or “secular”. Scholars of religion ought to consider, in these instances, history and power, and discursively examine the disparate claims of participants and their identifications. Instead, with Study of Religion degrees in hand, many religion commentators all too often don the role of Magistrate and cast judgement, all while claiming impartiality and the ability to “speak” on behalf of religious matters. This might be slightly overstating, but it is not hard to imagine. In fact, I am sure anybody who has observed a Study of Religion classroom has heard views about Muslims who commit violent actions not being “real” Muslims, and consequently, perverting the “true” meaning of religion.

To conclude, I don’t know exactly what was said during the RMC discussion about whether ‘the NHS [is] our new national religion’. I am not trying to bludgeon the sentiment, and nor am I dismissing the right to have an opinion on that matter. Moreover, nor I am attempting to fuel a witch-hunt for any use of the term religion without the caveat of social constructivism. Nonetheless, examining the claims of groups identifying as religious or otherwise needs to be critical, theoretically informed, and remain aware of the unwritten politics of definitions or claims regarding religion. This is particularly the case if such questions are discussed and information disseminated by lobby groups and academics to the general public and students, or they are informing policy at the level of government.