Jump to content

Anthropology of religion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Definition of religion: images did not advance article; WP:BANREVERT of Xiang09's sockpuppet account
(30 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Study of religion related to other religions or institutions}}{{Expand Russian|date=April 2022}}{{Anthropology of religion}}
{{Anthropology of religion}}
{{Anthropology|social/cultural}}
{{Anthropology|social/cultural}}
'''Anthropology of religion''' is the study of religion in relation to other social [[institution]]s, and the comparison of [[religious belief]]s and [[Ritual#Religious rituals|practices]] across [[culture]]s.{{sfnm |1a1=Adams |1y=2017 |2a1=Eller |2y=2007 |2p=2}}
'''Anthropology of religion''' is the study of [[religion]] in relation to other social [[institution]]s, and the comparison of [[religious belief]]s and [[Ritual#Religious rituals|practices]] across [[culture]]s.{{sfnm |1a1=Adams |1y=2017 |2a1=Eller |2y=2007 |2p=2}} The anthropology of religion, as a field, overlaps with but is distinct from the field of Religious Studies. The history of anthropology of religion is a history of striving to understand how other people view and navigate the world. This history involves deciding what religion is, what it does, and how it functions.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Boddy |first=Janice |title=A Companion to the Anthropology of Religion |last2=Lambek |first2=Michael |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2013 |location=Hoboken, NJ}}</ref> Today, one of the main concerns of anthropologists of religion is defining religion, which is a theoretical undertaking in and of itself. Scholars such as Edward Tylor, Emile Durkheim, E.E. Evans Pritchard, Mary Douglas, Victor Turner, Clifford Geertz, and Talal Asad have all grappled with defining and characterizing religion anthropologically.


==History==
==History==
In the 19th century [[cultural anthropology]] was dominated by an interest in [[cultural evolution]]; most [[anthropologist]]s assumed a simple distinction between "primitive" and "modern" religion and tried to provide accounts of how the former evolved into the latter.{{citation needed|date= April 2015}}
In the early 12th century [[Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī]] (973–1048), wrote detailed comparative studies on the anthropology of religions and cultures across the [[Mediterranean Basin]] (including the so-called "[[Middle East]]") and the [[Indian subcontinent]].{{sfn|Walbridge| 1998}} He discussed the peoples, customs, and religions of the Indian subcontinent.


Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), sometimes called the “father of anthropology,” took an evolutionary approach to religion. Tylor defined religion as a “belief in spiritual beings” but did not believe all religions were equal or equally “true.” His evolutionary perspective is evident in his book (1871) ''Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Language, Art, and Custom,'' in which he proposed a taxonomy of religions and believed that “primitive” religions were a result of cognitive errors. In other words, these beliefs explained natural phenomena that the people or culture did not fully understand. He called this “animism,” which included attributing a spirit to inanimate objects.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Bielo |first=James |title=Anthropology of Religion: The Basics |publisher=Routledge |year=2015 |edition=1st |location=London}}</ref>
In the 19th century [[cultural anthropology]] was dominated by an interest in [[cultural evolution]]; most [[anthropologist]]s assumed a simple distinction between "primitive" and "modern" religion and tried to provide accounts of how the former evolved into the latter.{{citation needed|date= April 2015}} In the 20th century most anthropologists rejected this approach. Today the anthropology of religion reflects the influence of, or an engagement with, such theorists as [[Karl Marx]] (1818-1883), [[Sigmund Freud's views on religion | Sigmund Freud]] (1856-1939), [[Émile Durkheim]] (1858-1917), and [[Max Weber]] (1864-1920).{{sfnm |1a1=Eller |1y=2007 |1p=22 |2a1=Weber |2y=2002}} Anthropologists of religion are especially concerned with how religious beliefs and practices may reflect political or economic forces; or the social functions of religious beliefs and practices.{{sfn|Eller|2007|p= 4}}{{clarify|date= April 2015}}


James George Frazer (1854-1941), most well-known for his book ''The Golden Bough,'' also approached the study of religion from an evolutionist perspective. Frazer's hierarchy of religions included different stages: first magic, then religious, and ending in scientific. Frazer argues that magic becomes an increasingly futile practice as religious systems develop.<ref name=":0" /> This is when the religious phase begins, in which the world is explained through reference to divine beings who intervene in the world. In the final stage, elites see religion as insufficient or incorrectly addressing world phenomena and begin to seek to understand the world through laws of nature.<ref name=":1">{{Citation |last=Guthrie |first=Stewart E. |title=Anthropological Theories of Religion |date=2006 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-atheism/anthropological-theories-of-religion/B781D301DB66CC55C8AABB5CEA641F7F |work=The Cambridge Companion to Atheism |pages=283–299 |editor-last=Martin |editor-first=Michael |access-date=2023-12-27 |series=Cambridge Companions to Philosophy |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-84270-9}}</ref>
In 1912 Émile Durkheim, building on the work of [[Ludwig Feuerbach | Feuerbach]], considered religion "a projection of the social values of society", "a means of making [[symbol]]ic statements about society", "a symbolic language that makes statements about the social order";{{sfnm |1a1=Durkheim |1y=1912 |2a1=Bowie |2y=1999 |2pp=15, 143}} in short, "religion is society worshiping itself".{{sfn|Nelson |1990}}<ref>Durkheim, p.266 in the 1963 edition</ref>{{incomplete short citation|date= November 2017}}


Towards the end of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, anthropologists of religion began to question the distinctions between magic and religion made by Tylor and Frazer. William Robertson Smith (1846-1894) in ''Lectures of the Religion of the Semites (1899)'' proposed the idea of the totem. For Smith, social groups worshiped totems which represented their ancestors and worshipping totemic items accounted for the emergence of religions. Thus, Smith's theory of totemism rose in prominent within the field of anthropology of religion, challenging and in some instances fully replacing Tylor's theory of animism.
Anthropologists ''circa'' 1940 assumed that religion was in complete continuity with [[magical thinking]],{{efn|In 1944, [[Ernst Cassirer]] wrote: {{quote|It seems to be one of the postulates of modern anthropology that there is complete continuity between magic and religion. [note 35: See, for instance, RR Marett, Faith, Hope, and Charity in Primitive Religion, the Gifford Lectures (Macmillan, 1932), Lecture II, pp. 21 ff.] ... We have no empirical evidence at all that there ever was an age of magic that has been followed and superseded by an age of religion.{{sfn|Cassirer|2006|pp= 122–123}}}}}}{{sfn|Cassirer|2006|pp= 122–123}}{{Dubious |Problems with many claims |reason= Citation does not say anything about modern anthropology and is not a work on the issue |date= April 2015}}

and that it is a cultural product.{{efn|T. M. Manickam wrote: {{quote| Religious anthropology suggests that every religion is a product of the cultural evolution, more or less coherent, of one race or people; and this cultural product is further enriched by its interaction and cross-fertilization with other peoples and their cultures, in whose vicinity the former originated and evolved.{{sfn|Manickam|1977|p= 6}}}}}}{{sfn|Manickam|1977|p=6}} The complete continuity between [[magic and religion]] has been a postulate of modern anthropology at least since early 1930s.{{efn|[[Robert Ranulph Marett |R. R. Marett]] wrote: {{quote|In conclusion, a word must be said on a rather trite subject. Many leading anthropologists, including the author of ''The Golden Bough'', would wholly or in the main refuse the title of religion to these almost inarticulate ceremonies of very humble folk. I am afraid, however, that I cannot follow them. Nay, I would not leave out a whole continent from a survey of the religions of mankind in order to humour the most distinguished of my friends. Now clearly if these observances are not to be regarded as religious, like a wedding in church, so neither can they be classed as civil, like its drab equivalent at a registry office. They are mysteries, and are therefore at least generically akin to religion. Moreover, they are held in the highest public esteem as of infinite worth whether in themselves or for their effects. To label them, then, with the opprobrious name of magic as if they were on a par with the mummeries that enable certain knaves to batten on the nerves of fools is quite unscientific; for it mixes up two things which the student of human culture must keep rigidly apart, namely, a normal development of the social life and one of its morbid by-products. Hence for me they belong to religion, but of course to rudimentary religion—to an early phase of the same world-wide institution that we know by that name among ourselves. I am bound to postulate the strictest continuity between these stages of what I have here undertaken to interpret as a natural growth.{{sfn|Marett|1932}}}}}}{{sfnm |1a1= Cassirer |1y=2006 |1pp= 122–123 |2a1= Marett |2y= 1932}} The perspective of modern anthropology towards religion is the ''[[Psychological projection| projection]] idea'', a methodological approach which assumes that every religion is created by the human [[community]] that worships it, that "creative activity ascribed to God is projected from man".{{sfnm |1a1=Guthrie |1y= 2000 |1pp= 225–226 |2a1= Harvey |2y= 1996 |2p= 67 |3a1= Pandian |3y= 1997 |p= 507}} In 1841, [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] was the first to employ this concept as the basis for a systematic critique of religion.{{sfnm |1a1= Feuerbach |1y= 1841 |2a1= Harvey |2y= 1995 |2p= 4 |3a1= Mackey |3y= 2000 |pages= 41–42 |4a1= Nelson |4y= 1990}} A prominent precursor in the formulation of this projection principle was [[Giambattista Vico]]{{sfnm |1a1=Cotrupi |1y=2000 |1p=21 |2a1=Harvey |2y=1995 |2p=4}} (1668-1744), and an early formulation of it appears in the ancient Greek writer [[Xenophanes]] {{circa}} 570 – {{circa}} 475 BCE)[, who observed that "the gods of Ethiopians were inevitably black with flat noses while those of the Thracians were blond with blue eyes."{{sfn|Harvey|1995|p= 4}}
Durkheim (1858-1917) built on the idea of the totem. He saw religion as collective and societal. For Durkheim, religious forces are essentially collective societal forces, which are manifest in the totem itself. The society gives the totem its power, meaning, and existence, which effectively gives the God or the religion its power, meaning and existence. In “Origins of Belief,” Durkheim posits that a totem is symbolic of society, or as he calls it, of the clan, and of God. As Durkheim puts it, “the totem is the visible body of God.” The actual totem itself can be an insignificant object, such as an animal, or a cross of wood. However, despite its apparently insignificant nature as a physical thing, Durkheim argues that a totem is actually the clan itself. However, individuals are not cognizant of his/her veneration of society through his/her veneration of the totem. Rather, they believe that the totem is something which comes from outside of their consciousness, essentially, according to Durkheim “society gives the sensation of a perpetual dependence.”<ref>{{Cite book |last=Durkheim |first=Emile |title=The Elementary Forms of Religious Life |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2008 |location=Oxford |translator-last=Cosman |translator-first=Carol}}</ref>

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) moved away from the inquiry into the origins of the religion shifting the theory of religion to focus on religion as a function of the social world. In his essay, “Magic, Science, and Religion,” Malinowski argues that religion in its social and psychological functions promotes social integration and community. Malinowski separates the categories of religion and magic in specifying that magic is used for functional ends: to solve problems or achieve objectives where other methods have failed.<ref name=":1" />

E.E. Evans Pritchard (1902-1973) is most famous for his work on witchcraft. His book ''[[Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande]]'' approaches witchcraft as a cohesive and internally consistent system of knowing. While Pritchard believed that religious systems were a reflection of social environment, he was primarily concerned with thought patterns and logic within belief systems.

Victor Turner (1920-1983) understood religion through the lens of rituals, rites of passage and symbolism. He considered religion to be the lynchpin in cultural systems. In his book ''The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure,'' he proposes his theory of liminality and communitas. He developed liminality from folklorist Arnold Van Gennep. For Turner, the liminal stage is a period of ambiguity or transition where an individual's status in a ritual change from pre-ritual stage to post-ritual. The idea of communitas refers to the common experience of community during a ritual.

Mary Douglas’ (1921-2007) work and topics were inspired by Evans-Pritchard. They both explained social systems in terms of functionalism. She defined religion through the lens of ritual. In her most famous book, ''Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo,'' she compares Western and “primitive” societies in showing that Western societies also relied on “magic” through rituals around purity and pollution, such as teeth brushing. She sees ritual as a collective force or system that places limits on the body. In this way, the image of society is carved onto the body through reiterations of purity and pollution.

Talal Asad (1932-now) is a prominent anthropologist of religion today who focuses on religion and modernity. Asad is well known for his work on religion and power. He has argued that overlooking the history of defining religion can lead us to overlook its imbrication with power. He has also pointed to the ways in which modernity has delimited religion to a certain sphere of life, so that religion can be pointed out or identified in certain ways and not in others. In doing this, he has also called for the development of a religion of secularity.  

Clifford Geertz and Talal Asad publicly debated the “universal” nature of religion. While Geertz, provided an operational definition for religion that allowed for variation across cultures, he saw this definition as encapsulating certain universal features of “religion.” Alternatively, Asad questioned the very existence of “universal religion” in pointing to the ways in which ideas about the universal were rooted in distinctly Christian ideas and traditions. Influenced by Michel Foucault and Edward Said, Asad questions the conceptual assumptions involved in or undergirding the production of knowledge.<ref name=":1" /> This is what led Asad to question the existence of separate sphere of society that could be called or identified as “religion.” In undermining the existence of religion as a separate sphere, Asad points to Western modernity as producing religion as distinct from other parts of society.

One key component of anthropology of religion is ethnographic fieldwork. This is what makes anthropologists who study religion distinct from other Religious Studies scholars. Ethnography is most simply put, the empirical observation and description of individuals, societies, and cultures. For anthropologists of religion, ethnographic fieldwork focuses on religion through the lens of rituals, worship, religious values, and other components of lived religion. Developments in ethnographic approaches to the study of religion or theoretical developments in the ethnographic study of religion have spanned decades.

Evolutionist perspectives were reflective of Darwinian theories of evolution and saw religious systems in a taxonomic and hierarchical way: some religions were closer to the truth than others and Christianity was always at the top of pyramid. Functionalist perspectives aimed to study religion as a part of society that played an important an integral role: non-Christian religions were not compared to Christianity on a sliding scale, but rather taken in context with the whole cultural context. Humanist theories of evolution see religions as products of human culture and invention, rather than metaphysical or supernatural phenomena that “exist” outside of the human cultures that produce them.<ref name=":1" /> Cross-cultural or comparative theories of religion focus on “religion” as something that can be found and compared across all human cultures and societies.

The anthropology of religion today reflects the influence of, or an engagement with, such theorists as [[Karl Marx]] (1818-1883), [[Sigmund Freud's views on religion|Sigmund Freud]] (1856-1939), [[Émile Durkheim]] (1858-1917), and [[Max Weber]] (1864-1920).{{sfnm |1a1=Eller |1y=2007 |1p=22 |2a1=Weber |2y=2002}} Anthropologists of religion are especially concerned with how religious beliefs and practices may reflect political or economic forces; or the social functions of religious beliefs and practices.{{sfn|Eller|2007|p= 4}}{{clarify|date= April 2015}}

Recently, a prominent ethnographer of religion, Robert Orsi, has asked scholars of religion to abandon the empirical approach to ethnography of religion that was co-emergent with modernity. This approach entails the impulse to explain God or gods in people's lives as a function or symbol of some other thing. Orsi asks those who study religion to instead take God and gods as real actors, really present.


== Definition of religion ==
== Definition of religion ==
Line 20: Line 41:
Today, religious anthropologists debate, and reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European [[primitivism]]).{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion &ndash; such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual &ndash; but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.{{sfn|Eller|2007|p=7}}
Today, religious anthropologists debate, and reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European [[primitivism]]).{{citation needed|date=April 2015}} Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion &ndash; such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual &ndash; but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.{{sfn|Eller|2007|p=7}}


[[Anthony F. C. Wallace]] proposes four categories of religion, each subsequent category subsuming the previous. These are, however, synthetic categories and do not necessarily encompass all religions.<ref>{{cite web |last=Rathman |first=Jessica |title=Anthony Francis Clarke Wallace |url=http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/wallace_anthony.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030927142508/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/wallace_anthony.html |archive-date=27 November 2003 |access-date=22 November 2017}}</ref>
[[Anthony F. C. Wallace]] proposes four categories of religion, each subsequent category subsuming the previous. These are, however, synthetic categories and do not necessarily encompass all religions.<ref>{{cite web |last=Rathman |first=Jessica |title=Anthony Francis Clarke Wallace |url=http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/wallace_anthony.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030927142508/http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/wallace_anthony.html |archive-date=27 September 2003 |access-date=22 November 2017}}</ref>


# Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: [[vision quest]].
# Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: [[vision quest]].
Line 29: Line 50:
==Specific religious practices and beliefs==
==Specific religious practices and beliefs==
{{Div col|colwidth=22em}}
{{Div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Apotheosis]]
* {{anli|Apotheosis}}
* [[Apotropaic magic]]
* {{anli|Apotropaic magic}}
* [[Amulet]]
* {{anli|Amulet}}
* [[Animism]]
* {{anli|Animism}}
* {{anli|Circumcision}}
* [[Cult (religious practice)]]
* {{anli|Cult (religious practice)}}
* [[Deity]]
* {{anli|Deity}}
* [[Demon]]
* {{anli|Demon}}
* [[Divination]]
* {{anli|Divination}}
* [[Esotericism]]
* {{anli|Esotericism}}
* [[Exorcism]]
* {{anli|Exorcism}}
* [[Evil]]
* {{anli|Evil}}
* [[Fertility rite]]
* {{anli|Fertility rite}}
* [[Fetishism]]
* {{anli|Fetishism}}
* [[Genius (mythology)]]
* {{anli|Genius (mythology)}}
* [[God]]
* {{anli|God}}
* [[Ghost]]
* {{anli|Ghost}}
* [[Greco-Roman mysteries]]
* {{anli|Greco-Roman mysteries}}
* [[Heresy]]
* {{anli|Heresy}}
* [[Icon]]
* {{anli|Icon}}
* [[Immortality]]
* {{anli|Immortality}}
* [[Intercession]]
* {{anli|Intercession}}
* [[Kachina]]
* {{anli|Kachina}}
* [[Magic and religion]]
* {{anli|Magic and religion}}
* [[Mana]]
* {{anli|Mana (Oceanian mythology)}}
* [[Mask]]
* {{anli|Mask}}
* [[Miracle]]
* {{anli|Miracle}}
* [[Medicine]]
* {{anli|Medicine}}
* [[Modern paganism]]
* {{anli|Modern paganism}}
* [[Monotheism]]
* {{anli|Monotheism}}
* [[Mother goddess]]
* {{anli|Mother goddess}}
* [[Mythology]]
* {{anli|Mythology}}
* [[Necromancy]]
* {{anli|Necromancy}}
* [[New Age]]
* {{anli|New Age}}
* [[Occult]]
* {{anli|Occult}}
* [[Omen]]
* {{anli|Omen}}
* [[Poles in mythology]]
* {{anli|Poles in mythology}}
* [[Polytheism]]
* {{anli|Polytheism}}
* [[Prayer]]
* {{anli|Prayer}}
* [[Magic (paranormal)#Principle of contagion|Principle of contagion]]
* [[Magic (paranormal)#Principle of contagion|Principle of contagion]]
* [[Prophecy]]
* {{anli|Prophecy}}
* [[Reincarnation]]
* {{anli|Reincarnation}}
* [[Religious ecstasy]]
* {{anli|Religious ecstasy}}
* [[Ritual]]
* {{anli|Ritual}}
* [[Sacred food as offering]]
* {{anli|Sacred food as offering}}
* [[Sacrifice]]
* {{anli|Sacrifice}}
* {{anli|Science and religion}}
* [[Shamanism]]
* {{anli|Shamanism}}
* [[Spell (paranormal)]]
* {{anli|Spell (paranormal)}}
* [[Supernatural]]
* {{anli|Supernatural}}
* [[Supplication]]
* {{anli|Supplication}}
* [[Sympathetic magic]]
* {{anli|Sympathetic magic}}
* [[Theism]]
* {{anli|Theism}}
* [[Totemism]]
* {{anli|Totemism}}
* [[Veneration of the dead]]
* {{anli|Veneration of the dead}}
* [[Western esotericism]]
{{div col end}}
{{div col end}}


== See also ==
== See also ==
{{Portal|Religion}}
{{Portal|Religion}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->
{{col div|colwidth=20em}}
<!-- please add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]], via {{subst:AnnotatedListOfLinks}} or {{Annotated link}} -->
{{div col|colwidth=20em|small=yes}}
* ''[[Anthropological Perspectives on Religion]]''
* ''[[Anthropological Perspectives on Religion]]''
* [[Archaeology of religion and ritual]]
* {{Annotated link |Archaeology of religion and ritual}}
* [[Cognitive science of religion]]
* {{Annotated link |Cognitive science of religion}}
* [[Evolutionary origin of religions]]
* {{Annotated link |Evolutionary origin of religions}}
* [[Magic and religion]]
* {{Annotated link |Magic and religion}}
* {{Annotated link |Psychology of religion}}
* [[Religious symbolism]]
* {{Annotated link |Religious symbolism}}
* [[Rite of passage]]
* {{Annotated link |Rite of passage}}
* [[Sacred–profane dichotomy]]
* {{Annotated link |Sacred–profane dichotomy}}
* [[Sociology of religion]]
* {{Annotated link |Sociology of religion}}
* [[Symbolic anthropology]]
* {{Annotated link |Symbolic anthropology}}
{{div col end}}
{{div col end}}
<!-- alphabetical order please [[WP:SEEALSO]] -->


==Notes==
==Notes==
Line 104: Line 130:


== References ==
== References ==
{{Reflist|18em}}
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist|22em}}


=== Sources ===
=== Sources ===
{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes}}
{{refbegin|35em|indent=yes}}
: {{cite encyclopedia
* {{cite encyclopedia
|last=Adams
|last=Adams
|first=Charles Joseph
|first=Charles Joseph
Line 116: Line 141:
|title=Classification of Religions
|title=Classification of Religions
|url=https://global.britannica.com/topic/classification-of-religions
|url=https://global.britannica.com/topic/classification-of-religions
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201029171225/https://global.britannica.com/topic/classification-of-religions
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=29 October 2020
|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica
|encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica
|access-date=22 November 2017
|access-date=22 November 2017
}}
|ref=harv
* {{cite book|last=Bowie|first=Fiona|year=1999|title=The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction|location=Oxford|publisher=Blackwell}}
}}{{Dead link|date=September 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
: {{cite book|last=Bowie|first=Fiona|year=1999|isbn=|title=The Anthropology of Religion: An Introduction|location=Oxford|pages=|publisher=Blackwell|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Cassirer|first=Ernst|author-link=Ernst Cassirer|year=2006|orig-year=1944|editor-last=Lukay|editor-first=Maureen|title=An Essay On Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture|location=Hamburg|publisher=Meiner|isbn=978-3-7873-1423-2}}
: {{cite book|last=Cassirer|first=Ernst|author-link=Ernst Cassirer|year=2006|orig-year=1944|editor-last=Lukay|editor-first=Maureen|title=An Essay On Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture|location=Hamburg|pages=|publisher=Meiner|isbn=978-3-7873-1423-2|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Cotrupi|first=Caterina Nella|year=2000|title=Northrop Frye and the Poetics of Process|url=https://archive.org/details/northropfryepoe00cotr|url-access=registration|location=Toronto|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=978-0-8020-8141-4}}
: {{cite book|last=Cotrupi|first=Caterina Nella|author-link=Nella Cotrupi|year=2000|title=Northrop Frye and the Poetics of Process|url=https://archive.org/details/northropfryepoe00cotr|url-access=registration|location=Toronto|pages=|publisher=University of Toronto Press|isbn=978-0-8020-8141-4|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Durkheim|first=Émile|author-link=Émile Durkheim|year=1912|title=The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life|title-link=The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life}}
* {{cite book|last=Eller|first=J. D.|year=2007|title=Introducing Anthropology of Religion|location=New York|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-94624-4}}
: {{cite book|last=Durkheim|first=Émile|author-link=Émile Durkheim|publisher=|year=1912|isbn=|location=|pages=|title=The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life|ref=harv|title-link=The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life}}
: {{cite book|last=Eller|first=J. D.|year=2007|title=Introducing Anthropology of Religion|location=New York|pages=|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-94624-4|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Feuerbach|first=Ludwig|author-link=Ludwig Feuerbach|year=1841|title=The Essence of Christianity|title-link=The Essence of Christianity}}
* {{cite book
: {{cite book|last=Feuerbach|first=Ludwig|author-link=Ludwig Feuerbach|publisher=|year=1841|isbn=|location=|pages=|title=The Essence of Christianity|ref=harv|title-link=The Essence of Christianity}}
: {{cite book
|last=Geertz
|last=Geertz
|first=Clifford
|first=Clifford
Line 141: Line 168:
|pages=1–46
|pages=1–46
|isbn=978-0-415-33021-3
|isbn=978-0-415-33021-3
}}
|ref=harv}}
: {{cite book
* {{cite book
| last=Glazier
| last=Glazier
| first=Stephen
| first=Stephen
Line 149: Line 176:
| location=Westport, CT
| location=Westport, CT
| publisher=Praeger
| publisher=Praeger
}}
| ref=harv}}
: {{cite book|last=Guthrie|first=Stewart Elliott|year=2000|chapter=Projection|editor1-last=Braun|editor1-first=Willi|editor2-last=McCutcheon|editor2-first=Russell T.|editor2-link=Russell T. McCutcheon|title=Guide to the Study of Religion|location=London|pages=|publisher=Cassell|isbn=978-0-304-70176-6|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Guthrie|first=Stewart Elliott|year=2000|chapter=Projection|editor1-last=Braun|editor1-first=Willi|editor2-last=McCutcheon|editor2-first=Russell T.|editor2-link=Russell T. McCutcheon|title=Guide to the Study of Religion|location=London|publisher=Cassell|isbn=978-0-304-70176-6}}
: {{cite book|last=Harvey|first=Van A.|author-link=Van A. Harvey|year=1995|title=Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion|location=Cambridge, England|publisher=Cambridge University Press|publication-date=1997|pages=|isbn=978-0-521-58630-6|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Harvey|first=Van A.|author-link=Van A. Harvey|year=1995|title=Feuerbach and the Interpretation of Religion|location=Cambridge, England|publisher=Cambridge University Press|publication-date=1997|isbn=978-0-521-58630-6}}
: {{cite book|last=Harvey|first=Van A.|author-link=Van A. Harvey|year=1996|author-mask={{long dash}}|chapter=Projection: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory?|editor-last=Philips|editor-first=D. Z.|editor-link=Dewi Zephaniah Phillips|title=Can Religion Be Explained Away?|series=Claremont Studies in the Philosophy of Religion|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=66–82|isbn=978-1-349-24860-5|doi=10.1007/978-1-349-24858-2_4|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Harvey|first=Van A.|author-link=Van A. Harvey|year=1996|author-mask={{long dash}}|chapter=Projection: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory?|editor-last=Philips|editor-first=D. Z.|editor-link=Dewi Zephaniah Phillips|title=Can Religion Be Explained Away?|series=Claremont Studies in the Philosophy of Religion|location=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|pages=66–82|isbn=978-1-349-24860-5|doi=10.1007/978-1-349-24858-2_4}}
: {{cite book|last=Mackey|first=James Patrick|year=2000|isbn=|location=|pages=|title=The Critique of Theological Reason|publisher=Cambridge University Press|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Mackey|first=James Patrick|year=2000|title=The Critique of Theological Reason|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}
: {{cite book|last=Manickam|first=T. M.|year=1977|isbn=|title=Dharma According to Manu and Moses|location=Bangalore|pages=|publisher=Dharmaram Publications|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Manickam|first=T. M.|year=1977|title=Dharma According to Manu and Moses|location=Bangalore|publisher=Dharmaram Publications}}
: {{cite book|last=Marett|first=Robert Ranulph|author-link=Robert Ranulph Marett|year=1932|isbn=|title=Faith, Hope and, Charity in Primitive Religion|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.157613|location=New York|pages=|publisher=Macmillan Company|access-date=21 November 2017|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Marett|first=Robert Ranulph|author-link=Robert Ranulph Marett|year=1932|title=Faith, Hope and, Charity in Primitive Religion|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.157613|location=New York|publisher=Macmillan Company|access-date=21 November 2017}}
: {{cite book|last=Nelson|first=John K.|year=1990|isbn=|title=A Field Statement on the Anthropology of Religion|url=http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/essayonreli.html|location=Berkeley, California|pages=|publisher=University of California, Berkeley|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070302100725/http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/essayonreli.html|archive-date=2 March 2007|access-date=21 November 2017|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Nelson|first=John K.|year=1990|title=A Field Statement on the Anthropology of Religion|url=http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/essayonreli.html|location=Berkeley, California|publisher=University of California, Berkeley|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070302100725/http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/essayonreli.html|archive-date=2 March 2007|access-date=21 November 2017}}
: {{cite book|last=Pandian|first=Jacob|year=1997|isbn=|chapter=The Sacred Integration of the Cultural Self: An Anthropological Approach to the Study of Religion|editor-last=Glazier|editor-first=Stephen D.|title=Anthropology of Religion: A Handbook|location=Westport, Connecticut|pages=|publisher=Praeger|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Pandian|first=Jacob|year=1997|chapter=The Sacred Integration of the Cultural Self: An Anthropological Approach to the Study of Religion|editor-last=Glazier|editor-first=Stephen D.|title=Anthropology of Religion: A Handbook|location=Westport, Connecticut|publisher=Praeger}}
: {{cite journal|last=Walbridge|first=John|year=1998|title=Explaining Away the Greek Gods in Islam|url=|journal=Journal of the History of Ideas|volume=59|issue=3|pages=389–403|doi=10.1353/jhi.1998.0030|issn=1086-3222|ref=harv}}
* {{cite journal|last=Walbridge|first=John|year=1998|title=Explaining Away the Greek Gods in Islam|journal=Journal of the History of Ideas|volume=59|issue=3|pages=389–403|doi=10.1353/jhi.1998.0030|s2cid=170321617|issn=1086-3222}}
: {{cite book|last=Weber|first=Max|author-link=Max Weber|year=2002|editor1-last=Baehr|editor1-first=Peter R.|editor2-last=Wells|editor2-first=Gordon C.|title=The Protestant Ethic and the "Spirit" of Capitalism and Other Writings|pages=|translator1-last=Baehr|translator1-first=Peter R.|translator2-last=Wells|translator2-first=Gordon C.|location=New York|publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=978-0-14-043921-2|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Weber|first=Max|author-link=Max Weber|year=2002|editor1-last=Baehr|editor1-first=Peter R.|editor2-last=Wells|editor2-first=Gordon C.|title=The Protestant Ethic and the "Spirit" of Capitalism and Other Writings|translator1-last=Baehr|translator1-first=Peter R.|translator2-last=Wells|translator2-first=Gordon C.|location=New York|publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=978-0-14-043921-2}}
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==
* Homepage of [https://web.archive.org/web/20101110074102/http://www.aaanet.org/sections/sar/sar_newsite/ The Society for the Anthropology of Religion] within [[American Anthropological Association]]
*[https://sar.americananthro.org/ The Society for the Anthropology of Religion] within [[American Anthropological Association]]
*[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/419/419www.htm Anthropology of Religion Page] M.D. Murphy, University of Alabama
*[http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/419/419www.htm Anthropology of Religion Page] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051120225832/http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/419/419www.htm |date=20 November 2005 }} M.D. Murphy, University of Alabama
* Andrew Lang, [http://www.psychanalyse-paris.com/831-Anthropology-and-Religion.html Anthropology and Religion], ''The Making of Religion'', (Chapter II), Longmans, Green, and C°, London, New York and Bombay, 1900, pp.&nbsp;39–64.
* Andrew Lang, [http://www.psychanalyse-paris.com/831-Anthropology-and-Religion.html Anthropology and Religion], ''The Making of Religion'', (Chapter II), Longmans, Green, and C<sup>o</sup>, London, New York and Bombay, 1900, pp.&nbsp;39–64.


{{Socialscience&religion}}
{{Socialscience&religion}}

Revision as of 11:23, 19 June 2024

Anthropology of religion is the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices across cultures.[1] The anthropology of religion, as a field, overlaps with but is distinct from the field of Religious Studies. The history of anthropology of religion is a history of striving to understand how other people view and navigate the world. This history involves deciding what religion is, what it does, and how it functions.[2] Today, one of the main concerns of anthropologists of religion is defining religion, which is a theoretical undertaking in and of itself. Scholars such as Edward Tylor, Emile Durkheim, E.E. Evans Pritchard, Mary Douglas, Victor Turner, Clifford Geertz, and Talal Asad have all grappled with defining and characterizing religion anthropologically.

History

In the 19th century cultural anthropology was dominated by an interest in cultural evolution; most anthropologists assumed a simple distinction between "primitive" and "modern" religion and tried to provide accounts of how the former evolved into the latter.[citation needed]

Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), sometimes called the “father of anthropology,” took an evolutionary approach to religion. Tylor defined religion as a “belief in spiritual beings” but did not believe all religions were equal or equally “true.” His evolutionary perspective is evident in his book (1871) Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Language, Art, and Custom, in which he proposed a taxonomy of religions and believed that “primitive” religions were a result of cognitive errors. In other words, these beliefs explained natural phenomena that the people or culture did not fully understand. He called this “animism,” which included attributing a spirit to inanimate objects.[3]

James George Frazer (1854-1941), most well-known for his book The Golden Bough, also approached the study of religion from an evolutionist perspective. Frazer's hierarchy of religions included different stages: first magic, then religious, and ending in scientific. Frazer argues that magic becomes an increasingly futile practice as religious systems develop.[3] This is when the religious phase begins, in which the world is explained through reference to divine beings who intervene in the world. In the final stage, elites see religion as insufficient or incorrectly addressing world phenomena and begin to seek to understand the world through laws of nature.[4]

Towards the end of the 19th century, anthropologists of religion began to question the distinctions between magic and religion made by Tylor and Frazer. William Robertson Smith (1846-1894) in Lectures of the Religion of the Semites (1899) proposed the idea of the totem. For Smith, social groups worshiped totems which represented their ancestors and worshipping totemic items accounted for the emergence of religions. Thus, Smith's theory of totemism rose in prominent within the field of anthropology of religion, challenging and in some instances fully replacing Tylor's theory of animism.

Durkheim (1858-1917) built on the idea of the totem. He saw religion as collective and societal. For Durkheim, religious forces are essentially collective societal forces, which are manifest in the totem itself. The society gives the totem its power, meaning, and existence, which effectively gives the God or the religion its power, meaning and existence. In “Origins of Belief,” Durkheim posits that a totem is symbolic of society, or as he calls it, of the clan, and of God. As Durkheim puts it, “the totem is the visible body of God.” The actual totem itself can be an insignificant object, such as an animal, or a cross of wood. However, despite its apparently insignificant nature as a physical thing, Durkheim argues that a totem is actually the clan itself. However, individuals are not cognizant of his/her veneration of society through his/her veneration of the totem. Rather, they believe that the totem is something which comes from outside of their consciousness, essentially, according to Durkheim “society gives the sensation of a perpetual dependence.”[5]

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) moved away from the inquiry into the origins of the religion shifting the theory of religion to focus on religion as a function of the social world. In his essay, “Magic, Science, and Religion,” Malinowski argues that religion in its social and psychological functions promotes social integration and community. Malinowski separates the categories of religion and magic in specifying that magic is used for functional ends: to solve problems or achieve objectives where other methods have failed.[4]

E.E. Evans Pritchard (1902-1973) is most famous for his work on witchcraft. His book Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande approaches witchcraft as a cohesive and internally consistent system of knowing. While Pritchard believed that religious systems were a reflection of social environment, he was primarily concerned with thought patterns and logic within belief systems.

Victor Turner (1920-1983) understood religion through the lens of rituals, rites of passage and symbolism. He considered religion to be the lynchpin in cultural systems. In his book The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, he proposes his theory of liminality and communitas. He developed liminality from folklorist Arnold Van Gennep. For Turner, the liminal stage is a period of ambiguity or transition where an individual's status in a ritual change from pre-ritual stage to post-ritual. The idea of communitas refers to the common experience of community during a ritual.

Mary Douglas’ (1921-2007) work and topics were inspired by Evans-Pritchard. They both explained social systems in terms of functionalism. She defined religion through the lens of ritual. In her most famous book, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, she compares Western and “primitive” societies in showing that Western societies also relied on “magic” through rituals around purity and pollution, such as teeth brushing. She sees ritual as a collective force or system that places limits on the body. In this way, the image of society is carved onto the body through reiterations of purity and pollution.

Talal Asad (1932-now) is a prominent anthropologist of religion today who focuses on religion and modernity. Asad is well known for his work on religion and power. He has argued that overlooking the history of defining religion can lead us to overlook its imbrication with power. He has also pointed to the ways in which modernity has delimited religion to a certain sphere of life, so that religion can be pointed out or identified in certain ways and not in others. In doing this, he has also called for the development of a religion of secularity.  

Clifford Geertz and Talal Asad publicly debated the “universal” nature of religion. While Geertz, provided an operational definition for religion that allowed for variation across cultures, he saw this definition as encapsulating certain universal features of “religion.” Alternatively, Asad questioned the very existence of “universal religion” in pointing to the ways in which ideas about the universal were rooted in distinctly Christian ideas and traditions. Influenced by Michel Foucault and Edward Said, Asad questions the conceptual assumptions involved in or undergirding the production of knowledge.[4] This is what led Asad to question the existence of separate sphere of society that could be called or identified as “religion.” In undermining the existence of religion as a separate sphere, Asad points to Western modernity as producing religion as distinct from other parts of society.

One key component of anthropology of religion is ethnographic fieldwork. This is what makes anthropologists who study religion distinct from other Religious Studies scholars. Ethnography is most simply put, the empirical observation and description of individuals, societies, and cultures. For anthropologists of religion, ethnographic fieldwork focuses on religion through the lens of rituals, worship, religious values, and other components of lived religion. Developments in ethnographic approaches to the study of religion or theoretical developments in the ethnographic study of religion have spanned decades.

Evolutionist perspectives were reflective of Darwinian theories of evolution and saw religious systems in a taxonomic and hierarchical way: some religions were closer to the truth than others and Christianity was always at the top of pyramid. Functionalist perspectives aimed to study religion as a part of society that played an important an integral role: non-Christian religions were not compared to Christianity on a sliding scale, but rather taken in context with the whole cultural context. Humanist theories of evolution see religions as products of human culture and invention, rather than metaphysical or supernatural phenomena that “exist” outside of the human cultures that produce them.[4] Cross-cultural or comparative theories of religion focus on “religion” as something that can be found and compared across all human cultures and societies.

The anthropology of religion today reflects the influence of, or an engagement with, such theorists as Karl Marx (1818-1883), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), and Max Weber (1864-1920).[6] Anthropologists of religion are especially concerned with how religious beliefs and practices may reflect political or economic forces; or the social functions of religious beliefs and practices.[7][clarification needed]

Recently, a prominent ethnographer of religion, Robert Orsi, has asked scholars of religion to abandon the empirical approach to ethnography of religion that was co-emergent with modernity. This approach entails the impulse to explain God or gods in people's lives as a function or symbol of some other thing. Orsi asks those who study religion to instead take God and gods as real actors, really present.

Definition of religion

One major problem in the anthropology of religion is the definition of religion itself.[8] At one time[vague] anthropologists believed that certain religious practices and beliefs were more or less universal to all cultures at some point in their development, such as a belief in spirits or ghosts, the use of magic as a means of controlling the supernatural, the use of divination as a means of discovering occult knowledge, and the performance of rituals such as prayer and sacrifice as a means of influencing the outcome of various events through a supernatural agency, sometimes taking the form of shamanism or ancestor worship.[citation needed] According to Clifford Geertz, religion is

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."[9]

Today, religious anthropologists debate, and reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European primitivism).[citation needed] Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion – such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual – but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.[8]

Anthony F. C. Wallace proposes four categories of religion, each subsequent category subsuming the previous. These are, however, synthetic categories and do not necessarily encompass all religions.[10]

  1. Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest.
  2. Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. Religious authority acquired through one's own means.
  3. Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship.
  4. Ecclesiastical: dominant in agricultural societies and states; are centrally organized and hierarchical in structure, paralleling the organization of states. Typically deprecates competing individualistic and shamanistic cults.

Specific religious practices and beliefs

  • Apotheosis – Glorification of a subject to divine level
  • Apotropaic magic – Magic intended to turn away harm or evil influences
  • Amulet – Object worn in the belief that it will magically protect the wearer
  • Animism – Religious belief that objects, places, and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence
  • Circumcision – Removal of the human foreskin
  • Cult (religious practice) – Devotion to a deity, person or thing
  • Deity – Supernatural being
  • Demon – Evil supernatural being
  • Divination – Attempt to gain insight into a question or situation
  • Esotericism – Range of related ideas and movements that have developed in the Western world
  • Exorcism – Evicting spiritual entities from a person or area
  • Evil – Opposite or absence of good
  • Fertility rite – Religious ritual intended to stimulate reproduction
  • Fetishism – Human attribution of special powers or value to an object
  • Genius (mythology) – Divine nature in ancient Roman religion
  • God – Principal object of faith in monotheism
  • Ghost – Supernatural being originating in folklore
  • Greco-Roman mysteries – Religious schools of the Greco-Roman world
  • Heresy – Belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established belief or customs
  • Icon – Religious work of art in Christianity
  • Immortality – Concept of eternal life
  • Intercession – Praying to a deity or to a saint in heaven on behalf of oneself or others
  • Kachina – Spirit being in western Pueblo religious beliefs
  • Magic and religion
  • Mana (Oceanian mythology) – Life force energy, power, effectiveness, and prestige in Pacific Island culture
  • Mask – Any full or partial face covering, whether ceremonial, protective, decorative, or used as disguise
  • Miracle – Event not explicable by natural or scientific laws
  • Medicine – Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness
  • Modern paganism – Religions shaped by historical paganism
  • Monotheism – Belief that there is only one god
  • Mother goddess – Goddess who represents, or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation
  • Mythology – Type of traditional narrative
  • Necromancy – Magic involving communication with the deceased
  • New Age – Range of new religious beliefs and practices
  • Occult – Knowledge of the hidden or the paranormal
  • Omen – Portent, harbinger
  • Poles in mythology – Stake or post used in ritual practice
  • Polytheism – Worship of or belief in multiple deities
  • Prayer – Invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity
  • Principle of contagion
  • Prophecy – Message claimed to be from a deity
  • Reincarnation – Concept of rebirth in different physical form
  • Religious ecstasy – Altered state of consciousness
  • Ritual – Activities performed according to a set sequence
  • Sacred food as offering – Concept within anthropology
  • Sacrifice – Offering of material possessions or the lives of animals or humans to a deity
  • Science and religion
  • Shamanism – Religious practice
  • Spell (paranormal) – Formula intended to trigger a magical effect
  • Supernatural – Supposed phenomena not subject to the laws of nature
  • Supplication – Form of prayer, wherein one party humbly or earnestly asks another party to provide something
  • Sympathetic magic – Type of magic based on imitation or correspondence
  • Theism – Belief in the existence of at least one deity
  • Totemism – Emblem of a group of people
  • Veneration of the dead – Cultural or religious practice

See also

Notes

References

  1. ^ Adams 2017; Eller 2007, p. 2.
  2. ^ Boddy, Janice; Lambek, Michael (2013). A Companion to the Anthropology of Religion. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  3. ^ a b Bielo, James (2015). Anthropology of Religion: The Basics (1st ed.). London: Routledge.
  4. ^ a b c d Guthrie, Stewart E. (2006), Martin, Michael (ed.), "Anthropological Theories of Religion", The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge Companions to Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283–299, ISBN 978-0-521-84270-9, retrieved 27 December 2023
  5. ^ Durkheim, Emile (2008). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Translated by Cosman, Carol. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ Eller 2007, p. 22; Weber 2002.
  7. ^ Eller 2007, p. 4.
  8. ^ a b Eller 2007, p. 7.
  9. ^ Geertz 1966, p. 4.
  10. ^ Rathman, Jessica. "Anthony Francis Clarke Wallace". Archived from the original on 27 September 2003. Retrieved 22 November 2017.

Sources