UNIT 5 THE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS

SYMBOLS
I Structure

- 5.0 Objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Nature and Meaning of Symbols
5.3 Symbols in Religion
5.4 Interpreting Religious Symbols
5.5 Understanding Symbols
5.6 ContextuaI Analysis of Symbols
5.7 Symbols and Meaning: Clifford Geertz
5.8 Let Us Sum Up
1 5.9 Key Words

I
5.10 Further Reading
5.1 1 Answers to Check Your Progress

5.0 OBJECTIVES

I After going through this unit, you will be able to

I
define a symbol and discuss its a affinities and dissimilarities with signal, icon and
index
understand and appreciate the various approaches to the understanding of religious ,

symbols

II
interpret the symbols of your own religion through an approach of your choice.

5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous four units of this block, we discussed the sociological understanding
of religion, evolutionist and functionalist theories of religion, and the study of religious
beliefs. In this unit, you will come to know the way of understanding religion
through its symbols.

We begin the unit with a discussion of the nature and-meaning of tern 'symbol'.
Then we focus on the communicative role of symbols in religion. Further, a discussion
of the structuralist approaches and its variants is given in order to explain to you
the current state of studies of religious symbols. Undertaking a historical journey
from Tylor, Malinowski, Firth to Levi-Strauss, Leach, Douglas, Tuner and Geertz,
we have attempted to show how communication is the central aspect of religion as
understood via the symbols. You are also advised to view the video programme on
Religious Symbols at your study centre. It will help you to understand better the
meaning and role of symbols in our social life.

5.2 THE N A T W AND MEANING OF SYMBOLS

What is meant by the teim 'symbol'? Radcliffe-Brown's definition is that everything
that has a meaning is a symbol. Here the meaning refers to what is expressed by
a symbol, or, what the symbol stands for. This is very wide definition. You are quite
likely to come across many things which stand for something else. Regarding a11
such things as symbols is not very useful to a sociologist who wants to understand

I
religion via symbols.

In order to define the term specifically, we need to examine its nature. It is common
The Study of Religion to find in text books a discussion about differences between a signal and a symbol.
We have also to show how a signal is different from a symbol. But so also is the
1
1
case with an icon, index and allegory. In fact, all these terms serve to form an
image or representation of something in the mind. Often, one comes across the
words sign and symbol being used interchangeably. At times, sign is used when
another person may find it more appropriate to use the word symbol or vice versa
(for an interesting debate on this point refer to Daniels (1987:15-47).

Such scholars as Ernest Cassirer (1944) hold that symbolic representation is an

essential function of human consciousness and it is fundamental to our understanding
to human culture, including history, art, science, myth and religion. For Cassirer all
these spheres are aspects of a 'symbolic universe'. He distinguished between sign
and symbol. For him, a sign refers to the physical world of being and there is
always a natural link between the sign and the thing that it signifies. He holds that
a symbol is an 'artificial' indicator and refer to the human world of meaning. For
Cassirer, human knowledge is essentially symbolic. He argues that symbol and the
signified are merged in religion and myth and the two are differentiated in science.

We find that earlier writers generally discussed the similarities and differences
between sign and symbol. Later, such scholars as Raymond Firth (1973) wrote
about four different signs, namely, index, signal, icon and symbol. Let us follow
Firth, who held that an index is a sign which is related to what is signified in the
same way as a parts is related to the whole or particular is related to general. For
example, incidence of smoke is an index of a fire. The dynamic aspect of an index
is referred as a signal, for example, switching on of a red traffic light is a signal
of danger and therefore a signal to stop movement of vehicles. A sensory-likeness

Symbols are m d y of a complex nature, and this is more so m mqjor world rrligioas
 is represented by an icon. For example, the statue of a leader is iconic. A symbol The Study of Religious
Symbols
is that kind of sign which has many associations of a complex nature. There does
not exist a clear-cut likeness between a symbol and the thing which is signified.
There is usually a kind of arbitrariness, based on convention, for example, the owl
is the syinbol of wisdom.

Edmund Leach (1976) regards both symbol and sign as subsets of index (see
Morris 1987:219). He uses the terms sign to refer to symbols, wh'ich displays the
part to whole relationship with what is signified.

Secondly, Leach also distinguishes between a sign and the thing signified is expressed
by substituting the name of an attribute for that of the thing meant. For example,
a crown may stand for king. In the case of symbol, the relationship between a
symbol and the thing symbolised is metaphorical. This means there is an application
of name to an object to which it is not literally applicable. According to Morris
(1987:222) this distinction between a sign and a symbol 'is 'an elaboration of
Frazer's distinction between homeopathic and contagious magic' (see Unit 2, sub-
section 2.3.4). A significant contribution of Leach's ideas is that symbols can not
be interpreted in isolation and there are no universal symbols, thought there may be
I some fairly common symbolic themes. He argues that symbols usually carry
multiplicity of meanings, that is, they are polysemic. Further, they became
meaningful only when seen in opposition to other symbols as parts of a cultural
context. He considers in necessary to understand symbolism in a particular
ethnographic context.

It is clear that the concept of symbol has been approached in varioi~sways by the
sociologists. However basically a symbol communicates. indirectly.

At this stage of our discussion, you may not want to enter into the controversies
about similarities and differences among different types of sign. It may suffice to
say that a sign is a wider term which may'share certain features with signal,
symbol, icon, index and allegory (see Barthes 1967:35-38). But the context of the
study of religion, it is customary to use the term symbol rather than sign. This is
so because of the polysemic (multiplicity of meaning) nature of religious symbols.

Further we find that there is a reason or an underlying rationale for a particular

symbol to be used in a particular case. In case of signals certain messages are
carried through conventionally accepted means. For example, a green light is a

I
signal for a driver to go ahead and a red light is a signal to stop. These signals are
part of accepted conventions among all road-users. Similarity, in all languages,
certain combinations of certain sounds stands for certain meaning because speakers
of those languages have by convention accepted to recognise those sound with

I
particular meaning.

111 the case of symbol, there is apparently no connection between the object which
signifies and what is signified by it.But the bases for a symbol's appropriation to
what is symbolised life in some actual or imagined similarity between the symbol
and what is symbolised. In some cases, the basis may lie in some past event.

I
You will also find that ratinale underlying a symbolic representation may not always
be obviously so-md may pot be so easy to discover. Signals are easy to decipher
because they generally stands for a concrete reality and refer to some obse~vable
action. Traffic lights are the best examples of signals. Symbols are, on the other
hand, usually an expression of such abstract notions as power, authority, solidarity
of the group. For example, the yam house. The debate thus is between symbols,
which deal with the abstract notion, and signals which are 'concretc' and different
I from the role of the polysemic nature of symbols.
 The Study of Religion Symbols provide people with a means of'expressing ideas of significance. This is
why sociologists find symbols as something very important to study. We already
know that Durkheim was interested in the study of 'totem' because he thought that
it symbolised the idea of group solidarity among the Australian aborigines (see Unit
3 of this block).

In brief, we can say that' the main characteristicof a symbol is that it expresses
something significant. This indicates that one cannot remain neutral about something
that is symbolised. Take the case of your national flag. It stands for your country.
If someone insults your national flag, you feel offended. You can hardly be neutral
to what happens to it. In other words, what is symbolised is also respected.

An mentioned before, language, art, history and myths are modes of human
experience expressed through symbol. Earnest Cassirer holds that a human being
is a symbol making animal (animal symbollicum). In this sense a cultural system is
basically the nexus between the various ways of symbolising. This makes it important
for a sociologist to identify symbolic elements in human activities. We are here
concerned with symbol as means communicating something significant. The
communicative role of symbol is very important for studying religion. Communication
is the central aspect of religion is understood via the symbol. Both ritual and belief
are two sides of the communication process. In Unit 4 we explained in a simplistic
manner the differences between ritual and belief. Here we would like to emphasise
the fact that ritual and belief as reflected in symbolic activities express both
instrumental and expressive, aspects. Let us clarify what we mean by the two
terms. Before going on to these terms, complete Check Your Progress 1.

Check Your Progress 1

i) What is the main characteristic of symbol? Use five lines for your answer.

ii) What sort of ideas are best communicated through symbols? Use one line for
your answer

11 ii) What is common between a sign and a symbol? Use one line for your answer.

I By instrumental we mean that action which produces some desired goal and it is
directed to an end. By expressive activity we mean saying or expressing an idea.
1 The instrumental action can be directly observed and can be explained in terms of
what it is oriented towards. The expressive aspect of behaviour can be, on the other
I hand, studied by finding out what is being said or communicated. Both aspects of
I an activity are generally intermeshed and difficult to separate. But sociologists
usually distinguish them for purposes of analysing human behaviour in general and
rituals and beliefs in particular. In the following section, we will examine how they
study the role of symbol in religion, and by doing so they try to understand religion
via symbol.
84
 The Study of Religious
5.3 SYMBOLS IN RELIGION Svmbols

Both functionalists and structuralist, in their &n ways, have tried to interpret the
communicative role of symbols in religion. We have already noted in units 2 and 3
i
the criticisms of explanations by the evolutionists like Tylor and of functionalists li e
Malinowski and Firth. The evolutionists implied a division between symbolic structures
of myths and rituals and concrete structures (kinship, politics and economics etc.).
Even Durkheim resorted to this artificial division between religion (a symbolic
structure) and society (a concrete structure).

The functionalists, on the other hand, asked the question: what rituals as observed
via symbolism do for the society? Rituals are those formal actions which are
expressed through symbol. The functionalists studied the process of transactions or
regular patterns of interaction and explained them in terms of what a particular
transaction or interaction did for a group of people. For example, according to Firth
1 (1973:77), political symbols can be used as instruments of public control. Firth
I (1973) argues that that a person or a party can control the mobilisational efficacy
of symbols by manipulating the meanings assigned to them. The manipulability of
symbols arises mainly because system of symbols are not always consistent and
coherent. It is the arbiration of association with meaning which makes symbols
manipulable. Precisely due to this symbols become instruments of power struggle.

For the functionalist however the important fact is how a symbol or a 'set' of
symbols relate to the totality of the symbolising complex of ideas.

Further, in unit 4 we focussed on the meaning aspect of religious beliefs. The shift
from function of meaning of religion took into account communicative aspect of
human actions. You would agree that every action is a communicative action. This
position has now led us to a consideration of religion as a set of symbols which
throws light on the communicative dimension of an action as well as the capacity
of human beings to create cultrue through symbols. We find that the structuralists
suggest interesting possibilities in the interpretation of religion. They all fasten on to
the communicative aspect of such structuralists as Levi-Strauss and, to a lesser
extent, Leach emphasise the mentalist (intellectualist) aspect and strive towards a
natural science model in the interpretation of religious symbols. Finding it hard to
sustain, Evans-Pritchard and others developed an approach which is more interpretive
and 'humanities'-oriented. Examples of this approach are the symbolic analyses of
Mary Douglas, Victor Turner and Clifford Geertz.

It is a well established notion that religion views human behaviour in terms of

cosmic order and reflects that cosmic order in human actions. Geertz (1966) argued
that in empirical terms not many tried to inquire as to how this is actually achieved.
In sociology we have very good theoretical framework to analyse socialisation
process of child, succession to political power, economic processes of production,
distribution and consumption, etc. but for a long time little progress was made in the
field of religion. It was the study of religion as a system of symbols that provided
a break through. Let us first discuss the approaches of Levi-Strauss and Leach.
This discussion will be followed by a more detailed examination of the symbolic
analyses of Douglas, Turner and Geertz.

Check Your Progress 2

i) Who perceived a division between such symbolic structures as myths and ritual
and such concrete structures as kinship, politic and economics etc.? Use one
line for your answer.
 'l'he Study of Religion ,

....................................................................................................................
ii) State in four lines what the functionalists tried to ask while studying the
communicative role of symbols.

iii) Who tried to strive for a natural science model understanding religious symbols?
Use one line for your answer.

-
5.4 INTERPRETING RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS
Levi-Strauss (see Box 5.01) takes language to be a model for understanding social
behaviour. Structuralists like Levi-Strauss try to relate copsciousness to the
unconscious, individual to the cultural, and objective analysis of experience to
subjective experience of individuals. Levi-Strausss argues that mythic structures
(symbolic structures) parallel social structure, not because myth mirrors society. But
because, both myth and social structure share a common underlying structure of
human mind. Put it differently, myths are more than the meaning they offer to an
interpreter, and the functions they fulfil for the society which shapes them. Levi-
Strauss argues that there are relatively stable mental structures (structures in mind)
which give rise to permutations and combinations in the form of culture. These
mental structures are universal human nature. These structures are union and opposition
between ideas,better put as 'binary opposition'. Like a grammar beneath languages
lies the logic or code beneath culture (any symbolic form, myth, for that matter).

Box 5.01
I
I
Claude Levi-Strauss has been the most influential thinker among anthropologists

I I
in France. He has a large following among scholars in Europe and the United
states of America. His primary contribution is related to the study of human
mind. He has attempted to identify the underlying patterns, regularities and
types of human activities. His major works concern three areas, namely
' kinship theory, the analysis of mythology, and the nature of primitive
classifications. In his analysis of myths he depends on structural linguistic (the
study of human speech and cybernetics the science of communication and
I
I
\
control theory). Levi-Strauss studies myth as a system of signs. For him, a
I -- myth accounts for the basic conceptual categories of the human mind. These
categories are made of contradictory series of such binary opposition as raw
and cooked, nature and culture, left and right etc. Thus, a myth is a version
I
of a theme which is represented in specific combination of categories.
1

1
I This logic or code needs to be deciphered for an understanding of that culture. It
is important to note that the complexity of symbols makes them difficult and even
intractable in certain oases. As such while attempting to work on interpreting the
I symbol or tlie set of symbols there is always room for an alternative explanation.
I While understanding structuralism we need to remember that.
i
I b) the mental structures are divorced from the actions and intentions of the particular
individuals. From the above two aspects it emerges clearly that structuralism is
least interested in the 'values' or 'ethos' which is symbol represents and it is
unmindful of the use to which symbols are put (especially in the context of the
power struggle).

We can say that this kind of structuralist interpretation of symbols denotes mental
structures of structures in the mind. This why sometimes Levi-Straussian
structuralism is labelled as 'though-structuralism. These mental structures flow out
of our minds to create culture in their various combinations. If culture is set of
The Study of Religious
Symbols

symbolic forms and if we analyse them or decipher or decode them, we get to

know the underlying mental structure. Levi-Strauss views it as a binary opposition
between nature and culture. Thus, he would say, if raw food is nature, cooked food
denotes culture.

Leach (1976) uses the structuralist method to decipher the various symbolic forms.
I To him, culture is only a manifest physical form and it originates in our mind. Within
our mind, it begins as an "inchoate metaphysical idea". Inside our mind categories
emerge as a set of opposing categories.

The structuralist model can be used for the analysis of a common a thing as a dress,
or costume. You know we dress for certain occasions in a special way. To attend
I wedding banquets or receptions we wear a grand attire. Why? We inherently
believe that out dress 'speaks' (communicates) a lot about us to the other. One's
I dress reveals one's rank and social status. Note the color of anybody's dress. Will

i anybody wear a black attire while going for a wedding banquet? No. You would
have seen that black is always opposed to white. Black may indicate impurity
whereas white indicates purity. Black indicates mourning whereas red colour in an
I appropriate context indicates joy.

I
Structuralism can be uses to study almost any sociological or anthropological area
of interest or specialization. Levi-Strauss, Leach and other have demonstrated great
skill and versatility in using the structuralist theory method and data. For example,
Leach has done a structural analysis of traffic signals a d their meaning.

Likewise, Leach (1976) applies structural model to 'bodily mutation'. For example,
take shaving of the widow's head in certain cultures. This 'loss of hair' (albeit
forced by society) indicates a change in the status of a woman. Possession of hair
is opposed to lack of hair, and accordingly this idea is applied by the society to
indicate change in social status.

I hope you remember, the Durkheimian classification of 'sacred versus profane'.

This is a cognitive categorisation created by the society, argued Durkheim. For

1 Levi-Strauss natural and universal to all cultures. If that is so then sacred and
profane will be categories ever persistent irrespective of the advancements in
science and technology. If you carefully reflect 'time' is a human invention; so is
sacred time (for rituals and other religions activities) and sacred space. Sacred time
and sacred space are concepts devices by human mind to classify the continuous
time and space around us. Years, months, days, public private, drawing room, bed
room-are human classifications which flow out from the binary opposition of
human mind.

Take another example, 'sacrifice' is an act of communication with the other-world.

At its heart lies our belief t* we shall die one day, and yet we want to live. Hence
the classification 'this world' versus 'other world', 'this-wordly' versus 'ott~er-
worldy being', 'this-worldly time' verusus 'other-worldly tiem'. At the meeting point
of these two worlds, i.e. this world and the other-world, lies the liminal zone in
which beings of both the worlds can take part. A church or a temple or a mosolp-
 The Study of Religion
is the meeting point of this-wordly and other-worldly. A sacrifice held at this spot
in the form of killings a goat has a symbolic meaning. It indicates that the sacrifice
is willing to undergo a transformation in order to reach the other-world. Leach
(1976:71) writes, "Religion is concerned with establishing a mediating bridge between
'this world', and 'the other' through which the omnipotent power of deity may be
channelled to bring aid to impotent men". We will now turn to a variant of the
structuralist approach, followed by Mary Douglas.

Activity 1

Carefully read section 5.4 and following the concept of mental structures,
, given by Levi-Strauss, list some binary oppositions which you think are universal.

5.5 LTNDERSTANDING SYMBOLS

Different from the Levi-Straussian notion structures, a variant of structuralism,
followed by Mary Douglas (see Box 5.02), holds that symbols are not formed out
of the structures of mind. In this approach we find a definite slide towards
Durkheimian understanding in which social structures have key role in symbolic
processes. There is also reflection of Robertson Smith's argument that symbols of
divinity were originally drawn from natural symbols. The 'univemalism', advocated
by Levi-Strauss for the structures of mind is sidetracked in this approach.
The argument is that meaning is not exhausted in the patterned categories of signs.
Mary Douglas (1966, 1970) argues that the origins of symbolisation are related to
social structure in general and to processes of human body in particular. Consequently,
in her writing Mary Douglas describes the body as a medium through which social
structure finds expression. Let us discuss in detail Mary Dougla's approach to the
study of symbols.

Box 5.02

Mary Douglas was educated at Oxford where she obtained her D. Phil in
1951. She did fieldwork in the Belgian Congo from 1949-50 and again during
1953.

Mary Douglas has been described by Adam Kuper (1973:206) as one of the
leaders of the new British 'structuralism'. She is concerned with the anomalies
which imply loss of purity and therefore a source of danger. Influenced by her
teacher, at Oxford, Franz Steiner's lectures on taboo and Levi-Strauss's
structural method, Douglas (1966) has analysed the dietary rules by reference
to system of classification. In her study, Natural Symbols (1970), she holds
that society as an entity is expressed by ritual symbolism. Here, she focuses
on finding structural correlations between symbolic patterns and social
experiences.

Mary Douglas (1966) studied the pollution beliefs of Jews recorded in the Bible and
also used the ethnographic notes from various societies of the word. Primitive
people's understanding of pollution can be understood by exploring our own mentality,
according to Douglas. She quotes Lord Chesterfield's definition of dirt, 'dirt is a
matter out of place'. What is implied here is an order and contravention of that
order. Take a simple example: Will any of us leave our footwear in a bookshelf!
No, this is because footwear and books belongs to entirely different realms. We
know of an order where footwear belong to footwear stand and a book belongs to

I;:
a bookshelf. Now, if that order is disturbed, you will draw rebuke from yogr elders.

It world be most interesting to see what results desire from a study of purity and
? pollution in the Indian context. To some extent the anthropologist influenced by
 Similarly, we can analyse pollution belief. In many societies, menstrual blood is The Study of Religious
Symbols
polluting. Hence, mpstruating women remain secluded. In case this rule of seclusion
is contravened, grave danger is foreseen for the community and the personlcommunity
concerned has to undergo purification processes. Pollution beliefs are cultural and
they imply an order and it preservation. Pollution beliefs are mostly related to the
bodily processes and emissions: blood, menstruation, exertions and exhalations. Now,
what is the significance of these pollution beliefs.?

I
a) They imply an order and its preservation.

b) Pollution beliefs and related sanctions check the deviations from the order.

c) They helps the i~ldividuals

to clarifL social definitions and re-order their experiences.

d) Pollution beliefs reinforce the understanding of cosmos and the world of nature,
as is held by the society.

These pollution beliefs are not universal. Menstrual blood is polluting in one society
but in may not be in another. It is in this selection process that social structure
intervenes. Douglas (1975:67) clarifies the role of social structure by distinguishing
several levels of meaning in rituals which control the bodily conditions. Firstly, rituals
.have a personal meaning for one who undergoes it and those who witness the ritual.
Secondly, there is a social meaning, where every society 'says' something public
about its nature, social grouping etc. To quote Douglas (1975:67) "a public ritual is
a graphic expression of social forms. In societies where marriage is weak, child-
bearing mother will be secluded and father too will have to be secluded.

Otherwise danger might occur. Here, this child-bearing process of body is prescribed
or selected as polluting, because, proof of paternity is needed and the marriage is
weak. Bodily processes are attributed meanings with a view to defend and preserve
the established social order. Says Douglas (1970:xiii), "Body is a symbolic medium
which is used to express particular pattern of social relations;'.

Douglas (1970) explores the cosmology of various societies and their relations with
the corresponding bodily symbols. Human body is used to express the experiences
of social relations. We present our body in different postures and angles, depending
upon the situation whether it is formal oi- informal. According to ~ o i ~ l a s ,
experienced social relations are structured in two ways: group and the grid.
Group is a bounded social unit whereas grid indicates a person-to-person relationship
on an ego-centered basis.

In societies where group is strong, human body is guarded against attack from
outside. The insideloutside definitions are clear cut. Social experience emphasises
external boundaries of the body, ignoring the internal structure of the body. In such
a society, the social philosophy is that the internal structure can remain
undifferentiated. Such societies believe that injustice within the society can be
I
removed by eliminating the internal traitors who ally with the outside enemies.
Witch-fearing cosmology is an example. Here, the body symbolism values the
, boundaries, discourages mixtures and treats sex with caution. The social experience

I here tends towards austerity, interest in purification, and disregard for bodily function
like ingestion. The society celebrates purity of spirit and holds that flesh could be
I corrupted.

Douglas (1970:ix) argues that in contrast, where grid is strong, a bounded human
body cannot be used for expression of social concerns, since the individuals does
not feel bound and committed to a social group. ~ndividualsis not constrained by
group, but by rules, which facilitate reciprocal transactions. There is no attempt to
The Study of Religion secularise mind and matter, and neither they are revered nor despised. People
remain secular in outlook.

Bodily concerns differ according to social experience. Applying her model to the
student revolts, Douglas says that since the social relations are over structured by
grid, the students begin to seek unstructured personal experiences, in the form of
rampage and destruction of catalogues and classifications.

This is clearly an example of how wide an application or even series of applications

can be a part of study research and analysis. Yet it must k cautioned here that
the structuralist method requires deep study to be used adequately as a method to
study any aspect of society.

Check Your Progress 3

i) What is the place of body symbolism in Mary Douglas approach to the study
of symbols? Use five lines for your answers.

ii) Explain in five lines Mary Douglas concepts of group and grid.

....................................................................................................................
ii) Match the following
A B
a) Binary opposition 1) Firth
b) Symbols have purposes 2) Cassirer
c) Body is medium af expression .3) Durkheim
d) 'Man is an animal symbolicum' 4) Levi-Strauss
e) 'Society is mirrored in symbol' 5) Douglas

5.6 CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SYMBOLS

Victor Turner (see Box 5.03) is influenced by a version of structural functionalism
which assimilated many ideas from conflikt theories. Turner's understanding of
symbol emerged from his study of rituals in Zambia. Symbols are operators in the
social processes, because they help the actors move from one status to another and
also to resolve social contradictions. Symbols bind actors to the categories and
norms of their society. Turner argued that the meaning of symbols can be understood
only in their "action-field" context.
 The Study of Religious
Box 5.03 Sylnbols

The tradition of cultural analysis, which resulted in translations of important

essays of Durkheirn, Mauss, Hubert and Hertz etc. by the Oxford
anthropologists, was carried on by such scholars as Victors W. Tuner. He was
born in 1920, in Scotland and educated at University College. London. He

i obtained a PI1.D. degree at Manchester. A professor of anthropology, Turner

has made significant contributions to the study of religion. Turner's approach
to analysis of the function of ritual and symbols has elements from Freud
Kadcliffe-Brown and Gluckman. According to Mary Douglas (1970:303), Turner
has taken into account psychic content of symbols and his ethnogoraphy of
Nde~nbulife shows clearly how 'the cultural categories sustains given social
structt~re'.

For Turner (1967:26), "symbol is always a best possible expression of relatively

unknown fact, a fact which is nonetheless recognised or postulated as existing". He
lists three properties of symbols.

a) Condensation: many things and actions are represented in a single form;

b) Unification: a dominant symbol within a ritual unites together many diverse ideas
and phenomena;

c) Polarisation of meaning at one pole of ritual, moral and social orders of the
society, values and norms are represented by the dominant symbol, at the other
pole, meaning related to the outward from the symbol are represented. Turner
(1 967:28) holds that the former is the ideological pole and the latter is the sensory
pole. Turner (1967:50) identifies different levels in the meaning of ritual symbol.

a) Exegetical meaning: This meaning is obtained by questioning the laymen and

ritual specialists involved in the ritual situation.

b) Operational meaning: This meaning is obtained by what they do with the

particular symbol and how they use it.

c) Positional meaning: The meaning that a particular symbol acquires by its

relationship with other symbols in atotality.

Tuner relates the performance of rituals to social process, and also holds that the
span and complexity of rituals may correspond to the size and internal complexity
of the society. Rituals are divided into two classes, namely the rituals which check
deviations and regulate and rituals which "anticipate division and conflict". The
latter class of rituals include life cycle (initiation/circumcision rites) rituals and
periodic rituals.

Going by Turner, rituals help the individuals to adapt to changing roles and statuses.
Ritual symbols motivate people to act, maintain the social structure in spite of
contradictions, adjust to the internal social changes and environment. Within the
context of action, symbols are dynamic entities which relate human beings with
ends, purposes and means, explicitly formulated or observed from behaviour.

Now that I have broadly elaborated the basic arguments of Victor Turner, let me
present an illustration of his field work. Victor Turner did his fieldwork among the
Ndembu people of Zambia, who live west of the Lt~ngariver in Africa.'The
Nde~nbupeople lead a simple life, but their ritual symbolism is elaborate and complex.
The Ndembu are matrilineal (succession to property and office goes to the daughters
from mother). After marriage, wives m;ly have to go to their husband's village,
since the husband lives with his matrikin. Among the Ndembu, boy's circumcision
I he Study of Religion ceremony is called Mukanda and girl's puberty rituals are called Nkang'a. Boys are
collectively initiated before puberty. Girls are individually initiated with the onset of
puberty.

Let us take one particular symbol from Ndembu girl's puberty ritual (Nkang'a), and
follow Victor Turner's analysis. During the puberty ritual, a novice is wrapped in
a blanket and laid at the foot of the Mudyi sapling. If its bark is scratched th Mudyi
tree secrets a white latex and forms milky beads. The milk tree (mudy tree) is the
dominant .symbol in Nkang'a ritual. There are several meanings attributed to this
'milk tree' Ndembu women attribute the following meanings to the milk tree: (a)
milk tree is the senior tree of the ritual; (b) it stands for breast and brea~tmilk; (c)
tree of 'mother and child' a place where all mothers of the lineage are initiated.
If we closely look at the above responses, it emerges that at one level milk trees
stands for matriliny, which is the governing principle of Ndembu social life. At
another level, milk tree stands for the tribal custom itself-a total system of Ndembu
social relations. Respondents tended to emphasise the cohesive, harmonising impact
of mild tree. Like a child's suckling of the mother, the Ndembu drink from the
breasts of tribal custom. Milk tree is short hand for Ndembu instruction in tribal
matters which follow immediately afier initiation.

When a contextual analysis is done, the milk tree seems to represent social
differentiation and opposition between various categories of society. In a series of
action-situations in the puberty ritual, groups mobilise around the milk tree and
worship. These groups represent the differentiations in the society. In Kkang'a
ritual, women dance around milk tree initiating the young girl. This group of women
oppose themselves to men. Hereby, women come together as a social category. In
some cases, the young milk tree will be sacralised by the women. The young tree
represents the young girl. The opposition here is betwein the young girl and the
adult women. In another context, the mother of child will not be allowed to join the
ring of dancers. Here, the opposition is between mother and her child. Because, a
mother is likely to lose her daughter through marriage after the ritual. At the end
of the first day of ritual, the mother of the child cooks cassava and beans, brings
it in a spoon and asks 'who wants it?' The women dancing around the milk tree
rush to eat from the spoon. If women of same village eat from the spoon, the child
may reside with the mother. Othereise, she will have to go to a distant village and
die there. Here, the conflict between living in mother's village and moving to
husband's village finds an expression through symbolic activity.

So far two types of interpretation have been listed. Interpretation of milk tree
provided by the Ndembu and the behaviour which emerges from the action field
context seem to contradict each other. Ndembu say that mild tree represents the
bond between mother and child, but in the action-field context, mild tree separates
mother from child. Ndembu tell that mild tree stands for unity of Ndembu society,
but in action-field context, the milk tree separates women from men, one group of
women from other group of women. The two interpretations whom that dominant
symbol of a ritual is related to the social process in the society. On the one hand
milk tree enables the child to cross over to adulthood, and on the other it helps the
society to resolve social contradictions at various levels.

Activity 2

Follow Victor Turner's idea.of contextual analysis of symbols and explain in

a note of 500 words, a symbol of your choice in the context of your society.

5.7 SYMBOLS AND MEANING :CLIFFORD GEERTZ

interested in the cognitive dimenstion of culture. He emphasises its affective1 The Study of Religious
emotional dimension. Geertz refutes the view that meanings are in the minds of Symbols
people. According to him, symbols and meanings are shared by the actors between
them. Meanings are public and are shared. Cultural patterns are things of this
world, like rocks and streams. They are not ideas and hence metaphysical. For
Geertz, menaing is embodied in public symbol and it is through the symbols that
human beings communicate with each other their world view, ethos and value-
orientations.

Box 5.04

Born in 1926 in U.S.A., Clifford Geertz was educated at Antioch College and
received his Ph.D. degree from Harvard University. This American professor
of anthropology represents the hermeneutical or interpretative approach to the
study of religion. He draws on the writing of Dilthey and Weber. Geertz
argues that religion should be studied as an aspect of inter pretative sociology.
His study abandoning the insights of his predecessors (Durkheim, Weber,
Freud and Malinowski) he widen their perspectives on religion and interprets
religion as a cultural system that provides meaning to human existence.
According to Geertz (1957:95), symbolic structures 'both express the world's
climate and shape it'. For a number of criticisms of Geertz's approach to
religion see Asad's (1983:237-59) review article.

Geertz studies culture from the actor's point view. He rejects the structuralist
postition, which ignores the.role of individual and favours the universal mental
structures. For Greetz, culture is a product of social beings, who try to make sense
of this world through their actions. If we want to make sense of culture, we have
to situate ourselves in a position from where it was constituted. Greetz holds the
view that culture is essentially particularistic and hence there cannot be a universal
epistemology. In Geertz, we find an emphasis on the creative aspects of culture.
Through Culture, a cluster of symbols, we learn and interpret the world in which we
live. Culture is not merely an inherited or unconscious learning pattern. It is created
constantly in our everyday social interaction.

According to Geertz (1973:90), "Religion is a system of symbols which acts to

establish pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating
conceptions of a general order of existence and clothe these conceptions with such
an aura of factuality, that the moods and motivations, seem uniquely realistic". Let
us take any religious symbol-feathered serpent, cross or crescent. These symbols
are drawn from a myth or ritual. These symbols remind us about a world as it
portrays the kind of emotional life it supports. The Cross, you know, is a Christian
symbol. It reminds a Christian that Jesus Christ died on the cross. Cross meanslhe
sorrow of this life. Cross indicates that a Christian can reach happiness, glory
through suffering. A believer is expected to behave in a particular way in the
presence of a cross.

A religious symbol helps us to identify fact with value. 'what actually is' and 'what
ought to be' are related through symbols. It is through symbols that we create an
order, experience it and maintain it. 'what is' and 'whamught to be; reinforce each
other in the ongoing process of making sense of this world. 'what is' is converted
into a set of priorities for action, in an interaction with 'what ought to be'. In his
studies of Javanese culture Geertz found that people were manoeuvering with their
religious beliefs, in a bid to interpret the new economic and political situation in the
post-revolutionary Java.

In Java of the 1950s, Geertz.could see that endurance of traditidti as well as the
creative manipulation of tradition in the wake of changes. 'On the one hand, the
Javanese peasants remained glued to inherited form of social and economic
 The Study of Religion organisation. On the other hand, Sukarno could manipulate the many symbols out
of the elements of ~avineseculture in a hid to forge a new notion of nationalism.

Check Your Progress 4

i) Which aspect of symbols is emphasised by Geertz when he argues that symbols

are vehicles of meaning? Use one line for your answer.

ii) What is the place of particularistic nature of culture in Geertz's study of symbols?
Use three line for your answer.

iii) To what use, according to Geertz, did the Javanese put their religious beliefs?
Use one line for your answer.

5.8 LET US SCTM UP

We begin this unit by discussing the nature and meaning of symbols. We stressed
on the communicative role of symbols. Then we discussed structuralist mode of
understanding religion via communicative role of symbols.

After our discussion on how Levi-Strauss and Leach used the structuralist method
to decipher the various symbolic forms of culture, we examined, how Mary Douglas
developed a parallel approach to the study of symbols. She argues that body is a
symbolic medium through which social experience finds expression.

In order to provide examples of actual studies of symbols, we discussed Victor

Turner's study ?f symbols among the Ndembu of Africa. According to him, meanings
are situated in contexts. He opines that symbols are related to social processes, in
the sense that they take the individual from one status to another, and also resolve
social contradictions. Our other example is from Geertz's approach to symbols who
studied Javanese culture. Geertz argues that meanings of symbols are not in the
actors' heads, but meanings are shared between human beings in a social context.
Meaning are essentially public.

Thus, in this unit, we discussed the various ways in which scholars undersjand
religion through symbols. Now you have to read further and develop skills in the
approach of your liking, and apply it to a religion of your choice and its symbols.
Our video programme on Religious symbols offers you an exposition of the three
styles of studying religious symbols. These styles were evolved by sociologists over
the last hundred years. Through visuals, we have tried to give you an experiential
understanding of religious symbols. Hopefully, the visual communication will express
more than the print-material can do and it will give you deeper appreciation of the
world of symbolic representation.

5.9 KEY WORDS

Binary opposite: a union of two contrasting ideas in mind.

1 94
Cosmology: system of ideas about universal order.
 Cyberneytc? the science of communication and control theory. It is concerned The Study o f Religious
Symbols
specially with the comparative study of automatic control systems.

Grid: a person to penon ego-centered relationship.

Group: a bounded social unit.

Linguiitics: the study of human speech incldding the units, nature, structure and
modification of language.

PoIlution: a magical notion that uncleanlilless results due to violation of tabnos.

Taboo: that which is prohibited.

Teleology: a doctrine which explains phenomena by final causes.

Totem: symbol of a clan.

Witch: one who uses magic for evil purposes.

5.10 FURTHER READING

Leach, E., 1985. Culture and Commur~ication.Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.

Turner, V. 1975. Symbolic Studies. Annual Review of Anthropology 4 : 145-62.

5.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

Check Your Progress 1

i) The main characteristic of a symbol is that it expresses somet.hingsignificant.

ii) symbols usually express such abstract notions as power, authority, solidarity of
I group etc.

iii) Both sign and symbol stand for something other than what they appear.

Check Your Progress 2

i) The evolutionists implied a division between symbolic : ~ concrete

d structures.

ii) The functionalists tried to find out what rituals do for society. Rituals are basically
practically aspects of religion. and refer to regular patterns in interaction. These
set patterns of interation are expressed through symbols.

Check Your Progress 3

-
i) Mary Douglas describes body as a medium through which social structure finds
expression. She argues that origins of symbolisation are related to processes of
human body.

ii) According to Douglas describes body as a medium through which social structure
finds expression. She argues that origins of sy~nbolisatio~l
are related to processes
of human body.

I iii) a - 4 , b = l , c = 5 , d r 2 , e = 3
The Study of Religion Check Your progress 4

i) Here, Geertz is emphasising the emotional or affective dimenstion of culture.

ii) According to Geertz, the particularistic nature of culture places stress on its creative
aspects. As culture is constantly created in our daily social interaction, only through
learning particular cluster of symbols, we can understand the world we live in.

iii) The Javanese were manipulating their religious beliefs to interpret the new politico-
economic situation in post-revolutionary Java.
 REFERENCES
Asad, Talal, 1983. Antl~ropologicalConceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.
Man. 18:237-59.

Barthes, 1967. Elemelits of Semiology. Jonathan Cape : London

Beatite, J.H.M., , 1964. Other Cultures. Cohen and West Ltd. : London.

Cassirer, E., 1944. An Essay on Man. Bantom Books : New York

-1 955, Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Yale ~ n i v e r $ i t yPress: New Haven

Crawley, A.E. 1927 (first published in 1902). The Mystic Rose. Routledge and
Kegan Paul : London.

Daniel, E.V. 1987. Fluid Signs : Being a Person the Tamil Way. University of
California Press : Berkeley (first Published in 1984).

Darwin, C., 1859. The Origin of Species. Later published in 1972 by Rowman :
USA

De Brosses, CW. R., 1760. Du Culte des diem fetiches ouparallele de i'ancienne
religion de Egypt ovec la religion actuelle de la Nigrite.

Douglas M., 1966. Purity and Pollution: an analysis of Concepts of Pollution

and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul : London.

-1970. Natural Symbols : Explorations in Cosmology. The Cresset Press :

London

-1970. The Healing Rite. Man. 1970:303.

-1975. Implicit Meaning. Routledge and Kegan Paul : London

Driberg, J.H., 1932. At Home with Savage. Ayer Co Publishers : USA

Durkheim, E., 1976 (first published in French in 1912). The Elementary Fornis of
the Religious Llfe. Allen and Unwin : London

Evans-Pritchard, E.E., 1933. The Intellectualist (English) Interpretation of Magic.

Bulletin of Faculty of Arts, Egyptian University (Cairo), Volume i.

-1934. Levy-Bruhl's Theory of Primitive Mentality. Bulletin of the Faculty of

1 Arts. Egyptian University (Cairo), Volume i i

-1936. Science and Sentiment. An Exposition and Criticism of the Writings of

Pareto. Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts. Egyptian University (Cairo), Volume iii

1937. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. Oxford University
Press : Oxford.

-1 956. Nuer Religion. Oxford University Press : Oxford

I Firth. Raymond, 1 955. Magic. Primitive. Encyclopaedia Britanica, Vol u ~ n exiv

tI -1967. Tikopia Ritual and Belie$ Allen and Unwin : London

I - - 1973. Svn~bols: Public and Privale. Allen and Unwin : l.,ondon

 The Study of Religion Frazer, J.G. 1992 (first published in 1890). The Golden Bough. Macmillan : London.

Freud, Sigmund, -1960 (first published in German in 1913). Totem and Taboo.

Routledge and Kegan Paul : London (new authorised translation by James Stiachey)

Geertz, C., 1960. The Religion of Java. Free Press : Glencoe

-1966. Religion as a Cultural System. In Anthropological Approaches to the

Study of Religion. (ASA3). Tavistock Publications : London. pp 37-8

-1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books : New York

Goldenweiser, Alexander A., 1917. Religion and Society : A Critique of Emile

Durkheim's Theory of the Origin and Nature of Religion. Journal of Philosophy,
Psychology and Scientific Method. Volume xii. Also in W.A. Lessa and E.Z.
Vogt (eds) 1972. Reader in Comparative Religion. Harper and Row : New York.

-1918. Form and Content in Totemism. American. Anthropologist. New. series.

Hertz, Robert, 1960 (first published in France in 1907 and 1909). Death and the
Right Hand. Cohen and West : London

Hubert H. and Mauss. M., 1899, Essai sur la nature et la function du sacrifice.
L'Annee Sociologiquc. Volume ii (translated into English by I. Cunisson in 1964.
Sacrifice : Its Nature and Function. Cohen and West : London

1 Jevons, F.B. 1896. lnlroduction to the History of Religion. Folcroft : London

I

i Kukper, Adam, 1975. Anthropologies and Anthropoiogy-the British School 1922-

72 Penguin : London
i Lang, Andrew, 1898. The Making of Religion AMS Pr. : P!ew York

Lawson, E.T. and Mac Cauley. R.N., 1990. Rethinking Religion : Connecting
Cognition and Culture. Cambridge University Press : Cambridge.

Leach, E. 1976. Culture and Communication : The Logic by Which @mbols Are
Connected. Cambridge University Press : Cambridge

Levy-Bruhl, L., 1923. Primitive Mentality-(first published in French 1922). Translated

by Lilain A. Clare. AMS Press : London

-1926. How Natives Think-first published in French in 1912). Translated by

Lilian A. Clare. Ayer Co. Publishers : London.

Levi-Strauss, Claude, 1963. Structural Anthropolo~.Basic Books : New York,

London. (translated from the French by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest
Schopf) pp. 167-241

-1986. The Raw and the Cooked : Introduction to a Science of Mythology.

(Translated from the French by John and Doreen Weightman). Penguin Books :
Harmondsworth (first Published in 15164)

Lowie, Robert H. 1924. Primitive Religion. Liveright : New York

Majurndar, D.N. and Madan, T.N., 1986. An Introdzrction to Social Anthropology.

National Publishing House : New Dellli
I Malinowski, B., 1948 Magic, Science and Religion. Doubleday and Company :
New Jersey.
References

Marett, R.R. 1914 (first published in 1909). The Threshold of Religion. Methuen:
hnddn

-1915. Magic In Hastingb Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Volume viii

Mauss, M., 1954. The GifC (translated by I . Cunnison). Free Press : Glencoe

-1978. (first printed in the French in 1906). Seasonal variations of the Eskimo
: A Study in Social Morphology. Routeledge and Kegan Paul : London

Morris, Brian, 1987. Anthropological Studies of Religion :An Introductory Text.

, Cpbridge University Press : Cambridge

Muller. F. 1878. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion. Arno Press :
1 New York
Needham, R., 1979. Symbolic ClassiJication. Good year, Santa Monica : California

O'Dea, Thomas F. 1966. The Sociology of Religion. Prentice Hall : New Delhi

Parson, T., 1954. Religion pnd the Problem of Meaning. In Essay in Sociological
Theory. Free Press : Glencoe

-1963. Introduction to Weberb The Sociology of 'Religion. Beacon Press :

Boston

I Radcliffe-Brown. A.R., 1922. The Andaman Islanders. Free Press : Glencoe

-1929. The Sociological Theory of ~otemism.Fourth Pacfzc Science Congress.

Java. Volume 3, Biological Papers. pp. 295-309

I -1945. Religion and Society. Journal of the Royal Anth~pologicalInstitute

I -1952. Structure and Function in Primitive Societies. Cohen and West : London

I Radin. Paul, 1938. Primitive Religion. Its Nature and Origin. Dover Press : New
York

I Read, Carveth, 1920. The Origin of Man and his Superstitions. Viking Press :
New York

Robertson, Roland, 1970. The Sociological Interpretation of Religion. Basil

Blackwell J Oxford

t .
Scharf, Betty R., 1970. The Sociological Study of Religion. Hutchison : London
.

I Spencer, Herbert, 1876-96. The Principles of Sociology, (three volumes) Published

in 1925-9 by Appleton : New York

I
Spiro, M.E. 1984. Oedipus in the Trobriands. University of Chicago Press :
Chicago

I
Srinivas, M.N. 1952. Religion and Society among the Coorg of South India.
Oxford University Press : Oxford

I Swanton John, R. 1924. Three Factors in Primitive Religion. American

Anthropologist. New Series. Volume xxvi
 /

The Study of Religion '~urner,V.W., 1967; The Forest of Symbols :Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Cornell
University Press : Ithaca and London

Tylor. E.B. 1871. Primitive Culture. Murray : London

-1881. Anthropology : An Introduction to the Study of Man and Civilisation.

Appeltion : New York.

Van der Leeuw, G., 1963. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Harper and
Row : New York

Van Gennep, Arnold 1960. The Rites of Passage (translated by M.B. Vizedom and
G.L. Caften). Routledge and Kegan Paul : London

Vermon, E.M., 1962. Sociology of Religion. MacGraw Hill : New York

Wallace, A., 1968. Religion : An Anthropological View. Random House : New

York /

Weber, M., 1948. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated
by T. Parsons with a forward by R.H. Tawney. Allen and Unwin : London

-1951. The Religions of China : Confucianism and Taoism. Free Press :-

Glencoe.

-1952. Ancient Judaism, Free Press : Glencoe

-1 968. The Sociology of Religion. Methuen : London

-1968. The Religion

- of India : The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism.
Free Press : Glencoe

Wundt, Wilhelm, 1916 (first published in 1912). Elements of Folk Psychology.

American Universities Publications :New York and London (translated from German
by E.L. Schab)

Yinger, J.M., 1957. Religion, Society and Individual, Macmillan : New York.