Introduction to anthropology of religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter whitecrayon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whitecrayon

Guest
dear catholic answers forum readers

i have been reviewing chapter thirteen of the undergraduate textbook cultural anthropology, 12th edition (2008), by haviland, prins, walrath, and mcbride, which chapter is titled spirituality, religion, and the supernatural. in that chapter, i have run across ten opening paragraphs which i would like to share here, in the hopes that this thread might spark discussion of the nature and condition of religion per se. after reading the excerpt below, please, if you would like, comment in this thread on what you think about any or all of the facts offered.

from pages 298 to 300:

"from an anthropological point of view, spirituality and religion are part of a cultural system’s superstructure, earlier defined as the collective body of ideas, beliefs, and values by which a group of people makes sense of the world and their place in it. in their studies of different religions and spiritual beliefs and practices, anthropologists seek to remain unbiased regarding any particular cultural tradition. instead, they examine spirituality and religion in terms of a society’s worldview - the collective body of ideas that members of a culture generally share concerning the ultimate shape and substance of their reality.

among people in all cultures, particular spiritual or religious beliefs and practices fulfill numerous social and psychological needs, such as the need to confront and explain suffering and death. religion gives meaning to individual and group life, drawing power from spiritual forces or beings and offering continuity of existence beyond death. it can provide the path by which people transcend their burdensome and mortal existence and attain, if only momentarily, spiritual hope and relief.

religion and spirituality also serve an array of social needs. a traditional religion reinforces group norms, provides moral sanctions for individual conduct, and furnishes the ideology of common purpose and values that support the well-being of the community. also of note, people often turn to religion or spirituality in the hope of reaching a specific goal, such as the healing of physical, emotional, or social ills.

perhaps it is because they fulfill these and numerous other social and psychological needs shared by humans across cultures that supernatural beliefs are universal. while recognizing that not all individuals believe in a supernatural force or entity, anthopologists know of no group of people anywhere on the face of the earth who, at any time over the past 100,000 years, has been without some manifestation of spirituality or religion. not even in russia and albania, where atheism was the communist state dogma during much of the 20th century, did religion entirely disappear.

in the 19th century, the european intellectual tradition gave rise to the idea that modern science would ultimately replace religion by showing people the irrationality of their spiritual beliefs and practices. the expectation was that as valid scientific explanations became available, people would abandon their religious beliefs and rituals as superstitious myths and false worship. but to date, despite tremendous scientific advancements, that has not occurred. in fact, in many places, the opposite trend seems to prevail.

far from causing religion’s death, the growth of scientific knowledge in rapidly changing societies may have contributed to the continuing practice of religion in modern life by producing new anxieties and raising new questions about human existence. although traditional, mainline christian religions have shown some decline, nondenominational spirituality is on the rise. also on the rise are fundamentalist religions, which often take a strong antiscience position. examples include islamic fundamentalism in countries such as afghanistan, algeria, and iran; jewish fundamentalism in Israel and the united states; and hindu fundamentalism in india. christian fundamentalism is represented in the dramatic growth of evangelical denominations in the united states, central america, and sub-saharan africa.

among the fastest-growing religious communities in the world are the indigenous churches of africa. over the last half century, the number of registered indigenous denominations in southern africa alone has doubled from about 5,000 to about 10,000. there, it is estimated that more than half of the christian church members belong to indigenous churches, like the amanazaretha church founded by a zulu prophet and popular among fellow zulus in natal.

within the united states, non-christian religions are also growing. islam (3 to 5 million followers – up from 527,000 in 1990), buddhism (2 to 3 million – up from 401,000 in 1990), hinduism (1.28 million – up from 227,000 in 1990), not to mention various new age options such as wicca (a modern, nature-oriented religion that draws upon ancient western european and pre-christian beliefs and now counting about 310,000 adherents). notably, just 16 percent of the adult population throughout the world claims to be nonreligious. this is not to say that those classified as nonreligious are all atheists, because this miscellaneous “negative” category actually includes many millions of individuals in dozens of countries who may reject or not fit under the label or organized religion, but are metaphysically involved in creative arrangements of spiritual beliefs and practices of their own choosing.

an inventory of the technological applications of modern science reveals the range of new anxieties facing our species. these include nuclear catastrophe, threats of chemical or biological terrorism, health hazards from pollution, and uneasiness about the consequences of developments in biotechnology such as cloning, production of new strains of genetically engineered."
 
the text continues on as follows…

"anthropologist anthony wallace defined religion as “a set of rituals, rationalized by myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of achieving or preventing transformations of state in man and nature.” behind his definition lies a recognition that when people are unable to “fix” serious, anxiety-causing problems through technological or organizational means, they try to do so through manipulation of supernatural or spiritual beings and powers. this requires ritual, or “religion in action”, which can be seen as a basic expression of religion. its major functions are to reduce anxiety and boost confidence, thereby helping people to cope with reality. it is this that gives religion survival value.

with these aspects in mind, we offer a somewhat simpler definition of religion: an organized system of ideas about the spiritual sphere or the supernatural, along with associated ceremonial practices by which people try to interpret and/or influence aspects of the universe otherwise beyond their control. similar to religion, spirituality is also concerned with the sacred, as distinguished from material matters, but it is often individual rather than collective and does not require a distinctive format or traditional organization. both are indicators that many aspects of the human experience are thought to be beyond scientific explanation.

since no known culture, including those of modern industrial societies, has achieved complete certainty in controlling existing or future conditions and circumstances, spirituality and/or religion play a role in all known cultures. however, considerable variability exists here.

at one end of the spectrum are food-foraging peoples, whose technological ability to manipulate their environments is limited and who tend to see themselves as part of, rather than masters of, nature. this may be referred to as a naturalistic worldview. among food foragers religion is likely to be inseparable from the rest of daily life. it also mirrors and confirms the egalitarian nature of social relations in their societies, in that individuals do not plead with high-ranking deities for aid the way members of stratified societies do.

at the other end of the spectrum is western civilization, with its ideological commitment to overcoming problems through technological and organizational skills. here religion is less a part of daily activities and is restricted to more specific occasions. moreover, with its hierarchy of supernatural beings – for instance, god, and (in some religions) the angels, saints, or holy people – it reflects and confirms the stratified nature of the society in which it is embedded.

religious activity may be less prominent in the lives of social elites, who may see themselves as more in control of their own destinies, than it is in the lives of peasants or members of lower classes. among the latter, religion may afford some compensation for a dependent position in society. yet religion is still important to elite members of society, in that it rationalizes the system in such a way that less advantaged people are not as likely to question the existing social order as they might otherwise be. with hope for a better existence after death, one may be more willing to put up with a disadvantaged position in life. thus, religious beliefs serve to influence and perpetuate certain ideas about the relationships, if not actual relations, between different classes of people.
 
Interesting post. As a person who holds a B.A. in Religion (Hawaii 2003) and studied religion from an anthropological perspective, I can say that this selection is a rather typical analysis of religious belief from a secular materialistic post-modern perspective. For the last 60 years or so, the majority of religious anthropological studies have focused solely on describing religious belief as an archaic, irrational cultural hold-over from the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this really says more about contemporary tastes, values and cultural malaise.

The majority of the passages you posted display the scholar’s preoccupation with analyzing religion from an economic or materialistic point-of-view. Is this the only way to analyze religious belief systems? What conclusion could a student possibly come to in reading this introduction to the anthropology of religion other than agreeing with it, when it showcases religion as rationalized by myth and slave to supernatural make-believe rules? The student cannot disagree with this analysis because it is myopic in approach. The author seems to think the religious person is overly concerned with controlling the unknown, minimizing unfavorable outcomes, etc. Well, isn’t that what everyone does regardless of their religious or irreligious tendencies in a world overly concerned with accumulating material wealth? So why stop with religious analysis if this is the driving methodology?

I would pose that this description of religious belief is not so much about identifying an accurate description of the function of religion within various societies over time and location. Instead, it appears to be a thinly veiled ideologically motivated political and economic scourging of Western civilization and Semitic Monotheistic belief systems. The only religious system seemingly praised is the one of the peaceful hunter-gatherers with their egalitarian theistic co-op.

Unfortunately, this field is wrought with similar commentary. It is very difficult for someone of faith (any faith-system) to conduct scholarship in this field and have it taken seriously unless the ultimate conclusion tends toward a condescending patronization of whatever belief system you’re studying. It is really more descriptive of modern society’s suspicion of “authoritarian” institutions, dislike of the so-called status quo and infatuation with en-vogue belief systems that reinforce a materialistic world view or superficially applaud individualism.

Some may criticize me for my views, stating that anthropology is a social science and must approach a topic such as religion from an “objective” stance. Well, that is a nice sentiment but the truth about social sciences is that you cannot approach them from an objective perspective, because no matter how hard you try you are still a member of a social system and your personal biases will come through to some extent. Padding research with statistical analysis also comes up short as statistics can say whatever you want them to say, it just depends on how you ask the question and how you interpret the answer you receive. It is a fascinating field, however, it is in dire need of a dose of honesty in terms of research methodology and openness to other points of view.

Now, you may think I frustratingly wallowed through my studies having the opinion I have about this field. At the time, I was actually a cheerleader of a similar world view, being an agnostic and apostate Christian. I actually poked fun at outspoken Christian students in classes and enjoyed playing “devil’s advocate” with them. Only after leaving the college lecture hall and experiencing “real life” (on the battlefield) and being slapped around by the Holy Spirit did I come to truly understand why people (any people of any belief system) believe what they believe.

So, what’s the take-away from my post? Don’t believe everything you’re spoon-fed in college.

Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
 
Your post was interesting too, Joel.

I didn’t have much interaction with other Catholics in college, unfortunately. If I had to do it all over again, I’d probably ask around the local Newman Center if anyone wanted to form a discussion group of fellow Catholics who’d meet over coffee once a week or so and discuss the issues brought up in our respective classes from a Catholic perspective.

So much of what is taught in the humanities and sciences has a conscious or presumed methodological bias against religion, and those beliefs are often incorporated into the student’s worldview, consciously or subconsciously. It would be nice to ask other believers, from the perspective of other majors, what they thought of what an anthropology or poli sci or history or physics professor taught. It would make for some fun discussions, if nothing else.
 
dear jsimmons

i majored in communication (another social science) at the university of georgia, graduating cum laude in 2002, but unlike most communication majors, i took, as part of the pre-medical school curriculum, a heavy dose of science classes, including one year each of physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, biology (honors), along with courses in genetics and ecology.

as to anthropology, i agree with you that over “the last 60 years of so” anthropological studies have been reductionist in regards to religion (along with everything else), but in the last 20 years or so, i believe anthropologists have become more aware of some of the problems inherent in offering only an etic, reductionist perspective or lean on religions and spiritualities. further, i believe the contemporary reductionist approach now follows the teachings of evolutionary psychology, and therefore reduces religions and religion per se to a list of psychological and social functions, as the book’s authors have done.

i agree with you completely that the authors’ bent was materialistic (even marxist towards the latter paragraphs), and i, having read the entire textbook, can attest that they maintained that materialistic bent throughout all of the text’s chapters.

i think the catholic in you may have overreacted a bit when you stated in your post above that “[the text] appears to be a thinly veiled ideologically motivated political and economic scourging of western civilization and semitic monotheistic belief systems”. after all, the text’s authors only offered what most anthropologists these days would have, a materialist perspective for undergraduates, which is, by the way, valid in many ways across earth’s religious spectrum (including with catholicism to some extent).

like you, i came to christianity because of personal life-changing experiences and the holy spirit of god moving through me, so i can identify with your “take-away” to some extent, however.

thank you for your post above. i found it enjoyably intellectual, even if i did not agree with it entirely.

yours truly and best wishes
whitecrayon
 
Your post was interesting too, Joel.
Thanks. I posted it after long day and was probably somewhat incoherent but I’m glad someone found it interesting.
I didn’t have much interaction with other Catholics in college, unfortunately. If I had to do it all over again, I’d probably ask around the local Newman Center if anyone wanted to form a discussion group of fellow Catholics who’d meet over coffee once a week or so and discuss the issues brought up in our respective classes from a Catholic perspective.
Same here. In fact, as I mentioned above, I wasn’t even Catholic in college but I have future plans for returning for some graduate work, and I think your coffeehouse idea is a good one.
So much of what is taught in the humanities and sciences has a conscious or presumed methodological bias against religion, and those beliefs are often incorporated into the student’s worldview, consciously or subconsciously. It would be nice to ask other believers, from the perspective of other majors, what they thought of what an anthropology or poli sci or history or physics professor taught. It would make for some fun discussions, if nothing else.
Absolutely. I think that is what bothered me so much about the methodology of many anthropological papers. Everyone seemed to have to explain the religion/belief system/world view within the context of their own biases. That is fine. Just state it as such when writing the paper. Many do not want to do so within academia, especially within the social sciences as it is already self-conscious of being labeled a “soft” science.

continued…
 
dear jsimmons

i majored in communication (another social science) at the university of georgia, graduating cum laude in 2002, but unlike most communication majors, i took, as part of the pre-medical school curriculum, a heavy dose of science classes, including one year each of physics, chemistry, organic chemistry, biology (honors), along with courses in genetics and ecology.
Go Bulldogs! I lived in Augusta the past 5 years before moving to Kentucky. Anyhow, my wife is also holds a comms degree, albeit organizational communications. Didn’t you just hate organic chem? I started off doing the pre-med thing as well but drifted off into the “soft” sciences.
as to anthropology, i agree with you that over “the last 60 years of so” anthropological studies have been reductionist in regards to religion (along with everything else), but in the last 20 years or so, i believe anthropologists have become more aware of some of the problems inherent in offering only an etic, reductionist perspective or lean on religions and spiritualities. further, i believe the contemporary reductionist approach now follows the teachings of evolutionary psychology, and therefore reduces religions and religion per se to a list of psychological and social functions, as the book’s authors have done.
I would agree with that. Although, most students are involuntary victims of the method of choice of their professors. I suppose I found myself in an environment of post-modern former Ivy League academics that found cush’ jobs in Hawaii. It is what it is.

As for the evolutionary psychology, I find that fascinating. Cognitive sciences is definitely an interesting field and I think that has more to say about the anthropology of religion than analyzing religion from an economic/political/social perspective. The reason I make that statement is that it appears that many interested in cognitive sciences are taking the religions they study at face value. “Okay…this is the set of beliefs or supernatural laws you apply to your life. Why?” I have not read the entire book as you have, and I take your word that the authors expand on the psychological and social functions of religion from an evolutionary psychology and/or cognitive science perspective.
i agree with you completely that the authors’ bent was materialistic (even marxist towards the latter paragraphs), and i, having read the entire textbook, can attest that they maintained that materialistic bent throughout all of the text’s chapters.

i think the catholic in you may have overreacted a bit when you stated in your post above that “[the text] appears to be a thinly veiled ideologically motivated political and economic scourging of western civilization and semitic monotheistic belief systems”. after all, the text’s authors only offered what most anthropologists these days would have, a materialist perspective for undergraduates, which is, by the way, valid in many ways across earth’s religious spectrum (including with catholicism to some extent).
I probably did overreact with that statement, but I would also pose that most academics dance around what they really want to say about a topic. Especially in social sciences when they don’t want to offend anyone.

It is unfortunate that the materialist perspective is the de facto perspective for undergraduates studying religion. I was always bothered by this. Perhaps my downfall in my own academic studies was that I ended up conducting more ethnographic research than “hard” anthropological studies. I began to take the subjects being studied at their word and took more of a journalistic approach by asking them interrogatives for an explanation, rather than applying my own pre-existing world view onto what I discovered. I still think that is a shortcoming of most academics, the inability to study a subjectinsomuch as we can understand that subject. Once we reach the point where we cannot accept the subject for what it is, we have to apply external points of view to conduct further analysis.
like you, i came to christianity because of personal life-changing experiences and the holy spirit of god moving through me, so i can identify with your “take-away” to some extent, however.

thank you for your post above. i found it enjoyably intellectual, even if i did not agree with it entirely.

yours truly and best wishes
whitecrayon
I’m glad discussions like this can take place. So often you see people getting so upset in discussion forums. I figure, you can only give your point of view so often or from whatever perspective and just leave it at that. Ever see that cartoon/comic strip where the guy is furiously typing away at the computer in the wee hours of the morning? His wife walks by and says, what are you doing? He replies with, someone is wrong on the internet and I have to correct them! Always thought that was funny.

Thanks for the good discussion everyone.👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top