{"id":82,"date":"2012-05-01T12:56:30","date_gmt":"2012-05-01T12:56:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/?page_id=82"},"modified":"2018-03-19T22:54:37","modified_gmt":"2018-03-19T22:54:37","slug":"religion","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/modules\/structures\/religion\/","title":{"rendered":"Religion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Lesson Objectives:<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>identify and describe anthropological theories of religion<\/li>\n<li>describe the role of ritual in social cohesion<\/li>\n<li>evaluate the relationship between religion and power<\/li>\n<li>analyze the role of religious symbol-making and meaning<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/450px-religious_syms-svg.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-777\" title=\"450px-religious_syms-svg\" src=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/450px-religious_syms-svg-300x300.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"300\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/450px-religious_syms-svg-300x300.png 300w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/450px-religious_syms-svg-150x150.png 150w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/450px-religious_syms-svg.png 450w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a>Religion has played a significant role in shaping human social experiences and interpretations of reality. There are many different approaches to religion and religious phenomena.\u00a0 The apologetic approach offers an internal interpretation of religion from the perspective of the believers.\u00a0 Others aim to \u2018debunk\u2019 ideas religious ideas and beliefs. From an academic perspective, scholars can take a socio-historical approach that correlates the social and historical circumstances that give rise to religious movements and\/or a social analytical approach to identify the role of religion in society and individual experiences. This section will introduce key anthropological approaches to religion as a social institution comprised of a system of symbols and meanings that shape and are shaped by society.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Religious Evolution \u2013 19<sup>th<\/sup> century<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In early anthropology, anthropologists aimed to identify the development of religion among humans by constructing evolutionary models that situated specific religious systems along a linear trajectory. E.B. Tylor (1832-1917) was among the first anthropologists to interrogate beliefs systems and he employed a functionalist evolutionary perspective to interpreting different religious systems. According to Tylor, humans created religion to answer questions about life and death, and he organized different religions from \u2018primitive\u2019 animism to \u2018advanced \u2018monotheism\u2019 (Segal in Hinnells 2005). In his book, <em>The Golden Bough<\/em> (1890), James George Frazer also relied on a functionalist evolutionary perspective to distinguish the difference between <em>magic <\/em>and religion.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/evol1.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-779\" title=\"evol\" src=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/evol1-300x68.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"68\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/evol1-300x68.png 300w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/evol1-1024x233.png 1024w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/evol1.png 1140w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>One of the most notable bodies of research within the functionalist approach to religion comes from French sociologist, Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). In his book, <em>The Elementary Forms of Religious Life <\/em>(1912), Durkeim argued that religion is not an external force outside of society, but it <em>is<\/em> society. His framework is based on a dichotomy between the <em>sacred<\/em> and the <em>profane<\/em>; while the profane represents the daily and mundane, the sacred is set apart and forbidden. He defined religion as \u2018a<em> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">unified system <\/span>of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, which unite <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">one single moral <\/span>community into a \u2018church\u2019. <\/em>\u00a0According to him, the beliefs and practices do not come from an outside force, but they come from <em>within<\/em> the <em>collective moral force<\/em> of a society and have been set apart to imbue authority to the belief system. He argues that society needs religion in order to maintain moral and social order, enforce values and norms, and bond the community. People establish social bonds through shared beliefs and practices, and this allows people to sacrifice their ego, or individualism, to the common good of the group. Durkheim describes deity, or \u2018God\u2019 as the embodiment of a society; the traits and characteristics are projected onto what he refers to as a \u2018mirror in the sky,\u2019 society looking up at itself.<\/p>\n<p>At that time, anthropologists relied on second-hand information from missionaries and naturalists to develop their conclusions. In the early 20<sup>th<\/sup> century, E.E. Evans-Pritchard criticized functional evolutionary models of religion for failing to address the unique social contexts that shape each religious system. While some scholars have continued to address religion from an evolutionary perspective (Bellah 1964), Evans-Pritchard set the stage for an anthropological approach to religion as a system of symbols and meanings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Religion as a Cultural System<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the 20<sup>th<\/sup> century, anthropologists addressed religion from an interpretive analytical framework that aimed to develop a better understanding of the symbols and meanings that comprise religion as a cultural system. In the his book, <em>The Interpretation of Cultures<\/em> (1966\/73), Clifford Geertz defined religion as<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u2018a <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">system of symbols <\/span>which acts to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by formulating <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">conceptions of a general order <\/span>of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">seem uniquely realistic.<\/span>\u2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>From his perspective, religion provides frameworks for life that shape human behavior by offering a blueprint to understand deep questions that science and reason fail to answer and providing webs of meaning to appease insecurities. Religion can relive\u00a0 anxiety about life after death, and offer interpretive frameworks on how to organize and structure reality. Compare the different interpretive religious frameworks regarding homosexuality presented in the two documentaries\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.hbo.com\/documentaries\/be-like-others#\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Be Like Others<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.forthebibletellsmeso.org\/media.htm\" target=\"_parent\">The Bible Tells Me So<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Victor Turner focus on symbolic practice in his theoretical framework that addressed ritual and rites of passage. Turner expanded Arthur Van Gennup\u2019s (1909) three-phase model for ritual transition: separation \u2013 transition \u2013 incorporation. According to Van Gennup, disorder induced by social change is managed through the symbolic performance of transition within rites of passage. Prior to the change, the individual (or group of individuals) is separated from the group. They then partake in a transitional performance where they leave their former position or identity. When they rejoin the group, they assume their new identity or position. Van Gennup describes the middle, or transitional, phase as the liminal period that is characterized as \u2018anti-structure\u2019 because the individual or group in transition are outside of the social order.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/passage.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-medium wp-image-780\" title=\"passage\" src=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/passage-300x66.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"66\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/passage-300x66.png 300w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/passage-1024x227.png 1024w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/passage.png 1323w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/1_022141.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignleft size-medium wp-image-781\" title=\"1_022141\" src=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/1_022141-300x188.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"188\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/1_022141-300x188.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/1_022141-1024x642.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/1_022141.jpg 1279w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a>A common example of Van Gennup\u2019s three-phase rite of passage is the custom of sequestering and veiling a \u2018bride\u2019 prior to and during a marriage ceremony. In some American weddings, the bride is \u2018hidden\u2019 or separated from the group prior to the commencement of the ceremony that facilitates the social transitioning from \u2018daughter\u2019 to \u2018wife\u2019. During the transition, the veil disguises the identity during the time when the individual is no longer who they were, but not quite who they are about to become. At the end of the ceremony, the veil is lifted and the individual rejoins the group with a new identity and a new social position. This performance is rooted in a historical era when women were considered property and the wedding symbolically represented the transmission of property from father to husband. In liberalized societies, this performace has been modified to symbolically represent love.<\/p>\n<p>Victor Turner expanded Van Gennup\u2019s notion of <em>liminality<\/em>, which he characterized as betwixt and between (1967) and he focused his attention on the significant role of \u2018anti-structure\u2019 during the liminal phase. \u00a0According to Turner, the liminal phase results in <em>communitas<\/em>, which is unstructured community where the members experiencing liminality are temporarily equal until they reaggregate back into society and assume their social positioning. During communitas, people participate in activities and behaviors and cross social boundaries that are otherwise forbidden within the pre-existing social structure.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Religion as Authority<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Religion has also been challenged as an authoritarian system. In his short essay, <em>The Future of an Illusion <\/em>(1927), Sigmund Freud described religion as a fictive illusion that positions \u2018God\u2019 as the parent after the child realizes the shortcomings of the mother and father.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/qHjhv6SOjC4?rel=0\" width=\"480\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>Freud\u2019s take on religion echoes earlier works by turn of the 19th century anarchists such as Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876) who argued that religion was a fiction that partnered with the authoritarian state by serving as a coping mechanism for inequality which prevented people from initiating change. In his book, <em>God and the State<\/em>, Bakunin wrote:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00a0&#8220;the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Along the same lines,\u00a0 Karl Marx (1818-1883) characterized religion as the \u2018the opiate of the masses\u2019 meaning that like an opiate, religion fails to address the causes of suffering and oppression, it simply makes it more tolerable. Marx\u2019s metaphor is derived from Hegel\u2019s <em>Philosophy of Right <\/em>(1844) as well as the Marquis de Sade (1797) who referred to religion as \u2018this opium you feed your people.\u2019 \u00a0These critics point out that religion prevents social change and serves the needs of oppressors because suffering and oppression is often correlated with righteousness, such as the biblical story of Job, and that power is associated with sin and corruption. The majority of critical religious analysis targets Christianity because the historical writing emerged from the euro-centric \u2018post-enlightment\u2019 period when science began to challenge the authority of the church.<\/p>\n<p>Today, critics continue to shed light on the ways that power structures have used religion as a means of controlling, marginalizing and even exterminating populations of people. The documentary, <a href=\"http:\/\/constantinessword.com\/?page_id=7\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Constantine\u2019s Sword<\/a>\u00a0 (2008), addresses the relationship between the Catholic Church, political power, and anti-semitism throughout history.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Liberation Theology<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In the middle of the 20<sup>th<\/sup> century, the emergence of liberation theology in Latin America challenged representations of religion as an oppressive apparatus and shed light on the role of religion as a means to empowerment. In the 1960s, Marxism integrated with Catholicism when a growing number of priests increasingly witnessed abject poverty and exploitation of the poor and asked: <em>What would Jesus do?<\/em> Several activists priest, such as Jon Sobrino, challenged the church to target issues of inequality and oppression. Sobrino\u2019s writings, such as <em>Jesus the Liberator<\/em> (1991), <em>Christ the Liberator<\/em> (1999), <em>The True Church and the Poor<\/em> (1984), and <em>Spirituality of Liberation<\/em> (1990) emphasized the emancipatory aspects of Christian scriptures.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/6mDXa0zrqkg?rel=0\" width=\"480\" height=\"360\" frameborder=\"0\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>At the same time that Christianity was being recast as emancipatory in Latin America, Islam offered liberation theology for African-Americans in the United States, and feminist spirituality gained momentum as part of a critical analysis to patriarchy in world religions. From an interpretive perspective, liberation theology enabled a social community to liberate themselves from religious hegemonies and reclaim symbols and meanings as part of a cultural framework that expressed the experiences and values of the community.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Reading<\/strong>: Geertz, Clifford. 1993. \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/Geertz_Religon_as_a_Cultural_System_.pdf\">&#8216;Religion as a Cultural System&#8217;<\/a>\u2019 . In: The interpretation of cultures: selected essays, Geertz, Clifford, pp.87-125. Fontana Press.<\/p>\n\n                        <div class=\"slickQuizWrapper\" id=\"slickQuiz16\">\n                            <h2 class=\"quizName\"><\/h2>\n\n                            <div class=\"quizArea\">\n                                <div class=\"quizHeader\">\n                                    <div class=\"buttonWrapper\"><a class=\"button startQuiz\" href=\"#\">Get Started!<\/a><\/div>\n                                <\/div>\n                            <\/div>\n\n                            <div class=\"quizResults\">\n                                <div class=\"quizResultsCopy\">\n                                    <h3 class=\"quizScore\">Your Score: <span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/h3>\n                                    <h3 class=\"quizLevel\">Your Ranking: <span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/h3>\n                                <\/div>\n                            <\/div>\n                        <\/div>\n<p><strong>Discussion<\/strong>: Research a religious cultural expression (symbol or representation \u2013 this can include an image, story, song, or other symbolic form that communicates meaning. ) Analyze the expression using the material presented in this module and the readings. What type of meanings are conveyed? How is the expression part of a system? \u00a0How do the meanings reflect the unique socio-historical circumstances experienced by the religious community? Include a link to the image or representation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lesson Objectives: identify and describe anthropological theories of religion describe the role of ritual in social cohesion evaluate the relationship between religion and power analyze the role of religious symbol-making and meaning Religion has played a significant role in shaping &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/modules\/structures\/religion\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":204,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-82","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1613,"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82\/revisions\/1613"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.anthrocervone.org\/PeoplesandCultures\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}