So far, I have found all the readings from the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology to be very informative as well as thought provoking. This week’s reading, on Religion, raises many different questions and opinions of how religion should be studied, with the ultimate aim of determining what exactly defines religion.
It begins with listing the universal certainties that surround the study of religions that anyone would find difficult to argue with. This is a very concrete list that includes the fact religion is an extremely powerful motivator of behaviour, and that religion provides numerous functions for its adherents such as comfort and reason. I agree with these notions, as they provide a fundamental agreement for us as scholars to branch out from.
There were a few areas in particular that peaked my interest. In the development of the study of religion throughout the chapter, it is astounding to see such ethnocentrism and racism in the early studies. Anthropology’s early focus was based on the polarity between primitive and civilized. This offensively seems to fit perfectly with the ‘orientalist’ view that Said and many others brought to a forefront. Later in the chapter, a perusal of current anthropological sources reveals inconsistencies in this type of polarized structure. For example, how can one consider the notion of religious ‘ghosts’ primitive, when Western cultures believe so prominently in ancestors and angels? This is something that I personally found very interesting because it seems almost impossible now for anyone to not raise these type of questions. How can one criticize something so similar to their own beliefs – or if not their own, the ‘western civilized’ belief they are comparing these primitive cultures to? This was however, the dominant thought of the time and it is only now that it these such structures are found insulting.
The quest for origins continues and there is a move from two vastly separated schisms to Tylor’s evolutionary progression of religion moving from animism to polytheism to monotheism. Frazer moves from this in the late 19th C to talk about his own evolutionary scheme of magic to religion to science. This seems to represent a general 'moral' step in the development of religious study.
By far, the part of this chapter I found the most interesting was the Biology of Religion subsection. What I was immediately drawn to was the thought in my head that science and religion don't usually fit together too well, and here they are, working together. They both usually compete in trying to explain the world around us, but this time they are working hand in hand. It's humbling almost. Anyway, back to the point - this idea of biology is supposed to emphasize the ways in which religious strictures enhance human survival, adaptation and reproduction. The discovery of endorphins largely helped this study because this development allowed for anthropologists to realize that external stimulates influence brain activity. This amazing discovery has the ability to unify anthropological theory because anthropologists can study the biology of behaviour and shift the focus from differences to similarities in religious conceptions across cultures.
The major question that seems to be lingering throughout the chapter is the idea that the phenomenon of the religious experience cannot be unbiasedly documented. Those outside of the religious experience looking in as a way to study and compare, miss out on the essential feeling of the religious experience. In contrast to this, those wishing to document their personal religious experience as a means for others to learn from, have the problem of being to engulfed in the situation to have a anthropological stance, rather than a religious one. This is a dilemma that will probably always exist because when it comes to religion it is difficult, if not impossible, to find someone who can truly understand all points of view of the religious experience, and still remain impartial in order to analyze, compare and document for anthropological study.
I definitely agree that it seems studying religion objectively while attempting to gain all it's value seems impossible. Looking at a religion as an outsider really does exclude many aspects of religion that followers claim to have experienced. However, converting to that religion to be able to 'feel' such phenomena would definitely result in a subjective report. Looking into this question I couldn't help but integrate the theories of Carl Rogers and his pehnomenal field; everything we see is subjective and we will never be able to see actual reality for what it is without manipulating it through our subjectivity. What do you think of this theory; is it impossible to be objective (so we shouldn't try anymore) or is Rogers completely incorrect? How would this apply to the study of religion?
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteI appreciate how in detail you have studied the chapter. Yes, the quest for the origin of religion continues. Some have tried to explain it through psychology (mostly objects relations theory and psychoanalysis), others have used functional models, sociological models and so forth. It is interesting that you first thought that science and religion do not really fit but then “the biology of religion” section impressed you. I guess it is not very surprising to apply scientific method to the study of religion because this model is the most dominant model in the academia today. However, many scholars have pointed out that the scientific model cannot be applied to studying the phenomenon of religion. They consider this approach reductionist. I can see their point because when we view religion as something that is necessarily irrational and completely emotional, it seems like we cannot through scientific method access people’s religious feelings and belief. This is where we get into the problem of the usefulness of the category of belief in the study of religion. However, I think we can still access and study people’s practices of religion objectively and analyze them through scientific methods.
Cheers