The Anthropology of Religion: Reading List

[path_of_one]

Hi, All-

Here's a list of some good readings on anthropology and religion. The ones with * I'd especially recommend- not necessarily for the completeness of them (in fact, most are rather specific ethnographies) but rather because I just thought they were stellar reading and (dare I say) enjoyable.

*Anderson, E. N. Ecologies of the Heart (Nice and broad-sweeping- one of the few I find that gets at a lot of issues, ranging from medicine to environmental ethics combined with cognitive issues.)

Atran, Scott. In Gods We Trust

Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life

Feld, Steven and Keith Basso. Senses of Place

Frake, Charles. Language and Cultural Description. (Arranged like a series of articles, has some good ones and Frake was a brilliant cognitive scientist. However, kind of dry reading if you're not really into it and the last I checked the book is out of print and expensive to get a used copy.)

Goulet, Jean-Guy. Ways of Knowing.

Hostetler. Amish Society.

* James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. (Still one of the best out there.)

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

* Lansing. Priests and Programmers (A good ethnography that shows how ecological and social sustainability can be grounded in more formalized, larger scale religions with priests- and also why the colonists just didn't "get" it.)

* Lehmann, Artur C., James Myers, and Pamela A. Moro (eds.). Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion: An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural. (The only decent reader I've found. It's an introductory reader, so it's sort of user friendly- but it isn't a good textbook- not found one yet. As a reader, though, it's quite good and it's worth it for the bibliography.)

Malinowski, Bronislaw. Magic, Science and Religion.

Marx, Karl. Elster, Jon (ed.): Karl Marx: A Reader. (Marx had some good ideas on religion. There's been some good spin-offs and refinements of Marx's theories since- tons of Marxists. Gramsci is particularly interesting, if cryptic since he wrote some of his stuff from jail.)

Mauss, Marcel. Magic.

* Milton, Kay. Loving Nature. (Aside from some decent, though sometimes problematic, treatment of environmental politics in the modern first world, her treatment of magic, science, and religion and the human tendency to assign person-hood to things is great.)

* Nelson, Richard. Make Prayers to the Raven. (If you're going to read just one specific little ethnography, I'd recommend this one. It's a joy to read, gives a very in-depth treatment of the culture's religion and its tie to ecological sustainability, and gives a good inside look at an animistic worldview.)

Rappaport, Roy. Pigs for the Ancestors (The classic ethnography about ecological sustainability and religion. He wrote another book as well: Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity.)

Tremlin, Todd. Minds and Gods: The Cognitive Foundations of Religion (I'm throwing this in here- it's on my reading list but I haven't gotten to it yet. Sounds interesting.)

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

Young and Garro. Medical Choice in a Mexican Village.

Good general histories and summaries of the major anthro theorists:

Barnard, Alan. History and Theory in Anthropology. (Not basic, but good.)

Barrett, Stanley. Anthropology: A Student's Guide to Theory and Method (Very basic. But, that's the nice thing about it.)

McGee, R. Jon and Richard Warms. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. (Another not basic but good one. Unfortunately, exorbinantly priced too. I'd recommend Barnard's over this one in part because of the price differential of $60+.)

[Snoopy]

I have a limited budget you know, path !

Many thanks for this.

s.

[path_of_one]

Yes, but there is always the local library!

Also, most of the time you can find them (so long as they aren't out of print) used at a very cheap price from former students.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Yes, but there is always the local library!

Also, most of the time you can find them (so long as they aren't out of print) used at a very cheap price from former students.

Unfortunately path, you're living in another country, in more ways than one. Our library is full of tatty copies of Catherine Cookson books and I don't think the local uni's offer anthropology (but I will check...)

I'll just sift through your recommendations over time; I eat books. I don't mean a read a lot; I mean I eat them.

s.

[wil]

Many research books are dirt cheap on Amazon.

My daughter needed a college text, the shipping was more than the book.

They'll be utilizing Amazon when they need to buy college books in a few years.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I don't mean a read a lot; I mean I eat them.

s.

Yum. Good for fiber.

Most research books (if not out of print and rare) can be had pretty cheaply on Amazon through used booksellers (i.e., college students who just finished their classes).

[Snoopy]

Well I've copied much of your list into my Amazon wish list. I've made a start though - already read the Kuhn!

s.

[juantoo3]

I've still got my copy of Kuhn...and I'm curious how the structure of scientific revolutions equates with the anthropology of religion?

I remember trying to get into a book on anthropology by an author named Levi-Strauss (yes, like the blue jeans), but it was so far over my head I just couldn't get into it.

Would you consider "the Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris a worthwhile addition? That is another I have read, although I take some minor issue at a few points.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I've still got my copy of Kuhn...and I'm curious how the structure of scientific revolutions equates with the anthropology of religion?

More to help understand how science, including anthropology, works- to put theory in perspective.

I remember trying to get into a book on anthropology by an author named Levi-Strauss (yes, like the blue jeans), but it was so far over my head I just couldn't get into it.

Don't feel bad. I've read L-S and while I get it, I find it kind of dry and not really my cup of tea.

Would you consider "the Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris a worthwhile addition? That is another I have read, although I take some minor issue at a few points.

I haven't read this one, actually. I'll have to look that up. I'd be curious what your take is- what points you take issue with.

There are oodles more than the ones here that I've read but just didn't throw up there- some are old and outdated now (and best relevant to history of theory classes), some are just so difficult as to be not enjoyable. There are TONS more I've never read. Hundreds, probably thousands, of new books on theory and ethnography come out every year. I can only get to a fraction of a fraction.

To be honest, there hasn't been a ton of good stuff in anthro about religion in a while, and practically nothing in US religion. A lot of the good stuff from the past is also embedded in the ethnographies, which used to be more general and broad-based (the story of a whole, integrated culture) but now tend to get more and more specialized (and thus, less useful for any introductory reading). I'm not sure why. Maybe it's easier to write that way. It certainly doesn't make people big fans of the genre though, between the jargon and the specialization and the overuse of long-winded theory.

As one student put it to me:
"But, Kim, how can you guys' fieldwork and stories be so interesting, and your books so boring?"

That about sums it up, unfortunately. It seems in many presses: dry, boring, overly specialized and theorized = really intelligent and worth publishing.

And then your book sells eleven copies and ordinary readers and students give bad reviews.

I sincerely hope I do better, though maybe my own stuff will turn out as boring as anyone else's. I have hope, though, since the editors who are forced to read all the university's dissertations before their publication told me that they actually enjoyed mine and wanted to read it. Of course, this is coming from people who regularly read 400-page theses on things like rat DNA... so I'm sure the review was skewed.

[juantoo3]

I think I learned about as much in Sociology class as I did reading anything *branded* as anthropology. It helped that I liked the Prof, who also taught psych. This was the same Prof who loaned me his personal copy of the Golden Bough.

The next best place I picked up a lot of generalized info was when I borrowed a friend's Humanities text, a class I wanted but never fit my schedule. That was one of the few texts I actually read, and in that case from cover to cover. If I have any regrets with any of these, it is that they focussed almost exclusively on the major cultures and overlooked or paid lip service to the minor cultures.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I sincerely hope I do better, though maybe my own stuff will turn out as boring as anyone else's. I have hope, though, since the editors who are forced to read all the university's dissertations before their publication told me that they actually enjoyed mine and wanted to read it. Of course, this is coming from people who regularly read 400-page theses on things like rat DNA... so I'm sure the review was skewed.

I'm sure you'll do better. You could probably sell 12 copies right here...

JK...I think you should give yourself a bit more credit. I like what you are doing with this series of threads. Something tells me we might be guinea pigs, but I'm willing. I might only be an armchair anthropologist (no sheepskin, and post grad is not in the forseeable financial future), but the subject fascinates me. My legs probably wouldn't allow much in the way of field work, but the theory and finds are always exciting.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I think I learned about as much in Sociology class as I did reading anything *branded* as anthropology. It helped that I liked the Prof, who also taught psych. This was the same Prof who loaned me his personal copy of the Golden Bough.

Soc is practically the same thing as anthro, so that makes sense. We differ more in our origins in terms of methodology and connections to government (and thus in our large-scale/small-scale cultural focus) than our theory. We share all the same founding theorists and nowadays we work together in many universities. I think a lot of why they keep the two separate on the surface is to maximize money flowing into it. If you combine departments, you get less money as a general rule.

My mother's first degree is in sociology and we talk about the same theorists and do business in more or less the same way.

The main differences historically were that soc was more connected with national culture and bureaucracy (i.e., class, race/ethnicity, etc.)- stuff going on at home. Which meant large-scale societies so they tended to use methodologies that accommodated large populations on a low level of detail- surveys and the like. You find more statistics historically in soc. Anthro was more connected with colonialism and figuring out how these 3rd world small-scale cultures worked. In the very beginning, it emerged in part from two opposing ends of research- some paid by colonial governments in order to "get" the natives and some financed independently in order to reveal the injustice of colonial prejudices and actions. Because we dealt with small-scale societies, often non-literate, our methods tended toward personal interviewing, observation, participation, and very long fieldwork sessions. It's the marathon fieldwork sessions that were really the distinctive feature, and led to holistic huge works like the classic ethnographies. You stay for years somewhere, and you're bound to have something to say about it.

As stuff has shifted and practically all cultures became embedded in large scale global processes, and as sociologists realized more and more the value of small-scale research to get at detail and check stats for accuracy, the two fields became more and more alike. Now about 50% of the ethnographies I use when I teach come from sociology. Anthro still has a corner on much of the 3rd world market and a lot of the stuff on environmental management and things like the arts. Soc seems to have the corner on much of the 1st world market and things like subcultural movements. But... it's all kind of one big mushy pot.

This was really brought home to me yesterday as I selected my books for the fall semester. I'm teaching a class on contemporary US diversity and could find practically no accessible anthro ethnographies. I wound up with a reader from anthropology (that has tons of articles in it from both soc and anthro), "All Our Kin" (written by a sociologist), "Straightedge Youth" (also soc), and "Amish Society" (not sure if soc or anthro).

So, you've figured it out-- very little difference going on.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm sure you'll do better. You could probably sell 12 copies right here...

JK...I think you should give yourself a bit more credit. I like what you are doing with this series of threads. Something tells me we might be guinea pigs, but I'm willing. I might only be an armchair anthropologist (no sheepskin, and post grad is not in the forseeable financial future), but the subject fascinates me. My legs probably wouldn't allow much in the way of field work, but the theory and finds are always exciting.

Aw, thanks.

You could do fieldwork right from your office. I knew another student who was doing her research on online gaming communities like Everquest. Nice way to write off her computer expenses.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

You could do fieldwork right from your office. I knew another student who was doing her research on online gaming communities like Everquest. Nice way to write off her computer expenses.

Eh, my heart wouldn't be into it. I spend entirely too much time on the computer as it is, and gaming doesn't interest me.

Where my heart and my fascination lies is in historical and archeological anthropology. I could watch those shows about mummies and pottery shards and cave paintings and bickering about arrowheads all day long and not grow tired of it.

I freak at the sight of bodily fluids (so I wouldn't make much of a physician), but give me an ancient skeleton and I'm mesmerized for hours. I remember pouring over a data sheet remarking on the dentition and other physical markers for the Neandertal-Human hybrid child they found in Portugal, and finding a weird sense of appreciation. I couldn't do that over statistics for anything else, I've tried.

[path_of_one]

You should go back after retirement for the fun of it. I've met lots of grad students in their 50s-60s who did this. It sounds like you really have a passion for it!