path_of_one
Embracing the Mystery
OK, so I figured I'd start a little series about the study of religion from the science of anthropology, which is the study of humans. I'm a cultural anthropologist, and particularly interested in cognition, environmental issues, and religion. I figured this might be a fun way for people to engage with the subject of religion in a new and scientific way, to reflect on their own definitions and assumptions, and for all of us to discuss and grow.
So part one is how we define religion...
This takes a lot more effort than most people would think. Most people go through their lives without thinking through their definitions much. They make assumptions and hold ideas without a lot of critical reflection, and the inconsistencies only show up when they get into debates or disagreements with others. If you're in any branch of science, debate is constant and is how we refine our theories, models, data, etc. so you learn that definition making and defending is a constant and difficult business.
Religion is particularly difficult to define adequately, because there is so much variety. What does a shamanistic animistic religion, Islam, and Confucianism have in common? Where do we draw the line? What about social stuff that looks like a religion, but isn't very religious (some forms of Communism, for example)? Ooo, it's lots of fun.
So, we have lots of different definitions in anthropology and we all defend them and it's a constant discussion in the field. We do this with other difficult concepts too, like culture. That said, I will put forth a pretty standard definition and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Then I'll put forth what I think is a really good (and more poetic) definition from the field of comparative religion (the science of religion), and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of IT. Unsurprisingly, if I ever get a book out on this subject, I will be forming a new definition that tries to get the best of both and eliminate the problems with each.
First off- a standard anthro definition, put forth by Conrad Kottak, whose basic textbook is widely used for intro level classes because his definitions and treatment of the issues are seen as about the best you can find.
“Beliefs and rituals concerned with supernatural beings, powers, and forces.” (Mirror for Humanity, p. G12)
At first glance this seems fine. But what does it mean? What is a belief? A ritual? Supernatural? Beings? Powers? Forces? OK, for those of you whose eyes are not already rolling back in your skull, ponder all this for a moment. And then you’ll see the joys of trying to communicate as an anthropologist. So, if we unpack this, what Kottak (and us anthro folks) are talking about is that religion is social. Religion is a social organization, and I’ll get into why this matters and what it means in Part Two. But for now, understand that anthropologists define religion as a social phenomenon, and so these beliefs are not just personal ideas. They are socially held beliefs- beliefs held in a group (which may or may not be doctrine- we’ll get to that later). Which, as we’ll see as this thread progresses onward, comes with all sorts of issues in terms of how these beliefs are distributed in a group, who learns what from whom, and so forth. You see, nothing is simple about studying religion scientifically.
So… we can say that beliefs are the socially held ideas about whatever this supernatural stuff is (whatever that means). Rituals, likewise, are very specifically defined. Just because you brush your teeth the same way everyday doesn’t mean you’re doing ritual. Ritual is, if we continue to read Kottak: “behavior that is formal, stylized, repetitive, and stereotyped, performed earnestly as a social act; rituals are held at set times and places and have liturgical orders.” As you can see, we get a definition of ritual that then requires a bunch more unpacking. A journey in anthropology is full of baggage. First off, since most people seem clueless about what a liturgical order is- it isn’t just a thing Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans do. A liturgical order is: “sequences of words and actions invented prior to the current performance of a ritual in which they occur.” So essentially, religion is not only about beliefs, but also about certain kinds of actions- rituals. These actions are (1) social (and there is a whole discussion I could have on this- do techno rituals count, do individually performed but group-based rituals count, etc.- suffice it to say they must be held in common with some group somewhere); (2) formal (this gets into the liturgical thing- ritual is planned, not spontaneous, though it can build in moments of spontaneity); (3) stylized, repetitive, and stereotyped (it follows a set sequence of events, a plan, is normally more or less the same or similar over multiple repetitions, and follows fixed ideas about what will/should happen); (4) performed earnestly (people think they should be in earnest during the acts); (5) are generally held at set times/places (i.e., at a church, temple, grove, monastery at 10 am each day or on 12/25, etc.); and (6) are planned in advance (they have a script, which is the liturgical order).
OK, so far we have that in anthropology, religion is (1) social, (2) about ideas, and (3) about ritual practices. That’s nice, except it gets rather tricky with #3 because some religions that are *definitely* religions are not very ritualistic. I’ll put that aside from now, but it’s worth a note- #3 gets tricky. It’s kind of a “most of the time but not always” issue. It might be better to say that religion is socially held beliefs and practices… and then move on to trying to explain the focus (i.e., distinguish it from politics or economics). Also worth a mention that ritual does not need to be religious. Graduation ceremonies are rituals, along with swearing in a president. See- all social stuff shares a lot of stuff in common (more on that later).
What is the focus? Supernatural forces, beings, powers. Now, here’s where the problems with this definition start. What is supernatural? Kottak doesn’t tell us. Is anything really supernatural? What do people mean by that? Do they just mean extra-mundane? Or extra-ordinary? Or… ? Here’s the issue: some religions *don’t* believe in the supernatural, or they think they are irrelevant to the religion. Confucianism. Buddhism. Also, some social groups that otherwise act religious (some types of Communism, for example, and some groups of Atheists), are clearly defined as against supernatural anything. At any rate, here’s where the problems really begin. However, it is worth saying that *many* religions have beliefs in supernatural somethings. As anthropologists, we enumerate forces, beings, and powers because we find that some religions personify the supernatural (i.e., there are supernaturals that have personalities, wills, etc. that indicate a being-ness) and other religions think of supernaturals as being forces or powers, which may be more or less mechanistic and more or less influenceable.
At the end of the first definition what we’ve got is that religion is social and it has to do with both beliefs and practices, and most religions have practices that are ritualistic in nature. Also, most religions deal with ideas and practices designed to deal with the extra-mundane. These might integrate the beliefs/practices into everyday life, but it is still distinctive. Supernatural is probably not the best way to define this stuff, because something like attaining enlightenment in Buddhism is not necessarily supernatural, but it is extra-mundane, at least when it first happens. Finally, whatever we want to call that beyond-the-everyday-life stuff, some religions treat it as beings and others as powers or forces (and some as both).
So part one is how we define religion...
This takes a lot more effort than most people would think. Most people go through their lives without thinking through their definitions much. They make assumptions and hold ideas without a lot of critical reflection, and the inconsistencies only show up when they get into debates or disagreements with others. If you're in any branch of science, debate is constant and is how we refine our theories, models, data, etc. so you learn that definition making and defending is a constant and difficult business.
Religion is particularly difficult to define adequately, because there is so much variety. What does a shamanistic animistic religion, Islam, and Confucianism have in common? Where do we draw the line? What about social stuff that looks like a religion, but isn't very religious (some forms of Communism, for example)? Ooo, it's lots of fun.
So, we have lots of different definitions in anthropology and we all defend them and it's a constant discussion in the field. We do this with other difficult concepts too, like culture. That said, I will put forth a pretty standard definition and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Then I'll put forth what I think is a really good (and more poetic) definition from the field of comparative religion (the science of religion), and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of IT. Unsurprisingly, if I ever get a book out on this subject, I will be forming a new definition that tries to get the best of both and eliminate the problems with each.
First off- a standard anthro definition, put forth by Conrad Kottak, whose basic textbook is widely used for intro level classes because his definitions and treatment of the issues are seen as about the best you can find.
“Beliefs and rituals concerned with supernatural beings, powers, and forces.” (Mirror for Humanity, p. G12)
At first glance this seems fine. But what does it mean? What is a belief? A ritual? Supernatural? Beings? Powers? Forces? OK, for those of you whose eyes are not already rolling back in your skull, ponder all this for a moment. And then you’ll see the joys of trying to communicate as an anthropologist. So, if we unpack this, what Kottak (and us anthro folks) are talking about is that religion is social. Religion is a social organization, and I’ll get into why this matters and what it means in Part Two. But for now, understand that anthropologists define religion as a social phenomenon, and so these beliefs are not just personal ideas. They are socially held beliefs- beliefs held in a group (which may or may not be doctrine- we’ll get to that later). Which, as we’ll see as this thread progresses onward, comes with all sorts of issues in terms of how these beliefs are distributed in a group, who learns what from whom, and so forth. You see, nothing is simple about studying religion scientifically.
So… we can say that beliefs are the socially held ideas about whatever this supernatural stuff is (whatever that means). Rituals, likewise, are very specifically defined. Just because you brush your teeth the same way everyday doesn’t mean you’re doing ritual. Ritual is, if we continue to read Kottak: “behavior that is formal, stylized, repetitive, and stereotyped, performed earnestly as a social act; rituals are held at set times and places and have liturgical orders.” As you can see, we get a definition of ritual that then requires a bunch more unpacking. A journey in anthropology is full of baggage. First off, since most people seem clueless about what a liturgical order is- it isn’t just a thing Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans do. A liturgical order is: “sequences of words and actions invented prior to the current performance of a ritual in which they occur.” So essentially, religion is not only about beliefs, but also about certain kinds of actions- rituals. These actions are (1) social (and there is a whole discussion I could have on this- do techno rituals count, do individually performed but group-based rituals count, etc.- suffice it to say they must be held in common with some group somewhere); (2) formal (this gets into the liturgical thing- ritual is planned, not spontaneous, though it can build in moments of spontaneity); (3) stylized, repetitive, and stereotyped (it follows a set sequence of events, a plan, is normally more or less the same or similar over multiple repetitions, and follows fixed ideas about what will/should happen); (4) performed earnestly (people think they should be in earnest during the acts); (5) are generally held at set times/places (i.e., at a church, temple, grove, monastery at 10 am each day or on 12/25, etc.); and (6) are planned in advance (they have a script, which is the liturgical order).
OK, so far we have that in anthropology, religion is (1) social, (2) about ideas, and (3) about ritual practices. That’s nice, except it gets rather tricky with #3 because some religions that are *definitely* religions are not very ritualistic. I’ll put that aside from now, but it’s worth a note- #3 gets tricky. It’s kind of a “most of the time but not always” issue. It might be better to say that religion is socially held beliefs and practices… and then move on to trying to explain the focus (i.e., distinguish it from politics or economics). Also worth a mention that ritual does not need to be religious. Graduation ceremonies are rituals, along with swearing in a president. See- all social stuff shares a lot of stuff in common (more on that later).
What is the focus? Supernatural forces, beings, powers. Now, here’s where the problems with this definition start. What is supernatural? Kottak doesn’t tell us. Is anything really supernatural? What do people mean by that? Do they just mean extra-mundane? Or extra-ordinary? Or… ? Here’s the issue: some religions *don’t* believe in the supernatural, or they think they are irrelevant to the religion. Confucianism. Buddhism. Also, some social groups that otherwise act religious (some types of Communism, for example, and some groups of Atheists), are clearly defined as against supernatural anything. At any rate, here’s where the problems really begin. However, it is worth saying that *many* religions have beliefs in supernatural somethings. As anthropologists, we enumerate forces, beings, and powers because we find that some religions personify the supernatural (i.e., there are supernaturals that have personalities, wills, etc. that indicate a being-ness) and other religions think of supernaturals as being forces or powers, which may be more or less mechanistic and more or less influenceable.
At the end of the first definition what we’ve got is that religion is social and it has to do with both beliefs and practices, and most religions have practices that are ritualistic in nature. Also, most religions deal with ideas and practices designed to deal with the extra-mundane. These might integrate the beliefs/practices into everyday life, but it is still distinctive. Supernatural is probably not the best way to define this stuff, because something like attaining enlightenment in Buddhism is not necessarily supernatural, but it is extra-mundane, at least when it first happens. Finally, whatever we want to call that beyond-the-everyday-life stuff, some religions treat it as beings and others as powers or forces (and some as both).
