Selected Readings in the Anthropology of Religion: Theoretical and Methodological Essays (Contributions to the Study of Anthropology)

298 Pages·2003·1.36 MB·English

by  Stephen D. Glazier

Selected Readings in the
Anthropology of Religion:
Theoretical and
Methodological Essays
STEPHEN D. GLAZIER
CHARLES A. FLOWERDAY
Editors
PRAEGER
Selected Readings in the
Anthropology of Religion
Recent Titles in
Contributions to the Study of Anthropology
ANilotic World: The Atout-Speaking Peoples of the Southern Sudan
John W. Burton
Culture and Christianity: The Dialectics of Transformation
George R. Saunders, editor
The Psychodynamics of Culture: Abram Kardiner and Neo-Freudian
Anthropology
William C. Manson
Pilgrimage in Latin America
N. Ross Crumrine and E. Alan Morinis, editors
The Art of Native American Basketry: ALiving Legacy
Frank W. Porter III
Franz Boas, Social Activist
Marshall Hyatt
Sacred Journeys: The Anthropology of Pilgrimage
Alan Morinis, editor
Religion and Social System of the Virasaiva Community
Dan A. Chekki
Selected Readings in the
Anthropology of Religion
Theoretical and
Methodological Essays
EDITED BY STEPHEN D. GLAZIER
AND CHARLES A. FLOWERDAY
Contributions to the Study of Anthropology, Number 9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Selected readings in the anthropology of religion : theoretical and methodological
essays / edited by Stephen D. Glazier and Charles A. Flowerday.
p. cm.—(Contributions to the study of anthropology, ISSN0890–9377 ; no. 9)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0–313–30090–9 (alk. paper)
1. Ethnology—Religious aspects. 2. Religion. I. Glazier, Stephen D.
II. Flowerday, Charles. III. Series.
BL256 .S43 2003
306.6—dc21 2002029876
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.
Copyright © 2003 by Stephen D. Glazier and Charles A. Flowerday
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be
reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2002029876
ISBN: 0–313–30090–9
ISSN: 0890–9377
First published in 2003
Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
www.praeger.com
Printed in the United States of America
The paper used in this book complies with the
Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National
Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Copyright Acknowledgment
Every reasonable effort has been made to trace the owners of copyright materials
in this book, but in some instances this has proven impossible. The editors and
publisher will be glad to receive information leading to more complete acknowl-
edgments in subsequent printings of the book, and in the meantime extend their
apologies for any omissions.
Contents
Introduction 1
Stephen D. Glazier and Charles A. Flowerday
I. Theoretical Essays 15
1 Clifford Geertz’s Interpretive Approach to Religion 17
Robert A. Segal
2 Answers and Questions: Evans-Pritchard on Nuer Religion 35
John W. Burton
3 The Biolinkage of Religion and Bipedalism 53
Mark Gruber
4 Defining Religion 61
James M. Donovan
5 Agency and Religious Agency in Cognitive Perspective 99
E. Thomas Lawson
II. Methodological Essays 107
6 Fear of Religious Emotion versus the Need for Research
That Encompasses the Fullest Experiences 109
Edith L. B. Turner
vi Contents
7 Dilemmas of Ethnographic Research on Sectarian Movements:
AConfessional Account 119
Hans A. Baer
8 Alcohol in the Study of Anthropology and Religion 143
Dwight B. Heath
9 Images of the Sacred, Embodiments of the Other:
Representing Religious Experience on Film and Video 165
John P. Homiak
10 The Use of Visual Media in the Study of Religious
Belief and Practice 223
Christine Greenway and Todd T. Lewis
Index 273
About the Editors and Contributors 289
Introduction
Stephen D. Glazier and Charles A. Flowerday
In a classroom at the Sorbonne, a skeptical student confronts the missionary-
anthropologist: “But M. le Pasteur, how many people did you really convert
in all that time out there?” [Maurice] Leenhardt strokes his finely combed,
abundant grey beard, then replies with a shrug: “Maybe one.”...There can
be little doubt that the “one” in question was himself.
James Clifford, Person and Myth
Thomas Beidelman (1971:555) attributes the following quote to E.E.
Evans-Pritchard: “Though it may seem odd to you, I have always taken it
for granted that any contribution I have made to knowledge is not mine
but God’s through me.” While it is difficult to gauge the seriousness with
which Evans-Pritchard made this remark (in an apparent change of heart
from his earlier published opinion that all religions are “children of
fancy”), the issues this statement raises are of central importance to the
anthropological study of religion. Coming to terms with the problem of
belief and religious experience perhaps represents the last frontier for
anthropology of religion and one of the greatest barriers to dialog between
anthropologists and religious studies specialists. Whereas religious stud-
ies scholarship presupposes a belief in, or at least tacit acknowledgment
of, the possibility of supernatural beings, anthropological discourse on
religion seldom is grounded in belief statements. By taking belief and reli-
gious experience seriously, anthropologists and religious studies scholars
will be able to narrow the gap between their respective fields and rap-
prochement of anthropology and religious studies becomes all the more
probable.
2 Selected Readings in the Anthropology of Religion
Belief and religious experience have been longstanding concerns among
psychologists, but have rarely been a topic of intense anthropological
inquiry. Anotable exception is Rodney Needham’s (1972) brief but ambi-
tious volume Belief, Language, and Experience,which attempted to come to
terms with the issue of belief by borrowing from linguistic philosophy
(Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations). Needham’s treatment, how-
ever, was not entirely successful.
The contributors to this collection raise new and important issues for
the anthropological study of religion in new and important ways. In
intensely personal essays, a number of contributors address two funda-
mental concerns in the study of religion: (1) How should anthropologists
deal with the beliefs and practices of others? and (2) How should anthro-
pologists deal with their own religious backgrounds and beliefs as these
may affect their understandings of the beliefs and practices of others? A
partial resolution of both questions is necessary before the anthropologi-
cal study of religion can advance to a higher level and constitutes a vital
first step for rapprochement between anthropology and religious studies.
The late Morton Klass suggested that anthropologists ought to apply
Western theological ideas and concepts (i.e., notions of sin, evil, morality,
and so on) to anthropological theories about religion. British social anthro-
pologists have already done so in edited collections such as David
Parkin’s The Anthropology of Evil, which includes chapters by Christian,
Muslim, and Hindu theologians; Joanna Overing’s Reason and Morality;
and, more recently, Signe Howell’s The Ethnography of Moralities.Why has
it taken American anthropologists so long to join in this discussion?
Much nineteenth-century social science was couched in theological
terms. Durkheim, Weber, and Freud were well versed in theology and
addressed many of their arguments to theologians. When Weber made his
famous statement that he was not “religiously musical,” he saw his lack of
“musicality” as a serious detriment to his life’s work. Again, theological
speculation was once central to Western thought. Theologians made
active—not passive—responses to religious experience and have pro-
vided critiques rather than simply accepting commonly held notions
about the cosmos. It was only in the twentieth century that theological
speculation became peripheral to the social sciences.
There is an urgent need for anthropologists to cast a wider net and
develop an inclusive framework so as to address so-called common sense
assumptions about the cosmos. This wider net must be positioned to catch
elements of popular culture as well as the products of trained theologians.
Toignore popular culture is to limit the potential contributions of anthro-
pology to religious studies and vice versa. Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, and
Walt Disney are as worthy of serious treatment as Barth, Tillich, and
Schleiermacher. Why are there so few anthropological studies of Jerry Fal-
well (Harding 1999), Jim Bakker, and Billy Graham? Why were there so few
Introduction 3
anthropological studies (à la Roy Rappaport) of the ecology of Pentecostal-
ism or televangelism? There is ample religious content in popular culture’s
treatments of Mickey Mouse, Marilyn Monroe, and the Kennedys. All is
grist for the anthropological mill, and the fruits of such studies should be
welcome grist for the theological mill as well.
There is inherent danger in lumping together religion, political ideol-
ogy, and common sense—a danger Clifford Geertz tried to avoid by treat-
ing each in a separate essay (Geertz 1973a, 1973b, 1983). While Geertz’s
separation of religion, ideology, and common sense allows for these as
overlapping categories of human experience, perhaps the most salient dis-
tinctions lie in degrees of falsifiability and degrees of authority. Geertz
suggests that there is no evidence that could serve to falsify religious state-
ments, while evidence that could falsify ideological statements are seldom
brought into play. Common sense statements, Geertz asserts, are held
strongly despite the fact that they remain untested.
Anthropologists—like religious studies scholars—have their own cher-
ished beliefs, and they are no more willing to call them into question. One
blind spot has been an untested belief in the secularization process that
informs so many anthropological statements about religion. Contrary to
the assumptions of many anthropologists, secularization may or may not
be inevitable, and Western societies may or may not be becoming pre-
dominantly secular. These are issues that need to be answered empirically.
While the “secularization hypothesis” formulated in the nineteenth cen-
tury by Troeltsch (1960) and Weber (1963) may have been useful for the
analysis of church-state relations in European society during select peri-
ods, a number of prominent sociologists of religion (most notably Wade
Clark Roof, Andrew S. Buckser, and Robert Wuthnow) have concluded
that secularization is by no means an inevitable or uniform process. These
sociologists report on the incredible fervor of the Religious Right (Jerry
Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Promise Keepers, and various antiabortion
groups) and the resurgence of New Religious Movements (neoshaman-
ism, astrology, and psychic healing). Clark Roof, Jackson Carroll, and
David Roozen (1995) have concluded that religious sentiments are very
much alive in Europe and the United States, but that religion seems to
have taken different forms in the latter half of the twentieth century. Many
of Troeltsch’s predictions have come true. Religious establishments have
substantially weakened, memberships have declined, the number of peo-
ple claiming to have no religion has grown, and the acceptance of ortho-
dox beliefs and morality has also declined (Roof et al. 1995:245–46).
Despite these trends, Roof et al. emphasize a new focus on individual
choice, what they call “cafeteria style religion” or “religion a la carte.”
This has not brought about the total collapse of religious establishments
long anticipated by social scientists. Established churches continue to play
a powerful role in civil religions and in defining national cultural identi-