Essays Questions
1. 'There is a fundamental ideological divide in the anthropology religion.' Discuss.
1. Dutton, E. 'The Philosophy of Anthropology.' Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Follow up
and READ and CITE the assorted references). (2). Dutton, E. 'Culture Shock and Multiculturalism.'
(3). Wilson, E. Consilience. (4). Boyer, P. Religion Explained. (5) Kuznar, Towards a Scientific
Anthropology. (5) Gellner, Anthropology and Politics.
2. 'Finland is my religion.' Can we logically accept this statement?
1. Hervieu-Leger, Religion as a Chain of Memory. (2) Dutton, Culture Shock and Multiculturalism.
(3) Bailey, Implicit Religion. (4). Geertz, 'Religion as a cultural system.' (5) Fitzgerald, The
Ideology of Religious Studies. (6) Boyer, Religion Explained. (7). Dutton, The Finnuit. (8) Find
books in Finnish looking at Finnish nationalism.
3. 'Religion is a byproduct of numerous traits that were naturally selected for in prehistory.'
Is this really so?
(1). Dutton, Religion and Intelligence, Ch. 3 (Follow up, read and cite related references!). (2).
Boyer, Religion Explained. (3). Vaas, R., (2009), 'Gods, gains and genes' in E. Voland and W.
Schiefenhövel, (eds), The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, New York:
Springer. (4). Voland, E., (2009), 'Evaluating the evolutionary status of religiosity and religiousness'
in E. Voland and W. Schiefenhövel, (eds), The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and
Behavior, New York: Springer. (5). Rowthorn, R., (2011), 'Religion, fertility and genes: A dual
1
inheritance model' in Proceedings of the Royal Society (B) Biological Sciences. (6). Blume, M.,
(2009), 'The reproductive benefits of religious affiliation' in E. Voland and W. Schiefenhövel, (eds),
The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, New York: Springer.
4. To what extent can a Lutheran priest be understood as a shaman?
(1) Eliade, Shamanism. (2) Nouwen, The Wounded Healer. (3) Pentikainen, Shamanism and
Culture. (4) Kehoe, Shamans and Religion. (5) Jakobsen, Shamanism. (6) Douglas, Natural
Symbols/ Purity and Danger. (6) Find works in Finnish about the lives of Lutheran priests.
5. How useful is Turner's model of 'liminality' in understanding your conformation camp?
(1). Turner, The Ritual Process. (2) Turner and Turner, Image and Pilgrimage. (3) Turner, The
Drums of Affliction. (4) Eade and Sallnow, (Intro) Contesting the Sacred (5) Dutton, Meeting Jesus
at University. (6) Bloch, Prey into Hunter.
6. Drawing upon your knowledge of both evolutionary and cultural anthropology, why do you
think a religious experience is more likely to happen to you in your 20s than in your 60s?
(1) Dutton, Religion and Intelligence. (2) Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion. (3). Dutton,
Meeting Jesus at University. (4) Conn, Christian Conversion. (5) Argyle, Religious Behavior (pdf
online). (6) Works by Argyle & Beit-Halahmi.
2
3
Lecture One - Divide in Anthropology
1. To understand anthropology of religion, we must understand that there are two fundamental
approaches to anthropology: evolutionary anthropology and cultural anthropology.
2. Evolutionary anthropology is rooted in nineteenth century Britain. Its assumptions are those of
'science' and thus a purely empirical or a posteriori methodology. Science should: be solely
empirical, make testable predictions, develop theories, be reductionistic, be logical, be self-critical,
be public, and be epistemologically optimistic ('we can understand the world'). Nineteenth century
British anthropologists such as Sir James Frazer wanted to understand where religion came from
and why people are religious. They are founded on methodological atheism: religion is the opposite
of science and therefore it is wrong. Frazer, using sources such as missionaries etc, argued that there
was a development as societies evolved and became more intelligent from animism to superstition
to religion and finally science. Other similar 'stage theories' were developed by, for example, E. B.
Tylor. This is 'Western anthropology.' We study tribe because they reflect the prehistory of man and
thus allow to understand where, for example, religion comes from.
2. The other school is 'cultural anthropology'. This derived from Eastern Europe. You have nascent
countries, like Finland, that want independence. They are influenced by the Romantic Movement
which was spear-headed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This has been argued to operate as a kind of
'replacement religion.' Here you have clear dogmas such as that every people is unique and special
and the perfect society is composed of a people bound together by the same blood, history and
language. This is the essence of Romantic nationalism. It is argued that these societies have been
polluted by large, Empire societies and so the purest form of these societies in peasant culture. We
must study peasant culture and preserve it. This interesting - we have dogmas, epistemological
pessimism, lack of theory - this is not science. But there is, at least, proper fieldwork. But there is
home blindness
4
3. Malinowski brings the two schools together by arguing that there should be proper fieldwork and
you should study a foreign culture rather than your own. These new anthropologists begin to study
religion as part of tribal societies. Though Malinowski was a scientist, he argued that the
anthropologist is to see the world as the native sees it and so not make judgements. As such, he
advocated a kind of methodological agnosticism - you should try to avoid the issue of whether the
groups religious beliefs are true and even be open to the possibility that they are true.
5. Cultural Determinism. The trend in cultural anthropology over the twentieth century is that
'culture' and 'religion' are too complex to reduce down to a clear scientific theory and that they are
so powerful that the break the genetic leash and operate on their own. So, it is argued that all
explanations for differences in these things are cultural and environmental. Margaret Mead's
research in Samoa, where she finds that there is no puberty angst, even seems to prove this. Though
Derek Freeman showed in 1983 that her fieldwork was superficial and even made-up. Nevertheless,
this dogma takes hold. Religion, therefore, must be a product of cultural and environmental
processes only.
6. Mircea Eliade divides between the 'sacred' and the 'profane.' The 'sacred' is a separate world
from this world which is mysterious and which we cannot comprehend and this is the essence of
religion. As such, 'religion' is something we cannot ever fully comprehend. We can understand bits
of it but we can never reach the scientific goal of a full theoretical understanding. As such, the
possibility is left open that religion is something real, a kind of liberal theology underpins Religious
Studies. Rudolf Otto as a response to religious experience and religious experience involves a
sense of mystery that we cannot ever comprehend.
7. Then we have functionalist anthropologists who start broadening the definition of religion from
how it is defined in the dictionary.
5
Defining Words
1 – This raises the question of how we should define words and what kind of definitions there are.
But to define a word, we need some understanding of Logic. Anthropologists such as Tobias Rees
argue we should reject logic because it’s imperialist, boring and involves going into the field with
assumptions. Logic is the study of arguments. If we have no shared understanding of what is an
acceptable argument, we can do anything. For example – tickling. We need rules and logic.
I assume that we can – at the outset – dismiss definitions such, ‘Religion is the opium of the
people.’ This what is called a ‘Persuasive Definition.’ It is not using neutral language and is, in
essence, trying to fallaciously persuade us to dislike religion as being like a drug. Equally, a
scientifically ‘precise’ definition of generally involves statistics – such as a person is ‘religious’ if x
– and this not appropriate for us.
To a great extent there are two kinds of definition of religion in academic terms: lexical and
theoretical. So let’s look at these rather different definitions. Firstly, lexical:
2: Sociologist Steve Bruce as well as early anthropologists such as Herbert Spencer, James Frazer
and E. B. Tylor argue that we should define religion as it is defined in the dictionary. And it is
defined as belief in Gods, spirits etc such as Christianity or Hinduism. This is what’s called a lexical
definition and it is useful in everyday discourse because we need to agree on how we define our
terms and this is, he would argue, how most people define it. Specifically, he defines religion in
terms of its associations and in terms of specific examples.
6
a – This is also how religion was historically defined when anthropologists first became interested
in it in the nineteenth century. For Herbert Spencer, religion was a belief in spirits. For Jevons,
religion was a belief in Gods. In general, this in the accepted definition of the word ‘religion.’
3. But there are other kinds of lexical definition. Amongst anthropologists a somewhat broader
definition of religion tends be popular. One of the most famous is Clifford Geertz’s:
‘Religion is a system of symbols which act to establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and
motivations in people by forming conceptions of a general account of existence and clothing these
conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.’
This defining religion in terms of how it operates, an operational definition. There are many other
definitions of the kind: it is system which causes moods etc and it makes conceptions seem very
real.
Now we might question this definition. Talal Asad – It is metaphorical, do the moods stay
religious? Who defines them as religious? What is the role of authority and the group?
The problem with this definition is that it is so broad that it moves us beyond what we
normally mean by 'religion'. Football could be a religion for some people. But it also means that
religion, by definition, cannot be comprehended.
But there are, philosophically, problems with both kinds of definition.
4 – Problems with Dictionary Definition:
a – It effectively draws a distinction between ‘religion’ and ‘the secular.’ However,
this is a problem in broadly applying the definition.
This distinction has only existed since the Enlightenment and it is especially
pronounced in ‘Western’ societies. Bruce argues that religion is declining in England
because of modernization but some argue that this is not so in Japan, because Shinto
7
belief involves a different conception of ‘truth’ from ‘science’ and so the two do not
compete. In essence, we can divide between ‘polytheism’ and ‘monotheism’ and two
tend to be quite different. Benoist notes that the later tends to dualistic, to hold to one
conception of truth, one story of history and to define group membership in terms of
belief. Paganism tends to be far tolerant of difference – including different and
contradictory histories and different gods etc – with the group bound together by
blood and shared ritual. This means that Bruce’s definition is useful but only in very
limited circumstances.
b – This definition is in danger of uncautious essentialism by asserting an
unquestioned divide with ‘the secular’ through its stress on the spiritual. Nominalists
ask how things work and use categories – involving essences which inherently play
down nuance - cautiously if they are useful because we need taxonomy. Essentialists,
historically, focus on the definition and so create strong breaks between concepts. The
problem with this is that it lead’s us to Loki’s Wager Fallacy. And, two, it can stand in
the way of understanding because:
c – It is possible to argue that there should not be a strong break between PreEnlightenment and Enlightenment. We can argue that Enlightenment philosophies
function in the same way as Christianity and, accordingly, are so similar – at a
theoretical if not superficial level – that it aids our understanding to avoid such a break
and to apply the religion category far more broadly. Roger Scruton shows that
Romanticism is a tribal reaction against the Enlightenment and this is even reflected in
Art. This means we are not left naively wondering why ‘rational’ Communism or
Nationalism can lead to such irrational fervour. It answers more questions rendering it
a superior ‘theory.’
8
d – Accordingly, we might argue that a theoretical definition could be the more useful
in making sense of the human condition.
5. Postmodernism - There is no such thing as truth, this is merely the ideology of the powerful. We
have a moral duty to empower the poor and so deconstruct truth. Clearly, many problems with
postmodernism. Not pragmatic etc. But it deconstructs the concept of 'religion' and argues that we
shouldn't use it at all.
Problems with the Religion Category
1 – Accordingly, I think Boyer’s is the most useful definition for us. However, I appreciate that
‘religion’ as a category has been criticized and I’d like to respond to these criticisms Tim Fitzgerald
argues that religion should be abandoned because
1) The problems Fitzgerald highlights with religion could be leveled against ‘culture’
and other alternatives.
2) He argues that religion imposes a Judaeo-Christian category. But any category has
inherently developed in a culture. This does not mean it cannot be used – cautiously –
outside that culture, mindful of possible limitations and differences. The ‘Western
model’ becomes the ‘essence’ of the category but – as with anything – we can still
carefully understand that which deviates from the ‘essence’ through a careful
taxonomy of essences. If we can’t do this, we cannot use any English words as
grappling on a foreign culture because our concepts are all we have. You could say
this about ‘city.’
3) ‘Religion’ is problematic because it has a place in history. But this is true of all
categories.
9
4) It is essentially a form of liberal Christian theology. It defines religion similarly but
this irrelevant to whether or not it is coherent. It also raises questions about rationality.
5) It is imperialistic. If it is, any imposition of foreign categories is. Moreover, this is
fallacious.
6) Anthropologists define it so broadly that even Father Christmas is religion.
As we have seen, it does not have to be so broadly defined. And, anyway, few people
fervently believe in Father Christmas apart from kids and, for them, perhaps it is
‘religion.’
So, I think we can conclude that ‘religion’ is a philosophically useful category and that the most
useful way to define it – as social scientists – is with an operational definition similar to that of
Boyer’s and a consilient theoretical definition.
Postmodern anthropology also sees fieldwork not as getting at the truth but as a
conversation between two coequal truths. Accordingly, 'religion is 'true' for those who experience it.
So we can see, then, just how fundamentally different these two perspectives are. In
the next lecture, we will look in more detail at the scientific perspective.
10
Lecture 2 - Evolutionary Anthropology of Religion
1. We divide, then, between cultural anthropologists, who are interpretativists, and evolutionary
anthropologists, who are scientists. Increasingly, evolutionary anthropologists are calling
themselves 'evolutionary psychologists' and breaking away from 'anthropology' completely.
Evolutionary anthropology's assumption is that human behavior is significantly genetic, a finding
based on twin studies which finds that dimensions of culture are strongly 'genetic.' For example,
personality is about 0.66 genetic, intelligence is 0.83 genetic, social status is about 0.7 genetic.
Anything genetic is an historical adaptation to the environment and so they want to understand how
this adaptation was selected for in prehistory.
2. Before going any further, we should understand what 'intelligence' and 'personality' are. Why
Population Differences? Peoples are geographically separated into different environments and they
start to evolve differently: endogamy. They can also be separated by, for example, religion. They
start to look different for this reason, they have different genotypic frequencies and this is what we
mean by 'race.' But they also start to behave differently. There are two causes of evolution: natural
selection and sexual selection. Natural selection: Those who are too extravert in a extravert in a
dangerous ecology will die. Sexual selection: we want wives who are honest so we know the kids
are ours.
3. Culture. This is defined as the way of life of a people. If differences in it are just down to
'history' then we have a circular argument. There must be a genetic element to culture. Two
theories: Primordialist and Constructivist. Constructivist says that ethnicity and cultural differences
are entirely due to environmental factors: look at the USA, England etc. Primordialist says there is
an ethnic core to any culture that is genetic. This is generally true of any multiracial society.
4. We know that differences in culture are genetic. For example, religiousness is an important
part of culture. It has been found, based on twin studies, to be about 44% genetic. Social class essentially cultural differences between people - has been found to be about 75% genetic over time.
Culture, overall, has been estimated to be about 0.4 genetic. Thus, the reason why one 'culture' is
different from another is significantly a matter of genetics and no environmental intervention will
change it.
5. What is it that makes people behave differently? Two things: Personality and Intelligence.
Intelligence
1. Intelligence: We will begin with intelligence. This is defined as, in essence, the ability to solve
cognitive problems quickly. It is on a bell curve, rather like height. It is measured by IQ tests. We
divide between maths, language and spatial intelligence. They intercorrelate. This is known as
'general intelligence.'
11
Criticisms of Intelligence: There are criticisms of intelligence. (1) It can be defined more broadly,
as in emotional intelligence: These behaviors are explained by personality and do not correlate with
'intelligence' as we define it. (2) It is only useful in Western cultures: This is not true. All cultures
value able people who can make good weapons, remember information, plan for the future, healthy,
and not be criminals. These are all predicted by IQ. (3) Intelligence predicts important things:
education, health, wealth, criminality etc. and, on a national level, corruption, political stability and
cultural achievement.
Criticisms of IQ Tests: There are criticisms of IQ tests: (1) They are culturally biased: No, the
races that do worst in them do better in the most culturally biased parts. (2) IQ tests correlate with
population differences in RT. (3) They correlate with population differences in cranial capacity. (4)
There is no consistent evidence for stereotype threat and it begs the question of where it comes
from. Stereottypes found to be 75% accurate.
6. Heritability. According to twin studies intelligence is about 83% heritable. It cannot be that it is
not heritable between cultures, because inter-racial adoption studies show that there is zero
relationship in adulthood between an adopted child's IQ and the parent's IQ and that the child's IQ is
closer to his real parent's average.
7. Environmental Factors: Firstly, childhood IQ is less genetic because the environment is
dominated by the parents. Regression to the mean means a child can have a different IQ from their
parents. But this will only start to show up in adolescence when they start to create their own
environments.
Secondly, a stimulating childhood environment seems to have a positive effect on IQ
and does such an environment throughout your life. But certainly, when you are still developing, a
stimulating environment will help your 'phenotypic' IQ. Africans in Western countries have higher
IQs than in their own countries as do Asians.
Thirdly, good nutrition when developing will have an affect in IQ.
Fourthly, a stable environment - no brain damage - will obviously affect IQ. This
means that the phenotypic IQ of the poor can be raised, but only to a limited extent.
8. Genetic Factors: Cold Winters Theory. A cold yet stable environment selects in favor of high
intelligence because people must work out how to create shelters and clothes etc. They must also
not be instinctive and there is a positive relationship between intelligence and long time horizons.
This is why peoples evolved over a very long time to a cold environment tend to have very high
intelligence.
9. Genetic Factors: Sexual Selection. Women want men who can do all these things. They have
babies with them and so this boosts the intelligence of the population. Up until Industrial
Revolution, those of high status had more children. People can make trade-ups intelligence and
physical prowess. In a cold environment, intelligence is more important. In a warm one, you just
want healthy babies and a good looking, strong partner for that reason.
10. Eugenics. If there is a war or a plague then the intelligent are better at planning how to survive.
Intelligence jumped up in Europe after the Black Death
11. Intelligence and religiousness are weakly negatively correlated in adults. This association is
weak because of atheistic 'ideologies' which are kind of replacement religions but in which there is
no God. Also, while intelligence makes you question it may also give you the wisdom to conform
12
of convince yourself of religion (though this doesn't seem to be the case). It also predicts school
education success at 0.7., university success at 0.5, and postgrad success at 0.3. This is because the
range is narrow.
In general, profession and education are good proxies for IQ and this parallels how
respected they are. A policeman has an IQ of 100, a teacher about 110, a doctor or lawyer about
120, an academic (anyone with a PhD) about 130.
Other factor is SD. If this low then the society will be bunched at the mean and very
few geniuses or retards even if they have a high IQ. This is so in Japan.
Personality
1. Personality is a person's general way of being. It is independent of intelligence. We often divide
between 'introvert' and 'extrovert,' for example. Certain kinds of behavior correlate: E.g. liking
drinking, eating, travelling, sport and sex all correlates but these do not correlate with whether you
suffer from depression. So, we need at least two personality factors.
2. The Big Five. These are (1) Extroversion - feeling positive feelings. (2) Neuroticism - feeling
negative feelings. (3) Conscientiousness - Impulse control. (4) Agreeableness - altruism. (5)
Openness-Intellect: Unusual psychological experiences, aestheticism, creativity, and intellectual
curiosity. Correlates with intelligence at 0.3.
3. We all run away from a swarm of bees, but what about everyday situations? And how quickly do
you run away from the swarm? These are predicted by personality differences and we have
identified specific genes which vary and explain the differences.
4. They have a huge influence of life history. Extraversion predicts early death, because such
people are likely to take risks. However, low extraversion will predict getting little out of life.
Neuroticism - Too high and you are depressed and anxious (predicts unhappy marriage, binge
eating), too low and you are reckless and have no motivation. Conscientiousness: too high and you
are rigid and obsessive, too low you get addicts, have no self control, and are lazy. Agreeableness:
Too high and you have 'dependent personality' and won't rise to the top, too low and you will have
few friends, lots of fights. Openness-Intellect: High in this are artists and creative types. Too high
and you are a useless, impractical dreamer. But you will be open to hypnosis. Low in this and you
will be uncreative.
5. Personality factors are 50-70% genetic according to twin studies. A cold, predictable, harsh
environment will select in favor of Agreeableness (people must cooperate), Conscientiousness
(people must control their impulses and think of a cold day on a very hot one), against Extraversion
(people must avoid risky behavior), Neuroticism (as a motivator) and against Openness (the
negative aspect, useless dreamers, would be intolerable).
6. There is no clear case on the environmental factors affecting personality. Some evidence that
beautiful people, and tall men, are extravert. Intelligence is weakly negatively associated with
Conscientiousness. Realising you don't need to work hard or the association with 'intellect.'
8. Personality is also associated with religiousness. Conscientiousness and Agreeableness predict
religiousness. Openness predicts liberal religiousness and spirituality. Neuroticism predicts periodic
religiousness, unusual religiousness, ideology, the paranormal, and extrinsic religiousness. It
13
negatively predicts intrinsic religiousness. The main environmental predictor of religiousness is
stress. This is probably because it is highly instinctive. We are evolved to hyper-detect agency,
causal patterns and so on. Clearly, an intelligent religious person would have extreme personality
characteristics as would an atheist who had low intelligence. Some evidence that ideologues have
low Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and high Neuroticism. E.g. Ideological subjects vs
science subjects
Where does religion come from?
1. So, religion is a product of environment, intelligence and personality. 1 – The second kind of
definition is a theoretical definition. Obviously, a religion scholars, we need a working theory of
religion which we can work from and even falsify. This attempts to define something by explaining
why it is the case: a question left unanswered by lexical definitions. Why is there religion? There
are numerous ‘reductionist’ candidates.
EG a. Religion is a reaction to the certainty of death (Spiro),
b. Religion actually involves worshipping the tribe under the guise of gods
(Durkheim).
c. Religion is a feeling of being watched caused by a member of the primal horde
murdering their father (Freud).
d. Religion is a response to the awesomeness of nature, puzzling natural phenomena
(Rudolf Otto).
e. Religion explains the origin of things
f. Religion allays anxiety, provides structure to life (Hans Mol)
g. Religion perpetuates a particular social order (Max Weber, Marx)
14
People like Pascal Boyer define 'religion' as combining strong and irrational beliefs with the
apprehension of some kind of agency. This extends religion into ideology. Others argue for a
narrower definition, that there must be a literal belief in gods and spirits.
2. Whoever is right, it is agreed that a number of prehistoric adaptations means we are prone to be
religious. (1). As pack animals we want to conform and follow authority and rules, as evidenced in
the Milgram experiment. (2) We are evolved to look for patterns and religion provides a pattern of
meaning. (3) We are evolved to over-detect agency. We are paranoid and will assume that
something we don't understand involves an agent. This would be useful for survival in prehistory
but would also make us believe there was agent behind the universe. (4) Religion reduces stress. We
are aware of our mortality because we so intelligent. This is stressful. So if we can believe
everything will okay stress will be reduced and we will be more health. Experiments that
religiousness increases at times of stress and that religious activity reduces stress. (5) We are
evolved to be moral. Clear evidence that if we think we are being watched then we are more prosocial. So, if we believe we are always being watched we will be more pro-social and we will not be
caste out of the band.
Sexual Selection
1. We have seen that natural selection is thus behind religion but it will also be sexually selected
for. In essence, a man, if he invests in one woman, wants to be sure that the child is his ('paternity
anxiety'). The woman wants to be sure that the man will invest in the child and her and not just
leave her. If a woman is religious, this would seem to tell the man that she is honest, altruistic, and
rule-following. She is, therefore, unlikely to have an affair. The woman can be more sure the man
won't dump her.
2. However, the woman has more to lose because the man can have sex with lots of women and is
bound to get a few kids if the woman is of loose morals. As such, we would expect women to be
15
more interested in religious men than the other way round. This is true. They dominate
fundamentalist churches.
Religion and Your Genes
1 – Rushton – We would expect religiosity to run in families because it is passed down in a tradition
through the generations. But, to a certain extent, we might expect the religious inclination to run in
families, though the actual religion might change. E.g- Christian to socialist.
2 – Religious or tribal markers become a way of defending your genes precisely because they tend
to be hereditary, so long as there is a period of closure. The rules, ways of behaviour, dress and so
tell you that this person is related to you and so is worth defending against those who are not.
3 – Strong evidence of Genetic Similarity Theory. We associate with those who are genetically
similar to us and we do so in minute ways. Pagan religion – based around ancestor worship – is thus
an evolutionary advantage in preserving your family, ethny and so your own genes.
4 – Equally, this might not seem true of Christianity, Islam or Communism but in theory but in
practice they tend to merge with this kind of thinking precisely because it is so powerful. And so
Christian is basically code for your own race or tribe or Islam is likewise or, despite what you
proclaim, you practice ethnic nepotism. This allows us to understand Islamic suicide bombing, the
crusades, Kamikazi pilots and the like. They are acting in their genetic interest.
5 – You can act in such interest in purely intellectual terms or just in purely selfish terms. There is a
great deal of debate over this and we might claim that the latter are less religious, they are less
interested in the good of tribe and more so in their own family. This leads to a lot of speculation.
6 – Does the absence of religion lead to the fall of your genes? Certainly, religious have higher
fertility.
16
Religion and Sexual Selection
Others, such as Voland (2009), have been firmer in arguing that religion is a consequence of various
adaptations but is, broadly, adaptive in itself, at least in prehistory. As such, the adaptiveness of
religion would presumably lead to lead to the traits that underpin being even further selected for in
prehistory. Voland argues that:
(1) Religion provides us with a means of comprehending the world, thus reducing
stress.
(2) Following the smoke detector principle, those who are religious will be better at
detecting risk and so they will be further selected for.
(3) It forces you to work together as part of a group.
(4) It provides a means – through ingroup dress or costly ritual participation, for
example – of expressing your loyalty to the group, so it selects in favour of cooperation. Conversely, it permits you to assess the degree to which someone else
is prepared to commit to the group.
(5) It provides a moral framework, also selecting in favour of co-operation and
obeying authority.
Vaas (2009) cautiously agrees, arguing that religion has a higher probability of being adaptive if it
is universal, evidently confers reproductive success, involves heredity, has a physical foundation
and involves selective advantage. He notes that each of these is the case. Voland (2009) notes, for
example, that in Spain the more religious you are, the more likely you are to have more children
independent of other variables such as social class.
Blume (2009, 118) sets out in more depth the evident benefits of religiosity in terms of
fertility. His research in Switzerland indicates that religious people – when controlling for education
and other relevant factors – are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce. They will have more
17
children than the secular, have stronger family values, be more co-operative and have more
reproductive success. Blume argues that this further demonstrates the degree to which religiosity is
adaptive and, indeed, his Swiss study finds clear evidence of the sexual selection of the religious.
Swiss prefer religiously committed men. Swiss women dominate all major denominations in the
country but they prefer those where there is a strong pressure to marry, have children and not
divorce. By contrast, men dominate the secular category. In this group there is the lowest
percentage of marriage, the highest percentage of divorce, the percentage of pairs with children and
the highest percentage of children being raised by single mothers.
18
Lecture Three – Functionalist Theories
1.
In this lecture, we will look at functionalism. As with anthropology of culture,
dominant belief – though perhaps changing – that ‘religion’ is a separate realm
that cannot be reduced to science. As such, it must be interpreted, understood like
an organism and we should how each part fits into the whole.
2.
Rudolf Otto defines religion as based around the mysterium, tremendum et
fascinans and the ‘numinous.’ This is something external to the self – the sacred.
All religions are a response to this ‘sacred’.
3.
Mircea Eliade draws on this to argue that all religious myths involve the sacred
world breaking into the profane world. But the sacred is a separate thing: a kind of
mystery around which religions are based.
4.
Eliade (1957) argued that modern ‘ideologies’ are essentially replacement
religions. The life of ‘modern man’ no longer has meaning and mystery and
‘ideologies’ re-imbue it with this.
5.
Eliade (1957, 203) contended that pre-modern man saw this world as sanctified by
its relationship with another world, a world that was eternal. Man cannot cope
with this new existential situation and so finds meaning in ideologies such as
Communism and National Socialism, one reflecting Judeo-Christian mythology
and the other Germanic. Eliade strongly implies does not really believe the new
myths, which is why they are not really religion. Accordingly, Eliade’s support for
the Iron Guard reflects a kind of theological liberalism – God is dead, but we
should live, or the Romanians should live, as if God lives.
6.
My difficulty with Eliade’s distinction between ‘religion’ and secular ‘ideology’ is
that there does seem to be a kind of fate – and thus, no matter how vague, another
19
world - behind ideologies such as Marxism and National Socialism. And thus, in
that people seem to genuinely believe in them, they are very similar to religion.
Eliade’s archetypal ‘modern man’ may knowingly imbue his life with a sense of
mystery but he is not, according to the definition we will expound later, religious.
Moreover, if this mystery is a separate category then even science can be seen as a
response to mystery and thus ‘religious.’
7.
Eliade (1957) in fact argues that science is a replacement religion, especially to the
extent that it dwells on ultimate origins. A number of scholars have argued that
science reflects certain Greek pagan ideas – such as the attaining the knowledge of
the gods (e.g. Benoist 2004) – but if it is ‘religion’ then religion is such a broad
category that it no longer aids analysis. Anthropologists often go for a more
cultural definition of religion but Eliade’s is the functionalist one.
8.
Mary Douglas – She is a structuralist who tried to work out how societies fit
together. What is their ‘structure’? She looked at the structure of ‘dirt’ in different
societies. She argued that ‘dirt’ was ‘matter out of place.’ Things that weren’t in
the right place were ‘dirt’ and ‘taboo.’ So, if it didn’t fit a category it was taboo.
‘Shit’ is taboo because it challenges that we separate ‘world’ and ‘body.’ So it is
taboo. Pigs are taboo because they are farm animals but they don’t eat grass. They
do not fit. Homosexuality is ‘taboo’. So, the taboo is that which does not fit. But
the taboo is interesting. For example, Gods are ‘taboo’ because they do not fit.
9.
We deal with the taboo through avoidance – we don’t eat pork – or through ritual.
10.
We can look at this with swearing – Edmund Leach. You four kinds of swearing –
Sex, Animal Abuse, Excretion and Religion. They all relate to a taboo. Vary
according to background. Ideology – nigger. You could say this is religion. Vary
20
according to country. Swearing challenge taboo. Means we can challenge
structure. This is needed to keep the structure.
11.
Douglas’ second book looks at how different societies are structure. She gives us
the Grid/Group Model. ‘Grid’ (up) is ‘thought’ while ‘Group’ (along) is
Behaviour. So, you can have four different kinds of society: A: Western Society,
B: Hippies. C. Russia. D. Inquisition Europe. Purity Rule – Putaus saanty. More
they control a person, more they control his body.
12.
Problem with Douglas – you have a category of taboo things, sometimes they are
not taboo, are all things that are outside categories really taboo?
Structuralism
1.
In France, in particular, the most prominent school, during this period, was known
as Structuralism.
2.
Unlike British Functionalism, structuralism was influenced by Hegelian idealism.
Most associated with Claude Levi-Strauss, structuralism argued that all cultures
follow the Hegelian dialectic. The human mind has a universal structure and a
kind of a priori category system of opposites. There are universal things such as
sleeping etc.
3.
Cultures can be broken up into components – such as ‘Mythology’ or ‘Ritual’ –
which evolve according to the dialectical process, leading to cultural differences.
What is accepted and what is not accepted. As such, the deep structures, or
grammar, of each culture can be traced back to a shared starting point (and in a
sense, the shared human mind) just as one can with a language. But each culture
has a grammar and this allows them to be compared and permits insights to be
made about them.
21
4.
It might be suggested, the same criticisms that have been leveled against the
Hegelian dialectic might be leveled against structuralism. It is prophecy etc. It has
also been argued that category systems vary considerably between cultures. Even
supporters of Levi-Strauss have conceded that his works are opaque and verbose.
5.
But let us look at a structural analysis. Edmund Leach – Left is bad, right is good.
This is very common. Raw vs Cooked, Sister vs Wife. Normal vs not normal. Seen
in myths. John the Baptist v Jesus Christ. They are opposites. John’s mother is old.
John priestly, Jesus Royal, John nature v Jesus – culture. John beheaded, Jesus
crucified. They exchange roles. This is how religious message is revealed in myth.
Totemism
1.
Early anthropologists – e.g. Durkheim – argue that tribes are based around the
totem. This is an animal. It is the symbol of the tribe. Every year they get into a
ritual with the animal and sacrifice it. Why?
2.
One reason is because it is good to eat. Another is that it is bonding with their god
by gift-giving and by doing a carnal thing with the gods. Another is that it is good
to do, because it bonds the community together. This is Levi-Strauss’ view is that
it is ‘good to think’. We think about ourselves through other things.
3.
This can be applied to modern societies. For example, Christianity. The God is
sacrificed. We eat him in mass and drink wine because it is good do and good to
think. It also reflects the ‘pecking order.’
4.
What is happening on Finnish Independence Day? Great and good come together.
They eat and drink (both with symbolism) and it works in the same way. Those
lower down watch on TV.
22
Lecture Four: Rites of Passage and Religion
1 – Historically, the assumption of Western anthropology was that it was necessary to study tribes.
Tribes were the purest form of man. So, we could better understand humanity through tribes.
2 – This was taken further by Malinowski. He argued you should live with the tribe, be immersed
into them, try and see the world as they see it. In essence, he suggested that modern society was
little different from the tribe.
3 – Romantic movement sees tribe as purest form of humanity. Leads of cultural relativism of
Margaret Mead. Becomes fashionable to look at modern society – and aspects of it – through the
prism of concepts developed working with tribes. A very important one is Rites of Passage. We’ll
look at and also at group dynamics and religious fundamentalism as researched in a rite of passage.
Rites de Passage
(1) ‘Rites of Passage’ have caused much debate in the anthropology of religion. Belgian Arnold
van Gennep thought of the phrase in early 20th Century. He argued that life is composed of a
series of marked phases. When one moves from one phase to an other there is a Rite of Passage
(ceremony) to mark this. Gennep argues that there are three kinds of Rite of Passage:
Separation, Transition, and Incorporation. He emphasises that there can be protracted (venynyt)
Rites of Passage, such as Betrothal (kihlaus), that can become like phase in themselves.
(2) Douglas Davies emphasises that, to be a Rite of Passage, there must be apparatus to bring a
person back into a clear phase or this is simply marginalisation.
(3)
Liminality and Communitas
23
(1) Scotsman Victor Turner, writing in the 1960s, develops Gennep to look at the nature of the
Rite of Passage. He argues that the rite is a ‘Liminal Phase.’ It is ‘betwixt and between.’ During
in the status of the individual is ambiguous (kaksiselitteinen) and changing. In this context,
social structures break-down amongst the ‘neophytes.’ This is called communitas. They are
taken from all they know and this makes frightened and insecure. They beaten etc so they can
be brainwashed. However, there is a broader structural apparatus, as in Finnish Confirmation
Camps. He argues that liminality is ‘for many the very acme (huippu) on insecurity.’
(2) There are two kinds of Ritual. These are ‘status raising’ rituals, such as marriage, and ‘status
reversal rituals,’ which are often transient ( and reverse back.
(3) Turner argues that there are three kinds of communitas. (a) Existential-Spontaneous
Communitas: A Hippie Happening. (b) Normative Communitas: When the ESC is developed
into a social system. (c) Ideological Communitas: A Utopian Group.
(4) Turner distinguishes between ‘Liminal’ and ‘Liminoid.’ Liminal is found more in pre-modern
societies. It is part of the structure of society. The Liminoid is found more in modern societies.
It is a sudden break with the structures of society, such as a sudden political demonstration. He
emphasises that the liminoid can become the liminal as it becomes incorporated into the
structures of society. Equally, there can be modern liminal phases, such as university. He
examines Pilgrimage in detail and looks at how it raised status in Medieval Europe, how it was
part of Medieval Europe’s structure and so on.
Criticisms of Turner
(1) The big criticism of Turner was levelled by Englishmen John Eade and Michael Sallnow.
They drew upon many ethnographies on Pilgrimage in order to question whether a liminal phase
simply leads to communitas. They provide evidence of Pilgrims engaging in deliberate
24
boundary-making techniques. Thus, the communitas is incomplete. Turner refers to these as
pseudo-oppositions amongst Zambian teenagers. Here, they are seen as real.
(2) It could be argued, having conducted research into university evangelical groups, that this is a
matter of level. Thus, in the liminal phase there is a broad communitas and this makes people
uncomfortable. As such, people reassert structure (boundary-making) perhaps in an exaggerated
way. In my own research, a further level communitas is found within the oppositional structures
that develop. This follows Turner.
Example: University as a Liminal Phase and Group Dynamics.
1
- University removes from all that you know and understand. Exposes you to people of
different classes. Questions all that you know. And raises your status. Oxford University –
intense exams, lots of rituals, high suicide rate etc.
2
Stage 1 – You are deliberately disorientated. There is so much to do all the time. You are
forced to bond with new people. Social structures break-down.
3
Stage Two – you are actually in the phase and settle in. The reaction is often to search for
that which makes sense but – with your identity challenged – in a highly exaggerated and
over the top form. You need to find some kind of identity.
4
This happens with Christian Union. They form a very strongly bounded group. They
attractive to Christians by offering high levels of certainty in a tightly structured group with
rules on belief, behaviour, how you can dress, how you talk, how you can date etc. This is
the essence of ‘fundamentalism’ and it tends to occur at times of distress. Reclaims the word
‘Christian.’
5
Attractive not only to Christians but to those who are moderate Christians. They can be
drawn into the group as well, though they are not trusted ro be high up in it. Detail the
25
structure of the CU in detail – Meetings, Exec, Mission Week. Also, clear social class
profile of who joins and who does not.
6
Successful group. Reflects what the university. Other less intense universities have far less
intense CUs. Also, far lower levels of people ‘becoming Christians’ while at university. In
fact, you find that Christians tend to become more liberal rather than create a fortress.
7
When they convert – or graduate – they strongly reject the old identity for the new. They
dislike the old-self when found in others. This is called ‘rebounding violence’ and may
explain the conversion element of fundamentalism. It is a kind of tribalism, a tribe based
around belief.
8
Central Cult v Peripheral Cult and group equivalent of social class.
Methods of Evangelism
1 – Love-bombing. 2. Making a person frightened and disorientating them. 3. Presenting the
message in manipulative terms. 4. Messing about with them. Mixed messages. 5. Cold reading.
26
Lecture Five: Shamanism
What is a Shaman?
1) The Shaman takes part in a ritual practice whereby he reaches a state of trance and
communicates with the rest of the tribe. Englishman I. M. Lewis associates with this with
people who are under-going or have undergone crisis. People who are mentally ill and seen as
dangerous. The state tends to be enhanced by music, especially drums, and also drugs,
traditionally the Fly Agaric toadstool () but others as well.
2) The idea was first developed by 20th Century Romanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade. He
defined the shaman very strictly as religious leader in a tribe (either Siberian or Eskimo) who
enters a trance-like state and communicates with the community through a spirit persona
(persoona). The shaman goes on a spiritual journey to the axis mundi. He returns to benefit the
community. Often seen to have healing powers. Eliade also emphasises that shamanism will
tend to be hereditary.
3) Many traditional images of the shaman’s journey. Climbing a mountain. A Cosmic Tree that
links Earth and Heaven. The Shaman causes the axis mundi to exist and moves between the
physical and spiritual world.
4) Other anthropologists have broadened the definition of shaman. I. M. Lewis looks at how it
occurs in other cultures, such as in Sudan. He sees it as an example of Spirit Possession. He
finds that those on the margins of society will tend to become possessed by spirits – such as
women – and claims that this is empowerment. However, the spiritual healers (Shamans) tend to
be male. Though they often have suffered profoundly in their lives.
5) The notion of Shamanism has been applied outside of tribal societies. Frenchman Henri
Nouwen examines the priesthood and refers to them as ‘Wounded Healers.’ They have suffered
themselves and want to assist others with their suffering.
27
6) Perhaps there are parallels with the Charismatic. Weber argues that the charismatic has certain
skills – gifted speaker for example – which inspire people. At times of crisis, their skills are
required. They cease to be a ‘crank’. They have ‘charisma.’ They heal the community. Many
examples: Wesley even Hitler. Analysis of charisma undertaken by David Aberbach. Argues
that many charismatics have suffered greatly in childhood.
Contemporary Shamanism?
1) Latvian anthropologist Vieda Skultans looks at the Spiritualist Movement in South Wales.
Spiritualists believe there is earth plane and a spirit plane. Some people can mediate between the
two. They go into a trance and communicate with people’s dead ancestors. Very mundane
(jokapäiväinen) information. Sometimes, they become someone, such as King Edward II.
2) Skultans found that the leaders had often undergone childhood suffering, especially a death in
the family at a very young age. Congregations tend to be working-class in their entirety. Fits in
with Lewis’ argument that possession occurs amongst those who are disempowered in some
way.
3) Spiritualists also seen to have Healing Powers. They will go into a trance and return with
healing powers.
4) Stretching the comparison, those who lead Charismatic Christian Groups could be seen as
Shamans. They go into a trance in which God communicates with them and they tell the
community what God wants. View that the Holy Spirit comes to them. They speak a spiritual
language, which must be interpreted. In many Pentecostal communities, the leader is considered
to have healing powers. Popular amongst black immigrants.
28
Religious Leaders and Charisma
Many examples: Mohammed was a poor orphan who experienced death and suffering early one.
Joseph Smith (who founded Mormonism) lost a brother at a young age a created a theology
whereby you could never die. Many figures such as Billy Graham are known to have been
physically abused as children. As with the shaman, they have to undergo a ‘conversion’ which
destroys a past ‘negative’ life. Mohammed had a conversion in a cave. Abu Hamza used to be a
criminal and had both of his hands cut off. Nicky Gumbel was converted at university.
But, the public speaking skills are the most important. There are many techniques: Climax and then
disappointment, moving between emotions, staccato sentences, musical background, beginning with
a joke, dramatic changes in pace or tone, imagery.
Also, physical characteristics. Being handsome or muscular. But having a clear flaw – which people
can identify with – such as being short or fat.
New Religious Movements especially have a Charismatic figure which begins the movement. This
is true in extreme political parties as well. After that, according to Weber, the charisma is
‘routinised’ into having the same ‘position’ as the charismatic.
The Magical Powers of the Shaman
1 – Miraculous Healing – Hypnotic placebo effect
2 – Mind Reading – This is usually Cold Reading
3 – Inducing Religious Experience – We’ve seen how this can be done.
4 – Predicting the Future: This is characteristically vague.
29
Lecture Six: Understanding Religious Experience
1 – Some scholars argue that at the heart of religion is what we call ‘religious experience’. This
tends to be understood not as a general belief in God, for example, but a specific, identifiable time
when you are sure of some religious truth and, to a certain extent, this overwhelms you.
2 – Durkheim came up with the concept of effervescence. In the ritual, you are manipulated into a
state of what is effectively hypnosis such that you begin to really experience some sense of power
great than yourself. You understand that you are experiencing – for example – the kangaroo God
but actually you are responding to the power of society – in specific circumstances and mediated
through certain symbols.
3 – Likewise, Rudolf Otto argued that religious experience involves the ‘mysterium, tremendum et
fascinans’ – an incredible sense of awe often provoked by religiously important things or at
religious meetings.
4 – The content – and extent – of these experiences vary. William James distinguishes between the
religion of ordinary life and the religion of the sick soul. The former may have religious experiences
and they tend to be undramatic and calming. The latter are more prone to them and they tend to be
dramatic and, sometimes, rather frightening.
5 – Lewis Rambo also notes the different kinds of experiences that we might call ‘religious.’ They
range as follows: Intellectual, Mystical, Experimental, Affective, Revival and Coercion. . He also
emphasises that conversion is very rarely over night. There will be a ‘Crisis’ followed by a quest, an
encounter, integration and then consequences.
6 – According to many scholars, religious experiences – of any kind – seem more prone to occur
during times of distress. And as certain periods in life tend to be characterized by distress – periods
of change because change tends to be distressing – it is at these points in life that people are more
inclined to have religious experiences.
30
Conversion
1 – Perhaps the most noted form of religious experience in the West is conversion; a dramatic, lifechanging experience. One of the most well-known is St Paul’s.
2 – William Sargent argues that such a conversion is a complete break-down; it is rather like shellshock.
3 – Such conversions also follow a pattern. They tend to occur at times of change and distress and
therefore at certain times in life. Also, the conversion itself is more of a process. There will be a
dramatic conversion and then what is called ‘backsliding’ to the old way of thinking before, finally,
some kind of new religious identity is negotiated.
4 – This in turn, as we have seen, leads to what Maurice Bloch calls ‘rebounding violence’. You
become evangelical and attempt to snuff out the old identity when you see it in other people. You
are so certain that your new identity is the only way.
5 – Obviously, such an experience can lead to changes in how you live. But they are not necessarily
always positive experiences. Christians write of the Dark Night of the Soul and experiences of the
Devil. They ‘backslide’, leading Coleman to talk about ‘continuous conversion.’
6 – From this analysis, we can also begin to understand what we might call ‘mass religious
experience.’ They you get caught up in the crowd and thousands of people at a time can experience
the same delusion or whatever it may be.
How to we explain religious experience?
1 – I want to look at evolution and religion in another lecture, let us focus on the science of
religious experience. The brain is divided into left and right hemispheres which control alternate
sides of the body. In essence, the left is analytical while the right is more abstract and emotional.
31
2 - To do anything, there is an interaction between both sides of brain and we know this because
one side of the brain is damaged you can be left with severe problems. E.g. If the right hem is
shown a horrible photo, you will feel disgust but you won’t be able to explain why.
3 – Now, we have two systems – arousal and quiescence. But when these systems are pushed to
extremes there seems to be alternative states of consciousness. It is in this state that people seem to
have religious experiences. Persinger has found that if you electrically stimulate the temporal lobes
you can induce religious experience, in many patients though not Richard Dawkins, in the lab.
These experiences tend to involve people and I will look at why in the next lecture.
4 - Persinger also found that there is correlation between reporting religious experience and being
‘creative’ in a rather active way: poets, novelists etc seem to be inclined to have them. So, we are
left asking why do some people have these experiences while others don’t?
5 – Psychologist Richard Lynn speculates on an answer. Some people are simply more inclined to
break-down under stress – they are more on edge – than others; those people would be more incline
to have dramatic religious experiences. The andrenaline builds up and it must be released. Equally,
some can become very calm and these might be inclined to more contemplative religious
experiences.
6 – People who are highly intelligent tend also be creative and they, in turn, seem to more on edge.
So this might explain religious experience amongst certain groups of people.
7 – Daniel Nettle: There are 5 personality traits: Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness and Openness. Openness includes ‘unusual experiences’ and creativity. Those
high in it are more prone to religious experiences.
32
Lecture Six – Fieldwork With Religious Groups
I imagine you have discussed fieldwork method in your other classes but religious groups,
according to our definition of religion, are slightly different from other organizations. They are
central to people’s identity, their security and how they understand the world. So fieldwork needs to
be a bit different.
2. My own fieldwork was with evangelical Christian students at British universities, especially at
Oxford and Aberdeen. The fieldwork was much more difficult with Oxford. This was because the
group was more counter-cultural, more tightly controlled, more disliked by the rest of the
university. Indeed, with Durham the fieldwork broke down.
Trust
3. Firstly, Oxford didn’t quite trust me. This was because I was not a Christian, something
they could tell both from my demeanor and from other things about me. This made
negotiating the fieldwork. Indeed, in one case it was suggested that they wouldn’t let me do
the fieldwork if I wasn’t a Christian. This raises important ethical questions. The field is
important and should be examined but to what extent are you prepared to be economical
with truth. The word Christian is of course quite vague so you could argue that you were
one.
4. Gaining the trust was very difficult. The group had strong borders and I was a clear
outsider. Often, rebelliousness elements in the group would be especially interested in
talking to me so they could let off steam about the group. At Durham, for example, there
was a conflict between liberals and conservatives and Charismatics and conservative
evangelicals.
33
5. This makes the gatekeepers even more suspicious of you. Again, if those in charge set out
rules of access and there are manipulative ways to get round them, to what extent should
you do so? If your primary responsibility is to ‘the group’ then what do you do if there is an
unpopular leadership in the group? How do you judge whether or not de facto covert
research is their interests? If you do as ‘the exec’ say, are you not just helping an unfair
system? These are questions raised with a religious group but not so much with other
groups.
6.
I find that you gain their trust by patiently attending meetings, even helping. They
eventually find you fascinating and often wish to talk to you.
Evidence of Lack of Trust
1.
Eye Glazing. If the fieldwork is not going well then you may be experience a very
disturbing phenomenon which is not much discussed. I call it eye-glazing. It has been
referred to by sociologists who have done fieldwork with cults.
2.
It is hard to describe. A kind of glassy stare where the person is looking at you but also
looking through you. It’s rather like looking at a zombie and can be very unpleasant.
Marc Galanter: It will happen if they feel threatened by you. It seems to be a way of
persuading you to go away, and thus it holds up the borders of the group against the
perceived aggressor.
Being Brainwashed Yourself
1. It has long been argued that we, as anthropologists, must avoid going native. There is every
possibility of this if you do fieldwork in a foreign culture but it also true, if not more so,
with a religious group.
34
2. Certainly, if they are an evangelical group you will find that efforts are made to convert you.
This was more obvious in Oxford and Durham but even at Aberdeen attempts were made in
a subtle way. For example, people will be very friendly to you – lovebombing – in order to
suck you in.
3. My most intense experience was at the CU houseparty. This is always held as a ‘retreat’ –
usually in the middle of the countryside. The point of it is essentially brainwashing,
especially for those who are not already Christian. Everything is done to break down the
self. The day is highly structured, so called prayer groups involve sharing your feelings and
you will end up doing so yourself, and, most important, you have absolutely no time to
yourself. I was went to the loo to be alone and there were actually people praying in there!
4. Being alone was called ‘quiet time’ and effectively monitored. This was needed so I could
write my diary. I managed to sort out my own room and at one point I just walked into the
countryside and rang my most atheist friend.
Your Own Religious Perspective
1.
It is important to really have an understanding of your own religious attitudes and
biases or you may end up producing biased research. The traditional perspective
has been that we must approach the religious group as an outsider. We need to be
objective outsiders who, by being so, make sense of the religion. However, we do
not pass any judgment on the truth or otherwise of the religious perspective. We
simply record what happens. This is methodological agnosticism.
2.
Others have argued against this, for methodological atheism. You should assume
the scientific perspective because anthropology is a science and this is what
underpins science. Accordingly, you must accept that their views are completely
wrong because this is what science tells you.
35
3.
The final perspective is Methodological Theism. It is argued that the only way you
can really understand, for example, religious experience is if you have undergone
it. You should be open to the possibility that you can learn from the group, even
that their worldview is the correct one and that you can learn from it. You might
even wish to write your fieldwork in this way.
4.
There are many famous anthropologists who have had religious experiences
during fieldwork. It was E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1902 – 1973) who took his
professor’s sense of fun to a whole new level. Evans-Pritchard seems an unlikely
figure to blur the strict boundaries between anthropological ‘science’ and the
world of the spirits. Azande people of Southern Sudan, then still under British
rule. Traditionally animists, Evans-Pritchard found that the Azande believed that
witchcraft was a kind of inherited autonomous substance which lived in people’s
stomachs. And from its belly-based citadel, it would perform bad magic on its
host’s enemies, including killing them. Sometimes unaware of their powers,
witches could end-up dispatching people to whom they wished relatively little
harm. For the Azande, therefore, there was no such thing as an accident. As
Evans-Pritchard summarized it, ‘Witchcraft explains unfortunate events.’
’I
had been sitting late in my hut writing notes. About midnight, before retiring, I took a spear
and went for my usual nocturnal stroll. I was walking in the garden at the back of my
hut…when I noticed a bright light passing at the back of my servants’ huts towards the
homestead of a man called Tupoi.’i
He wondered if somebody was lighting a ‘handful of grass’ because they had gone to ‘defecate.’
However, not long afterwards a close relative of his friend Tupoi, in the direction of whose house
the light was moving, suddenly died. What had happened precisely fitted with the Azande
understanding of witchcraft. Witches operated at night, those who disturb them witness ‘the light of
witchcraft’ and those the light is aimed at die soon afterwards. Evans-Pritchard found himself
36
unable to dismiss the possibility that this might just be what had happened. In later writing, he
refuses to rule it out arguing that, ‘There is no possibility of the anthropologist knowing whether the
spiritual beings of primitive religions . . . have any existence or not.’
In 1956, when writing of the religion of the Nuer people, another Sudanese tribe, he claimed to have
reached a point where ‘the theologian takes over from the anthropologist’ii and by 1965 he was
claiming that you could only make sense of religion if you thought it was real. Towards the end of
his life, he converted to Catholicism, arguing that people of all religions experience ‘the same
transcendental reality.’iii The man of science, motivated by the desire to find social facts, was now
closer to the Azande tribesman than he was to many of his anthropological colleagues. Unable to
explain away his intense experience of witchcraft, he had convinced himself that the non-material
world was a reality.
And he wasn’t the only anthropologist to do so. Born in Glasgow to an electrician and an actress,
Victor Turner (1920 – 1983) became fascinated by anthropology as a non-combatant soldier during
World War II. After the War, he studied anthropology at University College London and, still
entranced by it, went off to Manchester University to do a PhD on the subject. The fieldwork for his
doctorate took place in the early 1950s amongst the Ndembu people who live in what is now
Zambia. Turner was most fascinated by the tribe’s ‘Chihamba Cult.’ Devotees would dance
themselves into a frenzy and heal each other. Edith Turner (b.1921), his wife alongside whom he
conducted his fieldwork, later recalled witnessing the paranormal at one of these meetings:
Suddenly Meru raised her arm, stretched it in liberation, and I saw with my own eyes a giant
thing emerging out of the flesh of her back. This thing was a large gray blob about six inches
across, a deep gray opaque thing emerging as a sphere. I was amazed – delighted . . . The gray
thing was actually out there, visible, and you could see Singleton's hands working and
scrabbling on the back - and then the thing was there no more.iv
37
The experience was so powerful that the Turners started to throw science aside, arguing that
anthropologists could learn from prophets and poets. Victor Turner wrote that, ‘we must ourselves
be humble if we are glimpse, if not comprehend, the spiritual truths represented by (the
Chimhamba).’v In 1957, the Turners converted to Catholicism and started to argue that it was
pointless trying to make sense of religion . . . you just had to believe it.
Many other anthropologists are convinced that they have experienced the paranormal during their
fieldwork, something they often didn’t discuss at the time, afraid they’d be shunned by scientific
colleagues. American Frank Salamone did his fieldwork with the Gungawa people of Nigeria. ‘On
one of two occasions in the field I have felt in the presence of some sort of power or phenomenon
that I could not readily explain – or explain away.’ Central to this group was the ‘bori’ – revered
shamans and healers. Salamone recalls how he first met ‘Bori Jugun Hella’ in 1970 and dismissed
him as a ‘clown.’ In fact, he played the fool to get people to come near him, so frightened were they
of his reputed powers. Salamone insists that, ‘Bori always seemed to know when I was approaching
him . . . He was able to tell me my worries and desires without my articulating them . . . Bori knew
my secret thoughts and even foretold what I would do.’vi
Indeed, two American sociologists – James McLennon and Jennifer Nooney – were so fascinated
by the way that their anthropological colleagues reported paranormal experiences that they decided
to chart the kind of events reported. They analyzed 40 accounts of paranormal experiences reported
by 16 anthropologists between about the 1960s and the 1990s. They compared these to a survey of
1578 paranormal experiences conducted by students in North Carolina. They found clear
differences. The main paranormal experiences of anthropologists involved ‘Apparition’ (32.5
percent), Healing (25 percent) and Waking Extra Sensory Perception (22.5 percent). Amongst the
North Carolina sample Apparition was still the highest (32 percent), but only 5 and 7 percent
38
respectively experienced or witnessed Waking ESP or Healing. 10.7 percent reported
Psychokinesis, compared to just 2.5 percent of anthropologists. 11.3 percent reported paranormal
dreams (10 percent anthropologists) and 5.5 percent sleep paralysis (2.5 percent anthropologists).
But at 5 percent against 2.7 percent, anthropologists reported more ‘Occult Events.’vii
However, probably the most extreme case of an anthropologist immersing themselves so deeply in
their fieldwork that their findings superficially defy rational explanation has to be that of Carlos
Castaneda (1925 – 1998). Originally from Peru, the naturalized American anthropologist was to
become a guru amongst the New Age Movement. Moving to the USA in the 1950s, Castaneda
studied Anthropology at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), graduating with a PhD in
1973, the contents of which were so explosive that when parts of it had been published, the obscure
academic made the cover of Time magazine.viii Promised a great grade by his supervisor if he
succeeded, some time in the early 1960s Castaneda made his way to Nagoles, Arizona, on the
Mexican border, in search of a genuine Native American shaman. Shamans had long fascinated
anthropologists. Central to primitive tribes, these charismatic figures - part doctor, part priest and
part seer - were able to enter a trance, travel to the spirit world, fight the spirits and so solve the
tribe’s problems. For such tribes, everything – plants, trees, animals, mountains - has an underlying
‘spirit’ which must be appeased. Shamans often used hallucinogenic plants to open up the gates of
the invisible, spirit realm. According to Castaneda, he found a shaman and his name was Don Juan
Matus, from the Yaqui tribe.
If he had followed anthropological research methods, Castaneda would have simply interviewed
Matus, observed his way of life and analyzed the findings, but he went a lot further. Castaneda
wrote that Matus invited him to take peyote, a strongly hallucinogenic cactus which Matus himself
used a means of entering the spirit world. Before its effects hit in, Castaneda remembered people
39
laughing about ‘the stupidity of sharks’ix but eventually ‘every memory came back to me . . . all was
clear in my mind.’x He ‘saw a black dog’ which became ‘iridescent’ with a glow radiating from its
body.xi Matus was ecstatic. Apparently, this was the plant’s ‘spirit’ and this was the first time that
this spirit had appeared to a ‘white man.’ Matus offered to make Castaneda his apprentice, so that
he himself, after completing a four year apprenticeship, could become a shaman. Breaking with
anthropological convention – you’re supposed to study an entire culture not just one member of it –
Castanada accepted. Malinowski could never have dreamed of seeing the world ‘through the
native’s eyes’ to the degree that Castanada seemed set on doing. He went native, something
raditional anthropologists felt destroyed his ‘academic’ authority.
Next, Matus introduced Castaneda to an even more powerful drug: datura stramonium. Known
colloquially as jimson weed or hells bells, the highly toxic plant can easily be fatal. But it can also
lead to intense hallucinogenic experiences. Matus also introduced Castaneda to mushrooms, the
consumption of which convinced the anthropologist that – inline with his shaman’s traditions – he
had turned into a crow and was able to fly. Eventually, Castaneda was close to mental collapse,
unable to distinguish reality from the ‘world of the spirits.’ He became convinced that his visions
were real. Shamanistic practices permitted a glimpse of other realities that were just as real as our
so-called reality.
So, how can we explain these apparently anomalous findings? There are many possible scientific
explanations. The concept of ‘culture shock,’ so familiar to businessmen abroad and other
expatriates, was first developed into a stage theory by Canadian anthropologist Kalervo Oberg
(1901 – 1973). Culture shock involves four distinct stages. Stage one is the ‘honeymoon phase,’ in
which the culture is experienced as endlessly fascinating. Stage two is ‘Reaction’ where people
react angrily against the culture, intensely dislike it and romanticize their home culture. Stage three
40
is ‘Resignation’ in which various coping strategies are developed and stage four is ‘Adjustment,’ by
which time you have got used to the culture and see it as ‘just another way of living.’xii If this is
reached, then you may even experience ‘reverse culture shock’ when you go home. xiii ‘Culture
shock’ is an important bond amongst anthropologists. They have all experienced it. But it is likely
to at least partly explain why anthropologists seem prone to paranormal experiences.
This method basically abandons science, the other is not open minded.
41
Lecture Seven – Islam
What is Fundamentalism?
1) Relatively modern idea. People cannot cope with a time of change. They need certainty and
structure. They are attracted to a religion that offers them this. Liminal Identity: Following
Victor Turner, they are ‘betwixt and between.’ They are between one identity and another and
they cannot cope because we need identity. So, according to Harald Eidheim, they exaggerate
the perceived higher identity. It is a warping of the identity. Also, they want to destroy the old
identity in others. Bloch calls this idea ‘Rebounding (kimmota) Violence.’ This is especially
true of those who have undergone ‘conversion.’ (käännyttää)
2) Clifford Geertz notes that in times of change and threat, religions turn in on themselves. How
does this happen? Strong sense of ‘us’ against ‘the other’ and ‘us’ being superior; exaggerated
understanding of belief and practice; fear and distrust of the modern world; looking to an
idealised past, possible use of violence; Charismatic leadership due to time of crisis. But,
importantly, although the ‘fundamentalist mind-set’ may always have existed, fundamentalism
is seen as modern phenomenon, a retreat from the modern world. Begins with the
‘Fundamentals’ of American Protestants in early 20th century.
Islam: the Beginnings
1) 6th Century. Mecca (in Saudi Arabia) was a port, city state and Pilgrimage (pyhiinvaellus)
centre. Mohammed was born in 540. In 610 (at Rammadan) God started to speak to him. He
built up followers, many amongst the poor and opposed Pagan practices. The group was
persecuted and fled to Ethiopia. They returned as an ARMY and took Mecca by force. The same
army took many other places.
42
After Mohammed’s death the Koran developed. This book is what Allah supposedly said to
Mohammed. It is contradictory, with some parts, earlier parts, advocating tolerance on nonMuslims and later parts advocating persecution. It draws heavily upon Old Testament practices.
Koran was revealed to Mohammed throughout is life in various ‘revelations.’ Also, the Sunna
developed. This was observance of Mohammed’s life, which you should imitate because he is
seen as ‘perfect man.’ Confirmed in ninth century. Most of this book is taken from the Old
Testament, the New Testament and Arabic folklore. And, the Haddith: a collection of
Mohammed’s supposed sayings. Again, most of this book is basically copied from sources.
2) Essential Islamic Beliefs are Belief in Mohammed as the last Prophet of Allah, the one true
God. Koran was revealed to Mohammed through the Angel Gabriel. Prayer 5 times a day,
Charity, Fasting, Mecca. Old Testament style legal system (‘Sharia’), belief in one God,
Heaven and Hell, Day of Judgement and bodily resurrection, no caste, Jihad – that you can
forcefully spread and defend Islam, no separation of religion and state. Pure and impure are
known as ‘halal’ and ‘haram.’
3) Diet etc – Halal food has been ritually slaughtered and dedicated to Allah. Haram items include
pork, carrion, meat-eating animals, alcohol. Males are circumcised.
4) Rites of Passage – After birth, Islamic prayer recited into child’s right ear, call to prayer. 7 days
after birth, head shaved and named, animals slaughtered for feast. Circumised, sometimes as old
as eight. No initiation because you can’t opt out. However, first fast is de facto initiation for
boys. Arranged marriage. Simple funeral.
5) SPLITS: Mohammed died in 632. His successor was his friend Abu Bakhr and so he was
made the first caliph. The caliphs are a bit like a combination of a pope and a king and they are
considered to carry Mohammed’s spiritual authority. Warring as they were, there were three
caliphs in quick succession before Mohammed’s cousin Ali became caliph and his successor set
43
up an empire based in Damascus. The majority, who accept this line of succession, are known
as ‘Sunni’ Muslims ‘people of the Sunnah.’ The first four are the ‘rightly guided.’
6) SHIAS thought the successor to Mohammed should be Mohammed’s cousin Ali Tabib, this
being god’s will because they were part of the same family. After Ali’s death, someone in the
Sunni line took power. Shia’s believed that authority passed to Ali’s son Hussain. He is
murdered and Shias believe in a series of ‘Hidden Imams’ who are the successors of Ali Tabib,
before they accept the Sunni successor. They emphasise persecution and martyrdom and their
belief in a different leadership means interpret Koran etc slightly differently. They also believed
in the idea of a ‘Mahdi’ a messiah figure who will establish an Islamic state. Now, Iran is Shia,
Iraq is 75 percent Shia., Azerbaijan is 75 percent Shia. Other Muslim countries are about 20
percent Shia.
7) Also, Falasafah (influenced by Greek Philosophy) and later Sufi (mystic sect that wants to
experience being Mohammed NOW!) This was an ascetic, world-rejecting movement and a
revival movement. It affects both Sunni and Shia.
8) Islam spread and spread, mainly through war. The Sunni, the dominant sect, saw it as an Arab
religion. The idea was that locals – dhimmi – who lived under the ‘umma’ would pay a tax to
their Muslim overlords. By 600s, the main dynasty – Ummayah – had conquered Iberia. But
gradually, influenced by Greek philosophy, Islamic philosophy began to develop and Jews
under their rule where also free to think for themselves within certain limitations. Thos
philosophy was known as Mutalizite and upset orthodox Muslims.
9) The Gold Age of Islam is known as the Abbasid Era, up until 1258. We have science,
universities, Maths etc. Alongside China, Islam is the most technological civilization and is
certainly ahead of Europe. Al-Jahiz, for example, proposes something like ‘natural selection.’
10) The religion of many countries. Then disaster! Large Islamic areas invaded by Mongols in 13th
century. Their caliph is killed by the Mongols. Sunni Islam (Ottoman Empire) became
44
conservative: ‘the gates of learning have closed.’ Sharia was fixed, reason put aside. The past
was to be imitated in almost every way. But Islam is still spreading into Russia, Turkey etc by
1400s. Sufi acts as a revival movement. Whirling dervishes etc. Spreads into Near East such as
Chechnya. However, by 1500 it has lost Iberia completely.
Modern Islam
1) Things get worse in 17th century. Ottoman Empire (home of Mohammed’s successor) is in
chaos. Threat from the West. In Arabia, Wahabi preaches extreme Sunni fundamentalism. This
is now the religion of Saudi Arabia and is spreading is the Near East (South East Russia,
Tajikistan etc). Islam loses control of India.
2) In 19th century, almost every Islamic country is run by the West. Islamic countries start to
Westernise. Islamic theologians start arguing for separate religion and state or consulting or
imitating the West. The upper class become very Western. Industrialisation is imposed quickly
on the people, clearly so with Attuturk and Turkey. The result is rebellion and fundamentalism.
3) Mawdudi – Islam must fight against Westernisation. Qutb – All other ideologies are wrong.
Only if the whole world is Islamic can people make a choice. Too materialistic, base.
4) IRAN – The Western ‘Shah’ is imposed. Takes control in 1962. Westernises Iran by force.
Economic crisis in 1979. The Shah is removed by massive protest and replaced by Ayatolah
Khomeini, with massive popular support. Iran becomes a fundamentalist, Shia Islamic state.
5) Fundamentalism also is on the rise amongst Islamic immigrants to Western countries. Lack of
a sense of identity and who they are. Feel unwanted and threatened. Retreat into their cultural
ghetto. Exaggerate and idealise the former identity and way of life. They see liberal Muslims as
a threat as well. The cartoon crisis was a sign of fundamentalism. Mohammed WAS frequently
45
depicted in Medieval Islamic culture. Their poverty makes it worse because Islam is supposed
to be in charge, according to their theology.
6) Radical, charismatic clerics such as Abu Hamza come to countries such as the UK. Young
people radicalised in Pakistan. Go and fight for Islam. Also, belief that everyone should be
Muslim. They dress, following the Sunna, as people dressed at the time of Mohammed. Nothing
in the Koran about hijabs. In Holland, major critic of Islam – Theo van Gogh - is murdered.
7) Bin Laden: Simple message: Get Non-Muslims out of the Holy Land. If you contribute to the
system, you must die. Perversion of a literal understanding of the Koran.
8) Suicide Bombing. Following the Koran. Identity more important than life. Sense of self entirely
wrapped up in identity.
46
8. Hinduism
1) The idea of a HINDU religion is a British, colonial invention. There is HUGE variation in belief
and practice in India, which is a HUGE country. It is like saying Pagan in Western Europe.
Each region of India has its own language, culture, ritual and Gods. But there is a sense of being
Hindu because of foreigners and Muslims.
2) Hinduism is a mixture of Aryan Beliefs (North India), Dravidian beliefs (South India) and
earlier indigenous beliefs. The Aryans came to India and produced The Vedas and The
Upanishads in about 2000 BC. These are sacred Hindu texts dealing with ritual and its
meaning. Bhagvad Gita.
3) The fundamentals are
Dharma – Ethics;
Samsara (Cycle – reincarnation),
Karma (Action, fate),
Artha (wealth),
Kama (pleasure) and
Moksha (Liberation).
Yoga – Method. Sadhu etc.
4) Upanishads: There are four stages of life for the twice born: Student, Householder, Forest
Dweller and Renouncer.
5) Before this there are sixteen rites of passage.
1. Garbhadhana – Conception.
2. Pumsavana – Wanting a boy.
3. Simantonnayana – Parting the hair of pregnant woman.
4. Jatakarman – birth rite.
47
5. Namakarana – Namegiving.
6. Niskramana – Outing.
7 – Annaprasana – Solid Food.
8 – Chadakarana – tonsure (shaving).
9. Karnavehda – Ear piercing.
10. Vidyaramba – Learning alphabet.
11. Apanaya – Initiation.
12. Vedarambha – Vedic study (high caste).
13. Kesanta – Shaving beard.
14. Samarvartana – End of being a student.
15. Vivaha – Marriage (arranged).
16. Antyesti – Funeral. Sati.
6) CASTES (Varna): Everyone is a member of a caste.
1) Brahmin - Priests/ Rulers.
2) Kshatriya - Warriors/ Landowners.
3) Vaishya - Merchants/ Farmers.
4) Shudra – Servants, Artisans.
Finally, there are Harijan (Untouchables), who have no caste. The castes traditionally do not
associate. If they do, the higher ones become ‘unclean’ and need to clean themselves. Different
castes have different obligations. Thousands of castes. Concept of purity. Weddings in city.
Pilgrimage. Also a matter of race, paler higher castes, more attractive.
7) Hindus believe in a Pantheon of Gods relating to natural and cultural forces. For example:
Varuna Lord of Order (Order versus Chaos is important in Hindu Mythology), Indra (God of
War), Agni (God of Fire), Soma (God of Drink), Yama (God of Death). Many gods, many
48
views of history, held together by ritual rather than belief and also by blood and caste. Positive
relationship with god, world is positive place. Fate.
8) Different Hindus worship different Gods as the highest God. Some worship Agni. He IS fire
and carries you to the God of Death when you are cremated. FIRE is very important. Sacrifices
are made to a God through fire. The mantra at the fire ritual is seen as the basis for the cosmos
which began by someone speaking.
9) However, there are many different Creation Myths. According to one, a God called Purusha
was sacrificed and different Castes came from different parts of his body. In the Upanishads,
BRAHMA is seen as the absolute God and a belief in Reincarnation replaces a belief in
Heaven. You are liberated from reincarnation through KNOWLEDGE and bodily control.
Meditation – mantras such as ‘Om’ to focus attention.
10) Modern Hinduism: By Medieval Period, theism becomes popular. Also, India is broadly under
Islamic rule. Krishna is seen to be all Gods and himself. But, mainly Hindus worship either
Vishnu (solves problems, comes at times of crisis), Shiva (God of Dance), or Devi (Supreme
Goddess). They also worship Ganesha, the elephant God.
11) Even within families, different Gods are worshipped. God is literally seen to live in a certain
temple or in a certain idol. Hindus eat no beef. Upon death ashes are put in river.
12) Reincarnation upon death, maintain good Karma. PAGAN: Many gods, many histories, endless
world, life is positive, world is neither good or bad, no apocalypse. But there are gurus and
strong impurity concept.
The Rise of Fundamentalist Hinduism
1) By the eighteenth century, India is ruled by Britain. Hindus need to define themselves. There are
some Hindu liberals. Brahmo Samaj: All religions the same. Questioned caste hierarchy.
49
Accepted science. Modelled Hindu ritual on Christian ritual. OR Vivekananda: All religions
lead to the same goal. Rise in Christianity amongst Indians.
2) BUT fundamentalism took off in 19th century. Tilak argued that Westerners were destroying
Hinduism by banning sati (burning the wife on the funeral pyre) and eating beef in India. Seen
as a manifestation (inkarnaatio) of Vishnu. Gandhi saw British as violent oppressors of Hindu
people. Dressed as a Yogi and renouncer. City Indians were becoming more and more British,
questioning Hinduism and Hindu rituals.
3) The result was independence and partition so that two parts of India – Pakistan and Bangladesh
– were separate Muslim states.
4) The Indian state granted special rights to ‘minorities’ – Sikhs, Jains, Muslims and untouchables.
This leaves higher castes discriminated against. Government also legally abolished the caste
system and a Socialist Government took over. The result has been the rise in the Hindu
Nationalist Party (BJP). They reassert caste. In The 1980s, members decided to reclaim temple
sites upon which Mosques had been built. They destroyed a significant mosque in 1992.
Massive riots and many Muslims killed. Reassertion of caste system, especially in the
countryside. 2002 – Riots in gudajarat.
5) Central Beliefs of BJP etc: All of the land of India should be Hindu; Buddhists, Jains and
Sikhs are Hindu whether they like it or not; Hindus are ultimately Aryan and all culture comes
out of India; Hindus have been suppressed by Muslims and Christians and all their influence
should be driven out of India (problem of highly anglicised Indians), India should take full
control of Kashmir. BJP stopped Sonia Ghandi being Prime Minister because she was not
Indian. See Muslims as a threat!! They try to persuade Muslims – who converted from
Hinduism because they were dalits – to convert back. There are mass dalit conversions to
Buddhism.
50
6) Fundamentalist Hinduism has come out of radical change. Change in the power of the higher
castes, in the influence Hindu belief, in the power of the West. India is balanced between
Hinduism and, essentially, the British way of life and was run by Islam. Radical change. So
people look to the past. We have burning of Valentines Day cards and anything ‘Western.’
Hatred of Muslims who are BLAMED.
7) In the West – especially the UK – Hindus have hung onto their beliefs etc. But they tend to be
highly integrated and middle- class because only the middle-class Hindus came to Britain in the
first place. Thus, Hindu fundamentalism has not developed because they were already very
anglicised and wealthy.
Early Judaism
1) Judaism develops from a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one. In the beginning, it is a
temple-based, pagan religion where there are many gods – ‘house gods’ and even ‘temple
whores.’ Early OT book, such as Genesis, talk about many gods, house gods, temple whores etc.
2) Key figures in Genesis reject monolatry and focus solely on obeying Yahweh – Noah, Abraham,
Jacob, Joseph. They are rewarded for this. They also battle with devil figures in the wilderness.
But there is an interest in those who are second such as Esau and Jacob. Joseph – Israel’s
blessed younger son.
3) The Jews become enslaved by the Egyptians and this is when Moses’ monotheistic religion
begins to develop. Very similar to Mohammed. You must worship one god, reject the things of
this world, etc.
51
4) Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt and establishes a Jewish homeland. There is a constant
tension between being a good ‘Jew’ and worshipping other gods and idols, such as the ‘Golden
Calf.’ Old Testament system of punishment and strict diet laws develops, all of which are
recorded in the Torah. The Jews become decadent and are exiled, their lands falling to invaders.
They are in exile in Babylon about 600BC, they return about 300BC and ruled by foreigners.
5) Belief that they are God’s chosen people and a Messiah will come to save them, as predicted by
the prophets who write after – though supposedly before – the collapse of Israel and Judah.
Central motif of being persecuted (vainota) and exiled (maanpako) in the Old Testament Moses freed slaves etc. In 70 AD, the Jerusalem Temple is destroyed by the Romans after the
Jews rebel. There is a diaspora, though some Jews remain in Galilee. Many end up in Europe,
especially Spain (Sephardic) and Eastern Europe (Ashkenazi) and the Middle East (Mizrahim).
Throughout the Medieval period there are pogroms against them such as in England in 1308.
They are money-lenders and live in ghettos. Development of Kabbalah – Jewish mysticism.
Early Modern Judaism
6) 1492 – Jews are expelled (karkotta) from Spain when it becomes Christian. They see their
existence as threatened, and we have a proto-fundamentalism. Luria (1534-72) comes up with a
new creation myth – ZIMZUM. God shrank to make room for the world and thus exiled part of
himself. He tried to fill the emptiness with divine light through glass tubes. They shattered and
the light went into the world and got trapped in people. Zimzum was popular because it meant
that to be exiled was to be like God and Jews felt exiled. It led to night time rituals and so on.
Develop the belief that Israel will be restored to Jews at the end of time.
7) Ceases to be a temple religion. Like Islam, a religion of study with ‘Rabbis.’ Torah books of
interpretation – Midrash, Talmud. Naming ceremony, circumcision on eighth day (for some
Kabbalah only then are you a Jew), Bar/Bat Mitzvah, marriage (ritual bath), death (shiva).
52
8) 1600s – Jews poured into Amsterdam. They found ‘presence’ in ‘the Law’ and obeyed it in
every detail. Zevi – Be secret Jews and be sinful and shameless. Also, in 1667 there was a huge
massacre of Polish Jews. Led to another movement – Hasideem (as in Hasidic). Elizier (1735) a
miracle-worker and Rabbi gained 40,000 followers. They were Lurianic and engaged in noisy,
lively prayer.
9) In opposition, there arose the Masringdom. They were orthodox and advocated Torah study,
prayer, and strict tradition such as dress. Judaism was an unchanging struggle. There were also
Jews that advocated becoming more like Europeans. Maskilim (Reformed Judaism): Israel
Jacobson from Germany. Worship services were influenced by Protestantism. They even
accepted converts.
9. Modern Judaism
1) Fundamentalist Judaism has developed in two directions: Ultra-Orthodoxy and Extreme
Zionism. By the end of the nineteenth century there were many successful, secular Jews,
allowed outside the Ghetto. Jews persecuted in Russia. Also, under figures such as Herzl and
Gurion we see the development of ZIONISM. ORTHODOX are appalled. They argue that it is
‘hastening the end’ and this is a sin against God.
2) But Zionism grows and grows. Some Zionists saw it is as nothing to do with religion, so it
attracted secular Jews as well. Rabbi Abraham Kook (1865 – 1935) thought that Zionists were
paving the way for the Messiah and were sent by God. The Torah was to be over-ruled, just as
Luria had done. Zionism was radical! Other Rabbis had conservative reasons. Rosenheim
wanted to retreat from the Jew-hating world and create a theocratic state.
53
3) Orthodox blamed Zionists for the Holocaust. It was God’s punishment for their blasphemy
because the Jews had to be ‘in exile’ until Judgement Day. When Israel became a state, they
saw it as Satan interfering in human history. But the state had no religious value so they had no
problem going there and cutting themselves off. Jews were still ‘in exile’ in a spiritual sense.
Orthodox Judaism obeyed ‘the Law’ even more, hating modernity. Some tried to convert Jews
to their brand of ‘Ultra-Orthodoxy.’
4) Fundamentalist Zionists: Kook the Younger thought that the 7 Day War was God punishing
Israel for being too Western. It was a warning to expand even more and to make the whole of
Israel Jewish. In fact, the Holocaust was a warning to take back Israel and a punishment for
‘unfaithfulness’ to Israel. The Holocaust was the will of God.
5) In 1974, Kookists formed THE GUSH. They wanted to take land from the Arabs and
developed a total counter-culture, withdrawing from secular Israel. They then started to settle,
by force, in Arab areas such as Nablus. This was justified by the Old Testament.
6) Various Jews became concerned that Israel was too secular but felt they could be involved in the
state. They formed the political party Shas. Important because many Jews had turned to atheism
after the Holocaust and just practised the rituals. Rabbi Shoshan advocated causing the end of
the world to make the Messiah come. Kathane: Expel ALL the Arabs from Israel. The Intifada
made many Jews even more fundamentalist because they feel under attack all of the time. But
Holocaust and so on has led to rise in fundamentalist Judaism whether as Orthodox or Zionist.
54
Buddhist Fundamentalism
What is Buddhism?
1) Many Hindus regard Buddhism as a branch of Hinduism. It has very similar beliefs but involves
following a certain mystic (Buddha) which is very common amongst Hindus (Hari Krishna etc).
In modern times, it has taken on a fundamentalist form in Sri Lanka.
2) Buddha (563 – 486 BC) was a Nepalese Prince who was inspired to become a travelling mystic
and to fast. He experienced an ‘awakening’ and realised how to break free of the Hindu cycle of
rebirth ‘Karma.’ He realised the Four Noble Truths: Life is suffering, identify the cause, stop
the suffering, start on a new path. Suffering could be stopped by following The Noble Eight
Fold Path: Right Understanding, Intention, Speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and
concentration. It was Right to be a pacifist and avoid causing suffering. This involved following
the Middle Way and being balanced in all things. As such, Buddhism discourages heavy
drinking or any extreme pleasure.
3) Buddhists are divided into those at separate stages of enlightenment (valistus): The StreamEntrant, Once Returner, Never Returner and the Worthy One. He is pure, free from desire and
has reached Nirvana. This ‘realisation’ normally occurs at death but can occur before that.
4) Buddhists rise above the physical through meditation, which is a Hindu idea. They repeat sacred
words and focus on sacred objects. They also fast and may abstain from sex.
5) Buddhism split into a number of schools: Theravada – It is possible to become a Worthy One
in a single lifetime. Mahayana: It is possible to become a Buddha, as he is merely a man. Less
emphasis on bodily control.
55
The Spread of Buddhism
1) Theravada spread to Sri Lanka and South East Asia. Mahayana spread to China, India, Tibet,
Japan and Korea. In Japan, fore example, the practices of Buddhism and Shinto are combined.
Equally, in China many people believe in parts of both religion. Like Hinduism, the religion
allows variance of belief. The one Buddhist state in Europe is Kalymakia, a Russian state.
2) But, fundamentalist Buddhism has developed in the modern world, and parallels the same
development in other religions.
Sri Lanka
1) Buddhism came in 246 BC and the country was divided into various Buddhist kingdoms. The
inhabitants were known as the Sinhali. However, there were a small number of Tamil-speaking
Hindus in the north of the island
2) The country was ruled by Portugal, then Holland and then Britain. During this period, large
numbers of Tamils came to ‘Ceylon’ from India. By the time the British gave Sri Lanka
independence (1972) they were twenty percent of the population. Also, the whole way of life
was radically changed by colonial rule with Tamils tending to be wealthy and important.
3) The Sri Lankan constitution was entirely for the Sinhali. Buddhist groups see themselves as
‘protectors of Buddhism’ both from Western influence and Tamils. They see Sri Lanka as the
‘promised island’ (a metaphor) taught about by Buddha. They produce a mythical history of Sri
Lanka to prove that it was always so. As such, Buddhist monks join the army to fight Hindus,
who they see as a threat. Hindus are ‘unwise’ and can never have any power over ‘the promised
island’ so Tamil independence must be stopped at all costs. They look back to a pre-colonial
time with the importance of the temple and almost no Hindus.
56
4) Thus, many fundamentalist Buddhists – even monks – join the army. This has resulted in the
fire-bombing of Hindu temples, the desecrating (häpäisy) of temples, firing on crowds during
Hindu holy days, killing prominent Hindus and refusing to appoint Hindus as teachers. The
Tamil Tiger rebellion has made this worse. Thus, as with Islam, Sri Lanka suffers from the
imposition of modernity. However, this is worsened by the perception of Hindus as foreign and
as a different ethnic group. Some even argue that they are an inferior ethnic group because they
are Dravidian (dark) while Sinhalis are Aryan.
Tibetan Buddhism
Distinguished by the belief that Buddha – or developments of Buddha – reincarnate as certain
people, such the Dalai Lama. Tibet is a feudal, Medieval state ruled the Panchen Lama (who was
imposed by the Chinese when they forced out the Dalai Lama.) It cannot really be said to be
‘fundamentalist’ because fundamentalism is normally seen as a response to modernity which neither
Tibet or Bhutan (another Tibetan Buddhist country) have ever really experienced.
57
Lecture Ten
Christian Fundamentalism
The Charismatic Movement
1) Fundamentalist Protestantism tends to come in periodic ‘revivals’ of religious of fervour. This is
particularly true of the Charismatic Movement, a branch of this. The movement has risen within
the Church of England, for example, because the church and society has become more and more
liberal. The same is true in Finland.
2) The Charismatic Movement in England: Famous church is Kensington (South London) with
a very wealthy congregation – Holy Trinity, Brompton. Religious Beliefs: Highly conservative.
Bible cannot be wrong, Non-Christians go to Hell, reject evolution. Social Beliefs: You should
only marry a Christian, sex before marriage not allowed, not acceptable to become drunk,
women priests not allowed. Importance of conversion. In order to be a Christian, you have to
have had a personal experience of God, as in the Early Church. The meetings often involve
public ‘testimony.’ Also, it is important to evangelise and experience the Holy Spirit during
meetings.
3) Meetings are highly charismatic. There is Glossolalia, Gift of Prophecy, Gift of Healing, Holy
Laughter. Especially true in 1994 with Toronto Blessing. Church members were carried out
having fits of laughter or barking like dogs. This was brought from Canada. In 2000, many
charismatics became convinced they had gold teeth. The movement spread to the UK in the
1960s from the USA by David Du Plessis and Billy Graham.
58
4) The evangelism is seen mainly through the Alpha Course. This course is designed as an
introduction to (Evangelical) Christianity for Non-Christians. It has spread throughout the UK
and even to Oulu. How does HTB convert anthropologically?
Evangelism and Anthropology
1) Social Bonds: Each Alpha lesson (of 12 weekly lessons) involves bond creation. You eat
together, tell jokes together etc, sing hymns. You also share highly personal information (the
discussions are designed to do this!), Christians share how they became Christians with you (a
bit like falling in love!). So you become bonded to individual members and thus the group.
Also, Love Bombing: They want to be your best friend.
2) Structure. People looking for religion are often in a time of crisis. A liminal phase. The course
provides structure for them in terms of belief and lifestyle.
3) Stockholm Syndrome: But it also unpleasant. They are made to realise – by people they trust
deeply – that they are not really Christians and are going to Hell. This bonds them even more
and pressurises them.
4) Religious Experience: The final three lessons teach you how to speak in tongues. You have a
religious experience. Essentially, it is a kind of induced (suostutella) conversion. This will bond
you to the group but also make you highly suggestible. Music and prayer help this because you
become dissociated.
5) Isolation: The last three lessons are held at a ‘retreat’ in the middle of the countryside. So it is
not possible to have real contact with anybody who is not a Christian.
6) Reassurance: Once you are a Christian you need constant reassurance that you’re not wrong,
bonding you further to the group.
59
7) Charisma: This can also be found in the speaker who can powerfully induce religious
experience and make you feel good. He is like the anthropological idea of the Shaman. The
‘healer’ who has contact with the world of the Gods.
This same method can be seen not just in Christianity but also in Islam. Why is it attractive to the
young, middle class? Firstly, Christianity is part of their identity. They are far more likely to be
raised as Christians. Secondly, in the UK at least, their lives involve pressure and uncertainty. But
evangelicals are now around a third of the Church of England. Coleman points out that the Swedish
charismatic church focuses on power. Jesus is a muscleman.
Fundamentalism in Finland
Nokia Mission. Charismatic Church. Also has branches around the Finnish Bible Belt. Led by
Marku Koivisto, highly charismatic, shaman figure. Very similar theology, social belief system and
practice to HTB. Holy Laughter, Toronto Blessing and emphasis on healing. Koivisto believes God
healed him of cancer for example. Also, Veli Saarikalle. In Kokkola, Hari Kiviniemi (American
educated). Highly charismatic revivalist. Kokkola is a small town undergoing considerable change
as it expands. Indeed, so is the whole of Finland. This attracts people that WANT to be middleclass. Prosperity Gospel.
Catholic Fundamentalism
Catholic Church has been very liberal. As a result, Spanish priest Joseph Escriva founded Opus
Dei in the 1920s. The idea was that priests and laymen returned to some traditional form of
Catholicism: Conservative belief and practice and a living like a priest even if you’re not one. It is
60
an evangelical movement. Numinary Members live in an Opus Dei house, give all their money to
Opus Dei, go to mass every day, whip themselves, wear a cillace, fast etc. They want to return the
Catholic church to some historic ideal.
61
Lecture Eleven
New Religious Movements and Suicide Cults
What is an NRM?
1) Normally it is on the borders of a church and it breaks away. Lewis distinguishes between the
Central and Peripheral Cult. It begins as the latter and then breaks. Nokia Missio is essentially
an NRM out of the Lutheran Church. Laestadians are peripheral because they have not broken
away. Eventually, it is established as its own church, as in Mormonism or Buddhism, and then
has its own splits to deal with.
2) Some NRMs simply have odd beliefs, such as the Spiritualist Movement, which believes in
contacting the dead and ghosts. Others combine this with the strong belief in a particular living
Messiah and that the world will end. Sometimes, these end with mass suicide. Why?
The People’s Temple
1) In 1978, 919 members (almost all) of the residents of Jonestown, Guyana poisoned themselves
including their leader Jim Jones (1931 –78). Jim Jones was from Indiana. He began as a
Methodist preacher, married a Red Indian and eventually became a Pentecostal. He wasn’t
exactly a fundamentalist. His view of God was radical as were social views: he preached
multiracialism and Communism, by this time in California. Many of his followers were black or
generally troubled.
2) In 1954, he founded his own church. He was a healer, though many of these were faked. He
preached that the world would end, his meetings were charismatic, he preached he was the
62
reincarnation of Jesus and Buddha. Forced member to write confessions. Clearly had
tremendous charisma.
3) Negative coverage from the media. They became paranoid and moved to Guyana. Established
Jonestown. Self-sufficient commune. Harsh conditions. Long hours. Bad food. Punishments
(Stockholm Syndrome). Isolated from outside world. Feeling of being under attack. He
persuaded them to have practice suicides – ‘White Nights.’ Eventually, when the US authorities
came, they all killed themselves. There were 85 survivors.
4) Why? Isolation, feeling threatened, identity wrapped up completely in being part of the group,
this involves following the leader without question because death is better than being cast out.
Why do people sometimes commit suicide when they get dumped? Similar reason. Also, most
members very vulnerable. If the conditions of paranoia, charisma and isolation were slightly
less, there would probably not have been a suicide.
The Branch Davidians
1) Jonestown is not an isolated example. The Branch Dravidians were fundamentalist. They were
a split from the 7th Day Adventists. Believed in fundamentalist dogma and practice, no alcohol
and that we are living in the end times. Bought a ranch in Waco, Texas. Believed, following the
Old Testament, that a new Messiah figure would come and he would be called David.
2) Vernon Howell (1959 – 93). Working class. Involved in Southern Baptist Church but left
because they couldn’t cure his frequent masturbation. Joined 7th Day Adventists. They threw out
because he was obsessed with sex. Joined branch Davidians. Took over the community and
married a 14 year old girl.
3) Declared himself to be ‘the new David’ and ‘the new Koresh (Cyprus)’ after a visit to Israel.
You had to follow him to be on the cross with Jesus. He put his community in isolation. Only he
63
was allowed to have sex with the women. Gave out punishments to those who disobeyed him.
Charisma. Amazing speaker.
4) After a member left, they were raided by the FBI. They began to stockpile arms. The FBI came
again in 1993 and tried to drive them out. Most, including Koresh, were killed. He was 33 and it
was Easter at the time.
The Family (Children of God)
1) Most NRMs do not result in suicide. They either burn out or become a church. An interesting
current, fundamentalist NRM with 10,000 members in 54 countries is The Family.
2) Began in California in the 1960s in the context of drugs, apocalypse teaching and free love
hippies. David Berg (1919 – 94) was an evangelist. He set up the church. Its theology was
fundamentalist. Believed in Satan, immanent apocalypse and baptism of Holy Spirit. BUT,
believed that nudity and sex were fine.
3) Members practised ‘Flirty Fishing’ (FFing). Having sex with people to persuade them to join.
This was at its height in 1973. When the AIDs outbreak occurred, Berg preached that members
would overcome AIDs, taking the risk was like Jesus suffering on the cross. The group has been
investigated for child abuse. It still operates. It is very popular in the Philippines and is moving
into Eastern Europe.
64
Lecture Twelve: Social Anthropology – An Implicit Religion?
1 – We have defined religion in an operative sense and so concluded that it is useful to place
various ideologies under the purview of religion. We have termed this ‘implicit religion.’ I want to
look in detail and a particular one. Not Finnish nationalism. What I look at is ‘social anthropology’
itself.
2 – Popper divides between civilization (science/ the Open Society) and the tribe (religion/ the
closed society). Like any essentialism it is simplistic but it helps us to make sense of things.
Civilization: Critical of knowledge, open to outsiders and outside thought, epistemologically
optimistic, logical and reasoned, puts reason above all else. Tribe – quite the opposite and puts
tradition and cohesion above reason and has a clear ‘other.’
3 – Could be argued that science develops out of religion. Wilson – Paganism, or certain forms of it,
can encourage us to be like the gods and so make sense of the world. Others encourage us to submit
to the gods. So science is in a kind of pagan tradition. Anthropology, to a certain extent, might be
seen to have developed out of the latter kind of paganism, the movement towards monotheism.
4 – Western anthropology begins in the nineteenth century in Britain and the USA and Empire. It
accepts Evolution and science and attempts to understand Man by understanding primitive Man.
Many of these anthropologists accept a Great Chain of Being and a racial hierarchy which places
England at the top of the hierarchy. Finns are understood as mongoloids, for specious reasons, by
Swedish and Russian anthropologists. There is little evidence for this kind of assertion. Likewise,
they tend to argue for pretty much absolute heredity in terms of character and national character.
These are dogmas and Western anthropology is built upon them.
5 – They also have little to do with the people they study. They are armchair anthropologists. So,
they’re sources are potentially unreliable and their assertions accordingly questionable. However, it
is useful because they have an outsider perspective.
65
6 - Eastern European anthropology – including Finnish anthropology – is different but equally
unscientific. It develops amongst nascent nationalists. They wish to preserve and fight for ‘the
nation’ and so they document ‘folk culture’ as the purest manifestation of ‘the nation.’ This is
unscientific in that it is motivated by nationalism and deems nations as essentialist categories. But it
is more empirical in that it involves meeting and being part the people you are studying. One is
more positivist, the other naturalist.
Cultural Relativism
1 – Malinowski brings these two schools together. He studies tribes in order to understand Man but
he insists on fieldwork, immersion and understanding the world through the eyes of those you are
studying. This scientifically problematic because he starts to place something ahead of the pursuit
of truth. It also raises various questions about how scientific the pursuit is which are simply
ignored: how reliable is he? can he be re-tested? how partial is his view?
2 - There is a reaction in American anthropology which spreads. Magaret Mead (1928) conducts
very poor quality fieldwork in Samoa. She concludes there is no teenage angst there and it is a
paradise where there is no violence. Consequently, all is culture and we can change things for the
better.
3 – This becomes a dogma in anthropology and in general. All cultures are equal, they should be
preserved, they can only be understood through their own terms and if you reject this then you are
imperialist or ‘racist.’ It is also highly inconsistent. Clearly, this is religious. It is the tradition of
Romanticism whereby you the laud the simple tribe, only the nature of the ‘other’ has changed. It is
also religious in that its stressing of ‘uniqueness’ means you cannot ‘understand’ the object of
study, only describe it.
66
4 – Evidence of this can be seen in the reaction when Derek Freeman challenged Mead. In the
1960s, she grabbed her book out of his hand and wouldn’t give it back. In 1983, when Freeman
published refutation, he was met with very personal criticisms – such as challenging his mental state
– and the AAA voted that he was ‘in error.’ Likewise, in 1975 when Wilson presented
‘sociobiology’ he was accused of being a Nazi, a ‘racist’, received death threats and had a bucket of
ice water thrown over his head by ‘Science for the People.’
5 – However, the modern incantation of nineteenth century anthropology is not always rational
either. This is simply evidenced in blithe acceptance of shoddy research such as magazine articles
about penis size, insufficient samples and the like.
Post-Modernism
1 – Since the 1970s, there has been a rise in what is loosely called ‘Post-Modern Anthropology.’
Roy Wagner, for example, argues that all activity is a response to ‘culture shock.’ There is no
objective truth outside culture.
2 – As part of this, even Mead is seen as implicitly imperialist by imposing foreign categories on
the tribe and representing them. Fieldwork is a problem because it is kind of colonialism. The
anthropologist is simply imposing his own culture, he is fallible and so must analyse himself and his
own feelings. There is a retreat to this from fieldwork. Anthropology is just texts and there is no
truth outside the text, no reality.
3 – Categories must be questioned because they are static and old-fashioned. Thus ‘culture’ is
dismissed because it has a place history, is Western, is old etc. They also tend to write in jargon and
fallacy, an emotional way of persuading the reader.
67
4 – And the contradiction with PM is how can you use western logic to criticize western logic? You
can’t. You can’t really do anything. It is road to Nothingness and this is reflected in the most
extreme post-modernists.
68
69
i
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, (1976), Wichcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, Oxford
University Press, p.11.
ii
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, (1956), Nuer Religion, Oxford University Press, p.322.
iii
Godfrey Lienhart, (1974), ‘Evans-Pritchard: A Personal View’ in Man, p.303.
iv
Edith Turner, (1998), Experiencing Ritual, University of Pennsylvania Press, p.149.
v
Victor Turner, (1962), Chihamba, the White Spirit, Manchester University Press, p.92.
Frank Salamone, (1995), ‘The Bori and I: Reflections of a Mature Anthropologist’ in
vi
Anthropology and Humanism, 20.
James McLennon and Jennifer Nooney, (2002), ‘Anomalous Experiences Reported by Field
vii
Anthropologists: Evaluating Theories Regarding Religion’ in Anthropology of Consciousness, 13:
2: 54.
viii
ix
‘Carlos Castaneda: Magic and Reality.’ Time. 5th March 1973.
Carlos Castaneda, (1968), The Teaching of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, University of
California Press, p.24
x
Ibid, p.124.
xi
Ibid, p.24.
xii
Kalervo Oberg, (1960), ‘Culture Shock’ in Practical Anthropology, 7.
xiii
John Gullahorn and Jeanne Gullahorn, (1963), ‘An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis’ in
Social Issues, 19: 3.
70