12.  Jan Neese said on June 23, 2011

For me, this week's readings on symbols and social systems brought to mind questions of who we study when we study religious people and how those religious people fit into the religious systems they identify with or against. Geertz defined the anthropological study of religion as a "two-stage operation" which involves "first, an analysis of the system of meanings embodied in the symbols which make up the religion proper, and second, the relating of these systems to socio-structural and psychological processes" (125). Alex has already raised the issues with separating analysis of religion from analysis of socio-structural and psychological processes. My issue with Geertz here relates to his assertion that there is something we could call "religion proper." Geertz himself noted just one page earlier that beliefs "do not merely interpret social and psychological processes in cosmic terms..but they shape them" (124). If we accept his premise that beliefs have the power to shape social and psychological processes (and I do) then it becomes very difficult to accept that "religion proper" exists, since beliefs certainly vary under common religious umbrellas. As Turner argued, people bind together based on their shared beliefs and the resulting "communitas," when maximized create their own systems and structures. These structures created by the maximization of communitas "in turn provokes revolutionary strivings for renewal communitas" (129). Turner proposes a sort of endless cycle of communitas creation that resists the idea that we could define anything as "religion proper." Underneath "religion proper" there are often numerous communitas in the process of redefining and reshaping religious practice and social structure. Asad wrote on the subject of religious symbols that "different kinds of practice and discourse are intrinsic to the field in which religious representations acquire their identity and their truthfulness" (53). Identity and truthfulness are relative for Asad and cannot be defined in universal terms. Ortner's careful study of "key symbols" reinforced the power of symbols to shape society. All of these pieces put together raise questions of how we study religion when it seems more and more difficult to define "religion" and near impossible to locate or study "religion proper." More likely, our work will take us to communities that are defining symbols in meaningful ways for their own members and are creating social structures for themselves based on their key symbols. How are we to relate our study of communitas to the larger world of religion when it becomes more and more difficult to nail down any kind of generalities of the "religion proper"? Is it possible to study communitas without defining their symbols and structure in terms of the "religion proper" from whence they came?

Cool article and very insightful. I will be tweeting this.