Anthropology of religion

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Russian. (April 2022) Click [show] for important translation instructions. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 1,015 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Russian Wikipedia article at [[:ru:Антропология религии]]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|ru|Антропология религии}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

Part of a series on
Anthropology of religion
Basic concepts Afterlife Animism Augury Communitas Comparative religion Divination Divine language Evolutionary origin of religion Fetishism Great Spirit Henotheism Initiation Laying on of hands Liminality Magic Mana Monotheism Nympholepsy Oracle Pilgrimage Polytheism Rite of passage Ritual Sacred language Sacred–profane dichotomy Sacred site Shamanism Soul dualism Superstition Theories about religion Totem Transtheism Veneration of the dead
Case studies Magic Coral Gardens and Their Magic Treatise on the Apparitions of Spirits and on Vampires or Revenants Neo-Paganism Ritual Angakkuq Babaylan Bobohizan Bomoh Bora Dukun Miko Jhākri Pawang Slametan Wu Revitalization movements Cargo cult Ghost Dance Handsome Lake
Related articles The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life Purity and Danger Myth and ritual Archaeology of religion and ritual Poles in mythology Lived religion Elite religion
Major theorists Augustin Calmet Akbar S. Ahmed Talal Asad Joseph Campbell Mary Douglas Émile Durkheim Mircea Eliade Arnold van Gennep René Girard E. E. Evans-Pritchard James Frazer Fustel de Coulanges Clifford Geertz Robin Horton Claude Lévi-Strauss Robert Marett Steven Ozment Roy Rappaport Saba Mahmood Marshall Sahlins Melford Spiro Stanley Tambiah Victor Turner Edward Burnett Tylor Daniel Martin Varisco Anthony F. C. Wallace
Journals Anthropological Perspectives on Religion Folklore The Hibbert Journal The Journal of Religion Oceania
Religions Ethnic and folk religions Afro-American religion Alaska Native religion Anito Atua Böö mörgöl Chinese folk religion Hanitu Hausa Kejawèn Native American religion Noaidi Shindo Shamanism in Siberia Shinto Tengrism Traditional African religions Buddhism Mahayana Nichiren Pure Land Shingon Theravada Tiantai Tibetan Vajrayana Zen Christianity Adventism Anglicanism Armenian Apostolic Church Baptists Calvinism Catholic Church Coptic Orthodoxy Eastern Orthodoxy Ethiopian Orthodoxy Greek Orthodoxy Lutheranism Methodism Nestorianism Oriental Orthodoxy Pentecostalism Protestantism Quakers Russian Orthodoxy Hinduism Hindu denominations Shaivism Shaktism Smartism Vaishnavism Ayyavazhi Islam Ahmadiyya Ibadi Mahdavia Non-denominational Quranists Shia Sufism Sunni Yazdânism Judaism Conservative Haredi Hasidic Haymanot Karaite Orthodox Reform Jainism Digambara Śvetāmbara Sikhism
Social and cultural anthropology
v t e

Part of a series on
Anthropology
Outline History
Types Archaeological Biological Cultural Linguistic Social
Archaeological Aerial Aviation Battlefield Biblical Bioarchaeological Environmental Ethnoarchaeological Experimental Feminist Forensic Maritime Paleoethnobotanical Zooarchaeological
Biological Anthrozoological Biocultural Evolutionary Forensic Molecular Neurological Nutritional Paleoanthropological Primatological
Social Cultural Applied Art Cognitive Cyborg Development Digital Ecological Environmental Economic Political economy Feminist Food Historical Institutional Kinship Legal Media Medical Museums Musical Political Psychological Public Religion Symbolic Transpersonal Urban Visual
Linguistic Anthropological Descriptive Ethnological Ethnopoetical Historical Ideology Semiotic Sociological
Research framework Anthropometry Ethnography cyber Ethnology Cross-cultural comparison Participant observation Holism Reflexivity Thick description Cultural relativism Ethnocentrism Emic and etic
Key concepts Culture Development Ethnicity Evolution sociocultural Gender Kinship and descent Meme Prehistory Race Society Value Colonialism / Postcolonialism
Key theories Actor–network theory Alliance theory Cross-cultural studies Cultural materialism Culture theory Diffusionism Feminism Historical particularism Boasian anthropology Functionalism Interpretive Performance studies Political economy Practice theory Structuralism Post-structuralism Systems theory
Lists Anthropologists by nationality Anthropology by year Bibliography Journals List of indigenous peoples Organizations
v t e

Anthropology of religion is the study of religion in relation to other social institutions, and the comparison of religious beliefs and practices across cultures.^[1] The anthropology of religion, as a field, overlaps with but is distinct from the field of Religious Studies. The history of anthropology of religion is a history of striving to understand how other people view and navigate the world. This history involves deciding what religion is, what it does, and how it functions.^[2] Today, one of the main concerns of anthropologists of religion is defining religion, which is a theoretical undertaking in and of itself. Scholars such as Edward Tylor, Emile Durkheim, E.E. Evans Pritchard, Mary Douglas, Victor Turner, Clifford Geertz, and Talal Asad have all grappled with defining and characterizing religion anthropologically.

In the 19th century cultural anthropology was dominated by an interest in cultural evolution; most anthropologists assumed a simple distinction between "primitive" and "modern" religion and tried to provide accounts of how the former evolved into the latter.^{[citation needed]}

Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), sometimes called the “father of anthropology,” took an evolutionary approach to religion. Tylor defined religion as a “belief in spiritual beings” but did not believe all religions were equal or equally “true.” His evolutionary perspective is evident in his book (1871) Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Language, Art, and Custom, in which he proposed a taxonomy of religions and believed that “primitive” religions were a result of cognitive errors. In other words, these beliefs explained natural phenomena that the people or culture did not fully understand. He called this “animism,” which included attributing a spirit to inanimate objects.^[3]

James George Frazer (1854-1941), most well-known for his book The Golden Bough, also approached the study of religion from an evolutionist perspective. Frazer's hierarchy of religions included different stages: first magic, then religious, and ending in scientific. Frazer argues that magic becomes an increasingly futile practice as religious systems develop.^[3] This is when the religious phase begins, in which the world is explained through reference to divine beings who intervene in the world. In the final stage, elites see religion as insufficient or incorrectly addressing world phenomena and begin to seek to understand the world through laws of nature.^[4]

Towards the end of the 19th century, anthropologists of religion began to question the distinctions between magic and religion made by Tylor and Frazer. William Robertson Smith (1846-1894) in Lectures of the Religion of the Semites (1899) proposed the idea of the totem. For Smith, social groups worshiped totems which represented their ancestors and worshipping totemic items accounted for the emergence of religions. Thus, Smith's theory of totemism rose in prominent within the field of anthropology of religion, challenging and in some instances fully replacing Tylor's theory of animism.

Durkheim (1858-1917) expanded on the concept of the totem, viewing religion as a collective societal force. For him, religious forces are essentially collective societal forces, embodied in the totem. The society imparts the totem with its power, meaning, and existence, which in turn gives the god or the religion its significance. In “Origins of Belief,” Durkheim argues that a totem symbolizes society, or as he calls it, the clan, and the god. As he puts it, “the totem is the visible body of God.” The totem itself might be an inconsequential object, like an animal, or a wooden cross. Despite its physical insignificance, Durkheim contends that the totem represents the clan. However, individuals do not consciously recognize that their reverence for the totem is, in fact, reverence for society itself. Instead, they perceive the totem as something external to their consciousness. In Durkheim's view, “society gives the sensation of a perpetual dependence.”^[5]

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) moved away from the inquiry into the origins of the religion shifting the theory of religion to focus on religion as a function of the social world. In his essay, “Magic, Science, and Religion,” Malinowski argues that religion in its social and psychological functions promotes social integration and community. Malinowski separates the categories of religion and magic in specifying that magic is used for functional ends: to solve problems or achieve objectives where other methods have failed.^[4]

E.E. Evans Pritchard (1902-1973) is most famous for his work on witchcraft. His book Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande approaches witchcraft as a cohesive and internally consistent system of knowing. While Pritchard believed that religious systems were a reflection of social environment, he was primarily concerned with thought patterns and logic within belief systems.

Victor Turner (1920-1983) understood religion through the lens of rituals, rites of passage and symbolism. He considered religion to be the lynchpin in cultural systems. In his book The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, he proposes his theory of liminality and communitas. He developed liminality from folklorist Arnold Van Gennep. For Turner, the liminal stage is a period of ambiguity or transition where an individual's status in a ritual change from pre-ritual stage to post-ritual. The idea of communitas refers to the common experience of community during a ritual.

Mary Douglas’ (1921-2007) work and topics were inspired by Evans-Pritchard. They both explained social systems in terms of functionalism. She defined religion through the lens of ritual. In her most famous book, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo, she compares Western and “primitive” societies in showing that Western societies also relied on “magic” through rituals around purity and pollution, such as teeth brushing. She sees ritual as a collective force or system that places limits on the body. In this way, the image of society is carved onto the body through reiterations of purity and pollution.

Talal Asad (1932-now) is a prominent anthropologist of religion today who focuses on religion and modernity. Asad is well known for his work on religion and power. He has argued that overlooking the history of defining religion can lead us to overlook its imbrication with power. He has also pointed to the ways in which modernity has delimited religion to a certain sphere of life, so that religion can be pointed out or identified in certain ways and not in others. In doing this, he has also called for the development of a religion of secularity.  

Clifford Geertz and Talal Asad publicly debated the “universal” nature of religion. While Geertz, provided an operational definition for religion that allowed for variation across cultures, he saw this definition as encapsulating certain universal features of “religion.” Alternatively, Asad questioned the very existence of “universal religion” in pointing to the ways in which ideas about the universal were rooted in distinctly Christian ideas and traditions. Influenced by Michel Foucault and Edward Said, Asad questions the conceptual assumptions involved in or undergirding the production of knowledge.^[4] This is what led Asad to question the existence of separate sphere of society that could be called or identified as “religion.” In undermining the existence of religion as a separate sphere, Asad points to Western modernity as producing religion as distinct from other parts of society.

One key component of anthropology of religion is ethnographic fieldwork. This is what makes anthropologists who study religion distinct from other Religious Studies scholars. Ethnography is most simply put, the empirical observation and description of individuals, societies, and cultures. For anthropologists of religion, ethnographic fieldwork focuses on religion through the lens of rituals, worship, religious values, and other components of lived religion. Developments in ethnographic approaches to the study of religion or theoretical developments in the ethnographic study of religion have spanned decades.

Evolutionist perspectives were reflective of Darwinian theories of evolution and saw religious systems in a taxonomic and hierarchical way: some religions were closer to the truth than others and Christianity was always at the top of pyramid. Functionalist perspectives aimed to study religion as a part of society that played an important an integral role: non-Christian religions were not compared to Christianity on a sliding scale, but rather taken in context with the whole cultural context. Humanist theories of evolution see religions as products of human culture and invention, rather than metaphysical or supernatural phenomena that “exist” outside of the human cultures that produce them.^[4] Cross-cultural or comparative theories of religion focus on “religion” as something that can be found and compared across all human cultures and societies.

The anthropology of religion today reflects the influence of, or an engagement with, such theorists as Karl Marx (1818-1883), Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), and Max Weber (1864-1920).^[6] Anthropologists of religion are especially concerned with how religious beliefs and practices may reflect political or economic forces; or the social functions of religious beliefs and practices.^{[7][clarification needed]}

Recently, a prominent ethnographer of religion, Robert Orsi, has asked scholars of religion to abandon the empirical approach to ethnography of religion that was co-emergent with modernity. This approach entails the impulse to explain God or gods in people's lives as a function or symbol of some other thing. Orsi asks those who study religion to instead take God and gods as real actors, really present.

One major problem in the anthropology of religion is the definition of religion itself.^[8] At one time^[vague] anthropologists believed that certain religious practices and beliefs were more or less universal to all cultures at some point in their development, such as a belief in spirits or ghosts, the use of magic as a means of controlling the supernatural, the use of divination as a means of discovering occult knowledge, and the performance of rituals such as prayer and sacrifice as a means of influencing the outcome of various events through a supernatural agency, sometimes taking the form of shamanism or ancestor worship.^{[citation needed]} According to Clifford Geertz, religion is

"(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."^[9]

Today, religious anthropologists debate, and reject, the cross-cultural validity of these categories (often viewing them as examples of European primitivism).^{[citation needed]} Anthropologists have considered various criteria for defining religion – such as a belief in the supernatural or the reliance on ritual – but few claim that these criteria are universally valid.^[8]

Anthony F. C. Wallace proposes four categories of religion, each subsequent category subsuming the previous. These are, however, synthetic categories and do not necessarily encompass all religions.^[10]

1. Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest.
2. Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. Religious authority acquired through one's own means.
3. Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship.
4. Ecclesiastical: dominant in agricultural societies and states; are centrally organized and hierarchical in structure, paralleling the organization of states. Typically deprecates competing individualistic and shamanistic cults.

• The Society for the Anthropology of Religion within American Anthropological Association
• Anthropology of Religion Page Archived 20 November 2005 at the Wayback Machine M.D. Murphy, University of Alabama
• Andrew Lang, Anthropology and Religion, The Making of Religion, (Chapter II), Longmans, Green, and C^o, London, New York and Bombay, 1900, pp. 39–64.