I would summarize Clifford Geertz's definition of religion from The Interpretation of Cultures in the following way.
Religion is a structure that uses stories, texts, and other symbols to engender a variety of specifc conceptions of universal truths or realities in such a way that they are viewed as factual and have influence over the behaviors and values of those individuals who follow those specific conceptions.
I really agree with two specific phrases that Geertz uses in his definition. First, I agree that a crucial part of religion is the fact that it is "a system of symbols which acts...". I see this as a point of separation between religion and spirituality, which we discussed yesterday. Religion seems to focus more heavily on the traditions and stories and symbols as a means of influencing or directing those who are firm believers of the "general order of existence" described by that religion. Spirituality does not focus on these traditions or symbols as much, nor does it use them in the same way.
Second, I agree that the unique "clothing of these conceptions" (or way the fundamental beliefs are presented as universal and historical factuality) is indeed unique to religion. This is what I believe separates religion from many of the other devotions we discussed in class (sports team, nationalism, etc...). This "aura of factuality", along with grand universal scale of many of the core beliefs of various religions is another reason why religious beliefs unlike other beliefs or ideals have such an influence on the behaviors and ideals of that religion's followers.
3 comments:
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that religion is more of a social institution than a personal perception/interpretation of the existential experience? Also, other than commenting on larger universal concepts, what distinguishes religion from other social institutions that are seemingly legitimate and exercise control over individuals (i.e. certain political groups)
I don't understand how "clothing these conceptions" separates religion from other devotions like sports teams or nationality. Let's say a Nazi from the time of Hitler's regime sees a swastika. This symbol would inspire strong emotions about their German nationality which they believe to be the supreme race. They believe being superior to every other nationality is fact. Their conception has been "clothed with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."
I was approaching his idea of "clothed in such an aura of facuality so that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" more so as just that, and idea than a literal description. In that way, while any organization can try to make their claims seem factual (in the Nazi case through propoganda)this may not be the same as religion. I believe that the difference here may be the ultimate percieved source of authority. That is, while a politician may try to "clothe his conceptions" to pursuade in a variety of ways, I see the way in which a message from a diety (most likely through scripture) carries a weight that I consider to be "uniquely realistic". However, Nazism had a profound impact on the beliefs of many people, and when those ideals were presented as a part of, or in conjunction with religious beliefs (which was accomplished through propaganda, nazism looks more and more like a religion.
Post a Comment