I was pleasantly surprised to see that this week's readings were from the University of Alabama, as I actually grew up in Georgia (grades 2-12)!
http://www.free2pray.info/10commandments.jpg
When I read the example about the 10 commandments being put up in the courtroom, it took me right back to the week that it happened. I remember hearing everybody in school talk about it, how it wasn't worth all of the fuss, and how they didn't see anything wrong with it at all. Granted, that's more of a political debate regarding church vs. state, but it definitely points out the blurred (or non-existant) line drawn between religion and everyday life in the southeastern US.
Whether is was the "moment of silence" clearly intended for silent prayer; the pledge of allegiance stating, "One nation, under God;" or the heartfelt prayers read over the loudspeakers at every single football game; as an "outsider" (a non-religious Canadian), it was blatantly obvious to me what was classified as religion and what wasn't. On the other hand, I noticed that my friends had a harder time making that distinction, as it was all they had ever known.
In writing this, it has become clear that my idea of "religion" is biased in the sense that my family lacks a religious (or doctrinal) background. Anything different from what I knew in Canda was ultimately classified as "religion" in my mind. In this same way, anthropologists and other scholars have, over the years, classified other cultures' practices and beliefs as "religions" or "magic" mainly due to the foreign nature of their actions.
But back to my experience in Georgia, the discussion about "essentialism" and the "family resemblance" approach really jumped out at me, as there are religious people everywhere, it's just that I was now being exposed to a different "type" of Christianity. Also, growing up in the Unitarian Universalist church, many many different traditions were combined to varying degrees, making it impossible to classify someone as "purely" Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, etc.
It is impossible to study religions as distinct, separate entities, especially when studying East Asian traditions, which makes the "dimension theory of religion" so crucial. It is difficult to tease out the distinct qualities of religious traditions into "essentialist" concept, so instead we have to study them in connection to one another, and how they interact.
I think you bring up a very good point when you mention that anthropologists should concentrate on studying the integration of different religious rather than defining religion as static entities. Through this, we can find out more about the functionality of different religious practices; why do only certain parts of a religious practice integrate into another religion? Does this have anything to do with their functionality?
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting how you came to understand the difference between what you believe is classified as religion and what is not. I really enjoy your closing remarks on how the study of religious traditions should not be done independently. Studying the way religions connect and interact seems to be the best way to overcome differences. It may be difficult for us as university students in a religion class to classify someone as 'purely' Christian, Buddhist, Muslim etc. but what do you think about those people in the world that actually do strictly define themselves as living their lives completely for their religion? Do these devote people fit into a category of their own?
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteInteresting observations! I agree with you that it is really difficult to study religion as a separate entity. Religion, in my opinion, should be studied in the context it is being practiced. It is interesting how religions change and evolve in response to various political and societal needs. Thus, considerations of the social context of religious phenomenon can be a very fruitful approach in studying religion.