Linda Woolf warned that one needs to carefully define "religion" before one attempts to say anything general about it: different definitions will lead to different conclusions. Her messages on this topic led me to remember something I had read recently that, I think, buttresses her point.
Most definitions of religion of which I am aware consider a belief in an "unseen order" to be the central aspect of religion. This unseen order involves spiritual, supernatural, or superhuman entities and forces. On the other hand, Clifford Geertz (1965), a well-known anthropologist, defined religion as "a system of symbols"; and he made no reference to an unseen order in this definition. To be specific: "A _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." (p. 4) In this definition, there is no mention of the spiritual, supernatural, or superhuman realm of existence. According to Geertz's definition, a belief in an unseen supernatural or superhuman order is not necessary for religion. Jill Dubisch (1981) used this definition to examine the religious aspects of the health-food movement. According to Dubisch, the health-food movement can be thought of as a religion: "Health foods offer an alternative or supplement to conventional medical treatment, and a meaningful and effective way for individuals to bring about changes in lives which are presented as unsatisfactory because of poor physical and emotional health. It can also provide for its followers a framework of meaning which transcends individual problems. In opposing itself to the predominant American lifestyle, the health food movement sets up a symbolic system which opposes harmony to disharmony, purity to pollution, nature to culture, and ultimately, as in many religions, life to death. Thus, while foods are the beginning point and the most important symbols of the health food movement, food is not the ultimate focus but rather a means to an end: the organization of a meanignful world view and the construction of a satisfying life." Thus, if we are to use Geertz's definition of religion (which, I believe, has been an important influence on the thinking of cultural anthropologists who study religion), many types of human activity might be labeled "religious"; and any generalities we might wish to propose based on a more limited definition probably would have to be modified. I'm not suggesting that Geertz's definition is the best way to define religion; nor am I suggesting that Dubisch's conclusions about the health-food movement are correct. Instead, I am agreeing with Linda that one must carefully define one's terms when attempting to draw a generalization about a topic (and I also simply enjoy thinking about such things). Jeff References: Dubisch, J. (1981). You are what you eat: Religious aspects of the health food movement. In S. P. Montahue & W. Arens (eds.), The American Dimension: Culture Myths and Social realities (2nd ed.) (pp. 115-127). Palo Alto. Geertz, C. (1965). Religion as a cultural system. In M. Banton (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion. A.S.A. Monograph No. 3. London: Tavistock Publications. -- Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213 9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298 Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scottsdale Community College Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS) http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
