Anthropological Perspectives on Religion: a Brief Overview

Introduction

Organized religion is, in a sense, an extension of human society and culture. Through a religious system, social hierarchy, relationships, and values are projected onto a conceived eternal and spiritual reality. As people assume they are not alone but surrounded by spirits or gods, they come to believe their relations to those beings or forces should be arranged to fit social norms (Eller, 2007, p. 1). Based on this definition, the focus of religious studies is removed from the nature of the supernatural itself towards the complex relational systems human cultures have conducted around their assumption of a certain supernatural force/being’s existence. Beliefs do not only presuppose a spiritual reality but are concerned with incorporating it into the social order of human communities.

Anthropology and other social sciences have started examining religion as a phenomenon of culture and society, in an attempt to explain it. Anthropology of religion is the "scientific investigation of the diversity of human religions, set in the context of culture as learned and shared ideas, feelings, behaviours, and products of those behaviours characteristic of any particular society" (Eller, 2007, pp. 2-3). Social sciences’ studies of religion focus on the correlations between religions, cultures, and societies they derive from, as well as the natural environment and the relationships between religions themselves. Before these approaches, the attitude towards religion was primarily apologetic (Eller, 2007, p. 13). In other words, authors were concerned with explaining and proving “why religion is true” rather than attempting to treat the phenomenon as a field of scientific study (Eller, 2007, p. 13). 

As a primarily Western scholarly discipline, anthropology evolved over a dark, colonial history, but has gained critical awareness since. In the anthropology of religion, religious language is often considered a stumbling stone. Analytical terms such as myth, ritual, prayer, or god, often utilised in studies, are concepts and categories that do not exist in all cultures or if they do, they might appear in a different form (Eller, 2007, pp. 5-6). This creates an intercultural linguistic abyss, making it harder to understand other cultures’ religious reality. With all its flaws, the anthropology of religion is an inevitable perspective on understanding human cultures and the history of humanity’s beliefs, always intertwined with social hierarchies, norms, and ideologies.

Figure 1: Religious Kills (Moga, 2015)

Early Days of Studying Religion Anthropologically

The Birth of Comparative Mythology

One of the renowned names in early comparative mythology is James Frazer and his cult classic “The Golden Bough” (Frazer, 1890/2019). The book was published in 1890 and has been influential since. The author focused on the shared mythological elements surrounding vegetational and fertility rites. The reason the title scandalised the society of the day is the fact that the myth of the resurrection of Christ was included and treated equally to pagan myths with similar elements. Thus extrapolated from its centuries of elevated position as the truth rather than a myth like any other, the Christian mythology could not escape being studied anthropologically.  Although many of the book’s concepts were later criticised, it was undoubtedly a pivotal work on whose backbone comparative mythology and religiosity were built, introducing comparison between human belief systems as one of the methods of reaching an understanding and establishing historical development and cross-cultural communication and exchange. 

Religion in the Prism of Historical Evolutionism

In the periods between early modernity and the 19th century, many theorists tried to apply a progressive analysis to human societies, including religions. This was based on the belief that human history moves in a linear progression: from primitive to evolved. Anthropologists like E. Tylor described tribal societies as similar to ancient people, contrasting them to modern humans. Herber Spencer and early sociologist Auguste Comte believed superstition would at one point be replaced by positivism (Eller, 2007, p. 14). These perspectives have since been rejected but have dominated and shaped the framework of how culture and society were thought of for a long time. 

Figure 2: Lupercalia (Camasei, 1635)

Function and Emotion in Sociology of Religion

Apart from anthropology, other social sciences also turned to religion as a field of study. Most notably, sociology focused on the various functions religion occupied in human society. Sociologist Emile Durkheim defined religion as a “unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set aside and forbidden - beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (Durkheim, 1912/1965, p. 62). He viewed religion as the process of sacralising society, but also as a connective tissue between community members. 

The sociologist Karl Marx emphasised a darker potential of religious thought. For him, religion was not only a reflection of social hierarchies but its legitimization that often naturalized unjust relations between social groups (Marx, as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 22). The current social order was, therefore, considered naturalized, deified and eternalized by religions. In that aspect, religion serves as a potent upholder of the social status quo and the interests of the society’s elites. 

Another renowned sociologist, Max Weber, tried to establish a connection between religious ideology and social organization. In his iconic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, he suggested the reason why Germanic societies developed capitalism in the early modern era rather than Catholic or Orthodox ones, was to be found in the specific worldview of Protestantism, particularly Calvinism (Weber, 1905/2006). 

Figure 3: John Calvin (n.d.)

Some theorists relied on the emotional aspect of religion as the most prominent feature of the phenomenon. For Thomas Hobbes, religion was invented to placate fear (Eller, 2007, p. 15). For Max Müller, it was awe (Eller, 2007, p.15). He envisioned the beginning of religion as admiration for the environment that inspired overwhelming emotions in early humans, who then tried to express it through symbolism and poetry. According to Müller, their progeny confused symbolism for literal reality, which resulted in religion. Because of this theory, he described religion as “a disease of language” (Müller, as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 15). 

Psychology and Religion

The controversial psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud gave his contribution to the study of religion and attempted to explain complex and sometimes confusing religious behaviour and imagery. In his famous book Totem and Taboo, Freud suggested humans shared a universal instinct that society suppressed, which then manifested through sub-conscience (Freud, 1913/2000). Religion, for him, was a result of what he called the Oedipus complex, that is, the drive of sons to kill their fathers over jealousy because of the mother. The guilt that arose from this alleged sublime psychological urge formed the basis for religion and the figure of the deified father. Freud has been criticized on multiple fronts and his theories were mostly attested. However, this book remains an important entry in the history of social studies of the phenomenon of religion. 

Other psychologists, like C.G. Jung, argued that religious imagery came from archetypes, ancient concepts, universal to human nature, that have multiple manifestations in different cultures. He also argued about the existence of the collective unconscious from which those images are pulled (Jung, as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 18). For psychology, the origin of religion is in the mental processes and the development of the psyche as opposed to the sociological and anthropological approaches that focus on social order, hierarchy and practices.  

Figure 4: Sigmund Freud (Bourgeron Collection, n.d.)

Religion or Magic?

Magic is a relevant segment of studying religion. However, the distinction between the two concepts is sometimes difficult to establish. According to Malinowski, magic is instrumental and goal-oriented, while religion is social or moral (Malinowski, as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 17). In other words, although magic is a part of every religion since it includes some forms of ritual and ceremonial actions, a specific religion is not behind every magical act. Also, magic serves the specific purpose of the practitioner and religion aims to maintain social and moral control of the community. In organized religions, magic cannot be performed by everyone but only specific individuals and there is usually a higher authority who allegedly legitimizes the practice.

Symbolic/Interpretative Anthropology

From the 1960s onwards, an anthropological approach oriented towards symbols as the core concepts of human religiousness developed, with prominent representatives like Clifford Geertz, Mary Douglas, and Victor Turner (Eller, 2007, p. 24). In the words of Geertz, they viewed culture as a “set of symbols” and a “web of significance” (Geertz, 1973, p. 17). These scholars didn’t perceive religious rituals as static but dynamic, alive in a sense, and the symbols pervasive not only through individual minds but also systems and bodies (Geertz and Douglas as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 25). 

Religion and Neurology: A New Approach

With the development of neurology and increased knowledge of the way the brain functions, the study of religion has turned towards exploring the innate nature of the brain to explain religious thinking and functioning. For instance, an examination by Newberg, d’Aquili, and Rause conducted in 2002, studied mystics in and out of practices to establish there is a measurable difference in their brain activity (Eller, 2007, p. 19). In 1988, Lewis-Williams and Dowson suggested that something they referred to as enoptic images was a basis for religious notions (Eller, 2007, p. 20). The human eye and the nervous system produce patterns consisting of geometric forms that often appear in religious symbolism.

Figure 5: Brain (n.d.)

Conclusion

The conversation about human religion has evolved from a mostly apologetic, occasionally critical view to a complex social studies object with multiple perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches. Anthropology and sociology offered a focus on how society, culture and religion correlate, influencing each other and solidifying social reality. Psychology tried to explore religious phenomena through their reflections and origins in the human psyche, or, in the case of Freud, neurosis. The recent development of neurology added a layer by shedding light on how the human brain functions and produces a tendency towards religious thought. Amidst all these perspectives, a question of intercultural translation remains since contemporary social sciences are more than aware of the differences between cultures and the difficulties of delving into such an elusive topic as human religiousness. 

Religion is inseparable from society and culture. It is at the same time a product and creator of society since its specific norms are both influenced by previous set social rules while also producing new ones. It is inseparable from individual mental states, emotions, and inner reality, and has a root in the way the human brain is wired. Therefore, it cannot be reduced to merely one, universal explanation. In fact, according to Boyer, religion does not need a specific explanation. It is simply a by-product of how the human brain in society functions (Boyer, as cited by Eller, 2007, p. 27). Also, what is accepted as religious will always be influenced by how one defines and envisions religion (Eller, 2007, p. 28). Religious organization is an extension of human social relationships, a sort of an attempt to include supernatural agents into human communities (Eller, 2007, p. 9). The religious experience, on the other hand, is deeply personal and individual, with a possible root in the brain itself. Although there is no, and there will probably never be, a single explanation for the origin and functioning of human religions, social and natural sciences have managed to move away from the centuries of religious apologetics and establish fields for scientific studies of the religious phenomenon, aimed at a more in-depth understanding of humanity.

Bibliographical References

Eller, J.D. (2007). Introducing Anthropology of Religion. Routledge. New York City.

Durkheim, E. (1965). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Free Press. New York City.

Frazer, J. (2019). Zlatna grana. Podrijetlo religijskoh obreda i običaja. Jesenski i Turk. Zagreb.

Freud, S. (2000). Totem i tabu. Stari grad d.o.o. Velika Gorica.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books. New York City.

Weber, M. (2006). Protestantska etika i duh kapitalizma. Hlad i sinovi/Misl. Zagreb. 

Visual Sources

Figure 1: Moga, A. (2015). Religion Kills. Saatchi Art. https://www.saatchiart.com/en-hr/print/Painting-Religion-Kills/826642/2682540/view

Figure 2: Camasei, A. (1635). Lupercalia. Museo del Prado. https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/lupercalia/374c5c7a-7700-45e4-8d69-93580def2de1

 Figure 3: John Calvin. (n.d.). Learn Religions. https://www.learnreligions.com/five-point-calvinism-700356

Figure 4: Sigmund Freud. Bourgeron Collection. (n.d.). Law and Liberty. https://lawliberty.org/what-was-jewish-about-sigmund-freud/

 Figure 5: Brain. (n.d.). Neuroscience News. https://neurosciencenews.com/religion-psychology-coping-17556/