|
|
Re: Religous Variation
J Cook (0002019573@MCIMAIL.COM)
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:10:00 EST
-- [ From: Jesse S. Cook III * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Date: Sunday, 28-Jul-96 10:26 PM
From: John McCreery \ Internet: (jlm@twics.com)
From: John McCreery \ Internet: (jlm@twics.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list ANTHRO-L \ Internet:
(anthro-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu)
Subject: Re: Religous Variation
Jesse Cook writes,
>I don't know what Ed Farrell means by "religious variation" but, if he means
>what you have described as your experiences, then the theory of mind that
>both of you are looking for is called "the evolution of human
>consciousness", evolution in both the phylogenetic and ontogenetic processes.
>
>Specifically with regard to religion, Max Weber called it "demystification";
>I would call it "secularization"; but, unfortunately, sociologist of today
>use that term in a different sense. I think Weber's "demystification" comes
>about as the unintended side effect of what he called "rationalization" as
>it was/is applied to religious beliefs.
I remain unmoved. "The evolution of human consciousness" suggests
metaphorically that the evolution of religious variations is, in some sense,
parallel to biological evolution and thus the result of natural selection
(Snower's "trial and error"). Without explicit mechanisms to account for the
occurence, type and distribution of whatever variations we want to be talking
about, waving the words around is nothing but blowing smoke.
"Rationalization" and "demystification" are, like "modernization" (a concept
from the same package) variations of the thought that there is a universal
process in human affairs tending upward to some common end. I won't deny the
possibility for the same good reasons that I don't deny the possibility that
the gods I encounter when I die dress like characters in a Chinese kung-fu
movie (Imagining the costume in precise detail is one aspect of Taoist
meditation!). The reasons are mainly a decent respect for the opinions of
people who may know something I don't.
Be that as it may, the starting point for Mary Douglas argument in re "group"
and "grid" is the observation that the assumption that "primitives" are
religious, i.e. more inclined to elaborate rituals, and "moderns" less so is
specious. Ituri Pygmies, Persian nomads and white collar workers in a mobile
labor market--all peoples who belong to fluidly bounded and usually transient
groups--share a common "protestant" distaste for ritual. Bog Irish in
traditional British working class neighborhoods, Balinese and other folks who
belong to rightly bounded and structured groups tend to be highly ritualistic.
Those deeply concerned with group boundaries tend to observe taboos which
control the entry of substances into the body. Those competing for grid
positions tend to favor more manipulative (lets call them "magical") rites.
"Tend to be" is important; we are talking sociology and statistical
distributions here. Human individuals can, of course, have highly varied
opinions, even in highly organized groups. In a study of a village in Taiwan,
Stevan Harrell (now at the University of Washington) collected data that showed
that most villagers went along with popular rites because it was "the thing to
do," and were muddled as most of us would be in explaining the "beliefs" behind
their actions. There were also three "theologians," individuals who elaborated
specific conceptual schemes that were *different from each other*. And, finally,
there were the "village atheists" who thought that both the rites and the
beliefs cited to explain them were nonsense. They still went along with the
rites as a matter of conforming to neighborhood custom.
A "theory of mind" would be interesting if it could explain these variations.
It would also, then, be more powerful than the sociological explanations which
remain confined to tendencies at the level of groups.Why? It would, presumably,
account for variation in more detail. I have yet to see anyone here propose
even the outlines of what such a theory would look like.
John McCreery
3-206 Mitsusawa HT, 25-2 Miyagaya, Nishi-ku Yokohama 220, JAPAN
"And the Lord said unto Cyrus, 'Shall the clay say to him who moldest it, what
makest thou? Let the potsherd of the earth speak to the potsherd of the earth."
--An anthropologist's credo
-------- REPLY, End of original message --------
John McCreery's posting is very interesting--not so much for its content, but
for its style, which betrays the underlying attitude of its author. First, I
will pick out some sentences or clauses so that we can get the flavor:
"I remain unmoved."
"...waving the words around is nothing but blowing smoke."
"I won't deny the possibility...The reasons [sic] are [sic] a decent respect
for the opinions of people who may know something I don't."
"A 'theory of mind' would be interesting...I have yet to see anyone here
propose even the outlines of what such a theory would look like."
In his previous posting, he said: "If a theory of mind can explain that, I will
be truly impressed."
I replied: "Stand by to be impressed!" Then I named a theory that has been
discussed on this list and on Arch-L and added some details of the theory.
His reply was: "I remain unmoved." Ok, fair enough, but then he goes on to
dismiss it out of hand in very disparaging terms: "...waving words around is
nothing but blowing smoke."
After all this, he claims "a decent respect for the opinions of people who may
know something I don't." Somehow, that rings hollow.
As does: "A 'theory of mind' would be interesting" because it is followed by "I
have yet to see anyone here propose even the outline of what such a theory
would look like", which means he is purposely ignoring the discussion "here"
and on ARCH-L (which, if I am not mistaken, he participated in) between 15
June and 17 July, at least.
Now, let's get to the content:
"'The evolution of human consciousness' suggests metaphorically that [it] is,
in some sense, parallel to biological evolution and thus the result of natural
selection..."
Error in logic, John: If it "is, in some sense, parallel to", it cannot be
"thus the result" of something that it is only parallel to.
"Without explicit mechanisms to account for the occurence [sic], type and
distribution of whatever...we want to be talking about, waving the words around
is nothing but blowing smoke."
Talk about "waving words around"!
"'Rationalization' and 'demystification' are, like 'modernization' (a concept
from the same package)..."
I challenge you to find the term "modernization" in any of Max Weber's works.
Have you even read any of them?
"...variations of the thought that there is a universal process in human
affairs tending upward to some common end."
Where did you get that crazy idea?
|