9: Symbols as Models--Geertz

Welcome to Section 9 of Symbols & Society. The title of the reading is "Religion as a Cultural System", but I think it should be "Religion is a Set of Symbols". Geertz tells us that symbols provide a model of how the world and universe are made up. Symbols also provide a model for how to live. What is the difference between models of- and models for-? When do they come together? Why should we care?

The Geertz text we read this week can equally be considered a theory of religion or a theory of symbols. By way of background, if you're interested in seeing the text as a theory of religion, you might want to watch the following:

Understanding Geertz

Now it's time to read Geertz's "Religion as a Cultural System", in which the author argues that religion is a set of symbols. I have summarized it here.

You might then like to watch my presentation:

 

'Models of' and 'Models for'

Now I'll try to summarise the theory in 150 words or less: Humans are born without sufficient survival instincts. We need culture to survive; agriculture; horticulture; fishing; herding and so on. Culture is outside of our heads when we are born; we need to get it in. Culture takes the form of symbols and we get it in through symbols. There are two kinds of symbols 'Models of' show you the way the world is. 'Models for' tell you how to behave in the world. Outside of religion, these are separate. They come together in religious rituals like 

1. Baptism. Model of = baptism of Christ; model for = how to behave now you're born again.
2. Christmas. Model of = Mary, Joseph & Christ; model for = your family is & should be holy like there's is. The nativity scene is really real, and that is what your family should be like. 

This is a photo of an evacuation plan. It tells you what to do in a fire. It is, therefore, a "model for". It is not used in a ritual, therefore, it is not associated with the religious perspective.

Geertz's Perspectives

Religion is a part of culture. So religion is also constructed out of symbols. But religions is characterized by a certain attitude towards the world, which is distinct from other attitudes within a culture. Geertz identifies four attitudes or "perspectives" as he calls them:

•  Common sense perspective. According to a common sense perspective, you don’t go for a swim in a flooding river, because you might drown. You drink water if you're thirsty. You water plants. This perspective is based on an unquestioning acceptance of reality as it appears to the five senses. Geertz characterises this as a kind of naive realism.

From the current scientific perspective, water is the liquid phase of a bond between an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms

• Scientific perspective. According to the scientific perspective, reality isn’t as it appears. For example, 99% of the H2) molecule, and thus water itself is space. But water doesn’t appear as space. 

Renoir's aesthetic perspective of water

• Aesthetic perspective. Different aesthetic perspectives can be seen when you compare how Turner, Renoir, or Hokusai paint water. It's how we see the world with 'artistic' eyes.



Hokusai's aesthetic perspective of water.

•  Religious perspective. According to the religious perspective, reality is merely an illusion. There is another order; you can’t experiment, you can’t see it, but appears as super important; really real. Of course, you can drown in water, but, aside from the obvious depriving the body of oxygen, what is really happening when you drown? For example, if you think of meeting the love of your in such terms as “it was fate”, “it was meant to be”. For example, Jeff Buckley [90s musician] died swimming in the Mississippi. People, even atheists, of my generation say things like "his music lives on", "fate took him" etc..  And maybe that same water is used baptize people so that they can be born again. That's what the water is really about, from a religious perspective. The religious perspective is always about purpose and meaning; it's not necessarily about afterlife, spirits, God etc.

These Baptists can perceive water from common sense, scientific, and aesthetic perspective. To some extent, these are distractions from what is really real; a miraculous power in the water to absolve sins and, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable you to be reborn.

Applying Geertz: Australian secular religion

I grew up steeped in contemporary Australian religion of professed atheism. I couldn't understand how anyone could be so naive as to believe in God. As far as I could discern, it was like believing in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and other make-believe characters that make us feel good. I even got to the point that I was convinced that believing in God was a collective delusion bordering on madness. I wasn't so much scared of a universe without a God; I was scared of a world where many people could indulge in such a fantasy! 

When I studied philosophy at Uni, I was shocked to learn that perfectly good arguments pointed to the existence of God. That still wasn't enough. Deep down, I felt the believers were mistaken. That changed after reading Geertz. 

Geertz allowed me to see a different perspective that 'religious people' took. They see everyday reality as merely an illusion. They believed that what was really happening lay behind the deceptive surfaces of appearances. Then, as 'religious' began to appear less crazy to me, I began to see myself as religious.

For Australian nationalists, the water around Anzac Cove isn't just any water.
From a really real perspective, it will forever contain the blood of young Australians and their sacrifice for us.

Following that, I had a reflective moment. I came to see my secular, atheist beliefs as deeply religious. I tried to express this latter perception in this brief opinion piece. It applies Geertz's ideas to Australian 'religion'. The piece seems irreverent and disrespectful to me now--I wish I had got the tone better. Because I think the Digger or the Battler is just as worthy of respect as the chishinga (Week 8) or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Week 7). 

You might also want to listen to me (and others) interviewed in a radio program about religion: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/the-accidental-atheist/7889880

I think the interviewer thinks I 'beg the question'; I didn't manage to convince him!

Evaluating Geertz 

We need to look at critiques of Geertz, for several reasons. 

1. In teaching this subject, and in my thinking more generally, I have been heavily influenced by Geertz. To provide balance I need to give some air to opposing positions. 
2. As Geertz remains the towering figure in the study of symbols within anthropology, the scholars who critique are also among the most influential anthropologists. To read critiques of Geertz is to gain understanding into other profound theoretical positions.
3. One of the aims of this unit is to develop your ability not just to understand and recognize different theories. Granted this is difficult in itself, but to think like an anthropologist you need to go further. You must be able to situate the theories historically and reflect upon them critically. For these three reasons, we focus on two critiques of Geertz.
   

Rosaldo's critique

Renato Rosaldo was doing fieldwork with his wife, also an eminent anthropologist, among headhunters in the Philippines. She died. He felt so much rage he could now understand the feeling of headhunters. This understanding enabled him to critique Geertz's theory.  Please read the section entitled "How I Found Rage in Grief" in the "Grief and a Headhunter's Rage".

You might also want to listen to my interview with anthropologist, Monika Winarnita, and what she has to say about Rosaldo and Metcalf (who critiqued Rosaldo).

Asad's critique  

Asad also famously critiqued Geertz's use of the term "religion" in Asad's "The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category". I have summarized Asad's argument in a blog. But, of course, it's much better to read Asad himself. 

Discussion

In this subject, I also have a special topic based around Geertz's description of ritual meals, called "slametan". So if you want to read more Geertz, you could start there.

Summary

For Geertz, culture (and religion within it) is a system of symbols. These symbols are models of the universe and models for how to behave. ‘Models of’ and ‘Models for’ appear just like theories until you experience ritual. Ritual is crucial to bringing them together and making them seem uniquely real. The uniquely real (not necessarily the supernatural) is religion. This is why the atheist, sceptic etc is religious in Geertz’s sense; because she will go to family dinners, sports parties (Superbowl, Grand Final, FA Cup, World Series etc.) BBQs, Christmas Lunch, and find that this is really real.