Religion is both a fascinating and an essential subject of study. People often do truly unique things for their faith. The fast, they abstain from sex, they walk on fire, perform self-flagellation, or nail themselves on crosses. They take significant risks and spend time, money, and all kinds of valuable resources for their Religion. These are all fascinating behavioral expressions, not only because of the sensationalist imagery they provide but mainly because of their effects on people’s lives. Religious incentives and prohibitions, religious fundamentalism, sectarian violence, Religion’s influence on politics, education, and even science, have significant consequences for practically all humans, religious and non-religious alike. However, despite Religion’s tremendous importance, the study of Religion has a marginal place in academia, and departments of Religion are usually underfunded and attract fewer students.
The truth is that the study of Religion has a bad reputation due to the way it has been – and essentially is still being – conducted. Unlike other disciplines, like psychology or sociology, that have fully embraced scientific methods and criteria from the natural and the health sciences, the study of Religion remains fragmented and isolated (Johnson 2007, n.p). It is isolated because it is conducted almost exclusively within the Humanities, without much dialogue with other disciplines, and largely ignoring the extraordinary advances in explaining human behavior coming from the life sciences (de Castro 2011, n.p). The functional definition of Religion describes its function or what it does, and the substantive meaning of Religion is describing what it is or what it is made out of. An example of a substantive definition is; Religion is the belief in God. A functional explanation is; Religion is a community of believers who believe in right and wrong and try to follow the right thing.
WE WRITE PAPERS FOR STUDENTS
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project.
Write My Essay For MeThe three ways religions have become global today are Diasporas, Transnational Religion, and the Religion of Plural Societies. Global Diasporas are when a large group of people could be associated with a particular religion dispersed or scattered throughout a large region or even throughout the world (de Castro 2011, n.p). Transnational Religion is when one of the main goals of Religion is to gain more followers, they then grow in numbers because of this. The Religion of Plural Societies is when religions spread throughout the globe. In turn, some of the results are new religions created by different people (de Castro 2011, n.p). The significance of these three things is that it truly has a significant impact on how Religion is globalized, and it shows how much Religion can grow, disperse, and change.
On the other hand, anthropology involves understanding the relationship between aspects of human experience known as holism. Anthropologists play an essential role in understanding how people interact in social relationships and communication in different societies. With their knowledge across the field of anthropology, anthropologists use comparisons in understanding their communities in terms of health, economics, law, and education, among others (Chua, 2021, p111). To address these complex issues, anthropology covers a wide range of areas, such as communication, culture, biology, and the human way of life in the past.
In conducting research, a social scientist works on the principles of analysis. These principles serve at least two purposes: To protect the quality of the results and address ethical issues. The first set of goals is deeply rooted in the scope of theory and practice, while one goal has legal and ethical (or moral) concerns in its focus (Chua, 2021, p111). Particular problems arise from the assumptions or principles that are intended to improve the researcher’s work. This paper highlights some of these issues in religious values , especially in Africa, and suggests specific solutions to this process.
Traditions have existed for millions of generations. Culture gives people an idea of who they are. People are taught how to act, speak, and act at a young age. Human culture affects every part of the specific. There is a diversity of stages in comprehending all cultures from all over the globe (Chua, 2021, p111). The three most vital are the reproductive structure, the health organization, and the religious structure. A better comprehension of these three structures will provide insight into thinking of each other.
Authors Contribution on Anthropological Approaches in Study of Religion
Religion, as stated by various writers, is a belief and worship of the supernatural. In any religion, religious beliefs and sacred values govern religious institutions. Religion is also a collection of cultural and spiritual traditions. Religion is considered to be the beliefs, practices, and feelings that associate godliness with holiness. According to Chua (2021, p111), Christianity has contributed to the development of newborns. In this article, Liana Chua explores how the Christian Bidayuh community reorganized their relationships with their ancient animist practices through trope and cultural politics—involving his ethnography in conversation and advances in newborn Christian anthropology. Chua says that such efforts to “keep talking” stemmed from Malaysian cultural politics and Christianity’s conversion. Therefore, the book invites scholars to reconsider the nature and extent of the various and varied but radical changes that Christianity can make. The author also states that modern anthropology has stood at the confluence of two mutually constitutive modes of knowledge production: participant observation and theoretical analysis.
This unique combination of practice and theory has been the subject of recurrent intellectual and methodological debate, raising questions that strike at the very heart of the discipline. How Do We Know? is a timely contribution to emerging debates that seek to understand this relationship through the theme of evidence. Chua also argues about Southeast Asia’s numerous far-reaching changes and dramatic transformations over the last half-century. This book explores the concept of power about these transformations and examines its various social, cultural, religious, economic, and political forms. The book works from the ground up, portraying Southeast Asians’ perspectives, conceptualizations, and power experiences through empirically rich case studies and exploring concepts of power in diverse settings, from the stratagems of Indonesian politicians and the aspirations of marginal Lao bureau. Does the author also show how forms and notions of collective disciplinary identity shape how we think, write, and do anthropology? This volume explores how the anthropological `we’ have been construed, transformed, and deployed across history and the global anthropological landscape. Drawing together both reflections and ethnographic case studies, it interrogates the critical – yet poorly studied – roles played by myriad anthropological `we’re in generating and influencing anthropological theory, method, and analysis. In the process, new spaces are opened for reimagining who `we are and what ‘we,’ and indeed anthropology, could become.
Another study conducted by de Castro (2011, n.p) argues against the immutability of the Indian soul. Based on Catholicism and cannibalism. In the study, Jesuit missionaries were interrupted by encounters with Tupi-speaking people and tribes from the Atlantic coast. Although the Indians showed great interest in discovering the Gospel, they often forgot missionary lessons about their diet, polygamy, and war nature. This mixed reaction to forgetfulness, acceptance, and rejection led to the priests’ misunderstanding of them, which led to the indigenous people’s inability to believe in anything lasting. The word cannibalism evokes a lot of emotions in a person. The consensus is that cannibalism is a form of bullying. In our society, the thought of eating someone else fills the void. To us, cannibalism is unforgivable, irreversible, almost unthinkable, yet the traditions around the world have undoubtedly done. These customs did not place a curse on cannibalism, and in many cases, they encouraged it. The decision to eat human flesh was not personal; it was a way of life. To these people, cannibalism was not a bad thing but a legal practice that offered tangible benefits. Still, despite this, the cannibals have been ostracized and demonized throughout history. The author also argues about how natives shaped cross-cultural encounters in the early colonial era. Drawing on history and anthropology, Viveiros de Castro examines the religious transformations that resulted from the meeting of two worlds—the Tupi-speaking natives of Brazil and Amazonia and the Jesuit and Capuchin missionaries. The events fall largely in the sixteenth century, with mention of select early seventeenth-century affairs. The work opens with a historical paradox that will be familiar to readers of early Brazil. Published missionaries’ texts are nearly unanimous in their complaints that the Tupi, despite enthusiastic and avid interest in learning about and embracing Christianity, made for unreliable converts, inconstant toward all things religious. What they did not easily relinquish, according to the priests, were vengeance wars, cannibalism, and the drinking parties that accompanied both. These so-called bad habits, Viveiros de Castro, argues convincingly, were enactments of a Tupi ethos of other-becoming. It was not a way of being, he clarifies, but a matter of appearance. This is because the Indians conceived of themselves in a manner distinct from Western notions. Clans like the Tupinambá did not recognize self in terms of a totalitarian identity, as an internal, fixed core independent from the exterior world. Unlike the Christians, too, they did not think to impose their customs and beliefs on the persons they met or judge non-Tupi others as morally or politically lesser.
On the contrary, the Tupinambá valued the Europeans precisely because they were dissimilar. The process of change through exchange was the fundamental value to protect. But it would seem that the Tupinambá failed to preserve the ways of their other-becoming, for colonial laws abolished their wars, anthropophagy, and wines. Here, Viveiros de Castro suggests that some natives may themselves have welcomed the ban on eating human flesh. With these restrictions, it appeared that the Tupi could no longer sustain that condition of perpetual alterity. Viveiros de Castro closes suggestively with a story from the Araweté, a Tupi group of eastern Amazonia (with whom he lived while conducting dissertation fieldwork). In their report, one can easily make out the loud echoes of that colonial Tupi ethos. This begs the reviewer to ask, how did the Indians sustain the expressions of cannibalistic other-becoming through the long centuries between the 1650s—the decade of the latest colonial source—and today’s Araweté? Also, how might one distinguish between other-becoming and the new social practices that the Tupi acquired and used to shape and direct change.
Such questions invited by the research are indications of the exciting contributions the author makes to a scholarship for ethnohistory, anthropology, Latin American history, and the literature about missionary encounters in the colonial and early modern world. In particular, he opens a fascinating window onto the indigenous mind receiving the Christian priests and hearing their messages of the pathways to salvation. As an English translation mainly based on publications from the 1990s, the pamphlet remains relevant today and representative of the sophisticated and innovative work that has placed Viveiros de Castro among the leading names in the field.
In another study by Chidester (2014, n.p), a threefold mediation process in producing religious information links between “ancient” humanity and modern civilization in discussions with the colonialists. As an imperial concept, Chidester mediates between the “ancient” society and the contemporary culture in dialogue with the colonialists. The third mediation method, often overlooked and misunderstood, is mediation between European ideas and colonial projects to transform, improve, and control indigenous peoples. Similarly, Walter Baldwin Spencer and Henri-Alexandre Junod mediate between European theory and colonial activities to develop and manage indigenous peoples. He involves indigenous Africans intervening between ancestral cultures and Christian conversion. However, the third mediation is often overlooked. Our discussion of Charles Anderson’s Chidester use in South Africa in the previous section has shown how, like Tyler, he eliminated situations where information was produced under colonial rule (Chidester, 2014 n.p). Not only has he been criticized for using Christian ideas and words to describe non-Christian traditions, but he has also been criticized for forcing his colonial spies to do the same, for example, when Chedister argued that Christian words were not appropriate to describe traditional customs. In Australia, Chidester asserted that he should use Judeo-Christian names because the native names would be obscure.
The author also analyzes the emergence of a science of comparative Religion in Great Britain during the second half of the nineteenth century and its complex relations to the colonial situation in southern Africa. In the process, Chidester provides a counter-history of the academic study of Religion, an alternative to standard accounts that have failed to link the field of comparative Religion with either the power relations or the historical contingencies of the imperial project. In developing a material history of the study of Religion, Chidester documents the importance of African Religion, the persistence of the divide between savagery and civilization, and the salience of mediations―imperial, colonial, and indigenous―in which knowledge about religions was produced. He then identifies the recurrence of these mediations in several case studies, including Friedrich Max Müller’s dependence on colonial experts, H. Rider Haggard and John Buchan’s fictional accounts of African Religion, and W. E. B. Du Bois’s studies of African Religion. By reclaiming these theorists for this history, Chidester shows that race, rather than theology, was formative in the emerging study of Religion in Europe and North America. Sure to be controversial, Empire of Religion is a significant contribution to comparative religious studies.
Another study by Johnson (2007, n.p), The protection of Native American Graves and Act Repatriation (NAGPRA) of 1990, offers a legal context in which Americans Native may seek the restoration of human remnants and specific groupings of cultural objects – including “sacred things” – from state-funded organizations. Although the program for its repatriation among Native Americans has previously received scholarly consideration specifically engrossed on this practice, the Divine Claims are the initial book to examine how religious sermon is used to present repatriation claims. Johnson takes this action as one example in a large area where indigenous peoples worldwide must participate in legal forums to preserve their heritage.
According to Methodological, Holy Claims are built on a careful study of the legal documents and the observation of participants in various NAGPRA-related measures and provide background and legal history, the life past of the axile name of the practice of cultural integration (NAGPRA’s weakest and less understood aspect), and a few studies on the major conflicts and disputes of Hawaiian deportation. Johnson then went outside the robust legal framework to investigate the NAGPRA treatise in the communal domain. He accomplishes a theoretical approach to managing precedent affairs, stating that religious linguistic was the primary means indigenous councils finally persuaded non-indigenous viewers to apply their cultural remains’ fundamental human rights principles (Johnson, 2007 n.p). Explaining the methods of artistic vigor in the state of restoration, Johnson claims that living culture is not initiated in the things themselves then instead in the struggle over them. The rule is on the verge of getting necessary tests and deportation issues that make headlines every day in Native Americans.
Another study conducted by Latour and Porter (2010, n.p) on the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods continues the project that the influential anthropologist, philosopher, and science studies theorist Bruno Latour advanced in his book. We Have Never Been Modern. He redescribed the Enlightenment idea of universal scientific truth, arguing that no facts are separate from their fabrication. In this concise work, Latour delves into the “belief in naive belief,” the suggestion that fetishes—objects invested with mythical powers—are fabricated and that facts are not. Mobilizing his work in the anthropology of science, he uses the notion of “factishes” to explore a way of respecting the objectivity of facts and the power of fetishes without forgetting that both are fabricated. While the fetish-worshipper knows perfectly well that obsessions are artificial, the Modern icon-breaker inevitably erects new icons. Yet, Moderns sense no contradiction at the core of their work.
Latour refers to “the tradition of the Word in which I have been raised” in this essay. If it had not been evident at the start of his career, it is undoubtedly apparent in On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods that this tradition is the key to the rest. Latour has expressed this indirectly, trying to bring a renewed sense of presence rather than directly through argument. The style is the man: the neologisms (“factish,” “Iconoclash”), the culturally mixed metaphors (“freeze-framing” the Second Commandment)—in such ways, he composes sermons that try to keep a flow of thought, constantly re-realized and re-represented, close and vitally present. Latour also pursues his critique of critique, or the possibility of mediating between subject and object, or the fabricated and the real, through the notion of “iconoclash,” making productive comparisons between scientific practice and the worship of visual images and religious icons (Latour & Porter 2010, n.p). Notably, anthropologists contributed a significant percentage in both studies and the spread of Religion in various places around the globe. However, in the effort of accomplishing their study, they faced multiple challenges.
The science of human beings is hard to comprehend, and anthropologists help bring out social aspects of different societies. Hence, as to bring an understanding of every community and improve society’s social inter-relations and well-being. An anthropologist is a person who studies the human race, that is, culture, customs, relationships, beliefs, and the development of a society. Anthropologists, therefore, deal with humanity (Latour & Porter 2010, n.p). When anthropologists are in the community interacting with the local people to learn and observe their culture, they undergo various problems, as discussed below.
According to Johnson (2007, n.p), when anthropologists get to the field, the nature of the research compels them to engage in the activities of the local native society, whether familiar or unfamiliar with them. They may find themselves in a community that does navigation to trade in the far distance. Here, the researcher is forced to join them in the navigation and participate in the trade to know their social activities and how one should do them without considering whether the researcher has ever done it or not. Participation in local activities may be challenging for them.
Another issue that anthropologists face, as per Bronislaw, is hopelessness and despair. This hopelessness and sadness come in as a result of being a stranger in a new environment where one is trying to conform to the culture of an unknown society. Being a stranger in this new environment is not comfortable since one’s plans may look at first fail due to the unbecoming behavior of the natives. Some may not be willing to associate with you, and others may not allow the researcher to bother them. Others may mistreat the researcher in the name of culture; hence this encounter may make the researchers feel insecure, uncomfortable to achieve their mission, hopeless, and even think of quitting the research if possible. Bronislaw says that his first visit to the south coast of the new guinea as an anthropologist was full of futility due to the long holidays to interact with natives, boredom, and depression as he tries to conform with the culture of these natives for them to allow him to do his research with them. Bronislaw’s experiences portray real issues in the field of anthropologists.
The language barrier is another challenging aspect for anthropologists. The researcher must be familiar with the native language of the community of study since their work is to study the community’s social issues. A researcher who does not involve the natives in the research by asking them relevant questions produces a hunk of the concrete and meaningful report. However, language mastery is mandatory in this profession. Therefore, the language barrier has become a significant challenge to researchers in that they find it challenging to translate essential information from the natives. In Chidesters’ research, he says that he was not that familiar with the pidgin English when the natives of the coast guinea were expressing their economic and social activities since he had no good training in it. The communication barrier made him not enter into detailed conversations with the natives at first. His poor communication method compelled him to carry out a concrete collection of data, which remained a dead material since he had no good understanding of the society, and not enough interpretation was provided. Therefore, the language barrier is the case affecting all anthropologists in the world.
Discouragements from alien people living in the study area are a significant problem or challenge to many anthropologists. The people may have lived in the same place for a long time. Therefore, people challenge the researchers’ acquired information since they know the community better. (Bronislaw) gets discouraged by the alien white residents living on the south coast of the new guinea (Latour & Porter 2010, n.p). These residents had lived in the place for many years hence had the opportunity to study the society properly than Bronislaw, who had a few months or a year in the same business. Having prior information, they discourage the researcher by filling his mind with vices of that particular society. The discouragements demotivate the anthropologist to propagate into the situation of the community.
Personal insecurities serve as a hindrance or a challenge to anthropologists in certain areas. Researchers may have personal fears of certain things. A researcher may have a phobia for certain animals or insects, or a researcher may fear exploring certain regions of the area of study (Latour & Porter 2010, n.p). The fear may be unknown or may be of known things. For instance, the researcher may have a negative notion about the study society, which can be an example of fear of the unknown. This fear, or in other terms, insecurities, may challenge the anthropologist in his work. Other known fears can be a significant challenge, like a place characterized by wars. This condition may make the researchers insecure with the area of study, affecting their commitment or efficiency.
According to Chidester (2014, n.p), anthropologists dealing with children may experience the problem of lacking complete required information. A researcher may engage in the play of the children and study some social issues in society. Still, for complex problems and aspects of society, the anthropologist may lack the necessary content. Anthropologists dealing with children mainly observe their play tricks or jokes and interpret them. At times the mark may be difficult to solve, and the anthropologists may find it challenging to get the designated information. Elizabeth Chin uses children to obtain research information. She uses the children’s play on dolls to get social issues in that community. She brings this information by interpreting the information on these dolls; she gets the implication of it all. Interpreting children’s plays may become a challenge to some anthropologist researchers; hence, handling children would be difficult.
In conclusion, anthropologists are powerful beings in society. Through them, people get to know the culture of other communities and be able to interact accordingly. Therefore, problems attacking them should always be considered. There are several problems that these beings face, as mentioned above, while there are other unmentioned problems or challenges. Both of them should be manipulated to enhance a viable environment for these important people. A robust solution should be sought to ensure that the anthropologists’ environment is convenient at all costs since, without a theme, peace would not be easy to be maintained.
References
Chua, L. (2021). Witnessing the Unseen: Extinction, Spirits, and Anthropological Responsibility. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 39(1), 111-129.
de Castro, E. B. V. (2011). The inconstancy of the Indian soul: The encounter of Catholics and cannibals in 16th-century Brazil. Prickly Paradigm Press.
Chidester, D. (2014). Empire of Religion. University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, G. (2007). Sacred claims: repatriation and living tradition. University of Virginia Press.
Latour, B., & Porter, C. (2010). On the modern cult of the factish gods. Duke University Press.
Order Original and Plagiarism-free Papers Written from Scratch:
