IGNOU MSOE-003 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology of Religion Solved Part 4

 

Question 7: Explain Clifford Geertz‟s approach to the understanding of religion.

Answer: Clifford Geertz, one of the most influential anthropologists of the 20th century, offered a symbolic and interpretive approach to the study of religion. His work represents a shift from earlier structural and functional theories toward understanding religion as a system of meanings embedded in culture. Geertz’s approach transformed the sociological and anthropological study of religion by emphasizing the importance of symbols, interpretation, and cultural context.

This essay will examine Geertz’s definition of religion, his methodological approach, and its implications for sociological understanding.

1. The Context of Geertz’s Work

Before Geertz, religion was studied largely through two dominant traditions:

1. Functionalism – represented by Émile Durkheim, Bronislaw Malinowski, and Radcliffe-Brown, who viewed religion as a social institution that serves functions such as social cohesion, moral regulation, and collective solidarity.
2. Psychological and Evolutionary Approaches – which treated religion as a response to human fears, anxieties, or attempts to explain the unknown (as seen in Freud or Tylor).

Geertz challenged these perspectives. He argued that religion cannot be reduced merely to its social or psychological functions. Instead, it must be understood as a cultural system—a web of meanings that shapes how people perceive, interpret, and live their lives.

1. Geertz’s Definition of Religion

In his famous essay “Religion as a Cultural System” (1966), Geertz provided one of the most influential definitions of religion:

“Religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

This definition can be unpacked into five key elements that form the basis of Geertz’s theory:

1. Religion as a system of symbols:
   Religion communicates meaning through symbols—rituals, myths, images, and sacred objects—that convey deep cultural significance. Symbols serve as bridges between human experience and ultimate reality.
2. Establishing moods and motivations:
   Religion shapes how people feel and act. It creates enduring emotional dispositions (moods) such as awe, reverence, or hope, and behavioral orientations (motivations) such as piety, self-sacrifice, or moral duty.
3. Conceptions of a general order of existence:
   Religion provides a framework or worldview that explains the meaning of life, death, suffering, and morality. It offers a coherent understanding of the universe and humanity’s place in it.
4. An aura of factuality:
   Religion makes its worldview appear real and unquestionable by embedding it in symbols and rituals that are emotionally and culturally persuasive.
5. Integration of meaning and emotion:
   Religion integrates cognitive beliefs with emotional experiences, thus linking what people think, feel, and do.

Through these components, Geertz explained how religion creates a meaningful order in human life and sustains it through symbolic practices.

III. Interpretive or Symbolic Approach

Geertz’s method is often called interpretive anthropology or symbolic anthropology. He believed that to understand religion (or any cultural phenomenon), sociologists and anthropologists must interpret the meanings that people themselves attribute to their actions and beliefs.

He famously described culture as “webs of significance” spun by humans themselves, and stated that “the analysis of culture is therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.”

Thus, for Geertz, studying religion involves:

• Understanding the internal logic of a religious system.
• Decoding symbols and rituals within their cultural context.
• Seeing religion as a text to be interpreted rather than a set of behaviors to be explained.

He used what he called “thick description”—a method of detailed ethnographic analysis that captures not only what people do, but why they do it and what it means to them.

1. Illustration: Geertz’s Study of Religion in Bali and Morocco

Geertz applied his approach in his classic ethnographies of religious life in Indonesia and Morocco.

• In “The Religion of Java” (1960), he examined how Javanese religion blends Hindu, Islamic, and animistic traditions, creating distinct cultural styles of religiosity (abangan, santri, priyayi). He interpreted religion as a system of meaning that shapes moral values and social identities.
• In “Islam Observed” (1968), he compared Islam in Indonesia and Morocco. He argued that the same religion manifests differently in distinct cultural contexts—Indonesian Islam being inward and aesthetic, Moroccan Islam being militant and ethical.

These works demonstrate his point that religion is culturally constructed and symbolically expressed, rather than universally uniform.

1. Sociological Significance of Geertz’s Theory

Geertz’s contribution is profound in sociological understanding of religion for several reasons:

1. Religion as meaning-making:
   Geertz shifted attention from what religion does (its functions) to what religion means to believers.
2. Integration of culture and social structure:
   He emphasized that religion provides the symbolic framework that shapes moral order, identity, and collective consciousness.
3. Understanding pluralism:
   His approach helps explain why religions differ across societies and how they adapt to different cultural environments.
4. Methodological innovation:
   The interpretive method (“thick description”) has influenced not only anthropology but also sociology, philosophy, and religious studies.
5. Critique of reductionism:
   Geertz rejected economic, psychological, or functional reductionism, arguing that religion must be understood in its own symbolic terms.

1. Criticisms of Geertz’s Approach

While influential, Geertz’s theory has faced some criticisms:

• It focuses too much on meaning and symbols, neglecting power, inequality, and social conflict related to religion.
• His approach is descriptive rather than explanatory; it interprets religious meaning but offers little causal analysis.
• Marxist and feminist scholars argue that Geertz underplays how religion can serve ideological or patriarchal functions.

Despite these critiques, Geertz’s interpretive framework remains central to contemporary sociology of religion, especially for understanding the subjective and cultural dimensions of religious life.

VII. Conclusion

Clifford Geertz’s approach represents a major paradigm shift in the sociology and anthropology of religion. By defining religion as a cultural system of symbols that constructs meaning, emotions, and worldviews, he illuminated how religion shapes human experience at both individual and collective levels. His interpretive method allows sociologists to see religion not as a static institution but as a dynamic, meaning-producing practice deeply rooted in culture.

In essence, Geertz teaches us that to understand religion sociologically, we must interpret the symbolic language through which societies express their deepest convictions about life, order, and reality. Religion, for Geertz, is thus the ultimate expression of humanity’s quest for meaning within the complex web of culture.

 

 

Question 8: Discuss the view of Lèvi-Strauss on totemism.

Answer: The concept of totemism has been central to the anthropological and sociological study of religion and culture. Traditionally, it referred to a system of belief in which a group of people, usually a clan or tribe, identifies itself with a particular animal, plant, or natural object — the totem — believed to have a special spiritual relationship with them. Thinkers like Émile Durkheim and James Frazer saw totemism as one of the earliest forms of religion, representing the beginnings of social and symbolic thought. However, the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009), a leading figure in structural anthropology, offered a radically different interpretation.

Lévi-Strauss rejected the idea that totemism was a primitive religion or a stage in human evolution. Instead, he viewed it as a mode of classification—a system of organizing social and natural relations through symbolic thought. His ideas, mainly presented in his book “Totemism” (1962) and “The Savage Mind” (1966), transformed the study of religion and culture from an evolutionary to a structural and cognitive framework.

1. Background: Earlier Theories of Totemism

Before Lévi-Strauss, several scholars offered different interpretations of totemism:

• J.G. Frazer, in “Totemism and Exogamy” (1910), viewed it as a primitive religion in which humans worshipped totemic animals or plants.
• Émile Durkheim, in “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life” (1912), considered totemism the most elementary form of religion because it represented the collective consciousness of the clan. For Durkheim, the totem symbolized society itself.
• A.R. Radcliffe-Brown saw totemism as a social institution that reinforced group solidarity and clan organization.

Lévi-Strauss, however, believed that these interpretations misunderstood the nature of totemism by treating it as a distinct, concrete institution or a religious phenomenon.

1. Lévi-Strauss’s Rejection of Totemism as Religion

Lévi-Strauss argued that totemism is not a religion, belief system, or a stage of human evolution, but rather a symbolic way of thinking. According to him, totemism reveals the human mind’s fundamental capacity to classify and order the world through binary oppositions (such as human/animal, culture/nature, male/female).

He believed that all human societies, whether “primitive” or “modern,” share the same mental structures. What differs is not the quality of their thought but the way they use symbolic systems to understand and organize their environment. Thus, totemism reflects universal structures of the human mind, not primitive irrationality.

III. Totemism as a System of Classification

For Lévi-Strauss, totemism was essentially a system of classification linking the social and natural worlds. Human groups classify themselves and their relations by associating with natural species.

For example:

• Clan A may identify with the Eagle,
• Clan B with the Snake,
• Clan C with the Kangaroo.

These associations do not imply worship or supernatural belief but serve as a symbolic language through which social differences are expressed and maintained.

According to Lévi-Strauss, early anthropologists misunderstood the symbolic function of totemism because they assumed that such systems were religious or magical. In reality, totemism uses natural differences (in plants and animals) to represent social differences (between clans, kin groups, or individuals).

1. The Logic Behind Totemic Thought

Lévi-Strauss’s analysis rests on the principle that the human mind organizes experience through binary oppositions. In “The Savage Mind,” he argued that even so-called “primitive” thought is logical and structured, not chaotic or irrational.

He used the phrase “the science of the concrete” to describe how traditional societies use observable natural phenomena — animals, plants, seasons — to construct symbolic systems that explain social relations.

For instance, in a totemic system:

• The relationship between a hawk and a dove might symbolize aggression and peace.
• Different clans might be associated with these animals to represent their social roles or interrelations.

Thus, totemism reflects not a belief in sacred animals but a cognitive process—the use of concrete symbols (animals, plants) to express abstract social realities.

1. Totemism as an Artificial Category

One of Lévi-Strauss’s most provocative claims is that totemism does not really exist as a distinct institution. He argued that anthropologists had artificially grouped together diverse practices from different societies under the single label of “totemism.”

In reality, what exists is a general human tendency to use natural symbols to represent and organize social structures. Therefore, totemism is simply one manifestation of a universal mental activity — the desire to find meaningful correspondences between the natural and social worlds.

As Lévi-Strauss wrote:

“Totemism is not a distinct institution but a mode of thought, a way of classifying reality.”

1. Illustrations of Lévi-Strauss’s Theory

In his comparative studies, Lévi-Strauss analyzed data from Australian Aboriginal groups, Native American tribes, and African societies. He observed that while the specific totems (animals or plants) varied, the structural logic behind them was consistent: societies use nature as a symbolic model for organizing human relationships.

For example:

• In some Aboriginal societies, different clans associate with different animal species not because they worship them, but to mark social boundaries and marriage rules.
• In Native American tribes, animal symbolism often expresses social hierarchy or complementary relationships among clans.

Thus, totemism serves as a metaphorical language linking human society with the natural order.

VII. Sociological Significance of Lévi-Strauss’s View

Lévi-Strauss’s reinterpretation of totemism had major implications for sociology and anthropology:

1. Shift from evolutionism to structuralism:
   He rejected the idea of “primitive” vs. “modern” societies, arguing that all human thought operates through the same mental structures.
2. Focus on symbolic and cognitive dimensions:
   Totemism became a way to study how societies create meaning through symbols, not merely religious or ritual practices.
3. Integration of nature and culture:
   His approach showed that social systems often mirror classifications found in the natural world, reflecting the human tendency to project social order onto nature.
4. New methodology:
   Lévi-Strauss emphasized comparative structural analysis — finding underlying similarities across diverse cultures.

VIII. Criticisms

Despite its influence, Lévi-Strauss’s theory has been critiqued:

• Critics argue that his abstract and universalist approach overlooks the historical and cultural specificity of actual societies.
• Some, like Evans-Pritchard, claimed that Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism reduces complex social relations to mere mental patterns.
• Others believe he underestimated the emotional, ritualistic, and religious significance of totemic symbols for the people who practice them.

1. Conclusion

In conclusion, Claude Lévi-Strauss revolutionized the understanding of totemism by shifting focus from religion and ritual to cognition and classification. For him, totemism was not an archaic or irrational belief but a logical system that expresses the universal human tendency to order the world symbolically.

Through his structuralist approach, Lévi-Strauss demonstrated that all societies—ancient or modern—share similar mental processes for creating meaning and identity. Totemism, therefore, is not a relic of the past but a window into the fundamental structures of the human mind that continue to shape how people everywhere connect nature, society, and culture.

 

 

 

 

 

Outline the Marxian concept of religion.

Examine totemism as an elementary form of religion.

What is “okka”? Discuss with examples.

Explain T.N. Madan‟s view of non-renunciation with suitable example.

Explain phenomenology of religion with special reference to Peter Bergers‟ view.

Discuss the theories of secularism with special reference to the Indian experience.

Explain Clifford Geertz‟s approach to the understanding of religion.

Discuss the view of Lèvi-Strauss on totemism.

IGNOU MSOE-003 Assignment Answers 2025: : Sociology of Religion Solved Part 4