Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anthropologists Develop New Approach To Explain Religious Behavior

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
agent46 Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 06:17 PM
Original message
Anthropologists Develop New Approach To Explain Religious Behavior
Edited on Wed Sep-10-08 06:18 PM by hard rains
ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080909122749.htm

— Without a way to measure religious beliefs, anthropologists have had difficulty studying religion. Now, two anthropologists from the University of Missouri and Arizona State University have developed a new approach to study religion by focusing on verbal communication, an identifiable behavior, instead of speculating about alleged beliefs in the supernatural that cannot actually be identified.

"Instead of studying religion by trying to measure unidentifiable beliefs in the supernatural, we looked at identifiable and observable behavior - the behavior of people communicating acceptance of supernatural claims," said Craig T. Palmer, associate professor of anthropology in the MU College of Arts and Science. "We noticed that communicating acceptance of a supernatural claim tends to promote cooperative social relationships. This communication demonstrates a willingness to accept, without skepticism, the influence of the speaker in a way similar to a child's acceptance of the influence of a parent."

Palmer and Lyle B. Steadman, emeritus professor of human evolution and social change at Arizona State University, explored the supernatural claims in different forms of religion, including ancestor worship; totemism, the claim of kinship between people and a species or other object that serves as the emblem of a common ancestor; and shamanism, the claim that traditional religious leaders in kinship-based societies could communicate with their dead ancestors. They found that the clearest identifiable effect of religious behavior is the promotion of cooperative family-like social relationships, which include parent/child-like relationships between the individuals making and accepting the supernatural claims and sibling-like relationships among co-acceptors of those claims.

"Almost every religion in the world, including all tribal religions, use family kinship terms such as father, mother, brother, sister and child for fellow members," Steadman said. "They do this to encourage the kind of behavior found normally in families - where the most intense social relationships occur. Once people realize that observing the behavior of people communicating acceptance of supernatural claims is how we actually identify religious behavior and religion, we can then propose explanations and hypotheses to account for why people have engaged in religious behavior in all known cultures."


It seems most organized religions tend to infantilize their members by encouraging non-critical dependency and obligation framed as "filial" relationships of one kind or another. Interesting points here. "Palmer and Steadman published their research in The Supernatural and Natural Selection: The Evolution of Religion. The book was published by Paradigm Publishers."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beregond2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. There is nothing here about "infantilizing."
They are saying that people behave better when they see all humans as part of a family. Not exactly a stunning revelation, but this is the kind of crap anthropologists think-up to get grants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agent46 Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. yes that's right
The infantilizing part is my own observation. Thanks for clarifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. I suspect this ties into the neurological nature of our social qualities
It seems that the mirror neurons fire when they observe the actions of those we consider ourselves close to. This means the closer we feel to someone the more we internalize their actions. Thus from a religions point of view it would do well to promote ties as closely as possible in order to propagate its teachings amongst its members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Perhaps, then, it's about reinforcing the tribal connections,then.
I'm not sure I'm saying this right, but it seems to me that what they're saying is that religion exists to keep the tribe together, to reinforce the ties amongst everyone so that they act like a more cohesive unit, rather than just a bunch of people living near each other. Is that what they're saying?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agent46 Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-10-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. kinship - I agree
That's a good point. I agree. In indigenous societies, religion serves as a repository for the stories of tribal history, codes for behavior and social harmony - and a world view that places the people in the context of an image of the universe. It reflects the soul of the culture and character of the people. Religion is the glue of kinship. I think it's interesting. In cases like this, religion is so integral to the life of the people that in most ways it ceases to exist as an entity we'd call "a religion". It's a cultural current that serves the life of the collective.

In our heterogeneous consumer society though, I think the situation has reversed itself. Nowadays religion is an affiliation; a package of beliefs, behaviors and values one elects to embrace and even buy into. Within its own realm, religion is self-serving and self-perpetuating as a distinct entity inside or apart from society. That's why I make the observation that modern organized religion subordinates the individual to it by using filial assignations like "child of god" and so on. It's disconnected from the kinship of larger society/culture and becomes a kinship in itself. I see this as infantilzing because it doesn't serve the individual or the life of society so much as the vision and aspirations of those who own and manage the religion. Dependency is encouraged and cultivated in organized religion, where on the other hand in indigenous kinship societies, it's transparent. There's no need or motivation to encourage dependency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think there's still the kinship angle, though.
Maybe it's because I grew up in a small town and my mom's church became our family. Maybe it's because I live in a smaller city now and go to a small church that is, in many ways, our family here. I think, based on my experience, that while you're right--it often is about being a part of a brand name--it's still very much about kinship. That's why we have prayer chains (phone trees for immediate dissemination of emergencies or immediate needs of church family that everyone needs to know and pray about, such as deaths, trauma, emergency surgeries, etc.), committees to handle potlucks and getting food and fellowship to shut-ins, and why our priest reads out birthdays and anniversaries for the week.

As a Christian, something that really bothers me about how the faith is today is how Christianity has become commercialized. You can buy anything with a fish or a cross on it these days, make sure that you're wearing the right brand, and even only get things from the right store. That's more than a little creepy to me, since it's like they're selling God, just like Nike sells shoes with their swoop on them. Then, it's not so much that Christians are infantilized as much as they're part of market research, just consumers to be swayed with the right ad campaign. That's really not what the faith's about at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agent46 Donating Member (424 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. community
Yeah, I see what you mean. At one time in America the local community church really did give to the life of the community. But nowadays, churches seem more like rally halls for one or another ideological brand name.

And I agree with you completely about the packaging and selling of "god" by capitalist marketers. It's a betrayal of the most basic kind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. In our commercialized, fragmented society, religious communities
provide a focus for like-minded people to create family-like relationships and pursue common goals. These goals may be harmful, as in the megachurches trying to seek political power, or benevolent, as when the church members provide a willing and cheerful labor force for charitable works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It depends on the church.
Many of the bigger churches I've attended before were more like rally halls, but the smaller churches weren't as much. It depends on the denomination, the pastor, and the community it's in.

At our college, students are required to take a class called Senior Colloquium, and our prof actually did a unit on megachurches. Everyone (and this was at an evangelical college) was really split on the issue. I remember being surprised by a couple of religion majors who were really against them--mad at the malls and coffeeshops in the one in the video, mad at the commercialization of the faith, mad at how easily people could get lost in there.

Maybe that's part of why my husband and I went Orthodox. Our churches tend to be smaller, more interconnected, and it doesn't depend as much on the priest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-11-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. Do you think that the fragmenting of Scottish society into tribes, or "clans"...
Edited on Thu Sep-11-08 09:35 PM by PassingFair
explains why 60% of the modern day population identifies
itself as "non-religious"?

I am a 1st generation American, my father,
a Scot was an atheist, and all of my relatives
in Scotland and England are, too.

I had always assumed it was due to their history
of religious strife...they they had just decided
to skip the "I'm OK, you're going to hell" mentality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC