Talal Asad Critique of Clifford Geertz - Coursework Example

Name Instructor Course Date Talal Asad Critique of Clifford Geertz Introduction Different sociologists and religious scholars have offered to vary definitions of religion. Many social scientists have provided and opted to define religion using single acceptable definition. However, that is not the case since different social scientists offer different sociological definitions of religion. According to Clifford Geertz, religion can be defined as a cultural system that incorporates the historical norms and values in a society. Hence, Geertz argues that religion should be defined in a way to include symbols that are specific for certain cultures. However, different scholars and social scientists have criticised the ways in which Geertz defines religion in the cultural way (Schilbrack 429). Asad has refuted the Geertz definition of religion as erroneous since it tries to formulate a universal definition. Establishing a common definition is difficult since religion constitute many facets, which define it (Schilbrack 435). This is because, religion is influenced by culture, and politics and power hence these aspects should be included in defining religion. There is a connection between social life and religion of an individual. In most cases, various religious leaders and scientist have tried to explain the concept of knowledge and how human beings interpret the construction of reality in everyday life (Kunin & Miles-Watson 175). In this paper, I will critique Asad’s views on the definition of religion by Geertz. In doing so, I will discuss how Asad believes that religion encompasses political aspects and how the western powerful countries is trying to influence the separation of religion and power. In addition, the paper will discuss ways in which Asad justifies his argument of achieving a universal definition of religion. This is because he feels that social factors are left out in Geertz definition of religion. According to Geertz, religion can be defined as: (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Munson 29). However, Talal Asad believes that Geertz definition of religion is just a category of the folk of the western countries which tries to define religion in terms of Christianity. He argues that this definition is not only originating from the western countries, but also defines religion in a way that it excludes other cultures and focuses on Christianity. Power is essential in to what is believed to be knowledge and regimes of truth. Hence it is difficult to separate power and religion. This means that the human realities are influenced on how powerful an individual country of people is in bringing out the meaning of objects. According to Geertz, religion is a symbol creates moods and motivations which are crucial in power and creation of truth (Kunin & Miles-Watson 182). This means that the powerful countries created their religion and influenced other people into believing that it is the true religion. In Talal’s view, the emergency of natural religion was based on supreme power and beliefs. This natural religion is based on rules and code of ethics. This means that people are rewarded and punished depending on their actions. According to Foucault, power is the determinant of social truth and social knowledge. Foucault is well known for his postmodern approach to sociological knowledge and has argued that power influences knowledge and truth in of various parts of the world. Foucault argues that knowledge in the society is constructed through various disciplines. These disciplines are institutionalized in what can be termed as objects of knowledge and power. He believes that knowledge is what is representable in sanction disclosures and can only be visible when it is practiced. In such cases, religion cannot be separated from power and knowledge. The western societies are using the power in making other people into believing their religion. This means that power and religion cannot be separated since power influence religion (Asad 257). In addition, Asad is criticising Geertz definition since religion is defining the ways in which a society relates with one another and not merely the cultural believes and political aspects. Asad was defining religion is relation to the social cohesion theory. In this definition, religion in Asad views may also mean the social ways, norms and values that are shared in the community. Hence making religion have different facets, which are politically based, culturally based and socially based. Moreover, materialistic society and capitalistic society may also define religion. For example, Marxism social scientist religion is a functional of the material components of the society. In such cases, religion is defined by power and influence in the society. According to social class theory, the society has different kind of individuals who own different resources (Asad 246). In this society, the resources are owned by the high class individual who determines what are knowledge, truth and religious practices in the society. According to Asad, Geertz’s is divorcing religious meaning from the social context and treat religious as an autonomous object which is characterised by symbols of nature. This is seen as a way in which the western society is trying to separate religion from other social contexts. In such a case, Asad believes that this is a short coming in Geertz definition of religion. Hence, the idea that religion provides different models to reality is missing in Geertz definition of religion. Religious individual s are subject to self-deception, confusion and errors, it is not clear whether there should be a disconnection between religion and reality. This is because Geertz approach to religion tends to disconnect reality from the definition of religion. Hence, Geertz treat religion as a culture and fails to understand that religious and cultural beliefs are obscure and shallow as well as perverse (Schilbrack 448). Asad also believes that Geertz definition of religion leaves other social factors in defining religion. In explaining his religious definition, Geertz focuses on the symbolic factors of religion and fails to consider social factors, which constitute religion. The religion of a society is the social ways and beliefs that are in a society. According to Durkheim, the social factors such as interaction between community members define the religion of a society. This means that defining religion in one definition, which is based on the Christianity society or western society, is a way of marginalising other factors that define the religious beliefs of a society. Despite the fact that Geertz makes a connection between religious theories and practice, his explanation of cognitive meanings as a way of identifying religion is not acceptable in Talal Asad’s views. In his views Asad explains that Geertz should have not merged the two different discursive processes in definition religion. This is seen as a way of distinguishing religion dispositions from secular dispositions (Schilbrack 435). Based on the arguments of various social scientists approach to religion, I agree with Asad that it is not possible to have a universal definition of religion. This is because religion of the society is defined differently by different scholars. This is because religion consists of many facets, which should be included in its definition. I disagree with the Geertz definition to the extent in that the definition focuses on the cultural aspects of religion and fails to consider most of the social aspects. Although scholars such as Durkheim do not define religion in terms of the political aspects, they believe that there is a strong connection between the societal values in defining religion (Asad 254). Asad believes that the Geertz definition of religion reflects a Christian agenda and is not a representative of the definition of all reli9gikins of the world. However, since most social scientist defines religion in different aspects, I do agree with Asad that having a universal definition is not possible and may only reflect the western countries interests. However, as much as I agree with Talal Asad, there is the need to analyse the various definitions of religion in order to ensure a clear and universal definition. Moreover, the definition of Geertz is vague and focuses only in cultural symbols. This makes the definition focus on the interest of the western societies. This implies that following Geertz’s definition of religion will be seen as neglected the social and political power influence on defining religion (Kunin & Miles-Watson 177). Conclusion The definition of religion by Geertz is one of the most influential anthropological definitions of religion in society. In his definition, Geertz’s refers religion as a cultural system which is based on symbols of religion. However, scholars such as Talal Asad disagree with this universal definition of religion since it tries to separates power and religion. This means that religion cannot be separated from power since power and knowledge are historically known to have resulted in various religious practises. According to scholars such as Durkheim, religion encompasses social aspects hence each society has a different religion. This makes it difficult to have a universal definition of religion. In addition, defining religion in Geertz approach will reflect the Christian interest of defining religion. Works Cited Asad, Talal. Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz, Man, 18.2 (1983): 237-259 Kunin, Seth, & Miles-Watson, Jonathan. ‘Theories of Religion: A Reader’. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2006. Munson, Henry. Geertz on religion: The theory and practice. Religion, 16.1 (1986): 19-32 Schilbrack, Kelvin. Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are we through with Geertz? Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 73.2 (2005): 429-452 Read More

He argues that this definition is not only originating from the western countries, but also defines religion in a way that it excludes other cultures and focuses on Christianity. Power is essential in to what is believed to be knowledge and regimes of truth. Hence it is difficult to separate power and religion. This means that the human realities are influenced on how powerful an individual country of people is in bringing out the meaning of objects. According to Geertz, religion is a symbol creates moods and motivations which are crucial in power and creation of truth (Kunin & Miles-Watson 182).

This means that the powerful countries created their religion and influenced other people into believing that it is the true religion. In Talal’s view, the emergency of natural religion was based on supreme power and beliefs. This natural religion is based on rules and code of ethics. This means that people are rewarded and punished depending on their actions. According to Foucault, power is the determinant of social truth and social knowledge. Foucault is well known for his postmodern approach to sociological knowledge and has argued that power influences knowledge and truth in of various parts of the world.

Foucault argues that knowledge in the society is constructed through various disciplines. These disciplines are institutionalized in what can be termed as objects of knowledge and power. He believes that knowledge is what is representable in sanction disclosures and can only be visible when it is practiced. In such cases, religion cannot be separated from power and knowledge. The western societies are using the power in making other people into believing their religion. This means that power and religion cannot be separated since power influence religion (Asad 257).

In addition, Asad is criticising Geertz definition since religion is defining the ways in which a society relates with one another and not merely the cultural believes and political aspects. Asad was defining religion is relation to the social cohesion theory. In this definition, religion in Asad views may also mean the social ways, norms and values that are shared in the community. Hence making religion have different facets, which are politically based, culturally based and socially based.

Moreover, materialistic society and capitalistic society may also define religion. For example, Marxism social scientist religion is a functional of the material components of the society. In such cases, religion is defined by power and influence in the society. According to social class theory, the society has different kind of individuals who own different resources (Asad 246). In this society, the resources are owned by the high class individual who determines what are knowledge, truth and religious practices in the society.

According to Asad, Geertz’s is divorcing religious meaning from the social context and treat religious as an autonomous object which is characterised by symbols of nature. This is seen as a way in which the western society is trying to separate religion from other social contexts. In such a case, Asad believes that this is a short coming in Geertz definition of religion. Hence, the idea that religion provides different models to reality is missing in Geertz definition of religion. Religious individual s are subject to self-deception, confusion and errors, it is not clear whether there should be a disconnection between religion and reality.

This is because Geertz approach to religion tends to disconnect reality from the definition of religion. Hence, Geertz treat religion as a culture and fails to understand that religious and cultural beliefs are obscure and shallow as well as perverse (Schilbrack 448). Asad also believes that Geertz definition of religion leaves other social factors in defining religion. In explaining his religious definition, Geertz focuses on the symbolic factors of religion and fails to consider social factors, which constitute religion.

Read More