Description
A response paper, informative paper, no need for outside research
Papers There will be three papers worth 25 points each or one-fourth of your final grade. These
essays are response/informative papers based on class readings and lectures. Each paper will
be 4-5 pages. First paper is due Wednesday February 16th at 11:59 PM, submit via Canvas, and
no class on Tuesday February 15th so that you have more time to complete your papers.
Some paper ideas:
? What is the relationship between religion, magic, science?
? Limits to human understanding.
? How religion is studied and some issues.
? What are some implications in taken for granted categories?
? Relationship of Greco-Roman magic and Judeo-Christian religion?
? Develop an idea from our ?Questions to think on.?
? Make an argument for or against an idea or set of ideas expressed in class.
Some general notes on papers:
?All papers must be in only doc., docx., pdf, or rtf formatting.
?All papers should be double-spaced with 12-point Times New Roman font.
?You must always cite sources. Any idea or thought that is not your own must be cited in this
class, students are never scored down for over-citing in my course.
?Cite any ideas you take from texts with at least the author?s first name and the page number,
for example (McCutcheon 2).
?Quotations must be cited, but also any paraphrasing taken from the readings.Some general
notes on papers:
?All papers must be in only doc., docx., pdf, or rtf formatting.
?All papers should be double-spaced with 12-point Times New Roman font.
?You must always cite sources. Any idea or thought that is not your own must be cited in this
class, students are never scored down for over-citing in my course.
?Cite any ideas you take from texts with at least the author?s first name and the page number,
for example (McCutcheon 2).
?Quotations must be cited, but also any paraphrasing taken from the readings.
Some general notes on papers:
?No outside research is required.
?You may cite classroom discussions with date of
conversation, for example (classroom conversation: 2-13)
?You may cite instructor?s powerpoints with dates, for
example (Breault: 2-13).
?Title page and references are not necessary, just be sure to
title the essay, put your name on the paper, and cite your
work.
?See Rubric in Canvas toward the bottom of Module 1:
Religion and Magic.
Questions to think on
?Who defines reality for us?
?What kind of power does defining reality have?
?What kind of power comes from delineating knowledge from
superstition?
?Can magic, science, or religion truly liberate us from the
process of reality and knowledge being constructed from
authority? How can we avoid being complicit with dominant
and destructive ideologies?
Paper: Students will be required to write a response/informative essay based on the
class reading materials listed above, as well as lectures.
Some general notes on papers:
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
All papers must be in only doc., docx., pdf, or rtf formatting.
All papers should be double-spaced with 12-point Times New Roman font.
You must always cite sources. Any idea or thought that is not your own must
be cited in this class, students are never scored down for over-citing in my
course.
Cite any ideas you take from texts with at least the author?s last name and
the page number, for example (McCutcheon 2).
Quotations must be cited, but also any paraphrasing taken from the
readings.
No outside research is required.
You may cite classroom discussions with date of conversation, for example
(classroom conversation: 2-13)
You may cite instructor?s powerpoints with dates, for example (Breault: 213).
Title page and references are not necessary, just be sure to title the essay,
put your name on the paper, and cite your work.
Module 1 possible topics:
?
?
?
?
?
What is the relationship between religion, magic, science?
Limits to human understanding.
How religion is studied and some issues.
What are some implications in taken for granted categories?
Relationship of Greco-Roman magic and Judeo-Christian religion.
Rubric
REL 374 Paper Rubric
REL 374 Paper Rubric
Criteria
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeDescription of criterion
Formatting
1. Roman 12 point font; double spaced; 2. one
inch margins on both sides and top and
bottom; 3. name on paper in upper left or right
hand corner of first page and paper is titled; 4.
no title page or bibliography is used to create
more pages; 5. Paper is four full pages to five
full pages
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeCitations
All papers must cite course materials
including: class readings; class lectures; class
discussions; and any powerpoint presentations
used in class. Citations must include where
the information was gathered from in
parentheses after the sentence. Such as:
(McCutcheon), (Class discussion), (Class
lecture), and (powerpoint presentation). No
outside class citations should be used for these
papers.
Ratings
10 pts
Full
Marks
9 pts
Formatting
10 points: fulfills all 5 formatting criteria; 9 points: fulfills
4 of the 5 formatting criteria; 8 points: fulfills 3 of the 5
formatting criteria; 7 points: fulfills 4 of the 5 formatting
criteria; 6 points; fulfills 3 of the 5 formatting criteria; 5
points; fulfills 1 of the 5 formatting criteria; 1 point
subtracted for every page short of 4 full pages
5 pts
Citations
5 points: the paper includes citations whenever student
used material that was not their own original idea, not just
for direct quotes; 4 points: the paper has at least one
citation per paragraph, and paper was formatted according
to criteria listed above; 3 points: paper has some citations,
but only direct quotes; 2 points: paper has sparse citations;
1 point: paper has few citations; 0 points: paper has no
citations.
5 pts
Full
Marks
REL 374 Paper Rubric
Criteria
This criterion is linked to a Learning
OutcomeContent
Papers should engage the course material
only. Students will be graded on their analysis
of the course material and their engagement
with course materials.
Total Points: 25
Ratings
10 pts
Content
10 pts Content 10 points: the paper actively engages
course materials with an original analysis that connects
ideas from a variety of sources; 8 points: the paper
contains original analysis that engages some course
materials; 6 points: the paper contains outside research; 4
points: the paper contains outside research, and does not
engage course materials; 2 points to 0 points: the paper
engages little course material and is more or less just ideas
put down on paper at last minute.
10 pts
Full
Marks
WHAT IS THE ACADEMIC STUDY OF RELIGION?
RUSSELL T. MCCUTCHEON
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
Comparison and Theory
understood as strange, sometimes as familiar), early
scholars of religion were interested in collecting and
comparing beliefs, myths, and rituals found the world
over. After all, early explorers, soldiers, and
missionaries were all returning to Europe with their
diaries and journals filled with tales that, despite their
obvious exoticness, chronicled things that bore a
striking resemblance to Christian beliefs and behaviors.
As such, early scholars tried to perfect the use of the
non-evaluative comparative method in the cross-cultural
study of people?s religious beliefs, ?our?s? and ?their?s?.
To compare in a non-evaluative manner means that one
searches for observable, documentable similarities and
differences without making normative judgments
concerning which similarities or differences were good
or bad, right or wrong, original or derivative, primitive
or modern.
To compare in a non-evaluative manner
means that one searches for observable similarities and
differences and then theorizes as to why just these
similarities and why just those differences. For example,
most all Christians generally believe that the historical
person named Jesus of Nazareth was ?the Son of God?
(similarity) yet only some of these same Christians
believe that the Pope is God?s primary representative
on earth (difference). As an anthropological scholar of
religion, can you theorize as to why this difference
exists? A theological approach might account for this
difference by suggesting that one side in this debate is
simply wrong, ill-informed, or sinful (depending which
theologian you happen to ask); an anthropologicallybased approach would bracket out and set aside all
such normative judgments and theorize that the
difference in beliefs might have something to do with
the psychology of people involved, their method of
social organization, their mode of economic activity,
etc.
In other words, the anthropological approach
to the study of religion as practiced in the public
university is a member of the human sciences and, as
such, it starts with the presumption that religious
beliefs, behaviors, and institutions are observable,
historical events that can therefore be studied in the
same manner as all human behavior. If they are more
than that, then scholars of religion leave it to
theologians who to pursue this avenue of study.
Like virtually all scholarly disciplines in the modern
university, the academic study of religion is a product
of nineteenth-century Europe. Although influenced a
great deal by European expansionism and colonialism
(the study of religion is largely the product of
Europeans encountering?through trade, exploration,
and conquest?new beliefs and behaviors, sometimes
Although the study of religion came to North American
universities prior to World War I and, for a brief time,
flourished at such schools as the University of Chicago,
Penn, and Harvard, it was not until the late-1950s and
early-1960s that Departments of Religious Studies were
Anthropology or Theology?
The academic study of religion is fundamentally an
anthropological enterprise. That is, it is primarily
concerned with studying people (anthropos is an ancient
Greek term meaning ?human being?; logos means
?word? or a ?rational, systematic discourse?), their
beliefs, behaviors, and institutions, rather than
assessing ?the truth? or ?truths? of their various beliefs
or behaviors. An anthropological approach to the study
of religion (which is not to say that the study of religion
is simply a sub-field of anthropology) is distinguished
from a confessional, religious, or theological approach
(theos is an ancient Greek term for ?deity? or ?god?)
which is generally concerned with determining the
nature, will, or wishes of a god or the gods.
Traditionally, the term ?theology? refers to specifically
Christian discourses on God (i.e., theology = systematic
Christian thought on the meaning and significance of
the Christian witness), though the term now generally
applies either to any religion?s own articulate self-study
or to its study of another religion (e.g., evangelism or
religious pluralism are equally theological pursuits).
Descriptive or Normative?
Although the academic study of religion?sometimes
called Comparative Religion, Religious Studies, the
History of Religions, or even the Science of Religion?is
concerned with judging such things as historical
accuracy (e.g., Did a person named Siddhartha Gautama
actually exist, and if so, when and where?) and
descriptive accuracy (e.g., What do Muslims say they
mean when they say that Muhammad was the ?seal of
the prophets??), it is not concerned to make normative
judgements concerning the way people ought to live or
behave. To phrase it another way, we could say that,
whereas the anthropologically-based study of religion
is concerned with the descriptive ?is? of human
behavior, the theological study of religion is generally
concerned with the prescriptive ?ought? of the gods. As
should be clear, these two enterprises therefore have
very different data: the academic study of religion
studies people, their beliefs, and their social systems;
the theological study of religion studies God/the gods
and their impact on people.
Religion and the US Supreme Court
established in most public universities. In the U.S., the
establishment and success of these departments can be
related to the Supreme Court?s understanding of the
Constitution.
The opening lines to the First Amendment to
the Constitution read: ?Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof….? Legal scholars distinguish
between the First Amendment?s ?establishment clause?
and its ?free exercise clause.? In other words, the
Amendment states that the elected government has no
right to enforce, support, or encourage (i.e., ?establish?)
a particular religion, nor does it have the right to curtail
its citizens? religious choices and practices (i.e., the ?free
exercise? of their religion). It may well be significant
that, in the opening lines of the First Amendment, it is
made explicit that all citizens of the U.S. have the
absolute right to believe in any or no religion
whatsoever.
In 1963 a landmark case known as the School
District of Abington Township, PA vs. the Schempp
family came before the Court. In this case a nonbelieving family successfully sued a public school
board for its school?s daily opening exercises in which a
Christian prayer was recited over the school?s public
address system. The Court decided that, as a publicly
funded institution charged to represent and not exclude
the members of a diverse, tax paying citizenry, the
school board was infringing on the rights of its
students, not just by supporting a specifically Christian
worldview but, more importantly perhaps, a religious
worldview.
Both the Constitution?s ?establishment? and
?free exercise? clauses were therefore the topic of
concern to the Court. Justice Clark, the Supreme Court
justice who wrote on behalf of the majority, stated in his
decision that, although confessional instruction and
religious indoctrination in publicly funded schools
were both unconstitutional, one?s ?education is not
complete without a study of comparative religion or the
history of religion and its relationship to the
advancement of civilization.? The majority of the
justices interpreted the First Amendment to state that,
although the government cannot force a student to be
either religious or nonreligious, the government
certainly can?and probably should?support classes
that study the history of particular religions, the
comparison of two or more religions, and the role of
religion in human history. In a way, we might conclude
that the study of religion is among the few fields of
study mandated by a Supreme Court decision!
Fundamental to its decision was the Court?s
distinction between religious instruction and instruction
about religion. The academic study of religion is
concerned to study about religion and religions.
The History of ?Religion?
Perhaps you never thought about it before, but the very
term ?religion? has a history and it is not obvious just
how we ought to define the term. Obviously, ?religion?
is an English term; therefore, we can ask, ?Do nonEnglish speakers have religions? Would an ancient
Egyptian name something as ?a religion???
We know that our term ?religion? has
equivalents in such modern languages as French and
German. For example, when practiced in Germany the
study of religion is known as Religionswissenschaft (the
systematic study, or wissenschaft, of religion); when
practiced in France it is known as Sciences Religieuses.
Even just a brief comparison of these and other related
languages helps us to see that all modern languages
that can be traced back to Latin possess something
equivalent to the English term ?religion.? This means
that, for language families unaffected by Latin, there is no
equivalent term to ?religion??unless, of course,
European cultures have somehow exerted influence on
non-Latin-based cultures/languages, an influence
evident in trade or conquest. Although ?religion? is
hardly a traditional concept in India, the long history of
British colonialism has ensured that English speaking
Indians have no difficulty conceiving of what we call
Hinduism as their ?religion??although, technically
speaking, to a Hindu, Hinduism is not a religion but is,
rather, sanatana dharma (the eternal, cosmic
duty/obligation/order). Even the New Testament is
not much help in settling these issues since its language
of composition?Greek?lacked the Latin concept
religio. English New Testaments will routinely use
?religion? to translate such Greek terms as eusebia (1
Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 3:5), terms that are closer to
the Sanskrit dharma or the Latin pietas than our term
?religion.?
Even in Latin our term ?religion? has no
equivalent?if, by ?religion,? you mean worshiping the
gods, believing in an afterlife, or being good?what
most people seem to mean today when they talk about
?religion.? The closest we come when looking for Latin
precursors to our modern term ?religion? are terms
such as religare or religere which, in their original
contexts, simply meant such things as ?to bind
something tightly together? or ?to pay close or careful
attention to something.?
So, where does all this leave us? Well, it leaves
us with a lot of questions in need of investigation: Just
what do we mean by ?religion?? If a culture does not
have the concept, can we study ?their religion?? Is there
such as thing as ?the Hindu religion? or ?ancient Greek
religion?? Regardless of the history of our vocabulary,
is religion a universal human phenomenon or is it
simply one among many ways that people name and
classify their particular social worlds?
Notetaker Needed
? The Disability Resource Center is seeking a notetaker for this class to
support the need of a fellow classmate. In exchange for providing this
service, you will be compensated for your service. Please visit the DRC’s
web page at https://eoss.asu.edu./drc (links to an external site) and click on
any of the DRC Connect links on the page and select ?sign up as a
notetaker.? Instructions for registering as a notetaker.
? The DRC will provide independent contract notetakers (students already
taking the course for credit) a stipend of $25 per credit hour (if preferred) or
a letter of commendation.
? Please make sure that if you take on this responsibility that you will be
attending every class and that you will be taking quality notes. All lectures
for this class will also be accompanied with a powerpoint presentation to aid
in this process.
Recap of videos
? Is there a religious impulse common to humanity?
? Is human behavior rational? Are political views rational or
emotional (appeals to logos or pathos)? How does
experimentation and deduction fit into everyday life?
? How much is our everyday life constructed from authority
(e.g., cultural conventions, education, institutions, social
pressures, coercive ideologies, asymmetrical structures of
power)?
? What is religion anyway?
What is the academic study of religion?
? Anthropology is descriptive, it studies people, social relations, power,
meaning, and culture. Theology is normative and it is the study of
God, what does God want from humans, what beliefs and practices are
proper, & God as the Ultimate Truth.
? We will be focused on the anthropological study of religion, not the
theological, so we will not be reproducing the debates of the two
videos. We will be engaged with questions like: how humans form
social relationships that are meaningful but laden with inequities of
power and individual social strategies; also how did ?religion? become
a modern category and how does it relate to ?science? and ?magic??
What is the academic study of religion?
? McCutcheon next talks about comparison in the study of religion.
Comparison looks at ideas and actions across cultures and compares
them. This too can be descriptive and normative, our concern with
religious comparison will not be focused on what is right or correct
across cultures; rather we will be focused on how ideas and actions
from the past have led us to our current contemporary moment in
modernity, what makes us who we are as moderns, especially in
regards to social marginalization.
? Comparison, for us, will look at cultural borrowing that takes places
when cultures collide and mix, exchanging ideas and behaviors.
What is the academic study of religion?
? Definitions, labels, and categories will be the basis for us fashioning
our own analytical frameworks this semester. An analytical framework
is a position one takes on an issue, or a large set of issues based on a
critical and informed opinion.
? We will read many authors this semester whose ideas come from a
specific way of thinking, or an established analytical framework based
in definitions, labels, and categories?most were established before we
entered into existence as individuals?we thus need to be critical of
definitions and deconstruct categories that we encounter.
What is the academic study of religion?
? At the top of the second column on the second page in the
McCutcheon reading titled The History of ?Religion? the author states
?Perhaps you never thought about it before, but the very term
?religion? has a history and it is not obvious just how we ought to
define the term.?
? And then at the end he states ?If a culture does not have the concept,
can we study ?their religion?? Is there such as thing as ?the Hindu
religion? or ?ancient Greek religion?? Regardless of the history of our
vocabulary, is religion a universal human phenomenon or is it simply
one among many ways that people name and classify their particular
social worlds??
How will we define religion?
? I personally do not define religion. Some classes adopt a ?working?
definition of religion, or ?tool box ? definition of religion. I do not do
this because we will see how ?religion? was constructed historically as
a category distinct from the opposing categories of science and magic.
? We will thus be looking at how religion was a category of knowledge
to legitimate a perceived human reality constructed first from
medieval Christendom (5th to 15th century) and controversies over
heresy that were spread throughout the world via Western European
colonialism in the 16th century.
Some terms to start
? The Magee reading begins to set us up with the foundations from
which religion, magic, and science would arise in Western Europe.
There are five terms we will look at here before we begin with our
readings for the next couple of weeks: Mysticism, Esotericism,
Occultism, Hermeticism, and Gnosticism.
? Mysticism: usually implies a one-ness achieved with a God or gods or
goddesses. Mysticism, at first just meant mysterious and/or secretive,
as in the Greek Mysteries as mysterion and having to do with secret
initiations. In an uncritical modern view, mostly anything that does not
fit with mainstream thought or science can be called mystical.
Some terms to start
? Esotericism: refers to hidden knowledge or secretive knowledge. In
the 2nd century A.D., Lucian of Samosata coined the term ?esoteric?
to denote the unlawful use of private spells performed in secret within
Rome?s imperial cult. Practices or beliefs described as esoteric now
are very rarely hidden or secretive; as evinced in the many many
?esoteric handbooks? one can purchase on Amazon.
? Wouter Hanegraaff (2012:232-233) contends that ?esotericism? is a
modern scholarly category referring to a ?[W]astebasket of
knowledge? that Enlightenment (1715-1789) philosophers discarded
as superstitious and irrational.
Some terms to start
? Occultism or Occult: basically means the same things as esoteric or
esotericism, but it started out as a medieval scholastic concept regarding the
hidden qualities of things (qualitates occultae, e.g., magnetic attraction and
natural cures) but now draws a bit more of a negative sense, it is linked to
magic and typically implies something unethical or dark or even dangerous,
like esoteric, occult became synonymous with irrationality and superstition
in the Enlightenment (1715-1789).
? Hermeticism: refers to Hermes Trismegistus, who probably did not exist,
but is claimed to be an ancient Egyptian magician who prophesied Christ?s
existence, he was associated with the Greek Hermes and later astrology,
alchemy, and magic. Hermeticism became popular in the Renaissance
(1300-1600) and dismissed as nonsense during the Enlightenment.
Some terms to start
? Mysticism, esotericism, occultism, and hermeticism now encompass
nonmodern ways of viewing the world. They are distinguished as
magic, and stand in opposition to ?true? or ?good? religion and are
considered anti-scientific ideas that regained popularity in Europe and
North America during the 1960?s within the New Age and counterculture (hippies, beatniks, punk, heavy metal, Goth, etc).
? Gnosis: just means ?knowledge.? Early Christians adopted the term as
a form of higher or secret teachings of Christ. Other forms of
Gnosticism show up in Neo-Platonism, Manicheanism, Judaic
Kabbalah, and Islamic Sufism. We will see Gnosticism show up as a
dualism that rejects all materiality for an assumed spiritual reality.
Final thought
? We are thus going to be dealing with the social construction of reality.
How do social groups and cultures create reality? What role does
authority play in creating and dismissing social and cultural realities?
We all inhabit social realities, as do the people we will be studying in
their conflicting beliefs and practices, and so too do the scholars we
we will read.
SOME
REFLECTIONS
ON THE
MAGIC-RELIGION
H.S.
RELATIONSHIP
VERSNEL
Summary
of magic as distinct
The well-known substantialist-‘Frazerian’-definitions
from religion by its immediate and individual goals, the concomitant manipulative
and coercive attitude, the instrumental and mechanical type of action etc., have
been under attack for more than half a century. Anthropologists in particular have
argued that no meaningful contrast between religion and magic can be gained
from this approach and that our notion ‘magic’ is a modern-western biased construct which does not fit representations of other cultures. Consequently, in the
view of some of them, the term ‘magic’ should be altogether avoided. Furthermore, with respect to the ancient and early modern world, in which the opposition
religion-magic is supposed to have originated, it is argued that magic and religion
function exclusively
as value-judgments, terms indicating ‘magic’ being exploited to
stigmatize illegitimate or undesired (religious) behaviour of socially or culturally
deviant groups.
In the present article it is argued that-although admittedly this functionalist
approach has yielded remarkable and lasting results-rejection of the term ‘magic’
will soon turn out to be unworkable and, in fact, is putting the cart before the
horse. From an etic point of view-which in the view of the author is the only
possible way to conduct scholarly discourse-it will be impossible to do cultural
research without the aid of heuristic instruments such as-at least broad,
polythetic or prototypical-definitions. And, if possible at all, it would be utterly
unpractical to completely eliminate religion as one of the obvious models of
contrast.
This position is substantiated with some practical instances from the GraecoRoman world. It is shown that, at least in the context of (magical) curse-tablets
and-related but clearly distinct-(religious) prayers for justice or vengeance, the
ancient authors were clearly aware of the very same distinctions modern people
normally associate with the notions of magic and religion.
Definitions and their critics
Magic does not exist, nor does religion. What do exist are our
of these concepts.’
Scholars in earlier decades of this
definitions
century were luckier: they knew both what magic was and how to
to those of either
find it. They simply opposed its characteristics
science or religion, which they knew as well. It all began with
Frazer’s tripartite distinction between science, religion and magic,
178
the first being defined as knowledge which is actually or potentially
the second and third belonging
to the
verifiable
by research,
which
is
asserted
of
the
truth
of
dogmatic
knowledge,
category
In his view, the basic difwithout regard to empirical verification.
and
ference between the latter two was that religion is intrinsically
if
is
but
to
an
whereas
not,
will,
magic
put
essentially unverifiable,
or
as “bastard
science”
test, prove false. Magic,
empirical
art”, and science proper alike claim to offer opera”pretended
tional knowledge which can be exploited to attain control over the
environment
and to achieve concrete goals directly, without mediaand
tion. Magic
religion have in common that they refer to supernatural forces and powers, a reality different from normal reality.
It will be evident that there is a tension between the notion of nonmediation
(that is: without needing a personal medium other than
course not without instrumental
the magician or his client-of
aid)
and that of the supernatural
agent, a tension which was bound to
discussions.
surface in subsequent
In the framework
of these Frazerian
definitions
of religion and
will
be
on
which
is
silent
the
outside
science,
magic-I
scope of my
issue2-a
set of distinctions
has been elaborated
which have
dominated
the discussion
in the
years after their formalization
of 11 oppositions
much-quoted
catalogue
by the anthropologist
Goode.3
the serious criticism
that had already
been
Though
in
the
has
been
thirties
and
elaborated
with
ever
expressed
repeated
in
recent
the
distinctionsdecades,
increasing emphasis
following
a selection of the most important
items-are
still generally applied,
at any rate outside the field of anthropology.
to achieve concrete,
1 ) Intention. Magic is employed
mostly
individual goals. Religion is not primarily purpose-motivated,
or at
most focusses on intangible long-term
which
concern
collecgoals
tive issues of society.4 4
Man is both the
2) Attitude. Magic is essentially manipulative.
initiator and the executor of processes he controls with the aid of
knowledge which he has, or which is put, at his disposal. Religion
views man as dependent
upon powers outside his sphere of influence. This entails an attitude of submission
and supplication.
The
coercive manipulaopposition is thus one between “instrumental,
tion” and “personal,
supplicative
negotiation.”
179
by the attention
3) Action. Magic is characterized
paid to the
technical side of the manipulation,
of
formula
and modus
precision
is often required
since the
operandi. Professional
experience
are observed, there
knowledge is secret. But if all the instructions
is an expectation
of direct results. In so far as religion, on the other
admits
of
effects (prayer for health, votives, private
intended
hand,
the results are never dependent
upon a professional
oracles),
factor,
specialist, though his skill may be required as a mediating
nor on the suppliant,
but solely and exclusively on the free favour
of sovereign gods.
4) Social/moral evaluation. Since the goals of magic often run
of the society, magic
counter to the interests of other members
the
of
an
anti-social
or at least a-social
connotation
acquires
easily
to
the
Durkheimian
thus
leading
dichotomy:
magic is
activity,
whereas
has
immoral,
deviant,
anti-social,
positive social
religion
is
cohesive
and
functions,
solidarizing.
One might, of course, elaborate upon distinctions
but these suffice for our purpose. In order to illustrate their influence I note that
all, except the last, are implied in the definition given by no less an
than Sir Edmund Leach in 1964: “The term magic
anthropologist
denotes a complex of belief and action on the basis and by means
of which persons and groups may attempt to control their environment in such a way as to achieve their ends, the efficacy of such
control being untested and in some cases untestable by the methods
of empirical science. The core of the magical act is that it rests on
untested belief and that it is an effort at control. The
empirically
first aspect
the second
from
it from
science,
distinguishes
5
religion. “5
no item in this scheme has escaped criticism. It has
Practically
been demonstrated
that typically
“mechanical”
(ex opere operato)
devices lie at the heart of religious
magical
(ex opere operantis)
most revealingly
in the grand debate between Proceremonies,
testants and Roman Catholics in the 16th century.6 As far as antithe typical rites of primitive
Roman religion
quity is concerned,
have induced
its characterization
as a “magical
Vice
religion”.
versa, some expressions of the magical papyri of late antiquity sometimes cannot be distinguished
from religious confession. It has also
180
been shown th
