2005
DOI: 10.1093/jaarel/lfi042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are We Through with Geertz?

Abstract: Clifford Geertz's influential definition of religions as providing their members with both an ethos and a worldview-in his terms, both a "model for" and "model of" reality-has of late become a neuralgic point of contention in religious studies. In particular some critics have seen his ideas of religious models of reality as biased, out-moded, or in other ways confused about the way that language refers (or does not refer) to the world. In this article, I consider two criticisms of Geertz's project and seek to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Much depends also, of course, on how one defines and understands religion (Bellah 1970; Boyer 1996, 2001; Geertz 1966; Guthrie 1996; Segal 1985; Spiro 1966; Wax 1984). On the one hand are positions that claim that religious symbols do not and cannot refer to the world and that religion “refers to a distinctive, nonreducible aspect of human life” (Schilbrack 2005:437). This necessarily requires an ability to clearly bracket religious and nonreligious symbols, discourse, and practices.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Much depends also, of course, on how one defines and understands religion (Bellah 1970; Boyer 1996, 2001; Geertz 1966; Guthrie 1996; Segal 1985; Spiro 1966; Wax 1984). On the one hand are positions that claim that religious symbols do not and cannot refer to the world and that religion “refers to a distinctive, nonreducible aspect of human life” (Schilbrack 2005:437). This necessarily requires an ability to clearly bracket religious and nonreligious symbols, discourse, and practices.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Schilbrack 2005), and is particularly useful in the context of Roman religion. Geertz' basic assumption rests upon the notion that sociologists and anthropologists need to study and interpret meanings people express through culture and religion, rather than explaining the cause of cultural and religious expressions (Segal 2003).…”
Section: Roman Religion As a Cultural Communication Systemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geertz does not commit this error, however. In a thorough response to Frankenberry and Penner's charge, Kevin Schilbrack demonstrates that while Geertz used the language of “framework” in theoretical writings, the examples that Geertz cites from field work do not use metaphysics as pre‐cognitive epistemic schemes, but rather, in Schilbrack's words, as “interpretive glosses.” These interpretive glosses “orient and tell their members what to think” (Schilbrack , 445). They do not pre‐cognitively determine the shape of the world.…”
Section: Clifford Geertz and Metaphysics As “Interpretive Gloss”mentioning
confidence: 99%