| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The Objectification of Religion: Universal Themes I |
 |
Objectification of religion is one of the most interesting tendencies demonstrated by religious people. It is also one of the most universal features of religion. As Norbeck observes,
"Great religions have indeed arisen as ethical or philosophical principles for the guidance of man, but once they have become the province of multitudes...they have met a common fate of objectification; that is, of being cast into concrete form so that they may be actively appreciated by the eyes, ears, or other sense organs rather than remaining only abstract ideas and beliefs."1
And again,
"Objectification in varying degree and form appears in all known religious complexes of primitive peoples and it has been outstanding in the religions of civilized societies."2
The student of history of religion must wonder why this is such a universal tendency. Any phenomenon that appears everywhere on earth, during every period of history, and in every known religious complex, must have some underlying explanations that are fairly common or general.
The purpose of this study is to survey some of the current and past explanations put forward for objectification of religion, and to evaluate the credibility of these views in the estimation of this author.
The first question that must be raised is whether generalized themes of the sort envisaged in this paper are really valid, or whether we are simply imposing an artificial framework onto the field of comparative religion. Parrinder complains that, "A good deal of tinkering has been done at the theory of religion, without coming to grips with the facts of religious experience."3
This complaint is no doubt appropriate, especially when one considers the very great number of blunders that unbridled speculation has produced.4 He also explains another problem,(the religious) "...state is externalized in rites which we can observe, but their meaning depends finally on an awareness of God and that men are dependent on him and must be resigned to his will. At this point the theologian takes over from the anthropologist."5
Authorities today increasingly agree that a deeper understanding is required of the cultures, economies, languages, and histories of each religious group before trying to compare them, and reach generalized conclusions, if, indeed, we can then reach such conclusions.
On the other hand, we must agree with Norbeck when he observes that,
"...very few comparative studies of primitive religion of any sizable compass have been attempted in America during the past two decades; and none has been attempted in England, where a common view seems to be that we must understand every detail of the social and cultural context of each religion from the native viewpoint before any kind of comparison is attempted... something which seems hardly attainable..."6
Norbeck recognizes that if we insist on taking every religious system as a separate entity even to the extent that it cannot be compared to others (because the social context is different) we wind up in a shoreless ocean of unintelligible detail. Unless it is possible to draw some general conclusions, there would seem to be no basis for a study of comparative religion at all! Carmody and Carmody agree with this when they say,
"...we believe that the empiricism that misses such unity (between religious concepts) and mystery is at least an unwitting reductionism-- an insistence that humanity is no more than as it behaves. Usually, that insistence indicates an impoverished imagination..."7
Certainly, if we take care to qualify any conclusions reached, and to ascertain that they are truly representative, it is legitimate to seek for more or less universal themes underlying universal practices. This is especially true when we see some practices that are far too widespread and similar to be coincidental. Whether we look into the nature of man, or into the nature of man's environment, (or both), there must be some connecting factors that explain these patterns of similarity.
As stated earlier, one pattern that is extremely similar throughout the world and throughout history, is objectification of religion. Since the subject of objectification of religion is too broad to treat completely in a paper such as this, we will be majoring on the aspect of objectification known as sacred space.8 We hope the notion of sacred space will shed light on the process of objectification as a whole.
Sacred space refers to the universal tendency of religious man to identify space that is sacred, and to carefully delimit that space from profane space. This space, once marked off, usually also plays a key role in the ongoing worship and religious practice of the faithful in that system.
Delineation of sacred space is expressed in a tremendous variety of ways in different religious systems, but is always recognizable as the same basic practice, even when the type, size, or purpose of the space differs. This is why the notion of sacred space, which is a key component in objectification of all religions, is a good departure point for a study of this type.
Perhaps by discovering the reasons for delineating sacred space, we can identify themes involved in the larger questions of objectification of religion.
Ask Dennis a question or share a comment.
Go to the Objectification table of contents
Read on to the next section in "Objectification"
Send Dennis a comment of question
