> Hell, everything I hear about the sociology of religion is that its become
> driven by folks using social capital/religious marketing kinds of
> approaches... horrifying.
i'm afraid i agree with you that the approach is horrifying, but i am happy to report that that's not all that's going on. Hervieu-Leger, for all that I don't think her answer exactly works, is not doing that at all (she is still very much in the tradition of Durkheim, ultimately, although she is trying to disengage the field from the notion of the sacred). I imagine you are thinking of people like C Everett Ladd (_the Ladd Report_) and similar work responding to Putnam's _Bowling Alone_. I don't see much of it in what i've read yet of Robert Wuthnow, either, but I may just not have come across it, yet. Well, there are hints of it in _Producing the Sacred_, but I don't remember it being a driving factor.
>
>
> I think it is Spivak that Haraway quotes as saying that nature is a thing
> we
> can't not want, even if we know all the trips and tropes tied up in the
> evolution of the idea of nature, the history of science and the material
> semiotic production of landscapes, species, communities, etc.... I have a
> feeling that nature's twin, culture, is the same sort of thing we can't not
> want, its just that many need to have it rather than non-innocently embrace
> the contradiction of using it despite its problematic status.
Yep. This reminds me, by the way, that I was glad to see you recommending Collingwood's _Idea of Nature_, which I think is fantastic and used in a history and philosophy of science course a few years ago.
j
(way, way over quota, but making up for lost time?)
>
>
> I didn't keep up with Geertz', even though he spoke at my undergraduation
> in
> 1984 - his son graduated with me - but everything I've heard indicates that
> he got more intellectually and politically conservative, no Reaganite but
> more conservative, as time went on... but that was from angry/politicized
> grad students who may have been celebrating the flush of youthful
> intellectual revolut.
>
> A (over quota)
>
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Dept. Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Very helpful, thanks. Part of what I had in mind on the question of human
> > and animal culture was precisely Donna Haraway's work. In the field of
> > religion, the truth is that we are still not far past Geertz. There is
> > Talal
> > Asad's work (in no small part growing out of a critique of Geertz), which
> > is
> > important, and more recently Daniele Hervieu-Leger's understanding of
> > religion as "chain of memory" (which also clearly still draws on Geertz
> --
> > at least, it seems to me). But then, we are also not past William James
> in
> > the study of religion. Mark C. Taylor's new book (last year), still has
> to
> > engage Geertz in the opening chapter.
> > But, to your final point especially, I wanted to say in my reply to
> charles
> > in the other thread a second ago that Geertz did his key work almost 50
> > years ago, now . . . i haven't looked at some of the interviews with him
> in
> > the several years before he died, but it occurs to me to wonder what he
> > would say about a number of these questions, given the work of the last
> > couple of decades. And the truth is that I don't know.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is mostly correct: a few extensions/clarifications.
> > >
> > > The meanings (plural) symbols (individually) come to possess are tied
> to
> > > their materiality, or material expression in linguistic forms, but -
> and
> > > this is the important moment for me - these meanings are bound up in
> > > cultural systems - they are bound up in networks of meanings. The
> reason
> > I
> > > fought Charles' claims about human culture vs mere animal action is not
> > so
> > > much because I think he's wrong but because my sense that culture, as
> he
> > > expressed it, was too simple... its definition too straightforwardly
> > > opposed
> > > to animal capacities
> > >
> > > I guess there are two things important to me. First, the symbolic
> > meaning
> > > of an act/object is never singular - even within a culture (whatever
> that
> > > means, since the spatiotemporal boundaries of cultural practices are
> > never
> > > clearcut) - because all acts/objects are engaged in an array of -
> always
> > > contested - meaning systems... think of the rabbinical traditions or
> > > standpoint epistemologies if you'd like. Second, my sense of the human
> > > condition is not one where we can clearly say that this or that aspect
> of
> > > human cultural practice is absolutely not shared by animals (as if that
> > > were
> > > a coherent category), it is one where we are better off saying that it
> is
> > > the qualitatively different, mutually reinforcing and dialectical ways
> > > humanity can and sometimes does actively engage material, individual
> and
> > > social networkings other species enter into a few at a time and with
> far
> > > less frequency - and as a result -with far less depth and historicity.
> > >
> > > I think Geertz is really useful but we need to remember that his
> writing
> > in
> > > The Interpretation of Cultures occurs at the climax, and as the
> > > death-knell,
> > > of ethnocentric scientism/objectivism in cultural anthropology. His
> work
> > > then serves as one of the foundations for reflexive ethnographic
> writings
> > > which simultaneously introduce the author's thought process more
> > > transparently into ethnographic writing and decenter the author as a
> > > result. While this kind of public auto-deconstruction became all-but
> > > onanistic in its ironic playfulness at the height of post-modernism it
> > also
> > > decentered the researcher, set the stage for reflexive ethnographies of
> > > advanced industrial social relations - including science - and
> > contributed
> > > powerfully to the debate over feminist standpoint epistemology,
> situated
> > > knowledges and the democratization of scientific research - where
> > research
> > > subjects actually gain some subjectivity.
> > >
> > > Everything from science as a labor process (see Robert Young et al in
> the
> > > Science as Culture collective) to cultural anthropological studies of
> > > laboratory practices (see Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar or Karin Knorr
> > > Cetina) to sci/tech/med studies (see Langdon Winner, Donna Haraway,
> Rayna
> > > Rapp and/or Adele Clarke) all start to raise major epistemological
> > > questions
> > > about the status/activity/contribution of objects, natures,
> > others/othering
> > > etc. to knowledge and culture. My sense is that Geertz' work is VERY
> > > useful
> > > but is also very situated in its late-60s production... it serves as a
> > very
> > > readable introduction to more powerful and transformative recent
> > material.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <
> jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see where you're going semiotically here, but this what Geertz is
> > > doing.
> > > > The symbol is the object/act. The meaning it carries is the abstract
> > > > concept, not an object. But he does think of these
> concepts/conceptions
> > > as
> > > > meaningful primarily in terms of their being expressed materially,
> > which
> > > is
> > > > part of why any objects or acts can be symbols -- if they carry
> > meaning.
> > > > This underscores the centrality of ritual, and religious doctrine
> (for
> > > > example) then is seen as important insofar as it matters for what
> > people
> > > > actually do (whether in ritual strictly speaking, or in simply acting
> > > more
> > > > broadly). There is something William James about it, in that respect.
> > But
> > > I
> > > > think it's fair to say that Geertz is very much in the tradition of
> > > > Durkheim
> > > > and Weber.
> > > > But Geertz is worth reading, imo, and I think the case is much more
> > solid
> > > > than with Badiou. Everyone talks about the balinese cockfight essay,
> > and
> > > > I'm
> > > > not dissing it, but for me the ones that have always mattered are
> > "thick
> > > > description" and the essay on "religion as a cultural system," the
> > latter
> > > > of
> > > > which I usually make students in religion classes read. Both are in
> > _the
> > > > interpretation of cultures_. The problem, as Alan already noted, is
> his
> > > > emphasis on meaning. On the one hand, this is very compelling, and on
> > the
> > > > other, it means (as it were) that he misses things. Myself, I'm fine
> > with
> > > > that, because his approach to the question of religion, and of
> culture
> > in
> > > > general, is useful.
> > > >
> > > > and i'm presuming that if
> > > > i've said anything wildly misleading, alan or someone will correct
> me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > meaning. concepts. symbols are abstract
> > > > > > representations of
> > > > > > > > concepts, i think
> > > > > > > > is what he says? and the important part for
> > > > > > geertz is
> > > > > > > > meaning.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ___________________________________
> > > > > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ___________________________________
> > > > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > > > ___________________________________
> > > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > > >
> > > > ___________________________________
> > > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>