The Broadness of Geertz’s Definition of Religion
Clifford Geertz, an American anthropologist and proponent of the religious symbolic system, developed a new way of interpreting supernatural beliefs in the mid twentieth century. Most recognized for his influential essay, “Religion as a Cultural System”, Geertz proposed that religion should be studied by analyzing the symbols within a religion in conjunction with how those symbols shape the actions of the individuals within the culture. Geertz’s unique focus on how symbols are used to address fundamental questions regarding social life differentiated his theory from other philosophers, such as Huston Smith and Tim Crane. In addition, Geertz’s theory and definition of religion is overarchingly broad when assessing the validity of whether or not a way of life and culture can double as a formal religion. The definition is so broad that political movements and philosophies can double as a religion, making other philosophers uncomfortable with the breadth of his definition.
To show that Geertz’s broad definition can uphold a consistent standard in identifying the definition of religion, I will further analyze Buddhism and Karl Marx’s Socialist theory in relation to Geertz’s definition. I will do so by compartmentalizing Geertz’s theory into five individual components: system of symbols, establishment of long-lasting moods and motivations, the conception of a general order of existence, making these ideas seem factual and real, and the belief that these ideas are unique (Geertz). If Buddhism and Socialism can uphold the five parts of religion, then by Geertz’s theory it is a religion. By analyzing Buddhism and Socialism in regard to Geertz’s theory, I will demonstrate that his definition is very inclusive, resulting in political, scientific, and philosophical views being considered as religions, which is unlike common definitions of religions that incorporate the necessity of a supernatural being or god. Lastly, I will discuss how critics suggest Geertz could improve his definition in contrast to how supporters agree with his definition.
To begin, I will explain Geertz’s theory in full by deciphering and analyzing his thoughts presented in the book Islam Observed and the essay “Religion as a Cultural System”. Between these two sources, Geertz provides a general framework for the comparative analysis of religion. Geertz proceeds to defend his definition of religion by explaining why religion is prominent within cultures. He argues that religion answers the question “Why?” In the book Islam Observed he further delves into his argument by stating that there is a dialogue between religion and common sense, much like the relationship between art and science and common sense (Pals). Meaning that common sense can only explain so much and therefore religion is needed to make sense of what the human brain cannot comprehend in the physical world. In addition, Geertz attributes religion to explaining questions with illogical outcomes, such as why bad things happen to good people and vice versa, or why good people die (Davis). He explains that if one takes a commonsense approach to these questions, the human brain would not be satisfied. For example, good people die because everyone dies, and the Earth cannot have unlimited people. This answer is very blunt and not very satisfying. Therefore, religion fills this void and answers the question by saying they are now with God in a better place where they are supposed to be. Now that Geertz established a reason for why people practice religion, he clearly states that the only adequate way to study religion is through the actions of believers (Pals). He alleges that anthropologist can no longer study religion by focusing singularly on either inward experience or outward behavior, but simultaneously combine the two components to analyze how the actions of religious people are guided by their beliefs as a system of meaning. Next, Geertz continues to build upon his theory by differentiating religion and other ways of perceiving the world through scientific, ideological, and philosophical views. Geertz premises his thoughts by saying that science and religion do not exactly contradict each other but that they use different methods to make sense of the world (Pals). Science uses inductive reasoning to make conclusions; however, believers of a religion see the world through their beliefs and align the world to conform to their religious beliefs, and thus socialism is not considered a religion. In conclusion, Geertz premises his definition of religion by providing a reason for religion along with a way of studying religion.
Along with Geertz’s insight found in his book Islam Observed, he further defines the five characteristics of religion in his renowned essay “Religion as a Cultural System”. He states that the defining components of religion are “(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” (Geertz). To further interpret this definition, it is important to know how Geertz defines symbols, the basis of his theory. He continues to state that symbols are “Used for any object, act, event, quality, or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception— the conception is the symbol’s “meaning”—and that is the approach I shall follow here” (Geertz). For example, a cross, animal, or number can be a symbol because they are tangible representations of notions and concrete embodiments of ideas, attitudes, beliefs, judgments, or longings. These symbols of religions then create values, ideas, and moods in believers that can be observed from an outside perspective. The symbols then generate very general ideas about the world and the believer’s existence. These symbols work together to form long-lasting ideas that are true, factual, and not conjecture. The symbols do not need to be proven by inductive reasoning because they are regarded as uniquely and simply true. Overall, a culture may be considered a religion if it demonstrates all five components of Geertz’s definition of a religion.
Now that Geertz’s definition of religion has been elaborated and analyzed, I will actively use the definition to show how the definition is broadly constructed and does not contain the specificities regarding a supernatural figure or god. I will begin by depicting Buddhism in light of Geertz’s five characteristics that define religion. Buddhism contains a system of symbols satisfying Geertz’s first category of his definition. For example, the lotus flower is a prominent symbol in Buddhism. Although the roots of a Lotus flower are grounded deeply in the mud, the flower is able to grow above the murky water, analogous to how reaching enlightenment contains suffering and hard work (Baillie). The lotus flower symbol then evokes long lasting moods such as suffering and meditation to reach enlightenment, satisfying part two of Geertz’s definition. Next, the symbol generates a concept of order and existence because it gives meaning to the suffering and hardships that are required to reach enlightenment. Lastly, Buddhism satisfies Geertz’s fourth and fifth parts of his definition of religion because the symbol of the lotus flower holds to be true. The symbol of enlightenment grants a meaning to suffering and can be grounded in truth by escaping the life cycles. Overall, Buddhism satisfies Geertz’s theory of religion by fulfilling his five-part definition.
Like other common definitions of religion, Geertz’s definition is structured enough to uphold Buddhism as a religion; however, it is broad enough to term Marxism as a religion. I will prove this by explaining how Karl Marx’s Socialist theory is considered a religion by the standards of Geertz’s definition. To begin, the hammer and sickle symbol representing proletarian solidarity; the union between the working class and the peasants (Platoff). This symbol created a long-lasting mood that sparked revolutions and reform to end capitalism; thus, replacing capitalism by a democratic worker’s state to emancipate the peasants (Platoff). In addition, this prominent symbol has provided a conception of general order and meaning. The peasants believed that capitalism only benefited 1% of the population, and that socialism would free them of discrimination by money, gender, and sex (Platoff). Thus, giving the peasants a reason to revolt. Next, these socialist ideas represented by the hammer and sickle symbol made the concepts of reality seem true by presenting them in an enduring, promising, and appealing way. If the peasants revolt and overthrow capitalism, then they will have equal opportunity in life, making socialism a very appealing and straight forward answer to their suppression. Lastly, Karl Marx proposed his theory and regime in such a way that seemed uniquely realistic, satisfying Geertz’s final part of his five-part definition. If Karl Marx’s followers listened to him, then they would gain equality and liberation. Simply put, a so called realistic and simple solution to the peasant’s liberation was attainable through Karl Marx’s Socialist theories. Overall, Geertz’s five-part definition of religion is expansive enough to categorize philosophical ideas such as science and politics as religions. When analyzing Karl Marx’s Socialist ideas in regard to Geertz’s definition of religion, the Marxists movement and ideas qualify as a religion, creating discomfort amongst scholars who think that the definition must contain a supernatural figure.
Many critics argue that Geertz’s largest downfall was excluding any mention of supernatural entities or gods. If Geertz’s added a clause to his definition stating that a religion must make note of a higher power, then his definition would not consider Jainism, Buddhism, nor Confucianism as religions. For example, Jains do not believe in a creator god nor supernatural figures, yet their culture and way of life is recognized as a religion. It is also important to look at Geertz’s definition through an objective lens. Critics do not like the idea that Marxism, a powerful and impactful political movement with negative connotations, could be considered a religion. However, we cannot be subjective when determining if a culture is a religion or not. It would be invalid to say that a culture can only be considered a religion if the
outcomes and impacts on society were considered good or beneficial. Although it is uncomfortable to categorize Marxism in the same category with prominent religions such as Christianity, they are both cultures which have outcomes that are demonstrated and seen throughout the societies that practice them.
Upon initial review Geertz’s definition of religion, heavily focused on symbolism, seems overly comprehensive, lacking specificity. However, the broadness of Geertz’s definition is a necessary component of the definition when evaluating different religions that do not incorporate supernatural entities or gods into their culture. Geertz uses five characteristics and qualities that a culture and way of life must uphold to be qualified as a religion. When using these five characteristics as a measuring tool, cultures such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam qualify as religions. In addition, political theories such as Marxism also qualify as a religion. This is where Geertz’s theory sparks controversy. The broadness of his definition leaves it to be susceptible to categorizing philosophies, science, and politics as forms of religion. However, this is not wrong. Although some political theories have unpleasant symbols, outcomes, activities, and beliefs, they still have the same defining characteristics that prominent religions such as Judaism and Christianity possess.
Works Cited
Baillie, Allan. “The Lotus.” Tricycle, 5 Mar. 2016, tricycle.org/magazine/the-lotus/.
Davis, G. Scott. “Islam Observed: Another Neglected Classic of Comparative Religion and Ethics.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 98, no. 3, 2015, pp. 377– 397. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/soundings.98.3.0377. Accessed 30 Mar. 2021.
Geertz, Clifford, Religion as a cultural system. In: The interpretation of cultures: selected essays, Geertz, Clifford, pp.87-125. Fontana Press, 1993.
Pals, Daniel L. (ed.) (2009). Introducing Religion: Readings From the Classic Theorists. Oxford University Press.
Platoff, Anne M. Soiuz and Symbolic Union: Representations of Unity in Soviet Symbolism. UC Santa Barbara Previously Published Works, 2020.