Captions test.
Test captions.
Okay, so that's all just kind of
recap. Flush it out a summary 
from last time just to get UT 
back in mode. And to set up a 
foundation for this. You could 
say that-- well first, any 
questions at this point? Before 
I continue? Okay, you could say 
that we approach religion in two
dominant ways.
We will see perspectives here 
soon. Two types of perspectives.
We have e knock and edit. And 
this relates to--.
When we say that something is 
emit. An attempt to see the 
world objectively. That person 
in that culture and in that 
religion. Through the view of 
the people being studied. 
Observed.
Whatever discussed. So it's a 
view from their perspective and 
in a sense trying to understand 
putting yourself in their shoes.
And being able to see the world 
that way. Often a theological 
approach is done this way. 
Studying a religion in 
particular.
Going to a I did Vinty school to
study christian theology. That 
provides very much an Emmick 
perspective. Anybody approaching
it this way. Trying to undertake
how to view the world. How do I 
adopt this view and see if I can
be a member in this society.
So this applies to anthropology 
in general. And you can see it 
is in many ways trying to 
understand the other culture 
from the perspective as they 
inhabit the world.-- and we 
compare that to Emmick. An 
attempt to see the world 
objectively rather than 
subjectively. Usually science of
theory. Meaning a set of 
approaches. Which is what we're 
going to involve ourselves in 
shortly.
And I've got an asterisk here. 
Usually historically. This is-- 
usually drawing on western 
thinkers and philosophies. But 
we should make a note of that.
A lot F owestern sciences trace 
us there back to the Greeks. 
Anthropology and western 

discipline.-- how do we obtain 
and consider this objective 
western culture. This gets us 
into a notion of no centrism and
being biassed. Let's take a look
at these two definitions. I 
think we raised these terms last
time as I recall. Is that right?
Yeah. So just good to put down 
some definitions. I don't think 
we did that. These are in terms 
of the image if you are always 
viewing the world from the 
perspective of your own culture,
ethno, your culture.
And putting it at the centre. 
And saying we want to be weary 
of other cultures and not 
centering yourself. And in a 
sense, this is not-- this would 
be trying to attempt a more 
themic perspective.
Edic outside perspective is 
subject to centrism one might 
say. Whether it's a particular 
cultural religion. Sometimes 
it's viewing the world from the 
perspective of the other that 
you're engaging with or 
interested in.
Okay.
So these are going to be factors
at play as we start to talk 
about approaches. Any questions?
emic, edic, ethno centrism, 
ultraawarism? Emic is the 
meaning and phone etic is the 
sound.
The meaning is-- you know, the 
red fruit.
So-- this is just the source of 
phonemic and phonetic so if you 
are aware of linguistics and you
come across. You might say what 
is this objectively what is the 
sound these are making? In 
reference to the same thing. The
red fruit.
The apple. But in the culture 
you need to understand English 
or spanish, right? To understand
the meaning. But anybody 
objectively can hear the phone 
etic sound. May not understand 
what the meaning is, right? So 
anyway, this is just if this 
helps-- I like to understand and
I'll do this a lot. I like to 
look at the etymology of words 
like with religion. Understand 
and take apart the religion or 
take apart the word like 
religion. That helps me 
understand and keep things so 
I'm just kind of providing to 
help tether better ideas in a 
sense.
So if that is helpful. So now in
a sense. We are mostly going to 
be talking about outside 
perspectives of these religions.
And they are a lot here. That 
are covered in our book.
I've added a couple that are in 
our book. Worth thinking about. 
And today let's see how far we 
get in terms of some of these 
ideas. So-- this is just me. The
outline and if it's helpful. 
First of all I want to talk 
about theoretical. The best way 
is a philosophy that is applied.
Supposition or set of ideas 
intended to explain. Something. 
So you might talk about an 
economic theory. A set of 
principles on which an activity 
is baseed.
Usually it's a particular 
economic theory. Marxist, et 
cetera.
An idea to account for 
something. Might use it as a 
hypothesis or an theory of why 
that occurred. A sense of 
hypothesis. I have an idea or a 
suggestion as to why that event 
occurred. And in a sense the 
theorys and notions. So this is 

how-- but we're going with the 
first couple definitions there.
So again the origins and the 
Greek. Contemplation 
speculation.
So what are you thinking 
contemplating something. That's 
all it really is. Okay.
I intend to think of it as an 
applied philosophy of some sort.
Outside of principles.
Instead of ideas.
In this sense, it's really a 
toolset. Except a mental 
toolset. We can kind of open up 
our toolbox. We've got all 
these-- looking at about ten 
tools. Theoretical mental tools 
in which we can look. One way to
think of it as a set of glasses.
That you put on and you look at 
this in this way. And take an 
edic perspective to this but 
even more specific than that 
we'll start with an evolutionary
perspective and try to-- how do 
we as evolutionary thinkers 
think about religion? Marxist 
and social perspectives. And all
the different ones WEF. So 
theory is just a way of thinking
and people have recourse-- 
people intend to adopt of course
particular perspective. In their
career.
And it often works that way. 
This is wholistic. And think of 
it as tools. This tool useful 
for setting this religion. Does 
it help explain this religion 
for you? Does it expand your 
understanding of that reLidgen 
to use this tool? To use this 
theory? To use this approach? 
Sometimes a wrench is useful and
sometimes a screw driver is 
better and use the tool that's 
best appropriate for 
understanding. Any questions on 
theorys or frameworks so far? 
Yeah? 
  Student: Would you say over 
time different theories fall in 
and out depending on-- the state
of the world kind of? Or like-- 
the kind of periods that the 
world is in currently? 
[ Inaidable student remark ].
  Instructor: Oh we'll get to 
it. But the short form sit 
applies to perspective and 
groups. That's basically it.
We hardly talk about these 
anymore so it's kind of a 
historical exercise.
And still people find utility 
that it is still a useful tool 
and as long as that's a case 
people continue to use it and 
adapt to contemporary settings. 
But when it's no longer useful. 
We're going to start with the 
uniLynnial evolutionary 
perspective. We could say it's 
just a simplistic perspective. 
So let's give an example of it. 
So-- the evolutionary approach. 
This is materially evolution. We
call tight uniLynnial evolution.
Unilineal, what's that mean? 
Well, uni is one. And lineal is 
a line. A trajectory of some 
sort. So what they argue is 
there's only one way religion 

develops.
They focus on the origins and 
once it appears. One way you 
might think it's monolithom one 
way. Even though there's some 
varieties to how they think 
about that. One way for this to 
evolve.
Edward Burnett Tylerer major 
anthropologist late 180 0S has 
been active in this approach.
And James FRAS>> Reporter:  Key 
figures. And we'll talk about 
both over the course.
So let's start with an example 
of how an evolutionary approach 
in the 1800s thought of it. 
Let's turn to Tyler primitive 
culture from 1871. One of the 
first overall books about 
humanity. Which he called 
limited culture. Because in his 
mind, most of humanity or at 
least in terms of especially 
with this concern with the 
origins. Origins and connection 
with primitive earlyest 
original.
In his view the first religion 
is aminous. What's that? 
  Student: A belief that every 
human being nonliving and living
has a soul. That something 
living inside. Like a pre-- a 
tree, a cow. A stone. Anything. 
  Instructor: Right, yeah, good.
So in a sense when you look at 
the word animism think animated.
Shares the word with animate. 
That you're animating these 
pictures. And in a sense, an 
mouse religions animate. I 
didn't say all things. Depends 
on the religion. Whether all 
things.
Like some would say there's a 
spirit or caribou or bear. That 
we can communicate with and do 
rituals for. But we wouldn't do 
that for plants. Then there's 
other religions where you would.
Maybe lakes, mountains, the 
wind. The north star. All of 
these things might be animateed.
When we turn to ancient 
religions such as a lot of the 
poly morphic or-- you'll find 
that there's a spirit or God 
associated with the wind or Sea.
And of course this is an 
outgrowth and we'll turn to poly
theaism next. So-- often inan 
mystic forgers. So things are 
animated. The world is animated.
And-- groups evolve in their 
idea. Yet they evolve into-- 
just like I was saying. And in 
our text I don't think it's in 
this chapter. Another chapter a 
nice example of Roman Deities.
They are in charge of the 
flowering of the plant.
And then you make offerings to 
that each day. The plants. The 
crops. And in a sense, animated 
ideas become personified with 
its own wishes and so on. So 
there's kind of a-- in this 
idea-- like the animated beings 
take on personality way beyond 
the spirit of the rock itself. 
There's a Deity associated with 
it. And there's of course 
multiple. So poly theaism we 
break that word down. Like poly 
gone. Many sided. Geometric 
entity. As opposed to theoism. 
Theology. That means Gods.
So multial Gods.
And when you talk about the 
Egyptians. All of them were 
popLouis societies. When we see 
the first cities begin to 
assemble they are poly 
theaistic.
Over time they will evolve to 
mono theaistic. Monism refers to

one.
So similar to uni, another term 
that you can use. Right? 
Whenever you see mono or uni. It
recalls one.
So mono theaism arises out of 
the context of polly theaism. 
  Student: Do we know why? 
  Instructor: Well, we'll talk 
about that. This is their idea. 
First, I'll just say that. This 
is-- we're working within their 
idea.
But any critiques of this idea? 
Zoey? 
  Student: Yeah. Papers-- favors
like Christianity and western 

theology? 
  Instructor: Anybody agree with
that? Go ahead. 
  Student: Yeah, I noticed a 
recurring pattern a little bit. 
Things are animated or animism 
specifically in the central 
religion. Now I'm a big fan of 
mythology and what not, so in 
the central religion there's a 
belief that everything has a 
spirit in a sense. And there's a
specific kind of mythical 
creature called-- Sukomogami I'm
probably butchering that forgive
me in which after a hundred 
years an object gains a soul. So
that might have crossed over 
into the polytheasm of the 
centrists. 
  Instructor: Right. A parallel 
thing that we have when we think
of many cultures we'll have a 
whole variety of things but 
that's an interesting thing. 
Yeah.
Any other thoughts?
  Student: Perhaps saying that 
Money Theaism is like a final-- 
religion that's the best. 
  Instructor: Yeah, I think we 
can say-- what's a term for this
kind of thinking? It's very 
ethno centric. These christian 
and the christian culture I 
don't know if he's christian 
himself.
But in any case there's even if 
he regards himself as scientist 
objectives early absorbed 
western culture in which-- and 
so mono Theaism is better than 
polythea Tic cultures in this 

view.
So that's how it works. Also 
very much a part of the colonial
society.
Right. Yeah good point.
The information he's even 
getting is colonial in where it 
comes from.
Yeah. 
  Student: Is this also how 
bebegan to label poly-- like 
multiple pantheons as 
mythologies instead? 
  Instructor: Yeah, that's 
right. It's as if poly-- 
mythologies and-- religion.
Political text. In this course 
all of sit mythology. And that 
doesn't mean-- I don't use the 
word mythology in a disparaging 
way. The ethnocentric view here 
would use it in a disparaging 
way. I'm just regarding it as-- 
these are statements framed in a
Sene kind of narrative. We'll 
read a whole chapter on 
mythology. But we'll situate all
religious beliefs as having 

mythologies.
So we don't want to separate out
the notion that my religion is 
not mythology. Everybody else is
a bunch using the word myth is 

negative.
As if it's false. That's not 
what we'll do here. That's 
right. Yeah so more VOEVed. And 
in the context of colonialism 
has some bad ramifications of 
this.
Why? 
  Student: It disregards within 
Canada Indigenous culture and 
religion practices. Like forcing
upon mono theastic religion. 
>> Yeah. We have to put them in 
residential schools-- well if 
they don't convert to 
Christianity, kill them, 

basically.
These kinds of attitudes and 
it's perfectly fine because it's
all rationalized that they are 
less e involveed.
So let's clear out all those 
less e involveed.
Very SMUCH similar to the Nazi 
idea they are at the apex oft 
human race. Therefore let's just
e limb Nate all unsatisfactory 
elements in this society.
Not just Jews as talked. But 
people's-- disabled peoples.
Homo INTAUMS we're all put in to
be e limb Nated. So yeah once 
you have these kinds of idea, 
the hierarchy kind of leads to 
these kinds of logics, right? So
let's play a part in that. But 
let's turn to Frasers.
I believe on the other side has 
an S. And it is Z. Just notice 
that. Frazer. And this is a very
influential text. He's classed 
as a unilineal evolution because
he poses his own version.
But this one is a little 
different. He might toss Tyler 
under the bus here.
All people start with magic 
basically the types of rituals 
that they engage with seem 
magical. Sometimes spirits.
What we see serve has a lot of 
these magic superstitions that 
they do.
And that these evolve 
systematically into a coherent 
religion. That all of those 
practices will kind of cohere 
into something that's 
identifiable and makes sense. 
Has a logic to it.
From all those practice PS so 
each region will have its own 
forms of magic to cohere into a 
specific religion. And then we 
can dispense with religion 
entirely and evolve into 
science.
And hence scientists are very 
religious. Anyone know the ratio
of scientific researchers? It's 
about 10%. To 15%.
So a higher bias of atheastic 
and agnostic people or sciences.
 And this is an example here to 
go beyond Tyler's-- okay. Any 
critiques of this religion? Or 
sorry critiquing of the theory, 
this idea? 
  Student:um-- too-- that one 
thing is the end all be all.
Especially valuing-- is also 
very ethnocentric. Just in a 
different way. 
  Instructor: It's ethnocentric,
yeah, that's right.
There's way. There's viewing 
magical religions of which there
are many.
As less evolved, again. And in 
fact all reLINLens seen as less 
e involved. And let's flip that 
stat that I just did.
That's just a contemporary 
number. All of the scientists 
were engaged in magic. Even 
newton. This is gravity. But 
also spent time trying to 
transform. And the magic 
remains. One contains knowledge 
and gains our census from 
measurement. Those are two 
different sources.
So this kind of hierarchy is 
ethnocentric. So we have two 
examples there.
Okay. Any other questions or 
comments on FRAZer and Tyler? 
Okay. 
  Student: As he views managic 
and religion as separate 
categories. But would that also 
mean that anything that happens 
in religions like specifically 
in one of the Greek religions 
where a rock breaks and becomes 
human. Would that be considered 
magic? 
  Instructor: No-- not-- I mean,
you might refer to it as 
magical. But-- the things we can
see already. Hence water can 
become wine. Rock a person. Or 
person can be transformed into a
tree. All these things we see in
mythologies and there's a reason
for that and we'll talk about 
that later. Mythle oJAES loaded 
with these kind PS of 
contradictory ways of talking 
about reality that don't make 
sense. And for Frazer, that 
makes it lesser than science. 
But we'll talk about it 
separately.
Yeah. Very much so. We will talk
about that. That it's using 
metaphor. Which is a different 
way. A different logic. And so 
we need to not-- why are you 
denigrating another form of 
logic? We'll get to that. Want 
to talk about an approach to 
this. About a century later. No 
not a century later. I think 
it's important to think-- and 
I'm going to get into some 
things. I'm going to talk about 
this book by guy Swanson. The 
birth of the Gods.
The origin. He's kind of going 
after unilineal evolutionaries 
and I'll flip so it we don't. 
Yeah he doesn't want to both 
were these kinds of evolutionary
ideas. He's approaching it 
differently. And when he did so,
he noticed-- let's talk about 
this here. That animism. If you 
look at the structure of 
society, the type of a society--
and so anthropologists are first
chapter in a text, we'll talk 
about the main categories of 
societies. We might look at 
hunter gatherers or foragers. 
People that make their living 
highly nomadic gather goods of 
hunting or fishing. Which we 
would call a type of forageing.
Is where we see animous 
religions. Let's just start 
there. Poly theism. When you 
come up with a poly theistic 
society like the Vikings, Egypt,
Hindu, Mayans, Aztecs, Inca. 
These are early state societys.
Highly organizeed.
Bureaucratic societies. That's 
the context in which we find 
poly theistic religions. Mono 
theism, we find in developed 
states. So not early states. You
don't find a state that converts
into a mono theistic religion 
dominantly. For many centuries. 
So this is kind of getting at 
your question or at least guy 
swanson is-- he's actually just 
noticing what are the patterns 
here? That's all he's asking. 
What does the pattern for 
animism? This is where we find 
it. What's the pattern in which 
this appears? Early states. Mono
theism. Developed states. This 
isn't to say that you can't find
exceptions to all of these. You 
can, but the dominance 
statistically is this pattern. 
Another thing we might say is 
that these societies largely are
egalitarian. That means if you 
are a hunter gatherer band, 
you're fed that night no matter 
if you couldn't work. Because 
you were ill. Or you're elderly.
The hunters come back or the 
people from their gardens. Or 
not gardens, we'll talk about 
that later had not foragers. 
People bringing the goods 
they've gatherered are feeding 
everybody and making sure 
everybody eats.
So it's a different type of 
society. They treat everyone 
that way. Interestingly enough, 
they are animous and animism 
things are animated. That 
includes forest, trees, plant, 
rocks, mountains and everybody 
can go out and have an enjoyable
relationship with plants and 
animals on their own.
No barrierer in an animous 
society. You have your own 
experience with these spirits.
And that is how you are 
experiencing your religion. 
There's no barrier between you 
and your experience of religion.
Now, so everyone has access. In 
a sense, how they relate to 
religious entities is 
egalitarian. So now let's turn 
to early states.
When you think of mess 
mesopotamia. Early states are a 
bunch of different leaders 
because they are bureaucracies. 
You have people in charge of the
military. The market. People in 
charge of various programs.
And what you have are multiple 
leaders. When they have multiple
leaders, they happen to have 
multiple leaders in their 
religious idea of the heavens or
what have you. And usual, you 
don't have access to that God 
directly. You go to the rain 
temple. The temple of that God. 
And you bring get to or sheep or
chicken. Whatever they are 
asking for. And you give it to 
those authorities. They conduct 
a sacrifice for you. Speak to 
the God for you. And as it 
happens, not only are they 
conducting the sacrifice, but 
they are keeping the meat and 
the skin and the bones from the 
get to that you've offered. So 
it's a payment in a sense.
You think of it as an offering 
to the God. But practically 
those priests and you are 
contributing to the economy of 
that temple and how it operates.
But that's not how you would 
look at it objectively in terms 
of where the resource flows go. 
And that would be the case. But 
the point is this person can't 
do that ritual on themselves as 
a farmer. They need to go 
through the temple. Mono theism 
appears in developed states.
Where single rulers have been 
present for a long time.
He might say in ancient Greece 
there's a ruler of Sparta and 
ruler of Athens.
Ancient Greece had rulers all 
over the place. Same with 
mesopotamia, you have Agash, 
Nir-- all of these multiple 
authorities competing. Then what
happens with ancient Egypt. 
Consolidation of upper and lower
e JIPT and centralization of all
of its control under the 
pharoah. So single ruler 
everything points to the the one
person. It built pyramids in 
Egypt.
Like almost simple. Even though 
that's a tombstone in practice.
Just a big tombstone for the 
fairo.
It also happens to be pointing 
to the masses of society as 
lower in status and wealth 
relative to the wealth and power
of the single parable, right? So
mono theistic religions and 
saying you're probably raising 
the question well I thought 
Egypt was poly theistic. But 
it's also the place where the 
first mono theism occurred. And 
that's what-- anyone know the 
name of the pharoah? It's--.
Onkno-- usually an O or 
sometimes an E. He was the 
first. He declared it's all-- 
we're all worshipping the sun. 
That's it. There's no other 
Gods.
No other Gods exist. Seems 
radical and try to erase his 
name from history. But you may 
have influenced others in the 
region. And this is about six or
700 years before most.
Okay.
So-- what's his point basically 
from this? 
  Student: I guess I don't know 
how-- but as like-- authority 
changes as society develops 
religion and practiced.
And the access to it. 
>> Certainly seems like there's 
a connection between the 
religion of a society and the 
changes or authority in that 
society. He's just noticing a 
pattern, right? Yeah. So-- this 
is very fun, useful maybe is 
another word. People think it's 
fun. I think it would be fun. So
think through.
Why does this pattern come 
about? Can I find animous 
religion amongst-- and actually,
you will-- talk about and kind 
of interesting to look at all 
the exceptions of this.
But-- yeah, and I guess the 
level of access increases 
further. And really the pharoah,
it's an Ocnoton. He combines 
both the real authority with his
religious authority. So he's 
both king and-- religion. Okay 
let's move on a little further. 
I do think it's important that 
we mention some other types of 
religion besides those three 
dominant ones. That we saw.
In-- so that took just those 
three. animitism is in our text.
In our text. That's basically-- 
horses are animated. Animatism 
and the classic example is the 
jedi force. It's not a Deity or 
a spirit that's being-- so 
actually Star Wars does 
illustrate animatism but 
witchcraft and magical societies
are usually operate through 
forces. And so they make a 
distinction between horses and 
things. We could also talk about
Pantheism. Yeah it's almost as 
if everything, pan, all, all 
things are God. Yeah. heno 
theistic. But claims one God but
doesn't deny the existence of 
other Gods.
So that's the distinction.
So you will worship no other 
Gods before me. But it doesn't 
acknowledge they are fake. When 
you happen to be mono-- about 
your own that's Heno theism. 
Deism. This is helpful this is 
helpful because the founding 
fathers of the constitutions of 
the United States were all 
Deists back in the late 1700s 
and early 1800s. So deism, 
believed in God, a Deity, the 
christian God, but they thought 
that all the miracles seven 
days, creating the universe, and
all of those things that 
happened in the bible. In terms 
of what we do or might say are 
magical or spiritual acts, no 
longer happen. So if they are in
the bible text they can believe 
them as De Ts but they are not 
expecting divine intervention 
any longer. And hence a 
scientist in electricity. 
Jefferson is also just-- so it 
was a common theme then. It 
allowed you to talk about 
yourself as christian. And/or 
religious in any way and still 
be very scientific. So that's 
just-- and trans theism. Anyone 
know what that is? That's-- Oh 
yeah go ahead. 
  Student: A belief system that 
is define all day. 
>> I think partially might 
include that. Usually--.
Right, Oh that they are beyond 
the scope of society. That might
include some.
I hadn't considered that. That's
an interesting idea. But usually
trans theism beyond Gods 
themselves.
The reLidgen is focused way 
beyond Gods and spirits.
Beyond any of these here.
And what would be an example for
that for a major religion.
Forms of Buddhism and some forms
of Hindu WICHL come to this kind
of trans theism.
That they are beyond Deities and
so on.
And swanson. Where taking on-- 
you know, there's other types of
religions here.
How do these fit in the scheme 
of one better than the other. 
Talking about the evolution in 
general. But let's now turn to 
the social approach.
Major-- here. Much more-- we 
looked at definition which 
decides these aspects before. In
terms of being a very social 
religion concerned with the 
sacred. If you remember that. 
Forming a community. Which he 
called the church. But any kind 
of religious community is what 
it means. We have that 
definition just to remind you 
from before. Let's check it out.
Anchors the sole perspective. 
Religion is a unified system of 
beliefs and practices relevant 
to say credit things.
That is to say being set aside 
and forbid. Beliefs and 
practices which unite into one 
single moral community and all 
those who adhere to that. Okay.
Minimum wages works as well. In 
his view there's two aspects to 
everybody. We are an individual,
and we are a social being.
Two beings and one self. Person 
is double, as he says, there are
two beings and one self. An 
individual being which is 
foundation in the biological 
organism. And a social being 
which represents the highest 
reality of these intellectual 
and moral order. For him, when 
people are just reduced to their
individual organism, this is 
produces a sense of 
meaninglessness which he coined 
the term-- normlessness.
Coined the term in a book about 
the phenomena of suicide. People
had no sense of feeling like 
they participate as a social 
being with others. Notice, all 
the mass shooters, right, they 
are all by themselves.
Not integrated well. And they 
flip out and explode at the 
social reality that they feel 
that they are alienated from. 
That's for him, and usually 
suicidal in the process, right? 
For him that constitutes-- 
that's how important the social 
aspects of our lives are. It's a
whole part of our being. As we 
are social animals. And in fact,
yeah so the social aspect, we've
already looked at it. Is 
critical. And relates to what's 
religious and spiritual. These 
ideas about how we connect with 
other people. And for him it 
connects to that notion of Ligo 
in religion. The binding.
For him it's a huge dualism that
some things in the world are 
sacred. Some things are profane.
And when we say pro feign, that 
just means really not like that 
person's uttering a bunch of 
profanities. Usually it's just 
not safe the mundane.
But he's known for developing 
this concept.
And we don't see really other 
entities do that. Have sacred 
and the profane. Other beings. 
We can challenge that if you 
want. Applies to most other 
animals. But religion is social 
phenomenon. So religion is about
how we connect to each other as 
social beings. We certainly 
connect to other beings through 
kinship. Through being a part of
a family. Through being born 
into a family. And there are 
other ways that we connect. The 
division of labour economically 
in society. But also religion. 
Yeah. 
>> Can you just explain what he 
meant when he said-- the social 
being which represents the 
highest reality and intellectual
and moral order? I just don't 
know if I fully grasped that. 
  Instructor: Social being. The 
highest reality. This is the 
better part of their being. Is--
that's what he's trying to get 
at. Is our roles that we play in
society in relation to others. 
Intellectually and morally, 
yeah.
So religion is about the social 
aspects. How we relate to one 
another. Later we'll talk about 
Totmism I'm just mentioning it 
here. Totemism like what we see 
on the west coast. Is the idea 
of having a Totem usually an 
animal or other aspect of nature
as a unifying, we are the bear 
clan. Classic. And can you 
identify under a particular
Totem. And the reason I'm 
pointing out to it now, is 
that's a social act. You claim a
certain symbol that you are 
being to wear or that part of 
your bear clan, you're a part of
wolf clan, and that's-- a set 
identity that unites us. So 
here's individuals becoming 
united through Totemic symbols. 
And that's the earliest form for
him and these become more 
elaborate and maybe are 
religious symbols. Substitute 
for Totemic symbols for other 
cultures. And he's noticing that
individuals, when they get 
together for collective rights, 
experience something greater 
than themselves as individual 
beings. And what they are 
experiencing is being part of 
the spirit of the collective. 
And for him that's the sacred. 
The social aspect is the sacred.
Individuals are egoistic 
thinking of themselves at the 
start. But there is a collective
consciousness. There's not-- 
conscious as individuals. But 
then there is a collective 
consciousness. Religions help 
provide that collective 
consciousness. There's a sense 
that we are conscious together 
as shared people in this 
religion. And it forms the basis
of a moral society. We will all 
follow these rules. These 
commandments. These things are 
sacred. These things are tabu. 
And this is going to help make 
society function.
Having such red lights and green
lights and yellow lights helps 
make traffic flow better. And 
you can see that these-- green 
is sacred. Sacred, go-- and red 
is a tabu. Do not go. Do not do 
that. And they are setting up 
the same structure. So-- this 
religion contributes to a moral 
community. So he's emphasizing. 
This kind of collective 
consciousness.
Let's take@look at another quote
by him here. The totally and 
belief comes to the average 
member of society forms a 
determinant system with a life 
on its own. That can be turned 
the collective or common 
consciousness. What's 
interesting for him is that a 
group can form a collective 
shared understanding of reality.
With regards to their religion. 
But then all of those people 
die. Who originally formed that 
religion, and it lasts longer 
than the beings that believed in
it. And hence, Christianity is 
present over 2,000 years.
animous societies present for 
millenia. Way beyond that as 
we'll talk about. Over a hundred
thousand years of animist 
societies which we'll talk about
next week. That means the 
specific reLidge than they have 
and embody is an entity in and 
of itself. It lasts longer than 
their individual beings that are
a part of it. And that's always 
the case. And it lives-- and so 
something about it gives that a 
sacred quality for him. These 
are inherited from the ancestors
these ideas. Our deep ancestry 
is great great great
grandfathers and grandmothers 
have told us and we follow it 
and there's some kind of 
sacredness about it being passed
down that's traditional. So some
shared ideas, beliefs, moral 
attitudes. Symbol like totems. 
Crosses. Wheels. Whatever it 
might be. Are collective REPGSs 
and rituals are shared 
collective expressions and 
practices. Okay so that's a 
social approach. You can 
summarize it that what is 
social, all those aspects of the
social-- what he calls the 
collective consciousness-- are 
we kind of mistake for him the 
sociality is religious. That's 
how he would view.
Even though emically out of 
respect of the individuals they 
would view it as it relates to 
eternity. Rather he's viewing it
as really having the function of
bringing people together and 
organizing their shared belief 
system.
Okay. Ready for the next 
approach. Okay. This will call 
functionalism.
We didn't critique social 
approach. Any critiques of this 
approach? This way of thinking 
about the world? Well, just 
think about that. We'll come 
back to that. Yeah.
  Student: What do we make of it
all Gods.
So without coming together as a 
family. There's nothing left--. 
  Instructor: Well that is a 
good critique. We gather 
together for all sorts of 
reasons. And the labours of 
everybody contributes and it 
doesn't necessarily mean it's a 
religious phenomena, true. He 
did the economic phenomena so I 
would have to look more deeply 
to see. That's good, I like 
that. Any others? Maybe just 
reaching into a social phenomena
in and of itself. And THAET the 
edic approach to him. Think 
might be as we turn to other 
approaches. But it's a very 
strong approach in what we'll 
see as Dirk Cann influences. So 
huge thinker. A major book. As a
study of religion rather than 
being an explanation of a 
religion. 
[ Inaudible student remark ].
  Instructor: Okay, another 
approach functionalism. This is 
something that occurred 
throughout the social sciences. 
And in fact natural sciences to 
this notion. Very simple, it's 
right there in the name. It's 
very practical. How does this 
function. So the question from 
the functionalist perspective 
and they put on glasses. And 
they look at another particular 
religion and culture. Is what 
does this-- what's the function 
of this? What's it 
accomplishing? So how do these 
beliefs and practice function 
for people? So he sees religion 
as very adaptive and integrated.
That it must be helpful as we'll
see and then we'll talk about 
this book when we turn to magic 
later. This is an important one.
One of the main books on magic 
in the social sciences. Where 
basically he sees magic as 
increasing as an example. The 
capabilites of the hunter or the
fisherman. Yeah-- whenever they 
are engaged in the activity, it 
helps to do this magical 
superstitious act and it focuses
concentration and gets them in 
the mode and then they are a 
better hunter. If the hunter 
goes through a sweat lodge and 
transforms into coyote, into 
wolf. And then is like a nav 
ahoe belief. You enter into the 
sweat lodge. The Hogan is what 
they called it. Transform after 
a sweat. And you're just in 
totally focused mindset. You're 
in the mind of an animal. You're
the greatest predator. Back into
normal civilian life and you go 
through the sweat again and 
transform back. He would say 
what that does is it functions 
to help him focus and only think
about the hunt and all the 
dynamics that he needs to think 
about in terms of the 
environment and what the species
is about and not think about 
other things. So that practice 
functions well for those Navajo 
hunters. And basically didn't 
look at it any different. Look 
at what's waiting here and the 
west coast of Vancouver island. 
The Wales would prepare 
themselves for days. Fasting. 
Entering indulgent states even 
from the fast. Doing all these 
preparations and some doing that
too. Just so they can go out and
hunt the whale. So it's not just
a matter of going out and 
hunting the whale, yeah. 
  Student: Another ritual could 
also be prayer. 
  Instructor: True, yeah. Right.
He might say a whole bunch of 
prayers by people. Function as a
way for people to show their 
concern for people that are ill.
Group, yeah. Or saying I will be
prixing for you.
Which is referring to these 
kinds of things. That's how he's
looking at it. Just a functional
adaptive course. I only have one
slide here. I should have had a 
quote. But we're going to spend 
more time on-- I think 
functional is pretty straight 
forward. What are some 
critiques? Of functionalism? 
  Student: Would you say it's to
have a scientific approach? To 
be-- to achieve something? Would
that kind of be a scientific-- 
instead of just like 
manifesting. Like to get amped 
up to do something to achieve. 
  Instructor: So trying to come 
up with non-religious ways of 
doing that. 
  Student: Just wondering if 
this is a more scientific 
approach. 
  Instructor: He certainly sees 
it as a scientific approach. 
They try to be very edic. Let's 
ignore in a sense the emic 
belief and look at what they are
doing. And see if we can just 
explain it from that. On the 
surface cultures have all 
different kinds of spirits or 
forces at play. That they are 
manipulating or praying to. And 
now it seems to heighten this 
person's focus. That religion. 
Maybe excuse the different 
example that attending church 

weekly or bowing to mecca 
collectively several times in a 
day. Having the call to prayer. 
Serves to all of a sudden bring 
people back into the collective 
mindsetback to the focus on 
religion and helps remind 
morality about what's important.
And then you get back into your 
economic mode. Whatever it might
be. But the point is somebody 
wearing functionalist glass is 
always asking that question. How
does this function in a society?
That's what's going to be SFAKT 

Ehrie. 
  Student: Does function mean 
improve? 
  Instructor: No, how does it 
work? Looking at an engine, what
does this part do? You see this 
culture. You lift up the 
engine-- what's this-- this is 
the carburetor? Is this the-- 
you know. The start? What's this
part Dorell haven't to how 
everything else functions? 
That's really a way to look at 
it. And & so what does this part
in their society where they are 
gathering in this. How does 
that-- what's the outcome of 
that? For-- that's how they 
would approach it. So in that 
sense it's always adaptive. 
People are adapting to reality. 
And in this case they are using 
a lot of either magical or 
religious spiritual ideas. In 
order to adapt to reality. 
That's how he's going to say it.
In a sense, my colleagues would 
view this. But anthropology has 
always been kind of 
functionalist. He was dominant 
for a long time. But it's kind 
of part of it. Not that it's 
fully identifies as 
functionalist. But there's 
something about anthropology 
where studying another culture. 
Well that's weird. Can you 
believe they eat this or they do
this? And then by studying them.
Capture agriculturally relative 
perspective. We could see Oh 
this is how it functions for 
them. Now I understand why they 
do that. And so there's 
something that's functionalist 
about it. What we should say 
does everything function?? In a 

society? That would bring us to 
our next approach to talk about.
An exact function. Any questions
on functionalism or their 

critiques? Okay let's take 15. 
Come back at 2:10 and we'll go 
to a thinker of critiques 
functions overall.
So basically you can have a 
concept in your head. Where it's
likely to be like where do I 
place this. Just get rid of it 
and your mind does actively get 
rid of things, right? Since 
you're not using it.
And it's helpful tied to your 
own framework.
And the time concepts and 
examples. Like something you 
heard about in economics. Try to
make that connection so you're 
just fixing it-- easier ways to 
approach it. Okay. So that's 
just questions on that. Always 
wanted to help in office hours 
or otherwise. Any questions come
up about the approaches or this?
Okay.
So-- in the frame work and 
thinking about theoretical 
approaches to religion 
historically.
You come across and basically we
will come across functionalist 
perspectives.
See it portrayed quite broadly. 
But anyway, one critique might 
be as someone raised, does 
everything function? Meaning-- 
don't cultures have things where
called survivors because it's 
doing that just with tradition. 
Just because. And they are not 
thinking about why they do it. 
And-- so some things can be 
perpetuated beyond-- it's no 
longer really functioning as it 
should.
But they don't close them 
anymore. And yet lapels are 
still there in pure style and 
function now. Anyway that's what
tiler had approached.
Anyway. Point being.
Not everything else they do is 
functional or adapted for them. 
Sometimes it's mal-adapted. And 
in fact this next approach views
reLidgen itself in many cases as
mall adaptive. This is kind of 
like Frazer that science is 
better than religion. This quote
here, religion is the opiate of 
the masses. Anybody? Yeah, 
that's Marx, that's right. The 
fuller quote but he's viewing 
religion as maladaptive you 
could say. Malfunctioning. It's 
doing something that obscures 
their relationship to reality 
and not helping them function 
better in reality. So-- you 
might say this is an ideological
approach.
Meaning religion is an ideology 
for Marx.
Religion is a human 
construction. They create it as 
a set of ideas. And ideology 
about how the world operates. 
Yet, what it does is rationalize
or often in his term, mask, puts
a mask on. Rationalize.
Means to argue for its 
existence, right? Provide a 
reason for why we are believing 

this.
Existing power relations in 
society. That's why he calls it 
an opiate. It's a drug that puts
on a screen. Like to wizard of 
oz or he's creating the 
spectacle. Hiding the ultimate 
reality.
Religion is the side of the 
oppressed people. In this book 
here. Let 's take a look at a 
critique here or a quote here. 
He says-- talking exactly about 
how we approach religions. So 
the foundation to fear religious
criticism is humans make 
religion. Religions do not make 
humans. And so he's flipping the
whole notion. A lot of the 
origin stories about how 
religions are about how their 
belief structure created 
humanity. And he's flipping it. 
That people create religion. One
argument-- well-- even post-this
view here people make a 
critique. That this is even 
eventually such that God is 
presented as within the shape of
a human brain. Will make this 
connection and argue. This is 
basically Marx' argument. That 
religious conceptions is created
by people. Creating Gods that 
have human organism features. 
When they have no need for them 
as ethereal beings. They don't 
eat material food. Why are we 
showing them this way. We create
Gods in our own mirrored image 
in this kind of view. And so he 
says going back to thinking 
about this as a human 
instruction, as an ideology, 
masking power relations. He 
would say-- going back to the 
example of Egypt, that here you 
have your Marshalling the 
efforts of all-- most of the 
people in the society towards 
the construction of this massive
tombstone. This crypt. This 
pyramid. That's going to take 
decades and require all the 
resource people in the farm 
fields are going to be donating 
it through tribute. Demand a 
tribute. To pay for this. And 
that it's realy just 
rationalizing and providing an 
avenue for the re-enaction of 
the-- power.
And so people are forced to give
up 20% of their crops to the 
pharoah and contribute to the 
ongoing and-- but the rationale 
for that is that this helps the 
pharoah go into the after life. 
Beter.
The pharoah who is your king 
goes into the afterlife and this
will be better for all of us. So
that's a rationality of it. Marx
doesn't like the look of that. 
Where's all these resources 
going? Just like with 
mesopotamia. If you bring that 
get to in to be sacrificed 
what's happening to that get to?
Oh the temple keeps it. Uses the
balance for the tools or uses 
them for wrath. Eats the meat or
distributes the meat or sells 
it. So here you have 
economically, that's what he of 
course Marx is associated with 
an economic view. Like what are 
we telling ourselves.
And for him.
In society usually some kind 
ideology.
We have wealthy pharoah.
So-- actual Egypt. So-- it is 
that periods contrasting in 
functioning. And in this case.
And that's why anyway society. 
Let's take a look at the full 
quote on that. Religious 
suffering. The expression of 
real suffering.
Again. Real suffering.
Sole conditions. Walking 
further. And so-- this is an 
approach that's locked in terms 
of looking at religion with all 
mythology and using the negative
sense of what mythology is 
about.
So this approach will see and is
the critique of ideology not 
just religious ideology. Very 
skeptical about rational 
ideologies. Especially when they
rationalize and purport to speak
for you know-- providing kind of
theological reasons for why 
resources need to be given more 
to these people than those 
others. And need to point out 
people that do not work in the 
society. Where they are 
receiving the benefits of the 
work of ethics in society. 
Usually they are non-producers 
who receive this stuff. An 
entire class for positions of 
power and so on. So-- any 
critiques about this or any 
questions? 
  Student: I guess it disregards
what benefits religion does have
for people and communities 
surrounding that.
  Instructor: True, yeah. He is 
talking about the side of the 
oppressed creature. So in a 
sense he's kind of acknowledging
that it does help them deal with
the suffering that they have. Is
that what you're saying?
  Student: I guess so. I was 
just thinking about how it's 
really, I don't know. I'm not 
sure what I was saying.
  Instructor: If it comes back 
to you. 
[ Inaudible remark ].
  Student: He just kind of 
acknowledges religion-- he 
doesn't have much of an opinion?
  Instructor: This is where he 
talks about tight most, yeah. Or
that people mostly quote from-- 
just in one work. You're right. 
He's not really focused on it 
overall. But he is also 
attacking ideology. And that 
means political ideologies. 
Catholics ideologies. All these 
kinds of things. So the same 
approach that he takes. Right 
right. In many ways, right. 
That's right.
  Student: Take into account 
that every religion is not every
religion. 
  Instructor: Very good point. 
Like the Animist religion. 
Egalitarian. Marx would have no 
critique of that.
And this tool doesn't have an 
ability in a society.
Societies.
Where he sees the economic 
distribution resource and 
doesn't believe the rationale 
that these people are just 
better and deserve more.
And that that's all usually a 
myth. What's that based on? Just
some kind of myth. And he wants 
to highlight the fact that it's 
a myth.
A fake one in this sense. That's
right. But you'll come across 
this. And good to think of it.
And I think he provides a way of
thinking about reLidgen is 
anti-functionalist. So that's a 
whole Marxist approach. Okay so 
we're halfway. Let's turn to 
interpretive. This is a quick 
one. Okay. We looked at-- this 
definition. Of religion and he 
calls it webs of significance.
Geertz. Let's just turn to it. 
Religion is a system of symbols.
More moves and motivations of 
people. By formulating 
conceptions of a general 
existence including conceptions 
factuality of moods, motivations
seen uniquely, realistic. So he 
is very concerned with symbols, 
the symbolic how do you 
interpret meaning in the world. 
This is like when there's this 
colour sky and that means 
tomorrow will be a good day. 
That's kind of a symbolic 
association. And colours how 
people experience the world. 
From them, not me. So the world 
provides a model of the world in
religion. And it gives meaning. 
You're interpreting meaning-- 
remember how I talked about how 
he was playing off of Freud last
time. The interpretation of 
cultures. Playing off of Freud's
interpretation of dreams. Dreams
for an individual are imaginary 
phenomena like a myth. That come
up. And we can interpret that. 
And interpret the meaning of 
that dream is for the 
individual. Geertz is taking 
this notion and interpreting 
cultures in a sense. It is 
especially religion. Especially 
a dream in a sense of a whole 
bunch of idealistic beings that 
exist. That we believe in. And 
that we believe in these rituals
that allow us to communicate 
with these beings. That provides
a model of the world and all our
morality. All guide to behaviour
associated with it. So in a 
sense it's a set of glasses for 
him for how to interpret 
reality.
With things even on the simple 
sense that things are good luck 
or bad luck happening to you. 
And you interpret that a certain
way. So if things are symbolic 
standing for something else. You
have a model of the whole 
reality of the world that 
incorporates our physical 
reality. And you provide many 
ways of how that needs to-- so 
it's a very common 
anthropological approach. He was
a major in the 1970s and was 
almost seen as the dominant new 
form of anthropology at the 
time. Cultures became something 
read widely in sciences. Ready 
for us. To be on it. So-- 
religion for Geertz provides 
both a model of reality. 
Provides a way for us to 
interpret what's happening. And 
it's a model for reality.
What's the difference when you 
say it's a model for reality 
instead of a model of reality? 
  Student: Your reality is--. 
  Instructor: Yeah so it 
provides a structure. A model of
reality.
And a model of it.
The activism. In meaningful 
ways. Model for reality. It 
could be interpreted as a way to
actually.
It fits in terms of when we 
apply.
When we move to apply our 
religion in the context of the 
situations we're in. It's a 
model for-- yeah. Okay.
  Student: The reality is how we
look? Modelled reality is how we
look at like-- and how we view 
it. Model for reality for 
rituals.
Rituals are good because of how 
they enact the religion in the 
world. And practices.
Nightly in prayer or dealing.
Bowing towards mecca. Sitting in
meditation. Attending church. 
These are the ways we enact 
religion.
And so that does provide an 
applicable model for reality. 
That's true.
So they both-- both of these 
just kind of a reflective 
interaction that happens with 
religion.
Okay. Just a quote in his book.
In the chapter. Originally an 
article.
People depend upon symbols and 
symbol systems. With a 
dependence so great. For 
viability as a creature. As a 
result to the sensitivity to 
even the remotest indication 
that they are unable to cope 
with one or another aspect of 
experience.
Raises within them a greater 
source of anxiety. When things 
don't match and you have things 
that distort or confront your 
model of reality it can produce 
a great deal of anxiety. I 
thought the world was supposed 
to be like this. And this is 
challenging my interpretation of
reality. So he's actually 
talking about how even though 
it's a model for anxiety it's 
like where this doesn't fit my 
model. How did I now adjust this
situation? Or how do I apply my 
religious morals in the 
situation.
By meeting a wall here. And 
anxiety. So for him anxiety, 
interpretation, it's always 
about the moods and motivations 
in people. He's getting at how 
religion affects us as people 
were experiencing the world. And
he's giving in to thinking about
our e motions. And how religion 
encourages or produces. Shapes 
them.
So key thing. Interpretive 
approach. Always interpreting 
the phenomena that we find. 
Especially through symbols. And 
it will relate to this next 
approach especially in some 
sense of the name. Any other 

questions? 
>> Towards the end.
Response.
Let's turn to that. For anyone 
else. Psychological approach 
pore psycho analytical approach.
So-- in a sense going back in 
time in a way. Interpretive 
approach. Is influenced as 
already said. The history of 
psychology. And so he's 
interpreting things as well. But
again interpreting the dreams of
individual people. But he did 
turn to focus on in many works 
the feature of an illusion. And 
three major works where he does 
talk about religion as a social 
phenomenon. So he begins in 
medicine. The biological focus 
then ultimately becomes 
interested in-- neurotices and 
work from the point of view. 
This is why this neurotic 
behaviour and tries to 
understand for-- it's just 
indicating that it's not the 
norm. The normal behaviour that 
we're expecting. And while I'm 
studying neurotices and 
individuals. Come pulsive 

behaviours. He emphasizes in a 
sense said to discover. The 
importance of the unconscious 
and people's psyche.
So that is important. And there 
are unconscious drives e 
specially in libido which 
focuses on very primal 
animalistic drives people always
think about foraying connection 
with an emphasis on sexuality as
a primal drive. And that 
structures the behaviour of 
people in many ways. Not just 
that. But here he is you might 
say prior to-- people were not 
talking about unconscious. 
Always think just acting 
unconsciously. Following the 
logic of our own thought and our
beliefs structure. But foray 
yeah says we're often driven and
act to carry out things because 
of unconscious. Things that we 
didn't intend to do. To focus 
and not going to eat cake for 
the next week or so.
And then break down and have 
cake. That's the unconscious 
winning. My conscious will wants
to not eat sweets. But my 
unconscious is how I behave.
It is actually-- he likes to 
look at-- and for him this is a 
huge bump.
And might say constitutes one of
the major paradigm shifts in 
western-- thinking and 
philosophy. So let's take a look
at western thought. We have the 
paradigm shift of Pernikus right
who said the sun does not 
revolve.
Around us as was long thought. 
We thought the sun was rising. 
The sun was there for us. And 
it's revolving around us because
we're the centre of the 
universe. You might say we had a
very anthro-- centric view of 
reality. But it turns out with 
Kapernicus, he demonstrated that
it was much simpler when you 
view it as the earth is rotating
around the sun and this helps 
explain the dynamics we see with
the movement of the planets and 
the stars and the sky.
So we aren't the centre of the 
universe.
For Kapernikus. They both 
suffered for these kinds of 
ideas too.
Another person Giodarno Bruno 
burned at the stake for saying 
the sun is a star. Well 
according to other problematic 
ideas that he gotten out. That 
we're no longer-- that attitude 
this notion. That the KOS Mohs 
is not oriented around our 
existence.
So that was a huge paradigm 
shift for humanity. Second comes
along with Darwin.
Right? Darwin says humans are 
not even the apex of biological 
creatures. According to 
evolution and his evidence of 
looking at how creatures have e 
involved, we happen to be the 
species that we've come to be. 
But there's nothing about us 
that makes us more special than 
other animals in the world.
Meaning that we're a happen 
stance of evolution.
So we're not even the centre of 
biological creation. In Darwin's
view. So that's another kind of 
paradigm shift. If you haven't 
heard more of a paradigm shift, 
for Pernikus provides an 
example. It sucks that you're 
looking at the sun that evolves 
around you. And then realizing 
no, the earth is moving below 
your feet. The whole perspective
is now shifting. The earth, the 
sun is apparently standing still
relative to us.
So Darwin upends us as creatures
in evolution. And before-- comes
along and says Humes are not 
even in control of themselves 
and their own minds. And are 
largely driven by the 
unconscious. And hence quite 
often a split between what 
people say they are and actually
do. Not just terms of lying and 
deception but in many different 
ways. And the unconscious 
impulse is seemingly irrational 
defy our understanding. And this
will always be present with 
humans.
So full Cosmos of the earth at 
the individual level.
Okay. So this is just a classic 
model we often see. An iceberg 
notion of our minds. Such that 
our consciousness is what in the
iceberg reaches above the 
surface.
That's in our-- the 
preconscious. And otherwise 
things remain largely 
unconscious. The-- i-- is fully 
in the unconscious. This is kind
of a western translation. In the
original and German-- is it. But
we've made it seem like a jargon
by calling it the id. It's just 
the organism of ourselves rather
than the being of ourselves. 
Trying to get at the-- as we 

identify--.
Just thought I'd show it. You 
often hear-- super ego.
Part of the conscious. Is used 
to help navigate our impulses. 
Navigate what we're going to do 
as we sense our impulses. Also 
super ego. Super ego is 
basically-- called the social 
aspect. Ego, our individual 

aspect-- super ego. This is the 
morality. This is what you 
should do. This is what's 
expected of you. You're a 
father. You should do this. 
Whatever the societal 
expectations are that you need 
to do, this is super ego. And 
that's part of your brain too. 
All right so you're always 
wanted-- Oh this is what I 
really want to do.
I really should show up and be 
the socially right thing to do 
as a grandchild.
Go visit grandma on her birthday
or whatever it might be. Super 
ego or those kinds of-- you 
should do what not. And this is 
the kind of classic notions that
we see.
The devil it often associated. 
Even though it's not actually 
clean like that, we often see 
that when we're torn, and we 
have like competing-- this is 
the super ego often. Not just 
morality.
Even if it's not what I want to 
do. They are expecting me to do 
this. That's where I see it 
going. Before this is the ego 
navigating all of these 
different conflicting things 
within our system. So that's 
part of the expression of it as 

being-- navigating conscious and

unconscious thoughts and drives.
So when it comes to religion. 
This selects individualistic 
philosophy in a nutshell. 
Religion becomes a collective 
representation of individual 
concerns. Psychological defense 
mechanisms to handle conflict or
events. The things that have 
been in society for years. In a 
sense it matches well with Marx 
providing an opiate for people. 
Helps to reduce anxiety when we 
face reality. So it serves a 
psychological function for 
Freud. To help balance the 
individual. And the historical 
circumstances they find and what
have you. So it's like Marx in 
this sense. That religion is an 
illusion. It's the kind of wish 
fulfillment. That someone's 
looking after you. That angels 
are looking out for you or what 
have you. So we use it as false.
Which Marx. He acknowledges that
it can provide like a security 
blanket. You don't worry so 
much. It helps to think that the
person who has died is in a 
better place. So religion 
alleviates that suffering. You 
don't have to worry so much 
now-- so that's an example for 
him. And we'll talk about those 
when we get to more-- with that 
kind of reply. So these are the 

theories.
  Student: How many questions. 
And also been made into a movie.
And atheist.
[ Inaudible remark ]
Well I thought I mentioned just 
in terms of context. I will 
switch to the philosophy shares 
a lot Marx and Freud and 
antireligious kind of attitude.
And it's interesting to think 
about.
And-- so it's as if the Marx 
then created--. A context or 
broader context of there's quite
a bit. It is an illusion like 
Freud. Even for Marx he's 
basically saying as I AZ an 
opiate it is an illusion that 
helps alleviate suffering.
To see quite a short story. 
Where has died and he gets to 
the first game. Got to go to the
next gate and get us there that 
gate. And can't deliver the 
message.
And everybody still acting as if
the king is alive.
As if he isn't. The notion. And 
he thinks these religious 
attitudes still structure a lot 
of our lives even though a lot 
of it is still secular. So God 
is dead what we act so continue 
in many of these rituals.
So I raise-- Miechev because I 
want to bring up another thinker
which is Carl Yun who is a 
student of Freud. Marx, Freud. 
So to see the origins of it. 
Very interested in the origins 
of religion.
God's another super natural 
spirits are reflections of the 
inner sources of the mind for 
him. And so whatever people 
create, this is fascinating for 
him to understand those people. 
And what they believe. He thinks
the psyche instead of the ego he
refers to the whole mind. Maybe 
the whole combination of ego, 
id, super ego as the psyche. 
Which is kind of like the soul. 
Referencing the Greek story 
about psyche. And that the mind 
is filled with a whole variety 
of archetypes and these are 
archetypical. Things. Such as 
they are rain God. You might say
there's an ark DP typal rain God
even though-- there's all kinds 
of-- there's many Gods 
throughout different cultures 
that represent the rain God. And
hence there's an arktype of the 
rain God. An arktype of the 
female. The feminine. Which you 
calls the anima and ark dip DL 
type of the masculine which he 
calls the animous and these are 
just ways to look at-- and what 
we see is it's expressed and 
used in different ways by 
different cultures regarding the
expressions of these kinds of 
identities and so on. And so he 
brings to us this notion, 
referencing explicitly Der Kine 
and combining Freud with DerKine
but there's an unconscious which
is filled with these archetypes.
So Durkheim has to collect the 
con SXSHS use it purely in an 
intentional way. And Fug cease 
it as a collective unconscious 
which is shared and the 
collective conscious like 
DurkHeim is talking about is 
specific and historically 
situated. And this concept in 
psychology was this notion of 
individuation which is the way 
of kind of navigating reality. 
Int GRATH all those opposed and 
contradictory thoughts.
Laid out by Freud. He's a 
student of Freud. Ego, super 
ego. The ego rather handling the
id and the super ego. What I 
should do. What I want to do. 
All these kind PS of thoughts. 
And you individuate.
Come to a way to deal and handle
the shadow self. The shadow part
of your self which we called the
id the shadow. Yeah. Oh, cool. 
You've heard of the shadow self?
In a sense, yeah. I think it's a
nicer metaphor for what he's 
talking about, the shadow self. 
So-- you can't escape your 
shadow. It's always there. And 
in a sense you embrace shadow 
aspects of yourself. For-- as 
part of individuate. Becoming an
individual amidst social demands
and the culture that you are a 
part of and in combination with 
your own interests and so on. 
How do you manifest as an 
individual. So let's take a look
at some aspects here. For it.
Did you hear that? 
>> Saw them as revealing 
something of the unconscious 
mind. He knew that the 
unconscious is the real dynamo 
for personality and far older 
and greater than the conscious. 
And it thinks in mythical, 
magical and religious ways. Is 
that the archaic religious-- and
might think of himself why is 
Freud so preoccupied? Surely to 
achieve human wholeness what we 
need is a marriage between the 
conscious and the unconscious. 
Perhaps the outer conscious 
seems so threatening because 
we've become so alienated from 
it. But in reality, it is.
A new understanding of religion.
And Freud had a follow-- he was 
called Gustavio. Almost 20 years
Freud's junior. The son of a 
Swiss pastor. He had already 
successfully applied and 
developed some of Freud's ideas.
When the two men met in 1907 and
became close friends. But by 
1912 profound disagreements on 
the-- of sexuality and on the 
place of religion led to a 
complete and painful break. The 
only settled was-- where he 
practiced as a psycho therapist 
for the rest of his life.
  Instructor: Oh sorry-- just 
touched it. Sorry. It's not 
coming through the main speakers
anyway. I'll post a link to the 
video. I don't want to show that
whole part again. It's 
actually-- I wish hi controls. 
Let me try a different way here.
And you see it.
Freud's rejection of the view 
could hardly be more complete. 
>> No it's not letting me-- show
in the middle. Okay let's give 
it up. Okay we'll post it for 
those interested. Basically the 
gist of it. Yeah, the foray over
the-- religion is negative.
And the wrong ones.
Okay.
Over this notion that religion 
is completely just an illusion. 
And he sees many positive 
aspects. So religion has 
functioning for people. And that
these arktypes in a sense he 
views because there are arktypes
you have a rain God.
A wise man. He has a whole 
variety of different things that
repeat and a lot of different 
cultures and their conceptions 
of the world. That these are a 
common foundation in the 
collective unconscious. That 
have their specific 
representation with a particular
religion or culture. And what's 
useful for that is that he 
doesn't view-- views all 
religions and hence cultures as 
the kind of people. Doesn't 
take-- he still kind of 
threading a needle here. Psycho 
analysis.
He views religion as a human 
phenomena. But that is represent
something completely unnatural 
to humans. Rather than something
that is maladaptive. And so this
is quite a radical turn in the 
context of Marx and Freud to 
present it this way and still 
remain. Not to just jump into 
our religious versus science 
defense. He's coming at it 
scientifically. Cultural 
mythologies are incredibly 
variable. But there are arktypes
unconscious and I can show you 
an example of that. I do 
mythology. I knew I had that. So
his take is more optimistic 
about religion. More hopeful and
more humanistic about it being 
something practical for people. 
And so brings this in, some 
contrast just the whole tenor of
philosophical and scientific 
thoughts at the time. So in the 
video basically and I'll post 
it. Yeah talks about this shift 
away from Freud, Nich-- and Marx
into his own take. Still 
interpreting dreams and so on. 
But where Freud was dealing with
NUR Ottics-- was dealing with 
psychotics. Deep break with 
reality. And that allowed him to
kind of-- but yet still these 
common themes even though they 
are individually discussed in 
his psychological sections. He 
realized and always kind of 
connecting them to broader 
collective unconscious. So this 
becomes the source for him in 
terms of reality. And-- sees 
religion as part of beckoning 
people's individualation. Coming
to be themselveses and how they 
relate to other people. Okay. 
The questions--. Posting 
articles by several people. Time
to take a look at it.
How do you deal with that? I'm 
just saying this psychological 
notion sees religion as being 
able to help them individuate as
people in an individual society.
But you're right it is a more 
psychological aspect.
When it comes to a social 
aspect. Resources that people 
could drop on. So what he does 
on his own. Being fascinated 
with all the kinds of creations.
Christian, Islamic, Buddhist. 
All the extra things and that's 
why it connects very well with 
an anthro PO logical approach 
which is also interested in this
anthropology of religion.
And it seems to share if we take
a functionalist approach.
But it can be a source. Helpful 
for people individuating 
themselves to understand their 
place in the world. So SO a 
morer positive take on religion 
but scientifically framed in the
sense.
Turn to you in many ways company
comes useful. Look at magic but 
some other aspects as well.
I should say.
[ Inaudible remark ]
Yeah so he's influenced by 
DurkHeim but also adding this 
other dimension because DurkHeim
is reflecting this other 
consciousness. Adding this 
element of unknown. I think 
you're right in that part, yeah,
sure.
Any other ideas? So I think last
point on Yun here.
And this is where you subject 
to. Because he's open to all 
cultures now too generalizing. 
Some critique is being mystical.
Arktype is real. Mean tos 
arktype is real. Arktype of God,
image is real.
But for that reason-- there's 
many-- another aspect is always 
speaking about us as universal 
beings in a sense.
And anthropologists tend to 
prefer the very specific 
cultural understandings and so 
on.
So there will be a tension in 
that sense. So similarities and 

contrast of the approach. So 
just a couple more and then 
we'll close out for today. And 
again we're hitting on a lot of 
concepts most days we're not 
like-- yeah-- in terms of so 
many conceptions. But these are 
all in the-- yeah reinforce 
these. This is what I'll call 
the phenomenal-- ogical 
approach. We'll hear-- come up 
quite a bit. A first person to 
put the study of the religion in
itself. So he's the founder of 
religious studies as a 
discipline. Produce the 
encyclopedia of religions. And 
he you might say had a-- 
approach.
So that's a big word which just 
means the phenomena that we 
experience. Very interested in 
the religious experience.
Interested in the symbols and 
all of that stuff. But the 
concept that-- several concepts.
But the main one for us will be 
interesting is that religion 
always involves-- so getting 
this from the sacred and in 
fact-- developing DurkHeim's 
notion. As the nature of 
religion. And how he experienced
reality. So in a sense it's kind
of deeper in gears because 
Geertz is interpreting reality. 
But he's not getting at the 
experience of that. The 
experience of being visited by 
an angel, a spirit or what have 
you. And how that's a 
transformative experience for 
people. A manifestation of the 
sacred. Even to be around 
something that's concentrated 
can have an effect how people 
behave differently in it. To be 
very profane as it were and 
course and walk in through the 
doors of church and change their
tenor and that's what he's 
getting at. That the phenomena 
of being in a church transforms 
how we are going to act. For 
that-- this is a sacred site. 
This is a sacred holy symbol on 
the treated deference. All these
kinds of things. This holy 
water. Like for a dog, does a 
dog know the difference between 
a bowl of water and a bowl of 
holy water? It will drink from 
both. That's because they don't 
experience-- they don't have the
understanding of the sacred and 
the pro feign. This notion as 
we'll see, religion involves 
very much a sense of the sacred 
buildings, churches, temples. 
Sacred text as opposed to 
regular text. You read one with 
a different sense than a sense 
of being. From reading the 
sacred text as opposed to just 
some newspaper, right? So this 
is what he's getting at. Some-- 
you know-- for some cultures a 
certain stone is sacred. And 
another stone isn't. And humans 
do that. And you can see that 
this relates to Ge SHGS rtz and 
how you interpret reality. But--
kind of the manifestation. The 
things that appear. 
  Student: So that's related to 
the way you communicate.
And being and living different--
off the same thing. And that-- 
to come to what happens into--. 
  Instructor: For some it might 
be sacred and for some it might 
not be. The same phenomena. 
Right. Like to think of a friend
of mine who goes to church, 
midnight mass Christmas eve. 
With his family. But he's there 
jamming some muse income his me 
anded not paying attention, 
really. But he's more into his 
headphones. Treating just this 
Monday regular experience. But 
other people there in that same 
space maybe sitting next to him.
May be experiencing something 
very beautiful.
And very-- you know, so for them
it's a-- but for someone who is 
not. Is thinking about. Be very 
different.
It's as if he's chosen to be the
dog that doesn't recognize 
what's holy water and what 
isn't.
Of course a dog doesn't have to 
choose they just don't know 
what's sacred and what isn't. 
Okay so that's another approach.
This one's kind of-- interesting
because it really kind of 
broadens things out. And-- that 
we experience the sacred. That's
just a general way to express 
sacredness even if you defined 
it as these things or greats 
that these are-- these items are
sacred and need to be held. They
are greater than human. And 
things that are less than human 
you look at-- with as if it's 
all mundane. And so different 
cultures will have a different 
sense of what's say credit. What
should you value. Protected. 
And/or done. As opposed to 
others. Really getting into the 
experience of reality.
Of the say credit and the 
profane.
Okay. I was going to do the post
modern approach. Let me start 
with that next time. I'd rather 
answer any questions that we 
have. So we've gone through a 
lot of things today. Normally 
we're not going to be doing this
heavy theoretical. But again, 
it's good to have down. 
Millenial evolutionaries not 
something we're going to return 
to very much by it's good to 
know that people have very 
simplistic ideas. Highly ethno 
cent Rick ideas about what 
religion-- that had a lot of 
bias toward either Christianity 
or mono theisms. As close to 
science. DurkHeim right off the 
bat becomes very influential.
With the collective 
consciousness. So just focus on 
the social. Has a lot of-- and 
it was more difficult for us to 
even come up with critiques of 
the social approach. So DurkHeim
meant people had-- but his 
approach has had quite a lot of 
influence.
About thinking of religion as a 
social phenomena. We think of it
as functional. If you look at it
how does it function in society?
Then Marx very much an attack 
along with Freud.
Thinking about it as 
maladaptive.
As an illusion. Just something 
to-- like an opiate to reduce 
anxiety. Interpretive. When you 
place it a bit more closely-- 
social with Ge SHGS rtz and 
symbols and so on. These are all
aspects. In a sense what we've 
done today just like all those 
different definitions that we 
looked at before to try to 
define religion. These are now 
kind of expanded into whole ways
of thinking and approaching 
religion. Each of which has its 
blindspots, right? Something 
they are not talking about. Just
something they'll think about 
what they are not talking about.
Each one has its limits. Some 
are apublicible in certain 
situations.
Like Marx' critique of very 
higher societies. Seems to have 
a lot of applicability there. 
And other contexts it doesn't. 
And this is how we want to think
about them. Sometimes it might 
be useful to think if our 
questions are about the 
experience of religion, to think
about-- interpretation. Or maybe
the functionalists and 
socialists here. So there'll be 
terms and ways in which we draw 
upon in terms of these-- when we
get to magic, we'll revisit some
of these. We'll talk about how 
magic functions. How it's 
interpreted and so on. So we'll 
come back to these kinds of 
concepts. We haven't got to the 
post-modern. We'll just do that 
shortly next time.
There was a few paragraphs in 
our text about it and I left out
bio evolutionary and 
contemporary evolutionary 
approaches for next time when we
talk about the evolution of 
religion. And so those sections 
in that chapter as prep for 
that. All right I'll hang around
if you have any questions.
Pam Heggie, CSR(A) RPR.
Accurate Realtime Reporting Inc.
Uncertified (draft) Verbatim 
Transcript