It's Tylor and Frazer's Fault.
Mar. 24th, 2009 06:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Converter - [Deadman (Perdition)]--- Think of it this way: Before the anthropological study of religion, there were no people in the world who were dedicatedly looking at "religious" practices from a post-enlightenment perspective, concerned with scientific and scientistic advancement. This meant that "religion," "magic," and "spirituality" were simply things that you had, did, or experiences, and that was fine. No one tried to make them fit into very small boxes, or at least not as persistently.
When Tylor and Frazer came along, they began to apply the principles of anthropological study to the investigation of religious practices, around the world. Unfortunately, this was done in the 19th century, on the European continent. (Portishead - [The Rip]). If you're not quite following what I mean, there, think about the terms "primitive peoples," "Noble Savage," and "Unenlightened groups." Due to the fact that the "development" of population and societal groups was seen as a continuum, moving from primitivity to sophistication-- was, in fact, seen as a "Development," or "Evolutionary Model" (look it up)-- there was a pervading sense of superiority over the so-called "primitives," of having "figured it all out." This sense got transfered to the study of religion by Tylor and Frazer. Not only them, of course, but they were the biggest, loudest perpetrators.
V.A. - [detritus / grace]--- And so, when the evolutionary model of anthropology is brought to the table as a tool to be used in the burgeoning academic study of religion, this sense of "development," of moving with purpose from a primitive to a sophisticated understanding, gets insinuated into the very fabric of how we think about the very practices of religion, spirituality, and magic. Over time, the study of religion has, by most, come to be seen as separate from that of science, as not even being on precisely the same continuum, thought the two may interact and overlap, as being grouped under a larger heading of "Humand Endeavours." (The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets - [Battered]). But for some reason, the practices of magic have never escaped this sense of continuity, most likely because magic aims to actually effect change in such a similar-seeming way, as I have mentioned, here, before.
Azam Ali - [From Heaven to Dust]--- But it is my assertion that Frazer and Tylor's model of evolutionary anthropology was wrong, not simply in terms of describing the societal and cultural changes that take place within a grouping of people, but in describing the relationship between Science, Religion, and Magic as a continuum with magic being the most "primitive" end and science being the most "enlightened." This description has so pervaded the study of these disciplines (again, with separate investigative procedures and rules being more recently given to Religion) that it has become nearly impossible to study any of the attendent sub-disciplines, and their categorical usefulness, without having to resort to a direct connection to a scientistic worldview.
Wümpscüt - [Witches' Dance]--- When we look at the meaning and usefulness of that which we categorise under the heading "magical practices" or "magical experiences" we are not necessarily looking at only that which scientific methods seek to explain and understand. And even if we are looking at the exact same subjects, their meaning in the context of magic is so radically different as to be nearly unintelligible. And that meaning and contextual change are important to the function of magic, because you're in a different place where map can be territory, and where relation can affect causation. (The Tear Garden - [Oo Ee Oo]). That which Jung termed "an acausal connecting principle" takes its meaning and its application To context from it's context. That is, the only meaning that exists in a synchronicity experience exists in the interconnections of and the relationship between the meaning of the factors involved.
Bigdumbface - [Blodd Red Head on Fire]--- This is, to me a major part of what magic is, and how it works. There are interconnections of meaning, and various different types of causation (agent, distant, intersubjective, &c.) that allow all of this to tie together, but that's not my point, this time.
My point, here, right now, is that the reason we cannot thinkn about these things in their opwn terms, the reason we seem to be incapable of applying other than scientific rationalistic criteria to all experiences, even when they would obviously work better under a different rubrk, and those would beter fit, together undrer a completely different over-arching framework, is that JG Frazer and EB Tylor were pompous jerks.
Placebo - [Scared of Girls]--- That is all.
When Tylor and Frazer came along, they began to apply the principles of anthropological study to the investigation of religious practices, around the world. Unfortunately, this was done in the 19th century, on the European continent. (Portishead - [The Rip]). If you're not quite following what I mean, there, think about the terms "primitive peoples," "Noble Savage," and "Unenlightened groups." Due to the fact that the "development" of population and societal groups was seen as a continuum, moving from primitivity to sophistication-- was, in fact, seen as a "Development," or "Evolutionary Model" (look it up)-- there was a pervading sense of superiority over the so-called "primitives," of having "figured it all out." This sense got transfered to the study of religion by Tylor and Frazer. Not only them, of course, but they were the biggest, loudest perpetrators.
V.A. - [detritus / grace]--- And so, when the evolutionary model of anthropology is brought to the table as a tool to be used in the burgeoning academic study of religion, this sense of "development," of moving with purpose from a primitive to a sophisticated understanding, gets insinuated into the very fabric of how we think about the very practices of religion, spirituality, and magic. Over time, the study of religion has, by most, come to be seen as separate from that of science, as not even being on precisely the same continuum, thought the two may interact and overlap, as being grouped under a larger heading of "Humand Endeavours." (The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets - [Battered]). But for some reason, the practices of magic have never escaped this sense of continuity, most likely because magic aims to actually effect change in such a similar-seeming way, as I have mentioned, here, before.
Azam Ali - [From Heaven to Dust]--- But it is my assertion that Frazer and Tylor's model of evolutionary anthropology was wrong, not simply in terms of describing the societal and cultural changes that take place within a grouping of people, but in describing the relationship between Science, Religion, and Magic as a continuum with magic being the most "primitive" end and science being the most "enlightened." This description has so pervaded the study of these disciplines (again, with separate investigative procedures and rules being more recently given to Religion) that it has become nearly impossible to study any of the attendent sub-disciplines, and their categorical usefulness, without having to resort to a direct connection to a scientistic worldview.
Wümpscüt - [Witches' Dance]--- When we look at the meaning and usefulness of that which we categorise under the heading "magical practices" or "magical experiences" we are not necessarily looking at only that which scientific methods seek to explain and understand. And even if we are looking at the exact same subjects, their meaning in the context of magic is so radically different as to be nearly unintelligible. And that meaning and contextual change are important to the function of magic, because you're in a different place where map can be territory, and where relation can affect causation. (The Tear Garden - [Oo Ee Oo]). That which Jung termed "an acausal connecting principle" takes its meaning and its application To context from it's context. That is, the only meaning that exists in a synchronicity experience exists in the interconnections of and the relationship between the meaning of the factors involved.
Bigdumbface - [Blodd Red Head on Fire]--- This is, to me a major part of what magic is, and how it works. There are interconnections of meaning, and various different types of causation (agent, distant, intersubjective, &c.) that allow all of this to tie together, but that's not my point, this time.
My point, here, right now, is that the reason we cannot thinkn about these things in their opwn terms, the reason we seem to be incapable of applying other than scientific rationalistic criteria to all experiences, even when they would obviously work better under a different rubrk, and those would beter fit, together undrer a completely different over-arching framework, is that JG Frazer and EB Tylor were pompous jerks.
Placebo - [Scared of Girls]--- That is all.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 01:18 am (UTC)Racism, Ethnocentrism, whatever you call it, has been a major theme in human history for the entire length of human history.
I'd actually cite early 19th century through early 20th century America for some of the most asinine sort of "we'll overcome nature with our science" points of view, but separating what was the scientific community's influence on that view, and what was the popular media and culture of the time, is difficult.
Did you ever see Road To Wellville? That's one of my favorite movies, and it really illustrates the sort of pop-pseudo-scientific mindset that still pervades our culture and does nothing to help either of our causes in the slightest. Not only does it use bullshit science to try and belittle the religious/spiritual/magical community, it destroys real science in the process.
While you and I are, admittedly, on quite different sides of one argument, I'd gladly watch such pseudo-scientific institutions crumble under their own hubris.
Anyway... Ranting aside.
I think there is as much of religious undercurrent to this as there is a scientific one, though. From the Romans setting out to to destroy the Germanic tribes and religions, the Celtic tribes and religions, to the Witch hunts in America, a large part of the "we're better than you" was from a cultural ideal that existed before a scientific sense of superiority.
Granted, the interplay between the two was disastrous for many a native person... And that sucks.
And another thing to consider, is that if you pick up any Discover magazine from the last 10 years, you'll find a never ending stream of papers and quotes from scientists that spend great deals of their time and energy debunking many of the "evolutionary superiority" claims.
Spend some time on YouTube watching creationism/ID/evolution debates and one of the MAJOR themes is that creationists constantly point to Hitler as being the archetype of what "evolutionary thinking" gets you (Atheism and Genocide) which is of course wrong to begin with, but the scientists will always come back with "Evolution does not HAVE a goal, we are STILL evolving, and you can't say one species is more or less evolved, they're merely differently adapted"
So there's much work being done to destroy the way of thinking that you have cited. You are indeed correct for citing it, but you should also keep in mind that it is seen by the current scientific establishment (well, outside of Kansas, anyway) as an archaic, racist, and demonstrably false way of thinking.
And again, there's as much reason to think that those ideals stemmed from an early Judeo-christian/ethnocentrism ideal that was merely enforced by bad science used by unscrupulous individuals to further their own causes.
Because remember: Society at large doesn't know good science from bad science, good religion from bad religion, or good socialism from bad socialism. One thing that we all need to be on guard from is authority figures using good tools to do bad things with, and with science, the tools are very powerful, and the people wielding the power never know how to use their tools. Science, Magic, George W Bush and televangelism, it doesn't matter.
So I won't disagree with this post, because I think the theme is spot-on, but I'd add the Pope, King James, Julius Caeser, and some more Popes to the list of Pompous jerks.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 01:25 am (UTC)"Built in the image of God" + "Rejection of Evolution" = "Humans Are Superior"
"Built in the image of God" + "Theistic Evolution" = "Humans Evolved Superior"
"Built in the image of God" + "Theistic Evolution" + "3000 Years of Racial Superiority" = "Easy justification for Genocide"
"No God" + "Blind Evolutionary Forces" = "Hey, Neat!"
no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 05:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-26 09:40 pm (UTC)But ultimately, I mean... Yeah, there's the whole Stalin thing which kind of sucked. And Mao.
But there were a lot more things they had to add to the equation other than just No God and Evolution to get Genocide. Russia and China have had that tradition for... Well, forever. Cambodia has never been happy lucky fun land either. Southeast Asia really has a pretty horrible track record for violence since it got populated by multi-celled organisms.
And let's face it, "Thou shalt not kill" has been turned into genocide plenty, so that's more of a statement about the stupidity of man than the validity of the statement itself.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-27 02:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 04:00 am (UTC)Yes I did, and it was Hilarious.
So there's much work being done to destroy the way of thinking that you have cited.
Very true, and I should have gone into that further, but I was more trying to note that, no matter how far we come FROM it, so much of what magic is believed to be (a "misguided" "misunderstood" application of cause and effect, as Frazer put it) was established by and is still rooted in this Kind of view.
So I won't disagree with this post, because I think the theme is spot-on, but I'd add the Pope, King James, Julius Caeser, and some more Popes to the list of Pompous jerks.
Hear hear.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 05:03 am (UTC)I thought of this after I posted, and I think I'll make it part of my mega-post.
Part of your position on science being anti-magic at the outset is, it would *seem*, is that a person comes at it with the presupposition that it is false, before using science to weigh the evidence.
Now the presupposition part might be me putting words into your mouth, partly because in creationist debates the word presupposition gets tossed around like so many midgets...
And for a great many scientists, past and present, I'd say this is entirely true. But I would suggest that the source of this presupposition is not a sort of scientific hubris, but rather a SPECIFICALLY Christian viewpoint.
For instance, here (the above link) would be the Christian take on Atheism and superstition, which coming from a babtist/evangelical upbringing, the presupposition that paganism, magic, or eastern philosophy are wrong, would be enforced not by science, but by Christianity.
Granted, I take the conservapedia as a whole to be a big steaming load, but I think it offers a glimpse into a certain mindset.
I realize this comes off as a simple blame-shift, but I think it's a reasonable assertion, and is supported by historical evidence. Keeping in mind many scientists of the 19th and 20th century were devout believers in God, but devout disbelievers in "superstitious" beliefs, I think an argument can be made for a single religious sect demonizing your beliefs as being the cause for bias among the scientific community, whereas the use of the scientific method has only served to validate that position in their mind (rightfully or wrongfully...)
no subject
Date: 2009-03-25 05:49 am (UTC)That even if god or gods reveal, humans must interpret. My only issue with this is making sure people recognise that the same is true for whatever the actual basic "stuff" of "reality" is: we can only approach and interpret through inherently incomplete, drastically variable means.
I couldn't help myself
Date: 2009-03-25 03:46 pm (UTC)