Linking Christianity to Culture through Narrative

It interested me that both Ethiopian culture and Anglo-Saxon culture used similar strategies to link Christianity to their culture—the use of lineage and idea of cultural superiority. The second reading of the Kebra Negast notes how, “the land that is ours is the land of inheritance, which God hath given unto us according to the oath that HE swore to our fathers, and a land flowing with milk and honey…” (44) It is clear that the idea of heritage is strong in this passage. Similarly, the Anglo-Saxons note that they are “the children of Israel” and the “inheritors of the Promises of God.” This struck me as interesting because both cultures link their culture to Christianity through the idea of cultural superiority. Both cultures use narratives that combine the origins of Christianity to their culture. If the narrative is unrealistic or lacking evidence (as the Anglo-Saxons call their narrative a “great story”), this is obsolete. Through the means of propaganda (the magazine), Anglo-Saxon culture was able to spread the narrative even more. Though their narrative (at least from what the magazine said) seemed unrealistic, stating that the “Anglo-Saxons everywhere” were the children of God, the appealing ideas of the narrative (that Anglo-Saxons are God’s divine children) seems enticing, and does not need evidence to gain popularity. In hindsight, though both cultures use the idea of lineage for evidence of their link to Christianity, the ideas are so enticing for the culture it is directed at, evidence is seldom necessary.

Cross- Cultural Manipulation of Christianity

This blog is in response to an idea that was brought up in class today by Daniel-- the comparison of manifest destiny to the Kebra Negast, and more generally--how people tend to change the origins of Christianity to make them relevant to their particular culture. The Queen of Shiba is used to make a connection between Christianity and Ethiopia—“And our lord Jesus Christ, in condemning the Jewish people, the crucifiers, who lived at the time, spake, saying “The queen of the South will rise up on the Day of Judgment and shall dispute with, and condemn and overcome this generation who would not hearken unto the preaching of my word.”(16-17) This quotation illustrates how the origins of Christianity are linked to a specific individual in Ethiopian culture. More importantly, the development of early Christianity foreshadows why future cultures acted they way they did in terms of religion and economic expansion. Many cultures, including the Ethiopians, create links between their culture and Christianity to make their own culture seem divine. Similarly, Eastern Europeans developed the idea of Manifest Destiny, which gave them a reason to expand and conquer without regretting the countless American Indians they killed in the process. Egocentrism, (the idea that the norms in one culture are the same in all cultures- or ego about ones culture) tends to fuel a uniform idea in almost all Christian cultures—that their version of the Christian religion is undoubtedly correct. Even if many cultures do not express this idea forthright, the changes made in each culture in order to better mesh with the origins of Christianity illustrate how egocentrism is a driving cross-cultural force.

Metropolis, Religion and Cinematography:

I previously watched Metropolis in a film class I took senior year of high school. The specific shot that I find most interesting is the one where Rotwang rises out of the trapdoor leading down to the catacombs, and Maria scampers back against the wall in fear. The shot is an OTS (over the shoulder) from behind Rotwang (who is in a rather hunched position-close to the separation between the upper ground and underground). The lighting in the shot exemplifies the features of Maria’s face, making her the only lit object in the shot. The shot not only illustrates the dichotomy between good and evil, but also connotes an image that deals with the battle between God and the Devil. Maria, being the holy object in the picture looms above Rotwang, who is rising up from the dark ground (hell). The camera work does an excellent job of creating a visual line between the upper ground (heaven) and underground (hell). Though Rotwang initially physically overpowers Maria, her superior stance in the shot (her lofty position in the frame) foreshadows her victory over Rotwang and his evil tendencies.

Religion and Grandiose

I though the most interesting of the reading was a single line in the article. It struck me as fantastic—“What minority, even a radicalized one, isn’t generally “tolerant” of the majority for most of its career? Even avowed terrorists and revolutionaries spend most of their days just biding their time” (115) This line relates the larger picture of religion. I think religion as a whole contributes to grandiose—exaggerated belief in ones important. Particularly with the “fundamentalist” sections of each religion, I believe that the idea of a higher power is many times the driving factor that contributes to destructive behavior. If one believes that his/her actions are being carried out for a benign reason (that of god/gods or a higher deity), they may be prone to ignore “core motives” of culture-- motives that are universal cross culturally. Grandiose, becomes a problem for fundamentalists because they fail to consider that possible repercussions of their actions. The idea of egocentrism (regarding the self as the center of all things) starts to apply to fundamentalist sections of religion, and negative occurrences such as religious war can result from such delusions. I agree that there are many benefits to religion, but there can also be extreme consequences when religious extremes preside over the norms of society.

Expanding "How to look at Torah" into the Context of our Classroom Philosophy

In the section “How to look at Torah” there were a few lines that I thought were particularly relevant to our technique of studying religion—in relevance to the “big picture.” The lines “look only at the soul, root of all, real Torah! In the time to come they are destined to look the soul of the soul of Torah!” I found particularly interesting because they illustrate the importance of studying the historical context of religion. The “soul of the soul of the Torah” seems to emphasize viewing the Torah from a historical perspective- a perspective similar to the one we have adopted in order to examine religion. The Zohar also notes, “The soul of the doul is the Holy Ancient One. All is connected, this one to that one.” (44) This line struck me as even more important because of the phrase “all is connected, this one to that one.” The articles we have been discussing seem to build upon one another--each new article contained certain elements that were prevalent in previous articles. The study of Neolithic, Paleolithic and Holecene art is a good example. Along with each cultures evolution of artwork, spirituality seemed to evolve along with it. When the Zohar notes that “all is connected, this one to that one,” it make me realize that despite the stark differences among religious cultures and denominations, it seems that religion has stemmed from a common background- a background that took place over thousands of years and was built by hundreds of different cultures. To me, that is the big picture.

Plato and Augustine

At first, Saint Augustine seems Platonic when he discusses bible interpretation, but eventually alludes to a less Platonic philosophy. Augustine notes that to achieve inner knowledge a person must have “spiritual freedom.” (75) He also mentions how people “judge sins not by the strength of actual lust, but by the standard of their own practices.” He seems to look condescendingly upon those who manipulate the bible based on their own cultural norms. Just as Plato lays out a well defined path to achieve an ideal society, Augustine voices his view on how to properly address and interpret the scriptures in the bible. For instance, he notes that the phrase, “Behold today I have established you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and destroy to lat waste and scatter” is “entirely figurative” which illustrates how Augustine has a specific philosophy that everyone should apply when interpreting scripture. (78) This specificity is also seen in Plato’s Republic as he argues for and attempts to define what aspects make up a harmonious society.

Augustine seems to become less Platonic, and more liberal as the article proceeds. Eventually, he notes how there are “sometimes not just one meaning but two or more meanings that are perceived from the same words of the scripture” (86) Plato would most likely disagree about the idea of multiple interpretations (not in the bible, but rather as a philosophy in general). In Plato’s ideas society, interpretation would seemingly disrupt the duties that each member must execute with orderly precision. Perfection, the underlying motive that drives Plato’s argument, would be undermined by Augustine’s idea that things have multiple interpretations.

Plato and Augustine

At first, Saint Augustine seems Platonic when he discusses bible interpretation, but eventually alludes to a less Platonic philosophy. Augustine notes that to achieve inner knowledge a person must have “spiritual freedom.” (75) He also mentions how people “judge sins not by the strength of actual lust, but by the standard of their own practices.” He seems to look condescendingly upon those who manipulate the bible based on their own cultural norms. Just as Plato lays out a well defined path to achieve an ideal society, Augustine voices his view on how to properly address and interpret the scriptures in the bible. For instance, he notes that the phrase, “Behold today I have established you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and destroy to lat waste and scatter” is “entirely figurative” which illustrates how Augustine has a specific philosophy that everyone should apply when interpreting scripture. (78) This specificity is also seen in Plato’s Republic as he argues for and attempts to define what aspects make up a harmonious society.

Augustine seems to become less Platonic, and more liberal as the article proceeds. Eventually, he notes how there are “sometimes not just one meaning but two or more meanings that are perceived from the same words of the scripture” (86) Plato would most likely disagree about the idea of multiple interpretations (not in the bible, but rather as a philosophy in general). In Plato’s ideas society, interpretation would seemingly disrupt the duties that each member must execute with orderly precision. Perfection, the underlying motive that drives Plato’s argument, would be undermined by Augustine’s idea that things have multiple interpretations.

I thought that the grizzly man had a rather etic view (a view developed by someone who is not immersed in the culture he is evaluating) on the bears he lived with. I know this may sound negative and condescending, especially because the grizzly man did seem to be pursing what he truly loved, but there are a few specific reasons for my generalization.

The curator of the museum, noted how the grizzly man “provided more harm than benefit” for the bears. At first this struck me as an uncalled for criticism, but then the curator noted how “his relatives for thousands of years left the bears unharmed and did not involve themselves with them.” My view of the grizzly man changed immediately. He did seem to give protection to the bears through the means of educating the public, but I do not think the benefits outweighed the costs to the grizzly species. His etic view seemed to omit the possibility that the presence of a human being (him) would make the bears to accustom to the presence of all humans- which in turn would make them vulnerable.

Furthermore, I agree with Brad Hoh’s blog. I think that even though the grizzly man had the future of the bears in his best interest, he was using them as a means to forget his past drug and alcohol additions. Brad noted, “I know for many people their faith or religious beliefs are what get them through hard times such as drug addition or death. The only way this is possible is with the help of a supernatural essence.” I think that the grizzly man was using the bears a form of spirituality- specifically a means to forget his past and devote his time to helping a species that he assumed needed a guardian or protector.

An Increase in Development, Complexity and Interpretation

Origen’s commentary on Lamentations highlights an important concept dealing with the evolution of religion (or the big picture). As the human species developed, the documentation of religious ideas or legends (the bible) increased in complexity, making interpretations about religion equally complex.
In surveying the Paleolithic era all the way up to the development of bible, it is apparent that the style of religious and spiritual documentation developed in complexity. The lack of “cognitive fluidity” in the Paleolithic period (which prevented early humans from expanding their cognitions into any type of elaborated art form) was bridged in the Holecene period, where “selective elaboration” was common. Finally, religious texts (the bible) were constructed, and evoked the most elaborate interpretations of all.
The increasing complexity of religious documentation (from primitive art forms to specific legends and commandments – Bible/other religious texts) is an important concept because it suggests the possible origin of diverse religious groups. Whereas, spirituality was once only seen in primitive art forms, which as Guthrie would argue had only a naturalistic, and hence one-dimensional meaning, religious texts provided a more ambiguous medium for spiritual understanding. Though a religious text may seem more concise and easily interpreted than a picture of a mammal, I would argue that Origen proves otherwise. He believes Lamentations illustrates “the soul in captivity of demons” and a “merciful God” who held “no wrath or vindictiveness.” (74) Origen concentrates the specific nature of God (mercifulness) and attaches a direct meaning to Jerusalem (the soul). Plainly, the complexity of this interpretation far exceeds that of Paleolithic art, which suggests that humans had developed individualized opinions about the meanings contained in religious texts.
Different interpretations of exceedingly complex religious texts may have contributed to the development of diverse religious groups. For example, the different denominations in Christianity are usually separated by only negligible differences in opinion. Even in today’s society, people interpret the bible in hundreds and even thousands of ways. As human developed, so did their means of religious expression, and their ability to create their own interpretations about spirituality and religion.

Cultural Relativism and its Relation to a working Deffintion of Religion

Cultural Relativism and its Relation a our working Definition of Religion:
A response to Margaret R:

Margaret R. noted an important concept in her blog post; we define culture and what entails a 'civilization' broadly across different nations of the world. Margaret’s idea relates loosely to cultural relativism- the idea that individual beliefs should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. I would argue that Paleolithic art and Native American rituals are both lenses in which we can look through to speculate on the origins of spirituality. But I would also argue that the idea of cultural relativism holds true, and there are some broad conclusions (as Margaret asserted) we cannot make because we hold as etic viewpoint (the view one holds outside a specific cultural context).

One problem I had while reading the “Effigy Mound” article was the number of assumptions made about Native American culture. The idea of cultural relativism comes into context when the article notes that “much conjecturing on the mounds had been done from a Euro-American world view” (112) If an attempt is made to define religion, how can we truly compile a list of commonalities every religion must consist of? The ideas behind cultural relativism make it impossible for religion to have a concrete definition. I wanted to share my opinion on this subject, because I didn’t get to express it on the first day of class.

Practice Theory and its Relation to the Orgins of Religion

In the second reading of “The Nature of Paleolithic Art,” David Guthrie alludes to, but does not explicitly state, that religion may have evolved from what is known now in anthropology as the practice theory. The Practice theory “recognizes that individuals within a society or culture have diverse motives and intentions and different degrees of power and influence.” (Kottak 48) It specifically focuses on how “varied individuals-through their ordinary and extraordinary actions manage to influence, create and transform the world they live in.” Guthrie mentions a specific instance that made me think immediately of the practice theory.

After the Paleolithic-Holocene shift, “tribes were associated with more abstract power that was overtly and unequally distributed according to strength, resources and birth.” (Guthrie 420) Unlike the previous hunting clans, tribes developed a social hierarchy, and hence certain individuals in society were able to influence and alter cultural norms (especially the upper class) Guthrie notes how, “The successes of the tribal program freed the upper classes from daily labor and removed them from the vicissitudes of life. The upper echelon of society “was allowed to expand their mythology and the rhythms of their art.” (431) Unlike Paleolithic art, which was practiced by almost all members of society, post-Paleolithic art was practiced only by a select few. Just as social structures started to become prevalent in tribal culture, art forms transformed. Shamen’s began to “inflate” the feats of their ancestors, and the switch from natural to supernatural art seemed to reflect their interest in worlds other than their own. As a whole, religion was quite possibly a result of the higher social classes attempting to influence and transform their society.

I believe the upper class (which seemingly held the greatest influence) had the intention of using religion as a tool to harness social power. Social power, which was a new concept (because hunting tribes were mainly composed of equal or no social classes), may have been extremely desirable for those who understood its value. Though Guthrie never directly supports this claim, I believe that the primary seeds of religion sprouted from what we now call the practice theory.

Paleolithic Art

After considering the evidence in the article, I would argue that Paleolithic art is not in anyway a representation of spirituality among early humans, but rather a way for them to create aesthetic social identities among one another.

First, it is important to examine why Paleolithic art does not seem to illustrate spirituality. If art was found outside a cave, it was commonly discovered amidst the remains of a campsite. As Guthrie suggests, “art was not made for and confined to a sacred site, and nothing suggests that these campsites (where art was excavated) were consecrated or sanctified.” Paleolithic art was crafted and developed in a social environment, which makes it seem more of a casual activity than a sacred right. Furthermore, Paleolithic art that was discovered in stereotypically sacred areas (such as caves) contained the same subject matter, namely “naked women and large mammals.” This suggests that the Paleolithic art found in caves was just an extension of social behavior in an alternative environment, rather than a separate spiritual ritual. Additionally, early humans in the Paleolithic period were driven by “wit, logic and wise decisions based on embedded empirical experience.” Paleolithic art, if used to represent religion, would be promoting something highly unempirical, and this would go against the characteristics of the early human in the Paleolithic period.

It is also important to develop an idea about the importance Paleolithic art played the culture of early human beings. Most images found in Paleolithic art consistently dealt with large mammals. Since “successful hunting of large mammals was the social currency for male status, marriage and health” it seems viable to claim Paleolithic art was used by men to convey their status in society. Men would carve images into their spears, which may have made them seem aesthetically pleasing and powerful. Many times, Paleolithic art was “not literal” and contained “selective exaggeration.” It seems as if early humans used art as a means to display or even embellish their accomplishments. In an age where every aspect of society was required to serve a marked purpose, it seems valid to suggest that art was a tool to determine social identity rather than promote spirituality.