Symbols and religions

Résumé du document

This essay is based on C.R.Hallpike's work on "Social Hair? and Sherry B.Ortner's work "On Key Symbols?. The 1960s and 1970s were a period of important changes in anthropological studies. Most anthropologists react to Marxism and structuralism by changing their conception of their role. After that period, anthropologists would have to understand and analyze the symbolic basis of culture. The new conception is that cultures are made of symbols, and those systems of symbols can be decoded by anthropologists. To do so they focus on ''key symbols'' or ''core symbols'' which summarize the particular worldview, organization and conceptions of a given culture? What criteria can they use to study the meanings of a symbol? How can they make a hierarchy between key and less important symbols? Can we find universal symbols that could be extend to all human beings?

Extraits

[...] So Hallpike's work help us to remember the need to avoid the if I were a horse fallacy'' and to keep the study as practical as possible. But this study uses the concept of symbol to make a new theory on the symbol of the cutting of the hair. This doesn't really help us to clearly identify what is a key symbol and what is not, and doesn't show except with a particular example the dangers of psychological studies of symbols. [...]

[...] So we don't find any psychological explanation in this theory contrary to Ortner's theory. So according to Hallpike there is no link between castration and cutting of hair because it is used for both sexes , then there is rare rituals for the cutting of beards and finally ascetics commonly have long hair but no sexuality. In Hallpike's opinion long hair is associated with being outside society (animality) and the cutting of the hair symbolizes re- entering society, or living under a particular disciplinary regime within society. [...]

[...] Those symbols are not sacred but very recurrent. Then S.Ortner specifies her hierarchy by dividing elaborating symbols in two categories. First there are the roots metaphors (Stephen Pepper) which are a mean to elaborate conceptual categories thanks to metaphors: one type of key symbol in the elaborating mode which sort out experience to place it in cultural categories and to help us think about how it all hangs together''. The second subdivision in elaborating symbols is the key scenarios which have primarily action elaborating power''. [...]

[...] Even if Ortner gives a good and brief definition of symbols the categories are quite fragile. She has difficulties to justify the asymmetry of her organization and the fact that the category of summarizing symbols is not subdivided. She also has to recognize that the distinctions are not so true empirically (link with Hallpike). The best example would be the Christian which stands for both the God's general image and for the scenario of Christ's martyrdom. Finally, we have no methodical ways to find the meanings of the symbols: there is no empirical example of the usefulness of the categories. [...]

[...] The new conception is that cultures are made of symbols, and those systems of symbols can be decoded by anthropologists. To do so they focus on ''key symbols'' or ''core symbols'' which summarize the particular worldview, organization and conceptions of a given culture? But what criteria can they use to study the meanings of a symbol? How can they make a hierarchy between key and less important symbols? Can we find universal symbols that could be extend to all human beings? S.Ortner gives first methodical suggestions for anthropologists to study symbols and how to distinguish a key symbol. [...]