Five Steps of Christianity

Chelsea O’Brien

001210810

RELS 4001

Dr. Jennifer Otto

March 8th, 2021

 Clifford Geertz offers an important analysis of religion as a “cultural system’’ using a

five-point system. A starting point of this five-point system is the emphasis on the term

symbol(s) and its role as a somewhat “vehicle of conception” (Geertz, 1973). Symbols are

viewed as an important aspect in Christianity because they allow for numerous people to have a

similar experience while still being unique to the individual. The bible is a prime example of a

symbol within Christianity because of its sacred significance and its ability to form ideas,

attitudes and judgements (Bishop, 2020). Symbols in religion extend far beyond just a simple

object. They can be connected to an event, object, relation, act, and etc. These symbols can shape

human behaviour and create a sense of community, in Christianity this is shown through the

Holy Communion and the Eucharist. Mieczyslaw Polak (Polak, 2020) outlines this in saying

how bonds that connect members of church communities cannot simply be limited to juridical

systems and government regulations and that once an individual is graced through baptism, they

become immersed in Christ. Geertz divulges in his chapter the importance of the system of

symbols as a collective. The symbols are interrelated and work to carry and convey to signify to

people an idea that is shared collectively amongst individuals but “enter into individual minds”.

(Munson, 1986). What might seem like a mythological allegory to an ‘outsider’ of Christianity,

are often viewed as important historical facts to the ‘insiders’ of Christianity.

It is this system of symbols that acts to initiate these powerful and pervasive long-lasting

motivations and moods that Clifford Geertz epitomizes in his reading. A Christian completing a

pilgrimage to Bethlehem, acts as a symbol within Christianity, and thus fills the individual with

feelings of jubilation and inner peace, which correlate with the moods (feelings) symbols create.

A potential motivation within the realm of Christianity could be an individual’s commitment to

remaining celibate till marriage with the acceptance into heaven as their motivation. In Geertz
eyes, motivations are seen as a long-lasting thing, and a mood is viewed to be a reoccurring

thing, using the examples within Christianity I previously just mentioned, fit competently into

these “definitions” (Tonkin, 1980). It is these motivations and moods that encourages Christians

to feel certain ways and want to do certain things and Geertz summarizes this with the term

Ethos, which is a model for life (Geertz, 1973). Symbols act to make these beliefs and

behaviours seem both intense and genuine. The symbols within Christianity express and shape

one’s fundamental life view, giving them a sense of revelation and therefore enabling the

Christian with a sense of direction (Geertz, 1969).

This system of sacred symbols creates these moods and motivations for religion and

weave it into a sort of ordered and structured system. Geertz brings in the terms model of and

model for to help create a relationship and structure amongst the symbols. An ordering purpose

in Christianity is created by these “models.” Models for tell you how to behave and Models of

show you the way the world is (Segal, 1998). For example, Baptism is an integral and rite of

passage for Christians, which is another symbol for Christianity. The model of would be the

baptizing of Christ and the model for would be how Christians are supposed to behave once they

are ‘born again’ after being baptized (Herriman, 2017). Geertz believes it is this system of

symbols that make up an ordered whole and provide a layout for the many ideas, values and

lifestyles of a religion within society (Geertz, 1993). Not only do the symbols create moods,

motivations and order throughout Christianity, it produces an “aura of factuality”. It’s a fusion of

ethos and world view (Geertz, 1973). The symbolism Geertz emphasizes gives meaning to the

harshness our world bestows upon us. It gives Christians who experience evil, long-term

suffering, and the incomprehensible an ultimate explanation to the madness. The way in which

symbolism creates our motivations, generates an order of existence, and gives a factual essence
enables us to see that the mood and motivations are uniquely realistic in Christianity (Geertz,

1973). This factuality puts members of a religion in touch with what is “really real” and reaches

beyond the realities of everyday life. Previously discussed was Geertz implementation of

‘models’. The physical relationship of symbols creates a model for reality and a model for

reality. In Christianity, Jesus acts as this model for Christians because he poses as a character of

reality. Geertz’ analyzes the strength symbolism has to instill passion, sentiment and realism

upon members of a religion (such as Christianity).

Clifford Geertz’ chapter acts as an analysis that Anthropologists dissect and scrutinize.

Anthropologists view Geertz’ work as a sort of examination of the symbolic and cultural

interconnections that exist within a society (Welsch & Vivanco, 2014). Geertz’ provides a

quality analysis of how symbols can coincide and work together to give many people (such as

Christians) meaning within their religions. While his work is respectable in that aspect, it seems

he assumes individuals have a need for a meaning and making sense of the world (Welsch &

Vivanco, 2014). Geertz’ does not actively or adequately distinguish religion from other societal

realms such as science, common sense, law, and etc. It seems he is viewing religion as a personal

phenomenon, rather than a social phenomenon. It is almost impossible to separate religion from

the other domains of life (e.g., politics, economics, science) because, as Talal Asad says, “they

are merely buying into a modern liberal way of looking at the world” if they do so (Asad, 1983).

Asad believes that religion is a historical product created by individuals to suit their own

personal interests. Defining religion is not an easy task, but to begin defining it; society's

institutions and domains cannot be left out as they hold great importance. A modern example I

believe potentially negates Cliffords’ interpretation is the September 11 th attacks (9/11). While
symbols could provide Christians that ‘explanation’ for madness, this explanation can become

foggy when discussing 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, the immediate reaction was to label the

horrific acts as evil, irrational and appalling. This creates a challenge because the hijackers who

were members of Al-Qaeda, did not see themselves as evil or irrational. It is hard to believe

someone could provide a five-step definition of religion and be able to apply it to every single

religion. There are many religions that are evidently different from Christianity, such as

Scientology and Mormonism. What one religion believes to be morally correct, another might

not.

Many scholars, such as Kevin Schilbrack, believed that Geertz’ interpretation of religion should

be strictly labelled as metaphysical. Schilbrack sees Geertz’ analysis as leaning towards

authoritative, lacking ethics and overall lacking common sense. If Geertz’ definition was to be

used, then religion would be seen as offering an authoritative way of life by confirming and

showing that the way of life is actually authorized by the way things are (Schilbrack, 2005).

Geertz emphasizes the need for this ‘metaphysical grounding’ and further elucidates that social

practices need no social foundation (Geertz, 1973). This is a slightly absurd viewpoint, because

a viewpoint like his is only valuable to the extent that Geertz is right that religious practitioners

are not satisfied simply by a mutual understanding and claim that their beliefs and practices are

validated by the nature of things. Kenneth Rice has pointed out that “if there is no such thing as a

world view with no implications for one's style of life, or an ethos not based on some image of

reality, then it seems somewhat inappropriate to speak of sacred symbols as 'synthesizing' ethos

and world view” (Rice, 1982). Rice’s statement explains that Geertz’ analysis works to tie

together the worldview and ethos, but if they cannot be apart then religions do not bring the two

together. “Religion as a Cultural System” produces a viewpoint that one must first, examine the
system of meanings that exist amongst these symbols, which he believes reveal both a

metaphysical worldview and ethos and then only after a “native point of view” (Geertz, 1973) is

established, should one connect these system of meanings to social-structural and psychological

processes. Geertz’ narrow frame of mind when defining religion, despite his intricate five-point

definition, is what causes Anthropologists and fellow scholars to deeply dissect and scrutinize his

work.

Asad, Talal. “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.” Man, vol. 18, no. 2,

1983, pp. 237–259. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2801433. Accessed 8 Mar. 2021.

Assayag, Jackie. L'Homme, no. 161, 2002, pp. 243–245. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25133495.

Accessed 9 Mar. 2021.

Bishop, James. "Clifford Geertz – Religion as a “System of Symbols”. Bishop's Encyclopedia of

Religion, Society and Philosophy. 2020. Web.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

Print.

Geertz, Clifford. The Impact of the Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man. In The

Interpretation of Cultures. Pp. 33-54. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Geertz, Clifford, Religion as a cultural system. In: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected

Essays, Geertz, Clifford, pp.87-125. Fontana Press, 1993.

Herriman, Nicholas. Symbols & Society: An Anthropology of Symbols. La Trobe University.

2017. http://anthropologyofsymbols.blogspot.com/2017/11/9-symbols-as-models-

geertz.html

Munson Jr, Henry. Geertz On Religion: The Theory and the Practice, Religion, 16:1, 19-32,

1986, DOI: 10.1016/0048-721X(86)90003-5

Polak, M. “Shaping the Spirituality of Communion in Church Communities”. Verbum Vitae,

Vol. 37, no. 2, June 2020, pp. 285-96, doi:10.31743/vv.5447.

Schilbrack, Kevin. “Religion, Models of, and Reality: Are We through with Geertz?” Journal of the

American Academy of Religion, vol. 73, no. 2, 2005, pp. 429–452. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/4139804. Accessed 9 Mar. 2021.

Rice, Kenneth. Anthropology Series: Studies In Cultural Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan Press, 1980. 253 pp., bibliography. n.p. (paper).

Roth, Wendy D., and Jal, D. Mehta. “The Rashomon Effect: Combining Positivist and

Interpretivist Approaches in the Analysis of Contested Events.” Sociological Methods &

Research, vol. 31, no. 2, Nov. 2002, pp. 131–173, doi:10.1177/0049124102031002002.

Siegel, Ronald. Intoxication: Life in Pursuit of Artificial Paradise. New York: E. P. Dutton,

1989.
Tonkin, M. L. “Application of (Geertz’) Definition of Religion to the Basic Features of

Australian Aboriginal Religion: With Special Attention to the Murinbata People.” 1981.

Nelen Yubu, no. 9, Copyright Agency, Sept. 1981, pp. 3–11,

https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.820607467.

Welsch, Robert, Luis Vivanco, and Agustin Fuentes. "Asking Questions About Human Origins,

Diversity, and Culture." Sept. 2019. Web.