Social Analysis · 2008 · 35 citations · 0 references
ArtsAnthropologyReligionBelief StudiesPhilosophy Of ReligionReligious AnthropologyAnthropology Of ReligionInterpretive AnthropologyReligious BeliefReligious ExperienceReligious Meaning-makingReligious PracticeBodily HabitusChristian AnthropologyEmbodiment In ReligionPopular CatholicismReligious Belief FormationReligious Embodiment
Anthropologists have moved against belief because they rely on a linguistic model that equates the absence of the word “belief” with the absence of the process, treating religion as a translation problem. The authors argue for the enduring utility of belief as a description of experiential processes at the heart of religion. They use examples from Catholicism and Mormonism to show that these experiential processes are rooted in the body. They find that bodily practice and performance generate religion as an immanent force, leading people to believe.
This article argues for belief, suggesting that the reason why anthropologists might have moved against belief is their persistent attachment to a linguistic model of religion that sees the job of the anthropologist of religion as being one of translation. In such a model, the absence of the word 'belief' signals the absence of the process. We argue for the enduring utility of belief, not as a linguistic category, but as a description of experiential processes at the heart of religion. Using examples from popular Catholicism and Mormonism, we contend that such processes are rooted in the body. Through bodily practice and performance, religion is generated as an immanent force in the world—people come to believe.