The Painter and His Painting:
A Critique of Religion as a Cultural System
Clifford Geertz
The objective is to critique a work written by one of the philosophers we have discussed in class. Thesis-driven argumentative critique.
Like to see what others think of it any feedback would be nice! Appreciate you taking the time to read over it.
In Clifford Geertz's Religion as a Cultural System, he defines religion as "a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, persuasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic"(Geertz, 13). He twists religion into a system for man to give meaning to their lives by creating a meaning through symbols and persuasion that it is impossible to believe otherwise; that their beliefs do not originate from something transcendent, but rather formulated in their own thoughts and ideas. Geertz gives a definition that is solely depicted as being rooted in human nature and fails to clearly define religion by not addressing the transcendent elements and the inner-experiences felt by an individual that sets them apart from one another. "Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun" (Clifford Geertz). In this quotation, Geertz makes it clear he believes man created significance for him to give meaning to or rather make sense of his own existence. His point is drawn with the meaning of religion being only fabricated in the human mind and prevailing over a meaning established by a superior being lying beyond the limits of mankind. He seems to ignore any possibility of there really being something transcendent from our concept of reality. He focuses on the point that every group has religion because it has common groundings that all its members share, to make sense out of life and guide behavior. He is successful in pointing out the functionality in religion and how it is passed on in cultures, but does not conceptualize what religion really is to an individual or the relationship from man to a possible transcendent.
According to Geertz, symbols have high significance to human beings and to their process of forming meaning. Symbols, such as objects, actions, events, or relationships, are defined as common framework in cultures, that bridge the barrier between the world and how human behavior is guided and therefore what life means to its society. Geertz relates this idea to genes (developed by Horowitz, 1962). Genes provide an outline for which their purpose or processes can be performed. The same way that a code is laid out in a strand of DNA to give instructions to function, cultural traditions provide instructions to mold a desired, common behavior (Geertz, 13). Instead of this being just an idea manipulated by the human brain, could it not have been set in motion by something transcendent, such as a creator of man? A creator would be superior in knowledge over man and knew the function of these instructions in human DNA, for He put it there and designed it to act in such a way. This transcendent figure would not only already see the process for DNA but a relation to how the brain works and relates to society and the environment to discover knowledge. In this sense, symbols would be just tools set in place to guide humans toward higher knowledge and ultimately a relationship from the observable world to a far superior one beyond the limits of humankind. These instructions could have been blurred over time as the symbols meaning was passed from one to the other, which would give some understanding to the various assortments of beliefs. Human interpretation created the difference and could be what the creator intended. Take our environment for instance; we learn about how the human body works by learning from our surroundings, there is a definite connection. Take the solar system in account and think of the comparison of something on a smaller scale, an atom. The gravitational pull of planets to the sun could be related to the attraction of electrons to an atom. There are connections set in place all around us to develop a better understanding not only from the environment to ourselves but also ourselves to the environment, which is too perfectly intertwined to believe it just happened on its own, there is something more to the beautifully crafted painting of the world. And just like a painting, there has to be a Painter. It is hard for man to imagine that there is some superior being to him, but it would be a disappointing thought that in the end there was nothing surpassing this pitiful, limited race. By discovering functionality, man can conclude he has discovered the painter's process, yet this does not define the Painter or the relationship to the Painter.
In Geertz's last point, he states that religion makes the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (18). He explains that the symbols, or instructions are prepared in a way that is persuasive in directing behavior. Symbols tell us that because reality is framed in a certain way, we should feel a certain way and aim to uphold certain values. This makes an individual's own inner-experiences and their own beliefs seem irrelevant to religion. Yet again, what if the Painter's objective was to set these tools, mentioned before, in place for an individual to achieve their own inner-experiences, or faith; perhaps a guide to build a relationship between what is known and what is unknown. There is something very empowering about how each individual person is uniquely different and set apart from one another. Yes, Geertz is right in the fact that individuals do have similarities and can be grouped together and characterized by those similarities, but by only studying how a group all together acts he is limited to only those elements which our commonalities. That is the main limit in the human race; we cannot set ourselves apart. To be accepted is to be viewed as normal, or similar to the majority. The connection between man and the beyond is the individual. Something so hard to define is not the common element in a group, but what makes each person different and how differently they perceive the world. Only the individual will ever be able to know how he views things and how he experiences them. The one element that could ever truly define religion cannot be studied, nor seen by the public eye. Coincidence or scheme? The individuals experience through life, their journey to ultimately overcoming their limitations and their relationship they form with the transcendent is what begins to describe religion. Religion cannot be defined. To define it would be giving it limitations. Limits would be setting religion in an unchanging and definite consistency. Something that is ever changing and developing, and also different from one soul to another cannot be limited. (Smith, 26-33.)
Geertz provides a helpful analysis of religion, how it functions and how it changes, yet he is unsuccessful in capturing the whole picture by only focusing on how the environmental events and surrounding function in cultures. He fails to expand on two very important aspects of religion, the transcendent or the possibility of one and the individual's inner-experiences and faith.
Work Cited
Kessler, Gary E. "What Is Religion?" Philosophy of Religion: Toward a Global Perspective. Wadsworth Pub., 1999. 12-33. Print.
