Structural Anthropology theory of religion emerged out of the historical study of religion.

These theorists proposed a different method of the study of religion, including linguistics,
ethnography/ethnology, mythology, and symbolism. Proponents of these methods were
Saussure, Durkheim, and Levi-Strauss. The study of empirical cultures can bring new light and
meanings to the rituals and myths of cultures. This is precisely what the structural
anthropologists sought to unearth.
Saussure raises the issue about language and speech. He says that language is the
psychological aspect, whereas speech is the physiological aspect. At the end of his discourse, he
stresses the need to explore the study of signssemiology. He explains that language is not
natural to humans, but rather is formed through a social construct. Speech on the other hand,
demonstrates the need of humans to communicate with each other, whether through oral
sounds or through the use of signs and gestures (Saussure, pg 9). The Medieval Sephardic
rabbinic authorities such as David Kimi, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Maimonides gave primary
importance to the definition of language in the study of the Torah. Within their commentaries,
one will find explanations of cultural peculiarities of the use of language and demonstrations of
the evolution of words in different biblical contexts. One example of such is the use of
anthropomorphisms. Hence, one can see how the Sephardic luminaries were ahead of their
time in a sense.
Emile Durkheim establishes a principle for primitive and simple religion. He says that
a religion is primitive when it does not take after any other before it and when it is not
surpassed by any other in simplicity. He says that the study of primitive religion must be done
from the premise that they hold reality and express it. Moreover, he explains that the rites and
symbols of these religions express a human need or some aspect life; one cannot assume that
they are based on error. Hence, there are no false religions. They all have their truths and
answer the conditions of human existence in different ways (Durkheim, pg 217). This will later
be explained and understood through the diffusion method of anthropology.
His thesis is that one must study the root of religious ideas, practices, or legal principles
and trace their evolutions through history. He uses Descartes principle of evolution to place
naturism, animism, and totemism at the beginning of religion. He says that one must find the
commonality in religious traditions, separating the secondary from the principle. The study of
primitive civilizations allows the scholar to study human institutions. Durkheim stresses the
need to not judge simple religions through the eyes of the more-developed ones. Through this
method of study, one can undertake the incognita of the origin of religion, not to be confused
with the beginning of religion (Durkheim, 223). This method is the study of religion was vital
for Maimonides. In his Guide For the Perplexed, he explains that all of the precepts which are
known as uqim (laws that transcend human logic) can really be explained through the study of
religious anthropology of the Near Eastern civilizations of the time when the Torah was
revealed. Maimonides asserts that all of the Torah is indeed a contradiction to the Near-Eastern
practices, and that its goal is to create a separation of the Hebrew civilization from the rest
(Maimonides, book 4). Hence, this is what it means to be Am qadosh (A holy nation).
Ultimately, for Durkheim, the Australian aborigines are the best subjects for the study of
primitive religion.
Durkheim agrees with J.Z. Smith that one must not study religion through preconceived
notions, i.e. defining religion as Christianity. Durkheim defines religious phenomena as a
dichotomy of beliefs and rites. He also says that all religious traditions view the world in terms
of profane and sacred. This is indeed the goal of the Torahto define what is profane and
sacred, and to create a distinction between the two. Furthermore, Durkheim explains how the
need to live a sacred life led to extreme asceticism and monasticism. These lifestyles are
precisely what Max Weber believed to have contributed to the spirit of capitalism as practiced
by the adherents of European Pietism. On the contrary, this is the problem that Marx has with
religionsocial parasitism. Overall, Durkheim asserts that religion must be studied in its own
right, without the noise of Christianity.
Next, Levi-Strauss explains that the anthropologist must be careful in drawing
conclusions of different cultures that have similar customs and practices. He says that the
linkage can only be done through a precise history or intermediary. Moreover, he explains that
there two methods, namely, evolutionism and diffusionism. The former assumes that one
culture is more primitive than the other and the latter uses a comparative method into to
reconstruct individuals with fragments borrowed from different categories. This would imply
that both Max Weber and Karl Marx used the evolution theory of historical analysis. An example
of diffusionism is evident in the Midrash Rabbah when the Rabbis state that the Torah was
revealed at Sinai and each nation of the world heard some form of it and interpreted what it
understood, and used it as the basis of the respective civilization. Levi-Strauss suggests that
when performing the anthropological comparison, that the ethnologist limit it to a small region.
He also cites Boas in saying that one must study how things came to be. As a result, the
reconstruction of history opposes the traditional historians conclusions. This is the idea when
he says, The criticism of the evolutionist and diffusionist interpretations has shown us that
when the anthropologist thinks that he is doing historical research, he is doing the opposite; it
is when he thinks that he is not doing historical research that he operates like a good historian,
who would be limited by the same lack of documents (Levi-Strauss, pg 16).
Levi-Strauss thesis on the analysis of religion is expressed in the following
statement: "The study of the mentally sick individual has shown us that all persons are more
or less oriented toward contradictory systems and suffer from the resulting conflict". In
addition, he asserts that the cure and sickness is emotional and psychological. He also says that
if one were to explain sickness in terms of germs, bacteria, and virus, it would cause no effect
to the ill. In essence, he equated the shaman with the psychoanalyst. This precisely the
problem that Freud has with religionthe rules and norms of a given society are established
based on the sense of guilt and when certain individuals within that civilization evolve, their
freedom is curtailed due to the primitive understanding of their contemporaries. According to
Levi-Strauss, healing through a shaman and through a psychoanalyst are similar in that they
use symbols, i.e. language, where the former speaks for the patient. In this aspect both Levi-
Strauss and Saussure agree; the understanding of the symbols and language are of prime
importance in analyzing myths.
Another form of language is myth. Levi-Strauss is surprised that few people
dedicated their lives to the study of mythology. He agrees that a myth transcends the
translation. However, the study of myths must include all of their constituents, lest the scholar
misunderstands them. A method that is used to understand myths is placing the elements of
the myth in columns and analyzing their relationships to one another. This is a visual tool that
allows the anthropologist to understand the underlying meaning of the myth. Levi-Strauss uses
this method on the Oedipus myth and concludes that it conveys the idea that procreation
requires two peoplemale and female. In the same fashion, the meaning of Rabbinic Midrash
and Aggadah can be deciphered through the diction and underlying structure as Levi-Strauss
proposes. Levi-Strauss agrees generally that a myth and ritual go hand-to-hand, where the
myth is conceptual and the ritual is put into action. However, he also states that they do not
always have a one-to-one relationship. Also, he stresses that it is important to compare the
myths of surrounding societies. This is what Eliade does in his work The Myth of the Eternal
Return. By comparing various myths and finding similarities, he was able to develop the
concepts of cosmogony, the center, and regeneration of time. Therefore, Levi-Strauss agreed
that the study of mythology was essential to the understanding of a given culture.
Overall, the structural anthropologist does not seek to know the truth, rather to
reconstruct ideas about cultures through the study of their myths, language, symbols, and
rituals. At the first stage, Saussure proposed the study of religion through its language. Next,
Durkheim established a principle of primitive religion and continuing from there. Then Levi-
Strauss introduced the notion of studying mythology through a method of stacking the empirical
elements in an organized fashion to discover the underlying meaning. Finally, he draws
conclusions from the relationship between the shaman and the psychoanalyst to demonstrate
how the patient is healed from emotional and mental illness. Although, the structural
anthropologists opposed phenomenology theories, they restored meaning to the study of
religion that was at stake with the historicist theories of Marx and Weber.