EAJT/3:1I85

AntHr()pglogy ofReligiQn:
THree Major AntHropological Figures
in Contemporary Religious THougHt
Religion is one . of the most important and . intricate aspects of culture
studied by basic to every known human society, and sig-
nificantly interacts with institutions . and . social structures .. It
presents to the examiner a wide range of expression and potentially far reach-
ing implications.
of religion has beeIl partially responsible
for a universally accepted inclination
has been to broadly define the termin?logy as did Tylor in 1874 . . From so
broad a definition - "a belief in spiritual beings" - anthropologists can then
project more specific characteristics which may be considered necessary. For
instance, Clifford qeertz as recently as 1966 defined religion as "a system of
symbols which acts toestablishpowerful,pervasive and long,.lastingmoods
and motivations in men by formulating conceptions! of a general order of exis-
tenceand clothing these conceptions With an aura of factuality that the moods
and motivations seem uniquely realistic". (Less a and Vogt 1979:79-80)
A specificalld universafdefinitiollof religion n()twithstanding, an-
thropologistshavedeveloped significant theories in relationship to the study
of this 'particular cultural institution . . Classified according . to theoretical
perspectives,anthropologists. have examined religion structurally, psycholo-
gically , socially, functionally and symbolically, albeit; some would\ tend to
group several concepts or "schools" together. There isnot,however, an at-
tempt to rigidly classify an individual totheexclusion. ()f recognizing the
dynamics and fluidity often contained within a theory. For instance, Robert
Lowie mores ,between psycpologicaland functicmal co?ceptions
eyen displaying at .times a tendency to, edge in Durkheimian toward
societal maintenance. . .
. .... Regardless of is ,evident within the
body()f contributors .an illdebtedlless .. to the constituency . and the theories of
religi?lldeveloped by them .. The and \V.(jrkspfSir Tylor,
Herbert Spencer, and Sir James Frazer, helped to lay the for
other men such as, FranzBoas, Lewis Henry Morgan, . Leslie Spier and Ale-
xander Golden-weiser. In most instances, reference is made to the workandl
or insight of an anthropological forerunner and often new theories arepredi-
cated'on . ,. the past.
is. \VithiIithe twentieth century'.
Sigmund Freud,Paul Radin,R.uth Benedict, Mary Douglas, AnthonyWal-
. lace, Emile Durkheim, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Raymono Firth, Robert
Lowie, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, Victor Turner, Clifford Geertz, and Ahthony
Paul Rutledge is the Chairperson of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ok-
lahoma Baptist University, Oklahoma, U,S.A.
76
EAJT/3:1I85
F.C. Wall ace. have within their writings shown a. cognizance of, and a refe-
rence to, preceedingconceptualizationsof religion in the formation 'oftheir
own theoreticalorientations(Lessa, and Vogt 1979; Malefijt 1968;" Voget
1975; Honigsman1977; Radin 1937; Durkheim1961; Freud 1950;Coser
1971). These orientations provide a perspective concerning the way in
which religion is viewed in general by the instance,
. sought t() .histori9ally . re.construct . ... . religion
.. on. the . religious .characteristics . ",ithollt arduous theor.etical trappings.
ptller .theoreti9alframe\Vorks sougilt .toe"aInine .ande"plicate 1ht:
ship between. religion . a.nd other cultural . . The. functionalists for ..
pIe emphasizt:dtherole of religion in the securing of social solidarity\Vhile
some psychological conceptions examined . tile projection of the.
conscience in social form. '.
In the tweIltietilceniury several individuals, .. a.
ll
umper.of whom Inaybe
fOllsidered .. representatives of these v.arious .orientations, made major .c()n-
t() the .theory ofreligi()Il' Till'ee .otthese. con-
triblltors have. provided the anthropology .of religion
bt: the focus of)his paper. .These are . Emile Durkheim, A.R.
, Radcliffe-Brown, and Anthony F.C. Wallace.
EMILE DURKHEIM (1858h. 1917)
Emile Dllrkheim, a French social scientisfhashad a tremendous ilIlpact
on anthropology,.sociology, and social psych()logy. Although his lIlajor ",ri-
tings came the end of . the century, The Rules of
Sociobiological Method (1895), 'The Division of tabor
Suicide (1887), they were generally not available in English until much later"
and his major work on religion Les Formes elementaires de la vie religieuse
(The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life) was originally publislledin 1912
(Voget 1975:816).
DurkheimonReligion
For EmileDurkheim, religion is a socialfact (Durkheim
Therefore, in order to understand religionPf:0perly, the subject of the reli-
gious experiencelDust be examined (Murphy1979: 162), It is important to
study n?t only thebelie.f system itself (dogIna), but also to the
manner in' wmch and . at-
sOlDe. point in tilIle will bec0Int: of indi-
and . . ... ..... i.
In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Durkheim seeks to iden-
tify and define tile .. basic e1t:ments . .He. distipguishespe.t\Veen magic
and" religi()n: magic being individual;, being corpmunal. Religion . t:n-
compasses and includes magic does not inclul:ie .reli-
gion (Durkheim Religion unified system ()f.k.diefs
and practicesrelative} o sacred thirigs, set apart and for-
bidden - beliefs . alldpractices which uniteintq ()ne single moral community
called wh() adhere ,to therp" (l)urkheim 1961:47) .... (There
(Du.rkheim1961:44) : .'
Durkheimbelievedthat religion. beconceivedaBart.{rom an or-
gallization(i.e., . a'.'church"}and .isan. "eminentlYicollective thing" (PUf-
kheim 1961:54). He sees a society as, the basic element for examination, and
77
EAJT/3: 1185
understands religion to be a creation.ofsociety. Durkheim maintains that re-
ligion is made in society's image and "reflects all its aspects, . even the most
vulgar and the most repulsive"(ibid 1961:57ff). It is a socialreality, necessary
for and necessitated by the social institution,and will be present in' one form
or another regardless of institutional changes within a Religonbe-
comes the self perpetuation of societts highest collectiveivalues.
A I'articular emphasis pf Durkheim's wasreligionas.asocialfact.Hedis-
agreed with Tylor"Spencer,and Frazer for explaining religion in individual
terms as a supernatural belief(Malefijt 1974:187) and simultaneously refuted
those ,an erroneous the world. "Re-
n9t an notanidlefantisy ,b).!t an identifiable social fact
with important social meanings and functions" (ibid 1974:187).
In The Rules o/Sociological advocates the use of
natural sciencemethodologyf9rthe social sciences (Durkheim 1895:57). So-
cialfacts are\Vays .of behayingand perceiving which capability of
exercising. s()fi}eform 9f c()ntrol(
then co.ntrol ",hich in-
stills within persons a sense of "rightness" or moral obligation to. adhere to
society's standards.
Durkheim's interest in studying religion, however, was not limited to the
role of social regulation. He also pursued the role of religion as the anti-indi-
vidualisticforce, . devotion t() . ethical . ends that trans-
ceIidedindividual 1979:137). As theantithesis.of William
James, Durkheim declined the .. study of individual religious experience,
choosing instead the role of religion in soliciting and conforming communal
thought and ..
The T()tem
For Durkheim, totemismwas the most fundamental form of religion. The
totem was a symbol, representing the god of the society, group, Or clan,and
therefor,e, the group itself, Durkheim identifies the god and the group synony-
mously(Durkheim 1961:236).
interpretatipn influenced by several key ideas of
Robertson Smith: (1) primitive.religion isa,dan cult; (2) the cult is totemic; .
(3) the god ofthe.dan is the group sYPlbolically personified as deity; (4},to-
telJlislJl is, religi0u.s form (L\lke ,1973 : 254ff) . Society be-
comes the object of veneration societyacknmv-
ledge societal depepdeppe and recognizes the power the group exercises over
. .
This be expressed in the fOl.m of taboos. Jaboos became
sbciated ",ith. persons or things which contact .",ith, . or were.inha-
bited by, so pO\V,erful that h\lman were naturally sUlJ()rdinate to
it (Durkheifi} 1963}9), F9r under
thC? ,Relief that 1.hetotem diffu.sed .,'. its, blood (as alifC? ,s9urce lto the .dap
through the woman.The woman as the divine catalyst evoked "a moreorless
conscious anxiety, a certaip religious fear" (Durkheim 1963: 85) resulting in
her becoming taboo during this period. The,cultural result, according to Dur-
kheim,was exogamy. unconscious response 19. the supernatural presence
(which could bring attendant negat,iyeeffects if contacted in
environment) (Durkheim 1963 :11; Coser 1975: 137ff). UncharaCteristically,
78
EAJT/3:1/85
Durkheim seems to have offered a psychological explanation for a social
phenomenon even though he had eschewed such direct interpretation on the
part of others.
The Sacred and The Profane
Durkheim further developed his theory of religion through the differen-
tiation of the sacred and the profane (Durkheim 1961:54ff). The profane is
the realm of everyday activities, i.e., at, drink, sexual intercourse, while the
sacred realm includes the transcendental and prescriptions unrelated to
everyday activities; i.e., the collective description of society is included as
sacred (Durkheim 1961:169ff).
To illustrate, Durkheim analyzes the most primitive religion which was
possible for him to find; the totemism of Australian aborigines (Thompson
1971:441-462). From this vantage point within a highly siinplified social or-
ganization, Durkheim postulates that the sacred world emerged as the need
for clan unification evolved (Durkheim 1961:121ff). The clan was personified
through the totem and made cohesive through collective allegiance. Religion
was therefore the encompassed authority of the clan and the totem became
the societal god. Religion served as the maintainer of the society and sin be-
comes anything that violates the collective norm (ibid 1961:176ff)
To further clarify, Durkheim differentiated between sacred and super-
natural. The terms are not synonymous: sacred being self perpetuating;
supernatural, non-existent. The totem is sacred, but not supernatural. It is a
concrete representation of the abstract idea of power and social cohesion.
The totem identifies the individual with the group and the group with the
past.
Summary
To Emile Durkheim religion is a response to a social need. In its essence,
it is a product of collective thought without mystical qualities. It's origin is to
be found in concrete reality, not in the perception of spirits as Tylor con-
tended (Durkheim 1961:64ff).
Durkheim stressed the social circumstances surrounding magic and reli-
gion. Practitioners of magic function on an individual basis; religion prac-
titioners function communally for the benefit of the whole (Durkheim
1961:60; Malefijt 1968:14).
Human bemgs perpetuate two opposing categories: the sacred and the
profane. (Not too unlike Kroeber's organic and superorganic) (Durkheim
1961:52). Within t?e sacred,object or person there is nothing inherent that
renders them sacred; rather, sacredness is a symbol of more abstract qua-
lities. In society for instance, this sacred element is then extrapolated from
the totem (fetish, etc.) to society itself becoming in essence the idealized so-
cial system. (He further believed that native people understood the totems as
symbols of power rather than residences of same. Over time, however, the
distinction between the two is often narrowed and lost).
This interpretation does move slightly from a purely societal or functional
viewpoint to a psychological frame of reference at the point of Durkheim's
explanation of "self' - elimination (the absence of individuality) as a
psychological basis of religion (ibid 1961:477ff). The collective norm also pro-
vides a further road for similar analysis through Durkheim's examination of
79
EAJT/3:1I85
the role of the individual in society and the function of the institution as a be-
nefit to individuals .
. However, Durkheim's primary postulate is that the social can be
explained only in terms of social. One, therefore, cannot analyze, interpret,
or explain social institutions through the behavioral modes of individuals
since in every society the institutions are part of the world in which the indi-
vidual exists (Durkheim 1956; Mair 1972). Accordingly, Durkheim rejected
interpretations of religion as universal answers or systems of cosmology, and
sought instead to explicate the relation between religious functions, i.e.,
ritual, and other social institutions.
Religion functions then in the regulation and control of the social order,
and venerates the social institution, itself. Along two basic avenues, religion
operates to regulate collective behavior: (1) group representations expressing
interrelatedness (ideas-rules); (2) social patterns (collectively recognized
norms of behavior). In all forms, religion serves to maintain society, by
whom it was created.
Durkheim's Impact
Durkheim's book, The Elementary Fbrms of the Religious Life, has re-
ceived an ambivalent Chorus of responses. Father Wilhelm Schmidt denotes
that. conflicting accolades and renunciations often stem from the same re-
viewer (Lowie1937:198). Goldenweiser acknowledges indebtedness to Dur-
kheim while simultaneously refuting several key ideas.
To begin with, the impact of Durkheim's theory of religion must be seen
in the breadth of the work itself. It can be considered a study of Australian
totemism, a critique of a variety of other theories, a general theory of religion
laying a broad foundational basis, and/or a contribution to the science of
knowledge (Lukes 1977:459). It was one of the first works to advocate a na-
tive origin for the "high-god" concept, and supported this idea with inclusive
cultural data.
However, to realize the impact of Durkheim's theory, the influence he
had on others must be seen. Durkheim was an exceptional functional analyst
and in so being greatly influenced others. Henri Hubert and MarcelMauss
.were contemporary disciples of Durkheim (Harris 1968:127). His influence
was felt by A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and Bronislaw,,Malinowski in the develop-
ment of their functionalist theories (RaQcliffe-Brown1958:143). His ap-
proach stimulated Maurice Halbwachs, Marcel Granet, and ultimately a
study in Comparative religions (Coser 1977:174). In addition, he influenced
Claude Levi-Strauss whoin turn has had a major impact on anthropology and
other fields. In the United States, Durkheim's functional approach also found
its way into sociology through Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton.
In summation, his influence has been enormous. Anyone who would in-
vestigate the religious institution within society must review and be ac-
quainted with Durkheim's The. Elementary Forms of the Religious Life.
Within this book he has laid a basic foundation for anthropological theories
of religion from which we may further project and to which we are greatly in-
debted.
A.R. RADCLIFFE-BROWN (1881-1955)
. Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown was born and reared in England. A
graduate of Cambridge University where one of his teachers was W.H.R.
80
EAJT/3: 1/85
Rivers, he was later to be greatly influenced by Emile Durkheim (Garbarino
1977:57) as would be reflected in his theoretical orientations.
Radcliffe-Brown's basic theoretical position may be expounded in three
elements: social structures, social organization, and function. Moving away
from the concept of culture as a retrievable concept (impossible due to
abstraction and unobservability), Radcliffe-Brown preferred to analyze social
structures: "underlying principles of organization among persons and groups
in society or the set of actual roles and relationships that could be observed"
(Grabarino 1977:56). Social organization he defines as "the arrangement of
activities of two or more persons which are adjusted to give a united com-
bined activity" (Radcliffe-Brown 1958-169).
His goal was to study social structures cross-culturally and to construct
laws from his- analysis which governed social behavior. In so analyzing,
Radcliffe-Brown emphasized the study of the integrative parts of society in
order to clarify in what manner they served to maintain the whole (of so-
ciety). This approach to "maintenance operations" is called "structural-
functionalism" .
This methodology becomes important in Radcliffe-Brown's contribution
to religious theory. Unconcerned with the origin of religion (Anthropology
Today 1971:487), Radcliffe-Brown was concerned with the integrated re-
lationship between religion and the social order: religion and social control;
identities and relationships of partiCipants in ritualistic activities; symbolically
expressed social values in creedal functions.
The result was the functualist conclusion that religious life is an expres-
sion of society's unity. Basically, it serves to strengthen the social order and
"contribute toward the maintenance of the total social life" (Radcliffe-Brown
1952:181). The functional explanation is inherently a posteriori and there-
fore, not causal.
. Radcliffe-Brown suggested that an investigator of a particular religion
seek to understand the rites instead of the beliefs of that religion (Kuper
1977:105). In examining totemic systems, he attributed the origin of to-
tomism to "a ritualization of sentiment in the hunting of animals for: food"
(Voget 1975:245). Based on the totem, "the clan recognizes its unity alKlits
individuality. . . a speCial example of the universal process by which soli-
darity is created and maintained by uniting a number of individuals in a col-
lective relation to the same sacred object or objects" (Radcliffe-Brown 1965:-
128). He stressed totemism as the source of a comprehensive view of the uni-
verse as a moral and social order (Voget 1975-245), and saw ritual as the
focus of the totem religion.
In "Taboo", a lecture presented in 1939, Radcliffe-Brown expands his
thoughts on ritual and its role in the maintenance of society. He concludes
that "the primary basis of ritual is the attribution of ritual value to objects
and occasions, which are either themselves objects of important common in-
terests linking together the persons of a community, or are symbolically re-
presentative of such objects" (Less a and Vogt 1979:5lff). .
Radcliffe-Brownconceptualized social process as a set of adaptive sys-
tems (or a system) with interrelated parts functioning to maintain the whole.
He attributed to each system,.a structure, which emerges from the social in-
stitutions (accepted norms of behavior). These concepts (process and struc-
ture) are connected by function which is the way in which the activity contri-
butes to societal maintenance.
81
EAJT/3:1I85
Summary
The function of religion, according to Radcliffe-Brown, is the manner
and extent to which it contributes to the preservation of the continuity, order,
and/or predictable patterns of change of a society, a community, or a given
social or ethnic group. (Honigmann 1976:1l1ff).The gist of his influential
theoretical orientation may be understood in "social system," "social struc-
ture," and "function," ("Culture" is not among the terms
frequently employed) (Honigmann 1976:235). The expression of social soli-
darity is seen in society's ritual observances and the inherent value placed
upon them.
RadclitTe-Brown's Impact
Radcliffe-Brown's impact may be seen in the development of anthropo"
logy as a separate discipline in England. He is often credited with placing the
emphasis in anthropology on the comparative method (unlike Durkheim)
and insisted that cross-cultural or cross-societal analysis be a part of any an-
thropological scientific study. Influenced by Durkheim, he enlarged and re-
fined the stl!dy of society's interdependent parts in determining their role in
the maintenance of the whole. He pushed for "general laws;' and is generally
considered to be the father of structural functionalism. .
ANTHONY F.C. WALLACE (b. 1923)
Anthony F.C. Wall ace has contributed to the anthropological theory of
religion through two primary publications: Religion: An Anthropological
View and "Revitalization Movements; " In the preface to Religion, Wallace
expounds upon his preference for a mixture of psychological and cultural in-
terpretations of religion (pg. vii) and following a discussion of other theories
formulates his own definition. Religion is "a set of rituals, rationalized by
myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of achieving or
preventing transformations of state in man and nature" (Wallace 1966:107).
This set of rituals or "ritual" is understood by Wall ace to be the primary
phenomenon of religion (ibid 1966:102).
In his paper-"Revitalization Movements," Wall ace "attempts to formu-
late the general characteristics of major cultural-system innovations that typi-
cally involve religious patterns" (Le ss a and Vogt 1979:422). These major
movements Wall ace calls Revitalization Movements.
The revitalization movements may be processually summarized under
the following headings: Steady State; Period of Individual Stress; Period of
Cultural Distortion; Period of Revitalization; New Steady State. The Steady
State is that point at which a given society is in some sort of equilibrium. At
this stage, change is normally accommodated through existing institutions .
. However, when the change becomes too rapid or the stress too great for the
system to adapt, then the equilibrium is lost and various movements such as
"nativistic movements," "cargo cuits, " or "messianicmovements" may arise.
All of these are revitalization movements and may be categorized in one of
four areas: (1) revivalistic - to restore a past situation or expel an alien group;
(2) Utopian - to create a new golden age; (3) assimilative - combined cub
tures of contact groups; (4) expropriative - the alien material culture 're-
mains, but the aliens are expelled.
82
EAJT/3:1/85
In every case the revitalization movements present a threat to the exist-
ing social order. This occurs when a founder or leader emerges following the
failure to resolve the disequilibrium in the culture. Often times this leader is a
religious figure and formulates a code and/or plan for attaining a "new" goal
culture (Wall ace 1956:266). The pattern then proceeds to the recruitment of
adherents, the formalization of the movement, the establishment of the goal
culture, routinization, and the return to a steady state. Examples of such
movements include Handsome Lake, in North America; the Ghost Dance, in
North America; Saya San, in Burma; and the Taiping Rebellion, in China.
Although there had been much analysis of culture change prior to Wal-
lace's theory, Wall ace adds the analysis of change by deliberate intent on the
part of society's members, and the aspect of abrupt and rapid change, as op-
posed to slow and gradual adjustment . The change involves the "mazeway"
or the "mental image of the society and its culture (held by each person in
society), as well as of his own body and its behavioral regularities, in order to
act in' ways which reduce stress at all levels of the system" (Wallace
1956:266). The mazeway is "nature, society, culture, personality, and body
image, as seen by one person" (ibid 1956:266). The change of the mazeway
involves a change of each of the mental constructs of the mazeway's various
components. It is an attempt to effect a change in the "real" system and the
"perceived" system through a mentally-harmonious uniting of the two (re-
vitalization) in order to reduce the cultural stress. Achievement of this goal
could potentially require armed revolution.
Summary
The psychological analysis both of historical movements and cultural
change as interrelated phenomenon, provides for Wall ace the crux of his
theory. Religion - and revitalization movements as one aspect of religion - is
a set of practices, actions, and/or rituals predicated on collectively accepted
myths, perpetuated for the purpose of achieving an ultimately more "stable" .
psychological acceptance of one's own culture or societal state. Wallace
suggests that many historical religious movements have had their origin in r e ~
vitalization movements.
Wallace's Impact
In the arena of general . systems theory, and particularly, in the area of
religious change, Wallaces' theories have been most influential. Such writers
as Cochrane (1970), Lanternari (1963), Rappaport (1968), and Geertz (1964)
have been influenced by Wallace. His psychological analysis has deserved the
attention of scholars, whether for agreement or disagreement, and his
theoretical formulations are proving to be a springboard . for continued
analysis of religion and its many and various facets in society.
THE SELECTION PROCESS
The process of selecting three influential theorists from a host of quali-
fied contributors proved a most difficult task. Outstanding individuals such as
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Clifford Geertz (b. 1926) could easily have
been included. Freud's model of religion contrasting the id and superego (re-
sultant neuroses), or his discussions on ritual as a possible symptomatic emo-
tional relief and/or origin of distressful emotional states are worthy of consi-
83
EAJT/3:1I85
deration. Similarly, his definition of religion as the -projection of conscience
in social form bears investigation.
It could also be a ~ g t i e d that Clifford Geertz and the symbolist "school"
(Victor -Turner, David Schneider, etc.) provide a viable alternative to pre-
vious theories. Geertz contends religion is the "analysis of the system of
meanings embodied in the symbols which make up the religion proper and
the relating of these systems to social structure, psychological processes, and
religion (mystical) belief systems" (Less a and Vogt 1979:445ff). For Geertz
meaning is only "stored" in symbols (cross, crescent, serpent) and functions
to maintain a cultural ethos (tone, character, quality of life and world view)
(Geertz 1973:97ff).
The selection process, therefore, was based upon the impact that the
particular theorist has had on me personally. Emile Durkheim, A.R.
Radcliffe-brown, and Anthony F.C. Wallace have had tremendous impact
upon scores of anthropologists, including me. Durkheim's concept of religion
as a stabilizer of the state, Radcliffe-Brown's analysis of the interdependent
"parts," and Wallace'sprojection of historical religious movements as re-
vitalization movements have, along with their other concepts outlined herein,
greatly affected my conceptual and theoretical framework of religion. In res-
ponse to the personal contribution made by their theories and insights to my
understanding of the interpretation of religion, I selected Durkheim,
Radcliffe-Brown, and Wallace.
CONCLUDING STATEMENT
It would appear that within the theoretical framework of anthropologists
there is much overlapping in terms of theories of religion. If one is looking
for unique theoretical orientations, one will be severely taxed to isolate such
theories. As a broad general statement, most theorists would identify 10 some
extent with the understanding of religion as a cultural or social institution as
functioning - for the individual or the group - to stabilize a greater whole of
which it is an integrated part, and by which it was created and nurtured.
To this extent, anthropologists have not projected different interpreta-
tions of religion; rather, they have asked different sets of questions providing
different foci for examination. The theories are not alternatives , they are
compliments.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alliband, Terry
1980 Quest for the Structure of the Sacred, Reviews in Anthropology
Banton, Michael
1966 Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, New York:
Praeger
Collins, John J.
1978 Primitive religion. New Jersey: Littlefield and Adams
Coser, Lewis A.
1971 Masters of Sociological Thought. New York: Harper and Row
de Waal Malefijt, Annemarie
1968 Religion and Culture: An Introduction to Anthropology of Reli-
gion. New York: Macmillan and Company
84
EAJT/3: 1/85
Dunn, John A.
1979 Notes from "History of Anthropological Theory", University of
Oklahoma
Durkheim, Emile
i938 The Rules of Sociological Method. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press .
1961 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free
Press
1963 Incest: The Nature and Origin of the Taboo. New York: Lyle
Stewart
1980 Contributions to L'Annee Sociologique. New York: Free Press
Durkheim, Emile and Marcel Mauss
1963 Primitive Classification (originally 1903). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press
Errington, Frederick
1974 Indigenous Ideas of Order, Time, and Transition In a New
Guinea Cargo Movement. American Ethnologist Vol. 1, No. 1,
pp. 255-267
Firth Raymond
1958 Human Types: An Introduction to Social Anthropology. New
York: Mentor Books
Freud, Sigmund . . . . .
1950 Totem and Taboo. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
Garbarino, Merwyn S. ..
1977 Sociocultural Theory in Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
1979 Religion as a Cultural System. Reader in Comparative Religion,
William A. Lessa and Evon Z. Vogt, eds. Pg. 78-79. New York:
Harper and Row Publishers
Harris, Marvin
1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York: Crowell Com-
pany
Hick, John H.
1973 Philosophy of Religion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Illc.
Honigmann, John J.
1976 The Developmerlt of Anthropological Ideas. Homewood, Illinois:
Dorsey Press
Howard, James
1976 The Plains Gourd Dance as a Revitalization Movement. American
Ethnologist, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 243-260
Koenig, Samuel
1957 Sociology; an Introduction to the Science of Society. New York:
Barnes and Noble
Kraft, Charles
1973 Toward a Christian Ethnotheology. God, Man and Church
Growth, A.R. Tippett, ed. Pp. 109-26. Wm. B. Erdman Publish-
ing Co. 85
EAJT/3:1/85
Kuper, Adam, ed
1977 The Socio Anthropology of Radcliffe-Brown. London: Routledge
Kegan Paul
Lessa, William A. and Evon Z. Vogt . .
1979 Reader in Comparative Religion: An Anthropology Approach,
Fourth Edition. New York: Harper and Row
Lowie, Robert H.
1937 The History of Ethnological Theory. Berkeley: University of
California Press
1948 Primitive Religion. New York: Leveright
Luke, Steven
1973 Emile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical
Study. Great Britain: Penguin Books
Malinowski, Bronislaw
1954 Magic, Science, a"nd Religion. New York: Doubleday and Compay
Malefijt, Annemarie de Waal
1968 Religion and Culture. New York: Macmillan Company
1976 Images of Man, A History of Anthropological Thought. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf
Martindale, Don
1960 The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. Boston: Moughton
Mifflin Company
Mooney, James
1973 The Doctrine of the Ghost Dance. To See Ourselves: Anthropo-
logy and Modern Social Issues, Thomas Weaver, ed. Pg. 68-75.
London: Scott, Foreman, and Company
Murphy, Robert F. .
1979 Religion. An Overture to Social Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall
Pickering, W.S.F.
1975 Durkheim on London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R.
1948 Andaman Islanders. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press
1952 Structure and Function In Primitive Society. Glencoe: Free Press
1957 A Natural Science of Society. Glencoe: Free Press
1958 Method in Social Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press
1965 The Sociological Theory of Totemism (originally 1929). INStruc-
ture and Function in Primitive Society, pp. 117-132. New York:
Free Press
1965 Religion and Society (originally 1945). IN Structure and Function
in Primitive Society, pp. 153-177. New York: Free Press
1979. Taboo; IN Reader In Comparative Religion, WilIiam L. Lessa and
Evon Z. Vogt, pp. 46-56 (Fourth Edition). New York: Harper
and Row
Radin, Paul
1937 Primitive Religion. New York: Dover Publications
86
EAJT/3:1I85
Thompson, Kenneth and Jeremy Tunstall, eds.
1973 Sociological Perspectives London: The Open University
Voget, Fred W.
1975 A History of Ethnology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Wallace, Anthony F.
1956 Revitalization Movements. American Anthropologist 58:264-281
1966 Religion: An Anthropologial View. New York: Random House
1970 The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca. New York: Alfred Knopf
Worsley, Peter M.
1967 Millenarian Movements in Melanesia. IN Gods and Rituals, John
Middleton, ed. University of Texas Press
87