Beliefs are a problematic category in the study of anthropology of religion.

In our reading for last week what grabbed my attention was the problem of studying faith or belief. Dimension of belief is indeed very problematic in the anthropology of religion. There are questions that need to be addressed. For instance, are our beliefs signs of converting? Does believing the same as belief? Is belief an internal property of a person? How can anthropologists access people’s beliefs? Can we be religious without having a defined set of beliefs? Does faith and belief have the same meaning?
The value of “belief” as a concept for the anthropology of religion has been questioned by Malcolm Ruel and Talal Asad. In “Christians as Believers,”[1] Ruel questions the value of belief by tracing the genealogy of the term “believing” in Christian history and demonstrating that it has held very different meanings during different historical periods. He draws attention to the fact that “belief” is defined at different times by the context of its use. The problem with using the concept of belief in anthropology is that this word and its meaning is deeply rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore might carry its Christian connotations when used in different contexts or when applied to other traditions. Ruel describe four fallacies of using the term “belief” in contexts other than Christian. First, he believes that it is misleading to think that belief is a central concept in all religions just as it is to Christianity. We need to realize that people can be religious without necessarily having a defined set of beliefs. Second, he suggests that it is erroneous to think that people’s beliefs shape their behaviour and thus are enough explanation for them. Third, he claims that it is misleading to think of belief as an interior state or a psychological condition. Forth, Ruel also claims that it is a fallacy to consider determination of belief as being more important than determination of the content of the belief.
In answering the question of whether the faith is the same as belief, we first need to describe what faith means? Faith can refer to a belief in a body of doctrines. In mystic traditions it can also refer to the deliberate engagement with the unknown. Used in the latter sense, faith is not the same as belief and doesn’t require a belief in a body of doctrines. Thus, we, as anthropologists, might be cautious in using the term “belief” to religions other than Christianity.
The other problem is how anthropologists can access people’s beliefs. Isn’t what we know about people’s beliefs what they tell us and how objective this approach to studying individual’s beliefs can be. How do we know someone is converted? Should anthropologists convert to a particular religion in order to understand what the adherents of that religion believe? In her article “Convicted by the Holy Spirit: The Rhetoric of Fundamental Baptist Convention,” Susan Harding[2] focuses on the role of language and verbal communication in religion and particularly in the process of conversion. She suggests that conversion entails learning to listen and ultimately speak in a new fashion. I don’t want to get into her argument here but what I want to get at is the subjectivity of her ethnographic work. At the end of her fieldwork she seems to be a believer herself. This can be another problem with using the category belief in anthropology. Can we ultimately be objective in studying other people’s beliefs or should we necessarily turn into “natives” in the process of our fieldwork. Sorry guys I really like this topic and can go on and on forever. Please give me some feedback about this topic.


[1] Malcolm Ruel, “Christians as believers,” in John Davis, ed., Religious Organization and Religious Experience (London: Academic Press, 1982), pp.9-31.
[2] Susan F. Harding, “Convicted by the Holy Spirit: The Rhetoric of Fundamental Baptist Conversion,” American Ethnologist 14:167-81 (1987).