Take Home Quiz--For Next Week

There is no blog post due this week. Your take home quiz (20 pts) should discuss one of the following questions. A thorough response should be approximately 2 pages. You should hand this quiz in by next week.

Oh--You do not need to read the article in your reader about the Zuni origin story. You can, however, read it if you are interested.

1) Bronislaw Malinowski, in his classic essay Magic, Science and Religion, claimed that each of these was a viable mode of cognition and that most societies exhibit all of them in variable proportions.

In what ways does magical thinking persist in contemporary North America?

In what ways does magical thinking persist in your lives at Columbia?

Is it likely to persist in the future?

2) Religious rituals are religion in action. Describe what in fact is accomplished by religious rituals?

Here's a story that you might find interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7699066.stm

Separation of science and magic

In Malinowski's description of the Trobiband islander's gardening and agriculture he explains the difference between magic and science to them. The islanders have a clear knowledge of the natural course of growth, pests, weeding, and all other natural occurrences one must know in order to properly farm. Then there are also the "unaccountable and adverse influences" and "unearned" streaks of "fortunate coincidence". So as not to remain helpless in the face of these unknowns and chance occurrences, the islanders employ specific rituals and magic. They use both magic and science- with no confusions that one is the same as the other- in order to ensure the best crops. The article also goes on to explain the same distinctions in canoe building. 

Rationality, I don't believe, suggests a lack of faith in magical rites or religion. People who are smart and scientific, can still be religious. There only needs to be a separation between science and magic (similar to the separation of church and state in my opinion). I think most people need to believe in something that will protect them from, or at least explain, all the unknown elements that are still everywhere in our world. 

Maliowhat?

Reading this piece was for one confusing because it was very wordy and for two, the words were absurd and unnecessarily large. Not being an anthropologist made it hard to understand exactly what Malinowski was saying, not to mention his round about way to express what he was saying. His arguments seemed to go in circles, ending up contradicting what he was saying about the differences of magic and religion.

Answering the question, "does a rational outlook to one's surroundings imply the absence of faith in magical rites?" is complicated because people who do not believe in faith might believe in magic which would be rational to people who practice magic, and not to those who practice a religion. I feel as if a religious person who was explaining what religion was to a person who practiced magic, the one who practice magic would reply with, "oh, yeah, we have that in our society and we call it magic."

Is it the same thing? No, I do not think they are the same thing, however they are similar interpretations to a way of believing in how things have come to be and why things happen.

Magic, Science and Religion Blog

For this blog, please either answer one or more of these questions or pose your own questions about the reading for this week (Malinowski's "Magic, Science, and Relgion").

How does Malinowski categorize the sacred and profane?

What do you think about his arguments? His definitions?

Narrate Malinowski’s examples of magical and scientific behaviors.

How does Malinowski distinguish between magic and science and between magic and religion?

What is signified by setting apart the sphere of work from the sphere of ritual among the ‘Trobriand Islanders?

Does a rational outlook to one’s surroundings imply the absence of
faith in magical rites?