From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: categories -- Repost
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:00:03 GMT
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <-1366758597snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>
>Any particular theoretical position or method of treating the data to
>produce whatever conclusions has no bearing on the standard of any
>given individual's work whatsoever, and neither does fragmentation
>contribute to the enhancement of those standards.

  On the contrary, I argue that method has a massive bearing on the standard
of a given individual's work.  For example, I will turn you to 
a rather easy to hit study of James George Frazer:

  I will restrict my example to Chapter 7, "Incarnate Human Gods," 
of _The Golden Bough_.

  This particular chapter brings forward examples of incarnate human
gods from a variety of cultures.  The research is extensive and
the examples are numerous.  However, the question that will be
hanging in our minds is the question that Frazer _never asks_.  Frazer
equates mythologies of incarnate human gods as something that is
"primitive," "savage" and "rude," no doubt in comparison to his
academic standard.  Thus we find that Frazer himself writes, "Strange, 
therefore, as may seem to us the idea of a god incarnate in human form,
it has nothing very startling for early man, who sees in a man-god or
a god-man only a higher degree of the same supernatural powers which
he arrogates in perfect good faith to himself."(p. 106, _The Golden
Bough_, abridged edition).  The most prelimerary unasked question is,
"How strange is an incarnate human god" for Christianity?

  The first unasked question comes from a notation that would be made
on page 107, where Frazer in his normal voice of having pity for
these savages, "The persons in whom a deity is thought to reveal himself
are by no means always kings...the supposed incarnation may take place
even in men of the humblest rank.  In India, for example, one human
god started in life as a cotton-bleacher and another as the son
_of a carpenter_ (emphasis mine--COO)...Such incarnate gods are
common in rude society."   The first unasked question is, "What of
Jesus, the son of a carpenter?"   

  The second unasked question comes from an underline that would be
made on page 108 where Frazer writes: "The belief in temporary incarnation
or inspiration is world-wide.  Certain persons are supposed to be possessed
from time to time by a spirit or deity, while the possesion lasts,
their own personality lies in abeyance, the presence of the spirit is
revealed..."  The next unasked question is "What of Paul, though
not possesed, the presence of God certainly put his personality in
abeyance?"  (Acts 9:1-22)  And to be more specific in regards to 
Paul, we can turn to page 110 and see yet another notation, Frazer 
writes: "Thus far we have seen that the savage, failing to discern the
limits of his ability to control nature, ascribes to himself and
to all men certain powers which we should now call supernatural." 
I refer you to compare this not only with the miracles performed by
Paul(Acts 19:11-20, Acts 28:8), but a ressurection performed by 
Paul, and a ressurection peformed by Peter(Acts 9:40-41).  These are,
of course, in addition to the plehtora of miracles peformed by
Jesus, the god-man.  None of these are cited as evidence, none of
these are questioned.  Why?

  Finally, the unasked question of Jesus and the Disciples is so
hidden from Frazer that even when he does turn to "myths" like these
about Christianity, he nowhere questions Jesus(although he refers
to him as the Son of God) nor his apostles.  Rather he turns his
attention to other examples which are not limited to
an "exorbitant pretension of a single ill-balanced mind."(p.117)

  Why does Frazer not consider Chrisitanity?  Why does he not
consider the plethora of biblical references to his own data?
In short, why does he not refer to Christianity as a "savage" religion?
Also, what was it about Frazer's method that prevented him from
answering such questions?  Was it a question of method?  If it is not a 
question of his method of data extraction, certainly it is an issue of
his method of interpretation.  In fact, I believe that these questions
have a DIRECT impact on his "standard," and his credibility.
This is why discussion of methods is absolutely critical to the
field of anthropology, and, why we see these questions being raised
by anthropologists. 


>I vote NO to any fragmentation proposal.

I vote YES to a such an expansive proposal.

>Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"Les dieux existent : c'est le diable."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology