Talk:Animism

slrubenstein, why did you completely delete my text? Your contribution, while useful and well-written, completely replaced my article without bothering to discuss any of the information it contained. Rather than do a revert to replace your information, I incorporated the old text into your material. I'm slightly miffed that you chose to replace my article wholesale without explanation; as someone whose "religious" beliefs (as such, *heh*) are best described in a Western cultural context by Animism and Paganism, I think I have useful information to contribute. So, please tell me where I went wrong, so I can avoid spending half an hour on an article only to have it deleted. Thanks! Pgdudda

Pgdudda -- I don't want to censor you, but I am still tempted to delete what you wrote. I won't, because you are right that we should work together on this. Let me try to explain my objections; perhaps you can find a way to make more changes that would contribute to the article.

I have three basic objections -- even if these make sense to you, I think you can find a reasonable way to respond in the article that would not require simply deleting what you wrote.

Thank you, you raise some valid points. Here's my "gut"/immediate reaction to them:

first, almost all anthropologists today would hesitate or totally resist saying there is a thing (call it a religion, worldview, or what have you) called "animism," in the sense that there is something called Christianity or Judaism. This is because "animism" is an entirely Western word used to lump together many non-Western beliefs and practices. Consequently, it is easy to generalize about what anthropologists mean by the word "animism," but if you then apply this word to real people in different parts of the world, it becomes very difficult to make any generalizations about "animists." People WE call animists, in different parts of South America, Africa, or Oceania, likely believe many different perhaps even mutually exclusive things. But I sense you are making more general claims about animism, as if it were a real thing that so many different people in different parts of the world share. By the way, if you belong to a group of people who self-identify as "animists," then you certainly have a right to describe this "religion" (or however you prefer to label it; I mean no disrespect). BUT then it would be very important to distinguish what you believe as an English speaking "animist" versus what anthropololgists label as animism in other cultures. Perhaps it should be a different article, or at lease a separate section of this article.

Nevertheless, it's a useful label. In particular, it's useful as a label to describe a religion that does not distinguish "sacred" and "profane" in the Western religious sense. It's also fair to lump Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, and Mormons under the rubric "Christian", though the three have some wildly divergent views of God, humanity, and how to interpret the Bible. In fact, each of these considers at least one of the others to be "not Christian".

However, your point about it being a term so loose as to be near-meaningless in its widest sense is a valid one. Particularly since, for example, Voodoun and Hmong shamanists do indeed hold some wildly contradictory beliefs about the nature of the universe and the "spiritual realm". Perhaps it might be more fruitful to delineate it as a fairly broad term when used in a theological, rather than a anthropological, context; and then to name some major categories of animist, similar, and related belief systems.

Second, and this follows from my first objection, I am not so sure animists believe everything is sacred. As I said, I strongly resist making such general claims about people in so many different cultures. More importantly, the very distinction between sacred and profane is (arguably) a Western notion and I know that many people anthropologists call animists would not make this statement -- perhaps they would not disagree with it outright, perhaps they simply would not understand it.

Now that I stop to think about it, you're correct. It's probably more accurate to say that animists tend to (1) not distinguish "sacred" and "profane" in the typical Western/Judeo-Christian sense, or (2) not separate the physical from the spirtual realms, or (3) both. In both contexts, it might be more accurate to say that the physical universe is inseparable from the spiritual, that they are interconnected, and that while "good" and "evil" exist, they do not correlate in any meaningful way with "sacred" and "profane".

Finally, much of what you wrote is a critique of monotheistic organized religion. I am not at all opposed to describing these criticisms, but frankly, I believe they belong in another article. Perhaps in the gerneral article on religion, or on the Abrahamic religions, you could incorporate these critiques. This is just an organizational objection, but I think it would lead to stronger arguments. Animists did not develop their beliefs in opposition to Christianity or Judaism. An article on Animism should describe the history of the concept,l and as best possible describe animistic beliefs and practices in their own context.

In practice, you're probably right. But then, one form of animism (found amongst so-called neo-Paganists) is specifically a reaction to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Is there a way to NPOV this critique? Perhaps by expanding the article with one or two lines about various animist beliefs such as Shinto, shamanism, Voodoun, pre-Christian European religions, Venus figurines, modern Paganism, African belief systems, Siberian shamanism, and Native American beliefs? And then rolling my critique under the "modern Paganism" heading in some way? (Just bouncing thoughts out here, not specifically proposing anything yet...)

I hope these remarks are clear and constructive. I do not want to silence you but I really take strong objection to much of what you wrote. But perhaps you can clarify certain elements, use subheadings to call attention to different uses and meanings of the term, and place some of what you wrote in another article -- and thus communicate what you have to say ... I hope this is reasonable, Slrubenstein

Yes, thank you for the feedback. I'm less miffed now -- and I now understand how and why my original article was NPOV.  :-) What do you think of my off-the-cuff responses? Pgdudda