GEC 264 Religion and Development

Unit 1: What is Religion?

1. Iannaccone, Laurence R. 1998. “Introduction to Economics of Religion.” Journal

of Economic Literature 36: 1465–96, p. 1466:

“Insofar as an explicit definition of religion proves necessary (for example, to exclude

political ideologies and secular philosophies), it suffices to define a religion as any shared set
of beliefs, activities, and institutions premised upon faith in supernatural forces.”

2. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Chapter 4/Religion as a Cultural System.” In The

Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, edited by Clifford Geertz, 87–125.
New York: Basic Books, p. 90:

“… a religion is:
(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting
moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence
and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and
motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

3. Bergunder, Michael. 2014. “What Is Religion? The Unexplained Subject Matter

of Religious Studies.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 26 (3): 246–86, p.
246:

“Religious studies cannot agree on a common definition of its subject matter. To break the
impasse, important insights from recent discussions about post-foundational political theory
might be of some help. However, they can only be of benefit in conversations about
“religion” when the previous debate on the subject matter of religious studies is framed
slightly differently. This is done in the first part of the article. It is, then, shown on closer
inspection of past discussions on “religion” that a consensus-capable, contemporary,
everyday understanding of “religion,” here called Religion 2, is assumed, though it remains
unexplained and unreflected upon. The second part of the article shows how Religion 2 can
be newly conceptualized through the lens of Ernesto Laclau’s political theory, combined with
concepts from Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, and how Religion 2 can be established as
the historical subject matter of religious studies. Though concrete historical reconstructions of
Religion 2 always remain contested, I argue that this does not prevent it from being generally
accepted as the subject matter of religious studies. The third part discusses the previous
findings in the light of postcolonial concerns about potential Eurocentrism in the concept of
“religion.” It is argued that Religion 2 has to be understood in a fully global perspective, and,
as a consequence, more research on the global religious history of the 19th and 20th centuries
is urgently needed.”