Segal, Robert A. (2000) Making the myth-ritualist theory scientific. Religion, 30 (3). pp. 259-271. ISSN 0048-721XFull text not available from this repository.
Working from his base in ancient Greek religion, Walter Burkert has come to propose a theory of religion generally. That theory rests on the work of ethologists and, more recently, of sociobiologists. While concentrating on ritual, which for him is the heart of religion, Burkert links ritual to myth to offer his own version of the myth–ritualist theory. Rejecting the old-fashioned view, epitomised by James Frazer, that myth and ritual function to spur the crops to grow, he maintains that the two function at once to unify society and to alleviate anxiety. Their function is sociological and psychological rather than magical. Put another way, their function is symbolic rather than practical. For Burkert, as for Frazer, myth–ritualism arose in the stage of agriculture, but for Burkert it is tied to the prior stage of hunting. How original is Burkert's theory of myth–ritualism and of religion? Why does he turn to ethology in particular? If he is seeking to provide a scientific theory of religion, what does he mean by ‘scientific’?
|Journal or Publication Title:||Religion|
|Subjects:||B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BL Religion|
|Departments:||Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences > Politics & International Relations (Merged into PPR 2010-08-01)|
|Deposited By:||Mr Richard Ingham|
|Deposited On:||23 Oct 2008 10:22|
|Last Modified:||22 Oct 2016 01:11|
Actions (login required)