Actions

Boundary Fetish: Difference between revisions

An Avatar.Global Resource

← Older edit
VisualWikitext
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navmenu}}
{{navmenu}}
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<h1 class="customtitle">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</h1>
<blockquote class="definition">'''Ontological Bias''' is
<blockquote class="definition">A '''Boundary Fetish''' is the persistent, often compulsive scholarly drive to establish sharp, hierarchical boundaries between systems of knowledge and life, typically positioning Western science at the top, Western monotheism in the middle, and Indigenous spirituality and magic at the bottom. This drive is motivated not by empirical evidence but by a conscious or unconscious desire to assert the superiority of one's own European, patriarchal, and materialist identity.
    </blockquote>
</blockquote>


==Concept Map==
==Concept Map==
Line 11: Line 11:


[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]|format=ul}}
[[Spiritual Theory]] > {{#ask:[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory]]|format=ul}}
===Syncretic Terms===
===Syncretic Terms===


[[Ontological Bias]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Ontological Bias]]|format=ul}}
[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a syncretic term::Boundary Fetish]]|format=ul}}


===Related LP Terms===
===Related LP Terms===


[[Ontological Bias]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Ontological Bias]]|format=ul}}
[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Fetish]]|format=ul}}


===Non-LP Related Terms===
===Non-LP Related Terms===


[[Ontological Bias]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Ontological Bias]]|format=ul}}
[[Boundary Fetish]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Boundary Fetish]]|format=ul}}


== Notes ==
== Notes ==
The term is coined in the [[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]]: scholars "have been trying to distinguish and elevate their own 'adult, civilized white man' European institutions (e.g., monotheistic religion and science) as superior against the 'savage,' primitive, pre-logical, narcissistic, and infantile character of the knowledge systems of the so-called 'inferior races.'"<ref>Sosteric, ''[[RSGR]] draft'', 6.</ref> The struggle to define religion is thus "the sometimes overt, sometimes covert, but always racist desire to establish boundaries between Indigenous systems of belief and Western systems of belief.... a boundary fetish."<ref>Ibid., 6.</ref>
'''Classic inscriptions.''' Malinowski: science "is guided by reason and corrected by observation," open to all, "a common good of the whole community," while magic "is occult, taught through mysterious initiations" and "lives in an atmosphere of mysticism."<ref>Bronislaw Malinowski, ''Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays'' (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1948), 3, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 6–7.</ref> Frazer: magic's "fatal flaw" is "not in its general assumption of a sequence of events determined by law, but in presumed misconception of the nature of the particular laws which govern that sequence,"<ref>Sir James George Frazer, ''The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion'' (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 49, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> while monotheism's "more perfect submission to the divine will... affects only those higher intelligences who have breadth of view enough to comprehend the vastness of the universe and the littleness of man."<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 59, as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 8.</ref> Comte: the "law of three stages" casts Indigenous fetishism as the puerile belief of an "infant species."<ref>August Comte, ''A General View of Positivism'' (1856; repr., Marxist Internet Archive, 2005), 35, 185, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 8–9.</ref> Freud: animism corresponds to narcissism, religion to a child's attachment to his parents, science to maturity.<ref>Sigmund Freud, ''Totem and Taboo'' (New York: Routledge, 1913), 104, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 28.</ref> Tylor: religion as "belief in spiritual beings."<ref>Edward Tylor, ''Primitive Culture'' (London: John Murray, 1903), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 15.</ref>
'''Modern repackagings.''' The secularization thesis — articulated most forcefully by Peter Berger and Bryan Wilson — is Comte's law of three stages in postwar dress, positioning secular Western modernity as "the telos of human advancement" and non-secular societies as "backward holdovers."<ref>Peter Berger, ''The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion'' (New York: Anchor Books, 1969); as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 10–11.</ref> It persisted despite its empirical failure — explosive religious growth worldwide, which drove Berger himself to recant in favor of "desecularization."<ref>Peter Berger, ed., ''The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 10.</ref> After World War I made overt triumphalism embarrassing, the "world religions" framework preserved the hierarchy as pluralism: the scripture criterion demotes Indigenous systems to a residual "primal" category, Christianity becomes "first among unequals," and the Western scholar is installed as neutral arbiter.<ref>Tomoko Masuzawa, ''The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 43–44, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 11–12.</ref> "The hierarchy was no longer written on the surface; it was woven into the very structure of the classification itself."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 12.</ref>
'''The fetish is structural, not incidental.''' "The boundary fetish... is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref> Every world religions syllabus listing a dozen "major" traditions and relegating the rest to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are, and never the twain shall meet."<ref>Ibid., 14.</ref>
'''Every boundary collapses under empirical attention.''' Hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic, and magic "is either reserved for special circumstances or is an adjunct to ordinary techniques," not mistaken for everyday causation;<ref>Malcolm Hamilton, ''The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives'' (London: Routledge, 2001), as quoted in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 9.</ref> Frazer's own evidence casts magicians as the "direct predecessors of our physicians, surgeons, and scientists";<ref>Frazer, ''The Golden Bough'', 62, as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 7.</ref> the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande, the Huichol, and West African peoples;<ref>E. E. Evans-Pritchard, ''Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937); Barbara G. Myerhoff, ''Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians'' (London: Cornell University Press, 1974); Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," ''The British Journal of Sociology'' 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64; as discussed in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> Wicca and Thelema are deeply social;<ref>Starhawk, ''The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Reli[[Rocket Scientist's Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]|format=ul}}
gion of the Goddess'', 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011), as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 17.</ref> and Smart's substantive elements are found throughout Hollywood, sports, the Boy Scouts, the New Age movement, and science itself (see [[Boundary Problem]]).<ref>Ninian Smart, ''The World's Religions'' (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); as synthesized in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 18–25, 41–44.</ref>
'''LP resolution.''' The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."<ref>Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 48.</ref> Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"<ref>Ibid., 58.</ref> — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.<ref>Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," ''The Qualitative Report'' 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, ''RSGR draft'', 57–58.</ref> The fetish is the field-level expression of [[Ontological Bias]] and [[Epistemic Attachment]]: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.
==Book Terms==
[[Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion]] > {{#ask:[[Is a key term::RSGR]]|format=ul}}


{{endstuff}}
{{endstuff}}


[[category:terms]]
[[category:terms]]
[[category:lightningpath]]
[[category:rsgr]]
[[Is a key term::RSGR| ]]
[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory| ]]
[[Is a keyword::Spiritual Theory| ]]
[[Is a related term::Religions| ]]
[[Is a related term::Religions| ]]
[[Is a related term::Spirituality| ]]
[[Is a related term::Spirituality| ]]

Latest revision as of 13:29, 11 September 2026

Boundary Fetish

A Boundary Fetish is the persistent, often compulsive scholarly drive to establish sharp, hierarchical boundaries between systems of knowledge and life, typically positioning Western science at the top, Western monotheism in the middle, and Indigenous spirituality and magic at the bottom. This drive is motivated not by empirical evidence but by a conscious or unconscious desire to assert the superiority of one's own European, patriarchal, and materialist identity.

Concept Map

Key Concepts

Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System >

Spiritual Theory >

Syncretic Terms

Boundary Fetish >

Related LP Terms

Boundary Fetish >

Non-LP Related Terms

Boundary Fetish >

Notes

The term is coined in the Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion: scholars "have been trying to distinguish and elevate their own 'adult, civilized white man' European institutions (e.g., monotheistic religion and science) as superior against the 'savage,' primitive, pre-logical, narcissistic, and infantile character of the knowledge systems of the so-called 'inferior races.'"[1] The struggle to define religion is thus "the sometimes overt, sometimes covert, but always racist desire to establish boundaries between Indigenous systems of belief and Western systems of belief.... a boundary fetish."[2]

Classic inscriptions. Malinowski: science "is guided by reason and corrected by observation," open to all, "a common good of the whole community," while magic "is occult, taught through mysterious initiations" and "lives in an atmosphere of mysticism."[3] Frazer: magic's "fatal flaw" is "not in its general assumption of a sequence of events determined by law, but in presumed misconception of the nature of the particular laws which govern that sequence,"[4] while monotheism's "more perfect submission to the divine will... affects only those higher intelligences who have breadth of view enough to comprehend the vastness of the universe and the littleness of man."[5] Comte: the "law of three stages" casts Indigenous fetishism as the puerile belief of an "infant species."[6] Freud: animism corresponds to narcissism, religion to a child's attachment to his parents, science to maturity.[7] Tylor: religion as "belief in spiritual beings."[8]

Modern repackagings. The secularization thesis — articulated most forcefully by Peter Berger and Bryan Wilson — is Comte's law of three stages in postwar dress, positioning secular Western modernity as "the telos of human advancement" and non-secular societies as "backward holdovers."[9] It persisted despite its empirical failure — explosive religious growth worldwide, which drove Berger himself to recant in favor of "desecularization."[10] After World War I made overt triumphalism embarrassing, the "world religions" framework preserved the hierarchy as pluralism: the scripture criterion demotes Indigenous systems to a residual "primal" category, Christianity becomes "first among unequals," and the Western scholar is installed as neutral arbiter.[11] "The hierarchy was no longer written on the surface; it was woven into the very structure of the classification itself."[12]

The fetish is structural, not incidental. "The boundary fetish... is not an accident or a relic of a less enlightened age. It is structural. It is what the academic study of religion has repeatedly been mobilized to produce."[13] Every world religions syllabus listing a dozen "major" traditions and relegating the rest to "primal religions" draws a boundary and performs an identity ritual: "this is what we are, and this is what they are, and never the twain shall meet."[14]

Every boundary collapses under empirical attention. Hunter-gatherers are not especially animistic, and magic "is either reserved for special circumstances or is an adjunct to ordinary techniques," not mistaken for everyday causation;[15] Frazer's own evidence casts magicians as the "direct predecessors of our physicians, surgeons, and scientists";[16] the sacred/profane distinction is meaningless among the Azande, the Huichol, and West African peoples;[17] Wicca and Thelema are deeply social;[18] and Smart's substantive elements are found throughout Hollywood, sports, the Boy Scouts, the New Age movement, and science itself (see Boundary Problem).[19]

LP resolution. The boundaries do not exist, and the definitional quest for them is itself part of the problem. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose."[20] Unless the goal is to demonstrate European, scientific, or patriarchal superiority, boundaries need not — and should not — be asserted. Abandoning the boundary fetish is "the first step in any serious and authentic attempt to decolonize not only the study of religion and spirituality, but religion and spirituality as well"[21] — a decolonization that also recovers the "much more nuanced and sophisticated view of human beings and their relations to self, community, earth, and the cosmos" found in Indigenous spiritual systems.[22] The fetish is the field-level expression of Ontological Bias and Epistemic Attachment: attachment to one's own knowledge system, hardened into worldview, mobilized as hierarchy.

Book Terms

Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion >

Citation and Legal

The SpiritWiki is a freely available, open-access Knowledge System devoted to health, healing, and reconnection. You may freely use information in the SpiritWiki; citation and attribution are welcomed, but not required. You can help this knowledge system grow by joining its Patreon.

The SpiritWiki is marked CC0 1.0 Universal and in the public domain, free for everyone on the planet to use. Please support its growth.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 6.
  2. ↑ Ibid., 6.
  3. ↑ Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science, and Religion and Other Essays (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1948), 3, as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 6–7.
  4. ↑ Sir James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990), 49, as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 7.
  5. ↑ Frazer, The Golden Bough, 59, as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 8.
  6. ↑ August Comte, A General View of Positivism (1856; repr., Marxist Internet Archive, 2005), 35, 185, as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 8–9.
  7. ↑ Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo (New York: Routledge, 1913), 104, as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 28.
  8. ↑ Edward Tylor, Primitive Culture (London: John Murray, 1903), as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 15.
  9. ↑ Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (New York: Anchor Books, 1969); as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 10–11.
  10. ↑ Peter Berger, ed., The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 10.
  11. ↑ Tomoko Masuzawa, The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 43–44, as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 11–12.
  12. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 12.
  13. ↑ Ibid., 14.
  14. ↑ Ibid., 14.
  15. ↑ Malcolm Hamilton, The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2001), as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 9.
  16. ↑ Frazer, The Golden Bough, 62, as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 7.
  17. ↑ E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937); Barbara G. Myerhoff, Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians (London: Cornell University Press, 1974); Jack Goody, "Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem," The British Journal of Sociology 12, no. 2 (1961): 142–64; as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.
  18. ↑ Starhawk, The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient ReliRocket Scientist's Guide to Religion >

    gion of the Goddess, 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011), as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.

  19. ↑ Ninian Smart, The World's Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); as synthesized in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 18–25, 41–44.
  20. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 48.
  21. ↑ Ibid., 58.
  22. ↑ Sonia Lucana and John Elfers, "Sacred Medicine: Indigenous Healing and Mental Health," The Qualitative Report 25, no. 12 (2020): 4482, as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 57–58.



Retrieved from "https://spiritwiki.lightningpath.org/index.php?title=Boundary_Fetish&oldid=38381"