Actions

Boundary Problem

An Avatar.Global Resource

Revision as of 13:27, 11 September 2026 by Michael (talk | contribs)

Boundary Problem

The Boundary Problem is the persistent scholarly problem of how to draw a defensible line, substantively, functionally, ontologically, or epistemologically, between religion and other human institutions and knowledge systems, such as magic, science, Hollywood, sports, or the New Age movement. The problem is insoluble, because the boundaries it seeks do not exist.

Concept Map

Key Concepts

Avatar.GLOBAL Knowledge System >

Spiritual Theory >

Syncretic Terms

Boundary Problem >

Related LP Terms

Boundary Problem >

Non-LP Related Terms

Boundary Problem >

Notes

The Boundary Problem arises the moment scholars attempt to define religion by what distinguishes it from everything else. Every attempted boundary fails under empirical attention, at four successive lines of defense.[1]

1. Substantive boundaries fail. Defining religion by belief in supernatural beings runs into Buddha, who rejected gods and supernatural forces outright, yet Buddhism is clearly a religion.[2] Defining it by a sacred/profane distinction is a Western category imposition: the distinction is not made by the LoDagaa and other West African peoples studied by Goody,[3] is not meaningful among the Azande,[4] and is meaningless for the Huichol of Mexico.[5]

2. Durkheim's "solution" fails. Having failed to separate magic and religion from science by supernatural content — and unable to elevate Western religion above Indigenous magic on that basis either — Durkheim "solved" the Boundary Problem by suggesting religion was more social, while magic was more individualistic.[6] "Unfortunately, like other ethnocentric boundaries, Durkheim's assertions are more wishful thinking than empirical fact."[7] Ancient magical and ritual practices had social aspects and social intent — "fisherman who used magic to help with their catch were doing so with their families and communities in mind"[8] — and modern magical systems like Wicca and Thelema are deeply embedded in the social fabric: witches have covens and cast spells "for the good of themselves and their community";[9] Aleister Crowley, patriarch of Thelema, "was embedded in exoteric and elitist social networks."[10]

3. Functional boundaries fail. Functional definitions (religion as what provides cohesion, meaning, or answers to ultimate questions) are even worse at boundary work: as Scharf notes, "they are simply too broad and inclusive. If religion is defined as that which promotes unity or social cohesion, then anything which does this is religion."[11] Communism, fascism, nationalism, capitalism, sports, and rock concerts all become religious events. Hamilton therefore advises abandoning functional definitions altogether[12] — but this is rejected in the Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion: institutions are always functional, since "all institutions ... are instrumental means for the satisfaction of needs";[13] "if we ignore the functions of religion, we might as well not bother studying it."[14]

4. Ontological/epistemic boundaries fail. With content and function unable to separate religion from science, the last line of defense is ontology (materialism vs. idealism) and epistemology (empirical method vs. authority and tradition).[15] These too collapse: transpersonal and humanistic psychology cross the materialist line and even provide techniques for spiritual connection;[16] scientists report mystical and "enlightenment" experiences — Kekulé's dream of the benzene ring, Darwin's "innumerable little illuminations,"[17] Einstein's awe before "the old one"[18] — and science itself behaves like a church when challenged: Kuhn showed it to be one of the most conservative institutions going,[19] and Yinger notes that many scientists "sanctify science just like priests sanctify religion, by presenting it as a superior path towards truth."[20] Rupert Sheldrake was publicly shamed and excommunicated by Nature's senior editor, who called his book "the best candidate for burning there has been for many years."[21]

The problem metastasizes. Smart's substantive elements — social, ritual/practical, experiential, narrative/mythic, doctrinal, ethical/legal, material, plus healing — are found everywhere.[22] Hollywood has its master narratives: Lucas "intentionally set out to awaken (some might say indoctrinate) children" with a monomyth that "echoes in nearly every belief system," admitting "I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people."[23] Sports has its sacred figures and superstitions; the Boy Scouts' oath requires affirmation of "belief and submission to God";[24] science has its rituals, myths, martyrs, and mystical musings. "So what makes the institution of science different than religion? Where is the all-important boundary?"[25]

LP resolution. The Boundary Problem cannot be solved because there is no boundary there. "Humans are complex and creative. They do not honour the boundaries scholars attempt to impose. They can make their institutions serve whatever needs they want."[26] The continuing attempt to solve it is not scholarship but the Boundary Fetish — "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."[27] The productive move is not a better boundary but no boundary: religion as "a complicated and flexible human institution set up to meet essential and non-essential human needs," organized around answers to big questions with a core emphasis on alignment and connection,[28] embraces the overlap of human institutions, breaks the study of religion open, and exposes centuries of elite interference in spiritual systems. Abandoning the boundary quest 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."[29]

Book Terms

Rocket Scientist's 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. ↑ Mike Sosteric, Rocket Scientists' Guide to Religion, draft v.095, introductory unit for Athabasca University Sociology 231: The Sociology of Religion (manuscript in preparation; E.T.A. 2027). Page references herein are to the draft PDF. Hereafter cited as Sosteric, RSGR draft.
  2. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 16.
  3. ↑ 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, 16–17.
  4. ↑ E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937), as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.
  5. ↑ Barbara G. Myerhoff, Peyote Hunt: The Sacred Journey of the Huichol Indians (London: Cornell University Press, 1974), as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.
  6. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.
  7. ↑ Ibid., 17.
  8. ↑ Ibid., 17, citing Sir James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1990).
  9. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17, citing Starhawk, The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess, 20th anniversary ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2011).
  10. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 17.
  11. ↑ B. Scharf, The Sociological Study of Religion (London: Hutchinson, 1970), as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 29.
  12. ↑ Malcolm Hamilton, The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2001), as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 29–30.
  13. ↑ Melford E. Spiro, "Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation," in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. Michael Banton (London: Routledge, 2004), 96, as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 30.
  14. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 30.
  15. ↑ Ibid., 44–45.
  16. ↑ Ibid., 44.
  17. ↑ Peter Caws, "The Structure of Discovery," Science 166, no. 3911 (1969): 1375–80; Howard E. Gruber, "On the Relation between 'AHA Experiences' and the Construction of Ideas," History of Science 19, no. 1 (1981): 41–59; both as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 25.
  18. ↑ Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Citadel Press, 2000), as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 25, 45–46.
  19. ↑ Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 47.
  20. ↑ Roy Rappaport, as quoted in J. Milton Yinger, The Scientific Study of Religion (London: Macmillan, 1970), in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 47.
  21. ↑ Anthony Freeman, "The Sense of Being Glared At: What Is It Like to Be a Heretic?," Journal of Consciousness Studies 12, no. 6 (2005): 4–9, as discussed in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 48.
  22. ↑ Ninian Smart, The World's Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Ninian Smart, The Phenomenon of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1973); as synthesized in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 18–23.
  23. ↑ Bill Moyers, "Of Myth and Men," Time, April 18, 1999, as quoted in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 24.
  24. ↑ Bryan Wendell, "About the 'Belief in God' Requirement in Scouting," Bryan on Scouting, October 3, 2014, as cited in Sosteric, RSGR draft, 42.
  25. ↑ Sosteric, RSGR draft, 25.
  26. ↑ Ibid., 48.
  27. ↑ Ibid., 14.
  28. ↑ Ibid., 56.
  29. ↑ Ibid., 58.



Retrieved from "https://spiritwiki.lightningpath.org/index.php?title=Boundary_Problem&oldid=38377"