What do you think?
Rate this book
Religion, Myth, and Magic: The Anthropology of Religion
Anthropologist Susan Johnston turns a scholarly eye on one of humankind's primary interests throughout history: the spiritual belief system. Beginning her lectures with an attempt to define religion, Professor Johnstin continues this intriguing study with an examination of mythology and symbols, rituals and witchcraft, gender, politics, and religion's place in the customs surrounding death. A continuing and often contentious presence in the world today, religion, from its origins to the present, is a key component for understanding communities and cultures all over the globe.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 2009
60 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 2, 2010
Meh. This course was fairly uninteresting, with not a lot of material or ideas that I hadn't already encountered. The professor also displayed a rather sloppy and imprecise approach to her material; for example, she talked about the George Washington/cherry tree myth and said "is it true? Who knows?" Actually, people know perfectly well that Parson Weems pulled that story directly out of his posterior. Also, she keeps describing the Genesis story as the "Christian" origin story, and tries to imply that we can tell something about Christian culture based on Genesis. But that seems to imply too much - Genesis is strictly speaking the Jewish origin story, and if there is a connection between Christian culture and the Genesis story the influence flows the other way - that the story influenced Christian culture, not the other way around.
The thing that rubbed me the wrong way ultimately in this course was the statement that Science was a belief system "like religion", or actually "like A religion", in that science was lumped in with Islam and Wicca and Zoroastrianism as just another belief system. I hate to be too much of a science partisan (for science has its real limitations and I am well aware of them), but there is a qualitative difference between science (the belief that the universe can be understood by systematic, empirical probing of it) and any religion: science is so very often RIGHT in its predictions.
The professor's delivery is prosaic and manages to make even interesting topics rather boring. The drinking game for this course is: sip when she says the word "context".
The thing that rubbed me the wrong way ultimately in this course was the statement that Science was a belief system "like religion", or actually "like A religion", in that science was lumped in with Islam and Wicca and Zoroastrianism as just another belief system. I hate to be too much of a science partisan (for science has its real limitations and I am well aware of them), but there is a qualitative difference between science (the belief that the universe can be understood by systematic, empirical probing of it) and any religion: science is so very often RIGHT in its predictions.
The professor's delivery is prosaic and manages to make even interesting topics rather boring. The drinking game for this course is: sip when she says the word "context".
March 16, 2020
It’s incredibly powerful tool to learn to look at a part of the world through an anthropologist’s eyes on an interesting topic such as these were and that’s exactly what these lectures did.
If there was a fundamental law of anthropology and I don’t know if there is one but these lectures seem to suggest if there was it would be along the lines of: in order to appreciate fully the study of human cultures and our own place in the universe one must see the other person, group, belief, or culture through the entities own perspective, that is relatively. Relativism does not mean all values are equal; it does not give credence to those who believe there is an objective morality. Slavery is always wrong, rape is always wrong even if you have a book that condones slavery up to the point of beating the servant as long as they don’t die within two days, or even if your book says rape will be fine as long as the bride price is paid and a subsequent marriage ensues. In order to understand how a people could believe in such insane things, one must try to understand them from the believers perspective, but one can always call them batshit crazy when it fits.
In order to understand other’s worldview one must understand not from one’s own perspective, but from the perspective of the other. No matter what, fascist are evil, wrong and racist simpletons, but the fact of the matter they existed in Germany 1933-1945 and were part of that world’s zeitgeist and can only be understood if one learns how they became nuts so that maybe, just maybe, we can stop the MAGA (make America great again) morons from taking over our zeitgeist. In order to beat the stupid, one must first understand why they are stupid and try to reason them out of their stupidity, but as Nietzsche said 'those who enter into beliefs without reason can not be persuaded with reason'. God bless that Nietzsche guy, oh wait, he was an atheist so I'll see him from his own perspective and just say may the universe bless him on his next eternal recurrence.
The lecturer gave some good examples on how we must see others from within their own perspective. 1) Cannibalism from one cited culture’s perspective was so they could own the dead by eating their body therefore acquiring their essence, as opposed to our immediate yuck repulsion within our own culture 2) our burial rituals are bizarre when considered by a tribe that believes the spirit of the dead wants to leave the body through slow composition 3) some Muslim women see the wearing of the hijab as liberating since it de-objectifies them as sex objects, at least that’s what they believe.
I liked the lecturer’s definition for religion so much I wanted to make sure I captured it in this review so I don’t forget it: religion is a system of beliefs and behaviors that formulates and answers questions that are important, recurrent, and must be answered. I would have changed the last phrase ‘must be answered’ to ‘pretend to answer’, but overall one of the better definitions I’ve seen for religion and a large part of the lecture series unpacks that definition into what it really means.
If there was a fundamental law of anthropology and I don’t know if there is one but these lectures seem to suggest if there was it would be along the lines of: in order to appreciate fully the study of human cultures and our own place in the universe one must see the other person, group, belief, or culture through the entities own perspective, that is relatively. Relativism does not mean all values are equal; it does not give credence to those who believe there is an objective morality. Slavery is always wrong, rape is always wrong even if you have a book that condones slavery up to the point of beating the servant as long as they don’t die within two days, or even if your book says rape will be fine as long as the bride price is paid and a subsequent marriage ensues. In order to understand how a people could believe in such insane things, one must try to understand them from the believers perspective, but one can always call them batshit crazy when it fits.
In order to understand other’s worldview one must understand not from one’s own perspective, but from the perspective of the other. No matter what, fascist are evil, wrong and racist simpletons, but the fact of the matter they existed in Germany 1933-1945 and were part of that world’s zeitgeist and can only be understood if one learns how they became nuts so that maybe, just maybe, we can stop the MAGA (make America great again) morons from taking over our zeitgeist. In order to beat the stupid, one must first understand why they are stupid and try to reason them out of their stupidity, but as Nietzsche said 'those who enter into beliefs without reason can not be persuaded with reason'. God bless that Nietzsche guy, oh wait, he was an atheist so I'll see him from his own perspective and just say may the universe bless him on his next eternal recurrence.
The lecturer gave some good examples on how we must see others from within their own perspective. 1) Cannibalism from one cited culture’s perspective was so they could own the dead by eating their body therefore acquiring their essence, as opposed to our immediate yuck repulsion within our own culture 2) our burial rituals are bizarre when considered by a tribe that believes the spirit of the dead wants to leave the body through slow composition 3) some Muslim women see the wearing of the hijab as liberating since it de-objectifies them as sex objects, at least that’s what they believe.
I liked the lecturer’s definition for religion so much I wanted to make sure I captured it in this review so I don’t forget it: religion is a system of beliefs and behaviors that formulates and answers questions that are important, recurrent, and must be answered. I would have changed the last phrase ‘must be answered’ to ‘pretend to answer’, but overall one of the better definitions I’ve seen for religion and a large part of the lecture series unpacks that definition into what it really means.
December 11, 2015
I really enjoyed Susan Johnston's other "audio-course" on the ancient Celts, and was looking forward to this one. However, I found it mildly disappointing. Not bad, exactly-- but it fellshort of what I was hoping based on my experience with her other audiocourse.
The problem is not her lecture style or organization or the content per se , but rather the scope of the subject and the number of lectures allowed to it. A "General introduction" to religion, myth and magic, as understood by anthropology, is a *HUGE* topic-- and trying to cover it in just 14 30-minute lectures seems insufficient. It barely allows Johnson to make some interesting comparative considerations and delve briefly into a handful of moderately-specific topics (e.g. gender and religion, religion and politics, religion and death), but it still felt to me like a stone being skipped across the surface of a lake, with very intermittent "surface" contact and little or no depth.
I wish Johnson could have been given more lectures here-- like maybe 36-48 (as in in some of the Teaching Company courses) so she could have given more a more comprehensive discussion discussion.
The problem is not her lecture style or organization or the content per se , but rather the scope of the subject and the number of lectures allowed to it. A "General introduction" to religion, myth and magic, as understood by anthropology, is a *HUGE* topic-- and trying to cover it in just 14 30-minute lectures seems insufficient. It barely allows Johnson to make some interesting comparative considerations and delve briefly into a handful of moderately-specific topics (e.g. gender and religion, religion and politics, religion and death), but it still felt to me like a stone being skipped across the surface of a lake, with very intermittent "surface" contact and little or no depth.
I wish Johnson could have been given more lectures here-- like maybe 36-48 (as in in some of the Teaching Company courses) so she could have given more a more comprehensive discussion discussion.
November 5, 2015
This set of lectures was my first foray into the Modern Scholar series. Coming from The Great Courses, I have to say I was a little disappointed. First, it seemed that the course was much shorter than what I was used to, and, ultimately, I think a lot of the issues of the course stem from this. While the overall information itself is good, I feel Dr. Johnston often just barely touched on things; personally, I was wanting a deeper course. However, I will say a lot of the information, especially using specific instances to detail points was nice. She also recommended a few other works during the course of the lecture, which could be some interesting reading.
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a little about the anthropology of religion but isn't looking for anything too in-depth or too specific. It could be a useful introduction, though I was left wanting more.
I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a little about the anthropology of religion but isn't looking for anything too in-depth or too specific. It could be a useful introduction, though I was left wanting more.
November 26, 2011
I enjoyed this most, I think, because I'm very interested in the topic and so was able to get beyond the otherwise bland nature of the lesson.
July 8, 2015
This is a light survey of the anthropology of religion. There's not much depth, but the lectures are peppered with some nice ethnographic anecdotes.
September 19, 2019
It's very light. Very low level anthropology. But scientifically it's sound.
Pro:
It was so, so good to read a book where I couldn't guess the writer's political leaning. Oh my God I miss this in social science! A huge congrats for that. It's not a bad book at all. It's just way beneath the level I read this topic at. In high school it would have been an interesting read.
Con:
It's super light as most of these Great Courses. They really are light intros to any social science subject and often the author will spend pages explaining very simple stuff. Here Susan spends a long time explaining simple stuff like burials and what they are and simple findings and what they mean. I already know all of this so I don't need anyone explaining the very basics of the field. So, this is a bit hard to rate. On one hand it's not much politically biased which is a huge plus. She does talk about multiple genders and such stuff, but it's not done too much. So as an intro this book is fine. For people who read this stuff there is not too much new knowledge to be found here and the intellectual stuff is also basic.
Pro:
It was so, so good to read a book where I couldn't guess the writer's political leaning. Oh my God I miss this in social science! A huge congrats for that. It's not a bad book at all. It's just way beneath the level I read this topic at. In high school it would have been an interesting read.
Con:
It's super light as most of these Great Courses. They really are light intros to any social science subject and often the author will spend pages explaining very simple stuff. Here Susan spends a long time explaining simple stuff like burials and what they are and simple findings and what they mean. I already know all of this so I don't need anyone explaining the very basics of the field. So, this is a bit hard to rate. On one hand it's not much politically biased which is a huge plus. She does talk about multiple genders and such stuff, but it's not done too much. So as an intro this book is fine. For people who read this stuff there is not too much new knowledge to be found here and the intellectual stuff is also basic.
January 12, 2020
Pretty basic anthro stuff. I did the audiobook version. Pretty bad. She frequently repeats herself, partly because she forgets that she already referenced something hours ago. She also called the Wounded Knee Massacre a "battle." Ignorant. It was good that she emphasized the difficult reality that people who believe things different from what we believe, no matter how strange we find them, truly believe those things. It's difficult to imagine, but Dumbtruck supporters truly believe he's good for the world. Her definitions of religion and cults are ok.
March 9, 2024
A brief survey of anthropology studies on religion, myth, and magic. The discourse is clear but not particularly insightful, except for its observation that many behaviors of ordinary modern people are essentially exercises in magic, and much of modern discourse is mythological.
May 27, 2017
This audio course is brought to you by the word "particular(ly)."
April 24, 2021
Personally, I felt this author had a bias. It seemed that she has an emic view of the subject and couldn't provide adequate a context for the subject matter. It bordered unprofessional.
April 12, 2023
Decent book and good story. Interesting perspective and cultures. She leans on a few small groups a lot but I think it works for what she is trying to do.
April 7, 2024
Excellent short introduction to the topic.
December 26, 2011
A book with wide sweeping generalizations and basic overviews of the anthropology of religion. Not that it couldn't have been interesting but some of her facts were technically wrong (it's Vodou not Voodoo for example) and just left a lot to be desired. Perhaps if you've never taken an anthropology class or have very little back ground in global religions this would be an informative beginning course. However anything beyond that and it's a bit dull. There was little in the way of specific examples and the jargon she used was more concerned with being politically correct then aptly descriptive. In her favor the subject matter was outlined in a very concise and organized way and did touch on various common aspects of religion such as mythology and symbols, rituals and witchcraft, gender, politics, and religion's place in the customs surrounding death.
May 18, 2015
I like all of Professor Johnston's courses. Having read the Textbooks that go with this course, I enjoyed it, and also have enjoyed more the "other books of interest" suggested. I used to send for the course guide that the Modern Scholar series makes available, but was thrilled to discover that I can download them. This makes it possible, when I borrow a course from the library, (because, after all, how often are you going to want to listen to the same course?) to look up the suggested reading before it arrives, and read them along with the audio lectures, rather than a week or two later when the library gets them in. I especially liked her perspectives on cultural differences and religion. She also didn't start from the usual premise that since magic is impossible, any effects from it must be placebo or imagined. (She didn't endorse it either, but at least she was fair.)
December 14, 2015
I enjoyed the lectures. They were definitely lecture, and not audio-book, so people who might think it would be smooth will be surprised. It is supposed to be lectures.
I was familiar with most of the concepts, but not all of the cultures being described. It was a good refresher and the stuff I hadn't known was interesting. This is definitely worth listening to for anyone interested in anthropology, cultures, religion, and further investigating the elements of faith.
I was familiar with most of the concepts, but not all of the cultures being described. It was a good refresher and the stuff I hadn't known was interesting. This is definitely worth listening to for anyone interested in anthropology, cultures, religion, and further investigating the elements of faith.
October 23, 2023
I truely didn't liked the definition she uses for Religion which equates it with science, although she gives elocuent explenations about her reasons to do it, I found them insufficient.
In spite of the latter, it's a great listening and very useful concepts and explanations are explored on it.
Love to hear it on x 1.9 times speed, much more fluidity and still graspable.
In spite of the latter, it's a great listening and very useful concepts and explanations are explored on it.
Love to hear it on x 1.9 times speed, much more fluidity and still graspable.
April 9, 2016
This was a decent overview of the material in the title. For me a lot of it was review of information I had encountered in college courses on folklore and related topics, but it was still interesting.
November 30, 2016
Overall, very enjoyable.. it doesn't go too deep and there is some inaccuracies but worth the time.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews