Intermission for Method and Theory I: Review of Film as Religion

In Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals, John C. Lyden argues that film can be analyzed using the methods of religious studies. 

Through this blog, I have been attempting to argue that we should critique religion like any other aspect of culture, i.e. film. Though written in 2003, this book gives me ample opportunity to reflect on my methods and theory. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• To understand how films function for audiences we can view them as analogous to religions.

• Like Geertz, Lyden argues that we should describe rather than explain cultural phenomena. 

• Films, like myths, create an alternate world with observable tensions resolved in time through narrative.

• Liminality, disorientation of in-betweenness, and vicarious sacrifice are two concepts from ritual studies that can be used in film studies.

• Audiences are exposed to different worldviews, values, and ritual participation depending on the genre of the movie.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

Method

It should not be a surprise that I am in virtually complete agreement with his method of studying film and religion. It is welcome to hear scholars talk about how we should understand how non-scholars understand cultural phenomena, while maintaining a critical attitude towards it. 

Some sentences I wish I had written. For instance: "...this is not to suggest an uncritical approach that celebrates every aspect of popular culture, but a balanced approach that can assess the power of popular culture...and both appreciate and critique the way it functions. We should be able to examine any religion... in this way, seeking to understand it first but also reserving the right to make value judgments on it." (pg. 249)

This is an elegant way of saying that we should neither automatically defend nor attack religion, but rather assess religion for its strengths and weaknesses. Also these sentences capture the idea that we should not critique until we understand. All of these are ideas that I have said or written in various venues. 

Theory

There are larger differences between Lyden and I on theory. Lyden takes his primary theorist as Clifford Geertz, the famous anthropologist; whereas I am more partial to Durkheim.

Lyden rightly points out that Durkheim is a sociological reductionist, at least in that Durkheim argues that religion is primarily about community. In pointing this out, Lyden does accurately describe Durkheim's idea that myth is "common sense" and a strategy for social maintenance.  

However, it is odd that Lyden leaves Durkheim out of his chapter on ritual. Durkheim has at least as much, and I think more, to say about ritual. 

One Durkheimian concept he oddly avoided is "collective effervescence," moments where, while in a group, we participate in the same thought and action accompanied by excitement or delirium experienced by all, (i.e. prayer, chanting, and even rock concerts). 

In such an experience, one transcends individuality and identifies solely with the group at least while the experience lasts. Granted as a sociological reductionist, Durkheim points to how these collective (and transcendent) experiences enhance group unity. (Though the transcendent is ultimately rooted in society).

Though, Geertz's conception of religion likely adds more dimensions to a possible analysis of film than does Durkheim's. Geertz, like Durkheim, does view religion primarily as cultural. According to Geertz, religion is:

"1) A set 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" (pg. 42)

Lyden stresses that in Geertz's conception of religion the everyday is connected to the ideal, and that his conception can be easily applied to the analysis of films. 

However, there is at least one common theme in film and television that this theoretical perspective cannot adequately analyze: the loss of personal identity through the collective.  

For instance, the struggle between the Borg and the Federation in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) and Star Trek: Voyager would benefit from a Durkheimian perspective in addition to, or perhaps even instead of, Geertz's view. 

The Federation is a group of planets that includes Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, Betazed, and many others. That is Star Trek aliens are almost always social and collective, at least enough to form governments and invent warp drive.

However, they are all afraid of the Borg. In TNG, before the movie First Contact, the Borg had no queen. They were originally imagined as a collective with no leader or even spokesperson. Regardless they placed no value on the lives of individual Borg. 

They are terrifying because of this, and one could reasonably interpret them as being in a constant state of collective effervescence.

Borg in their regeneration alcoves

  

So much so that individual Borg when first separated from the hive mind suffer severe confusion and loneliness without the community of voices they are used to having inside their head. 

Their goal is to assimilate life forms and technology that they deem useful. Thus, it is not that you die, when you become a Borg, but rather you are now part of their collective and have no individuality or will of your own; they are zombie-like.

Star Trek does have a few species that have a more nuanced collectivity. The Binars are a species who must have their partner to work and communicate with and they are all dependent on the computer on their home planet for their brain activity. 

The head of the Foundation in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine are shape shifters who can (but are not forced to) completely merge together and entirely share their emotions and thoughts virtually instantaneously. This experience is described as a joyful unity beyond words.

Bottom Line:

This book was an excellent introduction to the possibility of studying film using the methods of religious studies. And it does give some weight to my idea that we should critique religion as you would other aspects of culture. I agree with all of his statements in this regard. 

However, I think he limits himself by functionally only using Geertz as a theorist, both in analyzing film and religion. I prefer using multiple theorists, but my primary theorist is Durkheim. Though, he has convinced me that I need to take a longer look at Geertz.