Adam Peeler
Precis of Lienhardt & Geertz
September 19, 2018
Godfrey Lienhardt’s book, Divinity and Experience: The Religion of the Dinka, sets out to explore the cosmological and ritual practices of the Western Dinka tribes of Sudan. Lienhardt gives particular focus to the relationship between Divinities, Clan-Divinities, and the Dinka. The majority of the work attempts to unravel the complex relationships between these Divinities and the different Dinka tribes. Through exploring these relationships Lienhardt shows the interconnectedness in the daily life of the Dinka, the naming of children, origin stories for the world, and the influence of the Divine. Throughout the work, the author examines how the reality of the divine has influenced every aspect of Dinka culture. This is done through the telling of numerous stories and firsthand accounts of Dinka life.
The work is divided into three sections. The first is a brief introduction in which Lienhardt outlines who he is studying and the conditions in which they live. He states, “This study is orientated towards the Western Dinka of the Bahr-al-Ghazal Province of Sudan, and particularly the Rek tribal group, with whom I first learnt the Dinka language” (Lienhardt p. 1). He briefly describes the poverty of this region of the Sudan which lacks stone and iron. The tribes of the Dinka are organized into herding-groups which in their smallest form consists of a man, his children, and their cattle. Several of these groups form a subtribe, and several subtribes form a tribe. He states that tribes range from 1,000 to 25,000 in number (Lienhardt p. 7). The second half of this section gives an overview of cattle in the Dinka experience. He notes that the sacrifice of cattle is the central religious practice of the tribes. Cattle are given prefixes and suffixes to describe them, these additions are primarily based on gender and variations of color (Lienhardt pp. 10-11). Cattle are sacrificed or placed on display to a pantheon of different divinities based on their colorations and children are typically named, or nicknamed, in relation to particular cattle. The author mentions that when boys are deemed men by the tribe they pick a cattle name to define who they are (Lienhardt p. 13).
It seems that part one of the text is Lienhardt’s main focus. In this part, he details the Dinka distinctions between different Divinities, both Free-Divinities and Clan-Divinities, and how said Divinities are encountered in the daily lives of the Dinka. The first section gives an overview of the Divinities. He states, “Dinka religion, then, is a relationship between men and ultra-human Powers encountered by men, between the two parts of a radically divided world” (Lienhardt p. 32). It is within this section that the author gives an account of the creation narrative of the Dinka, while the account varies from region to region they share similarities. Earth and sky were once one, and because of humanity’s choice, the Divine separated from creation (Lienhardt p. 53).
The second section delves into the world of the Free-Divinities. Of the Free-Divinities Lienhardt marks Deng, Garang, Macardit, Abuk as the most important and active of this category (Lienhardt p. 56). He states that these Divinities make their presence known by possessing humans and announcing their presence and through causing illness. The third section explores the Clan-Divinities. These Divinities, as their name suggests, relate to specific tribes and serve as emblems and protectors of said clan. Each tribe has a story on how these Divinities came to be the Clan-Divinity, usually said Divinity assisted an ancestor of the tribe and offered its guidance and protection. While these Divinities serve as emblems, Lienhardt notes that they are more than that (Lienhardt p. 107). For the Dinka the Divinities are real, they interact with the people constantly, they are petitioned to better the lives of the people, to change their circumstances, to intervene when evil is done. This is seen in the fourth section in which Lienhardt states, “To the Dinka, the Powers are known by personal encounters, as living agents influencing their lives for good or evil (Lienhardt p. 147).
The second part of the text focuses on the origins of the Spear-Masters, invocations and prayer, symbolic actions, and a brief section on being buried alive. These sections are much briefer than those of the first section and gives the appearance of being less appealing to Lienhardt. In the second part, he relates the creation stories to the origin of the Spear-Masters (those of highest standing in the priestly system of the Dinka). He gives numerous examples of invocation to the Divinities for their intervention and the symbols of the various tribes. The final section seems mismatched with the rest of the text in which Lienhardt recounts how elderly Spear-Masters willingly choose to be buried alive.
Godfrey Lienhardt’s work sets out to detail the religious practices of the Western Dinka tribes. The work does what it set out to do, but it would seem that Lienhardt was more concerned with a deep understanding of the distinctions between Divinities than an in-depth exploration of how these interactions play out in the day to day life of the Dinka. While he does give numerous stories examining this it feels cursory in light of the work placed on defining the Divinities. In addition to this, the second part of the text seems pained in some sense compared to the first. While invocation and symbols are important one would have hoped for more depth in the examination of these practices.
Clifford Geertz’s work, “Religion as a Cultural Systems” seems to complement Lienhardt’s work. Geertz states that religion is,
A system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Geertz p. 96).
Within Lienhardt’s work, it is seen that the relationship between Divinities and the Dinka have formed an order of existence. From sacrificing cattle to naming children after said cattle the reality of the Divinities can be seen in every interaction between the Dinka tribes. The symbols of the fishing spear and the cattle peg hold great power over the tribes. One is expected to respect and cherish one’s father and ancestors with disrespect being an offense that can lead to death. The Dinka fully believe that the Divinities can, and will, possess them. They believe that the Divinities can change one’s circumstances in one way or another if one only makes a sacrifice and ask. While Lienhardt’s work leaves one wanting more of the culture of the Dinka he does give the reader a firm grasp on the reality of the Divinities.
Thanks, Adam, for your precis! I think these two works provide a rich conversation together. A few questions came to mind for me while reading these texts and your precis:
1. Why does Lienhardt begin his text as he does?
In contemporary anthropological literature, an introduction is usually used as a roadmap for the text, an occasion to bracket out the author’s positionality, and a deposit for any explicit theorizing they want to do. Lienhardt’s introduction is from a different era and accomplishes something very different. He gives us a flood of information as quickly as possible to situate the Dinka and the shape of their world–materially, ecologically, and symbolically. I wonder how this suits his broader objectives within the text, and if this difference in style helps to parse differences between Lienhardt and contemporary anthropology of religion?
2. What do we mean by “meaning”?
“Meaning” and “meaning making” have already come up several times in our readings and class sessions. Kleinman wanted to move the anthropology of religion beyond questions of meaning making. Geertz, who is among those Kleinman is reacting against, views the “analysis of the systems of meaning” as half of the business of the anthropology of religion (Geertz 125). Beginning in Chapter 4, Lienhardt turns from an attempt to depict the Dinka religion as they themselves understand it to his ultimate project of analyzing the Dinka divinities as “images” that are “evoked by certain experiences contingent upon the Dinka’s reaction to their particular physical and social environment” (Lienhardt 147). This seems to be a project of uncovering the meaning behind images–and I think Geertz would include those “images” in his definition of symbol.
I agree with you that Lienhardt does a good job of giving a picture of how the Dinka “have formed an order of existence,” in Geertz’s terms. That ordering is, for Geertz and, I think, Lienhardt, a project of meaning making.
Because meaning is so central to what we have been reading, I think it’s important that we take some time to think about and discuss what exactly we mean by this idea of meaning or meaning making, what it means to try and configure ethnographic projects as an excavation of meaning, and what we gain and lose in the process.
Thank you for Your Precis Adam. You highlight several important points that Lienhardt talks about in his book. Lienhardt sets out to show how the Divinities are a reflection of the actions of the Dinka and he gives it considerable consideration in the first part of his book. For instance he states that, “Divinity is held ultimately to reveal truth and falsehood, and in doing so provides a sanction for justice between men.” (46) I would be interested in hearing more from you and others in our class about whether or not you think he achieved this goal?
In your Precis you mention that you wished that you “hoped for a more in-depth examination of these practices.” I agree with you. I think this could be due to the method that Lienhardt used in his study of religion. On page 10 he writes that his work aims to describe and not analyze the structure of the Dinka religious experience. From my reading of the book, I sensed that he does not seem to engage in the practices or participate in them but simply studies them. And I wonder if his description of the Dinka religion would have changed had he participated in the practices?
As Jackson mentioned in his comment the work of Lienhardt and Geertz do in fact have several points of commonality. As I read both texts I did wonder also about the positionality of the scholars. While Lienhardt explains the religion of Dinka, he does not seem to cast judgement on their practices or merely dismiss them as symbols, whereas Geertz seems to reduce religion and the practice of religion to symbols. This of course could be due to the different styles of writing. I would be interested to hear if you and other classmates agree with my reading of both scholars?
Thank you for your precis, Adam, your summary and comments provide a helpful framework for conversation. One thing that you’ve highlighted in your precis stands out against one of the aspects of Lienhardt’s analysis that I noted in my own reading. You’ve highlight that, for the Dinka, “the Divinities are real, they interact with the people constantly, they are petitioned to better the lives of the people, to change their circumstances, to intervene when evil is done” (para. 4). I agree that Lienhardt is careful to emphasize that the divinities are real for the Dinka, which is why I found his analysis of the divinities as images “evoked by certain configurations of experience” (Lienhardt, p. 147) interesting. After affirming that reality of the divinities for the Dinka, Lienhardt goes on to explain the divinities in a way that, he states, should not suggest that “. . . the Dinka apprehend their beliefs in this way . . .” (p. 153). Similarly, Geertz advocates a model of anthropological study of religion that, first, takes care to map “the system of meanings embodied in the symbols which make up the religion proper” before moving onto the relationship between religion and social structures (Greetz, p. 125). Both of these scholars seem to presume that they will be better able to account for religious experience by analyzing it according to an external (to the religion itself) theoretical framework. While I can see some value in the pursuit, it does lead me to the same question as Tala, that is, what does this say about the positionality of the ethnographer or anthropologist in relation to the social or religious system studied? Does the nature of ethnographic study presume that the ethnographer understands the people studied better than they understand themselves?
Adam, thanks for your broad and reflective precis.
As I continue to learn the language of ethnography and attempt to define the methods that the writers we are studying utilize, I think am finally able to name what has been troubling me about the work of ethnography itself. On page 10, Lienhardt states that his work “aims at describing the structure of Dinka religious experience.” But I am not sure that he defines or names what is at stake in doing this project. The previous writers, particularly Deren, are more explicit in describing the conception and hopeful end of their study. In other words, they answer the question, “what is at stake?”
Though Lienhardt does not say it outright, judging by the effort he spends describing religious experience with cattle as the mediators between the divine and the Dinka, I gather that he is interested in the ways through people groups identify and engage religious practice. But how does he intend for this project to benefit western thinkers? To that end, it struck me as curious that Lienhardt uses the word “politics” to describe the structures of the tribes, clans, and sub-clans. Perhaps Divinity and experience seeks to draw attention to the language imposed upon groups whose concepts and practices do not meet the scope of the imposed meaning. Also, symbolism is another deep interest to Lienhardt, as in the cattle and the meaning of being buried alive – which seems to be associated with honor and insuring that the people will be prosperous after the master of the fishing-spear has died.
Thank you Adam for your concise précis. I agree with you that Divinity, Free Divinities, and Clan-Divinities and the Dinka form not only a clear order of existence but also an ongoing explanation of the Dinka’s experiences in daily living. However, as the author described this order of existence, I recognized a couple of observations I had not see in earlier works we read. First, throughout the book, I got the impression that he critiqued the Dinka’s worldview and experiences through Western categories and found them inferior. Here are a couple of examples. He writes, ‘“The Dinka, of course, do not know the sky as ultimately a mere appearance as we do (italics mine), conditioned as we are by a knowledge of facts unknown to them” (p. 32), and “I sometimes got the impression that the stories were being made up by some’ (p.119). Are these appropriate conclusions for a field researcher to make about the people and culture he is observing?
Also, of all the authors we have read so far, Lienhardt wrote about accounts that were provided to him by hearsay. For example, “The following is a text typical of the accounts which Dinka friends may give of what happens at the deaths of masters of the fishing-spear. The author did not claim to have witnessed such a ceremony, though he said that he knew of one which had been held in a tribe adjacent to his own” (pg. 299-300). From a methodological perspective, how valid is hearsay in one’s research. I look forward to seeing if anyone else in the class noticed these issues as well. Finally, I wished I would have read Geertz’s article first. To see that “sacred symbols function to synthesize a peoples ethos . . . and their worldview” (p.89) provides great insight into the divinity and experience of the Dinkas.