Since the structuralist turn, it has been commonplace to regard religion as a “system of symbols”, consisting fundamentally of signs, significations, and symbols. In this respect, religion is like culture and language. It is replete with symbolic activity: The production of symbols in symbolization processes and their organization in classifications and competencies and their articulation in interactive processes. The extent to which symbolization is a property of individual and/or interactive minds has long been debated, and various fields such as linguistics, philosophy, and the cognitive sciences disagree greatly on the issue. This is unfortunate, however, for the study of religion, precisely because it deals heavily with these processes and especially with their products, which can be understood as architectures of meaning through which human thought and action are mediated. But, if unanimity or consensus is beyond immediate reach, we may still explore the current thrusts of relevant approaches and methodologies. This conference offers an opportunity to discuss various aspects of the problem and throw new light on what it means now to maintain that religion is a “system of symbols”.
A general position is that symbols are complex higher-order representations, signs of some kind that “stand for something”, mostly by socio-cultural convention rather than by any intrinsic property: A dove is a symbol of peace, the crescent moon is a symbol of Islam, etc. It is obvious that for symbols to function, they must but be internalized in minds (brains) and be communicated between minds (brains) – thus “symbolization” and symbols must be viewed as accounted for and explained as processes in and between brains, whereby they are involved in individual cognitive as well as public socio-cultural activities.
1. Evolutionary and historical perspectives
In the explanation of human evolution – particularly in the phylogenetic and cultural perspective – the appearance of symbolic activity is a relatively recent addition, but one that is crucially important for the development of homo sapiens as the social and cultural being it now is. The development of language, art, science – and religion – all hinge on the development of symbolization. The biological as well as prehistoric origins of the symbolizing capacity is one obvious issue here, but cultural history is also testimony to this aspect of the development (for better or worse) of the human species.
2. Ontogenesis and learning
Ontogenetic questions concerning the acquisition of symbolization competence is common ground for developmental psychology and linguistics and important explanatory correlates of the evolutionary perspectives. Once symbolization is part of human socio-cultural practice, it becomes part of the space of “social facts” or the “space of reasons” in which humans must learn to navigate in order to function as competent members of their group and context. Cultures are diverse, and some symbolic constructs are so inordinately complex that the exigencies of cultural learning may be quite extensive and possibly of great influence on the ways in which information is processed individually and collectively, in cognitive and cultural models, in “inner speech” and in public discourse. The crucial question concerning the plasticity of the mind (brain) is the extent to which we may speak of plasticity, of innateness, imprinting, and learning (in whichever mode) are fundamental in developmental psychology (we have in mind especially the theories of Merlin Donald, Michael Tomasello and Terrence Deacon).
3. Philosophical perspectives: internalism vs. externalism
Fundamental to symbolization from a philosophical point of view is its ontological and epistemic properties. Concerning symbols as existing entities of signification, the primary areas of concern are the reference and meaning of symbols, i.e. their “aboutness” as well as their syntactic and semantic properties. In symbolization and associated practices, we see the fundamental operations of social constructionism at work, i.e. “externalization” and “internalization” of models and meanings. Previous philosophical orientations and scholarly doctrine were predominantly dualist, but recent philosophy on cognitive science tends to “blur” the distinctions between inner and outer (e.g. Robert Wilson and Andy Clark). Similar questions have been asked by anthropologists in the analysis of the relations between mental and cultural models (e.g. BraddShore and Edwin Hutchins).
Symbols generally appear to have properties that are epistemically elusive, but perhaps the term “symbol” is a misnomer in the sense that there is no actual entity but only an abstract term denoting complex cognitive and semantic representations and operations. Then again, there is no genuine philosophical consensus on the representational properties of representations, whether internally and mental in minds or externally and public in human society and culture. A number of views from the philosophy of language may prove constructive here (e.g. Donald Davidson and John McDowell).
4. Methodological concerns
Several theories concerning cognitive and semantic issues have emerged over the past few decades and contributed to expanding the range of existing approaches to symbolization (e.g. hermeneutical, structural and cognitive functionalist). New approaches that may contribute constructively to the study of symbolization in religion, cognition and culture for instance are those of conceptual blending, cognitive and cultural domains and domain specificity, metaphor theory, cognitive semiotics and semantics and cognitive narratalogy (consider the work of Gilles Fauconnier, Mark Turner, George Lakoff, Leonard Talmy and Per A. Brandt).
Of special importance for those who wish to present contributions is the specification of theory and terminology concerning symbolization and symbols: The established distinctions between “icon, index, and symbol” (Charles S. Peirce) may serve as pivotal in an endeavor to search for clarifications. Contributions concerning specific (sets of) symbols in specific, empirical research are also welcomed, provided the main theoretical objectives are kept in sight – for the benefit of non-specialists in other areas.
Papers are encouraged on any of the above-mentioned topics. We encourage participants from a wide variety of disciplines in the human, social and natural sciences to attend. Doctoral students are also encouraged to give reports or short papers as well. Types of papers beside the invited keynote talks will be: papers (30 + 15 min.), brief presentations/reports (20 + 10 min.) and poster presentations.
The conference organizers are planning to produce a conference volume of selected papers which is slated to appear in a new series titled Religion, Cognition and Culture at Equinox Press in London.
This conference will mark the second of a series of conferences on special themes in our four-year research project on “Religion, Cognition and Culture” (2005-2008). The Laboratory on Theories of Religion at the Department of the Study of Religion was awarded the project by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Aarhus. The Chairman is Armin W. Geertz and the Coordinator is Jeppe Sinding Jensen.
The research group consists of scholars from a wide range of disciplines at our university and abroad. Our goal is to explore the interstices of religion, cognition and culture in an attempt to bring culture back into cognitive study (a problem which has afflicted the cognitive science of religion as well as other cognitive approaches for quite a while).
Venue : Faculty of Theology, University of Aarhus
Dates : May 31 – June 2, 2007 (international participants, please plan on arriving on the 30th and departing on the 3rd)
Conference fee : DKK 300
Deadline for titles, type of paper to be given, 10-line abstracts and other information (position, degree, institutional and email addresses): December 1, 2006
All inquiries should be sent to: Annette Larsen, conference secretary at ala@teo.au.dk.
Accommodations : Please arrange your own accommodations. A complete list of hotels can be found at this address. For budget hotels, we recommend the CAB INN Aarhus. For other budget hotels see www. budget-hotels.nl/ENG/Denmark/Aarhus-hotels.html. For 5-star accommodations, we recommend the Radisson SAS in Aarhus.
Jeppe Sinding Jensen & Armin W. Geertz
Department of the Study of Religion
University of Aarhus, Taasingegade 3
DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
http://www.teo.au.dk/en/research/current/cognition
