Greek Religion: Journal Article Critique
General Introduction to Topic
Religion was an essential part of the Ancient Greek society, and one can see its importance through extant historical texts and Greek myths about Heracles, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Titans, et al. and through their use in modern mass culture. However, despite the visual familiarity, it is often difficult to understand Ancient Greek religion, as it is far from the modern religious understandings. According to Burkert, “Seemingly natural and yet atavistically estranged, refined and barbaric at the same time, it has been taken as a guide again and again in the search for the origin of all religion.” Nowadays, the approaches to studying Greek religion are changing. Kindt highlights, “The current emphasis on the centrality of Greek religion to Greek politics and society is, in many ways, a response to older scholarship.” A lot of concepts and approaches used for studying Greek religion recede into the past including the polis approach that positioned polis as a “unitary entity and the uniting factor behind Greek history” and made it the core of Greek society. The aim of this paper is to examine the failures of the polis approach and to obtain the better understanding of the reasons that lie behind the necessity to rethink Greek religion on the basis of the analysis and comparison of four relevant peer-reviewed journal articles written within the last ten years.
Polis Religion – A Critical Appreciation
In the second half of the twentieth century, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood introduced the concept of “polis religion” that was aimed “to describe the “embeddedness” of Greek religion in the polis as the basic unit of Greek social and political life.” Since then, it has been widely used for studies and the understanding of Greek and Roman mythologies. Polis religion is based on the structure of Greek society, the connection that existed between the polis and religion, and its symbolism. In other words, it perceives Greek religion as a number of connected symbols.
In her article “Polis Religion – A Critical Appreciation,” Kindt tries to go beyond the simple understanding of polis religion. She argues that despite the fact polis was strongly embedded into religion, the converse was not true, and supports her opinion with the historical examples. She states that in the understanding of Festival calendars and private concerns, the polis model of religion helps little, but it can be assumed under the global view on these problems within the confines of the Greek society and Greek religion in whole. Kindt highlights that the relationship between the polis and religion were more complicated that simple embedment; despite the polis was the core of the Greek society and could not exist without religion, religion could exist without the polis. In other words, the religion can be understood through the polis, but it should not be the only mean. Furthermore, she writes that the image of the polis as the symbolic order is a simplification, and it should be replaced by the more flexible concept. Moreover, one should note magic and its relations with Greek religion. Kindt states that the main advantage of the polis model is the explanation of structuring principles of the Ancient Greek religion, and its main disadvantage refers to close tying to the polis as a major source of power and the inability of the theory to explain activities from the standpoint of involved people.
Kindt bases her study on the close analysis of the polis model of Greek religion and the corresponding scholarly works. Her article is well structured and easy to follow. Kindt supports each of her thoughts with the evidence from academic researches. At first, she explains what the polis theory is and what its inconsistencies are and clearly explains the reasons for her study. Then, Kindt closely examines Greek religion and its developments and highlights the failures the polis theory has in several aspects. In such a way, she discusses the polis model both from the side of the polis and from the side of religion. Finally, she draws the conclusion about the potential of the theory and its minuses. The strength and clarity of the article make in clear even for people who were not familiar with the subject before reading.
in the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia, Greece
The paper “From Polis to Borders: Demarcation of Social and Ritual Space in the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia, Greece” by Pakkanen shares the theme of the polis theory studies. It was written the same year as Kindt’s “Polis Religion – A Critical Appreciation” and uses its statements as the support. Pakkanen considers the polis theory on the example of the Sanctuary of Poseidon located at Kalaureia on the island of Poros, Greece. First, she maps out the key parameters for the understanding the conception of the religion and describes the importance of the polis in it. Next, she studies the historical background of the place and investigates the application of the polis theory to cultic activities. The sanctuary at Kalaureia used to be an asylum and thus, it was politically neutral. In this case, the application of the polis theory has different views: except social and political frameworks, “there were aspects of religion which developed quite independently of polis intervention or even without its active participation.” Finally, Pakkanen presents archeological materials that consider the border areas of the sanctuary and analyzes the boundaries between the sanctuary and the polis.
The article represents the combination of archeological studies with the application of the polis theory and religious studies. It is logically structured; the author identifies the outline of her research and follows it, states questions and immediately answers them with the historical and archeological evidence. She draws the conclusion and highlights that the understanding of ancient religions requires the combination of three approaches. The first one is the knowing the traditional conceptualization of the religion, or “archeology of knowledge,” which mostly refers to the role of the polis theory in Greek religion. The second one refers to the investigation of the historical background. The last one means the understanding that materials can have various interpretations, and they do not have to be mutually exclusive. Thus, the author highlights that the polis theory cannot be the only approach to studying Greek religion and supports the idea started by Kindt.
Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion
In her article “Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion,” Eidinow continues the theme started by Kindt and writes about the inadequacy of polis religion. She argues that polis religion cannot provide the understanding of the ritual practice in the Greek society and suggests considering Greek religion through a social network, not only the polis. Eidinow bases her paper on two case studies. The first of them focuses on the individual activity and refers to binding spells, while the second one is a group activity and considers the cult of Dionysus. Eidinow investigates how each of the studies challenges the polis model of religion. At the same time, she applies to the studies the social network theory and investigates how this model explains the relations between the polis and religion. According to the article, the social network theory “explores the ‘patterning of relations among social actors’ — that is, the ties between them.” Eidinow states two major reasons of the new model: the recent start of the network theory use and the changes in studying Greek religion. Furthermore, she writes that the social network theoretical approach could help in the understanding both the interaction between people and their mentality.
As the result of the studies, Eidinow finds that in the case of spellbinding and individuals, the polis theory hardly helps to understand the motives of the actors and their role in the polis. The social network theoretical approach, on the contrary, establishes the connections between actors within the network of the polis on the different levels of their intercommunion. She proves the same in the case of the cult and group actions embracing the Dionysiac rites as institutions. However, Eidinow highlights that despite the failure of the polis theory, most of the network connections had been made on the polis level, and that was the major reason why the polis theory appeared.
Eidinow gives a strong thesis and clearly explains the reasons for her study. She describes the major problems and failures of polis religion and gives an overview of the social network theory. The major scholarly work she uses to support her arguments is Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action by Harrison White. She bases her study on the sociological theories and approaches that match the subject of the investigation. Eidinow closely describes the two case studies and the advantages and disadvantages of the application of both theories. Finally, she discusses the narrative of the polis approach to Greek religion, draws the conclusion, and highlights the necessity of further studies. Eidinow’s article is logically written and provides enough background information that makes the article clear even for the people unfamiliar with the subject. The recommendations regarding the following studies make it clearer to find the direction for continuation the investigations.
Human or Superhuman:
The Concept of Hero in Ancient Greek Religion and/or Politics
Greek religion and mythology are strongly connected to the term “hero” that has two general understandings. First of all, “hero” is a divine being who led a mortal life, performed something great, and became a god or deified mortal. Second, “hero” is a brave warrior praised in songs and poetry. Ancient Greece knows a lot of heroes: Heracles, Achilles, Theseus, Odysseus, etc. In her article “Human or Superhuman: the Concept of Hero in Ancient Greek Religion and/or Politics,” Stevanovic studies the term “hero” in relation to Greek religion and politics.
Stevanovic divides her study into two parts: the first of them covers the hero cult, and the other one examines the war heroism. According to the hero cult, after death, every divine hero gets his shrine and starts to be perceived as a god. This statement raises a question regarding the connections between the hero cult and the cult of the dead. Stevanovic proves that the hero cult continues the cult of the dead, as, before the period of heroization, the dead had been perceived as divine, and supports her opinion with the example from the Ancient Greek tragedy written by Euripides, “For those who are not dead must revere the god below by paying honor to the dead.” The war heroism refers to the Greek understanding of death as horrible but heroic; however, Stevanovic highlights that the “individual” death of a hero contravenes the principles of democracy that equals heroic virtues for the whole population.
The article connects the understandings of a hero with religion and with the formation of the polis and its further politics. It is well structured and supported by historical evidence. Stevanovic draws the parallel between the two concepts of heroes and “beautiful death” and the Yugoslavian war, “all political leaders, political programs and conflicts were presented through fixed traditional clichés and formulas in the same way in which values, persons and antagonisms were presented in the folklore and mythical tale.” In other words, the polis and its politics used religion for its needs that support the idea of the previous articles: strong dependence of the polis on religion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the studies of the Greek religion definitely require the new approaches that go beyond polis religion. Kindt, Pakkanen, and Eidinow strongly support this idea writing about disadvantages of the polis approach and suggesting its widening. The polis approach is the way station between the old approaches to ancient religions and the future ones that would provide the understanding on the higher levels. Kindt, Pakkanen, Eidinow, and Stevanovic highlight that polis and religion were connected to each other but polis was not the only mean that defined religion. The polis was unable to exist without religion, but religion was able to exist without the polis. As the way to study Greek religion, the social network theory sounds far-reaching, but one should remember that Greek religion is a complex issue and requires multisided approaches.
Bibliography
Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Eidinow, Esther. “Networks and Narratives: A Model for Ancient Greek Religion.” Kernos 24 (2011): 9-38. http://kernos.revues.org/1925?lang=en
Kindt, Julia. “Polis Religion – A Critical Appreciation.” Kernos 22 (2009): 9-34. http://kernos.revues.org/1765?lang=en
Kindt, Julia. Rethinking Greek Religion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Pakkanen, Petra. “From Polis to Borders: Demarcation of Social and Ritual Space in the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Kalaureia, Greece.” Temenos 44, 2 (2008): 233-262. http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/temenos/article/download/4590/12445
Stevanovic, Lada. “Human or Superhuman: the Concept of Hero in Ancient Greek Religion and/or Politics.” Bulletin of the Institute of Ethnography SASA LVI, 2 (2008): 7-22. http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/ft.aspx?id=0350-08610802007S
Vlassopoulos, Kostas. Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History beyond Eurocentrism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
