Jump to content

Talk:The Golden Bough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I see this section has been going and coming a bit lately, but this hasn't been discussed here yet. For what it's worth, my view is that these kinds of sections are rarely of the same standard as the rest of the articles they inhabit, and in this particular case I think it's worth removing altogether. None of the information is sourced, and it simply reads as a list of works which have allegedly been influenced. There's no discussion of any kind, no elaboration and the section is thus out of kilter with the rest of the article. I'd be in favour of keeping it deleted; naturally if there is any WP:RS which discusses the influence of The Golden Bough on popular culture it would be great to mine it for material. Especially if it could be written up in an encyclopaedic way! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good with Wikipedia, but the ending of apocalypse now was influenced by it. Francis ford Coppola said that in the director's commentary, and the book in shown in the movie. if anyone would like to add that. Normal Bates (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall accuracy of Frazer's thesis

[edit]

I read English and Ethnology at Edinburgh University in the 90s and I recall Frazer at that time was considered inaccurate, both historically and analytically. No mention of any of that here. Has he been rehabilitated, do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.176.153 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the latter half of the 20th century, his theories were dismissed as inaccurate. But, yes, in recent years, there has been some effort at rehabilitating his ideas, not so much as anthropology, but as philosophical comparative religions. Some accounting of his reception over many decades, properly cited, would be in order. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His methodology has long been considered quite outdated. Mary Douglas makes a fairly scathing criticism of TGB and Frazer's general approach and theory in the opening chapter or two of Purity and Danger, while also noting the extent to which he mirrors the half-unconscious condescension the Victorians felt for 'the savages'. G.S. Kirk dismisses him as well, after making a thorough check of the "Myth and Ritual" concept which he inspired (the Cambridge school) against the actual record of Greek myths and attested or likely Hellenic rituals (The Nature of Greek Myths, 1975). It's fair to say that at least over the time after Frazer's death in 1941, the influence of TGB on the wider reading public has been *much* greater than its impact on researchers in anthropology, comparative religion or mythology. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

René Girard

[edit]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:: René Girard is a noted author...and there is no reason his view of Frazer's work should not be represented. The material could perhaps be simplified or improved, but should not be removed outright. It isn't actually "critical reception" of The Golden Bough though, is it? It is instead a micro-summary of a small part of Girard's grand mimetic theory, not well referenced (a single page of The Scapegoat), and potentially WP:OR. It was boldly added, its addition was reverted, and 19 minutes later it was added again without improvement. The material could perhaps be simplified or improved If you are familiar with Girard's mimetic theory, you are welcome to add an improved and/or simplified version of Girard's critical response to Frazer's work, suitably referenced. As the existing paragraph has been rejected twice already by two separate editors, it is verging on lazy scholarship to just reinsert it again, unchanged, and expect others to make it coherent/relevant. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material reads, in part, "Frazer's categorization of scapegoat rituals from across the world is taken up as an important, but incomplete insight by the anthropologist and culture critic René Girard: "By interpreting the expression scapegoat in the ritual sense only and making a generalization of it, Frazer...conceals the most interesting meaning of the expression, which appeared at the beginning of the modern era and which never indicated any kind of rite or theme, or cultural motif, but rather identified the unconscious mechanism for the representation and acts of persecution, the scapegoat mechanism". That certainly seems to be critical reception of The Golden Bough. I do not know why you would suggest otherwise. I also have no idea why you think it might be original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Okay, so you're not familiar with The Scapegoat or Girard's mimetic theory. In that case, how about this proposed text?
René Girard, a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science, "grudgingly" praised Frazer for recognising kingly sacrifice as "a key primitive ritual", but described his interpretation of the ritual as "a grave injustice to ethnology."[1][2] Girard's "grievances" against The Golden Bough were numerous, particularly concerning Frazer's assertion that Christianity was merely a perpetuation of primitive myth-ritualism and that the New Testament Gospels were "just further myths of the death and resurrection of the king who embodies the god of vegetation."[1] Girard himself considered the Gospels to be "revelatory texts" rather than myths or the remains of "ignorant superstition", and rejected Frazer's idea that the death of Jesus was a sacrifice, "whatever definition we may give for that sacrifice."[1][2][3]
Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should refrain from pointlessly insulting other editors by making baseless presumptions about what they are or are not familiar with? I haven't read The Scapegoat, but I have read some of Girard's other works as well as works about him. There is no logical connection between what I am or am not familiar with and what text you should or should not be proposing for the article. I already noted that I have no objection in principle to having the text about Girard shortened or rewritten. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's pretty obvious that the text you edit warred to reinsert was less critical response and more a ham-fisted micro-summary of Girard's mimetic theory - which also wrongly implied that Girard was, generally if not entirely, supportive of Frazer's theories presented in TGB. The proposed text addresses these issues. Perhaps you should refrain from edit warring just to make a point. Neil S. Walker (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The text in question discusses Frazer. It is not surprising that Girard would discuss Frazer from the perspective of his own theory. I have no objection to your replacing it with your proposed text; I agree that it is an improvement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c Segal, Robert A. (2011). "The Frazerian roots of contemporary theories of religion and violence". Religion. 37 (1): 4–25.
  2. ^ a b Girard, René (1986). The Scapegoat. John Hopkins University Press. p. 120. ISBN 978-0-801-83315-1.
  3. ^ Girard, René (1978). Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Athlone Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-804-72215-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Golden_Bough&oldid=1219410684"