This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: disagrees, saying the unique grouping of certain objects is what makes these symbols, suggesting these symbols are essentially meaningless and nonexistent outside of these relationships. Asad states that the symbols gain their significance “at once” after they are brought together. Geertz’ definition seems to imply that the system allows symbols to “establish…moods and motivations” but he does not strip these objects of all significance if they are not in some sort of pairing as Asad does. As we can see, Asad does not even seem to believe symbols can be single objects or events; a symbol is at least two things. These two definitions clearly create an unusual and enlightened paradox, leaving us to determine our own opinions of the form of a symbol. Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1993. Print....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/16/2012 for the course STOR 155 taught by Professor Andrewb.nobel during the Fall '08 term at UNC.
- Fall '08