Purity and Authenticity - Roy Allan B Tolentino

The theme of this week’s readings leads me to continue reflecting upon the dynamics of religion, its diffusion and assimilation, and the questions of integrity that inevitably arise from such dynamics.

Clifford Geertz’s taxonomy of the “types” of Islam found in Indonesia reveals the variance to which inculturation has been implemented. Although Geertz paints in rather broad strokes in order to differentiate between the “kolot” and “moderen,” and ascribes certain positions to each group, he nonetheless makes a claim which I find troublesome. Geertz says:

“It is very hard, given his tradition and his social structure, for a Javanese to be a ‘real Moslem’ –to accept fully at the deepest emotional levels a religion which, in the words of H.A.R. Gibb ‘set[s] the terms of a new experiment in human religion, an experiment in pure monotheism, unsupported by any of the symbolism or other forms of appeal to the emotions of the common man, which had remained embedded in the earlier monotheistic religions.’” (Geertz 1960:160)

Geertz goes on to describe a tension between the tenets of Islam and the traditional views of the Javanese, a tension which for him can never be fully resolved, despite the attempts of the modernists. The problem, I think, lies in the concept of a “real Moslem,’ to use the term employed by Geertz. Inasmuch as religions must necessarily have features which differentiate them from other religions, what a “real” adherent of religion is proves very difficult to define, much less find. Given that religions and cultures do interpenetrate and influence each other, the ideal of “purity” seems to me to be a pipe dream; at worst, the definition or ideal can be used to buttress certain power and group relations and even perpetuate oppression.

Rather than “purity,” I find that “authenticity” is more helpful. And I would define “authenticity” not merely as compliance with some external measure, but more importantly, authenticity on the level of lived experience. To what extent does this religion permeate the life and consciousness of an individual, of a group? Granted, this makes the discussion more complicated; questions regarding the appraisal of authenticity would inevitably be raised. Moreover, a phenomenology of the religious experience and the experience of authenticity would be required, if only to come to some common understanding of what it means to believe. Such questioning would lead us out of sociology and anthropology and bring us to psychology and philosophy, even theology. And that is a direction that some specialists are unwilling to explore, preferring to stay within the confines of the social sciences.

I think, however, that such a discourse would bring us closer to the reality of the religious experience. To define religion merely in terms of sociological or anthropological data to the detriment of its theological or philosophical underpinnings would be to disregard the place religion holds in the lives of its adherents. To posit a “pure” form of religion would be to forget the dynamics of culture and human systems. Geertz’s evaluation of the Javanese “dilemma” as such comes dangerously close to prescribing a “pure” form of Islam; and I think it is not even Geertz’s place to make that claim at all.

Understanding religion in terms of authenticity and not of purity might allow religions to look at the features common to all those who make some sort of profession of faith. Such an understanding would bode well for inter-religious dialogue and ethical relations between religions. Even if we believe in different things, there is something shared, something human, in the act of believing. Perhaps where concepts of purity divide us, an understanding of authenticity can provide unity.

Geertz, Clifford. The Religion of Java (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960)