Cognitive Anthropology, Roy Wallis and Cyber Believers: The Application of the Taxonomy Concept to Three Orthodox Websites

  • Đorđe Stojanović PhD Candidate at Department of Ethnology and Anthropology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade
Keywords:
cognitive anthropology, religion on the internet, Roy Wallis, taxonomies, networked religion, classification of religious groups, anthropology of the internet

Abstract

When the internet appeared, both scientists and non-scientists discussed whether it was liberating the media and whether it was going to be transformed into a safe zone for the expression of free opinion. The answer to this question might be found within the cognitive anthropology concept of taxonomies. The etic taxonomy classification of religions (both in the online and/or offline worlds) has existed for a very long time. Still, the question of emic taxonomy remains. In other words, do cyber believers themselves perceive the internet as a place where they can express religious ideas that they could not do in their offline religious communities and connect with people who share the same/similar worldview? The goal of this paper is to answer the question of whether the scientific taxonomy and folk taxonomy (one of the religious cyber influencers chosen as a sample) converge or whether they differ and, in case they differ, whether the internet gives them the opportunity for free expression and making communities. Roy Wallis has been chosen as an example of scientific taxonomy, since his main criterion for classification is precisely the relationship of religious groups towards society (in this case, the mainstream discourse of both Serbian society and the Serbian Orthodox Church).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Banić Grubišić Ana. 2012. ''Istraživanje religije na internetu.'' Antropologija 12 (3): 99-114.
Bigović, Radovan. 2000. Crkva i društvo. Beograd: Hilandarski fond pri Bogoslovskom fakultetu SPC.
Campbell, Heidi. 2011. “Understanding the Relationship between Religion Online and Offline in a Networked Society.” Journal of American Academy of Religion 80 (1): 64-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfr074
D’Andrade, Roy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eriksen, Hylland Thomas. 2004. Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. London: Pluto Press.
Gauthier, Francois and Tuomas Martikainen. 2016. Religion in consumer society: brands, consumers and markets. New York: Routledge.
Karaflogka, Anastasia. 2002. “Religious Discourse and Cyberspace.” Religion 32 (4): 279-291. https://doi.org/10.1006/reli.2002.0405
Komodromos, Marcos. 2016. “How Web 2.0 and social media are changing public relations practitioners’ work: a qualitative study.” International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning 8 (1): 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.075951
Kubat, Lazar. 2016. Patrologija. Kragujevac: Kalenić.
Malešević, Miroslava. 2011. Ima li nacije na planeti Ribog – ogledi o politikama identiteta. Beograd: Centar za geneaološke studije.
Sinani, Danijel. 2010. "Tipologije religijskih organizacija 2." Antropologija 10 (3): 9-22.
Sinani, Danijel. 2009. "Možda si ti ona prava? Nove religije i Alternativni religijski koncepti." Etnoantropološki problemi 4 (1): 163-182. https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v4i1.9
Wallis, Roy. 1984. The Elementary Forms of the New Religious Life. London: Routledge.
Wesch, Michael. 2009. ''Youtube and you – experience of self – awareness in the context collapse of the recording webcam.'' Explorations in Media Ecology 8 (2): 19-34.
Žikić, Bojan. 2012. Misao, kultura, identitet. Beograd: Univerzitet u Beogradu Filozofski fakultet i Srpski geneaološki centar.
Published
2021-07-19
How to Cite
Stojanović, Đorđe. 2021. “Cognitive Anthropology, Roy Wallis and Cyber Believers: The Application of the Taxonomy Concept to Three Orthodox Websites”. Issues in Ethnology and Anthropology 16 (2), 549–574. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21301/eap.v16i2.10.