8.4.3 Philosophical Traditions
There have been two generally contrasting philosophical perspectives on the sources
and meaning of sacred (Stallybrass and White 1986; Chidester and Linenthal 1995).
The first relies on expressions that are conveyed by clergy or elites, characterized as
an insider or poetic stance. Experiential qualities are based on knowledge and
access, often within a relationship of power or prestige. The sacred is expressed as
uncanny, awesome, or as a powerful manifestation of reality, full of ultimate
significance. Rudolph Otto, a theologian and a scholar, equated sacred with holy
as an experience of greatness outside the self. Gerardus van der Leeuw, a Dutch
philosopher, suggested that every establishment of a sacred space was potentially a
conquest and an act of power. A Romanian historian, Mircea Eliade, sharply divided
the sacred and profane into that which is the physical manifestation of a higher
power and that which gives humans no pattern for behavior, respectively. Sacred
space has traditionally been characterized by what is holy, powerful, constant, and
centralized and is manifested in certain physical places that are deemed powerful
centers of meaningful worlds (Eliade 1959).
A competing analysis is found in the works of Emile Durkheim, Claude LéviStrauss, and Arnold van Gennep. In this outsider critique, “sacred” is an empty
signifier; nothing is inherently sacred. Sacred is situational and is a consequence of
social and political exchange. Sacredness is a symbol given to anything, anyone, or
anyplace by a community that consecrates and declares that some thing or space is
different in quality than that which is encountered every day. This definition
describes how place is sacralized by way of a particular culture giving special
attention, memory, design, construction, and control of space in a ritualized manner
(Smith 1992). Durkheim posited that sacred was not the same as divine and argued
that not only are gods and spirits sacred but also things such as rocks, trees,
man-made objects, that is, anything that humans come to find meaningful.
8.4.4 Nature and Sacred
The sacred often takes on spatial form, with the scale of significance ranging from
individual to societal and is often expressed as place. Lewis Mumford observed in
The City in History (1961) that burial grounds, shrines, cairns, and other sacred sites
(including groves or forests) served as the nuclei of human settlements because they
provided deeply remembered cultural centers and prominent sites to which our
nomadic ancestors would return.
Set-aside lands, particularly those having distinctive or dramatic features, have
been prominent sacred places across cultures. Ancient landforms were believed to be
places where gods and deities would reside when coming to the human world. Parks
and gardens were designed to emulate significant landscapes and became the
sanctified places to host gods and spirits. In time, these beliefs about the presence
144
K. L. Wolf
There have been two generally contrasting philosophical perspectives on the sources
and meaning of sacred (Stallybrass and White 1986; Chidester and Linenthal 1995).
The first relies on expressions that are conveyed by clergy or elites, characterized as
an insider or poetic stance. Experiential qualities are based on knowledge and
access, often within a relationship of power or prestige. The sacred is expressed as
uncanny, awesome, or as a powerful manifestation of reality, full of ultimate
significance. Rudolph Otto, a theologian and a scholar, equated sacred with holy
as an experience of greatness outside the self. Gerardus van der Leeuw, a Dutch
philosopher, suggested that every establishment of a sacred space was potentially a
conquest and an act of power. A Romanian historian, Mircea Eliade, sharply divided
the sacred and profane into that which is the physical manifestation of a higher
power and that which gives humans no pattern for behavior, respectively. Sacred
space has traditionally been characterized by what is holy, powerful, constant, and
centralized and is manifested in certain physical places that are deemed powerful
centers of meaningful worlds (Eliade 1959).
A competing analysis is found in the works of Emile Durkheim, Claude LéviStrauss, and Arnold van Gennep. In this outsider critique, “sacred” is an empty
signifier; nothing is inherently sacred. Sacred is situational and is a consequence of
social and political exchange. Sacredness is a symbol given to anything, anyone, or
anyplace by a community that consecrates and declares that some thing or space is
different in quality than that which is encountered every day. This definition
describes how place is sacralized by way of a particular culture giving special
attention, memory, design, construction, and control of space in a ritualized manner
(Smith 1992). Durkheim posited that sacred was not the same as divine and argued
that not only are gods and spirits sacred but also things such as rocks, trees,
man-made objects, that is, anything that humans come to find meaningful.
8.4.4 Nature and Sacred
The sacred often takes on spatial form, with the scale of significance ranging from
individual to societal and is often expressed as place. Lewis Mumford observed in
The City in History (1961) that burial grounds, shrines, cairns, and other sacred sites
(including groves or forests) served as the nuclei of human settlements because they
provided deeply remembered cultural centers and prominent sites to which our
nomadic ancestors would return.
Set-aside lands, particularly those having distinctive or dramatic features, have
been prominent sacred places across cultures. Ancient landforms were believed to be
places where gods and deities would reside when coming to the human world. Parks
and gardens were designed to emulate significant landscapes and became the
sanctified places to host gods and spirits. In time, these beliefs about the presence
144
K. L. Wolf