Smith has a firm belief in a tripartite division of every place in which his definition of religion operates "manifold techniques, both communal and individual, by which men and women ... sought to gain access to, or avoidance of, culturally imagined divine power by culturally patterned means." (21-22)
The "Here" focuses on domestic religion and the lack of separation into a distinct sacred space along with the ambiguities that exist in such a space as to what the real meaning behind such activities entail.
How can we navigate the ambiguity of meaning of religion in domestic spaces? And should we always prioritize the deliberate actions of sacred spaces as models of religion?
I found Smith's comments about each home being the priority of domestic religion and reference to Fustel that each home is it's own religion very interesting since it highlights the personal experience. (22) What makes this categorization different from any religion at large, does the Greek and Roman world fit this idea better than any other time period, cultural conception or belief system?
The "There" refers to large overarching structures that dominate society in regards to religion with a specific focus on temples as spaces with clear activity. (23)
The "anywhere" seems to refer to both locations that exist in between the ambiguity of the home and the overarching of the public/civic/state religion as well as to moments of change such as those described at the end of the chapter in the activities of imperialism in the Mediterranean that sparks migration and change in relation to the home.
This breakdown into religions of here, there and anywhere can be quite unclear at points since Smith seems to refer to the religions as distinct from one another rather than a continuity of different spaces in which religious activity is manifesting. He seems to be combating overall generalization of religion of society and spaces into one unified form. Do we find this break down into infinitely nebulous categories, moments and spaces helpful?
Smith speaks of a "new world order" that breaks down the religion of the home and replaces it with close knit egalitarian communities rather than families based on contractual bonds rather than genealogical, do we find this accurate? Can the older genealogical bonds also persist alongside this new form of kinship?
Does distinguishing religious activities in this way solve or aid our discussions? Or is this simply an attempt to put a place holder over the spaces of religious activity that are more difficult to interpret? In Smith's breakdown, the religion of "there" seems the most solid in terms of attributing meaning and value, while the religions of "here" and "anywhere" seem in a state of flux or relational dependence.
Also for the sake of this course, if religion is examined in this way what place does magic fall into?