Evans-Pritchard believed that the sociological approach was critical to understanding religion, however he did not believe that it was prudent to make sweeping generalizations concerning theories of religion. He took each particular culture as an entity in itself to be studied. In this respect, he diverged from Durkheim, who he greatly admired.
Evans-Pritchard studied a group of people called the Azande, which lived in the Sudan region of East Africa. He later studied a group of people called Nuer, who lived to the north of the Azande. In both of these tribes, he immersed himself in the lives of these people and discovered their beliefs and religious practices. He labored to become knowledgeable of the specific theologies of these tribes. He was not looking to explain away their beliefs, but wanted to understand the specific beliefs within the context of the particular tribes. He looked for a “comprehensive” sociological approach, but limited to the scope of a particular group of people (Pals 252). He cautioned that theorists who pretend to understand religious beliefs without studying those beliefs from the inside of the group that practices those beliefs are misguided. He cautioned against universal claims concerning religion, but urged study of all kinds of religions.
James, on the other hand, gave his attention almost exclusively to the individual religious experiences of individuals, and purposefully did not give attention to beliefs and theology. And so, despite their shared approach to religion that did not seek to make it into anything other than what it is – religion – they diverged greatly in this respect. As in the comparison with Durkheim, James’ interest in the psychological states of individual people is indicative of his being a psychologist and philosopher. He was not interested in social processes or studying particular groups or tribes, because he did not share Evans-Pritchards sociological/anthropological approach.
