Final answer:
Key concepts in Talal Asad's article highlight the complexity of defining religion anthropologically, the symbolic approach of Clifford Geertz, and the empirical perspective of Émile Durkheim, as well as the importance of cultural relativism and an emic perspective in studying religion.
Step-by-step explanation:
Talal Asad's approach to understanding religion as an anthropological category challenges the traditional Western concept of religion. Asad, along with other anthropologists such as Clifford Geertz and Émile Durkheim, contributes to a deeper anthropological understanding of religious phenomena beyond the restricted views of early researchers like Sir James Frazer.
Clifford Geertz's symbolic approach defines religion as a system of symbols establishing a powerful and pervasive set of moods and motivations through concepts that have an aura of factuality. On the other hand, Désmile Durkheim focuses on the empirical attributes of religion, breaking it down into unified systems of beliefs, practices, and social organizations.
Anthropological analyses of religion require cultural relativism to avoid misinterpretation based on a researcher’s own cultural lens. Anthropologists strive to comprehend religious beliefs and practices from an emic, or insider’s, perspective—aspects that are clearly pivotal in Asad's critique. Lastly, anthropology acknowledges the complexity and fluidity of religious identities in diverse societies, with a recognition that static definitions are often inadequate to capture the essence of what religion means in different cultural settings.