bonus chapter anthropology of american religion file1 bonus chapter anthropology of american...
Post on 08-Sep-2019
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
BONUS CHAPTER ANTHROPOLOGY OF AMERICAN RELIGION
America’s Silicon Valley might seem like the least likely place in the country to search for
religion: liberal demographics and secularization theory would predict that upwardly mobile,
technology-oriented people such as those concentrated in northern California are among the least
religious Americans. That may indeed be true, or it may be more accurate to say that the religion
of Silicon Valley’s computer professionals is unconventional and adapted to their middle class
lifestyle and their technological worldview. Accordingly, Stef Aupers finds an assortment of
“technopagans” among these modern skilled computer programmers, who “conceive of the act of
programming as magical” (2009: 153). Noting first that “pagans are more active on the Internet
than other religious groups” (156), Aupers follows Erik Davis’ (1995) definition of
technopaganism as a “small but vital subculture of digital savants who keep one foot in the
emerging technosphere and one foot in the wild and wooly world of Paganism…. They are
Dionysian nature worshippers who embrace the Apollonian artifice of logical machines.” The
magic of educated computer professionals, though, is not “magic as a ritual” but rather “the
mystery of intangible, opaque, digital technology,” in which “the personal computer is sometimes
the object of mystical speculations” (Aupers 2009: 161). Ironically but profoundly, computer
technology is both vanishingly small and vanishingly large: it embraces the wonders of
microprocessors and whirling electrons as well as the globe-spanning scope of the World Wide
Web. More, “the Internet can no longer be understood in a mechanical way since it ‘grows’ and
‘behaves’ in an organic fashion”; indeed, “the Internet actualizes an ancient holistic claim about
the universe: like in the cosmos as a whole, everything and everyone is ‘connected’” (161). In a
word, technopagans experience digital technology as a kind of animism: computers and related
technologies seem to have a life of their own, beyond the total understanding or control of
humans. Because computers and the Internet transcend humans although they are human
creations, technopagans see a kind of unpredictability, even agency, in technical systems, and this
2
unpredictability “in turn, raises feelings of ‘awe’—a mixture of fascination, delight and
excitement on the one hand and fearfulness on the other hand” (165)—the sort of experience that
Rudolf Otto associated with religion and “the holy.”
Two hundred years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who could rightly be regarded as the first
fieldworker on American society, described a people who were optimistic, practical, materialistic,
egalitarian in spirit, energetic, a little unsophisticated, and unusually religious. In fact, he wrote,
“The religious atmosphere of the country was the first thing that struck me on arrival in the
United States” (1969: 295). He was surprised not only by the general religiosity of the society but
at the diversity of religion, the “innumerable multitude of sects” (290). All of these sects, he
thought, shared the same basic worldview and morality, including a commitment to freedom and
equality; the original settlers, he opined, “brought to the New World a Christianity which I can
only describe as democratic and republican” (288). He also noted the propensity for religious
extremism, especially in the sparsely-settled western frontier: “Here and there throughout
American society you meet men filled with an enthusiastic, almost fierce, spirituality such as
cannot be found in Europe. From time to time strange sects arise which strive to open
extraordinary roads to eternal happiness. Forms of religious madness are very common there”
(574).
The diversity of American religion has grown dramatically since those early days, but the
character of American religion has been remarkably constant. In this chapter, we will explore the
anthropological contribution to the study of religion in the United States. Admittedly,
anthropology has largely ceded the territory of American religion (and American society in
general) to sociologists, historians, and religious studies scholars, who produced such works as
Sydney Ahlstrom’s (1975) A Religious History of the American People, Robert Ellwood’s (1973)
Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America, Edwin Gaustad’s (1999) Church and State in
3
America, Nathan Hatch’s (1989) The Democratization of American Christianity, Philip Jenkins’
(2000) Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History, Martin Marty’s
(1984) Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, and most recently Robert
Putnam, David Campbell, and Shaylyn Garrett’s (2010) magisterial American Grace: How
Religion Divides and Unites Us. Even geographers like Justin Wilford (2012) and theater scholars
like John Fletcher (2013) have applied their unique tools and perspectives to the subject. Yet,
anthropology is certainly not incapable of investigating American religion, and anthropologists
have increasingly risen to the task in recent years. In so doing, anthropology has improved its
concepts and methods while it has discovered the richness of the American religious scene for
understanding cultural processes of migration, change and innovation, syncretism, secularization
and desecularization, vernacularization, and more. Like researchers prior to and contemporary
with us, anthropologists have marveled at the creativity of Americans in the realm of religion, and
we have insisted more than most that American religion extends far beyond the familiar Christian
sects and beyond Christianity at all.
AMERICAN RELIGION: DIVERSITY AND HISTORY
If ever there was a “religious field” populated by all sorts of distinct yet partially integrated
religions, it is U.S. society. The vast majority of Americans subscribe to some version of
Christianity, but the variations are staggering. According to the latest American Religious
Identification Survey (Kosmin and Keysar 2009), Catholicism continues to rank as the single
largest “church,” with nearly one-quarter of the population in its fold. Protestantism is not and
never has been a single unified church but rather a type of Christianity; loosely defined so as to
include its diverse sects and denominations, it claims about fifty percent of Americans. Thus, the
remaining quarter identify themselves as following “other religions” or “no religions.”
4
Table 12.1 Religious Identification in the U.S.—Christian Groups (Source: American
Religious Identification Survey 2008)
1990 2001 2008 Percentage 2008
Total US adult population 175,440,000 207,980,000 228,182,000
Christian groups 76.0
Catholic 46,004,000 50,873,000 57,199,000 25.1
Baptist 33,964,000 33,830,000 36,148,000 15.8
Protestant (unspecified) 17,214,000 4,647,000 5,187,000 2.3
Methodist/Wesleyan 14,174,000 14,140,000 11,366,000 5.0
Lutheran 9,110,000 9,580,000 8,674,000 3.8
Christian (unspecified) 8,073,000 14,190,000 16,834,000 7.4
Presbyterian 4,985,000 5,596,000 4,723,000 2.1
Pentecostal (unspecified) 3,116,000 4,407,000 5,416,000 2.4
Episcopal./Anglican 3,042,000 3,451,000 2,405,000 1.1
Mormon 2,487,000 2,697,000 3,158,000 1.4
Churches of Christ 1,769,000 2,593,000 1,921,000 0.8
Jehovah’s Witness 1,381,000 1,331,000 1,914,000 0.8
Seventh-Day Adventist 668,000 724,000 938,000 0.4
Assemblies of God 617,000 1,105,000 810,000 0.4
Church of God 590,000 943,000 663,000 0.3
Nondenominational 195,000 2,489,000 8,032,000 3.5
5
Table 12.2 Religious Identification in the U.S.—Non-Christian Groups (Source: American
Religious Identification Survey 2008)
Other Religions 1990 2001 2008 Percentage 2008
Jewish 3,137,000 2,837,000 2,680,000 1.2
Muslim 527,000 1,104,000 1,349,000 0.6
Buddhist 404,000 1,082,000 1,189,000 0.5
Unitarian/Universalist 502,000 629,000 n/a n/a
Hindu 227,000 766,000 n/a n/a
Native American 47,000 103,000 n/a n/a
Scientologist 45,000 55,000 n/a n/a
Baha’i 28,000 84,000 n/a n/a
Taoist 23,000 40,000 n/a n/a
New Age 20,000 68,000 n/a n/a
Eckankar 18,000 26,000 n/a n/a
Rastafarian 14,000 11,000 n/a n/a
Sikh 13,000 57,000 n/a n/a
Wiccan 8,000 134,000 n/a n/a
Deity 6,000 49,000 n/a n/a
Druid n/a 33,000 n/a n/a
Santeria n/a 22,000 n/a n/a
Pagan n/a 140,000 n/a n/a
Spiritualist n/a 116,000 n/a n/a
Total New Religions and
Other Religions
1,296,000 1,770,000 2,804,000 1.2
Atheist n/a 902,000 1,621,000 0.7
Agnostic 1,186,000 991,000 1,985,000 0.9
6
Total No Religion 14,331,000 29,481,000 34,169,000 15.0
Refused 4, 031,000 11,246,000 11,815,000 5.2
In 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted its own U.S. Religious Landscape
Survey, uncovering basically similar but slightly variant results, as shown in Table 12.3.
Table 12.3 Major American Religious Traditions, as Percentage of Adult U.S. Population
(Source: U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 2008)
Religious Tradition Percentage of Adult
Population
Total Christian 78.4
Total Protestant 51.3
Catholic 23.9
Mormon 1.7
Jehovah’s Witness 0.7
Eastern Orthodox 0.6
Total Other Religions 4.7
Jewish 1.7
Buddhist 0.7
Hindu 0.4
Muslim 0.6
Unitarians and other
liberal faiths
0.7
Unaffiliated 16.1
Atheist 1.6
Agnostic 2.4
7
Nothing in particular 12.1
Don’t Know/Refused 0.8
Within those broad categories, the Religious Landscape Survey counted spectacular diversity,
with five subcategories of Judaism, five of Buddhism, four of Eastern Orthodoxy, four of Islam,
twenty-eight of “mainline Protestantism,” and more than fifty of evangelical Protestantism.
A few interesting trends emerge from this research. First, many of the mainstream denominations
have grown little if at all in nearly two decade under review. The fastest-growing religions
relative to their starting size are the non-mainstream Christian and the non-Christian groups,
including Muslims and Buddhists as well as those identifying with no religion; Hindus tripled
between 1990 and 2001, and Wiccans grew almost seventeen-fold.
In terms of Christian denominations, the greatest growth occurred outside the main “churches”
with which Americans are most familiar. For instance, the increase in the number of people
identifying as “Christian (unspecified)” was around seventy-five percent, and
“Nondenominational” exploded from less than two hundred thousand in 1990 to over eight
million in 2008. Specific sects like Jehovah’s Witness and Seventh-Day Adventism enjoyed
strong gains.
Numerous other organizations conduct periodic or ongoing research on American religion. The
Barna Group (www.barna.org), for instance, revealed many interesting things about
contemporary American religion, including how very complex and even inconsistent it is. Some
of the findings include:
79% of Americans believe in an immortal soul (82% of women, 72% of men).
59% reject the reality in Satan, taking him or it to be merely symbolic of evil.
8
Only half of Christians believe that Jesus was perfectly sinless.
44% believe that the Bible, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, etc. are all expressions of the
same spiritual truths. However, 84% of “evangelical” Christians disagree.
Adults under 35 years of age are the least likely to have a “biblical perspective” on life
Religious teachings actually minimally affect people’s moral choices. More important
influences on people’s behavior are the practical outcomes they expect, their desire to avoid
conflict, and their parents.
The overwhelming majority of adults and youths do not believe in absolute moral truth. Two-
thirds of adults and 80% of youths think that morality is “relative,” even though they are
Christians and believe in the accuracy of the Bible. Interestingly, whites endorse relativism
by 60% while non-whites hold it by 74%. “Born-again” Christians were the most likely to
believe in absolute morality.
Other fascinating and maybe surprising results were:
Born-again Christians and non-Christians have the same divorce rate.
Half of all home-schooling parents are born-again Christians.
40% of senior pastors do not have a seminary degree (supporting our contention about the
“populism” of religion, even religious leadership).
After a short surge following the 9/11 attacks, all indicators of American religiosity returned
to pre-attack levels within two months, i.e. there was no long-term religious impact.
Less than 1% of Hispanics belong to a mainstream Protestant sect.
The religious beliefs of church members who started attending as children are no different
from those who did not start attending as children, i.e. childhood “religious education” seems
to have no distinguishing effect.
Religion, American-Style
9
It is understandably difficult, if not impossible, to say anything simple and categorical about
“American religion.” Indeed, anthropologists are quick to point out that we can only speak
sensibly about American religions. Even so, anthropologists and other observers have identified
recurrent themes and patterns across religions, which we might justifiably call an American style
of religion which is, as Mary Douglas argued about religion in general, an illustration of the
consonance between a society and its religions—of the integration of religion into the overall
ethos of a society and of the interpenetration of religious and non-religious elements of a culture.
Among the features that have been suggested for this American style of religion are:
1. Religious searching and revivalism. Martin Marty, one of the leading scholars of American
religious history, has said that Americans are on a “constant pilgrimage,” re-enacting
generation after generation that formative event or paradigmatic act in which believers made
their pilgrimage to a new home. Americans, as de Tocqueville commented long ago, are a
restless people, always on the move, always on the lookout, including in their religious
identity. This has taken the particular form of cyclical “revivals,” in which periods of relative
disinterest or low energy in religion are followed by periods of “re-awakening” of religious
fervor. Along with this has come the uniquely American expression of the literal “tent
revival,” in which preachers—often ones outside the mainstream or “official” churches—
bring religion to the people and attempt to stir up vehemence of believe as well as a more
“moral” or Christian way of life.
2. Anti-authoritarianism or a “populist” or “democratic” style. Americans, partly as a function
of the origin of the country and partly as a function of their egalitarian values, do not like
anyone telling them what to do, even in their religion. So American religion has repeatedly
resisted the “learned men” and formal academic theologians. Instead, religion has tended to
“go to the people” just as it “comes from the people.” Non-ordained, often untrained
preachers have claimed as much right to—and often had more effect on—the religiosity of
10
the populace than any university or high-church official. The latter have often bemoaned the
coarse and untutored teachings of these enthusiasts, but they have also envied their successes.
This “popular religion” has tended to resonate with the interests and even the personalities of
the masses, the rural folk, and the dispossessed.
3. Emotionalism and individualism. Americans are individualists. They also veer toward being
emotionalists. Far back in the country’s history, and recurrently throughout that history, they
have been given to bursts of “enthusiasm” and personal/emotional experiences and
expressions of religion. Religion is not just something for Americans to think or even to do
but to feel. In fact, the elevation of feeling over thinking or doing is a persistent message.
This is partly about the associated individualism, that Americans should not just go along
with religion because everyone else does but should really take it into their individual and
private heart. However, it also has to do with a pervasive anti-intellectualism and a “down
home” simplicity, a “leveling,” of religion, like everything else in the American way of life.
This is why we see repeated appeals to and outbursts of activities like “possessions of the
spirit,” speaking in tongues, “holy rolling,” and such overt forms of religiosity.
4. Separation of church and state. While not all Americans have upheld this principle, and not
all interpret it identically, there has at least been a tendency to favor religious freedom and the
non-interference of government in religion. Formal “establishment” of religion by the
government has been frowned up and prohibited. Many early American politicians and
religious leaders alike recognized the benefit of this separation, so that churches could go
about their business without government burdens and government could go about its business
without religious burdens. People have been willing to accept a certain amount of
secularization of society in order to preserve the purity and freedom-of-action of their
religions. This compromise is often credited with the success and diversity of religion,
ironically perhaps, since, because there was no official religion and religions were free—and
required—to compete for followers in the “religious marketplace,” religion could be as lively
11
and entrepreneurial as any business. In fact, some have suggested that American religion is a
business of sorts.
5. Moralism. Americans tend to have a high opinion of themselves and their place in the world,
which is commonly dubbed “American exceptionalism.” While extreme elements like the
Christian Identity movement regard (white) Americans as the chosen people and descendants
of the true Israel, many mainstream Americans consider their country and society to be
particularly virtuous and moral. They can see themselves as the guarantors of all that is good
in the world, a “shining city on the hill,” facing an “axis of evil” outside their borders. In the
late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, “morality”—often conceived in rather frankly
religious terms (and focusing heavily on sexual issues like homosexuality, abortion, pre-
marital sex, contraception, pornography, etc.)—occupies a prominent place in the national
discourse and the struggle over laws and institutions. According to many observers, the 2004
presidential election was decided on “values issues.”
6. Religious innovation and even unorthodoxy. Americans are innovators, pragmatists, tinkers.
They are only loyal to a thing as long as it “works.” They also trust individual inspiration and
authority. And the country was largely settled in the first place by people who had to and
were willing to break away from traditional homes and authorities. Americans tend to be
willing to try out the new, although this “new” often repackages familiar themes. Some of the
most powerful themes have been sin, the apocalypse and “doomsday,” the “chosen people,”
and individual salvation. This has enabled Americans to reinterpret or invent many divergent
teachings about these basic components which, when mixed with technology and “modern”
experiences like UFOs, has manifested in some surprising syncretistic results. But as Philip
Jenkins (2000) has concluded, extreme and bizarre religious ideas are not a “fringe”
phenomenon in America at all; they may be the essence of American religion.
A Brief History of American Religions
12
Just as American religion is not monolithic, it has not been historically immutable. Instead, it has
passed through a number of phases, each unique in certain ways but also recognizable for
common recurring themes. The first phase of American religion was the “establishment” phase,
in which local communities or entire colonies accepted one (or occasionally more than one)
religion as the “official” religion, with the economic and political benefits that flowed from it. For
instance, governmental bodies would often mandate taxes for the payment of clergy and the
maintenance of church facilities and programs. The end of this phase—“disestablishment”—
began with the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but is still in progress today.
This entailed the disentanglement of religion and politics and the breakup of special relationships
between the government and any (or all) religions or churches. The philosophy, as Thomas
Jefferson expressed it, was that people should not be made to support a religion that they do not
believe in and that both church and state would be healthier if they were kept apart. However,
even before this development transpired—indeed, before the United States was an independent
nation—important movements and changes were already occurring, including the first in a cycle
of religious revivals in what became known as the “Great Awakening.”
The years between 1720 and 1750 are noted for not only an escalation of religious piety and
activity but a change in these factors that was at once novel and typical. The first century of
English occupation of America had been characterized by institutional domination and rigidity of
doctrine and expression. The Great Awakening represents in part a loosening of these bonds but
also a “popularization” of religion, the likes of which we have addressed before and will address
again. This first awakening, like the second and perhaps the one that is occurring in the 21st
century, highlights the processes of innovation, individualism and emotionalism, and anti-
authoritarianism and populism described above. Marty (1984) posited that the essence of the
moment was choice, in both senses of the word: each person must individually choose to commit
13
to religion, and each person has choices as to how to commit, that is, multiple “churches” to
choose between. This was not what the original settlers had envisioned when they established
official churches for specific communities or colonies. However, try as they may, they could not
prevent the emergence of new sects and denominations, sometimes simpler but more effective
than their own. Some of these new sects would join the mainstream churches of our day,
including the Baptists and the Methodists.
These were “grass roots” religious movements, literally bringing religion to the people, especially
the people who had left colonial cities and moved inland. New and competing churches emerged
even in towns like Boston, but the towns and their universities, like Harvard, were seen by many
as places where “men of renown” and learned theologians resided—people who studied religion,
to be sure, but did not live religion and could not communicate religion to the common folk. Their
erudite sermons did not have the “fire” that a person enflamed by the Holy Spirit should have,
and so they could not transmit that fire. This task fell to men of passion, if not learning, like
Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, James Davenport, Charles Woodmason, Devereux Jarratt,
and Samuel Morris. Among them were the first “circuit-riders” of religion, itinerant preachers
who traveled from village to farm to hamlet, stopping to spread the Gospel in open-air or tent
“revivals” wherever they could assemble an audience. They spoke with the well-known
enthusiasm of the evangelist—in fact, they were the first American evangelists, bearers of the
“message” (evangel comes from the Greek root for messenger or good messenger). Not only did
they circulate among the masses, but they delivered the message in a style and language that the
masses could digest. To their opponents—and the staid and established clergy and churches were
their opponents—they were crazy and dangerous. Jarratt for instance knew that the churchmen
saw him as “an enthusiast, fanatic, visionary, dissenter, …madman” (Marty 1984: 123). But they
stirred the listeners, and that was the point.
14
In his study of American religiosity, Eugene Taylor described the emotionalism and
unconventionality of the proceedings and their after-effects: “Trance states, ecstatic whirling,
automatic utterances, falling down in the spirit, joyful exuberance, and spiritual happiness were
all common occurrences” (1999: 18). Those were the signs of the Holy Spirit and of the success
of their missions. Perhaps most compelling and sinister was their contemporary view that they
were in a great battle—not only a battle against sin and the devil but against each other. Samuel
Davies stated it clearly: “The art of war becomes a part of our religion” (quoted in Marty 126).
The period from 1750 to the early 1800s was marked by relative calm in American religion,
perhaps enforced by the literal battle for independence of the new country. Also, as mentioned, it
was the period of the first efforts to “disestablish” official religions wherever they existed. This
was not done, it must be emphasized, out of any animosity toward religion but generally out of
real concern for religion. It was also a time of nation-building and tolerant inclusion: George
Washington himself said that his workers at Mount Vernon could be Christian, Muslim, or
Jewish, African or Asian, and even atheist, as long as they worked well. And it was a time in
which the first efflorescence of new religions and sects settled into their mature and
institutionalized forms. For instance, by the early 1800s Methodism had grown from less than
five thousand members to over 200,000. The leaders of the dominant churches were more than
happy to see the enthusiasm of past decades subside.
Perhaps the new awakening of religion was a reaction to the decades of quiescence, or perhaps to
the social upheavals of starting a new country, together with its expansion ever westward, where
old authorities had little power or did not exist at all. No doubt a major contributor to the next
outbreak of religious enthusiasm and innovation was the energy released by the very
disestablishment of the traditional founding churches; now all churches, old and new, orthodox
and unorthodox, were free to compete in the marketplace of religion, depending on who could
15
offer the most appealing product. So, about a century after the First Great Awakening, a Second
followed in its footsteps. It was a movement of a frontier society on the brink of industrialization;
it was in some measure a grasping for the certainty, the lost stability, that marks so many ages of
new religious movements. Not surprisingly, it was a period (from around 1820 to around 1850) of
new variations on old themes and the foundation of still more, and more heterodox, sects, many
of which survive today as more or less orthodox and mainstream churches or religions.
One of the first signs of a new phase in American religion was the emergence of a “primitive
Christianity” movement originating in various quarters. In the early 1800s Elias Smith had called
for a simpler, more egalitarian kind of Christianity, one in which the masses could interpret the
Bible for themselves; his camp eschewed even a name and merely referred to themselves as
“Christian” or “Disciples of Christ.” James O’Kelly’s Christianity was even more political,
saying: “I contend for Bible government, Christian equality, and the Christian name” (quoted in
Hatch 1989: 70). Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell led yet other segments of the primitivist
movement, and their followers, unnamed “Christians” and “Disciples of Christ” respectively,
combined in 1830 to form the fifth-largest Protestant denomination by the end of the era.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) appeared in this period, as did the
Millerites and Seventh-Day Adventists. Late in the era the Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian
Science) was organized by Mary Baker Eddy (formally inaugurated in 1879) as one of the “health
conscious” movements syncretizing religion and science with the kind of “mind cure” that we
still see today in Scientology and Raelianism.
Pervading the age and many of these specific religious movements was a set of more general
themes, including communitarianism, perfectionism, and “transcendentalism,” along with the
familiar beliefs in scripture and the second coming. The communitarian and perfectionist impulse
16
could be seen in a variety of forms, religious and “social.” Utopian communities were created by
idealists, as in the Oneida community, where private property and often traditional propriety were
eliminated. The “Shakers” or United Society of Believers, founded as early as the end of the
1700s, was another example. Started by “Mother Ann” Lee, it became a separatist colony
demanding common property, strict discipline, unitarianism, material simplicity, spiritual
perfection, and absolute celibacy. In all of these movements we see a new and more urgent kind
of rejection of and withdrawal from the world than seen before in American history.
The other element of the first half of the 1800s was a fascination with “mentalism” or the power
of thought and a kind of naturalism that approached supernaturalism, called transcendentalism.
This movement was characterized by the recurrent American theme that, as Marty attributet to
one of its greatest prophets, Ralph Waldo Emerson, “religion must have feeling, must be feeling”
(1984: 210). Two older influences helped shape the notion—Mesmerism and Swedenborgianism.
Mesmerism arose from the work of Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815), a founding father of
modern hypnotism, who explained the odd phenomenon of hypnosis and especially hypnotic
suggestion as an effect of “animal magnetism.” The mind, or perhaps the entire human being, was
seen as an electrical system, with mental or spiritual energy that could not only affect the health
and happiness of the individual but demonstrably of other individuals as well (e.g., the hypnotic
subject). The other source of transcendentalist thought came from Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-
1771), including his writings The Worship and the Love of God and his eight-volume Arcana
Coelestia. His main claim was that the Christian Bible was not to be taken as a literal, historical
document but as a spiritual code or allegory. He viewed existence as having three “levels” or
“planes”—the physical (animal, vegetable, and mineral), the spiritual, and the celestial. Each of
these planes reiterated the others, such that every entity on the physical plane (he called them
“ultimates”) had a corollary on the spiritual and celestial planes. Therefore, there was no need for
17
slavish obedience to or pained interpretations of the scriptures; the point was to know one’s
relation to the higher realms of reality and to put one’s affections and actions in order.
The early nineteenth-century American transcendentalists who put these thoughts into practice
included Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. American transcendentalism revered nature, but not
so much out of love for nature as because it was the visible manifestation of the spiritual. As
Taylor put it, “Nature had to be preserved in order to remain an effective transmitting medium,
and character had to be perfected so the light could shine through” (63). In this philosophy,
“knowing” nature was not as important as “feeling” nature; in fact, in general, knowing was not
as important as feeling. Second and more scandalously, as Emerson stated explicitly, it not only
displaced but actually rejected old, literalist “religion” in favor of spiritual intuition. Religion as
usually performed was little more than “the dead forms of our forefathers” (quoted in Marty 210).
People could have a direct, intuitive experience of the spiritual, via nature, without reference to
the fossilized old law. Mainstream Christians, the transcendentalists charged, experienced
religion “through the eyes” of the ancients, while transcendentalists claimed they could see the
spiritual source for themselves. They literally asked Americans to “forget historical Christianity.”
Once again the spiritual strivings of Americans were sidetracked, this time by the Civil War and
the period of Reconstruction. However, by the 1870s many of the old yearnings had returned in
recognizable but often distinctly new forms, particularly ones influenced by Eastern, especially
Hindu and Buddhist, sources. This new assortment of religious interests and movements would
sufficiently resemble the late-twentieth century “New Age” as to make the latter seem much less
novel.
The religious innovations of the second half of the nineteenth century represented a blend of
spiritualism, “mind cure,” and Eastern religion. Spiritualism was and is an independent
18
phenomenon in its own right, not directly tied to any particular religion. Related to the
transcendentalist spirituality of previous decades, as well as to general notions about souls and
life-after-death, it involved “interdimensional” communication between the living and the dead.
Spiritualist “mediums” would conduct special rituals or séances, inviting the deceased to “speak”
to the assembled party either through the voice of the medium or through other “signs” such as
knocks and raps, automatic writing (as with a blank chalkboard or Ouija board), tipping over
furniture, and other overt activity. Uriah Clark even published a guide for séance procedures in
1863 called Plain Guide to Spiritualism.
Mentalist/mind cure/”thought power” movements, of the sorts developed before 1850, were
another major force in American life. In fact, the overarching movement was known as “New
Thought” and took many different forms. A pioneer in the field of “mental healing” was Phineas
Parkhurst Quimby (1802-1866), who began conducting healing sessions after 1840, first using a
hypnotized subject as his medium of diagnosis and cure. By the late 1860s Quimby dropped the
partner and did his own curing, using a combination of touch, hypnotic gestures, visual imagery,
and talk. He would enter into a clairvoyant state, where he could observe the patient’s “mental
atmosphere” (like an “aura” in some modern-day practices) containing the person’s memories and
beliefs; the cure amounted to an “adjustment” of those memories and beliefs.
By the time of the “first New Age,” mind cure was big business. Warren Felt Evans (1817-1889),
who was himself treated by Quimby, became a leading practitioner; in 1869 he wrote The Mental
Cure, followed by Mental Medicine (1872) and Soul and Body (1875). For him as for Quimby
and many to come, the cause of illness was unhealthy thoughts and beliefs. Henry Wood
represented another but familiar side of the mentalist movement, that is, the use of “visualization”
or mental imagery. In his 1893 Ideal Suggestion Through Mental Photography he essentially
appropriated Swedenborg’s tripartite distinction (here, material, psychological, and spiritual),
19
suggesting that humans exist on all three levels simultaneously but that disease results from
fixating solely on the material. In reality, he suggested, neither illness nor healing is a purely
physical process but a psychological/spiritual one too. In fact, recovery truly occurs when the
patient opens his or her heart and mind to the “great light” of God, achieved through specific
“meditations” and ideal thoughts, such as “God is here,” “I am not this body,” and “I will be
healed.”
Of all of the “spiritual medicine” movements, the most important and enduring has been Christian
Science. Founded by Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), it survives today as a strong if controversial
church based on the relation between the mind, spirit, and body. Like Evans, she was cured by
Quimby of a nervous condition. However, in the year that Quimby died (1866) she suffered a
spinal injury from a fall, for which she refused medical treatment and “willed herself well”
through religious and biblical realizations and affirmations. She emerged, healed, with the
conviction that mind is everything and body nothing. In 1875, after a decade of traveling,
teaching, and healing, she wrote Science and Health, announcing her system of physical health
through the powers of God alone, apart from any mesmerism or spiritualism or non-Christian,
non-scriptural techniques. In 1879 she was able to create the Church of Christ Scientist in Boston
and shortly thereafter the Massachusetts Metaphysical College. Finally, in 1883 the journal
Christian Science Monitor appeared.
Finally, in the mid and late 1800s Western scholars were discovering Asian scriptures, including
the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu Vedas, and the various Buddhist sutras. Archaeological discoveries
in Egypt and Mesopotamia, India, and the Americas also provided fodder for religious creativity.
Probably the most pervasive and influential was Theosophy (from the Greek for “god-wisdom”).
The Theosophical Society was founded in 1875-6 by “Madame” Helena Blavatsky and Henry
Olcott, born out of Blavatsky’s alleged spiritualist/occult powers. In her 1877 Isis Unveiled she
20
elaborated her occult system, received from “ascended masters” who revealed the knowledge to
her. In 1879 she and Olcott moved the Theosophical Society to India, where it absorbed more
Hindu content and practice (and where Hinduism absorbed its). Yoga and meditation were
discovered and transmitted to the American public; Hindu terms and concepts like samadhi and
guru were popularized. In 1888 she compiled her teachings into the “Bible” of Theosophy, The
Secret Doctrine.
Perhaps the defining moment of the age came at its end, during the World’s Parliament of
Religions in Chicago in 1893. At this event, representatives of many religions stood next to each
other—mainline Protestants, Catholics, Jews, “new religious movements” like Christian Science,
and other religions from around the globe. The most dramatic figure was apparently Swami
Vivekananda, the first impresario of Hinduism to the West but by no means the last. Non-
Western religion found a home in America.
By the turn of the twentieth century, many of these foreign religious concepts and groups had
gone mainstream. However, the period from about 1910 also represents a particular moment of
resistance from the mainstream Christians, who saw themselves in a “battle royal” not only with
forces of secularization and science but equally or more so with “internal” forces, “religious”
people—even Christians—who were making too many concessions to the non-Christian world.
Meanwhile, the “esoteric” movements of the previous century showed no exhaustion either but
rather an almost infinite vitality and variability. Not far behind the Hindu wave came Buddhism,
particularly Zen Buddhism. Daisetz Taitaro Suzuki (1870-1966) brought Zen to San Francisco in
1897, where he introduced Americans to Zen and Taoist writings. Not only that, but in 1911 he
married a Theosophist and himself undertook a study of Swedenborgianism, as well as the
religious psychology of William James, thereby Easternizing certain American traditions and
21
Americanizing certain Eastern ones. Eventually, it would become impossible to separate the two.
In 1927 he published his Essays on Zen Buddhism, and he was sufficiently mainstream by 1955 to
become a visiting professor at Columbia University—a year after the Tibetan Dalai Lama became
an international figure.
The “esoteric boom” of the early 1900s had many other forms and faces. Some of its leading
figures were Aleister Crowley, Edgar Cayce, and H.P Lovecraft. The following is a very short list
of organizations and publications appearing over the span of two or three decades:
1902 R. Swinburne Clymer publishes history of the Rosicrucian movement
1907 Levi H. Dowling publishes The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ
1911 Rudolf Steiner’s The Submerged Continents of Atlantis and Lemuria translated from
German
1915 H. Spencer Lewis founds Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
1920 Paul Foster Case founds mystical order called Builders of the Adytum
1923 Alice Bailey opens Arcane School in New York
1924-35 Baird T. Spalding publishes 5-volume Life and Teachings of the Masters of the Far
East
1924 Ian Ferguson publishes The Philosophy of Witchcraft
1928 Manly Hall publishes Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabalistic, and
Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy
1933 James Hilton publishes Lost Horizon. William Dudley Pelley founds Christian-Fascist
“Silver Legion of America” (the Silver Shirts)
1936 Lemurian Society founded in Wisconsin
This was clearly a fertile time for movements that played on certain powerful themes, including
“revealed teachings,” ancient predecessors, arcane knowledge, Eastern wisdom, and esoteric or
22
“gnostic” Christianity. The appeal of ancient symbolism was so strong that even the Ku Klux
Klan in the 1920s began to use titles like Hydra and Giant and Great Titan and Exalted Cyclops.
Much of the claim to antiquity was hopeful at best and fictitious at worst; the “wiccan” religion,
which purports to be a revival of pagan pre-Christian beliefs and practices, is largely the
invention of Gerald Gardner, from such writings as his 1948 A Goddess Arrives, 1954 Witchcraft
Today, and 1959 The Meaning of Witchcraft.
Religious innovation, often in the name of traditionalism, also took place in the African-
American churches. Not the least of these was the “Black Muslim” movement, descending from
Timothy Drew or “Noble Drew Ali.” In 1913 he opened the Moorish Science Temple in Newark,
attracting many followers of Marcus Garvey and his “Back to Africa” movement. The Nation of
Islam itself was born around 1930 from the efforts of a prophet named Wallace Fard or Wali
Farad or Wallace Ford Muhammad. These organizations had multiple inspirations, but among
them was the 1927 account by William Seabrook entitled Adventures in Arabia, which chronicled
various secret Muslim sects such as the Druze. There were also “black Jew” denominations,
probably after the model of the Church of God and Saints in Christ originated by William S.
Crowdy. Other examples include the “Father Divine” movement identified with George Baker
who by 1915 was referring to himself as a personification of God. Finally, the Caribbean
syncretism known as voodoo (or Vodun or Vodoun) offered itself as an “authentic” religion of
the African diaspora, a mixture of transplanted Africa traditions, Christianity, and indigenous
elements. William Seabrook’s 1929 contribution, The Magic Island, had its impact as well.
All of this proliferation of cults and religions was visible to the public at the time, many of whom
felt themselves under continuous assault from crazy, dangerous cults and false prophets. There
was a significant backlash against the cultism of the early century, akin to the backlash in the
1980s against the “hippy” and California cults of the 1960s and 1970s. Much of the taming of the
23
cults simply occurred with the reversal of American fortunes in the Depression of the 1930s and
then the Second World War. However, as soon as that war was finished, the energy and attention
returned to religious innovation and resistance against it.
Within the mainstream Christian world, the established denominations and churches attempted to
carry on as usual, and many of the “new religions” of the 1800s had now earned a permanent
place in American society. However, the new more militant brand of American Christian
fundamentalism had gotten its start in the first decades of the 1900s. In fact, new energetic styles,
if not exactly churches, emerged and then mobilized to become true political forces by the end of
the century. Two of these styles are evangelicalism and Pentecostalism. Evangelicalism, perhaps
represented best by Billy Graham in the late twentieth century, is the “good news” wing of
contemporary American Christianity. An evangelical is, among other things, a “born again”
Christian, one who has made the personal commitment to Jesus and become a messenger of the
Gospel. Pentecostalism goes a step further and is one of the, if not the, fastest growing segment of
Christianity, nationally and internationally. Marty connected the contemporary Pentecostal
movement to a group of devotees at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh in 1966, who claim to
have been “baptized in the spirit” (1984: 465) and to have exhibited the “gifts” thereof—
prophesying, healing, and most commonly “speaking in tongues” (glossolia). However, we can
trace the essence of the movement back much further and recognize it as one of those recurring
themes of American religion—the personal contact with the “spiritual” and the wonders that flow
from it—wonders of revelation and of power. Pentecostalism, possession of or by the Holy Spirit,
is a form of the “enthusiasm” that American religion has repeatedly demonstrated.
ANTHROPOLOGY OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY
24
A phenomenon as sprawling and socially embedded as American religion seems almost
impossible to study, especially for a discipline that distinguishes itself on ethnographies of
particular local groups, institutions, and activities. However, if we realize that American religion
is actually a vast field of precisely such groups, institutions, and activities rather than a single
unified “thing,” the anthropological approach suddenly appears not only relevant but essential to
the task.
Yet, in Chapter 8 of Introducing Anthropology of Religion (2nd ed.) we noted that as little as a
decade ago anthropologists were bemoaning the lack of an anthropology of Christianity, let alone
an anthropology of American Christianity. And in Fenella Cannell’s resulting The Anthropology
of Christianity (2006), the United States does not figure as the primary research site of any of its
ten case studies.
Among anthropology’s earliest forays into American Christianity were examinations of non-
mainstream communities and sects like the Amish or the black “spiritual” churches. John
Hostetler’s book Amish Society was first published in 1963 and revised in 1968; he followed that
work with a study, co-authored by Gertrude Enders Huntington (1971) on children and education
among the Amish. In his earlier piece, Hostetler conceived of Amish society as a “little
community” in contrast to and in the midst of the “great society” of America, in the style of
Robert Redfield (see Chapter 8). The Amish, he wrote,
are small, a splinter group, whose members conform to traditions based upon biblical
teachings, and who stress separation from the world. A mentality of separation as well as
sentiments of persecution are maintained. When asked about his distinctive traditions, an
Amishman may simply say: “This is the old way of our forefathers who lived and died in the
faith. If it was good enough for them it is good enough for us.”
(1968: 8)
25
As is well known, the Amish kept and keep a unique culture, including “styles of clothing and
grooming, a distinct language, a common occupation, intimate knowledge of other members of
the community, and religious ceremony and common sentiment” (9-10). And of course
Amish life is distinctive in that it is pervasively religious. The core values of the community
are religious beliefs. Not only do the members worship God as they understand him through
the revelation of Jesus Christ and the Bible, but patterned behavior has a religious
dimension. Religion permeates daily life, agriculture, health considerations, and the
application of energy to economic ends.
(10)
Hostetler went on to describe Amish family, life events and ceremonies, and in this and his
second book education and schooling.
Soon, Hans Baer followed with an investigation into the African American “Spiritual” churches
of Nashville, Tennessee, which he characterized as a syncretic blend of “Protestantism,
Spiritualism [see above], Catholicism, and Voodooism” (1980: 53). The eleven congregations in
his research varied from “‘storefront churches, regular church buildings, and former homes which
have been reconverted into churches” to small groups gathering in individual members’ homes
(54). While some of these churches used the term “Spiritual,” others employed names like
“Holiness,” “Divine Science,” or “Holiness church with a spiritual mind.” Tracing the Spiritual
Movement to a Mother Anderson of New Orleans in the early twentieth century, Baer found that
it arrived in Nashville in the 1930s, with two congregations established as late as 1976. The
typical growth process was schism: “An ambitious individual who wishes to assume the role of
pastor may decide the best way to achieve this is to establish his own church” (57), which began
in his home and ideally evolved into a permanent dedicated facility. Membership in these
churches was small, Baer reckoned, with between three and forty people showing up for a
service.
26
These Spiritual churches, he judged, were “superb examples of syncretism and incorporate
elements from a diversity of religious traditions”; at the same time, they “generally lack a well-
defined formal creed and permit a diversity of beliefs among their members. The manner in
which elements from various religious traditions are combined depends largely on the perspective
of the local pastors and their main disciples” (59). Spiritual services typically included “hymn
singing, the emphasis on testimonies, the elaborate manner of taking up the offering, the call and
response pattern, and the style of delivering the sermon or message”; they also featured “spirit
possession, divine healing, prophesy, shouting, hand clapping and foot stomping, and tambourine
playing” but interestingly seldom speaking in tongues (59). In addition to these enthusiastic
practices, at least some members used “a wide variety of amulets, charms, incense sprays, herbs,
baths, floor washes, perfumes, oils, special soaps, talismans, powders, roots, and incenses” (61).
Baer concluded:
Despite certain functional similarities between the Spiritual movement and Black Protestant
groups, it is the emphasis on the manipulation of one's present condition through the use of
various magico-religious practices that tends to distinguish the former from some of the
more conventional religions among Black Americans. The belief that events can be
controlled by magico-religious practices is found in all walks of life, but particularly among
the poor.
(63)
Box 1 Prayer and Suffering in a Contemporary Holiness Church
Spiritual or Holiness Christianity is not exclusive to the South or to African Americans, as Parvis
Ghassem-Fachandi’s recent study of an upstate New York church illustrates. The beliefs of the
Church of the Nazarene advocate “Christ-like living (‘scriptural holiness’) and the establishment
27
of an intimate, personal relationship with God. The fellowship with Christ promises life after
death, and more importantly, stresses a deeper present life in which there can be victory over sin
through the witnessing and serving of God by means of the power of the Holy Spirit” (2007:
236). Unlike Baer’s Spiritual congregations, the members of the Church of the Nazarene are
primarily white but poor, uneducated, and lower class; significantly, “women with children but
without husbands” are common at the services, and “family break-ups” are a major concern of the
church (238). Ghassem-Fachandi goes so far as to assert that it “might be characterized as a
church of the ‘fallen and left-behind.’ What is left behind in the church is what appears to be the
detritus of Ithacan Christian society: the poor, the goofers, the ugly, the disfigured, the one-
legged, the cancerous, the humiliated, the divorces, the interminably ill…. Instead of
experiencing upward mobility, their trajectory has been only downward” (239). He argues that
“abjection” or the experience of being left out and beaten down is central to the church, which is
“complemented by a proud nationalist rhetoric with a peculiar ‘American’ twist: an ultra-
conservative worldview that foregrounds suspicion of the central government” (239). Prayer is
the primary response to the threats to the members and the country, since the church’s doctrine
“understands life to be a concrete battle against the power of evil that lurks everywhere. Any
emotionally unsettling event requires a supplication in the form of immediate prayer, irrespective
if in response to personal disappointments and setbacks in life, marital conflict, or political
events” (240). Collective prayer more than individual prayer is key, which “has the character of a
public shaming ritual” (241). “To be prayed for and to request a prayer defines the essence of
participation in the community, and results in a kind of transparency about private desires and
lives” (242). But the “recognition and voicing of pain” is only the first step in a process that leads
through “the promise of the wrath of God” to “the transformation of abjection into chosenness”
(246). However, members do not expect to have their abjection suddenly lifted; instead, “forms of
abjection become a religious good through prayer and its symbolic transformation of weakness
and bodily ailments into power, chosenness, and the promise of the wrath of God. The mutual
28
laments and exchanges of weaknesses and ailments relate the small community to itself…. Sin is
the only thing left to offer to Him. Yet, although repentance should lead to the state of grace, to
being freed of sin and ‘innocent like a baby,’ sin always again returns and inscribes itself onto the
trembling subject” (255) who remains all the same abject. Prayer only “affirms parishioners’
sense of abjection,” and “those political ideologies most conducive of escaping this vicious cycle
are branded as the most evil of all” (256).
American Evangelical Christianity
One of the most striking developments of the twentieth century was the rise of evangelical
Christianity in the United States, and anthropologists could not help but take notice of this
happening. Evangelical pastors, churches, and organizations became major players in American
society and politics, especially after 1979 and the formation of the Moral Majority and Focus on
the Family. As discussed in Chapter 8, Susan Harding did fieldwork inside Jerry Falwell’s
ministry in the 1990s, documenting the philosophy and structure of this new kind of American
Christianity that broke the pre-existing truce between evangelicalism (as a movement strictly
interested in “saving souls”) and the wider political and secular society. The great achievement of
this new form of evangelicalism was to modernize Christianity at the same time that it sought to
Christianize society. Falwell reasoned that “God wanted fundamentalists to reenter, to reoccupy,
the world” and to use modern social and political tactics to achieve their goal, indeed to learn and
absorb the lessons of business and popular suburban culture. The role of preachers like Falwell
was to “‘stand in the gap’ between the language of the Christian Bible and the language of
everyday life,” translating biblical talk “into local theological and cultural idioms and placing
present events inside the sequences of the Biblical stories. Church people, in their turn, borrow,
customize, and reproduce the Bible-based speech of their preachers and other leaders in their
daily lives” (2000: 12). Precisely because preachers and congregants spoke the same Christian
29
language, the church did not have to institute a rigid centralized structure; instead, Falwell’s
organization “was managed by loose, fragmentary pastoral networks or weak denominational
structures,” leaning heavily on “parachurch organizations” (274), like branches of a franchise
“big box” department store. Falwell recognized
the synergistic principle of placing at least two or more services at one location to attract the
customers. A combination of services of two large companies with small supporting stores
has been the secret of the success of shopping center. The Thomas Road Baptist Church
believes that the combined ministries of several agencies in one church can not only attract
the masses to the gospel, but can better minister to each individual who comes.
(16)
In an earlier essay Harding stressed the point that evangelical Christianity—indeed all
Christianity and all religion—is essentially a form of language and that “converting” amounts to
acquiring a new language. Christianity, but especially Protestantism, has long “centered on
words, on the Word” (1987: 168), and most brands of Protestant Christianity distinguished
themselves from Catholic and Orthodox churches by stripping away the visual and ritual
trappings and concentrating, sometimes exclusively, on language (e.g. scriptures). Observing a
fundamentalist Baptist congregation, Harding claimed that among the linguistic practices through
which members perform their religion—and through which individuals are inducted into the
religion—the two most important were preaching and witnessing. Preaching or giving a sermon
“is a formal oration addressed to a body of believers and nonbelievers by an ordained or anointed
speaker in church services and revivals. Sermons occur in the context of clear ritual format, of a
collective, sanctifying scenario, in which the mode of interpretation is enacted” (168-9).
Witnessing on the other hand “is more informal and often occurs in the course of what appears to
be no more than a conversation between the witness, who is saved, and an unsaved listener”(169).
As such, any person, not just an ordained minister, can—and should—engage in witnessing. But,
30
whether it is between two members or between a member and a nonbeliever, witnessing “is no
mere conversation. The witness and the unsaved ‘do not share a common understanding—either
of the immediate situation or of reality more generally.’ Witnesses are ‘aware of this difference in
understanding and self-consciously set out to change the views of those they address,’ and to
create a ‘compelling religious reality completely at variance with their [listener’s] experience’
(Borker n.d.: 1, 3)” (169).
The goal of preaching and witnessing, with their characteristic use of biblical and biographical
narratives, was to reshape the listeners’ experience, to create a “crisis” in the listener, which is the
first step in the conversion process or “what fundamentalists call ‘coming under conviction’”
(170). If the process proceeds and succeeds, “the inner speech of ‘convicted sinners’ is
transformed as they are alienated from their previous voices (‘the old self,’ ‘natural man’); cast
into a limbo (‘lost,’ ‘in need,’ ‘searching’), that is to say, somehow in a liminal state, a state of
confusion and speechlessness; and begin to hear a new voice (‘an inaudible voice,’ ‘the Holy
Spirit’)” (170). This is the “inner rite of passage” that ends “when sinners are ‘saved,’ or ‘born-
again,’ ‘regenerated,’ ‘washed in the blood of Christ’” (170). Still more precisely, she reported
that the preaching-and-witnessing performance of the church’s minister consisted of five
“moves”: “equating his present listener with the listeners in his stories; defining the listener as
lost; defining the speaker as saved; transforming his narrative listeners into speakers; exhorting
his present listener to speak” (171). One implication of this linguistic view of religion is the
mutual unintelligibility of different religions or of religion and non-religion. Members literally
speak a different language from non-members, and on a certain level members of the religion
comprehend this: “believers say that unbelievers cannot understand their faith” (171)—not that
unbelievers think it is false but that they literally cannot comprehend what believers are saying.
As nonmembers become more acquainted with religious talk, as they acquire familiarity and
fluency, and as they practice it and perform it themselves, the talk—and the reality that the
31
religion talks about—gradually becomes familiar, begins to make sense, and integrates into the
individual’s own subjective experience of her/himself and of the world.
Harding’s insistence that “spiritual realities are not communicated through sensuous,
nonlinguistic means” (168) is hardly applicable to all versions of Christianity, let alone of other
religions, but Tanya Luhrmann contests the claim that it is entirely true of evangelical
Protestantism. In a series of writings culminating in her 2012 When God Talks Back:
Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God, Luhrmann asks how God
becomes real for American evangelicals, and she answers that “believing in” and experiencing
God is “a skill” acquired through “ritual practices and psychological techniques [that] are not
ancillary but central to contemporary spirituality. At least, congregants seem to want to
experience the Gospel in intensely bodily ways that seem to make the message of the Gospel
come alive for them in a way it has not previously” (2004: 518). Part of this learning process she
calls “metakinesis,” which is “a term used in dance criticism to depict the way emotional
experience is carried within the body so that the dancer conveys the emotion to the observer and,
yet, does it by making the expressive gesture uniquely his or her own” (519). In the context of
religion, she defines metakinesis as
mind-body states that are both identified within the group as the way of recognizing God’s
personal presence in your life and are subjectively and idiosyncratically experienced. These
states, or phenomena, are lexically identified and indeed the process of learning to have
these experiences cannot be neatly disentangled from the process of learning the words to
describe them.
(522)
Luhrmann does not deny the role of language, but she envisions it as only one of the means to the
construction of religious experience, including metakinesis and also relationship. Building off her
32
ethnography of the Horizon Christian Fellowship in southern California, she writes that most
members believed “intellectually” in God before joining the church but did not actually
experience God and thus were not transformed. Through formal services, informal home-based
fellowship meetings, and extensive reading, people learned to “walk with God,” a phrase that
refers “both to learning to develop a relationship with God and to managing the everyday
challenges of your faith: temptation, frustration, and disappointment” (521). Further, the objective
“Word of God” in the Bible came to be felt as if it were speaking directly to—in fact, written
specifically for—each individual.
Of course, prayer is still a foundational religious practice, but Luhrmann asserts that it has two
effects.
First, it encourages people to attend to the stream of their own consciousness like eager
fishermen, scanning for the bubbles and whorls that suggest a lurking catch. And, perhaps,
because memory is adaptive and perception obliging, they begin to note the discontinuities
that are natural to our state and actually to interpret them as discontinuous, rather than
smoothing them over with the presumption of a simple integrated self. Second, it demands
that people engage in practices that help them to go into trance. Trance is an ominous-
sounding word, but I mean something relatively straightforward by it: that one can become
intensely absorbed in inner sensory stimuli and lose some peripheral awareness.
(524)
Members literally experience this transformation as “falling in love with Jesus,” which is
encouraged in its most literal sense: “They repeatedly spoke of Christ as their lover or their
greatest love and described this love in physical terms. Even the men did so, although for them
He was more buddy than boyfriend” (524).
33
This obviously emphasizes the relational nature of this brand of evangelicalism. “At Horizon, the
goal of worship is to develop a relationship with God. Developing that relationship is explicitly
presented as the process of getting to know a person who is distinct, external, and opaque, and
whom you need to get to know in the ordinary way” (525). Together, these linguistic,
metakinetic, and relational skills “give a kind of real reality to God because they create the
experience of social exchange between opaque individuals, between individuals who cannot read
each other’s minds and must exchange goods or words in order to become real to each other, in
order to know each other’s intentions” (525). Elsewhere she calls this process an “inner sense
cultivation” (Luhrmann and Morgain 2012), learning to attend to and to interpret one’s own
thoughts and feelings in a new way, or a “cultural kindling of spiritual experiences” (Cassaniti
and Luhrmann 2014). (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qIrRNmOwjQ for a video of
Luhrmann’s talk to the Global Ethics Forum.)
Box 2 “Emerging Evangelicals” and the Emerging Church Movement
Like every other form of religion, American evangelical Christianity is an evolving and adapting
creature. One of its many incarnations is what theologians and members themselves call the
“Emerging Church movement,” and in his ethnography James Bielo describes Emerging
Evangelicals as “religious subjects reflecting and responding to the cultural conditions of
modernity and late modernity” (2011: 17). Bielo investigates their processes “of identities
fashioned, practices performed, discourses articulated, histories claimed, institutions created, and
ideas interrogated in this cultural field” (5), which might sound highly academic except for the
fact that Emerging Evangelicals actually speak this way. They tend to be “white, male, middle-
class, well-educated, urban, Gen-X pastors, church planters, church consultants, and concerned
laity” (5) who are well-versed in the language of modern society yet explicitly critique and
contrast themselves from the commercial, materialistic, inauthentic modern world—and from
34
conventional evangelicalism. As modernists or postmodernists, one remarkable trait of Emerging
Evangelicals is irony, a certain “indirectness, inversion, circumlocution, satire, parody, pretense,”
and playful self-awareness (49). This allows them to engage in humor (not usually associated
with serious Christianity) and in “worshiping God in ways that seem patently non-Evangelical”
such as “public reading of monastic and Catholic prayers, burning incense, replacing fluorescent
lighting with candles, setting early Protestant hymns to contemporary music, chanting Eastern
Orthodox prayers, using icons, creating prayer labyrinths,” and so forth (71). In a word, they
borrow and blend, innovate and simulate, all while claiming to get back to the basics or
fundamentals of their religion. They also talk in terms of other paradoxes, such as “ancient-
future” and the “now, not yet kingdom.” Ultimately, Bielo concludes that modern or postmodern
society need not “result in a loss of faith” (197) but that Christianity, even evangelicalism, can be
as diverse, syncretic, and (post)modern as any element of culture.
Inventing and Exporting American Christianities
Cultures do not respect social or national boundaries; they circulate transnationally, combining
with local elements in a process that has been dubbed “glocalization.” Religions are the same:
many new religious movements and characteristically American kinds of Christianity have
appeared in the United States and then been carried to other societies by missionaries, literature,
and digital media. In fact, in the late twentieth century, Americans have been primary
proselytizers of Christianity around the world, through such organizations as the U.S. Center for
World Mission (www.uscwm.org; see http://www.missionfrontiers.org for its online magazine
Mission Frontiers), Mission Nexus (http://missionexus.org) of the Great Commission Community
of North America, Bible translation agencies like the Summer Institute of Linguistics (sil.org),
and any number of projects sponsored by specific churches and denominations. The result has
been the evolution of what Rebecca Kim calls “American global Christianity,” with its three
35
components of “American imperialism, a modern-necolonial imperialism; American Christianity,
particularly American Protestant Christianity, which remains influential in the United States and
abroad; and a white dominant racial hierarchy that is embedded in both American imperialism
and American Christianity” (2015: 9).
Two highly influential brands of American global Christianity have been Pentecostalism and
Mormonism. According to Robert Hefner (2013), the history of Pentecostalism—a style of
Christianity that emphasizes “gifts of the Holy Spirit” such as miraculous healing and speaking in
tongues—in North America is usually traced to the Azusa Street Revival in south Los Angeles
between 1906 and 1909. By 1907 mission churches had been set up in India, China, and Chile as
well as European countries like Norway and England; within a few years there were branches in
Brazil, Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
Predictably, most of the anthropological attention to Pentecostalism has focused on non-Western
sites, but Josh Brahinsky for one has investigated the phenomenon in the United States. Invoking
Luhrmann’s analysis of religious metakinetic learning, he contends that “Pentecostals are deeply
enmeshed in this kind of learning. In building a locus for the connoisseur, sage, and savant of
transcendence, Pentecostals put intensive study into bodies, texts, practices, and their
interrelationships so as to effectively invite experience of what they call the ‘Holy Spirit’” (2012:
216-7). His interest is the “sensorium” or universe of sensations and experiences of
Pentecostalism, arriving at the surprising conclusion—to those who imagine Christianity as a
purely “spiritual” and otherworldly doctrine—that for Pentecostals, “corporeality provides a
means toward spiritual legitimacy. For Pentecostals, bodies matter. But more, the significant body
emerges from a consciously cultivated sensorium, where contested negotiations between doctrine
and practice as well as the modern outside invigorate vernacular corporeal logics” (232).
36
With even deeper roots in American soil, Mormonism or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints (LDS) harks back to the enthusiasms of nineteenth-century American Christianity.
Originating in upstate New York in the 1820s from revelations experienced by Joseph Smith, the
LDS congregation traveled to Illinois and eventually settled in their “desert kingdom” of Utah in
1847, from which they rapidly dispatched missions to Latin America and the Pacific. Today the
church boasts fifteen million members worshipping in 189 languages worldwide, with 84,000
missionaries in the field (see www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-stats).
In one of the few book-length anthropological studies of LDS, Melvyn Hammarberg explains that
members
see themselves as actively transforming the world and its people into the kingdom of God on
earth, anticipating the millennial reign of Jesus Christ prior to the final judgment. In the
process, they also believe they are achieving personal standing among the community of all
spirit persons—whether previously born into this mortal life, living now, or yet unborn—
who will be organized as immortal celestial families for eternity. This vision of the past,
present, and future is cosmic in scope, yet grounded in an American restoration of all things
that Latter-Day Saints (LDS) believe are ancient, sacred, and eternal.
(2013: 1)
Hammarberg documents the history of the denomination, its basic beliefs, and what he calls its
“life plan” for members who are registered at birth as “a child-of-record” in the church and then
subjected to a number of life stages and rituals such as baptism and confirmation. He describes
the formal training for children, who are introduced to church doctrines through classroom
teaching from age eighteen months to eleven years with manuals, magazines, and other materials
published by the church. Mission work is a standard part of the Mormon experience, with all
young males recommended to undertake a two-year period of mission; approximately one-third of
males accept the duty, as well as ten percent of females. For this purpose, the Missionary
37
Training Center in Provo, Utah provides instruction for missionaries, whether their destination is
“stateside” or international.
World Christianity Comes to America
And so it seems that the flow of Christianity has been from America (and Europe, of course) to
the non-Western world. However, as anthropologists have long commented, non-Western
societies have accepted American or Western global Christianity selectively and have actively
invented their own Christianities. Hence, observers like Philip Jenkins (2007) have perceived a
new global Christianity, which he calls The Next Christendom, coming out of the non-West and
especially out of the “global south” of Latin America, Africa, and India. Naturally these non-
Western and southern Christianities travel with migrants from these other parts of the world, such
as the Haitians who brought and/or established not only Catholic but also Protestant (and some
Vodou) congregations in southern Florida. And like other new arrivals, they brought what Terry
Rey and Alex Stepick call, following Pierre Bourdieu, their own cross-denominational religious
collusio—a shared style or worldview—that “life in this world is inhabited by invisible,
supernatural forces that are to be served and which can be called upon and operationalized toward
healing ills, mitigating plights, enhancing luck, and achieving goals” (2013: 9-10). The Haitian
style or collusio features “the generation of and quest for ‘salvation goods’ in the form of luck
(chans), magic (mahi), protection, health, prosperity, and, especially, worthiness” (5), whatever
the specific Christian (or non-Christian) faith.
Many such communities do religion basically by and for their own community. Much more
pertinent are those Christian churches and sects that are self-consciously involved in what has
been called “reverse mission,” that is, to missionize and Christianize their former missionary
masters with their own understandings and styles of Christianity. A number of African Christian
38
churches has been documented actively proselytizing their particular Christian message to
Americans (and Europeans), like the Presbyterian Church of Ghana in New York (PCGNY),
which Moses Biney characterizes as “an overseas mission” (2011: 65) of African Christians to the
United States. So far, understandably, the PCGNY is more an outreach to Ghanaian immigrants
living in the U.S. than a serious contender for the American Christian mainstream, but it aspires
to a wider impact on American religion and society. Also active in the United States is the
Nigerian-based Redeemed Christian Church of God North America, which claimed six hundred
parishes in the U.S. and Canada in 2011, not to mention others in the Caribbean, South America,
the Middle East, and Australia (www.rccgna.org/The-Church/Origin). Another group of Nigerian
origin is the Deeper Life Bible Church, with an impressive footprint in the eastern half of the
United States (www.deeperlifeonline.org/locations-2/americascaribbeans). Beyond Africa, the
Brazilian institution called the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God landed in New York in
1986 and has added sites around the United States as well as Latin America, Europe, Africa, and
Asia—ninety-six countries in all (www.uckg.org.au/about-us.aspx). All of this activity is
understood by its leaders as “‘part of a divine plan’ to plant churches in the West and bring
spiritual renewal” (Kim 2015: 5) to parts of the world that they believe have become at best
lukewarm in their Christianity and at worst secular and irreligious.
Box 3 The Korean Mission to America
Koreans have been among the most fervent recipients of Christianity, often from American
missionaries. By 2006, Koreans had learned their lessons so well that “South Korea ranked as the
number two missionary-sending country in the world” after the United States (Kim 2015: 2).
Rebecca Kim reports that there were almost 26,000 Korean missionaries in the field in 2013,
operating in 169 countries and obviously not seeking to minister only to the Korean diaspora:
“They want to preach the gospel to Americans, particularly white Americans. Among the top ten
39
host countries for Korean missionaries serving in 2000, the United States ranked eighth” (2). Like
other reverse missions, the Korean mission sees the U.S. as a faded Christian society, “full of
nominal Christians without substance” (4). Also like many other reverse missions and Jenkins’
New Christendom, they bring “an intense, biblical, and conservative evangelical faith and
practice” shaped by their indigenous culture and history—in this instance, “indigenous Korean
culture and ‘the underside of history’” (6). For that reason Kim dubs them “hyper-Korean
evangelicals” whose style is yet “also supported by a Confucian-influenced hierarchical,
conformist, and military-like organizational system that pushed them to give their all and to
engage in aggressive evangelism” (6). Focusing on an outfit called University Bible Fellowship,
“an international evangelical campus ministry that focuses on world campus mission” with over
1,400 missionaries and 105 chapters in the United States (19), Kim argues that “much of the
enthusiasm to ‘save’ and revitalize America was part of mid-twentieth-century Koreans’ drive for
personal and national uplift—to change from ‘rice Christians’ into history makers” (16) and to
prove themselves the equal of America. Interestingly, despite their unique culture and their
inherent critique of American Christianity, Kim already finds that Korean missionaries have
“turned to the popular white American evangelical megachurches for models and guidance. They
began mimicking contemporary white American evangelical worship styles and ways of
organizing and tried to tone down their intensity. They tried to act more like a ‘normal’ American
evangelical church” (18).
ANTHROPOLOGY OF AMERICAN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
As our opening statistics illustrated, most Americans identify with some version of Christianity,
although this field of Christianities is incomprehensibly diverse and becoming ever more so. At
the same time, a not inconsiderable number of Americans ascribe to other religions, and a
reasonable answer to the question, “What religions are in America?” is “All of them.” However,
40
in this section, and anthropologically, we are interested not only in non-Christian religions in
America but American non-Christian religions, that is, other religions besides Christianity in the
United States that have “made a home” in the society and that have become identifiably
American in the process.
American African Religion
Some of the earliest non-Christian religions arrived in North America with African immigrants
and slaves, and African religions have continued to arrive ever since. Jane Parish recently
described how Akan people of Ghana blend their witchcraft beliefs with modern life in New York
City, where especially the young immigrants embrace America’s “celebrity fetishism and will do
almost anything to pursue their dream and achieve wealth and fame” (2013: 7). This “almost
anything” includes visiting anti-witchcraft shrines erected around the city, since the ambitious
young Akans “have deduced that witchcraft is ‘a hidden, dark force’ that is preventing them from
becoming rich and famous…. The shrine is also a place that can feed them ‘the secret celebrity
gossip’ necessary in their eyes to give them a competitive edge over their rival and provide them
with the means by which to do this once the witch has been eradicated” (8).
Other African religions have recently penetrated the United States, after a long history of flowing
to and mixing with beliefs in the Caribbean. For example, Robin Poynor analyzes the
construction of altars to the famous Yoruba god of iron, Ògún, in south Florida. In Poynor’s
account, a contingent of African Americans began exploring African religions in the 1950s and
1960s, as a result of which Walter Eugene King founded first the Order of Damballah Hwedo in
New York and then in 1959 the Sango Temple and in 1960 the Yoruba Temple. In 1970 some of
the members relocated to South Carolina, where they founded Oyotuniji, “a Neo-Yoruba
community” based on “an American version of the Yoruba culture of Nigeria,” with King
41
declaring himself oba or king in 1972. Eventually a faction moved on to Gainesville, Florida and
then Miami. Interestingly, trips to Nigeria by movement leaders re-established contact with the
“homeland” of Ògún, but the multi-religious culture of Miami also brought “contention among
various òrìsà -related groups such as Santería, Lucumi, and Oyotunji, along with Haitian Vodou
followers. These ideologies produce a religious environment of competition and sometimes
aggression” (22), which is reflected in the contrasting character of the shrines in rural or urban
settings.
In the contentious urban atmosphere, Ògún’s face must be one of strength and defiance,
harsh and intimidating, because the òrìsà is called upon to protect against real and imagined
evils and hostilities. In the Miami shrine, Ògún is the frightening lord of war and the
terrifying protector. In the [rural] Hawthorne shrines, by contrast, Ògún is the maker of
civilization, the preparer of the way. Here objects include saws, pickaxes, hammers, shovels,
rakes, posthole diggers, hoes, an iron furnace, chains, wheels, railroad spikes and rails—in
other words, objects of production and civilization.
(23)
Among the many religions that were born on American soil is the African-related practice that
Zora Neale Hurston described in her hundred-page article as “hoodoo.” Hoodoo, like the more
familiar voodoo or Vodou, she contended, derived from the West African word juju, but among
African Americans it was and is also called simply “conjure” (1931: 317). Hoodoo beliefs and
practices
are found wherever any number of Negroes are found in America, but conjure has had its
highest development along the Gulf coast, particularly in the city of New Orleans and in the
surrounding country. It was these regions that were settled by the Haytian [sic] emigrees
[sic] at the time of the overthrow of French rule in Hayti [sic] by L’Overture…. They
42
brought with them their hoodoo rituals, modified of course by contact with white civilization
and the Catholic church, but predominantly African.
(318)
Naturally the Afro-Caribbean traditions absorbed local African American elements, including in
New Orleans “herbs, reptiles, insects” and “the altar, the candles, the incense, the holy water, and
blessed oil of the Catholic church”; in Florida, though, “no use is made of such paraphernalia.
Herbs, reptiles, insects, and fragments of the human body are their stock in trade” (318).
Also incorporated into Hoodoo was “spiritualism”: “The dead and communication with the dead,
play traditionally a large part in Negro religions” (319). Katrina Hazzard-Donald recently found
hoodoo alive but inevitably changing in the twenty-first century. She dubs it “the folk, spiritual
controlling, and healing tradition originating among and practiced primarily, but not exclusively,
by captive Americans and their descendants primarily in the southern United States” (2013: 2). It
is extremely syncretistic, “heavily influenced by Native American custom, knowledge, and
tradition” (7) as well of course as by Euro-Christianity. Classic hoodoo involved dance, healing
practices, amulets and charms, and plant medicine, but she also complains that “old tradition
black belt Hoodoo” competes today with “‘marketeered’ or ‘snake-oil Hoodoo’” (15), a modern
(and in her eyes largely inauthentic) form that turns to “the curio shop, the mail-order
marketplace, and Hoodoo mail-order catalogs for supplies” (157). The influx of new
practitioners, outsiders, and perhaps charlatans has even led to the formation of the National
African Religion Congress (www.narcworld.com/home.html) as, according to its website, “the
certifying board for priests and priestesses of African-based religion worldwide.”
American Hinduism and Buddhism
43
Hinduism and Buddhism are quintessentially “Eastern” religions to most Americans, but they are
just as much global religions, since migrants and gurus have carried them around the world, as
documented in Pratap Kumar’s (2013) recent edited volume, which disappointingly does not
include one chapter drafted by an anthropologist. Even so, two of the essays deal with the United
States, describing for instance the Hindu American Religious Institute
(haritemple.org/hari/default.aspx ) in rural Pennsylvania, the Washington Kali Temple
(www.kalitemple-washington.org), a Bengali Hindu center in suburban Maryland, the Vedanta
Center of Greater Washington DC, and the Nepali Hindu community in southern California.
The United States was not only introduced to Hinduism and Buddhism in the late nineteenth
century but helped to introduce those religions to the rest of the world—and to shape those
religions, even for the people who already practiced them—through the Theosophical Society,
founded by Russian immigrant Helena Blavatsky and American Henry Steel Olcott in New York
City in 1875. The pair relocated to India in 1880 where they promoted their understanding of
Hinduism and Buddhism in India and Sri Lanka. Equally influential for spreading Hinduism in
the U.S. was the World’s Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, which featured a visit by
Swami Vivekananda as an emissary of the Ramakrishna Mission, advocating the Vedanta
teachings of Hinduism. Vivekananda founded the first Vedanta Society in New York in 1894, and
soon there were thirteen Vedanta centers across the country. Meanwhile, the Zen Buddhist mater
Daisetz Taitaro Suzuki came to America in 1897.
Kirin Narayan described how these early “holy men” were viewed and depicted in the United
States and the wider West. Popular media like National Geographic, he asserted following Arjun
Appadurai (1988), had a tendency “to exoticize, to essentialize, and to totalize” the Hindu “other”
(1993: 480), focusing on the most extreme and bizarre practices and assuming that those
characterized all Hindus. As one 1913 article asserted, “The very spirit of the East, its subtle
44
philosophy, the incarnation of its deepest desire, the product of its age-long effort, all are
embodied in the Indian Sadhu [i.e. holy man] and his self-inflicted penance” (quoted 281).
Andrea Jain (a religious studies scholar, not an anthropologist) echoed Narayan’s findings in her
recent study of the popular American pastime of yoga, which was surprisingly “feared and
loathed” (2014: 22) and “deemed a threat to prevailing religious and social orthodoxies” (24)
when it first appeared in the country and slowly evolved into something that was palatable to
Americans if only vaguely reminiscent of actual Hindu practice. A number of Indian and
American figures contributed to Westernizing and mainstreaming yoga in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, “salvaging yoga from its reputation as a system of extreme, antisocial
practices and instead establishing its legitimacy as a philosophical, meditational, or ethical
tradition” (28). Vivekananda himself helped facilitate a “yoga renaissance,” and Jain argues that
so-called “postural yoga” (which is only one and hardly the highest form in Hinduism) is a
successor of stretching and relaxing techniques that were already part of Western culture at the
time. Yoga entered mainstream American culture through the efforts of innovators like B. K. S.
Iyengar and Swami Muktananda, who developed “brands” of popular yoga; they and others like
Krishnamacharya and Sivananda “were the first to associate physical fitness methods and aims
with yoga in the popular imagination by constructing yoga brands and mass-marketing them to
large audiences. With these developments, the aims of postural yoga in the popular imagination
came to include modern conceptions of physical fitness, stress reduction, beauty, and overall
well-being” (76).
Meanwhile, anthropologists have offered two kinds of studies of American Hinduism, one
focusing on South Asian immigrants and the other on Americans adopting and adapting the
religion. In the first category, Hemalatha Ganapathy-Coleman (2013) researched parenting among
first-generation Indian immigrants and their efforts to perpetuate Hindu culture in their children.
As discussed in Chapter 12, Jessica Falcone (2012) reports on Hindutva (nationalist Hindu)
45
summer camps, where youths encounter militant Hindu culture even as parents often become
more militantly Hindu than they were before they emigrated from India. The edited volume by
John Zavos et al. (2012) happily features eleven anthropologists in its thirty-two chapters on
contemporary “public” Hinduism, the vast majority writing on the United States, with essays on
Hindu reactions to portrayals in California textbooks, Bhutanese Hindu refugees, the
Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS) community in New
Jersey, and Hindu activism in the form of the organization called American Hindus Against
Defamation.
In the second category, one of the most well-known versions of American Hinduism is the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), better—but less accurately—known
as Hare Krishnas. Jeanne Daner did a short ethnography of the ISKCON movement in the United
States in 1976, which was then and remains characterized by young white converts. Much more
recently, Scott Lowe (a religious studies scholar) chronicled the small town of Fairfield, Iowa
which “became the de facto center of the Transcendental Meditation Movement in the U.S.” in
1975 (2010: 81) when thousands of practitioners resettled there, constituting twenty percent of the
population. Interestingly, many of these spiritual seekers also “had backgrounds in business, and
a surprising number proved themselves to be remarkably creative, finding and exploiting niches
traditional businesses had overlooked” (85) and bringing economic vitality to the area, including
a housing boom for homes compatible with Transcendental Meditation lifestyles. Finally, the
contributors to the volume edited by Ann Gleig and Lola Williamson (2013), none of whom are
anthropologists, explicitly deal with the evolution of American Hinduism in the careers of major
“homegrown gurus” like Ram Dass, Rudi, Amrit Desai, Sandra Barnard, and others, who have
taken Hinduism in many different—but distinctly American—directions.
46
If anything, Buddhism has received an even more welcome reception in the U.S. than Hinduism,
as documented in Richard Hughes Seager’s (1999) Buddhism in America. Buddhism, like
Hinduism, began as an immigrant religion from East Asia, but Anne Spencer (a religious studies
scholar like Seager) posits that the old division between immigrant or “heritage” Buddhist
congregations and “convert” congregations filled by Euro-Americans cannot be maintained: the
Buddhist Churches of America (BCA) “no longer fits easily into either Heritage or Convert
categories, suggesting that the Two Buddhisms system in its current form is inadequate for
evaluating U.S. Buddhist groups” (2014: 35). Examining Jodo Shinshu, originally a Japanese
immigrant sect, Spencer calculates that less than two-thirds of its American members are now
Japanese and that, while many temples still run Japanese cultural programs, “the BCA is well into
a process of integrating into the dominant American culture. Most respondents are American-
born and English speaking and most temple activities are primarily in English. Although the
group remains primarily ethnically Asian, especially Japanese, members and participants
demonstrate increasing ethnic diversity” (48).
Anthropologist Sandra Bell investigated a Tibetan Buddhist movement originally founded in
1973 as Vajradhatu International but subsequently renamed Shambala International. The founder,
Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, settled in the U.S., where “Western disciples have a tendency to
romanticize the Tibetan ‘tradition.’ What count as everyday aspects of religious knowledge and
practice in the Tibetan cultural area appear in the United States as ‘extra-ordinary’ aspects of the
charismatic community that enable adepts to ‘solidify and mark themselves out against the outer
world as the possessors of esoteric knowledge’” (1998: 58)—what she and others have called
“crazy wisdom.” One branch of Rinpoche’s campaign in America was the Naropa Institute in
Boulder, Colorado, “a college dedicated to the study of Buddhism and other Asian religions, as
well as psychotherapy and the performing arts” (58), along with a local newspaper, Vajradhatu
Sun. Bell traced the rise of the movement and Chogyam Trungpa’s too-typical fall from grace
47
after allegations of sex with female members. Upon the master’s death, Osel Tendszin came to
head the community, whose HIV-positive status became a scandal. Around the same time, the
charisma of the former guru was replaced with an institutional structure featuring a Board of
Directors of Vajradhatu, who “became administrators of its financial accounts and managers of its
religious and educational projects” (63).
Ann Gleig shares another equally interesting formation of American Buddhism, the Buddhist
Geeks, “an online Buddhist media company and community that launched in 2007” (2014: 15).
With its electronically equipped audience and punchy TED-style conference format, its wide
range of participants from experienced practitioners and self-identified “complete and utter
newbies,” its interlacing of technological and contemplative discourses, and its heated
discussions of emerging generational differences amongst American Buddhists, the opening
evening of the 2012 Buddhist Geeks conference encapsulated that which marks Buddhist
Geeks as a unique and distinct phenomena in contemporary American Buddhism. Put
simply, it encapsulated the shift from the baby boomer to Generation X and Y, Buddhist
hippies to Buddhist geeks.”
(16)
Not unexpectedly, the group also grew out of the Naropa Institute and two of its former students,
Vincent Horn and Ryan Oelke, who started a podcast in 2007. Gleig notes three themes in the
movement, namely “a fundamental optimism about the impact of technology of Buddhist
practice,” “the contemporary democratization of Buddhism” moving away from the hierarchy and
sectarianism of traditional Buddhism (19), and “a strong sense that Buddhist Geeks represents a
new generation of Buddhists” (21).
Finally, religious studies scholar Charles Brewer Jones performed an analysis of English-
language literature on Buddhism available through a major book seller, Borders, contending that
48
“the marketplace exerts a force that distorts (or adapts) Buddhism in such a way as to lead people
to certain conclusions about religious diversity in general” (2007: 214). For instance, among all
the variants and sects of Buddhism, popular writing clearly shows that “Zen, Tibetan, and
Theravada Buddhism have captivated the interests of the non-Asian Buddhist enthusiast” (217),
while ignoring “entire segments of Buddhism” (219). Worse, “the Zen presented in the books
popular with Western audiences might well be unrecognizable to someone from the premodern
East Asian tradition,” since “the kind of Zen he or she would find would be one already adapted
to Western concerns, culture, and sensibilities” (219). In the end, the books that Americans are
likely to buy on Buddhism, an ostensibly Eastern religion, “convey to them an already-
accommodated Buddhism stripped of its distinctively Asian features” (220).
American Judaism and Islam
Jews have been in America virtually as long as Christians have: Jews arrived with the Spanish by
the late 1500s, and a Sephardic Jew named Elias Legarde or Legardo came to Virginia in 1621.
Jews were in Boston and New Amsterdam (later New York) in the 1640s and 1650s, where they
encountered discrimination; in 1687, Shearith Israel, the oldest continuously-operating Jewish
congregation in the United States, was founded in New York.
Despite its long history in the U.S. and its kinship with Christianity, Marcy Brink-Danan
concluded in a survey of the literature that the anthropology of Judaism is primarily “the work of
those anthropologists who themselves claim a Jewish identity” (2008: 680). Among these
anthropologists are Jack Kugelmass, whose The Miracle of Intervale Avenue (1996) was an
ethnography of the Intervale Jewish Center, the last functioning synagogue in the South Bronx,
where the Jewish residents fought to preserve their religion and culture. Kugelmass followed that
book with an edited volume Between Two Worlds: Ethnographic Essays on American Jewry, in
49
which he insisted that “for most American Jews, Judaism is practiced less as a religion than as a
cultural lifestyle and a social affiliation” (1988: 5).
Another feature of the anthropology of Judaism noted by Brink-Danan was the fact that “a
dominant segment of ethnographies of Jews and Judaism fall into a category I might call ‘the
anthropology of Jewish memory’ in which the stories, customs, and lifeways of ‘lost’ or
dwindling Jewish communities are catalogued and recreated” (2008: 683). Kugelmass’
ethnography certainly qualifies, as does Barbara Myerhoff’s classic Number Our Days, her
portrayal of the Aliyah Senior Citizens’ Center in southern California, where despite a “sense of
doom” among the elderly Jews she found a “passionate, almost melodramatic” community in
which “ordinary concerns and mundane interchanges are strangely intense, quickly heating to
outburst”: (1978: 7).
Many, many such books on Jewish communities, congregations, and institutions in the U.S. have
been written, not exclusively or mainly by anthropologists. Anthropologist William Mitchell
described the mishpokke or Jewish family club in New York City, including the “cousins’ club”
and the “family circle,” the latter defined as “a group of relatives with common ancestors
organized like a lodge or club with elected officers, dues, regular meetings, and committees”;
such organizations represented “an adaptive responses to preserve…the social integrity of the
immigrant Jewish family” (1978: 11). A decade ago, Moshe Shokeid (2003) provided a unique
glimpse into Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a gay synagogue in New York’s Greenwich
Village. Non-anthropologists offering ethnographic accounts of Jewish groups include Frida
Kerner Furman’s (1987) study of a Reform synagogue, Rakhmiel Peltz’ (1998) report on
language and identity in an elderly community in South Philadelphia, and Riv-Ellen Prell’s
(1999) portrayal of the “countercultural” Havurah movement. This research reminds us that great
internal diversity reigns within American Judaism, including denominational, national-origin,
50
class, and even race variables. These issues are well examined in Dana Evan Kaplan’s (2005)
edited volume The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism, which does not feature one
anthropologist in its twenty-three contributions, although Lawrence Grossman writes a useful
chapter on Jewish denominations and Chaim Waxman adds an essay on patterns of religious
behavior among American Jews.
Finally, underscoring the aforementioned problem of Jewish memory and the Jewish identity of
many scholars of American Judaism, Jack Glazier asserted that an “anthropologist/native” like
himself “in studying the diverse origins and early experiences of Jewish immigrants and their
children thus finds greater subjective value in understanding the past than in investigating the
increasingly monolithic quality of contemporary American Jewish culture” (1989: 17).
Investigating Jews in Indianapolis, he emphasized the origin (Sephardim versus Ashkenazim) and
class differences within the neighborhood, where poorer immigrants from Ottoman-dominated
Balkan areas as well as from Russia and Poland both “shared a class and status antagonism
toward the wealthier Americanized Reform Jews at the same time that they were alienated from
each other through their very distinct little traditions, differences of language, custom, and
history” (19). In a word, American Jews have not shared a single culture or history, although
the dramatic decline of the vernacular languages, Yiddish and Ladino, over the single
generation separating the immigrants and their American-born children represents the most
telling change, since these languages express, both literally and figuratively, the very tone of
Old World traditions. They were, in effect, the cultural vehicles conveying the respective
little traditions of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews.
(21)
Henry Goldschmidt reinforces this point with his study of Judaism, Israelism, and race in the
Crown Heights district of New York City. He also stresses the vexed nature of Jewish identity
51
and history, in which “categories of identity formation such as ‘race,’ ‘religion,’ ‘Blackness,’ and
‘Jewishness’ may be used—often in tandem—as historiographic tools, helping communities lay
claim to contested pasts” (2006: 378). The case in point is Ludavitch Hasidic Jews and various
“Black Hebrew Israelites,” who advance quite different versions of history and identity.
Lubavitchers see Jewishness as an effect of a “godly soul” that is inherited in some mystical and
not entirely genetic or racial way; thus, they “draw no clear connection between Israelite descent
and racial phenotype” (381). On the other hand, there is a congeries of black residents of the
neighborhood—Black Hebrew Israelites and African Jews, not to mention “Rastafarians, Black
Muslims, Afrocentric Christians, secular Black nationalists, and other Black Brooklynites”—who
“may have little interest in being Israelites themselves but nevertheless insist that the ‘real Jews’
were Black” (380). Not surprisingly, Lubavitch Hasidic Jews and Black Hebrew Israelites use
Jewish history and scriptures “in dramatically different ways and tell dramatically different
stories of Israelite history” (382).
On the lighter side, we might quickly mention Eric Silverman’s presentation on Jewish clothing
and bodily styles. He argues effectively and entertainingly that “Jewish clothing materializes a
series of ongoing, irresolvable conversations about identity” of three particular kind: “Jewish
clothing encodes a conversation concerning the roles and privileges accorded men and women in
both the streets and the pews”; “Jewish garments display a conflict between authority and
practice, or ideology and social life”; and “Jewish clothing symbolizes a wide-ranging tension
between what I call ethnic particularism and acculturation” (2013: xvii). The ultimate picture is
“the fluidity and mutability of Jewishness” (211), which is eminently visible in t-shirts,
underwear, and even yarmulkes that bear modern messages like “Jesus Saves, Moses Invests,”
“Notorious Y.I.D.,” “What Would Maimonides Do?” and “Jewtilicious.”
52
There is not an equivalent body of anthropological literature on American Islam, but this will
change, and there are already signs of the change in progress. For instance, two very new
compilations on American Muslims—The Cambridge Companion to American Islam (Hammer
and Safi 2013) and The Oxford Handbook of American Islam (Hadda and Smith 2014)—both
contain contributions by anthropologists (two in the former, three in the latter). At least as
importantly, contrary to what many Americans might think, they declare that there is such a thing
as “American Islam,” that is, that Islam is not entirely a foreign, let alone enemy, religion. As the
editors of the Cambridge volume explain,
American Muslims have indeed forged their own version of Islam (one of many ‘Islams,’
alongside Iranian Islam, Turkish Islam, Egyptian Islam, etc.). This American Islam is at the
same time a vision and a reality on the ground. Muslim communities, discourses, and
practices have had an impact and significantly helped shape the American religious
landscape at least since the 1900s. Conversely, American religion, politics, and culture have
had an even more significant impact on the formulation of Muslim American practices,
institutions, politics, and communities. The title “American Islam” implicitly rejects the
assumption that Muslims are somehow a temporary or simply migratory phenomenon in
America, as implied in terminology such as “Muslims in America” or “Islam in America.”
(Hammer and Safi 2013: 9)
Like Judaism, Islam has been in North America longer than most Americans imagine, although it
is tragically tied together with African slavery. A Moroccan slave may have been with the
Spanish explorers who set foot in present-day Texas in 1528, and there were Muslims among the
many Africans who were transported to the American colonies as slaves—as much as 15-20% of
those unhappy people. Thus, Islam in America cannot be separated from race in America. A
Sudanese immigrant named Satti Majid founded the Muslim Union Society in New York around
1904, which led to other organizations like Sheik Daoud Ahmed Faisal’s Islamic Mission of
53
America in 1924. However, American-born blacks also appropriated Islam as early as the
Moorish Science Temple, opened by Noble Drew Ali in 1913 in Newark, New Jersey. Marcus
Garvey of the “back to Africa” movement was also influenced by Dusé Muhammad Ali, who
started the Universal Islamic Society in Detroit around 1926. The main event, however, was the
formation of the Nation of Islam sometime in 1930 or 1933, depending on the source. The key
figures were Wallace Ford, renamed Fard Muhammad, and Elijah Muhammad. Under Elijah
Muhammad and later Malcolm X (Al Hajj Malik al-Shabazz) the Nation of Islam evolved into a
black-nationalist movement rejecting Eurocentric, Christian-centric culture and identity and tying
the African American community to its home continent of Africa and its “true” religion of Islam.
Louis Farrakhan eventually achieved leadership in the Nation of Islam.
After 1960 and the loosening of immigration restrictions, the American Muslim population began
to grow, through both immigration and conversion, and to organize. The Muslim Students
Association (1963), the Islamic Circle of North America, United Muslims of America (1982), and
the Council on American Islamic Relations (1994) are among such groups. The majority of
American Muslims today are African Americans, but many are immigrants and their descendants
from other countries, including Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey; recently, a good
number of white Americans have also joined the religion. So, race is not a defining feature of
American Islam.
Interestingly but predictably, also like Judaism, much of the fieldwork on American Islam has
been conducted by Muslims. Jamillah Karim (not an anthropologist) made an ethnographic study
of African American and South Asian immigrant Muslims in two U.S. cities, Chicago and
Atlanta, to explore the relationship between race, class, and gender and to highlight the multiple
Muslim identities practiced in the country. Anthropologist Zain Abdullah’s Black Mecca is a
report on the West African Muslims of the famous Harlem district, focusing on three
54
neighborhood mosques but also taking him to “the Harlem Market, African masjids [mosques],
African and African American restaurants, Laundromats, apartment stoops, celebrations,
community programs, religious services, and the streets” (2010: 9). The book recounts the efforts
of African Muslims—members of two discriminated categories in the United States—“to become
a part ‘of’ Harlem and not merely to dwell ‘in’ it” and reveals that “the various Muslim
establishments that Africans have created do not merely sustain their survival in Harlem. They
have erected an entirely new world” (13). As he concludes, “for all intents and purposes, the area,
by way of its new Black arrivals and Muslim religiosity, has become the new Black Mecca of
Harlem” (13). Abdullah’s current work (see zainabdullah.com), the Temple 25 Project, traces the
history of the principal Nation of Islam temple in Newark, New Jersey.
In the same year as Abdullah’s treatise, anthropologist Akbar Ahmed (2010) published Journey
into America: The Challenge of Islam, based on his and his team’s tour of seventy-five American
cities. This rare large-scale multisited ethnography allows him to interrogate American attitudes
toward Islam, the diversity of Muslims in the U.S., the relations between Islam and other
American religions, and the appeal of Islam to a growing number of white Americans, especially
women.
Abdullah also contributes a chapter, “American Muslims in the Contemporary World: 1965 to the
Present,” to The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Beginning with the all-important
1965 Immigration Act that opened the door of America for many Muslims, he argues that the
decades since the 1970s have been an era of “Americanizing Islam.”
In 1971, for example, Black Sunni Muslims founded the Islamic Party of North America
(IPNA), which became a multiaffiliate organization. Although the IPNA initially preached a
separatist philosophy, the name of the organization speaks to its national or continental
focus. And by 1975, it was heavily involved in civic engagement such as interfaith forums
55
and community activism. In Philadelphia, white middle-class Americans in search of
spiritual fulfillment helped to found the Bawa Muhaiyaddeen Fellowship of North America
in 1971. Leading them was a Sri Lankan–born Sui named Bawa Muhaiyaddeen. His
teachings appealed to many Americans in search of religious inspiration, spiritual practice,
and an alternative to a world they perceived as mundane and materialistic. Even the Nation
of Islam (NOI) relinquished its religious and racial separatism, moving toward Sunni Islam
and American integration after 1975. It was eventually renamed the American Muslim
Society.
(Abdullah 2013: 69)
Many further initiatives bridged Islam and American society, such as the Islamic Society of North
America, the American Muslim Alliance, and the American Muslim Council. By these means,
“American Muslims and their institutions underwent a much more deliberate process of
mainstreaming in American society, a process that some have described as Americanization…. In
other words, many American Muslims were in the process of negotiating their American,
transnational, and religious identities, and they continue to do so in the present” (70). Also in the
volume, Su’ad Abdul Khabeer (an anthropologist) and Maytha Alhassen discuss Muslim youth
cultures in the United States, while anthropologist Karen Leonard looks more deeply into Muslim
community groups, networks, and institutions. Many Muslim immigrants, Leonard notes, “are
clearly developing an oppositional culture or a culture of engaged resistance, similar to that of
African American Muslims in the past and present, of Black Protestant churches and Arab
American churches, and of contemporary American Muslim feminists. American Muslims may
feel marginalized and disrespected, yet their engagement with mainstream politics has become
deep and ongoing” (2013: 187).
As a last word, and also like American Judaism only perhaps more so, American Islam is
characterized by extreme national and ethnic diversity, as well as doctrinal or sectarian
56
factionalism. Muslims come to America from a great number of different countries, and more
Muslims are made among the diverse racial and ethnic groups of the United States. Scholar of
global Islam Liyakat Nathani Takim (2009), for instance, documents the national and ethnic
variation of American Shi’ite Muslims; national/ethnic groups are likely to own national/ethnic
mosques and organizations. And in brand-new research, anthropologist Ahmed Afzal describes
the Pakistani Muslim community in Houston, Texas, arguing persuasively that “the homogeneity
attributed to Muslim Americans and South Asians has obscured the increasingly important role of
Islamic sectarian ideologies in shaping community formations in the West” (2015: 8).
Box 4 Paganistan: A Pagan Community in Christian-Majority America
Despite the fact that paganism is discussed in Chapter 9 of Introducing Anthropology of Religion,
it bears one last look because it is such a fascinating and dynamic part of the American religious
scene. Anthropologist Murphy Pizza documents a pagan community in Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Minnesota that self-consciously calls itself “Paganistan.” Experience has shown that non-
traditional religions (and non-religious movements like humanism and atheism) often have a hard
time maintaining their momentum and holding on to their members. Pizza finds, significantly,
that “the forces that typically pull religious communities apart—theological differences, personal
disagreements, differences in practices, status-seeking and undermining authority—are embraced
in Paganistan and are somehow transformed into a unifying energy that makes the community
larger and stronger” (2014: 5). Also more self-consciously and successfully than many religious
or non-religious groups, the pagans of Minneapolis practice “active myth-making” in two senses
of the term. First, the history and lore of the community are overtly managed as “aids in the
construction of identity” (30). Second, the Minnesota pagans, like many American pagans,
encourage creativity in their rituals and diversity in their doctrines and beliefs (if we may speak of
“pagan doctrines and beliefs” at all). Since “no one’s experience is believed to be more authentic
57
than another’s,” then “room is left for practitioners to believe in what they do, as well as to adopt,
innovate, and create ritual forms as needed” (51). And pagans do continuously innovate their
rituals and other practices: “Rituals are designed, collaborated on, rehearsed, performed—but
there is no expectation of rituals being repeated faithfully exactly as they were done the first time.
Instead, the template, the tropes and the reasons for doing them are passed on, and the ritual
details—invocations, blocking, garb, magical workings—are expected to change and be updated
every year” (98). Last but not least, the citizens of Paganistan are not expected to adopt exclusive
and competing identities or memberships (and would not tolerate it if they were asked to).
Instead, pagans practice a kind of “polyaffiliation,” a more or less comfortable belonging to many
different groups simultaneously. This does not mean that all disagreements and hostilities are
avoided, but it does mean that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are less important to them than to most
religions. Yet, one wonders how many of these qualities we might also find in traditional
religions if we looked for them, and how this awareness would alter our perception of religion.
CONCLUSION
The United States is a religious society, but we might better say that it is a society of religions, a
vast field of religious ideas, identities, and institutions, a sea of swirling religious currents. No
one religion is the “true” American religion nor is or could be representative of America’s
religions. The U.S. includes liberal Christians and Christian fundamentalists, Jews, Muslims,
Hindus, Buddhists, pagans (not to mention atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists) and more
sects, denominations, and new religious movements than an army of anthropologists could study
in a lifetime.
The prominent and painful gaps in the coverage of this chapter are partly an effect of its brevity
but also of the relative disinterest that anthropologists have paid to American society generally
58
and American religion specifically. This is changing for the better, though. More importantly,
anthropologists—and other social scientists adopting ethnographic methods—have shown that the
anthropological perspective on American religion is a valuable and indeed a necessary one. The
present chapter has proven that American religion, like all religion, is constructed, more or less
culturally consonant, diverse, practiced, and constantly evolving. Religion is also entangled with
other variables—politics, gender, race, class, and so forth. We have only touched the surface of
the complex and dynamic field of American religion; the chapter is as much a call for serious
anthropological engagement with American religion as a survey of its past accomplishments.
Bibliography
Abdullah, Zain. 2010. Black Mecca: The African Muslims of Harlem. New York: Oxford
University Press.
-----. 2013. “American Muslims in the Contemporary World: 1965 to the Present.” In Juliane
Hammer and Omid Safi, eds. The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press, 65-82.
Afzal, Ahmed. 2015. Lone Star Muslims: Transnational Lives and the South Asian Experience in
Texas. New York and London: New York University Press.
Ahlstrom, Sydney E. 1975. A Religious History of the American People, Volume I. Garden City,
NJ: Image Books.
Ahmed, Akbar. 2010. Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
59
Appadurai, Arjun. 1988. “Putting Hierarchy in its Place.” Cultural Anthropology 3: 36-49.
Aupers, Stef. 2009. “‘The Force is Great’: Enchantment and Magic in Silicon Valley.” Masaryk
University Journal of Law and Technology 3 (1):153-73.
Baer, Hans A. 1980. “An Anthropological View of Black Spiritual Churches in Nashville,
Tennessee.” Central Issues in Anthropology 2 (2): 53-63.
Bell, Sandra. 1998. “‘Crazy Wisdom,’ Charisma, and the Transmission of Buddhism in the
United States.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 2 (1): 55-
75.
Bielo, James S. 2011. Emerging Evangelicals: Faith, Modernity, and the Desire for Authenticity.
New York and London: New York University Press.
Biney, Moses O. 2011. From Africa to America: Religion and Adaptation among Ghanaian
Immigrants in New York. New York and London: New York University Press.
Brahinsky, Josh. 2012. “Pentecostal Body Logics: Cultivating a Modern Sensorium.” Cultural
Anthropology 27 (2): 215-38.
Brink-Danan, Marcy. 2008. “Anthropological Perspectives on Judaism: A Comparative Review.”
Religion Compass 2 (4): 674-88.
Cannell, Fenella. 2006. The Anthropology of Christianity. Durham, NC and London: Duke
60
University Press.
Cassaniti, Julia L. and Tanya M. Luhrmann. 2014. “The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual
Experiences.” Current Anthropology 55 (S10): S333-43.
Daner, Francine Jeanne. 1976. The American Children of Krsna: A Study of the Hare Krsna
Movement. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Davis, Erik. 1995. “Technopagans: ‘May the Astral Plane be Reborn in Cyberspace.” Wired 3.07
(July). Http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/3.07/technopagans.html, accessed February
10, 2015.
Ellwood, Robert S. 1973. Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Falcone, Jessica Marie. 2012. “Putting the ‘Fun’ in Fundamentalism: Religious Nationalism and
the Split Self at Hindutva Summer Camps in the United States.” Ethos 40 (2): 164-95.
Fletcher, John. 2013. Preaching to Convert: Evangelical Outreach and Performance Activism in
a Secular Age. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Furman, Frida Kerner. 1987. Beyond Yiddishkeit: The Struggle for Jewish Identity in a Reform
Synagogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ganapathy-Coleman, Hemalatha. 2013. “Raising ‘Authentic’ Indian Children in the United
States: Dynamism in the Ethnotheories of Immigrant Hindu Parents.” Ethos 41 (4): 360-86.
61
Gaustad, Edwin S. 1999. Church and State in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ghassem-Fachandi, Parvis. 2007. “About Prayer: Abjection and Urgency in an American
Holiness Church.” Ethnography 8 (3): 235-65.
Glazier, Jack. 1989. “Fieldwork in Search of the Past: Identity and the American Jewish
Experience.” Anthropology & Humanism Quarterly 14 (1): 17-22.
Gleig, Ann. 2014. “From Buddhist Hippies to Buddhist Geeks: The Emergence of Buddhist
Postmodernism?” Journal of Global Buddhism 15: 15-33.
Gleig, Ann and Lola Williamson. 2013. Homegrown Gurus: From Hinduism in America to
American Hinduism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Goldschmidt, Henry. 2006. “The Voices of Jacob on the Streets of Brooklyn: Black and Jewish
Israelites in and around Crown Heights.” American Ethnologist 33 (3): 378-96.
Hadda, Yvonne Y. and Jane I. Smith, eds. 2014. The Oxford Handbook of American Islam.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hammarberg, Melvyn. 2013. The Mormon Quest for Glory: The Religious World of the Latter-
Day Saints. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hammer, Juliane and Omid Safi, eds. 2013. The Cambridge Companion to American Islam.
Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
62
Harding, Susan F. 1987. “Convicted by the Holy Spirit: The Rhetoric of Fundamental Baptist
Conversion.” American Ethnologist 14 (1), 167-81.
-----. 2000. The Book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist Language and Politics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Hatch, Nathan O. 1989. The Democratization of American Christianity. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Hazzard-Donald, Katrina. 2013. Mojo Workin’: The Old African American Hoodoo System.
Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press.
Hefner, Robert W. 2013. “The Unexpected Modern: Gender, Piety, and Politics in the Global
Pentecostal Surge.” In Robert W. Hefner, ed. Global Pentecostalism in the 21st Century:
Gender, Piety, and Politics in the World’s Fastest-Growing Faith Tradition. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1-36.
Hostetler, John . 1968 [1963]. Amish Society. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hostetler, John and Gertrude Enders Huntington. 1971. Children in Amish Society: Socialization
and Community Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hurston, Zora. 1931. “Hoodoo in America.” The Journal of American Folklore 44 (174): 317-
63
417.
Jain, Andrea. 2014. Selling Yoga: From Counterculture to Pop Culture. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, Philip. 2000. Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-----. 2007. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press.
Jones, Charles Brewer. 2007. “Marketing Buddhism in the United States of America: Elite
Buddhism and the Formation of Religious Pluralism.” Comparative Studies of South Asia,
Africa, and the Middle East 27 (1): 214-21.
Kaplan, Dana Evan, ed. 2005. The Cambridge Companion to American Judaism. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Karim, Jamillah. 2008. American Muslim Women: Negotiating Race, Class, and Gender within
the Ummah. New York and London: New York University Press.
Kim, Rebecca Y. 2015. The Spirit Moves West: Korean Missionaries in America. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kosmin, Barry A. and Ariela Keysar. 2009. American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS
2008). Hartford, CT: Trinity College.
64
Kugelmass, Jack. 1987. The Miracle of Intervale Avenue: The Story of a Jewish Congregation in
the South Bronx. New York: Columbia University Press.
Kugelmass, Jack, ed. 1988. Between Two Worlds: Ethnographic Essays on American Jewry.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kumar, P. Pratap, ed. 2013. Contemporary Hinduism. Durham, UK and Bristol, CT: Acumen.
Leonard, Karen. 2013. “Organizing Communities: Institutions, Networks, Groups.” In Juliane
Hammer and Omid Safi, eds. The Cambridge Companion to American Islam. Cambridge
and New York: Cambridge University Press, 170-89.
Lowe, Scott. 2010. “The Neo-Hindu Transformation of an Iowa Town.” Nova Religio: The
Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 13 (3): 81-91.
Luhrmann, Tanya M. 2004. “Metakinesis: How God Becomes Intimate in Contemporary U.S.
Christianity.” American Anthropologist 106 (3): 518-28.
-----. 2012. When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with
God. New York: Vintage Books.
Luhrmann, Tanya M. and Rachel Morgain. 20120. “Prayer as Inner Sense Cultivation: An
Attentional Learning Theory of Spiritual Experience.” Ethos 40 (4): 359-89.
Marty, Martin E. 1984. Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America. New
65
York: Penguin Books.
Mitchell, William E. 1978. Mishpokhe: A Study of New York City Jewish Family Clubs. The
Hague: Mouton.
Myerhoff, Barbara. 1978. Number Our Days. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster.
Narayan, Kirin. 1993. “Refractions of the Field at Home: American Representations of Hindu
Holy Men in the 19th and 20th Centuries.” Cultural Anthropology 8 (4): 476-509.
Parish, Jane. 2013. “Chasing Celebrity: Akan Witchcraft and New York City.” Ethnos 78 (2):
280-300.
Peltz, Rakhmiel. 1998. From Immigrant to Ethnic Culture: American Yiddish in South
Philadelphia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2008. U.S. Religious Landscape Survey—Religious
Affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Pizza, Murphy. 2014. Paganistan: Contemporary Pagan Community in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.
Surrey, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Poynor, Robin. 2012. “The Many and Changing Faces of Ògún: Altars to the God of Iron in the
State of Florida.” Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 16 (1):
13-35).
66
Prell, Riv-Ellen. 1989. Prayer and Community: The Havurah in American Judaism. Detroit, MI:
Wayne State University Press.
Putnam, Robert D., David E. Campbell, and Shaylyn Romney Garrett. 2010. American Grace:
How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rey, Terry and Alex Stepick. 2013. Crossing the Water and Keeping the Faith: Haitian Religion
in Miami. New York and London: New York University Press.
Seager, Richard Hughes. 1999. Buddhism in America. New York: Columbia University Press.
Shokeid, Moshe. 2003. A Gay Synagogue in New York. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Silverman, Eric. 2013. A Cultural History of Jewish Dress. London and New York: Bloomsbury.
Spencer, Anne C. 2014. “Diversification in the Buddhist Churches of America: Demographic
Trends and their Implications for the Future Study of U.S. Buddhist Groups.” Journal of
Global Buddhism 15: 35-61.
Takim, Liyakat Nathani. 2009. Shi’ism in America. New York and London: New York University
Press.
Taylor, Eugene. 1999. Shadow Culture: Psychology and Spirituality in America. Washington,
DC: Counterpoint.
67
de Tocqueville, Alexis. 1969. Democracy in America. George Lawrence, trans. J. P. Mayer, ed.
Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.
Wilford, Justin G. 2012. Sacred Subdivisions: The Postsuburban Transformation of American
Evangelicalism. New York and London: New York University Press.
Zavos, John, Pralay Kanungo, Deepa S. Reddy, Maya Warrier, and Raymond Brady Williams,
eds. 2012. Public Hinduisms. New Delhi and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
top related