Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Alessandro Testa
(Charles University)
Thorsten Wettich (University of Bremen)
Victoria Hegner (Göttingen University)
Send message to Convenors
- Format:
- Panel
Short Abstract:
The panel invites to examine both the history and the future of writing religion ethnologically through analyses of the legacy of our disciplinary forebears (without falling into the trap of methodological presentism and anachronism) and reflections on current trends in the ethnology of religion.
Long Abstract:
Anthropology, ethnology and folkloristics were founded to document and interpret culture, including religious practices, by reading, writing, readdressing, or also confuting what was previously written. In the current Western Zeitgeist increasingly critical of bygone inscriptions, this panel invites to reflect on both the history and the evolution of the discipline. What did it mean to write religion ethnologically in the past, what does it mean in the present, what might it look like in the future?
Taking inspiration from Clifford Geertz’ stance on the anthropologist as an author, we would like to set off from considering that each ethnologist is actually first and foremost a reader, before becoming a writer. Moreover, the acquired competence of academic writing has historically always been inextricably linked with the intertwined processes of assessing (or also rejecting) existing scholarship and writing fresh interpretations – what we call accumulation and refinement of knowledge.
Based on this, the panel welcomes 1) Analyses of the legacy of our disciplinary forebears and schools of thought without falling into the trap of methodological presentism and theoretical anachronism by projecting intentions, notions, and sensibilities of today onto our predecessors; 2) Discussions on the foundation and development of the ethnology of religion, also unravelling untold stories and addressing the very idea of former “giants” in terms of canon-creating, discourse-shaping, and ground-breaking scholars, be they women or men, known or less known figures, or entire currents (functionalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, decolonialism, etc.); 3) Well-informed reflections on current trends in the ethnological writing of religion.
Accepted papers:
Session 1Paper Short Abstract:
Has the Ethnology of Religion been on a mission to silence or distort the emic and etic voices that populate the field? Who has the right to “unwrite” (read: cancel) what our disciplinary ancestors (or our disciplinary adversaries) wrote, and based on what scientific authority and moral grounds?
Paper Abstract:
Has the Ethnology of Religion been on a mission to silence, distort, or trivialise the emic and etic voices that populate the field? Who has the right to “unwrite” (read: cancel) what our disciplinary ancestors wrote, moved by intellectual curiosity, human sympathy, and the will to contribute to European and Western knowledge? And if the “unwriting” of the voices of our predecessors – or of those who do not agree with the current epistemological trends à la mode – should indeed happen, who decides what should be “unwritten”, and based on what scientific authority and moral grounds?
This paper offers examples, taken from the tradition of study of the Ethnology of Religion, that counter the current normative narrative that consider dissenting or old voices as deserving to be cancelled. As Christoph Brumann has showed convincingly with respect to the moral panic surrounding the notion of culture in the 1980s and 1990s, it appears to me that the presumed sins and guilts that should be “unwritten” are rather the product of the current ideological Zeitgeist, and do not stand analytical scrutiny. In so doing, the panel also intends to reflect on the actual mission of the Ethnology of Religion (and by synecdoche Ethnology at large).
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper examines previous scholarship on the Italian New Age commune of Damanhur and supplements it with new findings, correcting previous statements based on the results of two participatory fieldworks from 2023 and 2025.
Paper Abstract:
Established in 1975 by Oberto Airaudi (a.k.a. Falco Tarassaco), the Italian movement of Damanhur is one of Europe's biggest, still-standing New Age communes. Its founding in the Chiusella Valley coincided with Piemonte's growing urbanization and industrialization. As a counter-reaction, Damanhur defined itself as a communal exodus for the alienated and estranged, who searched – and found here – alternatives for reattaining individuality, agency, and a sense of collective identity. Damanhur hosts various artistic productions: inspired paintings, performative dances, classical and sacred poetry, architectural grandeur, sculpture-making, and metalworking, mentioned by renowned scholars such as Massimo Introvigne, Stefania Palmisano, Nicola Pannofino, PierLuigi Zoccatelli, Mario Cardano, and Peter Jan Margry. Since Falco's death (2014), artistic and religious life has changed significantly. His post-mortem reverence became a key element, while the absence of his charisma catalyzed a change towards institutionalization. My paper aims to further nuance – and correct, if necessary – the established scholarly image of Damanhur. Utilizing the external perspectives of morphology- and the internal angles of the anthropology of religions, I will outline the results of my two participatory fieldworks (late 2023 and early 2025). My goal is to illustrate how – while standing on the shoulders of its prophetic founder – Damanhur could have overcome the loss of its charismatic leader and how it institutionalized itself to keep the legacy of Falco Tarassaco alive in the 21st century.
Paper Short Abstract:
I plan to discuss the influence of a couple of prominent scholars from the 19th and early 20th centuries on the image of the Finno-Ugric Indigenous peoples inhabiting the region around the northern Ural Mountains in later research tradition. One of the key topics in this scholarly discourse was connected to the presumed religious preferences of these groups.
Paper Abstract:
By the early 20th century, ethnographic mapping of the Indigenous groups around the northern Ural Mountains was complete. Although many scholars, travellers and missionaries contributed to diverse picture of Indigenous world perceptions during the 19th century, the dominant intellectual approach separated the Komi from smaller groups (the Nenets, Khanty and Mansi) regarding subsistence strategies, religious preferences and overall degree of development. By the early 20th century, the Komi became depicted as overwhelmingly Russian Orthodox by religion, who had forgotten all their archaic traditions, knowledge and customs. At the same time, the smaller Indigenous neighbours of the Komi were admired for their ages-old traditional way of life, epic singing, shamanic practices and animistic worldview.
I aim to explore how this contrasting scholarly view of neighbouring Indigenous inhabitants of the North was produced and how it became so dominant. I claim that the international image of the Komi as traitors of old Finno-Ugric ideals was created and vigorously promoted by a few very influential scholars (Matthias Alexander Castrén and Uuno Taavi Sirelius) who had negative field experiences among the Komi but hold enjoyable memories from trips among the other Finno-Ugric peoples in the region. We can find a spiritual contest or imagined harmony between scholars and local peoples at the heart of this cognitive conflict. This pattern, introduced by prototypes of the Finno-Ugric ethnography, has influenced later scholars significantly.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper explores three marginal(ized) researchers—Alexandra David-Neel, Curt Nimendajú Unckel, and Frank Hamilton Cushing—who existentially surrendered to their fields of study. Their taboo-breaking “surrender” are inextricably linked with forms of collaboration with those under study and political intervention against colonial injustices. This practice, though romanticized, reveals how early ethnography - as a colonial project - generated from the beginning (decolonial) counter-movements, producing re- and unwriting practices.
Paper Abstract:
In this paper I want to draw close to three rather marginal(ized) researchers in the field of religiosities/religions during the late 19th and early/mid 20th century: Alexandra David Neel (French Buddhist, explorer and anarchist), Curt Nimendajú Unckel (German-Brazilian ethnologist) Frank Hamilton Cushing (US-American anthropologist). They all share the experience of having been, in a sense, overwhelmed by the field they were studying—surrendering to it in an existential manner. This taboo-breaking act of “surrender” (German: Hingabe, Wolff 1987) – a specific form of going native – became an integral part of their ethnographic practice of knowledge production. This undoubtedly reflects a romantic yearning for the Other, which demands critical scrutiny. Their endeavor, however, was underpinned by the notion of intense collaboration with those studied, and engaging in collective political intervention against injustices and colonial power structures—dimensions that today are recognized as essential to academic ethical practice and are reinforced by the proclaimed idea of unwriting. How exactly did the research of these three protagonists take shape? To what extent was the act of surrendering to the field socially situated, while deeply shaped by individual biographies? What untold stories were narrated and thus brought to light through this process? By exploring these questions, I aim to show how early ethnography’s colonial project simultaneously generated a counter-movement, producing practices of re- and unwriting. These practices are reflected in surrendering to the field, a constitutive (yet often denied) part of the discipline and the study of religions.
Paper Short Abstract:
In the past, cross-cultural comparisons were important in systematizing and categorizing culture. Today, however, large-scale cross-cultural comparisons increasingly have come under critique. Do we have to unwrite that tradition or should we learn from the past and use it to rewrite our conceptual tools for the future analysis of religion?
Paper Abstract:
Cross-cultural comparisons have undergone significant transformations in anthropology, from early evolutionary theories to the nuanced, context-sensitive approaches of today. In the heydays of anthropology, cross-cultural comparisons such as the Ethnographic Atlas initiated by George P. Murdoch were fashionable and widespread. They were part of larger attempts to systematize and categorize all expressions of culture. However, they often imposed Western categories onto non-Western societies. Later, thinkers have emphasized the importance of cultural relativism, historical context, and the complex interplay between global and local forces. Nevertheless, such large-scale cross-cultural comparisons increasingly have come under critique and David Gellner argued against “the acid of cross-cultural comparison” (2023: 553).
Therefore, and based on ethnographic research in contemporary Russia, this presentation wants to use the example of religion and reflect on cultural specifics and cross-cultural comparisons. What do people in post-Soviet Russia mean when they are talking about “religion”? Is it possible to compare this with other expressions of religion or does such an attempt necessarily has to fail? Shall we abstain from any comparative perspective or is it unconsciously included in any anthropological approach? What could we learn from the early attempts to categorize and systematize culture or does postmodern approaches make such an approach impossible? What does this mean for the future of cross-cultural comparisons in anthropology? Could cross-cultural comparisons be a tool if applied with greater sensitivity to the dynamics of power, agency, and historical change?
Gellner, D. (2023). The Spaces of Religion: A View from South Asia. JRAI, 29 (3): 553-572.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper will examine the recent revival of Catholic masses at Late Antique archaeological sites in Slovenia, which hosted Christian sacred spaces but remained unused for nearly 1,500 years. These reactivations raise questions about ritual revival, cultural memory, and the construction of sacredness. I will explore the cultural and religious motivations behind these revivals, focusing on how contemporary communities, the Church, and heritage discourses reinterpret sacred continuity and intersect with archaeological heritage. These processes can be understood as “unwriting” abandonment and “rewriting” the sacred through new spiritual, cultural, and communal meanings.
Paper Abstract:
This contribution will explore the reactivation of some Slovenian archaeological sites dating into Late Antiquity, a time when Christianity was already established in these areas, and that had Christian sacred places for worship. After not being used as sacred places for nearly 1.500 years these sites have recently (occasionally) begun hosting Catholic masses. This opens questions about the processes of ritual revival, cultural memory and sacredness of place. I am interested in topics of cultural and religious motivations behind these revivals; how contemporary communities, the Church and heritage discourses understand and construct the concept of sacredness and sacred continuity; and the intersection between archaeological heritage and modern ritual practices.
In this sense such revivals can be seen as processes of “unwriting” and “rewriting” the sacred by changing the narrative of abandonment and inscribing new meanings routed in spiritual, cultural and communal renewal.
Paper Short Abstract:
Anthropological research requires long-term participant observation and learning the language (in a broader sense) of the studied social group. I introduce a new method that integrates quantitative methods with qualitative interpretation, using cognitive semantics, network- and discourse analysis.
Paper Abstract:
Anthropological research relies on long-term participant observation and the first imperative is to learn the language (in a broader sense) of the studied social group. I introduce a new method that integrates quantitative methods into qualitative interpretation, combining cognitive semantics, network theory, and discourse analysis with interpretative anthropology. Standing on the shoulders of giants of these fields, my new method is not an overwriting or unwriting of the former schools and methods, but rather a synthesis of those results that can be useful for some (and not any) research questions. Any methodological considerations must be conciliated with the questions we seek answers for since there is no omnipotent theoretical and methodological frame for the social sciences. In my paper, I will introduce the anthropological discourse analysis (ADA) method that I have developed during the last decade, based on theorists and scholars who are seemingly in distant fields: Evens-Pritchard, Manuel Castells, Mark Granovetter, Pierre Bourdieu, Dell Hymes, Clifford Geerts, Michel Foucault, Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Leonard Primiano, Ann Mische, Harrison White, Stanley Fish, Albert-László Barabási and many others. I demonstrate in some examples how it can be applied, and which kind of answers we can get using this new methodological tool. My examples are from the scene of the contemporary Hungarian new religious movements that I have studied for the last sixteen years. I also explain which research question can be more adequately answered and what kinds of trends can be recognized with this method in the study of religions.
Paper Short Abstract:
This paper proposes to explore Leonard Primiano's influential concept of “vernacular religion” as a lens to re-examine the ethnological writing of religion. By foregrounding lived religious expressions and practices whether or not they diverge from or complement institutionalized forms, Primiano’s framework challenges binaries of "official" versus "folk" religion and invites nuanced, person-centered ethnography.
Paper Abstract:
The concept of vernacular religion not only disrupts traditional taxonomies of religious practice and challenges the World Religions Paradigm (WRP) but also demands methodological reflexivity from ethnologists. In reading and writing religion, how do scholars balance their interpretive authority with the agency and voices of their interlocutors? Drawing on Clifford Geertz’s insight that anthropologists are inherently authors who weave interpretations into textual representations, this paper argues that vernacular religion necessitates attentiveness to the entanglements of power, narrative, and representation in ethnological writing.
The paper will first situate the notion of vernacular religion within the broader history of ethnology and folkloristics, examining how it builds upon and critiques earlier paradigms in the field. Second, it will discuss how the notion developed since Primiano’s’ original 1995 publication and has since worked to decenter grand narratives and amplifying marginalized voices. Finally, it will reflect on the implications for the future of the discipline: how might ethnologists (re)write religion in ways that honor the fluidity, complexity, and situatedness of lived religious practices?
This proposal aligns with the panel’s themes by critically engaging the disciplinary legacy, foregrounding the interplay of reading and writing in ethnological practice, and offering fresh insights into the evolving methodologies of documenting religion. It calls for an ethnology of religion that is as dynamic and multifaceted as the vernacular religiosity it seeks to understand.
Paper Short Abstract:
My presentation addresses the contemporary theoretical and methodological frameworks (and the associated challenges) at use by Romanian scholars of ethnology devoted to analyzing ritual and magic practices collected recently.
Paper Abstract:
As part of the almost one-century and a half of folklore and ethnology, Romanian studies of magic and folk religion were strongly under the influence of the paradigm established on one hand by methodological “readings” of the vegetational rituals as treated by Frazer and the hermeneutical ideas of Mircea Eliade on the "religious creativity”, “cosmic Christianity” and “popular theology” of Romanian peasants. Eliade rehabilitated the ritualist theory of Frazer, whose "Golden Bough" is translated into Romanian in 1980. Within the existing communist cultural propaganda, the book is presented to the Romanian public in the preface as the work of a systematic atheist, a Darwin of the humanities, This epistemological longtime trend generated also for this Romanian ritualistically unchanged rural culture a geopolitical destiny connected with the Eastern Church, which implicitly endorsed pagan and syncretic practices and stripped this culture of the chances to being connected to Western civilization and Illuminism.
As some of the Romanian small rural culture is still considered unaligned with Western standards of secularization and rationality of public life, is therefore expected that scholars denounce and reject that longtime paradigm and start from scratch? How do we envisage the existing surviving rituals and superstitions in these emote communities or associated to very conservative professional contexts such as pastoralism in which a magical view of the world is still employed? How do we react faced with "discredited" scholarship of religion?