Hot-off-the-press (so hot that it won’t even be available until July) is a book whose subject matter seems to tackle some of the same topics we often post on this site, as well as might contain some good explanations as to why our website sometimes attracts bigotry/ignorance of a certain persuasion. The book is titled, A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism. The book is by author Prema A. Kurien (who I see has been denounced in some way or another on a smattering of websites). Indolink reports:
According to its publisher Rutgers University Press, the book offers an in-depth look at Hinduism in the United States and the Hindu Indian American community.
The book focuses on understanding the private devotions, practices, and beliefs of Hindu Americans as well as their political mobilization and activism. And it probes the differences between immigrant and American-born Hindu Americans, how both understand their religion and their identity, while it emphasizes the importance of the social and cultural context of the United States in influencing the development of an American Hinduism…
Drawing on the experiences of both immigrant and American-born Hindus, Kurien demonstrates how religious ideas and practices are being imported, exported, and reshaped in the process. The result of this transnational movement, according to Kurien, is an American Hinduism- an organized, politicized, and standardized version of that which is found in India.
The book explains that Hinduism has undergone several modifications in interpretation, practice, and organization in the United States in the process of being institutionalized as an American religion. Kurien argues that while Hindu American spokespersons espouse a genteel pluralism and attempt to use Hinduism to secure a place at the American multicultural table, they also use the ideology of multiculturalism to justify and legitimize a militant Hindu nationalism. Drawing on this contradiction, she develops a theoretical model to explain 1) why multiculturalism often seems to exacerbate émigré nationalism, and 2) why religion is often involved directly or indirectly in this process. [Link]
<
p>
I think it is interesting to consider how a religion brought to America would begin to mutate once here. America is one of the few places on Earth where so many religions compete in an essentially “free-market.” You can practice any religion you want to here with much less anxiety that in many countries. Since religion has always been (among many other things) a way to wield influence over a great many people, it would make sense that Hinduism in America would have to become a bit more aggressive (at least from a marketing standpoint) in order to get its “place at the multi-cultural table.” The irony of course is that Hinduism, by its very underlying principles, is not supposed to actively seek out converts. From just the synopsis of this book it seems like those being targeted for “conversion” may simply be second generation offspring who have “strayed from the fold” so to speak. Here is a quote that demonstrates the us vs. them siege mentality that some members of smaller religions in the U.S. may feel:
Rajesh, who was trying to set up a chapter of the Hindu Student Council (HSC) at his school, told Kurien that his motivation in establishing an organization that emphasized the importance of a Hindu identity was because as Indians, “You won’t be accepted into this culture, whatever you do.” So the club was to provide an alternate culture and identity for Hindu students. [Link]
An alternate identity? Isn’t that one of the problems with a portion of Muslim youth in Europe?
Kurien observes that whereas Indian Americans growing up in America are forced to define and come to terms with their racial and ethnic identity, Hindu Indian Americans face the additional burden of being practitioners of a religion that is little understood and often negatively perceived by Americans. ‘A nation-wide survey conducted in 2001 on behalf of a Hindu American group found that over 95 percent of Americans had little or no knowledge of Hinduism and that 71 percent had no contact with a Hindu of Indian origin. What was of even greater concern to the Hindu leaders who had commissioned the survey was that 59 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had no interest in learning more about the religion.’ [Link]
<
p>
If anyone ends up buying and reading this book please do let us know your thoughts. Also folks, given the topic please get in your substantive comments before this post gets shut down. Kind of a shame.
Given the number of times I’ve had to tell people that all Indians aren’t “Hindi” and the lack of interest (most) White Americans display in the culture (beyond aping bhangra beats and Desi style), I’m really not surprised by the stat that “59 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had no interest in learning more about the religion”.
But then, I’m Sikh and didn’t know much about Hinduism until I took a class in college. Not that my parents shunned any learning about Hinduism, or that we didn’t go to pujas, I just had no idea what was going on.
As an aside, I’ve always laughed when I see evangelical Christians trying to convert the Hindus on Devon Street in Chicago – a “get them before they get us” mentality. And I think, “But you cannot convert to Hinduism!” So it’s a bit alarming to see that you’ve gleaned that some may be trying to make Hinduism as marketable as possible. Wouldn’t that mean so it’s more palatable to dominant culture (not that that’s ok or anything).
But it should be stressed that EVERY religion is trying to make itself as palatable as possible. Acceptance and/or converts=power and influence. It has been the same throughout the history of religion.
Seems we’re the only two commenting at this hour! Grad school allows for lots of late nights.
Anyhoo, you’re totally right – religions have had to make themselves palatable for growth. And for non-Christian religions (and some offshoots of Christianity, as with the Mormon Church), there has been an effort to make the religion more palatable to dominant culture to gain acceptance. My whole thing about palatability not being ok (and this is my hippie-dippie side coming out) is that we shouldn’t have to change anything about ourselves to be accepted, and that makes me kinda sad.
Of course, I know people have been fighting to gain acceptance for all sorts of reasons for milennia. So much for my dreams of holding hands and singing “Kumbaya”. 😉
Except I’m not technically at grad school now. Full time job and a defense in three weeks. I shouldn’t be on here now. 🙂
59% of Americans have no interest in learning about Hinduism. That number would be the same in Japan, China, Jordan, Nigeria,Iceland and in Peru. I don’t see that being just an American thing. Most people in the mainstream culture in any country feel that other should learn more about there culture. Right or wrong that just the way it is.
There are about 1.5 million people of Hindu background in America that makes up 0.5% of the culture. And not all of those people are religous. Also the last 6 years Islam is get alot more American media coverage, so most americans don’t get much info about hinduism.
I meant to say 0.5% of the American population, not culture. Sorry about that.
Much of Hindu miilitancy in the west, its growing intolerance of the denigration of Hindu symbols, and of internal critique, is starting to disturb me. This American diaspora is very upper caste, and comes with wounded sensitivities–about reservations, anti-Brahmin movements etc., that will not disappear easily. This is why we’re seeing spirted defenses of the caste system, couched in anti-western and anti-modern terms, with the underlying idea that India is “awakening” from the hegemony of western categories. At the political level, one must concede that there are other millitancies and particularisms that fuel the response (and the “clash” mentality in American politics certainly legitmates a confrontational “civilizational” stance) but spiritually (at the personal level) its exceedingly damaging–it is much harder to live without hate. We Hindus have really lost our spiritual bearings, I think. It remains to be seen if this is simply a transitional period or the beginnings of something darker.
Interesting also is the fact that the author is a Kurien – that’s as Mallu Christian as surnames can get. I suppose “The Development of an American Hinduism” is a catchier title than “The Development of an American Jacobite Syrian-ism”. 🙂
And also increasingly ludicrous critques of islam and christianity. Check out this forum
What worries me is not the Indian Hindu diaspora, but the American new age movement that has made a bhel puri out of Advaita, vishishta advaita, and dvaita, combined it with Buddhism to create a mish-mash exotified marketing oriented culture. This culture is as materialistic as it gets; books, retreats, “ayurvedic” medicines, CDs and clothes are palmed off to the unsuspecting and (emotionally) vulnerable hordes. This is damaging to the true essense of Hinduism. See this crackpot, for example.
What’s wrong with fighting against the denigration of Hindu symbols? Is it OK, for example, if the EU were to ban the Swastika?
re: hinduism, etc. i’ve done a lot of reading on the evolution of american judaism and catholicism. the short of it is that both these religions had to become “protestant” to really survive in the USA. in the “old world” the catholic church had a special relationship with the powers that be, whether that be as mediators for an ethnic community as ireland, or as the dominant dispensation as in italy (though many italian americans came from an anti-clerical milieu). once in the USA they were faced with a protestant culture which was extremely hostile toward them, the public school system emerged in part as a way to assimilate and acculturate catholic youth. the roman catholic church, with its irish heirarchy, in the 19th century tried to do two things:
a) establish itself as a “pillar” of society which was separate but equal, where the church represented the interests of its own people to the US gov.
b) force the assimilation of ethnic groups like germans into the english speaking culture so that a common catholic front could be generated (ironically, it was the irish who militated against the german language schools in the midwest and separate dicoeses and what not)
it was successful in b, but not a. today american catholics, on average, have many similar religious and social attitudes as protestants. this happened in the early 19th century, before the mass immigration of the irish. american catholics exhibit many peculiar attitudes and folkways that are rather like the sectarian protestants who are their fellow citizens, and within the catholic church this tendency is called the ‘americanist’ movement. the short if is that catholicism had to adapt or die. the same is true for judaism, reform judaism, and later conservative judaism, was a response to the american religious marketplace. the ghetto/shtetl life was not viable, so the religion/ethnicity would either lose its young folk to the gentile culture, or it would create its own jewish “church” to compete. “traditional” separatist judaism exists only in isolated pockets because american culture fundamentally respects and enshrines the rights of citizens, not communities.
there are players within the catholic or jewish community that don’t accept this, and see themselves as ‘community leaders’ who have a right to negotiate and dictate for their community. but they’re basically opportunists, and don’t constrain the typical catholic or jew, who exists in a marketplace of ideas. a large minority of americans are religious converts, and this includes catholics and jews. the “old world” is not the new world, and people can’t assume that religion and culture are fundamentally tied. two of the democratic candidates in 2004 were ethnically half-jewish, but religiously catholic.
finally, i’ve addressed this with hinduism before: it will either adapt or be absorbed by christianity and secularism. there really isn’t a choice in the united states, the surrounding culture does not give an implicit support toward hindu religiosity so the hindu temples need to promulgate an aggressive and relevant vision of their faith. or simply lose subsequent generations. it might be “sad” (i’m an atheist, i don’t care who gods you worship as long as you don’t blow yourselves up on buses like some religions), but that’s probably the reality. i’ve noticed lately that muslims in the USA have been using ‘arminian’ language when traditionally their religion is ‘predestinarian.’ since most people are ignorant about the theological details of their religon this shouldn’t be surprising, but it is interesting as it suggests that even muslims are protestantizing in their outlook.
p.s. some hindus who emphasize that “hinduism is really monotheistic” exhibit the same tendency of reformulating the religion to be in keeping with mainstream american standards. i’m a nominalist re: religion, i don’t think hinduism is essentially monotheistic or non-monotheistic, it is what you make of it. but, i suspect in india the typical hindu wouldn’t really think about this question in detail. those that did, such the early ‘reformists’ in brahmo and arya samaj were reacting pretty explicitly to christian critiques.
It does mutate in the States, it would be hard not to. One reason, as we’ve often discussed before, is that Hindus in desh often don’t have to explain or justify their religion to anyone, or actively seek it out, whereas Hindus in the US have to, are more self-conscious about it, and probably want their kids to have lessons or read up on the stuff (not that different from Westernized parents like mine giving us Amar Chitra Kathas to read along with Krishna stories and Ramayana and Mahabharata stories from the elders).
The desire of a migrant community to maintain solidarity with their own should not be underestimated either, and this is something that Hindus in the US do have in common with Muslims in Europe – the relatives I know in the States do go to the temple, if there is one, or have poojas at home much more often than we ever did at home. I also wonder if this has something to do with the church model in the US, whether Hindus and their kids feel like they “should” have a place of worship to go to and call their own as well (similarly, many sanatani Hindus I know who came to the States in the 70s and 80s before it was trendy to be multiculti and so on felt defensive about their lack of a “core book,” and, rather like the Brahmos and Arya Samajis confronted with the Christian challenge in the late 19C, got themselves and read up on the Bhagvad Gita). Plus you have the VHP and their presence among lots of highly-educated migrants in the US, who organised Hindu youth camps and the like that appeal to a desire among parents to not have the kids lose touch with “their culture” and particularly “their moral values” (i.e. not having sex!) By contrast, the average elite, educated Hindu in India will come into contact with institutionalised religion mainly for births, deaths and marriages.
Risible makes a good point too: “This American diaspora is very upper caste, and comes with wounded sensitivities–about reservations, anti-Brahmin movements etc., that will not disappear easily.” Many of those who came to the US for education in the 80s from South India were often upper caste and couldn’t get into elite institutions because of stringent caste reservations, I think this has something to do with the streak of conservatism I’ve noted in elite, well-educated Hindus in the US (far far more religiously conservative, in many cases, than an equivalent person back home).
Diana Eck has written about Hinduism in the US from an academic angle, IIRC. And Arvind Rajagopal has a great article/chapter (and forthcoming book?) about Hindu identity and the more Hindutva-oriented organisations in the US.
Re: converting to Hinduism, it’s an innovation, started with “reconversion” (ghar vapsi) campaigns for those who had become Christian (even though they might have been tribal/dalit with a tenuous link to Hinduism), and now I’ve been reading about Christians who marry Hindus in the west having to do a nominal conversion?
“By contrast, the average elite, educated Hindu in India will come into contact with institutionalised religion mainly for births, deaths and marriages.”
How are you defining elite? Are you South Indian btw?
I’m defining elite as someone with an advanced degree who makes good money, upper middle and upper class, and as I’ve lived mainly in the metropolises, I’m thinking of those who live in big cities. Am North Indian but grew up partly in the South, partly Bombay. I know there are more practising religious folks among South Indian upper castes, and probably more South Indians in the US desi population, so perhaps that’s part of it – though the Hindus I know in the States are mainly North Indian, some Gujarati, and their families back home are a lot less practising than they are. It’s also very much a generational contrast, which seems more striking for South Indians, I think, many of the (Tamil Brahmin) uncles and aunties I knew were quite regular with poojas but their kids were probably the most secular/religion-averse people!
“They also use the ideology of multiculturalism to justify and legitimize a militant Hindu nationalism”
What’s knew about this? I thought Vijay Prashad and Biju Matthew have devoted their lives to spreading this enlightening information to, well, other Indian leftists. Seeing as how she’s a part of the Maxwell school’s sociology department, no surprise she’s in total agreement with them.
I’ll agree with her that there definitely are organizations out there that conform to her thesis, but she’s made a pretty generalized statement, and I think that, overall, this idea of “militant Hindu nationalism” inflitrating the second generation is something that is ridiculously overblown by a miniscule but loud minority of Indian-American leftists.
I would bet on secularism. If one were to question Hinduism on an intellectual level, I doubt too many would opt for a monotheistic and messianic view of god. I agree that it will be difficult for Hinduism to survive in the “free market” if it exhibits even a semblance of polytheism. So it is likely that Hinduism will gravitate towards a more secular/spiritual belief system.
This part of the IndoLink article is interesting:
You can definitely see themes from US multiculturalism here – pride in one’s identity, suggestions that those who don’t choose to identify primarily as Hindu are vaguely self-hating, or ashamed to “come out,” that sort of thing. The conflation of ethnic and religious identity is also quite remarkable.
“It’s also very much a generational contrast, which seems more striking for South Indians, I think, many of the (Tamil Brahmin) uncles and aunties I knew were quite regular with poojas but their kids were probably the most secular/religion-averse people!”
I disagree to some extent, mainly because I think you’re not taking gender into account. I would agree that most South Indian boys, whether raised Indian or American, tend not to be religious and rarely practice the rituals. On the other hand, I think its rather different for girls. I think that to some extent, that has to do with gender roles. And while I don’t think I can really articulate this, I feel that a lot of Indian boys see religion as being emasculating.
If you go to any South Indian temples in the US, while the people who actually sit through the entire puja tend to be the older first generation, most of the crowd who come in on the weekends for the quick archana are almost entirely composed of the younger immigrants, former H1 types. Talking to my own cousins, a lot of the times its the wife that pushes for the visits and the archanas. you do see some groups of men come by themselves, but I think that has more to do with the opportunity of getting good cheap south indian food than any spiritual purpose.
I don’t know what the Maxwell school of thought is but her argument seems to be an extension of Anthony D. Smith’s theory of nationalism, ethnosymbolism, ethnic identities developing nationalist identities, etc. Which might explain why student organizations that explicitly note their national identity (Indian) fare better than a campus Hindu student organization, as per SP’s comment. I’ve anecdotally noticed a similar attempt to conflate identities amongst Sikh student organizations where as time has passed since 1984, the conflation of Sikh religious identity and Sikh nationalist identity has become weaker. One key difference being that a Hindu student organization has a nation and a national identity, however obfuscated, to fall back on.
Interesting – no, I’ve never been to the South indian temples in the U.S. It makes perfect sense that the older first-gens would be more serious about their religion than the recent H1 types, because they’ve probably spent more time in the US in a context where they had to struggle for their identity to be respected, plus all desis get rather more religious as they get older.
The point about gender is a good one, that seems to hold across generations and diaspora/desh religiosity. Possibly emphasized in the US context because Indian women are supposed to be the keepers of tradition generally and the tradition-preserving urge is naturally stronger away from the motherland. I’ve known many more South Indian uncles who were practising than North Indian ones, but that might be exceptional. As for the point about religion being emasculating, the interesting thing is that Hindu men are much more likely to vote BJP than women in India, and I daresay, to join groups like Sangh Parivar or VHP affiliated ones in the US, which points to a preference for a more “nationalistic” or identity-oriented religiosity – which also, at its origin, emphasized the strengthening and re-masculinisation (is that a word?) of the Hindu community.
As for the attraction of food – I’m guilty of that 😉
this may be the decisive point that brings down razib’s theory. Free food and free entry can bring anyone closer to god.
The free food factor brings a whole new level of meaning to the idea of a “place at the table.”
Here in the UK it is clear that some desis take refuge in a hyper politicised religious identity which becomes quite narrow in how it interprets religion. This is most pronounced as a phenomenon amongst British Muslims — you will have read and heard lots about that. But it is also noticeable amongst Hindus and Sikhs. Whatever the background it has some noticeable features amongst all desis:
A tendency to hunt down ‘traitors’ — those from the same faith background who do not share the interpretation and viewpoint. Alot of energy is spent in delineating differences as part of a purifying of the community. The neo-religionists are obsessed with de-legitimising heterodox / liberal versions of the faith.
The religion is in a perpetual state of crisis and persecution from outsiders. Historical events of genuine violence / oppression are amplified and made ‘relevant’ through propaganda and brainwashing to the condition of the ‘community’ living in the present day as a minority in the West. This begins to cloud how they perceive themselves as individuals; they exist on a continuum of persecution and are actively being persecuted, even though they live comfortable lives in the West and are more often than not from prosperous and economically comfortable backgrounds. Genuine issues of racism and discrimination in contemporary society are conflated with these threads and bolster the heightened sense of persecution.
A romanticising and exalting of the past, an asserting of a period in history of virginal purity and innocence and peace which was spoiled by outsiders or / and conniving traitors from within. A historical touchstone from which much of their energy and romanticism derives (and the romanticism of it is what makes it so seductive)
An imperialistic sensibility that underpins the rhetoric of ‘nationalistic’ pride — a muscular aspiration (the creation of a Caliphate, Akhand Bharat, Khalistan, Tamil Eelam) as an endpoint to the ideology.
It has to be said that this is all in line with studies that show how social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society. They can only exist, too, in parallel with the increasing integration and liberal interpretations of faith and identity which take place in the diaspora amongst the overwhleming majority of Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. It is the alarm they feel at what they see as their brothers and sisters ‘deracination’ that propels much of this.
However, it has been the case that organised groups have been able to leverage themselves in terms of public legitimacy through the mechanisms of multiculturalism in some instances, either through accessing funds or claiming to be sole or significant spokespeople for their ‘community’
smoking red snapper, I likes.
Red Snapper, the phenomenon you’ve described is really similar to that of cultural nationalism (cf John Hutchinson) and it certainly does seem to be taken to another level in diasporas.
I think, as Razib said, religion does have to morph to meet its new environment, including Hinduism. For example, Hinduism in India is practiced in so many different ways, within individual families, regions, states, etc. But in America, we are often one “Indian” community rather than being split by our groups (except maybe in major population centers like NYC). So in places like Salt Lake City, where I used to live, the small community of 5,000 had to face being a SERIOUS minority. Non-Mormons are 45 percent in the area, the majority of that are white Christians…so the community came together to make a temple and community center. I don’t remember the major icon in their temple, but I don’t think they tried to diversify by religion.
In Minneapolis, the new temple has icons from several parts of India to represent the population, like Ayyappa, Jagganath and Vishnu/Laxmi/Shiva. I guess that represents its growing population? Anyway, it was a big debate how to build the temple, what icons to put in, etc., because everyone wanted their specific area represented. I’m not criticizing that debate, but it definitely did slow down the process (the temple took about 20 years to build!) But whose regional preferences trumps others?
Oh yes, and I forgot to add that Hinduism allows for that change, adaptation and morphing. The way I learned Hinduism is that its an open, all-encompassing religion. Like someone said above, you can’t “convert” persay. That’s why there ARE regional differences in Hinduism–because every area adjusted it to their personal needs. Somewhere along the line, certain things that were done with no real reason behind them (or for the reasons that it was convenient, something else was missing, they needed to add more time to the ceremony, etc.) became “tradition” and suddenly people get really uptight about changing parts of rituals. That last part is my personal opinion…
Wonders never cease!!
If there is an internal critique(by practicing Hindus) that has incurred opposition, I would love some links.
You mean, the caste non-system, don’t you?
M. Nam
And there’s the gambit. If by ‘practicing Hindus’ you mean purists then purists see no problems with other purists but only with the non-comformists, waywards, sellouts, hybrids, and those that carve their own path. Forget the links yaar, listen in on the dialogue at a college campus- its the petri dish for this topic.
It’s hard to define the term “practising Hindu”. If my grandfathers came back from the dead and saw me today, they would clutch their heart and go back to the dead when they see my version of Hinduism.
I would say: Someone who is well versed in the basic concepts(Vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc), goes to the temple, attends/conducts puja (all at his/her convinience), conducts birth/marriage/death rituals as per Hindu practices etc etc.
M. Nam
That’s accurate As someone who grew up here and actually goes to sit down and recite the whole pujas once a month or so at the temple, I’ve seen that most of the other people that come for the whole thing are older (parents age). The thing about it is… no one (both male and female) comes to the temple by themselves to sit for an hour. It’s always married couples (with or without kids), or groups of hungry grad students that come for the free food.
It just strikes me as unusual maybe. I certainly know many catholics or other christians that would go by themselves to church. And I could be wrong, but Hindus in India probably go too. But it’s really unusual that it just doesn’t happen here.
What’s wrong with fighting against the denigration of Hindu symbols?
I am talking about absurdities put forth by US organizations such as finding Cricket Ganesha “defamatory”.
If there is an internal critique(by practicing Hindus) that has incurred opposition, I would love some links.
The millitants view anyone who doesn’t toe their line, essentially a nationalistic line in vehement oppostion to Muslims, communists, the English language media, as “anti-Hindu.” It is, to quote Red Snapper’s tour de force, “traitor hunting.” During the Californian textbook controversy, the “anti-Hindus” included some Hindu professors who signed in oppostion to the Vedic foundation edits.link.
I’m having trouble posting what I want to write for some reason (possibly length?), but I do think that Hinduism in the States is not currently meeting the needs of younger Hindus. I think razib is right in saying the faith will need to adapt (at least superficially), but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing. A faith as diverse as Hinduism can survive a certain degree of Americanization. I think it should be easier for younger Hindus who are currently trying to navigate both American and Hindu identities to access Hindu mandirs.
Anyway, my original post was much more detailed, so I guess I’ll just have to flesh it out in responses? 🙁
risible, that Cricket Ganesha link is hilarious. How dare people use artistic, “unscientific” techniques in creating murtis!
How influential are groups like ? Their tagline is, “Uniting Hindus Globally.” If I didn’t know anything about Hinduism and Hindus, I could easily have believed that they really did represent “the Hindu community,” simply because they say they do. Likewise a very few violent Muslims have claimed to respresent Islam, and now the majority of American Muslims are on the defensive, continually asked to prove they’re not nutjobs as well. Most Americans have at best a vague understanding of religions other than their own (not good, but that’s how it is), so whoever makes the most noise in the name of religion, tends to establish the idea of the religion to everyone else. Zionists have been the loudest, most agitated Jews in the US, so most Americans assume all Jews are Zionists. It rankles me to hear people talk about “the Jews” when they mean Zionists, and when Zionists accuse non-Zionists of being “self-hating Jews.” I made a similar mistake when I referred to a Forced-Birth organization as “the Christians;” an understandably insulted Christian friend corrected me.
Question for moderate Hindus: HJS and similar groups are claiming to speak for all Hindus. Are you concerned that Americans will believe their version of Hinduism is “the” Hinduism, or do you think they’ll just be ignored? If they gain prominence in the US, what will you do?
Please add my praises to Red Snapper’s post.
gah, I can’t html tag to save my life.
A correct way of putting it is : Some professors with Hindu names. Madhav Deshpande uses the ManuSmriti to make his points. ManuSmriti!! It’s like using “Mein Kampfh” to study today’s Germans. No practising Hindu will ever use ManuSmriti to rationalize anything.
Actually, it’s the other way round. Some professors with Hindu names, Witzel, and a small bunch of leftist academics are claiming to speak for all Hindus.
Visit a temple. Any temple. Pick a random set of people and ask them who/what they believe in. Your definition of “moderate” will need a major adjustment.
M. Nam
So a Hindu who doesn’t attend a temple frequently isn’t a Hindu, just “someone with a Hindu name”? Maybe you could tell me, since I’m not a Zionist and don’t go to temple, am I a Jew?
If one were to question Hinduism on an intellectual level,
believe it or not, very little religious change is driven by intellectual concerns. the best predictive variables are social, cultural and personal (e.g., check network theory and what not). like jews, i suspect hindus will tend to secularize toward a cultural identity and a nominal religious affinity which isn’t very distinctive (i.e., different than christian monotheism, but aping its general outlines so as not to be too “weird”). but, if you look at the fact that 80% of americans are christian, a generation by generation period of conversion to christianity is pretty lethal for the numbers of a minority, if that minority isn’t growing through conversion as well. jews have this problem, even though many (most) do not convert to christianity, enough do in every generation that without birth rate (e.g., galicia in the 18th century) they tend to get absorbed into the christian substratum.
The point about gender is a good one, that seems to hold across generations and diaspora/desh religiosity.
in the usa almost every religion has a female bias (islam and buddhism are the only exceptions). this is a cross-cultural tendency, males tend to secularize more quickly (see catholic europe, latin america, south korea). there are various social, economic and psychological explanations given, but it is an almost universal trend that women are more gullible re: superstitions.
It has to be said that this is all in line with studies that show how social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society.
the multi-textured nature of islam, hinduism, buddhism, etc. in the old country is predicated on particular specific historically contingent parameters. once those are removed and you’re thrown in with a bunch of new co-religionists then you are forced to generate a new identity de novo. that happened with hinduism in mauritius and guyana. it happened with judaism and catholicism in the USA. it is happening with islam in europe.
That’s why there ARE regional differences in Hinduism–because every area adjusted it to their personal needs.
i think this gets it wrong. religion in many parts of the world is defined by a cartel system. you can’t pick & choose, you’re born. hindus in the USA tend to espouse this viewpoint because that’s how it is in india. it is not how it is in the USA. there is a tacit agreemant among many that hinduism is a religion you can’t be born into. taking into account conversion (even if minimal) to other religions, low birth rate, etc., that means by definition hinduism is a religion which will probably be an immigrant faith indefinitely, since native descendents will drift away (since there can’t be replenishment via conversion). which means a new form will mutate which will say that you can convert, and that’ll dominate amongst natives (krishna’s are an example of this).
So many reactions, oof.
That’s crap. In that case, whatever you do isn’t enough. There’s also the mistake of assuming “this culture” as a static one that already belongs to a pre-authorized few.
Nina, to answer your question, the same can be asked of Christians in this country. The most vocal ones are the fundamentalist, gay-bashing, evolution-hating bigots, but that’s not what I perceive most Christians as. No one who has friends outside his or her religion and culture could possibly categorize one religion as being its most zealous fringes.
Red Snapper, I agree with you up to the point that “social dislocation and emigration often do lead to movements that homogenise identity in order to cope with a communal sense of anomie, and that often they are catalysed by genuine discrimination and alienation / marginalisation from mainstream society.” Well, I agree with you on that one, too, but have you not seen similar behavior in non-socially dislocated and non-emigrant groups? I have. This kind of behavior begins the moment a social difference, any difference, is perceived.
I think the “new agers” of the west have got the right idea when it comes to the various branches of Hinduism as well as other eastern religions/philosophical systems. They seem to take the postive, progressive aspects and leave behind the backwards, repressive and gender biased ones.
This is something my friends and I (Indian and non) have grappled with for years and we are still trying to find a balance between our traditional beliefs and lifestyles and the expression of our individuality.
When in India I see these new agers bring with them to the country a fresh sort of openness and non-judgemental attitude that is severely lacking amongst religionists who fancy themselves “authentic” and “traditional”.
On the one hand you get someone who makes some sukriti or pious benefit by following this and that rule of dharma, but then totally absolves it via their criticism and fault finding of others who are not doing the same. Then on the otherhand you get people who are deemed “indisciplined” or lacking in culture/etiquette/rule following, but make up for all that via their ability to just simply relax and be nice to people.
It’s very rare to meet someone who combines both a strict and traditional lifestyle with a totally chilled and non-repressive vibe.
That’s crap. In that case, whatever you do isn’t enough. There’s also the mistake of assuming “this culture” as a static one that already belongs to a pre-authorized few.
some people are unpleasant losers. so they conflate hostility toward their innate unpleasantness with their ethno-religious identity. of course, racism, etc., exists. but, the fact is that a lot of people suck, and if you’re colored you have an ‘out’ that it isn’t because you suck (though a lot of people male losers are also getting in on the victim jig).
As I said before, it’s not easy to describe a “practising Hindu”. In these matters, perception is everything. Which is why I said, attend any temple, anywhere in the world – ask a random set of people whether they believe VedicFoundation’s views to be true or MichealWitzel’s views to be correct. The answer will be illuminating to you.
Of course, there are minority views as well. Most hold Sita in reverence and as an ideal wife. A small, insignificant minority may view her as a doormat. The question is: Whose views should be taught in schools? Again, take a random set of Hindus in any temple and ask them. The answer will be enlightening.
M. Nam
Of course, temples include self-selecting populations of older, conservative people because they create environments that are hostile to young people or new ideas.
So yes, go in to an old, conservative place and you’ll find that a “random” selection of people have old, conservative values.
I have read Manu Smriti(translated into Hindi) Its comparison to mein kamph is purposely frivolous attempt at your part to make a needlessly thwarting argument.
I take offense at ‘religion’ label being thrown as a blanket. I am not that comfortable using dharma in all context either.
These are issues that me and my Indian and non-Indian friends talk about alot. As members of a “traditional” type of “Hindu” religion which requires us to adopt various aspects of what are thought to be “traditional Indian customs”, but yet at the same time thinking of ourselves as very modern, progressive, etc, we often find ourselves at odds. Usually it has to do with aspects of behaviours that we are expected to incorporate into our lives that really don’t have anything to do with the religion itself and more to do with expected behaviours of women who follow “traditional Indian culture/s” — the modest dress, the reserved behaviour, etc, etc, etc.
Now that I’ve returned to the West I have discovered that the “new age” community – you know, the people into chakra-alignment, hot yoga, and all that stuff, seem to have achieved an almost perfect balance by incorporating only the progressive and “cool” aspects of Eastern religions/philosophical systems into their lives, while leaving behind the non-progressive and spirit-crushing repressive aspects of those very same systems.
Granted, when these folks go to India they generally go in groups of their own and don’t really live with and amongst locals in a hardcore way like the way we do, and perhaps that is why they are able to still be their genuine selves.
Sure, but it is a driver in the context of the communities we are talking about here, not exclusive to them (us?), but in the context of migration it can be more immediate, acute and influential. But of course, it is not exclusive to desis in the West.
And besides, what looks to us on the surface like a bewildering turning to extremist nationalism, racial ideology and enclosed narrow identity movements amongst ‘non dislocated groups’ may actually be the result of those groups experiencing profound and disorienting change themselves. It’s just that we don’t see it, perhaps because, like you said, we don’t consider them with enough attention as we do to our own experience. I was reading recently about how far-right white nationalist groups found some purchase amongst the children and grandchildren of white working class Londoners who in the post war period were effectively hustled out of the tightly knit white working class areas of East London and transplanted into social housing estates full of brutalist architecture that within a generation had become dens of drug abuse and social breakdown. In the meantime they were seduced by a narrative that placed them as the losers in a global conspiracy to favour black and brown immigrants and actively persecute the marginalised white working class youths abandoned on concrete wastelands far from the eye of the media or political classes. Without the extended family, the pan-generational networks and support systems and localised pride and common experience that had existed in the East End of London for generation upon generation amongst them, they too underwent something akin to what we can observe to varying degrees amongst some of our desi peers.
Here’s an interesting exercise — examine some of the similarities between right wing conservative movements and even white nationalists in the UK / USA with the rhetoric and psychological conditioning of various religious-identity based ideological groups amongst desis.
What if that person came from Bali?
Its not something i am saying facetiously, It is something I am saying to raise an important point which is to shun ‘religion’ as a label.
New Age Hinduism is ok, but the Western new agers have their own normative expectations about proper behavior (and hierarchy) that can be just as annoying and prescriptive. And I do miss some level of tradition and identity that can get lost in the sheer novelty of new age Hinduism. I don’t mean to knock these groups, but I don’t think they would satisfy my religious/spiritual needs either.
I guess I’m looking for something along the lines of Reform Judaism for Hindus.