search expand

For more Anthropology of Christianity

(LINKS UPDATED 26.5.2020) What is happening within Christianity today? This is a question that is exciting to study, but which has received little attention among anthropologists, says Norwegian anthropologist Edle Lerang Nes.

For hundreds of years, Christianity has been the most important religion in Europe and some other places on this planet. But while everybody is studying Islam, Christianity seems to be ignored.

As Edle Lerang Nes tells in an interview with me, parts of Christian culture actually is “endangered culture” and therefore a field for “urgent anthropology”.

Nes studied “chapel culture” – part of Revival Christianity – which broke out in Norway at the end of the 18th century. It was a layman’s movement in opposition to church authorities. A personal relationship to God was important, combined with a sober and hardworking lifestyle without dance, merriment, music, or card-playing ( >> overview Christianity in Norway). How is Christian life developping on this island? Nes conducted fieldwork on the small island if Finnøy, in Southwestern Norway where there are no pubs or restaurants, but the approximately 1,700 inhabitants can choose between five different chapels and a church.

Her research also reminds us of how important religion is for many people in rural areas that are often ignored by researchers and the mainstream press.

>> read the interview (website of the research project Culcom, University of Oslo)

There is not much material on anthropology and christianity online, but Ingie Hovland (from Anthropology Matters) has a large section of posts on her blog about the anthropology of christianity – part of her two book projects – where she also reviews several books and papers.

I found an interesting blog post about being Christian and anthropologist. Being a Christian anthropologist raises difficult questions, Katherine Cooper writes, among others because of the tenet of cultural relativism:

All practices and beliefs, whether shocking to a Westerner or not, are said to ‘make sense’ within the society that they are located. Such views cause problems for Christians. Christianity is an ultimate truth claim with an absolute framework for morality located in the character and commands of a personal God. How do we square our belief in such a claim with studying a subject that inherently denies the validity of such claims?

She also links to the paper by Dean E. Arnold Why Are There So Few Christian Anthropologists? Reflections on the Tensions between Christianity and Anthropology

Last year, anthropologist Gabriele Marranci wrote an interesting blog post called Terrorism in the name of Jesus? Everybody ignore. The Italian Christian anti-Islamic terrorist movement called Fronte Combattente Cristiano or ‘Fighting Christian Front’ has been responsible for several bomb attacks against Islamic centres and mosques:

I thought that news about the first Christian anti-Muslim terrorist group would have attracted international attention and fostered new debates. (…) But the news about a self-defined Christian terrorist and a Christian (mainly Catholic) terrorist organization has attracted virtually no attention.

SEE ALSO:

Researches neo-paganism in an overwhelmingly Catholic society

The Journals of Knud Rasmussen: The impact of Christianity among the Inuit

Explores how indigenous peoples interprete Christianity

How far have we come since anthropologists began to think about magic & religion?

Maurice Bloch: Religion is a Figment of Human Imagination

(LINKS UPDATED 26.5.2020) What is happening within Christianity today? This is a question that is exciting to study, but which has received little attention among anthropologists, says Norwegian anthropologist Edle Lerang Nes.

For hundreds of years, Christianity has…

Read more

Thesis: Hijab empowers women

What is it like being veiled and working in Australian companies? Anthropologist Siham Ouazzif sent me her thesis “Veiled Muslim Women in Australian Public Space: How do Veiled Women Express their Presence and Interact in the Workplace?

Siham Ouazzif conducted 16 in-depth interviews with Australian veiled women. They were well educated and held different professions from professors, psychologists, teachers to marketing managers.

Hijab and veiling are highly polarized issues today. So maybe it was no big surprise that her potential informants were sceptical in the beginning:

In the beginning of my research I soon realized that among my informants there was a feeling of scepticism at being part of a study that explored Muslim women’s issues. However as they came to know that I too was from a Muslim background I sensed they felt more at ease. Nearly all of the women expressed a sense of frustration at having been misrepresented in both the media and in other academic studies. They did not want to be part of a study that reinforced an image of veiled Muslim women as oppressed, backwards or limited. 

The anthropologist concludes:

In general they understood the hijab to be empowering and many concluded that being veiled and an active professional proved that wearing the hijab did not hinder women from achieving what they want.

 

The veil signified respect and control over public space. Most women gave the impression that the veil made them feel stronger as feminists in public, she writes.

Hadda who worked at a Microsoft company said:

When I started wearing the veil, I felt more in control and protected, men didn’t look at me in a sexual way, I felt respected and that made me feel more comfortable working with men.

But their muslim identity at the same time limited their relationships with their colleagues – especially outside the work place:

The women emphasized that their Islamic commitment was incompatible with non-Muslims way of socializing, especially because it involved alcohol. However, most of the women felt that co-workers treated them with respect and inclusion.
(…)
(M)ost women simply explained that, “In Islam I am not allowed to shake the hand of a man I am not related to,” although a few avoided explaining this to their male colleagues for fear of being impolite. In this way the veil transformed into a physical separation between male co-workers and the women. But most of the women also said they felt more comfortable in their interaction with men, because the hijab restrained sexual flirtation or the sharing of inappropriate jokes.

Of course, stereotypes about suppressed muslim women in the media that were also shared by some colleagues, made the women frustrated and angry. However the majority of women believed strongly that positive changes would appear in time:

Most believed that the increasing number of Muslim women actively interacting and engaging in the Australian society would change people’s stereotypes.

For the women, wearing a hijab is like bearing the flag of islam:

Amongst my informants veiling was far from extremism or an experience of oppression but rather a public statement and as some women confirmed explicitly, wearing the veil is like bearing the flag of Islam, an identity they wished to preserve.
(…)
Motivations for veiling seemed to transform in meaning: sometimes it was related to religious identity, sometimes to a gendered political resistance. The interesting response was not so much their explicit answer for why they veiled or what the veil signified to them in a non-Muslim society, but rather how they understood the concept of veiling in Australia where they constitute a minority.
(…)
Veiling as a form of protest or resistance was present in the women statements. For some of these women veiling was used as a symbol to make a public statement to support the Muslim world. However most women seemed to think that it is was not political but more as an identity.

Interestingly, of all the fifteen women she spoke with only three knew which verses in the Koran mentions the head cover. Nevertheless all confirmed that the veil was compulsory in Islam.

>> download the thesis “Veiled Muslim Women in Australian Public Space: How do Veiled Women Express their Presence and Interact in the Workplace?”

Siham Ouazzif has also written the article (Norwegian only) Hijab i vesten og de mange motiver (Kvinner sammen 2/2007)

SEE ALSO:

Lila Abu-Lughod: It’s time to give up the Western obsession with veiled Muslim women

Phd-Thesis: That’s why they embrace Islam

What is it like being veiled and working in Australian companies? Anthropologist Siham Ouazzif sent me her thesis "Veiled Muslim Women in Australian Public Space: How do Veiled Women Express their Presence and Interact in the Workplace?"

Siham Ouazzif…

Read more

Militarisation of Research: Meet the Centre for Studies in Islamism and Radicalisation

We have discussed a lot about the strengthening ties between the military and universities in the USA and Britain, but similar things are happening in Scandinavia. And there is no public debate about it here.

One example is a research center that was founded last year by the Danish Ministry of Defence: the Centre for Studies in Islamism and Radicalisation.

It is part of the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus and focuses according to the website on radicalisation, ideologies and the international consequences of “Islamism”:

The Centre for Studies in Islamism and Radicalisation will assemble anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and theologians, who can contribute to the understanding of what happens when Islam becomes a political ideology with the objective of overthrowing Governments.

And the role of anthropologists? (source):

The anthropological part of the project will mainly focus on processes of radicalisation, on how radicalisation manifests itself gradually, through adaptation of new world views, values and lifestyle. Data will be collected through field work and surveys. The main hypothesis is that interaction between an individual in search for identity and a radicalised group play an important role in the process of radicalisation.

It is described as an independent research institute but I wonder how free it is when the establishment of the research center is part of the U.S-led “war on terror” and the premises are so clear. The project regards terrorism as a phenomenon that is mainly linked to islam. “Islamism” is according to the Minister of Defence, Søren Gade, the biggest threat to peace on earth. The Minister of Defence said that the research findings will play a central part in Denmarks policy in their so-called “war on terror”.

This world view is also reflected in many project descriptions, for example “Islamic Radicalisation among Muslims in Denmark. A Policy-oriented Empirical Study” by Shahamak Rezaei and Marco Goli:

Islamism is designated as the primary enemy of the democratic world, the omnipresent threat, and when, at the time of writing, at least two major wars are being fought against Islamism (in Afghanistan and Iraq). A vast number of billions drained from the Western state funds are being invested in national and international security.

The aim of this project is to provide empirical knowledge about factors that characterise the processes of radicalisation among young Muslims, e.g. from faith to politics, from religion to ideology, from civic society to the enemy.

The project’s key empirical questions to be answered are:
1. Which processes characterise the movement from “normal”, cultural or religious Muslims to radical Islamists, mainly from the group of young Danes with an immigrant background from third countries?
2. What motivates this process?
3. How can we identify radical Muslims?

Or take a look at Lene van der Aa Kühle’s project, called “The Cultic Milieu“:

The development of a European Islam has not followed the expectations of most researchers. Instead of forming and reforming in a liberal and secularized manner, radical Islam has developed as perhaps the most distinctive form of European Islam.

But the question of why some Muslims become radical has not been easy to answer. Studies propose that there is no single pattern which can explain how and why some young European Muslims become radical. Marginalization, deprivation and resentment may provide part of the explanation, but Muslims who are radicalized are often fairly well integrated and at least not any more marginalized and deprived than large part of the Muslim community.

Studies have failed to find any psychological deficiencies and while the impact of radical religious authorities seems in some cases to have had an influence, in others the process seems to be one of self-radicalization.

Then there is one project with a different perspective. Jonathan Githens-Mazer actually challenges much of what is said on the website. From his description of his project “Causes and Process of Radicalisation among Young Muslims in Leicester (UK)“:

While there exists a very real threat of violent extremism in the UK, this threat comes from an extremely small minority, and many young Muslims feel as though they are under constant surveillance and scrutiny despite rejecting any form of political violence.

These same young people also often feel as though their own individual efforts to empower communities to be resilient against violent radicalisation and violent extremism aren’t being understood and/or heralded by non-Muslim communities, politicians and the police and security services.

This project will seek to act as a corrective to this neglect of Muslim community perspectives on issues of radicalisation and violent extremism – by conducting a series of qualitative structured interviews with young Muslims, their parents, community social workers and Imams from Leicester (UK).

I’m not 100% sure what I should think of this but it reminds me of a British initiative, see my earler post Protests against British research council: “Recruits anthropologists for spying on muslims”

There are lots of papers and links on the website that might be worth a study. Among the institutions they link to, we find The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence.

Maximilian Forte has written several interesting posts on his Open Anthropology blog recently, among others What are the Pentagon’s Minerva Researchers Doing? and Militarizing the Social Sciences and Humanities in Canada

SEE ALSO:

The dangerous militarisation of anthropology

“War on terror”: CIA sponsers anthropologists to gather sensitive information / see also debate on this on Savage Minds

Fieldwork reveals: Bush administration is lying about the “war on terror” in the Sahara

Anthropology and Counterinsurgency: The Strange Story of Their Curious Relations

Two Books Explore the Sins of Anthropologists Past and Present

Cooperation between the Pentagon and anthropologists a fiasco?

We have discussed a lot about the strengthening ties between the military and universities in the USA and Britain, but similar things are happening in Scandinavia. And there is no public debate about it here.

One example is a research…

Read more

Anthropology, islam and homosexuality

Anthropology student Lykke Bjørnøy sent me an article on homosexuality and islam that she wrote as part of her studies at the University of Cairo. She tries to understand why homosexuality often is demonized. Not only in Islam, but also in Christianity (and other religions I suppose), homosexuality is a touchy subject.

It is (as always) work in progress and Lykke Bjørnøy is interested in getting feedback and comments:

Are homosexuals impure according to Sunni Islam?

Written by Lykke V. Bjørnøy

Last year I lived in the noisy metropolitan city of Cairo. Living there as a western, blond girl, my thoughts about discrimination and womens’ rights was flourishing in my head. I have never been so visible in my life and I wondered: Are there other groups that are invisible, but feel even more visible than I did? I looked different than all the others. However, I didn’t feel different.

Almost every religion has an opinion about homosexuals, or at least a view on sodomy. In Christianity sodomy is considered as “a sin against nature” and it’s the same in Judaism where it’s written in Leviticus: “[A man] shall not lie with another man as with a woman” Leviticus 18:22), both Christians and Jews are referring to this particular verse when the issue about homosexuality is questioned.

Islam doesn’t have the same clear restrictions on this subject, like other religions, but there are several hadiths and views on the topic. Islam contains much more written and boundary filled sexuality than Christianity. The Qur’an for instance is filled with restrictions according to sex, how it’s done, who it’s ought to perform and what time it should be done. One of the reasons for this can be the prophet Muhammad behavior, he was a sexual man in a contrast to Jesus. For the Prophet to cope with all the difficulties that could appear concerning sexual actions and the interaction with all his wives, he made restrictions and rules that would help the participants to deal with the conflicts that could emerge.

However, rules that are related to the control and restrictions against sodomy and sex in general is not just special for Islam, but all the religions, there is a set of laws in most holy texts, especially about the outsiders and the un-traditional actions that can take place in a society. The religion creates boundaries for the participants hence; it’s a way to deal with elements that need restriction or are considered unusual. Homosexuals have a different position and status than the mainstream in a society, and sometimes they are not even acknowledged. The president of Iran, Ahmadinejad, said on Fox News that they didn’t have a problem with homosexuals because they didn’t exist. Even though Ahmadinejad is seen as a Shi’a, his point still stands, his impression of homosexuality is just another act of sodomy which is not prohibited.

In order to understand the reasons why homosexuals often are considered as heathens, and why they are frequently demonized, it is therefore necessary to examine the basis of the condemnation. Demonization is often related to sickness and disturbances and these themes will be discussed further as we go along.

Homosexuality as a sickness
If you ask any religious scholar about homosexuals you get many different answers. One of the issues that are frequently discussed is the linkage between homosexuality as a disease. And if it is a sickness is it curable? There are scientists who do research on this matter right now; the internet is loaded with organizations and pages that discuss this issue (www.narth.com). So why do some people have the cravings to solve the “un-normalities” in the society and why is it so frowned upon?

What is it about the homosexuals that are so obviously wrong that needs to be solved? One argument that has been questioned is the fact that homosexuals have no function in the society and in the world in general, hence there has to be something wrong with them. The lion eats the zebra, the zebra eats grass; the circle of life. With homosexuals the circle of life is not being fulfilled.

Mary Douglas argues in her book “Purity and danger” that every human has a certain feeling of order. That objects or people are seen as impure if they don’t fit in a specific system. If homosexuals don’t fit in circle of life, they cannot reproduce, for this reason they are seen as impure according to Douglas. Several imams states that “if everyone was a homosexual, the world would go under”, which is true in the long term, because there would be no reproduction. Or as I see it a perfect solution to solve the global problem of constant increasing world population.

Levi-Strauss’ argument about impurity builds around the imam’s statement. For him, impurity is often linked to progress and logic. He proves this by looking at why incest is prohibited in most societies. He claims that one of the reasons that incest is prohibited is because it only reproduces defected human beings, which in the long term would lead to the extinction of human kind. If homosexuality is seen as impure because of their lack of reproducing skills, then why would God created them?

Most religious scholars reject the fact that it’s biological, by that I mean that homosexuality is something one is born with or can inherit. This is often stated because God doesn’t differentiate between people, we are all children of Adam according to the Sunni tradition. The hollowness in our stomachs, the lack of control, these are all factors that make us all similar (Katz, 2002:177.) In spite the fact that we all are made from the same foundation, Adam lost his purity in the Garden of Eden because apparently – no man is perfect. Since humans are not faultless there are stories in the Qur’an and in the Bible about what happens to people that don’t behave themselves, commit sins or disobey God.

The most famous one is the story about “The People of Lot” that exist both in the Quran and in the Bible. “The people of Lot” commits sins, like sodomy. The word homosexuality is of course not mentioned in the Qur’an or the Bible because it’s a modern expression. We can’t find an expression that is even comparable with the English term that was first used in the early 19th century, but the closest we get to homosexuality in is the act of sodomy (Qur’an:302).

The People of Lot got punished by God for their behavior and their towns were “turned upside down, and rained on them stones of backed clay, in a well arranged manner one after another” (Quran: 82) Apparently, these cities were in Palestine which today is the Dead Sea. This is the only punishment mentioned towards sodomy, however it’s pretty brutal. There are discussions about how sodomy ought to be punished today in some countries especially the Arab world, some scholars say that they should be stoned to death and get the same treatment as those who commit adultery, on the other hand this interpretation of the Qur’an has been created after the time of the Prophet Mohammed and has its origins from the hadiths and not the Holy script itself.

In the legal sources there has been differentiated between a grand and a petty sodomy. The grand sodomy is the action that takes place between two men and requires death of both participants (Wright & Rawson 1997:116) according to legal sources. A petty sodomy is anal sex between a man and a woman, although sexual intercourse with the opposite sex is” legal” this action is also forbidden by the Sunni tradition (Ibid). Since the Qur’an doesn’t differentiate between peoples’ feelings for the same sex and the actions of sodomy, means that the acts of sexual intercourse is the factor that makes sodomy impure and forbidden, not the homosexuals themselves.

As I mentioned in the introduction, sexuality has been an important part of literature and has played a much bigger part in Islam rather than it has in Christian societies. The grand example of this sort of literature is “One Thousand and One Nights” that were written in the early 1900’s and is filled with stories which all have elements of sexual actions, including sodomy. The simplicity of the sexual actions that were taken place in these stories say that sexual actions were not frowned upon, but rather appreciated. Why sodomy has the status of being “The Sin” contains an arsenal of meanings. The sexual act of sodomy is seen as animalistic, and naturally the sexual image of dog sex may have it’s similarities to sodomy, since the modern term of anal sex is called “doggy-style” is not taken out of the blue.

Islam has its restrictions and guidelines toward sexual actions and distinguishes between minor and major ahdaths. One example of a major ahdath can be regular sexual intercourse. Reinhart argues in is article “Impurity no Danger” that there is no danger in being in an impure state as an answer to Douglas’ article. He argues that there is a lack of control that makes something impure, not that an object is out of place. Reinhart says that Douglas’s argument don’t stand because semen, tears and mothers milk is not seen as impure objects in Islam. So it’s the action of ejaculation that is seen as a lack of control and therefore gains the same status a laughter break-out during prayer.

On the other hand another anthropologist named Julie Marcus agrees with Douglas and says that the fluid of sexual liquid across the body boundaries is seen as crucial (Marcus 1992:78). In other words the only solution to prevent oneself from getting in a position of impurity, is control. Therefore, if one compares adultery with sodomy as comparable sizes the only way the actor cannot become impure, is restriction. And in fact if you resist your desires you get paid in heaven according to the Qur’an (Qur’an:200).

The social sexual hierarchy in Islam
One of the foundations in Islam are that women and men are ought to be treated equally since they are both made from the same soul (Qur’an:7.189). Men and women are different biologically and Islam has rules on how the sexes cooperate with their biologically differences towards Islam. There are restrictions on menstruation, childbirth, sexual actions etc. and these are all considered major ahdath so they require major ablution before entering a mosque or pray.

Marcus argues in is article “Islam, Gender and hierarchy” that there do exist a basic social hierarchy in Islam. She says that women are naturally under men in the social hierarchy. She claims that since women menstruate and give birth they are considered below men in the social hierarchy. The lack of control concerning menstruation places women in an impure position regularly, without the possibility to change her status. She continues in her article “hierarchy is achieved at the point at which women are constructed as uncontrolled (…)”(Marcus 1992: 88.). By this statement she says implicit that men have a way to control their impurity, hence achieve then the higher rank in the hierarchy.

I will take Marcus’ theory a little bit further and make the comparison with homosexuals. Where do they fit in Marcus’s theory? If we state Marcus theory as a fact, man to man sex doesn’t fit into the system. If the regular dichotomy doesn’t hold its normal position, the factor is then according to Douglas’s theory impure, because it’s a matter out of place, in other words it’s un-placeable. If the natural order in the sexual hierarchy is not maintained and when the inferior is changed with the superior we end up with two sizes that are exactly the same.

This theory still stands if one just discusses sodomy which could happen between the same sex and the opposite sex. It is honorable to be the penetrator and it’s a disgrace to be the one’s being penetrated (Wright & Rowson 1997:199). The ones who is the penetrator has the power and the ones receiving are the inferior and when the action is between two men the action itself creates a hierarchy not the actors themselves.

Conclusion
The concept of same-sex sexual interactions has a tendency to disgust religious scholars and an attempt of legalizing homosexuals’ rights is seen as another “Western influence”. One of the reasons why religious scholars don’t acknowledge homosexuals is that it is not written implicit in the Qur’an how to handle them, just the actions of sodomy. Homosexuality is “The Sin” in Islam; the causes are that the well-known and “normal” social hierarchy that is presented in the holy scripts and in nature as we know it, is being tampered with.

A meddled system always creates chaos, and at the same time destructs the natural order as well as creating impurity. Since the impurity is characterized by actions that are located in social hierarchies, the status of a homosexual is not seen as impure.

The fact that there are two masculine human beings having sexual intercourse Marcus’ hierarchy is not being fulfilled, where there ought to be one superior and one being the inferior. When the sexual hierarchy is in chaos, who is then there to help us get the system back on track, when religion is the one factor, according to Durkheim that creates a system in chaos. Since the sexual actions between two men create an unbalance, will there ever be a system that accepts the interactions between homosexuals?

Bibliography
Douglas, Mary “Purity and Danger” 1966
Marcus, Julie, “A world of difference. Islam and gender hierarchy in Turkey”, Sydney 1992
Katz, Marion Holmes, “Body of Text: The Emergence of the Sunni Law of Ritual Purity”
Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.: State Univ of New York Pr 2002,
Reinhart, Kevin “Impurity / No Danger” University of Chicago;1990
Wright, W Jr. & Everett K. Rowsen “Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Litterature” Colombia University Press: 1997
Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali & Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan “Al-Quran” Islamic University, al-Medinah al-Munawwarah

SEE ALSO:

Native American Tribe Allows Gay Marriage

A subculture of hefty, hirsute gay men is attracting the attention of academics

An anthropologist on sex, love and AIDS in a university campus in South Africa

Researched the sexual revolution in Iran

Anthropology student Lykke Bjørnøy sent me an article on homosexuality and islam that she wrote as part of her studies at the University of Cairo. She tries to understand why homosexuality often is demonized. Not only in Islam, but also…

Read more

Book Review: How Indissoluble is Hindu Marriage?

Divorce does not belong to Hindu tradition, anthropologist Livia Holden was told when she started her research in India 14 years ago. But is this true? Tereza Kuldova reviews for antropologi.info Holden’s new book Hindu Divorce. A Legal Anthropology.

Anthropologist Livia Holden has been on 16 months of fieldwork over the course of 12 years in a village in Madhya Pradesh, India. With the help of the case studies of several women she challenges popular belief and earlier anthropological studies.

Here is the review:

cover

Review: Holden, Livia. 2008. Hindu Divorce: A Legal Anthropology. Ashgate.

Tereza Kuldova

Livia Holden’s book Hindu Divorce presents an invaluable and to a certain degree also provocative re-examination of the praxis and legal status of Hindu divorce and remarriage, both in its past and present manifestations. Being an anthropologist, Livia Holden has the necessary first-hand experience with the actual practices of Hindu divorce and remarriage, at the same time as she connects these with the greater framework of the official law at the national level and even traces the implications of her findings transnationally.

Her examination of the divorce practices and remarriage is based on 16 months of fieldwork over the course of 12 years in a village in Madhya Pradesh, India. Over these years she had the opportunity to follow her informants, their stories and to develop deep relationships.

With the help of the case studies of several women (p. 69-124), which she has gathered over this period, she proves that contrary to the popular discourse in which Hindu marriage is considered indissoluble, and even contrary to the most legal and even anthropological studies, it is possible to find textual, historical and even contemporary evidence of customary provisions for divorce and remarriage.

The mainstream view of the Brahmans and other upper-caste Hindus, as it is codified in the Laws of Manu and other classical texts, which claims that marriage – solemnized according to the sacred rites prescribed by the ancient religious texts – is indissoluble, is contested on the basis of the customary law and practice.

It is also this view which served the British when developing the Anglo-Hindu personal law, as they gave priority to the religious texts and naturally also to the upper-caste views on law (p. 14). This codification led to even greater general consolidation of this idea, which is again what is reflected in most of the anthropological and law treatises.

In 1955 the Hindu Marriage Act was passed. This act guaranteed divorce for all Hindus and has saved customary practices of divorce. The emphasis on customary law and practices is important here, because, as Livia Holden points out, it would be a misconception to believe that most Hindu divorces take place through the juridical process in the civil courts, it is rather the customary law which prevails.

In addition “the inclusion of custom in the realm of the legal has the unique advantage of overcoming the fictional opposition between normative and non-normative behaviors, or between official and alternative normative orders that fix society within the limits of a privileged and totalizing cultural system” (p. 11). And it thus corresponds more to what her empirical data clearly show, i.e. that these customary provisions for divorce and remarriage function even among Brahmans and other high-caste Hindus, even though they are commonly perceived as practices of the lower castes.

She claims firmly that “dissolution of marriage did not only exist from ancient times; it was available to women and it was also widespread among the Hindu upper caste” (p. 5).

Being inspired by the feminist anthropology she also provides throughout her book an account of “how the mainstream Hindu discourse of gender imbalance shapes the legal discourse of law and how, in turn, the official legal discourse shapes Hindu society” (p. 19). Relating her empirical observations to the law discourse and theories on gender, she shows that customary law may actually provide more scope than the statutory personal law for the woman to negotiate successfully the conditions of her existence. She provides an analysis of the problem whether and if so how does the Hindu divorce and remarriage constitute a certain way out for women in the situations of matrimonial crisis.

In this context she presents several of her cases in which she also discusses such topics as arranged and child marriage, dowry, bigamy, domestic violence and interestingly also manipulations of custom and of official law. She further discusses the treatment of the Hindu divorce in the framework of national official law and its various relationships to the customary law and discusses the effects of the official law for the women.

She concludes that:

“in specific circumstances Hindu women can successfully negotiate the end of an unsuitable matrimonial tie and remarry to secure better lives for themselves and their children; but for an understanding of peculiar techniques, which are part of the women’s legal awareness, it is necessary to see beyond positive law, to where the non-state law can inform or even substitute for state-law a perspective of legal pluralism that is something more than plurality of law” (p.218).

This book is no doubt a great contribution both for anthropology and for the study of law in India. Connecting the different levels of analysis it provides a coherent picture of the state of affairs. The possible direction of future research in this area might lie in the focus on the Hindu divorce and remarriage in the urban areas, especially among middle classes.

As my own fieldwork experience suggests, divorce and remarriage among Hindus in villages, even among higher-caste Hindus was generally possible, precisely on the basis of the customary law as pointed out above. But in the urban areas on the other hand the higher-castes acted more conservatively and generally restricted women who left their husbands to remarry, and even women themselves felt that it would be inappropriate. Investigating these processes which go hand in hand with modernity and which to a certain degree can be considered as the products of modernity, might thus be a fruitful scenario fur further research.

But except for the undoubtedly remarkable contribution of rethinking of the Hindu divorce and remarriage in various areas, the book is also striking in its degree of self-reflexivity. The chapter 2 (p. 27-68) is devoted to the discussion of the theoretical and methodological insights and reflection over these. It is very instructive in its open discussion of the changing role of the anthropologist and her positioning in the field.

Livia Holden goes on to discuss such topics as what challenges doing research together with a husband brings and what possibilities it on the other hand also opens, or how she was perceived in the first period when she was childless and how the relationships changed and evolved when she came next time with a baby and how this changed situation opened up different arenas for her research. She reflects also on doing research in a village which was already previously studied by her professor J. L. Chambard and the negotiation of the relationships with the villagers on this subject. She reflects on her status as a woman who is concerned generally with mens matters, as she becomes a kind of honorary male, which allows her cross-gender behavior. She also discusses her ideas on authorship and the collaborative nature of her research.

Methodologically this book is also interesting as it combines different resources, even integrating the method of filming. The resulting ethnographic film from 2001 is called Runaway Wives and it was done in co-production with her husband Marius Holden who also wrote a chapter in this book (p. 60-8) that discusses and reflects the process of filming and the theoretical problems of visual anthropology.

This extensive self-reflection incorporated throughout the whole book makes it instructive and an interesting reading for every anthropology student and anthropologist. In addition the multidisciplinary approach to the research which draws from feminist and legal studies and social sciences will be of interest to any student or scholar of law, sociology and anthropology.

>> Information on the book by the publisher (Ashgate)

>> information on Tereza Kuldova (both anthropologist and artist)

SEE ALSO:

Thesis: How Indian women fight the stigma of divorce

Unmarried Women in Arab Countries: Status No Longer Dependent upon the Husband

China: Where women rule the world and don’t marry

On African Island: Only women are allowed to propose marriage

cover

Divorce does not belong to Hindu tradition, anthropologist Livia Holden was told when she started her research in India 14 years ago. But is this true? Tereza Kuldova reviews for antropologi.info Holden’s new book Hindu Divorce. A Legal Anthropology.

Anthropologist…

Read more