Nastiness Diagnosis. Anthropology. Religion. Gender. Justice. A Personal Notepad For the General Public.
1. Do marginalized people (economically, eg Haitian Immigrants, politically, eg. Chinese Indonesian) have more needs to cultivate self-righteous moral characters for themselves? (note the migration and displacement means different things here, since Chinese Indonesians have been a group in an “absent culture” , in which the clash between Islam and Javanism, Christianity and local culture does not manifest in the remotely similar strength)
2. The citizentry of Chinese Indonesian remains a unfinished enterprise, manifested in the rise of Chinese-dominated, led, pioneered Indonesian Pentecostalism..
Historicization of the culture concept
A corollary to the mutually costituent nature of the global and the local in culture is that neighter temporal nor ontologcal priority shoul be given to one of these false dyads, the “global/local” and “structure/event.” From the beginning, culture is processes of interaction between the local and the external.
Pentecostalism in translation:
Religion and the production of community in the Haitian diaspora
Brodwin: Can we translate the absolutist religious language of Pentecostal theology into anthropological theories of marginality?
1)Migrants memorialize the Haitian homeland and articulate the collective sentiments of loss through the idiom of Pentecostal theology and worship styles.
2)Pentecostalism is a way to negotiate the terms of their marginality.
3)In particular, self-consciously upholding scriptural edicts
about dress, sexuality, and consumption has become a strategic rebuttal of
the denigration of Haitians by the majority society.
4) they validate their theology through the everyday details of marginalization.
Far more less percentage of Han Chinese in China identify themselves as protestants, let alone Pentecostals. Indonesian Chinese nevertheless have a higher percentage to do so, and embrace charismatic Christianity in the recent decades.
What sort of problems do Indonesian Christians address in the sermon and theology? Alienation? Exclusion?
“exclusion” “loneliness” “success” “excellence” ” frustration” “family problems” “safety”
What is the limits of the separatism of Pentecostalism?
a) the discourse of “Tuhan itu baik bagi semua orang” (including us and them)
b) set up the example in the society, be the garam and terang in the world — the counterimage of Chinese Indonesian
c) away from the dosa, but still “obey” the ruling groups, without being “faithful” to them, if they are illegitimate
**Social dislocation is counteracted through membership in small-scale storefront congregations (Garrard-Burnett and Stoll 1993 Rethinking Protestantism in Latin America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.).
===== The Chinese Indonesians form mega churches and have large-scale congregations. While some small cells are running successfully, the big church serves more like a divine mall where everybody can go in, get something home. The basic neighborhood community is never out of the scene for most people.
**The status loss and marginality produced by rapid modernization is com-
pensated by new collectivities and new forms of discipline (e.g., Brusco 1995:142 ff. The Reformation of Machismo: Evangelical Conversion
and Gender in Columbia. Austin: University of Texas Press.).
=====applied to both Chinese and Javanese Christians. Yet many converted when they were fairly young, high school, college, and 30s.
=====it is not a reaffirmation or recreation of the lost community. It is a new community, not an ethnic one, ethnicity is deeply lost and becoming least significant in the face of Holy Spirit.
**neo-Marxist: is this a greater hegemonic control?
Stoll, David 1990 Is Latin America Turning Protestant? The Politics of Evan-
gelical Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press
The Charismatic Christianity proposes a striking different mode of gender relations, morality and subjectivity in this predominantly Islamic society.
**Like Chesnut, Burdick is a functionalist, explaining Pentecostalism and Umbanda in the same terms.
But this doesn’t mean that social consequences are not part of the psychological reasons to keep the commitment. Brodwin cuts the wrong line, the line isn’t between the social effects and commitment, or functions (fulfilling needs) and unintended consequences (e.g. Protestant ethics conducive to capitalism). The line is in the conversion in the first place, but then preserving the ethical demands later. After, Indonesia has been home for many “nominal Muslims”, and by this sometimes scholarly prejudiced, false measure, nominal Christians. Many people just embrace a religion by state requirement.
sociological explanation vs explicit commitment
exactly because of the different social effects, producing different formation of subjectivities (resurgent Islam vs charismatic Christianity), that no longer can be explained by a functionalist need anymore. A need for restoring, securing a place in the society is NOT the social effect, but the social reason for people to convert in the first place. Yet the coming social effects, including the making of a new collective mentality, changes how converts think about WHY they converted in the first place, and why they keep obeying the religious strictures — this is exactly the embodiment of the SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES of religious remaking of personality.
in other words, it is in an ongoing process that one can meet these different dimensions of a reborn Christian. They are not the two non-related distinct approaches of religious people’s realities.
motivational: needs, negotiation with frustration, modernity
consequential: social consequence,