Indigenous Religion(s) as an Analytical Category

Abstract

Today the most common uses of "indigenous religion(s)" as an analytical category and as a class in the study of religions are intimately linked to discourses on "indigenous peoples." The article argues that this often creates problems for critical scholarship. It contributes to the reproduction of stereotypes about particular kinds of religions among particular kinds of peoples; it nurtures ideas about religious similarities across vast spans of time and space; and it blurs boundaries between scholarship and politics and religionising. A different analytical use of "indigenous religion(s)° that sometimes proves more rewarding is identified in some historical and anthropological case studies, where the category is employed contextually as a relational concept, as the opposite of "foreign religion(s)," and not restricted to indigenous peoples. To counter die biases produced by the current primacy of one taxonomic scheme, it is necessary to engage a greater variety of ways and orders of classification.

Protecting Nature: Religious Ecofeminism in Indigenous Women’s Movements

“…Personhood is not identical to human beings but is perceived as extending beyond them. It is a capacity that may belong to the so-called "nature", an essential category in a hierarchical cosmology along with "culture" and "supernatural" (Maarif, 2019;Tafjord, 2013).…”

Where is religion in political ecology?

“…Political ecologists often frame local narratives, perspectives, and morals as inherently religious or spiritual and consequently crucial for communal cohesion (Nair, 2015; 219). Doing so uncritically relies on superficial understandings of religion critiqued as, at best, merely second-order academic analysis mischaracterizing how communities understood and categorized themselves (Asad, 1993; Forsyth, 1996; Wenger, 2009; Lokensgard, 2010; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012; Tafjord, 2013; Nair, 2015: 219; Johnson, 2015). There is an even worse side to this academic colonialism, however, as religious categorizations were frequently used to marginalize indigenous communities and practices by demarcating them as historical relics to be replaced by first Christianity and later secular modernity (Asad, 1993, 2003; Forsyth, 1996; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012; Tafjord, 2013; Johnson, 2015).…”

“…Doing so uncritically relies on superficial understandings of religion critiqued as, at best, merely second-order academic analysis mischaracterizing how communities understood and categorized themselves (Asad, 1993; Forsyth, 1996; Wenger, 2009; Lokensgard, 2010; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012; Tafjord, 2013; Nair, 2015: 219; Johnson, 2015). There is an even worse side to this academic colonialism, however, as religious categorizations were frequently used to marginalize indigenous communities and practices by demarcating them as historical relics to be replaced by first Christianity and later secular modernity (Asad, 1993, 2003; Forsyth, 1996; Tuhiwai Smith, 2012; Tafjord, 2013; Johnson, 2015). Uncritically using religious terminology when working with indigenous communities reinforces their colonization and consequently directly contradicts political ecology’s key theoretical tenets (Nair, 2015: 218–20; Perreault et al, 2015).…”

Privilege, Decentring and the Challenge of Being (Non-) Indigenous in the Study of Indigenous Issues

“…However, despite the obvious importance of the concept of Indigenous peoples from international treaties and from the discourse(s) of global indigenism, I am not sure that this concept works as an analytical category. All scholars need to clarify which hat they are wearing in all scholarly situations (Tafjord, 2013: 231). This means that the Indigenous scholar or student from one part of the world can be an insider in studies related to the global community of Indigenous people.…”