One ocean one temple: Alternative Chinese temple networks in Southeast Asia

Abstract

The continuing expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative (formerly known as One Belt One Road) has attracted considerable commentary, but little attention has been given to the formation of alternative networks in Southeast Asia or to the earlier history of trade and trust networks centred in the temples and regional association offices of the Chinese diaspora in Southeast Asia. This paper examines the formation and continuing expansion of a horizontal network of Chinese temples dedicated to the tutelary god (Earth God) of the port cities of Southeast Asia. The World Dabogong Federation was founded in 2017 and is now 5 years old. It currently includes over 160 temples from over 100 port cities. This paper explores the nature of this network and its relation to earlier temple and trust networks as well as its engagement with new media and technologies.

Beyond migration? Alternative articulations of transnational religious networks

“…In the case of another deity, Dabogong (大伯公, the God of the Earth who protects a specific territory) has also become globalized with the formation of the World Dabogong Federation in 2017. Dean (2023) argues in his paper that the networking of the various Dabogong temples is one based on peer relationships and is non‐hierarchical. All temples joining the Federation are networked together in a strategic alliance that helps each to bolster and legitimize their presence in their own locality.…”

From cosmopolitan convergences to situated religious cosmopolitanism: The early spread of the Bahá’í Faith in Singapore and Malaya (1950–1975)

“…This theoretical orientation centres migrants within the context of the national imaginary and is the result of methodological nationalism, that is, the tendency to naturalize the nation state within the social sciences (Anderson, 2019, 2006; Sager, 2016; Wimmer & Schiller, 2003). This approach is limited in its ability to shed light on alternative imaginaries and cultural configurations as well as non‐state agents (see Cao this, issue; Dean, this, issue). I go beyond this by situating transnational religious expansion within the debate on alternative cosmopolitanism (van der Veer, 2001).…”