Religious Diaspora Paper

The following is a critical evaluation of John Hinnells’ definition of ‘diaspora religion’ as ‘a religion practiced by a minority group, conscious of living in a culturally and religiously different, possibly hostile, environment, away from the old country.’

Humankind is vast and varied and the geographical lines that once distinguished a persons ethnicity, religion and perhaps identity, now merge more then ever before; creating entirely new representations of culture. For years, research into a particular religious group has been orientated around the geographical origin of that religion or in what has been coined by scholars like Hinnells (1997:682) as ‘their old countries.’ In the West, any mention of religions groups outside of their country of origin, has proceeded in the then treating of these groups as separate from the essence of that religion in its homeland; like a branch of the religion, which is merely an extension of its pure, original form. As Chryssides & Geeves (2007:176) argue, ‘how to be considered authentic has always been a challenge for new religions.’ Yet in today’s society what diaspora religions can represent is a new form of being authentically religious, whilst highlighting the importance of the western societies they are found in.

Since the origin of the species, human kind has been a scatted race; nomadic in its living. Although the fight for independent identity has seen the separation of the species, the collective unity of humans has always been fundamental to our evolution. Modern genetics has confirmed that there are no separate racial groups. One of the most valuable areas in the study of Religion, inspired by the human need to separate and distinguish itself, is between the Western and Eastern religious groups of the world. Yet because of increased immigration, migration and travel, as Hinnells states in the proposed title, leaving the old country and ending up in a culturally and religious environment, seems common place for an increasing amount of people. This paper will access the title statement by dissecting the varying key words in it; minority, culturally and religiously different, hostile environment and old country, in an attempt to understand if Hinnells’ statement is an adequate one. The nature of reality is that everything changes, which is why defining anything is a difficult task. Especially with something that is both  a new phenomena and one that has been under a lot of critical scrutiny and prone to change. Hinnels’ statement under evaluation in the following essay will be narrowed down in an attempt to find progression in its exploration. Many people can be classed as Diasporas. As Cohen (2008:532) discusses Diasporas can be, victim, labour, imperial, trade and cultural; and even these terms aren’t interdependent of one another.

The term diaspora means dispersed and can be separated into two parts, dia ‘across’ and speirein, ‘scatter.’ As according to the Oxford English Dictionary (2011), the term ‘originated in the Septuagint (Deuteronomy 28:25) in the phrase ese diaspora en pasais basileias tes ges 'thou shalt be a dispersion in all kingdoms of the earth.' It’s definition has been attempted by many, but its original meaning emerged during the 6th- 8th BC when describing that the number of scatted Jews was greater then those living in Israel. Israel in this context is perceived as being the holy land. This point can be accounted back to Hinnells’ definition of Diasporas as those who are away from the home land. Even though the original empathises was placed on the Jewish Diaspora, contemporary Diasporas now represent, ‘any people who have a sense of living away from their old country, but that they are a minority phenomena.’ (Hinnells 1997:686)

  To summarize, the common features that distinguish a religious diaspora according to Safran (1991) are; their ancestors have been dispersed from their homeland to TWO or more foreign regions. They hold a collective idea of what that homeland represents. They believe that they are not accepted in their host countries and never will be. There is a general consensus that when the time is right they should return to there homeland, whist simultaneously believing that the diaspora collective should be committed to working on the prosperity of the original homeland and their ‘ethno communal consensus’ is committed in this also. Through this observation one can note how revered and significant the old country is for religious diasporas. This significance may even amplify how culturally and religiously different their host countries are as the old country will be continually a source of comparison to the daily life in their new environment. (citied in, Cohen, 2008:6 )  Perhaps it could even be argued that the very essence of religion, what some may define as the passion or ultimate dedication of ones religious belief, may be ignited by the separation of an individual from their homeland and the holy quest to then return there. As Clifford (1994) describes them, ‘travelling cultures understand culture as a practise rather a characteristic’.(citied in Hinnells 2005:534) Culture has now become separate from any ultimate connection with locality, regions or nations of origin.

Knott (1986) argues that diaspora is effected by varying factors such as; the traditions from the country of origin, the nature of the religion and its distinguished features such as food, dress, language etc. Traditions of the host country, nature of migration group; its cohesion with the society that surrounds it and its links with the homeland. How and where the dispersion has taken place, group size and ethnic diversity and finally the nature of the hosts response which include social attitudes like racism and attitudes towards integration. (citied in, Hinnells 2008:539) One can see how all of these points directly relate back to Hinnells statement under evaluation.

Applying the study of religion to Diaspora groups has taken a while to catch on. Initially it is believed that there was a reluctance to take the term from the Jews and apply it to other religious groups, but in later years religion seems as important as ethnicity amongst the study of Diaspora. Yet it is when the separation of ethnicity and religion occurs that the distinctions between the two become difficult to understand, for example. A Western Muslim may be seen as belonging to an ethnic Diaspora, yet the word Muslim signifies the individuals religion. Yet again this individuals religion may not represent their culture, practise of that religion and the religions homeland. A good example of the differences and similarities between ethnicity and religion is explored by Cohen (2008:153) He said, ‘in a small neighbourhood in London it is possible to find Muslims from Turkey, Bangladesh, Kosovo, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Somalia and Iran…sharing their Islamic faith, but often not sharing even the same language.’ It seems interesting to relate this argument back to Hinnells’ statement under evaluation. In reference to the point of Diaspora being minority groups in a culturally different environment, because in this case it is those minority groups that are making the environment culturally different for the original people of that country. When you have a collective sharing a shared identity, even if they belong to a minority, they are still able to create an environment more relevant to them. Yet Cohen (1997) also argues that, ‘religion provides additional cement to Diasporas……likely to enhance social cohesion.’ (citied in Hinnells, 2008:540) In other words, attempting to both acknowledge and understand the many aspects of diaspora makes it easier to not only understand its relevance, but to use this understanding productively. Perhaps a sense of belonging occurs for the participants of diaspora groups in knowing that they are apart of the same identity. This perspective of being the same is apparent world wide and in all walks of life. People like to belong to groups, that’s why in the West we join clubs, society’s and organisations; because we like to surround ourselves with those who have been through what we have, like what we have and who are sharing a similar something.

Due to globalization an increase in human interaction has occurred. Creating a world in which, as well as communication, trade and technology, ideas, language exchange occur frequently between cultures. Immigration, migration and travel is a prominent feature of the 21st century. Smart (1987) states, ‘the increased pace of connectivity, especially in respect of cheap long-distance travel, means even rather poor religious communities can maintain contact with the principal epicentres of their religions.’ (citied in Cohen, 2008:151) In relating this statement to the essay quote under evaluation, one could argue that the longing to return to the homeland that Hinnells’ talks about, needs readdressing. The easier access to return home and the replication of what home is in the host countries, may have altered the desire to return. This raises questions of the next generation of Diasporas. If a child was born into a host country, with parents who still attempt to return to the homeland, does that make the child apart of a diaspora? Or will the increased tolerance that host countries have for diaspora communities led to an attempt in them to represent their culture in a new environment without the desire to return to the old. Integration in a culturally different environment is necessary for both the diasporas and the people of origin to the country and environments will change due to the people who occupy them.

In the Independent on Sunday, former labour minister Margaret Hodge said, ‘Migration is a feature of globalisation. People have more access to national boundaries more often and more easily.’ (2011:8) Vertovec in his paper Religion & Diaspora states that when talking about Diaspora we have to define if we are discussing, ‘the process of becoming scatted, the community living in foreign parts or the place or geographical space in which the dispersed groups live.’ (2000:2) If we relate these points back to the original title it seems that any group which is a minority in a different country from its origin, is a diaspora. Yet in countries like Britain, where the general population is an amalgamation of many cultures, who is then classed as the minority? The majority of host countries, who have had an influx of religiously or culturally different people, often display hostility because the countries identity may have been sacrificed due to this melting pot of diversity.
   
On April 16th 2011, current UK prime minister David Cameron made the statement that immigration causes, ‘disjointedness in our communities.’ Prior to the Conservative government being in power, Labour ‘cut the number of people seeking asylum from more then 84,000 in 2002 to under 18,000 by 2010.’ (Hodge,2011) Frustration over British identity has been apparent and although according to the UNHCR (2006), ‘the vast majority of refugees are sheltering in the developing world,’ anger over the claim that Europe is now hosting many of the world refuges and immigrants is increasing. The following paragraph will access part of Hinnells’ statement that diasporas live in a possibly hostile environment as a way to explore contemporary Diasporas and the view of them in British society. This will be focused around a case study conducted by Tantony, R in Bristol during April, 2011 involving a Muslim refugee from Somalia.

Fadumo Abukar is forty four year old woman, who flew to the U.K alone in 2003 after Somalia erupted into civil war. She was granted asylum in Bristol in 2004. Abukar claims that she has had a positive response from her host country, she says, ‘I found a better reaction then I was expecting in moving here. In spite of my differences, people want to know about my religion and listen nicely if I explain. That makes me feel comfortable.’(Tantony,2011) Abukars’ experience doesn’t support Hinnells’ statement that diasporas will live in a possibly hostile environment, highlighting that any definition will always have exceptions and be dependable on the individual. In contrast, Nanda Vayanaperumais gives an account of life in Britain. He moved from India to Portsmouth and talks to the Independent on Sunday about his experience in Britain. He says, ‘the shop has been attacked in the last two months. I recently had a guy come through the door with his face covered in a scarf. He came in with a tub of paint and splashed it in my shop. That’s really bad and makes me worried to be here.’ (Duuta, K & Merrick, J,2011:6)

What has interestingly emerged within the study of religious diaspora, is that ‘migrants are more, not less, religious after migration.’ (Hinnells,1997:683) The various factors that may have influenced this are; people having their faith tested via the difficult journey of departure from their homes, the decision to leave their country of origin and arriving in new place, adjusting to community cohesion within their own culture and the culture of the host country and adapting to the new representation of their religion in a different environment. This new environment may require more effort for them to represent their culture and religious background and as McGowan (1999) says it, ‘might require more blatant identification.’(citied in Vertovec, 2000:31) Abukar claimed that she became more religious once arriving in the U.K. She states, ‘I rarely miss praying or fasting at Ramadan. I even wear a scarf here, the children wear scarves here; I had never seen at home. The reason for this is that I feel lonely here but it represents our faith when we have something to bind us together.’(Tantony,2011) This statement emphasizes that the concern of children born into host countries losing their religious or cultural tradition, is simply a product of individual experience. In areas which are dominated by one culture, like the Chinese community in China town, London, the Somalian community in St. Pauls, Bristol or the Asian community in Lozells, Birmingham, there is often an attempt to replicate the culture of what the residence have left behind in their countries of origin. As Warner (1998) argues, ‘the religious institutions they (diasporas) build, adapt, remodel and adopt, become worlds unto themselves.’(citied in Vertovec, 2000:18)

Studying Diaspora religion has helped the student and scholar of religion, think about all the areas surrounding a religious group. All the factors that represent that religion in today’s society, both in a western and eastern context. Yet making a distinction between the difference of, for example, Muslim Diasporas and Muslims in Iran, may lead to alienation and separation of being a Muslim amongst its members; because  sub cultures of that religions emerge. Therefore study of it helps us address the communities that surround us as the changes they inevitably go through occur. Penny Logan (1988) reported that many adults claimed that they had, ‘become more aware of their religion in Britain, as a result of belonging to a minority group in a predominantly irreligious society.’ (citied in Vertovec,2000: 16) Meaning that they could no longer take the assumption of their religion for granted. Being apart of a Diaspora could be seen as a means for those to distinguish between culture and religion, whilst still embracing an identify in itself. In her chapter for the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Schmidt (2004) argues that ‘the migration process itself had added to the ‘purification’ of Islam. As Muslims originating from other parts of the world get to know each other they see what they all have in common. Islam.’ Raising the question of when does an individual or collective become a Diaspora ? Is it the moment one leaves the homeland, the journey, the settling?

To define anything in life is a difficult task because of the fundamental law of existence. Everything changes. Hinnells’ original attempt of defining Diaspora can be criticized and evaluated as being a both negative and positive, a correct and false assumption. Yet regardless, this attempt to describe religious diaspora is vital in order to understand it better. Creating a definition in order to grasp not only a new phenomena, but something that affects so many areas of modern society, including political science, anthropology, sociology and cultural studies. John O. Voll,(1999) chairman of the organizing committee for AHA stated, ‘everywhere we looked almost every subfield, people wanted to talk about diaspora.‘(citied in Vertovec, 2000:3) It is necessary to define something in order to narrow it down and understand it better. We as humans continually attempted to understand that which is different from what we know as a clarification of our own identity. In order for something to be heard it needs to be named and described and by doing this in regards to religious diaspora it gives an identity to a movement of people and a representation of something that is emerging in an important area of study. As Hall (1992) states, ‘we all have the desire and right to speak from somewhere.’ (Hinnells, 2005:535)    

Since it was first written, Hinnells’ Handbook of Living Religions, has been edited over seven times and still evolves. Hinnells claims to want research further in religious diaspora in the following areas; the place of language, the transmission of ideas, individual identity, group identity, leadership, universalities and the impact of western religious ideas. The answer, for the scholar of religion, seems to lye in dis-attachment from definition. This essay has accessed Hinnels original statement and shown that although the factors mentioned that distinguish a religious diapora have value, they are also wholly relevant to individual experience. Diaspora has over 100,000 web pages devoted to it with a clear relevance in modern society, and although the general feeling attached to it is one of loss and misery there will always be the exception, the individual who experiences life differently from the collective. As Jonathon Z. Smith states, ‘Diaspora religion, in contrast to native, locative religion, was utopian in the strictest sense of the word, a religion of nowhere, of transcendence.’ (Vertovec, 2000:19)

Bibliography

Chryssides, G. & Geaves, R. (2007) The Study of Religion: An Introduction to Key Ideas and Methods. London: Continuum.

Cohen, R. (2008) Global Diasporas: An Introduction.2nd ed. N Y: Routledge.

Dutta, K & Merrick, J. (2011) ‘Immigration’. Independent on Sunday. 17 April, p.5-7

Hinnells, J. ed. (1997) The Study of Diaspora Religion in: A New Handbook of Living Religions. London: Penguin Books.


McLoughlin, S. (2005) ‘Migration, Diaspora and Transnationalism’. In: Hinnels, J.ed. The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion. NY: Routledge.
Refugee Week (2008) Refugee Fact Pact. [Online] available from: http://www.refugeeweek.org.uk/Resources/Refugee%20Week/Documents/Factpack%20Web%202008.pdf. [Accessed 20.5.2011]

Schmidt, G. (2004) ‘Islamic Identity Formation among Young Muslims:
The Case of Denmark, Sweden and the United States.’ Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 24 (1) p.37.

Tantony, R. (2011) tantonyr@hotmail.com Diaspora Questions. Email to Fadumo Abukar, 16.5.2011. fadumoabukar15@hotmail.co.uk

The Oxford English Dictionary (2011) Diaspora. [Online] available from: http://oxforddictionaries.com/?attempted=true  [Accessed 20.5.2011]
Vertovec, S. (2000) ‘Religion and Diaspora.’ Proceedings of the New Landscapes of Religion in the West, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford.