Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017 141

From Converts to Itinerants

Religious Butinage as Dynamic Identity

by Yonatan N. Gez, Yvan Droz, Edio Soares, and Jeanne Rey

Anthropologists and sociologists studying religious practices have to navigate through terminological preconceptions
that assume religious identity to be essentially stable, only interrupted at times by dramatic instances of conversion.
In this article, we introduce a metaphor as a way of thinking about religious phenomena outside of an exclusivist theo-
logical model and as self-fashioned, flexible, mobile, and composite practice. Using an allusion to the behavior of pol-
linizing insects, we speak of religious butinage as a way of stimulating the discussion regarding such dynamic religious
practice, proposing that religious mobility is perhaps more common than some are inclined to think. By presenting the
case in favor of this metaphor, we invite a fresh perspective on religious practices and religious identity.

Once perceived as something of a heresy, the dynamism of with another. The privileging of seemingly stable identities has
religious mobility is recognized today to be inherent in the thus cast religious mobility in a negative and often stigmatizing
practice of many. In the pre-Enlightenment West, before the light, and composite practices, as captured by such terms as
emergence of nationalism and other modern identity mark- “syncretism,” “creolization,” “hybridity,” and “bricolage,” have
ers, religious affiliation served as a central anchor of social be- become associated with stigmas and imbued with negative
longing. To leave one’s religious surroundings and shift to imagery (Stewart 1999).
another community was something of an anathema, drawing Indeed, in certain places and at certain moments in history,
dire implications for severing ties with the past, whereas be- religious phenomena do institutionalize to form well-defined
ing unwavering in a single denomination gave one social pres- movements, thus inviting scholars to study them as institu-
tige. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the subject of tions, theologies, and sociological fields all at once. However,
religious mobility became a field of academic inquiry for non- such a perspective is far from exhaustive. In recent decades,
theologians, attracting first psychologists and later also social we note a shift in scholars’ vocabulary and conceptualizations
scientists, the idea of mobility was subsumed under the notion of religious mobility. One such example is found in the no-
of conversion, perceived as a complete personal transforma- tion of “lived religion” (Hall 1997; McGuire 2008), whose fo-
tion involving the replacement of one stable identity system cus is on individuals and their de facto, often fluid, practices.
Such changing attitudes cannot be dissociated from broad so-
cial changes pertaining to the diversification of religious mar-
kets and their turning into supermarkets of individual choice-
Yonatan N. Gez is a postdoctoral fellow at the Martin Buber Society
making and consumption. Indeed, in a globalizing world, where
of Fellows in the Humanities and Social Sciences and a research fellow at
mobility of ideas and people has become a matter of routine
the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Mandel Building, Mt. Scopus, and personalized spirituality seems to collapse much of our for-
Jerusalem 9190501, Israel [[email protected]].) Yvan mer views on religion as an exclusive identity marker, subsum-
Droz is a senior lecturer in the Department of Anthropology and So- ing religious mobility in strict terms of conversion often seems
ciology of Development at the Graduate Institute of International and outdated.
Development Studies, Geneva (Case Postale 1672, 1211 Geneva 1, In this article, we follow these scholarly directions. Recog-
Switzerland). Edio Soares is an associate researcher in the Department nizing the persistence of biases toward perceiving stability as
of Anthropology and Sociology of Development at the Graduate In- a “norm” and mobility as “anomalous,” we propose shifting
stitute of International and Development Studies, Geneva (Case Postale perspective by looking at the religious itinerant as a rule rather
1672, 1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland). Jeanne Rey is an associate re- than an exception. Facilitating this shift, we introduce the
searcher in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology of Devel-
metaphor of religious butinage, a French term taken from the
opment at the Graduate Institute of International and Development
world of apiculture, where it refers to the social practice of
Studies, Geneva (Case Postale 1672, 1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland) and a
Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione fellow and researcher at foraging for flower pollen and nectar. This metaphor captures
the University of Teacher Education in Fribourg (Rue de Morat 36, 1700 religion as actor-centred and inherently polymorphous and
Fribourg, Switzerland). This paper was submitted 5 III 15, accepted 6 III changeable. The practitioner of butinage—the butineur—is
16, and electronically published 3 III 17. situated between multiple religious institutions, whose formal

q 2017 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved. 0011-3204/2017/5802-0001$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/690836
 142 Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017

prescriptions he or she overflows through the dynamism of de regard to religious belonging as well as with regard to social
facto practice. We hope that this terminological innovation identity in general.2
will help to counter the persisting scholarly and popular as- The idea that the stability of identity and geographic pres-
sociation of religious identity with stability and institutional ence is preferred to the changeability of mobility is entrenched
prescriptions, paving the way for a host of new research ques- within mainstream European thinking. From the nineteenth
tions. century, the theory of evolution and the burgeoning science
We start with a critique of the belief in stable religious iden- of archaeology have been two of the disciplines used to make
tities, which we demonstrate through reflecting on the limits of claims that human development throughout history, as well
the notion of conversion. We then introduce the alternative as between cultures, has been moving toward sedentariness.
notion of religious butinage and its accompanying terminolo- Popular cultural assumption held that stability and fixedness
gies, including the emphasis on neighborliness (voisinage) and were somehow representative of more “developed” societies
territory. This is followed by the conclusion, in which we raise and cultures. Such views have found alleged scientific justifi-
a question concerning the outcomes—or, to stretch the meta- cations in sociocultural evolutionary perspectives (e.g., Mor-
phor, the produced “honey”—of butinage.1 gan 1877). In addition, the creation of nation-states and
nationalism also encouraged this preference for both stable
Illusion of Stable Identity Categories identities and immobility, as the overlapping of (ethnic) identity
and (bounded) territorial organization is constitutive of the
In his fieldwork in Joinville, Edio Soares (2009) recalls some modern organization of the state (Gellner 1983), which makes
of the interlocutors he came across. “Many religions, young any cross-border mobility appear suspicious (cf. Schnapper
man!” they would tell him. In the Joinvillian neighborhood of 2001). Such views are not purely a thing of the past, and al-
Paranagua-Mirim, Soares met such mobile practitioners as Dona though we live in a globalizing world of “postmodern hyper-
Conceição, formally a Seventh-Day Adventist, who shared her spaces” (Jameson 1984), stability is often still widely regarded
propensity for religious mobility: as more socially respectable than instability.3
If we search for God, we find Him without a shred of doubt. The proclivity toward the stable is also a proclivity toward
[. . .] When I experience stress, when I am in need for moral well-defined social categories, whose clear placement is op-
support or simply to feel the soothing presence of God, I posed to alarm at the disruption caused by unclassifiable social
visit a Church different from my own. I meet God elsewhere; phenomena. Even though the “purity” of cultures is obviously
he always speaks to me outside of my Church, using a person mythical and false in objective terms, it is enough to consider
I do not know. ‘You who sits here in the pew. . .’—someone the negative baggage that has historically been associated with
calls to me without knowing me, she might be a Church such terms for composite cultural forms as “syncretism,” “cre-
leader, a pastor, an assistant. She would know nothing of my olization,” “hybridity” and “bricolage.” Such conceptions of
life, of my suffering; she is a stranger to me. She might know cultural combination have often been derogatory or otherwise
nothing, but God knows! You see? (Soares 2009:217, our negatively charged, a baggage that raises concern about their
translation) ability to “conceptualize cultural mixture” (Stewart 1999:41).
Perhaps indicative of this is the terminological unrest, which
Dona Conceição’s perspective is in no way unique. In our re- sees scholars constantly on the lookout for creative terminol-
search in Brazil, Kenya, and Switzerland, we met with countless ogies and metaphors to conceptualize the blurring, even col-
examples of people who live out their religious lives through
mobility between multiple centers. Dynamic and creative, such
mobility might take various forms and may be brought into 2. We use the term “identity” somewhat reluctantly, because the term
everyday routines or be reserved for special occasions. Such can be criticized for assuming reification of the self through fixedness
and sameness (Brubaker and Cooper 2000; Laplantine 1999). Indeed, the
often-subtle fluctuations are clearly distinct from conversion,
apparent tension with the dynamism pointed at through the butinage
seen as a radical break and shift from one fixed religious
metaphor may lead one to avoid the term, adopting an alternative ter-
identity marker to another. To grasp the controversiality of minology focusing on personal religiosity. However, we believe that the
Dona Conceição’s message of a fluid religious identity, we notion of identity is too entrenched and intuitive to be set aside alto-
must first understand the entrenched belief in stability with gether. We thus use it in a qualified way, admitting its heuristic necessity
as an object of study while still recognizing dynamism and changeability.
3. In our research in Kenya, for instance, we noted the importance of
having stable belonging in a pamphlet on curses sold by street hawkers in
1. Some of our findings have been published elsewhere (Chanson downtown Nairobi (Gichuhi Mwangi n.d.:4), in which “wandering or
et al. 2014; Soares, Droz, and Gez 2012). Due to limits of space, and while vagabond” is presented as one of ten signs of being cursed, accompanied
building on our empirical data, this article focuses mainly on theory. For by a Biblical verse: “Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg;
an elaboration of our four case studies, readers are invited to consult our let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places” (Ps. 109:10; AV).
collective monograph Perpetuum Mobile: the Art of Religious Practice, in With regard specifically to religion, Kenyans are often critical of “exces-
preparation. We do not engage with Latour’s actor-network theory, as we sive” religious mobility, often negatively dubbed as “church hopping” (see
feel that that debate goes beyond the scholarly scope set for this article. Gez and Droz, forthcoming).
Gez et al. From Converts to Itinerants 143

lapse, of cultural boundaries (Chanson 2011). To discuss reli- erature has increasingly recognized the centrality of circular
gious identity as essentially mobile and fluid is to recognize deep- and return mobility, spatially grounded terminologies have
seated cultural biases and stigmas against such an approach. also infiltrated the study of religious identities. While this
Against such conservatism, we note the strengthening of can be understood in terms of the pivotal role that religious
dissenting voices in recent decades. In a world inspired by identities often play in the lives of migrants, the geographic
postmodern strands of thought, the idea of closed and con- imagery is also sometimes used metaphorically, as a way of
fining identity categories becomes increasingly unconvincing. digesting multisited religious identity.4
Instead, many hold that people are not confined by inner Recognizing the place of individuals vis-à-vis their religious
coherence organized around a single, well-defined identity institutions, another important development comes from stud-
structure, as the idea of “liminal nones” may indicate (Lim, ies on various social institutions, which help to validate the role
MacGregor, and Putnam 2010). While identity may aspire to of individual agency. In recent decades, such studies have been
narrate itself as a coherent whole, it is often polyphonic and marked by a shift from structuralist conceptions of institutions
able to sustain multiple—often incongruent or even incom- as stable and orderly to acknowledging the dynamics of their
mensurable—elements. From a psychological perspective, emergence and mutations and to recognizing their polyvalence
and building on the pioneering work of the likes of William and even internal inconsistencies (Adams, Clemens, and Orloff
James (1902), such a view may be reinforced by the idea of 2005; Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol 1985; March and
human personality as comprised of a patchwork of multiple Olsen 1989; North 1981). As part of this change in emphasis,
and nonunitary “selves.” These selves can be regarded as dis- scholars began paying more attention to the role of individual
tinct voices, whereby personal identity is perceived as the out- agency within and vis-à-vis institutions, proposing that it may
come of an ongoing internal dialogue (Hermans and Kempen be located in the imperfect application or enforcement of in-
1993; Keupp et al. 1999). In the social sciences, Fredrik Barth stitutional rules and the resulting gap or “slippage” (Streeck and
(1984, 1983) has pioneered such views by noting the multi- Thelen 2005). As Gerald Berk and Denis Galvan (2009) argue,
plicity of “universes of discourse” or “streams of tradition,” “rules are not so much ambiguous (that is, constraints that per-
which include such elements as ethnicity, gender, history and mit more than one course of action), as they are partial guides to
descent, religion, occupation and class, and settlement and action, because life—experience—always overflows their au-
lifestyle. Indeed, as Barth noted with regard to his research in thority. This means that rules are incessantly corrigible, always
the town of Sohar in Oman, the city is, in fact, a “kaleidoscope open to syncretic recombination” (Berk and Galvan 2009:549).
of persons” (Barth 1983:165). More recently, Rogers Bruba- In the case of religious institutions, even those formally main-
ker and Frederick Cooper (2000) also formulated a critique taining a single, exclusivist affiliation might nonetheless engage
against the concept of identity, which, they argue, bears mul- in practices that exceed its formal prescriptions, as part of the
tivalent and even contradictory theoretical burdens across “underlife” (Goffman 1961) of the institution (Ingram 1982).
time and disciplines. Instead, the authors suggest focusing on Such observations on the relations between the individual
processual aspects of identification. and the institution lead us to consider that religious catego-
The various strands within the self may all have bearing on ries do not appear in a vacuum. Religions can be considered
actors’ religious propensities. It is this line of thinking that as scholastic constructions (Bourdieu 1997). That is to say,
allowed Amartya Sen (2006), in response to Huntington’s they are worked out by religious authority to “professional-
“clash of civilizations” hypothesis, to criticize how “the thesis ize”—the term used by Max Weber—practices pertaining to
concerning a civilizational clash is conceptually parasitic on the sacred and so constitute an autonomous and disembed-
the commanding power of a unique categorization along so- ded social field (Bourdieu 1971a; Polanyi 1983). In this respect,
called civilizational lines, which closely follow religious divi- the Abrahamic theological framework imposes its categories
sions to which singular attention is paid” (Sen 2006:10). Like
many critics, Sen rejected Huntington’s emphasis on religious 4. Geographic relocation—international migration, a change of resi-
identity as a stable core guiding perceptions and action and dency within one’s country or even within one’s neighborhood—is one
instead proposed that personal identities are a meeting point way in which changing conditions may have bearing on religious be-
of multiple influences operating on various personality levels. longing. Studies on migration have often highlighted the prominent role
Moreover, in line with global trends, the notion of dynamic that religious membership may have for the negotiation of personal and
identities has dovetailed the booming study of geographic mo- collective identities within a new and sometimes hostile environment. In
bility and transnationalism. Although it has been demon- connection to the historical migrations to the United States and Canada,
see Glazer and Moynihan (1963), Goldstein and Goldscheider (1968),
strated that transnational networks often rely on the percep-
Gordon (1974), and Herberg (1955). In connection to more recent
tion of a shared identity (e.g., one based on a common origin),
migrations, see Adogame (2004, 2003), Ebaugh and Saltzman Chafetz
migration and the mobility of people also lead to a redefini- (2000), Sabar (2004), Van Dijk (1997, 2004), Warner (2000), Warner and
tion of identities that span several locations (Vertovec 2001). Wittner (1998), and Williams (1988). In this context, religion becomes
The transnational turn in social sciences has therefore drawn a key social institution that can function as an enclave of familiarity and
attention to the multisited dimension of social processes in empowerment, where tensions between integration and group distinctive-
general, including identity-related processes. As academic lit- ness and cohesion are worked out.
 144 Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017

not only on believers but on scholars as well. Wholehearted We may therefore question the idea of religious stability,
adaptation of such categories as religion, belief, faith, and with its assumption of correspondence between institutional
conversion by scholars may ignore the ways in which real life prescriptions and actual practice. In this respect, the notion
easily overflows them. It may be wise, therefore, to seek to of conversion is once again a case in point. The Abrahamic
“provincialize” (Chakrabarty 2008) Abrahamic religions as faiths have often come to regard conversion as an anathema
institutions and instead consider the actual practices with and a cause for severing ties with one’s past, and in some
which they are associated. To do so, it is necessary to distance instances, it was even common for families to mourn the con-
oneself from the theological concepts that dominate theories vert as if he or she had passed away. Such practice is telling
of religious socioanthropology. of the negative baggage that the term has accumulated, while
In this respect, we must be aware of the use of language, pointing at the radical transformation that it implies. Even
whose application discloses favored frameworks for capturing today, notwithstanding the popularity of discourse on ecume-
reality, highlighted at the expense of alternative ones. Within nism, tolerance, and interreligious dialogue, religious institu-
the dominant strands of the socioanthropology of religion, tions by and large remain hostile toward so-called apostates.
it is common to apply concepts tainted by Abrahamic theology As we will suggest, such assumed forms of extreme transfor-
outside of their original contexts. Terms such as believer, faith, mation are too radical to account for the majority of de facto
conversion, and even religion itself are so common that we everyday religious shifts. And yet, it is this concept that has
sometimes forget that they are loaded with (mainly Western) primarily shaped our views on religious mobility, and it was
history and (mainly Christian) connotations, which promote also the first to be explored academically. The fact that this idea
compliance with certain normative expectations. Even though is particular to the Abrahamic tradition can be seen through
such norms may themselves be contested, they nonetheless comparison with non-Abrahamic religions, which oftentimes
introduce biases into our thinking. Thus, for instance, Talal show greater flexibility and inclusivity than what historically
Asad (1993) criticizes Clifford Geertz’s (1973) definition of re- has been established in the West (Esposito, Fasching, and Lewis
ligion as putting too much emphasis on the centrality of belief, 2001:431–432, 437–438; Horton 1975, 1971).
an approach that might make sense in the context of post- To further illustrate this point, let us briefly outline aca-
Reformation Christianity but can hardly lay claim for univer- demic conceptions of the notion of conversion. Conversion is
sality.5 Similarly, our understanding of conversion, a concept normally associated with personal and spiritual transforma-
developed with a clear Judeo-Christian orientation, takes after a tion and is understood as “a radical reorganization of iden-
diachronic, exclusivist model of affiliation.6 This is despite the tity, meaning, life” (Travisano 1970:594). But while Snow and
fact that, even in the West, alternative, inclusive, and accu- Machalek (1984:170) suggest that “it is not evident that only
mulative models have been gaining prominence since the mid- the more radical type of change should be conceptualized as
twentieth century. As David Stoll suggests concerning Evan- conversion,” they also concede that “the notion of radical change
gelical churches in Latin America, the term conversion may be remains at the core of all conceptions of conversion” (Snow
misleading, because “[d]espite the teleological thinking sur- and Machalek 1984:169). Indeed, this particular conception of
rounding the term ‘conversion,’ a missionary premise that has radical conversion has come to dominate academic discourse on
often been accepted unconsciously by scholars, it would be a the subject since its earliest days (Coe 1916; Hall 1904; James
mistake to assume that most people who attend evangelical 1902; Leuba 1896; Starbuck 1899). And yet, over the years, the
churches are converts and that becoming an evangelical is a field has undergone changes. According to Richardson (Rich-
one-way, irreversible process” (Stoll 1993:8–9; cf. Droz 2002). ardson 1985; cf. Hood, Hill, and Spilka 2009), early scholarship
on religious mobility can be subsumed under “the old para-
digm.” Shaped after the Pauline “road to Damascus” model,
5. As Asad suggests, “Geertz’s treatment of religious belief, which lies Richardson characterizes this paradigm as understanding con-
at the core of his conception of religion, is a modern, privatized Christian version in terms of a sudden transformative experience. The
one because and to the extent that it emphasizes the priority of belief as a subject, according to this model, may experience a mental dis-
state of mind rather than as a constituting activity in the world” (Asad position characterized by feelings of sin and guilt, often coupled
1993:47; cf. Robbins 2007:14). with some psychological disorders, and his or her role is un-
6. It is beyond the scope of the present work to present a compre- derstood passively, as responding to a “calling,” be it from a
hensive critique of the notion of conversion. We may briefly mention, higher being or from his or her own subconscious.7 In later
however, the several critiques of the concept mentioned by Jean and John
Comaroff (1991:251) and discussed by Joel Robbins (2007:13). Accord-
ing to Robbins, the Comaroffs presented four objections to the notion of 7. Despite its usefulness, Richardson’s idea of paradigms has been sub-
conversion. These include (1) rejection of the term as a Christian theo- ject to criticism (e.g., Granqvist 2003). Indeed, some early scholars have
logical construct, (2) a problematic conflation of individual with cultural actually considered the possibility that conversions may not always agree
change, (3) reification of the notion of religious “belief,” and (4) that the with the Pauline model, for instance by unfolding gradually and without
term is bound up with Western ideology that considers individuals as resulting in a fundamental rupture (Clark 1929; Nock 1933; Strickland
autonomous decision-makers who are alone responsible for the alloca- 1924) and by accounting for the appeal of conversion to individuals who
tion of their spiritual and other resources. are psychologically sound (James 1902; Starbuck 1899).
Gez et al. From Converts to Itinerants 145

years, as social scientists began entering the field, they mainly tions and actual individual practice is, in fact, something of
harnessed religious mobility to broader discussions on religious a myth. Despite the need to recognize the dynamism and
syncretism (Bastide 1955) and hybridity (Canclini 1998), on changeability of individual religiosity, most studies cited so
privatization (Luckmann 1970), on individualization and sub- far have perceived religious stability as a default and the change
jectification (Wilson 1966), and on deregulation and rear- or mobility as a special occurrence. Thinking beyond the no-
rangements (Bastian 2004) of the religious sphere.8 tion of conversion, which implies the abjuration of one sys-
Over the years, researchers observing greater subtleties of tem of belief and of a particular religious narrative and the
religious mobility have shown something of terminological adoption of a different “faith,” we may consider the idea of
unrest and kept introducing new concepts, some of which “infinite circuit” (Velho 2003), whereby the mobile practi-
overlap, that have met with little consensus (e.g., Gordon 1974; tioner repudiates nothing but develops polymorphous reli-
Rambo 1993; Scobie 1973; Suchman 1992; Travisano 1970). gious practices. In fact, even religions that emphasize con-
Thus, for instance, Snow and Machalek (1984:170) identify “at version—such as the recent evangelistic Pentecostal wave,
least” four types of religious change, including “alternation” known for its intolerance toward other traditions—recognize
(Travisano 1970), “consolidation” (Gordon 1974), “regenera- that their members uphold such additional practices. Thus,
tion” (Clark 1929), and a radical “Road to Damascus” trans- the new convert “turns toward” the evangelical world without
formation. This terminological abundance—one might dare to necessarily renouncing their former practices (Birman 1996;
say confusion—has even led scholars to question the very use Boyer 1998, 2009; Droz 2002; Oro 1991; Soares 2009).10
of the term conversion (Long and Hadden 1983) or to opt for Such “religiousness in movement” is often practiced in ways
general, generic terms such as “religious change” (Granqvist that, rather than separating traditions, ultimately bring them
2003). By introducing a vocabulary that is more subtle and together. Patricia Birman, for instance, used the term “syn-
less radical than implied by the notion of conversion, scholars cretic work” to account for the “passage” of Afro-Brazilian prac-
were often aiming toward the conceptualization of more dy- titioners into the Protestant-Pentecostal universe of the Uni-
namic forms of religious identity, even suggesting that reli- versal Church of the Kingdom of God. For her, “passage” refers
gious change is more of a rule than an exception (Albrecht and both to circulation—that is to say, ongoing movement—and to
Cornwall 1989; Albrecht, Cornwall, and Cunningham 1988; its religious productions. Similarly, in his studies on the “black
Roozen 1980; Suchman 1992; Thomas and Cooper 1978). And Americans” in Brazil, Roger Bastide observes that the simul-
yet, with some exceptions, scholars have continued to look at taneous participation of the black in the world of Candomblé
religious mobility in terms of a unidirectional transit or “pas- as well as in the world of whites tells less of his or her dualism
sage” (Austin-Broos 2003), whose end result is the complete than of the disconnection between the two worlds: “When a
abandonment of the old and its supersession by the new.9 member of Candomblé affirms his or her Catholicism, they are
not lying. They are both Catholic and fetishists. The two are
From Conversion to Actor-Based not opposed, but separate. [. . .] Candomblé is part of an Af-
rican world; Catholicism is part of a Brazilian world. They are
Religious Dynamism
both true within their own respective worlds, between which
In the above discussion, we have proposed that the idea of per- there is only correspondence” (Bastide 1955:499, our transla-
fect correspondence between institutional religious prescrip- tion). Illustrating this, Afro-Brazilian terreiros contain at least
two alters: a Catholic one and an African one, known as pegi.
Within these spaces, social relations do not require synthesis. As
8. In the French literature, we find additional terminologies, including
Bastide writes, “the term syncretism is justified, but if no fur-
“Religieux à la carte” (Schlegel 1995), “Religieux flottant,” “Des éclats de
religion,” or “Religion diffuse” (Champion 1993, 2003), “Religieux en
ther explanation is then provided, it risks giving rise to confu-
vadrouille” (Desroche 1965), “Nouvelle sensibilité mystique-exotérique,” sion. It is not about mixing, but rather, like in role playing, it
“Sacralité non religieuse,” or, “nouvelle réalité syncrétique” (Mardones relies on an exchange of roles, depending on which segment of
1994), “Nébuleuse mystique esotérique,” “Crédules diffus,” “Nébuleuse reality one participates in” (Bastide 1955:500, our translation).
hétérodoxe,” “Nébuleuse multiforme de la nouvelle ère,” and “Diversité des The concept of “mosaic-like syncretism” (Bastide 1996:159) thus
formes d’adhésion religieuse” (Champion and Hervieu-Léger 1990). seems pertinent for accounting for the interspace—Catholic/
9. This, for instance, is the assumption behind the “conversion ca- African—among the Afro-Brazilians. It harks back to the idea
reer” approach, developed by Richardson and Stewart (Richardson 1978; of religious bricolage, which in the sociology of religion has be-
Richardson and Stewart 1977) and later elaborated by Gooren (2010).
The approach allows for a nuanced, comprehensive study of individual
changes in religious affiliation throughout the life cycle, taking into ac- 10. This amounts to what, following Robert Horton (1971, 1975), might
count personal, social, institutional, cultural, and contingency factors. be called additional conversions. Such Pentecostal additional conversions
However, as this approach singles out particular religious affiliations, are described as a “particular type of conversion, since they suppose nei-
examining them one at a time along a life-long time line, it is at risk of ther the abjuration of previous faith nor a simple change of liturgy [. . .]
omitting significant interrelations between concurrent affiliations and the ‘Born Again’ can stay Anglican or Methodist, Lutheran or Presbyte-
religious influences, including latent influences by affiliations that were rian, without this constituting an obstacle to his or her conversion” (Droz
formerly held openly. 2002:93).
 146 Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017

come an all-purpose blanket concept when describing prac- entations has been as influential as it is problematic (Donahue
titioners’ behavior within religious modernity. But what might 1985; Kirkpatrick and Hood 1990). The successive work of Dan-
we make of a religious practice that goes even beyond such a iel Batson (1976) gave birth to the notion of a third “quest
double register? We find an important observation in this di- orientation,” which refers to a religiosity motivated by genuine
rection of breaking away from a static image of religious thirst for spiritual truths. Interestingly, Batson specifically re-
identity in the deconstruction of the notion of “religion” into ferred to “persons [who] view religion as an endless process of
“the religious,” common in the French academic tradition probing and questioning” and who are “not necessarily aligned
(religion/religieux). As Marcel Mauss pointed out, “there isn’t, with any formal religious institution or creed” (Batson 1976:
in fact, a thing, an essence, which we may call Religion; there 32). Thus, while Batson’s work, like Allport’s, has won both
are only religious phenomena, aggregated, more or less, into supporters and critics (e.g., Hood and Morris 1985), it success-
systems which we call religions and which have defined his- fully illustrates how spiritual search and religious mobility and
torical existence within determined human groups and time dynamism often go hand in hand (e.g., Tipton 1982).
periods” (Mauss 1968 [1906], our translation). In the English- Our scholarly goal, at this point, is much more modest than
speaking world, this alternative approach is subsumed under determining motivations behind individuals’ religious mobil-
the study of “lived religion,” an increasingly popular term that ity. Rather, we simply recognize that individual religiosity is
approaches individual religiosity through the prism of prac- a meeting point between personal agency and institutional
tice while leaving room for experiences outside formal insti- prescriptions, with the additional influence of social norms.
tutional membership (Hall 1997; McGuire 2008). While the Attempting to articulate this tension, Nancy Ammerman (2003),
institutional perspective often emphasizes exclusive affiliation, for instance, discusses religious identity as negotiated between
lived religion recognizes people’s tendency to uphold flexible “public narratives” and individual “autobiographies,” while Dan-
and broad religious identities. While the institutional per- ièle Hervieu-Léger (2000) considers religion as operating as a
spective may emphasize the importance of formal member- “chain” that links past, present, and future, converging between
ship, the lived-religion perspective shows that people tend to individual meaning-making and the “legitimizing authority
maintain complex relations with the religious forms with which of a tradition” (Hervieu-Léger 2000:83). As the latter suggests,
they engage and even develop suspicion toward them. And modern society has experienced a deep reworking of individ-
while an institutional perspective prescribes certain manners uals’ relations to tradition, to the effect that people today are
of conduct and worship, lived religion, rather than seeing these freer than ever before to choose which of countless traditions
rules as binding, recognizes the possibility of managing them they wish to invoke (Hervieu-Léger 2000; cf. Lövheim 2007).
in sometimes-creative ways. As McGuire asks, “what if we think In fact, the tension between structure and agency might best
of religion, at the individual level, as an ever-changing, multi- be considered as complementary. Purporting to overcome in-
faceted, often messy—even contradictory—amalgam of beliefs stitutional biases and blind spots, a lived-religion perspective
and practices that are not necessarily those religious institu- legitimizes examination of actors’ religious practice in their
tions consider important?” (McGuire 2008:4). own specific terms, whereas an institutional perspective en-
Yet despite its intuitive usefulness, the lived-religion per- ables the application of shared categories that, though some-
spective has still fallen short of giving birth to a systematic and times essentialist, standardize the discourse and make it com-
comprehensive approach and method for grappling with the prehensible and transferable, allowing for the articulation of
complexity of individual religious identity beyond what is generalized observations.
suggested by such general emphases and insights.11 Some les- To conclude, an actor-based paradigm for studying reli-
sons on this difficulty of systematizing actor-centered ap- gious mobility, such as we find under the title of lived religion,
proaches to the study of religion can be drawn from previous seeks to observe practitioners’ “manières de faire” (De Certeau
scholarly work, in particular that of psychologists. Gordon All- 1980) in a way that would encompass elements in their reli-
port’s (1950) attempt to determine religious motivation through gious praxis that are too often invisible to observers. These in-
the use of quantifiable scales of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” ori- clude, among other things, participation in multiple religious
services without formal affiliation, as well as subtle or partial
11. This is hardly surprising, considering the fact that such preoccu- shifts from one denomination to another. Such fluidity mani-
pations are relatively recent and only gained widespread prominence in the fests, for instance, in “‘pilgrimage religiosity,’ which is volun-
1990s. Moreover, the lived-religion perspective easily falls into the trap of tary, individual, mobile, not—or barely—regulated, change-
relativism: if self-fashioned practices and beliefs, such as gardening and able, and external to the daily routines of the individuals
piano playing, are religious if recognized as such by the individuals con-
concerned” (Hervieu-Léger 2001a:90, our translation). Yet
cerned, how will we ever be able to systematize this diversity and establish
such personalized practices ought to be balanced with insti-
meaningful, generalizable categories? Indeed, the fact that lived religion
represents an open, improvised religion in action, unconfined by norma-
tutional prescriptions to which they relate. From a scholarly
tive prescriptions, sets significant challenges for the researcher. It is telling, perspective, we are confronted with the challenge of how to
therefore, that the most exhaustive treatment of lived religion to date (Mc- “reconceptualize institutions as not prior to, exogenous from,
Guire 2008), despite being a thought-provoking piece, has been criticized or determinative of action, but as the raw materials for action”
for not offering “a rigorous empirical analysis” (Sikkink 2010:595). (Berk and Galvan 2009:575).
Gez et al. From Converts to Itinerants 147

In the next section, we turn to introduce the religious bu- penetrating it would be by situating it vis-à-vis the more
tinage metaphor, developed as an open and nondeterministic common notion of bricolage. In the sociology of religion, the
articulation of the interplay between the institutional and the term bricolage has become an all-purpose blanket concept
lived-religion perspectives. By introducing this metaphor, we when describing practitioners’ behavior within religious mo-
aim at conceptualizing not only the minute aspects of reli- dernity. As Hervieu-Léger reminds us, “we have picked up the
gious shifts but also their accumulative effects within the elab- habit, along the lines of Thomas Luckmann’s 1967 hypothe-
orate matrix of spiritual and religious exposures, both concur- sis concerning the composite character of the ‘sacred cosmos
rently and over time. of industrialized societies,’ to speak of a general ‘bricolage’ of
believers” (Hervieu-Léger 1997:2064, our translation).12 Simi-
larly, André Mary identifies bricolage “everywhere and no-
Butinage Metaphor
where,” rightly reminding us that the original notion, as pre-
In light of the above, we recognize the limitations of domi- sented by Claude Lévi-Strauss, does not involve a deliberate
nant approaches and the need to thoroughly rethink the dom- and unconstrained “believer’s composition” (Mary 2000), but
inance of mobility within practitioners’ religious identity. rather Levi-Straussian bricolage works from within an already
Accepting the fact of mobility as the basic premise of our per- (de)limited system—the authorized narrative of a given tra-
spective and seeking to map out individuals’ mobility patterns, dition—whose sociocultural materials are rearranged by the
we meet with a new set of questions, including: Who is the bricoleur. This being said, “the praxis of bricolage, as repre-
mobile unit—an individual or a group? How frequently does sented within Afro-Brazilian cults or African syncretism, is
our subject of inquiry move? Within which mobility territory? not irrelevant for explaining the new forms of religious syn-
What might the motivation for mobility be? How does one cretism, associated with the popular notion of ‘return of the
combine different practices, and which social reactions might sacred’ and the emergence of postmodernity. This is on con-
such combinations draw? Capturing this fluidity might rightly dition, as Claude Lévi-Strauss says, that we would be more
seem like a paradoxical endeavor of reifying something that sensitive to the differences than to the similarities” (Mary
is accepted as dynamic. Thus, rather than proposing a rigid, 2000:194, our translation). Moreover, Lévi-Strauss highlights
closed model, we opt to reflect on this changeability simply that the bricoleur realizes the structured combination by
through the introduction of a metaphor, helpful for capturing, reusing materials that are culturally charged in history. Thus,
visualizing, and questioning the shift toward dynamic concep- “the characteristic of mythical thinking, just like that of bri-
tions of religious identities. colage with relations to the practical, is to elaborate the struc-
The term “butinage” derives from the verb “butiner,” which tured combinations, but by using residues and ruins of events
shares the same root as the French word “butin” (loot), de- [. . .] scraps and fragments, fossil testimonies of the history
riving from the German “bûte” (sharing). Until the sixteenth of an individual or of a society” (Lévi-Strauss 1989:62–63, our
century, the verb butiner thus had the meaning of “sharing translation).
that which has been caught.” In the seventeenth century, the It is in the light of the Lévi-Straussian bricolage that some
term butinage began being used in reference to the social of the advantages of the butinage metaphor present them-
practice of bees: “visiting flowers in search of nourishment in selves. First, bricolage is, in principle, an intellectual phenom-
the form of nectar for the hive” (Le Petit Robert 2002:318, our enon that articulates preconceived elements through existing
translation). In searching for nourishment through the act structures within the human mind, reconfiguring and reposi-
of butinage, bees also nourish their environment, because by tioning them in a way that may appear innovative. And yet, the
transporting their “loot” (butin), they favor the reproduction bricoleur remains within the world of possible intellectual re-
of plants. Thus, a higher number of plants means more butin compositions, limited by the structures of the mind and the
to share, and it also means more bees to engage in butinage. “mythèmes” (Lévi-Strauss) that it invites (Mary 2000). Inspired
Soares (2009) proposed that, “just like bees, the practitioner by John Stuart Mill, we may offer a heuristic analogy, sug-
engages in butinage from one ‘religious denomination’ to an- gesting that deduction is for bricolage what induction is for
other, (re)creating meaning, whose ‘scent’ is ever-particular butinage. In other words, bricolage expresses itself in a closed
and renewed” (Soares 2009:20, our translation). Like the bees world of deduction from existing elements, whereas butin-
in their constant move between flowers, so does the butineur age explores the infinite world of inventive induction. Indeed,
lend himself or herself to multidirectional mobility: “the prac- the metaphor of butinage does not presuppose—nor does it
titioner does not simply ‘pass’ from denomination A to denom- deny—the existence of preconceived elements or structures,
ination B and then to C. Far from it, he never ceases to ‘com- either mythemic or other, that require being worked through
mute’ from A to B to C, and then again to A, then C, then B, bricolage. For us, therefore, bricolage constitutes one form of
etc. The result is a continuous to-ing and fro-ing, in which the
practitioner articulates different religious contents within a sin-
gle religious practice” (Soares 2009:54–55, our translation). 12. For contemporary examples of the use of the notion of bricolage
But the idea of butinage goes further than simply account- for explaining contemporary religious practices, see, for instance, Hervieu-
ing for multidirectional mobility (Droz 2016). One way of Léger (1997).
 148 Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017

an intellectual work achieved through butinage. Still, we hy- “conversion career” (Gooren 2010). Considering diachronic
pothesize that the intellectual aspects of butinage do not stop at butinage also means questioning the life trajectories of the
bricolage, and we may infer “mosaic-like syncretism” (Bastide butineur: Can we observe patterns of religious practice along
1996:159; Chanson 2011:76) that may go beyond the recom- people’s phases in life (e.g., romantic breakups, experiencing
position of elements proposed by the Lévi-Staussian bricolage. the death of a loved one, moving to a new neighborhood, com-
Moreover, we assume that the individual is not dominated by ing of age, starting a family and having children, and climb-
thirst for inner coherence but is rather a dynamic, fluid, and ing up or down the socioeconomic ladder)? Are there phases
potentially contradictory self, constructing, no doubt, uni- in which people commonly tend to be more mobile and others
verses of meaning that include forms of intellectual bricolage during which they tend to be more sedentary? Can we detect
but also involved in other symbolic and pragmatic universes, patterns of mobility away from one’s childhood religious tra-
if only through “simple combination or contra-positioning.” dition? By contrast, synchronic butinage relies on the idea of
Butinage thus contains bricolage while maintaining the pos- simultaneous religious practices—which may sometimes limit
sibility for inductive symbolic innovations and mosaic-like ad- themselves to a specific religious territory (such as the universe
ditions of mythical segments. of Pentecostal denominations) or to a broader religious tradi-
Second, the idea of butinage does not limit itself to the tion (such as a self-identified Christian practitioner who par-
symbolic—or intellectual—work of the social actor but dwells ticipates, throughout a single week, in Anglican, Catholic, and
in the “real” world and is penetrated through observing so- Pentecostal services). As Romildo Ribeiro Soares, founder of
cial practices. Butinage thus encompasses the entirety of reli- the International Church of God’s Grace, who broke away from
gious practices and is both a symbolic process and a body of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, writes: “The
social practices. We can then propose a typology of butineurs truth to be said, I would have loved to be a bird-like pastor; one
and butinage, which can help grasp formulated discourses and Church today, another tomorrow, and so on incessantly.”13
observed phenomena. In this respect, and unlike Batson’s Needless to say, diachronic and synchronic butinage may
notion of quest orientation, the idea of butinage as a social coexist, enriching practitioners’ matrix of institutional associ-
manière de faire makes no presupposition regarding a person’s ations.
motivation for mobility. By contrast, bricolage remains an in- Another category for analyzing religious butinage appears
tellectual process—observable though it is through means of in the distinction between individuals and groups.14 We may
practice—and as such, it does not account for the totality of consider the domestic or family unit, mapping out individual
(religious) social practices. Rather, it may account only for members’ religious associations, and point out parallels—or
their initial emergence out of the existing structures within lack thereof—between family members. This approach would
the human mind. allow for the phenomenon of religious mobility to be seen from
Third, butinage implies disentangling ourselves from the both the individual aspect and a complementary aspect of wider
hold of Abrahamic theologies and the dogmas that they in- family strategies, such as when facing a common challenge that
voke. At the same time, however, it does not ignore religious affects all members: change of residence, change in family sta-
institutions or worldviews and seeks to study their effect on tus, death in the family, or socioeconomic mobility. Relations
individual practices and imaginations. In the next section, we between mobile practices among members of other social units
offer our typology, which allows for acknowledging different could be developed and examined accordingly. Such examina-
religious manières de faire. We avoid the simplistic assump- tion may consider migratory groups, religious splinter groups,
tion whereby a single category of butinage—be it insatiable and friends or colleagues, among other social units.
butineurs keen on adopting whichever religious practices are Another distinction that the butinage perspective allows us
available or “monoflore” practitioners committed to a single to consider is that of a hierarchy between degrees of practice.
religious institution—can account for the countless practices Practitioners tend to intuitively distinguish their primary af-
and representations within the social field. The notion of bu- filiation with a particular religious denomination, sometimes
tinage thus presents itself as a way of collecting together the referred to as their “home church,” from secondary forms of
totality of practices and representations that constitute the religious participation and visits (Gez 2014a). The primary
religious. affiliation represents one’s sense of institutional belonging,

Categories of Butinage 13. Available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?vpdOhmvOw

S1y4&NRp1Y (our translation).
Let us now turn to discuss some of the categories based on
14. Our consideration of butinage through these two perspectives is
which we can classify types of butinage. By recognizing the
inspired by an analysis of migratory practices in central Kenya, which
possibility of “commuting” between multiple centers, the bu- drew a similar distinction in its discussion of the circulation of people
tinage perspective is able to account for both what we may and goods: an individual perspective (“personal transhumance”) and a re-
call diachronic and synchronic mobility. Diachronic butinage ticular family perspective, which accounted for the different socioeconomic
corresponds to the traditional notion of exclusivity of affili- islands that a family unit relies on (“vertical archipelago”; Droz 1999; Droz
ation and may be associated with itinerary of conversions or and Sottas 1997).
Gez et al. From Converts to Itinerants 149

and may—but not necessarily—correspond to formal mem- find the polyflore or “chronic” butineur. The absolute poly-
bership. By contrast, secondary participations vary greatly and flore butineur does not experience attachment to particular
may include anything from occasional visits to a neighbor’s religious forms and leaves no stone unturned in his or her
Church, to butinage in some formal capacity (e.g., guest quest for breaking new ground. Motivation for such intense
preacher), to forms of passive consumption, such as “zapping” mobility may vary, and such individuals are often driven by
between religious media channels.15 We note, in particular, spiritual thirst and by a sense of respect for all religious tra-
cases of episodic religious visits, often done in response to an ditions. In the public eye, however, polyflore butinage might
invitation from a friend or a family member. Motivation for be regarded critically. In Kenya, for instance, a believer is ex-
such participation may vary, and practices might even take the pected to have at least some grounding in one privileged tra-
form of a pastime—different from the dominant “theological” dition, the absence of which may lead to accusations of lack
perspective, which tends to consider religious practice and af- of commitment or ulterior motives (Gez 2014a).
filiation as too important to be interpreted “simply” as spec- Between the monoflore and polyflore ideal types, we find
tacles attended for their entertainment value. Within Christian a gamut of practitioners who shift between and within certain
tradition, the act of tithing might be a good indicator of one’s religious traditions or universes (e.g., Pentecostalism, Afro-
primary affiliation, as one would normally only tithe in his Brazilian, and Sunni Islam) but not others, depending on such
or her home church (Droz and Gez 2015). In non-Christian factors as personal religious history, worldview, exposure, phases
settings, assessing the hierarchy between one’s multiple syn- in life, and current challenges. In our research, we found this
chronic religious engagements might take into account con- idea of keeping to a single religious universe to be quite popular.
tributions of resources and time as well as the extent of one’s Thus, a person affiliated with a particular evangelical denomi-
de facto practice. nation (e.g., Assemblies of God) may gladly participate in re-
Through such ideas, we are able to try to map individual ligious services offered by another evangelical denomination
butineurs’ religious identities. In creating a “cartography” of (e.g., the Foursquare Church or Quadrangulaire) but could be
butineurs and their range of mobility, we consider a contin- reluctant to join a Catholic mass or to visit a Candomblé ter-
uum of discernment. At one extreme, we find certain practi- reiro and offer a sacrifice to an Afro-Brazilian spirit. Another
tioners who, throughout their entire lives, appear to maintain hypothetical practitioner, a Catholic, might accept participat-
affiliations with a single religious form, whereas at the other ing in Christian ecumenical services but would be less likely to
extreme, we find others who show a “bulimic,” indiscriminate set foot in a mosque. In short, this is the ideal type of a butineur
propensity toward butinage. We can consider these two ex- who travels only within a delimited “religious territory,” defined
tremes as “monoflore” and “polyflore” butineurs. The absolute in whichever way.
monoflore butineur is the religious loyalist, who keeps to his This notion of territory, inspired by Ronaldo de Almeida
or her religious form and never wanders elsewhere. The lives (De Almeida 2004; De Almeida and Monteiro 2001), either
of monoflore butineurs—be they religious leaders or lay prac- brings together or divides religious denominations. Some of
titioners—rigorously resemble the theological image of an these territories are porous, and the butineur passes from one
ideal-type believer. In this respect, this category might appear to the other without that action being perceived as an ex-
paradoxical: what is the use of including sedentary practi- pression of unfaithfulness to his or her principal denomina-
tioners within a mobile conceptual framework? The answer tion or to other denominations attended. Sometimes, terri-
lies precisely in that the notion of a monoflore butineur il- tories are excluded by butineurs as a result of their primary
lustrates the dynamic continuum, in which the ideal type of affiliation. Thus, for instance, in Brazil, within the contem-
the religious loyalist is put under scrutiny and, to the extent porary Pentecostal territory, the Assemblies of God and the
that it ever truly exists, always maintains his or her potential Universal Church of the Kingdom of God distinguish them-
for changeability, subtle though it may be. The notion of selves through their different conceptions of the Holy Spirit.
butinage can help liberate us, in a nonstigmatizing way, from This minor theological distinction constitutes two well-defined
the generalization of this ideal type, which is often little more religious territories, a fact that tends to impede practitioners’
than wishful thinking, imagined by the Abrahamic traditions mobility between them. Religions of African or Asian origin
and perpetuated through classic descriptions by anthropol- may form territories that are similarly exclusive. Certainly, some
ogists of religion. At the other extreme of this ideal type, we territories are more tolerant than others toward practitioners’
mobility. In the Brazilian city of Joinville, for instance, a ma-
cumbeiro (adherent to Macumba, an Afro-Brazilian religion)
15. In our research in Kenya, we met a number of “church zappers,”
could cross over to Catholic or Evangelical territories with rel-
whose religious consumption is done primarily on their own, through con-
ative ease, whereas an Evangelical practitioner (e.g., of the As-
sumption of televangelism and other religious media. While this choice
might be justified in terms of convenience, virtually all church zappers we
semblies of God) would have greater difficulty entering an Afro-
spoke to admitted to having experienced problems in their congregations. Brazilian terreiro. The latter is likely to willingly visit other
For them, zapping might merely involve a reclusive period, during which Pentecostal services that present similar theologies but is likely
the congregant-turned-spectator observes from a safe distance, able to dis- to decline an invitation to a Catholic Church. But although
sociate himself or herself at will (Gez 2014a; Gez and Droz, forthcoming). theology might hinder certain mobility trajectories, it cannot
 150 Current Anthropology Volume 58, Number 2, April 2017

eliminate them altogether, and a butineur might always build tional membership. Rather, we propose that the study of these
“religious bridges” (Birman 1996) to facilitate “passing” between phenomena can profit from thinking in terms of individuals
theologically incommensurable universes. and their de facto practice within well-delineated institutional
Whichever it might be—rupture or continuity—it would be universes and according to the ideas developed in this article.
possible to devise a “cartography” of territories of butinage, For such an examination, we need to go beyond traditional reli-
divided according to practitioner’s religious itinerary. We can gious dictations, with their tendency to cloud our anthropologi-
thus create a geography of religious denominations inspired cal perspective, and instead focus on observable practices and
by the practices that we describe and distinct from traditional discourses.
notions of theological affiliation. On the level of practice, such There is a need to continue documenting the manifesta-
a map would help to grasp the socioreligious logic that guides tions and variations of butinage in various settings, exploring
the practitioner: From whence does he or she come? Where do its mutations throughout people’s lives and across religious
they go? What have they kept from their former religious as- universes and territories. Monoflore and polyflore butinage,
sociations? On the level of religious institutions, such map- territories, life cycles, and degrees—these all need to be con-
ping would allow visualizing that which hampers or facilitates sidered and further refined. There is plenty here, we believe, to
religious butinage. This map would grasp common themes or help the invigoration of the field of religious socioanthropol-
practices that cut across different religious denominations— ogy. One of the questions that requires further consideration
for example, possession, Holy Spirit, healing, prosperity—with concerns the products of butinage. If indeed we pursue the
the aim of addressing the in-between states that imply reli- apicultural metaphor, one expected question would be, “What
giousness in the making. Here, the notion of “converters” (con- is the ‘honey’ produced by such mobility?” By analogy, what do
vertisseurs) seems adequate. This notion refers to “the thematic patterns of intense religious butinage entail for the religious
or practical devices of transposing from one religious universe landscape as composed of both practitioners and institutions?
to another; acts which, in turn, facilitate the mobility of be- One possible direction would be to consider such individual
lievers” (Hervieu-Léger 2001a, 2001b:107, our translation). mobility as a facilitator for the borrowing of practices between
religious institutions. Another possible by-product has to do
with the empowerment of lay believers, whose threat of leav-
Conclusion: The Nectar of Religious Pollination?
ing may successfully help negotiate power vis-à-vis the reli-
In this text, we have outlined some of the rich outcomes that gious institutions. Here, too, there is plenty of room for further
can result from a prudent application of the metaphor of study.16
religious butinage. This metaphor allows questioning of the
ideal types of practitioners, while also inviting us to examine Acknowledgments
which religious compositions may follow from it. In devel-
Research has been conducted within the context of a Swiss
oping categories of butinage, we first distinguished between
National Science Foundation project (Structures anthropolo-
synchronic and diachronic butinage. Second, we considered
giques du religieux: butinage et voisinage). The project, which
the unit of analysis, which permits us to distinguish between
concentrated on Brazil, Kenya, and Switzerland, was financed
individual and group butinage. Third, questions of degree of
from 2010 to 2013 (100013-130340) and was then prolonged
butinage give rise to thinking in terms of hierarchy between
until the end of 2014 (100013-146301). The integration of ad-
multiple religious associations. Last, we raised the issue of
ditional fieldwork in Ghana, conducted in 2013, was similarly
mapping territories of mobility. All these elements come to-
made possible thanks to support by the Swiss National Science
gether in helping us to think about religious mobility beyond
Foundation (P2GEP1_148656). We wish to thank the anonymous
narrow conversion models. In fact, from this perspective,
readers at Current Anthropology for their comments, which al-
monoflore butinage and Paulinian conversion may be seen as
lowed us to clarify and thoroughly revise our manuscript.
exceptional ways of practicing religion. The butinage meta-
phor can provide, in our view, a rich source of inspiration for
considering religious phenomena outside the confining no-
tion of religious identity as essentially static, an idea that has
been shaped by theological concepts that have haunted reli-
Comments
gious sociology and, to a lesser extent, religious anthropology. Kristine Krause
The present discussion may thus help us in moving away Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, Box 15508,
from the word religion—with its particular baggage of insti- 1001 NA Amsterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected]). 7 XI 16
tutional theologies and worldviews—and toward the adjective
religiousness, emphasizing socioreligious phenomena’s change- It is commonplace in anthropology to argue against dichoto-
ability and subjectivity. This does not mean, of course, that we mies between written and practiced cultural knowledge, stable
should abandon the common objects of study in the field of re-
ligious socioanthropology, such as churches and their followers, 16. We have briefly treated these elements in a previous text (Droz,
faith and its manifestations, exclusivist conversion, and institu- Soares, and Oro 2014) and have elaborated several of those ideas here.
Copyright of Current Anthropology is the property of Wenner-Gren Foundation and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.