Sufi and Bhakti Performers and Followers at the Margins of the Global South: Communication Strategies to Negotiate Situated Adversities

Abstract

Throughout the globe (particularly in the global South), religious orthodoxy and their discriminatory intolerances are negatively impacting religious freedom of underserved populations, particularly those who practice/follow alternate spiritual praxis, like the Sufi and Bhakti performers from rural and geographically remote spaces of South Asia. Hindu and Islamic fundamentalist discourses/doctrines are propagating their conservative religious agendas and thereby creating tensions and separatism across the subcontinent. Such religious extremism is responsible for the threatening and even murdering of nonsectarian torchbearers, and their free thoughts. This study focused on various alternate communication strategies espoused by Sufi and bhakti performers and followers in order to negotiate and overcome their marginalized existence as well as to promote the plurality of voices and values in the society. This article identified the following communication strategies—innovative usages of language of inversion or enigmatic language; strategic camouflaging of authors’/writers’ identity, and intergenerational communication of discourses and spiritual values to ensure freedom and survival of their traditions.

Understating South Asia interculturally and communicatively: What the contemporary scholarship tells us

“…For instance, centric meta‐theoretical perspectives (as proposed by Asante & Miike, 2013), de‐westernizing, de‐colonial, de‐linking, and indigenous methodologies (not an exhaustive list) can potentially guide us to envision art‐based, performative, and multisensory (Dutta, 2019a) approaches to reflexively address contextual issues relating to caste, class, race, ethnicity, gender, and power dynamics. For example, in the context of conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and interreligious dialog, South Asian scholars have developed meaningful approaches that are grounded in Gandhian, Buddhist (Brummans et al., 2013), Sufi, and Bhakti (Dutta, 2019b) philosophies. Such a reflexive intercultural engagement would aid not only future scholarship to overcome ethnocentric and mono‐cultural tendencies but also encourage other scholars to explore new possibilities and areas of inquiry (e.g., Anthropocene, post‐truth, post‐human, and transhuman paradigms).…”

Studying Religiosity and Spirituality: A Review of Macro, Micro, and Meso-Level Approaches

“…The remaining 28 publications are journal articles in: Religions (8), Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (7), Journal of Business Research (1), Social Indicatory Research (1), Socius (1), Transnational Social Review (1), Asian Journal of Social Science (1), Asia Pacific Viewpoint (1), Asian Journal of Tourism Research (1), Education about Asia (1), Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (1), Journeys (1), Modern Asian Studies (1), Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe (1), and South East Asia Research (1). Combined, the meso-level studies in Asia included these countries: India (11), Thailand (5), Turkey (3), South Korea (3), China (3), Taiwan (2), Hong Kong (2), Indonesia (2), Russia (2), Syria (2), Cambodia (1), Israel (1), Kazakhstan (1), North Korea (1), Kyrgyzstan (1), Macedonia (1), Philippines (1), Singapore (1), and Ukraine (1): (Bornstein 2012;Bruntz and Schnedeck 2020;Ecklund et al 2019;Hann and Goltz 2010;Lewis 2014;Schedneck 2015Schedneck , 2017aSchedneck , 2017bSchedneck , 2018Schedneck , 2019Hamid 2013;Bromley 2011;Clarke 2013;Wong and Tien 2014;Cadge et al 2011;Huang 2016;Kurien 2014;Lawson and Cragun 2012;Lussier 2019;Schnabel et al 2018;Schnable 2016;Iyer et al 2014;Shahzad and Lee 2016;Yoder 2020;Aarfreedi 2019;Chadwin 2020;Dutta 2019;Hong 2018;Kim and Bang 2019;Reinke 2018;Robinson 2019;Yang 2018;Stroope 2012;Ecklund et al 2016;Noor 2010;…”