The appropriation of a religion: The case of Zoroastrianism in contemporary Russia

Abstract

This paper distinguishes between the (ontological) creation, (historical) emergence and (legal) 'making' of religion. Many religions claim plausibility by invoking long chains of (invented) traditions, while some post-modern religions positively affirm their invented character. The case of Zoroastrianism in contemporary Russia is discussed as an example of a crosscultural 'appropriation' of religion, rather than a transfer of an extant religion through, for example, migration. This means that inventors, recipients and practitioners mimetically reconstruct 'Zoroastrianism', by adapting it to the (new) legal framework that regulates religion in Russia. Once Zoroastrianism had affirmed its presence in Russia, Zoroastrians from other parts of the world established contacts. In the course of events, Russian Zoroastrianism diversified into different tendencies (esoteric, charismatic and nativistic vs modernistic, Internet-based and international). In addition to functioning as a separate religion, Zoroastrianism in Russia has become part of Neopagan and New Age complexes and is appropriated inter-discursively in the academy, the mass media and in different genres of fiction.Keywords: appropriation of religion; astrology; Internet and religion; perestroika; religion in contemporary Russia; Zoroastrianism The creation and emergence of religionOn an ontological level, religions are not brute facts 'out there'. Religions share in the making of social reality that is premised on human intentionality and language, and thereby also on cognitive and evolutionary mechanisms that have shaped the human mind throughout history. Intentionality and language have transformative powers that can change the status of things to make them count as something more than what mere physical appearance reveals at first sight; a piece of printed paper is treated as money, and a painting counts as a deity. Such status, once it is declared and represented accordingly, entails 'deontic' relationships such as duties, obligations, rights and expectations. The status that makes things count as something X can also be challenged; notes/money can become worthless and gods can be dismissed or turned into heritage objects stored in a museum.

Reversion, Revival, Resistance

“…Notably, their claim to Zoroastrianism as a component of Russian culture and history may also depend on the necessity that such a connection is required to achieve the status of a recognized religious community in Russia. This status has meanwhile been successfully attained (Stausberg and Tessmann 2013).…”

“…This idea of a "reversion" to the "original religion" of Iranians is equally present among Neo-Zoroastrians with other ethnic backgrounds, most notably Kurds (Foltz 2016(Foltz , 2017Niechcial 2020;Raßbach 2021;Szanto 2018) and Tajiks (Foltz 2016). Notably, the Russian Neo-Zoroastrian movement, although claiming Zoroastrianism "to be part of Russian cultural heritage and history" (Stausberg and Tessmann 2013, 454), is less concerned with the idea of "reversion" (Tessmann 2012;Stausberg and Tessmann 2013). 5 Kurdish Neo-Zoroastrians believe that Zoroastrianism was the "original" religion of the [13] Kurdish people (Foltz 2017;Szanto 2018).…”

“…Drawing upon a Persian-language account of the conversion of two Muslim-born Iranians, [4] published by the UK-based publisher Satrap in 2016 (Āriā and Āriā 2016), 1 I would like to discuss ways to conceptually frame the Neo-Zoroastrian movement and conversions to Neo-Zoroastrianism in this article. The scarce existing literature on the subject has generally used analytical frames highlighting the supposed lack of authenticity in the religious practice of Neo-Zoroastrians, using terms like "co-optation" (Foltz 2016), "appropriation" (Stausberg and Tessmann 2013), and "invented tradition" (Szanto 2018, 97). My argument takes a different tack: recent ethnographic research in the Tehran Zoroastrian community (Fozi 2014;Stewart and Moavenat 2018) accounts for vibrant discourses of modernization and the making of a reformed Zoroastrianism.…”