Umbanda and Hybridity

Abstract

Scholars of religion continue to talk of syncretism where their colleagues have moved on to talk of hybridity. This paper reviews critiques of the latter concept and argues that 'hybridity' can be a useful concept, but only if further specified. I follow Peter Wade in distinguishing between hybridity of origin (the combination of pre--existing forms), and hybridity of encounter (the result of diasporic movements). I propose a third type, hybridity of refraction, in order to highlight the manner in which religious or cultural phenomena refract social tensions within a specific nation or society, resulting in a spectrum of ritual, doctrinal and/or religious forms. The typology is not meant to be complete or mutually exclusive: it suggests the value of adopting distinct, potentially overlapping, perspectives on hybridization. I illustrate the heuristic value of this approach with the case of Umbanda, a twentieth--century Brazilian religion. The interdisciplinarity of Religious Studies is a source of both strengths and weaknesses. The field draws fruitfully on concepts and theories from other disciplines, but it tends to do so late in the game and often uncritically. For a generation now, scholars of post--colonial and cultural studies, literary criticism, intellectual history, communications, qualitative sociology and other fields have used and critiqued the concept of "hybridity." Scholars of religion have covered some of the same ground in dealing with "syncretism," but the newer term offers distinct advantages and raises fresh problems. Given that "hybridity" appears poised to play a more prominent role in the study of religion-as scholars in the field increasingly research diasporic religion, draw on post--colonial theory, and so forth-this is an opportune moment to learn what lessons we can from the hybridity debates in other fields. "Hybridity" is valuable for four reasons: it reminds us that analyses of religious mixture must take into account broader cultural interactions, not just relations among those elements considered "religious"; it usefully highlights the prevalence, creativity and dynamism of cultural mixture, especially in our current global context; it reminds us that the study of contemporary religious phenomena requires attention to very specific historical, regional, and social contexts; and it reminds us to

Locality from Hybridization to Integration: Cultural Politics and Space Production of Taiwan Mazu Temples in Mainland China

“…In other words, those Taiwanese living and working far from their hometowns in Jiangsu, Tianjin, and other places, whether seeking regional recognition externally or expressing collective consciousness internally, are undeniably enmeshed in a religious system, seeking emotional attachment through accessing collective memory. Like places, cultural hybridity is ubiquitous (Burke 2009), and many scholars have studied the new religions, general new religions, new age religions, etc., from the perspective of religious-cultural and cultural hybridity (Engler 2009;Nagaoka 2020). Moreover, some focus on the hybridity of Buddhism (Skriletz 2019).…”

A Preliminary Study on Factors That Lead Muslim Kedayan to Continue Performing the Syncretic Culture

“…Some prefer using hybridity rather than syncretism [12] [13], whereas some put demarcation between syncretism and anti-syncretism [14]. Some scholars also suggest steps with a new definition to syncretism because of theology, culture and missionary interest [15].…”

Mary's rain and god's umbrella: religion, identity, and modernity in the visionary art of a chicana painter

“…To put it slightly difterently, there are narrower and broader art historical definitions of that noun, though most tend to agree that modernism refers to an "intentional rejection" of some earlier precedent, to use Harrison's phrase. Scholars have used difterent terms to describe the products of this contact-including syncretism, mestizaje, bricolage, hybridity, transculturation, and creolization (see De La Torre and Espinoza 2006;Engler 2009;Espinoza 2008: 41 ;Wade 2005;Pérez 2007: 2-4, 7, 45-6, 49). For my own research, including my interpretation of Martinez's art, I find it more useful to either avoid the term or broaden its scope.…”