ovde - vera znanje mir

dominance of ethnic and political identity and given questions about people’s possible need for
deeper commitments, it is important to at least ask whether religion may actually provide some of
the content, as well as the markers, for certain ethnic identities.
Religion as Support for Ethnicity
Another literature emphasizes the roles that religion plays in supporting ethnicity.Religion is not
just a marker of identity, but rather its symbols, rituals and organizations are used to boost
ethnic identity. In this version of the relationship,the substantive content of religion plays a more
significant role in the construction of group identity. But this is still a supporting role. Ethnicity is
still the primary category of analysis, and religion is thought to legitimize, sacralize and otherwise
buttress the primary ethnic category.Hamf (1994), for example, argues, in terms similar to Barth
(1969), that whilst cultural distinctions can be based on common origins, language or religion,the
‘objective’ distance measured by markers is rather irrelevant. However, he also argues that
religious boundary marking can be socially powerful. Religion and rites, he maintains, are far
more resistant to social change than many other markers of identity, religion has been
successfully used by ethnic entrepreneurs and religious images are useful in validating any
history of the people (1994: 11–12). So for Hamf, religion does make a difference to how the
community mobilizes and politicizes. This is because religion is deeply rooted in the socialization
processes of early childhood. Its rituals shape and mark the day, the year, and stages in life that
create an emotional bond between all members. As a rule, its officers and organizational forms at
different levels are more numerous and better established than those of ethnic and linguistic
communities (1994: 15).However, Hamf indicates that religious rituals are ‘an instrument of
mobilization’(1994: 16). Theology can be used to legitimize a group’s economic and political
interests. In this sense, Hamf argues that religion functions as a potent support for ethnicity. Hamf
is quite right to underline how religion can be instrumentalized to support ethnicity. However, he
assumes that most groups ultimately have economic and political ends, rather than actually
religious identities and motivations. As such, Hamf ultimately sees religion as something that
needs to be depoliticised (through syncretism, universalism, assimilation, regulation etc.),rather
than sometimes being the very fabric of ethnicity itself (1994: 16–17).A similar approach is found
amongst those, such as Mol (1976), who argue that religion sacralizes identity by providing an
orderly interpretation of an otherwise complex reality. This is where groups and individuals call
on religion to give divine explanation and justification for deeper, perhaps ethnic, concerns. Mol
maintains that religion protects identity by providing psychological reassurance and emotional
security. However, for Mol, religion protects other identities that are already there. It is not an
active agent in their construction or transformation.This, however, is a problematic assumption.
Winter (1996), for example,cites Prell (1989: 188) who found that members of the Minyan (Jewish
prayergroup) she studied, even when they had no personal relationship with God,related through
prayer to ‘a self-transcending element called the people of Israel’. Winter argues (1996: 243) that
where ethnic groups are sacralized, some form of religion can become important for the survival
of the group. Religion is needed to protect ethnic identity. But surely it is pertinent to analyse the
consequencesof this for the religious conscience of the ethnic group at hand. Smith (1999: 336–8)
argues that religious election myths are important because they confer on the chosen a sense
of moral superiority over outsiders and provide an idea that the community has a special
destiny that promises spiritual liberation.Whilst these can be seen as purely ethnic processes,
when myths like these are used to help draw the boundary, Smith argues that the elect may turn in
upon themselves and are forced to rely more fully on their spiritual resources. In short, where
ethnic identities are sacralized, religion may come to change the meaning of that ethnicity. These
accounts go further than those that characterize religion as a mere ethnic marker. They put
substantive religious flesh on the bones of ethnic identity. They correctly acknowledge how
religion often functions as a power resource, how religious symbols legitimize identity, and how
ethnic entrepreneurs seek to harness religious meanings. These observations are vital if we are to