Umbanda: Hybridity, Tradition and Semantic Plurality

S. Engler
{"title":"Umbanda: Hybridity, Tradition and Semantic Plurality","authors":"S. Engler","doi":"10.30965/23642807-bja10033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nFocusing on the Brazilian spirit-incorporation religion of Umbanda, this article proposes a theoretical shift in conceptions of hybridity: a move from asking “what ingredients mix in what manner to produce what result?” to asking “how do we interpret religious innovation?” This approach sees meaning as simply the result of interpretation (not in terms of a representational relation between words and world). It also underlines the centrality of discursive claims of hybridity and purity, as opposed to historical issues of origins – a point clarified by comparing “hybridity” to “tradition.” Comparison of Umbanda and Candomblé leads to the conclusion that each can be considered both “Afro-Brazilian” and “hybrid” in different ways. Candomblé exhibits semantic polarity (all groups accept that a certain sub-type is more authentic and hybridity marks divergence from that norm). Umbanda exhibits semantic plurality (wide variation between groups is not subject to such a normative judgment).","PeriodicalId":53191,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/23642807-bja10033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Focusing on the Brazilian spirit-incorporation religion of Umbanda, this article proposes a theoretical shift in conceptions of hybridity: a move from asking “what ingredients mix in what manner to produce what result?” to asking “how do we interpret religious innovation?” This approach sees meaning as simply the result of interpretation (not in terms of a representational relation between words and world). It also underlines the centrality of discursive claims of hybridity and purity, as opposed to historical issues of origins – a point clarified by comparing “hybridity” to “tradition.” Comparison of Umbanda and Candomblé leads to the conclusion that each can be considered both “Afro-Brazilian” and “hybrid” in different ways. Candomblé exhibits semantic polarity (all groups accept that a certain sub-type is more authentic and hybridity marks divergence from that norm). Umbanda exhibits semantic plurality (wide variation between groups is not subject to such a normative judgment).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本班达:混杂性、传统与语义多元性
本文聚焦于巴西的umanda精神融合宗教,提出了混合概念的理论转变:从问“什么成分以什么方式混合产生什么结果?”变成了“我们如何解读宗教创新?”这种方法认为意义仅仅是解释的结果(而不是单词和世界之间的表征关系)。它还强调了杂交性和纯洁性的话语主张的中心地位,而不是起源的历史问题——通过比较“杂交性”和“传统”来澄清这一点。对umanda和candomblaise的比较得出的结论是,两者都可以以不同的方式被视为“非裔巴西人”和“混血儿”。candombl表现出语义极性(所有群体都接受某一子类型更真实,而杂交标志着与该规范的背离)。umanda表现出语义多元性(群体之间的广泛差异不受这种规范性判断的影响)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
How Does the Old Testament Speak About God’s Knowability? On the Complexity of the Topic, as Reflected in Previous Scholarship Double Turning and Other Duplicities. A Performative Reading of John 20:11–18 Fuzzy Hybrid Approach to Shatter Religious Tolerance and Fundamentalism Stereotypes across Diverse Nations Triggers of Exceptional Experiences on the Camino de Santiago Pilgrimage Esoteric Dance Practices of the Early Twentieth Century: Case Study of George Gurdjieff’s Movements
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1