{"id":72,"date":"2018-10-08T21:54:11","date_gmt":"2018-10-08T21:54:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/?p=72"},"modified":"2018-10-08T21:55:13","modified_gmt":"2018-10-08T21:55:13","slug":"precis-seeman-one-people-one-blood-and-coffee-and-the-moral-order","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/2018\/10\/08\/precis-seeman-one-people-one-blood-and-coffee-and-the-moral-order\/","title":{"rendered":"Precis: Seeman, One People, One Blood and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Precis: Seeman, One People, One Blood <\/em>and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order\u201d<\/p>\n

Chelsea Mak<\/p>\n

Both One People, One Blood: Ethiopian-Israelis and the Return to Judaism <\/em>(Seeman, 2009) and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order: Ethiopian Jews and Pentecostals Against Culture\u201d (Seeman, 2015) enter our classroom conversation self-consciously. Seeman locates his own work within what he calls the \u201cbroad \u2018phenomenological\u2019 or \u2018experience-near\u2019 school of anthropological writing\u201d (2009, 3), drawing on works such as Unni Wikan\u2019s Managing Turbulent Hearts, <\/em>and contributing both methodological and analytical insights to our discussion of the ethnography of religious experience. Specifically, Seeman\u2019s self-aware exploration of the position of the ethnographer in relation to the subject enlarges our understanding of several key questions, namely, what is at stake for those whose lives, religions, and cultures are studied; what is the nature of a \u201cexperience-near\u201d (Kleinman and Kleinman, 277; Seeman 2009, 3) anthropological method, including how it might both expand and limit what can be said with academic certainty; and how the particularity of individual experience is both shaped by and shapes religious and cultural forms or, how might the anthropologist develop an \u201canalytic frame better attuned to the shifting registers of freedom and constraint in the experience of everyday life\u201d (Seeman 2015, 743).<\/p>\n

Seeman\u2019s two works both contribute to studies of Ethiopian Jews, while also departing from previous foci and method because of an emphasis on richly and thoroughly describing what is at stake for this community (Seeman 2009, 6). One People, One Blood <\/em>tells the story of the \u201cFeres Mura,\u201d a sub-community within the larger group of Ethiopian Jews, who have sought and, with various levels of success, achieved a return to Judaism and integration into Israeli society. The book length ethnography has several significant goals: first, to demonstrate that \u201cinterpretations of religious agency lie at the heart of [the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d dilemma]\u201d (Seeman 2009, 2); second, to shift the course of the conversation about Beta Israel and Ethiopian Jews \u201cin a more analytic direction\u201d in order to \u201cdrive theoretical reflection about religious\u00a0 and moral experience in context\u201d (Seeman 2009, ); and, third, to contribute and perhaps influence the public dialogue surrounding the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d dilemma (Seeman 2009, 7). Thus, the book focuses on the experience of the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d in relation to state immigration policy, public health, and Israel\u2019s religious establishment, and concludes that the \u201creturn to Judaism was intended as a ritual-bureaucratic system for the transformation of apostates to penitents, nominal Christians into Jews\u201d (Seeman 2009, 205). As such, it was successful, despite the disappointment expressed by some of its administrators and observers, who desired a greater demonstration of \u201csingle-minded religious devotion\u201d (Seeman 2009, 205). Seeman\u2019s article, \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order,\u201d published six years later, returns to one of the driving theses of One People, One Blood<\/em>, namely, the question of religious and moral agency. Thus, in the article, Seeman begins to develop an analytical framework for attending to agency in a subject\u2019s experience of everyday life (Seeman 2015, 743) by exploring the role of buna <\/em>drinking in the lives of Ethiopian Jews and Pentecostals. He argues that buna<\/em> serves as \u201cno less than a material medium for disputes about the limits of moral agency, the experience of kin relations that have been broken or restructured, and the eruption of dangerous potencies in the social world\u201d (Seeman 2015, 734). Seeman\u2019s studies are deeply informed by his attention to the question of \u201cwhat is at stake\u201d for his subjects and thus serve as a fruitful ground for discussions of ethnographic method and analysis.<\/p>\n

Kleinman and Kleinman describe the importance of considering what is at stake for the subjects of ethnographic study as a matter of producing anthropological work that is either dehumanizing or humanizing (276-77). They thus argue that \u201c. . . a contextual focus on experience-near categories for ethnography should begin with the defining characteristic of overbearing practical relevance in the processes and forms of experience. . . [which is to say] something is at stake for all of us in the daily round of happenings and transactions\u201d (Kleinman and Kleinman, 277). That this theoretical framework is a driving factor for Seeman\u2019s work with the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d community is strikingly evident, not only in Seeman\u2019s introductory comments, but also in the telling of the story itself\u2014that is, that the story begins with a death and ends with a refurbished grave. Seeman highlights that what is at stake for this community is more than the ability to relocate and settle in a new country, and more than religious conversion, but includes grief and suffering, kinship and belonging, and politics and health. Indeed, such a question, and the gravity it lends to the ethnographic task, led Seeman to give more space to the question of \u201ccultural politics\u201d than is typical in anthropological works and to reflect on the shifting role of the ethnographer as the stakes for the subjects are revealed: \u201cKnowing what is at stake for informants must include the political contexts of their lives, as well as the Heisenberg-like effects of participant observation, which turns the observer into a part of the social scene\u201d (Seeman 2009, 7). In tangible ways, a focus on what is at stake in people\u2019s daily lives shaped the nature of Seeman\u2019s work, influencing what content was most important to include and also the goals of his project, that is, the hope that such a work might also shape public dialogue.<\/p>\n

Such questions and concerns are a mark of the \u201cexperience-near\u201d approach to ethnographic writing and are essential for understanding Seeman\u2019s project (2009, 3). This approach diverges from the assumptions of anthropologists like Clifford Geertz, who sought a thick description of culture. In contrast, the first obligation of Seeman\u2019s approach is to \u201cthe thick and detailed description, not of culture but of what is at stake for people in local settings [see above]\u2014stakes that are patterned in important ways but never wholly defined by cultural considerations\u201d (Seeman 2009, 3). Seeman argues that this approach works to safeguard the anthropological task through \u201ca rigorous theoretical and methodological approach to lived experience\u201d that prevents \u201csignificant misunderstandings of the distinctive life-worlds in which human habitation and meaning occur\u201d (2009, 3). That such \u201csignificant misunderstandings\u201d are possible was illustrated clearly and profoundly in Wikan\u2019s work on the Balinese (Managing Turbulent Hearts, <\/em>xv-xxvi). One area where this framework is particularly evident in One People, One Blood<\/em> is Seeman\u2019s focus on shifting the conversation about the true identity of the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d away from the topic of origins and onto the \u201chere-and-now, where Ethiopian Jews, \u201cFeres Mura,\u201d and Beta Israel Pentecostals . . . all struggle to define themselves\u2014and also struggle just to get by\u201d (Seeman 2009, 61). Similarly, \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order\u201d is structured around thick descriptions of the subjective experience of participation in buna<\/em> drinking that reveals how one such aspect of culture is not sufficiently explained without attention to the nuances with which subjects and groups experience or disavow its observance. In this case, buna<\/em> drinking or abstinence is revealed as more than \u201ca mechanism for ensuring peace within families and ensuring solidarity among women\u201d (Seeman 2015, 735), but also as a site wherein individuals and the groups to which they belong may actively engage in cultural negotiation (Seeman 2015, 740). As such, buna <\/em>drinking\/abstinence opens an avenue for the exploration of religious and moral agency.<\/p>\n

Already in Seeman\u2019s earlier work, One People, One Blood<\/em>, the question of religious and moral agency (and, especially, how the religious and moral agency of another might be determined and evaluated) emerged as a significant theme for analysis. With regard to the \u201cFeres Mura,\u201d this was because, at the very heart of the dilemma, lay questions of authentic kinship and religious conversion for which no \u201ctruly objective and unqualified criteria\u201d could be offered (Seeman 2009, 62). Thus, for the \u201cFeres Mura,\u201d the motivation for a return to Judaism has frequently been reduced in public political and religious dialogue to a matter of the truly penitent heart or the utilitarian desire to escape poverty in Ethiopia (Seeman 2009, 92\u20133). However, a careful analysis, according to Seeman, must include and consider the complexities which attend such a profound and life-altering decision\u2014one which must be tied to \u201ca more situated account of their lives in historical and ethnographic context\u201d (2009, 83) and which reveals the way those who immigrated to Israel were required to navigate \u201cbroader and overlapping\u2014yet not identical\u2014fields of social expectation\u201d (Seeman 2009, 108). Such a lived reality as that experienced by the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d draws the complexity of individual decision making and its relation to religion and culture into sharp relief and brings us to the question of freedom\u2014a fundamental issue at the heart of Seeman\u2019s article on buna <\/em>drinking.<\/p>\n

The focused nature of Seeman\u2019s article allows for a close analysis of the Ethiopian practice of buna <\/em>drinking as a cultural observance either embraced or rejected by Ethiopian Jews and Pentecostals in Israel. Indeed, the negotiation of cultural, religious, and familial identity are evident in the varied responses to buna <\/em>drinking and its rejection (a decision that may be made because of one\u2019s past experience of the practice as hurtful, the shifting generational values necessitated by employment, or observance of religious commitments requiring denouncing the spiritual aspects of buna <\/em>drinking). Seeman here argues that the Pentecostal notion of freedom highlights a \u201cmore basic tension between the human desire for autonomy as well as stable systems of relatedness\u201d (Seeman 2015, 744) that, while never entirely divorced of its particularity in time, place, and history, may also provide a means to reflect upon the complexities of agency and constraint in socio-cultural and religious contexts. Seeman emphasizes that he does not intend to \u201cdeny the power of culture in human affairs but, rather, to insist on its conditionality,\u201d which is to assert that cultures cannot be satisfactorily described as mere semiotic systems, but also as the \u201cdiffering textures of constraint, freedom, and compulsion that characterize their lived horizons\u201d (Seeman 2015, 745). Such an assertion, then, demonstrates the necessity of an \u201cexperience-near\u201d approach to the study of agency, freedom, and constraint.<\/p>\n

Given the ethnographic emphasis on illuminating the human condition (Kleinman and Kleinman, 278, 280) and Seeman\u2019s own claim that \u201cthe stories we tell ourselves about belonging and kinship are at the very heart of the story [One People, One Blood<\/em>] aims to tell\u201d (Seeman 2009 12\u20133), it is prudent to ask to what degree Seeman\u2019s analytical framework succeeds in an adequate account of the \u201cFeres Mura\u201d community, but also to what degree his framework may have explanatory power for ethnographic research in other areas. In other words, how might Seeman\u2019s insights regarding complexity and experience-near descriptions of subject choices assist the ethnographer in other contexts? What are the pitfalls and advantages of an \u201cexperience-near\u201d approach to anthropology? Or, specifically, to agency? Seeman himself notes that \u201cthe contingency of interpretation . . . has important analytical and ethical implications for the world we study\u201d and that it necessitates caution regarding statements of academic certainty (Seeman 2009, 8 and 208). This implies that a greater awareness on the contingency of the researcher is also necessary for ethnographic work. Indeed, Seeman also highlights several of the challenges and complexities that come with ethnographic research and participant observation\u2014some of which emerged as questions in last week\u2019s forum discussion on Wikan, and Kleinman and Kleinman. For example, Seeman\u2019s work with Ethiopian Pentecostals in Israel was cut short by tensions that emerged because of divergent religious commitments that resulted in a \u201crupture that no ethnographic methodology could bridge\u201d (2009, 134). Seeman\u2019s experience thus highlights some of the unique research challenges presented by participant observation, namely, how the particularities of the researcher\u2019s person (gender, religion, ethnicity, etc.) and experience (among others, the ability to make friends or the length of the study) impact the results of one\u2019s work. How can such challenges be mitigated to ensure the best possible contribution to the field of ethnography?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Precis: Seeman, One People, One Blood and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order\u201d Chelsea Mak Both One People, One Blood: Ethiopian-Israelis and the Return to Judaism (Seeman, 2009) and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order: Ethiopian Jews and Pentecostals Against Culture\u201d (Seeman, 2015) enter our classroom conversation self-consciously. Seeman locates his own work within what he calls … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Precis: Seeman, One People, One Blood and \u201cCoffee and the Moral Order\u201d”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5515,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-72","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5515"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=72"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":73,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/72\/revisions\/73"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=72"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=72"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scholarblogs.emory.edu\/religiousexperience2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=72"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}