At the Boundaries of Religious Identity: Native American Religions and American Legal Culture
Author(s): Susan Staiger Gooding
Source: Numen, Vol. 43, No. 2, Religion, Law and the Construction of Identities (May, 1996), pp.
157-183
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270345
Accessed: 07-09-2015 19:43 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AT THE BOUNDARIES OF RELIGIOUS IDENTITY: NATIVE
AMERICAN RELIGIONS AND AMERICAN LEGAL CULTURE
SUSAN STAIGERGOODING
Summary
at legal discoursesaboutNativeAmericanreligionsin
This essay looks briefly
themin orderto viewthehistorical
thelate 19thand late20thcenturies,
juxtaposing
trendstheyrepresent-therole playedby legal discoursein transforming
Native
Americanceremonialpracticesand the role playedby NativeAmericanreligious
thelaw.
discoursesin transforming
The firstsectionarguesthattheoppositionbetweenreligioustoleranceand inin NativeAmertransformations
tolerancecannotaccountforthehistorical
wrought
ica. Ratherthanreligiousoppressionin any simplesense,late 19thcenturylegal
discoursewas one forcein the colonizationof the ceremonialheritageof Native
in two areas of legal discoursethathave evolvedon the
America. Developments
basis of theAmericanIndianReligiousFreedomAct of 1978 are thefocusof the
on thebasis of AIRFA has providedlittle
second halfof thisessay. If litigation
theevolutionof AIRFA into
Native
American
fordecolonizing
foundation
religions,
and FreeExerciseof ReligionActof 1994
theNativeAmericanCulturalProtection
instanceof thetransformation
of legal discourseand an invigorais an exemplary
and definitions
of collectiveinterests
in theUS. It is
tionof democratic
procedures
arguedthatNativeAmericanrightsdiscourseaboutreligiouspracticesis providing
thatcan and shouldsignificantly
orientscholarship
of Native
alternative
frameworks
America.
Like theminer'scanary,theIndianmarkstheshiftfromfreshair to poisongas
and our treatment
in our politicalatmosphere;
of Indians,even morethanour
of
other
reflects
the
rise
treatment
and fallin ourdemocratic
faith.
minorities,
Felix S. Cohen
as quotedin "Discrimination
and NativeAmericanReligiousRights"1
The followingfactcan no longerbe denied:thecreativelifeof nativepeoples,
fromsea to shiningsea, is thefoundation
of Americanhistory.
LawrenceE. Sullivan
Introduction
to NativeAmericanReligions,NorthAmericaVolume2
? E. J.Brill,Leiden(1996)
NUMEN, Vol. 43
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
158
Susan StaigerGooding
Introduction:
frameworks
for interpretation
to build on the insightsof thesetwo great
This essay attempts
scholars-FelixCohen,thelegalscholarand"father
offederalIndian
and
Lawrence
the
and
historian
Sullivan, encyclopedic graceful
law,"
of religion-withregardto "NativeAmerica,"whichis no less an
place thanis "America."I atimaginedand locatedsocial-historical
on
their
shared
claim
build
to
that,althoughNativeAmerican
tempt
communities
maymarkboundariesof social, political,and cultural
difference
in theUS, thehistoriesof thesecommunities
are neither
of Americanhistory,
"other"to noron theperiphery
butat itsheart.
to buildon thepresenttenseand thedynamicsense
I also attempt
of agencywithwhichCohenand especiallySullivanspeakof Native
Americans-a dynamicpresenttensetoo oftenmissingin thehistorical frameworks
The relationship
between
givenvoice in scholarship.
religionand the law in NativeAmericais an ideal subjectthrough
whichto viewthishistorical
andto evaluatecontemporary
dynamism
for
and
frameworks
scholarly legal
interpretation.
Withregardto religionit is painfullyclear thatnon-Indianintentionsto toleratethedifferences
represented
by NativeAmericans
to theharshrealitiesof theirhishavehad no necessaryrelationship
Both
and
of
friends
foes
Indians
have soughtto dismember
tories.
the ceremonialbasis of indigenouscommunities
through
legal and
othermeans. In thissense legal discourseaboutNativeAmerican
of US policies towardNativeAmericans
religionsis characteristic
moregenerally.As RobertBerkhofer
has argued:
of philanAlthoughthe specificgoals of missionariesand militaryofficers,
and politicianshaveoftenconflicted,
thesediverseWhiteofficialsand
thropists
theirpolipolicymakersagreeduponthebasicnatureoftheIndian,andtherefore
cies, if not theiraims, were usually compatible in the larger sense. (Berkhofer
1978,p. 113,emphasismine.)
or
Vine Deloria Jr.,StandingRock Sioux, sees thissame pattern,
about
Native
America.
Deloin
"largersense,"emerging scholarship
ilkscomria Jr.claimsthatscholarsof all politicaland disciplinary
framework
implicit
monlyutilizethis only-apparently-oppositional
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
159
in US legal discourseaboutNativeAmericansas theirpointof departure.He argues,"muchof whatpasses forhistorydealingwith
of thedevelopment
treatment
Indiansand whitesis a mythological
of policydisguisedas history"
(Deloria Jr.,1987,p. 85). Pointedly
continues
Jr.
Deloria
Berkhofer
echoing
In manyrespectsthewritingthatmostneedsrevisionis thatwhichseems to
andtendsto misit is simplytoo generalized
favorIndians.It is notinaccurate,
lead Indiansintoadoptingliberalmythsinsteadof conservative
myths.[Such]
havenegbut
Indians
toward
inclined
seem
actually
favorably
generalizations...
Indian
ofcontemporary
whentheyareseenwithinthecontext
ativeimplications
life. (Ibid.,pp. 85-86.)
scholarsof NativeAmerica,therefore,
One taskforcontemporary
is to takeaccountof legal discourseas an historicalforce,without
the
Such is certainly
forunderstanding.3
takingit as ourframework
case withNativeAmericanreligions.In fact,amongtheIndianscholars I read and thetribalmemberswithwhomI workthereis a kind
withregardto religion.Whilethereis agreement
of double-voicing
for
thatthe struggle religiousrightsis amongthe mostimportant
issues in IndianCountrytoday,thereis also an insistencethatthe
to
Thus,in contrast
veryconcept"religion"is a colonialconstruct.
workthatfocuseson theoppositionbetweenreligioustoleranceand
intolerance-thedominant
oppositionin bothlegalpolicyand scholof
the
about
history NativeAmericanreligions-I locatethe
arship
of legal discoursesofNativeAmericanreligiousrightsin the
history
discourses.
of colonizingand decolonizing
framework
at legaldiscoursesaboutNativeAmerican
Thisessaylooksbriefly
themin
juxtaposing
religionsin thelate 19thand late20thcenturies,
roleplayedby
trendstheyrepresent-the
orderto viewthehistorical
and
ceremonial
NativeAmericanreligious
the law in transforming
practicesand the role playedby NativeAmericanrightsdiscourse
the law. I arguethat
aboutreligionand ceremonyin transforming
of
is
discourse
NativeAmerican
makinga contribution
religiousrights
of Americanlegal discourse
valueto thedevelopment
immeasurable
and, in turn,to the vitalityand viabilityof the Americanpublic
sphere.4
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160
Susan StaigerGooding
1. The "passing"oftraditions
Beforethelate 19thcentury,
theconreligionwas onlyindirectly
cern of Americanlegal discoursesrelatingto Indiansdespitethe
ubiquityof colonialtakingsthatwerejustifiedwiththe claim that
wereheathenand withoutanyformof reindigenouscommunities
ligion. Beforetreatymakingwas suspendedby Congressin 1871
discussionsof religionin earlyUS legal discoursewere limitedto
treatiesthrough
whichindigenousleadersexclauses of negotiated
to
their
visits
fromChristian
missionaries
willingness accept
pressed
sacred
(DeloriaJr.1992a,pp. 13-14),and to thoseclausesspecifying
communities
sitesor places to whichparticular
reserved
indigenous
it
was
after
over
200
In
fact,
yearsofsuchvisitsfrommissionrights.
and
after
Christian
aries,
manyindigenouspeoplehad incorporated
tenetsand practicesintotheirreligiousandculturalwaysof life,that
the religionof Indiansitselfbecame theobjectof US legal policy
and a focusof otherAmericanpublicdiscourse.
of treatynegotiations
and treatymakingrepThe discontinuation
newcoursetakenby thefederalgovernment.
resentedan entirely
By
oftreaty
dubious
format
to the
contrast
yetnegotiated
makingthelesetoutto makepolicyfor,rather
gal policiesof thelate 19thcentury
withmovinginthanwith,Indians.No longerconcerned
exclusively
on
to
communities
en
masse
reservations,
yetstillextremely
digenous
ofthesecommunities
andto control
concernedto limitthemovement
thefederalgovernment
set
thebodies and mindsof theirmembers,
out to invadeeverydimensionof theirinternaland domesticlives.
such
Policiesaboutreligionwereatthecoreofthisinvasion.The first
underPresident
US Grant'sso-calledpeace
policywas promulgated
Indian
when
in
1869
agenciesbeganbeingassignedto varipolicy,
Between1869 and 1872 all of thethen
ous religiousdenominations.
Indian
Tribes
were
amongthe 13 Christian
apportioned
recognized
and Christian
denominations
recognizedby thefederalgovernment,
for
schools
Native
American
children
were
institutionalized
boarding
on a nationalscale (AnnualReport,Commissioner
ofIndianAffairs,
FrancisWalker.House ExecutiveDoc. no. 1, 42nd Congress,3rd
sess., serial1560,pp. 460-462,see Prucha1990,pp. 141-143).
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
161
Within10 yearsit becameobviousthatit was neithertheaccepbeliefsby Indiansnorthebeliefsof Indiansat all
tanceof Christian
of theUS, butthe eradicathatwere of concernto representatives
tionof indigenousceremonialpractices.In 1883, at therequestof
HenryM. Teller,so-calledCourtsof InSecretaryof the Interior,
to ensurethe
on all Indianreservations
dianOffenseswereinstituted
"as a greathindrance
to thecivof whathe regarded
discontinuation
of the old heathenish
ilizationof the Indians,viz, the continuance
etc."
as
the
such
sun-dance,scalp-dance,
dances,
(AnnualReport
of theSecretaryof theInterior.House ExecutiveDoc. no. 1, 48th
Cong., 1st sess., serial2190, pp. x-xiiias quotedin Prucha1990,
by these
p. 160). The list of NativeAmericanpracticesprohibited
federalregulations
suggeststhispolicywas aimednotat thebeliefs
of social andpoliticalrelations
of Indianpeoplesbutat thenetworks
ceremonial
practices.
producedin thecontextof indigenous
federal
The list of indigenouspracticesprohibited
by
regulations
all dances
and
in
included:
in
1904
1883,
1892,
1)
again
promulgated
all
and "any similarfeast,"2)
pluralor polygamousmarriagesand
thosenot "solemnized"by an appointedjudge, 3) all practicesof
of Indianchildrenfromattending
medicinemenand theprevention
the
destruction,
away
injury,
takingor carrying
religiousschools,4)
to its value,particularly
withoutreference
of anypersonalproperty
the
in thecase of thedeathof an Indian,5) immortality,
particularly
6) inmarriages,
exchangeofgiftsbetweenfamilieswhennegotiating
habits
of
or
to
the
failure
to
toxication
and,7)
industry, engage
"adopt
from
or employments"
1892 "Rulesfor
in civilizedpursuits
(distilled
IndianCourts,"House ExecutiveDoc. no. 1, 52d Cong.,2nd sess.,
serial3088,pp. 28-31as quotedin Prucha1990,pp. 186-89).5These
foodrations,and imoffenseswerepunishedby fines,withholding
as
were
not
referred
to
elements
ofIndianreligions
These
prisonment.
and "the
withtheexceptionof "intoxication"
per se. Nevertheless,
thislist of offensesdesignates
failureto adopthabitsof industry"
ceremonialand symbolicpracticesthatwereso ubiquitousas means
in and beand negotiating
social relationsand identity
of mediating
thattheycould formone of thefirst
tweenindigenouscommunities
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Susan StaigerGooding
162
forall Indianpeople. As PatriciaLimerickhas stated,
policieswritten
"The campaignagainstIndianreligionswas, at itscore,a campaign
and extended
againsttheintergenerational
againsttheIndianfamily,"
(Limerick1993,
kinshiprelationsthat"knittribalsocietiestogether"
p. 11).6
of Indianreligionsin thelate 19thcentury
The suppression
does
intolerance
on
the
of
reformers
of
the
likes
notstrictly
of
signify
part
IndianCommissioner
toleraHenryM. Teller.Thoseself-proclaimed
theself-named
"Friendsof theIndians,"
torsofthelate 19thcentury,
for
the
discontinuance
of
Indian
religiousand ceremonial
agitated
who wereextensively
conpracticesas well. These philanthropists,
in
the
federal
its
sultedby
the
government policymakingthroughout
fearedtheonlyprecaution
thatcould
secondhalfofthe19thcentury,
of "theIndian"was a course
be takenagainstthetotaldisappearance
as well,religion
Forthesereformers
ofrapidandforcedassimilation.
forIndianresistance
to assimilation.
formeda keyfoundation
Thus,
withand tolerancefor"theIndian,"
despitetheirdeclaredsympathy
and theprinciples
it was notmerelytheacceptanceofChristianity
of
civilizationby Indiansthatwas essential,butthediscontinuance
of
ceremonialpractices.7
traditional
Beyondthecontextofthisoppressive
legaldiscourseanothershift
was takingplace intheUS in thelate19thcentury-theemergence
of
withregardto Indianreligions.FromEdward
a newkindofpublicity
S. Curtis'sphotographic
to BuffaloBill's WildWestShow,
showings,
Columbian
the 1904 St. Louis World'sFair,
to the 1893
Exposition,
and cityand countyfairsheld annuallyacross the UnitedStates,
thedisplayof indigenousAmericans
and theirotherwise
proliferated
ceremonial
were
embraced
as an integral
practices
legallyprohibited
partof theheritageof America.8As EdwardS. Curtisputit:
The passingof everyold manor womanmeansthepassingof some tradition,
some knowledgeof sacredritespossessedby no other,consequently
theinformationthatis to be gathered,
forthebenefitof futuregenerations,
respecting
themodeof lifeof one of thegreatracesof mankind,
mustbe collectedat once
will be lost forall time(as quotedin Graybilland Boesen
or theopportunity
1986,p. 2).
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
163
as he does thepassingfromhistory
of Indians,at least
Presuming
traditions
and rites,the future
thosewho werebearersof authentic
Curtisspeaks of as the beneficiaries
of thiscollection
generations
wereclearlynon-Indian.Thus,just as thepassingof tradition
was
to
the
American
its
outlawed
Indians,
among
passing
publicwas
being
in all cornersof
pursuedwitha penchant.It remainedunremarked
of intergenthepublicspherethatit was largelythelegalprohibition
erationalpassingamongIndiansthatlentanyjustification
whatsoever
forthesake of posterity,
thesacredand
to theprojectof alienating,
ceremonialrites,theceremonial
objects,and theveryremainsof the
thatensuedoverthe
of
departedancestors indigenouscommunities
nextcentury
(see especiallyAmericanIndianCultureand Research
Journal16, no. 2, 1992).
Alienatedfromthesocial contextin whichsuch ceremonialrites
and objectstook on meaning,thesepracticeswere colonizedand
frameworks.In addition
againstothersocial-symbolic
resignified
withinthe "freemarket,"in the contextof
to being commodified
museums
and universities
thisceremonialheritage
publically-funded
was measured,sorted,classified,and explainedagainstanynumber
of religion,
oftenbecomingthefodderfor
of theoriesand definitions
as "autisticmonologueswith
whatGeraldVizenorhas characterized
to thepublicthrough
science"(Vizenor1989,p. 198).9 Re-presented
the mediationof scholars,theseobjectswere largelydescribedas
partof religioussystemsof beliefratherthanceremonialways of
on thepartof real indigenousindividualsfrom
life. Anydeparture
such fixedsystemsstoodas a sign of thepassingof theirauthenceremonialobjects
ticityas "Indians."In museumsand universities
and othersmediahavebeen largelyoverdetermined
competthrough
theoriesof religionthatare framedin such racialand
ing narrative
terms.
socio-evolutionary
We cannot,then,takethelegal discourseof thelate 19thcentury
at face value for,retrospectively,
we see thatIndiantraditions
were
notprohibited,
forIndians.Whatwas
theyweremerelyprohibited
of thetimewas notan intolerance
sharedby non-Indians
of Indian
religiousbeliefs,buta cultureunderwhosegaze indigenouspeople
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164
Susan StaigerGooding
to a racialtypologyand
could onlytakeon meaningwithreference
a socio-evolutionary
framework
forinterpretation.
Legal discourse
acted as onlyone forcein the moregeneraldecontextualization
of
The
strugglefacingindigenouscommuniindigenousceremonies.
ties in the wake of thisviolentalienationwas morecomplexthan
theirreligions.It was and is
thestruggleto pass on and perpetuate
thatwhichhas been colonizedunto recontextualize
also a struggle
therelationship
betweenthe
der theterm"religion"and to redefine
life.
ceremonialand otheraspectsof community
of late 19thcenturyprohibitions
If the explicitintention
cannot
oftheseprohibitions
cannoteither.
be takenat facevalue,theeffects
thedisruption,
efforts
oflegalreformers;
illness
Despitetheconcerted
thatensued;andthealienationofa vastportion
and violenttreatment
of thegreatceremonialheritageof indigenouscommunities,
American prohibitions
of Indianreligiousand culturalpracticesfailed.In
to practicetheirtraditions
in secrecyand in
additionto continuing
so eagerlyconsumedby Amerthe contextof publicperformances
to
the
contrast
and
framework
icans,
by
socio-evolutionary
through
whichmanyscholarsoverdetermined
as reliindigenoustraditions
Indians
did
not
see
betweentheirold beliefs
anyconflict
gions,"Most
andthenewreligionsofthewhitemanand,consequently,
a surprising
in theseancientritualswhilemaintainnumberofpeopleparticipated
in
a
Christian
denomination"
(Deloria 1991,p. 1).
ing membership
A second,quitedifferent
ifrelatedchangewas ultimately
wrought
Indianreligions.Coupledwithedby thelegaldiscourseprohibiting
whichIndianchildren
ucationalpoliciesthrough
wereschooledunder
of Christian
thetutelageof theproponents
denominations
and,later,
staterepresentatives,
Indianchildrenwere educatedin the English
language,in theconceptof therightof law,and in thenotionof the
theprohibition
of religionwas
progressof civilization.Ultimately,
a
orientation
also painfully-won
to thediscourseof rights;an educationthatprovidedthetools and a framework
forthearticulation
of
religiousand otherrightsdiscourses.Althoughin 1924 all Indians
weregrantedcitizenship
(43 Stat.253), thusbecomingAmericanIndians,and in 1934 theprohibitions
againstNativeAmericanIndian
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
165
negatedunderthe IndianReorreligiouspracticeswere effectively
was to roll
ganizationAct (25 U.S.C.A. 461) whosestatedintention
itwas notuntilNativeAmerbackthefailedpoliciesofassimilation,
icans themselves
activelytookup thediscourseof religiousrightsin
in
the
1950sand 60s thatthesecolonialtrendsbeganto
forums
legal
leadersresulted
shift.This activismby eldersand othercommunity
in theAmericanIndianReligiousFreedomAct(AIRFA),PublicLaw
forindigenousAmericans,whichwas
95-341, a FirstAmendment
passedby Congressin 1978.10
2a. Litigationand defining"religion"as a framework
for
decolonization
of policy
In additionto an expressstatement
to protectand preserveforAmericanIndianstheirinherent
rightto believe,
religionsof theAmericanIndian,Eskimo,
express,and exercisethetraditional
butnotlimitedto accessto sites,use and
Aleut,andNativeHawaiians,including
ceremonials
possessionof sacredobjects,and thefreedomto worshipthrough
rites(as quotedin Prucha1990,pp. 288-289)
and traditional
theAmericanIndianReligiousFreedomAct of 1978 recommended
be undertaken
reforms
by numerousfederalagenciesthatwereinlaws havingnothingto do withrelicreasinglyinvokingregulatory
and prisonregulations-tolimit
immigration,
gion---environmental,
NativeAmericanreligiousand ceremonialrightsin the 1960s and
wereputintoeffectas federal
70s.1 Few of theserecommendations
agencieswaitedforthecourtsto act,to see whattheactualstatusof
AIRFA wouldbe.
On thebasis of AIRFA tribesand individuals
broughtdozensof
cases beforethelowerfederalcourtsinthelate 1970sandearly1980s
of theirreligiousrights.The lowercourtsvaried
seekingprotection
of the statusof the act and religiousrights
in theirinterpretations
moregenerally.12Threequartersof the cases broughtby tribesor
individuals-including
religiousrightsto gatherand possessanimal
and
the rightsof prisonersto wear long hair
eagle feathers,
parts
in ceremoniesin federalprisons,
and headbandsand to participate
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
166
Susan StaigerGooding
therightsof membersof theNativeAmericanChurchto use peyote,
and the rightsof numeroustribesto utilizeand participate
in the
ofplaces sacredto them-werelostin thelowercourts.
management
sacredplaceswerelost. Acrosstheboard
All ofthecases concerning
underAIRFA.
NativeAmericansfoundlittleprotection
The interpretive
in
the
lower
courtsculminated
in 1988
quagmire
and 1990 withtwocases heardbeforetheUS SupremeCourt.13The
1988 SupremeCourtopinionin Lyngv. Northwest
Indian CemeAssociation
the
American
Protective
Indian
tery
gutted
Religious
FreedomAct. In Lyng(1988) theSupremeCourtupheldtheright
of theUS ForestServiceto completeconstruction
of a ForestService road in the Six RiversNationalForestin northern
California
that
sacred
their
sites
to
the
Yurok,Karok,
acknowledgment
despite
and Tolowa would be destroyed.Lyng(1988) ended the question
AIRFA wouldprovideNativeAmericansanystatutory
as to whether
withtheCourtdeclaringthatAIRFA ultimately
protected
protection
NativeAmericansonlyfrompunishment
foror forceableviolations
of theirreligiousbeliefs(Echo-Hawk1993,p. 43). Ironically,
given
all thatwas at stakein thiscase and thescope of whatwas lost,the
ForestServicenevercompletedits road in the Six RiversNational
Forest.
In 1990,in Employment
Div.,Dept. ofHumanResourcesof Oregon v. Smith,the SupremeCourtaddressedthe religiousrightsof
membersof the NativeAmericanChurchunderthe FirstAmendment.The conflictaddressedby theCourtin Smith(1990) resulted
whentheStateof OregonfiredtwoNativeAmericanemployeesfor
in the peyoteceremonyof theNativeAmerican
theirparticipation
Church.The Courtfoundin favorof theStateof Oregondespitethe
factthattheceremonialuse of peyotewas acknowledged
as having
had no effecton the employees'workperformance.As has been
than
widelynoted,themajority
opinionin Smith(1990) wentfarther
andundermining
necessaryin upholding
Oregon'sclaimbyattacking
the standardsofjudicialreviewby whichthereligiousrightsof all
hadbeeninterpreted
andprotected.
Americans
The three-part
testdev. Verner(1963) whereby
velopedby theSupremeCourtin Sherbert
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
167
courtshave evaluatedwhether
religiouspracticescan be limitedby
thestateincludes:1) proofthata claimis religiousand thatthereto thatreligion,
ligiouspracticeat issue is centraland indispensible
is burdensome
to thereligiousprac2) proofthatthestatelimitation
that
there
is
some
thatmerits
and
tice,
3) proof
compellinginterest
thestate'sburdenon thatreligiouspractice.Amongotherthings,in
Smith(1990) the SupremeCourtset aside the "compellinginterest
test"altogether.
nullified
theconstitutional
RealizingthatSmith(1990) effectively
basis wherebythe religiousrightsof all Americansare protected,
NativeAmericanactivistsand scholarsof NativeAmericawereimjoinedbya broadallianceof religiousgroups,andin 1993
mediately
Act (Public Law 103-141) was
the ReligiousFreedomRestoration
thecompellinginterest
test.
restoring
passedby Congress,explicitly
testmaybe necessary,
it is
However,whilethecompellinginterest
it
the
of
notnecessarily
sufficient;effectively
begs
question religious
Americans
of
Native
who
have repeatedly
at
least
those
lost
rights,
cases in whichtheirreligiousrightshave been litigatedunderthis
to
rule. For,ratherthanplacingtheonuson thefederalgovernment
in religiousrights
cases in federalIndian
interest,
provea compelling
law thecourtshave generallyemphasizedthefirstof thethreepart
placingtheonuson theNativeAmericanindibalancingtest,thereby
vidualsor groupsto provethatanygivenreligiouspracticeor belief
is "centraland indispensible"
to theirreligion.
Beforeexploringthecompellinginterest
testfurther,
I wouldlike
to theresponsesof scholarsto this20 yearsof litigato turnbriefly
tion.Theirresponsesand emphaseshavevaried,butall haveagreed
thatthe conceptof religionand the interpretive
standardby which
courtsrequireproofthata religiouspracticeor beliefis centraland
is inadequatein theNativeAmericancontext.Scholars
indispensible
Chrishave arguedthatthecourt'sconceptof religionis essentially
of revieware inhertianand that,in turn,current
judicial standards
even
a
violation
of
the
Establishment
Clause of
entlydiscriminatory,
the Constitution
because,withregardto NativeAmericanreligious
there
has
been no separationof churchand state. Growing
rights,
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
168
Susan StaigerGooding
and focusinglargelyon thecourts'repeated
out of thesecriticisms
denialsof rightsto sacredplaces, scholarshave begunto articulate
anda widerreperofNativeAmerican
definitions
alternative
religions
toireofanalogiesbetweenNativeAmericanandChristian
religions.14
and
theirhistory
fulfill
All havemadethemoralplea thatAmericans
Americans.
Native
toward
tolerance
chosendestinyby extending
of thiswork,
the need forand importance
Withoutminimizing
of the
it mustbe notedthatneitherthe courts'acknowledgement
American
Native
of
and
religiouspractices,
centrality indispensibility
noreven theiracceptanceof analogiesbetweenChristianand tribal
practiceshave provideda solutionto theproblemof religiousrights
in anystrongsense,nora modelforreligioustolerancein anysense
wherecourtshavefound
of theword.For,withveryfewexceptions,
any givenNativeAmericanreligiousclaim to be salient,theyhave
nevertheless
generallyfoundagainstthe religiousclaim underthe
test. In case aftercase some publicinterestcompellinginterest
in electricity,
thepublicinterest
in penalsecurity,
thepublicinterest
the public interestin tourism,or the public interestin not being
burdenedbythereligiouspracticesofa minority-hasbeenfoundso
NativeAmerican's
compellingas to outweighthetribalor individual
theargument
As thislistofpublicinterests
suggests,
religiousright.15
are
and
accomodated
inform
interests
thatChristian
bylegaldiscourse
ofNative
in theUS doesn'tsufficiently
explaintrendsin thelitigation
Americanreligiousrights.16
as DeloriaJr.has pointedout,it is notalwaysonly
Additionally,
of
in thelitigation
thatarerepresented
therightsofNativeAmericans
theirreligiousrights.ThoughLyng(1988),forexample,was a case in
as a case concerning
a sitesacred
federalIndianlaw andwas litigated
that
an
alliance
in
was
this
case
the
to NativeAmericans, plaintiff
includedthethreetribesforwhomChimneyRock in theSix Rivers
NationalForestis a ceremonialsite,six environmental
groups,and
these
in protecting
the Stateof California,all who had an interest
of
use
the
The
Court's
lands.
generalized
conceptof
Supreme
public
in thiscase cannot,
in finding
againsttheplaintiff
"publicinterest"
ofChristian
beliefsnor"white"values
then,be readas a justification
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
169
as DeloriaJr.forcefully
in anyclearsense. Rather,
argues,as a result
face
the
must
all
Americans
of Lyng(1988)
reality
andemployeesdeeplybelievethattheproperty
bureaucrats
thatgovernment
they
and thatanyeffort
are chargedwithmanagingbelongsto thempersonally,
by
The morethan35
is a personalaffront.
in management
thepublicto participate
percentof theUnitedStatesthatis comprisedofpubliclandsbelongs,in theory
at least,to thepublicas a whole,notto federalemployeesand theirfavored
clientele(Deloria 1992,p. 287).
in therelationship
andshifts
continuities
beFromthisperspective,
tweenlegal and otherpublicdiscoursesfromthelate 19thto thelate
20thcenturycome intoview. Althoughless dramaticthanthelate
andgathering
ofindigenous
whenthemovement
19thcentury,
people
in
a fearof suchproportion
forceremonialpurposescould stimulate
lead
to
the
massacre
of
that
it
could
1890
the federalgovernment
GhostDancersat WoundedKnee, todayspiritual
practicesas muncontinueto represent
dane as wearinglong hairand eagle feathers
its authority,
and
a dangerof some sortto thefederalgovernment,
of thebodypolitic.It wouldappearthatin thelate
theconstitution
reservedforNativeAmericansis
the
20thcentury controlpreviously
beingexercisedwithregardto thevaluesthattheAmericanpublic,
of whichNativeAmericansare a part,is entitledto hold. Laws explicitlyaddressingreligionare not neededto exercisethiscontrol;
of thepublicdomain
to theconstitution
anylegal discourserelevant
over
can be a mediumforexerting
authority religiousand cultural
thatmayor maynotrepresent
values,authority
publicconsensus,but
the
nevertheless.
name
of
is claimedin the
public
testin thesecases also
The applicationof thecompellinginterest
oflitigation
as a formofdiscourseforresolving
revealsthelimitations
betweenreligiousand otherinterests.
all suchconflicts
Litigationis
an adversarial
formof legaldiscoursein which
by its verydefinition
in relationto one another.The
and/or
held
are
not
negotiated
rights
resultin theexclusionand
of one rightmustultimately
recognition
thenotionof a
denial of otherrights.In thecontextof litigation,
balancingtestseems eitheran ideal rarelyattainedor a misnomer.
of
The resultof each of thecases citedabove was not a limitation
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
Susan StaigerGooding
butan
NativeAmericanreligiousrightsin relationto stateinterests,
relevance
as
concerns
the
of
exclusion
plaintiffs'
havingany
outright
to theissue raisedin thecase whatsoever.
The 1980 decisionin the lowercourtsin Badoni v. Higginson
of thisadversarialformof legal rationaltheirrationality
illustrates
in thiscase requestedthattheNational
leaders
ity.Navajo religious
at the RainbowBridge
Park Serviceprohibitalcohol consumption
close themonument
fortheir
NationalMonumentand periodically
a central
limitedceremonialuse. RainbowBridgeis undoubtedly
sacredsite forNavajos,whichthecourtacknowledged.The Court,
in electricity
and tourism
foundthatthepublicinterests
nevertheless,
outweighedNavajos' religiousrightsand thatsuch an accommodaClause requiring
tionto theNavajos wouldviolatetheEstablishment
a separationbetweenchurchand state.Whateveris at workbehind
of rights,sucha
and graspingoppositional
thisconstructed
framing
is
not
what
exclusive
Navajos had
interpretationobviously
mutually
"In
in mind. As StevenMoore has notedof sacredsitesgenerally,
Nativegroupshave
all but the mostexceptionalof circumstances
neverand will neverseek exclusiveuse of a land area forreligious
purposes"(Moore 1991,p. 97).
of Native
Deloria Jr.'sconclusionwithregardto such framings
tranAmericanreligiousrightsin litigation
providesan appropriate
Court's
the
Of
sitionto current
Supreme
legislativedevelopments.
decisionin Lyng(1988) Deloriahas said:
nowseemstobe
courseofdealingwiththeUS government
Themostfruitful
is a modernization
In otherwords,
whatis required
settlements.
in negotiated
andthevarious
between
of theold diplomatic
Washington
treaty
relationship
the
nextfewyears,
this
over
the
extent
that
materializes
To
nations...
Indian
as
be
it
that
indication
is some
andthere
will,Lyngmayultimatelyremembered
Court's
the
Indian
of
a positive
Supreme
by
people,regardless
legallandmark
inthecase(DeloriaJr.,1992,p. 286).
itsdecision
inrendering
intent
2b. Recontextualizing
legal discourse
religionbyredefining
of NativeAmericanreligiousrights
to thelitigation
Simultaneous
under AIRFA have been ongoing regional hearingsand negotiations
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
171
andeldersandCongressional
activists
betweenNativeAmerican
memof
Native
American
of
violations
the
details
ceremonial
bers,inwhich
and
as
unmet
their
and
ceremonial
needshave
yet
religious
practices
been discussedat length.The NativeAmericanCulturalProtection
and Free Exerciseof ReligionAct (NACPFERA), an omnibusbill
was introduced
in Congress
coveringseveralareasofreligiousrights,
NACPFERA
ofthesenegotiations.
in 1994andmarkeda culmination
has since been subdividedinto severalseparatepieces of legislationdue to theproblematic
processof passingomnibuslegislation
NACPFERA marksa beginning
in Congress.As a whole,however,
on the
NativeAmericanreligions,
in theprocessof recontextualizing
betweenNativeAmerbasis of whichtheoutlinesof therelationship
ican peopleand theirceremonial
practicesbeginsto emergeand can
is
In
defined.
be
to
addition,the veryprocessof definition
begin
addressedin theact,whichdevelopsa metadiscourse
itselfexplicitly
and otherrights
ceremonial
the
regarding processby whichreligious,
are to be definedin specificcontextsin NativeAmerica. Rather
of religion,NACPFERA beginsto spell out
thana betterdefinition
a practicalanatomyof tolerancewhichcan formthebasis forthe
of NativeAmericanceremonial
decolonization
practices.
are outlinedunderthislegFourareas of specificlegal protection
islation,each of whichparallelsthekindsofreligiousrightsrecently
litigated:NativeAmericanrights1) to culturalandreligioussites,2)
and wear
to theceremonialuse of peyote,3) to practiceceremonies
and 4) to
longhairwhenservinga sentencein federalpenitentiaries,
andotheranimalspartsorplants.
use ofeagle feathers
theceremonial
are seenin relationto one another,
Whentheseareasofprotection
by
in thecontext
contrastto whateach signifiesin isolatedarguments
theoutlinesof NativeAmericabeginto emerge.
of litigation,
ofNativeAmerthatexceedtheboundaries
these
arerights
Each of
The cultural
understood
and identity
ican sovereignty
territorially.17
sacred sites
and
of
and
use
and religious
animals,peyote,
plants
intothepublicdomain,even
offofreservations,
all implymovement
and
fortheircollection,
boundaries
acrossinternational
transportation,
use. Such is thecase, forexample,whenpow wowdancerstransport
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
Susan StaigerGooding
acrosstheCanadianor
eagle feathersas partof theirdance outfits
arenotreligiousevents,but
Mexicanborders.Pow wowsthemselves
and otheranimalparts
ofthebodywitheagle feathers
theadornment
one
moment
in
a
only
long ceremonialseries.
generallyrepresents
Each is generallygivenby someonein a networkof kin and comthe spiritualaspectof any dancer,their
munityrelationssignifying
and the social and ceremonialcontextof
individualachievements,
of dance outgivingand receivingsuchobjects. The transportation
fitsadornedwithanimaland birdpartsis onlyone of manyreasons
thatNativeAmericanshavebeenincessantly
stoppedandharassedat
international
boundaries."8
of NativeAmericanreligiousrightsis also
A deterritorialization
of the
theprotection
area ofprotection,
seen in thefourth
designated
ceremonialrightsof prisoners.Ratherthanreject,neglect,or vilify
NativeAmericanprisonersbecause of theirlocationbeyondtribal
and on the boundariesof society,the religiousneeds
communities
arecentralto theevolutionofNativeAmericanreligious
ofprisoners
inNativeAmericancommuniThisis notsurprising
discourse.
rights
and
of so manyeveryday,
tieswherethecriminalization
ceremonial,
societies
have
Native
American
"knit
culturalpracticesthat
together"
the
law.
relation
to
at
risk
in
all
Indians
traditionally
placed
of religiousrightsdevelIn general,then,theminimaldefinition
theboundariesof
which
crosses
that
in
this
legislationplaces
oping
at the heartof thatwhichmustbe
NativeAmericancommunities
a
Taken
as
whole,thesefourareaspointbeyonda
legallyprotected.
to late 19thcentury
staticnotionof a religion,insteadpointing
laws,
familial
netand
and
to
the
social
of
different
to thebodies
Indians,
were
whichindividuals'
livesandidentities
ceremonial
worksthrough
as
needs
their
ceremonial
mediated.Takingdistinctindividualsand
NativeAmeria pictureof the relationship
its pointof departure,
to manynon-Indians,
cans haveto religion,a picturequitesurprising
This
ceremonial
scenarioforwhich
from
this
is
legislation.
emerges
the pow wow dancer'soutfitmay be an apt if unusualmetaphor.
pow wow outfitsare botha modernversion
Although,admittedly,
be
of traditional
practicesof adorningthebodyand can themselves
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
173
neitherof thesequalifications
diminishtheirpoweras
commodified,
ceremonialmetaphor.No two pow wow outfits
are identical,each
is a seriesof ceremonially
mediatedstories,a set of signifiers
that
withina communalcontext.Thatcommunal
is highlyindividualized
contextis not one place or one elder,but represents
the diversity
of thedancer'stribaland kinrelationsin different
places,and their
overtimeand through
movement
Their
outfit
is one map of
space.
thataspectof theiridentity
thatis constructed
ceremonially.Like
Indianshaveto sacredplaces,therelationsdiftherelationdifferent
individuals
haveto particular
ceremonial
ferent
practicesand objects
distributed
acrossNativeAmerica.Not
are,then,
quitedifferentially
all NativeAmericansuse peyote,notall wear long hair,nordo all
in a singularreligion
membersof any giventribeshareidentically
their
tribe.
differences
can play an imporby
Religious
represented
andassociationsofindividuals
andfamilies
tantroleinthealignments
in Indiancommunities.
of therelationship
This characterization
different
Indianshave to
onethatis mediatedin a communal
religionas a highlyindividualized
contextin no way adequatelydefinesreligionin NativeAmerica.It
to thevaststoreof valuableif
does, however,
providean orientation
work
on
Native
American
whichsuch
scholarly
religions
problematic
as thatof EdwardCurtiswho,thoughboundby a racialand sociotravelled
atlengthinNativeAmericamaking
framework,
evolutionary
It does providea framework
carefulobservations.
forunderstanding
his claimthat,"The passingof everyold manor womanmeansthe
someknowledgeof sacredritespossessed
passingof sometradition,
by no other."ReadingCurtisagainstthegrainof his tragic,sociohis accountsupportsthe claim thatno two
evolutionary
framing,
individualsholdceremonialknowledgeor identity
identically.
This individualization
or specialization
of identity
producedcerea standardized
moniallyin NativeAmericais not,however,
political
or religiousideology;it has totallyotherrootsfroman ideologyof
and the associatedrightto hold one's own religious
individualism
beliefs. I would arguethatthisnon-standardized
meceremonially
diatedindividualization,
to theextentthatit characterizes
aspectsor
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
Susan StaigerGooding
areas of religionin NativeAmerica,providesone explanationfor
thecourts'regularinterpretations
of anynumberof Indianreligious
claimsas "dispensibleand dispersed"ratherthan"indispensible
and
central."Such non-standardized
mediated
individualceremonially
izationwouldalso providea framework
forunderstanding
thecourts'
Native
of
American
regularinterpretations
religiouspracticesas arbimatters
of
rather
than
ofcentral
personalpreference
trary
expressions
religiousprinciples.However,anyonewho has spenttimein Native
America,in a cityor on the"rez,"knowsthata highlydifferentiated
ceremonialcontextis essentialto suchproduction
of individualized
To
the
extent
that
this
is
an
more
identity.
adequatecharacterization,
than
the
alternative
of
better
definitions
of
reappropriate
providing
the
courts'
in
benefit evaluatingIndianreligiousclaims,
ligionfor
would be to pose anotherquestionaltogether-howessentialis a
givenceremonialpracticeor place to theevolvingand serialproducwithina familyor community?
tionof individualidentities
of ceremonialand religious
Indeed,becauseall of thedimensions
lifein NativeAmericathatare essentialand requirestatutory
protectioncould neverbe addressedin anylist,and becausethemovement
requiredforceremonialpracticesmeansthatall possibleconflicts
couldneverbe predicted,
withstateinterests
NACPFERApointsbearea of protection
"restores
the'compellingstate
yonditself.A fifth
the
as
standard
for
interest
Nativereligious
legal
protecting
test'..,
freedomin all otherinstancesnototherwise
specified"(NARF Legal
Review 1993, p. 14). This fifthand open-endedarea of religious
us to thequestionof thecompellinginterest
then,returns
protection,
of legal processincorporated
testand the metapragmatics
intothis
legislation.
at the
AlthoughNACPFERA does not feigncomprehensiveness
NativeAmericanreligionsitis concerned
levelofdefining
withcomregarding
legaldiscourse,in thesenseoffederallegal
prehensiveness
discourseapplying
acrosstheUS andto all levelsof
comprehensively
To illustrate
thefederalgovernment.
notionof comthisalternative
I
will
refer
to
areas
one
of
four
the
prehensiveness
only
specifiedin
thebill,to thelanguageprotecting
theuse ofpeyotebyIndians.This
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
175
portionof thebill was passed by Congressand signedintolaw by
PresidentClintonon October6, 1994 as an amendment
to AIRFA,
or statutory
as PublicLaw 103-144. The metapragmatics,
discourse
the"peyotebill" applyto the
thatcharacterize
aboutlegalprocedure,
in NACPFERA.
identified
otherareas of protection
thereligioususe ofpeyotewerein place
Althoughlaws protecting
in 28 statesat thetimethislegislationbecamelaw, comprehensive
fortheceremonialuse of peyoteis requiredin all states
protection
A relatively
articulation
ofthose
underthisamendment.
fine-grained
limittheseprotections
thatcan legitimately
and the
publicinterests
are also articuthatmeritsuch limitations
specificcircumstances
in
lated in thislaw, as theyare in the otherthreeareas identified
to theeffectthat
NACPFERA. The law includesstatements
inthissection
shallprohibit
oragency,
incarryanyFederal
department
Nothing
frompromulgating
andfunctions,
ingoutitsstatutory
responsibilities
regulations
limitation
on theuseoringestion
ofpeyote
reasonable
establishing
priorto or
of
duties
sworn
law
enforcement
officers
or
theperformance
by
personnel
during
oranyother
inpublictransportation
involved
safety-sensitive
positions
directly
(as quotedin H.R. 4230, 4).
is quite generaland could
While the firstclause in thisstatement
formthe basis forchallengesto the rightsof membersof theNaof the
tiveAmericanChurchby any federalagency,thespecificity
secondclause is designedto workas a limitto theclaimsanyfedthelegitimacy
eral agencycan makeand as a modelforinterpreting
in prison
of such limitedclaims. In additionto thepublicinterest
law
and
administration, enforcement, publictransportation,
military
on theright
as a possiblecause of limitation
readinesswas stipulated
or practical
to use peyote.19NACPFERA,then,developslimitations
of federalagencies.
boundariesto theauthority
the"peyotelaw" stiplimitation
In thecase of each suchpotential
ulatestwoadditional
principles.On theone hand,thelaw statesthat,
withreprewillbe adoptedonlyafterconsultation
"Such regulations
Indianreligions
use
oftraditional
forwhichthesacramental
sentatives
of peyoteis integralto theirpractice"(H.R. 4230, 5). On theother
theuse of peyotestipulates,
hand,thelaw regarding
"Anyregulation
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
Susan StaigerGooding
to thissectionshallbe subjectto thebalancpursuant
promulgated
in
Section
3 of theReligiousFreedomRestoration
set
forth
test
ing
Act" (ibid.,4). The compellingstateinterest
test,previouslyused
Court
court
and
lower
Supreme
judges
justicesto retrospectively
by
in conflicts
definetheinterests
into
alreadylongunderway,is written
to whichbureaucrats
thislegislation,
at all levels
makingita standard
mustreferin theprocessof writing
of federaladministration
regulaand negotiation
of
torylaws and as a mediumfortheconsideration
in
the
In
tandem
with
the
that
present.
religiousrights
requirement
relevantNativeAmericanreligiousleadersbe consultedregarding
or policy,thisreorientation
of thecompelling
each such regulation
testsignifiesa shiftthatis communicative,
an ininterest
requiring
the
outlines
of
teractive
procedureagainstwhich
religiousand other
of thepublicdomainin theUS are to
thatare constitutive
interests
be negotiated.This does not suggestthatsuchnegotiations
will be
But it does open thepossibility
thatsuchconflicts
non-conflictual.
formof rightsdiscoursethatcould
may not resultin the either/or
scenes
as
thatrepresented
such
irrational
by Lyng(1988),
produce
wherethe SupremeCourtabandonedtheprinciplesof AIRFA over
shouldconflicts
a loggingroad thatwas neverbuilt. Additionally,
theextentto whichall partieshavefulfilled
the
advanceto litigation,
to the
obligations
impliedherewillitselfbecomerelevant
procedural
evaluationof claims.20
Of course,aspectsof this legislationremainproblematic;as a
as will be any emergenceof
whole it is a negotiatedcompromise,
contrast
NativeAmericanin legaldiscourse.It does,however,
starkly
American
late
of
Native
withthe
19thcentury
prohibitions
religious
which
based
a
racial
framewere
on
and
socio-evolutionary
practices,
in
all
Indians
an
work which
identical,and
occupied overdetermined,
ofthelate20th
therefore
racialposition,as well as withthelitigation
whichfroma case by case perspective
century,
beggedthequestion
forinterpretation
framework
of an overarching
Anysinaltogether.
to
this
of
Native
American
in
lack,
religions response
gulardefinition
the
whilenota negligibleproject,actuallyonlyfurther
begs question.
could necessarilyonlyreflecta lowestcommon
Anysuchdefinition
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
177
theproblemof
thusperpetuating
denominator
approachto definition,
racialpositionin
delegatingall Indiansto an identicaland therefore
been
discourse.
overdetermined
colonial
and racial
Having
by
legal
discoursesforso long,NativeAmericansare attempting
to reverse
thequestionof tolerance,understanding,
thisprocessby refiguring
In so doand knowledgeas an interactive
processof decolonization.
determines
the
different
actors
who
are
NACPFERA
necessarily
ing
at
stake
in
the
the
of
definition
of reconsideration
of
process
part
the
fact
that
definition
itselfis
foregrounding
ligiousrights,thereby
and
cultural
a
social
process.
inevitably
and historical
towardthesocial,cultural,
This orientation
process
researchon law andreligionin
ofdefinition
can usefullyguidefuture
and
NativeAmerica.On theone hand,scholarscan mapthestrategies
Native
American
different
of
cernarratives
whereby
representatives
definetheirneedswithinalreadycolonizedpublic
emonialtraditions
thestrategies
and
space. On theotherhand,scholarscan investigate
of federaland stategovernments
narratives
wherebyrepresentatives
excludetheceremonial
orentirely
respondto,re-present,
incorporate,
in thedevelopment
oflegal
andreligiousclaimsofNativeAmericans
takereligions
discourseswhicharenotlikelytoexplicitly
discourses,
as theirobject-the discourseof theForestService,the Bureauof
and federalpenitentiaries.
Land Reclamation,
In addition,because NACPFERA has shownthatthe decolonizing potentialof NativeAmericanreligiousrightsdiscoursemustbe
locatedin thelargerprojectof articulating
alternative
framefirmly
worksto one thatis racial and socio-evolutionary,
it is likelythat
the futureof NativeAmericanreligiousrightswill continueto try
NativeAmericansfromone another,while finding
to differentiate
commoncause withIndiansof different
communities
unpredictable
Scholarshavemuchto contribute
to thisprojectby
and non-Indians.
therelationship
betweenracialand otherrelatedtypologies
exploring
which
social
mobilizedin the
powerhas been historically
through
US.21
of Indianreligions
Finally,to theextentthatmycharacterization
as producinghighlyindividualized
and specializedidentities
within
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178
Susan StaigerGooding
a kinshipand communalcontextis appropriate,
questionstoo nuhereemergewithregardto
to be enumerated
merousand contextual
theintergenerational
passingof scholarlyresearch.Thereis a great
deal thatcan be readbetweenthelines of theracializedand socioofAmericananthropology
discourseofthefounders
and
evolutionary
a
useful
and
to
be
of religions,
historians
profit
gainedfromreading
frameworks.
thesetextsagainstthegrainof theirexplanatory
of religionand the law in Native
In conclusion,an examination
the oppositionalimagesthat
Americacannotbe describedthrough
on NativeAmerica;
dominatemuchdiscourse,legal and otherwise,
of
the
intent
or
even
thosediscourses
policymakers;
through
through
takereligionas theirsubject.In attempting
to refigure
thatexplicitly
as an interactive
the questionof toleranceand understanding
process, NativeAmericanrightsdiscourseis providingmodelsforthe
of legal discourseand theinvigoration
of democratic
transformation
in
definitions
of
interests
the
and
US.
NACPFERA
public
procedures
thatall Americanshaveto gainfrom
is onlya glanceintothebenefit
in the
the decolonizationof religiousand othergroup"properties"
of such rights
US. As NACPFERA suggests,an acknowledgement
does not signifythe onslaughtof endlessclaimsforspecial rights
to putbeforethe
voicesare so quickand determined
thatreactionary
Americanpublic,but an increaseof historicaland empiricalratioabstract,and
nalitythathas too long been sacrificedto rhetorical,
claims.Fromthisperspective
an examination
ofthedyoppositional
namicsof law and religionin NativeAmericaevokesmorethana
readingof thepastby openingontoa visionof possible
sympathetic
futures.
of Chicago
University
Committee
on Ideas and Methods
1050 E. 59thStreet
Chicago,IL 60673,USA
GOODING
SUSANSTAIGER
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
179
I
Inouye1993,p. 3.
2 Sullivan1987, x.
p.
is
This
essay deeplyindebted,in fact,entirelydependenton the thorough
3
and nuancedresearchof manyscholarswho have plumbedpolicyand case law on
NativeAmericanreligions,scholarswho havereckonedwithlegal discourseon its
own terms.Whilecreatinga fictivewholeout of theresearchto whichthisessay
is beholdenin orderto takea criticalstance,I in no way intendto undermine
this
to
it
with
an
audience
of
to
add
scholars
in
I
mind.
am
thankful
work,only
religious
and FrankReynoldsforproviding
to WinnieSullivan,Hans Kippenberg,
a context
of thisimportant
workand fortheopportunity
forthe re-presentation
to beginto
readtherichnessof thisresearchagainstthegrain.
4 Myusageoftheterms"Indian,""NativeAmerican,"
"non-Indian,"
"indigenous,"
the contextof thediscussionin thisessay. To manyIndiansI know
etc., reflects
as is theterm"Indian"forotherNative
theterm"NativeAmerican"is as offensive
and
Americans.I havetriedto be as relevant specificto thecontextof myusage as
to use theterm"Indian"is reflected
in Part1 of thisessay,
possible;thusa tendency
to use theterm"NativeAmerican"is reflected
in Part2.
whilea tendency
5 Many otherstateand federallaws prohibiting
aspectsof Indianculturesand
thelate 19thcentury
in bothfederaland state
throughout
religionswereinstituted
laws. See Peregoy,Echo-Hawkand Botsford(1995) forexample,wherethelaws
on theuse of peyoteforIndiansare outlined.
prohibitions
specifying
6 Limerick(1993) also pointsto the"economiccomponent"
of laws prohibiting
Indianreligions.
7 See generally,
theAmericanIndians: Writings
Americanizing
by the "Friends
F.P.Pruchahas said,"Thoughsincere
oftheIndians"1880-1900.Of thesereformers
wereentrapped
in a moldof patriotic
and humanein theiroutlook,thereformers
thatwas too narrowto allow themto appreciatetheIndiancultures.
Americanism
Theirall-outattackon Indiannessmustbe judged a disasterforthe Indians,and
therefore
forthenation"(Prucha1973,p. 10).
did notescape some publiccommentary.
Commissioner
of
8 This contradiction
IndianAffairs
ThomasMorgan,underwhoseauthority
theRules forIndianCourts
tooka vehement
stanceagainstthedisplayof Indianceremonies
werepromulgated,
in carnivalesque
eventsoffreservations
(see hisspeechin Prucha1973,pp. 309-312)
as did theIndianRightsAssociation(Prucha1973,pp. 313-316).
oftheimperialism
ofsocialscienceswithregardtothetribal
9 Vizenor'sunveiling
culturesof NorthAmericais unremitting
andunarguable.See his discussionof one
oforiginstoriesfromhisownOjibwetradition,
andhis
interpretation
anthropological
these
in
of
stories
Vizenor
It
must
197-208.
be
1989,pp.
decolonizinginterpretation
thatscholarshavelongbeen significant
allies of NativeAmericans
noted,however,
in courts.Vizenor'sworkpointsto theurgency
ofreframings
of scholarship
mapped
in thisessay.
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180
Susan StaigerGooding
10 Because colonizationratherthan
the historyof
oppressionhas determined
law and religionin NativeAmerica,otherlegislationhad begunto addressissues
thatgo beyondthefreedomof religiousexpressionand practice.For example,in
1990 specificlegislationconcerning
gravesand sacredobjects,theNativeAmerican
Act (25 U.S.C. 3001), was signedintolaw. See
and Repatriation
GravesProtection
AmericanIndianCultureand ResearchJournal16 (2) 1992.
11
weremadein a reportsubmitted
one yearafterthe
Specificrecommendations
from
recommendations
of
resulting
regionalhearingswithNative
passage AIRFA,
IndianReligiousFreedom
of
the
American
the
work
and
leaders
Americanreligious
and
Lytle1983,p. 237).
Project(DeloriaJr.
12 See SharonO'Brien's invaluablecase by case reviewof theselowercourt
decisionsin O'Brien (1991).
13 For an in depthdiscussionof thesetwo cases see Deloria Jr. 1992a and
1992b;Echo-Hawk1993; Michaelsen1991; Moore 1991; and Peregoy,Echo-Hawk
and Botsford1995.
moreade14 Walker(1991), forexample,arguesthatthe notionof integrity
of
and
notion
than
the
American
Native
centrality, develops
religions
quatelyreflects
the
a set of moreempiricalquestionsthatmightbe posed by courtsinvestigating
of any religiouspractice.Deloria Jr.(1991), whilenotingthatanalogies
integrity
anduseto Euro-American
proposesa provocative
religionsare alwaysproblematic,
and Indiansacred
fulhierarchically
organizedset of analogiesbetweennon-Indian
or
exceptionto theprojectof definition
places. Echo-Hawk(1993) is an exemplary
his
and
takes
discourse
as
focus
He
of
argues
powerfully
legal
analogy religions.
sacredsitesare a modelby whichthegeneralvacuum
thatIsraelilaws protecting
towardsacredplaces in theUS mightbe addressed.
15Badoniv.Higginson(1980)-acknowledgedNavajoreligiousrightto Rainbow
and tourism. Fools Crow v.
Bridge outweighedby public interestin electricity
Gullet(1982)-acknowledgedLakotaand Tsistsistasreligiousrightto Bear Butte
intourism.Shabazzv.Barnauskas(1985)-recognized
bypublicinterest
outweighed
in penal security.
religiousrightto wear long hairoutweighedby public interest
v. Grammar(1986)-recognized religious
IndianInmatesofNebraskaPenitentiary
in penalsecurity.
by interest
rightto peyoteoutweighed
16 FollowingRobertBellah,DeloriaJr.arguesthata scenarioin whichthesekinds
of interests
publicvaluessignifiesa civilreligion,"a generalizedreligion
represent
thestate"(DeloriaJr.1992,p. 16).
thatendorsesand affirms
17 See Deloria Jr.and Lytle1983,pp. 232-234on issuesof religiousrightson
reservations.
18 See the AmericanIndianReligiousFreedomAct Reportof 1979, Appendix
listof problemsthatNativeAmericansface withregardto
an extraordinary
for
C
areasrequiring
Thislistwas compiledas
and
other
bordercrossings
legalprotection.
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
181
a resultof regionalhearingswithtribalreligiousleadersandis an important
resource
forscholarsconsidering
religiousconcernsas voicedby tribal,religiousleaders.
19 Peregoy,Echo-Hawkand Botsford(1995) statethatthesafety-sensitive
conlaw
are
and
enforcement non-issuesforNativeAmericernsof publictransportation
of theNativeAmericanChurchdo notuse peyote
can religiousleaders,as members
outsideof ceremonialcontexts.
20 RobertPeregoy'scase studyof theprotracted
strugglebetweenthePawnee
of humanremains
Tribeand theNebraskaStateHistoricalSocietyoverrepatriation
mediatedundersuchsimultaneously
substantive
and procedural
showsthatconflicts
butadmitmorerationaloutcomes
as litigation,
arelikelytobe as difficult
frameworks
be possible.
thanwouldotherwise
21 For example,Womenof All Red Nations(WARN) has pointedout thatthe
orconstant
whichoftencauseserratic
menstrual
Norplant,
bleedingfor
contraceptive
for
Native
American
women
who
in
is
women, inappropriate
participate ceremonies
of
women
who
are
fromceremonies
due to thecontinuing
prohibition
menstruating
WARNarguesthatthiskindof information
in NativeAmericancommunities.
must
be understood
by doctorsand legislatorswho see Norplantas a panacea forpoor
intothecounselling
receivedby NativeAmerican
women,and mustbe incorporated
womenbeforemakingthedecisionto use Norplant.
REFERENCES
AmericanIndianCultureand ResearchJournal(1992) 16 (2) SpecialEdition:Repaof AmericanIndianRemains.
triation
Robert
F. Jr.(1979) The WhiteMan's Indian: Imagesof theAmerican
Berkhofer,
IndianfromColumbusto thePresent.New York:VintageBooks.
in: C. Martin(Ed.), TheAmerican
Deloria,VineJr.(1987) "RevisionandReversion,"
Indianand theProblemofHistory.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
and
Lands
"Sacred
Native
in:
American
(1991)
ReligiousFreedom,"
Rights
FundLegal Review,16 (2), 1-12.
- - (1992a) "Secularism,
CivilReligion,and theReligiousFreedomof American
Indians,"AmericanIndianCultureand ResearchJournal,16 (2), 9-20.
- -- (1992b) "Troublein High Places: Erosionof AmericanIndianRightsto
ReligiousFreedomin theUnitedStates",in: M.A. Jaimes(Ed.), The Stateof
and Resistance.Boston:SouthEnd
NativeAmerica:Genocide,Colonization,
Press.
M. Lytle(1983) AmericanIndians,AmericanJustice.
Deloria,VineJr.and Clifford
of Texas Press.
Austin:University
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182
Susan StaigerGooding
Echo-Hawk,WalterR. (1993) "NativeAmericanReligiousLiberty:Five Hundred
AmericanIndianCultureand ResearchJournal,17 (3),
YearsafterColumbus",
33-52.
Race.
Graybill,FlorenceCurtisand VictorBoesen (1986) Visionsof a Vanishing
Co.
Boston: HoughtonMifflin
and NativeAmericanReligious
Inouye, Sen, Daniel K. (1993) "Discrimination
Fund
Native
American
Legal Review,4 (2), 1-8.
Rights
Rights,"
"The
of
Limerick,Patricia(1993)
Repression IndianReligiousFreedom,"Native
AmericanRightsFundLegal Review,4 (2), 9-13.
" in: C. Vecsey(Ed.),
Michaelsen,RobertS. (1991) "Law andtheLimitsofLiberty,
Handbookof AmericanIndianReligiousFreedom. New York: Crossroads
PublishingCo.
Moore, StevenC. (1991) "Sacred Sites and Public Lands," in: C. Vecsey(Ed.),
Handbookof AmericanIndianReligiousFreedom. New York: Crossroads
PublishingCo.
Protection
of
O'Brien, Sharon(1985) "FederalIndianPolicyand theInternational
HumanRights,"in: AmericanIndianPolicy.Norman:U. OklahomaPress.
- - (1991) "A Legal Analysisof theAmericanIndianReligiousFreedomAct,"
in: C. Vecsey(Ed.), HandbookofAmericanIndianReligiousFreedom.New
Co.
York: CrossroadsPublishing
Law: A Studyof
"Nebraska's
LandmarkRepatriation
M.
Robert
(1992)
Peregoy,
Conflictand Resolution,"AmericanIndian Cultureand ReCross-Cultural
searchJournal,16 (2), 139-196.
Peregoy,RobertM., WalterR. Echo-Hawkand JamesBotsford(1995) "Congress
Overturns
SupremeCourt'sPeyoteRuling,"NativeAmericanRightsFund
20 (1).
Review
Legal
theIndians: Writings
Prucha,FrancisP. (Ed.) (1973) Americanizing
bythe"Friends
of NebraskaPress.
of theIndian" 1880-1900.Lincoln:University
- - (1990) Documents
ofUnitedStatesIndianPolicy,2ndedn. Lincoln:University
of NebraskaPress.
Sullivan,LawrenceE. (Ed.) (1987) NativeAmericanReligions:Religion,History,
and CultureSelectionsfromThe Encyclopediaof Religion,Mircea Eliade,
Co.
editorin chief.New York:MacMillanPublishing
of AmericanIndianSacredGeography,"
WalkerJr.,DewardE. (1991) "Protection
in: C. Vecsey(Ed.), HandbookofAmericanIndianReligiousFreedom.New
Co.
York: CrossroadsPublishing
Narrative
Gerald
Chance: Postmodern
Discourseon Native
Vizenor,
(Ed.) (1989)
New
Press.
AmericanLiterature.
of
Mexico
Albuquerque:University
Documents
Government
1979. AmericanIndianReligiousFreedomActReport.P.L. 95-341.
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
At theBoundariesofReligiousIdentity
183
H.R. 4230, 1994. 103rdCongress.
CourtCases
Badoni v. Higginson,638 E 2d 172 (10thCir. 1980).
Div., Dept. of HumanResourcesof Oregonv. Smith,494 US 872
Employment
(1990).
Fools Crowv. Gullet,541 F Supp. 785 (D.S.D. 1982).
v. Grammar,
649 E Supp. 1374 (D. Neb.
IndianInmatesof NebraskaPenitentiary
1986).
Protective
Indian Cemetery
Assoc. 485 US 439, 99 L Ed. 2d
Lyngv. Northwest
543.
Shabazz v. Barnauskas,600 E Supp.712 (M.S.F 1985).
374 US 398 (1963).
Sherbertv. Verner,
This content downloaded from 199.73.44.216 on Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:43:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Personal Relationships, 18 (2011), 439–452. Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright © 2010 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01310.x
Communication in social networks: Effects
of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness
SAM G. B. ROBERTS AND ROBIN I. M. DUNBAR
University of Oxford, UK
Abstract
Communication is important in preventing social relationships from decaying over time. This study examined the
effects of social network size, emotional closeness, and type of relationship (kinship vs. friendship) on
communication patterns in the social networks of 251 women. Participants with large kin networks had longer times
to last contact to both kin and friends. Participants with high levels of emotional closeness in their networks had
shorter times to last contact. The effect of emotional closeness on time to last contact was greater for kin than for
friends. These results demonstrate that time to last contact is closely tied to emotional closeness and suggest that the
costs of maintaining kin relationships are lower than the costs of maintaining friendships.
Social relationships are not fixed, static entities but are dynamic and require active maintenance if they are to survive (Dindia &
Canary, 1993). If no effort is made by the relationship partners, relationships tend to decay
over time (Burt, 2000). A key element in
preventing this decay is frequent communication between the two relationship partners
(Oswald & Clark, 2003). However, the frequency of communication required to keep a
relationship at a particular level of emotional
intensity is likely to vary with the characteristics of the relationship partners and the wider
Sam G. B. Roberts and Robin I. M. Dunbar, British
Academy Centenary Project, Institute of Cognitive and
Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, UK.
S.G.B.R. is supported by funding from the EPSRC
and ESRC as part of the “Developing Theory for Evolving Socio-Cognitive Systems” (TESS) project. R.I.M.D.’s
research is supported by funding from the SOCIALNETS
project, which is part of the Pervasive Adaptation Initiative of the EU-funded 7th Framework Programme. We
gratefully acknowledge Thomas Pollet, Toon Kuppens,
Frances Carpenter, Sarah Davenport, Becky Hoare, and
Caroline Middleton, all of whom collected data on the
social networks analyzed in this article.
Correspondence should be addressed to Sam G. B.
Roberts, Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, 64 Banbury Road, Oxford
OX2 6PN, UK, e-mail: sam.roberts@anthro.ox.ac.uk or
samgb_roberts@hotmail.com.
social network in which the relationship is
embedded. This study explores how patterns
of communication in a large sample of female
social networks are affected by kinship, network size, and emotional closeness.
There have been detailed studies of patterns of communication in close social relationships, such as romantic relationships (e.g.,
Stafford & Reske, 1990) and friendships
(e.g., Cummings, Lee, & Kraut, 2006). However, these relationships do not occur in a
vacuum but are embedded in a broader social
network of family and friends (Adams &
Allan, 1999; Parks, 1997). This social network
can affect—and is affected by—the close
social relationships traditionally studied by
relationship researchers. Thus, to increase our
understanding of the factors affecting communication patterns in a wider range of social
relationships, studies of communication patterns in social networks are required.
Personal social network analysis examines
the ties an individual has with their network
members. Studies of communication patterns
in these networks have almost without exception focused on the 15 or so emotionally close
relationships in the “inner” layers of the
network (e.g., Fischer, 1982; Wellman &
439
440
Wortley, 1990). However, as is widely acknowledged (Hammer, 1983; Milardo &
Wellman, 1992; Pool & Kochen, 1978), these
closest ties only form a small fraction of the
network members that are significant to individuals. The “outer” layer of the social network can be defined as network members that
an individual feels they have a personal relationship with and make a conscious effort to
keep in contact with (Hill & Dunbar, 2003).
This outer layer of “weak ties” is important
in providing access to a greater variety of
information, ideas, and experience than the
stronger ties at the inner layers of the network (Granovetter, 1973, 1983). However,
even these weak ties are not cost free, and
they also show decay over time (see Burt,
2000, for a review). Thus, a certain frequency
of communication may be necessary to keep
the network members in the outer layer of the
network from further declines in emotional
closeness.
Despite the theoretical and practical importance of weak ties (Granovetter, 1983), studies of the outer layer of social networks
have thus far largely focused on methods
for estimating network size (Hill & Dunbar,
2003; McCarty, Killworth, Bernard, Johnsen,
& Shelley, 2001). In this study, we extend
previous work on communication patterns in
both close social relationships and the inner
layer of social networks by looking at a much
larger range of ties than has previously been
examined, including both the inner and outer
layers of the network.
Constraints on network size
There are both cognitive and time constraints that place an upper limit on the
number of relationships that can be maintained at a given level of emotional intensity
(Dunbar, 2008; Milardo, Johnson, & Huston,
1983; Stiller & Dunbar, 2007; Zhou, Sornette,
Hill, & Dunbar, 2005). There appears to
be an upper bound of around 150 on the
size of the social network, with the size of
the kin network constraining the size of the
friend network (Roberts, Dunbar, Pollet, &
Kuppens, 2009). The operation of these constraints—particularly time constraints—may
S. G. B. Roberts and R. I. M. Dunbar
be reflected in the communication patterns
in social networks. The frequency of contact between an individual and a network
member is related to the emotional intensity of the relationship (Hill & Dunbar, 2003;
Mok, Wellman, & Basu, 2007), the probability of an individual receiving support from
a network member (Kana’Iaupuni, Donato,
Thompson-Colón, & Stainback, 2005), and
the likelihood of the relationship decaying
in emotional intensity over time (Cummings
et al., 2006; Oswald & Clark, 2003; Wellman,
Wong, Tindall, & Nazer, 1997). Thus, communication frequency (or change in communication frequency over time) is often used as an
indicator of the strength of the tie between two
individuals (e.g., Terhell, van Groenou, & van
Tilburg, 2007; van Duijn, van Busschbach, &
Snijders, 1999).
Communication—whether face-to-face or
non-face-to-face—takes time, and time spent
in one-to-one communication with Person
A is time not spent communicating with Person B. A survey of time budgets, for example,
has revealed that, on average, the amount
of time devoted to social interaction is only
about 20% of the waking day (Dunbar, 1998).
The costs of maintaining a relationship at a
particular level of emotional intensity are thus
determined in part by the frequency of communication between an individual and that
particular network member. We used a simple metric of time to last contact between two
individuals as an index of the cost of maintaining the relationship. Time to last contact
reflects the time—and physical effort in the
case of face-to-face contact—invested in a
particular relationship (see Pollet, Kuppens,
& Dunbar, 2006, for a similar approach).
To measure frequency of communication,
we asked the participants when they last made
contact with each network member (a) faceto-face and (b) non-face-to-face (time to last
contact). Given that participants may have
difficulty in providing an accurate estimate
of their general frequency of communication
with each network member, time to last contact provides a convenient proxy for this frequency. Studies using contact frequency (e.g.,
Cummings et al., 2006; Mok et al., 2007)
and those using time to last contact as a
Communication in social networks
simple metric for communication frequency
(e.g., Hill & Dunbar, 2003) have produced
broadly similar results, showing that frequent
communication tends to be associated with
more emotionally intense relationships. This
suggests that time to last contact is an adequate proxy for communication frequency. To
measure emotional closeness, we asked participants how emotionally close they felt to
each network member on a scale of 1–10.
This measure, or a similar one measuring psychological closeness on a simple scale with
one question, has been used in a large number of studies (e.g., Ackerman, Kenrick, &
Schaller, 2007; Cummings et al., 2006; Hill
& Dunbar, 2003). These one-question measures were used as the size of the network
elicited constrained the amount of information that could be collected about each network member. These measures, while brief,
assess the two key components of interpersonal closeness identified in a factor analysis
(Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992): “behaving
close” (measured by time to last contact)
and “feeling close” (measured by emotional
closeness).
We examined communication patterns for
both face-to-face contact (face contact) and
non-face-to-face contact (non-face contact,
which includes contact by phone, letter, or
e-mail). Face contact is seen as being the gold
standard in terms of relationship maintenance
and is good for building and maintaining
close and emotionally intense relationships
(Cummings, Butler, & Kraut, 2002). However, non-face contact may be a crucial means
of overcoming some of the time constraints
on managing the network: Non-face contact
is quicker and easier to achieve than face
contact and thus may be especially useful in
managing ties at the outer layer of the network (Boase, Horrigan, Wellman, & Rainie,
2006). Further, non-face contact is less confounded by proximity than face contact and
is always volitional. It may thus offer a
better indication of the true strength of the
relationship. We therefore assessed whether
the factors that affect the time to last contact between an individual and a member of
their network differ for face and non-face
contact.
441
The present research
This study extends previous work on communication patterns in social relationships in
two main ways. First, we examine communication patterns in a much larger range of
ties than has previously been studied, either
in the close social relationship literature or in
the social network literature. Thus, we examine communication patterns in the weak ties
in the outer layer of the network, in addition
to the small number of individuals in the inner
layer of the network. We investigate how time
to last contact between individuals and network members is affected by network member
characteristics, individual characteristics, and
interactions between these two.
Second, we test three specific hypotheses
as to how time constraints may affect these
patterns of communication. Previous studies
have not examined in detail how time and
cognitive constraints actually function at the
level of individual relationships to limit network size (Dunbar, 2008; Roberts, 2010). By
examining the effects of kinship, network size,
and emotional closeness on patterns of communication, we can provide insights into how
the limited amount of time available for communicating may function to limit the number
of relationships that an individual can maintain at a particular level of emotional intensity.
Network size
Individuals with larger networks are less emotionally close to each member of their network
(Roberts et al., 2009). Thus, there may be
a trade-off between the number of members
in the network and the emotional intensity
of each relationship in the network—smaller
networks tend to contain fewer individuals but
at a higher level of emotional closeness than
large networks. Following the same logic, we
predict that individuals with larger networks
will have a longer time to last contact with
the members of their network. Kin network
size is determined simply by the size of the
extended family the participant is born into
and is thus not under an individual’s volition.
Friendships, in contrast, by their nature are
volitional, and so the participants have more
control over the size of their friend network.
442
S. G. B. Roberts and R. I. M. Dunbar
Thus, we separate the size of the kin network
and the friend network to explore whether
these two components of the network have
separate effects on the time to last contact. It
is important to note that we assess the effect
of kin and friend network size on time to last
contact to all network members—both kin
and friends.
H1a: Time to last contact will be positively
associated with kin network size.
H1b: Time to last contact will be positively
associated with friend network size.
Mean emotional closeness
Given the negative relationship between emotional closeness and time to last contact (Hill
& Dunbar, 2003), we expect that individuals
with a high level of mean emotional closeness in their network will have a shorter time
to last contact. In a sense these individuals
are working harder (i.e., devoting more time
to communication) to maintain network members at a high level of emotional closeness.
H2: Time to last contact will be negatively associated with mean emotional
closeness of the network.
Emotional closeness and kinship
Kinship relations, as compared to friendships,
are less prone to decay (Burt, 2000) and
appear to require less maintenance due to the
norms and obligations that come with kinship, and the dense network structure in which
kin are embedded (Plickert, Côté, & Wellman, 2007; Roberts, 2010). However, as far
as we are aware, the way kinship and emotional closeness interact to influence time to
last contact has not been explored. We predict
that there should be an interaction between
kinship and emotional closeness. Specifically,
we predict that because friendships need regular investment to be maintained whereas kinship relations do not, the level of emotional
closeness between the individual and network
member will have more of an effect on the
time to last contact for kin, as compared to its
effect for friends. That is, kin at a low level
of emotional closeness will have a longer time
to last contact than friends at an equally low
level of emotional closeness.
H3: The effect of emotional closeness on
time to last contact will be greater for
kin than for friends.
Additional factors
In addition to specific hypotheses, there
are a number of well-established factors
that may affect the time to last contact
between individuals and network members,
and these were included in the models as
control variables. Female–female friendships
tend to be more emotionally intense and
involve more personal self-disclosure than
female–male friendships (Reis, Senchak, &
Solomon, 1985). Further, compared to men,
women call more frequently, talk for longer,
and are more likely to call women than men
(Smoreda & Licoppe, 2000). Thus, gender of
network member was included in the model.
Age of participant was also included in the
models. Extraversion tends to decline with
age (McCrae et al., 1999; Roberts, Wilson,
Fedurek, & Dunbar, 2008) and this may influence time to last contact. Older people are
also more likely to have long-term partners
and dependent children, both of which are
negatively related to frequency of interaction
with other network members and network size
(McCannell, 1988; Milardo et al., 1983). Further, in people aged over 65, there appears to
be an active process of focusing on emotionally close ties, at the expense of less close ties
(Lang & Carstensen, 2002). Thus, we examine whether there is an interaction between
emotional closeness and age on time to last
contact in a younger sample of participants
(aged 18–65).
Distance between participants and network
members was also included in the models,
as with increasing distance the frequency
of both face and non-face contact declines
(Mok et al., 2007). We also included two
measures of the composition of the network
(kin:nonkin ratio and male:female ratio) and
demographic variables (whether the participant had a partner, had a higher education,
Communication in social networks
or was working) in the models. Finally, we
included country as a variable in the models,
as the participants came from both the United
Kingdom and Belgium, and contact patterns
tend to vary between different countries (e.g.,
Murphy, 2008).
Method
Participants
Due to the length of the questionnaire, participants were asked to complete the questionnaire (typically the questionnaire took up
to 2 hr to complete); snowball and ad libitum sampling methods were used for both the
Belgian and the U.K. sample. Full details of
these methods are given in Roberts and colleagues (2009). Consistent gender differences
have been found in male and female networks
(Dunbar & Spoors, 1995), so the sample was
restricted to females in order to eliminate such
effects and allow for a more detailed examination of other factors that affect communication
in social networks. A total of 251 respondents returned completed questionnaires, 161
of whom lived in Belgium and the remaining 90 lived in the United Kingdom. The
age of the respondents ranged from 18 to
65 years (M = 38.5, SD = 13.3). In terms of
socioeconomic background and demographic
characteristics, 77.3% of the sample had completed higher education, 68.8% were working
(part-time or full-time), 74.5% had a partner,
and 63.1% owned their house (including those
with a mortgage).
The Social Network Questionnaire
In addition to demographic information (age,
highest educational qualification, occupational
status, and marital status), participants were
asked to list all their known relatives—both
genetic kin and affinal kin (i.e., the kin of their
spouse or “long-term partner”). Both genetic
and affinal kin are referred to as kin. Participants were also asked to list unrelated people
in their network with whom they consider that
they have some sort of personal relationship,
and for whom all of the following three conditions apply: (a) they have contact details for,
443
(b) they have had some sort of contact within
the last 12 months, and (c) they feel they
would wish the relationship to continue. These
unrelated individuals are termed friends. The
use of this term is not meant to imply anything
about the strength of the relationship.
Participants were asked how emotionally
close they felt to each network member
on a scale of 1–10. The participants were
instructed that “you can scale these relationships in any way you choose, but you
might think of something like the following”:
1 (someone you never see or hear from) to
10 (someone with whom you have a deeply
emotional relationship, perhaps someone you
might go to for advice or comfort in times of
major trauma or crisis). Participants were also
asked to specify how many days ago they
last made contact with each network member
(a) face-to-face and (b) non-face-to-face.
Statistical analysis
Personal network data have a nested structure, where network members are clustered
within participants’ networks. Thus, these network members cannot be treated as independent data points in an ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression analysis (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992). Multilevel analysis (also
known as hierarchical linear modeling) is a
modified form of multiple linear regression
designed to deal with data with a hierarchical clustering structure and has been extensively used in the analysis of personal network
data (e.g., van Duijn et al., 1999; Wellman &
Frank, 2001). We used a two-level multilevel
analysis to distinguish between effects on time
to last contact at Level 1 (network member/tie), at Level 2 (participant/network), and
interactions both within and between these
two levels.
Multilevel analysis differs from OLS regression in that it explicitly takes into account
the nestedness of the data and the related
dependency structure by allowing unexplained
variability between ties (at Level 1) and also
between participants (at Level 2). In this
analysis, there are 20,249 network members
at Level 1 (12,114 kin and 8,135 friends)
clustered within 251 participants at Level 2.
444
S. G. B. Roberts and R. I. M. Dunbar
Table 1. Variables used in Models 1 and 2 predicting time to last contact from network member
and participant characteristics
Variable
Description
M (SD)
Median
Level 1: Network member/tie characteristics
Gender
Distance
Emotional closeness
Kin/friend
0 = male, 1 = f emale
How far away does network
member live from participant
(minutes travel time)?
On a scale of 1–10 where
10 = very close
0 = friend, 1 = kin
0.56 ( 0.50)
56.29 (78.02)
1.00
30.00
4.89 ( 2.64)
5.00
0.60 ( 0.49)
1.00
5.09 ( 1.29)
4.92
38.53 (13.29)
0.75 ( 0.44)
38.00
1.00
0.77 ( 0.42)
1.00
Level 2: Participant/network characteristics
Mean emotional closeness
Age
Marital status
Education
Occupational status
Kin network size
Friend network size
Kin ratio
Sex ratio
Country
Mean emotional closeness of
network
Age of participant (years)
0 = without partner,
1 = with partner
0 = without higher education,
1 = with higher education
0 = not working, 1 = working
Total size of kin network
Total size of friend network
Kin ratio of network (kin:nonkin)
Sex ratio of network
(males:females)
0 = Belgium, 1 = UK
In both models, the dependent variable was
the number of days since the participant
last contacted the network member (time
to last contact). The independent variables
included in the multilevel analysis are shown
in Table 1.
We produced separate models for face contact (Model 1) and non-face contact (Model
2). We followed the guidelines detailed by
van Duijn and colleagues (1999) in selecting our models. Thus, we started with an
empty model, including only the intercept
and the error term for both levels. This
gives an indication of the amount of variance present at the two levels. We then
used a forward selection procedure (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992) involving four steps: (a)
adding fixed Level 1 explanatory variables
(including interaction terms between them),
(b) adding fixed Level 2 explanatory variables
0.69
48.21
32.41
2.18
0.86
( 0.46)
(31.38)
(21.29)
( 2.40)
( 0.82)
1.00
41.00
29.00
1.50
0.80
0.36 ( 0.48)
0.00
(including interaction terms between them),
(c) adding cross-level interaction terms, and
(d) adding random slopes and covariances
between the random slopes.
In all models, maximum likelihood estimation was used, rather than restricted maximum
likelihood, as this allows comparison of the
deviance of different models (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). We added the variables, interactions, and random slopes individually, and
for each model used the likelihood ratio test,
comparing the deviances of the two models
as assessed by the −2 log likelihood (−2LL).
The difference in deviance of two models can
be used as a test statistic with a chi-square
distribution, with the difference in the number of parameters used in the two models as
the degrees of freedom (Hayes, 2006).
All continuous Level 1 variables were
transformed by the natural log and centered
Communication in social networks
Results
Properties of social networks
Mean network size was 80.67 (SD = 39.84,
Mdn = 75), with a range of 10–279
(Figure 1). The shape of the distribution is
similar to that found in other studies of social
networks (Bernard et al., 1990; Hill & Dunbar, 2003). The size of the kin and friend
networks is given in Table 1.
Multilevel models
The results of the two models are presented
Table 2. The intraclass correlations (ICCx)
of the models were 0.18 for Model 1 and
0.24 for Model 2. An ICC < 0.50 indicates
that there was more variation in time to last
contact at the level of the network member
40
30
Number of cases
around the group (participant) mean. This
allows the intercept to be interpreted as the
average outcome for each group, rather than
using a score of zero, which is not meaningful
in some cases (e.g., a score of 0 on emotional closeness, where the scale runs from
1 to 10; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Centering also corrects for differences between
participants in how they may use the emotional closeness scale: Some participants, for
example, may be more prone to use the
upper half of the scale than others. The variables were then Z-transformed, to allow for
comparability across variables. All continuous Level 2 variables were transformed by the
natural log, centred around the grand mean,
and Z-transformed.
As the Level 1 variables were group mean
centered, the equivalent grand mean centered
Level 2 variables were included in the model,
even if they did not significantly reduce the
deviance, in order not to discard the effects
at the participant level (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). An α level of 0.05 was used for all
statistical tests. The hypotheses being tested
were directional, and thus for the variables in
the model specifically relating to the hypotheses being tested, one-tailed tests were used.
For the control variables, as we did not have
specific hypotheses as to the direction of the
effect, two-tailed tests were used.
445
20
10
0
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Network size
Figure 1. Distribution of personal network
sizes.
than at the level of the participant. However,
the values of ICC demonstrate the need for
multilevel analysis as there is clearly variation
between participants on time to last contact,
and thus simply analyzing the data without
taking into account that network members are
clustered within participants would result in
an increased Type 1 error rate (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007).
Face contact (Model 1)
Level 1 effects. Participants had a shorter
time to last contact to network members at
high levels of emotional closeness and to network members living closer by. Participants
had a shorter time to last contact for friends
as compared to kin. Participants did not have
a shorter time to last contact to female, as
compared to male, network members.
Level 2 effects. As predicted (H1a), kin network size had a positive effect on time to last
contact. Thus, participants with larger kin networks had a longer time to last contact with all
network members (including both friends and
kin), as compared to participants with smaller
kin networks. However, contrary to H1b, there
was no significant effect of the friend network
size on time to last contact. H2 was supported:
The mean emotional closeness of the network
was negatively related to time to last contact.
Thus, participants with a high level of mean
emotional closeness tended to have a shorter
time to last contact with network members, as
446
S. G. B. Roberts and R. I. M. Dunbar
Table 2. Models predicting time to last contact (days ago, natural log) from network member
and participant characteristics
Model type
Model 1
(face contact)
Model 2
(non-face contact)
Fixed effects
Intercept
−0.24 (0.03)∗∗∗
−0.14 (0.04)∗∗∗
Level 1 (network member/tie) variables
Emotional closenessa
Distancea
Kin/friend
Gender of network member
−0.27 (0.02)∗∗∗
0.34 (0.02)∗∗∗
0.16 (0.01)∗∗∗
ns
−0.36
−0.05
0.24
−0.04
Level 2 (participant/network) variables
Kin network sizeb (H1a)
Friend network sizeb (H1b)
Mean emotional closeness of network (H2)
Ageb
Mean distance of network
Country (Belgium/UK)
0.11 (0.03)∗∗∗,c
ns c
−0.09 (0.02)∗∗∗,c
0.07 (0.02)∗∗
0.18 (0.03)∗∗∗
0.17 (0.06)∗∗
0.19 (0.04)∗∗∗,c
ns c
−0.09 (0.03)∗∗,c
0.08 (0.03)∗
−0.07 (0.03)∗
ns
Interactions
Emotional Closeness × Kin/Friend (H3)
Emotional Closeness × Age
Distance × Kin/Friend
Emotional Closeness × Distance
−0.26
−0.03
−0.18
0.02
(0.01)∗∗∗,c
(0.01)∗
(0.01)∗∗∗
(0.01)∗∗
−0.11 (0.01)∗∗∗,c
0.05 (0.02)∗∗
0.05 (0.02)∗∗
−0.01 (0.01)∗
Random slopes
Emotional closeness
Distance
Covariances × Intercept
Emotional closeness
Distance
(0.02)∗∗∗
(0.02)∗
(0.01)∗∗∗
(0.01)∗∗∗
0.04 (0.005)∗∗∗
0.03 (0.01)∗∗∗
0.05 (0.01)∗∗∗
0.06 (0.01)∗∗∗
−0.02 (0.005)∗∗∗
0.004 (0.004)†
0.03 (0.01)∗∗∗
−0.01 (0.01)†
Note. The abbreviation ns refers to a variable that was not significant and thus not included in the model. H1 to H3
refer to specific hypotheses being tested—see text for details. Table shows parameter estimates (and standard errors).
a Group mean centered. b Grand mean centered. c One-tailed tests of specific, directional hypotheses. All other tests are
two-tailed.
† p > .05.∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
compared to participants with a lower level
of mean emotional closeness. Belgian participants had a shorter time to last contact than
participants from the United Kingdom. Older
participants had a longer time to last contact
than younger participants. Including demographic variables in the model (whether participants had a partner, had a higher education,
or were working) and network composition
variables (kin:nonkin ratio, male:female ratio)
did not significantly improve the amount of
variance explained by the model (as assessed
by the −2LL, all ps > 0.05). These variables
were therefore not included in the final model
shown in Table 2.
Interactions, random slopes, and covariances.
As predicted (H3), there was a significant
interaction between emotional closeness and
kinship, such that the effect of emotional
closeness on time to last contact was greater
for kin than for friends (Figure 2). The effect
Communication in social networks
447
hypotheses being tested are reported here.
Other results are only reported if they differ
from the pattern described above for face
contact.
8
Days to last contact (ln)
7
Kin
6
Level 1 fixed effects. Participants had a
shorter time to last non-face contact if the
network members were living further away
than if they were living closer by. Unlike the
results for face contact, gender had a significant effect on the time to last non-face contact—participants had a shorter time to last
contact to female, as compared to male, network members.
5
4
Friends
3
2
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Emotional closeness
8
9
10
Figure 2. Mean number of days (and standard errors) since last face-to-face contact
between individuals based on the degree of
emotional closeness and type of relationship.
Note. The data are presented uncorrected for
the influence of any other variables and are
based on the median time to last contact per
participant for each type of relationship and
level of emotional closeness. Emotional closeness is measured on a scale of 1–10, where
10 = very close.
of distance on time to last contact was greater
for friends than for kin. There was also an
interaction between distance and emotional
closeness—the effect of distance on time to
last contact was greater for strong ties at
higher levels of emotional closeness, as compared to weak ties at low levels of emotional
closeness. Finally, emotional closeness had a
stronger effect on time to last contact for older
participants, as compared to younger participants. The effect of emotional closeness and
distance on time to last contact varied across
participants, as indicated by the significant
random slopes for these variables. There was
also significant covariation between the random components for emotional closeness but
not for distance.
Non-face contact (Model 2)
The results for Model 2 are summarized
in Table 2. The results relating to the four
Level 2 fixed effects. In accordance with
H1a, participants with larger kin networks had
a longer time to last contact, as compared to
participants with smaller kin networks. Contrary to H1b, there was no effect of friend
network size on time to last non-face contact. As predicted (H2), time to last contact
was negatively associated with mean emotional closeness. In a reversal of the effect
for face contact, there was a negative effect
of the mean distance between participants and
the network members on time to last contact:
Participants with network members who lived
further away had a shorter time to last contact than participants with network members
who lived closer by. The country of participants did not have a significant effect on time
to last non-face contact.
Interactions, random slopes, and covariance.
As predicted (H3), the effect of emotional
closeness on time to last contact was greater
for kin than for friends. The effect of distance
on time to last contact was also greater for kin
than for friends and was greater for weaker
ties than emotionally close ties. In contrast to
face contact, emotional closeness had more of
an effect on younger participants’ time to last
non-face contact. The covariation between the
random components for emotional closeness
was positive rather than negative.
Discussion
This study included a much larger number
of relationships than is typically examined
448
in either close relationship or social network
research. By including both the inner and the
outer layers of the network, we were able
to test specific hypotheses about the effect
of kinship, kin and friend network size, and
mean emotional closeness on patterns of communication in the network. There were three
main results. First, participants with larger kin
networks had a longer time to last contact
with each network member, as compared to
participants with smaller kin networks. Having a large kin network thus affected the time
to last contact with all the network members,
both kin and friends. This reinforces the proposal that kin network size acts as a constraint
on friend network size (Roberts et al., 2009;
Willmott, 1987) and reveals a possible mode
by which this constraint operates: increased
time to last contact with all network members. Second, participants who were emotionally closer to network members had a shorter
time to last contact with these network members. Finally, the effect of emotional closeness on time to last contact was greater for
kin, as compared to friends. For both kin
and friends at high levels of emotional closeness, time to last contact was low. However, for network members at lower levels of
emotional closeness, the time to last contact
was shorter for friends as compared to kin
(Figure 2).
Time to last contact between participants
and network members was used as an index
of the cost of maintaining the relationship at
a particular level of emotional intensity. Previous research has shown that relationships
are prone to decay over time (Burt, 2000),
and in order to prevent this decay frequent
communication is required (Cummings et al.,
2006; Oswald & Clark, 2003). Communication takes time, and the time cost for participants of maintaining relationships varies
according to the size of the participants’ network and the type of relationship. Participants
with large friend networks did not contact network members any less frequently than participants with smaller friend networks (Table 2).
Thus, participants with large friend networks
incur higher costs, in terms of contacting a
larger number of friends equally often. The
“pay-off” from these high costs may be access
S. G. B. Roberts and R. I. M. Dunbar
to a greater number of weak ties than those
with smaller networks. These weak ties can
be important in providing access to a greater
variety of information (e.g., in job hunting)
than the stronger ties at the inner layer of the
network (Granovetter, 1973, 1983). Further,
participants with a high level of emotional
closeness to their network members incur
higher costs in terms of a shorter time to last
contact with network members. Maintaining
these high levels of emotional closeness may
result in network members being more likely
to offer emotional or material support to the
participants (Kana’Iaupuni et al., 2005).
Overall, these results provide important
insights into exactly how time constraints may
operate to limit the number of relationships an
individual can maintain at a particular level
of emotional intensity. Time is inelastic, so
individuals have a limited amount of time
to distribute across members of their social
network (Nie, 2001). This study has demonstrated that there is a close link between frequency of communication and the emotional
intensity of the relationship (see also Hill &
Dunbar, 2003; Mok et al., 2007). Time budget considerations may act to constrain the
frequency of communication with each network member and, thus, the size of each
layer of the social network (Dunbar, 2008;
Roberts, 2010). Similarly, in nonhuman primates, the time available for maintaining relationships—principally through grooming—
appears to act as a fundamental constraint on
group size (Lehmann, Korstjens, & Dunbar,
2007).
A central issue raised by these results is
the distinct...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment