Thesis need for all three sources provided

User Generated

NAT164

Writing

Description

Source 1.pdf 

Source 2.pdf 

Source 3.pdf 


Please provided a thesis for each source provided.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

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
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags