Folk Religion’ Can Never Be Politically Neutral

Conclusion

The study of ‘folk religion’ can never be politically neutral. The actions and discourses that unfold within the field of practice are both ‘inter- ested’ and constitutive of the field of folk religion as an object of study. The historical and ethnographic dimensions of this study demonstrate how, in the case of the Gagauz, the instrumentalisation of religion and the objectification of the ‘folk’ dimension of religion in the broader context of the political and the national agendas of the competing states in the region has shaped religious practice and identity. Historical, political, economic and social factors, intimately bound up with the agendas and aspirations of the powers in the region, continue to determine the shape of the macro-discourse on Gagauz identity and religion, as they did in both the inter-war and Soviet periods. Previous representations of Gagauz religion that stress Islamic influences and its hetero- dox character dominate the literature on Gagauz religion and identity and present a picture that contrasts sharply with my own portrayal of Gagauz religious practice. This is largely due to my efforts here to bring ‘under one roof’ the distinct dimensions of the field of folk religion in an East Central European context as I see them; namely, the national discourse on the ‘folk,’ Church and academic discourses on the religion of the ‘folk,’ and finally, what I term the ‘field of practice’ of folk religion that unfolds before the fieldworker in the micro-episodes of everyday lived religion. Grasping the interplay between these levels of discourse and action is critical to understanding the place and meaning of ‘folk religion’ as an object of study and the student of religions role within it. Central to this whole approach is the assumption from the outset that folk religion represents a contested field, on the level of both elite discourse and local religious practice. I have there- fore attempted to make sense of the struggle that takes place between clerical forces and lay agents on the one hand and the competing representations that are produced by national and scholarly discourses on the other, in a holistic manner. On one level, this study draws attention to the micro-discourses and everyday episodes of ‘folk religious’ practice as a way of balancing the kind of totalising macro-discourses that instrumentalise religious and ethnic identities in the construction of monolithic representations 296 conclusion of religions and religious communities. In a European Christian context, the dominance of these kinds of representations of ‘folk religion’ constructed in the interests of the nation or ecclesial authorities are readily observable. This study explored these themes and issues from a particular theoretical and methodological perspective. Firstly, I place priority on religious practice in an attempt to sidestep debates cen- tred on the appropriate use of language in academic discourse on ‘folk religion.’ It is my assertion that there is no one ‘appropriate,’ ‘neutral’ or ‘ethical’ term we can deploy. Instead a methodological solution is sought to what has largely been considered a problem of language and terminology. Secondly, I also focussed on the elite discourses that produce the objects of folk religion in scholarship. I have argued that the religious practices, rituals and texts on the one hand and the elite discourses on the other both need to be treated equally as manifesta- tions of agency in the folk religious field. Both practices and discourses play a constitutive role in the field of practice, one cannot be clearly understood without recourse to the other. Through this focus on textual, ritual and discursive practice, the linguistic and performative dimensions of the field of ‘folk religion’ come sharply into view. The status of the Gagauz as a linguistic minority was instrumental in this study’s ability to highlight the political dimension of language in religious practice, in both official and lay contexts. Instructive examples in this regard were the rise of the ‘folk’ phenomena of the tetratkas and the national political dimension of the ‘canon- isation’ of the Gagauz language within the Orthodox Church, both of which highlight the struggle over the legitimate use of language that takes place in the religious sphere and the changes this struggle affects in local religious practice. The status and cultural role of the Gagauz language also offers an instructive window on the dynamics involved in the construction of a legitimate terminology for the representation of ‘folk religious’ phenomena. Language – considered as both discourse and performative speech – is critical to understanding the institutionalising moves of social and religious actors, and the scholars that represent them, in relation to the folk religious field. This takes place on three distinct levels. On the level of national discourse, actors mobilise religious phenomena of the ‘folk’ for political purposes; in the case of the Gagauz Çakir presents a clear example of the use of religious phenomena to legitimate political action and construct a politically expedient national narrative.