Mary Ann Clark
Mauss’s classic work on gift-giving postu=
lates
three obligations in the structure of the gift: the obligation to give, the
obligation to receive and the obligation to reciprocate. The obligation to =
give
suggests that in certain social contexts one is required to provide an
appropriate gift. The contexts in which gifting is required or expected and
what constitutes an appropriate gift varies from culture to culture but the
requirement of gifting cuts across cultures. Likewise the obligation to rec=
eive
is cross-cultural. Although the giver may act inappropriately in the type of=
gift presented or in the timing of the presentation, the recipient is requi=
red
to accept the gift—any repercussions of an inappropriate gift are han=
dled
outside the gifting situation. Finally the recipient of the gift is require=
d to
reciprocate with a gift of equal or greater value. Although the timing and =
type
of the reciprocal gift is culturally specific, the requirement to reciproca=
te
is not.=
[i]
Many scholars have expanded upon Mauss’s =
basic
formulation. For example, in his original work Mauss presents gifting as an
alternative to a market economy and many scholars have continued to analyze=
the
distinctions between a gift and a commodity. In general, a commodity is
understood as something the value of which can be determined by the
marketplace. At its base money is the common denominator used to determine =
the
market value of unrelated commodities. However as Lewis Hyde suggests, a gi=
ft
has a worth that goes beyond its monetary value and that cannot be computed=
by
comparing it to another item.[ii]
Hyde says that the value of a gift is in its participation in relationship
formation. Any relationship established in the course of an economic exchan=
ge
can be terminated at the end of the exchange. Gifts, however, are usually p=
art
of an on-going interpersonal relationship.[iii]<=
/a>
Taking another tack Maurice Godelier re-reads M=
auss
to discover two different types of gift-giving which he characterizes as
agonistic and non-agonistic gifting. Although agonistic gifting (generalize=
d in
the literature as potlatch) is a “war of wealth” that
requires the participants to give finer and finer gifts until one participa=
nt
“wins” by giving a gift that is beyond reciprocation, non-agoni=
stic
gifting is a more egalitarian exchange. In non-agonistic exchange gifts flow
between participants to providing services, mutual assistance and reciprocal
obligations of solidarity in such a way that the end of the gift cycle finds
all the participants in a balanced relationship to each other.=
=
[iv]
Each of these authors uses particular case stud=
ies to
develop their own analysis of gift-giving behavior. Mauss draws on the work=
of
Malinowski and uses the cultures of
This paper began as an attempt to uses these
theoretical constructs to analyze gift-giving behavior among the members of=
a
contemporary religious community. Using Mauss’s basic formulations, t=
he
distinctions between market and gift exchange and the difference between
agonistic and non-agonistic gifting I wanted to be able to situate the exch=
ange
behavior observed among Santería practitioners within this framework=
of
gift-giving. In the course of my analysis I discovered that the exchange
behaviors I observed did not fit neatly into the categories provided by Mau=
ss,
Hyde, Godlier or others. I discovered that these behaviors were governed by=
a
different underlying principle, one that provided a better explanation than
that provided by the basic theory of giving, receiving, and reciprocating
summarized above. I will suggest that relationship formation is an essential
feature of the gift-giving found in this religious context and that the
material gifts are only half of an exchange that also includes what we might
call “spiritual energy.” By following visible gifting behavior =
we
can discover the dense relationships among and between members of the commu=
nity
and the movement of an invisible, spiritual energy.
I begin by describing behaviors of Santer&iacut=
e;a
practitioners that seem to participate in a gift and/or a market exchange
economy. Everything in Santería costs something; every service is pa=
id
for. For many newcomers to the religion and to those whose involvement is
peripheral, the religion and its practitioners appear mercenary. The idea t=
hat
“religion” can be bought and sold is a difficult concept for ma=
ny
who believe that making a direct payment for a religious service is unsavor=
y as
well as distasteful. This requirement for payment has opened practitioners =
to
charges of abuse and fraud. At the same time, within Santería certain
ritually prescribed monetary and non-monetary items, presented as part of
ritual and celebratory events appear gratuitous, beyond the bounds of pure
economics. It seems as though these items might more properly be described =
as
gifts rather than payment for services. However, there is not a clear
distinction between what is presented as payment for services and what might
more properly be called a gift. Some “payments” appear too much=
or
too little for the service performed; some items that appear to participate=
in
a gift economy seem to stand outside the theoretical expectation that gifts=
are
eventually reciprocated; some items that appear to be part of a reciprocal
exchange are significantly less (rather than more) valuable than the origin=
al
gift. I will attempt to place these behaviors within the theoretical constr=
uct
of gift exchange by looking specifically at two behaviors that seem to open=
up
and reveal the place of market and gift exchange within these religious
communities. The first involves the payment made to priests for their parti=
cipation
in ritual events; the second is the presentation by devotees at various lev=
els
of initiation of china plates with certain ritually prescribed items (inclu=
ding
money) to one another. After describing these two behaviors I attempt to pl=
ace
them within a theoretical construct focused on gift-giving.
The religion of Santería was developed i=
n
Santería, rather than being formed around
church-like congregations, uses a model of the family in which the oldest
(longest initiated) priest is the patriarch or matriarch. Santería
priests, called santero (Sp. male) or santera (Sp. female), m=
ay
be either male or female without distinction. Everyone is sponsored into the
religion by a priest, who is designated as his or her madrina (Sp.
godmother) or padrino (Sp. godfather). The interlocking relationships
between godparents and their godchildren and among godchildren of the same =
or
related godparents forms an extended fictive family. Every fully initiated
priest has two godparents and an extended religious family of grandparents,
aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc.[vii]<=
/a>
Within Santería, participation in a ritu=
al
generally requires a payment on the part of the client or her representativ=
e.
Payment for divination and simple rituals is often made directly by the cli=
ent
to the officiating priest but in the case of complex rituals requiring the =
work
of a group of priests the client usually gives money to the godparent in
advance. It is then the responsibility of the godparent to pay the particip=
ants
for their work. As each portion of the ritual is completed the godparent
presents an envelope containing the appropriate payment to those performing
specific tasks. Although only initiated priests can perform most of the
compensated tasks, other tasks, for example the work involved in the dressi=
ng
of the animal carcasses after sacrifice, are open to anyone. Thus both prie=
sts
and those with lower (or no) initiations are paid as part of these rituals.
Communities generally have an informal payment schedule, but since payments=
are
presented in sealed envelopes the worker does not know his actual compensat=
ion
until after the completion of the ritual.
One of the terms for these payments is derec=
ho,
a Spanish word that means not only right, straight and direct and what is j=
ust
and lawful but also a tax, toll or duty. In Spanish cultures this is the wo=
rd
used to describe payments made to the Catholic priest for his participation=
in
ceremonies like baptism and marriage. Derecho is used within
Santería to describe a payment made or owed to another in a ritual
context. Thus the payment made for a divination session, the money given to
those who help to kill, clean, and cook ritual food, the money given for
initiations are all called the derecho Although the implication is t=
hat
the derecho is a quid pro quo payment for services, the derecho
given by a client for a ritual is often a combination of payment for the go=
ods
acquired for the completion of the ritual and for the services of the ritual
specialists involved. As payment for goods the derecho participates
directly in the market economy. Godparents generally use the largest portio=
n of
the derecho to buy the materials needed for the ceremony including f=
ood,
material, basins, containers, live animals and herbs; however it is the por=
tion
of the derecho that is allocated as payment for services that raises
questions.
Although all those priests who participate in m=
ajor
rituals receive a small derecho, additional payments are made for
certain ritually significant tasks performed in the course of the ceremony.=
To
an observer the rationale for choosing which tasks receive payment and whic=
h do
not is not immediately obvious. At the same time it might be argued that wh=
ile
some receive payment for minor tasks, others of those who receive a dere=
cho
are underpaid according to a strict market economy. Many ritual tasks for w=
hich
one receives a derecho take place within sacred space and outside the
scope of observation by the uninitiated, however, the processing of the ani=
mals
used in the ritual occurs in public space and often is performed by those w=
ith
lesser or no initiations. Watching (and participating) in these activities =
can
lead to the realization that those who process larger animals (goats and sh=
eep)
are paid more than those who pluck and dress chickens and other birds. Among
those processing birds, those who pluck chickens are paid less than those w=
ho
dress the birds. However, both are typically paid a flat fee regardless of =
the
number of birds processed or the number of workers, and according to a pure=
ly
market analysis none of these workers are paid commensurate with the time o=
r effort
required to complete the task. Any money left after all the goods are purch=
ased
and all the workers are paid belongs to the godparent and is his or her pay=
ment
for services. Whether a particular godparent’s derecho is too =
much
or too little forms a constant topic of conversation within Santería
communities. However, as one cannot put a price on one’s life, so
religious rebirth is also beyond price.
The inequalities between the derech=
os presented to different workers and between wha=
t one
would expect for similar services on the open market would suggest that
something besides economic considerations is motivating those workers. As a
preliminary statement we might suggest that the portion of the derecho
that seems to stand outside a market economy and the unpaid and underpaid
services provided by both priests and others somehow participate in a type =
of
gift economy.
The derecho as I have described it so fa=
r is
that which is owed by the client for the ritual service performed for him. A
portion of many of these derechos participates in market exchange wh=
en
it is used to purchase goods for the ritual while the portion used to purch=
ase
the services of priests and other devotees seems to participate in a differ=
ent
type of exchange. However, there is another kind of offering that is someti=
mes
also called derecho. Perhaps an analysis of this offering can begin =
to
open up our analysis. This second type of derecho is generally given=
by
godchildren to their godparents to mark certain ritual events.=
=
[viii]=
Often called a “plate,”=
; this
offering consists of candles, coconuts and money balanced on a china dinner
plate. The request for any level of initiation is accompanied by the
presentation of a plate by the candidate to the priest. After her initiation
into the priesthood, each person is expected to present the same offering to
her initiating godparents on the anniversary of her own initiation and on t=
he
anniversary of each godparents’ initiation (birthday). Participation =
in
Santería takes place through a hierarchical series of initiations
beginning with the presentation of beaded necklaces color-coded to the major
Orisha (deities). Participation in the weeklong initiation called
“crowning” or asiento (Sp. to put or seat [the Orisha on
one’s head]) makes one a fully-initiation priest in the religion. Joseph Murphy provides description=
s of
several of these initiations. Because one is “born anew” as par=
t of
this ritual, priests number their years of participation from this point and
celebrate their religious “birthday” each year .[ix]
While a plate derecho presented as part =
of a
request for a ritual may contain the money derecho described above, =
the
addition of other items and the fact that these offerings are made in a
circumstance when no payment is required, is suggestive. Since many times t=
hese
offering are not, strictly speaking, payment for services rendered, they se=
em
further removed from a market economy then the derechos
When we question santeros about these offerings=
we
discover that (with a single exception, discussed below) plates are always
presented by a younger participant to an older one=
[xi]
and godparents never give a plate to a godchild. Although we may analyze th=
ese
offering as gifts (there is a ritual obligation to both give and receive) t=
he
obligation to reciprocate appears to be absent from this transaction.
The use of the Spanish term derecho to
describe both types of these offerings helps us to understand their place in
the Santería economy of rights and responsibilities, however the
alternative term, ashedi (Yr. to tie ashé), furthers o=
ur
understanding of them.
The Yoruba word ashé (ah-SHAY) ha= s a wide variety of meanings, including blessings, energy, mystery, the power t= hat keeps the universe in motion. Murphy suggests that the world of Santer&iacu= te;a is a world constituted of and held together by ashé. He descr= ibes ashé as the movement of the cosmos toward completeness and fulfillment
Each ritual within the religion involves this
movement of ashé This may be seen most clearly in the initiat=
ion
ceremony when the focused energy of the priests give birth not only to a new
priest for the religion but also new embodiments of the Orisha
themselves.[xv]
As children are born from the bodies of their mothers, so the initiation
process produces new priests and divinities from the ashé of =
the
initiating priests, particularly the primary initiator, the godmother or
godfather of the initiate. Also included in this transfer of ashé=
is the sacrifice of various animals who contribute their life-force to the
birthing process.
The ashedi of an initiation come out of =
a derecho
presented by the initiate to the initiating godparent. From that total paid=
by
the godchild the godparent purchases all the materials required to perform =
the
ritual including fruit, herbs, animals, other goods, food for the workers, =
etc.
She pays the priests in attendance for their contributions to the ritual as
well as the other workers, those who cook the food and perform other tasks =
not
requiring initiation. The money remaining is her payment for the physical a=
nd
spiritual energy required to perform the ritual. Thus the derecho
contains a combination of commodity exchange, payment for secular services =
and
compensation for the transmission of ashé. But of these three,
only the purchase of goods can be considered within the form of economic
exchange. Market prices are paid for goods purchased at local stores and
markets. Labor however is significantly under-compensated. Those laborers w=
ho
are paid (and not all are) never receive the amount they would receive for
similar labor on the open market. Ritual workers work long hours, often
performing tedious or demanding work for minimal pay. One can never fully
compensate others for the work they perform in this type of ritual context.
Although much of the work of a ritual is performed by priests in sacred spa=
ce,
much is performed by other devotees in the public view. Even the non-initia=
tes
perform work that is physically strenuous for a payment that is a mere pitt=
ance
in purely monetary terms. All of the work, both that performed by the initi=
ated
and that performed by the uninitiated, is given as a gift to the initiate, =
as a
gift of the physical and spiritual ashé necessary to complete=
the
ritual event. This offering, this gift can never be fully compensated by th=
e derecho
presented to these workers. There is always a supplement, an excess that is=
not
covered by the exchange. This supplement is also a form of ashedi, it
ties the ashé given and strengthens the relationships between
initiate and the other members of the initiating community. The priests who
work “behind the curtain” are the formal witnesses to the new
priest’s initiation. However, all those who worked maintain community
memory of an initiation. All are tied to the initiate in a special way.
As one cannot put a price on one’s life, =
so
religious rebirth is also beyond price. The new initiate owes her initiation
both to the godparents who put their ashé on her head and with
the many others who contributed to the success of the ritual. Although she =
has
paid a derecho, the spiritual good she has received, priestly
initiation, is worth much more than the amount she has paid. She can begin =
to
meet her obligation to reciprocate to the community as a whole by offering =
her
own service at future ritual events, contributing her own ashé to
the benefit of another initiate and continuing the cult of the Orisha. But =
she
can never fully repay what she has received from either the community as a
whole or from her godparents. Regardless of what she has offered as dere=
cho
what she received is a gift beyond price that can never be fully reciprocat=
ed,
thus, as we will discuss more fully below, she will have certain obligation=
s to
give throughout her lifetime.
<= o:p>
This need for reciprocation bring us to the sin=
gle
exception to the upward flow of ashedi and provides some insight into
these offerings. Money offerings are always made by one seeking a ritual or
initiation to those who can provide that service. We have suggested that th=
e derecho
is presented in partial exchange of the ashé given as part of=
the
ritual. Plate offerings are given by younger (in ritual years) participants=
to
their godparents either as requests for a ritual or initiation or in
conjunction with the celebration of the godparent’s religious birthda=
y.
When presented as part of a request of ritual attention the plate offering =
fits
into the cycle described earlier. The godchild presents a plate offering wh=
ich
includes the derecho, money, required to perform the ritual. The mon=
ey
will be used to buy the goods needed for the ritual and to present derec=
hos
to those who help with it. The other parts of the plate offering are not
generally used in the ritual (which may be days or weeks in the future) and
thus the reason for their inclusion in the ashedi is not so obvious.=
In a single instance the ashedi of a chi=
na
dinner plate with candles, coconuts and money is presented by an older s=
antero
to an younger one. In exploring this exception we can discover more about t=
he
plate offering and by extension the other forms of ashedi.
During the year following her initiation into t=
he
priesthood the new priest is given the title iyawo, a Yoruba terms w=
hich
designates a bride and is used to identify devotees who are undergoing a
ritual. During the year-long iyawo period, called the iyawoage, a
new priest’s activities are severely limited. One of those limitations
involves visiting the homes of other santeros. The iyawo may only vi=
sit
the home of another santero when accompanied by one of her godparent=
s or
another member of her immediate religious family, with the permission of a
godparent. As it turns out much of the iyawo’s visiting happen=
s in
conjunction with the birthday celebrations of her new religious family, tha=
t is
the celebration of the anniversary of an older priest’s initiation. I=
t is
at these events that the godparent can show off her newest initiate and int=
roduce
her to the extended religious family in her new status as priest. On the fi=
rst
visit to someone’s home all of the priests living there, all of whom =
are
ritually older than the iyawo, present her with a plate ashedi.
Unlike the plates that are offered to one’s godparent, plates given t=
o iyawos
are presented in public and are accompanied by a customary ritual. During t=
his
ritual the iyawo kneels in front of the presenting priest. As she pl=
aces
the plate in the hands of the iyawo, the priest prays for her saying
that she is giving this plate so that the iyawo and her Orisha
can always eat, the candles so that they may have light, coconuts so they m=
ay
talk to each other (through divination) and money so that the iyawo =
may
buy all that she needs for herself and her Orisha. Thus the plate
Because there is no formal accreditation organi=
zation
within Santería the only way one’s initiation is validated is =
by
the elders of the community. Those who participated in the initiation itsel=
f as
well as those who witnessed the iyawoage,[xvi]<=
/a>
who remember one’s year “in white,” can be called upon in=
the
future to certify the validity of one’s initiation. The ashedi
presented to the iyawo is a recognition of her initiation by priests=
who
may or may not have participated in the actually ritual and is used to welc=
ome
her into the community of priests. By presenting the ashedi to all t=
he
priests in attendance, the iyawo is requesting their acknowledgement=
of
her initiatory status as well. By participating, all the priests in attenda=
nce
are adding their own touch of ashé and acknowledging the prie=
st
that has joined the community. Thus this ritual serves to present the new
priest to the wider community and begins her integration as a fully functio=
ning
member of that community in her new role as a newly made priest. Conscienti=
ous
godparents take their new initiations to as many of these events as possible
both to advance their own status as initiators and to solidify the position=
of
their new godchildren in the community.
The ashedi presented as part of a reques=
t for
a ritual or in conjunction with a godparent’s birthday celebration
contain the same elements as those presented to iyawos: candles,
coconuts and money balanced on a plate. Implicit in the presentation of a p=
late
is the desire expressed in the presentation of the plate to a iyawo,
that is that the recipient may have all that is required for a rich spiritu=
al
life. When presented as part of a ritual request the plate ashedi
symbolically contains all that is necessary to complete the ritual. It also
represents a request to share in the ashé of the godparent. As
every ritual further ties the godchild to her godparents and ties her more
closely to the religious family of the godparents, so the ashedi bec=
omes
the physical marker of that tie.
Plates presented to iyawos establish new
relationships as the initiated are recognized and brought into the communit=
y;
those presented to godparents as part of the birthday celebration reinforce=
the
on-going relationships between members of the religious community. Everyone=
who
is involved in Santería enters the religion under the protection of =
a santero
or santera who is already involved in the religion. Only those with
enough knowledge and ashé can give birth to (initiate) their =
own
godchildren. And only through such an initiation can one become a fully adu=
lt
member of the religion. When one receives preliminary initiations one forms=
a
relationship with the priest from whom one receives the initiation who is
thereafter known as one’s padrino or madrina. In additi=
on,
relations are formed with all the other members of the godparent’s
religious family including those who are older in the religion than the
godparent and all those the godparent has initiated. Upon initiation one
instantly acquires brothers-, sisters-, cousins-, aunts-, uncles- and
grandparents-in-the-religion. And just as in a more traditional family each
participant has certain responsibilities and obligations to his or her pare=
nts
and siblings, so also when one is initiated into a spiritual family one has
responsibilities and obligations toward all of them.
A collection of plate ashedi on the birt=
hday
altar silently testifies to the on-going relationships maintained by the
celebrant with her godchildren. Each one is brought by a godchild and prese=
nted
to the priest and her Orisha. Each contains the same ritually complete
offering. Even though santeros may attend many birthday celebrations=
and
may bring small money offerings to each, one only brings a plate to the hom=
e of
one’s own godparent. Although we can suggest that these plate offerin=
gs
represent a reciprocation of the gift of initiation the differential between
the gift of initiation and new life and the ashdi suggests that their
more important purpose is serve to strengthen the ties between the priest a=
nd
her godchildren. The bond of initiation cannot be broken, even if there is a
falling out between a priest and a godchild. No matter how long one is
initiated one continues to owe respect and honor to one’s elders in t=
he
religion, particularly to one’s godparents. This respect is seen in
priests of many years who continue to bring plate ashedi to the home=
s of
their godparents.
Both the plates presented to iyawos and =
those
presented to one’s godparents serve to create or strengthen the
interpersonal ties within a Santería community. Thus if one chooses =
not
to participate in one of these rituals, one is acting in an insulting manner
and risks the possibility of cutting a communal tie. Iyawos who are =
not
presented to the community and recognized with ashedi may find that
their priesthood is not recognized within the community which would severely
limit their ability to perform their priestly roles. Priests who refuse to
offer an ashedi to iyawos who visit their homes will also find
themselves ostracized from the community while godchildren who refuse to br=
ing
plates to their godparents are seen as disrespectful and may find themselves
cut off from their religious family.
Practitioners do not call any of these activiti=
es
gift-giving, rather they generally frame their activities according to the
model of derecho, as obligation to give (as in the case of the plate=
ashedi)
or as a fee for spiritual services. However, market models do not adequately
account for the occasions of over- and under-compensation found during ritu=
al
events and for the gratuitous exchanges that characterize the plate ashe=
di.
I have suggested that in cases where the services provided are beyond what
could be reasonably expected (as in the case of the labor of ritual workers)
the surplus goes to the initiate in the form of a gift, a sharing of the
workers’ blessings in the form of ashé. Similarly, where
services seem to be over-compensated, as is often suggested in the case of =
the derecho
kept by one’s godparent, I have suggested that the balance is present=
ed
in exchange for ashé passed on to the initiate by the godpare=
nt
in the performance of the ritual event and again cannot be analyzed accordi=
ng
to a purely market economy. In all of these cases, the gift of ash&eacut=
e;
lacks one of the essential elements of the gift-giving according to Mauss, =
that
is the obligation to reciprocate. Although she can pass on the ash&eacut=
e;
she received, the gift of ashé is essentially beyond
reciprocation. The initiate can never adequately give back to either the
godparents or all the others who worked to make the ritual event successful=
. In
the cases of the distribution of plate ashedi, the relationships bet=
ween
the contributor and the recipient are such that reciprocation is ritually
precluded.
Similarly, we find that these forms of exchange=
are
very different from both agonistic and non-agonistic gifting suggested by
Godelier. There is no way in this system for the godchild to reciprocate wi=
th a
gift that is more, finer, greater that the initiation and the ensuing gift =
of ashé
given by the godparent. With initiation the godparents have given the great=
est
gift of all—the blessings of new spiritual life. Thus, in this case,
agonistic exchange is impossible. But non-agonistic giving is also impossib=
le.
The godchild cannot even give a gift that is equivalent to the gift she has
received. Unlike a system where exchange partners maintain a balanced
relationship, within the Santería initiation cycle the godparent is
always in a superior position relative to the godchild. Although the godchi=
ld
may help the godparent in future rituals and may provide other types of
assistance, she can never fully repay the obligation incurred by initiation.
Similarly, if she initiates others, they will always stand in a position of
obligation to her.
However, by focusing on the plate ashedi=
we
have begun to form a theoretical construct with some explanatory power.
Investigating the Yoruba term ashedi in the light of Hyde’s
analysis helps us to see that the excesses of the derecho along with
other gratuitous presentations are actually not payments or fees but method=
s of
relationship formation that work to tie the givers and recipients together =
in a
web of responsibilities. The movement of ashé as represented =
by
the ashedi and other such presentations both represents and enables =
the
formation and maintenance of interpersonal relationships between members of=
the
religious community. In each case the gifts strengthen the bond between the
giver and the recipient.
Each time a godchild presents a plate ashedi=
to a priest, he or she is acknowledging the relationship tying them togethe=
r.
By accepting the plate and placing it in the trono or in front of the
Orisha, the godparent fulfills the obligation to receive and in turn
acknowledges the continued relationship with her godchild. If either party
should neglect this ritual, their relationship tie would be weakened or even
destroyed. The ashedi presented by older santeros to a iyawo
enmeshes her within the larger community of devotees. By validating her
initiation the presenting santero and all those who acknowledge the iyaw=
o’s
reception of the plate tie up her ashé in the web of
relationships beyond that of her own godparents and enable her to function =
as a
fully initiated priest at the completion of her iyawoage.
Brandon, George. 1993. Sant=
eria
from Africa to the New World: The Dead Sell Memories. Bloomington: Indi=
ana
University Press.
Brown, David D. 2003. Sante=
ria
Enthroned: Art, Ritual, and Innovation in an Afro-Cuban Religion. Chica=
go:
University of Chicago Press. BL2532 .S3 B76 2003
Clark, Mary Ann. "Godpare=
nthood
in the Afro-Cuban Religious Tradition of Santería." Journal =
of
Religious Studies and Theology 22.1 (2003): 45-62.
Curry, Mary Cuthell. Making=
the
Gods in New York: The Yoruba Religion in the African American Community.
New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997.
Godelier, Maurice. 1999. Some =
Things
You Give, Some Things You Sell, But Some Things You Must Keep for Yourselve=
s.
What Mauss Did Not Say about Sacred Objects, March 26, 1999.
Howard, Phillip A. 1998. Ch=
anging
History: Afro-Cuban Cabildos and Societies of Color in the Nineteenth Centu=
ry.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Hyde, Lewis. 1983. The Gift:
Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property. New York: Random House.
Mason, John. 1985. Four New=
World
Yorùbá Rituals. Brooklyn: Yorùbá Theological
Archministry.
Mason, Michael Atwood. 1997.
Practicing Santería, Performing the Self: The Social Construction of
subjectivity in Humans and Gods in an Afro-Cuban Religion. Dissertation,
Indiana University.
Mauss, Marcel. 1967. The Gi=
ft:
Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. Translated by I.
Cunnison. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Murphy, Joseph M. 1993. San=
terá:
African Spirits in America. Boston: Beacon Press.
Palmié, Stephan. 2002.
Wizards and Scientists: Explorations in Afro-Cuban Modernity and Tradition.
Durham and London: Duke University Press.
[i]Mauss 1967.
[ii]Hyde 1983, 60.
[iii]<=
/span>Hyde 1983, xiv.
[iv]Godelier 1999.
[v]Because of the history of this
religion, practitioners use a mixture of English, Spanish and Yoruba
vocabulary. Along with the translation of each word, I will indicate its
source, Sp(anish) or Y(oruba). Yoruba is a language group centered in the
current nation of
[vi] For a deeper understanding of=
the
history of this religion in
[vii]<=
/span> For a more detailed descripti=
on of
Santería kinship systems, see “Godparenthood in the Afro-Cuban
Religious Tradition of Santería” Clark 2003.
[viii]=
Mary Curry provides one of the=
few
descriptions in the literature of these offerings.
[ix] Murphy, 1993, Chapter 8; Mason
1997.
[x]Coconuts are used for a type of
divination. See Murphy 1993 and Mason 1985.
[xi]Younger and elder in this cont=
ext do
not refer to actual age but to years of initiation. An older man who is
recently initiated is considered the junior of an younger woman who has been
initiated a longer period of time. Those who are not initiated are always
younger than those who are.
[xii]<=
/span>Murphy 1993, 130.
[xiii]=
Murphy 1993, 147 quoting Pierre
Verger.
[xiv]<=
/span>Murphy 1993, 130.
[xv]This embodiment of the Oris=
ha
is similar in concept to the consecration of the bread wafers by a Catholic
priest. Although each individual host is believed to contain the complete
essence of Christ, its consumption or destruction does not alter His presen=
ce
elsewhere in heaven or on earth.
[xvi]<= /span>This is actually a mixed Yoruba-Spanish word naming the one-year novitiate period.
The Year 2004 Proceedings of the ASSR-SW
The Year 2004 Proceedings of the ASSR-SW