Abstract
In the context of increasingly plural religious landscapes in Latin American indigenous communities, the possibility of religion serving as a broadly unifying force at the grassroots level in progressive political action seems to have been reduced. That being said, in Guatemala and elsewhere, political struggles—especially those resisting extractive industries—may draw upon indigenous religious referents, often framed in terms of the sanctity of “Mother Earth.” This article examines some of the tensions and potential expressed by organizers and participants in an annual pan-indigenous encounter called the Sacred Circle of Wise Grandmothers and Grandfathers of the Planet. As an expression of neo-Indianism, this organization has developed ambivalent connections with New Age and related movements and practices, including a potentially depoliticized stress on self-affirmation and individual emotional healing. Through an analysis of the encounter in Guatemala in 2014, the article explores the way indigenous and non-indigenous participants both politicized and resisted politicization of their activities, while negotiating the nature and limits of inter-ethnic solidarity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Brown (1994) for an early treatment of some of the issues concerning cultural appropriation in terms of the relationship between New Age practitioners and indigenous groups in the USA. See Bird (2017) for a summary of recent efforts of indigenous activists to make cultural appropriation of indigenous intellectual property illegal through the auspices of the United Nations.
Zaitchik (2017, p. 110 n2) describes his own orientation, where “a young Native woman from New Mexico pleaded with her white allies not to treat her as a museum piece. ‘We are not precious artifacts,’ she said, describing an encounter with a white girl who asked if she could touch her traditional moccasins. ‘There is nothing exotic about us or our communities. We come from places where we deal with poverty, drug addiction, sexual abuse. We are not here for your edification.’ Later in the session, a young Native man from California choked up while trying to convey the depth of the insult he feels upon seeing whites in costume headdress.”
This is a very common trope in neo-Indian circles, as Galinier and Molinié (2013, p. 230) note.
Much of this history is detailed, in various ways, on a range of websites dedicated to the event. The website for the eighth circle in Spain is particularly comprehensive. See https://8circulosagrado.wordpress.com/acerca-de/.
“Shaman” is used here as something of a catch-all term to describe the sorts of religious practitioners whose orientation references in some way the worldview commonly referred to as costumbre in the Maya ethnographic literature. The practice often involves divination using tz’ite’ (coral tree) seeds but is more universally defined by fire ceremonies conducted at particular altars throughout the landscape. There is much variety here in practice, especially when it comes to questions of the relation between religious and ethnic identities (MacKenzie 2016a).
The park administration defines particular practices as “Maya” on large signs near the entry and specifies what sorts of offerings and practices are, in turn, prohibited. As it turns out, the activities of participants in the Círculo pushed the limits of these prohibitions, particularly when the group gathered on the top of a temple to perform sun-greeting ceremonies on the morning of the equinox, described briefly below. The Kaqchikel-Maya caretakers of the site were particularly upset at these actions, as climbing on the temple was not allowed, with signs clearly indicating this prohibition. Most participants, however, ignored the calls from the caretakers to remove themselves from the temple, generating in the process some friction within the group (and with the indigenous employees of the park).
My research methods for this event were broadly ethnographic, with perhaps more stress on observation and informal conversations with a number of participants than on sustained or deep participation. Upon arriving, I introduced myself first to the organizers, explaining my background as an anthropologist who has conducted research since the 1990s in Maya communities, with a particular interest in Maya spirituality. I asked their permission to record and/or take written notes on the various proceedings, and this was readily approved, especially given the fact that most of these events were performed in very public venues. All that was asked of me by organizers was that I pay the registration fee, which I did. I also shared the photographs and videos I created with Abuelo Qenqo, who asked for these materials for his own records. I likewise introduced myself to as many of the participants as I was able to, explaining my role as an anthropologist interested in learning and writing about the event. No participant objected to this role, though a number hinted that a more spiritual rather than academic involvement the event might be personally beneficial. Apart from Abuelo Qenqo, whose role as the founder of the Círculo is very publically promoted and claimed in a range of contexts, I provide anonymity for all other individuals who participated in this event. As I note below, I spent more time with a number of Maya participants and conducted informal follow-up interviews with two of these individuals, as well as email correspondence with members of Abuelo Qenqo’s team in Peru. While this event is not directly connected to my previous and ongoing fieldwork in the K’iche’ community of San Andrés Xecul, my interpretations and analysis are informed by this past work and also by research with members of the national-level Maya Spirituality movement.
As explained in the previous note, I did not collect more systematic information on the various participants (especially as concerns issues such as age, class, and educational background), though I appreciate that such data would be of interest in sociological terms. As is, my observations concerning gender—that a clear majority of the participants were women—reflect a common observation in the literature which sees higher female involvement in alternative spiritualities (Houtman and Aupers 2008).
As I consider below, ideas and practices concerning the reception of cosmic “energy” were perhaps the most common characteristic of ritual and discourse during the Círculo. As Hanegraff (1996, p. 175) and others have noted, “energy” is a particularly malleable and ambivalent—though central—term in New Age practice. I recognize as well that many of the practices and identities which tend to be characterized as New Age have diverse and sometimes divergent genealogies, with some scholars differentiating such traditions as neo-Paganism (York 2001), while others emphasizing a common family resemblance between otherwise various New Age practices (Hanegraff 1996). Perhaps the most congenial cover term for these and other various practices is “spirituality,” particularly as identified by sociologists interested in recent religious changes in Western contexts (Wood 2010). Given the ambiguity of that term as used in Guatemala—where “Maya Spirituality” is in many ways distinct from the “spiritual but not religious” movement “spirituality” as a sociological category seeks to capture—I stick with “New Age” to reference what is undoubtedly considerable variety among the non-indigenous members of the Círculo. From what I observed, individual participants brought with them a range of traditions and backgrounds—from neo-paganism to Biodance (D’Andrea 2007)—though lacking more extensive biographies from these individuals, as explained in the previous note, I stick to more general tendencies I observed such as a stress on “energy,” personal healing, the anticipation of global transformations (whether spiritual, political, or ecological), and a basic positional identity as “counter” to Western traditions and histories. For more detail on the nature and variety of New Age theologies and practices, see Heelas (1996), Sutcliffe (2003), Campion (2016), and Kemp and Lewis (2007).
With certain qualifications, a similar concern with a glorious imperial past and an attendant lack of interest in the spirituality and politics of contemporary indigenous communities also defines the Mexico City-based neo-Aztec movement (Galinier and Molinié 2013, pp. 159–167).
This may be an unintended consequence of the name chosen for the group, which specifies “the planet” as the criteria of membership for potential wise grandmothers and grandfathers. As I explore below, there is a tension here between these global pretensions and more circumscribed Amerindian claims to authority.
I understand “purification” of indigenous spiritualities in this context to be diagnostic of a broader practice of modernity, following Latour (1993). In Guatemala, this is very often the language used by practitioners and promoters of Maya Spirituality who, as noted, are often critical of what they see as the hybridity or “syncretism” that they associate with the practices of local-level costumbristas (MacKenzie 2016a, pp. 233–236). This suspicion of hybridity is another characteristic of modern practices according to Latour, even though the entire purification process tends to undermine or subvert its aims (i.e., the very act of purification seems to produce hybrids of unexpected sorts). A related goal for many leaders of the Maya Spirituality movement is the claim to authority and authenticity that practices recast as “pure” can advance. This is the technical sense of “purification” I maintain throughout this paper; it is largely a discursive project associated with modernity rather than a product with a straightforward ontological status.
Wood (2010, pp. 170–173) offers a strong critique of the tendency in studies of contemporary Western spirituality—including New Age traditions—to over-emphasize “self-authority,” noting that beyond the emics of informant and movement discourse (which can indeed tend to stress the self, and a kind of personalized eclecticism when it comes to spiritual development, together with a rejection of traditional religious authority), research needs to acknowledge both concurrent discourses of responsibility and duty, and the fact that these discourses are produced in actual social contexts. It is here, he argues, that a normative community is established which suggests something more sociologically interesting than a perpetual stress on the “individual” character of participation in New Age and related spiritualities. This point is well taken, and indeed, this article describes a normative struggle to position the individuals in an emergent community—a site of conflictive “joint commitment” in Amit’s (2010) terms. See also Aupers and Houtman (2006).
The earth does, of course, have feminine attributes, though traditionalist Maya tend to focus more on the qualities of the surface or face of the earth—uwach ulew—when elaborating on such features (O’Brien-Rothe 2015). The most direct translation of “Mother Earth” I have encountered is qananpalew (literally, “Our Mother of/in/from the Earth”), which means “potato” in some dialects of K’iche’.
This stress on the responsibility to continue to develop a concrete, transnational community qualifies and tames other claims focused more exclusively on the self and personal healing, as per Wood’s (2010) critique.
See Bricker (1982) for a good review of the varied role of solstices and equinoxes in Maya ritual calendrics.
In my principle field site of San Andrés Xecul, these ceremonies are planned around the third of May, the day of the Holy Cross in the Catholic Liturgical year. The 260-day Maya calendar is consulted in a secondary manner to choose propitious days on or around this date to perform group fire ceremonies at key altars around the community.
In the official declaration produced by the organizers of the Círculo, a footnote acknowledges the calendar date of the equinox—which was Kawoq that year—as a woman’s day, though as noted, this was not recognized in the ritual activities of the participants.
See Farahmand (2016) for an excellent discussion of the nature of “neo-Mayanization” in spiritual and ethnic contexts in Guatemala and Yucatán and the role of specific New Age practices in defining these processes.
Abuelo Qenqo has been very public as concerns his ideas as to what constitutes an authentic Círculo in online posts and declarations made in the various Facebook and related groups associated with this organization. It seems that the question of the validity of the gathering in Spain in 2013 has been resolved after a fashion. The 2015 Círculo in Mexico was initially celebrated as the 10th, but the 2016 meeting in Manhattan bore the somewhat awkward title of “10+1,” thereby partially isolating the Spanish Círculo retroactively.
As York (2001) notes, members of New Age movements may indeed incorporate Christian messages and deities into their thought and practice, though this does not diminish the strength of the constitutive boundary they maintain with the Judeo-Christian mainstream to which they oppose themselves as practitioners of an “alternative” religion.
This term is generally translated as “lord” or “owner.” Its use as a gloss for a unitary creator “God” may be a product of some early Catholic efforts in inculturation. One early voice in this tradition, Padre Tomás García, initially used this word to reference the Christian God, but later regretted his choice, preferring Qatat, or “our Father,” as a more intimate term (Tomás García 1992, p. 118).
There is even a small presence reflecting this recognition in Guatemalan government bureaucracy by way of the Unit for Sacred Paces and Maya Spiritualty, under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture and Sports (MacKenzie 2015, p. 370).
All this information comes from public posts on relevant Facebook groups as well as video uploads of the event to YouTube. The immediate future of the Círculo is not clear. From what I have been able to determine from online sources, the 2017 gathering was to be held in Canada, though it was apparently canceled. Given the general domination of indigenous representatives from Latin America in the planning and execution of this event, it seems likely that future gatherings, should they occur, will take place in that region.
References
Adams AE (2001) Making one our word: Protestant Q’eqchi’ Mayas in Highland Guatemala. In: Dow JW, Sandstrom AR (eds) Holy saints and fiery preachers: the anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America. Praeger, Westport, pp 205–233
Alfonso-Fradejas A (2015) Anything but a story foretold: multiple politics of resistance to the agrarian extractivist project in Guatemala. J Peasant Stud 42(3/4):489–515
Althoff A (2014) Divided by faith and ethnicity: religious pluralism and the problem of race in Guatemala. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin
Amit V (2010) Community as “good to think with”: the productiveness of strategic ambiguities. Anthropologica 52(2):357–375
Aupers S, Houtman D (2006) Beyond the spiritual supermarket: the social and public significance of New Age Spirituality. J Contemp Relig 21(2):201–222
Bastos S (2012) Multicultural projects in Guatemala: identity tensions and everyday ideologies. Lat Am Caribb Ethn Stud 7(2):155–172
Bird H (2017) Cultural appropriation: make it illegal worldwide, indigenous advocates say. CBC News, June 13. Accessed online at http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cultural-appropriation-make-it-illegal-worldwide-indigenous-advocates-say-1.4157943
Bricker V (1982) The origin of the Maya solar calendar. Curr Anthropol 23(1):101–103
Brown MF (1994) Who owns what spirits share? Reflections on commodification and intellectual property in New Age America. Polit Leg Anthropol Rev 17(2):7–17
Burman A (2014) Now we are Indígenas!: hegemony and indigeneity in the Bolivian Andes. Lat Am Caribb Ethn Stud 9(3):247–271
Callicott C (2017) Pandora’s brew: the new Ayahuasca. Part 7. Savage minds: notes and queries in anthropology. Accessed online at https://savageminds.org/2017/04/17/pandoras-brew-the-new-ayahuasca-part-7/
Campion N (2016) The New Age in the Modern West: Counterculture, Utopia and Prophecy from the late eighteenth century to the present day. Bloomsbury Academic, London
Castells M (2000) The rise of the network society, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Celigueta G (2015) Mayanización, indigeneidad o mestizaje? Clasificaciones étnicas y diversidad en Guatemala. Rev Dialectol Tradic Pop 70(1):101–118
Csordas TJ (ed) (2007a) Transnational transcendence: essays on religion and globalization. University of California Press, Berkeley
Csordas TJ (2007b) Introduction: transnational transcendence. In: Csordas TJ (ed) Transnational transcendence; essays on religion and globalization. University of California Press, Berkeley
Cuma Chávez B (2008) Runataxik Qak’aslem: Reviviendo Nuestra Cultura. Junajpu Editorial, Antigua Guatemala
D’Andrea A (2007) Global nomads: techno and New Age as transnational countercultures in Ibiza and Goa. Routledge, London
Dove MR (2006) Indigenous people and environmental politics. Annu Rev Anthropol 35:191–208
Einbinder N (2017) Dams, displacement and development: perspectives from Río Negro, Guatemala. Springer International, New York
Ekern S (2006) Saving the forest through human rights: indigenous rights and ethnic tension in Guatemala. Int J Minor Group Rights 13:171–186
Ellen R, Parkes P, Bicker A (eds) (2000) Indigenous environmental knowledge and its transformations: critical anthropological perspectives. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam
Farahmand M (2016) Glocalization and transnationalization in (neo)-Mayanization processes: ethnographic case studies from Mexico and Guatemala. Religions. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel7020017
Galinier J, Molinié A (2013) The neo-Indians: a religion for the third millenium. University of Colorado Press, Boulder
Hale C (2002) Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala. J Lat Am Stud 34:485–524
Hale C (2006) Más que un Indio = More than an Indian: racial ambivalence and neoliberal multiculturalism in Guatemala. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe
Hanegraff WJ (1996) New Age religion and Western culture: esotericism in the mirror of secular thought. Brill, Leiden
Heelas P (1996) The New Age movement: the celebration of the self and the sacralization of modernity. Blackwell, Oxford
Hinojosa SZ (2015) In this body: Kaqchikel Maya and the grounding of spirit. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque
Hoenes del Pinal E (2017) Returning to the Tzuultaq'a. Anthropol Humanism 42:25–27
Houtman D, Aupers S (2008) The spiritual revolution and the New Age gender puzzle: the sacralization of the self in late modernity (1980-2000). In: Aune K, Sharma S, Vincett G (eds) Women and religion in the West: challenging secularization. Ashgate, Burlington
Johnson G, Kraft SE (eds) (2017) Handbook of indigenous religion(s). Brill, Leiden
Kemp D, Lewis JR (eds) (2007) Handbook of New Age. Brill, Leiden
Kraft SE (2017) U.N.—discourses on indigenous religion. In: Johnson G, Kraft SE (eds) Handbook of indigenous religion(s). Brill, Leiden
Latour B (1993) We have never been modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
MacKenzie CJ (2010) Of networks and hierarchies: ethnic ambivalence and Pan-Mayanism in Guatemala. Lat Am Caribb Ethn Stud 5(1):27–52
MacKenzie CJ (2015) The Mayan Pope and his competition: local, national and transnational representations the 2012 phenomenon. Anthropologica 57(2):367–381
MacKenzie CJ (2016a) Indigenous bodies, Maya minds: religion and modernity in a transnational K’iche’ community. University of Colorado Press, Boulder
MacKenzie CJ (2016b) The state of rights and multiculturalism in 21st century Guatemala: National and local contexts. In: Sánchez Madero G, Sánchez Madero R (eds) Guatemala: Gobierno, Gobernabilidad, Poder Local y Recursos Naturales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia
MacLeod M (2011) Nieta del Fuego, Creadoras del Alba: Luchas Político-Culturales de Mujeres Mayas. FLACSO, Guatemala City
MacNeill (2014) Environmental citizenship, Maya cosmovision, and cultural rights in Guatemala. Int J Interdiscip Environ Stud 7(4):17–30
McNally MD (2017) Religion as peoplehood: Native American religious traditions and the discourse of indigenous rights. In: Johnson G, Kraft SE (eds) Handbook of indigenous religion(s). Brill, Leiden
Montenegro R (2016) América Latina: resistencia popular contra plantas de cemento que dañan la salud de las personas y el ambiente. In: Carrasco Gallegos BR, Tadeo Vargas J (eds) No en nuestro patio trasero: Experiencias comunitarias contra la industria del cemento. Astillero Ediciones, Toluca
Niezen R (2003) The origins of indigenism: human rights and the politics of identity. University of California Press, Berkeley
O’Brien-Rothe L (2015) Songs that make the road dance; courtship and fertility music of the Tzutujil Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin
O’Connor R (2016) Standing Rock: North Dakota access pipeline demonstrators say white people are ‘treating protest like Burning Man’ Independent 28 November. Accessed online at http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/standing-rock-north-dakota-access-pipeline-burning-man-festival-a7443266.html
Oxlajuj Ajpop (2001) Fuentes y Fundamentos del Derecho de la Nación Maya K'iche'. PNUD, Guatemala
Pallister K (2013) Why no Mayan party? Indigenous movements and national politics in Guatemala. Lat Am Polit Soc 55(3):117–138
Partridge C (2004) The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture and occulture. Volume 1. T & T Clark Intenational, London
Rasch ED (2012) Transformations in citizenship: local resistance against mining projects in Huehuetenango (Guatemala). J Dev Soc 28(2):159–184
Rasch ED (2016) Nos Ven Como Terroristas Porque Defendemos las Tierras que Ellos Invadían: Conflictos sobre la Gestión de los Recursos Naturales en el Noroccidente de Gautemala. In: Sánchez Madero G, Sánchez Madero R (eds) Guatemala: Gobierno, Gobernabilidad, Poder Local y Recursos Naturales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia
Rodríguez J (2016) This land is ours. NACLA Rep Am 48(3):245–252
Sieder R (2011) Building Mayan authority and autonomy: the ‘recovery’ of indigenous law in post-peace Guatemala. Stud Law Polit Soc 55:43–75
Sieg K (2002) Ethnic drag: performing race, nation, sexuality in West Germany. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Son Chonay EB (2013) Ri Qanawal: Los Nawales Mayas. Maya’ Wuj Editorial, Guatemala City
Sutcliffe SJ (2003) The children of the New Age: a history of spiritual practices. Routledge, London
Taylor C (1991) The malaise of modernity. House of Anansi Press, Toronto
Tedlock B (1992) Time and the highland Maya, Revised edition. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque
Tomás García SG (1992) Evangelización desde la Cultura Maya-Quiché. Ediciones Abya-Yala, Quito
Vásquez MA, Marquardt MF (2003) Globalizing the sacred: religion across the Americas. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
Vogt M (2015) The disarticulated movement: barriers to Maya mobilization in post-conflict Guatemala. Lat Am Polit Soc 57(1):29–50
Walsh DS (2017) Spiritual, not religious; dene, not indigneous: Tłı̨chǫ dene discourses of religion and indigeneity. In: Johnson G, Kraft SE (eds) Handbook of indigenous religion(s). Brill, Leiden
Way JT (2016) The movement, the mine and the lake: new forms of Maya activism in neoliberal Guatemala. Humanities 5(3):56
Whyte KP (2017) The Dakota Access Pipeline, environmental justice, and U.S. colonialism. Red Ink 19(1):154–169
Wood M (2010) The sociology of spirituality: reflections on a problematic endeavor. In: Turner BS (ed) The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion. Wiley-Blackwell, London
York M (2001) New Age commodification and appropriation of spirituality. J Contemp Relig 16(3):361–372
Zaitchik A (2017) On native grounds: Standing Rock’s new spirit of protest. Baffler 34:102–116
Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was read at the 2017 meeting of the International Society for the Sociology of Religion, part of a session organized by Sylvie Poirier and Françoise Dussart. I am grateful to the organizers and participants in the session for their perceptive comments and advice. I greatly appreciated discussions with Manéli Farahmand who has worked with similar groups to those considered here and who helped sharpen my general conceptual framework. I am likewise grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful feedback on the original draft.
Funding
Funding for the research on which this article is based was provided by an award from the University of Lethbridge Research Fund.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
MacKenzie, C.J. Politics and Pluralism in the Círculo Sagrado: the Scope and Limits of Pan-Indigenous Spirituality in Guatemala and Beyond. Int J Lat Am Relig 1, 353–375 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41603-017-0021-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41603-017-0021-6