What fascinated me in Canals’ article was his discussion on Maria Lionza’s “double possession”. I found it quite intriguing how Lionza’s spirit can possess the medium, in this case Barbara, first in the “Indian” form, and secondly, in the form of a “white woman”; this phenomenon quite symbolically speaks to the plurality of this saint’s identity, and the ethnic and cultural multiplicity from which this cult has come to be.
Of course, one of the major themes in Canals’ article is the relationship between technology, or his camera, and sacred rituals, or intimate and often private moments of religious devotion and activity. I felt like there was quite a connection between the fluid and evolving identity of Maria Lionza and the guidelines governing what cameras are, and are not allowed to capture during a moment of spiritual possession. Canals’ ability to film Maria Lionza’s incarnation as a white woman or “queen” but not as an Indian woman was described as being due to the incarnation of the latter as “frailer” than the former. I wonder, what does this say about Indigenous influences on the Maria Lionza cult? Why is her reincarnation in the “Indian” form considered to be a more frail moment of spiritual possession?
What further stood out was how the cult of Maria Lionza, after Catholicism (from which it derives a significant proportion of religious influence, and of which many of its believers simultaneously consider themselves to follow) is considered to be the second most popular religion in Venezuela. The diversity of the cult’s followers conveys a unifying function of religion, and a, perhaps, unique transcendance of class boundaries. It seems as though the plurality of identities that follow Maria Lionza reflects, or maybe mirrors, the plurality of the saint’s own identity and what she represents. From fertility and eroticism to a benevolent divinity and universal mother, according to Canals, Maria Lionza symbolizes “the plural and composite nature of both the cult that bears her name and, more generally, of the Venezuelan society that gave birth to her” (163).
All-in-all, the religious practices of the cult and identities of Maria Lionza herself powerfully reflect those of her followers, and as such, seem to shape and dictate the relationship between ‘the sacred’ and ‘the camera’.
In your opinion, do you think there is a place for something like a camera in religious rituals like the one described in Canals’ article?
Hi!! I really loved your post 🙂 I think it’s quite important that you highlighted the cults unifying nature in terms of it being the second most popular after Catholicism. In this sense you are right people from diverse backgrounds all coming together over shared principles it pretty remarkable.
To answer your question yes I believe that having a camera to capture different religious rituals is important in order to document them as history for generations to come. It helps paint a broader picture in people’s minds having photographic evidence of something might make it more concrete as well.
HI!
I do think that there is a place for filming regarding religious rituals, and I believe in that simply because I think it is important to record history and to share knowledge and tradition; It gives people the opportunity to live through recorded works if they are not able to be present in their religious activities, for instance churches using live-streams for their mass. I think it all falls into the same categories.
Hi!
This is a great question, and one I’m not sure I’m able to answer conclusively, even just going off of my own opinion.
I’ve taken a few ethnography courses and am taking an English Literature seminar (on literature in the age of the camera), both of which deal with the ethics of seeing– particularly of seeing “private” or “secret” practices like those discussed in the article. While not all religious practices are meant to be kept secret, there are theorists that argue just by virtue of recording it (whether through the camera or ethnography, or even something like journalism) you are interacting with the cultural context you are observing. There are also a lot of other ideas complicating the ethics of this kind of photographic archival, like the ethics of representation; by representing one subject over another, the photographer gives that particular subject and representation importance. Therefore, people can sometimes form judgements based on those representations, because they think the fact that it was recorded makes that representation meaningful or culturally significant (Neil L. Whitehead wrote about this later in life, looking at his ethnographic research in retrospect and with a critical eye).
Like I said, I don’t really have an answers. There are definite benefits to photographic records; for example, Edward Curtis did a photographic archival of what he called the “Vanishing North American Indian”, and even though it was extremely problematic, it WAS the only photographic record of North American Indigenous peoples during that time. However, there are definite problems with recording a religious practice as an outsider, namely risking inaccurate representation, what I said above, and much more… If I had to guess, I think the main priorities should be, as Whitehead said, recognizing the agentive power of representation and centering the subject’s priorities and perspectives in both the representation and the motivations behind the representation.
Sorry I wrote so much, I find this stuff super interesting!
Hi! great post. I wondered the same thing about why the Indigenous possession was considered the more frail part of Maria Lionza’s evolution. As for the use of the camera, I really don’t think it is necessary as it is in an intrusion of privacy and other means to record data can be used. I am not religious, but ethics are important especially when carrying out research.