taught the differences between religions. The people who perform a
slametanor attend various Muslim rites or visit Hindu temples are
anything but confused. The history of Javanese and other Indonesian
kingdoms is one of rivalry between political factions often clearly
identified with one of these religious strands. They all created institu-
tions such as temples, schools and a literate local elite. The Javanese
are not confused about the origins of these institutions.
It seems that "belonging to onereligion," something that would
seem quite straightforward to most Westerners, is problematic for
the Javanese. As Beatty puts it, "It is at birth or death that the indi-
vidual is stamped, unprotesting, with a religious identity, and at mar- [269]
riage that he or she is the focus of maximum social pressures (often
conflicting ones) to proclaim a religious identity." In such a situa-
tion, it is clear that one must "choose" a religious affiliation in the
sense of joining a particular coalition. By joining the Muslims you
identify with a particular faction in a particular political context
(where "political" includes family relations and village politics as
well as the general Indonesian situation). By joining the Hindu
"camp" you are joining another coalition. Now people are in fact
rather reluctant, for reasons that their history explains all too well,
to be formally identified as members of this or that coalition. This is
precisely because they perceive the risks associated with this kind of
coalitional game. Once you have joined a particular faction, you
probably miss opportunities that would have been available at some
further juncture.^3
To compare these two cases: The Buid seem to have one religious
doctrine too few. Their notions of spirits and mediumship are coher-
ent but not expressed as one consistent and generally applicable the-
ory. The Javanese in contrast would seem to have several doctrines too
many, as they strive for a collage of doctrines that religious institutions
naturally try to curb.
I use these contrasting examples because they illustrate several
fairly simple facts that challenge the simple scenario with which I
started this chapter: First, concepts do not necessarily form a doctrine;
it takes people, in particular religious specialists, to build an explicit
set of religious understandings. Second, it is only in very special cir-
cumstances that specialists can do that, as we will see presently. Third,
what is at stake in the diffusion of religious concepts is very much a
matter of social interaction, of coalitions and politics, filtered through
people's social mind concepts.
WHYDOCTRINES, EXCLUSION AND VIOLENCE?