Praise for The Romanian Orthodox Diaspora in Italy
“A close analysis of the growing number of Orthodox (very largely Romanian) churches in Italy lies at the heart of this account. That however is simply the starting point. How do Orthodox congregations embed themselves in an overwhelmingly Catholic country? And what effect do these diasporic churches have on the sending country? In fve fascinating chapters Marco Guglielmi unpacks these questions.”
—Grace Davie, University of Exeter, United Kingdom
“A fascinating study which advances knowledge on the changing nature of Eastern Orthodox communities in Eastern and Western European societies. Drawing on a wide range of quantitative data, in-depth interviews, ethnographic observations in Italy and Romania, this outstanding monograph offers a unique insight into the ways in which institutional structures and religious activism shape contemporary Eastern Orthodox Christianity.”
—Lucian N. Leustean, author of Orthodoxy and the Cold War: Religion and Political Power in Romania, 1947–65
“Drawing on the enhanced presence of Orthodox Romanians in Italy currently, Guglielmi offers a fascinating, theoretically grounded, and in-depth analysis of the multifaceted refashioning of Eastern Orthodoxy within a Western context. This book has tremendous implications for understanding the processes of Orthodox migration, glocalisation, and transnationalism, contrary to still widespread stereotypes portraying this Christian Church as monolithic, infexible, anti-modern and backward.”
—Vasilios N. Makrides, University of Erfurt, Germany
“This book is the frst original study on Orthodox churches in a country with a Catholic majority like Italy. It helps to understand the long-lasting effects of migrations under the ‘sacred vaults’ of religion. Guglielmi shows us that this change also affects the Orthodox churches of migrants, countering the widespread stereotype of an immobile system incapable of innovation.”
—Enzo Pace, University of Padua, Italy
“This is a well-crafted and theoretically-informed empirical work that applies concretely the notions of glocalization and transnationalism into a relatively understudied case of Orthodox migration into Western Europe. It is an important contribution to the literature on Orthodox Christianity in Italy and more broadly, Western Europe.”
—Victor Roudometof, University of Nicosia, Cyprus
“The massive Romanian migration to Italy has turned the Orthodox Church into the second largest denomination in that country. In his sociological analysis, Guglielmi shows that the Orthodox diaspora church has adopted new practices and rituals to respond to its new minority status in a predominantly Roman Catholic space and to address the daily concerns of the Romanian migrants it serves. Based on interviews with Orthodox clergy, Guglielmi’s book points to the challenges religious glocalization poses to both host and original countries.”
—Lavinia Stan, St. Francis Xavier University, Canada
“Orthodox Christianity as lived tradition outside its homelands and in a minority position: this condition of precariousness and opportunity is analyzed masterly in this book by Marco Guglielmi, who approaches his subject with rich empirical detail and sophisticated, historically informed insight.”
—Kristina Stoeckl, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Table 2.1 Religious affliations of immigrants in Italy (2020)
Table 2.2 Main religious affliations of immigrants in Italy from 2001 to 2020
Table 2.3 Main religious affliations of immigrants in Italy (2020) 49
Table 2.4 Orthodox Christian jurisdictions in Italy (2011, 2016, and 2021)
Table 2.5 Romanian immigrants in Italy
Table 3.1 Number of sacraments (baptisms, marriages, and funerals) 83 list of tables
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Abstract The chapter introduces the sociological background in which to study Orthodox Christianity and to outline the main transformations of its diasporas in Western Europe. Starting from glocalization theory, it examines the transnational diffusion of religions through globalization. It then elaborates the framework of diaspora religions as glocal religions in order to shed light on the blending processes involved in their settlement. It defnes a sociological approach in regard to Eastern Orthodoxy which addresses the main societal trends historically developed by Orthodox churches around the theological notion of Holy Tradition. In short, the chapter propounds the hypothesis that will be developed throughout the book: as the Orthodox Christian diasporas in Italy tackle new challenges and practical issues, they reshape the more customary social traditionalism of their churches.
Keywords Orthodox diaspora(s) • Orthodoxy and contemporary challenges • Glocal religions • Glocalization theory • Social traditionalism
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
M. Guglielmi, The Romanian Orthodox Diaspora in Italy, Religion and Global Migrations, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07102-7_1
M. GUGLIELMI
Orthodoxy, however, needs the Christian West, its demanding and exacting strictness and its experience of the modern world to overcome the historical sins of the East and to become fully aware of its message and service. In return, it has some treasures that may be shared. Not having experienced the internal conficts and controversies of Western Christianity, it may in fact have a benefcial role—moreover in a manner that is both selfess and self-purifying—in that «ecumenism in time» (Georgij Florovsky) which should allow Christians to discover, from this side of the schisms, their common biblical and ecclesial roots.
(…) Nonetheless—and we should insist on this point—today the Orthodox churches of the Eastern countries are experiencing, in a manner not entirely unlike the evolution of Islam, a violent crisis of integralism. (…) As may be seen, the whole problem lies in the relationship between Orthodoxy and modernity—and post-modernity. The responsibility of members of the Orthodox Church in the diaspora is thus even greater. In fact they are often able to use the heritage of wisdom and beauty of the Tradition to engage in the quests of our time.
Olivier Clément (2005, pp. 137, 139) (My translation from Italian to English).
Summary
Olivier Clément (1921-2009) was probably the best-known lay Orthodox theologian in Western Europe. He was noted for his contribution to the life of the Orthodox churches in France and to ecumenical dialogue. In his book The Orthodox Church, originally published in 1961 and now available in various editions and translations (2005), he described some possible convergences between Eastern Orthodoxy and the other Christian churches in the West (Catholic and Reformed). He claimed that the Eastern Christian milieu needed the Western Christian milieu, and vice versa. Among the reasons for the East’s need for the West, he stressed the necessity to engage with the contemporary world. He argued that since the ffteenth century there had been a lack of a real cultural and intellectual space within Eastern Orthodoxy, so that its “integral knowledge of an intelligent heart” was not transmitted solely in the dim light of the iconostasis (Clément, 2011, p. 110). To better grasp this expression, it is useful to mention that the iconostasis is the wall of icons and religious paintings used in Eastern churches to separate the nave from the sanctuary, which is the area around the altar. Clément’s statement encapsulates a crucial aspect of the sociological foci of this introductory chapter: the Orthodox Christian diasporas in Western Europe are rooted in countries with a
Catholic or Protestant majority, where they are facing new practical issues and challenges.1 In this context, the “quests of our time” (or the new forms of religious life in the contemporary world) and the “beauty of the Tradition” (or the ancient Orthodox rites and teachings) referred to at the end of the above long quotation may not express two opposing categories or settings. On the contrary, apparently possible is their merging—maybe more markedly than in other situations—within the Orthodox diaspora settlements in Western Europe, particularly as a fragmented mix of sociocultural and religious encounters and identity’s resistances.
In accordance with this premise, the frst section of this chapter develops a glocal perspective on the topic of religion and globalization. In this regard, it adopts a glocal religious lens through which to examine both the transnational spread of religious communities through globalization processes and the increasing bonds between religion and culture at different levels. The second section develops the research framework, which considers diaspora religions as glocal religions (Guglielmi, 2020a). Adopting the broad model of four paths of religious glocalization—indigenization, vernacularization, nationalization, and transnationalization—(Roudometof, 2013, 2014a), the section attempts to analyze diaspora religions as cultural hybrids. Hence, it tries to connect the more usual opposing categories in migration research (such as motherland vs. host country, national vs. transnational, immigrant vs. native, local vs. global) and emphasize the complexity deriving from their intersections.
The third section briefy introduces the subject of Orthodox Christianity. It defnes a sociological approach to the study of this Christian tradition by both outlining its key features and describing the main societal trends that have historically developed around its theological teachings on the Holy Tradition. The fourth section addresses the topic of the Orthodox Christian diaspora(s) from both canonical and sociological perspectives. It describes the two main Orthodox panoramas in North America and in Western, Central, and Northern Europe in order to better contextualize the case of Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy. The last two sections illustrate the research design and the methodology used to collect the data. More specifcally, the ffth section outlines the research questions centered on the sociological study of Eastern Orthodoxy and relates them to three recent
1 Adopted throughout the book is an inclusive geographical outlook which generally refers to Western Europe as including also the Central and Northern European countries. The Orthodox panorama in this broad European region will be outlined in detail in the fourth section of this chapter.
M. GUGLIELMI
debates on current religious transformations in Western Europe. In this regard, it also introduces some theoretical and empirical landmarks that will emerge throughout the book.
Finally, a summary of contents will be provided in every chapter in order to gradually sum up the crucial assumptions of the research reported in the book: the case study of the Romanian Orthodox Church (Biserica Ortodoxă Română, henceforth BOR) appears to powerfully reveal some notable hybridization occurring within the broad establishment of Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy, as a result of which some nuances of its more customary social traditionalism are being reshaped.
Framing religiouS glocalization
Among the many theories on globalization, adopted in what follows is the perspective developed by Roland Robertson (1992) in order to approach the current situations and fresh forms of religions in the contemporary world. Basically, Robertson defned globalization as “the compression of the world and the intensifcation of consciousness of the world as a whole” (1992, p. 8). With the term “compression”, he referred to the accelerated pace of contact among cultures, peoples, and civilizations. The confrontation of different worldviews, in fact, means that globalization involves a “comparative interaction of different forms of life” (Robertson, 1992, p. 27), or the sense that the world is a single dimension. As a process that stimulates an awareness of connection, globalization dissolves the autonomy of institutions and practices at local and global levels. In this process, “all units engaged in globalization are constrained to assume a position and defne an identity” (1992, p. 29), especially with respect to their manifold interactions. On the other hand, this consciousness of the world as a whole has proceeded and developed through centuries-long sociocultural processes. Thus, its development should not be understood as having been completed solely in the more recent phase of world history.2
2 In his theory, as would later be shown in the model developed by Roudometof (2014a), Robertson emphasised the capacity of the historical perspective to ‘release’ globalization from the dominant narrative, which frames it as a recent phenomenon. Although this study does not emphasize the historical approach, the temporal aspect is considered as well. Chapter 2 will focus on the ancient settlement of Eastern Orthodoxy in the Italian Peninsula from an historical perspective. It will avoid both a research approach concentrated only on the past three decades, and a sociological reading of the Orthodox presence in Italy as a recent phenomenon generated by globalization.
In accordance with the above framework, this study does not consider cultures to be fxed entities or exclusive units. Rather, it focuses on how they interrelate through glocalization. This latter notion derives from the Japanese term dochakuka and means ‘global localization’. Since the late 1990s, in fact, glocal theories have directed attention to the fact that globalization interacts with local cultures, structures, and traditional settings in multiple ways.3 Robertson elaborated this notion in order to emphasize the duality of global processes: global forces cannot be conceived as existing in opposition to, or isolated from, the local realm, since they simultaneously reshape societies. In this sense, glocal processes give rise to more or less nuanced and marked hybridization among realms. This book prefers to maintain a comprehensive view of glocalization as multifaceted transformation (Morawska, 2014). It will refer to all processes of transforming or being transformed, which involve a change in the structure, appearance, or other facets of a societal item.
Focusing on the study of religion, Peter Beyer (2006) argues that the main idea of religion, as it has been commonly construed, is the product of long-term processes of intercultural interaction. On this view, also religions that are not conventionally considered to be global are in any case infuenced by both global and local processes. Beyer maintains that
the study of a modern religion must be initially grounded in a theory of “global society”: religion, far from remaining more or less constant during these transformations and thereby suffering or at least being challenged to reassert itself, has actually been a critical carrier and example of the entire process. Religion, like capitalism, the nation-state or modern science, has been a carrier of modernisation and globalisation, not a barrier or a victim (Beyer, 2006, p. 300).
Adopting this perspective, and as theorized by Csordas (2007) and then by Obadia (2010), the paths and developments of religions in the contemporary world can be understood as characterized by a dual process. On the one hand, religions change when they address processes and issues linked to globalization; on the other hand, religions become globalized by spreading outside their more traditional territories. In the former case (globalization and religion), the dynamics of globalization may favor the
3 Besides Robertson, glocalization has been analyzed by many other scholars, such as Ritzer (2003), Roudometof (2016), and Tomlinson (1999). Moreover, for an overview on glocalization with respect to several felds and topics, see Roudometof and Dessì (2022). 1
change of religions within their historical territories as they are challenged by novel phenomena and an unprecedented sociocultural and religious diversity. In the latter case (globalization of religion), the spread of religions and their settlement outside their traditional territories may foster changes as well as certain innovations. In this respect, as will be shown in this book, the establishment of religions abroad occurs mainly through their contacts with the sociocultural environment and the dominant religion of the host country. In short, in both the above cases, the bonds between religion and culture appear to (re)fashion the religious landscapes, within a framework that recognizes that the global and local levels are interdependent.
Accordingly, the notion of glocal religion centers on the meeting point between cultures, and it emphasizes the interaction occurring between the global and local levels (Beyer, 2006, 2007). As suggested by Robertson (1992), glocalization provides a means to gain understanding of the hybridity and fragmentation of religious traditions within the frame of global/local relations. In their localization, religions thus appear to shape cultural hybrids that blend religious universalism with local particularism. In this regard, global and local processes also promote(d) multiple religious glocalizations, that is, cases of world religions thematized alongside local particularities (Beyer, 2007). Again, these processes should not be seen as linked solely to more recent historical periods, but rather as synchronously interacting in the various eras of world history. For instance, historic study of the multiple glocalizations of Christianity in Europe may “offer a conceptual map that accounts for religious change and fragmentations both in Western and Eastern Europe” (Roudometof, 2014b, p. 76).
In order to be more detailed and to establish this diachronic and systemic approach (Dessì, 2018, p. 478), one may further concentrate on the notion of glocality (Roudometof, 2015a). The latter seems more analytically autonomous from the concept of globalization than the previous more broader conception. According to the focus of this study, the foregoing defnition indicates that religious communities can develop and grow as a multitude of glocalities.
Subsequently, the end condition produced by glocalisation or to be accurate, by multiple glocalisations, is glocality, or again, to be accurate, it is a multitude of glocalities. Just like glocalisation, glocality is an abstraction; it exists in multitudes produced empirically in various contexts through localglobal interaction. Although glocalisation designates a process of refraction
through the local, glocality designates a condition whereby the end state of glocalisation is glocally experienced (Roudometof, 2015a, p. 399).
In other words, this perspective emphasizes the particular experiences of each religious community (abroad). Religions (in the diaspora) can thus be examined as a multitude of religious glocalities that may develop a diverse pathway of glocalization for each community, congregation, parish, or faith-group. They are more independent from each other than envisaged by a more general glocal religious theory.
exploring DiaSpora religionS aS glocal religionS
Some social scientists have addressed the topic of migration by underlining both its historical continuity and its multiple cultural aspects. In this endeavor, some of them have adopted glocalization as a theoretical framework in which to develop diverse analytical categories with which to examine the “progressive ‘diasporization’ of the planet” (Bauman, 2013, p. 2) from a sociocultural perspective (Bauman, 2013; Giulianotti & Robertson, 2006, 2007; Morawska, 2014). In other words, through glocalization, they have focused on the encounter between the receiving culture and the sending one, as well as on the interaction between the native societal groups and those in the diaspora.
As stated in the Preface to this book, the expression that it adopts to denote the relationship between religion and migration is religion in diaspora or diaspora religion (Cohen, 2008, p. 152). In this regard, Hinnells defnes a diaspora religion as “the religion of any people who have a sense of living away from the land of the religion, or away from ‘the old country’” (1997, p. 686). Moreover, Ter Haar (1998) connects religion and diaspora through the assumption that the concept of migration contains that of diaspora, and ‘as a rule’ migrants belong to and practice a religion.4
Against this background, a further theoretical step requires identifying an approach with which to explore religions in diaspora from a glocal perspective. In this regard, in his studies on Orthodox Christianity and
4 Some scholars have pointed out controversial aspects to linking the concepts of diaspora and religion. For instance, Cohen (2008, pp. 150-154) takes a critical position by emphasizing that a religion may involve various national communities; a national community abroad may be characterised by the presence of various faiths; a religion may be spread around the globe, and not have a homeland to which it wants to return. For further sociological analysis on the subject, see Vertovec (2000).
globalization, Victor Roudometof (2013, 2014a) hypothesizes a model comprising four paths of religious glocalization: vernacularization, indigenization, nationalization, and transnationalization. These paths seem to show concrete historical examples of fusion between religious universalism and local particularism, since each of them highlights a blend between a religion and a particular human setting (such as empire, ethnicity, and nation-state). This book considers them as key dimensions with which to examine the sociocultural and religious traits of a religion in diaspora. These crucial dimensions appear to shed light on the main aspects and processes that may generate noticeable hybridization within the establishment of a diaspora religion in the host country. Put differently, each of these key dimensions offers a fruitful basis on which to order global/local relationships within settlement of a diaspora religion through a focus on its vis-à-vis two or more cultures.
- Vernacularization or vernacular dimension: This blends religious universalism with a vernacular language. It is certainly far more common in premodern cultures, in which access to sacred texts was limited and religious effcacy could be linked to a certain language. Perhaps the most prominent example of vernacularization is found in the Islamic world. Indeed, Arabic serves as the religion’s sacred language even in cultural contexts outside the Arabian countries. On the other hand, still today the sociolinguistic study of a diaspora, or the analysis of its vernacular dimension, may furnish a distinctive perspective on its sociocultural organization (Reiter & Rojo, 2015). Moreover, it can stress the extent of the global/ local nexus within an immigrant community, since the linguistically mediated social experiences which defne the local context are related to global structures and relationships (Slembrouck, 2011). According to the research approach reported in this book, the adoption of the host country’s language by a diaspora religion is one of the main aspects of intergenerational tensions besides hybridization with the new sociocultural context (Ebaugh & Chafetz, 2000). Finally, the use of this language in religious services—the so-called liturgical language—is a signifcant sign of the depth of a diaspora religion’s glocalization.
- Indigenization or indigenous dimension: This blends religious universalism with a specifc ethnicity, thereby generating rituals and symbols which shape the religious group’s identity. In many cases, in fact, a sense of distinctiveness results from the blending of religious and ethnic traits within a national community. The premodern kingdoms and principalities made regular use of these processes in order to bolster their rulers’
legitimacy. On the other hand, legacies of these latter endured or resisted far beyond premodern regimes and are still infuential today. In the study of diaspora religions, this key dimension shows how ethnic traits favor or restrain the glocalization of an immigrant community in a host country (Lindley, 2002). Furthermore, the terms indigenous or indigenization may assume two different meanings: the former concerns the ethnic identity of a diaspora religion, which is linked to its national heritage; the latter meaning instead relates to the process whereby a diaspora religion becomes an indigenous religion through the completion of its hybridization in the host context. In the sociological study of Eastern Orthodoxy, this path means that a diaspora religion becomes a local Orthodox church marked by canonical autonomy (or struggling for it) and completely merged with the new sociocultural environment (Roudometof, 2014a, pp. 119-136).
- Nationalization or national dimension: The principal difference between nationalization and the previous dimension discussed is that the nation serves as a foundation for the religious institution’s claim to legitimacy. Nationalization stems from the use of religion as a potential source for the formation of nations or the intertwining of religious and national markers. Generally, nationalization operates through the construction and reproduction of a close relationship between confessional membership and modern national identity. The boundaries that separate the national from the indigenous dimension are established in part by the civic nature of the nation. In accordance with the research approach adopted here, to be stressed is that the nationality of an immigrant group may favor or discourage its religious glocalization in a given host country. This key dimension related to religious glocalization seems more infuential in the diasporas of national churches where national, ethnic, and religious identities appear to intersect with each other (Turcotte, 2012). For instance, cases of xenophobic propaganda by political parties against a certain immigrant community may make the religious glocalization of its main diaspora religion more controversial;
- Transnationalization or transnational dimension: The global construction of the modern state and the nationalization of its citizens have necessarily empowered this dimension. Broadly speaking, the notion of transnationalism refers “to multiple ties and interactions linking people or institutions across the borders of nation-states” (Vertovec, 2009). In this context, migrants reconstitute their bonds simultaneously with their host and home countries and engage in a creative process of blending aspects from both realms. As will be shown in Chap. 4, which comprises a
theoretical section on the subject, transnationalism is not only a crucial dimension for observing the glocalization of a diaspora religion, but also a prime feature of the latter. However, it may assume diverse intensities and follow diverse trajectories, as well as exerting diverse impacts on both the diaspora and the church of origin.
In conclusion, these key dimensions furnish a nuanced description of the establishment of religion in diaspora through cultural emphasis on multiple layers. Hence, hybridization will be detected mainly by looking at the sociocultural and religious encounters of diaspora religion with the host country, as well as at its engagements with native social groups and fresh challenges.
a Sociological approach to orthoDox chriStianity
Orthodox Christianity or Eastern Orthodoxy is the second-largest branch of Christianity, with approximately more than 250 million adherents. It operates as a communion of 14 autocephalous churches, each governed by its hierarchy, and by some autonomous metropolises and archdioceses under the jurisdiction of these independent churches. This Christian tradition does not have a central ecclesiastic authority, unlike the power assigned to the bishop of Rome (the Pope) in Catholicism. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (henceforth EP) is recognized as primus inter pares, or ‘frst among equals’, by the Orthodox churches (as will be explained more thoroughly in the next section). The Eastern Orthodox Church was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church until the East-West Schism in 1054, which disputed in particular the authority of the bishop of Rome.
The term Eastern has been adopted to differentiate this church from the Western one during and after the religious split. Historically, the presence of the Orthodox faith was rooted in the Eastern part of Christendom, that is, in the current countries located in Southeast and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus region, and in the whole Russian area. The term Orthodox derives from the Greek words orthos, which means ‘right’, and doxa, which means ‘belief’. Thus, the word Orthodox means ‘correct belief’ or ‘right thinking’. In fact, Orthodoxy claims to practice the original Christian faith as transmitted by the true tradition established by Jesus Christ. In this regard, the double meaning of the Greek word doxa, which also means ‘glory’ or ‘glorifcation’, reveals the belief of Orthodoxy that it practices
the original forms of Christian worship, as well as underlining its attention to the liturgical dimension of the church’s life.
Following this overview, a frst sociological refection on Eastern Orthodoxy must dwell on the sociocultural trends that have historically developed around its theological teachings on the Tradition. As mentioned earlier, Orthodox churches stress their fdelity to the apostolic tradition and the ecclesial patterns of Early Christianity, referring to the scriptures, the ecumenical councils, the ancient canons, and the writings of Church Fathers. Generally, they refer to this body of norms, rules, and forms as the Holy Tradition. The latter may be considered the crucial feature of Eastern Orthodoxy with respect to Catholic and Protestant churches. In this regard, the theologian Fr. John Anthony McGuckin, who belongs as a cleric to the jurisdiction of the Romanian Orthodox Church in the United States (the USA), writes as follows.
One of the most commonly used phrases in the theological vocabulary of the Orthodox is ‘The Holy Tradition’. In former times this notion had some resonance with Western Catholics, but perhaps a little less in the present era of extensive theological and cultural changes affecting Roman Catholicism. For Protestants, the term usually brought to mind many of the reasons for which they had originally challenged Latin Catholicism in the Reformation era, accusing it in several instances with corrupting the biblical tradition of Christianity in favour of its own ‘customs and traditions’ (McGuckin, 2008, pp. 90-91).
As McGuckin claims, the conception of Holy Tradition concerns Orthodoxy’s distinctiveness within the Christian milieu, which shapes the essence of its basic theological vision. On the other hand, as noted by McGuckin, “it may be the case that some of the less educated Orthodox equate the tradition with everything that happens in church as they currently experience it (for better or worse, good practice or bad)” (2008, p. 90). It thus becomes essential to establish its theological defnition. According to McGuckin, “Orthodoxy understands the Holy Tradition to be the essence of the life-saving Gospel of Christ brought to the world through the church by the power of the Holy Spirit of God. The tradition is, theologically speaking, how the Spirit is experienced within the Church of Christ as the charism of Truth” (2008, p. 90). Prior to McGuckin, among the many Orthodox conceptions formulated on the Tradition, the well-known Russian theologian Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) offered this nuanced perspective:
Tradition is not a sort of archaeology, which by its shadows connects the present with the past, not a law, it is the fact that the life of the Church remains always identical with itself. Tradition receives a ‘normative’ value precisely because of this identity. And as the same spirit dwells in each man living the life of the Church, he is not limited to touching the surface of Tradition, but, in so far as he is flled with the spirit of the church, he enters into it (1935, p. 26).
In McGuckin and Bulgakov’ statements, it seems that the work of sociologists may resemble the vision of the “less educated Orthodox” who frame the church’s tradition by focusing on symbols, rituals, and customs, that is, “touching the surface of Tradition”. Dealing with this pertinent issue, to be mentioned is the more inclusive notion which was developed for the frst time in the 1930s by a group of Russian theologian émigrés in France as the title of a collection of articles, that is, ‘Living Tradition’ (YMCA, 1930).5
Forty years later, Fr. John Meyendorff (1978) adopted the same title for his notable book, which surveyed the Orthodox understanding of Tradition by setting it in relation to modern society and contemporary challenges. Not by chance, Meyendorff was a theologian of the Orthodox diaspora in the USA and a cleric belonging to the Orthodox Church in America (i.e. the indigenous North American Orthodox church—see the next section).
Meyendorff concluded his book by arguing that Christian solutions to social challenges can never be absolute or perfect; rather, they should use as their starting point and criterion the mysterious and transcendent communion that lived within the church (Meyendorff, 1978, p. 201). However, he noted that “historically Orthodox Christians frequently looked for substitutes for this initial and basic criterion. The Byzantine Empire provided one; nationalism later presented another” (1978, pp. 201-202). In short, this view appears to invite sociologists to focus on the above “substitutes” in order to explore the aspects and dynamics developed by Orthodox churches in their sociocultural ‘living’ of the Tradition.
Sociologists are also required to detect the impacts of the “normative value” of the Tradition’s identity that Bulgakov described, through which (to a certain extent) “the life of the Church remains always identical with itself”. According to Max Weber’s theory (1978), indeed, Orthodoxy’s traditional approach has been enhanced particularly by the predominant liturgical and sacramental dimension that it has maintained along the centuries, as well as by
5 Also Fr. Bulgakov was a Russian emigrant in Paris.
its elaboration of a ‘cosmic’ Christian vision. More specifcally, Weber (1973, pp. 144–145) argued that within Orthodoxy seems to persist a specifc mysticism linked to the typical beliefs of the East, which shows itself as a knowledge of the meanings of the world through a relationship with God.
In order to approach the societal and cultural trends experienced by Orthodoxy around the sociological core of Tradition, it seems suitable to start from a general historical consideration. Throughout their histories, in fact, the territories with an Orthodox majority did not experience the ensemble of sociocultural, economic, and scientifc factors that arose in the wake of the Renaissance in the ffteenth century, and of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. Mainly for historical reasons of a geographical and political nature, there were a few actual encounters between Eastern Christian churches and the main model of modernity developed in Western Europe (Makrides, 2012a, 2012b; Preda, 2013).6 In this circumstance, the crucial feature of Orthodoxy (i.e., its fdelity to the Holy Tradition) appeared to play a central role in shaping a social traditionalism within Orthodox churches. By offering multiple forms of conservative reference and self-protection, it seemed to infuence Orthodoxy’s interactions with sociocultural domains as well as its stances on modern and contemporary challenges.
[For Orthodox churches,] the purpose of this continuous quoting [of past sources] was to justify traditionalist policies and orientations and to condemn various attempted changes or innovations. Characteristically enough, we are not talking here about religious and theological contexts alone. The same holds true for secular contexts as well, which were equally infuenced by this kind of Orthodox traditionalism. The question is whether there is an intrinsic connection between the Orthodox and social traditionalism or if these are simply parallel and coincidental phenomena. The Orthodox usually try to fnd pertinent answers or solutions with reference to a normative and binding past, which is somehow regarded as a panacea beyond time and space. It appears, however, that there was indeed a strong interplay between Orthodox and social traditionalism in certain historical periods, although
6 The sociological debate on the topic of religion and modernity is characterized by manifold positions (Pollack & Rosta, 2018). In recent decades, several scholars (Asad, 1993; Casanova, 1994; Eisenstadt, 2003; Said, 1978; Turner, 1994) have maintained that some social theories deemed to be universal are adequate only for analysis of Western socioreligious contexts. Until the end of the last century, in fact, many sociologists adopted the historical and societal experiences of Protestantism and Catholicism in the West as their sole points of reference. They thus neglected religious experiences in other world areas, such as those of Eastern Christianity (Hann, 2011). This book does not enter directly into this debate. However, it adopts an extended and inclusive notion of modernity, referring to it as the main model of modernity developed in Western Europe, or as the broad Western modernity project.
always in relation to the overall conditions of the time and numerous other factors (Makrides, 2012b, p. 21).
As underlined by Makrides, the bonds between Orthodoxy and social traditionalism are not obvious; nor are their historical paths and intersections. However, the societal dimension of Orthodoxy’s traditionalism may be primarily related to its elaboration of critical and/or conficting teachings with respect to the broad Western modernity project. This general stance emphasizes a defensive symbolic character of the Holy Tradition, as well as suspicion of sociocultural and religious encounters with other domains (Agadjanian, 2003, 2010).7 Thus, the category of the West has functioned as a marker of difference from what is considered to be the essence of Orthodoxy, and ironically it has become a constitutive aspect of the Eastern Orthodox imagination (Demacopoulos & Papanikolaou, 2013). Recently, this controversial attitude has become more evident in the tensions that arise in the engagement of Orthodox churches with some contemporary challenges, such as gender-sensitive issues, LGBTQI movements, scientifc advances, and human rights.
From the historical point of view, other differences of Eastern Orthodoxy with respect to Catholicism and Protestantism in addressing certain complex processes should be considered, since they have favored progressive ‘demarcations’ of their positions. For example, one should consider the historical ways in which Orthodox churches have faced the modern formation of the nation-states. Following again Max Weber’s perspective (Kalberg, 2012), the traditional and identitarian character of Orthodoxy has been enhanced by a “unique religious universe” centered on the pathways of monasticism and asceticism, which appeared to have given rise to a conservatism merged with ethnic and national traits. In fact, Orthodox churches have sought to be the monopolist mark of the cultural and religious identity of their country. This overlapping of national and religious identities has generated minor paths of religious nationalism (Leustean, 2014), increasing the establishment of contentious facets of a widespread Orthodox traditionalism.
Furthermore, it should be also emphasized that the latter has been enhanced by the lack of civil and social capital as well as the economic diffculties experienced by countries with an Orthodox majority under
7 For two leading views of Orthodox churches on this subject, one should consider the documents The Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church (Osnovy, 2000) and For the life of the world of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America (GOARCH, 2020)
communist regimes (Djankov & Nikolova, 2018).8 As became more evident in the postcommunist period, the conservative stances of Orthodox churches were also affected by the harsh legacies of the previous political period. As Prodromou (2004) stated, the memories of the communist regime are still alive within Orthodox churches, causing an Orthodox defcit in the fresh resources necessary to deal with some contemporary challenges. Whilst during the second half of the last century the other two Christian traditions—Catholicism and Protestantism—adopted religious reforms and innovations with respect to changes occurring in modern society, the Orthodox churches seemingly remained anchored to the points of reference of an “imaginary idyllic past” (Ramet, 2006, p. 150).
In this regard, it is important to emphasize the plurality of modernization processes experienced by the countries with an Orthodox majority, as well as their diverse historical encounters with certain Western European processes (Guglielmi, 2022). Referring to this societal diversity of the Orthodox countries, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the new international period since the 1990s have favored new encounters of Orthodox churches with other sociocultural, religious, and political domains. This trend is substantially apparent for the Orthodox-majority countries both internal to the European Union (EU) (such as Romania, Greece, and Bulgaria) and external to it as neighbor or candidate countries (such as Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, and Macedonia). Particularly, the processes of European integration have been a testing ground for the Orthodox churches. They have shaped the diverse Orthodox responses to some EU reforms concerning church-state relations and human rights (Guglielmi, 2021; Leustean, 2018a; Payne, 2003; Stoeckl, 2014).
On the other hand, in some cases Orthodox churches are appearing to deal more fexibly with some contemporary issues. This more accommodating approach appears to change its features and intensity according to the jurisdiction and the sociocultural context concerned. Among the clearest examples is the recent decision by the Ecumenical Patriarchate— criticized among Orthodox churches—to allow its clerics to marry a second time in certain circumstances (Maragós, 2018). This religious reform addresses the current social crisis of the institution of the family, even in the private lives of priests, thus facing an issue that, today, more frequently affects the church’s mission. This change has been followed by other
8 This is only a brief sketch of a complicated subject. For a nuanced historical description of religion under socialism in Romania, which sheds light on the contextual Orthodox dynamics, see Stan and Turcescu (2007) and Leustean (2009).
M. GUGLIELMI
adaptations negotiated by this Orthodox church with respect to some contemporary challenges. They may concern, for instance, a more inclusive approach to administration of the Holy Eucharist to the faithful, the systematic formulation of ecological and social teachings, and the development of a dominant interreligious and ecumenical agenda.
In short, despite the widespread traditionalism described in this section, a research perspective should dismiss a vague depiction of Orthodoxy as an infexible religious system or as an inert religion. Rather, scholars should pay attention to the manifold elements that constitute Orthodox conservatism, which, on the contrary, appears to be very dynamic and not lacking in practical compromises. I would stress this assumption, since during my feldwork the Orthodox churches in Italy appeared to combine both defensive and engaging positions, proving able to address the multiple challenges raised by migration. Especially the BOR seemed able to handle its new condition as a religious minority (abroad) by adopting fresh practices and fexible routines which reshaped Orthodoxy’s more customary social traditionalism.
the eaStern orthoDox DiaSpora(S)
The question of the Orthodox diaspora has long been debated by scholars, as well as being at the center of ecclesial conficts within the Orthodox Eastern Communion. Generally, the discussions are marked by a canonical perspective focused on the normative or legal condition of the Orthodox diaspora in Western countries. In this regard, the theological and public debates on the subject appear dominated by the issue of multiple jurisdictions (Hämmerli, 2010).9 From the canonical perspective, the declaration by the Orthodox churches that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome is uncanonical created an ecclesiastical void in the traditionally non-Orthodox territories. Thus, especially in recent centuries, the question of
9 Hämmerli (2010) presents a list of fve issues based on the canonical tradition and the ecclesiology of Orthodoxy, which concern the broad question of Orthodox diaspora: violation of the principle of territoriality; disrespect for the traditional boundaries of dioceses; ethnophyletism (see the next note for an overview); diminution of the universality of the Orthodox Church; power conficts related to the issue of the diaspora’s canonical status. This section focuses only on the frst and last issues, which are the ones most closely connected to the sociological analysis conducted in this book.
