North American Buddhists in social context 9789004168268, 9789047443537

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Preface: On the Being of Not Being (William H. Swatos, Jr., page vii)
1. North American Buddhists: A Field of Study? (Paul David Numrich, page 1)
2. Themes and Issues in the Study of North American Buddhists and Buddhism (Janet McLellan, page 19)
3. Temple and Society in the New World: Theravada Buddhism and Social Order in North America (Carl L. Bankston III and Danielle Antoinette Hidalgo, page 51)
4. The Buddhist Mission of North America 1898-1942: Religion and Its Social Functions in an Ethnic Community (Arthur Nishimura, page 87)
5. Japanese American Religiosity: A Contemporary Perspective (Tetsuden Kashima, page 107)
6. "True Buddhism is Not Chinese": Taiwanese Immigrants Defining Buddhist Identity in the United States (Carolyn Chen, page 145)
7. A Religious Minority within an Ethnic Minority: Korean American Buddhists (Karen Chai Kim, page 163)
8. The Emergence of a New Buddhism: Continuity and Change (James William Coleman, page 185)
9. Soka Gakkai: Engaged Buddhism in North America (Constance Lynn Geekie, page 203)
Afterword: Modernization, Globalization, and Buddhism (Joseph B. Tamney, page 225)
Contributors (page 243)

Citation preview

North American Buddhists in Social Context

Religion and the Social Order An Official Publication of the Association for the Sociology of Religion

General Editor

William H. Swatos, Jr.

VOLUME 15

North American Buddhists in Social Context Edited by

Paul David Numrich

BRILL LEIDEN « BOSTON 2008

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data North American Buddhists in social context / edited by Paul David Numrich. p. cm. — (Religion and the social order ; v. 15) Includes index. ISBN 978-90-04-16826-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Buddhism—Social aspects—North America. I. Numrich, Paul David, 1952— BQ736.N67 2008 294.3°097—de22 2008009735

ISSN 1061-5210 ISBN 978 90 04 16826 8 © Copyright 2008 by Koninklyke Brill NV, Leiden, ‘The Netherlands. KKoninklyke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Niyhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklyke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Preface: On the Being of Not Being wo eeeeeeeseereeeeeee VI WitiiaM H. Swaros, JR.

1. North American Buddhists: A Field of Study? oe. l Paut Davin NumricH 2. ‘Themes and Issues in the Study of North American Buddhists and Buddhism oo... eeeecceeeeeeeeeeeestssssteeeeeeeere, = LQ JANET McLELLAN

3. ‘Lemple and Society in the New World: ‘Theravada

Buddhism and Social Order in North America we 1 Cari L. Bankston II] AND DANIELLE ANTOINETTE HIDALGO

4. The Buddhist Mission of North America 1898-1942:

Religion and Its Social Functions in an Ethnic Community 87 ARTHUR NISHIMURA

5. Japanese American Religiosity: A Contemporary Perspective ‘PETSUDEN KASHIMA ou... cecccccceeeeeeeeseeeeeeseessesssessssessssssssssseeee LOZ

6. “True Buddhism is Not Chinese”: ‘Taiwanese Immigrants

Defining Buddhist Identity in the United States wo. 145 CAROLYN CHEN

7. A Religious Minority within an Ethnic Minority: Korean American Buddhists oe... eeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeessesttttetttttteereeeeeeee 163 KAREN CHaArI Kim

8. The Emergence of a New Buddhism: Continuity and CHANGE ooeeeeeeeeeececeecccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesstseesseestsssttttetteeteeeeeeee LOD

JAMEs WILLIAM COLEMAN

9. Soka Gakkai: Engaged Buddhism in North America ............ 203 CONSTANCE LyNnN GEEKIE

v1 CONTENTS Afterword: Modernization, Globalization, and Buddhism ......... 225 JosepH B. ‘VAMNEY ClOMtriDUtOLrs ....eee eee ceseesccceceeeeeccceeeeeecccessseccessssesccsssssessesssstsssessssee 243

PREFACE: ON ‘THE BEING OF NOT BEING William H. Swatos, Jr.

How does Buddhism fare in North America as we come to the end of the first decade of the third Christian millennium? Perhaps I am entirely wrong, but 1t seems to me that Buddhism—and the study of Buddhism—in North America fared better a decade ago than it does now. I think this has relatively little to do with Buddhism itself, but rather with the impact that the events of 11 September 2001 had on the United States and drew the attention of America and most of its western allies to the impact of Islam in the age of globalization—negatively. ‘hat is, American colleges and universities seem particularly bent at this time on instituting a variety of programs of study and faculty

appointments that focus on aspects of Islam. In some instances this may be in the context of “know thine enemy.” In others, the concern may be to integrate existing Muslim citizens and resident aliens into the American melting pot of the Abrahamic traditions that established the “religion of civility” that characterized the broad expanse of the

“Judeo-Christian ethic” as the dominant articulation of “one nation under God” in the 1950s. ‘The multidirectional, multifocused expansion of Islamic studies particularly with reference to American security concerns appears to have had as an unintended consequence a relative

deemphasis on the study of contemporary Buddhists and their place in our society. There are, after all, only so many new faculty hires or endowed chairs an institution can reasonably create. As something of a via negatwa, Buddhism may also in certain respects lend itself to a process of relative neglect: it’s easier to overlook a monastic self-immolation in

Cambodia than a hyacked plane flown into the World ‘Trade Center. Although scholars like ‘Thomas Tweed (1992) and Joseph ‘Tamney (1992) have both explored the historic roots of Buddhism in America,

it is likely the case that, except for residents of the west coast and Hawaii, contemporary North Americans’ awareness of Buddhism can be traced to two almost diametrically opposed events: military incursions into Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia, on the one hand, and the fight of the Dalai Lama from ‘Tibet on the other. ‘These international events have exposed North Americans to a variety of forms of Buddhist

Vil PREFACE expression, some of which have become more domesticated than others. Immigrant Buddhisms have operated on a largely separate trajectory, and as chapters in this book show, have quite different characteristics depending upon the group involved, including both distinctive forms of Buddhist practice within the various cultures of origin from which

people immigrate, on the one hand, and whether the immigration results from a conscious motivation to pursue “the American dream” (relocation) or refugee flight from a desperate situation (dislocation). North American Buddhism has also developed a domestic version, which has had limited direct effect in 1ts numbers of formal conversions to Buddhism, but has created an intellectual environment among both Americans either reared in or practicing within the Judeo-Christian tradition that could have potential for cross-fertilization between the two traditions. One strand of this can be traced to the Episcopalianpriest-turned-Buddhist Alan Watts (e.g., 1957, 1959, 1973), whose work particularly interfaced with the growth of the anti-Viet Nam War movement. ‘This strand also saw the late-in-life revival of works by D. 'T-

Suzuki (e.g., 1961). There was an influence from within Christianity itself, leading both to Buddhist-Christian dialogue and to a movement

in the religious and liturgical life, especially among some Roman Catholics and Anglicans, in particular those influenced by the ‘Trappist

monk ‘Thomas Merton, who ironically died of accidental electrocution while attending a Buddhist conference in ‘Thailand in 1968. The introduction for the 1971 edition of Merton’s Contemplate Prayer, for example, 1s written by Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Zen monk who innovated the phrase “engaged Buddhism,” and whose Living Buddha, Lwing Christ was marked with a tenth anniversary edition in 2007. Other evidences occur in the academic journal Buddhist-Chnistian

Studies, now in publication for over a quarter of a century, but also at the local level in dialogues between Buddhist and Christian religious (see Bender and Cadge 2006). I am grateful to Paul Numrich for bringing these chapters together in a single volume to encourage us to engage Buddhism as a North American religious tradition of sociological significance at many different levels.

ON THE BEING OF NOT BEING 1X References Bender, Courtney and Wendy Cadge. 2006. “Constructing Buddhism(s): Interreligious Dialogue and Religious Hybridity.” Sociology of Religion 67: 229-47. Hanh, Vhich Nhat. 2007. Living Buddha, Lwing Christ. New York: Penguin. Merton, Thomas. 1971. Contemplate Prayer Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Suzuki, D. 'T. 1961. Essays in Ken Buddhism. New York: Grove Weidenfeld. Tamney, Joseph B. 1992. Amencan Society in the Buddhist Mirror. New York: Garland. Tweed, Thomas A. 1992. The Amencan Encounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Watts, Alan. 1957. The Way of Xen. New York: Pantheon. ——.. 1959. Beat en, Square Xen and Xen. San Francisco: City Lights. ———.. 1973. In My Own Way: An Autobwgraphy. New York: Pantheon.

Blank page

CHAPTER ONE

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? Paul David Numrich

The present volume grew out of a joint thematic session, “Dharma Crossing Boundaries: Buddhist Culture in the New World,” at the 2006 annual meetings of the Association for the Sociology of Religion and the American Sociological Association. As the session’s discussant, I wondered aloud whether current scholarly research on North American Buddhists constitutes a “field of study.” ‘The question remains, and in this chapter I will present evidence for why this 1s so and indicate what it would take in the way of outcomes for it to be answered positively.

Disciplines and Fields of Study

The literatures of academia (e.g., Klein 1990: 104-07; Geiger 2004: 20-30) and Buddhist studies (discussed below) sometimes elide the concepts of “field of study” and “discipline.” I consider a discipline to be the broader entity within which fields of study can be distinguished. For instance, religion is a field of study within the discipline of sociology.’ A topic becomes an interdisciplinary field of study when the scholarship reaches a high level of cross-disciplinary productivity, sophistication, and integration. ‘The criteria establishing either a disci-

pline or a field of study are the same (which may help to explain the conceptual elision), and can be arranged under three broad, overlapping categories: (1) specialization—through scholarly training, theoretical assumptions, technical terminology, and research questions and methods; (2) organization—through professional associations, regular meetings and conferences, and academic departments and programs;

' Others may wish to call sociology of religion a subdiscipline of sociology. Geiger (2004: 24) identifies three “major disciplinary groups” in academia: humanities, social sciences, and “hard” sciences. In this scheme, sociology would be a branch or division of the social sciences, sociology of religion a sub-branch or subdivision.

2 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH and (3) publicatton—through Ph.D. dissertations, articles in specialized and other journals, books and edited volumes on the specific topic, and contributions to volumes not solely on the topic—with quality controlled through scholarly peer review. One indicator of a discipline’s or a field of study’s maturity 1s critical self-reflection and internal debate about the very coherence that distinguishes it from other disciplines or fields of study.

By the end of the 1990s, several scholars heralded the arrival of a new field of study focused on North American Buddhists, seeing it as a subfield of Buddhist studies (also known as Buddhology), North American religious history, or both (Eck 1999; Queen 1999; Seager 1999a, 1999b, 2007; Williams 1999; Gregory 2001; Tweed 2000; Prebish

2002; Numrich 2003).* How well does this claim hold up in light of the three criteria for field-of-study status? Specialization

The evidence regarding specialization in the topic of North American Buddhists 1s ambiguous. There is no doubt that more scholars today than ever before consider this topic “a primary or secondary research interest” (weed 2000: xv) and that academic hirings pay more attention to this interest than in the past (Prebish 2002: 74-78). However, a residual snobbery that this topic does not constitute “real Buddhist Studies” still exists among Buddhologists (Prebish 2002: 75), while this research interest can easily get crowded out in a social scientist’s career. As an example of the latter, one of the brightest young sociologists of religion publishing on this topic is Wendy Cadge. Her book, Heartwood: The Furst Generation of Theravada Buddhism in Amenca (2004), has received

well-deserved critical acclaim, while her essays on North American Buddhists are consistently informative and insightful (Wuthnow and Cadge 2004; Cadge and Sangdhanoo 2005; CGadge 2007). Yet Gadge’s faculty Web page at Brandeis University (retrieved 7 October 2007) lists Buddhism as one of eight areas of expertise, while only one-third (8 of 24) of her impressive list of publications focuses primarily or significantly

on Buddhists in North America. Does this qualify as specialization in

* Note that every author cited here is a humanities-based scholar. In an earlier essay, Thomas ‘Tweed (1997: 190) subsumed Buddhists under the “new subfield of Asian religions in America,” which he located within the larger fields of Asian religions and American religious history.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 3

the topic? What 1s the minimum percentage of one’s scholarship necessary for specialization? Are the disincentives to concentration on this topic too strong, for instance inadequate organizational infrastructure

(discussed below), lack of research funds available for this topic, or professional necessity to diversify (meaning, following whatever research leads come one’s way)? This last has certainly guided many of my own research decisions.

The theoretical assumptions, technical terminology, and research questions and methods necessary to a specialization are at an early stage of formation in this topic. At the end of the 1990s, Richard Seager (1999a: xu) found the published works in what he considered the emerging field of American Buddhism “often running at cross-purposes because they come out of different disciplines and lack a set of clearly defined, common questions.” My own assessment is that the topic of North American Buddhists draws primarily bi-disciplinary interest from scholars in the humanities and the social sciences, and that these scholars have yet to achieve significant interdisciplinarity in their combined body of work. ‘The social scientists researching this topic tend to come from sociology, anthropology, and ethnic studies; the humanities-based

scholars from Buddhist studies (Buddhology), comparative religion, and North American religious history. Kew can claim bi-disciplinary expertise, and thus we are often bemused by simplistic “Buddhism 101” descriptions by social scientists on the one hand and dilettantish social science by Buddhologists on the other.

There has been considerable critical debate among researchers of North American Buddhists about at least one issue—namely, constructing a satisfactory typology of Buddhist identities. ‘This manifests particularly in the debate over the “two Buddhisms” categorization.’ I see this as evidence of early conceptual negotiation of a research topic rather than an indicator of a field of study’s mature critical self-reflection and internal debate about what distinguishes it from other fields. Organization

The second category of criteria for a field of study includes professional associations, regular meetings and conferences, and academic departments

’ For a summary of the debate, and my own advocacy of the two Buddhisms paradigm, see Numrich 2003.

4 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH and programs. Here, too, we see evidence of growing interest in the

topic of North American Buddhists, but that interest has not yet achieved organizational coherence and independence. Writing at the end of the 1990s, Frank E. Reynolds (1999) heralded the “coming of age” of Buddhist studies or Buddhology in the United States. Around that same time, Charles S. Prebish (1999, 2002) and

Bruce Matthews (2000) shared similar sentiments about Buddhist studies in North America generally. There is an important distinction, not always clearly articulated in the literature, between Buddhological studies conducted by North American scholars and the study of North American Buddhists, the latter not a necessary aspect of the former. Moreover, the literature sometimes groups North American Buddhists with Buddhists in other parts of the world outside of Asia, often under the rubric of “Western Buddhism,” thus making it difficult to determine whether North American Buddhists are a distinct research focus. ‘The question at issue in this chapter 1s whether there is a field (or subfield) of the study of Buddhists living in North America. There is no doubt that the number of faculty and courses in Buddhology has greatly increased in recent years, but these are still generally subsumed under existing departments in the humanities. Jose Gabezon (1995: 255) has written of “the diversification of the [ North American] buddhologist” in pursuing topics outside of Buddhist studies proper, while Prebish (1999: 195), referencing Cabezon, concludes that “it 1s no longer completely clear what constitutes a full-time Buddhologist” in North American universities. Once beyond the few programs with multiple specialists in Buddhism, such as the University of Chicago and McMaster University, Buddhologists are stretched thin across North

American academia. And although attention to the study of North American Buddhists may be more prominent in the North American branch of Buddhist studies than elsewhere (Reynolds 1999; Matthews 2000), its extent and influence have yet to be demonstrated. ‘The residual snobbery that studying North American Buddhists does not constitute “real Buddhist Studies” is still a factor in many university programs. Whether or not it 1s a factor at the University of Chicago and McMaster University, the topic of North American Buddhists nowhere appears among the research and teaching interests listed on the Web pages of their Buddhologists (retrieved 7 September 2007). In leu of a specialized professional association, most North American Buddhologists have found a home in the American Academy of Religion (AAR), particularly in the Buddhism Section established in

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 5

1986 (Cabezon 1995: 255; Prebish 1999: 183-96, 2002). Although the Section professes that it is “increasingly” interested in Buddhism in “the West,” its offerings at AAR annual meetings do not reflect this interest. Of 144 papers offered at the Buddhism Section since 2000, only one has focused on North American Buddhists.* Perhaps in reaction to this lack of follow through, an AAR program

unit entitled “Buddhism in the West Consultation” was initiated in 2007. According to its self-description, The Buddhism in the West Consultation seeks to a) provide a venue for new studies on Buddhism in non-Asian locales, b) further communication and exchange between scholars working on Buddhism outside of Asia, and c) offer a forum within which to collectively clarify the intellectual

and methodological underpinnings of research on Buddhism in the West, and consider new possibilities in methods and approaches.... The Consultation hopes not only to nurture a rapidly growing subfield but to stimulate interest in this area in related disciplines, such as Buddhist Studies and American Religious History.’

Interestingly, this group makes a case for a “rapidly growing subfield” of study on Buddhists in the West even as they pledge to “collectively clarify the intellectual and methodological underpinnings of research” in that subfield. ‘This implies that the purported subfield has not yet attained significant conceptual coherence. Moreover, it 1s not clear from the wording at the end of the statement in what field(s) the group wishes to locate this subfield. Since consultation status is the lowest in the hierarchy of AAR program units (with a three-year lifespan to make a case for some kind of continuation), and since only one of the four scheduled papers for the 2007 meeting appears to have a substantive connection to Buddhists in North America, I cannot consider this strong evidence for a shift in interest among AAR Buddhologists. Reynolds (1999: 460-61) identifies the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) as another professional home for Buddhologists. He reported

approximately 200 such scholars in the AAS in 1997, an unknown number of whom, he suggested, probably also belonged to the AAR. As with the AAR, the offerings on North American Buddhists at AAS * ‘This information derives from the Buddhism Section Newsletter listings for 2000— 2003 (available at http://www.h-net.org/~buddhism/aar-bs/index.html) and the AAR annual meeting program for 2007 (available at http://www.aarweb.org); information for 2004-2006 is not posted. A second paper may have touched on North American Buddhists, but this is not clear from the title. > Available at http://www.aarweb.org (retrieved 7 September 2007).

6 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH annual meetings are meager. In the annual meetings from 2000 to 2007, only one paper (on religion in ‘Toronto’s Chinatowns) and one panel (on Buddhist Arts in Diaspora) appear even to have touched briefly upon this specific topic. ‘The program unit under which these were listed (Border-Crossing), plus another unit called Interarea, have featured papers about specific Asian groups in diaspora, so the topic of Asian Buddhists in North America 1s pertinent to the AAS. It 1s simply vastly underrepresented. Facilitation of papers and presentations on North American Bud-

dhists at the annual meetings of other scholarly associations or at stand-alone conferences appears to be ad hoc rather than deliberate. Prebish (2002: 73-74) gives Just four examples from the 1990s: two “genuinely scholarly” conferences which produced the edited volumes The Faces of Buddhism in Amenca (Prebish and ‘Tanaka 1998) and Amencan Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship (Willams and Queen

1999), and two annual conference panels, one at an International Association of Buddhist Studies (ABS) meeting, the other at a Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR)/Religious Research Association (RRA) meeting. Ongoing interest in North American Buddhists in these organizations has been minimal, however. SSSR/RRA annual meetings

have featured approximately twenty papers on this topic since 2000, representing less than one percent of the total number of papers at these meetings. ‘he percentage of papers on North American Buddhists

at the annual meetings of a similar organization, the Association for the Sociology of Religion, has been approximately the same.° There is some promise for continuing coverage in the meetings of the IABS,’ but as we shall see, that association’s journal has featured North American Buddhists only minimally. Publication

The argument for field-of-study status for North American Buddhists can best be made in the category of publication. ‘Tweed (2000: xv) * SSSR/RRA annual meeting information for the years 2000-2006 is available at http://rra.hartsem.edu, ASR annual meeting information for the years 2001-2007 (2000 is not listed) is available at http://www.sociologyofreligion.com.

’ T was unable to secure past programs for IABS conferences. The preliminary program for the 15th Congress (2008) lists a total of 57 panels and sections, a handful of which could schedule papers on North American Buddhists (http://www.religion. emory.edu/iabs2008/panelsandsections.htm, retrieved 16 September 2007).

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 7

wrote of a “boom in scholarship about American Buddhism” in the 1990s. ‘Uhis was certainly true relative to the dearth in previous decades

(cf. Numrich 1996), but has the publication “boom” continued to reverberate?

The number of Ph.D. dissertations reflects the importance of a research topic in academia. Although dissertations on North American Buddhists grew steadily in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, they still comprised a meager six percent of the total number of dissertations on all Buddhist topics granted by American and Canadian universities in those decades. ‘The claim that this indicated a field of study was premature (see Wilhams 1999: 262). ‘The percentage jumped consider-

ably in the years 2000-2006 to nearly 16 percent of the total, but it remains to be seen whether such healthy interest can be maintained for the remainder of this decade.° ‘The number of articles in specialized and other scholarly journals also reflects the status of a research topic. ‘Uhere currently 1s no specialized

journal on North American Buddhists. Of the journals on Buddhism likely to run articles on this topic, the online Journal of Global Buddhism has given the most coverage: seven of twenty-five total articles (28 per-

cent) since the journal’s inception in 2000. Even so, the trend at JGB has been diminished coverage over the years: six of those seven articles appeared in the first three years. Moreover, since 7GB is non-refereed, the quality of articles on this topic may be uneven. Other journals on Buddhism that might be amenable to articles about North American Buddhists include Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Pacific

World (third series), Buddhist-Chnstian Studies, and the online Journal of Buddhist Ethics. Goverage here is sparse, with less than eight percent of the combined articles in these journals since 2000 devoted to this topic (approximately twenty-five articles). Pacific World ran a special section on “Japanese Buddhism in America” in 2003, but there has been nothing

° The figures in this paragraph derive from my analysis of the lists compiled by Williams (1999) for the years 1970-1997 and the dissertations archived in the ProQuest Dissertations and ‘Theses database for the years 1998-2006 (http://proquest. umi.com). Williams’s lists show 44 dissertations on North American Buddhists over 28 years, an average of only about 1.5 per year. Moreover, Williams also listed Master’s and undergraduate senior theses, thus creating the appearance of more sophisticated scholarship than there was in fact. Only three of the 26 pre-Ph.D. authors in Williams’ lists eventually wrote a doctoral dissertation on Buddhism, all three about Buddhists outside of North America.

8 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH comparable on the comprehensive topic of North American Buddhists in any of these journals since 2000.” The record is abysmal in scholarly journals that do not specialize in Buddhism yet might be amenable to articles about North American Buddhists. Since 2000, less than twenty articles have appeared in Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Fournal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Sociology of Religion, Review of Religious Research, Amerasia Journal, Journal

of Asian American Studies, and Canadian Ethnic Studies, a mere one percent

of the combined number of articles. Again, the topic is pertinent to the interests of these journals—Sociology of Religion, for example, ran a special issue on American Jews in 2006, so a special issue on North

American Buddhists is not out of the question. Given this dearth of journal coverage of the topic, I must conclude that submissions are lacking in number and/or quality. ‘This does not argue for robust, cutting-

edge scholarly research on this topic. The chapters in the present volume cite a combined total of less than twenty journal articles on North American Buddhists since 2000. ‘These are spread out across a dozen journals (five more than those mentioned here), indicating a willingness to publish worthy articles when available. The most compelling evidence for field-of-study status for North American Buddhists is the increase over the past two decades in the number of books and edited volumes specifically on this topic, along with contributions to volumes not solely on the topic (see ‘Tweed 1997, 2000; Gregory 2001). ‘The chapters in the present volume cite a combined total of 29 such sources on North American Buddhists published since 2000, even as this volume itself extends this body of work. Considering all the evidence in the categories of specialization, organization, and publication, I would grant the topic of Buddhists in North America the status of a “proto-field” at present. In other words, it has not progressed beyond the earliest stages of development. We might consider it a field-in-the-making that may or may not mature. Some years ago, Peter Gregory wrote of the “still primitive level of sophistication” of what he called “an exciting new subfield within American religion, on the one hand, and within Buddhist studies, on the other”

” There are a few years or issues missing in the information available for some of these journals. Nevertheless, the aggregate number of issues since 2000 that I was able to review (47) is large enough to indicate a pattern.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 9

(2001: 246, 233). Development has been uneven since then, particularly in the interdisciplinarity of the scholarship on this topic. But before considering that issue further, I should mention in pass-

ing the large body of non-scholarly literature by and about North American Buddhists, to which some notable scholars of Buddhism and Buddhist “scholar-practitioners” (Prebish 1999, 2002) contribute. This includes media coverage of the topic (e.g., the Religion and Ethics Newsweekly cover story, “Tensions in American Buddhism”’),'” plus what I would call “adherent literature” like Tricycle: The Buddhist Review (e.g., Nattier 1995), Turning Wheel: ‘The Fournal of Socially Engaged Buddhism (e.g.,

Tanaka 2000), and the volume of proceedings of a 1997 conference in Boston, entitled Buddhism in America (Rapaport and Hotchkiss 1998),

that makes a point of being experiential rather than academic (e.g, Thurman 1998). Scholars who participate in these ventures certainly help to raise the general profile of Buddhists in North America, but the non-refereed status of such work does little to advance the scholarly corpus on this topic.

The Question of Interdiscyplinanty

I noted earlier that a topic becomes an interdisciplinary field of study when the scholarship reaches a high level of cross-disciplinary productivity, sophistication, and integration. I also argued that, at present, the topic of North American Buddhists draws primarily bi-disciplinary interest from scholars in the humanities and the social sciences, and that these scholars have yet to achieve significant interdisciplinarity in their combined body of work. Of course, in an important sense, this topic necessarily crosses disciplinary lines in that it concerns a contemporary lived religious tradition. But that does not guarantee interdisciplinarity in its study. For instance, in the years 2000-2006, eighteen Ph.D. dissertations on North American Buddhists granted by non-social science departments or programs listed social science keywords in their descriptors. By my assessment of their abstracts, less than half of the 18 employ a sophisticated social scientific analysis.

'° 6 July 2007; http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ religionandethics/week445/buddhismhtml (retrieved 16 September 2007).

10 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH We do well to consider further the two disciplinary approaches to our topic, and to speculate on the prospects for true interdisciplinarity. Humanities-Based Scholarship on North American Buddhists

Humanities-based scholars have taken the lead in producing comprehensive surveys of North American Buddhists (e.g., Prebish 1979, 1999;

Seager 1999a, 1999b). Of 54 different contributors writing on North American Buddhists in four recent edited volumes, the great majority (41, or 76 percent) are trained in the humanities, only eight (15 percent) in the social sciences. [he dominance of the humanities-based perspective in these volumes is even greater than these percentages indicate, given that nearly one-fourth (10 of 41) of the humanities scholars are multiple contributors (Prebish and ‘Tanaka 1998; Williams and Queen 1999; Prebish and Baumann 2002; Matthews 2006a). Many of the humanities-based scholars writing on North American Buddhists were trained in Buddhist studies or Buddhology, a scholarly field of study dating back (in its modern form) to the late 19th century and today evidencing mature critical self-reflection and internal debate about its coherence (Conze 1968; Ruegg 1992; Cabezon 1995; Gomez 1995; Nattier 1997; Scott 1997; Swearer and Promta 2000; Powers 2002). As we have seen, Buddhist studies has its own professional societies, most notably the International Association of Buddhist Studies (http://www.iabsinfo.net), and specialized journals. It has developed a robust North American presence with a significant number of university programs, faculty, graduate students, and research activities (Webb 1985; De Jong 1997; Reynolds 1999; Matthews 2000; Prebish 1999, 2002). Buddhology’s residual snobbery regarding the study of North American Buddhists stems largely from its preference for historical texts, which

it adopted trom its parent field, comparative religion. ‘Traditionally, Buddhist studies has “focus[ed] on the written, doctrinal text as the principal object of investigation,” explains Jose Cabezon (1995: 261-62)

in an important critical review of the field. He continues: This emphasis on the conceptual, chirographic and doctrinal seems to be in large part inherited from monastic Buddhism itself, where we often find a rhetoric that emphasizes the study of texts and the doctrines found in them over the study of other semiotic forms. Be that as it may, it is indisputable that written texts and the doctrines they teach have received a disproportionate amount of attention in the scholarly literature of the field.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? I]

Cabezon and others report a recent trend within the field of Buddhist studies, especially in its North American branch, to “set out in new directions” and take a “more expansive approach” than the classical humanities-based paradigms (Reynolds 1999: 462; also, see Nattier 1997; Matthews 2000). ‘This includes incorporating insights from the social sciences and researching Buddhism on-the-ground as well as inthe-texts. Wishful thinking aside, true interdisciplinarity with the social sciences has not yet been achieved in Buddhist studies. Although the International Association of Buddhist Studies claims to be an interdisciplinary society, articles over the 30-year run of its journal betray minimal representation of social scientific studies. The same can be said about the most recent journal in the field, Contemporary Buddhism, despite its subtitle, An Interdisciplinary Journal (in fact, this journal is self-consciously practice-oriented). And although Cabezon (1995: 255) considers the American Academy of Religion, the primary professional

home for Buddhologists, to be “an institution that stresses broad and interdisciplinary research,” its disciplinary breadth 1s largely confined to the humanities." Several humanities-based scholars have identified key themes and issues in the scholarly study of North American Buddhists (Prebish 1998, 1999; ‘Tanaka 1998; Queen 1999; Seager 1999a, 1999b, 2007; Gregory

2001; Numrich 2003; Bramadat 2006; Matthews 2006b: xvii—xx1). ‘These include group identities, leadership patterns, organizational life, inter-group relations (among Buddhists as well as between Buddhists and non-Buddhists), adaptation to larger social contexts, race and ethnicity, class, gender, generational dynamics, migration, and transnationalism.

Such themes and issues have been the special purview of the social sciences.

Social Scientific Scholarship on North American Buddhists

Rather than comprehensive overviews, social scientific scholars writing on this topic tend to focus on specific Buddhist populations or groupings in North America, sometimes drawing comparisons to Christian

'! Prebish’s (1999: 183-96, 2002) surveys reveal the preponderance of humanitiesbased training, afhliations, and research interests among the scholars of Buddhism in the AAR. I recall convincing one of the premier sociologists of religion to attend a couple of AAR annual meetings. He did not continue after that, citing the emphasis on texts and doctrines.

12 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH co-ethnics. ‘Uheir works include: (1) books, such as ‘Tetsuden Kashima’s

(1977) classic study of Japanese Buddhists, Janet McLellan’s (1999) analysis of five Asian Buddhist populations in ‘Toronto, Penny Van Esterik’s (1992) depiction of Lao refugees, and discussions of nonAsian “converts” to Buddhism by Joseph B. ‘Tamney (1992) and James Wiliam Coleman (2001); (2) chapters in edited volumes on immigrant

and ethnic groups, such as Karen J. Chai’s (2001) contribution to Korean Americans and Their Religions and Fenggang Yang’s (2000) essay on a Chinese Buddhist temple in Religion and the New Immigrants; and (3) journal articles, such as Carl L. Bankston’s (1997) piece on ‘Vheravada Buddhists in Sociological Spectrum and Carolyn Chen’s (2002) comparison of ‘Taiwanese Buddhists and Christians in Sociology of Religion. A few social scientists have offered more comprehensive analyses of Buddhists

in North America (e.g, McLellan 1998, 1999: 11-34; Wuthnow and Cadge 2004; Smith 2006, 2007). ‘The present volume marks an important milestone. ‘This is the first multi-author collection of social scientific scholarship on the comprehen-

sive topic of North American Buddhists. At the 2006 joint ASR/ASA session, I expressed my wish to see more integrated scholarship between

social scientists and humanities-based scholars, which could begin to move this topic toward becoming an interdisciplinary field of study. It is doubtful that such interdisciplinarity will arise out of either the American Academy of Religion, with its heavy emphasis on classical Buddhology, or the International Association of Buddhist Studies and the Association for Asian Studies, with their emphasis on Asia rather than Asian diasporas. If an interdisciplinary field of study does emerge, it will more likely coalesce through the initiative of scholars researching North American Buddhists in disparate academic homes across both the humanities and the social sciences. I offer the present volume as a catalyst for realizing this wish. I take pleasure in the irony that a humanities-trained scholar has brought together this collection of social scientific scholarship. My appreciation for the social sciences began when my doctoral research in comparative religion took an ethnographic turn (Numrich 1992, cf. 1996).'* For humanities-based readers, this volume illustrates how social scientific

'* My initial dissertation topic was a Bultmannian demythologization of the Pali Buddhist scriptures, consistent with the canons of comparative religion and classical Buddhology.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 13

perspectives and approaches can helpfully inform the study of North American Buddhists in social context. ‘Uhat includes a heavy reliance on empirical research in order to generate data rather than accumulate strings of anecdotes. The well-known quip in social scientific circles, “the plural of anecdote 1s not data,” should caution non-social scientists against generalizing about North American Buddhists based on minimal, unsystematic, or no actual field work.'’ In my mind, insistence on empirical grounding would be the most significant social scientific contribution to an interdisciplinary field of study on this topic, especially when dealing with questions about Buddhist identity and organizational dynamics. For social scientists, the present volume provides a convenient over-

view of important social scientific research by your peers heretofore available only piecemeal. In another place, sociologist Fred Kniss and I argue that sociologists can learn a great deal about religion qua religion from humanities-based scholarship. Ironically, for instance, sociological studies often under-appreciate and under-analyze the very aspects that distinguish immigrant religious associations from other kinds of immigrant associations. Comparative religion, the parent field of Buddhist studies, brings a “close, empathetic attention to religious phenomena” (Kniss and Numrich 2007: 8) that can helpfully inform empirical research and avoid simplistic “Religion 101” portrayals. ‘This 1s particularly important in understanding religious practices and religious factors underlying adaptive processes.

I trust that all readers will find something of value in this volume, which I hope spurs further discussion of a possible interdisciplinary field of study of North American Buddhists.

About the Chapters in This Volume

The chapters in this volume examine the current state of research on North American Buddhists and key aspects of Buddhist life and experience in social context, including group identity and status, religious practices, organizational structures, generational dynamics, relations with

'’ For a discussion of this quip, see the March 2007 Social Science Statistics Blog of Harvard University’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, available at http:// www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/archives/2007/03/the_singular_of.shtml, retrieved 5 April 2007.

14 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH non-Buddhist groups and the larger society, and migratory and adaptive processes. Case studies feature Southeast Asian, Japanese, ‘laiwanese, Korean, meditation-oriented, and socially engaged Buddhists. ‘Uhis list not only covers the major demographics of North American Buddhists but also roughly approximates the distribution between Asian Americans (the majority) and non-Asian Americans. ‘The scholarly literature has not always sought such representative demographic coverage (see Numrich 1996), while popular media continue to privilege non-Asian

meditators in presenting the North American Buddhist “face.” ‘The contributors to this volume, a mix of sociologists and anthropologists, come from the United States and Canada. Chapters 2 and 3 “locate” Buddhists in North America in different ways. Janet McLellan (Chapter 2) provides a comprehensive overview of the themes and issues dominating current scholarship on North American Buddhists. Carl L. Bankston HI and Danielle Antoinette Hidalgo (Chapter 3) offer an extended theoretical discussion of two forms of maintenance in a social order—regular patterns of interaction and cooperative relations—and then illustrate these forms with the case of North American Theravada Buddhists. Subsequent chapters focus on other North American Buddhist cases.

Two authors explore the long-term presence of Japanese American Buddhists. Arthur Nishimura (Chapter 4) traces the institutional story of the Buddhist Mission of North America (now the Buddhist Churches of America) down to World War II, while Tetsuden Kashima (Chapter 5) presents a comparative analysis of contemporary Japanese American religiosity. ‘he rest of the volume covers Buddhist groups with a primarily post-1960s presence.'* Carolyn Chen (Chapter 6) and Karen Chai Kim (Chapter 7) discuss Chinese American Buddhists and Korean American Buddhists, respectively, both authors comparing co-ethnic Christians. James William Coleman’s chapter (8) on meditation-oriented Buddhists and Constance Lynn Geekie’s chapter (9) on Soka Gakkai

deal with predominantly non-Asian Buddhist groups. ‘he variety of North American Buddhist experiences comes through in this volume, as do the commonalities that tie all Buddhists together as minorities

'* Dividing North American immigration history into pre- and post-1960s eras is common in the scholarly literature due to the significant policy changes enacted in both Canada and the United States in that decade.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 15

in North American society—for most, a double minority by religion and race.”

References Bankston, Carl L. II. 1997. “Bayou Lotus: ‘Theravada Buddhism in Southwestern Louisiana.” Sociological Spectrum 17: 453-72.

Bramadat, Paul. 2006. “Foreword.” Pp. xii-xv in Buddhism in Canada, edited by Bruce Matthews. New York: Routledge. Cabezon, Jose Ignacio. 1995. “Buddhist Studies as a Discipline and the Role of ‘Uheory.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 18: 231-68. Cadge, Wendy. 2005. Heartwood: The First Generation of Theravada Buddhism in America.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ——. 2007. “Reflections on Habits, Buddhism in America, and Religious Individualism.” Sociology of Religion 68: 201-05.

——— and Sidhorn Sangdhanoo. 2005. “Thai Buddhism in America: An Historical and Contemporary Overview.” Contemporary Buddhism 6: 7-35. Chai, Karen J. 2001. “Intra-Ethnic Religious Diversity: Korean Buddhists and Protestants in Greater Boston.” Pp. 273-94 in Aorean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore, edited by Ho-Youn Kwon, Kwang Chung Kim

and R. Stephen Warner. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Chen, Carolyn. 2002. “The Religious Varieties of Ethnic Presence: A Comparison between a laiwanese Immigrant Buddhist Temple and an Evangelical Christian Church.” Sociology of Religion 63: 215-38. Coleman, James William. 2001. The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Conze, Edward. 1968. “Recent Progress in Buddhist Studies.” Pp. 1-32 in Thirty Years of Buddhist Studies: Selected Essays by Edward Gonze. Golumbia: University of South

Carolina Press. De Jong, J. W. 1997. A Brief History of Buddhist Studies in Europe and America. ‘Vokyo: Kosei Publishing. Eck, Diana L. 1999. “Foreword.” Pp. 1x—xi in American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and Christopher S. Queen.

London: Curzon Press. Geiger, Roger L. 2004. To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Unwersities,

1900-1940. New Brunswick, NJ: ‘Transaction Publishers. Gomez, Luis O. 1995. “Unspoken Paradigms: Meanderings through the Metaphors of a Field.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 18: 183-230.

Gregory, Peter N. 2001. “Describing the Elephant: Buddhism in America.” Religion and American Culture 11: 233-63.

'" T wish to thank Kevin J. Christiano who, as ASR President, helped to organize the joint thematic session at the 2006 ASR/ASA meetings, and William H. Swatos, Jr, ASR Executive Officer and general editor of the Religion and the Social Order series, who first suggested the possibility of this volume. I owe special gratitude to Fred Kniss, director of the McNamara Center for the Social Study of Religion at Loyola University Chicago, my congenial research home for most of the past decade, for his astute comments on a previous draft of this chapter.

16 PAUL DAVID NUMRICH Kashima, ‘letsuden. 1977. Buddhism in America: The Social Organization of an Ethnic Religious

Institution. Westport, C’'T: Greenwood Press. Klein, Julie Thompson. 1990. lnterdisciplinanty: History, Theory, and Practice. Detroit, MI:

Wayne State University Press. Kniss, Fred and Paul D. Numrich. 2007. Sacred Assemblies and Cwic Engagement: How Religion Matters for Amenca’s Newest Immigrants. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Matthews, Bruce. 2000. “Buddhist Studies in Canada.” Pp. 144-66 in The State of Buddhist Studies in the World, 1972-1997, edited by Donald K. Swearer and Somparn

Promta. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Center for Buddhist Studies. ——., ed. 2006a. Buddhism in Canada. New York: Routledge. ——., 2006b. “Preface.” Pp. xvi-xxui in Buddhism in Canada, edited by Bruce Matthews. New York: Routledge.

McLellan, Janet. 1998. “Buddhist Identities in ‘Toronto: The Interplay of Local, National, and Global Contexts.” Social Compass 45: 227-45. ——, 1999. Many Petals of the Lotus: Fiwe Asian Buddhist Communities in Toronto. ‘Toronto:

University of ‘Toronto Press. Nattier, Jan. 1995. “Visible and Invisible: Jan Nattier on the Politics of Representation in Buddhist America.” Tricycle 5: 42-49. ——, 1997. “Review Essay: Buddhist Studies in the Post-Colonial Age.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65: 469-85.

Numrich, Paul David. 1992. “Americanization in Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples.” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. ——, 1996. Old Wisdom in the New World: Amencanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples. Knoxville: University of ‘Tennessee Press.

——., 2003. “Two Buddhisms further Considered.” Contemporary Buddhism 4:

55-78. Powers, John. 2002. Review of The State of Buddhist Studies in the World, 1972-1997, edited by Donald K. Swearer and Somparn Promta. Journal of Global Buddhism 3: 36-45. Prebish, Charles 8. 1979. American Buddhism. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. ——., 1998. “Introduction.” Pp. 1-10 in The Faces of Buddhism in America, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. ‘Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——, 1999. Luminous Passage: The Practice and Study of Buddhism in America. Berkeley:

University of California Press.

——., 2002. “Studying the Spread and Histories of Buddhism in the West: ‘The Emergence of Western Buddhism as a New Subdiscipline within Buddhist Studies.” Pp. 66-81 in Westward Dharma: Buddhism beyond Asia, edited by Charles 8. Prebish

and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prebish, Charles 8S. and Martin Baumann, eds. 2002. Westward Dharma: Buddhism beyond

Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press. Prebish, Charles S. and Kenneth K. ‘Tanaka, eds. 1998. The Faces of Buddhism in America.

Berkeley: University of California Press. Queen, Christopher S. 1999. “Introduction.” Pp. xiv-xxxvui in Amencan Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and

Christopher S$. Queen. London: Curzon Press. Rapaport, Al and Brian D. Hotchkiss, eds. 1998. Buddhism in Amenca. Rutland, VT: ‘Luttle.

Reynolds, Frank E. 1999. “Coming of Age: Buddhist Studies in the United States from 1972-1997. Fournal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 22: 457-83.

Ruegg, D. Seyfort. 1992. “Some Observations on the Present and Future of Buddhist Studies.” Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 15: 104-17.

NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS: A FIELD OF STUDY? 17 Scott, David. 1997. “The Study of Buddhism: Issues and Challenges.” Buddhist Studies Review 14: 141-68. Seager, Richard Hughes. 1999a. Buddhism in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

———.. 1999b. “Buddhist Worlds in the USA: A Survey of the Territory.” Pp. 238-61 in American Buddhusm: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship, edited by Duncan

Ryuken Williams and Christopher $8. Queen. London: Curzon Press. ———, 2007. Review of Wendy Cadge, Heartwood: The First Generation of Theravada Buddhism in America. Journal of the American Academy of Religion 75: 481-84.

Smith, Buster G. 2006. “Buddhism in America: An Analysis of Social Receptivity.” Contemporary Buddhism 7: 149-64.

———, 2007. “Variety in the Sangha: A Survey of Buddhist Organizations in America.” Review of Religious Research 48: 308-17.

Swearer, Donald K. and Somparn Promta, eds. 2000. The State of Buddhist Studies in the World, 1972-1997. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Center for Buddhist Studies. Tamney, Joseph B. 1992. Amencan Society in the Buddhist Mirror. New York: Garland Publishing. Tanaka, Kenneth K. 1998. “Epilogue: ‘The Colors and Contours of American Buddhism.” Pp. 287-98 in The Faces of Buddhism in America, edited by Charles S. Prebish

and Kenneth K. ‘Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press. ———., 2000. “Asian American Buddhists Look at Buddhism in America.” Turning Wheel Fall: 16.

Thurman, Robert A. FE 1998. “Toward an American Buddhism.” Pp. 450-68 in Buddhism in Amerwa, edited by Al Rapaport and Brian D. Hotchkiss. Rutland, WTI: ‘Tuttle.

‘Tweed, ‘Thomas A. 1997. “Asian Religions in the United States: Reflections on an Emerging Subfield.” Pp. 189-217 in Religious Dwersity and American Religious History:

Studies in Traditions and Cultures, edited by Walter H. Conser, Jr. and Sumner B. Twiss. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. —., 2000. The American Encounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912: Victorian Culture and the Limits of Dissent. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Van Esterik, Penny. 1992. Taking Refuge: Lao Buddhists in North Amenca. Vempe, AZ: Arizona State Univeristy. Webb, Russell. 1985. “Buddhist Scholarship in Canada.” Buddhist Studies Review 2: 47-65. Williams, Duncan Ryuken. 1999. Appendices A and B. Pp. 262-311 in Amencan Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams

and Christopher S. Queen. London: Curzon Press. ——— and Christopher 8S. Queen, eds. 1999. Amencan Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarsup. London: Curzon Press.

Wuthnow, Robert and Wendy Cadge. 2004. “Buddhists and Buddhism in the United States: The Scope of Influence.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 43: 363-80. Yang, Fenggang. 2000. “The Hst-Nan Chinese Buddhist Temple: Seeking to Americanize.” Pp. 67-87 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations, by Helen Rose Ebaugh and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Blank page

CHAPTER TWO

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS AND BUDDHISM Janet McLellan

Since the mid-1960s, social and immigration changes in North America

have rapidly expanded the presence and practices of non-Christian religious minorities from numerous ethnic, racial, linguistic, and national backgrounds. Many North American cities are now home to a diverse array of ashrams, temples, mosques, and gurdwaras, representing Asian religions and Islam from East and Southeast Asia, Africa, the West Indies, the Middle East, India and Pakistan (Warner and Wittner 1998; McLellan 1999; Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000; Eck 2001; Smith 2002; Bramadat and Seljak 2005). As an integral part of modern global population movements to multiple nation-states, these religions in diaspora manifest new social forms, types of consciousness,

and innovative modes of cultural production (Vertovec 1997, 2003; Chandler 2002; Leonard et al. 2005). Generational complexities and the involvement of individuals who have developed relatively new associations with these religions significantly contribute to their diverse and shifting configurations within the North American context. ‘The rapid growth of Buddhism within the last 40 years highlights this extensive multi-religious phenomenon, particularly in regard to its nuanced social intersections and sometimes contradictory dynamics. Much of the literature concerned with Buddhism and Buddhists in North America reflects a humanities-based religious studies approach that emphasizes American encounters with Buddhism (texts and religious representatives), the transmission and modification of teachings and lineages, gender dynamics, interfaith dialogue, social engagement,

and the Buddhist impact on popular and elite cultures (Fields 1986; Kraft 1988; Boucher 1993; ‘Tsomo 1995; Prebish and ‘Tanaka 1998; Seager 1999; ‘Tweed and Prothero 1999; Queen 2000; Coleman 2001; Mullen 2001; Prebish and Baumann 2002). Although smaller numbers of ethnographic studies have provided significant data on Buddhist immigrants and refugees, as well as those who have different kinds of

20 JANET MCLELLAN afhliations or commitments with Buddhist beliefs and practices (Kashima 1977; Kawamura 1977; Preston 1988; Dorais 1989; Van Esterik 1992; Numrich 1996, 2000; McLellan 1987, 1999; Smith-Hefner 1998; Machacek 2001; Chen 2003; Suh 2004), conceptual frameworks informed by

broader social scientific perspectives are less common (Preston 1982; Gussner and Berkowitz 1988; Huynh 2000; Numrich 2003; Wuthnow and Cadge 2004; McLellan and White 2005; McLellan 2006). The thematic explorations presented in this chapter rely to some extent on descriptive and ethnographic research involving Buddhists in Toronto, a major part of my research into Canadian Buddhism and related topics in which I have been engaged since 1985. ‘The city of Toronto has changed dramatically within the last 40 years and now represents one of the most diverse Buddhist presences in North America. Toronto’s immigrant Buddhist diversity 1s detailed both through class

and status distinctions arising from pre-migration characteristics and experiences and through the impact that migration processes have had on a group or community’s ability to re-establish or redefine Buddhist identities and traditions. Buddhists who utilize religious beliefs, practices, and institutions to enhance ethnic, national, and linguistic identities are differentiated from those, who in the literature, are commonly identified as converts, although the validity of the criteria supporting conversion 1s questioned. ‘This chapter examines the extent to which different groups

or communities work toward public presence and social inclusion that, in turn, reflects the role that social capital plays in enabling them to engage in the politics of recognition and representation (ranging from local social service involvement to that of transnational networks and linkages). ‘The concluding analysis of generational continuities and conflicts highlights ongoing changes and challenges to Buddhism within the larger North American context, complicating existing conceptual frameworks for the analysis and identification of Buddhists.

Census Numbers and Identification of Buddhists in North America

Although thousands of Buddhist temples, meditation centers, and Buddhist associations can be identified in North America (Numrich 1996, 1999; Morreale 1998; Prebish and ‘Tanaka 1998; McLellan 1999;

Matthews 2006), there is no adequate means to determine an accurate count of Buddhists. Wuthnow and Cadge (2004: 364) note that “credible estimates of the number of Buddhists in the United States at the

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 21

start of the 21st century range from 1.44 million,” reflecting all those identified as Buddhist and/or afhlated with Buddhism. Smith (2002)

argues that the higher proportions of Buddhists among American student samples make any overall consensus more difficult, especially when compared to Hindu and Muslim populations who do not have the same range and type of adherents, or social influence. Canadian census data are chronically under-representative and do not reflect overlapping categories of religious identity.

The federal census lists a nationwide total of just over 300,000 Buddhists, with almost half residing in the province of Ontario, and 97,165 of those residing in ‘loronto (Statistics Ganada 2001). I have suggested (1999: 13) that a more realistic estimate of Buddhists in the Greater ‘Toronto Area might well total more than 250,000, reflecting community figures that correlate Buddhism with cultural, ethnic, and homeland identities. Asian Buddhist temples in ‘Toronto commonly determine membership by counting households, not individuals; one household may include three generations, as well as extended family members who frequently are involved with several religious athliations or syncretic combinations. Unless there 1s extensive fieldwork famuiliarity with particular groups, using membership figures for quantification is an unreliable index since “different groups use different criteria of membership, some employ different categories of membership, some

keep more accurate or up-to-date figures than others, some tend to inflate membership, and newer and smaller groups may not keep any records” (Gregory 2001: 237). Many individuals consider themselves “Buddhist” but have no group or temple affiliation, and conversely, some may attend group or temple events but do not consider themselves exclusively “Buddhist,” maintaining multiple religious afhliations.

The 2001 Statistics Canada census identified Chinese as the largest ethnic and visible minority presence in the Greater ‘Toronto Area, representing almost one quarter of the total four million population. Although a large number of Chinese immigrants in ‘Toronto are associated with some form of Christianity, this often entails the simultaneous maintenance of other religious loyalties. Depending on situational contingencies, Loronto-based Chinese from Hong Kong, ‘Taiwan, or Southeast Asia may identify themselves as Confucian, Christian, and/or Buddhist. Some individuals may concurrently attend Chinese Christian business breakfast meetings or belong to a Chinese Christian church, volunteer at a Buddhist temple in the evenings by serving on the board of directors or a committee, send their children to an

22 JANET MCLELLAN after-school Confucian-modelled education program, and participate in Buddhist ceremonies honoring deceased family members (McLellan 1999: 164; Yang 2002). Similar religious blendings are found among Cambodians and Vietnamese who converted to Christianity in refugee camps or through their relocation sponsorship process; the observance of Buddhist and other traditional rituals is not considered inappropriate, particularly those related to ancestors (Rutledge 1992; Douglas 2005). Asian individuals in ‘Toronto who do not overtly identify themselves as Buddhist continue to go to the temples for religious participation during special holidays such as New Year or Buddha’s birthday (similar to the Christian practice of going to church only at Christmas and Easter); during life crises, accidents, or illness; for death and memorial services; and for celebratory occasions such as weddings, family reunions, and graduations. Gans (1994) identifies this kind of behavior as “symbolic religiosity.” ‘Ioronto Buddhist temples reflect a variety of participants, from occasional visitors and cultural or educational program attendees, to lay devotees who routinely seek petitionary prayers, blessings, or opportunities to make merit, to the highly committed core members (often identified by Buddhist names, robes worn during services, particular initiations, and an intensity of service or involvement), who perform

the bulk of administrative and organizational roles. Non-Buddhist, non-Asian spouses at Asian-oriented temples present another kind of participants, who are strong supporters but not necessarily adherents of Buddhist beliefs and practices (Padgett 2002; Perreira 2004). The complexity of Buddhist athhation observed among Buddhist immigrants and refugees complements ‘Tweed’s (2002) range of nonAsian Buddhist adherents and sympathizers who also exhibit multiple sources and sites of religious identification. Classifying North American Buddhists into broad categories such as convert and ethnic (the latter also referred to in the literature as heritage, cradle, culture, or baggage) is too simplistic and reductionistic to reflect the diverse range of assoclational contexts, beliefs, syncretic practices, and types of participation. Numrich (2003, 2006) provides an excellent overview of the historical development of various typologies utilized by scholars to distinguish the long-established Chinese and Japanese communities in North America from newer Asian immigrants and refugees, and both from so-called converts who comprise a vast range of racial, ethnic, class, and national backgrounds, identified by Seager (1999) as Euro American/ Caucasian, Black, and Hispanic. Rather than reiterate Numrich’s comprehensive coverage of the ongoing discourse, attention 1s given here to the largely

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 23

uncontested use of the term “convert” in the literature (Goleman 2001: 196; Gregory 2001: 242). While certain Buddhist groups such as Soka Gakkai have developed clear criteria for conversion (Hammond and Machacek 2004; Numrich 2006: 216), material on the missionizing dimension for most other forms of Buddhism in the West 1s lacking (Obadia 2001: 95). Learman’s (2005: 3-10) analysis of modern “Buddhist missionaries” 1s one of the few that express a range of analogies and models to depict how changes in religious affliation are understood, particularly as they reflect the specifics of the Buddhist mission (1.e., as foreign, diaspora, or domestic) in which conversion arises. Without analysis of the underlying motivations of those involved in the missionizing process, it is difficult to contextualize the “convert” or conversion dynamics. Chandler (2005: 178) notes that non-Chinese attracted to Foguang temples because of their interest in Buddhist teachings often clash with prevalent organizational values, especially the emphasis on Chinese identity and its cultural accretions. When Buddhism is closely conflated with a particular Asian ethno-cultural worldview, individuals from other cultures and worldviews may adhere to generalized religious ideals or practices but reject the notion that they have converted. For many non-Asians attracted to Buddhism, becoming a convert to an ethnically identified temple or tradition may require an extensive adjustments that could cause conflicts or confusion between social and religious identities. ‘The lack of kinship ties or shared historical heritage exacerbates language, ethnic, and cultural differences, frequently leading to the development

of “parallel congregations’ wherein non-Asians prefer to gather at separate times and learn about Buddhism under the guidance of an English-speaking teacher (Numrich 1996, 2000: 196; McLellan 1999: 207). As Baumann (2002: 56) and Numrich (2003: 67) point out, while Asians participate in more “traditional” forms, non-Asians are taught a modernist type of Buddhism that emphasizes rational and scriptural elements with the practice of meditation, and excludes ethno-cultural rites and ceremonies. Tweed’s (2002) discussion of night-stand Buddhists, sympathizers, and

adherents is supported by Wallace (2002: 34) who draws on Stark and Bainbridge (1985) to type non-Asian Buddhists as occasional “audience”

' Numrich (2000, 2003, 2006) advocates the value of the “two Buddhisms” typology of “culture” and “convert” Buddhists in North America.

24 JANET MCLELLAN participants, those with student/teacher relationships, and those who have a self-conscious sense of conversion, referring to themselves as “being Buddhist.” ‘This range of involvement reflects the gradations of commitment that Kanter (1968) identified in other religious communities, beginning with an initial investment and sacrifice (of time, money, resources), developing increasing cohesive and community bonds with others in the group, to full organizational and ideological adherence. Danyluk (2003), however, details the hesitation many highly committed practitioners have in labeling or categorizing themselves as Buddhist, let alone as converts, depicting what Queen (1999: xvu) refers to as a “composite persona” of “multi-layered religious identities in transition.” From this perspective, the multiple and overlapping aspects of religious identity and afhliation among non-Asian Buddhist “converts” is similar

to that observed among Asians in North America who “convert” to Christianity or “rediscover” Buddhism, reflecting both migratory and generational contingencies (Kendis 1989; Rutledge 1992; Kamenetz 1994; Boorstein 1997; Chandler 1998: 23; McLellan 1999: 58; Ne 2002; Numrich 2003: 66; Douglas 2005). Rather than utilizing the ambiguous, and in many ways inappropriate term “convert,” closer attention to Marler and Hadaway’s (2002: 289) distinction between religion and “spirituality” or “spiritual seeking” may represent a more

“functional and intrinsic dimension” better suited to identify those who undertake Buddhist practices and commitments. In his analysis of the religious motivations of the Buddha’s original disciples, Brekke (2002: 47-55) also rejects the Christian-based Pauline paradigm of conversion (and subsequently the term “convert’) as being suitable to examine religious changes of individuals already on a path of religious seekership. Preston’s (1981, 1982) “practitioner’s” approach that correlates the physiological and consciousness experiences of meditative practices with behavioral and attitudinal consequences, both shaped and sustained by interaction with and the support of others within a shared group context, has more applicability than either a JudeoChristian or stage model of conversion (Rambo and Farhadian 1999) to depict non-Asian involvements and commitments with Buddhism. As Numrich (2006: 224) points out, the variables that predispose individuals to pursue one kind of Buddhist practice over others have not yet been substantiated through empirical analysis, leaving a significant gap in the scholarship and too much reliance on “anecdotal reports and philosophical dispositions.”

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 25

The traditionalist/modernist dichotomy that Baumann (2002) suggests between “converts” and “ethnic” Buddhists implies a rigid essentialism that inhibits dynamic and flexible religious responses to social pressures or new needs. Not all “converts” are attracted to or adhere to modernist depictions of Buddhism, and many “ethnic” Buddhists had already critically rejected what they perceive as the ritualism of traditional practices, as well as traditional gender or authority patterns, long before they migrated (Bechert 1984; Gombrich and Obeyesekere 1988). The distinct differences that do remain between Asian and nonAsian Buddhists are more in terms of cultural precedents, religious histories, majority/minority ethnic dynamics, and types of privileged status in racially stratified North American social contexts (Fields 1998; Gregory 2001; Numrich 2003, 2006: 219). Everyday realities of racism and discrimination, combined with marginalization as immigrant minorities, continue to affect Asian Buddhists, even those who trace their North American heritage back to the late 19th century. A complex interplay between traditional continuities and modernist transformations (Innovations, invented traditions) has always been present within

most Asian Buddhist groups and communities in North America. Increasingly, this continuum 1s exacerbated by growing educational and generational differences, the degree to which specific religious practices and beliefs are retained as representations of homeland-based ethnocultural identity, the new kinds of transnational networks and linkages

developed to inform and influence particularized Buddhist identities in diaspora, and the willingness (or necessity) to transform from an ethnic to a multi-ethnic organization (Mullins 1987). Religious, ethnic, and civic identities are all extensively transformed by migration and resettlement, as are the organizational structures and practices that frame religious traditions, systems of monastic support, leadership, and authority patterns (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000; Yang and Ebaugh 2001; Leonard et al. 2005). North American Asian Buddhist groups within a similar ethno-specific tradition can be situated in radically different positions regarding the traditionalist/modernist continuum. Among ethnic Vietnamese Buddhists, for example, those who follow ‘Thich Nhat Hanh’s ‘Tiep Hien Order are closely aligned with modernism, whereas those who adhere to Amida (A-Di-Da) temples would be considered traditionalists. Similarly, Kampuchea Krom (ethnic Khmer from Vietnam) follow the modernist ‘Thommayuth approach to Buddhism, compared to the

26 JANET MCLELLAN majority of Khmer Buddhists from Cambodia who retain the more traditional Mohanikay practice. ‘he Canadian-born and/or Canadianraised children of Khmer Buddhists from Cambodia, however, are attracted to the modernist teachings of the Kampuchea Krom monks, identifying more with a rational approach to Buddhism than with their parents’ ritualism and spirit beliefs. Among the larger Chinese Buddhist temples in ‘loronto, “modernist” and innovative forms of Buddhism are presented (e.g., sutra study classes, meditation instruction, graduated Buddhist education programs) alongside traditional ethno-cultural forms, enabling people simultaneously to retain historical continuity while meeting contemporary needs. Numrich (2006: 221—22) identifies srmilar combinations among Southeast Asian Buddhist temples in Chicago. Rather than being reduced to a single form characterized as “ethnic” or “traditional,” Asian Buddhist identities and practices depict a mix of hybrid combinations of homeland and localized North American loyalties, wherein different components of modernism and traditionalism shift and are expressed according to context and situation (Stepick 2005: 15). Using examples from ‘Toronto, some of these complexities are examined in greater detail in the next section.

Dwersity of Buddhists and Buddhist Communities in ‘Toronto

The Buddhist population in the Greater ‘Toronto Area today is largely comprised of Asian immigrants and refugees. Half of the more than

65 Buddhist temples and associations are Chinese-identified, most established within the last 10 to 15 years. ‘The various groups of nonAsian Buddhists are primarily Canadian-born, but a significant number who participate in various temples and centers are recent immigrants

from Eastern Europe, South America, and Israel. Vipassana, Zen, and Vajrayana are the types of Buddhist meditation most non-Asians practice. In 1951, individuals with Asian origins totalled 0.9 percent of ‘Toronto’s population, rising to 2.5 percent before 1981 (Breton et al. 1990: 19), and by the 2001 census, comprising over 25 percent. In Canada, the 1971 Multiculturalism Act stated that cultural diversity was an integral part of Canadian society and although religious minorities were expected to accommodate to Canadian laws and municipal codes, the Act actively encouraged them to retain strong ethnic and linguistic identities. ‘his resulted in fewer overt pressures of assimilation, particularly regarding Christian conversion tactics as the means to become fully Canadian.

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 27

Until 1966, the only Buddhist presence in ‘loronto was that of the Japanese Canadians at the ‘loronto Buddhist Church. ‘The ‘Toronto Buddhist Church was founded in the late 1940s when the immigrant and Canadian-born Japanese, all forced to relocate from British Columbia following their wartime internment and then dispersed throughout Ontario, were finally allowed into ‘loronto for employment and living opportunities. In contrast to the overt racism and discrimination facing Japanese Canadian Buddhists at ‘Toronto Buddhist Church during the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, all other Asian Buddhist groups in ‘Toronto have resettled within an increasingly multi-cultural, multiracial, and multi-religious context. The formation of ‘The Dharma Centre of Canada in 1966, a non-Asian group under the instruction of a loronto-born Caucasian man ordained as a ‘Theravadan monk in Burma, began a new phase of Buddhism that reflected the overseas travels and interests of North Americans born in the late 1940s and 1950s who oriented themselves to Eastern religious traditions (Preston 1982; Richardson 1985; Kent 2001). In 1967, changes to Canadian immigration law removed specific country restrictions and enabled Asian individuals and their families from Korea, Hong Kong, ‘Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Tibet, Nepal, India, and ‘Vhailand to settle in the ‘loronto area. A year later, two Chinese monks visiting from Hong Kong, the Rev. Sing Hung and the Rev. Shing Cheung, established the first Chinese Buddhist organizations in ‘Toronto, the Buddhist Association of Ganada and Nam Shan ‘Iemple. Over three decades, these two monks developed an extensive Cham Shan temple complex that now includes two separate residences for nuns (Nam Shan lemple and Ching Fa ‘Temple), several afhliated temples and associations in Toronto (such as the Youth Buddhist Activity center, Hong Fa ‘Temple, the ‘Ioronto Buddhist Society, and a Buddhist art gallery), a 24-acre

retreat property in Whitby, the Fah Hoy ‘lemple in Hamilton, the World Peace ‘Ten ‘Vhousand Buddhas Saira Stupa ‘Temple in Niagara Falls, and the International Buddhist Zen ‘Temple (a former hotel), also in Niagara Falls.

In 1971, 228 ‘Tibetans became the first Asian refugees admitted into Canada and resettled in several provinces. ‘Three groups of five to seven families were placed in small Ontario cities within a one- to two-hour drive of ‘Toronto. Within a few years, a small community of ethnic Tibetan Buddhists was established in ‘Toronto, and small groups of Caucasians were founding the first Vajrayana practice centers

under ethnic ‘Tibetan teachers (McLellan 1987). During the 1970s, several ethno-specific temples and Buddhist associations were founded

28 JANET MCLELLAN (representing the Sinhalese, Burmese, Ambedkar [Indian], and Korean

communities), as were loronto-based branches of different North American Zen traditions (Japanese and Korean), and Zen centers under the guidance of an Asian teacher. The first intra-religious Buddhist celebration of Wesak in North America was held in ‘Toronto in 1979, with participation from 15 distinct ‘Loronto-based Buddhist groups (McLellan 1999: 31). Beginning in 1979, the large influx of Indochinese refugees contributed significantly to the growth of Buddhism. Within a decade, over 70,000 Vietnamese, 5,000 Cambodians, and several thousand Lao resided in the Greater Metropolitan Region. By 1987, ‘Toronto’s Buddhist diversity included more than 21 distinct Buddhist temples and practice groups, most of them participating in that year’s co-religious celebration of Wesak. ‘The steady immigration flow from Hong Kong and ‘Taiwan, which began in the early 1980s and peaked by the late 1990s, coupled with ongoing family sponsorship and reunification programs from all Asian communities, steadily increased the number and diversity of Buddhists. During the 1990s, immigrants from Hong Kong and ‘Taiwan represented the largest single source of newcomers to [Toronto (as well as Canada as a whole), comprising two-thirds of the then 350,000 total Chinese in ‘Toronto. By 2001, the total number of Chinese in ‘Toronto increased another 14 percent (2001 Census Data) primarily through immigration from China, which became the largest annual source of immigrants to Canada. Except for the elderly, however, the Chinese pre-migration experiences under the communist political system do not usually include a Buddhist afhliation. It remains to be seen whether the younger mainland Chinese will assume religious identification or activities, as other ethnic Chinese immigrants have done. The most recent increase in the number of ‘Toronto Buddhists 1s due to almost 3,000 ‘Tibetan refugee claimants from Nepal and India who arrived via the United States throughout 2001 and 2002. Most of these ‘Tibetans, including several monks and nuns, have been given official “landed status” as refugees to stay in Canada. They are generally young with high levels of education and their active participation in ‘Tibetan nationalism is correlated with their Buddhist identities, similar to what Mullen (2001) noted in New York. Both the ‘Tibetan community (which was slightly less than 150 individuals in 1999) and local Vajrayana temples have been revitalized by their presence. ‘To date,

ethnic ‘Tibetans still do not have their own temple but tend to use a primarily non-Asian one led by an ethnic ‘libetan Lama or Rinpoche

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 29

(types of teacher), particularly for cultural celebrations (Losar or the Dalai Lama’s birthday), family rituals (naming, weddings, funerals), and

personal needs (blessings, advice). Several of the temples under the leadership of a ‘Tibetan teacher now have various “parallel congregations’ (Numrich 1996): non-Asian practitioners, ethnic ‘Tibetans, Chinese Buddhists who combine Vajrayana practice with more traditional Chinese forms, and ethnic Vietnamese. Special events from a visiting Rinpoche may also draw individuals and small groups who identify with the teacher or particular Vajrayana teachings first encountered in their homeland (West Indies, Southeast Asia, Israel, United States, Europe, South America) through transnational organizations. Buddhist temples and centers in ‘Toronto reflect a variety of teachings, approaches, styles of practice, and traditions representative of traditional Asian Buddhist distinctions: ‘Theravada from Burma/Myanmar, Cam-

bodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, and ‘Thailand; Mahayana from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, ‘Tarwan, and Vietnam; Vajrayana from India, ‘Tibet, Nepal, and Mongolia; and Ambedkar from India (McLellan 1999). New adaptations and innovative traditions are seen in the Zen Vietnamese-founded ‘Tiep Hien Order; the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Caucasian followers of ‘Tibetan Vajrayana teachers; or those temples and group branches of transnational organizations such as the Buddhist Progress Society of ‘Toronto (part of the ‘Tarwanese-based Buddhist Light

International Association or BLIA). Variations of this Buddhist diversity are found in major cities throughout North America (Prebish and Tanaka 1999; Numrich 2000; Eck 2001; Matthews 2006). Buddhists in ‘loronto can be divided into two broad categories. ‘Uhe first category involves smaller communities of less than 5,000, many of whom are identified with a single ethnically homogeneous temple or group (such as the Lao, Sinhalese, Cambodian, Burmese, Ambedkar,

or Japanese Canadians). Ethno-specific temples and groups tend to retain a particular tradition shared with others from similar Buddhist backgrounds and experiences. ‘Tibetans, Koreans, and small groups of non-Asian practitioners are also included in this category although they tend to associate with a variety of temples, meditation centers, and transnational organizations that reflect multiple traditions and Buddhist teachings. he second category in ‘loronto involves the larger numbers of Vietnamese (70,000) and Chinese (500,000 plus). Chinese Buddhists incorporate numerous divisions and “sub-ethnicities” (arising from different ethnic or national origins) associated with multiple types of Buddhist temples, traditions, and practice groups. Among the Vietnamese,

30 JANET MCLELLAN there are at least eight temples (each with its own style of management, type of monastic leadership, and degree of lay involvement in temple affairs) and several meditation groups. One temple may be ethnically

Vietnamese whereas another will incorporate both Sino-Vietnamese and ethnic Vietnamese. ‘he Sino-Vietnamese who affiliate with ethnic Vietnamese temples are distinct from Cantonese-speaking Chinese who resided in Chinese-specific areas of Saigon (Vietnam), did not integrate (or intermarry with Vietnamese) to the same extent, and have their own Southeast Asian ethnic Chinese temples in ‘Toronto. Vietnamese temples also reflect pre-migration divisions along economic, regional, political, and class lines. Chinese Buddhists in ‘loronto are predominantly from Hong Kong and ‘Taiwan, followed by Vietnam and mainland China, then Singapore, Laos, Gambodia, ‘Vhailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, India,

and the West Indies. They speak a variety of languages and dialects (such as Cantonese, Mandarin, Hakka, ‘leochew, and ‘Tatwanese) in over 30 temples and associations. Larger pan-Chinese temples may have

a membership of over 10,000 (comprising a majority of Hong Kong or larwanese, with smaller numbers of Hakka-speaking Chinese from Calcutta, as well as ethnic Chinese from Southeast Asia and the Caribbean), while some of the smaller groups are geared toward particular kinds of Buddhist practices, associations, and backgrounds. Similar to Numrich’s (2000) analysis of Buddhist sites in Chicago, the locations of ‘Toronto temples reflect class and status distinctions. Southeast Asian Chinese who arrived as refugees from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia tend to live within ‘Toronto’s city core, and their temples

are located in renovated buildings. Immigrants from Hong Kong or Taiwan live in the more affluent suburbs of the city and their temples are frequently newly built, located on large properties with ample parking. ‘The newly built temples display a distinct Chinese architectural style and provide highly visible markers of both Chinese and Buddhist

presence. Most of the Vietnamese and smaller Buddhist community temples are scattered throughout the city in residential areas, former churches, or renovated businesses, and not easily identifiable, except for the newly built Sinhalese and ‘Thai temples. Some of the city-based

Tibetan and Zen temples with a majority non-Asian membership also have a distinctive Buddhist presence, although the majority of non-Asian groups do not. In some suburban areas, Asians have faced significant neighborhood hostility with their Buddhist presence, and are unable to utilize their newly established temples beyond housing monastics and holding small gatherings (McLellan 2006). A new Lao

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 3]

temple, recently built on 72 acres just north of ‘Toronto, has also faced discriminatory attitudes from non-Asian neighbors. Lao Buddhists have had to counter idealized cultural stereotypes and constructions of what constitutes “real” Buddhism, particularly “authentic” Buddhist activities and practices. Some of the more blatant discrimination has included

racist commentary in local papers, and the temple being forced to abide by 31 conditions that restrict them from engaging in activities common to nearby Christian churches (such as fund-raising through festivals, bazaars, and bake-sales, limited parking, and no school bus storage), and having to hide their presence/visibility behind fencing or a row of trees (McLellan and White 2005). ‘The particularities and commonalities concerning the range and quality of ‘Loronto Buddhist localities are also illustrated throughout North America. Buddhist temples, groups, and associations in ‘[oronto reflect distinct organizational structures influenced by ethnic, cultural, and linguistic characteristics, conditions of group cohesiveness, and the particular kinds of beliefs and practices to which they adhere. ‘There is enormous variation in the standards and types of religious authority and administrative legitimacy. Buddhism remains, however, the central focus of ethnic identity within many Asian communities. For the majority of Tibetans, Burmese, Cambodians, Lao, ‘Thai, Sinhalese, and Vietnamese, Buddhist temples and associations help them develop and sustain a “collective memory” (Halbwachs 1980) of who they are and where they have come from. Buddhist services, ritual commemorations, cultural ceremonies, perceptions of the past, and an understanding of the present are selected, reinterpreted, or even invented (if necessary) to express redefined facets of ethnic or religious identity. Among groups with distinct generational and group unit activities, the membership base may reflect a complex diversity. ‘[oronto Buddhist Church, part of the large North American Jodo Shinshu tradition, is

comprised of older Japanese immigrants and their Canadian-born children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, recent immigrants from Japan, non-Japanese spouses, mixed-race children, and individuals from a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. ‘This profile provides an excellent example of both generational perpetuation within an ethno-religious community and the ability of a Buddhist tradition to respond to changing religious needs and social climates. Since the majority of Buddhists in ‘Toronto, however, are recent immigrants and refugees who have come to Canada only within the last 25 years, living in such a multicultural city has enabled them, often for the first time,

32 JANET MCLELLAN to be in contact with Buddhists from other backgrounds. Whereas this kind of multiple ethnic, racial, and linguistic context 1s the norm for most Buddhist immigrants and refugees in Canada, the United States has a broader pattern of resettlement that includes relatively isolated Buddhist communities 1n rural and smaller urban locations (Bankston 1997; Eck 2001; Padgett 2002; Matthews 2006). For Asian Buddhist

newcomers, it 1s especially difficult to separate their re-creation of beliefs, practices, and identities from their experiences of migration, resettlement, and subsequent categorization as “visible minorities.” Even

prior to this kind of racial labeling, characteristic of resettlement in western contexts, many have viewed themselves as belonging to distinct Buddhist sub-cultures. The religious commitment of many ‘Tibetan refugees now resettled

in North America has intensified as a crucial element in their active political allegiance and nationalist advocacy, becoming synonymous with their sense of ethnic identity (McLellan 1987; Mullen 2001). In various localities, certain groups of Vietnamese Buddhists maintain distinct identities reflecting their adherence to particular transnational religious organizations, leadership, ideologies, and political discourses arising from the Vietnam War (Dorais 1989; Nguyen and Barber 1998; McLellan 1999: 104). ‘The multifaceted and ethnically diverse Chinese Buddhists are continually working through what Robertson (1992: 100)

identified as the “dilemma of the simultaneity of particularism and universalism” (cf. Chandler 1998; Ma and Cartier 2003). Certain Buddhist communities have had greater difficulties in re-creating Buddhist practices and traditions than others. Penny Van Esterik (1992, 1999)

documents the struggles of Lao Buddhists in North America. ‘The Cambodian refugees’ pre-migration experiences of genocidal trauma and inhumane living conditions under the communist Khmer Rouge, followed by years of languishing in under-serviced and inhospitable refugee camps, has negatively impacted their long-term resettlement and set them apart from other Asian Buddhists (Smith-Hefner 1998; Ong 2003; McLellan 2004; Douglas 2005). ‘The Khmer Rouge regime

severely damaged the social infrastructure from which cultural and religious bonds could be reaffirmed and reestablished. Monks and lay individuals who had provided traditional leadership, educational, and organizational skills were especially targeted for execution. Until recently,

there were no Cambodian Buddhist monks in ‘Toronto to facilitate religious observances, ritual services, merit-making activities, or to recognize, mediate, and treat the vast array of mental health concerns

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 33

(spirit possession, bereavement, guilt, atonement needs) arising among the more than 5,000 Khmer resettled there. Social and class distinctions among Asian Buddhists can reflect different historical waves of arrival and, especially, their migration identity status. In Canada, the category in which immigrants are accepted 1s a general indicator of economic and social wealth. ‘he migration process for Buddhist refugees is significantly different from that for immigrants. Most Asian Buddhist refugees (Tibetans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians) did not choose to move to another country but were forced

out of their homeland, often with inadequate preparation. hey left for the nearest country of asylum, seeking protection from violent and harmful communist regimes whose ideology and programs of action were geared toward religious and/or cultural repression, and in extreme cases, genocide (Fagen 1990). For many refugees, the terror and

social chaos in the homeland, and in seeking asylum, are exacerbated through horrific personal experiences (the death or abandonment of loved ones, targeted persecution, torture, starvation, landmine dismemberment, sexual assault, robbery). In addition to losing their families (nuclear and extended), homes, possessions and country, refugees also lose social identity and status, trust in one another, and what Giddens (1990: 140) refers to as “ontological security.” Refugees in resettlement face long-term psychological stresses, difficulties in regaining trust, and extensive isolation since they may not be able to establish direct communication with the homeland or be allowed to visit for many years (Beiser 1990; McLellan 1999: 22). Unhke immigrants, all classes and ages of a given society may be present in a refugee flow. When refugees are generally accepted for resettlement in western countries, particular social characteristics are favored, especially professional or business backgrounds, high education, and literacy (Cravens and Bornemann 1990). In Canada, certain refugee groups such as the Cambodians and Lao were initially denied resettlement because their rural backgrounds, low levels of education, and extensive illiteracy were deemed unsuitable for urban locales (McLellan 1995). Cambodian refugees also had a significant number of unaccompanied children, widowed women, and extensively traumatized individuals. Refugees with little education or poor English competency face enormous difficulties in sponsoring family members or monastics, the process exacerbated by financial constraints, bureaucratic complexities, the lack of a functioning central government in the homeland, or restrictions on

those remaining in refugee camps. he necessity to provide financial

34 JANET MCLELLAN support to family members in refugee camps or the homeland, and to contribute to religious or cultural reconstruction, may further delay the refugee’s economic, educational, and community recovery. ‘he tendency to place refugees in poorly paid and labor-intensive employment further

inhibits their ability and time to re-create Buddhist institutions and ritual practices or to develop effective leadership. Buddhist immigrants, however, have built an impressive array of temples that provide both religious and community services (skills training, language and cultural programs, vegetarian restaurants, medical clinics, leadership opportunities), many in less than ten years after arrival. ‘These temples provide

an outward display of religious identity that confirms their sense of place in new social contexts (Gupta 2003). The presence of a Buddhist temple also facilitates and reflects the development of a community’s “social capital,” those social structures which make it possible to achieve particular goals and replicate familiar structural relations between people to generate networks of obligations, expectations, and trustworthiness

(Coleman 1988). Social networks and interactions based on trust and reciprocity have been linked to social status, educational achievement, good health, the prevention of crime, enhanced economic development, career mobility and “walkable” neighborhoods (Zhou and Bankston 1994; Friedman and Krackhard 1997; Sanders et al. 2002; Wuthnow 2002; Leyden 2003: 1550). Goleman (1990: 316) argues that the “dense set of associations” within a community with high social capital offers a variety of supports and constraints that enhance and support a range of advantageous aspiration and action. Putnam (2000) distinguishes two forms of social capital: bonding/ cohesive capital (within groups and communities) and bridging capital (which functions to enhance success beyond a particular group or specific community setting). Among refugees and immigrants, religious organizations are frequently identified as “key locations for mobilizing the social capital necessary for survival” (Guest 2003: 121; cf. Zhou

and Bankston 1994; McLellan and White 2005). Within Buddhist temples, social capital enables people to reactivate previously existing social networks, exchange information and financial resources, support sponsorship or other processes of legalization, reinforce social hierarchies, construct transnational religious networks, provide alternatives to dominant hegemonic structures and discourses, and engender new meanings within migration (Guest 2003: 195—96; Kunz 2003). Another type of social capital, referred to as “linking” capital, enables “relations between different social strata in a hierarchy where different groups

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 35

access power, social status and wealth” (Voyer 2003: 31). Bridging and linking forms of social capital can be seen in the way Buddhist temples, groups, and associations advertise their identities and programs in ethnic magazines, on radio and television, and on English Internet sites;

participate in inter-Buddhist councils; undertake humanitarian relief programs; host local educational forums to encourage participation of potential adherents; send personal invitations to municipal, provincial, and federal politicians encouraging them to observe and/or participate in traditional rituals, ceremonies, commemorations, and New Year celebrations; support and participate in local charity walks (sponsored by larger mainstream organizations), food drives, blood banks, or interfaith projects concerned with the homeless; develop various forms of literature (in English) to explain and present Buddhist traditions; and

provide monetary donations to establish presence and influence in educational, medical, or political spheres. Leadership and community networks are especially crucial for the organization of social capital, particularly in maintaining social relations and negotiating effective politics of identity and representation through political advocacy and recognition. Different forms of Buddhist social recognition arise through festivals, parades, or processions in public spaces; local, national, and transnational media (magazines, newspapers, television, radio); electronic consumerism (music CDs, films, videos, DVDs); and marketing household and personal items to help people establish or maintain boundaries and expressions of ethnic and religious identity. Each identity referent can be given a variety of secular or sacred meanings and interpretations, according to the social context, structures of power and inequality, and relevance of or ability to articulate individual and collective self-definition and action (Gomaroft and Comaroff 1992; Padgett 2000). ‘he dynamic interplay of culture contact, hybridization, cosmopolitanism, consumerism, transnationalism, diaspora, and hyphenated identities provides various mechanisms for political and social representation. For immigrant newcomers, the ability to ensure positive representation helps their particular groups and communities to articulate demands for greater access to jobs and services, counter negative stereotypes, and support the development

of a sense of place and belonging (Chan 2002; Hiebert 2002). ‘The representational consequences of early Chinese immigrants to North America who were frequently identified with Native Americans and blacks (Caldwell 1971) is sharply contrasted to the current recognition and affluence of recent Chinese immigrants whose “flexible citizenship”

36 JANET MCLELLAN facilitates their strategies for positive representation (Ong 1993: 746). Makio suggests that affluent and well-educated Chinese in ‘loronto exhibit such effective power relations that they have the capacity to transform ethnic relationships in their favor, whereas Caucasian locals, “willingly or reluctantly,” have to change to meet the emerging situation (1997: 219). New Chinese communities in Vancouver, New York, and Los Angeles exhibit similar socioeconomic characteristics and leadership capacities, indicating an equally strong capacity for social influence and participation in the politics of identity, recognition, and representation (Waldinger and ‘Iseng 1992; Zhou 1992; Smith 1995). Despite the strong recognition and representation associated with Chinese communities, however, Chinese Buddhists still strive for “acceptance” as a religious minority, and feel that their non-Christian identity not only hampers this process, but also fuels anti-Asian prejudice (Chandler 1999: 48; Chen 2003). Werbner (1998) suggests that gestures of philanthropy and political lobbying become one way of engaging in “real” politics. Similar to other minorities, Asian Buddhist groups and communities in North America must both advocate for their right to be recognized and accepted as equal participants in public and political spheres (particularly those concerned with religious diversity) and also diligently challenge inappropriate representation and images that arise through

the media or in popular culture (Bloom 1990: 158-61; Fields 1998: 199-200; Chandler 2002: 65). Yet, the extent and degree to which Buddhists are able to participate

in the politics of identity, presentation, and representation depends upon the levels of social capital within their particular group and/or with individuals associated with, or acting on behalf of, an identifiable group. The presence of social capital “created by trust, solidarity and social cohesion embedded in the individuals of a community” 1s, however, most absent among those who have experienced mistrust, fear, and broken relationships (Mehmet et al. 2002: 336). The lack of social capital and limited social networks within a community not only impacts economic and institutional development, but also results in low levels

of defense when their collective interest is threatened, such as local opposition to the establishment of a Buddhist temple (Woolcock and Narayan 2000; McLellan and White 2005). Buddhist refugee groups with extensive psychological trauma and/or physiological weakness, whose social and community bonds have been severely undermined or who lack effective leaders familiar with North American circumstances, have particularly low social capital. When ethnic and linguistic identi-

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 37

ties are insulated by negative pre-migration experiences and cultural aversions to expressing weakness or need, certain Buddhists groups are frequently perceived as being “closed.” Low social capital exacerbates

this ethno-linguistic enclosure, resulting in minimal recognition and a lack of support or respect from other Buddhist communities, interfaith groups, scholars, and mainstream society. An intolerant climate of negative actions and attitudes of exclusion toward newcomer religious

minorities can further shift vulnerable groups to a more isolationist orientation, encouraging them to seek protection and solace within their own immigrant community and limit contacts with segregationist or exclusionist members of the host majority (Bourhis and Montreuil 2003: 41; Ong 2003). Rather than participate in the politics of recognition and representation, these groups become further marginalized

and excluded, often rendered invisible in academic discussions on Buddhism in North America, or missing from the public awareness of North American Buddhists.

Although Buddhism has had a great impact on North American society, a closer analysis (in terms of social capital, class, race, and power dynamics) 1s needed to detail which Buddhists have the strongest impact, and why particular forms of Buddhism continue to have more exposure and/or influence in relation to cultural production than others

(Gallagher 2004: 102; Wuthnow and Cadge 2004; Clarke 2006: 127). Within the North American context of structured inequalities, crucial questions arise about Buddhist representations, particularly who speaks on behalf of others, and how those others are being presented, represented, or ignored (Bottomley 1991: 309). Essentialized images, meanings, values, traditions, and practices associated with “ethnic” Buddhists vis-a-vis “convert” Buddhists constitute a limited range of social relations,

giving rise to simplified categories (Theravada/ Mahayana, traditionalist/modernist, achieved/ascribed) that overlook obvious complexities and social differences. Unitary categories will also become increasingly ineffective as the North American born and/or reared children of Buddhist immigrants and refugees accept, redefine, reject, and hybridize traditional as well as new religious identities. Leonard (2000: 29) notes that “although the religious formulations and practices of second generation immigrants and refugees are just beginning to be studied,” their centrality and future dominance 1s already being predicted, particularly in political, aesthetic, and communication sites.

38 JANET MCLELLAN Generational Continuaities and Challenges

first-generation Asian Buddhist immigrants and refugees continue to express strong interrelationships between ethnic/nationalistic identity retention and traditional religious beliefs and practices. Buddhism plays a significant role in their lifelong adjustment process, contributing positively to ongoing adaptation to and integration within North American life, psychological health, social athliations (local, national, and global), culturally familiar authority patterns and gender roles, and overall community social cohesion (Kashima 1977; Dorais 1989; Kendis 1989; Ganda and Phaobtong 1992; Rutledge 1992; Van Esterik 1992, 1999; Numrich 1996; Lin 1999; McLellan 1987, 1999, 2000; Zhou et al. 2002; Suh 2004). Involving their North American born and/or reared children in Buddhist rituals and cultural practices has helped to maintain a continuity of both ethnic and religious identities. Like religion, the persistence of ethnicity through generations of Asian Buddhists is not a static process. ‘The content of ethnicity transforms in response to changing social reality (locally, nationally and globally) and on the basis of individual and group needs. Buddhist temples and associations simultaneously maintain tradition and provide a context for innovation. ‘Traditional ritual services and celebrations provide North American born and/or reared children with opportunities to identify with and wear the clothing of their parents’ homeland, to participate in the communal preparation and consumption of food that represents cultural familiarity, to retain some degree of family language(s), to learn and perform their cultural forms of literature, music, and dance, and to share social and psychological well-being with others from a similar background. ‘Temple services and celebrations also provide opportunities for youth

and their parents to express particular facets of life in North America. In the Lao Buddhist ritual of Soukhuan, for example, traditional food offerings of rice balls or mangos may be replaced by cans of Coca-Cola, ‘Twinkies, or store-bought cookies (Van Esterik 1992: 69). “New constructions of ethnicity are themselves potential evidence of continuing acculturation,’ especially among generations born and reared in North America, for whom symbolic ethnicity covers a wide range of ethnic identifications (Gans 1994: 580). For Asian Buddhists, the primordial attributes of blood and descent are strengthened by retention of the identifiable values, attitudes, ethos, and customary practices found within temples (Kendis 1989; McLellan 1999). It is these attributes

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 39

which people attempt to retain for themselves and their children, even if their religiosity 1s symbolic rather than participatory. In redefining their sense of ethnic belonging they will abstract rites of passage, texts, religious symbols, or individual celebrations out of the larger tradition; and for some, coming to the religious institutions only on major religious holidays may be closer to the “symbolic religiosity” of spectator than participant (Gans 1994: 585). In several ‘loronto Asian Buddhist temples, traditional practices are encouraged alongside more modernist ones (such as scriptural study groups, meditation practice, and social service activities) that involve both generations. ‘The extent to which specific groups foster innovative changes depends

upon their amount of social capital. Larger Asian temples in ‘loronto (Sinhalese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese Canadian) actively encour-

age youth participation, advertising their programs through ethnic magazines, radio, television, and English-language Web sites. When qualified volunteers are available, flexible educational programs can be developed to transmit and/or modify traditional Buddhist doctrines and scriptures. Utilizing western styles of teaching and current events from North American and global examples, Buddhist beliefs become more meaningful to the second generation. Since youth face an enormous pressure/appeal of materialism and secularism, participation in religiously-based activities and programs helps to increase their religious

and ethnic ties (Zhou and Bankston 1994; Bankston 1996; McLellan 1999; Stepick 2005). Many of the programs offered in Buddhist temples

(family choir, study sessions, after-school programs, summer youth camps, regular children’s outings and weekly [usually Sunday] Dharma school) are based on Christian models and demonstrate the benefit of

familiarity with other religious traditions. In the smaller temples and Buddhist groups where social capital is not as developed, the involvement of the second generation can considerably boost existing programs

and activities. Older youth can assist in the administration of annual traditional rituals and ceremonies (arranging monastic presence, hiring a hall, organizing invitations/advertisements, preparing music and sound systems), and other kinds of special celebrations, thereby forging and solidifying their own community ties across several localities. Although Cambodian Buddhists have lived in Windsor, Ontario since the early 1980s, 1t was not until 2006 that those of the second generation were

able to organize themselves and their parents to participate in the Windsor annual multicultural festival. For the first time, Cambodians were publicly represented through their performance of traditional

40 JANET MCLELLAN and modern Khmer dance, music and cuisine, and received strong encouragement from others outside their own community. While the Buddhist temple may help to reinforce and maintain kin-

ship and friendship networks, North American born and/or reared generations do not consider it the prime milieu to satisfy social needs or to gain status recognition. Instead, the younger generations want the temple to reflect contemporary needs and issues. ‘UVhey encourage their temples to implement a process of democratic or egalitarian ideals through new models of leadership, requesting that decision making be shared between monks and an elected executive board which represents a cross-section of membership. Asian Canadian Buddhist youth want more input concerning temple administration and religious programing, identifying participation in Canadian events (Canada Day celebrations, charity fund-raising walks for the United Way, operating food bank collections), and the development of non-traditional mechanisms for social control and conflict resolution in the families. Another new and inevitable direction that concerns Asian Buddhist youth is that they be allowed more opportunities to share their opinions, attitudes, and identities, not as “Asian youth” or “ethno-specific youth” but as Canadians or Americans with Asian and/or ethno-specific ancestry. With the emergence of North American-born generations, the need arises for bilingual clergy (trilingual in Canada) and innovative religious education

programs that reflect North American rather than homeland interests. As the oldest Buddhist community in ‘Toronto, ‘Joronto Buddhist Church recognized this need in the 1960s and initiated the Financial Aid for Ministerial Aspirants in Canada (FAMAC) program to sponsor and train Canadian-born individuals. ‘The current head minister at ‘loronto Buddhist Church, a third-generation male in his late 30s, was trained through the FAMAC program. Most Asian Buddhist communities, however, still remain totally dependent on the homeland for religious leaders, spiritual authority, and doctrinal legitimacy. Finding and sponsoring monastic sangha who are at least bilingual (homeland language and English or French), well-educated, and flexible in their approach to Buddhism 1s difficult. Many monastics are not trained to deal with the range of expectations or issues 1n resettled communities, and if they themselves are refugees, must still struggle to cope with their own memories and experiences. Some alternatives to an ethnospecific “foreign orientation” are arising within specific traditions. In 2001, a group of Lao Buddhists at the Phommaviharm Buddhist temple

in Kitchener, Ontario sponsored an English-speaking, Sri Lankan

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 41

trained, Bangledeshi-born monk to provide dharma instruction to their Canadian-born youth. ‘lo enhance this monk’s educational profile and status in the eyes of the youth, the temple supports his graduate studies in a local university where he is completing a Ph.D. in Religion and Culture. Older Asian Buddhists have been accused by the younger, generally higher educated, Asian Buddhists as being too ritualistic and superstitious in their religious belief and practice, particularly those who focus on ceremonial sutra chanting, merit-making, appeals to the power and infinite compassion of Bodhisattvas, healing or protection rituals, and the use of various divination techniques. Younger Asian Buddhists are scientifically sophisticated and consider themselves to be “modern”

North Americans who seek a religious guidance that is relevant to their everyday lives. Whereas many of the older generation have few expectations on the monastic leadership other than the continuity of a homeland tradition familiar and comforting to them, the younger generation is more demanding. Differences in language and socio-cultural backgrounds make youth relationships with immigrant monastics problematic. Second-generation youth may speak enough of their ethnic language to understand or communicate with older family members

for basic conversation, but they are functionally illiterate regarding sutra or philosophical study. Youth may require English translations of Buddhist concepts or terms, which monastics may not be prepared to provide. Youth also question the current relevance of homeland ritu-

als, and without adequate explanation they remain unaware of the important symbolic nuances for ethnic and religious identity within the rituals. North American born and/or raised Buddhist youth are particularly hostile to the hierarchal and unapproachable attitudes of the monastic sangha, preferring teachers with whom they can ask questions, share ideas, argue, and even joke or play sports. Unfortunately, monastics who tend to adopt easy-going or playful behaviors with the youth are often severely censured by the older generation. Innovative or youth-oriented monastics tend not to be retained in temples where the leadership is dominated by what Baumann (2002: 58) identifies as “traditionalists.” Interestingly, the issues second-generation Asian youth have with Buddhist leaders, hierarchy, organizational structures, and

homeland orientation are similar to what has been observed among non-Asian groups as they attempt to “Americanize” Buddhist teachings and traditions (Kraft 1988; Preston 1988; Kornfield 1998; McMahan 2002; Kay 2004).

42 JANET MCLELLAN Despite their reservations, many second-generation youth do retain a connection to Buddhism within the boundaries of their ethnic communities, sometimes as a buffer against prejudice and hostility from the larger society. During New Year celebrations youth and young adults particularly attend ethnic-specific Buddhist temples. ‘They come to make offerings of food, incense, and money, to ensure good luck or protection for the next year, to cleanse their unwholesome activities of the past year,

to eat specially prepared foods, and to be reminded of their roots. No restrictions appear to be made regarding clothing, and youth dress in casual as well as traditional attire, depending on their interest or level of involvement. Some participate with bare midriffs and shoulders, in shorts or other western styles, and many are accompanied by non-Asian friends. As the second generation ages, gets married, have children of their own, and face the death of older family members, their frustration with the slow pace of temple or monastic change eventually lessens. Through the ritual processes entailed in different life passages, their sense of place within the community 1s revitalized and they develop more traditional types of religious commitment and involvement. Since most Buddhist communities in North America are less than

30 years old, it remains uncertain what will arise in the third and fourth generations. At ‘loronto Buddhist Church, a 90 percent rate of intermarriage among the Sansei (third generation) has resulted in an ethnically and racially mixed fourth generation who speak only English. Most Asian temples in ‘loronto are concerned that unless they actively address generational concerns and develop the kinds of successful programs that exist elsewhere (either locally or in diaspora), multiple linguistic and social identities may result in future generations who never fully understand or identify with Buddhist teachings and practices,

precipitating an eventual loss of support for the religious institution. Mullins (1987) predicted that the diminishing participation of Sanse1 would force the Jodo Shinshu Japanese Canadian Buddhist institutions to undergo what he described as the process of “de-ethnicization.” At Toronto Buddhist Church, however, this process has not occurred, and despite several accommodations made to non-Japanese members and spouses of Sanse1 mixed marriages, there has been no transition from an “ethnic” to an interethnic or multi-ethnic organization. Extensive generational transformations and adaptations do not necessarily mean that particularized ethnic and religious identities at Asian Buddhist temples will eventually disappear. Since the late 1990s, there has been significant return to Buddhism among Christian Cambodians

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 43

in Ontario, especially 1f a Gambodian Buddhist temple opens in their city (as in Hamilton, London, and Windsor). Several former Christian Cambodians felt that their initial resettkement obligations to Christian sponsors had been fulfilled after approximately ten to fifteen years, and they no longer needed to behave as a “client” or show respect by attending the church of their sponsors (McLellan 2004). Others felt the need to return to Buddhism when a family member died and they wished to participate in traditional memorial services, when they needed extensive social and community support (due to illness or social tragedy), or when one of their children married a spouse who 1s Buddhist, particularly if the spouse had recently arrived from Cambodia. ‘The pattern of lapsed members returning to Buddhist temples, including the younger generation when they marry and begin families of their own, may retain the viability of particular Buddhist traditions, even if much of the participation 1s symbolic or limited to extended family involvements and special festivals or ceremonies. [his reflects the general trend in mainstream Christianity. As Stepick (2005: 19-20) notes, while second-generation youth have become a central focus of recent studies on North American immigrants, little is known about their shifts in religious afhliation, or the kinds of hybridity and multiplicity entailed in their ethnic and religious identities or religious atfhliations. This lack is especially evident among second-generation Buddhists in North America, whatever their tradition, background, race, social status, or ethnic identity. With the continuing rise in North American intermarriage rates, increasing numbers of Buddhists will have mixed ethnic, racial, and religious identities, rendering previous classification categories even more tenuous. Further studies are needed to identify the degree to which cultural/religious heritages are retained at Asian Buddhist temples and associations, and if they remain an important element in shaping individual and collective identities across generations. Future research can provide scholars with a range of Buddhist participation and afhliations (including symbolic) among those youth who consider themselves to be fully identified with and integrated into North American society.

44 JANET MCLELLAN References Bankston, Carl L. III. 1996. “The Ethnic Church, Ethnic Identification, and the Social Adjustment of Vietnamese Adolescents.” Review of Religious Research 38: 18-37. ——. 1997. “Bayou Lotus: ‘UVheravada Buddhism in Southwestern Louisiana.” Sociological Spectrum 17: 453-72.

Baumann, Martin. 2002. “Protective Amulets and Awareness Techniques, or How to Make Sense of Buddhism in the West.” Pp. 51-65 in Westward Dharma: Buddhism beyond Asia, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Martin Baumann. Berkeley: University of California Press. Beiser, Morton. 1990. “Mental Health of Refugees in Resettlkement Countries.” Pp. 51-65 in Mental Health of Immigrants and Refugees, edited by Wayne Holtzman and Thomas Bornemann. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, University of ‘Texas.

Bechert, Heinz. 1984. “Buddhist Revival in East and West.” Pp. 273-85 in The World of Buddlism: Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Society and Culture, edited by Heinz Bechert

and Richard Gombrich. New York: Facts on File. Bloom, Alfred. 1990. “Vhe Unfolding of the Lotus: A Survey of Recent Developments in Shin Buddhism in the West.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 10: 157-64. Boorstein, Sylvia. 1997. That’s Funny, You Don’t Look Buddhist: On Being a Faithful Few and

a Passionate Buddhist. New York: Harper.

Bottomley, Gillian. 1991. “Culture, Ethnicity, and the Politics/Poetics of Representation.” Diaspora 1: 303-20. Boucher, Sandy. 1993. Turning the Wheel: American Women Creating the New Buddhism.

Boston: Beacon Press. Bourhis, Richard and Annie Montreuil. 2003. “Exploring Receiving Society Attitudes toward Immigration and Ethnocultural Diversity.” Canadian Issues/T hemes Canadiens (April): 39-41. Bramadat, Paul and David Seljak, eds. 2005. Religion and Ethnicity in Canada. ‘Toronto:

Pearson Education. Brekke, ‘Torkel. 2002. Religious Motwation and the Ongins of Buddhism: A Socio-Psychological

Exploration of the Ongins of a World Religion. London: Routledge.

Breton, Raymond, Wsevolod W. Isajiw, Wallen Kalbach and Jeffrey Reitz, eds. 1990. Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City. Toronto: University of ‘Loronto Press.

Caldwell, Dan. 1971. “he Negroization of the Chinese Stereotype in California.” Southern Califorma Quarterly 53: 123-31.

Canda, Edward and Thitiya Phaobtong, 1992. “Buddhism as a Support System for Southeast Asian Refugees.” Social Work 37: 61-67. Chan, Kwok-Bun. 2002. “Both Sides, Now: Culture Contact, Hybridization, and Cosmopolitanism.” Pp. 191-208 in Concewing Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice,

edited by Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chandler, Stuart. 1998. “Chinese Buddhism in America: Identity and Practice.” Pp. 13-30 in The Faces of Buddhism in Amenca, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. ‘Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press.

——. 1999. “Placing Palms ‘Together: Religious and Cultural Dimensions of the Hsi Lai ‘Temple Political Donations Controversy.” Pp. 36-56 in American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship, edited by Duncan Ryuken Williams and

Christopher 8S. Queen. London: Curzon Press.

——.. 2002. “Globalizing Chinese Culture, Localizing Buddhist ‘Teachings: ‘The Internationalization of Foguangshan.” Journal of Global Buddhism 3: 46-78. ———.. 2005. “Spreading Buddha’s Light: ‘The Internationalization of KFoguang Shan.” Pp. 162-84 in Buddhist Missionanes in the Era of Globahzaton, edited by Linda Lear-

man. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

THEMES AND ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF NORTH AMERICAN BUDDHISTS 49

Chen, Carolyn. 2003. “Cultivating Acceptance by Cultivating Merit: ‘The Public Engagement of a Chinese Buddhist ‘Temple in American Society.” Pp. 67-85 in Revealing the Sacred in Asian and Pacific America, edited by Jane Naomi Iwamura and

Paul Spickard. New York: Routledge. Clarke, Peter B. 2006. New Religions in Global Perspectiwe: A Study of Religious Change in the

Modern World. London: Routledge. Coleman, James 8. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” Amencan Journal of Sociology 94: 95-120. ——., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Gambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Coleman, James William. 2001. The New Buddhism: The Western Transformation of an Ancient Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press. Comaroff, John and Jean Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Boulder, GO: Westview Press. Cravens, Richard and ‘Thomas Bornemann. 1990. “Refugee Camps in Countries of First Asylum and the North American Resettlement Process.” Pp. 38-50 in Mental Health of Immigrants and Refugees, edited by Wayne Holtzman and ‘Thomas Bornemann. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, University of ‘Texas. Danyluk, Angie. 2003. “To Be or Not to Be: Buddhist Selves in ‘Toronto.” Contemporary Buddhism 4: 127-41. Dorais, Louis-Jacques. 1989. “Religion and Refugee Adaptation: ‘The Vietnamese in Montreal.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 21: 19-29. Douglas, ‘Thomas. 2005. “Changing Religious Practices among Cambodian Immigrants in Long Beach and Seattle.” Pp. 123-44 in Immigrant Faiths: Transforming Religious Life in America, edited by IKaren Leonard, Alex Stepick, Manuel Vasquez and Jennifer Holdaway. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Ebaugh, Helen Rose and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2000. Rehgion and the New Immigrants: Continuties and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Eck, Diana L. 2001. A New Rehgious America: How a “Christian Country” Has Now Become the World’s Most Rehgiously Dwerse Nation. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Fagen, Patricia. 1990. “World Wide Refugees: Problems of Disruption, Fear, and Poverty.” Pp. 7-15 in Mental Health of Immigrants and Refugees, edited by Wayne

Holtzman and Thomas Bornemann. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, University of ‘Texas at Austin. Fields, Rick. 1986. How the Swans Came to the Lake: A Narratwe History of Buddhism in

Ameria, rev. ed. Boston: Shambhala.

—., 1998. “Divided Dharma: White Buddhists, Ethnic Buddhists, and Racism.” Pp. 196-206 in The Faces of Buddhism in America, edited by Charles S. Prebish and Kenneth K. Tanaka. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Friedman, Raymond and David Krasckhardt. 1997. “Social Capital and Career Mobility.” Journal of Apphed Behavioral Science 33: 316-34. Gallagher, Eugene V. 2004. The New Religious Movements Experience in America. Westport, C’'T: Greenwood Press.

Gans, Herbert J. 1994. “Symbolic Ethnicity and Symbolic Religiosity: Toward a Comparison of Ethnic and Religious Acculturation.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 17: 977-92. Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Gambridge, UK: Polity Press. Gombrich, Richard and Gananath Obeyesekere. 1988. Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sr. Lanka. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gregory, Peter N. 2001. “Describing the Elephant: Buddhism in America.” Religion and Amencan Culture 11: 233-63. Gupta, Himanee. 2003. “Staking a Claim on American-ness: Hindu ‘Temples in the United States.” Pp. 193-207 in Revealing the Sacred in Asian and Pacific Amenca, edited

by Jane Iwamura and Paul Spickard. New York: Routledge.

46 JANET MCLELLAN Guest, Kenneth J. 2003. God in Chinatown: Religion and Survwal in New York’s Evolving Immigrant Community. New York: New York University Press.

Gussner, R. E. and S. D. Berkowitz. 1988. “Scholars, Sects and Sanghas: Recruitment to Asian-Based Meditation Groups in North America.” Sociological Analysis 49: 136-70. Halbwachs, Maurice. 1980. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper & Row. Hammond, Phillip E. and David W. Machacek. 2004. Soka Gakkai in America: Accommodation and Conversion. New York: Oxford University Press. Hiebert, Daniel. 2002. “Cosmopolitanism at the Local Level: ‘The Development of ‘Transnational neighborhoods.” Pp. 209-26 in Concewing Cosmopoltanism: Theory, Context and Practice, edited by Steven Vertovec and Robin Cohen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huynh, Vhuan. 2000. “Center for Vietnamese Buddhism: Recreating Home.” Pp. 45-66 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continwties and Adaptations in Immigrant

Congregations, by Helen Rose Ebaugh and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Kamenetz, Rodger. 1994. The Few in the Lotus. San Francisco: Harper.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1968. “Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities.” American Sociological Review

33: 499-517. Kashima, ‘letsuden. 1977. Buddhism in America: The Social Organization of an Ethnic Religious

Institution. Westport, C’'l: Greenwood Press. Kawamura, Leslie. 1977. “Buddhism in Southern Alberta.” Pp. 54-72 in Religion and Culture in Canada, edited by Peter Slater. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Kay, D. N. 2004. Tibetan and The term “shogunate” refers to the type of governmental system in which a samurai warlord is granted the title of shogun, or “barbarian-conquering general,’ ostensibly by the Emperor of Japan. With this title, the shogun has effective suzerainty over the country. [he ‘lokugawa shogunate, named after the Lokugawa family, was in power from 1600 to 1868.

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 89

Buddhism in Japan. Prior to Jodo Shinshu, Buddhism had largely been confined to the aristocracy and the monks and nuns in the various religious sects and orders. Doctrinally, Jodo Shinshu 1s part of the Amida or “other power” schools within the larger tradition of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana literally means “large vessel,” a selfdesignation deriving from the fact that the various schools within this tradition developed philosophies applicable to a general population. In other words, Mahayana Buddhist groups espouse patterns of living and pursuing the Buddhist ideal of enlightenment through practices and rituals that any person can use. This differs from the ‘Theravada tradition (literally, “the way of the elders”) in which individuals are

tasked with attaining enlightenment through close adherence to the life of Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha (Jodo Shinshu Hongwanyji-ha 2002: 20-21). Within the Mahayana tradition, the Amida schools take an additional step through specific interpretations of the suiras or scriptures in which Shakyamuni Buddha refers to the existence of an “Amida.” ‘This term

refers to the concept of the wisdom and compassion attained by all of the Buddhas throughout time. Amida 1s, therefore, the amalgamated personification of the “good will,” so to speak, of all Buddhas who have come before in time. ‘This concentrated power allows those who cannot attain enlightenment on their own to utilize this reservoir after death as a means of salvation from the constant cycle of birth, death, and suffering. ‘Io prepare people who were unable to attain enlightenment on their own in life, the Amida schools created the concept of the Pure Land. ‘This was an other-worldly environment where people went after death in one life to prepare them to gain enlightenment in the next reincarnation (Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha 2002: 22-23). The critical aspect of this school is that the reliance on the “other power” allowed Buddhism to become accessible to the masses. A person could now attain enlightenment without removing him or herself from the world. ‘This school, in effect, brought the religion out of the monastery to the lives of everyday people. In keeping with this worldly outlook, organizationally, the religious specialists or priests adopted a lay lifestyle, following the real life example of Shinran. Rather than removing themselves from society, the priests became ministers who lived and worked within the lay community. ‘This participation in lay matters extended to their private lives as well. Jodo Shinshu ministers,

beginning with Shinran, married, raised families, and engaged in everyday community activities. Perhaps ironically, although he lived to

90 ARTHUR NISHIMURA age 90 and continued to spread the sect’s teachings, Shinran did not create a formal organization. The institutionalization of Jodo Shinshu was accomplished by several of his descendants, most notably Rennyo Shonin, the eighth “Abbot” of

the sect in the 15th century. The English term “abbot” approximates the Japanese title of the inherited leadership position within the Jodo Shinshu organization, monshu. Rennyo spread Jodo Shinshu through extensive personal missions in which he traveled the country talking with the common people and establishing temples in cities and villages throughout Japan. ‘This story of the founding of Jodo Shinshu and its early development 1s part of the regular BCA Sunday school curriculum. My own memories originate from my sixth grade Sunday school classes at the Parlier Buddhist Church in Parlier, California.

The Immigration Background

Although Jodo Shinshu Buddhism has a long history that would lend itself to transplantation due to its common appeal and history among the commoner population, its prevalence in the Japanese American community can be explained by more practical factors as well. Specifically, various dynamics of Japanese immigration to the US, more so than the general popularity of the religion, help to explain why this particular Buddhist organization came to play such a significant role in the community. ‘The initial Japanese immigration to the US stemmed from a combination of factors: the restriction of Chinese immigration in 1882, the departure of Chinese from the agricultural workforce, the continuing need for labor on the part of Hawaiian plantation owners and mainland occupations, and the restoration of the Meiji Emperor in 1868. Significant Japanese immigration to Hawa and the US mainland began in 1885 with the departure of contract laborers who were recruited by emigration companies to work in the Hawaiian sugar cane plantations.* Hawaii was facing a labor crisis arising from shifts in the Chinese

immigrant population that had been the mainstay of the plantation

* The first recorded ship of contract laborers sailed in 1868. However, because the ship left without government permission, the Japanese government closed labor emigration until 1885 (Wakukawa 1938: 24).

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 9]

labor force. As the Chinese population in Hawai grew, most moved away from agricultural work to become part of the service industry or start small businesses. It has been estimated that of the 13,500 Chinese in Hawaun in 1882, only 5,000 worked on the plantations, a significant decline from previous decades (Conroy 1949: 82). ‘This trend, combined

with the passage of the Hawauan Chinese Exclusion Act in 1886, meant that sugar cane plantations needed an entirely new source of agricultural labor (Isai 1986: 30).

In response, the Hawaiian government, on behalf of sugar cane companies, negotiated an agreement with the Japanese government to allow for the recruitment and immigration of workers. [his agreement began a period of what amounts to government sponsored immigra-

tion in which the numbers and the provenance of the immigrants in particular prefectures were stipulated in the agreement between Japan and Hawai. As part of an official program, the plantations were allowed to send recruiters to these prefectures, not simply due to their agricultural base, as most of Japan was agricultural in the middle of the 19th century. [he choice of these prefectures was based on the fact that the leaders of the Meyi Restoration, which ostensibly returned the emperor

of Japan to be the head of the nation after 268 years of shogunate rule, came from these prefectures (Wakatsuki 1984). The choice of initial prefectures open to recruitment was important because it set the pattern for immigration once government sponsorship

ended. After the end of the original contract, government agencies left the process of labor recruitment and migration up to a group of Immingaisha or immigration companies who acted as middle-men and facilitators between the Japanese labor pool and the Hawaiian and US companies in need of workers. ‘This development effectively institutionalized the pattern of labor recruitment in Japan as the /mmingaisha continued the initial practice of recruiting in only a few prefectures.

Thus, one of the interesting patterns of Japanese emigration to the United States during this period 1s that four prefectures from Southwest Japan—Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Kumamoto, and Fukoka—account for nearly 80 percent of the sojourners (Wakatsuki 1994). ‘This concentrated place of origin was a primary factor behind the transplantation of this specific school of Japanese Buddhism. Because Jodo Shinshu Buddhism was a form of Buddhism that allowed individuals to lead everyday lives, 1t was a populist, yet traditional, religion. As a result, its appeal and strongest support came from rural Japan and from the above four prefectures in particular.

92 ARTHUR NISHIMURA Another key element in the initial Japanese American population was the demographics. Overwhelmingly male, they had emigrated as part of a migrant seasonal labor pattern called dekasegi in Japanese (Ichioka 1988: 44-45). ‘This pattern was a result of the practice of stem family inheritance in Japan. Under the stem family inheritance system, land ownership was passed to a single heir, usually the first-born son. In an agricultural economy, this situation left the other children in the family in something of a precarious position. ‘The lack of land ownership

reduced these other children into the role of agricultural laborers. Although non-mechanized agriculture required significant amounts of labor, the demand was seasonal. During the non-harvest months, these younger siblings were available to pursue other lines of work. In another sense, this situation deprived younger sons of strong social ties to bind them to the village or prefecture. As such, the migrant labor typically involved the second and subsequent sons of families leaving the home to find work with the initial idea of returning to help the family and eventually taking up permanent residence back in their place of origin. However, with the lower social status of not being the family heir, and without the economic ties of family land ownership, these sons had clearly less waiting for them in their ancestral homes. The change in this population demographic was sparked by larger scale historical events. In 1906, the San Francisco Board of Education voted to segregate “all Chinese, Japanese and Korean children to the Oriental School” (quoted in ‘Takaki 1989: 201). This resulted in a controversy that became an international issue when the Japanese government filed an official protest with the US government. ‘Vhe subsequent negotiations resulted in the 1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement. As a result of this agreement, the immigration of Japanese as laborers in

the growing economies of the Western US came to an end in 1908. A loophole, however, existed for wives and children of those already residing in America that allowed them to emigrate as part of family reunification. This allowance began the period of shashin-kekkon or “picture brides.”

The term “picture brides” refers to the practice of exchanging photos as the means by which prospective husbands and wives made their marriage choices. Once a couple agreed to marry, a proxy groom would

stand in for the husband at the marriage ceremony in Japan. Upon official record of the marriage, the new bride became eligible for entry into the United States under the terms of the 1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement. From 1907 to 1924, over 20,000 Japanese women entered US

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 93

ports (Lakaki 1989: 46-47). ‘The picture bride era ended with the nearly complete closure of Asian immigration as a result of the Immigration Act of 1924. Socially, however, the impact was much more significant. The “reunification” of husbands and wives transformed the Japanese American community from a bachelor society to a family community. Soon thereafter, these families included children and the emergence of an American-born generation.

Establishment and Development of the Buddhist Mission of North America

Given the dynamics of immigration and the characteristics of the early Japanese American population, the initial formation of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism did not stem from a missionary effort in which priests set out to spread the Buddhist religion, but from requests for Japanese laborers in Hawan and California (Muramoto 1972: 15). In keeping with the historical sequence of the immigration, the first organized Jodo Shinshu presence in American-influenced territory was in Hawaii. In 1889, the Rev. Soryu Kagai arrived in Honolulu and began to establish Buddhist groups among the Japanese workers on the plantations (lakeda 1996: 127). As the recruitment of Japanese laborers to the islands continued, the population of Buddhists continued to grow through the 1890s, culminating in the construction of the first Japanese Buddhist temple in Hawaii in 1897. The founding of this temple marks the establishment of an independent Jodo Shinshu organization in Hawau. This initial

separation from the parent Jodo Shinshu body in Japan remains to this day, and by the same token, even after Hawai became a US state in 1959, the Hawaian organization retained only informal afhliation with the mainland organization and maintained its own leadership and clergy.

As with Hawai, Jodo Shinshu Buddhism’s arrival on the mainland coincided with the increase in Japanese immigration. Beginning with the first count of some 55 residents in the 1870 census and 148 in the 1880 census, the Japanese population grew rapidly to 2,039 by 1890 and 24,327 by 1900 UsSashima 1975: 22). According to the anecdotal history passed down in the BMNA, the reason the Nishi Hongwanji organization established temples on the mainland stems from a visit by a Japanese immigrant to the Jodo Shinshu headquarters in Kyoto. In 1897, Nisaburo Hirano, who had immigrated to the United States some six years earlier, made a return visit to Japan. During his stay,

94 ARTHUR NISHIMURA he petitioned the national organization to consider sending missionar-

ies to the continental United States. Prior to this, the organization’s efforts on the mainland consisted of sending six representatives to the World’s Parliament of Religions held in Chicago in 1893 (Munekata 1975: 43-44). Hirano’s motivation for this request is reputed to have been due to his experiences of learning English in the United States. Having attended

language classes held at Christian churches, Hirano was apparently disturbed at the efforts made by these organizations to convert Japanese immigrants to Christianity. He thus appealed to the Nishi Hongwangi to take steps in face of this conversion effort. ‘This verbal request 1s credited with providing the impetus for serious discussion on the part

of the Jodo Shinshu leadership regarding the potential establishment of a mission in the United States. ‘These discussions culminated in the dispatch of two ministers, the Rev. Eryu Honda and the Rev. Kyun Miyamoto, on something of a fact-finding mission in July of 1898. ‘This

mission included visits to the San Francisco and Sacramento areas in California as well as Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Colum-

bia, Canada. On July 14, the two ministers met with 30 men in San Francisco and agreed to establish a Young Men’s Buddhist Association, patterned after the Young Men’s Christian Association or YMCA. ‘Two months later, this group then sent a petition to the headquarters in Japan

formally requesting that a branch of the organization be established on the North American continent. The organization responded by sending two other ministers, Dr. Shuye Sonoda and the Rev. Kakuryo Nishiima, to San Francisco in August of 1898 (Munekata 1975: 45). A year later, the Young Men’s group formally organized as the Bukkyo Seinen Kai or Young Men’s Buddhist Association (YMBA) and designated San Francisco, California as its headquarters. After helping to organize the San Francisco organization, the missionaries began to visit other areas of the West Coast. These visits led to the formation of other Buddhist associations in a number of communities. In 1899, Sacramento became the second Jodo Shinshu association to organize. Fresno, California in 1900, Seattle, Washington in 1901, San Jose, California in 1902, and Oakland, Cali-

fornia and Portland, Oregon in 1903 followed in the immediate years thereafter (Munekata 1975). Each organization in these West Coast cities followed a pattern similar to that of the San Francisco organization. First, a Young Men’s Buddhist Association formed from the predominantly bachelor Japanese American population in the community.

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 95

With continued growth in membership and financial resources, the next step was to acquire a permanent facility and then formally petition the San Francisco organization for recognition as an independent general association. In 1905, the San Francisco association changed its name to the Buddhist Church of San Francisco. ‘This name change was adopted

over time by every association in the organization.” The director of the San Francisco association, the Rev. Koyu Uchida, made the initial decision to adopt the “Church” title. Although it may be reasonable to postulate that he and the local organizations that followed made this change in an attempt to fit in with the American religious sensibilities and public sentiment of the time, there 1s no documentation of the rationale for making this shift at either the national or local levels (Kashima 1975: 29-31). By the 10-year anniversary celebration in 1909, the organization had grown to a total of 20 churches in three states. With this size and the

increasing distance between locations, the Rev. Uchida, appointed a committee to develop a national organization capable of coordinating the activities of the churches. Five years and an additional five branches later, the 25 Buddhist churches organized their first general meeting. Held over three days in July 1914, this meeting saw the drafting of the

first national constitution and with it the formal creation of the Buddhist Mission of North America (Munekata 1975: 50).° The national organization retained its headquarters in San Francisco and adopted the role of coordinator of activities of all the churches. ‘The leader of the national organization was the kantoku (director) of the San Francisco

organization, and the person filling this position was assigned by the mother organization in Kyoto. As a coordinating body, the national organization’s official role was therefore limited at the level of individual churches. Although it had the ability to assign and reassign ministers, it did not have any other formal legal or religious authority over the local churches. At the independently organized churches, the local leadership was embodied in a board of trustees or directors who held legal power (Horinouchi 1972:

> In the post-World War II era, there has been a second shift in the title from church to temple. Unlike the pre-war name change, however, this shift has not been universal throughout the organization. ° "The scholarly literature sometimes uses the name “North American Buddhist Mission, a literal rendering of the Japanese, Hokuber Bukkyo Dan. In its own documents, however, the organization refers to itself as “Buddhist Mission of North America.”

96 ARTHUR NISHIMURA 118-19). ‘Their membership in the national organizational was voluntary and they provided the financial support to the national organization by

means of dues. Another decision reached at this first general meeting was that the organization would host a world Buddhist conference the following year in conjunction with the opening of the Panama Canal Exposition in San Francisco. ‘This World Buddhist Conference, held August 2-8, 1915, served as something of a “coming out party” for the organization as it culminated in a resolution sent to President Woodrow Wilson promoting the propagation of Buddhism to the US (Buddhist Churches of America 1999: v). As the organization continued to develop, the mother organization in Japan recognized the growing role of the BMNA by elevating the position of kantoku to socho (bishop) in 1918. As with the translation for monshu (abbot), the Christian term “bishop” is a rough approximation

of the status of the organizational position, though 1s does not imply similarities in terms of religious meaning or duties between the two religions. ‘he Rev. Uchida, the fifth director, became the first bishop to serve the BMNA. This position of bishop indicated an upward move in the position of the BMNA within the transnational Jodo Shinshu organizational structure. he change in status to bishop indicated that the BMNA had now moved from simply being a group of overseas branches to that of a recognized district of the Jodo Shinshu Hongwanj-ha (Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha 2002: 106-7). While the North American Buddhist Mission was gaining in importance within the Jodo Shinshu community, the position of Japanese Americans in the larger American society was deteriorating. As evident in the San Francisco School Board decision of 1907, the first decade of the 20th century saw a rise 1n anti-immigrant sentiment in general, and anti-Japanese American sentiment in particular, throughout the western states. ‘his hostility culminated in the passing of a series of “alien land laws” in all the western states which denied specific 1mmigrant groups the right to own land and, finally with the federal Immigration Act of 1924, effectively ended all significant immigration from Japan (Takaki 1989: 203-10). Racial and ethnic antagonism directed against the Japanese American community stemmed from a number of factors, including the labor union movement, the rise of Japan as a world power, and simple racial hatred. Japanese Americans Joined the ranks of groups in US history that met with social, economic, and political hostility from the majority population. By the 1920s, “While agricultural and railroad employers of Japanese laborers were willing

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I8Q8—1942 97

to include Japanese in subordinate economic and social roles, whites generally scorned their very presence and white workers waged hostile and sometimes even violent campaigns to keep the Japanese out of the labor market” (Iakaki 1989: 180).

These events and conditions, in the short term, were ostensibly detrimental to the BMNA. As the flow of immigrants represented the

original source for the membership in the organization, the end of labor immigration meant the end of a steady supply of potential new members. Moreover, the efforts to marginalize and exclude the Japanese from mainstream economic life could mean that its membership was not likely to have the type of financial resources to assist the maintenance,

let alone growth, of the organization. In the long term, however, this situation enhanced the role of the organization within the community. The end of contract labor immigration from Japan was replaced by the picture bride era in which the “reunification” of families further developed permanent Japanese American communities in the United States. This, in turn, led to the emergence and growth of the Buddhist churches as a whole new generation of members began to join and clearly focus the direction of the organizations. Moreover, in the face of a hostile general population, the Japanese American community experienced an enhanced sense of ethnic solidarity. Much in the manner of most immigrant groups to the US, the Japanese Americans developed their own ethnic enclaves in which the group recreated the social services unavailable elsewhere. As part of this ethnic enclave, the Buddhist Mission of North America was one of those organizations to which the community turned.

The BMNA in the Japanese American Community

Based on the history and demographics of the BMNA, and its Japanese American constituency, there are two threads in the pre-World War II era for the BMNA as a community organization. ‘The first reflects the role of the organization in providing both religious and social services

for the immigrant generation of Japanese Americans, the /ssez. Uhe second thread represents the roles occupied by the BMNA in regard to the children of the immigrants, the Nose.

98 ARTHUR NISHIMURA The Issei

The first issue for the Isse1 was that as new immigrants, they found themselves in a foreign, and largely hostile society. Interestingly, the BMNA appears to have been quite cognizant of its social position as an ethnic religious organization. According to the official record of the bishop in the early 1900s, the Rev. Eryu Honda, there was regular communication between the organization and the Japanese government. he record speaks of visitations to the Japanese consulate in San Francisco and regular reports to keep them apprised of the activities of the BMNA. Moreover, there is even a notation or reminder from the Rev. Honda (1902) to send flowers to the wife of the Consul to wish her a speedy recovery from an illness. The concern on the part of the Japanese government regarding the BMNA is evident from a conversation between the Rev. Honda and the Japanese Consul in Seattle during a fact-finding trip in 1898: When I discussed about the proposed Buddhist Missionary work in the United States, Consul Saito asked whether the United States government would allow the entrance of a “foreign religion.” He also expressed his feelings about the numerous problems that might arise from the entrance of a “foreign religion when the Japanese and Americans are presently coexisting peacefully” (Kashima 1975: 24).

‘These concerns were not only valid, but also wise counsel in light of the attitude of the majority population in the western states. Perhaps based on this concern, the BMNA became, like many other Japanese organizations, partly a settlement and assimilation organization. As such, by 1900, two years after its founding, the San Francisco organization offered general assistance, employment, medical, housing, and language services for newly arrived Japanese (Buddhist Churches of America 1999: iv). Since part of the original motivations for the BMNA stemmed from a reaction to the missionary efforts of Christian organizations among the Japanese American immigrants, It 1s no surprise that these social services largely mimicked those of Christian aid organizations. Once initial assimilation and adjustment to American society was accomplished, the other key characteristic of the early Japanese American community was that it was largely a bachelor laborer society. As a population of predominantly single male laborers, the role of religion was, 1n many ways, limited. Chronicled in a variety of histories, the

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 99

life of the bachelor laborer was primitive and rough (Ichioka 1988: 82-90; ‘Takaki 1989: 182-85). One description of the conditions for workers in California’s Central Valley reads as follows: “During those days around Fresno, laborers did not even carry blankets. ‘They slept in the fields with what they had on. ‘They drank river water brought in by irrigation ditches....If they ate supper, 1t consisted of flour dumplings

in a soup seasoned with salt....Slaving away from 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., this unhealthy life was intolerable” Uchioka 1988: 83).

Given these conditions, the Japanese American population often simply had little time to devote to activities outside of work. ‘These conditions did, however, link with the Buddhist organization in a much

more somber manner—namely through high rates of mortality. As the statistics from the Sacramento California branch of the BMNA indicate, during its first three years of operation from 1900 to 1902, 99 people, mostly young men in their 20s and 30s, had died (Ichioka 1988: 82). Annualized over the time span, this figure amounts to one death every eleven days, which would make conducting funerals perhaps the central activity for the church. This focus for the Buddhist organi-

zation 1s another element of continuity for the community inasmuch as Buddhism in Japan is often similarly associated with the end of life and funeral arrangements. As macabre as it may appear, funerals were clearly organizationally valuable and gave the BMNA a unique social role in the Japanese American community. It is also the case that at this ttme the BMNA did not initially restrict its activities to the Japanese American community. As with any religious organization with a desire to attract members, the BMNA began propagation efforts in the general American population. As early as January 1900, the Rev. Eryu Honda’s records show the formation of a weekly Buddhist study class for Gaucasians. In April, the service schedule lists a Caucasian service at 2:00 and a Japanese service at 8:00 that evening.

A month later, the February 12 log entry marks the formation of the “Caucasian Dharma Sangha” led by the Rev. Sonoda and attended by a Dr. Norman, Messers. McIntyre, Hayes, C. F Jones, E. R. Stoddard, and a Mrs. Agnes White (BMNA 1900). ‘These efforts to propagate the religion outside of the Japanese American community, however, lapsed

with key deaths among the non-Japanese membership as a result of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. ‘The minister’s log, which resumed

on April 26, indicates that Mrs. White died as a result of the disaster (Uchida 1906). Whether this individual’s loss was the catalytic event

100 ARTHUR NISHIMURA cannot be ascertained from the available historical sources, but after the earthquake, no further Caucasian study classes, services, or group resumed operation. For the Japanese American community in San Francisco, the earthquake and subsequent fire resulted in the destruction of the church building and BMNA national headquarters. ‘The members of the church also suffered loss of life and property from this natural disaster. In response, the church took on relief roles for the Japanese American community through a temporary location a few blocks away from its ruined building. Although this event directly impacted the population in the city and surrounding areas, it 1s emblematic of the overall shift in both the Japanese American society and the BMNA. The Nisei

The causal relationship between the natural disaster, the larger social climate, and the functions of the organization, however, should not be overstated. The basic fact remains that this time period also marks the transformation of the Japanese American population from a bachelor sojourner group to a permanent familial ethnic enclave society. ‘The most significant element of this change was the birth of the second generation of Japanese Americans, for whom the BMNA’s services were more general. As native born and reared Americans, the Nisei did not need the assimilation and settlement services utilized by their parents. Rather, the organization provided more of the community and social services that were unavailable to them from the general society. More specifically, the BMNA began to develop programs and activities to meet the demands of member families with American-born and socialized children. Perhaps the first indication of this shift was the formation of Japanese language schools sponsored by the Buddhist churches. ‘The first was established in 1903 in Sacramento with 56 students (Horinouchi 1972: 120). Given that only those who were not reared and educated in Japan would most likely need Japanese language instruction, this school represents either a response to a second-generation population or an opening to members of the general population who desired to learn Japanese. Although no class rosters are available, old photographic evidence showing only Asian children clearly indicates that the former was the most likely the situation. Subsequently, in addition to language

classes, the churches began to provide a whole host of what can be

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 10]

described as cultural activities. ‘The church offered martial arts training the form of judo, kendo and karate. ‘his was so pervasive that 1t was one of the first activities restricted by the federal authorities with the

onset of World War II (Buddhist Churches of America 1999: 21). In addition, BMNA member temples offered classes on zkebana ( Japanese flower arranging), calligraphy, and even singing.

In 1913, the first Sunday school for Japanese children in America was formed at the San Francisco church, an idea that quickly spread to the rest of the member organizations. By the following year, athletic leagues for basketball and baseball had formed (Munekata 1975: 144-45). he growing presence and importance of women in Japanese American society and in the organization was formally recognized

in 1927 with the formation of the North American Federation of Young Women’s Buddhist Associations (YWBAs) (Buddhist Churches of America 1999: 17). While the YMBA was originally comprised of the young Issei founders, by the 1920s—1930s, it had become a largely Nisei organization. ‘The social function of these afhllated organizations revolved around conferences that were first held at the national level in 1925 (Yoo 2000: 42). ‘These conferences, in addition to offering religious meetings and discussions enabled Nisei from different parts of the state to meet, develop friendships, and discuss not only their religious faith but also a host of other issues.

Some went in search of romance and found it. Others anticipated programs and activities that provided relief from the routine of school and work. ‘he meetings also enabled Nisei from varied backgrounds to socialize. For some residing in rural areas, the meetings represented a chance to see the larger world (Yoo 2000: 47-48).

In effect, the Nisei utilized these conferences to extend their social networks in the Japanese American community. As these gatherings drew thousands at their largest, they allowed the Nisei to see and engage with their peer group firsthand. More importantly, through this interaction this generation could begin to come to terms with their dual Japanese American identities as well as the marginalized position of their community in American society.

Another youth-oriented role taken by the BMNA was to become part of the Scouting movement in the United States. ‘Ten years after the formation of the Boy Scouts of America in 1910, the first Buddhist scout troop, Troop 4, formed at the Fresno Buddhist Church in 1920

(Boys Scouts of America 2007). By the beginning of World War I, seven BMNA churches had formed their own troops.

102 ARTHUR NISHIMURA ‘There is one final social service that the BMNA temples and churches

provided for the community at the beginning of World War II. Faced with the short amount of time between the signing of Executive Order 9066 in February of 1942 and the mandatory relocation of the Japanese American population then living on the west coast, the churches and temples of the BMNA opened their buildings as storage space for individuals and families as they left for the internment camps. ‘Uhus, in poignant manner, Just as the community that it served disbanded and metaphorically “went into storage,” so also did the Buddhist churches. Effectively shuttered and disbanded, the role of the Buddhist churches would see fundamental shifts during the war years and would emerge in many ways as a wholly new organization with a different structure and leadership.

The BMINA as a Religious Social Organization

The portrait that emerges is that the BMNA and its member temples and churches were clearly an integral part of the Japanese American community in the United States at both the religious and social levels. Through its ethnic connection with the Japanese American community, the organization clearly owes much to the particular and perhaps unique elements of Japanese immigration to the US as well as its own organizational and religious history. In terms of the religion, the key factor was clearly its popular orientation. The relative openness of the religion in terms of its practices and beliefs made it accessible to a larger body of the population, particularly for the peasantry of Japan. ‘This popularity obviously increased the odds

of its transplantation in the event of a migratory event. In addition, the particular course of Japanese history contributed to reinforce the role of the Jodo Shinshu, the sect to which the BMNA belongs, within the specific areas of the country from which the immigrants originated. First was the fact that the impetus for emigration involved agricultural labor. ‘This meant that agricultural areas of Japan would experience the highest levels of migration. Secondly, because of the prefectural origins of the Japanese governmental leadership, the targeted areas of recruitment were not only agricultural but also those with the highest concentration of Jodo Shinshu followers. The other key element in this alignment of religion, organization, and ethnicity was the particular course of Japanese settlement in the

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 103

United States. ‘he first issue in this process of settlement was the fact that it began as a labor sojourner population of young men looking

for economic opportunities. This population demographic and the conditions they encountered, most notably high mortality, created an immediate impetus for the Jodo Shinshu sect to begin establishing a presence in the US. ‘The second factor affecting the course of the Japanese American community was the anti-immigrant and anti-Japanese

movements that not only resulted in an end of Japanese immigration to the US, but also institutionalized a hostile economic and social environment. One offshoot of this was the transition in immigration from

male sojourners to female settlers. “his demographic shift not only added a new membership group to the BMNA but also begat a whole new generation of members in the form of the second generation of Japanese Americans.

For the BMNA organization, these shifts translated into both an expansion of social functions as well as a basic shift in activities. In terms of activities, rather than providing newcomer settlement and assimilation services, the organization began to meet the needs of a resident population. In terms of the expansion, the membership now included not only women but also children. In effect, the organization was now serving a multigenerational membership. Moreover, this expansion occurred in the face of a hostile general society and so the BMNA provided many more overtly social functions. Given the particular history and characteristics of the organization, what 1s of note in reviewing and summarizing the discussion is precisely that the communal role of a religious organization 1s defined more by its social activities than the religion itself. Beginning with the Issei and continuing with the Nisei, the Buddhist churches and temples appear to have been largely structured by the activities originating from and addressing the needs of the process of immigration and settlement.

As with the experience of many other ethnic groups and ethnic religious organizations, the North American Buddhist Mission and the Japanese American community were in alignment. The organization proved to be at once traditional and progressive. On one hand, the distinctly Japanese religion provided ethnically oriented services, most notably funerals, which provided continuity with the country of origin for the community. Within a new and often hostile society, the BMNA offered something of a safe and familiar haven for the immigrant community. On the other hand, as an extant organization with a long history

in Japan, the Jodo Shinshu organization had the resources, will, and

104 ARTHUR NISHIMURA ability to address the needs of the immigrant population. Moreover, as the composition and the needs of the membership changed, the organization was there once again to be a social resource. As an immigrant organization itself, the BMNA proved to be flexible in extending its role in the community to meet the very specific needs of the Japanese Americans beyond that of the religion itself. Given this dual nature, the role of the Japanese American Buddhist organization, the Buddhist Mission of North America, in the pre-World War II period is a clear example of the power of the social elements of religious organizations. ‘This is further reinforced by the fact that the BMNA not only survived the forced dissolution and internment of the Japanese American community during the war, but it emerged with an even more socially oriented organizational structure and function. This organization, established in 1944 under a new name, the Buddhist Churches of America, was to share in the prosperity of post-World War

II America and the economic resurgence of the Japanese American community. Perhaps more important, the organization continues to be the largest Buddhist and Japanese American organization in the United States and, in some rural communities, the only active Japanese American ethnic organization.

References Andreasen, Esben. 1998. Popular Buddhism in Japan: Shin Buddhist Rehgion and Culture.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Boy Scouts of America. 2007. “Scouting in the Buddhist Community.” http://www.scouting.org, retrieved 28 August. Buddhist Churches of America. 1999. Buddhist Churches of Amenca: A Legacy of the First

100 Years. San Francisco: Buddhist Churches of America.

Conroy, Francis Hilary. 1949. “The Japanese Expansion into Hawai, 1868-1898.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Ebaugh, Helen Rose and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2000. Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuties and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Handlin, Oscar. 1951. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that Made the American People. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Herberg, Will. 1960. Protestant-Catholic-few: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Garden

City, NY: Doubleday. Honda, Eryu. 1900. Head Minister’s Log. Manuscript. San Francisco: Buddhist Mission of North America. ——. 1902. Head Minister’s Log Manuscript. San Francisco: Buddhist Mission of North America. Horinouchi, Isao. 1972. “Americanized Buddhism: A Sociological Analysis of a Protestantized Japanese Religion.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.

THE BUDDHIST MISSION OF NORTH AMERICA I6Q8—1942 105 Ichioka, Yuji. 1988. The Lssez The World of the First Generation Japanese Immigrants 186 5—

1924, New York: Free Press. Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha. 2002. Jodo Shinshu: A Guide. Kkyoto: Hongwanji International Center.

Kashima, ‘Tetsuden. 1975. “The Social Organization of the Buddhist Churches of America: Continuity and Social Change.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego. Munekata, Ryo, ed. 1974. Buddhist Churches of America: 75 Year History 1699-1974, vol. 1. Chicago: Nobart. Muramoto, Masaji. 1972. “First Year Immigrants to Hawai and Eugene Van Reed.” Pp. 5-39 in East across the Pacific, edited by Francis Hilary Conroy. Santa Barbara, CA: Clio. Strong, Edward. 1930. Japanese in Calforma. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Takaki, Ronald. 1989. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. New

York: Penguin. ‘Takeda, Ryusei, ed. 1996. Shinran and Amenca: Problems and Future of Propagation in America.

Kyoto: Ryukoku University. ‘Tsai, Shih-shan Henry. 1986. The Chinese Experience in Amenca. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Uchida, Koyu. 1906. Head Minister’s Log Manuscript. San Francsico: Buddhist Mission

of North America.

Wakatsuki, Yasuo. 1984. “Emigration of Japanese to the United States.” Pacific Citizen,

6-13 January: BI. Wakukawa, Ernest K. 1938. A History of the Japanese People in Hawan. Honolulu: ‘Toyo Shoin. Warner, R. Stephen and Judith G. Wittner, eds. 1998. Gatherings in Diaspora: Rehgious Communities and the New Immigration. Philadelphia: ‘Temple University Press. Yoo, David K. 2000. Growing up Nisei: Race, Generation, and Culture among Japanese Americans

of Cahforna, 1924-49. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Blank page

CHAPTER FIVE

JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOSITY: A GONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE Tetsuden Kashima

For Japanese Americans, religion and religiosity—the latter defined here

as the beliefs, moral or devotional practices and ritual observances, and/or attendance at churches or temples—have received relatively scant attention. This has occurred despite a plethora of historical and social science writings on other significant aspects of this group starting almost from the time of the earliest Japanese immigrants to the United

States. Although numerous texts on Japanese Americans’ religious activities mention this topic, few have centered their attention on it. Those that have done so have been either church histories originating often from the relevant organizations themselves (Shiraishi 1964; Munekata 1974; Centennial Celebration Coordinating Council 1977) or others focused on a social change and historical perspective (Freed and Luomala 1944; Matsumoto 1946; Hunter 1971; Horinouchi 1973;

Layman 1976; Kashima 1977; Suzuki 1979; Hayashi 1995; Okada 1998; Prebish and ‘Tanaka 1998; Seager 1999; Yoo 2000). Moreover, with the exceptions of some works that include questions on religiosity, such as Fugita and Fernandez (2004), few works are empirically based studies of a random-sampled subject pool. The purpose of this chapter is three-fold: to compare the religiosity of Japanese Americans: (1) across generations, (2) across geographic locations, and (3) with Japanese in Japan and with the majority (non-

Japanese) population of the United States. The first two data sets are based on responses from a random-sampled, in-person representative sample to a questionnaire given in Hawai and two counties in California and Washington states. The third data set originates from responses to

questions asked in other random-sample interviews in Japan and the United States. For the generation and location variables, the questions on religios-

ity constituted a small portion of a study that co-researchers and I initially presented in 2002 (Kashima et al. 2002). ‘That article asserted

108 TETSUDEN KASHIMA as a basic premise that Japanese Americans acquired through the early immigrant Japanese (Isse1) some basic religious attitudes and behavioral tendencies derived from their Japanese heritage that have persisted to the present, yet at the same time certain prominent features of those religious attitudes and practices were abandoned almost from the start of their immigration. Specifically, the persistence of a high degree of Buddhism among Japanese Americans continues today, but differences

do occur with Japan on having a personal faith and with an equally large percentage of Japanese Americans where Christianity is a notable part of their religious lives. The first data set will examine the issue of geographical differences, focusing on two significant localities where Japanese Americans have

lived and faced differing historical and sociocultural experiences— Hawan and the West Coast of the United States. ‘The next data set will examine the influence of generational distance away from the original immigrants from Japan on the group’s religiosity. ‘he initial hypotheses posit that between the two major locales, even with major social historical differences encountered by this group, and within the generational subgroups on relevant religiosity questions, no significant differences will arise in their religiosity. ‘The rationale for these two analytic perspectives will be offered later. Finally, the chapter will examine the responses to the matching religiosity questions given by respondents in Japan, United States citizens as a whole, and Japanese Americans specifically to present a comparative picture of this topic. The hypothesis here is that the Japanese Americans evidence a position

that 1s relatively different from both the Japanese in Japan and from other Americans in the US.

Sampling: The 1996-2000 Fapanese Americans on the West Coast and the 1999-2000 Fapanese Americans in Hawai Surveys

The data derive from a small portion of two surveys: the 1998-2000 Japanese Americans on the West Coast Survey (JAWQCS) and the 1999-2000 Cultural Survey of Japanese Americans and non-Japanese Americans in Hawai (CSJAH). Both studies were conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Statistical Mathematics, ‘lokyo, Japan, and under the leadership of the late Professor Chikio Hayashi and his colleagues who for a half-century have conducted longitudinal surveys of Japanese attitudes and beliefs (see Yoshino et al., 2000, 2001). ‘he

JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOSITY 109 translated Japanese questionnaire served as the core of several questionnaires given in other countries—tor example, Germany, France, and Italy—including countries and areas with a sizeable population of persons of Japanese ancestry—Brazil, the West Coast of the United States, and Hawai. ‘The JAWCS was conducted in Santa Clara County, California, and King County, Washington under the direction of Professors 8. Frank Miyamoto, Stephen S. Fugita, and myself. Both counties are major urban centers, with sizable populations of Japanese Americans—the former containing San Jose and the latter, Seattle. Names and addresses of potential respondents came from the counties’ voter registration list

of 11,700 Japanese American identified names in King County and 10,652 names in Santa Clara County, with a random sample resulting in 425 potential interviewees in King and 492 in Santa Clara. Personal interviews using a 90-item survey instrument containing closed and open-ended question resulted in 344 completed surveys by Japanese Americans (Fugita, Kashima and Miyamoto 2002). The 1999-2000 Hawai Survey (CSJAH), under the direction of Professor Yasumasa Kuroda, 1s the latest 1n a series of five studies with

the same core set of questions used in 1972, 1978, 1983, 1988, and 1999-2000. A random-sample selection of respondents came from Hawaii’s voter registration list centering on Representative Districts 15 to 30, an urban area in the southern part of Oahu. A sample list of 2,101 names, augmented by another list of 3,000, resulted in faceto-face interviews with 206 Japanese American respondents (Yoshino et al. 2001).'

Generations: From Nisei to Gosei

Before presenting the data, a few words must be said about the relevance of geography and generation to the Japanese American group. It appears that only two immigrant groups in the United States differentiate themselves by linguistic terms and group characteristics as a unique personality of generational descendents from the original ' The census areas lie between Kokohead to the east and the Diamond Head side of Middle Street to the west. Although 206 Japanese American interviews were conducted, the usable sample was 196. Out of the 196, four respondents did not indicate their generation.

110 TETSUDEN KASHIMA immigrants.” The term “Japanese American” refers to the immigrants

from Japan and the succeeding generations. ‘he immigrants themselves are the /ssex—the first generation, who were formally ineligible for naturalization as United States citizens from 1922 to 1952.” Their children are the Msez and are by birthright United States citizens. Subsequent generations have their specific appellations. ‘Uhe third is the Sansei, the fourth, Yonser, and the fifth generation, Gosei. Reports exist today of sixth- and even seventh-generation infant Japanese Americans in Hawaii. The Nisei and Sansei constitute the majority of the present Japanese American population. Most Isse1 today are deceased. ‘he Nisei are mostly in their retirement years, while the Yonsei and Gose1 are still in their teen years. ‘The uniqueness of each generation’s character stems from its social history. The Issei arrived in the United States from Japan, in the main, from the early 1900s until their immigration was essentially stopped with the passage of the 1924 Immigration Act. Most Issei originated from four prefectures in southern Japan (Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, Kumamoto, and Fukuoka) and their socialization occurred during the Mei: (1868-1912) and ‘laisho (1912-1926) eras. Moreover, their arrival from the late 1800s

to the 1920s coincided with extreme prejudicial and discriminatory practices in the western United States, initially against the Chinese, but which were then shifted, with some additions, toward the Issei.

The Nisei were born in the US from the early 1910s through the 1930s, with a median age of 17 in 1942 (Thomas 1952: 19). Socialized initially in a Japanese value- and culture-orientated family, they were soon subjected to differing acculturation pressures as they interacted with others in an American educational system and an English-speaking

society. This situation created a unique Nisei interpersonal style that they inherited from their parents but was modified within the American

social context. Examples of the Japanese interpersonal style include

* The other group is the Korean Americans; see, for example, Hurh 1990 and Min 1996, 2006. Numerous studies are available that show significant differences in attitudes

and beliefs among Japanese Americans according to generational distance from the Issei, for example: Caudill and DeVos 1966; Lyman 1970; Petersen 1974; Miyamoto 1972, 1981; Conner 1977; Yanagisako 1985; Glenn 1986; Daniels 1988; Nakano 1990; Fugita and O’Brien 1991; Kitano 1993; Kitano and Daniels 2001. ’ There were few Japanese immigrants to the United States from 1924 to 1945. Post-World War I Japanese immigrants are frequently referred to as “Shin [new] Isse1” to differentiate them from the earlier Issel.

JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOSITY 11] “delayed response tendency in interactions, low individuality, exceptional attentiveness to the attitudes of others, emphasis on consensus forming, and strong preference for group decision making and group actions’ (Miyamoto et al. 2002: 149), which originate from the Japanese emphasis on maintaining harmony, peace, and especially the avoidance of interpersonal conflict or confrontation. ‘he Japanese place emphasis, more than 1s typical among Americans, on being perceptually aware of the other person, that is, placing emphasis on “taking the attitude of others,” on understanding the other’s subjective feelings and motives, and trying to ascertain “the other’s point of view.” Likewise, as a group, the Japanese place less awareness on one’s personal ego-oriented area of self-definition. ‘That is, they are sensitive to an unusual degree to the intersubjective aspects of the interaction between self and other (Miyamoto 1986; Miyamoto et al. 2002). Important elements of this interpersonal style are transmitted to the subsequent Japanese American generations as well and, as we will see later, assist in understanding the differences in religious behavior and attitudes between Japanese and US respondents. The social histories of the Isse1, Nisei, and Sansei are different (e.g., Lyman 1970: 95-97; Conner 1977). Of importance here are the devastating effects of the World War II expulsion and incarceration of nearly 120,000 mainly West Coast Japanese Americans into the War Relocation Authority camps (cf. GWRIC 1997). Nearly two-thirds of those removed were Nisei, with the Isse1 as the remaining third, that the government kept in primitive prison-like enclosures complete with armed guards stationed around the perimeter barb-wired fence, most for three years. In addition, a significant group of Isse1 pre-War community leaders and spokespersons were arrested earlier and placed in separate internment camps run by the Department of Justice and the War Department, where they were isolated from their wives and children for years due to the new Alien Enemy status imposed on them after December 7, 1941. The re-entry of the entire Japanese American group back into the larger society after the conclusion of World War II was difficult. Many Isse1 and some Nisei had lost their means of livelihood along with their pre-War community and social network. Upon their return from the incarceration camps or from their wartime military service in Europe and the Pacific, numerous Nisei adjusted to the post-War period by suppressing their earlier painful memories of mistreatment and unwarranted exclusion (cf. GWRIC 1997: 295-301;

112 TETSUDEN KASHIMA Kashima 2003: 216-20). The Nise married, had children (the Sansel), worked hard, and many achieved their version of the American Dream—middle-class socioeconomic status. The Sansei generation, born mainly after 1950, has not had to face the overt racial discrimination borne by their parents and grandparents. Yet, the Japanese values and interpersonal style were passed onto this generation by the Nisei. I will later offer empirical data that examine

certain religiosity values passed on from the Nisei and Sansei to the Yonsei and Gosei generations. It is expected, of course, that there would be changes to and a diminution of the power of those initial Japanese values, attitudes, and beliefs. Nevertheless, it is also expected that the Sansei will continue to exhibit the behaviors attendant on these values, albeit without in most cases being able to identify the Japanese language terms for these values. The hypothesis concerning the transmission of cultural values and beliefs continues with the Yonsei and the Gose1. Within the Japanese

American community, generational terms continue, but these later generations are still relatively young and the sampling process identified and included too few Yonsei and Gosei to make persuasive generalizations about them possible. Yet, it 1s important to examine whether their religiosity is similar to or significantly different from the Nisei and Sansei.

Besides the generational phenomenon, then, a second area of interest is with the geographical differences between Japanese Americans on the West Coast and those in the state of Hawau.

Geographical Locations: Hawau and the West Coast

‘Two areas with quite different social histories represent the geographical factor. The 2000 census reports that California, Hawan, and Washineton are areas where nearly 61 percent of the total Japanese Americans

reside (Akiba 2006: 160). One could reason that Japanese Americans in Hawau, when compared with their West Coast counterparts, might evidence differences to various questions on religiosity due to the differences in their social histories. Hawaii’s history, for example, includes a large number of Japanese Americans from the late 1800s, and compared

to the mainland states, Japanese Americans constitute a much larger proportion of the population. In 1940, they represented 37.3 percent of the ‘lerritory of Hawai population. In addition, Hawaian Japanese Americans, overall, were better integrated within the larger society and

JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOSITY 113 had considerably more social power than the West Coast Japanese Americans. [here were arguably better interpersonal relationships between individuals of different racial and ethnic groups in Hawaiu— making it possible to forestall proactively and successfully, for example,

the later draconian measure of mass incarceration that occurred in the West Coast states. Finally, Hawan had a heterogeneous group of individuals who were knowledgeable about Japanese Americans and who played important roles in the differential treatment of Hawanan Japanese Americans compared with their West Coast counterparts during World War II (Coffman 2006; Kashima 2003: 67-87). Hawaii never evidenced the extreme and continual discrimination and racially prejudicial attitudes toward the Japanese Americans as occurred in the Pacific Coast states. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) gives a poignant example of the effect of this difference during World War II. When the segregated and later famed 442nd Regimental Combat ‘Team was undergoing their initial infantry training in Mississippi, many personal fights erupted between the Nisei soldiers from Hawaii and the

West Coast. Their white officers were at wits end as they unsuccessfully tried to form a cohesive combat group from seemingly disparate individuals. ‘Vhen, an invitation was issued to selected Hawaii Nisei to visit with other Japanese Americans in the Arkansas area. Believing that this was a great chance for the Hawaii Nisei to dance with mainland Nisei girls, they cheerfully prepared to enjoy their leave. However, as the

buses and trucks carrying the Hawaiians entered Rohwer and Jerome, two barb-wired enclosed War Relocation Authority camps in Arkansas, they suddenly realized and understood that the life of their fellow mainland Nise1 comrades was vastly different from theirs in Hawaii. The leave turned out to be less fun-filled than they had anticipated. On their return and after talking with their fellow Hawaiian Nisei, the internal fights between the two groups ceased; as Inouye stated, it was only then that “the Regiment was formed and we became brothers. And the rest 1s history” (Kawamoto 2006: 7). The absence of a mass incarceration in Hawaii is but one example of the different social history experienced by the Japanese Americans

born and reared in Hawai compared with those in the contiguous United States. Moreover, the mainland World War II incarceration encapsulates an action that 1s so important that one writer has called it “the defining event in the history of Japanese Americans” (Yamaoka 2006: 280). With all these important differences in their lives, one might expect significant differences in the attitudes and beliefs—and, of special

114 TETSUDEN KASHIMA interest here, the religiosity factor—between Japanese Americans hailing

from Hawai and the West Coast. However, I posit similarity rather than significant differences on this factor between the two groups.

Religious Attitudes and Belvefs

Incorporated into the cultural surveys conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Statistical Mathematics were some questions dealing with religious attitudes and beliefs. The 1998-2000 Japanese American West Coast Survey (JAWQCS) incorporated six such questions, of which four were identical to, or essentially the same as, those in the surveys conducted with the Japanese Americans in Hawai (CSJAH), the Japanese in Japan, and the United States.* The four relevant religiosity questions are: a) “I would like to ask you a few questions about religion. Do you have any personal religious faith? No ___, Yes ___, Other (Specify) ___” hereafter abbreviated as “Religious fath”/.

b) “If yes, what religion is this? Buddhism ___, Protestantism ___, Catholicism___, Judaism ___, Other (Specify)__”_ /hereafter abbreviated as “Religions”?/.

c) The JAWC Survey asked: “Some people say that although there are many different religions in the world, each with their own beliefs, their teachings really amount to the same thing. Would you agree with this or disagree? Agree ___, Disagree ___, Other (Specify) ___, Don’t

know.”

The CSJAH survey asked: “There are some people who say about religion that there are many sects all with their own different positions, but that really their teachings all amount to the same thing. Would you agree with this or not? Yes__, No ____, Other (Specify) __, Don’t Know/NA __” shereafier abbreviated as “Religious teachings amount to the same thing”/.

d) “Without reference to any of the established religions, do you think that a religious attitude 1s important or not?” Important ___, Not Important __, Other (Specify) ___, Don’t know ___”” /hereafter abbreviated as “Importance of rehgious attitude”/.

* 'The two questions not asked in Hawaii, Japan, or the United States were for those who answered positively to “Do you have a religious faith?” a) “Are you a member of any particular Church or temple?” and b) “Does this church or temple have a predominately Japanese American membership?” A discussion on these two questions can be found in Kashima et al. 2002: 206-7, 222.

JAPANESE AMERICAN RELIGIOSITY L15 I will start with an analysis of the location factor between the Hawaii and West Coast data. Location: Hawau vs West Coast

Overall, the location differences between Hawai and West Coast Japanese Americans on the religiosity questions do not appear to be statistically significant. First, | examined whether there was a difference between the location and the four generations. As shown in ‘Table 1, with a small cell size number in the Gosei generation category, a Fisher’s

exact test was conducted with a value