Chidester, David - The Church of Baseball

American Academy of Religion
The Church of Baseball, the Fetish of Coca-Cola, and the Potlatch of Rock 'n' Roll: Theoretical
Models for the Study of Religion in American Popular Culture
Author(s): David Chidester
Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 64, No. 4, Thematic Issue on
"Religion and American Popular Culture" (Winter, 1996), pp. 743-765
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465620 .
Accessed: 27/01/2014 07:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of the AmericanAcademy of ReligionLXIV/4
AAR
The Church of Baseball,
the Fetish of Coca-Cola,
and the Potlatch of Rock 'n'
Roll: Theoretical Models
for the Study of Religion in
American Popular Culture
David Chidester
CONSIDERABLEACADEMIC ATTENTIONhas recentlybeen directed

towardsthe analysisof religion in Americanpopular culture.' Although
much of this academic industry has successfully marked out exciting
new areas of inquiry,we still need to ask: What are we talking about?
What do we mean by "religion"in Ihe study of religion in American
popularculture?
Consider this: "Whathas a lifetime of baseball taught you?,"Buck
O'Neilis asked in an interviewfor KenBums'stelevisionserieson the his-
tory of the Americannationalpastime. "Itis a religion,"O'Neilresponds.
"Forme,"he adds. "Youunderstand?"
David Chidesteris Professorof ComparativeReligionand Directorof the Institutefor Comparative
Religionin SouthernAfricaat the Universityof CapeTown, Rondebosch,7700, South Africa.
1 Basiccontours of the study of religionin Americanpopularculture can be discernedby consult-

ing Browne;Elzey;Lippy;and Williams.Recentresearchin this areahas directedparticularattention
towardmaterialculture(McDannell),media (Goethals;Jindra),and the productionand contestation
of sacredspace in Americanpopularculture (Chidesterand Linenthal).
743

744 Journalof the AmericanAcademyof Religion
Not exactly,of course, because we have no idea what Buck O'Neil,

the great first baseman of the KansasCity Monarchsin the 1930s, who
servedbaseballfor over six decadesas player,coach, manager,and scout,
means by the term, "religion."What does he mean?As Ken Burnswould
have it, baseballis a religionbecause it operatesin Americanculturelike
a church, "TheChurchof Baseball."Is that how we should understand
"religion"in Americanpopular culture, as an organizedhuman activity
that functionslike the more familiarreligiousinstitutionof the Christian
church?
To complicate the matter,however, consider this: A religion is not a
specific institution; rather, a religion is "asystem of symbols . . ." So says
anthropologistCliffordGeertz;so also says author MarkPendergrastin
his accountof a new religionthatwas founded in Americabut eventually
achievedtrulyglobalscope, the religionof Coca-Cola.
In his popular history,For God,Country,and Coca-Cola,Pendergrast
concludes that the fizzy,caramel-coloredsugarwaterstands as a "sacred
symbol"that induces "worshipful"moods that animatean "all-inclusive
world view espousingperennialvalues such as love, peace, and universal
brotherhood."According to this reading, therefore, religion is about
sacredsymbolsand systemsof sacredsymbolsthat endow the world with
meaningand value. As Pendergrastargues,Coca-Cola-the sacredname,
the sacredformula,the sacredimage,the sacredobject-has been the fet-
ish at the centerof a popularAmericansystem of religioussymbolism.
Butwe can complicatethings even furtherby consideringthis: "Let's
GiveIt to 'Em,RightNow!,"singerJoe Ely screamsbeforethe instrumen-
talbreakin the Kingsmen's1963 rock'n'roll classic,"Louie,Louie."In the
midst of the clashing, crashingcacophony,with lyrics that are unintelli-
gible at any speed, we are struckby the strainedscreech of Ely'sexhorta-
tion, "Let'sGive It to 'Em,RightNow!"What kind of a "gift"is this?
In his book-lengthhistory of the song, which explores "theSecret"of
"Louie,Louie,"rock criticDave Marshproposesthat one useful model for
understandingthis kind of gift-giving appearsin the ritualizeddisplay,
presentation,and destructionof propertyassociatedwith the potlatchrit-
ual performedby indigenousAmericansocietiesin the PacificNorthwest.
This analogywith a NativeAmericanritual,Marshargues,can illuminate
what he calls the "socioreligious"characterof "Louie,Louie"in American
culture. In this sense, however, religion is not an institution;it is not a
system of symbols;it is the gift.
Church,fetish, potlatch-these three terms representdifferenttheo-
retical models for analyzing religion in American popular culture. By
examiningtheirrecentdeploymentin popularaccountsof baseball,Coca-

Chidester:
TheChurchof Baseball 745
Cola,and rock'n'roll, I hope to exploresome of the consequencesof these

theoreticalmodels for the study of religion.Among those consequences,I
will highlightthe forceof metaphorictransferencein theory-building;the
implicationsof these threemetaphors,representing,respectively,the insti-
tutionalformationof the church,the powerfulbut artificialmakingof the
fetish,and the non-productiveexpenditureof the potlatch,for our under-
standingof the characterof religion;and the ways in which the very term
"religion,"includingits definition,application,and extension,does not, in
fact, belong solely to the academybut is constantlyat stake in the inter-
changesof culturaldiscoursesand practices.
1. THE CHURCH OF BASEBALL
To return to the testimony of Buck O'Neil, baseball is a religion

becauseit is an enduringinstitutionthat is governedby establishedrules.
"Ifyou go by the rules,"he explains, "it is right."Baseballis a religion,
accordingto Buck O'Neil, because "ittaughtme and it teaches everyone
else to live by the rules, to abide by the rules"(Wardand Burns:231).
This definitionof religion as rule-governedbehavior,however,is not
sufficiently comprehensive or detailed to capture what Ken Burns
presentsas the religiouscharacterof baseball.The "churchof baseball"is
much more than merely the rule book. It is a religious institution that
maintains the continuity, uniformity,sacred space, and sacred time of
Americanlife. As the "faithof fifty million people,"baseballdoes every-
thing that we conventionallyunderstandto be done by the institutionof
the church.
First, baseball ensures a sense of continuity in the midst of a con-
stantly changing Americathrough the forces of tradition,heritage, and
collectivememory.As Donald Hall suggests,"Baseball,becauseof its con-
tinuity over the space of America and the time of America, is a place
where memory gathers"(cited in Wardand Bums: xviii). Certainly,this
emphasison collectivememory-dominatesBurns'sdocumentaryon base-
ball. But it also seems to characterizethe religious characterof the sport
in Americanculture. Like a church, MajorLeagueBaseballinstitution-
alizes a sacredmemoryof the past that informsthe present.
Second, baseballsupportsa sense of uniformity,a sense of belonging
to a vast, extended American family that attends the same church. As
journalist Thomas Boswell reports in his detailed discussion of "The
Churchof Baseball,"his motherwas devotedto baseballbecause "itmade
her feel like she was in church."Likeher church, Boswellexplains,base-
ball provided his mother with "a place where she could--by sharing a

746 Journal of the American Academy of Religion
fabric of beliefs, symbols, and mutual agreements with those around

her-feel calm and whole"(189). Boswelldrawsout a series of analogies
between baseball and his mother'schurch: both feature organs; both
encouragehand clappingto theirhymns;both have distinctiverobes and
vestments;and in both everyoneis equal before God. Althoughhis anal-
ogy between the basepathsof a diamondand the ChristianCrossseems a
bit strained,Boswellprovidessufficientjustificationfor assertingthat his
mother regardedher attendanceof baseballgames as roughlyequivalent
to belonging to a church.
Third,the religionof baseballrepresentsthe sacredspace of home. In
this respect, baseball is a religion of the domestic, of the familiar,and
even of the obvious. As Boswellexplains, "Baseballis a religionthat wor-
ships the obvious and gives thanks that things are exactly as they seem.
Insteadof celebratingmysteries,baseballrejoicesin the absence of mys-
teries and trusts that, if we watch what is laid before our eyes, down to
the last detail,we will cultivatethe gift of seeing things as they reallyare"
(193). The vision of reality that baseball affords,therefore,is a kind of
normality,the ordinaryviewed through a prism that only enhances its
familiarity.While many religions point to a perfect world beyond this
world, Boswell observes, baseball creates a "perfectuniverse in micro-
cosm within the real world"(193). By producingsuch a ritualizedspace
within the world, baseballdomesticatesthe sacredand gives it a home.
Fourth, the religion of baseball representsthe sacred time of ritual.
"Everythingis high-polishritualand full-dressprocession,"Boswellnotes
(190). The entireproceedingsof the game are coordinatedthrougha ritu-
alization of time. But baseballalso affordsthose extraordinarymoments
of ecstasyand enthusiasm,revelationand inspiration,that seem to stand
outside of the ordinarytemporalflow. In church, accordingto Boswell,
his mother experienced those moments of "ritualepiphany.""Basically,"
he reports,"that'show she felt about baseball,too"(189). Throughritual
and revelationbaseballprovides an experienceof sacredtime that liber-
ates its devotees fromtime'sconstraints.
In these terms, therefore, baseball is a church, a "community of
believers"(192). Certainly,the church of baseball is confronted by the
presence of unbelievers within the larger society. As Thomas Boswell
reports, his father failed to find his rightfulplace among the faithfulin
the church of baseball. "Theappeal of baseballmystified him," Boswell
explains, "justas all religionsconfound the innocent bewilderedatheist"
(189). Like any church, however,baseballhas its committed faithful,its
true believers.The opening speech of Annie Savoyin the film "BullDur-

Chidester:The Churchof Baseball 747
ham"can be invoked as a passionate statement of religious devotion to

baseball. "Ibelieve in the church of baseball,"she declares.She testifies
that she has experimented with all other forms of religious worship,
including the worship of Buddha, Allah, Brahma,Vishnu, Siva, trees,
mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan, but those religions did not satisfy.
Even the worship of Jesus, she confesses, did not work out, because the
Christianreligioninvolves too much guilt. The religionof baseball,how-
ever, promises a freedombeyond guilt. Although she observes the anal-
ogy between baseball and the Christianchurch, which is supported by
the curious equivalence between 108 beads on the rosary and 108
stitches on a baseball,Annie Savoy proclaimsbaseballas a church in its
own right."I'vetriedthem all, I reallyhave,"she concludes,"andthe only
church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the church of base-
ball"(Boswell:189).
"Whatnonsense!,"an unbelievermight understandablyconclude in
responseto all this testimonyabout the churchof baseball.Baseballis not
a religion. It is recreation;it is entertainment;and, supported by the
monopoly granted to MajorLeagueBaseball,it is big business. All this
religiouslanguagemerely mystifiesthe genuine characterof the sport in
Americansociety.
For all the apparentmystification,strainedanalogies,and improbable
statementsof faith,however,the depiction of baseballas a churchrepre-
sents a highly significantdevelopment in attempts to locate religion in
Americanpopularculture.In earlieranthropologicalaccounts,especially
those produced by the anthropologist-from-Marsschool of cultural
anthropologythat gave us the "Nacirema"(America-spelled-backwards)
tribe, baseball registers as "magic"rather than "religion"(Miner). For
example,a frequentlyanthologizedarticleon "BaseballMagic"recordsthe
magical techniques employed by baseballplayersto manipulateunseen
forces and control events (Gmelch). Using various kinds of amulets for
good luck, players engage in specific practices-never stepping on the
foul line, alwaysspittingbefore enteringthe batter'sbox-that appear,in
Freudianterms,just like "whatare called obsessive acts in neurotics."In
their magicalpracticesbaseball players display an obsession with "little
preoccupations,performances,restrictionsand arrangementsin certain
activitiesof everydaylife which have to be carriedout alwaysin the same
or in a methodicallyvariedway"(Freud9:117-127). Although Sigmund
Freudheld thatsuch "obsessiveacts"characterizedthe practiceof both rit-
ual and magic,the authorof "BaseballMagic"implicitlyupholds the famil-
iar analyticaldistinctionbetween the two. Insteadof interpretingbaseball
as religion,however,he highlightsits superstitiouspracticesof magic.

This account of baseballmagic raisestwo theoreticalproblems.First,

by characterizingbaseballas magic the authorpushes us back to the basic
opposition between "religion"and "superstition"that has been crucialto
the very definition of religion in Westernculture. As the linguist Emile
Benveniste observed, "the notion of 'religion'requires, so to speak, by
opposition, that of 'superstition"'(522). The ancient Latin term religio,
indicating an authentic, careful,and faithfulway of acting, was defined
by its opposite superstitio,a kind of conduct that was allegedlybased on
ignorance,fear,or fraud.In these terms,we have religion;theyhave super-
stition. Only rarelyhas the inherentlyoppositionalcharacterof the notion
of "religion"been recognized. Thomas Hobbes, for example, observed
thatthe "fearof thingsinvisibleis the naturalseed of that,which everyone
in himself calleth religion;and in them that worship or fearthat power
otherwise than they do, superstition"(69). Baseballmagic, therefore,is
not religion. It is a repertoireof superstitiousbeliefs and practicesthat
standsas the definingopposite of authenticreligion.Fromthe perspective
of the anthropologistwho stands outside and observes,baseballmagic is
clearlysomethingvery strangethat they do; it is not our religion.
Second, by focusing on baseballmagic, the authorrecallsthe tension
between the individual and society that has characterizedacademic re-
flections on the differencebetween magic and religion. Following Emile
Durkheim'sclassic formulation,magic is essentially individualisticand
potentially anti-social. Unlike religious ritual, which affirmsand rein-
forces the social solidarity of a community,magic manipulatesunseen
forces in the service of self-interest.As Durkheiminsisted, there can be
no "churchof magic."Accordingly,if baseballis magic, there can be no
"churchof baseball."
Ken Burnsintervenesin these theoreticalproblemsby reversingtheir
terms. He presents baseball as religion rather than magic and thereby
representsthe game as an authentic religious affirmationof the tradi-
tional continuity,uniformity,and solidarityof Americansociety.Adopting
a functional definition of religion, Burns documents the ways in which
baseballoperateslike a church by meeting personalneeds and reinforc-
ing social integration.In fact, his implicit theoreticalmodel of religion
seems to be informed by the kind of functional assumptions found in
J. MiltonYinger'sdefinitionof a universalchurchas "areligiousstructure
that is relativelysuccessful in supportingthe integrationof society,while
at the same time satisfying, by its pattern of beliefs and observances,
many of the personality needs of individuals on all levels of society"
(147). Likea church,with its orthodoxyand heresies,its canonicalmyths
and professions of faith, its rites of communion and excommunication,
baseballappearsin these terms as the functionalreligionof America.

Chidester:TheChurchof Baseball 749
Of course, this account of the church of baseballis positioned in an

historicalmoment of great public disillusionmentwith the professional
game. Feeling betrayed by both greedy players and arrogantowners,
many devotees have become apostatesof the religion of baseball.In this
context the phrase "churchof baseball"shifts from metaphorto irony;it
becomes a figure of ironic displacement as collective memory is trans-
formed from commemorationof an enduring tradition to nostalgia for
a lost world. From this vantage point the continuity and uniformityof
baseballtradition,the sacred time and sacred space of the baseballreli-
gion, can only be recreatedin memory.
2. THE FETISH OF COCA-COLA
A very differenttheoreticalmodel of religion is developed in Mark

Pendergrast's ForGod,Country,and Coca-Cola.Drawingupon the familiar
definition of religion provided by CliffordGeertz,Pendergrastproposes
that Coca-Colais a religionbecause it is "asystem of symbols which acts
to establishpowerful,pervasive,and long-lastingmoods and motivations
in men by formulatingconceptions of a general order of existence and
clothing these conceptions in such an aura of factualitythat the moods
and motivationsseem uniquely realistic."To his credit, Pendergrastdoes
not force his history of Coca-Colainto the mold of Geertz'sdefinition.
Rather,he allows the majoractors in the dramato evoke their religious
moods and motivationsin their own voices. Herewe need to recallonly
the most strikingexamples:
From the beginning, the beveragewas enveloped in a sacredaura,as
its inventor,John Pemberton,referredto one of Coca-Cola'soriginalin-
gredients,cocaine (which remainedin the mix from 1886 until 1902) as
"the greatestblessing to the human family,Nature's(God's)best gift in
medicine"(27). Duringthe 1890s Coca-Colaemergedas a populartonic
in the soda fountains that a contemporarycommentator described as
"templesresplendentin crystalmarbleand silver"(16). Eventually,how-
ever, the blessings of Coca-Colamoved out of the temple and into the
world.
Companyexecutives,advertisers,bottlers,and distributorsdisplayed
distinctively religious moods and motivations in relation to the sacred
beverage.Asa Candler,the Atlantaentrepreneurwho started the Coca-
Cola empire, was described by his son as regardingthe drink with "an
almost mystical faith"(68). Candlereventually "initiated"his son "into
the mysteriesof the secret flavoringformula"as if he were inductinghim
into the "Holyof Holies"(61). RobertWoodruff,who became president

of the company in 1923, "demonstrateda devotion to Coca-Colawhich
approachedidolatry"(160). HarrisonJones, the leading bottler of the
1920s, often referredto the beverageas "holywater"(146). Even the bot-
tle itselfwas a sacredobjectthat could not be changed.At a 1936 bottlers
convention HarrisonJones declared,"TheFour Horsemenof the Apoca-
lypse may charge over the earth and back again-and Coca-Colawill
remain!"(178). ArchieLee, who assumed directionof Coca-Colaadver-
tising in the 1920s, complained that the "doctrinesof our churches are
meaninglesswords,"but he speculatedthat "somegreatthinkermay arise
with a new religion"(147). Apparently,Archie Lee, along with many
other "Coca-Colamen,"found that new religionin Coca-Cola.
Throughoutthe second half of the twentieth century the Coca-Cola
religioninspireda missionaryfervor.At the firstinternationalconvention
at AtlanticCityin 1948 an executiveprayed,"MayProvidencegive us the
faith ... to serve those two billion customerswho are only waitingfor us
to bring our product to them"(238). As advertisingdirectorin the early
1950s Delony Sledge proclaimed,"Ourwork is a religion ratherthan a
business" (261). Obviously,the Coca-Cola Company has imagined its
enterpriseas a religiousmission.
For the consumer, however, Coca-Colahas also assumed religious
significance.It has "enteredthe lives of more people,"as one executive
put it, "thanany other product or ideology,including the Christianreli-
gion" (406). In the jive vocabularyof the 1930s Coca-Colawas known
as "heavenlydew" (178). But the religious significance of Coca-Cola
extendedfarbeyond the scope of such a playfulinvocation.It gaveAmer-
ica its orthodox image of Santa Claus in 1931 by presenting a fat,
bearded,jolly old characterdressed up in Coca-Colared; it became the
most importanticon of the Americanway of life for U.S. soldiers during
WorldWar II; it representedan extraordinarysacred time-the "pause
that refreshes"-that was redeemed fromthe ordinarypost-warroutines
of work and consumption; and from the 1960s it promised to build a
better world in perfect harmony.As one indication of the popular reli-
gious devotion to the drink, public outcry at the changed formula of
"New Coke"in 1985 caused one executive to exclaim, "Theytalk as if
Coca-Cola had just killed God" (364). In these profoundly religious
terms, as editor William Allen White observed in 1938, Coca-Cola
became a potent symbol of the "sublimatedessence of America"(198).
Although the religion of Coca-Colahas pervadedAmericansociety,
that popularreligionhas also been global.Representedin over 185 coun-
tries, more countries,Pendergrastnotes, than are included in the United
Nations, the Coca-ColaCompanyhas extended its religion all over the

Chidester:The Churchof Baseball 751
world. As companypresidentRobertoGoizuetaput it, "Oursuccess will

largelydepend on the degreeto which we makeit impossiblefor the con-
sumer around the globe to escape Coca-Cola"(397). Suggesting the
impossibilityof escaping the religion of Coca-Cola,the 1980s film "The
Gods Must Be Crazy"presented an absurdparableof its effect among a
remote communityof Bushmenin southernAfrica.As MarkPendergrast
notes, the film opens as "the totemic bottle falls out of the sky onto the
sands of the KalahariDesert,where it completely transformsthe lives of
the innocent Bushmenas surely as Eve'sapple in Eden"(406). Here we
find Coca-Colaas a sacredsign, a sign subject to local misreading,per-
haps, but neverthelessthe fetishof a globalreligion,an icon of the West,a
symbol thatcan markan initiatoryentryinto modernity.Throughmassive
global exchangesand specific local effects, the religion of Coca-Colahas
placed its sacredfetish "withinarm'sreachof desire"all over the world.
"Whatutter nonsense!," a skeptic might justifiably conclude after
reviewingthis alleged evidence for the existence of a Coca-Colareligion.
Coca-Colais not a religion. It is a consumer product that has been suc-
cessfully advertised,marketed,and distributed. In the best traditionof
Americanadvertising,the Coca-ColaCompanyhas createdthe desire for
a productthatno one needs. Evenif it has led to the "Coca-colonization"
of the world, this manipulationof desirethroxigheffectiveadvertisinghas
nothing to do with religion.
In the study of popular culture, however, the religious characterof
advertising, consumerism, and commodity fetishism has often been
noted. "Thatadvertisingmay have become 'the new religion of modem
capitalist society,"'MarshallW Fishwick has recently observed, "has
become one of the cliches of our time"(155).2Advertising-as-religion has
transformedthe "fetishismof commodities"into a redundantphrase. In
the symbolic system of modem capitalist society that is animated by
advertising,the commodityis a fetish object.
As a model for definingand locatingreligion,the fetish raisesits own
theoreticalproblems.As William Pietz has shown in a series of articles,
the term "fetish"has focused ongoing controversiesin Westernculture
over what counts as authenticmaking.From the Latinfacere,"tomake or
to do," the term has carriedthe semantic burden of indicatingartificial,
illicit, or evil making,especiallyin the productionof objects of uncertain
meaningor unstablevalue. In this respect,the fetishis not an object;it is
a subject for argumentsabout meaningand value in human relations.
2 Onadvertising
andconsumerism
as"religion,"
seeEwen;Jhally;andStromberg.

752 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion
As a modem dilemma,the problemof the fetisharisesin complexrela-

tions of encounter and exchange between "us"and "them."On the one
hand, the fetishis something"they"make. Recallingthe evil making-the
maleficium--ofblackmagic,Portuguesetraderson the west coastof Africa
in the seventeenth century found that Africans made fetissos, objects
beyond rational comprehension or economic evaluation. Likewise, for
generationsof anthropologiststhe fetishwas an objectthat "they"make, a
sign of their"primitive"uncertaintyovermeaningand inabilityto evaluate
objects. On the other hand, Marx,Freud, and their intellectualdescen-
dants have found that the fetish is something "we"make-the desired
object,the objectificationof desire-that is integralto the makingof mod-
em subjectivitiesand social relations(see Apterand Pietz).
Drawingupon this ambivalentgenealogyof the fetishin Westerncul-
ture, MichaelTaussighas recently emphasized the importanceof "State
Fetishism"in both making and masking the rationalityand terrorof the
modem political order.This recognitionof the role of fetishizedmaking
in the production and reinforcementof the state resonateswith recent
researchon the making of those collective subjectivities-the imagined
communities, the invented traditions, the political mythologies-that
animatethe modem world (Anderson;Hobsbawmand Ranger;Thomp-
son). All of these things are made, not found, but they are made in the
ways in which only the sacredor society can be produced.
Unlike the historicalcontinuity and social solidarityrepresentedby
the church, therefore,the fetish provides a model for religion in which
religion is inherently unstable. As an object of indeterminatemeaning
and variablevalue, the fetish representsan unstable center for a shifting
constellationof religious symbols. Although the fetishized object might
inspire religious moods and motivations,it is constantlyat risk of being
unmaskedas somethingmade and thereforeas an artificialfocus for reli-
gious desire. The study of religion in popular culture is faced with the
challengeof exploringand explicatingthe ways in which such "artificial"
religious constructionscan generategenuine enthusiasms and produce
real effectsin the world.
3. THE POTLATCHOF ROCK 'N' ROLL

As if it were not enough to bestow religious status on baseball and
Coca-Cola, we now have to confront the possibility that rock 'n' roll
should also count as religion.Certainlythe ambivalentrelationsbetween
rock and religion have often been noticed. As Jay R. Howard has ob-
served, "Religionand rock music have long had a love/hate relationship"

TheChurchof Baseball
Chidester: 753
(123). On the one hand, rock 'n'roll has occasionallyconvergedwith reli-

gion. Rock music has sometimes embracedexplicitly religious themes,
serving as a vehicle for a diversityof religious intereststhat rangesfrom
Heavy-MetalSatanism to contemporary Christian evangelism (Gross;
Seayand Neely). On the otherhand, rock 'n'roll has often been the target
of Christiancrusadesagainstthe evils that allegedly threatenreligion in
American society. From this perspective, rock music appears as the
antithesisof religion,not merelyas an offensiveartformbut as a blasphe-
mous, sacrilegious,and anti-religiousforcein society (Larson;Martinand
Segrave;Peters,Peters,and Merrill).
Rock'sambivalentrelationshipwith religionis obvious.Lessapparent,
perhaps,is the inherentlyreligious characterof rock 'n' roll. How do we
theorizerock 'n'roll as religion?Attemptshave been made. For example,
rock'n'rollhas given rise to "areligionwithoutbeliefs"(Shenkand Silber-
man: ix); it has given scope for the emergenceof a new kind of "divinely
inspired shaman"(Magistrale);rock has revivednineteenth-centuryRo-
mantic pantheism(Pattison);rock music, concerts,and videos have pro-
vided occasionsfor what might be called, in Durkheimianterms,"ecstasy
ritual"(Harvey);and a new academicdiscipline-"theomusicology"-has
included rock 'n' roll in its mission "toexamine secularmusic for its reli-
giosity"(Spencer:205). Fromvariousperspectives,therefore,rock 'n'roll
has approximatedsome of the elementaryformsof the religiouslife.
In one of the most sustained and insightful analysesof the religious
characterof rock 'n'roll Dave Marshhas undertakena culturalanalysisof
the archetypalrock song, "Louie,Louie,"in orderto explore the secretof
its meaning, power, and rhythm, the "sacredduhduhduh.duhduh"(74).
Marshissues a dauntingassessmentof all previousattemptsto addresshis
topic. The "academicstudy of the magic and majestyof duhduhduh.duh
duh,"as Marshputs it bluntly,"sucks"(77). To avoid this condemnation,
we must proceed,not with caution,but with the recklessnessthatthe song
requires. We must say, with the song's African-Americancomposer
RichardBerry,who firstrecorded"Louie,Louie"as a calypsotune in 1956,
"Megottago now,"and see where that going takesus.
As Dave Marsh follows the sacred rhythm of "Louie,Louie,"espe-
cially as it was incarnatedby the Kingsmenin 1963, he dismisses previ-
ous attempts to explain the secret of the song's appeal as the result of
effectivemarketingor as the effect of the intentionalmystificationthat is
producedby its unintelligiblelyrics.
As an example of the first type of explanation,Marshcites the com-
mentary of GeoffreyStokes, who authored the section on the 1960s in

Rockof Ages:TheRollingStoneHistoryof Rock'n'Roll. "It'salmost embar-

rassing to speak of 'significance'in any discussion of 'Louie Louie,'"
Stokes claimed, "forthe song surely resists learned exegesis" (cited in
Marsh:77). Its success can only be attributedto aggressivemarketing
and efficientdistribution.
Illustratingthe second type of explanation,Marshinvokes the analy-
sis providedby RobertB. Ray,Professorof Film Studiesat the University
of Florida,who has earned his rock credentialsby serving as songwriter
and singerfor the band the VulgarBoatman.Accordingto Ray,the Kings-
men rendered"Louie,Louie"in a way that revealedthat they had "intu-
ited a classic strategyof all intellectualvanguards:the use of tantalizing
mystification."Like Lacan and Derrida, for example, the Kingsmen
employed termsand phrasesthat "remainedelusive, inchoate,quasi-oral
charms"(cited in Marsh:78). The result-alluring but ultimatelyinco-
herent-was the strategicproductionof mystery.
In rejecting these economic and rhetorical explanations Marsh
advancesan analysisof the secret of "Louie,Louie"in explicitlyreligious
terms. His analysis uncovers layers of religious significance that are all
associatedwith the gift. Although his discussion is inspired by the dra-
matic prelude to the instrumentalbreak-"Let's Give It to 'Em, Right
Now!"-it is also directlyrelatedto the power of giving and receivingin
the history of religions.
The song might be regardedas if it were a divine gift. As Marsh'scol-
league GreilMarcusputs it, by the 1980s "thetune was all pervasive,like
a law of natureor an act of God"(cited in Marsh:78). Marshplays upon
this theme: If the song was a gift from God or the gods, he observes,"he,
she, or they chose a vehicle cut fromstrangecloth, indeed-deus ex car-
toona"(78). However,the sacredgift of "Louie,Louie,"the hierophanyof
incoherence, three chords, and a cloud of dust, cannot be accounted for
in the conventionalterms of any orthodox theology.Accordingly,Marsh
turns to a passagein the gnostic Gospel of Thomasthat seems to capture
the "holyheartbeat"of "Louie,Louie."
Jesussaid,"Ifyou bringforthwhatis withinyou, whatyou bringforth
will saveyou. Ifyou do not bringforthwhatis withinyou,whatyou do
not bringforthwill destroyyou."
Bringingforth all that is within them, the gnostic celebrantsof "Louie,

Louie"are saved, if not "eternally,"as Marshclarifies,then at least tem-
porarilyduring the liberating moment in which they participatein the
rhythm of the "sacred duh duh duh. duh duh"and the "magicalincanta-
tion"of "Let'sGive It to 'Em,RightNow!"(73-74).

Chidester: 755
Ultimately,however, the religious significance of the gift must be

located in relationsof exchange.Herea NativeAmericanritual-the pot-
latch-provides a model for giving and receiving in which the gift
assumes a sacred aura. From a Chinook term meaning simply "togive,"
the potlatch practicedby indigenous communities of the PacificNorth-
west signifiesthe ritualizeddisplay,distribution,and sometimesdestruc-
tion of valued objectsat ceremonialoccasions (see Vertovec).
Althoughpotlatchhas variouslybeen interpretedin the ethnographic
literatureas religious ritual, as status competition, as a kind of banking
system, or even as a periodic outburst of "unabashedmegalomania,"
Marsh focuses on three aspects: First, the gift is total. The potlatch de-
mands giving "everythingyou had:your food, your clothing,your house,
your name, your rankand title."As a ritualoccasion for giving everything
away,the potlatchdemonstratesan "insaneexuberanceof generosity." Sec-
ond, the is
gift competitive. In ritualrelationsof exchange, tribescompete
with each other to move to the "nexthigher plane of value."Third, the
sacredsecretof the gift is ultimatelyrevealedin destruction.As the ritual-
ized exchanges of ceremonialgift-giving escalate in value, the supreme
value of the gift is realizedby destroyingvalued objects,so that, as Marsh
concludes, "eventuallya whole village might be burned to the ground
in order that the rules of the ceremony could be properly honored"
(79-80).
By odd coincidence, the Pacific Northwest was home to both the
NativeAmericansocietiesthatperformedthe potlatchand the rock'n'roll
bands of the early 1960s that played the song "Louie,Louie."In Marsh's
account both demonstratethe religious"Secret"of the gift, especiallyas it
was revealedin acts of conspicuous destruction,in ritual acts that "vio-
lated every moral and legal tenet of non-Native Americancivilization,
encumberedas it was with the even strangersocioreligiousassumption
that God most honored men by allowingthem to accumulatepossessions
beyond all utility in this life, let alone the next" (80). In these "socioreli-
gious"termsthe "modernday electronicpotlatch"of rock 'n'roll violates
Euroamericanreligiouscommitments to capitalistproductionand accu-
mulation,to propertyrightsand propriety,by revivingthe sacredsecretof
the gift.
In defenseof the capitalistorderJ.EdgarHoover'sFBIpursueda four-
yearinvestigationof "Louie,Louie"duringthe 1960s in searchof evidence
of subversion and obscenity in the song and its performers.As Marsh
recalls,Hoover'smission "consistedpreciselyof visitingthe plague of fed-
eral surveillanceupon any revival of the potlatch mentality"(80). But

"Louie, Louie" survived this state-sponsored inquisition. Defying all

attemptsto suppressit, the song remainsthe archetypeof the sacredgiftat
the religiousheartof the potlatchof rock'n'roll.
"Whatutter, absolute, and perversenonsense!,"anyone might con-
clude afterbeing subjected to this tortuous exposition of the religionof
rock music. Rock'n' roll is not religion. Besidesthe obvious fact that it is
a major part of the entertainmentindustry, rock 'n' roll is a cultural
medium in which all the "anarchistic,nihilistic impulses of perverse
modernismhave been graftedonto popularmusic."As a result, it is not a
religion;it is a "cultof obscenity,brutality,and sonic abuse"(Bayles:12).
The model of the potlatch, however, refocuses the definition of
religion. As exemplified most clearly by rituals of giving and receiving,
religion is a repertoireof culturalpracticesand performances,of human
relationsand exchanges,in which people conduct symbolic negotiations
over material objects and material negotiations over sacred symbols.
If this theoreticalmodel of religion as symbolic, materialpracticeseems
to blur the boundariesseparatingreligious,social, and economic activity,
then that is a function of the gift itself, which, as MarcelMauss insists
in his classictreatment,is a "total"social phenomenonin which "allkinds
of institutions find simultaneousexpression:religious, legal, moral, and
economic"(1). Accordingto Mauss, the potlatch, as ritual event, social
contest, and economic exchange, displays the complex symbolic and
materialinterests that are inevitably interwoven in religion. Similarin-
terests, as Dave Marshand Greil Marcusargue, can be located in rock
'n'roll.
In the performanceof the potlatch, Mauss observes, the contested
natureof symbolicand materialnegotiationsbecomes particularlyappar-
ent; the "agonisticcharacterof the prestation,"he notes, "ispronounced"
(4). If contestsover the ownershipof sacredsymbols characterizethe pot-
latch, what is the contest thatis conductedin the potlatchof rock 'n'roll?
It is not merely the competition among musical groups, a competition
waged in the "battleof the bands"that Marshidentifies as an important
element of the historyof "Louie,Louie."It is a contest with a distinctively
religiouscharacter.In broadagreementwith rock criticsMarshand Mar-
cus, anthropologistVictorTurnerproposesthat rock 'n'roll is engagedin
a contest over somethingas basic as what it means to be a humanbeing in
a humansociety."Rockis clearlya culturalexpressionand instrumentality
of that style of communitas,"Turnersuggests, "whichhas arisen as the
antithesis of the 'square,''organizationman' type of bureaucraticsocial
structureof mid-twentieth-centuryAmerica"(262). By this account,rock
'n' roll, as anti-structureto the dominant American social structure,

Chidester: 757
achievesthe humansolidarity,mutuality,and spontaneitythatTurnercap-

turesin the term communitas.It happens in religiousritual;it happens in
rock 'n'roll.
This "agonisticcharacter"of the potlatch of rock 'n' roll, however, is
not only evident in America.As GreilMarcushas proposed, the potlatch
might unlock the "secrethistoryof the twentiethcentury."Trackinga dis-
connectednarrativethatlinks dada,surrealism,litterists,situationists,and
performanceart,Marcusrewritesthe culturalhistoryof the twentiethcen-
turyfromthe vantagepoint of the punk rock thatwas epitomizedin 1976
by the Sex Pistols. Surprisingly,perhaps, that revised history depends
heavilyupon a sociology of religionthatis implicitlyrootedin the founda-
tionalwork of Emile Durkheimand extended by MarcelMauss'sseminal
essay on the gift; but it is a left-hand sociology of religion that takes an
unexpected turn throughthe world of the Frenchsocial critic,surrealist,
and studentof religion,GeorgesBataille.
In his 1933 essay,"TheNotion of Expenditure,"Batailletakes up the
topic of the potlatch to draw a distinction between two kinds of eco-
nomic activity,productionand expenditure.While productionrepresents
"the minimum necessary for the continuation of life," expenditure is
premised on excess and extravagance,on loss and destruction, or, in a
word, on the gift. This alternativerange of economic activity "is repre-
sented by so-called unproductiveexpenditures:luxury,mourning, war,
cults, the construction of sumptuarymonuments, spectacles, arts, per-
verse sexual activity(i.e., deflectedfromgenitalfinality)-all these repre-
sent activities which, at least in primitive circumstances,have no end
beyond themselves"(118). While productive economic activity is di-
rectedtowardsgoals of subsistence,gain, and accumulation,expenditure
is devoted to achieving dramatic,spectacularloss. In expenditure, ac-
cordingto Bataille,"theaccentis placed on a loss that must be as greatas
possible in orderfor the activityto take on its truemeaning"(118). In the
performanceof the potlatch, especiallywhen gift-givingescalatesto the
destructionof property,Bataillefinds a model of expenditurethatinforms
his entiretheory of religion.
As exemplified by the potlatch, religion intersects with rock 'n' roll
because they are both cultural practices of expenditure. The gift, as in
"Let'sGiveIt To 'Em,RightNow,"reopensthe complex ritualnegotiations
over meaning and power, over place and position, over contested issues
of value in modern Americansociety. In that context, religion in Ameri-
can popularcultureis not a church;nor is it a symbolic system revolving
around a fetish. Beyond the constraintsof any institution or the play of
any desire, religionis defined as religionby the practices,performances,

relations,and exchangesthat rise and fall and rise againthroughthe ritu-

alized giving and receivingof the gift.
4. RELIGIONIN AMERICANPOPULARCULTURE
So now where are we? After this long journey through the religious
contours and contents of baseball, Coca-Cola,and rock 'n' roll, we are
still left with the question: Where is religion in Americanpopular cul-
ture?How do we answer that question?Where do we look? If we only
relied upon the standardacademic definitions of religion, those defini-
tions that have tried to identify the essence of religion, we would cer-
tainly be informed by the wisdom of classic scholarship,but we would
also still be lost.
In the history of the academic study of religion religion has been
defined, following the minimal definition of religion proposed in the
1870s by E. B. Tylor,as beliefs and practicesrelatingto spiritual,super-
natural,or superhumanbeings (Tylor:1,424). This approachto defining
religion continues to find its advocates.The assumption that religion is
about beliefs in supernaturalbeings also appears in the discourse of
popular culture. For example, the extraordinaryathlete can easily be-
come the focus of religion to the extent that he or she is regardedas
a superhuman being. When MichaelJordan returned to basketball in
1995, his "secondcoming"was portrayedin preciselythese superhuman
terms. "When it is perceived as religion,"Jordan complained, "that's
when I'm embarrassedby it." While SportsIllustratedrecordedMichael
Jordan'sembarrassmentat being regardedas the superhuman focus of
religiousregard,it also added that this reservationwas expressedby "the
holy Bullhimself"about "theattentionhis second coming has attracted."
Adding to the embarrassment,the same articlequoted BradRiggert,head
of merchandisingat Chicago'sUnited Center,who celebratedthe return
of MichaelJordanby declaring,"Thegod of merchandisingbroke all our
recordsfor sales"(92). In this case, therefore,MichaelJordan-the "holy
Bull,"the "godof merchandising"-registersas a superhumanbeing that
should satisfyTylor'sminimaldefinitionof religion.
In a second classicattemptto definereligionEmileDurkheimin 1912
stipulated that religion was constituted by beliefs and practices that
revolve arounda sacred focus, a sacred focus that serves to unify a com-
munity (Durkheim:62). In this approachto definingreligion,which also
continuesto have its proponents,religiondependsupon beliefsand prac-
tices that identify and maintaina distinction between the sacred and its
opposite,the profane.Thatdistinctionbetweenthe sacredand the profane

Chidester:
has also appearedin the discourseof Americanpopularculture.Forexam-

ple, during the long and difficultdevelopment of a crucialnew software
product,Microsofthired a projectmanagerwho undertookthe task with
religious conviction. Accordingto the unofficialhistorianof this project,
that manager "divided the world into Us and Them. This opposition
echoed the profound distinction between sacred and profane:We are
clean; they are dirty.We are the chosen people; they are the scorned. We
will succeed; they will fail"(Zachary:281). According to this account,
therefore,the cuttingedge of religion-the radicalriftbetween the sacred
and the profane-appears at the cuttingedge of Americantechnology.
Likechurch,fetish,and potlatch,these classicdefinitionsof religion-
belief in supernaturalbeings, the distinction between sacred and pro-
fane-are at play in Americanculture. As a result, religion is revealed,
once again,not only as a clusterconcept or a fuzzy set but also as a figure
of speech thatis subjectto journalisticlicense, rhetoricalexcess, and intel-
lectualsleight of hand.3Forthe study of religion,however,this realization
bearsan importantlesson:The entirehistoryof academiceffortin defining
religionhas been subjectto preciselysuch vagariesof metaphoricalplay.
As I argue in detail elsewhere, the study of religion and religious
diversity can be seen to have originatedin the surprisingdiscovery by
Europeansof people who have no religion.Duringthe erasof exploration
and colonization Europeansfound indigenous populations all over the
world who supposedly lacked any trace of religion. Gradually,however,
Europeanobserversfound ways to recognize-by comparison,by anal-
ogy,and by metaphorictransferencefromthe familiarto the strange-the
religious characterof beliefs and practices among people all over the
world. This discovery did not depend upon intellectual innovations in
defining the essence of religion; it depended upon localized European
initiativesthat extended the familiarmetaphorsthat were alreadyassoci-
ated with religion, such as the belief in God, rites of worship, or the
maintenanceof moral order,to the strangebeliefs and practicesof other
human populations (Chidester). In the study of religion in American
popular culture, I would suggest, we are confrontedwith the same theo-
reticaldilemmaof mediatingbetween the familiarand the strange.
The theoretical models of religion that we have considered allow
some of the strangelyreligiousformsof popularculture-baseball, Coca-
Cola, and rock 'n'roll-to become refamiliarizedas if they were religion.
On the significanceof the polytheticcategoriesof "clusterconcepts"and "fuzzysets"for the study

of religion,see Poole: 428; Smith:50.

They allow them to appearas the church, the fetish,and the sacredgift of
the ritual potlatch in Americanpopular culture. Why not? Why should
these culturalformsnot be regardedas religion?
The determinationof what counts as religionis not the sole preserve
of academics.The very term"religion"is contestedand at stakein the dis-
courses and practicesof popularculture.Recall,for instance, the disdain
expressedby the criticwho dismissed rock 'n'roll as a "cultof obscenity,
brutality,and sonic abuse."In this formulationthe term"cult"signifiesthe
absenceof religion."Cult,"in this regard,is the oppositeof "religion."The
usage of the term "cult,"however it might be intended, inevitablyreso-
nates with the discourseof an extensiveand pervasiveanti-cultcampaign
that has endeavoredto deny the status of "religion"to a varietyof new
religiousmovementsby labelingthem as entrepreneurialbusinesses, po-
liticallysubversivemovements,or coercive,mind-controlling,and brain-
washing "cults."In that context, if we should ever speak about the "cult"
of baseball, Coca-Cola, or rock 'n' roll, we could be certain about one
thing:We would not be speakingabout religion.
The very definitionof religion,therefore,continuesto be contestedin
Americanpopular culture. However, if we look again at the privileged
examples that we have considered-baseball, Coca-Cola, and rock 'n'
roll-they seem to encompassa wildly diversebut somehow representa-
tive range of possibilities for what might count as religion. They evoke
familiarmetaphors-the religiousinstitutionof the church, the religious
desires attached to the fetish, and the religious exchanges surrounding
the sacred gift-that resonate with other discourses, practices, experi-
ences, and social formationsthat we are preparedto include within the
ambit of religion.Why do they not count as religion?
In the end, we will need to answer that question. By saying "we,"
however, I referin this case to all of us who are in one way or another
engaged in the professionalizedand institutionalizedacademicstudy of
religion. Participantsin Americanpopular culture have advanced their
own answers.As a baseballplayer,Buck O'Neillcertainlyhad an answer:
"It'sa religion."As a Coca-Colaexecutive, Delony Sledge definitelyhad
an answer:"Ourwork is a religion."As a rock 'n'roller,John Lennonhad
his own distinctiveand controversialanswer:"Christianitywill go. It will
vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that. I'm right and I will be
proved right.We'remore popularthanJesus now"(Bronson:201). From
the church of baseball,throughthe fetishof Coca-Cola,to the sacredand
sanctifyinggift-givingof the potlatch of rock 'n' roll, the discourses and
practicesof popularculture raiseproblemsof definition and analysisfor
the study of religion. In differentways, as I have tried to suggest, these

Chidester: 761
three terms-church, fetish, and potlatch-signify both the problem of

defining religion and the complex presence of religion in American
popular culture.
REFERENCES
Anderson,Benedict ImaginedCommunities:Reflectionson the Origin, and

1991 Spreadof Nationalism.Rev.ed. London:Verso.
Apter,Emily,and Fetishismas CulturalDiscourse.Ithaca:CornellUniversity

WilliamPietz, eds. Press.
1993
Bataille,Georges "The Notion of Expenditure."In Visionsof Excess:Se-

1985 lectedWritings,1927-1939,116-129. Ed.byAllan Stoekly
Trans.by Allan Stoekly,Carl R. Lovitt, and Donald M.
Lesie, Jr. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
Bayles,Martha Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaningin

1994 AmericanPopularMusic.New York:Free Press.
Benveniste,Emile Indo-EuropeanLanguageand Society.Trans. by Eliza-

1973 beth Palmer.London:Faberand Faber.
Boswell,Thomas "The Church of Baseball."In Baseball:An Illustrated

1994 History, 189-193. Ed. by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken
Burns.New York:AlfredA. Knopf.
Bronson,Fred TheBillboardBookof NumberOne Hits. New York:Bill-

1985 boardPublications.
Browne,RayB., ed. Ritualsand Ceremonies

in PopularCulture.BowlingGreen,
1980 OH: BowlingGreenStateUniversityPopularPress.
Chidester,David Savage Systems:Colonialismand ComparativeReligion

1996 in SouthernAfrica. Charlottesville:University Press of
Virginia.
Chidester,David, AmericanSacredSpace.Bloomington:IndianaUniversity
and EdwardT. Press.
Linenthal,eds.
1995

Durkheim,Emile The ElementaryForms of the ReligiousLife. Trans. by

1965 Joseph WardSwain.New York:Free Press.
(1912)
Elzey,Wayne "Popular Culture." In Encyclopediaof AmericanReli-

1988 gious Experience,vol. 3:1727-1741. Ed. by Charles H.
Lippyand PeterW,Williams.New York:Scribner.
Advertisingand theSocialRoots
Ewen, Stuart Captainsof Consciousness:
1976 of the ConsumerCulture.New York:McGrawHill.
Fishwick, Marshall "Review:Sut Jhally, The Codesof Advertising."

Journal
1992 of PopularCulture26/2: 155-156.
Freud, Sigmund "ObsessiveActs and Religious Practices."In The Stan-

1953 dard Editionof the CompletePsychologicalWorksof Sig-
mundFreud,9:117-127. Ed. by JamesStracheyLondon:
HogarthPress.
Gmelch, George "Baseball Magic." In Conformityand Conflict:Read-

373-383. Ed. by James P
1978 ings in CulturalAnthropology,
Spradley and David W McCurdy Glenview,IL: Scott,
Foresman,and Co.
Goethals,GregorT. The ElectronicGolden Calf: Images, Religion,and the

1990 Makingof Meaning.Cambridge,MA: Cowley Publica-
tions.
Gross,RobertL. "HeavyMetal Music: A New Subculture in American

1990 of PopularCulture24/1: 119-130.
Society."Journal
Harvey,LisaSt. Clair "TemporaryInsanity: Fun, Games, and Transforma-

1990 tional Ritualin AmericanMusicVideo."Journalof Popu-
lar Culture24/1: 39-64.
Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan.Ed. by MichaelOakeshot. New York:Collier

1962 Books.
Hobsbawm,Eric, TheInventionof Tradition.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-

and TerrenceRanger, versityPress.
eds.
1985
Howard,Jay R. "ContemporaryChristian Music: Where Rock Meets

1992 Religion."Journalof PopularCulture26/1: 123-130.

Chidester:
Jhally,Sut TheCodesof Advertising:

Fetishismand thePoliticalEcon-
1990 omy of Meaningin the Consumer Society.New Yorkand
London:Routledge.
Jindra,Michael "StarTrekFandom as a Religious Phenomenon."Soci-

1994 ologyof Religion55/1: 27-5 1.
Kohl, Paul R. "Lookingthrough a Glass Onion: Rock and Roll as a

1993 Modern Manifestationof Carnival."Journalof Popular
Culture27/1: 143-161.
Larson,Bob RockandRoll:TheDevil'sDiversion.McCook,NB:Larson.
1967
Lippy,CharlesH., ed. Twentieth-Century

Shapersof AmericanPopularReligion.
1989 Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress.
Magistrale,Tony "WildChild:Jim Morrision'sPoeticJourneys."Journalof

1992 PopularCulture26/3: 133-144.
Marcus,Greil LipstickTraces:A SecretHistoryof the TwentiethCentury.

1989 Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Marsh,Dave Louie,Louie.New York:Hyperion.

1993
Martin,Linda,and Anti-Rock:The Oppositionto Rock'n'Roll.Hamden, CT:

KerrySegrave ArchonBooks.
1988
Mauss,Marcel The Gift: Forms and Functionsof Exchangein Archaic

1969 Societies.Trans.by IanCunnison.London:Cohen&West.
McDannell,Colleen "InterpretingThings: Material Culture Studies and

1991 AmericanReligion."Religion21: 371-387.
Miner,Horace "BodyRitualAmong the Nacirema."AmericanAnthro-

1956 pologist58/3: 503-507.
Pattison,Robert The Triumphof Vulgarity:Rock Music in the Mirror

1987 of Romanticism.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Pendergrast,Mark For God, Country,and Coca-Cola:The Unauthorized

1993 Historyof the World'sMostPopularSoftDrink.New York:
CharlesScribner'sSons.

Peters,Dan, WhataboutChristianRock?Minneapolis:Bethany
StevePeters,and
CherMerrill,
1986
Pietz,William "The Problem of the Fetish, I." Res:Anthropology

and
1985 Aesthetics9 (Spring 1985): 5-17.
Pietz,William "The Problem of the Fetish, II." Res:Anthropology

and
1987 Aesthetics13 (Spring 1987): 23-45.
Pietz, William "The Problem of the Fetish, IIIa." Res: Anthropology

1988 andAesthetics16 (Autumn 1988): 105-123.
Poole, FitzJohn Porter "Metaphorsand Maps: Towards Comparision in the

1986 Anthropology of Religion." Journal of the American
Academyof Religion54: 411-457.
Seay,Davin, Stairwayto Heaven:The SpiritualRootsof Rock'n' Roll.

and MaryNeely New York:Ballantine.
1986
Shenk, David, SkeletonKey: A Dictionaryfor Deadheads.New York:

and Steve Silberman Doubleday
1994
Smith,JonathanZ. DrudgeryDivine:On theComparison of EarlyChristianities

1990 and the Religionsof LateAntiquity.Chicago: University
of ChicagoPress.
Spencer,Jon Michael "Overviewof AmericanPopularMusic in a Theological

1994 Perspective."In Theomusicology,
205-217. Ed. by John
MichaelSpencer.Durham,NC: Duke UniversityPress.
SportsIllustrated 82/14. April 10, 1995.
Stromberg,Peter "ElvisAlive?:TheIdeologyof AmericanConsumerism."

1990 Journalof PopularCulture24/3: 11-19.
Taussig,Michael "Maleficium:State Fetishism." The Nervous System,

1992 111-140. London:Routledge.
Thompson, Leonard The PoliticalMythologyof Apartheid.New Haven: Yale

1985 UniversityPress.
Turner,Victor Dramas,Fields,andMetaphors:
SymbolicActionin Human
1974 Society.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Chidester:
Tylor,E. B. PrimitiveCulture.2 vols. London:John Murray.

1870
Vertovec,Steven "Potlatchingand the MythicPast:A Re-Evaluationof the

1983 TraditionalNorthwestCoastAmericanIndianComplex."
Religion13: 323-344.
Ward,GeoffreyC., AnIllustrated
Baseball: History.NewYork:AlfredA. Knopf.
and Ken Burns,eds.
1994
Williams,PeterW PopularReligionin America:SymbolicChangeand the

1989 ModernizationProcessin HistoricalPerspective.Urbana:
Universityof Illinois Press(orig. ed. 1980).
Yinger,MiltonJ. Religion,Society,and the Individual.New York:Macmil-

1957 lan.
Zachary,G. Pascal Showstopper:

TheBreakneckRaceto CreateWindowsNT
1994 and the Next Generationat Microsoft.New York: Free
Press.


Chidester, David - The Church of Baseball

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chidester, David - The Church of Baseball

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chidester, David - The Church of Baseball

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

American Academy of Religion

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

CONSIDERABLEACADEMIC ATTENTIONhas recentlybeen directed

1 Basiccontours of the study of religionin Americanpopularculture can be discernedby consult-

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Not exactly,of course, because we have no idea what Buck O'Neil,

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Cola,and rock'n'roll, I hope to exploresome of the consequencesof these

1. THE CHURCH OF BASEBALL

To return to the testimony of Buck O'Neil, baseball is a religion

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

fabric of beliefs, symbols, and mutual agreements with those around

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

ham"can be invoked as a passionate statement of religious devotion to

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

This account of baseballmagic raisestwo theoreticalproblems.First,

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Of course, this account of the church of baseballis positioned in an

2. THE FETISH OF COCA-COLA

A very differenttheoreticalmodel of religion is developed in Mark

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

world. As companypresidentRobertoGoizuetaput it, "Oursuccess will

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

As a modem dilemma,the problemof the fetisharisesin complexrela-

3. THE POTLATCHOF ROCK 'N' ROLL

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

(123). On the one hand, rock 'n'roll has occasionallyconvergedwith reli-

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Rockof Ages:TheRollingStoneHistoryof Rock'n'Roll. "It'salmost embar-

Bringingforth all that is within them, the gnostic celebrantsof "Louie,

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Ultimately,however, the religious significance of the gift must be

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

"Louie, Louie" survived this state-sponsored inquisition. Defying all

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

achievesthe humansolidarity,mutuality,and spontaneitythatTurnercap-

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

relations,and exchangesthat rise and fall and rise againthroughthe ritu-

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

has also appearedin the discourseof Americanpopularculture.Forexam-

On the significanceof the polytheticcategoriesof "clusterconcepts"and "fuzzysets"for the study

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

three terms-church, fetish, and potlatch-signify both the problem of

Anderson,Benedict ImaginedCommunities:Reflectionson the Origin, and

Apter,Emily,and Fetishismas CulturalDiscourse.Ithaca:CornellUniversity

Bataille,Georges "The Notion of Expenditure."In Visionsof Excess:Se-

Bayles,Martha Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaningin

Benveniste,Emile Indo-EuropeanLanguageand Society.Trans. by Eliza-

Boswell,Thomas "The Church of Baseball."In Baseball:An Illustrated

Bronson,Fred TheBillboardBookof NumberOne Hits. New York:Bill-

Browne,RayB., ed. Ritualsand Ceremonies

Chidester,David Savage Systems:Colonialismand ComparativeReligion

This content downloaded from 193.157.118.233 on Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:03:20 AM

Durkheim,Emile The ElementaryForms of the ReligiousLife. Trans. by

Elzey,Wayne "Popular Culture." In Encyclopediaof AmericanReli-

Fishwick, Marshall "Review:Sut Jhally, The Codesof Advertising."

Freud, Sigmund "ObsessiveActs and Religious Practices."In The Stan-