Religious

Architecture

Anthropological Perspectives

Edited by

Oskar Verkaaik

Religious Architecture.indd 3 26-08-13 20:32:52

 Cover illustration: View across the Mosque’s roofscape of skylights or
vents and towering pinnacles (Trevor Marchand)

Cover design: Studio Jan de Boer, Amsterdam

Lay-out: V3-Services, Baarn

Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the

us and Canada by the University of Chicago Press.

isbn 978 90 8964 511 1

e-isbn 978 90 4851 834 0 (pdf )
e-isbn 978 90 4851 835 7 (ePub)
nur 761 / 757

© Oskar Verkaaik / Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2013

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved
above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced
into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (elec-
tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the
written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the
book.

Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted
illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to
have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.

Religious Architecture.indd 4 26-08-13 20:32:52

 Table of Contents

Religious Architecture 7
Anthropological Perspectives
Oskar Verkaaik

Stability, Continuity, Place 25

An English Benedictine Monastery as a Case Study in Counterfactual
Architecture
Richard D.G. Irvine

47
The Biggest Mosque in Europe!
A Symmetrical Anthropology of Islamic Architecture in Rotterdam
Pooyan Tamimi Arab

Golden Storm 63
The Ecstasy of the Igreja de São Francisco, Salvador da Bahia, Brazil
Mattijs van de Port

Works of Penance83
New Churches in Post-Soviet Russia
Tobias Köllner

Divining Siddhivinayak 99
The Temple and the City
Markha Valenta

The Djenné Mosque 117

World Heritage and Social Renewal in a West African Town
Trevor H.J. Marchand

Religious Architecture.indd 5 26-08-13 20:32:52

 The New Morabitun Mosque of Granada and the Sensational Practices of
Al Andaluz 149
Oskar Verkaaik

The Israelite Temple of Florence 171

Ivan Kalmar

The Mosque in Britain Finding its Place 185

Shahed Saleem

About the Authors 205

Index 209

Religious Architecture.indd 6 26-08-13 20:32:52

 Religious Architecture
Anthropological Perspectives

Oskar Verkaaik

Given that many people of religion tend to downplay the importance of

religious buildings as merely representing the outside or the superficial
part of their religion, it is remarkable how much time, energy and – above
all – money are put into the construction of new religious buildings all
over the world. Proselytising Christian groups in the us, Europe or Africa
have built an astonishing number of new churches, some of which are
quite costly and spectacular, and they will continue to do so (LeCavalier
2009). Since the end of Communism in the former Soviet Union, many
new Russian orthodox churches have been built and others have been
restored or rebuilt (Köllner 2011). New Hindu temples have been erected
in India in some of the places that have benefited the most from the eco-
nomic liberation since the 1980s (Valenta 2010). We find many new, pur-
pose-built mosques in Western Europe and the us as well as in countries
where Muslims make up a majority. A remarkable but little noticed ex-
ample of contemporary religious architecture is the recent boom in syna-
gogue building in Germany thanks to the influx of Jews from the former
Soviet Union since the 1990s. In addition, in predominantly secular and
multicultural societies and spaces, we see the emergence of new secular
or multi-faith retreats which offer some of the facilities that mosques,
churches, synagogues and temples also offer (Hewson 2011; Holsappel-
Brons 2010). All over the world, religious buildings are being restored as
heritage sites.
Still, anyone involved in the study of religious architecture will recog-
nise the moment when practitioners of faith question this scholarly inter-
est as slightly beside the point. ‘Professor, please stop asking about archi-
tecture,’ a New York-based imam asked Jerillynn Dodds (2002: 67) after
a long interview about contemporary mosque design in the us. Although
some may argue that mosques, like synagogues, are essentially just reli-
gious community centres – unlike, for instance, Catholic churches which
Catholics supposedly consider sacred spaces – there is a tendency across
all contemporary religions to argue that the heart of religion lies in indi-

Religious Architecture.indd 7 26-08-13 20:32:52

 vidual faith, the community, charitable deeds, ritual or doctrine, but not
primarily in the religious building. Put otherwise, the soul of the building
lies in its people, not in the material of which it is made. Anthropologists
do not usually disregard the statements of informants as irrelevant. Why
then devote a whole book to the topic of modern religious architecture?
One answer lies in anthropological methodology, developed ever since
the publication of Bronislaw Malinowski’s seminal Argonauts of the West-
ern Pacific (1922), which is based on the idea that people do not always
do what they say they are doing and that there is often a discrepancy be-
tween ideology and practice. Why, for instance, spend such an astonish-
ing amount of money to erect a church or a mosque if it hardly matters?
Despite many Muslims’ insistence that one can perform one’s religious
duties everywhere, it often happens that a poor migrant community of
two hundred active members in a small European town will raise two mil-
lion euro to build a new community mosque. Former labour migrants skip
the annual summer trip to their country of origin to be able to contribute
to a new mosque in Germany, France or the uk. True, people pray in
makeshift places and often do so without complaints. After the Second
World War, several Dutch Jewish communities, for instance, tried to re-
gain some Jewish community life by hiring small rooms in hotels or school
buildings to congregate for Sabbath. But many of these Jewish communi-
ties are now putting a lot of energy into restoring old synagogues, rescu-
ing them from destruction, and using them again as centres for religious
community activities. Apparently, buildings do somehow matter, despite
religious dogma.
One of the most perceptive answers to the puzzle of why people put
a lot of time into something they proclaim to be obsolete is the argu-
ment that religious buildings may not be crucial for religious reasons but
are important in a social or political sense. In the case of contemporary
mosques in North America and Europe, we find interpretations of this
kind in the work of Dodds (2002) and Metcalf (1996), among others. The
argument postulates that for religious minorities, their religious buildings
represent religious identity and power and are therefore linked to pro-
cesses of emancipation or integration. In nineteenth-century Europe, the
Moorish style of synagogues or the neo-Gothic style of Catholic churches
certainly served such purposes of visibility and communal pride. Simi-
larly, some of the impressive contemporary mosques in the Islamic world,
such as the ones in Casablanca or Islamabad, are obviously linked to post-
colonial state power and may primarily be considered nationalist monu-
ments rather than religious buildings in a strict sense. In sum, this inter-

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 8 26-08-13 20:32:52

 pretation has the merit that it takes seriously what religious people say
as well as what they do. They say that for religious purposes the building
is meaningless, but they build and pay for them anyway because of their
social or political significance.
Despite this analytical elegance, however, the interpretation is not en-
tirely satisfactory because it draws a conceptual line between religious
and political aspects of contemporary religion that may not exist as such
in the eyes of people of faith. Drawing on the same distinction between
inner faith and outer form that has relegated ritual to the margins of reli-
gious experience (Asad 1993a), this analysis seems to separate the ritual,
aesthetic and habitual dimensions of religion from the question of reli-
gious social identity and political power. It implicitly assumes that one
can distinguish between on the one hand the material expression of reli-
gion that belongs to the superficial domain of political identity and on the
other hand the immaterial true heart of religion. Although this is precise-
ly the division that many modern religious people make when they argue
that religious architecture is obsolete, some of the most relevant recent
anthropological contributions to the study of contemporary religion rest
upon the critique of this very disconnection of the immaterial from the
material. In his work on materiality, Daniel Miller for instance argues that
although religion by definition strives for the immaterial beyond the mate-
rial, it necessarily needs the material to evoke the immaterial (Miller 2005:
1). Like earlier studies on the importance of ritual for religious collective
behaviour, Birgit Meyer has developed the notion of ‘sensational form’ to
argue that contemporary religion is not merely a mental and ethical en-
gagement with religious doctrine but a profound somatic, performative
and aesthetic commitment to ‘the affective power of images, sounds, and
texts on their beholders’ (Meyer 2009: 6). Others like Webb Keane (2008)
and David Morgan (2010) have argued that material religious objects do
not simply express already existing religious identities but may be consti-
tutive of certain religious sensations and experiences that impact upon a
religious sense of self. In the work of these authors, the material and im-
material are reconnected again even in the most iconoclastic forms of re-
ligion. Hence, we not only see the profound Muslim purist renouncing all
reverence of material form as idol worship (shirk) but also the person who
treats the material form of the Quran with the utmost respect or adores
the voice who performs a beautiful Quranic recitation.
It is from these insights on how the material can be constitutive of
the immaterial that the chapters in this book deal with religious architec-
ture as an aspect of contemporary religion that goes beyond the repre-

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 9 26-08-13 20:32:52

 sentation of religious power or identity. Although churches, synagogues,
mosques and temples obviously do represent religious communities and
hierarchies to the outside world – and most authors in this volume do pay
attention to this aspect – their relevance to modern religious life is much
broader. In this book we bring together chapters that discuss religious
architecture as not merely expressing identities but performing religious
identities; as representing not just identities to the outside world but
ways to broaden and internalise one’s knowledge of religious doctrine or
deepen one’s faith. There are chapters about the importance of religious
architecture for the creation or reproduction of religious communities
and about religious space as an intrinsic part of ritual rather than a mere
container of ritual. There are contributions about religious architectural
forms evoking sensations that, in an almost Durkheimian way, evoke a
sense of effervescence that intensifies religious feelings or, in contrast,
arouse intense feelings of dislike in conflicts over space-making (whose
city is this?) and religious doctrine (what is and is not allowed according
to the traditions?). In short, all these essays regard religious buildings as
playing a more active part in processes of religious experience, identity
and community than the conceptual split of the building in a private reli-
gious interior and a social, political exterior would allow for.

An anthropology of religious architecture

It is often said that anthropologists pay scant attention to architecture –

a statement informed as much by reality as by ignorance (Buchli 2002:
208; Vellinga 2007 & 2011; Verkaaik 2012). As a result of the unproduc-
tive nineteenth-century divide between the Great Tradition of high art
and the Little Tradition of folklore, anthropologists have indeed to some
extent left the study of architecture to art historians and architectural
critics. Nonetheless, anthropologists have written much more about
buildings, including religious buildings, than is often assumed. Although
there is a considerable body of literature about vernacular architecture
(e.g. Amerlinck 2001; Blier 2006; Rapoport 1969; Vellinga 2004), pre-
dominantly about houses (Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995; Gullestad 1984)
but also including some work on religious architecture (Marchand 2001,
2009; Nelson 2007), there is less about modern architecture in anthropo-
logical writing. In different ways, Clifford Geertz (1980), Edmund Leach
(1983), Maurice Bloch (1968), Pierre Bourdieu (1973) and even Marc Augé
(1995) have all looked at how buildings represent and reproduce cosmolo-

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 10 26-08-13 20:32:52

 gies and social hierarchies, but they have hardly explored how people use,
read or ‘consume’ buildings. Tim Ingold (2000) and others influenced
by Heidegger’s notion of ‘dwelling’ (1997) explore how people position
themselves within the natural environment, but they pay less attention to
how people do so in built environments. The recently developing study of
space and place (Lawrence-Zuniga & Low 1990; Low & Lawrence-Zuniga
2003) does focus on the politics as well as the consumption of built spac-
es, but it tends to take the materiality of architecture for granted. Materi-
ality and its affect, however, play a larger role in recent studies of modern
iconoclasm and utopian architecture (Buchli 1999; Rabinow 1995; Hoorn
2009), but this has had little influence on the anthropological study of
religious architecture thus far.
Anthropologists have a lot to learn from art historians and architec-
tural critics, but they also have a great deal to contribute. Consider, for
instance, Eric Roose’s recent study of contemporary mosque design in the
Netherlands. His iconological approach is a welcome correction to the ar-
chitectural critical perspective that dominates the public debate about the
issue. Rather than interpreting contemporary mosques in terms of tempo-
ral and regional styles as many architectural critics do when they dismiss
new mosques as nostalgic replicas of the Ottoman, Moghul or Mamluk
tradition, Roose focuses on the designing process as a symbolic-political
practice. Mosque commissioners do not simply and unreflectively copy
styles from their country of origin, they actively choose between various
forms and styles to make a political statement. Explicitly borrowing from
an interactionalist perspective on culture, Roose treats the parties in-
volved as political actors rather than mere children of their times (Roose
2009).
Anthropology also offers an alternative to a dominant perspective in
architectural criticism that treats buildings as texts, as speaking archi-
tecture or architecture parlante. Like literary critics, architectural critics
tend to focus on what the architect, as author, tries to convey about the
function, symbolism or even character of the building. The semiotic ap-
proach in anthropology is more complex as it treats texts, like symbols,
as inherently polysemic and contextual (Buchli 2002). This shifts the at-
tention from the design and construction of buildings to the question of
how people use them, from production to consumption (Vellinga 2011).
Moreover, the centrality of context in meaning-making processes makes
it possible to argue that buildings may have different meanings or even
‘lives’ (Appadurai 1986) to different groups of people in different periods
of time. Rather than trying to decipher the authoritative meaning of a

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 11 26-08-13 20:32:52

 building – that is, the opinion of the architect, the commissioner or ar-
chitectural critics – an anthropological perspective focuses on shifts and
conflicts in meaning-making practices.
Taken together, the interactionalist and contextual-interpretative ap-
proaches allow for a perspective on buildings as more than just passive
objects or texts conveying a static message. Recently, anthropologists like
Daniel Miller (1987) and Alfred Gell (1998) have questioned the ‘objec-
tive’ nature of ‘objects’. Building upon philosophical and theoretical back-
grounds as wide apart as Hegel’s notion of objectification and Mauss’s
concept of reciprocity, these theorists argue that the relation between an
object and its maker or user is an interactive, dynamic one. We find simi-
lar arguments in Actor Network Theory (Latour 2005) and, much earlier,
in Gregory Bateson’s work on cybernetics (Bateson 1971). More directly
related to the issue of religious architecture is the work of Yael Navaro-
Yashin (2009) on ‘affective spaces’ and ‘spatial melancholia’. To analyse the
affective power of spaces and building, Navaro-Yashin refers to Spinoza’s
notion of the affect – a crucial building block for Spinoza’s theory of the
unity of body and mind – and Deleuze’s interpretation of the affect as
a sensation that ‘moves through human bodies, but that do not neces-
sarily emerge from them’ (ibid: 12). The power of affect, in other words,
may originate from outside the human being in objects like buildings.
Deleuze’s notion of the affect allows us to conceive human experience
not merely in terms of subjectivity and the symbolic interpretation of the
world but also in terms of environmental impulses and ‘lines of flight’
(Deleuze & Guattari 1987) that have the capacity to move human beings
beyond their learned symbolic registers. It is from this perspective that it
can be argued that religious spaces have a kind of agency. They are man-
made products that have an impact on human experience. Concretely,
buildings limit or direct movement, impress visitors, affect the senses,
evoke connotations. Neither an empty cipher with no intrinsic meaning
whatsoever nor an authoritative text, a building provides opportunities
for processes of identification within a particular social context. We are
being trained to interpret and experience buildings in a certain way, but
that does not exclude the possibility that they may, positively or nega-
tively, overwhelm us and make us look at ourselves and our communities
in a new or renewed way.
Recent studies in material religion focus explicitly on this dynamic and
interactional relation between material objects and religious subjects.
The works of Saba Mahmood (2005) or Annelies Moors (2009) on Islamic
veiling, for instance, interpret this practice as a technique of becoming a

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 12 26-08-13 20:32:53

 pious Muslim. More than just a symbol of religious identity, the veil can
be seen as an affective object – an object, that is, that imposes its power
onto the human subject and affects the subjectivity of the person who
wears it. By wearing the veil, Muslim women actively allow the affective
power of the material to transform their sense of self. This volume looks
at religious architecture in a similar way. More than just a ‘message cast in
stone’, as the iconological approach would have it, several of the authors
in this book consider mosques and churches and synagogues as affec-
tive places. Working in the spirit of philosophers like Gaston Bachelard
(1969) and Brian Massumi (2002) as well as architects like Juhani Pallas-
maa (2005) and Peter Zumthor (1999), to name but a few, several chap-
ters in this book look at those qualities of architecture that do not simply
represent something that already exists but that help make and unmake
identities, enable and disrupt experiences, create, reproduce or break up
communities – in short, that make a change.
In sum, interactionalism and identification are conceptual key terms in
this volume. As used here, interactionalism refers to two processes: 1) the
negotiations between various parties in the design, construction and use
of religious buildings, and 2) the dynamic relations between the architec-
tural object and the religious subject. Identification refers to the idea that
a religious self engages in a socio-material field that includes both others
(fellow community members, secular majorities, religious minorities and
so on) and objects (including religious buildings and places). Although
these two terms – interactionalism and identification – do not return in
each and every chapter, all of the contributions are concerned with inter-
active, dynamic relations of identification between religious groups and
architectural spaces.

What is religious architecture?

Ever since Talal Asad’s critique of substantive definitions of religion, es-

pecially those by Clifford Geertz (1973), and his insistence that definitions
of religion are always situational (Asad 1993b), it is no longer self-evident
what religious means within a particular historical moment. This has ob-
vious consequences for the definition of religious architecture. For how
exactly does religious architecture differ, for instance, from the architec-
ture of the modern state? The greatness of God expressed in architec-
tural form has an obvious family likeness to the greatness of the state as
represented in modern architectural monuments. When it comes to the

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 13 26-08-13 20:32:53

 evocation of ritual effervescence, a sense of community or the sensation
of the sublime – all aspects we might associate with religion – we might
find these qualities in secular buildings like sport stadiums, modern mu-
seums or courts of law rather than in modern churches or mosques. To
define religion in terms of the holy, the sacred or the transcendent does
not solve the problem either: to talk of mosques or synagogues in such
terms has often been criticised as importing Christian notions about re-
ligious space into Islam or Judaism (Eade 1996: 226). And even though
this viewpoint may draw too sharp a boundary between Catholicism and
other monotheisms on the basis of religious texts and received ideas
alone, whereas in actual practice many Muslims and Jews also seem to
recognise the special character of religious spaces, anthropologists have
consistently maintained that the rigid distinction between the sacred and
the profane that informed classical sociological definitions of religion is
untenable cross-culturally (Evans-Pritchard 1965; Goody 1961). Church-
es and synagogues lose their religious function and are converted into
houses, museums or cultural centres. Does that mean they are no longer
religious buildings? Or vice versa, is a former garage or school building
turned into a mosque a piece of religious architecture? Several authors
have pointed out that space is defined by ritual rather than the other
way around and that the status of a building as religious or even sacred
is situational (Smith 1987; Metcalf 1996), which suggests that definitions
can never be static.
One solution to the problem of definition is to give up a substantive
definition of religious architecture altogether and follow Asad’s point that
the religious is always constituted by the secular and vice versa. In this
line of reasoning, religious spaces are almost by definition ‘heterotopias’
– a term coined by Foucault to denote ‘other spaces’ or ‘espace autres’. In
the ‘infinite, and infinitely open space’ of the secular, some spaces defy the
‘desanctification of space’ by being ‘other’, ‘counter-sites’, ‘fantasmatic’, ‘a
mirror’ (Foucault 1967). In a similar vein, Bataille could compare religious
sites to slaughterhouses: both are expelled from the secular main street
and, on top of that, are – in Bataille’s essentialist take – places of sacri-
fice (1997: 22). The important point of these insights seems to me that
religious architecture is not defined by some inherent qualities but by its
opposition to secular space and its potential to create spaces of affirma-
tive transgression where the secular is confirmed by the very existence of
its opposite. However, although the notion of heterotopia may be helpful
to understand the place of religious spaces in societies where secularism
is the dominant belief system (see, for instance, Irvine in this volume), the

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 14 26-08-13 20:32:53

 downside of it is that it makes it very difficult to see how the religious and
the secular come together in a mutually affirmative rather than a dialec-
tic way, for instance in churches or mosques that are built to the greater
glory of the head of state or a rich local entrepreneur (see Köllner in this
volume).
Another solution, then, might be a return to a functional definition
of religion and religious architecture. According to Roy Rappaport, the
function of religion lies partly in its capacity to ‘offset the deficiencies of
language and symbolic culture’ (Lambek 2001). Although thoroughly part
of the social and political world, partly indeed as the necessary contrast
to the secular, religion also evokes a domain beyond the social world of
learned speak and symbolic behaviour, offering a ritually defined entrance
to this domain. Obviously, religion is not alone in its evocation of the
sublime. Art, psychology, travel, violence and other bodily practices may
generate similar desires and techniques to fulfill them. We might indeed
get ourselves into trouble if we try to argue that modern religion stands
out as somehow special and unique amidst other techniques of evoking
the Real. A more fruitful way to emphasise the significance of modern re-
ligion might be to say that in highly disciplined modern societies that con-
stantly instill modern subjects with the romantic aspiration for authentic
individuality, religion is one of various ways that modern society offers
to consume this desire. If this is so, the question becomes how religious
architecture evokes and fulfills this desire.
A third and perhaps academically unsatisfactory solution to the prob-
lem of definition is to take common sense demarcations for granted. For
although it may be difficult to conceptually distinguish modern religion
from, say, the sovereign power of the bureaucratic state, the autoreferen-
tial qualities of art or the communal aspects of sport, modern subjects,
including anthropologists, do make these distinctions in everyday speech.
This is a social fact that has an effect of its own. That is not to deny that it
may be useful and welcome to destabilise common sense notions of reli-
gion by comparing religious architecture with skyscrapers in the business
centres of global cities – New York’s Saint Patrick Cathedral is indeed
one of the smallest buildings in its surroundings, and the term ‘ecstatic
architecture’ has recently been used for postmodern office towers rather
than for religious buildings (Jencks 1999). In many other ways, the con-
ceptual distinction between religious and non-religious architecture re-
mains blurred and problematic. And yet most of our informants seem to
have a fairly clear idea about religious buildings as purpose-built places
where people come to perform rituals they themselves call religious or

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 15 26-08-13 20:32:53

 where communities gather under the flag of some faith. Or rather: the
problem of definition is relevant for them on some level but not on an-
other. Muslims may, for instance, have fierce discussions about the doctri-
nal requirements of a mosque, about questions such as whether a mihrab
(where the person stands who leads the collective prayer) is required or
not? In other words, they may struggle with the definition of a mosque in
terms of the Quran and the Hadith, but they know perfectly well where a
person is going when he says he is going to the mosque. Grounding our-
selves in this practical knowledge, then, we ask questions about the rela-
tion between the building with its architectural form and the interactions
and experiences people have when they individually or collectively engage
with the building as a self-defined religious place.
This volume borrows from all of these three definitional tactics, all of
which direct us to relevant questions about how religious buildings, as
heterotopias, take their place in opposition to the secular surroundings;
how they, as evocations of the sublime, help believers to move beyond the
boundaries of modern subjectivity; and how they, in their common sense
definition, function as community centres in urban daily life.

Introduction to the chapters

Building upon the definitions and theoretical framework outlined above,

this collection addresses a number of themes: affect, identity, community,
heritage and the relations and conflicts between these various aspects of
religious buildings. I will briefly specify how these themes are addressed
in the various chapters.
Richard Irvine’s chapter about an English Benedictine monastery
explicitly deals with religious architecture as ‘counterfactual’ and self-
consciously opposed to key values of dominant secular society. Although
its nineteenth-century neo-Gothic architecture was originally meant as
an expression of a Catholic minority religious identity, the meaning of
the building has changed considerably, as it now stands out as a place of
stability and tradition in a world of ‘global movement and fleeting inter-
action’, as Irvine puts it with reference to the work of Marc Augé. Irvine
describes how the architecture of the place is intimately linked with the
everyday routine of Catholic ritual, and it is this combination of ritual
taking place in a particular architectural setting that creates the ‘value of
staying put’, as one monk puts it. Heritage, community, identity and affect
are all intertwined because the sense of tradition and stability that gives

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 16 26-08-13 20:32:53

 the community of monks its modern ‘counterfactual’ identity is aroused
not in the least by the very materiality of the monastery as a site of English
Catholic heritage.
Analysing the mythical language of size in relation to newly built
mosques in Europe, Pooyan Tamimi Arab addresses the issues of affect
and identity within the highly politicised context of European Islam. Fo-
cusing on the Essalam Mosque of Rotterdam and how it is framed as a
‘megamosque’ or ‘the biggest mosque in Europe’ by Dutch Muslims and
anti-Islam politicians alike, Tamimi Arab examines the affective dimen-
sion of this depiction. Although the Essalam Mosque is, in reality, not the
biggest mosque of Europe, the author is less interested in analysing the
‘megamosqueing’ myth as a discursive construction than in seeking to
find out how the myth works for various parties involved. Using Bruno
Latour’s notion of ‘symmetrical anthropology’ in which fact and fetish
are no longer seen as oppositional, Tamimi Arab analyses the role of the
building in current identity politics, emphasising how its mythical reputa-
tion impacts how the physicality of the mosque is experienced.
The issue of affect is taken up further by Mattijs van de Port who in his
contribution explicitly focuses on the question of how the sublime can
be evoked by architectural means. Taking the baroque church architec-
ture of Brazil as his example, Van de Port explores what Jens Baumgar-
ten has called the ‘visual rhetorics’ of the Brazilian baroque architecture
(Baumgarten 2010). Whereas Baumgarten examines the religious, aes-
thetic and social dimensions of the Brazilian baroque, Van de Port ex-
plicitly rejects a historical or representational interpretation that would
explain baroque colonial architecture in the context of the Counter-
Reformation, colonial expansion and Brazilian nationalism. Instead, he
delves into the question of how baroque architecture affects the senses,
developing an argument that is reminiscent of Edmund Leach’s point in
an article on Hindu temples: that the overwhelming and spectacular pres-
ence of a magnitude of gods and goddesses functions to derail the senses
of the visitor and in that way to take him beyond himself. Borrowing from
the equally self-consciously ahistorical work of Bataille and Barthes, Van
de Port emphasises the ‘sovereign power of form itself ’ to develop an ar-
gument about the interaction between architectural form and human per-
ception. Put differently, this contribution focuses on how the sensational
form of the baroque church creates a dimension beyond the realm of dis-
cursive identity formation. If Irvine and Tamimi Arab emphasise in their
contributions the relations between affect and identity, Van de Port forms
a counterpoint to these opening chapters by indicating how architecture

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 17 26-08-13 20:32:53

 can create a sensation of the sublime which overturns and deranges reli-
gious-political identity.
Tobias Köllner’s chapter on new Russian Orthodox churches in con-
temporary Russia shifts our attention to issues of heritage and commu-
nity. After the fall of communism, the Russian Orthodox Church has re-
entered the public space, and many new churches and monasteries have
been built since the 1990s. Describing two such cases in the monumental
city of Vladimir, Köllner highlights the moral dimension of gift-giving in
the context of religious revival. The financial gifts of entrepreneurs who
have made the most of Russian capitalism, as well as the manual labour
contributed by poor religious community members, are interpreted as
public works of penance. Interestingly, it is through these gifts that pub-
lic tensions in the new Russia can temporarily be solved. Not only do
new churches link local communities to the nation by reviving national
religious heritage, the gifts given to new church projects also reinforce
economic ties and political positions whereas they also function as a pub-
lic form of moral purification. For example, through financial gifts, rich
businessmen strengthen their relationships with local politicians and the
Russian Orthodox establishment but also publicly and privately show
themselves as moral persons, capable of sin and penance. It is this reli-
gious money that hints at the links between the simultaneous rise of the
Russian Orthodox Church and Russian capitalism.
Even more than Köllner, Markha Valenta zooms in on religious ar-
chitecture as an expression of contemporary global capitalism. Her ac-
count of the Siddhivinayak Temple, the richest and most spectacular of
Mumbai, is an explicit attempt to analyse what is contemporary about
contemporary religious architecture. Refusing any kind of reductionism,
Valenta describes how the rise of the temple, which attracts some 100,000
visitors daily, reflects the political, economic and cultural changes since
the 1980s and how these changes have impacted Mumbai as a global city.
Indicative of these often-conflicting changes, the temple itself is full of
contradictions. Symbolising a new demotic Hinduism, for instance, it also
functions like a gated community with airport-like security and modern
technologies that make the structure largely self-provisional and yet glob-
ally connected through media and finance. It speaks of the conflictual
but simultaneous rise of chauvinistic and cosmopolitan Hindu religious
politics, of Bollywood as well as Shiv Sena. In these and other ways, the
Siddhivinayak Temple is, as Valenta puts it, reflective of ‘the structural
interplay between equality, (dis)possession, consumption and desire in
our brave new world’.

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 18 26-08-13 20:32:53

 In his analysis of the Great Mosque in Djenné, Mali, reputedly the
world’s largest mud structure, Trevor Marchand takes the issue of heri-
tage and community further, explicitly emphasising the potential tension
that exists between the interests of heritage preservation and community
activity. Starting out by documenting various historical ideological dis-
putes about its design that arose over the years between locals and invad-
ing religious purists, Marchand then moves on to describe the re-plaster-
ing ceremonies that take place annually to maintain the structure. These
ceremonies become festive rituals that reproduce a sense of community.
However, the mosque is also world heritage, the object of conservation
projects financed by donors like the Aga Khan Trust for Culture, and a fo-
cus point of the annual Festival du Djennéry that is largely staged for tour-
ists, all of which neglect the important social function of the maintenance
activities by the Muslim community. The conflict becomes one between
the outsiders’ admiration for the building as an authentic end-product
and the seasonal engagement of the community with the materiality and
building techniques.
A similar tension occurs in Verkaaik’s discussion of the new mosque
in Granada, Spain, built and used by Western converts to Islam who have
settled in the shadow of the Alhambra. Like Marchand’s contribution,
this chapter describes the encounter between tourists seeking authentic
Moorish culture and Muslim converts doing largely the same but with
a religious rather than a leisurely purpose. A profound difference with
the Great Mosque in Djenné, however, is that the Muslim community in
Granada is a new community of converts who need to establish a religious
habitus from scratch. The sensational practices of making things in a re-
fashioned and revitalised Moorish tradition are an important part of this
effort to create a new aesthetic community. Verkaaik also describes how
this attempt clashes with reformist-minded notions of Islam as a truly
inward-looking faith and how this enigma of religion and aesthetics leads
to local discussions about time and beauty.
Ivan Kalmar’s contribution discusses another example of how the
Moorish legacy of Al-Andaluz is revived in a modern context. Focusing
on nineteenth-century synagogue building in Europe – in this case the
synagogue in Florence, Italy – Kalmar refutes the often-repeated notion
that the Moorish style as applied to synagogues expressed an admiration
for religious tolerance in Muslim Spain. Based on historical documents,
he shows how in the nineteenth century the Moorish style was associated
with the Orient. Since the Jews were seen as an ‘Oriental’ people, non-
Jewish architects in particular considered the Moorish style appropriate

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 19 26-08-13 20:32:53

 for synagogues. The rediscovery of the Moorish style was thus related
to the growing visibility and integration of Jews as a separate ethnic-
religious community.
Shahed Saleem also focuses on contemporary mosque design, namely
the various trends and development in mosque building in postwar Brit-
ain. Some of the discussions about style and identity in the case of the
contemporary British mosque are comparable to the discussions analysed
by Kalmar, but Saleem also takes the analysis a step further by analysing
the designing process as a process of negotiation, learning and ‘objecti-
fication’. Disagreeing with the often-heard criticism that European Mus-
lims simply produce cheap replicas of traditional Islamic building styles,
Saleem points out the many variations, adaptations and innovations in
British mosque design. Although the gaze of the secular world affects in
an important way how Muslims design their mosques, Saleem’s look at
the mosque interior shows that Muslims are also driven by other concerns
such as religious disputes on mosque design, the wish to create a famil-
iar and relaxing place for prayer, and the ambition to literally build an
English Muslim identity. These complex interactions make the designing
and building process ‘a performance that the community engages in to es-
tablish its own dynamics and relationships to each other and the outside
world’.

References

Amerlinck, Mari-Jose (2001) Architectural Anthropology. Westport: Ber-

gin & Garvey.
Appadurai, Arjun (ed.) (1986) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in
Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asad, Talal (1993a) “Toward a Genealogy of the Concept of Ritual”. In Ge-
nealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity
and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
— (1993b) “The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Cate-
gory”. In Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in
Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Augé, Marc (2005) Non-Places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Super-
modernity. London: Verso.
Bachelard, Gaston (1969) The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press.
Bataille, George (1997) “Slaughterhouse”. In Neil Leach (ed.), Rethinking
Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. London: Routledge, 22.

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 20 26-08-13 20:32:53

 Bateson, Gregory (1971) “The Cybernetics of ‘Self ’: A Theory of Alcohol-
ism”. Psychiatry 34/1: 1-18.
Baumgarten, Jens (2010) “Staging Baroque Worship in Brazil”. In David
Morgan (ed.), Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief.
London: Routledge, 173-191.
Blier, Suzanne Preston (2006) “Vernacular Architecture”. In C. Tilley et al.
(eds.), Handbook of Material Culture. London: Sage, 231-253.
Bloch, Maurice (1968) “Tombs and Conservatism among the Merina of
Madagascar”. Man, New Series 3 (1): 94-104.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1973) “The Berber House”. In M. Douglas (ed.), Rules
and Meanings: The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge. Harmond-
sworth: Penguin, 98-110.
Buchli, Victor (1999) An Archaeology of Socialism: The Narkomfin Com-
munal House, Moscow. Oxford: Berg.
Buchli, Victor (ed.) (2002) The Material Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg.
Carsten, Janet & Stephen Hugh-Jones (eds.) (1995) About the House: Levi-
Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles & Felix Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus. Minneapo-
lis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dodds, Jerrilynn D. (2002) New York Masjid: The Mosques of New York
City. New York: Powerhouse.
Eade, John (1996) “Nationalism, Community, and the Islamization of
Space in London”. In Barbara Metcalf (ed.), Making Muslim Space in
North America and Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press,
215-233.
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1965) Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford: Clar-
endon.
Foucault, Michel (1967) Of Other Spaces. http://foucault.info/documents/
heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html
Geertz, Clifford (1973) “Religion as a Cultural System”. In The interpreta-
tion of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books, 87-125.
— (1990) Negara: The Theatre State in 19th Century Bali. Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Gell, Alfred (1998) Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Goody, Jack R. (1961) “Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem”.
British Journal of Sociology 12 (2): 142-164.
Gullestad, Marianne (1984) Kitchen-Table Society: A Case Study of the
Family Life and Friendships of Young Working-Class Mothers in Urban
Norway. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 21 26-08-13 20:32:53

 Heidegger, Martin (1997) “Building, Dwelling, Thinking”. In Neil Leach
(ed.), Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory. London:
Routledge, 100-108.
Hewson, Chris (2011) “Multi-Faith Space: Towards a Practice-Based As-
sessment”. Paper presented at the conference ‘The Struggle to Belong’,
University of Amsterdam, 7-9 July 2011.
Holsappel-Brons, Jorien (2010) “Space for Silence: The Interplay Between
Space and Ritual in Rooms of Silence”. In Paul Post & Arie L. Molen-
dijk (eds.), Holy Ground: Reinventing Ritual Space in Modern Western
Culture. Leuven: Peeters, 235-251.
Hoorn, Mélanie van de (2009) Indispensable Eyesores: An Anthropology of
Undesired Buildings. New York: Berghahn.
Ingold, Tim (2000) “Building, dwelling, living: How animals and people
make themselves at home in the world”. In Tim Ingold, The perception
of the environment: essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London:
Routledge, 172-188.
Jencks, Charles (1999) Ecstatic Architecture: The Surprising Link. Chich-
ester: John Wiley & Sons.
Keane, Webb (2008) “The Evidence of the Senses and the Materiality of
Religion”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14/April: 110-
27.
Köllner, Tobias (2011) “Built with Gold or Tears? Moral Discourses on
Church Construction and the Role of Entrepreneurial Donations”. In
Jarrett Zigon (ed.), Multiple Moralities and Religions in Post-Soviet
Russia. Oxford: Berghahn, 191-213.
Lambek, Michael (2001) “Rappaport on Religion: A Social Anthropologi-
cal Reading”. In Ellen Messer & Michael Lambek (eds.), Ecology and
the Sacred: Engaging the Anthropology of Roy A. Rappaport. Ann Ar-
bor: University of Michigan Press, 244-273.
Latour, Bruno (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-
Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lawrence-Zuniga, Denise & Setha M. Low (1990) “The Built Environment
and Spatial Form”. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 453-505.
Leach, Edmund (1983) “The Gatekeepers of Heaven: Anthropological As-
pects of Grandiose Architecture”. Journal of Anthropological Research
39 (3): 243-264.
LeCavalier, Jesse (2009) “The Mormon Church’s Infrastructure of Salva-
tion”. In Monu Holy Urbanism February 2009.
Low, Setha M. & Denise Lawrence-Zuñiga (2003) The Anthropology of
Space and Place: Locating Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 22 26-08-13 20:32:53

 Mahmood, Saba (2005) The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the
Feminist Subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1922) Argonauts of the western Pacific: An account
of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian
New Guinea. London: Kegan Paul.
Marchand, Trevor H.J. (2001) Minaret Building and Apprenticeship in
Yemen. Richmond: Curzon.
— (2009) The Masons of Djenné. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Massumi, Brian (2002) Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensa-
tion. Durham: Duke University Press.
Metcalf, Barbara (ed.) (1996) Making Muslim Space in North America and
Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Meyer, Birgit (2009) “From Imagined Communities to Aesthetic Forma-
tions: Religious Mediations, Sensational Forms, and Styles of Bind-
ing”. In Aesthetic Formations: Media, Religion, and the Senses. Hound-
mills: Palgrave, 1-28.
Miller, Daniel (1987) Material Culture and Mass Consumption. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
— (ed.) (2005) Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Moors, Annelies (2009) “‘Islamic Fashion’ in Europe: Religious Convic-
tion, Aesthetic Style, and Creative Consumption”. Encounters 1: 176-
199.
Morgan, David (2010) Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief.
London & New York: Routledge.
Navaro-Yashin, Yael (2009) “Affective Spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruin-
ation and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge”. Journal of
the Royal Anthropological Institute 15: 1-18.
Nelson, Steven (2007) From Cameroon to Paris: Mousgoum Architecture
in and out of Africa. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pallasmaa, Juhani (2005) The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses.
Chicester: John Wiley.
Rabinow, Paul (1989) French Modern: Norms and Forms of the Social Envi-
ronment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Rapoport, Amos (1969) House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs: Pren-
tice-Hall.
Roose, Eric (2009) The Architectural Representation of Islam: Muslim-
Commissioned Mosque Design in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: isim/
Amsterdam University Press.
Smith, Jonathan Z. (1987) To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.

RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE 

Religious Architecture.indd 23 26-08-13 20:32:53

 Valenta, Markha (2010) “Transcending the Inanimate: The Problem of
Agency”. Paper presented at Religious Architecture Workshop, Uni-
versity of Amsterdam.
Vellinga, Marcel (2004) Constituting unity and difference: Vernacular ar-
chitecture in a Minangkabau village, Leiden: kitlv Press.
— (2007) “Anthropology and the Materiality of Architecture”. American
Ethnologist 34 (4): 756-766.
— (2011) “The End of the Vernacular: Anthropology and the Architec-
ture of the Other”. Etnofoor 28 (1): 171-192.
Verkaaik, Oskar (2012) “On Human Builders, Human Dwellers and Their
Buildings”. Etnofoor 23 (2): 115-122.
Zumthor, Peter (1999) Thinking Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser.

 OSKAR VERKAAIK

Religious Architecture.indd 24 26-08-13 20:32:53