Area (2001) 33.4, 404413Religion and technology: reguring place,space, identity and communityLily KongDepartment of Geography, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Singapore 117570Email: lilykong@nus.edu.sgRevised manuscript received 17 July 2001This paper reviews the literature on the religiontechnology nexus, drawing up a researchagenda and offering preliminary empirical insights. First, I stress the need to explore the newpolitics of space as a consequence of technological development, emphasizing questionsabout theroleof religionineffectingaformof religious(neo)imperialism, andunevenaccess to techno-religious spaces. Second, I highlight the need to examine the politics ofidentity and community, since cyberspace is not an isotropic surface. Third, I underscoretheneedtoengagewithquestionsabout thepoeticsof religiouscommunityassocialrelations become mediated by technology. Finally, I focus on questions about the poeticsof place, particularly the technological mediation of rituals.Key words: religion, technology, cyberspace, place, space, communityModernity, technology and religionOneofthewidestrefrainsinthesocial sciencesinthelatter half of thetwentiethcenturymust havebeen the secularization thesis, that modernity has ledto the substitution of religious traditions with ration-alism, scientismandindividualism. Publiclife, it isargued, has been secularized and that which isreligious has been privatized (see, for example, Kurtz1995). Even while the viewof a singular trendtowards secularization is debatable, and simul-taneous strands of secular forces and religiousrevivalismcompete, in recent years geographershave begun to acknowledge the intersection of thesacredandsecular inmodernityandhavesoughtanunderstanding of howgeographies of religionhave evolvedinsuchcontexts (see Kong 2001).Obviously, modernity is too complex to equate withany single development, but clearly technologicalchanges are integral to conditions of modernity, andit is this aspect of modern life that I wish to focus oninrelationtonew geographies of religion(Kong2001). This aspect largely has been absent from theliterature, which recently has focused on the dialec-tical relationship between the spatial and social, thepoliticsandpoetics, encompassingtheintersectionof the sacredandsecular (Kong 2001). Yet, theopportunities for exploring technology in the consti-tution of geographies of religion, and religion in theconstructionof technologies, aretremendous. Theblind spot in the literature deserves separate atten-tion, particularlygiventheadventofmajortechno-logical changes in recent years, not least in the formof the Internet and related modes of computer-mediated communication (CMC).Atthesametimethataliteraturehasdevelopedon geographies of religion, quite a different literaturealso has emerged that examines the dialectical rela-tionshipbetweenthesocial andthetechnological.Theretheorizedunderstandingof thisdialectic(forexample, Bingham1996; Crang et al. 1999) hasopened up ways of approaching and understandingthe intersections of the religious and the technologi-cal. As Crang et al. (1999, 2) argue, technologies arenot self-contained entities that impact on the socialbut aresocialised ascommodities, aspropertyandinfrastructure, as theobjects of attentionforworkers and consumers, as tools for economic andregional development, asitemsof interior decora-tion, as genres of literature. As they go on to argueISSN 0004-0894Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 2001succinctly, just astechnologydoesnot comeintobeingoutsideof thesocial, sothesocial doesnotcomeintobeingoutsideof thetechnological; inother words, there is a dialectic in which exists thesocial shapingof technologyandthetechnologicalbuilding of the social (Crang et al. 1999, 2).My aim here is to review the limited literature onreligion which takes into account technologicalchange, highlighting their arguments and assertions,and foregrounding the shortcomings therein, particu-larly recalling the emerging literature on the techno-social (Bingham1996)whichhasremainedlargelyseparate from the literature on geographies ofreligion. It is alsomyprimaryintentiontosurfacenewquestions for the research agenda. In whatfollows, I willbe guided organizationally by the keyquestions that have engaged geographers of religion,adopting Kongs (2001) conceptualization of thequestions: namely, the politics and poetics of spaceandplace, andthepoliticsandpoeticsof identityand community.Politics of spaceIncreasingly, geographers have explored the politicsof religiousspace, drawingattentionparticularlytothetensionsbetweensacredandsecular use, andamong religious groups over (often) urbanspace(Kong2001). Withingeographiesof religion, it hasbeenacknowledgedthatsacredspaceiscontestedspace, just asthesacredisacontestedcategory(Needham, citedinChidester andLinenthal 1995,15). Characteristicofsacredspacearehierarchicalpower relations of dominationandsubordination,inclusion and exclusion, appropriation and dis-possession (Chidester and Linenthal 1995, 17),involving entrepreneurial,social,politicaland otherprofane forces (Chidester andLinenthal 1995,17). Altogether, theyconstituteapoliticsof sacredspace, in which power relations dene sacredness ofspace, contrary tothenotionof sacredspaceashierophanic, that is, inexplicable spiritual irruptions, aconcept Eliade (1959) had propounded.Technological developments have opened up newspaces of religious practice or techno-religiousspaces andaconsequentnewpoliticsofspace,withregureddominations andresistances. Thesenewspacesofreligiouspracticefacilitatedbytech-nology range from that which is basic by turn-of-the-millennium, such as radio and television broadcasts,tomorerecent revolutionary Internet-basedcom-munication. The former has facilitated televangelism,as well as documentaries about religious tenets andpractices, chat shows in which religious gurus offeradvice on how to lead religious lives, live telecasts ofprayers/services/sermons and so forth. Cassette andvideo tapes, and more recently, compact discs, videocompact discs and digital videos, have also facilitatedthe distribution of sermons, prayers, religious musicand programmes about a host of religious activities.Computer-mediated communication (CMC) hasrevolutionized communication in the last few years,eventhoughsomeforms(suchaselectronicmail)haveexistedfor longer thanthat, andinthisarea,too,religious lives have been mediated.Such CMCtakesavarietyof forms: one-to-oneasynchronouscommunication, e.g. email; many-to-many asynchro-nous communication, e.g. Usenet, bulletin boards ormailing lists; synchronous communication on a one-to-one, one-to-few and one-to-many basis, e.g. Inter-net RelayChat andchat rooms; andsynchronouscommunicationwherethereceiverseeksoutinfor-mationfromaprovider, e.g. websites, gopher andFTP(see Kitchin1998, 1213, for elaborationofthese forms). In religion, there are nowbulletinboards,mailing lists and chat rooms for discussionsof religious matters, andpersonal andinstitutionalwebsiteswhichcommunicatereligiousorientationsandintentions. Religioussoftwareprogrammesarealso available: Muslims, for example, have electronicArabic tutorials, an Islamic lawdatabase and aninteractive Islamic game, Journey to Mecca (seeZaleski 1997, for detailsof resourcesavailableviaCMC for various religions).Withthesenewtechno-religiousspaces, anewpolitics of space deserves analysis an internationalpolitics involving the centre and periphery inreligious leadership and inuence. Such a politics isnew insofar as new technologies are involved. Yet itis a politics not dissimilar tothat inthe days ofcolonial expansionismwhichfacilitatedmissionaryactivity and vice versa. In as much as technology wasintegral andcritical theninthespreadof religiousinuenceandimperialismthroughitsfacilitationoflong distance travel, conditions since then continueto reveal similar patterns: the development of varioustechnologies, enabling the inuence of particularreligions and religious leaders from the centre, andthe emergence of local resistances (see Stein 1999,44, for a parallel argument about how recentadvances in computing and telecommunicationsshould not be viewed as historically new but as newphases of ongoing processes of change that began atleast a century and a half ago with the constructionReligion and technology 405of telegraph and telephone systems). In 1991,Stump (1991, 358) made the observation that whilelocal religiousbroadcastshadbecomeincreasinglycommonoutsidetheUSinrecent decades, theirinuence was secondary to that of internationalbroadcastsinmostareas. HecitedtheexampleofChristian radio, where international broadcastswere principally those emanating fromthe US.Various research questions need to be pursued here.Astechnologyandglobalizingtendenciesopenupcultural borders, howdostatesdeal withtheinu-ence of international religious broadcasts intheircountries? If American involvement is strong in inter-national religious broadcasting, what are the implica-tions for anewcultural imperialismviareligion, akind of religious imperialism? Elsewhere, it has beennoted that the more radical wing of Asian andAfricanrepresentatives of theworldmissioncon-ference inBangkok in1972/73hadcalledfor amissionary moratorium as part of a postcolonialinterpretation of Western missionary activity (Ustorf1998, 595). The view was that missionary activity, asa model of salvation, was not only targeted at thoseto be saved, but involved the salvation of those whogeneratedtheacts of salvationintherst place.Therewas anunwillingness onthepart of somenon-Westernchurchleadersandtheologianstobetreated as the raw material for the spiritual needs ofthe West (Ustorf 1998, 595). This politics of mission-ary work, together with calls for the indigenization ofchurch leadership, represent resistances to Westernimperialism, andserve as anexample for furtherinterrogationof thequestionof whether asimilarimperialism is re-emerging via technologicaladvancements. At the same time, it is as important toaskwhetherthereexistsecularandreligiousresist-ances to Western material over cyberspace and theairwaves, and if so, in what forms.Aseconddimensioninthepoliticsofspacethatcomes with technologicaldevelopments is the newspaces of competitiongeneratedamong differentreligious groups and denominations in their efforts atevangelization, conversion and conrmation ofbelief. Technologycangeneratemyriadpossibilitiesfor furtherance of religious interest and activity,opening up spaces for the communication ofreligious missives and, in the case of interactivemedia(suchaschat roomsandemail), for linkingreligious adherents.1Access to such techno-religiousspace is, however, uneven and a politics of language,age andclass canbe expected, inviting researchattention. Specically, since most current Internettraffic, whichis text-based, uses Englishas thedefacto language of choice (Kinney 1995, 770), and thetechnologyappealstoandisbest negotiatedbyayounger and economically more advanced andbetter educated group, techno-religious space is notan isotropic surface. Where religious affiliationcoincides with a particular socio-economic prole, asis often the case, the competition for techno-religious space is tipped in favour of particularreligious groups while disadvantaging others. Again,this harkens back to parallel situations in latenineteenth- and early twentieth-century EuropeanandNorthAmericancities. Steins(1999) workonthe telephone in London illustrates how, in VictorianandEdwardianBritain, Londons middle-class eco-nomic and politics elites were the major participantsin shaping the development of the telephone, feed-ing business interests as well as cultivating theirdesire for a symbol of modernity. Contemporarydevelopments in and spread of technology, particu-larly in information and communications technologyand, concomitantly, the access of religious groups tothesetechnologies, arealsonot separatefromthesocio-economic, institutional and political structuresof particular places. The coincidence of middle-classtechnophiles with particular middle-class religiousadherents suggests at least apossibilitythat tech-no-religious space displays particular patterns ofdomination.Politics of identity and communityCommunities are often characterized by variousforms of oppression, protecting the prevailing valuesystemincludingitsmoral code (Smith1999, 25;see also Dwyer 1999). There is also an intoleranceof difference, sincetheideal of community relieson a desire for the same social wholeness andidentication (Young1990a, 3031990b). This isprecisely the differentiation within modernity thatcalls for absoluteness, a certainty that differencesmark out what is true/false, legimate/illegitimate,valued/not valued. Unlike postmodernity, wherethereisnoattempttoclaimonetraditionaloneasvalid, this intolerance of difference in modernity hasgivenrisetoapoliticsof identityandcommunity,with struggles between and within internally similargroups for power and resources, thus asserting theircommunity and identity.Intechno-religiousspace, thepoliticsof identityand community arises precisely because of the strug-gles between and within groups for the domination406 Kongof ideas. The inequalities of access highlighted in theprevious section, based on differential access tolanguage, education and resources, are com-poundedbyothers. Onestrandof thestruggleisgender based. Men dominate cyberactivity. In news-groups, for example, it has beenfoundthat mendominate the discussion, and tend to be moreadversarial (Herring 1996a 1996b). Women, on theother hand, tendtobereluctant toexpress theirviews freely in cyberspace. They also face censorshipintheformofintimidationandlackofresponsetotheir opinions intheir newsgroups. Whenwomencontributetomorethan30percentofthediscus-sion, they arethought tobedominatingandareusually told so (Herring 1996b)! Yet, in anothersense, therehasalreadybeenafargreaterdemoc-ratization in cyberworld, given its mass-participatorynature. Such simultaneous inequalities and democra-tization raise severalquestions about the politics ofidentityandcommunitywithinreligious groups incyberspace. How are religious discourses beingshaped in cyberspace by the powerful (whetherpower is conferredby gender, class, languageorsome other attribute) and contested by others? Howdotheinuenceof different discourses affect thedevelopment of religious identities andcommuni-ties? Howare these discourses being taken intoeveryday lived worlds beyond cyberspace? Whatis the nature of the intersection between cyber-discourses and real-world discourses aboutreligion?Other types of political relations infuse the cyber-world, shaping the meaning of the technological.Especially in those multiracial, multireligious andmulticultural societies where religious discussionsare regulated in the public sphere, CMC opens up apolitical space which had hitherto been circum-scribed. Warf and Grimes (1997), for example, illus-trate how the Internet affords opportunities forcounter-hegemonic, anti-establishment discourses,in the same way that Kollock and Smith (1999, 20)pointoutthepotential oftheInternetasatool forthe successful coordination of online social protests(see also Pliskin and Romm 1994; Marx andVirnoche 1995; Mele 1999; Wellman and Gulia1999, 172). Inpart, thisisbecausetheInternet isvery resistant to statutory regulation (Newey 1996,132). AsZaleski (1997, 111) pointsout, individualwebmasters only have power over websites, systemoperators over bulletin board systems and modera-tors over Usenet groups, but their inuence is local.One outcome of the lack of control of contents is thepractice of aming, an open and frank expression ofviews, often in hostile and abusive ways. This may bemoderatedinsomenewsgroups wheretherearevolunteer moderators who sift out postings theydeemoff-subject or inammatory. Many, however,do not have moderators. Flaming has the potential tobehighlydamaging, asthefollowingexamplefromNewey (1996, 137) illustrates:There is either an Israel or a Palestine: there cannot beboth. SincethereisnoPalestinian landthere[is] noPalestinian people, either. Thereforethereisnolandto take away from them since they have absolutely notitle or claimto any of it; it belongs solely to theJewish people because God gave it to us . . . Do normalJewsowethePalestinians anything?Yeswedo. Weoweit tothemtolet themknowthat weintendtocontinue living in our land, even at the cost of their lives(fromLord Zions Homepage, http://ryker.itech.cup.edu/-gseese/).In many instances, such inammatory words may beencouragedbecausethescreenacts as amask,rendering relative anonymity, given the disem-bodiednatureof themedium (Kitchin1998, 14).Indeed, thismaskingisfurtherfacilitatedindiscus-sion groups by the possible use of anonymousremailersthat hidetheoriginal Internet addressofthe sender, which may result in ever more unpredict-able and volatile discussions. If technology is under-stood as socialized, it is manifestly in this context, theprovocative tool to religious strife. In countrieswhere inter-religious sensitivities are tense, the politi-cal spacethattechnologyaffords, compoundedbythepossibilityof anonymity, posesathreat tothefabricof society. Itwouldbecrucial toexamineindetail theregulatorypoliciesandpracticesof suchsocieties2andthenegotiationof suchrestrictions,thus acknowledging political and cultural specicitiesacross theglobe. Inother words, specicgeogra-phies are a crucial part of the analysis of howtechnologies facilitate religious discourses.Hierarchical andpower relationswithinreligiousinstitutions also have changed with technologicaldevelopments. InparticularformsofCMC, suchasdiscussiongroups, noauthorityexiststoguidethereader towards truth and away from falsity (Newey1996, 135). Few religious leaders enter intonewsgroups because they are likely tobe nose-thumbed, withscepticsquestioningtheir positionsand teachings. Hence, discussion groups are popu-lated by amateur experts, ubiquitous idealogues,would-be comedians, but mostly everyday men andReligion and technology 407women (Kinney 1995, 768). This, Kinney (1995,768)argues, leadstoariseinill-informeddebate,unintentional misinformation, emotional disputes,and the airing of stereotypes . . .. The absence of avoice of leadership may imply a crucial lack ofauthoritytoneutralizeconicts, andthelackof anofficial, institutional andauthoritativevoicetoleadany cyber-crusadeagainst other groups. Crucially,research is needed to examine the interconnectionsbetween cyberdiscourses and real world dis-coursesandthewaysinwhichthenegotiationofhierarchical and power relations within religious insti-tutionshavebeenaffectedbytheuidityofcyber-communications and lack of hierarchy and authoritytherein.Poetics of communityWritingsoncommunityfrequentlyhavedealt withthedesirabilityofgemeinschaftanditsdemisewithmodernity. Within the multi-disciplinary literature onreligion, much of the attention in the pre-1990s wasfocusedonreligious places suchas mosques andtemples as social centres where adherents gathered,not only to pray, but to engage in social activities aswell, thus contributing to the development of apoetics of community. With the advent of newtechnologies, the poetics of community may beanalyzed in terms of how technology facilitates newreligiouspracticeandhowreligionharnessestech-nology, consequentlyalteringtheconstitutionandmeaning of religious community. I will focus on twokeydimensions of religious practicehere, namely,the interactionamong adherents withthe rise ofcomputer-mediated communication and the role ofritual in the construction of community.Numerousresearchershaveattemptedtounder-stand the sociality of technology-mediated networks,particularly CMC, in terms of the nature of commu-nity in CMC (Rheingold 1993; Baym 1995; Harasim1995; Jones 1995; Holmes 1997; Willson 1997;KollockandSmith1999; forauseful summary, seeKitchin 1998). Few have examined this specically inthecontext of religiousgroups. Withinthegeneralliterature, optimists suggest that virtual communitiescanexist, as Rheingold(1993), perhaps thechiefutopist, does. These virtual communities, he asserts,aresocial aggregationsthat emergefromtheNetwhen enough people carry on . . . public discussionslong enough, with sufficient human feeling, toformwebsof personal relationshipsincyberspace(Rheingold 1993, 5). While Rheingold at least placedcertain criteria on the nature of the interaction(length of time and intensity of involvement) beforeadmittingthat netizensformacommunity,3evenmore extreme optimists suggest that the contours ofa genuine community exist simply because themedium is interactive and mass-participatory(Newey 1996, 132). Others suggest that CMCaffords a new meeting place, a new public space forfashioning new kinds of communities (Shields 1996;Holmes1997). Thesenewcommunitieshavenewfreedoms: freedom from the limitations of interactionwithinCartesianspace; freedomfromthecycleoftime; freedomof speech; freedomfromtraditionalforms of formal and informal social control, such ashierarchiesof race, classandgender(DawsonandHennebry 1999, 32).On the other hand, as others have illustrated,some of the purported freedoms are at best mythical.As I had elaborated earlier, not all have the freedomtoenter thisspaceintherst instance, andwhenthey do,not allhave the same freedom to interact.Further, as Dawson and Hennebry (1999, 32) docu-ment, communities shaped by the Internet are notreally real communities because the interaction andexchangearenot sufficient inkind, number, andquality to replicate and . . . replace the social relation-ships born of more immediate and spatially andtemporally uniform kinds of communal involvement.Willson (1997, 146) suggests that the interaction is apurely intellectual engagement, while Holmes(1997, 18) argues that dialogues on the Net tend tobe quite transient and directionless, seldom acquir-ing a substantive enough history to constitute apolitical [or religious] movement. These writers claimthe impossibility of community, though perhapssomewhat too negatively.Anegotiatedposition, inmyview, ismorelikely.InteractionontheNet, for example, neednot bepurely intellectual, and dialogues can move beyondtransient exchanges. However, thereis insufficientgrounded empirical research, involving detailedethnographicworkwithparticipants inCMC, andmuch of the debate is informed by opinions (Kollockand Smith 1999, 16). In particular, there is little workon how CMC of a religious nature might be differentfrom other secular CMC. Campbells (1999) work-in-progressissingularinthisrespect. CitingWellman(1997), she posits the view that cyberspace supportsglocalised communitiesof individualsinalocalareawhohaveaglobal networkofconnections; inwhichonesvillagecanspantheglobe (Campbell1999, 3). Illustrating this, she shows how the network408 Kongrelations within her chosen religious community areboth social and spiritual:Social connectioncomesfrominteractionsof the. . .members in the form of email posted to the list involv-ing the encouragement andexhortations offeredbyindividuals on the topic of prophecy. Spiritualconnec-tions involve the bonds and exchanges which arefacilitatedby the Holy Spirit withindividuals beingused as a spokesperson of God. (Campbell 1999, 6)Thespiritual connections or spiritual networkingwork at two levels networking with spiritualfriends, and the notion that the connections arenot coincidental but reect Gods hand. Further,Campbell suggests that the on-line community isvery much situated in the real world, citing theexample of how many practices are quite similar tothose in a real world charismatic gathering. Finally,the network dominates participants lives:Onecommunitymember, overwhelmedbystressandthe amount of email, publicly spoke of wanting towithdraw from the course/community. However, thesepersonal feelings were re-interpreted within the spiritualworldcontext inwhichshesawthiscircumstanceasplanted by Satan to get her away from the community.(Campbell 1999, 6).Whilepioneeringinmanyways, Campbells workraises further questions. For example, thoughsheacknowledges the social connection of thoseinvolved, thequestionremainsastowhat kindofcommunity theyconstitute; howit differs fromareal world community; what are the detailed inter-connections between the real world and the virtualgroupbeyondthat, particularlyintermsof specicpractice and social interaction. Beyond her immedi-ateempirical case, further researchisalsoneededinto how new religious communities might developin cyberspace, or how old ones might be enhancedor diminished. If, at the same time, communityboundaries arealways constructedandcontested(see, for example, Eade 1990; Brah 1992; Baumann1996; Dwyer 1999), the question arises as tohow community boundaries become (re)drawn,negotiated or dismantled with technology-mediatedcommunications.A second key question in the poetics of commu-nity is the role and nature of ritual in the making ofcommunity ina technological age. Durkheimhasargued that religion is all about group solidarity, thatritualssuchassacricesandcommemorativeriteshavecohesiveandrevitalizingfunctions, that theyestablish perpetual communion and renew the con-sciousness of the group. While religion and its ritualsapparently function to strengthen bonds attaching abeliever tohis/her god(s), theyactuallystrengthenbonds attachinganindividual tosociety. Sowhathappens to ritual in a technological age, how is socialsolidarityaffectedandwhatistheroleofplaceinany new ritual practice? What role will ritualsperformed via technology-mediated means havevis-a` -vis face-to-face communal rituals?I would like to propose the notions of living-roomritual and cyber-ritual and to call for detailedempirical scrutinyhere. Mightvicariousratherthanparticipatory ritual actionbecomeimportant (per-formed elsewhere and watched on screen: whetheron television (living-roomritual) or on computermonitor (cyber-ritual))? Ontheother hand, mightsimultaneous living-roomrituals and cyber-ritualsdevelop, involvingsimultaneous others elsewhere?As Kinney (1995, 773) points out, an integral part ofritual involves being part of a felt and shared exper-iencesimultaneously. Toreplicatethis usingtech-nology may be possible, using the example of onlinegame networks where individuals can dialin separ-ately and play competitive computer games againsteachother simultaneously. Asimilar simultaneousenvironment couldalsobecreatedinwhichtheremay be a call and response pattern, as in the Catholicrituals between priest and congregation. The criticalquestion in such a situation is howliving-roomandcyber-ritual affects theparticipatoryfeelingofcommunity, for which empirical analysis is needed.Poetics of placeThe poetics, the substantial, the essentialcharacter ofreligiousplace, assumedtobesacredplace, has long drawn research attention fromscholars of religion. Eliades (1959) work, mentionedearlier, immediatelycomestomind: thesacred, hecontends, irrupts in certain places as revelations(hierophanies), causingthemtobecomepowerfulcentersof meaningful worlds, set apart fromordi-nary, homogeneousspace. Theexperienceofsuchsacredplacemaybedescribedasthenuminous(Otto 1917), and experience of the mysteriumtremendum in place grants it a spiritual essence andpoetic quality.Inas muchas religious groups andindividualsharness technology to modify hitherto received prac-tices, thus reshaping the poetics of community,Religion and technology 409equally,the poetic experience of religious place ismediatedas newtechnologies areadopted. I willfocusontworelatedquestionshere: theplaceofplace in rituals and hence religious experience, andthe place of the human body in new rituals and theimplicationsfor conceptionsof sacredspace. First,how will geography and place gure in the reproduc-tion of religion as rituals metamorphose? One view,expressedbyaCatholicwebsitefounder, publisherand editor, is that it may in part depend on whetherecclesial requirements canbefullledfromadis-tance.Thus,one of the sacraments,the confession,may be conducted via CMC, as some of the require-ments of the confessional are possible, one of whichiscondentiality. Heacknowledged, however, thatthe technology of the telephone had been availableforalongtime, buthadnotbeenusedforconfes-sions, soperhapstheInternet wouldnot succeedeither (Zaleski 1997, 109). Holy communion wouldmost denitelybeimpossible. If onereadsfurtherintoZaleskis (1997) reports that those whorunwebsitesforreligiousorspiritual organizationsrec-ognizeitslimitations, andusethewebonlytosellbooks, present ideas, provide information onupcomingeventsandhowtondoutmore, then,ratherthandecentralizingplace, technologyplacestheaccent onits critical roleevenmore. Zaleski(1997) suggests that this is because there is noexchange of energy, of prana or spirit, throughelectronicmedia. Yet, detailedsystematicempiricalwork is lacking, particularly amongst religious adher-ents themselves, to conrm or refute these ideas.A second research question is centred on the factthat, inface-to-facecommunities, ritual isanchoredin the visual and aural, and the human body plays acrucial role in the production of sacred space. Ritualaction manipulates basic spatial distinctionsbetweenupanddown, right andleft, insideandoutside, andsoon, thatnecessarilyrevolvearoundthe axis of the living body (Chidester and Linenthal1995, 10). As technology mediates ritual, questionsarise about how conceptions of space alter, and theplaceof thelivingbody-axisinit, particularlygiventhe ways in which cyberspace has been recognizedtoconstituteacultureof disembodiment (Willson1997, 146). For example, what happens to themaintenance of boundaries between inside and out-side? What happens to the bodily axis? Are differentrituals developed that perhaps emphasize the visualand kinesic less (such as ritual movement) andspotlight theaudiomore(suchasritual songsandchants)?Ethnomusicologist Lee(1999) addressesthislastquestion, arguing that sacred space can becomedenedbytheaural rather thanthevisual alone.He points out how, with urbanization and the redis-tribution of populations in Singapore, the Malaykampungs (villages) which were homogeneouslyMalay/Muslimhavebeenreplacedbyurbanland-scapes with ethnically integrated housing, with impli-cations for the practice of religion. His specic focusisontheIslamiccall toprayer, whichusedtobedone on a loudspeaker, outward from a mosque, toattract adherentstoprayertime. Inthenewurbansocial set-up, suchsoundproductionissometimesregardedasintrusivebythosenot involvedinthatreligionorthoseparticularevents. Stateregulationswere then introduced to deal with this, in particular,regulations on noise pollution, including turning theloudspeakers inwards towards the mosque ratherthan outwards. This caused unhappiness amongMuslims. The agreedcompromise was for prayercalls to be made via radio, thus making it a tool forculture reproduction, and reconstituting the religiouscommunityviatheacousticcommunity. Suchelec-tronic mediation has caused a change in conceptu-alizationof religiousplace. Specically, itcreatedadialectical relation between presence of sharedacoustic space among Muslims created throughradiotransmissionandabsenceof sharedphysicalspace, theresultofurbanizationandmodernity. Atthe same time, listening to the call to prayer on theradio reunites each member of the Islamic commu-nity and creates an abstract communal Islamic spacewithout the encroachment of non-Islamic socialspaces (Lee 1999, 94).Ways aheadModernity and religion, certainly in terms of theintersections betweentechnologyandthesacred,hasremainedunder-researchedbygeographersinmany ways. Various agenda-setting papers andreviews of the state of geographical research onreligion in the last decade and a half have omitted toeven mention this dimension (see, for example,Levine1986; Kong1990; Park1994; Raivo1997).Technologies that have existed for a while now, suchastelevision, video, radioandtelephone, andtheirintersections with religion, have not been givenresearchattentionby geographers, let alonenewtechnologies such as computer-mediated communi-cation of various sorts. What I have attempted to do410 Konghereis tooutlineabroadagendatofurther geo-graphical researchonreligion, asnewtechnologiescontinuetoimproveinthedevelopedworldandexisting technologies spread in much of the develop-ingworld. Sucharesearchagendaexaminesques-tions about howreligious space, and social andpolitical relationsinandbetweenreligiousgroups,arebeingregured. Critical tothisendeavour isaconscious engagement with the literature on thetechno-social that iscommittedtoeschewtechno-logical determinism, and to recognize the agency ofreligious groups and individuals.Inbrief, geographerscantakeupthechallengeof researching the intersection between religionandtechnology invarious ways. First, inrelationto traditional technologies, the existing other-disciplinary theoretical and empirical writing requiresgeographical imaginations to inect the material,engaging with issues about place, space, identity andcommunity. Second, in relation to more recent tech-nological innovations in CMC, much of the writing isincritical needof groundedempirical work, bothwithin and beyond geography and religion, andgeographers of religion could well be at the cuttingedgeof variousdisciplines, leadingtheoretical andmethodological innovations.While much more empiricalwork deserves to bedone, on the basis of the limited empirical researchavailable (as outlined above), several preliminarystatementscanbemade. Insomeways, thedevel-opment and spread of new technologies may not betoodifferent fromthedevelopment andspreadofearliertechnologies, reectingtheinuenceofpar-ticular socio-economic andevenlinguistic classesand gender groups. Concomitantly then, the spreadof religion is affected, for if particular religious groupshave greater access to new technologies, the reachof religion via technological innovation becomesskewed. Preliminary insights also suggest that acentre and periphery may evolve in religious dis-courseandinuence, perhapsalatter-dayreligious(neo)imperialism, made possible in part by control ofor inuence over production processes, both interms of production of technology and production ofmeaning. The inuence over the production ofmeaningis partially effectedthroughtheopeningupof discursivespaceviatechnological improve-ments. The opening up of discursive space has hadother effects: inreligious discourse, it canpromptacrimonious criticismanddebate, but canas wellfacilitate the development of new religious commu-nities. Further, thelimitedevidenceof technology-mediated rituals cited above suggest that technologyis signicant for religious groups, not only inthediscursive sphere, but also in the domain of practice.The nature of the sacredandof sacredplace ismoderated as technology evolves, in as much as themeaning anduse of technology is moderatedasreligious beliefs and practices extend.Notes1It must benoted, however, that religiousbroadcastingandcomputer-mediatedcommunicationarelesseffec-tive in actually achieving conversions and that their mostimportant functionisinconrmationof belief (Loand1966; Davis 1976; Shupe 1976; Snowet al 1980;Rochford1982; Hoover 1988; Stump1991; Dawsonand Hennebry 1999).2Warf and Grimes (1997, 264) mention briey howfreedom of expression is an unaffordable luxury in somecountries, citing Singapores strict restraints on sites withpolitical, religious or pornographic content.3Hiscriteriamayneverthelessbequestioned: what andwho denes sufficient human feeling, for example.ReferencesBaumann G 1996 Contesting culture: discourses of identityin multi-ethnic London Cambridge University Press,CambridgeBaym N K 1995 The emergence of community incomputer-mediated communication in Jones S GedCybersociety: computer-mediated communication andcommunity Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 13863BinghamN1996Object-ions: fromtechnological deter-minismtowards geographies of relations Environmentand Planning D: Society and Space 14 63557BrahA1992Difference, diversity anddifferentiationinDonald J and Rattansi A eds Race, culture and differenceSage, London 12645Campbell H 1999 Transcending space and the geographyof thesoul: cyberspaceas a spiritual network. Paperpresented at Annual Conference of the RGSIBG SessionGeographiesof theFutureUniversityof Leicester 47JanuaryChidester D and Linenthal E T eds 1995 American sacredspace Indiana University Press, Bloomington INCrang M, Crang P and May J 1999 eds Virtual geographies:bodies, space and relations Routledge, LondonDavis B E 1976 Mass media in missions in Gurganus G P edGuidelines for world evangelism BiblicalResearch Press,Abilene TX 14069DawsonLLandHennebryJ 1999 New religions and theInternet: recruiting in a newpublic space Journal ofContemporary Religion 14(1) 1739Religion and technology 411Dwyer C 1999 Contradictions of community: questions ofidentityfor youngBritishMuslimwomenEnvironmentand Planning A 31 5368Eade J 1990 Nationalism and the quest for authenticity: theBangladeshis in Tower Hamlets NewCommunity 16493503EliadeM1959Thesacredandtheprofane: thenatureofreligion Translated fromFrench by Willard R TraskHarcourt Brace Jovanovich, San DiegoHarasim L M 1995 Networlds: networks as social space inHarasimLM ed Global networks: computers and inter-national communication Sage, Thousand Oaks CA 1534Herring S 1996a Gender anddemocracy incomputer-mediated communication in King R ed Computerizationand controversy Academic Press, San Diego 476891996bBringingfamiliar baggagetothenewfrontier:gender differences in computer-mediated communi-cationinVitanzaVJ edCyberReader Allan&Bacon,Needham Heights MA 14454Holmes D 1997 Virtual identity: communities of broadcast,communities of interactivity in Holmes Ded Virtualpolitics: identity and community in cyberspace Sage,Thousand Oaks CA 2645HooverS 1988 Mass media religion Sage Thousand OaksCAJones S G 1995 Understanding community in theinformationageinJones S GedCyberSociety: com-puter-mediated communication and community Sage,Thousand Oaks CA 1035Kinney J 1995 Religion, cyberspace and the future Futures27(7) 76376KitchinR1998Cyberspace: theworldinthewires JohnWiley and Sons, ChichesterKollock P and Smith M A 1999 Communities in cyberspacein Smith MA and Kollock P eds Communities incyberspace Routledge, London 325Kong L 1990 Geography and religion: trends and prospectsProgress in Human Geography 14(3) 355712001Mappingnew geographies of religion: politicsand poetics in modernity Progress in Human Geography25(2) 21133Kurtz L 1995 Gods in the global village: the worlds religionsinsociological perspectivePineForgePress, ThousandOaks CALeeTS1999Technologyandtheproductionof Islamicspace: thecall toprayerinSingaporeEthnomusicology43(1) 86100Levine G J 1986 On the geography of religion Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers 11 42840LoandJ 1966Doomsdaycult Prentice-Hall, EnglewoodCliffs NJMarx G and Virnoche M 1995 Only connect: E.M. Forsterin an age of computerization. Presented at the AmericanSociological Association, Washington DC AugustMele C 1999 Cyberspace and disadvantaged communities:the Internet as a tool for collective action in Smith M Aand Kollock P eds Communities in cyberspace Routledge,LondonNewey A 1996 Networking for God Index on Censorship 413237Otto R 1917 The idea of the holy Translated by J W Harvey2nd edn Oxford University Press, LondonPark C 1994 Sacred worlds Routledge, LondonPliskinNandRommCT1994Empowerment effectsofelectronic group communication:a case study WorkingPaper, Department of Management, University ofWollongongRaivo P J 1997 Comparative religion and geography: someremarks on the geography of religion and religiousgeography Temenos 33 13749Rheingold H 1993 The virtual community: homesteading onthe electronic frontier Addison-Wesley, Reading MARochford E B Jr 1982 Recruitment strategies, ideologyandorganizationintheHareKrishnamovementSocialProblems 29 399410ShieldsRed1996Culturesofinternet: virtual spaces, realhistories, living bodies Sage, LondonShupeAD 1976 Disembodied access and technologicalconstraints onorganizational development: astudyofmail-order religions Journal for the Scientic Study ofReligion 15 17785SmithDM1999Geography, community, andmoralityEnvironment and Planning A 31 1935SnowDA, Zurcher L AJr and Ekland-Olson S 1980Social networks andsocial movements: a microstruc-tural approach to differential recruitment AmericanSociological Review 45(5) 787801SteinJ1999Thetelephone: itssocial shapingandpublicnegotiation in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuryLondoninCrangM, CrangPandMayJ edsVirtual geographies: bodies, space and relationsRoutledge, London 4462StumpRW1991Spatial implicationsof religiousbroad-casting: stability and change in patterns of belief inBrunn S and Leinbach T eds Collapsing space and time:geographicaspectsof communicationsandinformationHarper Collins Academic, London 35475Ustorf W1998 Global topographies: the spiritual, thesocial and the geographical in the missionary movementfromtheWest Social Policy andAdministration32(5)591604Warf B and Grimes J 1997 Counterhegemonic discoursesand the Internet Geographical Review 87(2) 25974WellmanB1997Anelectronicgroupisvirtuallyasocialnetwork in Kielser S ed Culture of the Internet LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah NJWellmanBandGulia M1999Virtual communities ascommunities: net surfers dont ride alone in Smith M Aand Kollock P eds Communities in cyberspace Routledge,London 16794WillsonM1997Community intheabstract: a politicalandethical dilemma? inHolmes DedVirtual politics:412 Kongidentity and community in cyberspace Sage, London14562Young I M1990a The ideal of community and thepolitics of difference in Nicholson L J ed Feminism/postmodernism Routledge, London 300231990bJusticeandthepolitics of differencePrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton NJZaleski J 1997 The soul of cyberspace: how new technologyischangingourspiritual livesHarper-SanFrancisco, SanFranciscoReligion and technology 413