Chinese lay religions present a diverse array of institutional styles. Historically, some movements maintained a strict genealogy of patriarchs, but exerted less control over their lower-order specialists. Others had clearly bounded ritual communities, but showed no proclivity to policing scriptural or doctrinal integrity. There is no single pattern, and, indeed, it is often the particular mix of centrifugal and centripetal forces that makes any single religious movement unique, at least in the eyes of the scholars who study them.
Such is the case with Bernard Formoso's volume on the De jiao. This movement (the name of which literally translates as the ‘moral teaching’) emerged during the 1930s out of the disparate spirit writing groups and charitable institutions of the Chaozhou region of southern China. Under the leadership of a series of energetic leaders, the teaching spread into Southeast Asia, where it continues to thrive today. Upon leaving China, De jiao split into two distinct branches: one that advanced into Thailand, and a second that took root in Malaysia and Singapore. Both branches of the teaching were based primarily in Teochew-speaking merchant communities, and each responded to and represented the different challenges faced by overseas Chinese in these two locales. Beyond lineage and geography, the importance of spirit writing moved the organisational focus of ritual activity to the level of individuated temples (characteristically referred to as pavilions, ge 閣), but also had the ability to bring together larger networks through the issuance of divine instructions. Members themselves were acutely aware of the problems of institutionalisation, and actively questioned how, when and to what degree they should strengthen, adjust or loosen their ties. The easing of certain restrictions in China since the 1990s has encouraged a fitful movement to replant the teaching in its original homeland, but it remains unclear whether this would represent a homecoming or the missionisation of something fundamentally new.
The questions of institutions and identity run through all of these many interconnected issues, but it can be difficult to follow exactly what argument this book wishes to pursue. Formoso touches on each of these themes, as well as others, such as the role of charities as either a public service, or a discreet cover for De jiao activities. He presents a set of arguments that are both rich and fascinating, but unfortunately not very consistent. The diversity of arguments large and small provides great food for thought, but compromises the book as a whole.
This is particularly disappointing, as Formoso clearly knows a great deal about De jiao. He has conducted extensive fieldwork throughout the region, and has gained a level of access to individuals and events that few researchers could imagine. Formoso presents a great deal of important data, as well as some extremely valuable insights, particularly on the divergence between the two Southeast Asian branches, and on the role of personal and commercial relationships in the operation of religious networks. He is especially strong at the level of interpretation, for example, the question of how people understand the instructions and moral advice revealed in spirit writing. All of these facts and accounts make for fascinating reading, even if they do not always add up to a coherent whole.
Beyond argumentation, there are some more fundamental problems with the book. Although Formoso is primarily concerned with the evolution of the teaching in Southeast Asia, he still should have grounded it more firmly in the history of religious trends in China. Neither the five-part eclectic pantheon, nor the charitable institutions that remain characteristic of the movement today were in any way new. Both were very typical of the new wave of religions founded during the early twentieth century, especially in the region where De jiao was founded. Formoso makes brief mention of contemporary teachings such as Yiguandao and Daode she, but does not pursue the obvious similarities, leading to an impression that the De jiao was more unique than it really was.
Finally, I must reserve a word for the poor editing of this book. A more aggressive peer review process should have highlighted many of the book's problems with argumentation and prose before it ever got to press. Most important, the book is simply full of mistakes: the Daode jing is written as Dao De Qing, one author is cited by his first name rather than his surname, and the list goes on. No publication is free of errors, but this level of sloppiness is distracting, and a disservice to author and reader alike.
