Alternative Spirituality, Counterculture, and European Rainbow Gatherings: Pachamama, I’m Coming Home [1 ed.] 9781003333432, 9781032209449, 9781032367132

Citation preview

Routledge Studies in Religion

ALTERNATIVE SPIRITUALITY, COUNTERCULTURE, AND EUROPEAN RAINBOW GATHERINGS PACHAMAMA, I’M COMING HOME Katri Ratia

Alternative Spirituality, Counterculture, and European Rainbow Gatherings

This book explores the phenomenon of Rainbow Gatherings in Europe. These countercultural events form radically alternative temporary societies in the peripheries of modern states and manage themselves without centralized power, market economy or institutionalized forms of religion. The volume offers a vivid description of life in the Gatherings, analyses the main ideological tenets and places the meetings in historical and cultural context. It considers how the Rainbow Gathering tradition is rooted in networks of alternative spirituality and environmental counterculture but also reflects broader shifts in religion and religiosity. Katri Ratia is a Researcher in the Science of Religion unit of the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Her research interests include vernacular and alternative forms of religion, material culture, and ritual studies.

Routledge Studies in Religion

Religious Responses to Sex Work and Sex Trafficking An Outrage Against Any Decent People Edited by Lauren McGrow Muslims of Post-Communist Eurasia Edited by Galina M. Yemelianova and Egdūnas Račius Christian Orthodox Migrants in Western Europe Secularization and Modernity through the Lens of the Gift Paradigm Maria Hämmerli Domestic Demons and the Intimate Uncanny Edited by Thomas G. Kirsch, Kirsten Mahlke and Rijk van Dijk Jews and Muslims in London and Amsterdam Conflict and Cooperation, 1990–2020 Sipco J. Vellenga and Gerard A. Wiegers Alternative Spirituality, Counterculture, and European Rainbow Gatherings Pachamama, I’m Coming Home Katri Ratia Religious Freedom and the Global Regulation of Ayahuasca Edited by Beatriz Labate and Clancy Cavnar Interreligious Encounters in Europe Sites, Materialities and Practices Edited by Jan Winkler, Laura Haddad, Julia Martínez-Ariño and Giulia Mezzetti For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge. com/religion/series/SE0669

Alternative Spirituality, Counterculture, and European Rainbow Gatherings Pachamama, I’m Coming Home Katri Ratia

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Katri Ratia The right of Katri Ratia to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-20944-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-36713-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-33343-2 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432 Typeset in Sabon LT Std by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

BK-TandF-RATIA_9781032209449-220930-FM.indd 4

18/01/23 5:16 PM

Kiitos, Äiti!

Contents

List of Figures 1 Welcome Home!

viii 1

2 The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings

28

3 Rainbow Rising Over Europe

47

4 Tall Trees, Warm Fire: The Rainbow Camp

79

5 Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken: Communal Practices107 6 Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love: Rainbow Folklore

139

7 Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song: Rainbow as Counterculture

161

8 Mother Earth Gives Us Birth: Rainbow as Vernacular Religion212 9 This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred: Rainbow and the Transcendent

245

10 See You in Five Minutes!277 Index

282

Figures

4.1  A  small Main Circle in the Italian Spring Rainbow Gathering 2017, in Laurito86 4.2  Food Circle ceremony at the Main Circle of the European Rainbow Gathering in Mijanès, France 202186 4.3  The Main Kitchen area of the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering in Tramontina, Italy. The tarp canopy to the left is the kitchen, and the building (hikers’ shelter) to the right is used as the food storage87 4.4  An overview of the “Sacred Oak Altar” at the 2015 European Rainbow Gathering in Zarasai, Lithuania. The entrance is marked with small wooden poles, and the altar is at the foot of the oak tree. A small fire pit lies at the centre of the clearing89 4.5  The sign at the entrance: “Sacred oak altar. Please no camping.”89 4.6  The altar and altar goods90 4.7  The map of the European Rainbow Gathering camp in Tramontina, Italy 2017, showing the Main Fire and various subcamps. The black lines indicate branches of the riverbed, some with water and some dry100 5.1  Sign in the Main Kitchen of the Italian Spring Gathering in Laurito, 2017121 5.2  The invitation to the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering128

1

Welcome Home!

Field Story: European Rainbow Gathering 2017, Tramontina di Sopra It is time for the Food Circle, and some two thousand people are sitting in two big concentric circles around a smouldering fire. There are people of all ages; some dressed in colourful hippie garb, others in sensible outdoor clothing, plus a man who is naked save trekking boots and a yellow umbrella. The backdrop is stunningly beautiful – a valley in the wooded Dolomite Mountains, completely cut off from the rest of the world. I am in the European Rainbow Gathering, the main event of the Rainbow Family of Living Light on the European continent. It is a few days after the Full Moon, and the population of the camp is at its peak. The fire is smoky, as the firewood has been drenched in the rain coming down all morning. Now the rain has paused, and people are making good use of the break. The Food Circle ceremony, where people sing and chant around the Main Fire has just ended, and the focus is shifting to the meal – and to other people. There are children running around, people playing music, juggling, doing acro-yoga, and throwing a frisbee outside of the circles, but inside the circles there are only food pots with a small circle of people preparing to serve the food, and the fire keeper stoking the fire. One of the servers is trying to shoo an opportunistic dog away from the food pots. Serving food to thousands of people will take its time, so many are walking around the circles and perusing the crowd, as this is the moment when most of the Gathering has come together, and it is easy to reach everybody, or to find a specific somebody. Some people are looking for their friends, some are sharing general information, and some are announcing an activity. This is done by walking around the circles and stopping at intervals to shout your message out to the crowd. The event uses no electricity, and the use of mobile phones and other gadgets is discouraged. Here at the current location, there is not even any phone coverage. Many different messages of information and inspiration are flowing in a sweet cacophony from the passing announcers: “Jonas connection!”, “I love you!”, “Focus Family! Foocuuus!”, and “Vision Council in the Big Teepee!” Three young women are announcing a Biodanza-workshop1. Jean-François

DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-1

2  Welcome Home! is inviting people to join his herbs-and-wild-vegetables-collecting walk. A young guy is walking around with a plant in his gloved hand, teaching others to recognize and avoid it, as it is toxic. A bearded man in a blackand-red corset and high stockings is holding a bundle of rope and announcing a Shibari-workshop2 . Whether his outfit is related to the workshop is left unclear. A woman is encouraging people to visit and support the Children’s Kitchen area. A man with a rainbow-coloured outfit is carrying two plushie unicorn toys and delivering “unicorn blessings” for those who want. This impromptu Unicorn Blessing takes the form of a “kiss” from the toy on people’s forehead. Two approximately ten-year-old girls are walking by his side displaying small unicorn toys in their hands, calling out “Unicorn Parade!” and giggling. A silver-haired lady is among the announcers, carrying a small cardboard sign saying “HerStory”. She is Feather Sherman, 69 years young – an American Rainbow sister and one of the “earlies” of the Rainbow Family, who has been involved since the beginning. In Rainbow parlance in the US, the elders are often called “earlies”, to point at the length of participation instead of age, and to avoid implying any special social status, as the Rainbow has no leaders. Feather is visiting the European Family for the first time and preparing to give what in the US Gatherings is known as a “Hipstory”, a personal account of the history of Rainbow Gatherings. “Hipstory – Rainbow history, after the Magic Hat, meet us at the red flag!” she is shouting. Hipstories are rare in European Gatherings, and I am excited to go. After the meal is eaten and the Magic Hat procession has fulfilled its purpose of collecting donations, the Food Circle is over. A spontaneous dance party has sprung up around the Main Fire with drummers and dancers enjoying the chance to revel without getting rained on, but I join the group that is collecting around Feather at the red flag. Flagpoles are marking the cardinal points on the circular perimeter around the Main Fire area, and as visible landmarks, they are often used as location markers when making rendezvous. The group forms a circle, holding hands, and after calling for everybody interested to join in, we chant a lengthy Om3. Together we move to Tea Tree’s open teepee to find shelter from the resuming drizzle. Despite the rain, there are more than 50 people in attendance, huddled around in the drier parts of the “flying teepee”4 structure. Feather begins telling her story in attentive silence. She talks about how the first Gathering of the Rainbow Family came together at a time when the Vietnam War was raging on and about plans of gathering to pray for world peace. She describes an invitation that was written and distributed around the country. She talks about the struggles they encountered in organizing the event and about the miraculous ways these struggles were overcome. She tells of the tens of thousands of people who arrived, and of the magical atmosphere of being there, the togetherness, the elevated spirits, and the transformative experiences. She describes Hopi inscriptions, legends, and prophesies that seemed to be connected to the event. And she portrays the big moment of thousands of people meditating

Welcome Home! 3 and praying on a mountaintop, chanting the Om together, and the mystical, affirming vision she received that day: “You are doing the right thing. There are powerful forces supporting you”. After Feather has finished her tale, she invites people to ask questions. The very first question aired is: “I’ve heard that the American Gatherings are not vegan like Gatherings in Europe are – is this true?” Another soon follows: “When did the Rainbow Family make the consensus about no drugs in the Gatherings?” Feather’s answers are startling to some of the audience: no, the US events are not exclusively vegan, even though there are also vegan kitchens. And no, the US Family never made a consensus about not allowing drugs in the Gatherings. “Alcoholics are our brothers and sisters. Addicts are Family too”, Feather says. She explains that they do discourage addictive and destructive drug use in the US Gatherings but do not exclude anyone on this basis. Many other questions followed, but these ones stood out in my mind.

I heard these bits of Rainbow history, among other descriptions about the differences between the US and European Rainbow culture discussed among the participants after Feather’s Hipstory narrative. Details about food and drugs were the focus much more than the first Gathering or other formative events. The different attitude to food and drugs was surprising to European Rainbows, as their experience of the Gatherings involves a vegan Main Kitchen, a ban on alcohol consumption, and a general disapproval of drug use beyond cannabis. These features of abstinence seemed important defining characteristics for the European Gatherings, which are often seen as events with a focus on healing and evolution of consciousness. The vast majority of the European Rainbow Family have never been to a US Rainbow event and might have only a vague idea about the roots of the tradition, or the forms it has taken in other times and places. I found people’s reactions fascinating. In the half-century after the first Rainbow event in the US, this tradition spread to other countries and continents, attracting a whole new generation of participants. In Europe, where most of the Rainbow events outside of the US occur, Rainbow culture has formed local variants which apparently do not explicitly communicate that “addicts are Family too”, for example. There are differences, but what are the relevant factors and how does this link to the participants’ understanding of the tradition? Are people in Europe purists who are concerned more about diet and drugs than in the US? Or are everyday practices like eating and smoking more important than fundamental aspects of the Rainbow such as the founding event and its original purpose, miraculous occurrences, or sacred visions? A lot has happened during the decades of Rainbow Gatherings, around these Sacred Fires, in countless peripheral locations around the world.

4  Welcome Home! Rainbow events have clearly been meaningful experiences for many participants, for different reasons. For some, the social environment and community experience are central. For others, it is living in nature. Others see the importance in the exchange of information and skills, in all the things that you can learn in a Gathering. Others find meaning in organizing events that promote world peace, non-commercial society, and other alternative ways of life. The more esoteric interpretations of Rainbow events see them as healing the planet, linked with different spiritual, mystical, and ritual traditions. But whatever the motivations are, they are compatible enough to have produced a slow but steady growth of the number of participants, the number of events, and the global distribution of the movement. We shall begin the story by looking at the time when it all got started and see where, why, and by whom. But first, a little bit about science! I will shortly discuss the science around and behind this research project: why the results of this work are relevant beyond the Rainbow, and what the scientific premises of this research are.

The Results and Their Relevance This research project has called for certain updates in its approach. The methodology as well as theoretical and analytical models have been designed to befit the subject, and the definitions of religion, religious community, and religious practice have been reassessed. The understanding of religion is moved away from a view of religion as primarily a mental construction and towards religiosity in everyday life, including religious practices and the religious aspects of community-building and tradition-building. The model of institutional religion regulated by a central authority is replaced with modelling religion in its vernacular forms. Thus, the results of this research attest to the success of this perspective, showing that religion can operate on other levels and through other markers than those that have traditionally been deemed as essential to religion. This is a study of a community that actualizes through the Gathering events, and participation in the event communities has been shown to constantly produce experiences and sentiments typically connected to religious traditions, without them explicitly being a religion. Instead of well-defined, shared beliefs, the community forms around a crafted collection of shared practices and construction of material reality. One result with significance in the broader field of sociology of religion is that these practices have political, economic, religious, and social aspects that are not only inseparable from each other but also from their specific (historical, cultural, and physical) environment. This calls for a reassessment of the general claims regarding fragmentation of social spheres and the independence of forms of social organization. The gift paradigm as a theory of social action and its application through the Triaxial model of religion and the gift provided a rewarding model for this study. The results of the analytical model are more specific to Rainbow.

Welcome Home! 5 They reveal the most important cultural themes in the network of ideas and meanings forming the ideological side of Rainbow culture: nature, interconnectedness, and transformation. As I will demonstrate in the analysis, these themes come up in interviews but also throughout the ethnographic material. The analytical model pinpoints the ways that these topics are approached, conceptualized, and actualized through and in relation to the exchange of symbolic gifts and contributions among the community.

Terminology, Context, and Research Questions The field of alternative-holistic religious traditions that sprung to its height during the 1960s and 1970s, as another facet of the countercultural movement, became known as the “New Age”. In religious studies, the term is under constant scrutiny for its shortcomings, and a good amount of discussion over the term and its use exists5. Adherents of the religious traditions belonging to the field in question typically reject the term, and those who are critical of “New Age” or some of its features use it in a derogatory sense. Despite the challenges, “New Age” has also been presented as a useful denominator for its recognizability and expressiveness6, and I support this view for its practicality. The use of the term has been compared to the use of the term “Hinduism”, which is also widely used by religious scholars and by the public, even though “Hinduism” includes a wide array of different religious traditions, and the term is created by Westerners7. How “New Age” (henceforth without inverted commas) should be defined and delimited finally depends on what is being researched and how. In the context of Rainbow Gatherings, questions of differentiation and delimitation serve the research project best when they respect the fact that in the field, these categories are porous and their overlap often exceeds their differences, at least in the understanding of the practitioners. My use of the term New Age is not limited to those varieties of contemporary religious traditions that contain explicit ideas of a coming new era8, although this millenarian idea is among the prototypical defining features of the field9, together with the following aspects: perennialism10 ; orientation toward practice rather than belief; and an idea of hidden knowledge (occult in its literal sense). The thought of hidden knowledge suggests the ideas of lack or alienation, for not having this knowledge, and of reconnection and becoming whole through gaining it. As sociologist Paul Heelas puts it: “From the detraditionalized stance of the New Age what matters is the ‘arcane’, the ‘esoteric’, the ‘hidden wisdom’, the ‘inner or secret tradition’, the ‘ageless wisdom’”11. Other prototypic features of New Age are the primacy of personal experience, individual responsibility, and authority of the self; the centrality of transformation; and a holistic understanding of humans and the planet, or even the whole cosmos.12 “Pagan” and “Neopagan” need to be defined for the purposes of this study. Although researchers of Paganisms have posed varying definitions

6  Welcome Home! according to their subject of study, I follow a general logic of defining the term “Paganism” as many contemporary Pagans themselves do: “A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion”13. My addition to this definition is to use the term “Neopagan” or “contemporary Pagan” when discussing contemporary forms. It is also important to pin down “spirituality” and “religion”. As emic14 terms used by proponents of non-institutionalized religious formations they are often juxtaposed, as in “spiritual, but not religious” (SBNR). “Spiritual but not religious” and “spiritual but not affiliated” have become common self-identifications for people who advocate spiritual awareness without an affiliation with traditional (Western) forms of institutionalized religions, and the terms are used in current research15. The juxtaposition between institutionalized religion and the weakly institutionalized forms is a significant division for the practitioners, and hence, for this research. “Spirituality” is contested as an academic term and often criticized as a bad alternative when it is indiscriminately swapped with “religion” or not explicitly defined. Despite the criticism, researchers of contemporary religious forms are using the word in their basic terminology, in forms such as “everyday spirituality”16, “alternative spirituality”17, “progressive spirituality”, or “new spirituality”18. I use the term in the meaning of contemporary non-institutionalized religious traditions with an emphasis on individual religiosity, and I leave out the inverted commas henceforth. The definitive aspect is with the low level of institutionalization and the features arising from that. In the book, I use the moniker “alternative-holistic spirituality” as an interchangeable alternative to the term New Age. To define “religion”, this research utilizes the Triaxial model of religion and the gift, which is explored further in Chapter 8. The model examines religion through the modes and dynamics of symbolic exchange in a community, including but discerning between the different sociocultural layers of the term: the level of individual religiosity and that of the collective tradition, involving both the institutionalized cultural forms and the religious aspects of social phenomena in a more abstract sense19. Another question of terminology is related to the specific terms denoting different entities in Rainbow culture. The full name of the group that is my research subject is “Rainbow Family of Living Light”, which is typically shortened to “Rainbow Family”, or among participants, simply “Family”. The group is transnational, and when no other denominators are given, “Rainbow Family” includes the entire global community. Various local or regional factions of the Family are discussed using terms like “European Rainbow Family” or “Swiss Rainbow Family”, where the name implies the general location and area of activity of the group in question, independent of the actual nationalities of its participants. In Europe, a moniker like “French Rainbow Family” can also be used to reflect the primary common language of the group. Continental, regional, and local Rainbow events take their names in the same vein.

Welcome Home! 7 In this book, “Rainbow” is often used to refer to the whole phenomenon in general, but “a Rainbow” can also mean an individual Gathering participant, specifically in the sense of someone who is socialized and enculturated into the tradition. I trust that the meanings are understandable from the context. Context of the Research Study of New Age and alternative-holistic spirituality The field of contemporary religiosity known as New Age has been characterized in various ways, ranging from an insignificant and passing deviation or degradation of modern culture, to a new and emerging form of religiosity20. The definition and delimitation of the field have been in constant discussion 21. Religious studies and esotericism scholar Wouter Hanegraaff has labelled New Age “a major phenomenon in popular religion, with a considerable cultural and religious significance”22 , its roots in European occult and esoteric traditions and their resurgence in 19th-century Romanticism. What appears as a loosely knit “nebula” of “mystical and esoteric” practices and beliefs23 has also been described as a sociopolitical and new religious movement based on values24. While Hanegraaff has insisted on the underlying coherence of New Age beliefs, other authors have highlighted specific traits such as “healing”25, its millenarianism (the advent of a “new age”)26, its network structuration 27, its affinity with the contemporary quest- and “seeker” culture28 as well as the way it revolves around the authority of the self – hence the terms “self-spirituality” and “subjective-life spirituality”29. While the notion of “self-spirituality” has gained popularity, others such as Tavory and Goodman30 have criticized casting New Age and related practices as examples of modern and postmodern corrosion of social ties and communality. Such interpretations remain misleading, as they tend to legitimate the thesis of the privatization of religion, although sometimes implicitly. Part of the core of secularization theories, privatization is often understood as meaning solipsistic individualism, with clearly normative overtones31. Secularization theories are increasingly under critique for such claims that defy ethnographic accounts and freeze the analysis in the opposition between subjectivity and social determinants. Rather, researchers such as Pike, Sutcliffe, and Ivakhiv32 have shown that these “self-spiritualities” are more complex and novel articulations of combined and simultaneous subjectivization and communitization processes, involving recomposed actual/virtual communities outside of the former territorialized parish/nation frame33. Contemporary research in the field of alternative-holistic spirituality overlaps subjects as diverse as contemporary Paganisms, Wicca, Neoshamanism, Neodruidry, psychedelic trance and rave culture, entheogenic religious traditions, Cyberspirituality, UFO/extraterrestrial religion, environmental spiritualities, contemporary pilgrimage, as well as the

8  Welcome Home! popular-culture-infused “Hyper-Real religions”34. While these trends have been considered marginal with respect to established and mainstream religion, developments in the last decades have led scholars to recognize their growing ingress into the mainstream, to the extent that alternativeholistic spiritualities can be argued to constitute the implicit majority religion today in many Western countries35. The bulk of works on this topic have tended to be broad analyses and general comments36, while ethnographic accounts remain a small minority. Furthermore, a focus on beliefs characterizes most works even while the primacy of practice and experience (i.a. ritual, everyday ethics, and lifestyle) is recognized. The track record of the more prominent scholarship on New Age still attempts to portray the phenomenon through the traditional lens of religious science, using the established norms of definition, categorization, and religious theory, be they best suited or not. Conversely, this study focuses on a close ethnography and an analysis of the practical aspects of Rainbow Gatherings. The Gatherings concentrate a wide variety of influences and practices, as will be detailed in further chapters, and staying true to the nature of the events requires a research approach that is not confounded by variety, or quick to label things diffuse of superficial when they do not correspond to established ideas. Ritual studies As Rainbow’s organizational models analysed in this book are heavily ritualized, some context needs to be established regarding the field of ritual studies. Similarly to the question of modelling religion, research on rituals has mainly played out the wider epistemological opposition within social sciences between holistic methodologies, which think social phenomena from the perspective of social structure, social determination, and obligation, and individualistic methodologies, which understand social phenomena from the perspective of the individual, and therefore as a result and expression of agency, liberty, or economic rationality and self-interest37. Catherine Bell38 denounced this opposition that endures still in ritual studies. Following Bell, the classic works of Marcel Mauss, and the interdisciplinary work accomplished in French under the banner of MAUSS (Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste en Sciences Sociales)39, this study views rituals at the level of the social actors, while at the same time contrasted with broader socio-economic and cultural factors. This method of analysis is applied to the empirical data gathered from ethnographic research, namely by casting contemporary rituals against their cultural context (Rainbow’s lore, material culture, customs), and further, against the backdrop of Western counterculture, and even more widely, against the rise of consumerism and its culture of choice40, and other postmodern cultural valuations like well-being, liberal ethics, environmentalism, and self-rationalization coupled with questioning traditional authority.

Welcome Home! 9 The classic work of anthropologist Victor Turner41 already laid the groundwork for shifting ritual theory away from a purely scripted understanding towards one in which rituals are dynamic processes: a specific type of acting rather than a set of specific acts. Furthering Bell’s insights on ritualizing and the observations from Anna Fedele’s42 research on alternative pilgrimage allows that we consider how ritualization itself acts as a sacralizing process43, instead of considering “the sacred” (places, times, actors, symbols, etc.) as (pre)given. Such a significant shift in the constitution and dynamics of rituals calls for empirical investigation into how such rituals are created, crafted, performed, and what they mean (and do) to the actors. Fedele’s perspective opens possibilities for investigating the creation of sacrality in secularized societies outside the confinements of existing religious traditions and institutions. Similarly, Paul Post44 and Linda Woodhead45 have contributed to inaugurating a new strand of research that stresses the plastic and creative aspects and possibilities of rituals. As Sabina Magliocco writes, classical approaches until very recently “ignored the fact that ritual is not primarily about change or resistance to it; as a form of expressive culture, it is both conservative and dynamic, leaving a space for constant adaptation according to the context in which it is performed”46. This shift parallels the state of the art in the wider field of anthropology, exemplified by Jack Goody’s47 emphasis on the transformation and creativity, rather than immutability, of rituals and myths in “traditional”, non-Western oral societies. “Ritual creativity” is, therefore, emerging as a promising theme for research in ritual studies and religious studies at large, exemplified by studies of the changing landscape of death rituals48. Study of cultural events and festivals Studies in socio-anthropological event research begin with Arnold van Gennep, Clifford Geertz, and Victor Turner49. Currently, the main discourses in the field focus on the roles, meanings, and impacts of festivals in society and culture50. Event studies scholar Donald Getz observes how the academic interest has developed to include issues like identity-construction, creation of social and cultural capital, fostering the arts and preserving traditions, and a variety of personal outcomes including learning and well-being51. The religious aspects of events form another relevant domain of event studies52 . Festivals and other cultural events are increasingly attracting the attention of religious science scholars interested in contemporary religiosity, as it is noted how certain kinds of cultural events are frequently linked to phenomena which are traditionally found in explicitly religious contexts, such as transformational experiences, themes of community-building and identity-construction, as well as different rituals and other forms of spiritual practice and behaviour. A host of recent socio-anthropological studies on events have focused on what are dubbed as transformational festivals, a genre of contemporary

10  Welcome Home! countercultural events which consciously focus on enabling and producing transformative experiences on personal and cultural levels. A characteristic feature of transformational festivals is their value system espousing social responsibility, personal growth, health and well-being, creative expression, and celebrating life. Even as commercial events, they often opt for alternative economical practices, and they tend to have a strong co-creative ethos53. Rainbow Gatherings are a clear forerunner of transformational festivals and one of the most long-lived examples of this genre. What set them apart from most, if not all, other events are the extremes that Rainbow Gatherings go to in their practices. The events are completely co-created and radically egalitarian. There are no commodities or commerce, no pre-organized programs or performances, and the organization of the events is open to everyone. Research on Rainbow Gatherings and related events Interestingly, Rainbow Gatherings have not received the attention of researchers anywhere close to its significance within Western countercultural imaginaries. Academic material on the Rainbow is scarce54, and most of the research is focused solely on the North American Rainbow Gatherings. Although Europe is the most active area outside the US, no known advanced research exists focusing specifically on Rainbow’s history in Europe or the European gatherers. Likewise, only one thesis discusses Rainbow’s religious aspects, only to conclude that the Gatherings do not fit traditional definitions of religion55. The Rainbow phenomenon remains in an occluded area for research, and it is difficult to say if this is because Rainbow represents a part of society that is difficult to research or that it has simply been deemed marginal. As previous research on the Rainbow is insufficient, much of supportive research literature comes from research into other transformative festivals and related phenomena, such as alternative-holistic spiritual festivals like the Australian ConFest56, contemporary Pagan gatherings57, the religious happenings found at Glastonbury in the UK58, contemporary re-interpreted pilgrimage59, and vernacular religion in general60. The Rainbow movement can also be understood as participating in the “festivalization of culture”61, which has spread from the margins to the mainstream of our consumer societies. The Burning Man festival in Nevada, an archetype of transformational festivals, is similar to Rainbow Gatherings in that it presents itself as a gift-economy-driven utopian experiment in sociality, politics, religion, and culture62 , but some considerable differences can be pointed out as well. Rainbow culture is set apart by its idealization of the “tribal”, the “spiritual”, and a “natural” way of life. Displaying typical features of transformative festivals, the Rainbow Gatherings are ecumenical, cosmopolitan, inclusive, participatory, “heterotopian”63, ritualized but nondogmatic, and impermanent but cyclically repetitive.

Welcome Home! 11 Research Questions, Hypotheses, and Arguments This book is focused on the history and culture of Rainbow Gatherings and the aspects of counterculture and contemporary religiosity they exemplify – transnational event-centred cultural movements and religious and ritual creativity. Although the Rainbow movement is not huge, it has cultural importance among contemporary alternative-holistic spirituality and radical countercultural formations, especially as an early example of transformational festivals. It is an offshoot of the countercultural shift of the 1960s and 70s that has formed into a vital transnational movement which has managed to adapt to the changes of times and various locations. As such, it is a unique example. The research questions form a list of focal points relating the religious and ritual aspects of Rainbow Gatherings to the historical, social, and cultural features framing the phenomenon. The main purpose of this research is to map and describe the culture of Rainbow Gatherings, focusing on their character as countercultural events and as an example of contemporary non-institutional religion, and forming a framework of historical, religious, and cultural contextualization. To understand the culture, I look at how and why it was originally formed, and the developments it has undergone, including the Rainbow Gatherings’ migration to Europe, and the processes of localization. I am interested in the most important political, religious, and economical practices in Rainbow culture, how they relate to each other and to the culture in general, and how they are experienced by the participants. I argue that applying traditional models of religion to weakly institutionalized forms such as New Age should be done with utmost caution, and that also some of the more popular newer conceptual models (such as “spiritual marketplace” and “self-spirituality”) have their weak points64. This research aims to remedy the problem by assigning the Triaxial model discussed in this chapter, allowing for both the functional and the substantive perspectives of defining religion, and paying attention to the multiple symbolic systems that participate in the meaning-making of a society and its culture. The Triaxial model of religion and gift hopes to overcome the limitations of some of religious studies’ circular, ethnocentric models based on a Western, modern understanding of religion in its institutionalized forms65. Thus, the last focal point of the research is more specific: what can we learn about the religious tradition in Rainbow Gatherings by applying the Triaxial model of religion and the gift? As a preliminary principle, the social actors and practices under study must be taken seriously, i.e. that they are meaningful for the participants, and the objective of this research is to reconstitute the complexities, paradoxes, and multiple layers of these meanings. This entails that the phenomenon and social actors are not to be judged against theories which explicitly or implicitly cast doubt on their authenticity or “value” in comparison

12  Welcome Home! to idealized “traditional” or institutional practices. A more meaningful approach is to render the variety and typologies of meanings from the point of view of the actors (subjective significations) and to show the processes through which these meanings are produced, communicated, shared, contested, and connected to such processes as transformation, identity, “communitization”66, and cultural creation. I also argue that to better understand questions like authority and legitimation, variation, and the position of immediate personal experience in religious constellations like New Age, it is useful to contrast it with the concepts of vernacular religion and folk religion67. I use folk religion in the meaning of “the totality of all those views and practices of religion that exist among the people apart from and alongside the strictly theological and liturgical forms of the official religion”68. I am following the folklore studies’ view of “folk”, “popular”, or vernacular culture, which does not involve value-laden connotations of “folk” as a disparaging term. Folklore studies accepts variation in cultural formations as a natural feature, and assumes that folk categories are often necessarily diffuse, porous, and polyvalent. A further research hypothesis is thus founded on comparison with folk religion. I suggest that traditional forms of vernacular religion and its contemporary formation as New Age are similar in their dynamics and conceptualization69. A further relevant concept is that of play and playfulness in ritual as in religion in general. Play entails the creation of a temporary alternative reality that is meaningfully related to the participants’ experience of the world70. This play with alternate, subjunctive realities allows the participants to reform and re-interpret aspects of their identity, in the setting of a personally meaningful community71, as well as re-interpret aspects of the social and cultural reality72 . Remarkably, various contemporary phenomena assert how playfulness can be mixed with “serious” and even solemn spirituality, with no contradiction. An increasing array of contemporary forms of religiosity73 allows and even invites jocular, ironic, or absurd expressions. As anthropologist André Droogers has pointed out: “playful” and “serious” are not necessarily opposites74. Play and playfulness in ritual as well as in religion in general still seem to pose a challenge for most theories in sociology of religion, where certain solemnity is regarded even as a constitutive aspect of religion. Based on ethnography in Siberia and Mongolia, anthropologist Roberte Hamayon’s work75 is a remarkable contribution in that it refreshes the debates on the relations between play, ritual, and religion, and offers significant interest for the field of ritual studies. Studying the Rainbow Gatherings, their culture, and especially the religious tradition is not a simple or straightforward task. There is no scripture, records, or official representatives, as the Rainbow Family and their Gatherings are not an institutionalized religion. It is a transnational event-culture76 which produces a temporary community and within it,

Welcome Home! 13 sacralized times and spaces for the manifestation of religious practices and expressions in myriad colourful forms. Here, the group and its culture are woven out of practices more than beliefs, and the manifest form is organic in its variety and mutability while still operating under a shared, albeit underdefined, symbolic system. Hence, informed research requires extensive and immersed ethnography, historical information, and familiarity with the relevant broader cultural currents.

On Methodology Rainbow Gatherings as a Research Environment Rainbow Gatherings can be a tricky research subject. It’s like herding cats. The challenging aspects range from the physical and cultural circumstances on the field to the complexity of cultural and historical contextualizing and the researcher’s position. The Gathering events are rugged and rural, and fieldwork can get strenuous, especially in extended rough weather. Even contagious diseases are not uncommon in the tight communities of Rainbow Gatherings. Usually, they are limited to gastrointestinal maladies and the common cold, but recent European Rainbow Gatherings have had outbreaks of also more serious ailments such as Typhoid fever in 2017, and Covid-19 in 2021. On the surface, Rainbow Gatherings can seem chaotic, but there are also clear cultural ideals and guidelines, expressed on Rainbow-affiliated websites, in the “Rainbow Raps” (semi-official informative texts produced among the US Rainbow Family), in the info given at Gathering events, and the texts of Gathering invitations. The nature of these written sources is unofficial, obscure at times, and some of the expressed ideals apply only partially in reality. The environmental and social practices described as well as their ideological and spiritual backgrounds are expressed as general guidelines (Rainbows abhor the word “rules”). In reality, there are often practical sides to these idealized and symbolic issues that differ from the presented ideal, but this is found out only by participating in the backstage of Rainbow events. Alongside the ideals and guidelines, Rainbow culture appreciates individual autonomy, which can manifest as a re-negotiation of the guidelines or their partial disregard by some participants. For example, even though drinking alcohol is generally discouraged in European events, there are often some individuals who take their own decisions and bring alcohol along. Written sources also describe European events as drug-free, but cannabis use is nevertheless common, and some plant-based psychedelics are used in ritual frames. In these cases, participants either define “drugs” differently from mainstream societies, and/or take their own liberties. Rainbow invitations also ask the participants to not bring their dogs along, but Gatherings without any dogs are rare.

14  Welcome Home! Rainbow Family members are a heterogeneous group, but still mostly within the common delineations representing the currents of Western counterculture and within the spectrum of alternative-holistic spirituality in a clear majority. And as scholars of contemporary religion and counterculture know too well, these categories are varied. What seems like a hodgepodge of different and even contradicting ideas and beliefs can be rendered a coherent whole only when the common and unifying practices and concepts are identified. The collective symbolism and ethos are underdefined, in that the same symbols and concepts can, and frequently are, interpreted differently by different participants. At the same time, symbolism is culturally dependent to an extent, referring to a host of semantic and symbolic networks of meaning. Further, these networks are constantly reshaped by creative re-appropriation and re-interpretation, while they also contain parts tied to specific sub- and countercultural realms. To make an example of cultural notions embedded in wider frameworks of meaning, take the core concept of “nature”. Rainbow culture’s views of nature and human-nature relations draw i.a. from traditional and contemporary Paganisms, radical environmentalism, forms of “green spirituality”, Western Esotericism, a range of authors influential in the relevant subcultures from Thoreau and Emerson to Fritjof Capra and Terence McKenna, as well as other, perhaps more local (or otherwise delineated) sources. An important internal signification arises from the contraposition that “nature” has with another Rainbow term, “Babylon”77. To put it shortly, nature is seen as the original, authentic source of human well-being, sacred and even conscious, and as a counterforce for modern society, especially its urban and industrialized aspects. Nature and Babylon will be discussed further in the chapters. Although the Gatherings claim a complete inclusivity, there is more to entering a culture than being present. In many areas, the Rainbows shy away from an overly inquisitive interest. The events partake in a countercultural milieu with anti-establishment attitudes and even undercurrents questioning the position and importance of scientific knowledge. A big-headed academic with their questions lined up and ready to fire away might not be received without reservations, and even when questions are answered, the output can be curt or elusive. Many gatherers represent suband countercultures that are wary of outside observers, such as radical environmentalism and other forms of activism, occultism and ritual magic, as well as practices that challenge legality or conventional morals, such as nudity, occupying private or state property, radical religious or sexual alternatives, or the use of illicit substances. Many participants have also seen news articles or media reports written by poorly informed and sensationalistic reporters and tend to be suspicious of the undisclosed motivations of those who persist in controversial topics. As a subject of research, the Rainbow Family has many features in common with “hard-to-reach” or “hidden” populations, such as a) those under

Welcome Home! 15 social pressure from the broader community, b) those living in faith-based communities, c) those who avoid confrontation with legal authorities, d) those who have no interest to be found or contacted, e) mobile people, f) those living in remote physical and geographical locations, g) those living in vulnerable social and economic situations, h) those with distrust of government agencies and other institutions, and i) those with a lack of or diffuse internal communication networks78. The position of an insider-researcher I have been participating in Rainbow Gatherings for over 20 years. My first Rainbow Gathering was in 1997, as a teenager in a local Gathering in Israel. I have attended several big “European Rainbow Gatherings” as well as local and regional Gatherings around Europe during my time, and participated in Rainbow events outside of Europe, namely in Costa Rica, Mexico, and Guatemala. I am also a long-time member of a similar network called the Nordic Ting Family, including experience in preparing and organizing Ting events, which are very similar to Rainbow and have a wide overlap of participants. I have followed several online channels and websites of both groups for more than a decade and collected information and source materials on the Rainbow Family and related matters. Most of this time my participation did not involve an academic interest, but I did collect observations and random musings on cultural and spiritual aspects in my personal journals. During this time, I naturally built many friendships and a deep familiarity with Rainbow culture. I also established something of a presence within the European Rainbow community, frequenting certain local Rainbow circles, and participating in Seed Camps (preparation before a Gathering), scouting missions (searching for a Gathering site), Clean-ups, and other “backstage” functions of Rainbow life. I was a Rainbow long before I was a researcher, and since the launching of this research project, I have written extensive “retroactive field journals” to record past personal experiences, in addition to the fieldwork in current European Rainbow events and related networks. Another feature of the fieldwork is that the Gatherings contain a lot of intimate and sensitive situations such as healing rites, devotional rituals, and therapeutic group processes where the presence of a researcher might be experienced as disturbing or intrusive. Being a long-time participant, and someone who looks, talks, and behaves like one, has surely enhanced my access to these situations, even if it has not fully ensured it. I also expect that my gender, age, and other characteristics (an unassuming white woman in her forties) made me generally more approachable to the research subjects than less so. A clear benefit of an insider position is the advanced knowledge, experience, and familiarity with the culture and its contexts, but the position brings certain issues of critical consideration, centred on validity and insider bias. An insider-researcher needs to be able

16  Welcome Home! to take in and carefully consider feedback both from the field and from academic monitors and to critically evaluate the data and data-collecting methodology79. My experiences with the Rainbow naturally provide me with research material, but in addition, they give me the position to better contextualize and assess both my observations and those of my interviewees, as well as statements from outsiders such as journalists or local residents. As mentioned, some claims and descriptions presented in semi-official Rainbow texts or by Gathering participants should not be taken uncritically. Longterm exposure to a form of culture also gives a better perspective for grasping possible developments, deviations, and the range of variation with the cultural expressions. I compiled my ethnography from various sources, both in Rainbow events and outside of them. The backbone of the material is formed by classic participant observation and semi-structured interviews conducted in Rainbow events. I interviewed 33 people, some of them together in small groups of two or three. Some people were interviewed two or more times, either within the same event, in consecutive Gatherings, or via Skype. Most of these interviews were semi-structured and involved various topics, but interviews with the early European Rainbow participants focused on historical data and changes in Rainbow culture. Other important sources are informal discussions with Rainbow participants and various online sources. Additional field material was produced by photography, drawing, and keeping field journals. I conducted my fieldwork during 2015–2018, in 14 different-sized Rainbow events ranging from small Scout-meetings and local Gatherings to the big “European Rainbow Gatherings”. Versatility, Creativity, and Persistence Despite my familiarity with the culture, some features of my fieldwork plan proved to be challenging or ill-advised when entering the Rainbow reality as a researcher. Photography, with other kinds of recording, is generally a touchy subject in Rainbow Gatherings. A general agreement is that photos or recordings of any kind should only be made with the explicit consent of everybody concerned – which does not mean just the persons featured in the recording. Some Rainbow participants are concerned about adverse effects on a spiritual level regarding photography and video recording. Others are concerned about issues of privacy and consent. Still others support the view that all kinds of recording should simply be avoided in the events, to create a safe and intimate atmosphere. Even asking to take photos or filming was regularly met with such disapproval that I realized it could impede my access to field situations. I did take photos as a part of my ethnography, but limited them to pictures of objects, structures, the natural environment, and spatial features of the Rainbow camps. To circumvent not being able to freely take photos or

Welcome Home! 17 videos, I took up drawing. I made fast sketches depicting the main features of what I wanted to record, combining them with information in text form, and I could do it all with the same tools and position that I did my written notes with. Conducting interviews in a structured manner was another challenge. Sticking to prepared themes and pre-written questions often yielded far poorer answers than I would hear in casual conversations, and seemed to discourage, annoy, or bore some of my hard-acquired interviewees. Disengaged, half-reluctant informants or material consisting of one-sentence answers was not what I wanted, so I had to be more flexible with my approach. I developed my interviewing method into a more casual and less structured style, where I would allow for the informant to present their own themes in addition to the questions that I made. Sometimes the material I initially saw as being off-topic proved to be valuable in unpredictable ways. I carried a small voice recorder in my fieldwork, but finally managed to record only a few interviews. I learned to opt out if the idea of recording seemed to bother the informant in any way. Only in a few cases was recording welcomed. Adam Berger, who wrote his PhD thesis about Rainbow Gatherings in the US, had similar experiences. His informants expressed a reluctance to be recorded also for the reasons of not having control over how the records will be used afterwards and not wanting to be thought as representing the group80. Instead of interviews I used the voice recorder for spoken notes. Spoken notes are a great alternative for written ones, especially in fast-paced field situations. Another advantage of spoken notes was that I could make and review them easily also after dark and cramped in my tent. Fieldwork in the Gatherings must respect the reality of “Rainbow Time”. General ideas regarding time are typically fluid, organic, and tied to natural cycles. Most people are not carrying watches, so a common custom is to observe time in a relative manner and not chronologically. Practical markers of time are frequently given as linked to something physically observable in the environment, like “around sunrise”, “after the first call for food” or “two days before the full moon”. Combined with cultural ideals of living in the moment and relaxed attitudes towards punctuality and scheduling, it creates conditions where appointments become challenging to keep. Contacting people in an environment where phones are not used brings its own difficulties as well. The Gatherings might have a public noticeboard where you can leave a written note, but other than that, the way to reach someone means looking around the camp and asking other people. My research was also scrutinized by the research subjects. Mostly I met suspicions about privacy and anonymity, about the control of and access to the data, and about possible hidden purposes of collecting information about the Family. One Rainbow participant from the US commented that they would never give information to someone who claims to study the Rainbow and reveals a connection to a government entity (meaning my research funding from the Swiss National Fund). This is linked to the

18  Welcome Home! anti-state attitudes expressed by many Rainbows. The person asked me if I knew that the NSA (National Security Agency in the US) has a file on the Rainbow Family and told me that surveying the Family was suspicious. Stories about government surveillance of the Rainbow Family are widespread, and Michael Niman even refers to an internal FBI memo in his book about the US Rainbow Family, which does support the claim81. Many interviewees were not comfortable giving contextual information about themselves, and although some talked to me in the manner of friends and peers, others seemed half-reluctant or guarded with their answers. There are obvious limitations regarding my ethnography, some of which have to do with me, and others with the Gathering culture. Firstly, almost all the discussions and interviews happened in English, and hence, my sources do not include participants without some level of English language proficiency. My fieldwork also only involves a handful of European countries. I found my interviewees mostly either among people familiar to me, or by participating in the work and social situations in the Gatherings. Hence, the relatively small group of people who are my sources does not represent the full variety of Rainbow population – those who for reason or another are not very active, mobile, or social are under-represented in my sample, as well as those who differ from the profiles typical of my acquaintances. A representative sampling would be difficult to achieve without much more field time, a broad geographical spread, and a whole team of versatile ethnographers with a range of language skills.

Notes 1 Biodanza is a system of self-development that uses music, movement, and positive feelings to deepen self-awareness. 2 Shibari is the Japanese art of binding the human body with a rope in an aesthetic manner. In the West it is usually discerned from the erotic form of Japanese bondage called Kinbaku. 3 Om, or Aum, is a sacred syllable and a mantra in Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism. 4 A structure where a teepee canvas is supported on poles as an open canopy. 5 Wood 2007, Kelly 1992, Pike 2004, Kemp & Lewis 2007, Chryssides 2007, Sutcliffe 2003, MacKian 2012. 6 Chryssides 2007, 5–7, Lewis 1992, 2. 7 Chryssides 2007, 13. 8 New Age in sensu stricto, see Hanegraaff 1996. 9 Frisk 2014, Saler 2000. 10 Perennialism, or perennial philosophy (from Aldous Huxley's book of the same name) suggests that all of world's religions share a single metaphysical truth. 11 Heelas 1996, 27. 12 Heelas 1996, Hanegraaff 1996, Aupers & Houtman 2006. 13 Pagan Federation, n.a. 14 Emic / etic perspective: view from within the social group / view of the outside observer. 15 E.g. Erlandson 2000, Fuller 2001, Carrette & King 2005, Mercadante 2014, Kenneson 2015.

Welcome Home! 19 6 1 17 18 19 20 21

MacKian 2012, 12. Sutcliffe & Bowman 2000. Lynch 2007. Tarot 2000, Gauthier 2016. Heelas 1996, Sutcliffe & Bowman 2000, Sutcliffe 2013, Wood 2007. Wood 2007, Kelly 1992, Pike 2004, Kemp & Lewis 2007, Chryssides 2007, Sutcliffe 2003. 22 Hanegraaff 1996, 1. 23 Champion 1993. 24 Roszak 1968, 1979, Ferguson 1980. 25 York 2003. 26 Melton 1988. 27 York 1995. 28 Sutcliffe 2003. 29 Bruce 1996, Heelas 1996, Partridge 1999, Heelas & Woodhead 2005. 30 Tavory & Goodman 2009. 31 E.g. Tavory & Goodman 2009, also Carrette & King 2005. 32 Pike 2001, 2004, Sutcliffe 2003, Ivakhiv 2001. 33 Gauthier 2014, Meintel 2014a. 34 Possamai 2012. 35 Adler 2006, Salomonsen 2002, Blain 2002, Blain & Wallis 2007, Magliocco 2004, Blain, Ezzy & Harvey 2004, Berger & Ezzy 2007, Clifton 2006, St John 2009, 2012, Pike 2004, Partridge 2005, Possamai 2005, 2012, Taylor 2010, Gauthier 2012, Fedele 2013, Margry 2008. 36 Wood 2007. 37 Caillé 2000, Prince & Riches 2000. 38 Bell 1992, 1997. 39 See Tarot 1999, La Revue du MAUSS 1989-, Caillé 2009, Hamayon 2012. 40 See references listed under Gauthier. 41 Turner 1969. 42 Fedele 2013, 20. 43 Cf. Bell 1992, 1997. 44 Post 2011. 45 Woodhead 2014. 46 Magliocco 2014, 4, cf. Grimes 2014. 47 Goody 2010. 48 Venbrux, Heessels & Bolt 2008, Lüddeckens 2018, cf. Meintel 2014b, Magliocco 2014. 49 Van Gennep 2004 (1960), Geertz 1973, Turner 1969, 1974, 1982, 1983a, 1983b, 1986. 50 Getz 2010, 4–5. 51 Getz 2010, 4–5. 52 Getz 2013, 92–93. 53 St John 2015, Turner 2014, Perry 2013, Krasnow 2012. 54 Berger 2006, García de León 2004, McKinzie 2011, Niman 1991, Pecl 2006, Schelly 2014, Tavory & Goodman 2009, Vallières 2003, Veiz 2017, Walker 2009, Woodall 2007. 55 Walker 2009. 56 St John 2001a&b. 57 Pike 2001, Ezzy 2014. 58 Bowman 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009. 59 Fedele 2013. 60 McGuire 2008, Primiano 1995, Bowman 2014, Bowman & Valk 2012. 61 Bennett, Taylor & Woodward 2014.

20  Welcome Home! 2 Gauthier 2019, 2018, 2015, 2014, 2013. 6 63 St John 2001a, Foucault & Miskowiec 1986. 64 Aupers & Houtman 2006, Redden 2016. 65 Tarot 2000, Gauthier 2014, 2016. 66 Weber 1971: “vergemeinschaftung”, Gauthier 2014. 67 Some researchers differentiate between folk religion and vernacular religion, which is finally a question of definition. In this work, I treat the terms as practically parallel. 68 Yoder 1974, 14. 69 Koski 2008, Primiano 1995, 1997, Sutcliffe & Bowman 2000, Hammer 2006, Sadovina 2017. 70 Cf. Hamayon 2012, Bateson 1985. 71 Pike 2001. 72 Droogers 2004, 2012, 2014. 73 Gauthier 2018, Kirby 2012. 74 Droogers 2004, 138. 75 Hamayon 2012, 2001. 76 I use “event-culture” as defined in St John & Gauthier 2015: “popular cultural movements for whom the event is not an occurrence held in support of an external cause, but is itself the principal concern of the organization”. 77 Babylon means the mainstream society in Rainbow parlance. 78 Brackertz 2007. 79 Methods of inquiry and ethnographical work based on Atkinson & Hammersley 1994, Baud & Weber 2010, Blanchet & Gotman 1992, Cefai 2003, Costley, Elliott & Gibbs 2010, Denzin & Lincoln 1994, DeWalt, DeWalt & Wayland 1998, Emerson, Fretz & Shaw 2001, Ezzy 2002, Fortin 1987, Kaufmann 1996. 80 Berger 2006, 100–103. 81 Niman 1997, 192.

References Adler, Margot 2006 (1979): Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, GoddessWorshippers, and Other Pagans in America. (Revised ed.) London: Penguin Books. Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. 1994: Ethnography and Participant Observation. In: Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Aupers, Stef and Houtman, Dick 2006: Beyond the Spiritual Supermarket: The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion 21(2), 201–222. Bateson, Gregory 1985 (1972): Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Baud, S. and Weber, F. 2010: Guide de l’enquête de terrain. Paris: La Découverte. Bell, Catherine 1997: Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bell, Catherine 1992: Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bennett, A., Taylor, J. and Woodward, I. (eds.) 2014: The Festivalization of Culture. Farnham: Ashgate. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10023/2679.

Welcome Home! 21 Berger, H. and Ezzy, D. 2007: Teenage Witches: Magical Youth and the Search for the Self. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Blain, Jenny 2002: Nine Worlds of Seid-Magic. London: Routledge. Blain, J. and Wallis, R.J. 2007: Sacred Sites, Contested Rites/Rights. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press. Blain, J., Ezzy, D. and Harvey, G. (eds.) 2004: Researching Paganisms. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Blanchet, A. and Gotman, A. 1992: L’enquête et ses méthodes: l’entretien. Paris: Armand Colin. Bowman, Marion 2014: Vernacular Religion, Contemporary Spirituality and Emergent Identities: Lessons from Lauri Honko. Approaching Religion 4(1), 101–113. Bowman, Marion 2009: Glastonbury Festival and the Performance of Remembrance. DISKUS 10 [online]. Available at: http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/ diskus10/bowman.htm. Bowman, Marion 2008: Going With the Flow: Contemporary Pilgrimage in Glastonbury. In: Margry, P.J. (ed.), Shrines and Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries into the Sacred. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 241–280. Bowman, Marion 2007: Arthur and Bridget in Avalon: Celtic Myth, Vernacular Religion and Contemporary Spirituality in Glastonbury. Fabula. Journal of Folktale Studies 48(1/2), 16–32. Bowman, Marion 2000: More of the Same? Christianity, Vernacular Religion and Alternative Spirituality in Glastonbury. In: Sutcliffe, S. and Bowman, M. (eds.), Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press, 83–104. Bowman, Marion and Valk, Ülo (eds.) 2012: Vernacular Religion in Everyday Life: Expressions of Belief. Sheffield: Equinox. Brackertz, Nicola 2007: Who is hard to reach and why? ISR Working Paper [pdf]. Available at: https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/6bdecad0-a69d45ea-921a-bf857fcddf90/1/ PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf. Accessed 15.1.2018. Bruce, Steve 1996: Religion in the Modern World: From Cathedrals to Cults. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caillé, Alain 2009: Théorie anti-utilitariste de l’action. Paris: La Découverte/MAUSS. Caillé, Alain 2000: Anthropologie du don. Le tiers paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Carrette, Jeremy R. and King, Richard 2005: Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion. London: Routledge. Cefai, Daniel 2003: L’enquête de terrain. Paris: La Découverte/MAUSS. Champion, Françoise 1993: Recompositions, décompositions. Le renouveau charismatique et la nébuleuse mystique-ésotérique depuis les années soixante-dix. Le Débat 75, 77–85. Chryssides, George 2007: Defining the New Age. In: Kemp, D. and Lewis, J. (eds.), Handbook of New Age. Leiden: Brill, 1–24. Clifton, Chas 2006: Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca and Contemporary Paganism in America. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Costley, C., Elliott, G.C. and Gibbs, P. 2010: Doing Work Based Research: Approaches to Enquiry for Insider-Researchers. London: Sage. Chapter 1 available at: https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/32890_ Costley_Chap1.pdf. Accessed 20.1.2018.

22  Welcome Home! Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.) 1994: Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DeWalt, K.M., DeWalt, B.R. and Wayland, C.B. 1998: Participant Observation. In: Bernard, H.R. (ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Droogers, André 2014: Religion in Play: A Manifesto. Eugene: Cascade Books. Droogers, André 2012: Play and Power in Religion: Collected Essays. Religion and Reason vol. 50. Berlin: De Gruyter. Droogers, André 2004: Enjoying an Emerging Alternative World: Ritual in Its Own Ludic Right. Social Analysis 48(2), 138–154. Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I. and Shaw, L.L. 2001: Participant Observation and Fieldnotes. In: Atkinson et al. (eds.), Handbook of Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Erlandson, Sven 2000: Spiritual but Not Religious: A Call to Religious Revolution in America. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. Ezzy, Douglas 2014: Sex, Death and Witchcraft: A Contemporary Pagan Festival. London: Bloomsbury. Ezzy, Douglas 2002: Qualitative Analysis: Practice and Innovation. London: Routledge. Fedele, Anna 2013: Looking for Mary Magdalene: Alternative Pilgrimage and Ritual Creativity at Catholic Shrines in France. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ferguson, Marilyn 1980: The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in the 1980s. Los Angeles, CA: Jeremy P. Tarcher Inc. Fortin, A. 1987: L’observation participante: au coeur de l’altérité. In: Deslauriers, J.P. (ed.), Les méthodes de la recherche qualitative. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Foucault, M. and Miskowiec, J. 1986: Of Other Spaces. Diacritics 16(1), 22–27. Frisk, Liselotte 2014: Towards a New Paradigm of Constructing ‘Religion’: New Age Data and Unbounded Categories. In: Sutcliffe, S. and Gilhus, I.S. (eds.), New Age Spirituality: Rethinking Religion. London: Routledge, 50–65. Fuller, Robert C. 2001: Spiritual, but Not Religious: Understanding Unchurched America. Oxford: Oxford University Press. García de León, Martin 2004: Contracultura y asentamientos alternativos en la España de los 90: un estudio de antropología social [Counterculture and alternative settlements in the Spain of the 90s: a study of social anthropology]. PhD dissertation, University of Madrid. Available at: http://biblioteca.ucm.es/tesis/ cps/ucm-t27859.pdf. Accessed 2.4.2018. Gauthier, François 2019: ‘Welcome Home!’ Don et hospitalité à Burning Man [Welcome Home! Gift and Hospitality in Burning Man]. Revue du MAUSS 2019/1(n 53), 235–254. Gauthier, François 2018: Our Play Pleases the Man, the Spirits of the Desert, and Whatever”: Enjoying Religion at Burning Man. In: Jespers, Frans, van Nieuwkerk, Karin and van der Velde, Paul (eds.), Enjoying Religion: Pleasure and Fun in Established and New Religious Movements. Lanham, MD: Lexington Publishers, 103–126. Gauthier, François 2016: A Three-Tier, Three Level Model for the Study of Religion. In: Jödicke, A. and Lehmann, K. (eds.), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft. Standortbestimmungen mit Hilfe eines Mehr-EbenenModells von Religion. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 157–174.

Welcome Home! 23 Gauthier, François 2015: (Ré)créer le monde à Burning Man. Jeu, don et créativité rituelle. Revue du MAUSS semestrielle 46, 220–250. Gauthier, François 2014: Intimate Circles and Mass Meetings. The Social Forms of Event-Structured Religion in the Era of Globalized Markets and HyperMediatization. Social Compass 61(2), 261–271. Gauthier, François 2013: The Enchantments of Consumer Capitalism. Beyond Belief at the Burning Man Festival. In: Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society. Brands, Consumers, Markets. Farnham: Ashgate. Gauthier, François 2012: Primat de l’authenticité et besoin de reconnaissance. la société de consommation et la nouvelle régulation du religieux. SR (Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses) 41(1), 93–111. Geertz, Clifford 1973: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books. Getz, Donald 2013: Event Studies: Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Getz, Donald 2010: The Nature and Scope of Festival Studies. International Journal of Event Management Research 5(1), 1–47. Goody, Jack 2010: Myth, Ritual and the Oral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grimes, Ronald L. 2014: The Craft of Ritual Studies. Oxford Ritual Studies series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamayon, Roberte 2012: Why We Play: An Anthropological Study. Chicago, IL: Hau Books. Hammer, Olav 2006: New Age Movement. In: Wouter Hanegraaff (ed.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 855–861. Hanegraaff, Wouter 1996: New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Leiden: Brill. Heelas, Paul 1996: The New Age Movement. Oxford: Blackwell. Heelas, Paul and Woodhead, Linda 2005: The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion Is Giving Way to Spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell. Ivakhiv, Adrian 2001: Claiming Sacred Ground: Pilgrims and Politics at Glastonbury and Sedona. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Kaufmann, Jean-Claude 1996: L’entretien compréhensif. Paris: Armand Colin. Kelly, Aidan 1992: An Update on Neopagan Witchcraft in America. In: Lewis, J. and Melton, J.G. (eds.), Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kemp, Daren and James R. Lewis (eds.) 2007: Handbook of New Age. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Leiden: Brill. Kenneson, Philip D. 2015: What’s in a Name? A Brief Introduction to the “Spiritual But Not Religious”. Liturgy 30(3), 3–13. Kirby, Danielle 2012: Occultural Bricolage and Popular Culture: Remix and Art in Discordianism, the Church of the Subgenius, and the Temple of the Psychick Youth. In: Possamai, A. (ed.), Handbook of Hyper-Real Religions. Leiden: Brill. Koski, Kaarina 2008: Conceptual Analysis and Variation in Belief Tradition: A Case of Death-Related Beings [pdf]. Folklore 38 [online]. Available at: http:// www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol38/koski.pdf. Accessed 2.11.2017. Krasnow, Stefanie Sara 2012: ‘Transformational Festivals’, Reality Sandwich [online], 26 July. Evolver LLC. Available at: http://realitysandwich.com/156783/ tranformational_festivals/. Accessed 10.1.2018.

24  Welcome Home! Lewis, James R. 1992: Approaches to the Study of the New Age Movement. In: Lewis, James R. and Melton, J. Gordon (eds.), Perspectives on the New Age. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1–12. Lüddeckens, Dorothea 2018: Alternative Death Rituals in Switzerland: Building a Community of Shared Emotions and Practices. Journal of Contemporary Religion 33(1), 107–121. Lynch, Gordon 2007: New Spirituality. An Introduction to Belief Beyond Religion. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. MacKian, Sara 2012: Everyday Spirituality: Social and Spatial Worlds of Enchantment. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Magliocco, Sabina 2014: Introduction: Ritual Creativity, Emotions and the Body. Journal of Ritual Studies 28(2), 1–8. Magliocco, Sabina 2004: Witching Culture: Folklore and Neo-Paganism in America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Margry, Peter Jan (ed.) 2008: Shrines and Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries into the Sacred. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. McGuire, Meredith 2008: Lived Religion. Faith and Practice in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKinzie, Ashleigh 2011: Modern day utopia: an examination of internal social control among the “Rainbow Family”. MA thesis, University of Arkansas. Meintel, Deirdre 2014a: Religious Collectivities in the Era of Individualization. Social Compass 61(2), 195–206. Meintel, Deirdre 2014b: Ritual Creativity: Why and What For? Examples from Québec. Journal of Ritual Studies 28(2), 77–92. Melton, J. Gordon 1988: A History of the New Age Movement. In: Basil, R. (ed.), Not Necessarily the New Age. Critical Essays. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Mercadante, Linda A. 2014: Belief Without Borders: Inside the Minds of the Spiritual but Not Religious. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Niman, Michael Ira 1991: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography from Within. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Pagan Federation, n.a.: What is Paganism? Pagan Federation International [online]. Available at: www.paganfederation.org/what-is-paganism/. Accessed 12.2.2020. Partridge, Christopher 2005 & 2006: The Re-Enchantment of the West: Alternative Spiritualities. Sacralization and Popular Culture and Occulture (Vol 1&2). London: Clark International. Partridge, Cristopher 1999: Truth, Authority and Epistemological Individualism in New Age Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1), 77–95. Pecl, Václav 2006: Duhová rodina živoucího světla a lásky [Rainbow Family of Living Light and Love]. Bachelor’s thesis, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Available at: https://is.muni.cz/th/109759/ff_b/Uvod.pdf. Accessed 20.2.2018. Perry, Elizabeth 2013: Transformational Festivals: Where Ecstatic Spirit and Sonic Celebration Unite. Redefine Magazine [online], 18 Jun. Redefine Media LLC. Available at: http://www.redefinemag.com/2013/transformational-festivals-spiritual-preview-guide/. Accessed 8.1.2018. Pike, Sarah 2004: New Age and Neopagan Religions in America. New York: Columbia University Press.

Welcome Home! 25 Pike, Sarah M. 2001: Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Possamai, Adam (ed.) 2012: Handbook of Hyper-real Religions. Leiden: Brill. Possamai, Adam 2005: In Search of New Age Spiritualities. Farnham: Ashgate. Post, Paul 2011: Fields of the Sacred: Reframing Identities of Sacred Places. In: Post, P., Molendijk, A.L. and Kroesen, J.E.A. (eds.), Sacred Places in Modern Western Culture. Leuven etc.: Peeters. Primiano, Leonard 1997: Folk Religion. In: Green, Thomas A. (ed.), Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music and Art. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 710–717. Primiano, Leonard 1995: Vernacular Religion and the Search for Method in Religious Folklife. Western Folklore 54(1), 37–56. Prince, R. and Riches, D. 2000: The New Age in Glastonbury: The Construction of Religious Movements. Oxford, NY: Berghahn. Redden, Guy 2016: Revisiting the Spiritual Supermarket: Does the Commodification of Spirituality Necessarily Devalue It? Culture and Religion 17(2), 231–249. Roszak, Theodore 1968: The Making of a Counter Culture. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Roszak, Theodore 1979: Person/Planet: The Creative Disintegration of Industrial Society. New York, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Sadovina, Irina 2017: The New Age Paradox: Spiritual Consumerism and Traditional Authority at the Child of Nature Festival in Russia. Journal of Contemporary Religion 32(1), 83–103. DOI: 10.1080/13537903.2016.1256653. Saler, Benson 2000 (1993): Conceptualizing Religion: Immanent Anthropologists, Transcendent Natives, and Unbounded Categories. Oxford, NY: Berghahn Books. Salomonsen, Jone 2002: Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco. London: Routledge. Schelly, Chelsea 2014: Crafting Collectivity: American Rainbow Gatherings as Alternative Community. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. St John, Graham 2015: Introduction to Weekend Societies: EDM Festivals and Event-Cultures. DanceCult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture 7(1), 1–14. St John, Graham 2012: Global Tribe: Technology, Spirituality and Psytrance. Sheffield and Bristol, CT: Equinox Publishing. St John, Graham 2009: Technomad: Global Raving Countercultures. London/ Oakville CT: Equinox Publishing. St John, Graham 2001a: Alternative Cultural Heterotopia and the Liminoid Body: Beyond Turner at ConFest. Australian Journal of Anthropology 12(1), 47–66. St John, Graham 2001b: Australian (Alter)Natives: Cultural Drama and Indigeneity. Social Analysis: Journal of Cultural and Social Practice 45(1), 122–140. St John, G. and Gauthier, F. 2015: Burning Man’s Gift-Driven, Event-Centred Diaspora, Revue du MAUSS 24.1.2015 [online]. Available at: http://www.journaldumauss.net/?Burning-Man-s-Gift-Driven-Event. Sutcliffe, Steven 2013: New Age, World Religions and Elementary Forms. In: Sutcliffe, S. and Gilhus, I.S. (eds.), New Age Spirituality: Rethinking Religion. Durham: Acumen. Sutcliffe, Steven J. 2003: Children of the New Age: A History of Spiritual Practices. London and New York, NY: Routledge.

26  Welcome Home! Sutcliffe, Steven and Bowman, Marion (eds.) 2000: Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Tarot, Camille 2000: Gift and Grace: A Family to Be Recomposed? In: Vandevelde, A. (ed.), Gifts and Interests. Leuven: Peeters, 133–155. Tarot, Camille 1999: De Durkheim à Mauss, l’invention du symbolique: sociologie et science des religions. Paris: La Découverte/MAUSS. Tavory, I. and Goodman, Y.C. 2009: ‘A Collective of Individuals’: Between Self and Solidarity in a Rainbow Gathering. Sociology of Religion 70(3), 262–284. Taylor, Bron 2010: Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Turner, Erik 2014: Transformational Festivals: Reflections on Social Movements and Transformational Festivals as Civil Spheres [online]. PsypressUK, December 8. Available at: http://psypressuk.com/2014/12/08/transformational-festivalsreflections-on-social-movements-and-transformational-festivals-as-civilspheres-by-eric-turner. Accessed 12.02.2018. Turner, Victor 1983a: Carnaval in Rio: Dionysian Drama in an Industrializing Society. In: Manning, F. (ed.), The Celebration of Society: Perspectives on Contemporary Cultural Performance. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 103–124. Turner, Victor 1983b: The Spirit of Celebration. In: Manning, F. (ed.), The Celebration of Society: Perspectives on Contemporary Cultural Performance. Bowling Green: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 187–191. Turner, Victor (ed.) 1982: Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Turner, Victor 1974: Liminal to Liminoid, in Play, Flow and Ritual: An Essay in Comparative Symbology. In: Norbeck, E. (ed.), The Anthropological Study of Human Play. Rice University Studies 60, 53–92. Turner, Victor 1969: The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Turner, Victor W. and Schechner Richard 1986: The Anthropology of Performance. New York, NY: PAJ Publications. Vallières, Pascal 2003: La Famille Arc-en-ciel de Lumière Vivante ou l’archétype de la tribu écotopique. MA thesis, Québec: Université Laval. van Gennep, Arnold 2004 [1960]: The Rites of Passage. (Orig. 1909 Les Rites de Passage). London: Routledge. Veiz, Brigitte 2017: Die Rainbow Family. Individuelle und kollektive Identitätskonstruktionen in einer postmodernen Neo-Hippie-Kultur. Giessen: Psychosozial Verlag. Venbrux, E., Heessels, M. and Bolt, S. (eds.) 2008: Rituele creativiteit. Actuele veranderingen in de uitvaart-en rouwcultuur in Nederland. Zoetermeer: Meinema. Walker, Seth 2009: Broadening the Spectrum: The Religious Dimensions of the Rainbow Gatherings. MA thesis, University of South Florida. Weber, Max 1971: Économie et société, t.2: L’organisation et les puissance de la société dans leur rapport avec l’économie. Paris: Plon. Wood, Matthew 2007: Possession, Power and the New Age: Ambiguities of Authority in Neoliberal Societies. Farnham: Ashgate. Woodall, John David 2007: Following the Rainbow Trail: The Reproduction of an Alternative Intentional Community. MA thesis, University of Victoria.

Welcome Home! 27 Woodhead, Linda 2014: Changes in Public and Private Rituals. Paper presented at the Theological Faculty of University of Zürich on the occasion of receiving an Honoris Causa. Yoder, Don 1974: Toward a Definition of Folk Religion. Western Folklore 33(1), 2–15. York, Michael 2003: Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion. New York, NY: New York University Press. York, Michael 1995: The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

2

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings

Background, Formation, and Developments This chapter examines the background of Rainbow Gatherings, from the underlying cultural currents that inspired the initiative, to specific events that spurred and shaped the first Gatherings in the US. After presenting the birth of the Rainbow phenomenon, I give a short account of its proliferation and spread around the world. Regarding the historical chapters, I remind the reader that they are reconstructions compiled from multiple sources of different characters. They are partial accounts, both because of the nature of the sources, and because of limitations to the book’s length. The US history is mostly based on indirect sources, and the European history is based on the perspectives of my primary informants and myself – all citizens of Western European countries (Switzerland and Scandinavia). The historical account is thus inevitably far more rounded and one-sided than the multivocal and complex reality. Just Before the “World Family Gathering” in 1972, Granby, Colorado A colourful bunch of young visitors had been arriving to the small town of Granby during the last week of June 1972, and increasingly more were pouring into town every day. People spoke of a big gathering, of more than a hundred thousand people coming together. The young freaks were giving away copies of a booklet called the Rainbow Oracle that contained a jumble of religious references, everything from the Bhagavad Gita and the Lord’s Prayer to Native lore, esoteric teachings, and wild ideas like marijuana as a sacrament and a holy city on a mountaintop. They even said that they had invited everybody from the President to the Pope! The locals were not happy about this at all. They feared problems with traffic and pollution, expenses to the county, and disturbances to the local community due to drugs, petty crime, and lewd behaviour – if not worse! Everybody remembered Woodstock and the disruption it had caused. The event was to be held on National Day, surely repelling the usual tourists DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-2

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 29 and hurting the local economy – as these hippies were not spending money. The Governor had set a legal injunction against the event, banning the use of land around the intended campsite, and the local police was ready to enforce it. The enthusiastic visitors with exotic looks had set up a sort of communication centre in town, and they were keen on talking to the media and local and state officials. They spoke about the constitutional right to peacefully assemble, the right of the people to have a spiritual event, about world peace. But this was not a form of religion that the locals recognized. A local rancher had agreed to let the people stay on his property outside of town, and a camp was forming there instead of the planned mountaintop. In the days to come, state Governor John A. Love not only set roadblocks on the access roads to the Gathering site, but he also ordered the police force to step up their surveillance and control of non-residents. According to participants, cars were stopped and searched in the whole state based on unconventional looks like men wearing long hair. Hundreds of people were arrested for charges like loitering and vagrancy, and for hitch-hiking, which was illegal in the state at the time. The measures proved inefficient in keeping people out. People still arrived, hiked past the roadblocks, carrying supplies on their backs. Despite the state’s efforts, the camp was growing – first to hundreds of people, and then into the thousands. Now, the National Guard was brought in. How had it come to this, and what was going on? To answer, we need to look at the wider cultural currents framing the motivations and actions of those individuals that set up the first Gathering – and those that paid heed to the invitation. The Countercultural Revolution of the 1960s The 1960s were a turbulent time in the US, as they were elsewhere. Alternative ideas were gaining currency and support, in politics, society, religion and the arts, among other cultural domains. A surge of countercultural groups and movements formed and reformed as a response to the changing times. Coming to the beginning of the 1970s, the world had witnessed 15 years of Vietnam War, nuclear weapons testing by the UK, USSR, France and China, the Cuban missile crisis, as well as developments such as the decolonization process in Africa and Space Race1. The political situation in the US was influenced by the civil rights, women’s rights and minority rights movements, free speech and peace activism, anti-war protests, and student activism. The so-called “misery index”2 was rising, as was the New Left. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and waves of protests intensified through the 60s to culminate in 1968. Martin Luther King was shot dead in April of 1968, provoking the biggest civil unrest in the US since the Civil War, with riots in more than one hundred US cities3. In June of the same year, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, and in August, the protests at the Democratic National Convention

30  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings and the brutal police response they elicited left hundreds of protesters and officers wounded4. The Watergate scandal was brewing, surfacing in 1972 to go on until 1974. People’s trust and respect of the political powers and cultural institutions were being challenged in an unprecedented way. The 1960s counterculture developed in the UK and the US and, hailing from New York, San Francisco, and London, spread through the Western world with its anti-establishment message. The movement was a composite of new interpretations and ideas concerning sexuality, race, rights, participation, authority, lifestyle, consciousness, and environment, often in direct confrontation with the previous generation. Large parts of the youth of the 60s turned away from the materialism and conservatism of their depression-era parents, taking vocal, politically active roles. The new cultural forms celebrated creativity and experimentation, challenged conformity, giving rise to the hippie and other alternative lifestyles and ideologies. Communes, collectives, and intentional communities became increasingly popular. Traditional concepts were being challenged in politics and economics, but also in religious and family life. Many central countercultural values were slowly absorbed into the mainstream, inducing a veritable cultural revolution5. Experimental attitudes involving psychedelic substances, interest in the occult and mysticism, and the conscious challenging of traditional thinking resulted in a tidal wave of new expressions in media, film, music, visual and performing arts, and the birth of the festival culture. Big rock festivals, born in the mid-sixties, grew extremely fast and developed into hubs of cultural creativity and innovation, fuelling and propagating the countercultural shift in their part. This cultural shift was reflected also in environmental attitudes. The publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring6 is seen as the beginning of the modern environmental movement7. Influential political and direct-action organizations were established: WWF in 1961, Friends of the Earth in 1969, Greenpeace in 1971, with many others. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was founded during the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, also known as the Stockholm Conference, in June 1972. The first Earth Day was held in 1970. Finally, the tables had started to turn8. Another area in flux was religion and religiosity. A host of new, exotic faiths and practices were gaining popularity and recognition, but the biggest change in attitudes was about the possibility to choose and combine. The hegemony of institutionalized forms of faith as inherited religion was overturned in one generation, and whether people chose a conservative or a radical path, personal religious realities turned increasingly plural and multi-layered9. Characteristic traits of the new spirituality were an eclectic mix of influences, and the idea of seekership10. There was a fresh interest in faiths and practices like Buddhism, meditation, yoga, native religions, traditional paganisms, occultism, and mysticism, as well as environmental philosophies like Deep Ecology11 and constructions such as the Gaia

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 31 Hypothesis12 . Historian Lynn White Jr. wrote an influential paper in 1967 entitled The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, in which he linked the causes of our modern environmental problems to the philosophy and human-nature relationship of Judeo-Christian traditions and their normalization of the exploitation of the natural world. His work was seen to give a kind of academic backing to the New Age interest on archaic, exotic, and Indigenous spiritual practices, and it later became central for interdisciplinary environmental studies, and to the “greening of religion” hypothesis13. Native spiritualities, eastern religions and other alternative faiths were starting to be considered not only more environmentally friendly but also more productive in social and cultural ways14. Many of the torchbearers for these new spiritual movements were also public figures in the countercultural shift. Allen Ginsberg and Gary Snyder helped popularize the spread of Buddhism in the US since the 1950s. Ginsberg participated in the Be-Ins chanting the Om and other mantras with the participants, and Snyder talked about spirituality and nature. Yippie founders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin vowed to levitate the Pentagon in an anti-war protest. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) was founded in New York in 1966. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the developer of Transcendental Meditation, made several world tours during the first half of the decade, gave public lectures and appeared widely in media in the latter half, culminating in his association with the Beatles in 1967. The influence of Asian religions to US counterculture in this time was also due to the major immigration law change in 1965 that allowed Asian nationals into the US, and the returning military who had been stationed in Asian countries during WW215. In the US, another spiritual thread gaining popularity in the loom of new spiritualities was the Native traditions of the American First Nations. Books like Book of the Hopi16, Warriors of the Rainbow17, and the works of Carlos Castaneda and the like were contributing to popular ideas of Native religion and other tribal imaginaries, but in versions piloted by enthusiastic non-Native people – and not without controversy over cultural appropriation. In the Beginning, There Was a Vision Two young men were the original instigators and pioneers of the Rainbow Family, and their personal stories reflect the premises and themes of the countercultural shift. In May 1970, the radical youth movement in the US reached its height. The National Guard had killed six anti-war demonstrators in the student protests, deeply upsetting many in the peace movement. One of them was Barry Adams, a young Vietnam War veteran who felt that something major needed to be done to stop the war and the violence. Adams was better known as Plunker (for the “plunked” lute-like instrument he played), and he had received an intensive mystical vision: to end

32  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings war and violence, there would be a giant gathering of peaceful people from all nations and walks of life, coming together on a mountaintop to silently pray and meditate for world peace. Adams had been talking about this idea to his friends and to strangers for a while when he met another likeminded soul in Garrick Beck, son of Julian Beck and Judith Malina, founders of The Living Theatre group, known for their production Paradise Now! The two young men found that despite their different backgrounds, they shared a very similar countercultural worldview and a passion to “be the change that you want to see in the world”18. Beck had experienced self-organized, ideologically motivated, creative, and participatory models of radical activism and social critique at first hand through the projects and behind-the-scenes reality of the radical, off-Broadway Living Theatre and its members. He had witnessed the power of ritualistic and ceremonial practices in creating focus, awareness, sense of community and emotional impact, in the experimental and anti-authoritarian plays of his parents’ troupe. He had participated in organizing protests and demonstrations while campaigning against the war and for different social causes during his student years in Reed College. And he had seen the change and the positive results these methods could have. Adams, for his part, had experienced occupying state forests and public lands for temporary communities as an alternative way to live and celebrate, during his childhood when his family established camps in the nature for different occasions. He had learned skills for surviving in the nature as well as the violent realities of war during his time in Vietnam and experienced the often-harsh reception of the young veterans of war returning home19. Each had experiences of living and cooperating with like-minded people in non-hierarchical communes, either in urban areas, in the countryside, or in wild nature. They both had taken part in anti-war activism, also through non-legal means. Their view of the government and the authorities was that you cannot trust them to be completely just, fully democratic, or to guarantee the rights of all the citizens. And not insignificantly, they both were interested in Eastern and Native religious traditions, and familiar with transcendent and transformative experiences provided by nature experiences and by psychedelic substances. In all this, they naturally were not alone. Their immediate social circles as well as the wider countercultural scene shared many if not most of these sentiments20. Discussing the idea for this “Gathering”, as Adams already called it, they envisioned an event that combined ideas and principles that they saw as remedies and alternatives to the ills of modern society. They imagined an egalitarian, inclusive, and participatory community without violence or any kind of coercive power, and without money or commerce. In the very heart of the whole thing would be peace, expressed through communal silence. During an inspired exchange, Beck and Adams realized that they had seen the very same thing in a vision: an allegorical image of environmental restitution – the greening and reviving of a dry, barren valley

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 33 by children, and how those children grew up and told the tales about the once-barren lands to their grandchildren to teach them about the environment. The shared vision felt portentous and convinced them about the significance of an event like this. They encountered other people who felt called to join the mission, many of them saying that they also had dreamed about something similar. The mission now seemed to have a cosmic consolidation 21. They were influenced by events like Woodstock, which left an impression with a whole generation of young Americans. The “Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music”, as the festival was billed, showed the power of the countercultural scene in 1969. Woodstock amassed 400 000 participants, creating a temporary alternative reality by sheer numbers, but there were other predecessors. Protest events known as Be-Ins gathered people in the Central Park of New York in 1967–1970 for different countercultural causes, and the famous San Francisco Human Be-In was held in 1967, attracting tens of thousands of people. The San Francisco Human Be-In was a launching event for San Francisco’s “Summer of Love” of 1967, and for the entire hippie movement. The Human Be-In focused the key ideas of the 1960s counterculture: personal empowerment, cultural and political decentralization, communal living, ecological awareness, higher consciousness (with the aid of psychedelic drugs), acceptance of illicit psychedelics use, and radical liberal political consciousness. The hippie movement developed out of disaffected student communities around San Francisco State University, City College and Berkeley and in San Francisco’s beat generation poets and jazz hipsters, who also combined a search for intuitive spontaneity with a rejection of “middle-class morality”. (…) The Human Be-In was announced on the cover of the fifth issue of the San Francisco Oracle as “A Gathering of the Tribes for a Human Be-In”. The occasion was a new California law banning the use of the psychedelic drug LSD that had come into effect on October 6, 196622 . Deadheads, the fans of the iconic rock band Grateful Dead, and the fandriven psychedelic subculture that formed around their concerts provided another example, as did the countless intentional communities and hippie communes sprouting up around the country23. In these circles, people in cohabitation and collaboration had a tradition of assigning names for their groups that described their communality and mindset. When the two Rainbow visionaries met, Adams was part of a group known as The Marble Mount Outlaws or Marblemount Riders, named for their involvement in helping draft dodgers and war deserters to cross the border to Canada illegally, and for living in a camp close to Marblemount in northern Washington. Beck was part of a group of handcrafters called the Temple Tribe. And even though these guys represented

34  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings subversive and radical social actors, the next step in the birthing of this countercultural movement was made possible by an unusual ally – the State government of Oregon 24. Vortex I, the Biodegradable Festival of Life The Vortex I festival was an important step in preparation for the big “World Family Gathering” event, but it had some other unique and fascinating aspects too – it remains the only state-supported rock festival in the US to date – and by a Republican Governor, no less. The festival coincided with an American Legion convention held in Portland, which was not coincidental. The American Legion is an influential and conservative war veterans’ association in the US, and they were hosting a convention where the then President, Richard Nixon, was scheduled to speak. At the time, Nixon was campaigning for the continuance of the Vietnam War, and his public appearances were frequently attracting masses of anti-war protesters. The anti-Vietnam War factions in the Portland region were planning a host of demonstrations and other protest activities for the American Legion event, which led the FBI to warn the Governor of Oregon, Tom McCall, of the threat of violent anti-war riots25. At the same time, a non-violent faction of the anti-war movement was discussing a more constructive way to campaign for peace than demonstrations that frequently descended into violence. Many Marble Mount Outlaws and Temple Tribe members were active in these groups. They searched for ways to show the more positive sides of the evolving peace movement, and one of their ideas was to host a free alternative music festival. The activists approached the Governor’s office with their idea, and surprisingly, got a positive response. A free festival seemed, also to the officials, like something that could ease the tensions and lessen the threat of rioting 26. The Governor agreed not only to fully sponsor the festival, but he also ordered the police to keep a low profile and turn a blind eye to public nudity and cannabis use27. It became apparent that the festival was supported not so much as a constructive alternative to violent rioting than a simple diversion and a way to contain the potential rioters, but this did not deter the volunteer organizers. The organizing and running of the festival became an opportunity for the local countercultural community to show their skills, with volunteers running the project according to their own ideals: The Portland community-based activist groups tended collectively to the various needs of the festival. The food co-ops and organic restaurants put together a facility that provided free food for the tens of thousands of attendees. The community free clinics (Outside In and LookingGlass) provided medical care. The motor heads parked the cars. The rock and roll halls from Portland ran the stage. Yoga groups held classes. Peace activist groups sponsored teach-ins and so on. It

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 35 was truly a community-based, non-commercial event. The early pioneers of the Rainbow Gatherings worked there making an information booth, helping with security, lost children, supply trucks, stage building and that is where they took the name Rainbow Family28. The event was named Vortex I: The Biodegradable Festival of Life and it became a roaring success. Estimations of the number of attendees range from 35 000 to 75 000, and following the agreement with the Governor, most non-violent offenses at the event were overlooked by the police and the National Guard. Governor McCall even gave a public address promoting the festival, which gave the event the nickname “Governor’s Pot Party”29. The impact of the Vortex experience to the Rainbow pioneers-to-be was in the evident success of their alternative ways and methods. It obviously was possible to hold a large event based on participatory organization, organic and headless hierarchies, community action and non-commercial aims. People received food, water, and medical care for free, the structures got built, workshops got held, logistic and technical things got worked out. The spiritual content and communal social reality were positively received, and the possibility of being able to use recreational drugs and enjoy nudity without the fear of legal repercussions was perhaps attractive too. Beck, Adams, and the rest of the fledgling Rainbow group now started to focus on making their own event a reality. All that was needed was a place, and of course, an inspirational invitation. The Rainbow Oracle or How to Blow Minds and Influence People Barry “Plunker” Adams had the idea of compiling a book describing the upcoming event by its aims and values, including an official invitation to the “World Family Gathering”. This is how his collaborator, Phil Coyote, describes the process: Barry and I took some acid one night. Then he asked me to design the cover for a book that would be known as The Rainbow Oracle or How to Blow Minds and Influence People. On the cover he said that he wanted a map of the gathering camp. I complied, and designed a map, a layout plan really, of the first Rainbow Gathering, New Jerusalem, Mandala City. Barry said to consult the Book of Revelation in the Bible and see how many gates there were. Twelve it said. I decided on the New Mexico Zuni Sun Sign to serve as the map of the layout of the gathering. The circle in the middle represented the central council area. The twelve gaps between sixteen rays, sets of four of each which stretched from the centre circle to each of the four directions, represented the twelve gates where greeters were to be posted. For reading material in The Rainbow Oracle, plenty was submitted by lots of

36  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings people. I contributed a poem. In it I coined the phrase, “You are your own guru”. I signed it “Youth”. Barry was pleased. We soon had the book published and distributed. The volume was well received by the hip community, immediately becoming a collectable cult classic30. Adams’ personal vision of the upcoming event contained many biblical elements related to the Book of Revelation, with the participants of the meditation for world peace representing the 144 000 faithful on Mount Zion, and the Gathering being the actual manifestation of New Jerusalem. These ideas were sometimes communicated during the process of organizing and the event and disseminating the invitation, to mixed reactions. The Rainbow Oracle was compiled with contributions from several people, including writings about diverse spiritual and practical topics, poetry, drawings and Plunker’s explanation about his vision for the Gathering. It contains 144 pages, and around 5000 were produced and given away before the Gathering. Original copies and reproductions are sometimes still exhibited in the US Rainbow Gatherings. An important part of the Rainbow Oracle was the invitation for the Gathering. The short version of the invitation reads as follows: We, who are brothers & sisters, children of God, families of life on earth, friends of nature & of all people, children of humankind calling ourselves Rainbow Family Tribe, humbly invite: All races, peoples, tribes, communes, men, women, children, individuals – out of love. All nations & national leaders – out of respect All religions & religious leaders – out of faith All politicians – out of charity to join with us in gathering together for the purpose of expressing our sincere desire that there shall be peace on earth, harmony among all people. This gathering to take place beginning July 1, 1972, near Aspen, Colorado - or between Aspen & the Hopi & Navaho lands on 3000 acres of land that we hope to purchase or acquire for this gathering – & to hold open worship, prayer, chanting or whatever is the want or desire of the people, for three days, but upon the fourth day of July at noon to ask that there be a meditative, contemplative silence wherein we, the invited people of the world may consider & give honour & respect to anyone or anything that has aided in the positive evolution of humankind & nature upon this, our most beloved & beautiful world – asking blessing upon we people of this world & hope that we people can effectively proceed to evolve, expand, & live in harmony & peace. - Amen -31 This invitation, together with a longer text that described the event’s practicalities, was distributed to countless different alternative lifestyle- and peace-related organizations, individuals, and locations in the US during

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 37 the two years between the formation of the Gathering vision and the event itself. This included everything from communes, alternative media outlets and yoga schools to “head shops” (stores selling drug paraphernalia), occult bookstores and concert venues. Several groups travelled the four corners of the US, handing out the invitations on the streets and delivering them to groups like the Yippie! radicals32 and the Black Liberation movements. Beck, Adams, and a few friends put together a delegation and drove to Washington, DC. They went to the Capitol building and delivered a copy of the invitation to the Senators and to the men and women of the Congress. They left a copy to the Library of Congress, to US National Archives, and to the mailroom of Nixon’s White House33. A copy of the invitation was sent also to every delegation of the United Nations, as well as different political and religious leaders around the world34. Some members of the Rainbow Family wrote the invitation text on the back of their jackets and wore it while hitch-hiking around the country35. According to Garrick Beck, the idea for the location came from a member of the Universal Life Church36, one of the invitees to the Gathering, who suggested Table Mountain in Colorado. Table Mountain is a flat-topped mesa surrounded by snowy high peaks, and it is a sacred place in the tradition of Arapaho Indians, and these details corresponded with Plunker Adams’ mountaintop vision. It was also public land and National Recreational Area territory. The place was chosen and declared as the Gathering place, and only the permits were left to acquire37. Beck, Adams, and Phil Coyote travelled to Colorado in the spring of 1972 and approached State officials for a land use permit. They introduced themselves as Reverends – they had actually been ordained by the Universal Life Church – and described the planned event as a “religious meeting” to the officials and invoked the people’s right for peaceful assembly. However, the response was discouraging, and no permits were granted38. As the summer of 1972 progressed, the Rainbows were spreading information for the people to arrive in the town that is closest to Table Mountain: Granby, CO. The new “Rainbow Headquarters” was also established there. The Table Mountain was soon cordoned off with barbed wire by the state police, based on the recently passed “Woodstock Law” that made it possible to ban outdoor mass gatherings, but people were starting to arrive and camp where they could. A local farmer called Paul Geisendorfer had offered his field to be used as a parking place. The press was getting interested in the wild idea of a mass gathering on a mountaintop and the colourful cavalcade of counterculturals, but the image they were painting was alarming. Speculations were flying around in anticipation of a violent protest or a decadent rock festival, so the Rainbows held a press conference explaining their aims and plans39. As the number of eclectic visitors grew far bigger than the local population40, the resistance of the local community and the state officials deepened. A further court injunction was made banning the use of land on

38  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings Table Mountain, police cars were stationed at road junctions around its base, and all the National Forest public campgrounds around were “closed for repairs”. The local law enforcement and the state police were urged to intervene against the influx of hippies, and to tell them that the event had been cancelled41. Paul Geisendorfer, himself a war veteran, was supportive of the Rainbows and offered an alternative site for the Gathering. He owned a beautiful patch of forestland with a lake named Strawberry Lake, which was higher up in the mountains and had only a steep footpath leading in. The place had natural springs and plenty of firewood, and the remaining challenge was to find a way to get the thousands of people and loads of supplies up to the site before the police could move their roadblocks. The Hippies began to shuttle people and supplies to the trailhead in the dark hours of the night, but the police soon caught on and closed the entryways for traffic. People around the state were getting arrested, vehicles were stopped, searched, and impounded for trivial reasons, and a group of Rainbows hiking into Strawberry Lake were even shot at by local vigilantes. Despite the state’s efforts a steady flow of people was still arriving, and the parking place as well as the town centre of Granby were getting absolutely crammed. At this point, the Governor ordered the National Guard to get involved, placing their units around Table Mountain42 . One version of Rainbow Hipstories describes a more mystical account of how the location for the Gathering was found and acquired. According to Phil Coyote’s Hipstory, a member of the Rainbow Family involved in looking for a location called Chuck Windsong made the original connection. In early June 1972, Chuck visited the Wagon Wheel Café in Granby, because he had had a dream in which a wagon wheel and the sound of Beatles’ Strawberry Fields guided him. At the café, he was approached by Paul Geisendorfer, who immediately asked if Chuck and his entourage were “Rainbow people”. When the group affirmed this, Geisendorfer told them about a dream he in turn had had. In his dream, he was entering a movie theatre playing a film called “World Family Gathering”, and inside the theatre he found a big gathering of people, camping on his land next to Strawberry Lake. Impressed by the compatibility of the dreams, both parties were convinced that this was a sign that the event was destined to happen at Strawberry Lake, and the word was sent to the rest of the Rainbow Family. This version is a great example of the Rainbow Family’s own origin mythology43. All You Need Is Love and Thousands of People Rainbow Family members were guiding people to hike around the roadblocks to join the camp up at Strawberry Lake, but the parking place camp was still growing overcrowded very fast. Finally, the thousands of people mustered in the parking camp decided to confront the roadblocks to get

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 39 into the Strawberry Lake site, prepared to have their Gathering in jail if necessary. Thousands of people shouldered their backpacks and started walking – dancing, singing, and playing their instruments, carrying flowers, supplies, and their kids. By sheer force of numbers, the crowd walked around the roadblocks in masses, and finally, the police and National Guard gave up when faced with this massive show of civil disobedience. The roadblocks stayed, and no vehicles were allowed to pass, but the “World Family Gathering” at Strawberry Lake grew to tens of thousands of people44. These events were experienced by the Rainbows as overcoming state harassment and a peaceful victory over oppressive forces, and it was a heady experience for the already heightened expectations of the gatherers. The participants were a mixed crowd, many of which had come anticipating some sort of a miraculous event, some others for a party. Rolling Stone writer Tim Cahill wrote an article about his visit to the Gathering and grouped the participants thus: “1) those who came for a rock festival 2) those who came to be with people like themselves, and simply draw strength from congregation, 3) lost souls and acid crawlbacks, seeking structure in life, or a cosmic message, 4) the fishers of souls, believers and gurus, looking for recruits, or more exactly, converts”45. Whatever the original motivations were to come, a sense community was now being forged as the resistance and challenges brought the gatherers more together46. In the night of 3 July, some 5000 people began a hike up to the top of Table Mountain for silent group meditation, passing the barbed wire and the different officials still occupying the foot of the mountain, and getting through without any trouble. The majority in the Strawberry Lake camp stayed put and made their own silent prayer circle. Otherwise, the Gathering had no planned program. There were no organized performers, shows, or concerts, but plenty of acoustic music. Community kitchens served food, medical centres treated people and workshops were given for free, by volunteers. A system of voluntary peacekeepers helped to solve conflict situations. Participants described the ritual and the whole event as an influential community experience. While the New Jerusalem of ancient myth or instant world peace did not manifest during the mountaintop ritual, something very real had still been conceived. The Gathering installed open councils in communication and self-governing, upheld a participatory ethic of co-creation, and built a non-commercial alternative community of egalitarian principles. And although the Gathering was originally intended to be a single event, an idea of continuance was envisioned among the participants. During the event, the name Rainbow Gathering was already being used, linked to the term Rainbow Family, which was already mentioned in the writings of the Rainbow Oracle. In the spring of 1973, the word came that someone who had been to Strawberry Lake was now calling to have a Rainbow Gathering in the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, despite the explicit objections of the Reservation’s Tribal Council. Some of the organizers of

40  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings the 1972 Gathering decided to step in and contact the local Forest Service officials to find a National Forest location in the region, to alleviate the concerns of the Tribal Council, who were threatening any intruding hippies with arrests47. Thus, the second Rainbow Gathering was held in Wyoming in July 1973, and at the end of that event, someone had left a sign saying “next year in Utah” next to the path leading out. Sure enough, an invitation to gather in Utah followed, and the Rainbow Gatherings became an annual tradition. The attendance in the events dropped from the first one, settling initially around a few thousand. The length of the events, officially, was originally just four days, but it was soon expanded to seven, from the 1st to the 7th of July. The main Rainbow traditions and practices were established in the very first event, but changes due to practical issues have also been introduced over time48. Rainbow Gatherings sprouted from the fertile organic soil of the 60s counterculture, flowering to manifest its central tenets and practices in practical reality, and although Barry “Plunker” Adams, Garrick Beck and a few others were the ones to sow the seed, the Gatherings were, and continue to be, shaped by thousands of participants. Adams and Beck were inspired by their personal visionary experiences and their own social and political frameworks, and they outlined a culture which respects and supports the freedom of others to do the same. And what happened to Plunker and Beck? According to participant accounts and some recent videos of Hipstory-telling in the US National Gatherings, they still attend US Gatherings, sharing their personal stories with the Family49.

Localization and Migration Regional Gatherings in the US When Rainbow events in the US were nearing their 10th anniversary, the annual Gathering in the beginning of July had become a standard. In addition, participants started to organize smaller Gatherings in various regions. Sporadic Regional Gatherings in the US had been held since the late 1970s, but they multiplied and became recurrent during the mid-80s, reinforcing the local Rainbow networks. This led the local groups in the US to develop distinct identities and establish their own traditions. Currently there are about 30 different regional Rainbow Family groups in the US, and the Regional Gatherings have become popular. Throughout the 1990s, the US Rainbow Families hosted 10 to 15 Regional Gatherings per year, but since the 2000s there has been a relative decrease. The number of participants in a US Regional Rainbow can be anywhere from a handful to a few thousand, depending on the location and the time of year, and the official length of the event varies usually between one and three weeks50.

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 41 Smaller Rainbow Gatherings function as independent events, following the central form, practices, and rituals of the mother event, but each developing their own local flavours. Smaller size of community allows faster developments, and the regional US Rainbow Families have, for instance, experimented on collective communication techniques to improve the progress of their Councils51. One Rainbow Family member from the US explained that many differences between the Regional Gatherings and the annual National Gathering arise from the sheer difference in size52 . International Gatherings The Rainbow Family was growing rapidly in the beginning of 1980s, and many gatherers were avid travellers or internationally connected. Hence, it did not take long for Rainbow events to start being organized in other countries. It seems that the ideology as well as the practices were easily transposed to other countercultural environments. The first sustained Gathering tradition outside of the US was created in Europe, starting 1983. The next chapter focuses on the European developments, but to provide some context for the reader, here is a short timeline of Rainbow’s further international migrations. In 1987, the first annual Rainbow Gathering was organized in Canada, by La Famille Arc-en-ciel de Lumière Vivante Kwebekwe, close to SteBéatrix in the Québec region of Laurentides, and the tradition has endured53. There are mentions of individual get-togethers of various sizes and durations organized under the Rainbow banner in the early 90s in places like Hawaii, Greece, and Mexico, and even though the information is sporadic and difficult to verify, it does suggest that Rainbow events began to emerge in small scale, in places that were already popular on the maps of countercultural travellers. Russia and ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe launched Gathering traditions in the early 1990s after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the first Rainbow Gathering in Israel was in 1992, and Gatherings began in African countries such as Morocco and South Africa around the same time54. In Mexico, Rainbow participants created an event tradition called “Consejo de Visiones de Guardianes de la Tierra” (Vision Council of the Guardians of the Earth) together with the Bioregional movement55 and indigenous representatives. These environmental and cultural events started in 1990 and continue their growth and reach beyond Mexico. In addition, proper Rainbow Gatherings began to be held around mid-90s in Mexico, and the earliest of which I have information about was in 1995. Rainbow activists also founded one of the oldest eco-villages in Mexico, Huehuecoyotl in Morelos, and an international peace campaign called “Rainbow Caravan for Peace”, which operated from 1996 to 200956. Australia saw its first Gathering in the late 1990s, followed by many Latin American and some additional African countries in the 2000s. The first mentions of Gatherings in Asia are about a Rainbow Gathering in the

42  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings Kumaon region of India in 1997 and another in Pakistan in 1998, as well as Rainbow Camps in the Indian religious mass events known as Kumbh Mela starting around the same time. First Gatherings in other Asian countries came in Thailand in 2006, China in 2008, Japan and Taiwan in 2009, and Indonesia in 201157. Rainbows with a Theme Rainbow’s decision-making process is based on ritualized practices aimed at defusing centralized power while supporting creativity and innovation, and so the migration and localization processes have produced versions of Rainbow culture that are adjusted to specific circumstances or aims. These are examples of localization and adaptation within a transnational culture. The adaptations might concern bigger or smaller details of the organization and features of the camp, resulting in local varieties of Rainbow culture, or be linked to broader spiritual, social, or political aims, creating Rainbow events with specific themes and orientations. There have been individual Gatherings with a specific focus on a local environmental or political issue, and sometimes the specific concerns create an enduring Gathering tradition. Good examples of these themed mutations of Rainbow culture are the “Healing Rainbow Gatherings”, “World Rainbow Gatherings”, and “Peace in the Middle East Rainbow Gatherings”. The Healing Gatherings have a pronounced focus on different healing practices: a vegan, raw food-oriented diet, a collective focus on healing practices and a “strong suggestion” of collective abstinence from all forms of addictive substances – typically including at least drugs, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, black tea, and processed sugars. Practices such as yoga, meditation, Tai Chi, and various spiritual healing rituals are even more frequent than in regular Gatherings. The substance-free Healing Gatherings are, also, an indication of the group’s internal tensions related to the topics of drug consumption and diet as spiritual directives on one hand, and individual freedom on the other. The World Rainbow Gatherings were born out of the concept of the “world family”, an ideal of a planetary unity of human race surpassing differences based on nationality, race, or religious background. World Gatherings started in Australia in 2000, and since then they have been held in Zimbabwe, Brazil (twice), Costa Rica, Canada (twice), Turkey, Thailand, China, New Zealand, Argentina, and lastly 2017 in Indonesia. The Peace in the Middle East Rainbow Gatherings began in Turkey in 2006, and they have a central theme of building peace and collaboration in the region. The events aim at creating networks between peace activists and counterculturals, and possibilities for the Rainbow Family in countries like Iran to participate in Rainbow events nearby. Most of these events have been held in Turkey, with a few in Israel and Georgia, as hosting a Rainbow event in countries like Iran and Iraq has so far been deemed too risky.

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 43 Based on information gleaned from online sources and participant interviews, there were at least 60 Rainbow Gatherings around the world in the year 2016 and about 65 in 2018. In addition to full-fledged Gatherings, many local Rainbow Families host Scout meetings, Full Moon celebrations, Drum Circles, potlucks, and parties of different kinds. Rainbows also travel in groups – these are called Rainbow Caravans, “walkabouts”, or Peace Walks, and they sometimes take part in environmental demonstrations as a group. The total number of Rainbow-related events on the planet, from small get-togethers to big mass events rises to hundreds annually.

Notes 1 Blake 1992. 2 The misery index is an indicator of the economic well-being of an average citizen. It is calculated by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. 3 Levy 2011, 6. 4 Blake 1992. 5 Anderson 1995, Kimball 2013, Rubin & Casper 2013, Ellwood 1994. 6 Carson 1962. 7 Ellwood 1994, 100, Sessions 1993, 3, Hynes 1989. 8 Taylor 2010. 9 Ellwood 1994, 9, Roof 1993. 10 Roof 1993, Sutcliffe 2003. 11 Næss 1973. 12 Lovelock 1972, Lovelock & Margulis 1974. 13 White 1967. “Greening of religion” signifies the increase in religiously inspired environmental concern of the last decades. See Chaplin 2016, Taylor,Van Wieren & Zaleha 2016. 14 Taylor, Van Wieren & Zaleha 2016. 15 Ellwood 1994. 16 Waters 1963. 17 Willoya & Brown 1962. 18 Beck 2017, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 19 Beck 2017, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 20 Beck 2017, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 21 Beck 2017, loc. 2452–2544, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 22 Wikipedia: Human Be-In. 23 Deadhead culture see Pearson 1987. 24 Bateman 1991, Beck 2017. 25 Robbins n.d., Wikipedia: Vortex I, Oregon Experience 2010. 26 Ibid. 27 Robbins n.d., Wikipedia: Vortex I. 28 Wikipedia: Vortex 1. 29 Robbins n.d., Wikipedia: Vortex I. 30 Coyote n.d. 31 Welcomehome.org. 32 Yippies were the members of the Youth International Party, a revolutionary offshoot of the free speech- and anti-war movements. 33 Beck 2017, loc. 3766–3791. 34 Bateman 1988. 35 Interview: Feather, Beck 2017.

44  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 36 The ULC is a non-denominational religious organization advocating religious freedom which offers a legal ordination to all members (www.ulc.org). 37 Beck 2017, loc. 3872–3884. 38 Coyote n.d., Beck 2017, loc. 3884. 39 Beck 2017. 40 Population of Granby in 1970 was 554 people. 41 Beck 2017, New York Times 1972, Bateman 1991, Coyote n.d. 42 Beck 2017, loc. 4020–4117. 43 Coyote n.d. 44 Beck 2017, Niman 1997, Interview: Feather, Bateman 1988, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Coyote n.d. 45 Cahill 1972. 46 Interview: Feather, Bateman 1988, Coyote n.d., Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 47 Niman 1997, Interview: Feather, Bateman 1988, Coyote n.d., Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 48 Niman 1997, Bateman 1988, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017, Interview: Feather. 49 Beck 2017, Adams 2012, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017. 50 Beck 2017, Niman 1997, Welcomehome.org, Rainbowforum.net. 51 Niman 1997, 49–55. 52 Interview: Patches. 53 Vallières 2003, 24–25. 54 Welcomehome.org archives, RainbowForum.net archives, Tavory & Goodman 2009, 267. 55 Bioregions are geographically and ecologically defined areas sharing physical and environmental features, and bioregionalism is an environmentalist concept suggesting that political boundaries should match ecological ones. 56 Consejodevisiones.org n.d., Hieronimi 1999, Carr 2005. 57 Tomalin 2009, 126, Hieronimi 1999, Welcomehome.org, RainbowForum.net.

References Adams, Barry 2012: Shanti Sena Hipstories for Rainbow 2013 Montana Barry ‘Plunker’ Adams [video], produced by the Bad Folk Orchestra in Missoula, Montana. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O4TEJTSjRQ. Accessed 2.10.2017. Anderson, Terry H. 1995: The Movement and the Sixties. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bateman, Jodey 1991: Further Letters on Rainbow’s Origin. [online] Bliss-fire. Available at: http://www.bliss-fire.com/Further.htm. Accessed 1.10.2017. Bateman, Jodey 1988: Wherever Two Are Gathered… The Beginnings of the Rainbow Family. [online] Bliss-fire. Available at: http://www.bliss-fire.com/2RGathrd.htm. Accessed 1.10.2017. Beck, Garrick 2017: True Stories: Tales from the Generation of a New World Culture. Bloomington, IN, Iuniverse. Blake, Bailey 1992: The 60s. New York, NY: Mallard Press. Carr, Mike 2005: Bioregionalism and Civil Society: Democratic Challenges to Corporate Globalism. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Carson, Rachel 1962: Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Cahill, Tim 1972: Armageddon postponed. Rolling Stone, 3 August.

The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings 45 Chaplin, Jonathan 2016: The Global Greening of Religion. Palgrave Communications vol 2, article 16047 [online]. DOI https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.47. Accessed 12.2.2019. Consejodevisiones.org n.d. [website] Accessed: 12.3.2017. Coyote, Phil n.d.: The First Rainbow Gathering, Chapter 5: the beginnings of the Rainbow Family. [online] Bliss-fire. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http://www.bliss-fire.com/Coyote1stGathering.htm. Accessed 1.10.2017. Ellwood, Robert S. 1994: The Sixties Spiritual Awakening. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Hieronimi, Holger 1999: Los Encuentros del Arcoiris en Europa durante los anos noventa [The Rainbow Gatherings in Europe during the 90’s]. [online] Tierramor. Available at: http://www.tierramor.org/Articulos/arcoiriseuropa. htm. Accessed 23.4.2018. Hynes, H. Patricia 1989: The Recurring Silent Spring Athene series. New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Kimball, Roger 2013: The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books. Levy, Peter B. 2011: The Dream Deferred: The Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and the Holy Week Uprisings of 1968. In: Elfenbein, J., Hollowak, T. and Nix, E. (eds.), Baltimore ‘68: Riots and Rebirth in an American City. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Lovelock, J.E. 1972: Gaia as Seen Through the Atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 6(8), 579–580. Lovelock, J.E. and Margulis, L. 1974: Atmospheric Homeostasis by and for the Biosphere: The Gaia Hypothesis. Tellus 26(1–2), Series A. Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute, 2–10. New York Times 1972: Peace and religious festival begins in Colorado. Sunday July 2. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Næss, Arne 1973: The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. Inquiry 16, 95–100. Oregon Experience - Vortex I: A Biodegradable Festival of Life [video]. Original: Oregon Public Broadcasting in 28.10.2010. Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=sNRZkfPb16g. Accessed 19.10.2017. Pearson, Anthony 1987: The Grateful Dead Phenomenon: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Youth & Society 18(4), 418–432. Rainbow Earlies 2016: Barry ‘Plunker’ Adams, Medicine Story, Feather Sherman, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Vermont, 3.7.2016. Published by Jonathan Kalafer 7.7.2016. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W8kPyZ04Z0&t=1s. Accessed 27.9.2017. Rainbow Earlies 2 2017: Feather, Garrick Beck, Now, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk, Round 2 [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Oregon, 3.7.2017; published by Angel Forest 13.8.2017. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=incsbPCrWYw. Accessed 1.10.2017. Rainbowforum.net n.d.: Available at: https://www.rainbowforum.net/. Robbins, William G. n.d.: Vortex I music festival. In: Oregon Encyclopedia [online]. Portland State University and Oregon Historical Society. Available at: https:// oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/vortex_i/#.WedS4U0UmUk. Accessed 18.10.2017.

46  The Hipstory of Rainbow Gatherings Roof, Wade Clark 1993: A Generation of Seekers. The Spiritual Journeys of the Baby Boom Generation. San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco. Rubin, J.S. and Casper, S.E. (eds.) 2013: The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sessions, George 1993: Deep Ecology as Worldview. The Bucknell Review 37(2), 207–228. Sutcliffe, Steven J. 2003: Children of the New Age: A History of Spiritual Practices. London and New York, NY: Routledge. Tavory, I. and Goodman, Y.C. 2009: ‘A Collective of Individuals’: Between Self and Solidarity in a Rainbow Gathering. Sociology of Religion 70(3), 262–284. Taylor, Bron 2010: Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Taylor, B., Van Wieren, G. and Zaleha, B.D. 2016: Lynn White Jr. and the Greeningof-Religion Hypothesis. Conservation Biology 30(5), 1000–1009. Tomalin, Emma 2009: Biodivinity and Biodiversity: The Limits to Religious Environmentalism. London: Routledge. Vallières, Pascal 2003: La Famille Arc-en-ciel de Lumière Vivante ou l’archétype de la tribu écotopique. MA thesis, Québec: Université Laval. Waters, Frank and Fredericks, Oswald White Bear 1963: Book of the Hopi. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Welcomehome.org n.d.: Available at: https://www.welcomehome.org. White, Lynn Jr. 1967: The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science 155, 1203–1207. Wikipedia n.d.: Human Be-In. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_ Be-In. Accessed 12.10.2022. Wikipedia n.d.: Vortex I. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_I. Willoya, William and Brown, Vinson 1962: Warriors of the Rainbow: Strange and Prophetic Indian Dreams. Healdsburg, CA: Naturegraph. Accessed 21.8.2022.

3

Rainbow Rising Over Europe

History of European Rainbow Gatherings For this chapter, I have had the great fortune to interview participants of the early Rainbow events in Europe since the very first ones, and the chapter is based on their invaluable information combined with my fieldwork, and on what can be gleaned from various other sources in print and online. As there have been hundreds of Rainbow Gatherings in Europe during nearly 40 years, I have had to delimit and prioritize to keep this historical chapter within a reasonable length. I chose to focus on the timeline of the main events known as European Rainbow Gatherings and the beginnings of Regional and Local Rainbow Gatherings in Europe, and to include those stories that portray characteristic features and significant developments in the long and colourful history of Rainbow Gatherings in Europe. My focus is on material which is informative of the development of a transnational, countercultural event tradition, and the contextual aspects that Rainbow Gatherings have, such as cultural connotations, overlap with other alternative networks, and relationships and interaction with the mainstream society – both positive and negative. A full list of European Rainbow Gatherings can be found in the annexes. An important fact should be clarified about the amounts of participants in Rainbow Gatherings which are given in this text: the numbers are usually based on an estimation made during collective meals called Food Circles, either by counting the people in the Circle, or by making a rough estimate of the size of the crowd. Two things should be remembered: this number is never the total population of the camp, as there are always participants who are absent from that meal, and many gatherers’ stay in the camp is short, as people come and go during the event. In the bigger Gatherings there might be dozens of people arriving and leaving during a single day. Hence, the real number of people who visit a Rainbow Gathering can be much bigger than the size of the Circle during the peak days of the event, as the turnover ratio is high. Furthermore, this ratio probably varies quite much between Gatherings, due to location, accessibility, and other factors. On the other hand, the numbers are rough estimates that could also be inflated. DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-3

48  Rainbow Rising Over Europe Meetings on the Mountain of Truth Rainbow Gatherings migrated outside of the US in the beginning of the 1980s, but the process was gradual. Knowledge about Rainbow Gatherings spread with travellers and alternative media, reaching countercultural networks in other countries. A fertile ground for this message was found within the existing alternative networks and the “left” wing of society, where people were already affiliated with different kinds of political and social activism and alternative lifestyles. One big part of this scene was the different alternative communities around Western and Central Europe. In the 1970s and 80s, “living in a community was in itself a political act”, explains one of my interviewees, and adds that a lot of the people in this scene were activists and radicals in other ways too. The communities acted also as hubs of information, and through them networks were formed, reaching further individuals with interests in alternative religiosity, environmentalism, peace activism, minority rights and so on1. My informants that were involved with the first European Gatherings described the planning and organizing process as being linked to and promoted by different events and happenings in Switzerland that brought like-minded people together and gave them the impetus as well as the practical experience needed. This is similar to the experiences of communal cohabitation in nature that the founders of Rainbow had had in the US. The European Rainbow-pioneers-to-be had also certain historical role models and predecessors whose example was a direct inspiration: the first alternative communities in Europe, and especially Monte Verità, an intentional community near Ascona, Switzerland, which was active between 1900 and 1920. Monte Verità, at the turn of the 20th century, was a radical community supporting vegetarianism, naturism, and “moral principles”, while refusing the ideas of private property and traditional marriage. It represents one of the first manifestations of alternative communal lifestyle in modern times and has been hailed the “beginning of counterculture”2 . In its time, Monte Verità was an important meeting place for the alternatives, esotericists, and artists of the era, contributing to the Lebensreform and Back-to-the-Land movements, as well as to the progression of many other alternative cultural currents. A resident of Monte Verità, scientist Olga Froebe-Kapteyn started a tradition of round-table meetings discussing philosophy, science, spirituality, arts, culture, and politics in what became known as the Eranos Conferences3. Monte Verità brought together the cultural, social, and political alternatives of its time: vegetarians, pacifists, nudists, Theosophists, Freemasons, feminists, anarchists, bohemians, writers, artists and more. Dadaists and Expressionists convened with communists, psychoanalysts, and free thinkers, attracting the likes of Herman Hesse, Rudolf Steiner, Theodor Reuss and Carl Jung. The cultural influence of this congregation of nonconformists was substantial. The community formed into one of the first countercultural hubs in Europe, bringing together people with burgeoning new

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 49 ideas and practices, many of which proved to be revolutionary in their fields. Reuss organized conferences on radical topics like “societies with no national distinctions, cooperatives, modern education, women’s rights in the society of the future, mystic freemasonry, new social structures and, lastly, dancing as art, ritual and religion”.4 My interviews with the early Swiss Rainbow activists show that they were aware of the history of Monte Verità, and in the mid-1970s, the moment to commemorate the pioneers of a New Age and a new consciousness arrived, in the form of the centennial anniversaries of the Monte Verità founders Henry Oedenkoven (born 1875), Karl Gräser (1875), and Gusto Gräser (1879). The founders’ centennials inspired people to meet and camp around the village of Ascona. The free-thinking, nature-loving ideals of the original “proto-hippies” and those of the later countercultural actors coincided. The history of Monte Verità and especially its cultural impact was an inspiration and perhaps, a rallying cry for the Swiss and Italian activists of the 1970s. This impulse was realized in an alternative cultural event called Happening of the New Age in 1977, organized by the countercultural networks in Switzerland and the neighbouring countries. The events “featured courses, songs, music, dance, theatre, and workshops that focused on living simply in the nature”5. The Happening of the New Age festivals involved thousands of people, and they went on for three years. These events brought alternative thinkers and countercultural actors from around Central Europe once again to the region of the Mountain of Truth, people who wanted to share, learn, and live communally in nature, in a self-organized, egalitarian way6. Stories from US Rainbow Gatherings were told at these Happening of the New Age events, among other news of global alternative activities. One of my informants remembers a female participant in these summer events talking about her recent experiences in a Rainbow Gathering in the US, and how this was influential to many of the listeners. The existence of such Gatherings alone was an inspiring message of confirmation and encouragement: this is going on in the US, and it could be brought to Europe, to spread these ideas and, above all, to manifest them in reality!7 After the Happening of the New Age festivals were discontinued, two things furthered the realization of European Rainbow Gatherings. A smaller group continued to gather and live in communal camps close to Monte Verità during the following summers, and a troop of activists of the Swiss alternative press formed an association for organizing courses on alternative topics. They named the association Friistärne Uni (Free Star University), and many of its activities were held as camps in nature. This developing scene of communal off-grid living and courses in alternative topics drew critical attention from the officials from early on. The Free Star University is described to have had a “strongly provocative and liberal attitude”8, which was suggested to have attracted scrutiny and restrictive measures from Swiss officials9.

50  Rainbow Rising Over Europe The alternative summer camps and events of the Friistärne Uni ran into conflicts with the police when required permits for camping and land use were not obtained – or, in the point of view of the participants, refusal of permits was used as a pretext for an attempt to control and subdue their activities. An informant says that a central reason for forming the association was to facilitate organizing events and especially the interaction with officials, but it did not help. He describes the attention from the police, and the measures taken by the government simply as harassment, something that Rainbow pioneer Alberto Ruz Buenfil’s book affirms: “Intending to hold the free-minded movement in check, the Swiss government issued a number of restrictions, including the prohibition of mass gatherings”10. The plan to organize a Rainbow Gathering was brewing for some years, and the final decision was made in early 1983. Only two people in the small group of organizers had participated in a Rainbow Gathering in the US, and the group felt that they were lacking in important practical experience in organizing a radically alternative event. Finally, the biggest problem was not due to lack of experience, but that the Swiss government refused to grant a permit for the Gathering: We had chosen a lonely Swiss mountaintop not far from the Italian border. Because of the government’s recalcitrance, we decided to move our site to Val di Campo on the Italian side of the mountain, where the Swiss authorities would be powerless and where, ten hours’ walk from the nearest Italian village, the Italian police would not easily be able to reach us11. The parking place and the trailhead of the path leading up the valley were on the Swiss side of the border, and the people arriving as well as the supply transportations made with the help of horses and donkeys passed the Swiss-Italian mountain border. This inevitably made the Swiss border officials suspicious, but they were soon convinced that the gatherers were not doing anything illegal. Interestingly, the same locational strategy has been utilized in several later Swiss Rainbow Gatherings: the site is close to the border with most of the camp on the non-Swiss side12 . The organizers had created a written invitation for the event that was copied as flyers and posters and distributed to alternative circles and locations, mainly in Switzerland, Germany, and Italy. An informant recounts seeing this invitation in Zurich and that it was shared among friends who were interested in alternative lifestyles. The first European Rainbow Gathering turned up around 200 participants, and the duration was 15 days. The basic Rainbow functions, structures, and practices were reproduced. The camp had a Main Fire, a circle of teepees, a community kitchen, latrines, an information tent, and a sacralized area called “Meditation Island”. There were Food Circles, Councils, workshops, and Rainbow songs. Rainbow traditions were followed to the letter whenever possible. The participants,

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 51 both according to Buenfil and my interviews, considered the event successful and a good start. That this was a beginning of an annual tradition was already clear in the minds of the emerging European Rainbow Family13. European Early Years The second Rainbow Gathering in Europe was held in July 1984, in the same location as the previous year, close to Val di Campo in Italy. The Gathering population doubled and is estimated to have been between 500 and 600 people. Nearing the end of the Gathering, the discussions in the Vision Council were concerned among other things about the camp’s impact on nature, and the Council decided to have the next years’ event in a different place. Acquacheta in Northern Italy was chosen. Acquacheta is a river known for the natural beauty of its waterfalls and surrounding forests, renowned since at least the Middle Ages. It is mentioned in the Divina Commedia by Dante Alighieri14, who compares its noise to the infernal river of Phlegethon, which divides the seventh circuit of Hell from the eighth. Acquacheta was considered an enchanted, magical place, but the area is also a well-known tourist attraction. This was the first time that a European Rainbow Gathering sought out a special, fabled location, but it would not be the last15. Paolo Silkworm Bigatti was one of the Rainbow pioneers in Europe, and he was involved with the early Gatherings since the beginning. In a section of Buenfil’s book, Bigatti writes about the challenges that the European Rainbow Family met in their first years. The experience of the first two Gatherings had shown that a major challenge was to get more people to step up and share the organizational burden. Co-creation and participation are fundamental Rainbow principles, but the organizers hadn’t found an adequate way to encourage this in practice. A group of about 15 people who had been involved in the first Gathering kept meeting during the following year, “to deepen our spiritual bonds and develop ideas for the future”16. They also began to actively expand the Rainbow network to other European countries, which meant that their challenges would also grow. The Europe-wide invitations delivered to alternative locations followed the example from US. Bigatti recounts that before the third Rainbow Gathering, the organizer group tried to get in touch with some of the interested people in every country on the continent, to get them involved in the preparation of the event. The Family reached out to countercultural people everywhere, wanting to join forces, relieve the workload of the existing group, and to fulfil the Rainbow ideals of participation and co-operation17. The Acquacheta Gathering in 1985 was held on private land, and despite having the landowner’s permission for the event, the Italian police arrived at the camp after the Gathering had already been going on for two weeks. Another new challenge was the rapid growth of the events, which was overwhelming the group’s resources. Paolo Bigatti explains: “However, from

52  Rainbow Rising Over Europe that summer on, the key word became “consolidation”. We became acutely aware of the danger of expanding the size and scope of the gathering too fast; we still needed to stabilize”.18 It seems that even though there were increasing numbers of people who were interested in the events, it took some time and effort to acculturate them into the practices of contribution and co-creation, to share the workload of managing the Gathering before the few active ones completely burnt out. The very same themes concerning the practical applications of the ideals of voluntary participation and communal responsibility remain among the biggest internal challenges of Rainbow culture to this day19. The fourth European Rainbow Gathering was initially envisioned to happen in the Spanish Pyrenees, but close to the border with France to get more French people involved. Due to last-minute changes, the final location was announced to be in a mountain pass called Col de Mantet on the French side of Pyrenees. The pass is at an altitude of 1761m, and natural water sources are scarce, so the conditions in the Seed Camp were rough – but people were arriving. The biggest obstacle for the Gathering was reportedly, again, law enforcement officials. The French police demanded authorization for the event, but despite two weeks spent in negotiations with the local authorities, no permits were granted. At the end of Seed Camp, when the Gathering was supposed to be starting, the discouraging circumstances had already begun to make many people give up and leave20. According to my interviews, a confrontation with the police brought about two reactions that inspired the Family to persist and trust that there could be a non-violent resolution. The Rainbows had sent a delegation to approach the officials with another attempt at negotiating a permit, but on the same day the police arrived at the camp with fire department officials and police dogs and began to conduct searches of people and their tents. The Rainbows responded by forming a big circle around the empty police car, singing, dancing, and drumming. Apparently, this was not what the police had been trained for, as their reaction was to promptly stop what they were doing, regroup, and leave. Among the Rainbows, this was experienced as a victory over oppressive forces, a victory as by magic, or perhaps aided by some higher force. Later that night, after the Food Circle of the first actual Gathering day, the Family discussed their experiences in the Council. They needed a plan21. A suggestion was made in the Council to move the camp to a more remote location on a nearby mountain peak called Pic de Très Estelles. It was also understood that a major reason for the permits being refused was that the region was under a fire ban due to drought and danger of forest fires. A logical suggestion came from a Rainbow Sister: “If the problem is the dryness, then we need rain. Let’s dance for the rain to come!”22 I don’t know if she had experience on how to do that – but we did it, we did a rain dance! Nearly the whole of the family danced a couple of hours around the fire, and at 2 am in the night the rain came. A hard

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 53 rain. Next morning, people decided to move up to the other campsite where some basic structures were already up, but it was a long and a steep hike. Many hours’ walk in the rain. It kept raining for three days!23 In a move to avoid what was experienced as police harassment, the gatherers hauled their camp up the mountain through the rain, to a peak so inaccessible that they were finally left alone. The population of the first camp had risen to 2000 people, but only around 1500 made it to Très Estelles. According to Paolo Silkworm, the hardships brought the Family together, and the hoped-for consolidation took root. It was evident that to endure the conditions, everybody needed to contribute. The experience of the rain dance and resistance to police harassment through non-violent means was described as extremely powerful for many24. The European Rainbow Family had grown rapidly from a few hundred participants to thousands of people within a few years, and without any mass publicity. The information and invitations were still spread mainly from person to person, via alternative networks. The ’86 Gathering had a big representation of Spanish people, many of which lived in alternative communities, and with the support of their resources and connections, the Vision Council was happy to decide for the next Gathering to be in Spain. The Spanish Comunidad del Arco Iris provided a place for organizing meetings during the spring of 1987, and the Scouts settled on a location in the Cantabrian Mountains25. The campsite in Spain in 1987 was at Fuente de Sancenas, close to the village of Genicera in the Montes de León mountain range. At the time, Genicera was a home to an alternative collective called “Taller 7”, giving courses in self-sufficient life, natural healing, and environmentalism, which turned out to be another countercultural ally for the Rainbows26. The Gathering had around 500 participants, with a big group from Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen, yet another counterculture hub in Europe. Fuente de Sancenas is a natural water source at an altitude of 1825 meters, and due to the elevation, there was very little deadwood around to supply the camp’s fires. According to some sources, the location was chosen in part to draw attention to the plight of a local village bearing the brunt of the construction of a dam and a hydroelectric plant. The whole village of Riaño was to be demolished in July 1987, due to being submerged under the waters of the reservoir, which sparked heated resistance among the locals27. The next Gathering was again in Spain, in Campo de Santiago, close to the village of Fasgar in the Montes de León mountain range, not too far from the previous years’ location. Campo de Santiago is an age-old pilgrim campsite where you can still see the ruins of a pilgrims’ house, along an old side route of the famous Camino de Santiago, the Europewide network of pilgrims’ trails also known as the Way of Saint James. The side route and the campsite in Campo de Santiago have a long and bloody history, but the webpages presenting the history of the place to tourists

54  Rainbow Rising Over Europe nowadays include also the European Rainbow Gathering of 1988 in their accounts28. According to participant interviews, a group from the alternative community of Christiania in Copenhagen arrived at the Gathering, supporting the event with large kitchen equipment, which is a substantial help in feeding hundreds of people in the wild. Garrick Beck, one of the originators of Rainbow Gatherings in the US, also visited this Gathering and the European Family29. In 1989, the growing European Rainbow Family was invited to their first collaboration with another European countercultural event, the Nordic Ting Meeting. The Ting is an alternative network operating in the Scandinavian countries and Finland (later also Iceland and Estonia), which had been organizing their own events since 1979. The groups had some overlap and seeing that their leading principles and philosophies were the same, the Ting Family extended an invitation for the European Rainbow Family to have their annual Gathering in the north of Norway, on the site of that year’s Summer Ting Meeting. The Ting was held first, and it acted as a Seed Camp for the European Rainbow. The Ting Family had a decade of events under their belt, forming their own traditions and Gathering rituals by drawing inspiration from Nordic pagan traditions, traditional shamanism, and folklore, as well as other tribal cultures. In Viking times, tingmöte, a “ting-meeting” (sometimes translated as “thing”) was a tribal council, a governing assembly known among the Northern Germanic tribal societies, and the Nordic counterculturals were inspired by this historical role model. Ting traditions had a lot of similarities with Rainbow traditions, as both are Western reinterpretations of tribal and pagan cultures. The council processes conducted in a circle and with the help of a focal object called the Talking Stick (tingstav in Scandinavia), basic ritual forms, a Sacred Fire – the two events shared a lot of their culture. Some Rainbow customs were adopted by the Ting Family, like chanting the Om in harmony before collective meals, councils, and rituals. At the time, the Ting Family was the larger of the two with a longer history of activity in Europe, but the European Rainbow Family has grown to be far bigger in the last decades. There has been further cooperation between the Rainbow and Ting Families in the form of shared events in 2004 and 2009, again in the north of Norway. It has also been common to publish invitations to Ting Meetings in Rainbow newsletters and forums30. The Gathering was on the island of Karlsøy, north of Troms, which is known in Norway as a small but active countercultural haven of the Arctic north. The island experienced an influx of new population in the 1970s when artists, activists, and hippies began to move in, creating the northernmost alternative community in the world. The location was exotic for the European Rainbow Family, but the way to the north was long. Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen was the most influential countercultural hub in all of Scandinavia and already a Rainbow-affiliated community, and it became a waystation for the northbound Rainbow caravans arriving

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 55 from continental Europe. All together about 500 people were present at the Karlsøy Rainbow Gathering31. The Gathering in Norway was reportedly memorable for both the Rainbow and Ting Families in many respects. The collaboration of the two groups and the support offered by the Ting were celebrated. One notable thing was the visit of Manitonquat, also known as Medicine Story, an active member of the US Rainbow Family who has made a claim to Native American (Wampanoag) heritage. In the 1989 European Rainbow Gathering, he held workshops on Native Sweat Lodge Ceremonies, and on “Circle Way”, which is his creation: a communicative process utilizing the circle form and a Talking Stick based on indigenous traditions that he has developed and advocated since 198332. Medicine Story is also a famed storyteller, and he shared stories from Rainbow Gatherings since their beginnings in the US. Another memorable aspect of this Gathering was the northern nature and constant daylight of the Arctic summer. But even though the Rainbows who had travelled the thousands of kilometres to gather under the midnight sun were happy about it, the circle was much smaller. Vision Council convening in Karlsøy, north of the Arctic Circle, decided that the next Rainbow Gathering should be in the middle of Europe, and the Council made a consensus on organizing the Gathering in Austria33. Medicine Story is one of the human links between the US and European Gatherings in the first decade, and he has been influential in the alternativeholistic scenes of both continents since the 1980s. He is also a good example of how alternative communities act as cultural hubs: he and his Swedish wife have had a house in Christiania for a long time. Freetown Christiania has been a significant countercultural centre in Europe since its occupation in 1971, and as we have seen, Rainbow Gatherings developed in direct collaboration with other European countercultural networks, communities, and locations. First by receiving support, as in the case of La Comunidad del Arco Iris in Spain, the Christianians, and the Ting Family offering their help. But, only a few years after the Gatherings started, Rainbow became a big influence in the formation of new alternative projects and networks. Many of the alternative communities in Spain founded in the 1980s and 1990s were initiated by Rainbow people from Denmark, Germany, and other European countries. The most long-lived and successful ones of these are still operating, and still following many of the Rainbow principles and practices, although often in some variation that suits a permanent community better. Some of the more known, still existing communities sprouting from Rainbow roots in Spain are Matavenero in the province of El Bierzo, Beneficio in the province of Granada and Los Molinos in the province of Huelva. There are other alternative communities which can be said to have at least a strong Rainbow-affiliation – supporting and participating in Rainbow events and living by Rainbow principles and practices to some extent – like El Morreón, El Calabacino, Lakabe, Sasé and Los Cigarrones34.

56  Rainbow Rising Over Europe Occupation of military grounds and the falling Iron Curtain The 1990 European Rainbow Gathering in Austria had a difficult start. Just before the start of the Gathering, a landowner backed out of his agreement with the Rainbows, and the Family was scrambling to find a substitute location on a moment’s notice. The suggested solution was radical and risky: occupying an unused part of the old military training grounds at Truppenübungsplatz Allentsteig in Waldviertel. The place was symbolic for anti-war activists because it was taken by the state through compulsory acquisition at the time of the Third Reich and remained an important military base throughout the Cold War, being right next to the border with socialist Czechoslovakia. The training grounds cover large, forested areas, and the Family decided to go ahead and make their camp on the military grounds, in the hopes of being able to negotiate with the army when they would show up35. The first contact was made on the day of the silent meditation for world peace. People in the Prayer Circle saw a military helicopter arrive and circle above the camp, dropping flyers with a grim message: a warning about surrounding mine fields. Later the same day, a group of Austrian military officials arrived in a car. They were promptly taken to the Main Teepee and explained that communications would happen in a Talking Circle, with a Talking Stick. The officials agreed and the Circle went on, people taking turns in explaining what the Rainbow was, why they were there, and that the event would last only a few weeks. Finally, the military agreed to tolerate the Rainbows’ presence, but the camp had to be moved a few kilometres. First, the military arranged for a small patrol to stay and monitor the camp and its activities, but later this was changed to occasional control checks. As the site did not have enough sources of potable water, the military agreed to help with transporting water to the Rainbow Gathering. The Welcome Home (an info point and welcoming centre) was established in an old military guard post along the entryway to the camp36. According to my informants, the European Rainbow in Austria had more than 2000 people, and it was the first time that citizens of Eastern European countries were participating in larger numbers. One of the bigger groups was a travelling circus and theatre troupe from Poland, who came with their own bus. The kitchen truck from Christiania was also there. In the Vision Council, a group of Poles invited the Rainbow to Poland next year, and the Council concurred. Poland had emerged from behind the Iron Curtain only a year before, and the Soviet Union was nearing its dissolution. The fascination was mutual: people from ex-communist countries were interested in the freedoms and alternative movements of the West, and the European Rainbows were excited to spread the message of peace and love in those countries. Another theme that attracted Eastern European alternatives was the strong environmental values of the Rainbow Family37. For the Scouting, the Polish novice Rainbows were joined by their Brothers and Sisters from the rest of Europe, who entered the country by

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 57 dozens in the spring of 1991. A local artist and environmentalist showed the Scouts around, assessing potential locations, and the group settled on the valley of Tworylne in the Bieszczady Mountains. As usual, the process to obtain a permit was not without complications. The Rainbows sent a delegation decked in flowing robes and face paint to meet with the local officials, who laid out their concerns of damage to nature and littering. The Rainbows explained that caring for the environment was one of their principles, but their word was not enough. A member of the Polish Family had to take the legal responsibility by signing a contract for land use. The Rainbow envoys also addressed the locals’ concerns that this free-spirited event would go against their Catholic values. The locals were appeased by amicable meetings with the Rainbows, but this did not stop some of the more vigilant locals from later scrutinizing the immoral behaviours like nudity, from a distance, with binoculars38. The 9th European Gathering in Poland stood out as the first Rainbow event connecting European alternative people and networks from the West and the East. This Gathering has the first mention of the Amsterdam Balloon Company participating in a Rainbow Gathering. The Balloon Company is a group of artists and activists based in yet another alternative community – Ruigoord, close to Amsterdam. The 1991 European Rainbow Gathering drew in an international crowd of 2000 – 3000 people, and alternative people from East and West could celebrate together in the spirit of a Hippie détente. The lush valley of Tworylne impressed the Western European hippies with untouched nature and sightings of wildlife, the Eastern counterculturals savoured the connection to like-minded people and were eager to get more involved, and so the Vision Council decided to return to Poland for the 10th European Rainbow Gathering in the following year39. In 1992, the Gathering site was found in the beech forests of the Lower Beskids’ mountain range, in Polany Surowiczne. According to my informant, the region had preserved its natural beauty and rich wildlife, again providing a rare nature experience for many of the people from Western countries. Reportedly, just as the Seed Camp had settled down, an eviction notice was delivered by the police. The local officials had not granted a permit, and residents in the region were getting incensed. Again, a colourful delegation was sent out, this time to the governor in Krosno. The governor remarked that he cannot override local governments’ decisions, but he did have an idea: a carefully considered rebranding of the whole Gathering. This idea sparked “Nature Day”, an environmental campaign involving an international activist camp that just happened to coincide with the Rainbow Gathering. This was a clever ruse that made the event possible40. The event had more than 2000 people again, and some of the typical unwanted side-effects of having a Rainbow event close to civilization became apparent for the first time. Local traders saw the international crowd as potential customers and set up shop at the entrance to the Gathering. The entrepreneurial spirit of the traders was not fazed by attempts to explain

58  Rainbow Rising Over Europe the Rainbow’s non-commercial principles, and the Family learned that some Rainbows did not mind the opportunity either: the sales of sausages, beer, Coca-Cola, and popcorn were brisk. Another collision with mainstream society came in the form of Polish punks and drug addicts who were drawn in by rumours of partying and drug use in the Gathering. My informant remembers how some young addicts were asked to stay in the parking place while under the influence41. The Vision Council in Poland 1992 experienced a new situation: the European Rainbow Family was growing, and two strong invitations were brought into the Council, one to Italy and another to Ireland. Both gained support. A novel resolution was then voiced by one of my informants, JeanFrançois Henry, who suggested that the following year could have two European Rainbow Gatherings: one in springtime, in Italy, and another later in the summer in Ireland. The Council formed a consensus following this proposition and announced to have two Gatherings in the coming year42. The 1993 Spring Gathering was held in Italy, in the same location as the 3rd European Gathering – in the scenic waterfalls of Acquacheta. Following that in the height of summer, the European Rainbow Gathering proper was organized in the townland43 of Ballyhuppahane, Laois County, in the Slieve Bloom Mountains of central Ireland. The site was said to be an ancient meeting place of the Celtic tribes, close to the village of Rosenallis. This was the first European Gathering in the British Isles, and even though the weather was at times rainy, this produced intermittent rainbows in the sky, which was received as a series of positive signs by the Family. Curious locals were seen walking the campgrounds every Sunday in their Sunday fineries, and the camp was visited by local Irish music groups44. My informant described the Vision Council in Ireland as an exciting event where pacifist themes were central. In 1993, the Balkan War was raging on and many in the Family had a heavy awareness of the matter. A woman from Slovenia spoke up and urged the Council: “Balkan region needs the Rainbow. It needs peace”. On the following day, when the Council continued its discussion, a participant talked about an idea for a Peace Walk Caravan, a mobile peace demonstration that would travel from Ireland to the next Gathering. Another participant shared a dream they had the previous night: in the dream, a sweeping rainbow stretched from Ireland to the Balkans. The vision of a Europe-spanning rainbow seemed to correspond to the idea of a Peace Walk, and it also indicated the Balkan region. All of this inspired the Vision Council, and soon a decision was made to have the next Gathering in Slovenia. My interviewee describes how the Council ended: as the consensus was declared, someone outside shouted an excited “Rainbow!” and the whole Council Circle got out to admire a prominent rainbow up in the sky, which was immediately seen as a confirmation of their decision. The camp took this as a grand display of connection with the Universe and responded by singing and chanting Shiva Shambho45 and with an impromptu dance party that went on for hours. The Peace Walk was

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 59 realized as well: a group of 20 people including adults and children from various countries made the journey from Ireland to Slovenia46. Stories of mystical and miraculous events and especially of communion with nature are frequent in Rainbow culture. Many times, like here, the events are interpreted by the Family as a sign of connection and unity with nature, or with the whole cosmos, in a way that validates the Rainbow Family, their Gatherings, and the mission of healing the planet and the human society. Peace and Love in the Ex-Socialist Countries The year 1993 brings us to the close of the first 10 years of Rainbow Gatherings in Europe, and the themes and challenges typical for the Rainbow movement were already visible. For the participants, the Gatherings are coloured by experiences of connection with nature and likeminded people and participating in the creation of an alternative community. The prevalent themes are aligned with Rainbow culture in the US: grass-roots social, political, and environmental activism pursuing alternatives to modern society, by reaching beyond nationalism, capitalism, and mainstream forms of religion. Certain differences between Europe and the US brought also new features into Rainbow culture. In Europe, the Family consisted of various nationalities speaking multiple languages and organizing a Gathering in different European countries involved different kinds of localized challenges. The most obvious European idiosyncrasies were related to the political situation in the 1990s: the end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Eastern Bloc, and their political and cultural repercussions. The 1994 European Gathering was held in war-ravaged Slovenia, during the Yugoslav Wars. There were numerous people displaced by war in several refugee camps around the country, and Rainbows sent their usual multicoloured delegations around the refugee camps “to spread joy and hope and an invitation to the Rainbow”47. The Gathering site was close to the Croatian border, in the Dragonja River valley. In addition to the political situation, nature experiences related to the campsite were reportedly experienced as memorable48. The name of the place meant ‘where the waters disappear’, as the karstic ground was very porous causing a stream to disappear into a hole near the Main Circle. The air was very moist, and the nights were misty. The Main Circle was in this depression that filled with mist so thick that you could not see for more than a few meters49. The Gathering was smaller than the previous years’ event in Ireland, but there were numerous people from ex-communist countries. The Vision Council was presented with an invitation for the Rainbow to come to the newly formed Czech Republic and increasing amounts of participants from the East seemed like a good reason to make the Gathering accessible to them50.

60  Rainbow Rising Over Europe The 1995 Czech Gathering was located close to the Austrian border, south of Budejovice (Budweis). The camp was in the Novohradské mountains, near the peak of Novohradske Hory and close to the village of Pohorská Ves. Václav Pecl, a Czech ethnology student at the time wrote his 2006 Bachelor’s thesis on the Rainbow Family in the Czech Republic, and his interviewees provided him with historical accounts. Pecl’s interviews offer an additional view into processes of localization within the frame of a transnational countercultural movement – such as the formation of a local subgroup, in this case, the Czech Rainbow Family. Another interesting and noteworthy piece of information found in these interviews is the mention that Stanislav Grof, one of the founders of transpersonal psychology, a noted researcher of non-ordinary states of consciousness and a promoter of psychedelic drug use in ritual, is reported to have visited the Czech Rainbow Gathering in 199551. According to Pecl’s interviews of Czech Rainbow participants conducted in 2006, the 1995 Gathering had a minority of Czech people until it became shown in the TV news, which caused a surge of curious, if illinformed Czechs flowing in to see the “Hippie Festival”, many of them bringing alcohol with them. The Gathering held as estimated 3500 people, and although the Czech Rainbows were a diffuse group in the beginning of the Gathering, they had formed into an enthusiastic Czech Rainbow Family by the end of it and organized their first local Czech Rainbow get-together directly after the European Gathering. This first “national” event in Czech went on from September to October in 1995 in an old quarry close to the Řip mountain with an estimated 200 people, and the Czech Family began to have their local Gatherings, first every second year and then annually. This is a typical example of the formation of local Rainbow activity52 . In the Czech Republic, the Vision Council decided to have the Gathering in Portugal the following year, perhaps as a reaction to the night frosts and crispy weather of the Novohradske mountains. In Portugal, the Scouts had found a suitable campsite in the northern part of the country, at Campo da Maçã close to the village of Salto in Montalegre/Trás-os-Montes53. The Gathering was on private land, but the local police began to stop and check Rainbow participants on their way into the event. As a participant recounts: Sometimes though, our essential freedom to gather in nature must be defended by an old-fashioned knight. In the European Rainbow in Portugal in 1996, the land used for the Gathering belonged to a farmer who used to ride in every day on a white stallion to see how things were going, quite delighted to see so many colourful people on his hill. So when word reached him that the police were stopping and searching everyone on their way to the village, he took matters into his own hand. Riding into town he reminded the police that not only was the Rainbow Gathering situated on his land, but so were many properties in the village – including the police station. Let the hippies be, he advised, or find yourselves evicted…54

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 61 The Rainbow camp in Campo da Maçã was established already in May, beginning as a small Scout camp, growing into the Seed camp and then to the Gathering proper, and the last Rainbows finally left after the Clean-up was over, in August. This long of a period is not uncommon, when it is possible for a small camp to stay longer on the location. The Vision Council in Portugal was presented with two propositions that seemed equally strong: Scotland and Greece. Encouraged by the previous experience of successfully organizing two separate events in the case of two options with strong support, the Council declared that one Gathering would be held in Scotland, and later in the summer, another one in Greece55. The first European Rainbow Gathering in 1997 was held in Galloway Valley close to the village of Dalmellington and Loch Doon, in a place which was told to be an age-old meeting place of the Scottish tribes. A Rainbow Caravan from Scotland to Greece was organized, with meeting points announced along the way. The second Gathering was at Mount Paiko, in the Macedonian mountains north-west from Thessaloniki. The growing Russian Rainbow Family was well represented, and their invitation for next year’s Gathering was accepted in the Vision Council56. The European Rainbow Gathering of 1998 in Russia is still talked about among the European Rainbow Family and the story of the violent police raid and evacuation that happened is becoming a Rainbow legend of a kind. The Russian Family had already organized smaller local Rainbow Gatherings in Russia, but this time the size of the event and the wide international participation made it impossible to maintain a low profile. Foreign travellers were entering the country and heading for the site close to the village of Mshinskaya, south of St Petersburg, and all this attracted the attention of the authorities57. The Gathering was taken down four days before its end in a harsh police campaign including the local police and the infamous OMON – the Defence Ministry’s special forces – after a full evacuation of the site was ordered. The police had first entered the camp in plain clothes and filmed a video that was used in later proceedings as evidence. According to the press, the video contained only referential evidence of any illegal activities such as images of somebody smoking a hand-rolled cigarette, but ample evidence of many female participants’ physiques58. Russian media took different views – Pravda wrote about the lack of permits and insinuations about illicit use of psychoactive mushrooms and other drugs, while the St Petersburg Times criticized the police for excessive use of force59. Some Gathering participants were reportedly arrested and spent time in jail, and a group of 30 children who were not accompanied by their parents at the moment, were detained. The children were taken to a juvenile detention centre in St Petersburg, where the parents had to go with their identification and travel documents to be reunited with their children. Although many foreign Rainbows decided to leave the country at this point, the rest of the Family managed to regroup in a more inaccessible location near Tver60.

62  Rainbow Rising Over Europe Rainbow Gatherings have frequently a difficult relationship with the local authorities. Often permits are demanded, and threats are made to evacuate the Gathering by force. It is also usual for the Rainbow Family to take a calculated risk and trust that the threats of evacuation will not be enforced when a critical mass has been reached with the population and the evacuation scheme is realized to be too expensive, too risky, or guaranteed to cause unwanted publicity. The Russian raid of 1998 remains the worst example of conflict between the Rainbow Family in Europe and the local authorities. The following Gathering in 1999 was organized in Hungary. The event was located on the path of the total solar eclipse that crossed mainland Europe on 11 August 1999. The campsite in Bakony Hills, near the town of Bakonybél, was close to the centreline of the eclipse’s path and fully inside the so-called “totality” of the eclipse (the area where the eclipse is seen at its fullest), and as solar eclipses happen simultaneously with the new moon, the Gathering had an impressive cosmic “double feature” as an attraction. According to informants, the eclipse and different spiritual ideas connected to it held central attention in this Gathering, and specific rituals were conducted during the eclipse. This European Rainbow was one of the biggest of all times, drawing in up to 5000 people. One factor increasing the amount of people was a big electronic dance music festival that was organized in the same region. The festival was called Solipse, as it also celebrated the solar eclipse, and this Hungarian festival later changed its name and developed into one of the biggest transformational EDM festivals in Europe, known today as Ozora. Many in the Solipse were interested in the Rainbow Gathering, and hundreds arrived at the Rainbow directly after the festival ended. Some Rainbows regarded this big first-timer group of festivalgoers in the Gathering as a chaotic influence, though many of the Solipse crowd became longtime members of the Rainbow Family61. The Hungarian Rainbow Gathering of 1999 exemplifies the importance that the Rainbow Family puts on natural cycles, as many alternative-holistic spiritual traditions do. The European Family has been following moon cycles with their Gatherings since the beginning, and phenomena like equinoxes, solstices, eclipses, and other astrological events are observed as well. Although the Rainbow, again like other alternative-spiritual groups, claims to respect and follow ancient traditions, it is more accurate to talk about reinterpretations and reappropriations of older traditions mixed in with more novel ideas and practices. Traditionally, for example solar eclipses were often seen as dangerous disruptions of the established order, whereas many contemporary spiritual traditions interpret them as auspicious moments of connection to cosmic forces. More insight into the contemporary religious significance of solar eclipses can be found in Graham St John’s work on EDM culture and eclipse festivals62 . The European Rainbow Gathering in 2000 was in Romania, close to the village of Tazlău in the Eastern Carpathians. A story from the European

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 63 Gathering in Romania illustrates how sometimes the local law enforcement can also act as an ally: In fact, as faceless and uncaring the authorities are often viewed by those who live an alternative way of life, they’re often quite a bit more human than we might take them for. Consider the European Rainbow in Romania when local TV reported a ‘free love fest’ in the hills and cars of Romanians began turning up to party. The police heard of this development and, learning that alcohol was forbidden in the Rainbow, they began to stop all vehicles driving towards the site and turned back those arriving with bottles of beer and wine63. In 2001, the event was in Croatia, close to the village of Mazin in Zadar County. The following year the Rainbow went to Italy again, and the camp was close to Modena in the mountains west of Riolunato. The 2002 European Rainbow Gathering in Italy provides another example of Rainbow’s varying relations with the local community, showing how the Gathering and its participants can be well received. The local reaction can vary from extreme indignation to a warm welcome, and usually the reception is more positive when the camp itself is remote enough to not become a disturbance. The Gathering in Italy was deep in the mountains and took a one-and-a-half-hour hike to reach, at an altitude of 1400m. According to news articles about the Gathering, the locals were impressed and approving, including the Mayor who paid a visit to the camp64. “More than peace, the desolation will return – says Livio Migliori, Mayor of Riolunato – because during this month they did not cause any trouble, I would even say that they were an example for all of us of what should be the respect of nature and the whole environment”. There are 2000 hippies still up there, but their number has peaked around 5,000 during the week of mid-August, with representatives from nearly 70 nations and all five continents. “There are still newcomers, especially Italians and French. Everything is going well at the camp, I keep in constant contact with them, sometimes phoning them several times a day, I would say that I am fond of it – continues the mayor – it was a very nice experience for the whole village, as the party last Saturday night in the square has proved: there were fire shows and we ate together the ‘crescentines’, and when all was over, the young people cleaned from the first to the last paper which, to tell the truth, I have never seen done by our own villagers; usually after every village festival, I always have to call a company to clean the streets”.65 Mayor Migliori mentions “the party in the square”, which refers to a Rainbow custom of organizing a public celebration in one of the nearby villages, aimed at creating positive relations with the local community.

64  Rainbow Rising Over Europe The Family usually presents a ragtag group of Rainbows performing their various talents in music, dance, and juggling as well as ubiquitous Rainbow songs accompanied by drummers, guitarists, and what have you. Mostly the party is received well by the locals, ranging from mild curiosity to merry participation, but I have witnessed harsher reactions as well. Sometimes free-spirited Rainbows forget that they are not dancing around their Sacred Fire, provoking reprehension – like the stern older gentleman 2011 in Portugal, who reminded a Rainbow brother to keep some clothes on in public, by confiscating the hapless merrymaker’s hula-hoop and flogging him with its badly twisted form. The 20th European Rainbow Gathering was organized in the French Pyrenees, close to the village of Mijanès and the Refuge du Laurenti in 2003, with approximately 3000 people in the Gathering around the Full Moon. The 2004 Gathering happened in Bulgaria, at a place known as the Bashish Meadow, close to the village of Buinovo in the southern part of the country, and the 2005 Gathering was in Germany, close to Hohe Löhr mountain peak in the district of Oberkatz. In 2006, the Gathering was envisioned to be in England. As often is the case, the Scouting took a longer time than expected and in July a Scout Council was held on the Glastonbury Tor. The Tor is a sandstone hill near the town of Glastonbury in Somerset, England, which has been known as a site of worship since prehistoric times. It is mentioned in Celtic mythology and featured in religious and mythological traditions ranging from ancient times to the modern. The example illustrates how Rainbow’s choice of location is frequently based on myth and folklore. As has been described, locations known as “special places” are appreciated – places of noted natural beauty, presumed ancient settlements, meeting points, ritual locations, or sites known as “places of power” in traditional or contemporary folklore. Glastonbury is a specifically rich example. Glastonbury forms an important alternative-holistic spiritual centre in addition to more traditional religious associations66. It is a great example of the overlap and cross-fertilization of alternative religious forms, as Glastonbury has the focus of a wide variety of contemporary and traditional forms of religion and subculture. Glastonbury has the ruins of a medieval Abbey. The Tor has been connected to Avalon of the Arthurian legend and called a gateway to the kingdom of fairies or of the dead. Local lore claims that the town of Glastonbury is the site of the first Christian church in the British Isles, founded by Joseph of Arimathea, and that Jesus himself visited the place as a young boy to be educated by the ancient Druids. There are also widely known claims that the town is the location of King Arthur’s and Queen Guinevere’s graves, and (at least a temporary) holding place of the Ark of the Covenant and of the Holy Grail! In more recent lore, the town and its surroundings are seen as a prominent place in a network of ley lines and earth energies, and the Tor is explained to be a Neolithic shrine in the form of a giant labyrinthine pathway circulating

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 65 the hillside and linked to a vast network of both ancient “places of power” and places of worship of different ages within the surrounding landscape. The town is also prominent in Goddess worship, Neodruidry, and other alternative-holistic traditions. In addition to Pagan and Christian traditions both old and new, Glastonbury and its surroundings frequently attract crop circle and UFO enthusiasts, as the region has frequent sightings of both67. On the Tor, the English Rainbow Family debated their options for a Gathering location, and finally decided on a site near Threshfield in Yorkshire. The final location of the Yorkshire camp exemplifies another common feature of Gathering locations: needing to juggle between the demands of being remote enough but still accessible, and providing essential resources like shelter from the elements, potable water, and firewood. In Yorkshire, the campsite was on open moorlands, and the lack of firewood combined with cold and rainy weather made this Gathering reportedly an arduous one. From 2007 to 2009, the European Rainbow Gathering was organized in Eastern Europe. The 2007 event was close to the villages of Preodac and Tice in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the following year, the Gathering was held in Serbia, close to the village of Zlot and the Lazar Canyon in the municipality of Bor. The canyon is known for its beauty and rare flora and fauna, representing another “special place” on the Rainbow map. The next year’s event was in the Carpathian Mountains, close to the village of Lyuta between L’viv and Uzhorod in the Transcarpathian region in Ukraine. After this, the European Rainbow was invited to Finland. European Rainbow Gathering in Finland 2010 The European Rainbow Gathering of 2010 was organized in Leppävirta, south of Kuopio in Northern Savonia, between 11 July and 10 August. The event had approximately 3000–3500 people present at the Full Moon celebration. This Gathering was the first Rainbow event where I had a chance to participate in the organizing of a large Gathering. I was involved with scouting in the spring of 2010 and took part in the focalisers’68 tasks and Council meetings during the event. The behind-the-scenes position was intriguing, even though at the time I was not yet doing fieldwork on Rainbow Gatherings. The Scouting began with a Rainbow Scout meeting, held within the Ting Family’s Easter get-together in April. Only two people besides me volunteered to join the Scouting efforts. We were already in a hurry as there were less than three months left, and northern parts of Finland were still covered with snow, making it difficult to access and view potential locations. During the following weeks, we mapped out our options. This involved asking people about possible locations and then assessing them, first by checking if the places filled the minimum requirements for a campsite: space for thousands of people, enough potable water and dry firewood,

66  Rainbow Rising Over Europe a large clearing for the Main Circle, possibilities for a large parking area nearby, and secluded enough to not cause disturbance, but still accessible for deliveries and emergency transports. The first assessments were done by talking to people familiar with suggested locations, and by looking at online maps. The next steps involved finding out about the ownership of the land in question, contacting the owners and then visiting the locations to verify the preliminary information and to get a feel of the place. We were also discussing the possibilities of occupying state-owned forest, as this was seen to be in accordance with the traditions of the US Rainbow Family. Our Scouting group of three was joined by a fourth person later in the spring, and we received some economical support in the form of advances to the Magic Hat from various Rainbow Family members in other countries, to cover part of the expenses of the Scouting journeys. One interesting side of the Scouting was the communications with various landowners. Finland has a lot of state-owned forest in addition to private forest owners and different forestry co-operations, and we approached them first by e-mail. We wrote an introductory text describing the Rainbow Family as an “international, family-oriented grass-roots peace movement organizing non-commercial events in nature”. Most of our communications were answered with outright refusals, with only a few landowners showing potential interest. Some of them required rent, with requested amounts ranging from a few thousand to tens of thousands of euros. Apparently, the idea of a non-commercial event organized with practically no initial capital was not readily understandable. While some landowners would not believe that there was no profit made with Rainbow Gatherings, the land management officials of Forest Administration demanded insurances, safety and sanitation plans, and legally binding contracts. At the same time, many places that would have been available to use did not meet the basic requirements. One challenge was the somewhat questionable image of Rainbow events that people might get by googling. Various online sources portray Rainbow events with a critical view: as illegally organized, harmful for nature and frequently causing disruptions and conflict with the local communities. Some of the more scathing online commentators focus on aspects like drug use, nudity and non-Christian spiritual traditions, and there are even stories involving rape, sexual harassment and gun violence originating with the massive National Rainbow Gatherings in the US. In addition to this, one member of our Scouting team is a practising Pagan sporting a highly personalized style of dress, involving black hooded capes, a long decorated wooden staff and fang-like dental implants, which did not always spark the most trustful of reactions. Several times we were met with a refusal to continue negotiations after a promising start, and the explanation given was that they had searched for information about the Rainbow Family and did not want to get involved. “We’re sorry, but we are Christians” one landowner told us.

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 67 Finally, the solution was found with private landowners who were extremely supportive of the Rainbow, even after being informed about the anarchic nature of Rainbow Family and the possible challenges a big Gathering could bring. This couple from Northern Savonia described themselves as “old hippies”, sharing stories from their travels in the 1960s and 1970s. “If we would have known about the Rainbow before, we would have gotten involved a long time ago!” The only compromise with their lands was that instead of a remote location in the wilderness that we had envisioned, the Gathering would be on agricultural land close to one of the biggest highways in Eastern Finland. But it was next to a lake, had a large field for the Main Circle and a piece of old forest to camp in, and most importantly, we were warmly welcome! On the night of the New Moon that starts the official Gathering, there were 100 to 200 people at the Gathering site, and we held the customary First Fire Ceremony, where the Main Fire gets lit for the first time. Our gracious hosts took part in the ritual and seemed pleased about the experience. But early the next morning, the local police were knocking on their door. The Main Fire had been spotted from a passing fire patrol plane, and the police had been informed. At the time, most of Finland was under a complete fire ban due to prolonged dry weather, and absolutely no open fires were allowed. The police were told that there were roughly 200 people present – but not that there could be thousands more in a week. At this point, we were informed of being in violation of several laws regarding large events, private and non-commercial or not, and that we could expect to hear from the county officials soon. We had hoped for reaching a bigger population before being discovered, as this was thought to give leverage in possible permit negotiations. The Family discussed the situation in a Focalisers’ Council and in Rainbow style, decided to send a delegation to discuss with the officials. In that meeting, the delegation was told that all events had to comply with legislation when the population was large enough. The delegation was presented with the requirements for obtaining an event permit: a list of safety and sanitation regulations regarding food, toilets, and fire use, an obligatory event organizer’s insurance, and binding agreements be signed by legal entities. The delegation explained that the conditions would be difficult to fulfil, and besides, what could the officials really do to enforce this? The local chief of police calmly explained that they have the right to forcibly evacuate, despite the landowners’ wishes, and to get reinforcements from the Finnish Army if needed! Since hundreds of people were already at the location, the county promised to be as lenient as possible if the Rainbows tried their best to get a permit. The Family then had a Council Meeting in the camp, which concluded that we would indeed try to fulfil the requirements and to have a great Gathering. Teams were established to tackle the safety and sanitation issues and to obtain the insurance, and people even volunteered to sign the

68  Rainbow Rising Over Europe needed contracts. After a couple of days, the county sent their fire- and sanitation inspectors into the camp, accompanied by the police. The inspectors arrived early in the morning, which worked in the Rainbows’ advantage. At this hour, most of the people out and about were mothers and fathers with young children, and the morning crew in the kitchen. The fire inspector was happy with what he saw: barrels of water standing in the camping areas and close to the Main Fire, gas burners instead of open fires in the kitchen, and a large safety perimeter around the Main Fire, stripped to the bare ground. The food and sanitation inspector was concerned about the lack of cold storage until he was told that the camp is vegan. He thought the Rainbow way of using vinegar for disinfection was passable. We were told that the slit trench type of toilets did not comply with regulations, but we insisted that the Army used the same thing, and somehow got away with this. Finally, a permit was granted. After a week, the Finnish media got interested. All kinds of reporters showed up, from tabloids to upstanding newspapers as well as the TV news. Some were respectful, but others less so. The tabloids published photos of nude Rainbows taken without permission and topped their articles with headlines such as “Naked women rolling on top of men!” which apparently described some form of a bodywork workshop. One afternoon, a helicopter appeared to circle the camp. Later, people reported seeing the footage in television – they had chosen to show people swimming nude in the lake. The media’s attention was on the nudity, and the unconventionality of it all, and the local chief of police was interviewed for a comment. He stated that as far as the police was concerned, an event without alcohol, theft, and violence was a great thing. The Recent Years – and the Rainbow Disaster of 2016 In the year 2011, the European Rainbow Gathering was organized in Portugal again, on the same hill as the European Gathering of 1996, in Serra da Maçã, close to the village of Salto in Montalegre69. The next European Rainbow was again in the East, close to the village of Lukovistia, north of Rimavská Sobota in Slovakia. The Vision Council in Slovakia made a consensus on organizing the next European Gathering in Greece, and so the 2013 Gathering was in the region of Western Macedonia, at lake Arrenon close to the village of Pefkofito. In the following year, the Gathering was close to Săcuieu village west of Cluj-Napoca in Romania. In Romania, the Vision Council came to the decision that the next European Gathering will be in the Baltic countries, leaving the exact location to be decided by the Baltic Rainbow Families. Finally, a location was found in Lithuania, close to the village of Zarasai. The Vision Council decided again on a region – the Alps – instead of a country, but this time the Scouting process encountered major problems.

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 69 The decision was made on a bioregion, and a big one at that, but this time the several local Rainbow Families in the area were left to manage an open-ended situation among disconnected communications and differing views. As usual, the dates of the Gathering were already decided in the Vision Council and announced to the Family in the previous years’ European Gathering. The Gathering in 2016 was supposed to start on the 2 August and end on the 1 September. There were Scouting efforts in different Alpine countries during the spring, possible locations were found and discussed, but many of those finally turned out to be too expensive, not available, or not suitable for a large Gathering after all. When all the good options fell through, and it was already mid-July, the Scouts in Austria decided on a beautiful valley close to the village of Wildalpen, and the Seed Camp was declared to begin. But the Seed Campers were soon told by the local police and the Mayor’s office that it would be impossible to gather in that valley, as the place was on an environmentally protected area. Scouts were sent out again, to Switzerland, Italy, and other regions in Austria. Finally, with the start of the Gathering right around the corner, and people on the Rainbow forums, newsgroups and social media demanding to know where to go, a possible site was found. A monastery next to the ski-centre of Kaiserau, close to Admont in central Austria, was willing to rent their lands to the Rainbow Family. This was reasonably close to the first Seed Camp site and there were only a few days left before the Gathering was supposed to start, so the Scouts hastily agreed and new invitations were published online. As the Family began to arrive on location, there was another setback: the land use permit was revoked. According to participants, the reason given was that hunters who paid for hunting rights on adjoining lands had complained, and the monastery was withdrawing its agreement with the Rainbows. It did not sway their decision that there were already hundreds of people on site, and more on their way. The law is on the landowners’ side, the Hippies were told. Respect for the law in these cases is a complex issue among the Rainbows. Firstly, many gatherers are critical of restricting access to natural areas. Secondly, the Family has successfully resorted to civil disobedience in disputes over land use and the right to gather. When the landowners in Kaiserau were informed that it would not be simple, easy, or fast to get everybody to leave the location, especially as there was no idea of a substitutive place yet, they decided to involve the Austrian police. As a commentator describes: Police vans made their way up the valley and formed a long, imposing line. We made a large, powerful circle and began to sing! We are one in harmony! And lo and behold the police backed down! The Great Spirit had won!70

70  Rainbow Rising Over Europe When I arrived to begin my fieldwork, the police had informed the camp that an evacuation would start the next day. But was this just another empty threat? Some had their doubts as the police said we still had to leave. A stream of the more law-abiding made their way out of the valley that night. The next morning I got out of my tent up on the hill to see a stream of 110 police officers marching up the valley road like a train of blue ants. They’d come before our morning coffee! How low could they go? The helicopter duly arrived for psychological effect and though we tried to form another singing circle, we all knew it was over. One brother lay down on the ground and refused to move and so the cops just picked him up to carry him away. Rainbow sisters surrounded them in a protective circle. Female cops broke them apart. It was as though the Austrian police force had a page in their training manual for how to deal with a hippie invasion. From there the Rainbow splintered into 3 or 4 refugee camps around Austria. Chaos reigned. We were on TV and in the newspapers, of course. Would someone see our plight and offer us a magical location?71 Bringing all our equipment back down to the Rainbow parking, I noticed a new feature next to the small café and restaurant belonging to the ski-centre – a small field hospital had been erected in the early hours by the local Red Cross. I went to interview the personnel of the field hospital, who explained that the hospital was a part of the evacuation operation, and its purpose was to minimize the impact of possible violence between the police and the “protesters”. I asked them if they knew that the Gatherings supported non-violence and broad resistance was not likely, to which they explained that the procedure was formed with the experience of evacuating radical environmentalists and that those occasions had often turned violent. The scale of the evacuation process with the numerous police officers, dogs, a helicopter, a field hospital, and the fact that all of this happened on a Sunday, was seen by the Rainbows as total overkill and a sign of the insanity and aggression of Babylon (what Rainbows call the outside world). Why were they ready to spend unimaginable amounts of state money to forcefully expunge a group of peaceful people guilty of nothing more than trespassing? The Family was scrambling to find suitable locations for the hundreds of “Rainbow refugees” to camp in while the Scouts were looking around for any site big enough that could be available in a moment’s notice. At this point, an Italian Rainbow focaliser suggested a location that had served a small regional Rainbow Gathering some years back. The site was along a river forming a part of the border between Italy and Slovenia, close to the

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 71 village of Melina, and it was available. The place was announced to the scattered Family as a “provisional safe haven”, as it was deemed to be too small for an actual European Gathering. Finally, as days passed, more and more Rainbows arrived at the site, and the Scouting missions proved to be futile, the location meant to be provisional became the final Gathering site despite being impossibly small72 . Deciding on a region instead of a country was supposed to transcend nationalities and state borders, and it had worked before. The previous Gathering was consensed to be “in the Baltics”, and the Baltic Rainbow Families took the task from there and succeeded. But this time, perhaps because of the size of the Alps bioregion, the different local Families and Scout groups were mainly communicating in a closed Facebook group instead of meeting face to face and building familiarity and mutual trust, and the project suffered. But willing to learn from the experience, the Vision Council in Melina had a refreshed attitude. The Council focused on making the best possible decisions for finding a site that could serve the next Gathering as well as possible, and for securing a location in time. A consensus was made to gather in Italy the following year73. The European Rainbow Gathering of 2017 was in the Tramontina valley close to the village of Tramonti di Sopra in the Friulian Dolomites. Following the highest Rainbow ideals, the valley was secluded, large, and unspoilt by Babylon. The valley was completely inaccessible by car, and the path was close to 10 kilometres long with steep inclinations. A big distance like this creates a bargain situation for the Gathering community: on one hand, transporting supplies into the camp becomes exceedingly taxing – a large Gathering can consume hundreds of kilos of food supplies per day. But on the other hand, the event will attract considerably less outside attention from local officials, media, and curious onlookers, which is considered beneficial for the Gathering’s “vibe”. The Tramonti Gathering was regarded a successful one, but finally had a big challenge with transporting the garbage out in the end74. The European Rainbow Gathering in 2018 was held in Poland, in the southeastern part of the country, close to the village of Moszczaniec. The 2019 Gathering location was in the north of Sweden, close to the Arctic Circle, and the event was heavily involved with a local environmental campaign against excessive mining rights. The 2020 European Rainbow Gathering in Estonia was cancelled by authorities amidst the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions on large events, but finally, the camp was relocated after health officials tested everybody for the virus. The population came to only 120 people. The 2021 European Gathering in France had considerable challenges in finding a location and was finally held, despite and in violation of pandemic regulations, in the same location close to Mijanès as in 2003. Thousands of gatherers convened in the middle of the pandemic, with estimates ranging from 3000 to 4500 people over the Full Moon.

72  Rainbow Rising Over Europe

Local and Regional Gatherings in Europe The European Rainbow Family was growing rapidly in the 1990s, bringing about the formation of local and regional Rainbow groups, which began to organize additional Gathering events. Smaller Rainbow events are popular, appreciated for their intimacy and fewer challenges overall, and in Europe many local Gatherings have fast become an annual or even biannual tradition. The local Rainbow groups and events have been formed both based on a common region and on a common language, often surpassing national borders. The same tendency to reach beyond nations and modern states and to honour “ancient European tribes” can be seen in the trend to name Rainbow events with historical names like Lusitanian, Iberian or Hellenic. In Europe, Rainbow events are named differently from the US, where National Gathering refers to the big annual Gathering in July, and smaller, more local events are called Regionals, following the environmental concept of bioregionalism. In Europe, amidst all the different countries and multiple languages, the local events have been formed based on a common language, ecological or geographical region, or simply as “national” events of a certain country. The logics of naming Rainbow events also vary. For example, a “French” Gathering might indicate that the event is Francophone, or that it is organized by the French Rainbow Family, or that the location is in France, or all the above. Evidently, local Rainbow events in Europe began to be organized in the early 1990s, but exact information about locations and dates has been difficult to come by. The first local event described in my materials was a Russian Gathering in 1993, but there are mentions of at least one earlier event in Russia. The 1993 camp was in Kyasnyaselka (Käsnäselkä), Karelia. The dissolution of Soviet Union in the end of 1991 had freed the people to openly practice their faiths, to travel in the Western countries, and to exercise their intellectual and spiritual curiosities, and the ex-communist countries experienced a surge of manifest religiosity75. Alternative forms of spirituality did not have to stay underground anymore, and it became possible to organize a low-key event like a small Gathering in the woods. The same development is seen in other ex-communist countries and is clearly reflected in the history of Rainbow Gatherings in Europe. There was a small Rainbow meeting at Preveli Beach in Crete in the October of 1993, and in 1994 there was a local Gathering in Castletownshend, Ireland (close to “The Fingers”, a pre-Christian stone alignment). In 1995 there were already several Rainbow full moon meetings and small, weekend-long Rainbow Gatherings in Germany, Slovenia, and Ireland, as well as a two-week Gathering in Russia. There are two Rainbow-affiliated websites including archival sections on past Gatherings, which only start recording European events from the year 1995, so my information can well be missing some Rainbow events held in the early 90s76.

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 73 1995 was also the first French Rainbow in the Pyrenees, at 1800m altitude. There were French speakers from France, Belgium, and Switzerland in majority. The Family had nice relations with the locals, even the Mayor came for a visit. He saw how well the place was kept and welcomed everybody back, at any time. The next year’s French Gathering did not have a welcoming place, so the Gathering was moved back to this first place77. The first Gathering in Portugal is reported to have happened in 1996, in Serra da Estrela, close to Famalicão. The event was month-long, from March to April in the spring before the European Rainbow Gathering was due to be in Portugal. Martín Gómez-Ullate García de León, a Spanish anthropologist, was researching Spanish alternative communities at the time, and he ended up doing a considerable amount of fieldwork in Rainbow events. His following observation is characteristic of the formation of local Rainbow groups and the logics of distinguishing and naming them: In Spain, the first rainbow was held in 1987, so when I started my fieldwork there was more or less a consolidated Spanish rainbow ‘family’, formed mainly by inhabitants of the alternative settlements I was visiting in my field itinerary. But, looking now with a bit of historical perspective, I realize that I have been a witness and part of the birth of the movement in Portugal, in the Rainbow of the Serra da Estrela in 1996, of the formation of the Portuguese “family”, of how they have spontaneously become Iberian (that is, Portuguese-Spanish), usually holding a meeting or two a year to which rainbows come from both sides of the border78. The event seems to have been organized in anticipation with the upcoming European Gathering in Portugal, kick-starting the local Family, who soon found out that their local Gatherings are in practice, hosted and attended by both Portuguese and Spanish people, and wanted to reflect this with their name. First mention of a “Healing Rainbow Gathering” in Europe is from 1997, when one was announced in Acquacheta, Italy79. As explained, the “Healing” moniker signifies that the event has a pronounced focus on physical and spiritual healing practices, and an expectation of collective abstinence from addictive substances. There are usually several Healing Gatherings per year in Europe at present. The European Rainbow Families have various regional Gathering traditions where the organization and resources are shared with neighbouring countries. A tradition of “Balkan Rainbow Gatherings” has flourished since 2010 in Macedonia, Croatia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, and Serbia, the Baltic countries have held “Baltic Rainbow Gatherings” intermittently since 2011, regional Rainbow Gatherings have been happening in the

74  Rainbow Rising Over Europe Canary Islands since 2008, in addition to numerous other regional examples. Further, some Rainbow-affiliated networks in Europe organize their own activities, including Gatherings operating on principles and practices similar to the Rainbow, which do not place themselves under the Rainbow Family banner. It would not be accurate to describe them as splinter groups, as their activities are mostly parallel and complementary the Rainbow. Many are developments of local Rainbow Families who decided to deviate from some of the Rainbow principles, usually to rather have a preplanned program, or fixed pricing instead of voluntary donations. For example, a network called The Rainbow Circle has organized themed camps in the UK since 1988, separately from Rainbow Gatherings, but operating with much of the same principles and, at times, participating in Rainbow Gatherings as one of the local Rainbow groups80. The Rainbows in the UK call themselves the W.I.S.E. (Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England) Islands Rainbow Family. There are also overlapping networks that were active before the Rainbow Gatherings arrived in Europe, like the Ting-Meetings in Scandinavia, and various Neopagan, squatter, and environmentalist groups around Europe. Local and regional Gathering traditions in Europe began in the 1990s, first in the Western and Central European countries, and then in the East. In the next decade they continued to proliferate. In the year 2000 there were 14 different smaller Rainbow events in European countries (counting western part of Russia but not Israel) in addition to the “European Rainbow Gathering” in Romania. A decade later, in 2010 there were 40. Most recently, countries like Lithuania (2009), Moldova (2010), Belarus (2010), Cyprus (2012) and Albania (2017) have had their first local Rainbow Gatherings.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Interview: U.F. Green 1986, also Noschis 2011, Schwab 2003. Interview: U.F., Monteverita.org. Monteverita.org., also Schwab & Lafranchi 2001. Buenfil 1991, 146. Interview: U.F. Interview: U.F. Buenfil 1991, 147. Interview: U.F. Buenfil 1991, 147, Interview: U.F. Buenfil 1991, 147. Interview: U.F., Buenfil 1991, 147. Interviews: U.F., J.H., H.Q. Inferno, XVI, 94–102. Interview: J.H., U.F. Buenfil 1991, 148. Buenfil 1991, 148. Buenfil 1991, 149. Interview: J.H.

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 75 0 Interview: J.H. 2 21 Interview: J.H. 22 Interview: J.H. 23 Interview: J.H. 24 Buenfil 1991, Interview: J.H. 25 Buenfil 1991, 149–150, Interview: J.H. 26 Escolar 1984. 27 Alvárez et al. 2015, Interview: J.H., Tingets.net. 28 Cid & Fadón 2014. 29 Interview: J.H., Beck 2017, Fig. 109. 30 Interviews: B.A., J.H., Tingets.net. 31 Norway, 1989 n.d., Interview: B.A. 32 Circleway.org. 33 Interviews: J.H., B.A. 34 García de León 2004. 35 Interviews: J.H., B.A. 36 Interview: J.H., Austria, 1990 n.d. 37 Potaczala 2015, Austria ‘90 n.d., Interviews: J.H., B.A. 38 Potaczala 2015. 39 Poland, 1991 n.d., Potaczala 2015, Interview: J.H. 40 Potaczala 2015. 41 Potaczala 2015, Interview: J.H. 42 Interview: J.H. 43 Townland is a geographical division of land used in Ireland. 44 Interview: J.H. 45 A Sanskrit mantra and a devotional song (Bhajan) popular in the Rainbow. 46 Interview: J.H. 47 Interview: J.H. 48 1994 Slovenia Rainbow Gathering. 49 Interview: J.H. 50 Interview: J.H. 51 Pecl 2006. 52 Pecl 2006. 53 Himmel 2011. 54 Thumb 2014, 46. 55 International Calendar of Events 1997, Interview: J.H. 56 Welcomehome.org, European Rainbow Newsletter 1/97 1997, Interview: J.H. 57 Rainbowforum.net. 58 Lagnado 1998. 59 Pravda 1998, Lagnado 1998. 60 Interview: J.H., Lagnado 1998, Rainbowforum.net. 61 Interview: J.H. 62 St John 2012, 2013. 63 Thumb 2014, 44. 64 Barbi 2002, Articles presse italienne 08/2002 n.d. 65 Barbi 2002, translated from Italian. 66 See Bowman 2013, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2000. 67 Bowman 2013, 2009, 2008, 2005, 2004, Michell 1990, Mann 2001, Miller & Broadhurst 1990. 68 A focaliser is a Rainbow term for a coordinator or a facilitator. 69 Article about the event, in Portuguese: Himmel 2011. 70 Thumb 2016 71 Thumb 2016. 72 Thumb 2016.

76  Rainbow Rising Over Europe 3 Thumb 2016. 7 74 According to unverified information, a helicopter was hired to transport a large amount of trash out. 75 Vorontsova & Filatov 1994. 76 Welcomehome.org, Rainbow Gatherings in Europe, summer 1995 n.d. 77 Interview: J.H. 78 García de León 2004, 171. Translated from Spanish. 79 International Calendar of Events 1997. 80 Rainbow Circle n.d.

References Alvárez, Leoncio, Morala, Toño, Magallón, Santigo R. and Pinto, Ramiro 2015: Diego Segura. Diario de León [online], January 21. Available at: http://www. diariodeleon.es/noticias/opinion/diego-segura_950928.html. Accessed 12.2.2018. Articles presse italienne 08/2002 n.d.: Frenchrainbow.free.fr. Available at: http:// frenchrainbow.free.fr/idees/textes/articles/italie/articles.html. Accessed 10.4.2018. Austria, 1990 n.d.: Welcomehome.org. Available at: https://www.welcomehome. org/graphics/austria90/austria90.html. Accessed 23.2.2018. Austria ‘90 n.d.: Keywestperformers.com. Available at: http://www.keywestperformers.com/Pages/Performers/InSpiritpages/bophotos.html. Accessed 23.2.2018. Barbi, Roberta 2002: Il sindaco a dieci giorni dalla fine del raduno «Gli elfi ci insegnano a rispettare la natura» [The mayor ten days after the end of the meeting «The elves teach us to respect nature»]. La Gazzetta di Modena, 29 August. Available at: http://frenchrainbow.free.fr/idees/textes/articles/italie/article4.html#anchor1. Accessed 22.2.2018. Beck, Garrick 2017: True Stories: Tales from the Generation of a New World Culture. Bloomington, IN: Iuniverse. Bowman, Marion 2013: Valuing Spirituality: Commodification, Consumption and Community in Glastonbury. In: Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society: Brands, Consumers and Markets. Farnham: Ashgate. Bowman, Marion 2009: Glastonbury Festival and the Performance of Remembrance. DISKUS 10 [online]. Available at: http://www.basr.ac.uk/diskus/ diskus10/bowman.htm. Bowman, Marion 2008: Going With the Flow: Contemporary Pilgrimage in Glastonbury. In: Margry, P.J. (ed.), Shrines and Pilgrimage in the Modern World: New Itineraries Into the Sacred. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 241–280. Bowman, Marion 2007: Arthur and Bridget in Avalon: Celtic Myth, Vernacular Religion and Contemporary Spirituality in Glastonbury. Fabula. Journal of Folktale Studies 48(1/2), 16–32. Bowman, Marion 2006: The Holy Thorn Ceremony: Revival, Rivalry and Civil Religion in Glastonbury (Presidential Address Given to the Folklore Society, March 2005). Folklore 117(2), 123–140. Bowman, Marion 2005: Ancient Avalon, New Jerusalem, Heart Chakra of Planet Earth: the Local and the Global in Glastonbury. Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 52(2), 157–190. Bowman, Marion 2004: Taking Stories Seriously: Vernacular Religion, Contemporary Spirituality and the Myth of Jesus in Glastonbury. Temenos 39–40, 125–142.

Rainbow Rising Over Europe 77 Bowman, Marion 2000: More of the Same? Christianity, Vernacular Religion and Alternative Spirituality in Glastonbury. In: Sutcliffe, S. and Bowman, M. (eds.), Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press, 83–104. Buenfil, Alberto Ruz (ed.) 1991: Rainbow Nation Without Borders: Toward an Ecotopian Millennium. Santa Fe, NM: Bear & Co. Cid, Rafael and Fadón, Rosa 2014: La ACSL “Pulchra Leonina” en Fasgar a Igüeña, Viejo Camino de Santiago [online]. 28.10.2014. Available at: http:// caminosantiagoleon.blogspot.ch/2014/10/la-acslpulchra-leonina-en-fasgariguena.html. Accessed 26.4.2018. Circleway.org n.d. Available at: http://www.circleway.org. European Rainbow Newsletter 1/97 1997: Michael Below, 10 June. Available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/z-netz.gesundheit.drogen/TVHi6B2eVEw. Accessed 2.4.2018. Escolar, Arsenio 1984: El campo como alternativa [Countryside as an alternative]. El País [online], 7.10.1984. Available at: https://elpais.com/diario/1984/10/07/ espana/465951613_850215.html. Accessed 26.4.2018. García de León, Martin 2004: Contracultura y asentamientos alternativos en la España de los 90: un estudio de antropología social [Counterculture and alternative settlements in the Spain of the 90s: a study of social anthropology]. PhD dissertation, University of Madrid. Available at: http://biblioteca.ucm.es/tesis/ cps/ucm-t27859.pdf. Accessed 2.4.2018. Green, Martin 1986: Mountain of Truth: The Counterculture Begins. Ascona 1900–1920. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. Himmel, Rita 2011: A Rainbow Family é quase Woodstock [Rainbow Family is like Woodstock]. Público [online], 21 August. Available at: https://www.publico.pt/2011/08/21/jornal/a-rainbow-family-e-quase-woodstock-22671897. Accessed 2.4.2018. International Calendar of Events for 1997 1997: Welcomehome.org. Available at: http:// www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/events/1997global.html. Accessed 3.4.2018. Lagnado, Alice 1998: Peaceable Camp-Out Stamped Out by OMON. St Petersburg Times, 7 August. Mann, Nicholas 2001: The Isle of Avalon: Sacred Mysteries of Arthur and Glastonbury. Street: Green Magic. Michell, John 1990: New Light on the Ancient Mystery of Glastonbury. Glastonbury: Gothic Image. Monteverita.org n.d.: Fondazione Monte Verità. Available at: https://www.monteverita.org/en. Miller, Hamish and Broadhurst, Paul 1990: The Sun and the Serpent. Hillsdale, MI: Pendragon Press. Norway, 1989 n.d.: Welcomehome.org. Available at: https://www.welcomehome. org/graphics/norway89/norway89.html. Accessed 2.4.2018. Noschis, Kaj 2011: Monte Verità. Ascona et le génie du lieu. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et universitaires romandes. Pecl, Václav 2006: Duhová rodina živoucího světla a lásky [Rainbow Family of Living Light and Love]. Bachelor’s thesis, Masaryk University, Czech Republic. Available at: https://is.muni.cz/th/109759/ff_b/Uvod.pdf. Accessed 20.2.2018. Poland 1991 n.d.: Welcomehome.org. Available at: https://www.welcomehome. org/graphics/poland91/poland91.html. Accessed 2.4.2018.

78  Rainbow Rising Over Europe Potaczała, Krzysztof 2015: Tęcza nad Tworylnem - fragment książki “Bieszczady w PRL-u, cz. 3” [Rainbow over Tworylno - a fragment of the book “Bieszczady in PRL, part 3”]. Bosz Publishing House, May 11. Available at: http://podroze. onet.pl/ciekawe/tecza-nad-tworylnem-czyli-hipisi-z-rainbow-family-w-bieszczadach/pn5dnp. Accessed 27.3.2018. Pravda 1998: Komsomolskaya Pravda, 7 August, p. 2. Rainbow Circle n.d.: The european international rainbow gathering. Available at: http://www.rainbowcircle.co.uk/rpeople/lyn2006.html. Accessed 27.10.2017. Rainbowforum.net n.d.: Available at: https://www.rainbowforum.net/. Rainbow Gatherings in Europe, summer 1995 n.d.: Welcomehome.org. Available at: http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/events/1995global.html. Accessed 22.2.2018. Schwab, Andreas 2003: Monte Verità. Sanatorium der Sehnsucht. Zurich: Orell Füssli Verlag. Schwab, A. and Lafranchi, C. (eds.) 2001: Sinnsuche und Sonnenbad. Experimente in Kunst und Leben auf dem Monte Verità. Zürich: Limmat. St John, Graham 2013: Total Solar Eclipse Festivals, Cosmic Pilgrims and Planetary Culture. In: Weston, Donna and Bennett, Andy (eds.), Pop Pagans: Pagans and Popular Music. Durham: Acumen, 126–144. St John, Graham 2012: Dancing in the Cosmic Sweet Spot: Total Solar Eclipse Gatherings. Reality Sandwich [online], 18 June. Available at: http://realitysandwich.com/151669/dancing_solar_eclipse_gatherings/. Accessed 2.4.2018. Thumb, Tom 2014: Somewhere Under the Rainbow. Published by the author (Road Junky Books). Thumb, Tom 2016: The Seed Camp Disaster of the European Gathering 2016 [online]. Somewhereunderthe rainbow.org, November 5. Available at: http://somewhereundertherainbow.org/554/seed-camp-disaster-european-gathering-2016/. Accessed 22.1.2018. Tingets.net n.d.: Nordsamleren 1990. (Tingets.net is a closed website of the Nordic Ting Family) Vorontsova, Lyudmila and Filatov, Sergei 1994: The Changing Pattern of Religious Belief: Perestroika and Beyond. Religion, State and Society 22(1), 89–96. DOI: 10.1080/09637499408431626. Welcomehome.org n.d.: Available at: https://www.welcomehome.org. 1994 Slovenia Rainbow Gathering n.d.: Welcomehome.org. Available at: https://www. welcomehome.org/rainbow/sites/slovenia94/photos/index.html. Accessed 1.4.2018.

4

Tall Trees, Warm Fire The Rainbow Camp

My ethnography is based on 4 years of active fieldwork in Rainbow Gatherings in Europe but informed further by 20 years of personal involvement with the Rainbow Family, participating in dozens of events in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Many of my friends are active gatherers, making Rainbow culture an ongoing reference in my social life. My on-site fieldwork is composed of interviews, casual conversations, and participant observation. Other “sites” of fieldwork include online environments like discussion forums, mailing lists, and social media groups related to the Rainbow Family. This is an ethnography of European Rainbow Gatherings, and many of their features differ from Rainbow culture in the US. I describe the differences when they are known to me, but as my knowledge on the US Gatherings is based on second-hand information, I might be unaware of even some significant differences. The ethnography is divided into three parts, the first one mapping the typical layout of a Gathering camp, describing its infrastructure, and introducing physical features such as spatial organization and material culture. The second part discusses communal practices and activities forming the core of Rainbow culture, and the third part describes aspects of Rainbow’s folklore.

Rainbow Land Infrastructure of the Gathering Considering their organic nature, and the changes in times, locations, and the population they have endured, Rainbow Gatherings have some remarkably fixed traditions. The way the events are constructed, the main features of material culture, as well as the collective practices, customs, and ritual culture are similar in all the various Gatherings around the world. Certain traditions are followed as closely as possible, while other features are more open for creativity and innovation. The Rainbow Family is repeatedly turning a new, natural space into a recognized, cultural place rife with established meanings, constructing an alternate reality at social, cultural, DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-4

80  Tall Trees, Warm Fire and material levels. Rainbow distinguishes itself from the contemporary Western mainstream society, and it can be seen as a literal counterculture, a concrete alternative way of life – a lived utopia. This counter-position is central to Rainbow culture, and apparent its material, spatial, as well as immaterial features. Rainbow Gatherings are held as encampments in the natural environment, preferably in remote locations of “wild” nature. When challenges arise in acquiring a natural location, forestral or pastoral lands are often chosen as an acceptable alternative. The location of the events changes continually. Most often a new place is found, but sometimes the site of a previous Gathering is reused. The aim is to minimize the impacts on nature that big crowds and weeks-long camping inevitably have. In the US, large events are held in National Parks, as Rainbows claim that legislation guarantees people’s free use of the land. In other countries, various kinds of land are used, from privately owned lands to state properties, and the place might be rented, used for free, or illegally occupied. Parking is arranged on fields or alongside roads around the camp, as cars are not allowed inside the camp. Typically, entering the site means hiking in from the last drivable road or the parking grounds. Rainbow Gatherings have a colourful, rustic, and sometimes a bit unorganized look. The event infrastructure is constructed with materials that are either brought in by the participants or natural materials gleaned at and around the campsite. The communal structures are typically either large tents or shelters constructed with plastic tarpaulins. Most people bring a tent, but especially in warmer climates also hammocks, lean-tos, and other shelters are common. When the weather allows, sleeping out in the open is popular. Bigger and smaller teepees are admired and appreciated, but due to their weight and the demands of pitching and managing them, they are rarer than modern camping tents. Structures, in general, are minimal, functional, and built only when needed. The most proficient structures are typically built for food storage and the Medical Area. In the US Rainbow Gatherings, the tradition involves numerous pronounced subcamps which operate their own kitchens, storages, water dispensers, and latrines. In European Gatherings, subcamps exist as well, but their role is different. European Rainbow camps rely on centralized, communal infrastructure, which is collectively maintained, such as a single Main Kitchen catering to the whole population. The communal latrines are army-style slit trenches known as Shit Pits or Shitters, where ideally, toilet paper is provided for hygiene, earth and ashes for covering the poop, and a vinegar solution (bleach is common in the US) for a disinfecting hand-wash. The state of the latrines is frequently something less than ideal, though, and proper hand-washing stations are often more a reverie than a reality. Bathing facilities are usually bodies of natural waters, although soaps and detergents are kept out, or simple showers operating with buckets or a water hose. In some events, hot showers

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 81 are provided by heating the water over a fire, and saunas or sweat lodges are commonly constructed for bathing and ritual use. Most subcamps and many neighbourhoods of private tents have a communal fire pit for socializing and cooking. Participants are asked to use the communal fire pits instead of making private fires at their own tent, for better fire safety and to save firewood. Open fires are preferred, but some gatherers use camping cookers1. Water is life, and in the Gathering, this becomes a concrete issue. A compromised water source can cause sickness very fast, and lack of proper washing possibilities provokes the spread of illness. A key requirement for a Gathering location is a source of drinkable water, and only in exceptional cases is this condition disregarded. There have been Gatherings where the lack of a local water source was negotiated by transporting water in containers. However, the method is costly, involves an increased risk of contamination, and is frequently criticized by the gatherers for not being “natural”. If there are no natural sources close to the camp, drinking water is led in via pipelines, either by tapping water springs nearby, or when close to urban areas, from a tap water line. Natural water sources require a filtering system, which can be constructed by layering sand, peat moss, and activated carbon in a container and leading the water through. The pipelines function with natural pressure produced by differences in elevation, distributing water to communal water points inside the camp, where people fill their water containers. Small Gatherings might function by just filling water canisters from a source in the vicinity and transporting them into the camp as needed. Ideally, natural water is tested and found safe to drink, but there are frequent examples of shirking this guideline, and when there is a sickness in the camp, the water quality is often suspected 2 . Food supplies for the Gathering are procured locally, when possible. Ideally, as soon as a location is confirmed, large orders of dry foodstuffs like rice, beans, flour, cereals, and spices, as well as organic fruits and vegetables are made with local producers, wholesale traders, and food co-operations. The pre-ordered foodstuffs are supplemented with additional purchases during the event, as needed. Participants also bring supplies along to donate them. Foodstuffs and supplies are transported into the parking area or some other suitable location near the camp and carried in the rest of the way. There is a central food storage, but individual subcamps might maintain small storages as well, both consisting of supplies bought with Magic Hat money and direct contributions from individual gatherers. Often the camps have also a collective storage for tools and building materials. Layout of the Camp A Rainbow Gathering and its central functions have characteristic spatial dimensions3. The Gatherings have their typical geography, where different communal functions have their own subcamp locations within the camp,

82  Tall Trees, Warm Fire interspersed with camping neighbourhoods and pathways criss-crossing the grounds, forming what looks like a makeshift village of tents and tarpaulins. This village has a busy centre with public services: you can get a cup of tea, go see a healer, listen to music, or participate in a workshop or a council meeting. Outside of the centre lie the calmer outskirts, with subcamps and neighbourhoods of participants’ tents. The Gathering site develops first during the preparatory Seed Camp, when the best locations for the most necessary functions are sought out: the Main Fire, Main Kitchen, and food storage, as well as childcare and medical care. After this, the camp grows quite organically, following established Rainbow traditions, current circumstances, and creative input. The tradition involves certain restrictions regarding the use of the land, like protecting water sources from contamination and reserving quiet space around sacralized spaces, and areas meant for medical care and families with children, which is why camping is discouraged in these areas. Also camping too close to the Main Fire is not recommended, but usually, the noisiness of this area naturally keeps peoples’ tents further. Otherwise, the spatial organization happens through what Chelsea Schelly calls “participatory space-making”: creative anarchy mitigated by interpersonal interaction4. When the location allows, the area occupied by a large Gathering can cover several square kilometres, but most of the communal functions remain relatively close to the centre of the camp. The Gatherings have certain fixed collective features and facilities, revolving around the participants’ basic needs and focuses such as food, water, and shelter; well-being, including medical and spiritual needs; communication and collaboration; as well as play and celebration. Most of these central functions are reproduced in each Gathering, in some form, having become part of tradition, and what another Rainbow researcher calls “emically labelled institutions”5. In the layout of the Gathering they often manifest as designated subcamps, but in tiny events, their material existence can remain a makeshift one. Although I call them subcamps below, they do not always consist of an actual camp, but something simpler. In general, they tend to become more pronounced, establishing and developing their own designated locations, the larger the Gathering gets. For an example, a small Gathering might have a single kitchen producing all the food, with the foodstuffs stored in one corner and a first aid kit in another, and parents of young kids finding their space to prepare extra meals for the children among other kitchen users. But in a big Gathering the Main Kitchen typically consists of separate areas for cooking the main courses, the raw food, and the chapati (Indian-style flatbread), a separate storage structure nearby, perhaps a bakery with ovens a little way off, and the camp will have both a designated Children’s Area with its own kitchen and a playground, and a separate Medical Area with shelter and supplies.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 83 The campsite is ideally in a natural location away from built and populated areas, a feature that Michael Niman points out is common with utopian traditions6. Hence the parking can be located quite a way from the camp, creating a physical distinction – and a transition. The Gathering area is – generally and roughly – concentric, with the most significant and sacralized places in the centre, surrounded by an intermediate zone containing spaces for important daily functions and areas for camping, and then the marginal outer edges where the Rainbow reality gradually yields, ideally to nature, but also to features of the outside world, like cars, media, commerce, alcohol use, as well as mobile phones and other electronic devices. The concentric structure of Rainbow camps is described as “layers of sanctity” in the ethnography of Adam Berger7, centring around a big collective ritual fire pit known as the Main Fire or Sacred Fire, which forms the epicentre of sacrality. Berger also notes the roughly circular shape of the camp and the fact that some participants connect this with spiritual ideas of the circle form8. The “layers of sanctity”, here, could be supplemented with a concept wider than the religious sacred, such as “countercultural significance”, as in layers of deepening alternative social reality: The closer one moves to the centre of a Gathering, so this orientation describes, the more likely one is to see people living in adherence with Rainbow values of generous cooperation and peaceful collectivism. Structural elements of Gatherings are, in terms of this ideal layout, arranged accordingly9. Subcamps and the Sacred Fire Welcome Home In the experience of the participants, a Rainbow Gathering is a world of its own, set apart from the outside world. There is typically one marked main trail leading from the parking place towards the Gathering, and somewhere along the trail lies an arrival point called the Welcome Home. This is where incomers are informed that they are entering a special place, and of the guidelines they are asked to respect. The purpose of the Welcome Home is to act as a first contact for arrivals, providing information about the Rainbow in general, about the specific features of the current Gathering site, and warmly welcoming all participants. In US Gatherings, the tradition seems slightly different: the Welcome Home is part of, or next to, a camp called Front Gate, close to the parking place and often including the collective Main Storage. In European Rainbows, the Welcome Home is more typically separated from the parking place and situated closer to the Gathering. In a simple version

84  Tall Trees, Warm Fire of its setup, the Welcome Home might be a small, unmanned campsite equipped with a shelter and a fire pit, with perhaps signs and posters containing written information. In bigger Gatherings, it grows into a lively camp with its own population, offering the weary arriving travellers not only a waypoint to rest but also information in spoken form, a cup of tea, and a chance to get their bearings before entering the Gathering proper. People arriving late in the day often choose to spend their first night at the Welcome instead of searching for a campsite and setting up after nightfall. All arrivals are greeted by enthusiastic calls of “Welcome home!” with smiles and hugs10. “Welcome home” is a greeting commonly used in Rainbow Gatherings around the globe11. It reflects the fact that Rainbows speak about the Gathering as “home”, but the roots of the saying are reportedly also with the Vietnam War veterans who were an important part of the original Rainbow community in the US. Young Vietnam veterans were part of the anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s that gave birth to the Rainbow Gatherings, and their cultural input brought more than just a greeting – a lot of the infrastructure and practices linked to food, water, and sanitation in the Gatherings are modelled after military examples. Calling Rainbow “home” reflects a certain outcast experience of the gatherers, many of whom belong to different cultural minorities and social margins, a position that the Vietnam veterans also experienced in their homecoming. Welcoming people “home” is deeply meaningful for the Rainbows, as the Gatherings are rare places where various social minorities and “outsiders” form the majority of the population, and social hegemonies and hierarchies are reversed12 . Experiences of arriving in the Gathering were one recurrent theme in my interviews. People described it as a meaningful, even an emotional moment, some reflecting on their first Gathering experience, others being reminded of the differences between Rainbow and the outside society. Interviewees offered comments like “here I feel truly safe”, “I’m not afraid to be myself”, “it’s like I’m with my people, even when I don’t know the people”, and “it’s a big relief, I feel I’m unfolding, I’m opening up”13. I recall seeing a young man arriving to a small national Rainbow Gathering in the countryside of Italy as I was interviewing someone in the Welcome Home, with such joy it amused the whole crowd. The man came up the trail hauling a big backpack and answered the customary calls of “welcome home!” with raising a hand to his heart, grinning. When he got closer, he stopped to put his backpack down, and swiftly proceeded to remove all his clothing, throwing it aside in clumps. Then he turned to face the forest, raised his arms, let out a long raspy whoop of joy, and flung himself down spread-eagled in the grass. “Ahhh, I know just how that guy is feeling”, said the person I was talking to, with a knowing smile.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 85 Main Circle and the Sacred Fire The Main Fire is literally and figuratively the heart of the camp and the epicentre of the activity. It is in the centre of the camp area, except when the terrain makes this difficult. The Main Fire, also called the Sacred Fire, is surrounded by a big, flat, and level clearing known as the Main Circle (in the US, known as the Main Meadow). This is the centre of the communal activities in the Gathering. The Main Circle is where the Family comes together to eat, to have communal rituals, and to play, party, and celebrate. It is where many if not most collective discussions happen unless there is a specific council space prepared. The Main Circle is also the most public place in a Gathering. It is where those things happen that are meant for the whole Family to see or to participate. It is like a living room or village square, and it functions also as a workshop space, playground, dance floor, and a popular night-time hangout. Especially when there is a Circle of people around the fire, the place is considered a sacred space. In the centre of the clearing lies the big fire pit of the Main Fire. In the US, it is commonly called “Heartfire”. The name expresses the fire’s symbolic significance, but the fire pit can also be shaped like a heart14. This fire is one of the few things in a Rainbow that are commonly called “sacred” and held in a special reverence by almost all participants. Ideally, the fire is kept burning throughout the event. It is ceremonially lit on the first day of the Gathering, and similarly put out on the last day. Only clean, dry firewood is burned in the fire, and throwing in rubbish or cigarette butts is seen as disrespectful. In some local Rainbow traditions, people tend to take their shoes off when approaching the Sacred Fire. Typically, the Main Fire is not used for cooking. People commonly take ashes from the Main Fire, either for hygienic uses, or for ritual ones. The Main Fire is encircled with at least one ring of stones, but there are frequently additional adornments and demarcation. Most commonly another, larger circle of stones surrounds the immediate surroundings of the fire pit at a distance of a few meters, and the circles can have larger stones set on the cardinal points. Sometimes a decorative stellated stone formation is laid around the circles, resembling a mandala or a flower. Typical further constructions around the Main Fire and Main Circle area include decorations such as adorned sticks or painted stones placed on the stone circles, or tall wooden poles. In Adam Berger’s ethnography of the US Gatherings such poles are called “Peace Poles”15, but in Europe, it’s more usual to see flagpoles with coloured flags denoting the cardinal points around the Main Circle area. Other common features are canopies for shelter and shadow further out on the clearing. Twice every day the Food Circle is held at the Main Circle, and at nights the place becomes a social hub with music, singing and chanting, storytelling, or rituals and parties with drumming and dance. Here, the Family

86  Tall Trees, Warm Fire

Figure 4.1  A small Main Circle in the Italian Spring Rainbow Gathering 2017, in Laurito. Source:  Photograph by the author.

Figure 4.2  Food Circle ceremony at the Main Circle of the European Rainbow Gathering in Mijanès, France 2021. Source:  Photograph by the author.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 87 comes together to hold the most central ceremonies: the beginning, middle, and the end of the Gathering according to the moon calendar, marked by specific rituals, and all possible other special events, such as crisis rites. In small Gatherings the Main Fire might be the only bigger communal space and is thus used for all kinds of communal activities including silent and solemn ones, but in bigger Gatherings the area typically gets too noisy and restless for delicate atmospheres, and serious Circles and softer music usually happen elsewhere. Main Kitchen The Main Kitchen of European Rainbow Gatherings is typically situated close to the Main Circle area, as the food needs to be carried over to the Food Circle, and the pots can be huge. The kitchen structure is an example of the ubiquitous, basic Rainbow construction: a canopy of plastic tarps open on most sides, supported by wooden poles and beams, tied in with ropes, and secured with wooden stakes. Food is cooked on open fires, rocket stoves16, and earth ovens, and storage shelves and chopping tables are constructed from wood. The food storage can be fashioned out of tents, or a structure is built from tarps and poles. Occasionally a hole is dug into

Figure 4.3  T he Main Kitchen area of the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering in Tramontina, Italy. The tarp canopy to the left is the kitchen, and the building (hikers’ shelter) to the right is used as the food storage. Source:  Photograph by the author.

88  Tall Trees, Warm Fire the ground for a cold storage. A wood storage is also needed at the kitchen, and a dishwashing station with a grey water pit. When there is no water pipeline brought right to the Main Kitchen, it is usual to see plenty of big water canisters in use17. The Main Kitchen – like most things – operates either organically, meaning that cooking begins when someone happens to start it, or with active organization of kitchen focalizers. The bigger Gatherings usually need more coordination, and kitchen focalizers take turns in planning the daily meals and organizing the cooking. Volunteers are called as needed, by shouting “Help in the Kitchen!”, and the kitchen work is frequently accompanied by live music, by volunteering musicians responding to a call for “Music in the Kitchen!”. Music is considered a valuable contribution, and musicians are seen as kitchen volunteers just like the people chopping, cooking, and tending fires. Shrines, altars, and the Temple Most of the bigger Gatherings have a designated, collective place for all kinds of spiritual activities: prayer, meditation, devotional practices, rituals, spiritual healing practices, chanting, singing, and more. One central practice is the construction of a communal altar. This place goes by many names: Temple, Silent Healing Area, Shanti Area, or localized names such as “Meditation Island” or “Sacred Oak”, and often the location is chosen for its beauty or other striking features. The place might be demarcated in some way, but it does not have to. Usually, there is a sign declaring the purpose of the place, but in addition to an altar and possible decorations, the place can be either without any structures, or include some form of shelter. Rainbow tradition treats nature as sacred, and the natural environment is commonly considered as something that does not need to be enhanced: a beautiful natural location can be the perfect Rainbow shrine as it is18. As among many Neopagans, a construction of a collective altar is a common devotional expression in the Rainbow. The altar is multireligious, and people adorn it with religious pictures and objects, flowers, crystals, jewellery, statuettes, drawings, and other kinds of artwork. Occasionally also playful and ironic objects find their way on a Rainbow altar, such as industrial objects or toys. A Rainbow altar is typically a simple construction. It might be a small platform built out of sticks or compacted earth, a suitable large stone, or a piece of cloth spread directly on the ground. A Gathering can have just a single Temple location, or various individual altars and shrines around the Gathering site. Being a creative and collective form of expression, they might appear quite spontaneously, and altars and devotional art pops up also outside of demarcated shrines. Common locations for altar-like setups include the Main Circle, the main pathways,

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 89

Figure 4.4  A n overview of the “Sacred Oak Altar” at the 2015 European Rainbow Gathering in Zarasai, Lithuania. The entrance is marked with small wooden poles, and the altar is at the foot of the oak tree. A small fire pit lies at the centre of the clearing. Source:  Photograph by the author.

Figure 4.5  The sign at the entrance: “Sacred oak altar. Please no camping.”. Source:  Photograph by the author.

90  Tall Trees, Warm Fire

Figure 4.6  The altar and altar goods. Source:  Photograph by the author.

within subcamps, and at natural locations like rocks, trees, streams, and lakes. Sometimes an altar appears first, and a shrine-like space grows around it. In the 2017 European Gathering I saw an existing Christian wayside shrine expropriated by the gatherers, by adding various colourful altar goods to the existing furnishings. The Temple is sometimes left to an open-ended, communal care, but it might also inspire people to become a voluntary “temple guardian” dedicated to taking care of the place. Some participants establish devotional subcamps. In recent years, the big European Gatherings have had a “Music Temple”, manifested as a large circular tent provided by a participant who also typically co-ordinates the activities in it. This version of a Temple is still communally created to an extent, but the range of activities seem to mainly follow the proprietor’s devotional guidelines, whereas all kinds of devotional activities take place in the collective Rainbow shrines. In the European Rainbow Gathering 2015 in Lithuania, the camp had both the Music Temple tent with co-ordinated activities, a free-form “Sacred Tree Altar”, as well as other sacralized spaces. People seem to be more comfortable in using the open-ended sacred space independently and spontaneously, while the Temple tent draws bigger crowds to collective devotional activities. The field example describes many typical features of Rainbow spirituality in action and represents what I call open rituality: It is collective but accommodates individual input. It is creative, while operating within a loose frame of collective tradition. There is a lot of active ritualism and

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 91 Field Story: The Moon Temple In the World Rainbow Gathering in Hungary 2014, I participated in the creation of a spontaneous shrine on the Full Moon night. I was sitting at the Main Circle with my friend Sister Fly and some others. We were watching the Main Fire, where people were building a huge bonfire, to be set ablaze after dinner that night. The pile of firewood was already several meters high and still getting bigger. Fly spoke up: “Can I share a vision I had earlier? I feel it’s the time to share it”. She described her thoughts regarding the Full Moon ritual: “Even as tonight’s celebration is about the Moon, it seems like so much male fire-energy is going on. I have a strong feeling that we should do something to balance it out”. I looked at the all-male building crew at the Main Fire and thought about the usual wild drumming, by mostly male drummers, which regularly sets the mood for the Full Moon night. “I hear you”, I said. “If we are to honour and give thanks to the Moon and its feminine energy, we could make something to bring that out for the Family. I had a vision of a Temple of the Moon. A healing, calming, balancing place in this firefilled night”, Fly went on. Others voiced their agreement and support of the idea. “Yes, a place with healing water: water is connected to the Moon!”, someone said. “I think the Spirit is calling for us to do this”, said another. “I received the vision but it’s not mine, it’s ours. It’s for the Family”, said Fly. We discussed the idea for a while, sketching out how it could be manifested. We’d find a place somewhere close to the Main Circle, to have the shrine accessible for everyone, and to “balance the energies, not to divide them”. There was an understanding of what kind of things would be fitting for a Moon Temple: the Goddess, the “feminine principle”, water, healing, serenity. We’d all contribute something to build the place and share the idea around to inspire more collaboration and co-creation. And so we headed out, each to our camps. A bit later, we met back at the Main Circle, hearing the calls for “Food Circle NOOOW!”, and began to construct the shrine. Earlier, somebody had erected a long, curved piece of driftwood upside down, with its roots in the air as gnarly natural artwork, close to the side of the Main clearing. It looked like an excellent spot for the shrine. We supported the arching piece of driftwood with bigger rocks at its base to make it sturdier, and then sat down under it in a little circle, holding hands in silent meditation for a moment. Soon, a girl approached with a white blanket bearing a pattern featuring the moon in its phases, and we spread this on the ground. Perfect. Somebody else came to donate small candle lanterns to hang from the arch. Perfect. I and others had brought crystals and a bowl for putting water into, and the rocks at the base of the driftwood became an altar. And there – the shrine was there. At the Food Circle, we announced the Moon Temple and invited everybody to share and contribute. The idea was received with whoops of support, although in a Rainbow, most ideas are. After receiving our meals, I retreated from the big Circle to our shrine with a group of women. We wanted to

92  Tall Trees, Warm Fire “hold the space” and activate the shrine with our presence. Soon some other people approached and asked if it was ok if they would eat their dinners at the Temple. We told them yes, whatever they thought was respectful was great, and that we had eaten there too. After eating, one of the girls asked if anybody minded her smoking some weed, or if she should rather step away from the shrine. Nobody minded, and another woman spoke up: “Ganja is a blessing from the Goddess, it’s a female herb, and I would share it as a blessing”. And so, a circle of ladies shared a joint passing it between them in heartfelt silence. Some would not actually smoke but waft a bit of the smoke towards their heads or lift the joint to their foreheads before passing it along. After nightfall, the bonfire was lit, and the Full Moon celebration got underway. Soon the Sacred Fire was blazing high, above the hundreds of half-naked, sweaty revellers dancing to the beat of a dozen African drums. Many people came to the Moon Temple. Most of the people involved in the construction had been female, but now there were also plenty of men there. Some people sat down for a while before wandering on, while others laid down blankets and settled to meditate or chill out. A young woman came with her Hang Drum19 and started to draw out those ambient, dreamy melodies that only a Hang can produce. Some people were doing a Reiki healing, another was drawing oracle cards, and others were Omming and holding hands. Somebody came with more candle lanterns and set them on the ground all over. I was sitting in front of the altar, handling the altar gifts the Temple had received: arranging crystals and flowers on the stones, around and in the bowl of spring water in the middle of our altar, lighting candles, and incense sticks. A brother called Dharma approached the altar to give his thanks. He asked his crystal necklace to be blessed at the altar and looked at me as if I should know how to do that. I decided to just follow my intuition. “Of course”, I said. I took his necklace and folded it on my right palm, covering it with my left. I closed my eyes and focused on the crown chakra on top of my head, and then my palms, breathing. Then I put the necklace in the water bowl and touched Dharma’s forehead and chest with my wet fingers. He bowed and thanked the Goddess. “Come get your necklace after a while”, I said and smiled at him. Many Gatherers expressed their gratitude and appreciation for the Temple during that night, and folks kept coming around, some to meditate or pay respects, others to just have a brief respite from the Full Moon party.

symbolism but little direct reference to external sources like traditions, texts, or teachers. The highest authority is given to the individual and his or her experiences, and the symbolism is kept at low levels of determination. The moon is said to represent the “feminine principle”, for example, but no further definitions or explanations are worded, and participants are free to make their own interpretations and choose their forms of practice and expression.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 93 This example also reflects the often-unspoken tensions related to genderand power-issues within the Gathering community20, and some methods of expressing and negotiating them through ritual expressions and participatory space-making. It also reflects the nature of relatively indeterminate symbolism and how complex the analysis of its use can be. I was a part of a group of female participants anticipating the central collective ritual celebrating Full Moon to lack elements such as calmness and “healing”, and moving to supplement the collective rituality with more options. There was no intention to contest or disrupt the existing preparations and ritual aims, but to create something parallel and complementary. The question of how much and what kind of gendered tensions the issue finally involved is complicated – some of the women did speak of the amount of “male fireenergy” as something to mitigate, and I interpreted it as alluding to gendered tensions. At the same time, although the discussion utilized concepts like “male energy” and “female principle”, their symbolic use is broad and can be allegorical – it is not certain that all the people involved understood the tension to be specifically and literally gender-related. Without having made further interviews with the Moon Temple participants, I have no way of knowing the full range of subjective significations. Children’s Area Also called the Children’s Kitchen or Kid’s Camp, the area reserved for families with small children usually gets a sheltered location in the Gathering area, like a shaded riverside or a mossy forest. The Children’s Area has a kitchen of its own for preparing one or two extra meals every day for the kids, as the two regular meals are not enough to keep kids happy and fed throughout the day, and the long waits can be arduous for both the kids and the parents. The extra meals are served in additional Food Circles in the Children’s Area, after a similar Food Circle ritual. Many families with kids camp in this area and collaborate with each other to help with baby-sitting and activities for children. Often the area has a playground with swings, climbing ropes, sporting goods, and toys. As with many of the other Rainbow functions, the Children’s Area can be practically non-existent in small events where only a few participants have small kids, but the bigger Gatherings regularly have a big Kid’s Camp with various activities21. Children’s Area is a hub for families with children, but not all these families camp here. Children are generally free to move around in the camp and to participate in the life of the Gathering, and it is common to see children of different ages taking part in the daily work and camp functions, either together with their parents or independently – depending on their age. I have been in a blacksmithing workshop held by a 12-yearold boy, although his father was present to support and to translate. The age group that seems to be participating the least is the teenagers, but this might be typical for the age in general. Some bigger Gatherings have had

94  Tall Trees, Warm Fire a specific “Teen Camp”, a kind of Rainbow youth centre where the adolescents hung out, kept their own fire, cooked sweet treats, and organized other activities. Sometimes, specific activities are organized to integrate children into the collective rituals or other communal activities. National Gatherings in the US involve a big Children’s parade as a fixed part of the ritual ceremony on 4 July, but European Gatherings have not established a similar recurrent tradition. There have been theatrical-, circus-, and storytelling performances prepared by adults for the children, but also prepared by adults and children together for the rest of the Family. Often the Children’s Area hosts the events and workshops that are meant for kids, or for their parents. Major conflicts regarding children are relatively rare, even though the Gatherings involve nudity and drug use – but I asked about common child-related concerns from one Rainbow parent. According to him, nudity is broadly accepted, and the only kind of expressed criticism has been regarding naked people serving food, due to hygienic issues. Some parents have expressed concerns about drugs, such as the possibility of children accidentally finding drugs that someone has lost, but my interviewee was not aware of this really happening. Outside of the Children’s Kitchen, it is not uncommon to see adults, for example smoking cannabis with children present, and some parents regard this as objectionable. Sexuality is usually not openly expressed in common areas, at least not in the times when young children are around. I assume that the parents who are concerned maintain a tighter control over their kids. People might also be selective about what kind of Rainbow events they attend with their kids, as smaller and “Healing” Gatherings involve less use of intoxicants. The Children’s Area is always regarded as a safe zone, meaning that it is smoke- and drug-free, and people are asked to refrain from aggressive, sexually explicit, and threatening behaviour. According to my informant, common concerns among the parents involve the well-being of other participants’ children. Many in the Rainbow Family favour “free-range parenting”, where the child is encouraged to function independently and with limited parental supervision, in accordance with their age and development. Hence, it is common to see young children moving about in the Gathering without adults, which sometimes raises concerns with newcomers and outsiders. The 2019 European Rainbow Gathering in Sweden was reportedly visited by the local child protective services based on an anonymous notification, but their visit did not lead into interventions or other action. It seems that the Gathering environment can also turn out to be too confusing for some children, or distracting for some parents, resulting in instances of distressed children searching for their parents, or the other way around. The Children’s Kitchen functions as a collective childcare hub, but my informant tells me that there are continuing tensions around sharing the workload equally, and discontent towards parents who leave their children in the care of others for extended periods.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 95 Medicine Area Every Rainbow Gathering has some sort of medical facility, but the nature and quality of it depends on the participants. In small local events, this can be limited to a first-aid kit and someone professing to be a healer, but in the bigger events the medical functions have their own camp. In the US Gatherings, the medical area is called CALM (Centre for Alternative and Living Medicine). In Europe, it is usually called a Medicine Area, Healing Area, or something similar. The subcamp usually has a roomy weather-proof shelter, preferably a big teepee or a tent, medical supplies donated or paid for by the Magic Hat, and ideally, a group of volunteers with medical skills. The Medical area typically offers both medical-scientific help and various forms of alternative and traditional healing arts and natural medicine, including forms of spiritual or “energy” healing. In the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering in Tramontina, the camp’s medical facilities were exceptionally proficient. The Medicine Area was co-ordinated by people with medical experience and staffed by volunteers with a wide range of skills. During the height of population in the camp, the coordinators made announcements in the Circle, asking all kinds of medical practitioners and alternative healers to support the Medicine Area by volunteering. The Area had also a co-ordinated effort for mental health support, by volunteering therapists, counsellors, and spiritual healers, which was the first time I have seen this in a Rainbow22 . Chai Kitchens Chai Kitchens23 and Coffee Kitchens are communal, social spaces meant for spending time in an informal way and drinking tea or coffee. Playing games like chess and backgammon are popular Chai Kitchen pastimes, as are singing, playing, and enjoying music. Even the smallest Gathering has at least one Chai Kitchen, and the big European Rainbow Gatherings typically have multiple ones in different parts of the camp area. A Chai Kitchen can be simple, consisting of just a fire pit and a pot for making tea, but bigger ones might have large canopies, multiple fire pits, blankets or carpets for sitting, elaborate decorations, their own food and supply storage, and even their own Magic Hat economy. Often, Chai Kitchens develop their own character, being e.g. smoker-friendly or smokefree, serving coffee with cow milk and white sugar, or healing herbal infusions with vegan plant milks. When this development goes further, the locations become something more than a generic communal campfire; they are given a name and they gain a reputation for a certain kind of vibe and culture, approaching the subcamps in US Gatherings (see below). Perhaps certain musicians frequent the place, or gatherers begin to organize recurring activities, contributing to the atmosphere of the place. Frequently this

96  Tall Trees, Warm Fire development is organic, and the micro-tradition thus created endures only for the remaining of the event, but there are a few subcamp traditions that have recreated themselves in several successive Gatherings in Europe. One such example is a camp called Dark Chai Kitchen, which was born around the idea of providing an emotionally supportive environment for people feeling down and troubled and having a hard time connecting with the generally blissful vibe of the Gathering. Dark Chai was originally a concept created by one Rainbow Brother, who also established the camp the first few times. According to his idea, the Dark Chai became a night-time Chai Kitchen, and had a solemn, if not sombre atmosphere with red grave candles for a gothy decoration. The main organizational role was transferred from the originator to another active participant, who has continued focalizing the Dark Chai Kitchen in recent European Rainbow Gatherings. The concept has developed, and Dark Chai has started hosting Talking Circles, workshops, and other activities with a therapeutic aim, but the attention to darker moods, red candles, and night-time orientation are still there. Similar traditions have existed among the European Rainbow Families in the last decades, but for some reason, these traditions have not developed into an established culture of recurrent sub-culturally themed camps as in the US. Information Centre A Rainbow Gathering usually has a specific place to share information with other Gathering participants. The Info Centre is usually a collection of makeshift notice boards, sheltered from the elements with a tarpaulin or something similar. The boards get covered by various notes, flyers, and posters with topics related to the Gathering, other Rainbow events, and communities, or other subjects related to alternative-holistic and countercultural themes. Common examples of Info board contents include topics related to the ongoing Gathering: workshops, construction projects, camp features and other events in the camp’s program, ride-share announcements, and messages to friends somewhere in the Gathering. There are posters for other events like transformative festivals, music festivals, parties, demonstrations, ritual events, and information on different courses, community projects, retreats, and healing treatments, as well as various social, political, and spiritual topics. In the US, the Information Centre is also called “Rumour Control”, aiming to provide verified information on issues concerning the community, and to counter circulating rumours which might easily surpass factual accounts24. Rumours can abound in any community, and more so in communities without a trusted information sharing system, but the US Rainbow community claims to have experienced deliberate disinformation campaigns by the officials. The large US Annual Gatherings involve frequent resistance and opposition from the law enforcement, who attempt to discourage people from participating in what to them is an unauthorized and uncontrolled

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 97 mass event. A regular part of US Gathering invitations is “ignore all rumours of cancellation”. People arriving at the US National Rainbow Gathering often have to face police roadblocks, searches, and citations, and the officials are reported to have been telling Rainbow participants e.g. that the camp has an outbreak of serious disease, contaminated drinking water, that people will be evacuated by force, or that participants will face legal consequences like incarceration if they participate25. The location of the Info Point is usually somewhere relatively central, like along a main pathway. In smaller Gatherings, it can also be combined with another subcamp, like the Welcome Home or Main Kitchen. The Info Point, like most Rainbow Gathering functions, is organized and maintained by volunteers. In practice, this means that the job is done by one or several of the following: a designated Information focalizer, a group of volunteers, or an open communal effort – and the same applies to most collective functions and facilities. The division of labour in Rainbow follows its own principles, which are discussed in the next chapter. Camps for music, Tantra, and other essentials The Gatherings frequently include a camp dedicated to live music. Confusingly, this is also often called “Music Temple”, like the devotional feature mentioned above, but this Music Temple is a place for musicians to come together and play. Music Temple is used for jamming, musical workshops, devotional group singing (“Singing Circle”), as well as performances and parties. A separate place for music away from the Main Fire allows for other functions to happen at the Main Circle, because African drumming especially can be so intensive it drowns out and discourages anything subtler, like softer music, Talking Circles, and one’s own thoughts. Bigger camps often have a designated space for different kinds of bodywork, where workshops focused on physical well-being, sexuality, and the body are held. The bodywork space has at times been named “Tantra Temple”, but other names are common too. Some Gatherings have separate spaces for practices related to Tantra and sexuality, separate from non-sexual bodywork. In addition to Neotantric teachings26, popular bodywork topics include forms of Yoga, massage therapies, and healing arts such as Shiatsu, Reiki, and Qigong. In addition, gatherers offer workshops in numerous body-related healing arts that are difficult to define, creatively combining influences from both traditional and contemporary sources. The open style of organizing works through a direct indication of the need and popularity of a certain idea, service, or function. If an activity or a service is wanted by many gatherers, there will likely be enough attention to the topic and people motivated to contribute to its realization. If an idea is supported by just a few participants, it might die out or regain traction when there is a change in population or another reason for renewed interest.

98  Tall Trees, Warm Fire Trading Circle Buying and selling are not accepted in Rainbow Gatherings, but bartering and gifting are commonplace. The gatherers frequently donate, borrow, and share their personal resources and exchange them with others, but money is kept out of these interactions. Bigger Gatherings frequently arrange Trading Circle events dedicated to bartering. The Trading Circle can be an actual circle, but often it is formed freely along a path or on a clearing. People lay down blankets to display their wares, and trades are negotiated individually, often after some haggling. A Trading Circle involves a wide selection of things, ranging from camping equipment and clothing to musical instruments and art, and from books, jewellery, and crystals to healing herbs, tobacco, chocolate, and recreational drugs. People offer their own used things, as well as things produced or brought specifically for trading. Many in the Family are handcrafters and artisans who support themselves by selling their work outside of the Gatherings but offer them for barter in the Rainbow27. However, even though bringing merchandise to a Rainbow Gathering with the sole purpose of selling it for profit is strongly disapproved in Rainbow culture, it is still known to happen with cannabis and other drugs. There is quite a lot of recreational and ritualistic cannabis use among the Family, and thus it is constantly in demand. And even though some gatherers do not approve of drug use, making profit off the Family is strongly condemned by all. Hence, sharing and gifting cannabis and other consciousness-altering substances is generally more accepted than selling, even by those who dislike the use. The whole practice of having a Trading Circle in the Gathering is sometimes criticized within the Family and seen as profit-oriented “Babylon thinking” endorsing commodification and commercialism28.

Subcamp Traditions in the US and Europe Rainbow Gatherings everywhere have subcamps, but the traditions behind their social role and formation differ between the US and the rest of the world, including Europe. In the US Rainbow Gatherings, and especially pronounced in the annual National Gathering, the organization of the event involves dozens of named subcamps with their respective cultural focuses. The US Gathering areas are dotted with the encampments of various “Kitchen Tribes”, creating a characteristic structure in the physical, social, and cultural environment, and making visible the different “subcultures within a subculture” by giving them a location and a material form. The coming together of different subcultural factions was a conscious feature in the US Rainbow Family from the beginning, and in this sense, the US Rainbow Gatherings are more literally “Gatherings of the Tribes”29. The various Kitchen subcamps in the US typically consist of a kitchen structure, a communal social space with a campfire and a neighbourhood

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 99 of the affiliated peoples’ private tents. The Kitchens provide facilities like drinking water and Shit Pits, sometimes also showers, for anyone in the Rainbow community. They have their own independent economic systems, receiving donations from the participants and supplies from the collective reserves30. The Kitchens run their own food production, serving food at various times. Thus, it is entirely possible for a participant in a US Gathering to never have to attend the Main Circle to get fed – the individual Kitchens serve everybody who is present. The US National Gatherings do have a daily communal meal at the Main Meadow called Dinner Circle, with selected Kitchens each providing a dish for the meal, but the event is not so overwhelmingly central as the Food Circles in European Gatherings31. The Kitchen-tribe tradition among the US Rainbow Family is an established feature which newcomers quickly learn to uphold and reproduce. The Kitchens recreate themselves year after year, having dedicated members, and some of them have decades of history. Thus, gatherers easily recognize like-minded groups and can choose to support a specific Kitchen, by direct contributions. These affiliations can become long-lived, providing the primary social frame for the participants and spilling into people’s life outside of the Gatherings. The tradition of naming the Kitchens reflects the idea of various regional or subcultural factions coming together, and the sense of humour of the gatherers. The following has some examples of the names of Kitchens in the US Gatherings, although the number of named Kitchens throughout the years is much bigger. Some Kitchens in the US Gatherings derive their name from the kind of food they serve: the Sprout Kitchen, Peace O Pizza, Pop Corner, and soup Kitchens (Rock Soup, Instant Soup Kitchen), meat-eaters’ Kitchens (Carnivore Kitchen, Taco Mike’s), and countless vegetarian and vegan Kitchens as well as those serving coffee, tea, or sweet foods. Many US Kitchen tribes have a pronounced subcultural or religious theme, including Christian denominations (Jesus Kitchen, Bread of Life), Hare Krishna devotees (Krishna Kitchen), Jewish camps (Home Shalom, Rainbow Zion), Pagans (Gypsy Cafe), a camp for LBGTQ+ people and their allies (Fairy Camp32), Elvis fans (Graceland Tea Mansion), a coffee kitchen for people recovering from addiction (Brewha-ha), a camp focusing on disabled and elderly people, and much more. Some Kitchen Tribes organize collective activities in their camps33. In addition to the subcamps with functions described in this chapter, the European Gatherings do have subcamps formed on social or subcultural basis, but most of them are ephemeral formations with little or no recurrence. European subcamps might cook food and although open to other participants, they do not aspire to serve much more people than their own regular crowd. Most of these subcamps form organically out of neighbourhood campfires developing into a Chai-kitchen type of a social hub, and as they form into a distinguished subcamp, they often pick up a name. These social subcamps might develop enough community cohesion to recreate themselves in following Gatherings, but most of these micro-traditions

100  Tall Trees, Warm Fire disperse after some years. They can be named on regional or linguistic bases (English Family Teepee, Viking Camp, Israeli Camp etc.), but the name can also refer to the camp’s culture (Totem Camp, Goat Camp, etc.). Recurring or not, the subcamps are conspicuous, and people tend to conceive and navigate the Gathering area based on the various subcamps. What is clear is that the subcamps are as much social concepts as they are physical locations in the Rainbow, and when they develop a characteristic vibe, they become emic cultural institutions. One major difference between the Rainbow subcamps in Europe and the US is the so-called A-Camp. The US Rainbow Gatherings have a tradition where alcohol use is tolerated in one campsite, which customarily is situated close to the Front Gate and the parking place, at a distance from the rest of the Gathering. This feature is absent in European Gatherings as an established tradition. The A-Camp in the US is populated by participants who come in for a short “party”, or who are unable or unwilling to abstain from habit-forming substances. The atmosphere of the A-Camp can get rowdy and even violent, in stark contrast to the rest of the Gathering. The attitudes towards the existence of an alcohol-drinking camp in the Rainbow are controversial. Many in the US Rainbow Family see the A-Camp as a disgrace, or as a problem that should be solved. Others have the opinion that alcoholics

Figure 4.7  T he map of the European Rainbow Gathering camp in Tramontina, Italy 2017, showing the Main Fire and various subcamps. The black lines indicate branches of the riverbed, some with water and some dry. Source:  Photograph by the author.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 101 and addicts should not be excluded but having them stay in a specific camp is a practical solution. The A-Campers are also seen to serve a function: many of them volunteer at the Front Gate, acting as parking attendants, managing the traffic and placement of the countless vehicles. They also establish a kind of gruff security force and a buffer zone, limiting the entrance of local addicts, and facing the possible abusive locals and authorities34. European Gatherings do not have an established tradition regarding alcohol consumption beyond generally banning it and I have never seen an “officially” designated camp, but it is not uncommon to see alcohol use at the parking place or around the Welcome Home. In practice, these places often act as similar buffer zones, attracting those Rainbows who will not fully conform to Rainbow guidelines, as well as those locals who have heard of the “hippie party in the forest” and have arrived to check it out, bringing alcohol. There have also been instances of alcohol-tolerant “renegade camps” forming in the outskirts of European Gatherings. The existence of the A-Camp is also said to have a lot to do with local conditions in the US: many of the early A-Campers were war veterans with wartime trauma in their personal histories. The Vietnam veterans who were a part of the roots of the US Rainbow have been joined by people impacted by the various subsequent military conflicts the US has been involved in since. The US Rainbow culture also seems to be more accommodating towards different kinds of social margins, and according to one of my informants, the US Gatherings, in general, seem to have more variety of participants, including those who are homeless or struggle with addiction35. The biggest differences between the US and European Gathering traditions seem to stem from the different ways that the Gatherings got started and how they spread, and the cultural differences between the two. In the US, the Gathering population involves a large group of alternative people from different subcultural factions but speaking the same language. The factions found a way to express and maintain their own culture through the tradition of subcamps, and a strong general ethos of unification despite differences. The Gatherings in Europe started out with a small, culturally more homogeneous group of countercultural actives, who came from different countries and spoke different languages. The Gatherings then spread into similar populations in other European countries with different languages and formed national and regional traditions where the common language acted as a unifying feature. A Word About Rainbow Folks and Diversity Subcamps display Rainbow’s cultural diversity in a visible manner, but the actual demographics of the Rainbow Family remain uncharted waters, and all estimations are to be taken with caution. In the absence of any kinds of records, these observations are based only on field experience in European Gatherings and conversations with other gatherers. As described above,

102  Tall Trees, Warm Fire some subcultures and groups within the collective take on concrete manifestations in the form of subcamps. Many subcamps in Europe are based on regional or linguistic groupings, but other kinds of minorities remain more undistinguished. Often it is hard to say if a certain minority is not present, so small that a single observer does not come across it, or if it just doesn’t stand out from the general population. Assessing characteristics like ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender based on appearance is referential in any case, and even more so in a cultural environment such as the Rainbow, where people understand and represent identities in unconventional and playful ways. As an estimate, the overall gender balance between male and female is close to equal among the participants. Regarding the division of labour, there are differences between men and women, and they tend to follow traditional roles: men are more active in construction and other forms of heavy manual labour, and women participate more in the tasks around cooking and childcare. The decision-making Councils often have more males than females, and many workshops attract one gender more than the other. Gendered Talking Circles (Sisters’/Brothers’ Circle) are organized for both genders but seem to be more frequent among women. Gatherers perceive gender inequalities in the Rainbow as slighter than in most mainstream societies, and there are also frequent examples of reversed gender roles. This might contribute to an experience that the Rainbow community is more equal than Babylon, but there are other factors. All the work in the Gatherings is voluntary, accepting the leadership of others in voluntary, and the decision-making Councils are open to everyone. Although this does not guarantee equal access and representation, it contributes to the perception of it. A general understanding is that Rainbow offers equal access, but men and women naturally gravitate differently towards work and social roles. This is one of the reasons why gender- and other imbalances are not more generally questioned in the culture. At the same time, critical voices are frequently raised among the community. Specific practices (such as “four stones”) are implemented to enhance gender balance in the Councils in the US Gatherings, and I have heard specific calls for more women to join Councils in European Gatherings. A live example of a dispute regarding gender and representation can even be seen in one of my video references from the US36. Sometimes subcamps are created as designated spaces for women (Moon Lodge, Sisters’ Space), but camps designated for minority groups are rare in Europe. The biggest age group among the gatherers seems to be young adults, followed by middle-aged people. Families with young children are more common than families with teenage children, and single parents with children seem more numerous than couples with kids. Seniors are typically a minority, but as with young babies and people with disabilities, the proportion depends on factors such as the accessibility of the Gathering location and weather conditions.

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 103 In general, the Rainbow Family is overwhelmingly white, and most come from middle-class backgrounds. The Family is multicultural and multiethnic in principle, but the proportion of people of colour is small, remaining roughly between 5 and 15 percent in European Gatherings. These socioeconomic and ethnic profiles are typical of alternative-holistic religious traditions, at least as surveyed in the US37. Religious studies scholar Amanda Lucia has written about the complex and contradictory relationships with race in the context of transformational festivals, and how they form what she calls “white utopias”38. Lucia regards the bricolage of practices as religious exoticism, but she rightly identifies the cultural aims of criticizing and reaching beyond modernity. At the same time, she questions if these utopian events can truly offer an escape out of colonialist and capitalist frames of thought, being commercial events geared for profit that entertain white audiences on occupied Indigenous lands. Culturally, Rainbow Gatherings share many aspects with the transformational festivals Lucia studies, but there are also significant differences. Firstly, Rainbow events are not limited to the North American landscape of colonialism, slavery, and race relations. Although Europe and the rest of the global West have their own problematic histories with race, these histories are varied, convoluted, and not all congruent with the North American perspective. Secondly, as Rainbow events are non-commercial and co-created, they mostly avoid the dynamics and demands of commercial event production. Much of the complicated questions of appropriation and entitlement remain, but at the same time, e.g. questions of power and representation are not the same in Rainbow events which are open to all participants, including the levels of decision-making and organization – although the same applies as above: claims of equality and access do not necessarily guarantee anything. Regarding transformational festivals, Lucia suggests that blatant religious exotism serves as a deterrent to potential non-white participants39. Although Lucia’s observations might hold water, especially in the North American social reality, the ethnic and cultural factors of religious communities are a more complex question deserving a study fully dedicated to the issue. The fact that questions of social equality are finally not raised more in a community claiming to be egalitarian is another one of the internal paradoxes of Rainbow culture. Compared to many other countercultural actors such as eco-activists and contemporary Pagans who actively address inequality, sexism, racism, and prejudice within their communities40, the Rainbow Family seems to be much less occupied by these concerns. The issue is complicated, and another call for further study. Visions of Nature and Realities of Environment Here, at the end of the chapter about the Rainbow camp, another controversial topic needs to be brought up. Rainbow Gatherings are held in natural locations, and the Family claims to value nature highly. However,

104  Tall Trees, Warm Fire there are clear discrepancies between Rainbow practices, the ideas connected to them, and the actual environmental impacts of especially the larger Gathering events. The issue has several levels. Organizing the Gatherings in natural settings is essential for the culture (more on this in the analysis), and nature is an important component of participant experiences. Gatherers are advised to be mindful of the effects their actions have on nature, and to “walk/live lightly on the land”, with different practical guidelines concerning life in the camp: hygiene, fire safety, waste management, respecting wildlife etc. Despite Rainbow’s ideals and guidelines, not all participants follow them. Every larger event seems to have people who do not pull their weight or maintain good environmental practices, and even a small proportion of indifferent or irresponsible participants can cause a considerable mess. As a worst-case example of waste management, people might leave their personal trash behind. Others leave without carrying out any of the communal trash, as is requested. The results become apparent during the Clean-up and can overwhelm the remaining volunteers. Other guidelines aimed at diminishing the impact on nature are also followed only partially, such as refraining from the use of non-biodegradable chemicals, keeping all detergents and soaps away from natural waters, or not cutting living trees (although the question of using living wood vs. deadwood can be controversial). As with littering, lax behaviours are typically attributed to “Rainbow tourists”, and considered immature, and a sign of not being acculturated to the Rainbow, nor living “in harmony” with nature. In addition, some aspects of Rainbow’s environmental impact are not openly discussed. Firstly, any event of this size and duration cannot avoid having a negative impact on natural environment. People camping and walking around for weeks, gathering deadwood, and burning fires, using slit trenches for toilets, dumping grey water in the ground, and bringing a human population to where one does not usually exist have consequences for the local flora and fauna, from the microbial level to the largest plants and animals. Although the topic comes up in personal discussions, it is rarely brought up in the Councils. Judging by many of the Rainbow Gathering locations in Europe, other concerns are more influential in selecting the site than minimizing the Gathering’s direct impact on nature. The second environmental issue that rarely comes up in the collective communication among the participants is the carbon footprint of Rainbow Gatherings. Many participants do hitch-hike or use bicycles, and I have even seen a few who travel with horse or donkey carts, but great many others either drive in or fly planes. Compared to other events of the same size, Rainbow Gatherings probably have a smaller carbon footprint due to the simpler infrastructure and modest use of energy, materials, and supplies, but the issue nevertheless stands. Critical voices regarding these topics do exist among the Rainbow Family, but they seem to continually be overpowered by other concerns, or by attitudes ranging from a spiritually motivated

Tall Trees, Warm Fire 105 wilful ignorance to seeing the environmental ill effects as the unavoidable price to pay for having Rainbow Gatherings.

Notes 1 Cf. Berger 2006, 35–37, 41–42, Niman 1997, 66–68. 2 Berger 2006, 36–37, Niman 1997, 78–80. 3 Schelly 2014, 58, Berger 2006, 19. 4 Schelly 2014, 58–59, 64–67. 5 Berger 2006, 19. 6 Niman 1997, 63. 7 Berger 2006, 19. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Kohut 2007, 58–59. 11 e.g. Schelly 2014, 61. 12 Kohut 2007, 59. 13 Interviews: Estrela, Paulina, Tortuga. 14 Berger 2006, 43. 15 Berger 2006, 218. 16 Rocket stove is a fuel-efficient stove construction using a vertical, insulated burning-chamber, which in the Rainbow are typically made out recycled metal or ceramics, and/or earth. 17 See also Berger 2006, 34. 18 See also Berger 2006, 40–41. 19 A Hang is a metallic, lens-shaped hand drum with a sound resembling a soft steelpan. 20 For a discussion on tensions regarding gender, race, and sexuality among the US Rainbow Family, see Niman 1997, 105–111. 21 Berger 2006, 42–43, Niman 1997, 9–10, Schelly 2014, 39, Woodall 2007, 127–130. 22 See also Niman 1997, 80–85, Schelly 2014, 18, Berger 2006, 37. 23 Chai means tea in many eastern languages, and Indian-style spiced tea called Chai is a long-time Rainbow favourite. 24 See also Berger 2006, 39–40, Schelly 2014, 19, 145, Niman 1997, 66. 25 Welcomehome.org. 26 In the Rainbow context, “tantra” and other exotic and esoteric traditions are typically taught by Western practitioners with various backgrounds, and hence, often represent contemporary and Westernized versions of the traditions in question, or even creative individual appropriations of them. For transformations in tantric traditions, see Urban 2003. 27 See also Niman 1997, 71–72, Schelly 2014, 107–108, Berger 2006, 37–39. 28 Schelly 2014, 107–109. 29 Beck 2017, Welcomehome.org, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2 2017, Interviews: Patches, Tara. 30 Berger 2006, 30, Schelly 2014, 75–76. 31 Berger 2006, 44, Kohut 2007, 50–52. 32 About Fairy Camp's connection to the Radical Faerie movement, see Berger 2006, 55, and Hay, Harry: Radically Gay. Boston: Beacon Press. 33 Schelly 2014, 63–64, Berger 2006, 32–35, Niman 1997, 72–78, Kohut 2007, 46–48, Welcomehome.org, Bliss-fire.com/Kitchens. 34 Schelly 2014, 52–53, 60–61, Berger 2006, 28–29, Niman 1997, 125–130. 35 Interview: Patches. See also Berger 2006, 29, Schelly 2014, 34.

106  Tall Trees, Warm Fire 6 3 37 38 39 40

Rainbow Earlies 2016, beginning at 1:30:05. Rose 2005, 89, Pew Research Center n.d. Lucia 2020. Lucia 2020, 4. Pike 2006.

References Beck, Garrick 2017: True Stories: Tales from the Generation of a New World Culture. Bloomington, IN, Iuniverse. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle.net/ 10023/2679. Bliss-fire.com n.d.: Butterfly Bill’s Rainbow Gathering Site. Available at: http:// www.bliss-fire.com/Kitchens.htm. Kohut, Mary 2007: “Welcome Home” A look into the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Published by the author. Lucia, Amanda J. 2020: White Utopias: The Religious Exoticism of Transformational Festivals. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Pew Research Center n.d. Members of the New Age movement. Religious Landscape Study. Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religiousfamily/new-age/. Accessed 12.6.2021. Pike, Sarah M. 2006: Men and Women in New Religious Movements: Constructing Alternative Gender Roles. In: Bromley, D.G. (ed.), Teaching New Religious Movements. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rainbow Earlies 2016: Barry ‘Plunker’ Adams, Medicine Story, Feather Sherman, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Vermont, 3.7.2016. Published by Jonathan Kalafer 7.7.2016. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W8kPyZ04Z0&t=1s. Accessed 27.9.2017. Rainbow Earlies 2 2017: Feather, Garrick Beck, Now, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk, Round 2 [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Oregon, 3.7.2017; published by Angel Forest 13.8.2017. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=incsbPCrWYw. Accessed 1.10.2017. Rose, S. 2005: Transforming the World: Bringing the New Age into Focus. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing. Schelly, Chelsea 2014: Crafting Collectivity: American Rainbow Gatherings as Alternative Community. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Welcomehome.org n.d.: Available at: https://www.welcomehome.org. Woodall, John David 2007: Following the Rainbow Trail: The Reproduction of an Alternative Intentional Community. MA thesis, University of Victoria.

5

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken Communal Practices

Rainbow Gatherings have various established practices and customs regarding the most central aspects of communal life. Processes of group communication and communal decision-making, as well as practices connected to the collective economy and the division and organization of work have fixed, and often ritualized forms. First, we need to describe a central feature of Rainbow culture and “an important conceptual aspect of Rainbow life”1. There is a simple practice that shapes countless other Rainbow customs, is involved in the layout and spatial dimensions of the camp and its sub-camps, is a visible part of most communal activities, and a core symbol of the Gatherings and the whole Rainbow Family: the Circle. I am capitalizing the word when talking about the Circle as a cultural concept and not just a circular shape, and to be exact, a Circle does not always have to be circular.

The Circles Rainbows love to do things in a circle. They might be eating, working, talking, singing, smoking, chanting the Om or absorbed in silent meditation, but the Circle is a sign that this is done with a communal focus or intention, even if it’s just a bit of heightened awareness of the here-and-now. People standing or sitting in a circle is one of the most common motifs depicted in Rainbow communications like invitations and newsletters. The Circle is a part of the “Rainbow way” of doing things, a custom with meaning. It is also highly symbolic, ritualistic, and a practical process with distinct aims and functions. The Circle is a method for organizing social situations as well as individual consciousness. It focuses attention and awareness; it turns a space into a place and is used to “hold space” in the ritual frame. It brings people together, literally, and metaphorically. Sitting in a circle, even when the situation involves a (temporary) leader or facilitator, means that everyone is considered part of the group in an equal way. The Circle is also an expressive thing in the Rainbow culture. Many popular Rainbow songs’ lyrics talk about the Circle and “circling”, connecting it to concepts like unity, interrelatedness, social cohesion, and collective power. DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-5

108  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken Sitting in a circle distinguishes a structured situation from an informal and casual one, and unless otherwise notified, a Circle is always open for anyone’s presence and participation. Circle is a simple but potent way of organizing social reality. In a symbolic sense, the Circle is the Family, in action and in existence. The following quotes are from my interviews: Our traditions guide the family, how to sit together and eat together and sing together with harmony. I think they are important, and if we don’t do the Food Circle anymore, something special would be lost. Also, if there is no Talking Circles. Then it’s like any festival or party2 . And: We are all on the same level in the circle. Same importance, all are Brothers and Sisters, all are children, all are equal. And all the living things, stones and trees and everything, they are family in the same way.3 Holding hands in a Circle and chanting the Om together is a ritual in itself and commonly used as a way to come together and focus before beginning a group activity like a Council, workshop or a practical task. In the US Gatherings, it is also customary to try to diffuse a situation seen as violent or threatening by forming a Circle around and Omming. This has frequently happened with law enforcement, who have also described it in their reports4. Food Circle Various central functions of the Gathering happen in a Circle and are named accordingly. The biggest and most notable is the Food Circle. Rainbow Gatherings in Europe have two communal meals every day, feeding the whole camp at once. When it gets close to mealtime (which is whenever the food is ready), the kitchen crew calls out from the Main Kitchen by shouting in unison: “Food Circle!” The custom is that when you hear a call, you ask other people around to join you and repeat the call together. Like this, the call spreads around the camp area and, ideally, reaches everyone. Calls for the approaching Food Circle are repeated at rough intervals for a few times, and when the meal is ready to serve, the final call goes out: “Food Circle NOW!”. The calls give people the possibility to organize themselves, to prepare, and go to the Main Fire area in time for the Food Circle. Multiple intermittent calls mitigate the lack of fixed mealtimes and allow the information to reach the whole camp. The rough aim is usually to have the first meal ready before noon, and the second one before sunset. Both aims are frequently missed, and the mealtimes can vary by several hours, so the system of multiple Food Circle calls is practical. One way to get a better idea about the

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 109 actual time for Food Circle is to go to the Main Kitchen and find out how far along the kitchen crew is with the cooking. It is common to hear gatherers ask each other about the situation in the kitchen. After hearing the “Food Circle now!” call most of the Gathering will arrive at the Main Fire. Slowly, the Circle starts to form, as people begin to join hands and sing, usually at the latest when the big food pots are carried into the Main Circle area from the kitchen. The Food Circle ceremony proceeds organically, without any official leaders, by people following the initiative of other participants when it feels right. Gatherers keep arriving, and in their own pace, they take a place in the circle and join the singing. When the population is very big or the Main Circle area is exceptionally small, two or more concentric Circles are formed. The songs that are sung in the Food Circle are chosen from a collection of Rainbow songs, often being specific “Circle songs”, which talk about unity, harmony and the Circle itself5. Also creative, novel song choices from outside of this collection are frequently heard in the Circle, and when the song is widely known and the situation has a playful feel, Rainbows seem comfortable singing almost any song with a positive vibe, for a lark. In addition to Rainbow songs, I remember singing along songs ranging from gospel to pop and rock hits and from Bob Marley classics to children’s songs. Rainbow songs have a common feature in that they are relatively short and simple, and they will be repeated over and over until the song dies down and somebody starts another one. Anyone can start to sing in the lull between songs, and people either join in, or don’t. The songs are sometimes accompanied with dance steps, circulating kisses, raucous animal calls or other forms of play. The singing and playing goes on until the general feeling is that the majority of people have arrived and it is the right time to come to the culmination of the ceremony: the Om. “Omming” or chanting the syllable “A-U-M”, is another core Rainbow ritual custom. The syllable is recognized as a sacred sound and a spiritual symbol in Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism, albeit the meanings and connotations vary6. Chanting the Om was a widely known part of alternative spiritual practices around the time of the conception of the Rainbow Gatherings in the US, and Garrick Beck describes how it was also used in group situations which were not explicitly spiritual, to enhance social cohesion7. Some European interviewees were also familiar with Omming already before the Rainbow came along8. Chanting the Om has been a part of Rainbow’s ritual tradition since the first Gathering, but its meaning in Rainbow culture is generally separated from the meanings established within the source traditions. In Rainbow culture, Omming is generally understood to be a potent method for connecting people and “harmonizing” restless, aggressive, or divided “energies”. The reinterpreted meanings arise in part from the fact that chanting the OM together is an intensive experience in itself. Like the Circle, it is rooted in the bodily experience of being and interacting in a group, and thus influencing experiences of

110  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken collectivity. It is a fitting ritual tool for underdefined collective spiritual practices9. The chanting of Om in the Food Circle is a striking moment, especially in a big Gathering. The holy syllable is sung and hummed by thousands of people together, some finding harmonies, others growling low guttural notes of throat-singing. People are concentrated, present, hand in hand and eyes closed, chanting with long, drawn breaths. The chanting goes on usually for several minutes, rising and falling in intensity until it dies down. After, there is a moment of silence. The silence is understood to provide a moment for everyone’s own preferred form of prayer or exaltation. Then, people begin raising their hands. As the hands are raised, the hold on the neighbour’s hand typically shifts, and people place their palms outwards, against the neighbour’s palm. At this moment variations appear in the rite: some people stay like this for a bit, others bring their hands together above their heads or into some other posture, and one by one people bow down to the ground. Most kneel, put their palms on the ground and touch it with their forehead, but some prostrate completely. Then, another variance: some people finish the rite by staying in silence; others whoop and shout or drum the ground with their hands. Either way marks the end of the ritual sequence. The last part has become a slight controversy in many European Gatherings, as peoples’ attitudes vary. Some appreciate the silence and like to keep it, while others take joy in the shouting. Both versions are framed with ideas of ritual efficacy: the silence is described as a powerful moment of collected, focused energy, and the shouting as an expression and release of it10. Although the collective Rainbow tradition leaves the Circle ritual largely indefinite as regards its meanings, purposes, function, and efficacy, there exists a whole stratum of spiritual and magical beliefs linked to the Circle, the Om, and other details of the rite on a more individual level – as with other ritual practices in the Rainbow. Some of these ideas are familiar to most Rainbows, with many people connecting personal experiences to them; others are rarer and more personal. Most of these conceptualizations and mythologizations are based in the wider field of alternative-holistic spiritualities and the common ideas involved. As in the example above, the basic premise has to do with the concept of energy11. One common belief connected to the Circle ritual is that there is a specifically effective way of holding hands with your neighbour in a Circle, where everybody’s right hand should be placed “on top”, meaning back of the hand towards the centre of the circle, and the left-hand vice versa, i.e. the palm of the hand facing the centre, and everybody’s thumbs pointing to the left12 . The idea behind the “correct” way of holding hands is that it enhances connection and the energy flow in the Circle. Similar ideas and teachings related to body parts and positions are found in religious and esoteric theories of chakras, energy flows, and their countless applications, including practices like Reiki, Shiatsu, Qigong, and Sahaja Yoga.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 111 An example of a more uncommon belief related to the same concept is that one should remove shoes and maybe also hats when joining the ritual Circle to further enhance the flow of the energy. The first example connotes the idea of a connection between the people, and the latter includes the earth and perhaps the whole cosmos within this. These ideas represent beliefs and conceptualizations which are not an explicit part of Rainbow culture, but often reflected in discussions with participants. They are fully compatible with Rainbow rituals and can provide an additional layer of sense and meaning, and a way to relate the experience of the Circle ritual to other beliefs and practices. Similar examples of personal beliefs related to ritual practices have been recorded also among the US Rainbow Family13. Below is a quote from my interviews illustrating attitudes and beliefs regarding the Circle: I feel the power of the Om. After a minimum of three good Oms there is this lighter, floating feeling. There is an electromagnetic connectivity when we are holding hands, and it links with the Om. We need to connect the palm chakras for the Om, for the flow. People should be aware that they are praying for the Family, its unity and healing, when they are in the Circle, and not just singing and holding hands. It’s like a machine, the Circle, it does something. We give and help each other there. The singing and dancing, it raises energies in people, the personal spirits become as one in Circles, they become amplified and charged. And things are changed, the place itself is changed by the Gathering. I have seen things like crystals changing colour in the Circle14. And another from Adam Berger’s ethnography of the US Gatherings: After sitting and enjoying a round of chanting, I remind Fisher of my question regarding the four poles [around the Sacred Fire] (…). He smiles, rubs his white beard, and says that they’re for a meditation some Rainbows like to do. He tells me it is a meditation on the energy of the Gathering. Adam: And the sticks, they’re part of it? Fisher: We call those the Peace Poles. They form the directions around the Heartfire. Some people like to send energy a certain way, like towards the dawn or sunset, or to another part of the world. So, they show the directions. And that’s useful for getting around the Gathering too15. After the ceremonial part of the Circle ritual is over, people begin to sit down in a circle and prepare their food bowls for serving. Some people change their place to join friends, others remain put. Often, the circles shift from the ritual formation to a more relaxed order. The atmosphere turns

112  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken from spiritual awareness to a more mundane attention – now comes the moment of announcements. The following is list of announcements made in one Food Circle in the European Rainbow Gathering of 2017 in Tramonti: •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

“Everything is possible”-workshop: starting with a Kundalini Yoga session to stimulate creativity, followed by a Talking Circle about personal problems and creative problem-solving. The workshop ends with a crystal healing session in order to empower the ideas and solutions found. Non-verbal communication workshop. Tantra workshop, topic of the day: expanding consciousness. Full Moon celebration will be in two days, and volunteers are sought for planning the ceremony and helping with a wood mission to build a big bonfire. Enneagram16 workshop. Volunteers needed for a big food mission. Physiotherapy workshop. A communal meditation accompanied with shamanic drumming. A mobile phone has been found. Dark Chai Kitchen will host a Talking Circle in the night, topic: loneliness. The Main Kitchen needs more help with the cooking, replenishing the wood storage, and with food missions. Heal your eyesight-workshop. Another invitation to share your ideas about the Full Moon ceremony. “Moon Dance” ceremony, only for women. The ceremony is said to last four days and come from Mexico. Sound healing workshop: expanding the vocal range, moving with the sound, and increasing the aura. “Herbal Walk”: a botanical workshop on identifying various healing, edible, and toxic plants in the area. Another call to bring more firewood to the Kitchen.

The food is served so that the people in the circle stay put, and the pots are carried around the circle. Plate runners take people’s plates to the pots and back17. The scoopers dole the food out, trying to keep the portions equal, and small enough so that everybody can get some. Typically, there is a first round, and when everyone has gotten one serving, the servers set out for another round. The serving is accompanied by a chorus of customary calls announcing the serving round: the plate runners are calling e.g.: “Rice, first time!” or “Salad, raw food only!”, and people offer their plates to the runners according to the calls. The calls for seconds are met with enthusiasm: “Soup, second time!”, and if there is food left after two whole rounds, the calls go out as “Vegetables, any time!”, which means that anyone still hungry can have some.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 113 The food served at the Food Circle is typically vegan, and the choice is usually explained as both a practical and an ideological one. Everyone can eat vegan food, and most vegan food supplies do not require a cold storage. Veganism is also seen as a healthy diet, as well as good for the environment. There are also other ideological and religious reasons for a vegan diet among participants, from animal rights to ideas about diet and spiritual development. The Food Circle in larger Gatherings can be slow. Everything takes time: the cooking, forming the circle and doing the ceremony, and serving the food. If the Circle happens after sundown, darkness will add to the time spent. Cooking a meal for thousands of gatherers might take half the day, and it is not unusual for the Food Circle to take several hours from the forming of the Circle to the end, which is marked by the Magic Hat procession. Magic Hat After most people have eaten, but folks have not started to leave yet, is the optimal time for collecting donations to the Magic Hat. In bigger Gatherings there is usually a Magic Hat focalizer or a Magic Hat Council (“Banking Council” in the US) tasked with collecting and counting the Hat money and overseeing the use of funds. As the timing of the collection round can have a considerable impact to the amount collected, the focalizer is often observing the situation and prompting to start the Hat procession, but in small events, it can also be anyone from the Circle initiating the collection. The minimum that the rite requires is someone to carry a hat around the circle and sing a Magic Hat song. The collection is done with a hat borrowed from anyone who has one to spare for a while. But often, the collection turns into a collective expression. When the music starts and the hat carrier begins to move, people spring up to follow the Hat, dancing and singing and playing their instruments, forming a long procession of clapping hands, twirling bodies, and shining faces. Often a child is carrying the hat, which is a proud moment for a Rainbow kid. When the Circle is very large or has concentric rings, there can be several hats going around at the same time, to better reach the whole crowd. There are a couple of different Magic Hat songs, the lyrics of which talk about abundance and the joy of sharing and giving. As the Hat goes around, people generally show positive attention and receive the Hat bearer with smiles even when they are not actually donating in that collection round. It is customary to make giving or blessing gestures, blow kisses, or mime putting something in the Hat, which also makes the actual donating inconspicuous. Some announcements are general pleas to give “energy” and “love” to the Hat, but otherwise donations are not discussed. The amounts and frequency of giving money is left to everyone’s discretion. The Magic Hat procession is a ritualization of monetary donations to the common fund, but with a remarkably happy and vital vibe. Sometimes, as the Hat and its contents are taken to the Hat Council

114  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken members to be counted, the Magic Hat song just shifts into another happy Rainbow number and a dance party rolls on. Drum Circle After the evening Food Circle is over, those who intend to spend time at the Main Fire start to prepare for the night. An almost nightly happening is a large Drum Circle of djembes and other African drums, together with Arabic darbukas and other percussion instruments. Drum Circles happen also during the day, and in other places, but nightly drumming at the Main Fire is typical. The drumming can also develop into more musically complex jams where the drums give space to melodious instruments like guitars, violins, didgeridoos, and flutes, as well as singing the traditional Rainbow songs. Drum Circles are typically attended by people who gather to drum, enjoy the music, and socialize, dance, and meditate. Any type of music in a Rainbow might inspire people to dance, but the nightly Drum Circles will always draw a crowd. Much of the dancing in Rainbows could be described as “ecstatic dance”, which is a contemporary term for intentional free-form dancing as form of self-exploration and expression. Ecstatic dance is often connected to meditative or heightened states of consciousness and spiritual experiences. In the last decades, it has developed into a globally recognized genre, and a common part of alternative-holistic ritual practices. Another vein of dancing as a transformative, meditative, or devotional practice is found in electronic dance music culture (EDMC) and the rave and festival events of the EDMC scene – which have a wide overlap with the Rainbow networks. Interestingly, anthropologist Graham St John has proposed a direct cultural link between archaic and exotic traditions where dancing has a ritual status, such as many Native American cultures, and the Western counterculture, which he names as an influential predecessor of EDMC18. Drum Circles are the closest thing to the decadent partying that many outsiders imagine happening in Rainbow events. And although many of the gatherers do see the Drum Circles as parties, the revelry is mixed in with reverence. Drumming and dancing are forms of spiritual practice for many of the participants, and often described as trance or meditation. Drumming, as well as chanting and other heartfelt music is generally seen as having consciousness-altering potential, and both Adam Berger and Seth Walker have recorded further individual mythologization connected to drumming in Rainbow Gatherings19. The following is an excerpt from Adam Berger’s ethnography, where he is talking to two drummers, Alaikum and Whisper: Alaikum pretends to drum and smiles broadly. Whisper: You can just feel it when you play a good drum. It just booms. Nothing can harm us when we have these! Like I said, these some solid weapons. Drum down the walls of Babylon all night long [laughs]!

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 115 I ask her to elaborate; she tosses back her dreadlocked head and chuckles. Whisper: Man, people have always known about this. They sure do in Africa, huh [looking towards Alaikum]? You get a dozen drums raging, and you just hit the sky, it makes everyone so high, just pure thunder. Rolling thunder, right? And it makes you so strong, like to just become one with the earth and each other, and pound out the earth’s heartbeats. Nothing is stronger than that. Babylon can’t even touch you.20 Another common musical and devotional Circle is the Singing Circle, which frequently convenes at the Main Fire, the Temple, or the Music Temple. A Singing Circle signifies people gathering to sing Rainbow Songs, Bhajans, and other devotional songs together. Talking Circles “The way we make decisions is more important than the decisions we make”. The quote is attributed to the Rainbow pioneer Garrick Beck, whose input was instrumental in establishing the practice of open Councils. The statement is so descriptive of Rainbow mentality that Michael Niman chose it as the title for his chapter on Rainbow Councils. Its significance reflects the idea that Rainbows have chosen to uphold a political system which is far from being efficient but as close to being equal and impartial as anything can. Talking Circles and Councils are basically the same thing, but the name Talking Circle is used more in Europe21. Important and communal issues in the Rainbow are discussed in Talking Circles, which are open to everyone. Talking Circles are one of the characteristic core practices that were established in the very first US Gathering 22 and followed ever since. Decisions are made with the help of a ritualized council process utilizing a focal object 23. The basic guideline is that whoever holds the object has an unlimited turn to speak, and the undivided attention of the rest of the group. The group sits in a circle, and the object is passed clockwise to let everybody have their turn and an equal chance to speak. The European tradition seems to differ slightly from the US, although local differences within both regions could also be considerable – the existing ethnographic material is too sparse for a comprehensive view. According to the literature, at least in the annual National Gatherings in the US, a decision-making Circle called Rainbow Family Council convenes every day throughout the Gathering at the Heartfire (Main Fire), where different issues are discussed, ranging from personal topics (known as “Heartsongs”) to practical and communal issues24. Adam Berger, writing about the US Rainbow Family a decade later, describes a custom where Councils are being called for different purposes instead of a single Council handling all issues and topics25.

116  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken In Europe, daily Talking Circles with mixed topics at the Main Fire can happen, but the custom is not fixed. The frequency and organization of Talking Circles seem to vary among the local and regional Rainbow communities in Europe and depend quite much on the expectations and sense of initiative that the population of a certain Gathering event collectively has. In general, Talking Circles in European Rainbow Gatherings are called as needed, and have distinct themes. The most frequent Talking Circles and Councils have established names: decisions about the next Gathering event are done in what is known as the Vision Council (see below), while practical and organizational issues involving the current Gathering are handled in a Focalizers’ Circle and decisions about how to spend the collective reserves are made in a Magic Hat Council. Other popular Circle types are e.g. the Heartsharing Circle and Sisters’/Brothers’ Circle. The latter three are intimate Talking Circles with a therapeutic focus, providing peer support and advice. Talking Circles are ideally announced well in advance at Food Circles, by declaring the Circle’s purpose or theme, as well as a time and place for it. Vision Councils and Circles dealing with other important communal issues are understood to only be valid in their decisions when they have been announced widely enough in advance so that at least in theory, everybody has the chance to participate. Talking Circles also frequently spring up as a response to crisis situations. Sometimes, personal squabbles between individuals are requested to be handled outside of the Talking Circle, but the Circle can also be asked to help in personal or interpersonal matters. Many of my interviewees expressed gradually coming to a new understanding about communication and group processes as a result of participating in Talking Circles. In any given Talking Circle, you will listen and wait for your turn for much longer than you get to speak. Patient, respectful participation in a Talking Circle is expected, and many behavioural norms are recognized, the most important being that no one should not interrupt the speaker. Speaking out of turn will often be countered with calls to “Respect the Stick!”. There are customs for allowing interaction, either by requesting a possibility to comment or reply to the speaker by raising one’s hand or asking, “May I address the Stick?”. The speaker can either grant this or ignore the plea. Alternatively, laying the Talking Stick down on the ground can be used to signal that comments and questions are welcome. Many Rainbows described similar experiences related to participation in Circle processes: when you feel like there is something important to say and add to the conversation, and you are waiting for the Stick to come to you, somebody else in the Circle says the (almost) same thing. These experiences are frequently interpreted as a sign of interconnectedness: a kind of hivemind, unity of the group, or even guidance of spirits. Indeed, a common way to verbalize these experiences and the wider Circle etiquette is that the Rainbow spirit is operating through the Circle, and that the process should be respected as such, and not be taken as an opportunity to draw attention to your person.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 117 At the same time as individual stories and personal inputs are valued, flaunting ego-talk and hogging the attention of the group for too long is considered selfish and inappropriate. Interviewees describe a learning curve arising from Talking Circle experiences, where the Circle itself is said to be the source of learning. Typical insights have to do with people’s manner of involvement in a group process: I remember my first Circles and how I felt with the Stick in my hand: like the king! Now I’m ashamed of how I took the attention and gave… not so much. I see many young men in the Circle who are learning this, learning respect26. When you trust the Circle, it provides. And it provides better than anyone of us could. I always listen with full heart when someone is speaking in the Circle and you can see that it’s difficult for them to have all that attention. Because then you know this is not their ego speaking, it is the Heart, the voice of the Spirit27. The US Rainbow Family has developed several additional guidelines related to the Council process, which are not in use among the European Family28. These guidelines are designed to streamline the decision-making process and to assure that everyone’s opinion is heard. Practices have been devised to support minority voices e.g. by counteracting perceived male dominance, and others for diffusing possible discord and aggression: The Council began smoothly, using a four-stone rotation. At the start of Council, someone places four stones in the middle of the circle of people, forming a smaller circle. Two opposite stones are ‘male’, the other two are ‘female’. Would-be speakers queue up according to gender behind one of the stones. The feather or object of focus, in this case a bowl, is then passed sunwise, or clockwise, by the speakers around this inner circle from stone to stone. The stones assure that a man or boy speaker will be followed by a woman or girl, thus counteracting any tendency for ‘male energy’ to dominate Councils29. To help the council run smoothly, participants agreed to have four vibeswatchers and two gatekeepers help with the proceedings. Vibeswatchers monitor the tenor of the Council, intervening to keep it calm, while discouraging anger, aggression and other manifestations of ‘bad vibes’. The vibeswatchers, selected by the Council consensus for their levelheadedness, interrupt Council, no matter who has the feather, if they feel the ‘vibes’ are getting out of hand. Upon stopping the proceedings, the vibeswatcher will usually recommend a moment of silence, a group ‘Om’, a stretching exercise, or a group hug30. Gatekeepers’ job is to inform late arrivals about what has happened in the Council discussion, to keep them from wasting Council time by repeating something that has already been discussed31.

118  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken Especially the Vision Councils are reported challenging. Often, they develop into complex political processes which can take days to reach a conclusion. Sometimes the ideal of a complete consensus is not fulfilled in the time frame available, producing creative compromises. When I was doing fieldwork in a Healing Rainbow Gathering in Portugal, the Family faced a challenge with the Vision Council discussing the organization of the next Healing Gathering. The Council had already arrived at a general agreement about most of the practicalities, and it was time to establish the final consensus, which is typically carefully worded out in the Circle. One participant kept objecting to the proposed consensus because of details of naming the upcoming event, which the rest of the Council found trivial. There were multiple attempts to reword and reframe the contested issue, but it was not resolved, as the dissenter kept blocking the consensus. Finally, after lengthy negotiations the Council decided that they would announce the decision to the wider Family as a “consensus minus one”, explain the disagreement and let the objector talk for himself. The conflict was never officially resolved, but the partial consensus was treated as a valid one32 . Behaviour in Circle situations, in general, is ritualized, and the vibe is often observed as an indicator of group dynamics, social coherence, collective consciousness, or spiritual unity. Typically, people are expected to show awareness of the Circle and its focus, respect others in the Circle, and welcome anyone wishing to join. In casual Circles people share snacks, drinks, and smokes, but in serious Circles eating or smoking is typically not done. Instead, people step out of the Circle for a break while remaining within earshot. Focused Circles also typically keep a neat, round, and even form. Circles are often ritually “closed”, or they morph into more casual situations and the behaviour relaxes. Angel Walk The Angel Walk is not a Circle, but since it is a common and popular ritual practice, I am including it here. The Angel Walk could be described as an intimate community ritual, or a rite of social bonding and personal empowerment, operating on themes of surrender and trust. The ritual process goes as follows: The participants stand in two rows facing each other, forming a narrow passageway between them. One by one people enter the passage, moving with their eyes closed. They allow the others to guide them through the passage very slowly by the means of gentle touch and soft, affectionate, and encouraging words. The walkers might also receive hugs from the people in the rows. The touches and messages are supposed to be non-sexual and respectful. When the walkers reach the end of the passageway, they are typically received with a long hug and asked to slowly open their eyes, and to join the rows to keep the process going. An Angel Walk can grow to include dozens of people and continue several hours. People join the rite and leave it as they wish, without disrupting the process. It is

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 119 also customary that the participants create a soft ambiance by singing or chanting.

If You See a Job, It’s Yours: Working in the Rainbow The Rainbow Guide, an informal Rainbow info-booklet produced by the US Family describes the participatory ethos of Rainbow Gatherings as follows: This gathering is absolutely free and non-commercial. In addition to what we bring to share, let’s provide for ourselves by contributing to the Magic Hat. It’s our cooperative commonwealth, which provides food, medical supplies and other necessities. Decision making councils will be held daily; all who want may speak. We are a Participatory Democracy – a tribe of volunteers. (If you want something done, do it!) All the work in creating and cleaning up this gathering is shared by every one of us33. Rainbow Gatherings involve a massive amount of work to make them happen, and even more to have everything run smoothly. The incredible part is that all this unfolds without monetary incentive, coercive power, or systematic organization. The Rainbows call it magic – and love. The division of labour is based on voluntary participation, where people take up different tasks serving the whole community, without material reward beyond receiving the same basic benefits as everyone else. Providing your time, labour, creativity, and money for the event and the community is considered a natural form of participation, of being a Rainbow. No sanctions in addition to feedback from peers exist. Individuals who enjoy the benefits but do not contribute (called “Drainbows”) are tolerated, albeit begrudgingly. In general, they are considered either immature or still in the process of breaking free from the conditioning of the commercial, capitalist society and its mindset conditioned by wage labour. Voluntary work benefitting the community is described as rewarding in itself34. In Babylon, you first have to work, so you then get money to eat, to have a house. Here, you first eat, you have a home, and that’s why you then want to work35. In the summer of 2010, I was hitch-hiking back to the European Rainbow Gathering in Finland after attending a friend’s wedding, and many of the drivers who picked me up that day had already heard about “the Hippie Festival” going on in the woods, as it was dubbed in the Finnish media, and they were understandably curious. One of them, a middle-aged man with the air of a business professional, was interested in the organizers of the event. “So, who’s actually behind this thing?” he asked. “It’s an

120  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken open community, anyone is welcome, and we’re all behind it. Decisions are made together”, I tried to explain. “But who is funding it?” he persisted. “Everybody together. We collect donations and people volunteer”. He looked totally incredulous. “That’s not possible. Somebody must be paying the bills. And sounds like it’s some foreign thing. They could be recruiting people for who knows what”. I spent the rest of the journey explaining Rainbow culture and telling him that he was welcome to come for a visit and see for himself, but to no avail. For him, I was describing something completely unrealistic, especially when I was talking about working for free. When we parted ways and I thanked him for the ride, he told me to “Be careful in there. It sounds like a cult. Or a scam”. Attitudes like this are common for people who are not familiar with the Rainbow. Things like egalitarianism and shared responsibility might sound like lofty but naïve ideals, not something workable in real life, especially in larger communities. And this is a big part of why participating in a Rainbow Gathering can be a transformative experience. John Woodall, who wrote his thesis on the reproduction of the Rainbow community in the US, asked his informants directly about their motivations for working in the Gathering, and received two kinds of answers: motivation arose from the joy of “doing a service to the Family” and “being part of building a community”36. Woodall’s interviews reflect the attitudes seen and heard in my fieldwork as well as in the rest of the research on Rainbow Gatherings. Rainbow culture sees work as a contribution, a gift to the community. It is also viewed as a duty and a responsibility to take care of one’s Family. The Rainbow ethic encourages people to participate and contribute, but leaves the choices of when, how, and how much to the individual. Typically, most people in a Gathering take part in the tasks of maintaining the Camp and responding to the needs of the community at least in some way, and many put in considerable amounts of hard manual labour. It is common to hear people describe the work they do for the community as a joy, an opportunity to create, or an expression of love: “To come to a Gathering and not work, to be a Drainbow, is to miss the point of the Gathering”37. Although formal leader status does not exist, hard-working and experienced individuals are appreciated in the community and generally treated with respect, thus social recognition and peer feedback must also be factors in the motivation to work. But what the gatherers express is wanting to participate and contribute, and the joy of being creative and autonomous about it38. An idea often expressed is that work should feel meaningful and give a sense of purpose and enjoyment. Gatherers are even told that if the work they are doing does not give them joy, they should stop it. A remarkable feature of Rainbow economy and division of labour is that even when the community leaves all contribution up to the participants volition, the system is viable. The Gatherings even manage to constantly support a number of what economists call free-riders39.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 121 Collective “missions” It is common to hear announcements for work “missions” in the Food Circle, and loud calls when the task is at hand, as volunteers are sought for collective tasks such as carrying in a load of food. “Food missions” in larger Gatherings might involve over a hundred people at a time, when a big delivery has arrived and needs to be brought into the camp. Volunteers are called in the same way for all urgent communal tasks, like procuring firewood for the communal fires (“wood mission”), participating in cooking (“help in the Kitchen”), helping with the water supply system (“water mission”), pitching a big teepee or another communal structure, digging Shit Pits, cleaning up etc. Shouted calls, signs, and announcements in the Food Circle are common methods for recruiting volunteers and for sharing information, as communication technology is typically not used, except for possible walkietalkies or satellite phones used by medical volunteers. Making signs, path markers, and informational posters is thus another central task in the Gatherings.

Figure 5.1  Sign in the Main Kitchen of the Italian Spring Gathering in Laurito, 2017. Source:  Photograph by the author.

122  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken Workshops A workshop in a Rainbow Gathering can signify work, a learning experience, creative production, or the performing of a ritual, or a combination of any or all of these. In the parlance of European Rainbow Gatherings, the word workshop is often used in the general meaning of a collective project or even jokingly for manual labour, and people learn to expect different things from a “Firewood Workshop” than from a “Chakra Healing Workshop”. Work, learning, and fun are also often intertwined. People are encouraged to give free workshops about whatever they feel competent enough, and to organize projects to construct or produce something for the community. Giving workshops is a way to participate and contribute to the community, as is taking part in them, especially when the workshop serves a collective purpose. Workshops happen in most Gatherings, and in bigger ones there are typically several per day. Workshops can involve a community project like building a shelter, or a lesson on a specific topic, perhaps combining theoretical knowledge with practical applications. Other common forms are ritualistic workshops, where a certain spiritual practice or rite is both discussed and performed, and workgroups for artistic and communicative projects involving music, performance, or visual arts. Workshop topics in the Rainbow span a wide range from practical skills and projects to esoteric and spiritual knowledge, with common focuses on spiritual and physical well-being, and topics related to the evolution of consciousness and sustainable living. Basically, anyone can offer a workshop about anything, and people join in when they are interested40. The need for straightforward labour without much creativity or learning involved might also be “disguised” as a workshop when announcing in the Circle among other workshops, as a kind of Rainbow in-joke. The joke functions to dress up the work as a playful social situation and an opportunity to contribute, to motivate people to participate. The Gathering in Finland 2010 for example had frequent “Naked Dish-Washing Workshops”, where the big pots and pans from the Main Kitchen were washed by naked volunteers. A workshop might also serve a necessary maintenance task, like digging Shit Pits, but the digging work is combined with learning about the safe placement, proper construction, and maintenance of the latrines. I have seen and enjoyed amazing things manifested by Rainbow workshops and projects, including a full-length musical about Rainbow life, complete with a band and a choir41; an adventure-park with giant swings, climbing nets and an aerial zip-line; and a long stretch of rugged coastline cleaned up from all the trash brought in by the sea. Rainbow claims to have no leaders, but there are varieties of leadership. The difference is that the leadership is tied to a specific task or situation and based on recognized personal experience and knowledge. Leadership is also always consensual. People can freely choose to listen and follow or not,

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 123 and individuals behaving in authoritarian ways frequently get called out. In Rainbow parlance, a term for someone assuming the role of organizing, guiding, or teaching others is a focalizer. A focalizer is akin to a facilitator, meaning someone who helps a group to find ways for effective dialogue and interaction, to achieve a common goal. In the past, the term was also used for communication roles. These focalizers had a more long-term task. They were responsible for keeping address lists of Rainbow participants and for disseminating information about Gathering locations, tasks that have become obsolete after internet use became widespread42 . In Michael Niman’s glossary of Rainbow terminology43 a focalizer is defined as an information conduit first and an organizer second, but in contemporary use among European Rainbows the term is rarely connected to spreading information between events44. Authority and “power tripping” Rainbow pioneer Garrick Beck writes in his memoir about the first Gathering in 1972 and about the first steps of establishing the political and social guidelines considering authority and decision-making: But an argument is developing in the cooking area and I listen in. It’s the same conflict over vegetarian and non-vegetarian. I’m hearing new voices expressing the same old arguments. (…) But I’m also hearing compromise and solutions here. People are going the extra yard – the extra inch – even a hair’s breadth – to find the common ground: veggies for the veggies, meats for the meat eaters; separate veggie cookpots; everyone helps keep it clean; R-e-s-p-e-c-t for each other and all of our weird customs. One of the brothers, Louis, from Little Harlem looks over at me and says, “Hey, there’s the fellah who gave me the invitation up on 125th Street. What do you think? About all this food stuff? Are we all vegetarian here? Or are we everybody? You hearin’ all this? Are we all eating out of one pot, or is there some special way we’re ‘supposed’ to do this?” “No, I think you’ve got it figured out just fine.” I nod and smile. We’re already ahead of where we used to be. Compromise is one of the key tools of a non-violent society. And compromise means giving something, in order to meet the other side halfway45. A classic joke about leadership is often played on newcomers in US Rainbow Gatherings. When a first timer asks about who’s in charge in the Gathering, the custom is to point at the youngest child in the vicinity and proclaim them as the “Leader of the Rainbow”! Tom Thumb, a member of the European Rainbow Family, describes another recurring situation. Sometimes, authoritative individuals who are not yet familiar with the group’s anarchistic traditions see the Rainbow as a power vacuum waiting

124  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken to be filled, and themselves as the one to play the part. Typically, there will be a sanctimonious message delivered to the Circle, met with an amused but mostly indifferent response to the haughty words: Inevitably as the words of peace and love, healing and inner spirit, harmony and transformation come tumbling out, there will be cheers and applause from some sections of the circle, polite nods from others and mystified silence from the rest who couldn’t hear a word that was said. Mostly people just get on with their Rainbow without bothering to judge. For, beyond acquiring a small following of young, starstruck followers, aspiring leaders in the Rainbow tend to find it harder to make an impact than they hope. They might have their moment in the limelight at the opening ceremony but the ripple dies away soon enough and then it’s as though it never happened, leaving them to learn the lesson that, just as in the rest of life, there’s little point in taking yourself too seriously in the Rainbow – because no one else will either46. When the leader-hopeful takes a longer time in accepting that the Family is not missing a tribal chieftain or an enlightened guru, or that taking up a focalizer position does not amount to status or adoration, the responses might take the form of playful rebukes and open ridicule47. Authoritative types are often suspected of being on a “power trip” or a “guru-trip”, as the expressions go. But generally, these types are thought to simply be lacking the experience of a leaderless society and perhaps a bit of personal development, much like the Drainbows. Decades of Rainbow life has shown that despite frequent attempts at claiming authority, charisma and attention-seeking behaviours will, on the long run be superseded in actual influence by selflessness and sense of community: Naturally there are those whose voice is heard louder than others, whose opinion holds greater weight as to where the main tipi should go or what to cook that night. Charismatic, powerful personalities can shine and get some attention but the truth is the people who have the greatest influence on the Rainbow tend to be those whose contributions are largely unseen. The humble souls who genuinely see work as love made manifest, dedicating their talents to make sure the light shines everywhere in the Rainbow and not just on themselves48.

The Gathering Cycle Some of the Rainbow Family’s most elaborate and compelling traditions are related to the process of planning and organizing the Gathering events. Every step of the process is guided by fixed Rainbow traditions, from the

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 125 decision-making and preparations to managing the event until the last steps of cleaning up afterwards. Guidelines are based on experience and past consensus decisions, which are preserved and transmitted mostly as an oral tradition, although written collections of guidelines and Council decisions do exist online. The traditions are intended to ensure that the Rainbow stays true to its original ideals: communality, egalitarianism, non-commercialism, and ecological sustainability. Vision Council and Rainbow Politics Decisions about the next Gathering are made in an open council called the Vision Council, where the group aims for a consensus about the “vision” for the coming event, which usually means a clear idea about the intended features for the Gathering as well as its rough location. Typically, each Gathering holds a Vision Council to talk about the succession of the Gathering in question – among the various local, regional, “World”, “Healing”, and “European” Gathering traditions. Vision Council is meant for everybody who wants to have a say in the matters concerning the next event, whatever it may be. Spiritually and emotionally motivated input is equally valued, and individuals are seen as voicing collective concerns. Thus, the Vision Council often discusses the participants’ dreams, wishes, spiritual visions, and their views about the future of the Rainbow Family in general, in addition to the practical considerations of organizing the next event49. Today the European Rainbow Family follows certain guidelines in the Vision Council, some following the tradition of US Rainbow Families, and some created among the European Rainbow. According to the European Rainbow pioneers, Vision Councils were more freeform in the beginning of the European Gatherings50. Some of the Council guidelines are in constant development, while others have become fixed. In the US National Gathering, the Vision Council begins at the end of the event 51, whereas in Europe it is customarily started shortly after the midpoint of the Gathering. It typically takes several days for the Vision Council to reach consensus, but there are also stories of Vision Council being dragged out to Clean-up. The Vision Council is the heart of Rainbow’s inner politics, and the European council guidelines seem to serve two purposes: diffusing the power of individual actors and small cliques while enabling a consensus supported by a wide majority, as well as ensuring that important practical issues are systematically taken into consideration. Some examples of the guidelines recognized in Europe are: the Council should be announced widely in a manner that reaches as many Gathering participants as possible, so that everybody has the possibility to attend. The Vision Council should only start after the Full Moon (maximum population), and it should convene in the daytime, between the first Food Circle and sunset.

126  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken This is done to ensure that the Council will not become a test of endurance or run over by individuals with the most physical persistence or obstinacy, or the least obligations outside of the Council such as children to take care of or commitments involving other camp functions52 . I also remember times when the Vision Council recognized that it did not represent the diversity of the Family, and sent messengers to encourage more people to join. Another guideline concerns the choosing of locations that ideally follows a process of invitations by local Rainbow Families from various European countries. This is done to avoid a situation where the Council would decide without being familiar with local conditions and circumstances which could hamper the organizing of a big Gathering: lack of suitable natural locations, difficult weather conditions, harsh local legislation or officials, or very few local Rainbows to help with the task. Ideally, thought-out invitations are presented to the Vision Council and their merits are discussed. An invitation is considered strong when it is offered by Rainbows from the proposed region, with ideas regarding the necessary resources and the location. These representatives do not have to be nationals or permanent residents of the country or region, but familiarity with the environment and good connections to different local networks are expected. Preferably, the invitation is backed up by individuals ready to commit personally to the tasks involved. Frequently though, the Vision Council is presented with more mystical or abstract visions than well-thought invitations supported by practical considerations, or there is a spiritual, emotional, or ideological reasoning guiding the Vision Council instead of grounded practice53. And often this works out well. But, as recounted in Chapter 3, the Vision Council process can also go amiss regarding the practical process of finding a good location. There is also a recent example of contestation from among the US Rainbow Family, where the 2017 annual National Gathering was consensed to be held in the Paha Sapa, also known as the Black Hills, which is sacred grounds to various Native American tribes. The decision was made without invitation or agreement from the Native communities. Understandably, a big part of the Family was against the decision, and with the local Lakota and Sioux communities voicing their opposition, the situation caused a rift in the Family. In effect, two annual Gatherings happened that year in the US as many did not want to gather where the Family was not welcomed. The time of the next Gathering is decided in the Vision Council. Most Rainbow Gatherings in Europe observe the moon cycle. Shorter meetings often coincide with the Full Moon, and the bigger events last for four weeks, starting on the new moon and finishing on the next one. The European Gathering is typically held during a summer lunation between July and September, sometimes involving consideration of local holidays, weather patterns, and the planned times of other Gatherings in the neighbouring regions.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 127 Scouting Naturally, the “vision” formed in the Vision Council does not always get fully realized when the actual resources, circumstances, and conditions come in play as the scouting starts. Compromises and further decisions must be made, and the people engaged in finding a suitable location, called the Scouts, have considerable autonomy during the scouting phase. Here too, the task of scouting is open to all Family members, but the Scouts are expected to remain conscious that their task is to serve the Family and respect the intentions formed by the Vision Council. Ideally, the Scouts can find several locations that could serve as a site for a big Gathering. There are numerous considerations involving the basic needs of the event: clean drinking water; deadwood for the fires; a big, flat, level clearing; space for parking cars close to the entryway; and importantly, either the land owners’ support, or circumstances that make occupying the land viable. And when the essential requirements are covered, there are even more features to consider for a well-working Rainbow event: impacts on the environment and the local community; a balance between accessibility and isolation; and local conditions like the weather profile but also things like the political climate. The example of the European Rainbow Gathering in Russia 1998 and the subsequent arrests illustrate some of the worst consequences of a political climate that is unwelcoming to countercultural activities54. The Scouts’ task, as other central focalizer tasks, can be an ungrateful one. It seems that no matter what the final decision is, there will always be critical individuals. The Scouts’ authority in choosing the site is often criticized as are locations themselves, which exemplifies the typical tensions involved in Rainbow’s organic organization model. However, open participation is seen to function as the checks and balances. Any task, like finding a suitable place is typically more complex than it seems to detached observers, and the process and its challenges remain hidden from the majority of the Family. In general, when a Rainbow participant is expressing criticism with the way a task has been handled, they are typically invited to join the task next time, to better understand the realities of it, and to integrate their input in the place and time where it makes a difference. Spring Council When the scouts have found possible locations, it is customary to hold another Council to make the final pick and typically, an open invitation is made for the Family to join the Scouts. This meeting is called a Spring Council, and it provides a possibility for the whole Family to participate in the decision. This custom originates with the US Rainbow Family and is not always followed among all European Rainbow Families. The political

128  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken ideals conveyed through the principles of open communication, broad representation and consensus, and the accessibility of councils among the Family are aimed at ensuring that the community has a real chance to participate in the decision-making. On the other side, weigh the practical circumstances, including the costs and efforts of participation. Most of the Family readily accept the authority and initiative of the people doing the job. It is common for different European Rainbow Families to follow their own ways of Scouting and decision-making, especially regarding smaller, local, and regional Rainbow events55. When decisions regarding the upcoming event have been made, it is time to prepare the Gathering invitation. Invitations are produced collectively by the scouts and other volunteers. Typically, the invitation includes artistic, informative, and inspirational content: hand-drawn illustrations related to Rainbow life and philosophy, location maps, and some pages of text. Usually, the text introduces Rainbow Gatherings by describing

Figure 5.2  The invitation to the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering. Source:  Photograph by the author.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 129 Rainbow’s origins and culture and gives information about the practical life in a Gathering: how to prepare oneself, what to bring and not to bring, and possible special characteristics of the current event. Other important information describes the exact location, and how to arrive both by car and by public transportation. Gathering invitations used to be only in paper form, reproduced by photocopying, and distributed by mail. Nowadays, they are mostly shared in digital form via individual emails or an autoresponder-service. The final invitations are sent as soon as is deemed practical, balancing between informing the participants in time while leaving the officials little chance to respond. The European Family has formed a consensus against publishing invitations openly on the internet for the same reason. This requires the Family to remain responsive and adaptive, as making detailed travel plans and preparations in advance is difficult. Seed Camp A site needs to be prepared for a Gathering, and this is done in a specific building- and preparation period known as the Seed Camp. Sometimes the first participants arrive at the Gathering location as soon as it becomes possible, but typically a week or two before the start of a Gathering, people ready to work begin to show up. It is common to have a bigger proportion of young and middle-aged men in the Seed Camps than generally in the Gatherings, as the expectation for Seed Campers is to participate in the daily physical labour involved in creating the basic infrastructure 56 . The first task for the Seed Camp is to closely map the Gathering area to identify possible water sources, areas with deadwood, existing pathways, flat and open clearings, and vulnerable or dangerous locations. Then the best locations for the Main Fire, Main Kitchen, Welcome Home and often also the Kids’ Camp are discussed and staked out. First Shit Pits are dug, and water systems are established. The construction of the most important communal structures begins, while parking areas and the main trails are cleared, reinforced, and marked. Depending on the size of the event and of the Seed Camp crew, the building of infrastructure might be well advanced when the Gathering starts, or it might be limited to the minimum of necessities, but as soon as more people start to show up, the construction picks up speed57. Gathering The Gathering proper begins on the New Moon day. The month-long period is shaped by the influx and outflux of people, with population typically reaching its apex around the Full Moon. The population grows first slowly and then rapidly in the days prior to the Full Moon. Afterwards,

130  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken the population diminishes in a reverse pattern. Additional factors might influence the amount of people present, such as weekends and holidays, the accessibility of the Gathering location, and rumours about the Gathering, such as the local weather, possible diseases going around, and the general vibe of the event58. The US Rainbow Gatherings were concentrated on the 4 July National Day from the onset (US Rainbows call 4 July the “Interdependence Day”), and the actual Gathering lasts only for seven days (1–7 July), although people stay at the site for much longer. When the Gatherings started in Europe, they were often two weeks long, and it seems that moon phases were observed in choosing the times. Most likely, the US National Day was not meaningful for the European gatherers, but full moon nights were. During the 1990s, the European Gatherings started to be organized as month-long events, and the full moon night in the middle of the Gathering developed into a high point marked by ceremony and celebration. Some of the customs involved in European Full Moon celebrations continue traditions from the 4 July of US Gatherings, but the focus and interpretations have shifted slightly. The European Family has also created novel ritual traditions for the Full Moon celebration. In the US Gatherings, a central focus is on the collective silent meditation and prayer for world peace, following the aims of the first event. The ritual is still named as the purpose of the Gathering, performed every 4th of July in the National Gathering, and in various other times in the US Regional Gatherings. In my experience, the European Rainbow Family does not universally hold the world peace ritual as the main purpose of Gatherings, rather the tradition varies. I have attended Gatherings in Europe where the meditation for world peace was merely an additional feature, completely eclipsed in the collective focus by the Full Moon celebration. I have also been at Gatherings with a prominent focus on the silent meditation and most of the population participating, at least by respecting the silence. The silent ritual is sometimes presented as a central Rainbow tradition and originating from the US Gatherings, but often no explanations or history are given, and the rite is seen as one idea among others. A period of collective silence is always followed by the celebration.

Field Story: Full Moon in Spruga The Swiss Rainbow Family hosted a Gathering in the summer of 2015 high up the valley of Onsernone, close to the village of Spruga. The Gathering population grew to several hundred around the Full Moon, with people from all around the globe. The Full Moon celebration in Spruga was typical for its contents, but exceptionally well prepared for. People were invited to participate in the “Full Moon Focalizers Circle” tasked with organizing the communal

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 131 activities and celebration. The Circle convened several times ahead of the event, discussing ideas for the general program and its various details. On the days before Full Moon, more volunteers were called for: kitchen volunteers to help with cooking a feast, dancers, musicians, and fire performers to participate in the ritual spectacle, and everybody to help collecting the massive amount of firewood needed for the bonfire. In addition, information about the communal silent meditation was shared. The intention was to hold a day of collective silence followed by a night of celebration. People were advised that they could meditate independently or join the group meditating and praying together around the Main Fire, beginning around the sunrise of the Full Moon day. Those who did not wish to pray or meditate were asked to support others by remining silent until the evening Food Circle. Come the morning of the Full Moon day, most of the camp was indeed silent. People who could not or did not want to be quiet, like young children and their parents and those working for the preparations, restrained themselves in the communal areas. I went to the Chai Kitchen to make coffee, and saw people going about their day as usual but instead of speaking, there were signals, gestures, and whispers. One Brother sat next to the fire grinning and pulled a card from his shirt pocket with the text “Good morning!” on it. He had some other cards too, saying “I love you!”, “Thank you!” and “Ganja connection?”. There were people sitting around the Main Fire, absorbed in meditation, others doing Yoga and other practices. A general atmosphere of serenity and subdued giggles filled the camp, and even the first Food Circle was held in silence. The silence was broken after a particularly long and devout Om in the evening Food Circle, and later the Full Moon ceremony began. The ritual followed a tradition which, to my knowledge, has developed among the European Rainbow Family: a ritual spectacle themed according to the four classic elements of water, air, fire, and earth, represented by music, dance, and theatre. The centre of the Circle became a stage, where each element took its turn. The water dancers wore blue, flowing and waving to watery music. The air dancers, dressed in white, glided around fluttering long strips of fabric while two pairs of acrobats performed daring lifts and balances. Earth was represented by dancers decked in plant leaves and body paint of mud, stomping up clouds of dust and rolling around to the sound of drums. And finally, the fire dancers took to the stage with red outfits, fire juggling, and acrobatics. After the orchestrated part was finished, the drums took over, spurring the crowd to a dancing frenzy and making the whole alpine valley echo with a primal beat.

The Full Moon is often discussed in the Gatherings as a climactic turning point in the general vibe. Before the Full Moon, the community expands and develops: the infrastructure builds up and the population grows, and the whole event is preparing for the apex of peak population and communal celebration. After the Full Moon, the mood turns mellower. As the population slowly diminishes and the infrastructure and resources are established,

132  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken the community can focus on things like the Vision Council. The gatherers often ascribe these changes to the moon itself, in line with common esoteric beliefs regarding different moon phases. Closing of the Fire and Clean-up I have not participated in many Gatherings until their end, so my experience of the ritual events connected to it is less comprehensive. There is a custom of holding a specific “Closing of the Fire”-ritual at the end of a Gathering, but I cannot reliably say how prevalent the tradition is. When a ceremony is conducted, the ritual sequence varies perhaps more than with other Rainbow rituals. The ritual focuses on extinguishing the Main Fire on the day of the new moon marking the end of the actual Gathering and the beginning of the Clean-up. According to previous research and my fieldwork, certain things change at this point: the Main Fire is no longer considered sacred, and the behavioural guidelines do not apply anymore. It now becomes possible to use the fire for cooking, or even disposing the burnable waste. Similar changes are extended to the camp area: it is no longer a sacred ground. Councils cannot establish a consensus except on matters pertaining to the Clean-up, and everybody staying around should partake in the Clean-up work. When the Gathering is nearing its end, the Clean-up begins to be discussed and announced in the Circle to motivate people to help. The amount of work involved in cleaning the entire Gathering area can be significant, especially after the big European Gatherings. The Clean-up volunteers are tasked with removing all garbage, and as much as possible, all traces of human activity. Ideally, the site is left in a better condition than it was before the event. Although Rainbow’s guidelines ask participants to help with the garbage produced by the communal activity in addition to taking care of their own trash, the bigger events can have heaps of trash left behind in the end which the Clean-up crew has to handle59. During the Clean-up phase, the spatial organization of the Gathering changes. The remaining cleaning crew typically moves to camp in a central area of the site and starts their cleaning work from the outer edges60. Campfires and Shit Pits are covered, and all constructions are dismantled. Water lines, signs, and path markers are removed. Wooden poles used in construction are ideally scattered out of open areas into more suitable places, to “naturalize” the landscape. The US Family is known to plant seeds on pathways and worn-down areas, but I have no verified knowledge if this has happened in European Gatherings as well. The garbage is separated into recyclables, burnables, organics, and problem waste, and the parts that cannot be safely burned or composted are delivered to local collection points – when they exist and can receive the amounts. Frequently, local garbage management is not designed for large amounts, and in some countries recycling systems might be virtually non-existent, especially in rural areas. In those cases, alternative methods

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 133 are sought for. There are accounts of the Family transporting garbage to landfills and recyclables to collection points even across borders, but also rumours of less responsible ways of garbage disposal. Some of my informants described participating in the Clean-up as well as in the Seed Camp as especially rewarding. When motivation arises from the possibility to contribute and serve the community, it seems natural that participating in these essential tasks is experienced as even more meaningful than regular work. Other important factors mentioned were the “behind-the-scenes” aspect of these periods, and awareness of the significance of the cleaning work to Mother Earth and to the local community and hence to the general reputation of the Rainbow Family.

Crisis and Conflict in the Rainbow Rainbow culture emphasizes love, peace, and respect, but what happens when this is not enough, and a conflict arises? What are the methods for problem-solving and what happens in these situations? The US Family has an explicit peace-keeping tradition known as Shanti Sena, but the term is not familiar to all in the European Gatherings. “Shanti Sena” is said to come from Sanskrit and mean “peace keeper”, “peace army”, or something similar, although there are also differing meanings and etymologies61. The tradition requires that whenever interpersonal conflict arises, especially one that is potentially violent, anyone can call “Shanti Sena!”, which is understood as a call for help and support. Anyone hearing the call can step up and respond to the situation, and some Gatherings establish specific volunteer peacekeepers. Intervention means pacifying and diffusing the conflict with non-violent methods (mainly communication, or practices such as chanting), or if all else fails, restraining those who resort to violence62 . Something very similar also happens in the European Gatherings, but often without an explicit, named tradition with its own guidelines as in the US. Instead, conflict situations are typically handled communally as they rise, in the manner deemed best by the participants. Conflicts affecting the wider community in the European Gatherings are typically “brought to the Circle”, meaning that a designated Talking Circle takes place, discussing the situation to find solutions. Individuals might also approach the group requesting the help of the community in various matters. When the people involved in the conflict so wish, the conflict-solving Circle might also be a “closed” one, with only certain invited individuals taking part instead of an open and public Circle. During my fieldwork, an Italian Spring Gathering had a conflict where a female participant claimed to have been sexually harassed, and her friends wanted to call attention to this and make the accused molester accountable. First, the matter was announced to the Family, and a closed Talking Circle was arranged, where the alleged perpetrator was given a chance to explain himself, and to make suggestions for a resolution. In this Circle, the man in

134  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken question simply kept denying the accusation, which prompted the friends of the alleged victim to take the matter to the big Circle again. That night, after the Food Circle, the situation was explained to the whole population. The Family discussed the accusation, asking both the alleged molester and the victim to share their sides of the story. After a long and heated discussion, where a few people also suggested calling the police and reporting the harassment, the situation was resolved only partially – by the alleged molester agreeing to rather leave the Gathering. The above incident is typical in many accounts: handling matters as a community, trying to resolve the conflict internally before calling for outside involvement and ostracizing a problematic member if they cannot convince the community that they are not a threat63. The practice of communal conflict-resolution can at its best be compelling and efficient but can at its worst degenerate to sheer mob mentality, and there are no collective means of enforcing accountability. In my example case, the alleged molester left the event driven by public shaming and even threats of violence from some individuals, while not admitting to any wrongdoing. I doubt that there were any further repercussions to the alleged molester, and I am not aware of any further support offered to the alleged victim. On the other hand, there was no proof beyond the claims of the involved parties, and the alleged victim did not want to involve the police. Another example of crisis in the Rainbow is related to the accidental death of a Rainbow Brother, which happened in the 2017 European Rainbow Gathering in Italy. A man was killed in a sudden storm by a falling tree, and the accident happened outside of the Gathering area, on one of the paths leading in. Rumours of the incident began to reach the Gathering after the storm subsided, and many had seen the rescue helicopter buzzing ominously above the valley, but nothing could be confirmed until later that night. As the tragic news spread throughout the community, people began to gather at the Main Circle area, even though very few seemed to personally know the victim. Slowly, a crowd of hundreds accumulated around the Main Fire, the glow of which was the only source of light in the darkness. A voice rang out from the crowd: “Please, let’s Om and sing for our Brother!”, and soon the whole group was humming in unison, with people crying, holding hands, and hugging each other among the crowd. The Omming went on for a long while, and a large crowd remained around the Main Fire until late in the night, hugging, singing, chanting, and talking. After the Gathering, the victim’s partner published the following post in the Gathering’s main social media group. The posting reflects the spiritual and communal traditions of the Rainbow Family: Hello dear family! I am Sara, David’s wife. I want to ask you for something. If you have time and place for it, it does not matter where …. can you please plant two trees?

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 135 One in memory of David, and the other one in memory of the tree which died with him. Thank you ❤ love and light. Om namah shivaya sara (the names are changed)64 Many responded positively to this message and expressed their intention to follow the suggestion. The message and its reception are characteristic of Rainbow’s ritual tradition: a subjective, creative ritual form is suggested, with elements of communality and sacralization of nature. The life of the tree is recognized in parallel with the human. And notably, the final form and content of the rite are left for the participants to decide for themselves. As mentioned, the most common topics of conflict and controversy in the Rainbow are dogs and drugs. In addition, and especially in the last years, many of the big European Rainbow Gatherings have suffered from widespread illness. Gastrointestinal ailments have always been common in the Gatherings, but some of the last years’ problems have gotten more serious. The spread of illness has become a controversial issue during and between Gatherings, and it seems challenging for the Family to take collective action. People’s understanding of the nature of illness varies from physical and physiological interpretations to metaphysical ones. Where many believe the situation to be caused by problems in hygiene or a contaminated water source, others see the problem more as a psychological, spiritual, or “energetical” one. The controversy over the topic has been informative of some underlying attitudes among the gatherers, as well as tensions between different ideologies – already before the Covid-19 pandemic. The refusal of medical-scientific points of view can be seen as another indication of the countercultural critique of the modern Western world, and the suggested alternative remedies and theories offer information about radical ideas concerning health and illness, concepts of “natural” and “unnatural”, and other religious and political views. During my online ethnography, I became aware of certain backchannels in the Family’s online communication. In addition to the dozens of public Rainbow groups in social media platforms with all kinds of communication, there are at least a couple of more covert, closed or private groups that focus on sharing critical information and warnings about problematic individuals in the Family. The groups that I accessed were both mainly dealing with the US Rainbow Family, but similar groups can well exist in other regions. The rationale given for the existence of one of these groups was “This page is for Callouts and Safety Warnings the Rainbow Family of Living Light community”. The same group advocates “listening to survivors” and warns against forming or passing judgements on those you don’t know, and against promoting violence. The sheer existence of such backchannels indicates that the provided channels of communication, both the Councils in the Gatherings and the open online groups and forums, are not sufficient or suitable for all issues. Reading the messages in the group, some members expressed that bringing

136  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken these subjects up in the Gatherings has provoked criticism and questioning in a manner that the speakers felt was suppressive. The larger of the groups I accessed included also self-reflective discussion about the functioning of the group and i.a. impacts of false accusations, and the groups are moderated by peers to avoid misuse in the form of slander and personal vendettas. Despite the efforts, some of the content seemed to describe people’s problematic behaviour at home rather than in the Gatherings. These “callout backchannels” and their content show that despite the ideals of equality and unity, the Family has its share of social challenges, and the usual methods of handling crises, threats, and conflicts in the Rainbow are not sufficient for all the participants. There are ongoing tensions and noticeable rifts among the gatherers, as in any other human community. It seems that the temporary and ephemeral nature of the event communities and the strong focus on harmony and communality can also make it challenging to remain aware of and to effectively solve existing problems when the culture of self-responsibility is not enough. It also shows that Rainbow’s ideals such as open communication have their weak points.

Notes 1 Berger 2006, 122. 2 Interview: Milena. 3 Interview: Gianji. 4 Niman 1997, 117–118. 5 See also Berger 2006, 122. 6 Lochtefeld 2002. 7 Beck 2017. 8 Interviews: T.P., B.A. 9 See Niman 1997, 117–118, Schelly 2014, 23–24, Berger 2006, 146, Walker 2009, 29. 10 Thumb 2014, 83–84, cf. Schelly 2014, 112. 11 See Fedele 2018. 12 Berger 2006, 44. 13 Berger 2006. 14 Interview: Gianji. 15 Berger 2006, 218. 16 “Enneagram of Personality” is a model of human personality illustrated by a nine-sided star polygon figure. 17 The practice of using plate runners is often contested for hygienic reasons. 18 St John 2013. 19 Berger 2006, 109–110, 114–116, 188–189, Walker 2009, 34–36. 20 Berger 2006, 114–115. 21 Niman 1997, 38. 22 Beck 2017. 23 Cf. Borgmann 1984, 196–210. 24 Niman 1997, 39. 25 Berger 2006, 107. 26 Interview: Tortuga. 27 Interview: Soma. 28 Niman 1997, 49–55. 29 Ibid., 50–51.

Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken 137 30 Ibid., 51. 31 Ibid., 51. 32 For more accounts about Vision Councils in European Gatherings see Thumb 2014, 69–72. 33 Welcomehome.org. 34 Niman 1997, 85–90, Schelly 2014, 43–46. 35 Interview: Milena. 36 Woodall 2007, 87–94. 37 Niman 1997, 90. 38 Niman 1997, 85–90. 39 Schelly 2014, 45. 40 See also Kohut 2007, 57–58. 41 Thumb 2015. 42 Niman 1997, 90–92. 43 Niman 1997, 241. 44 Kohut 2007, 96–98. 45 Beck 2017, Kindle location 4197–4206. 46 Thumb 2014, 66–67. 47 Ibid., 67–68. 48 Thumb 2014, 68. 49 Niman 1997, 44–45, 60–61, Berger 2006, 47, Kohut 2007, 95–96. 50 Interview: U.F. 51 Niman 1997, 44, Schelly 2014, 50. 52 Cf. Niman 1997, 44–45. 53 See Thumb 2014, 69–70. 54 Niman 1997, 61–62, Berger 2006, 15–16. 55 See also Kohut 2007, 149. 56 See also Niman 1997, 64–65, Berger 2006, 16–17, Kohut 2007, 44–46. 57 See also Niman 1997, 64–65. 58 Berger 2006, 17. 59 Berger 2006, 17–18, Schelly 2014, 69–70, Niman 1997, 171–175. 60 Cf. Schelly 2014, 69. 61 Niman 1997, 118, Schelly 2014, 157, n25, Rainbow Earlies 2016, Rainbow Earlies 2, 2017 Beck 2017. 62 Niman 1997, 118–125, Schelly 2014, 88. 63 See also Berger 2006, 62. 64 Facebook 2017.

References Beck, Garrick 2017: True Stories: Tales from the Generation of a New World Culture. Bloomington, IL: Iuniverse. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle.net/10023/2679. Borgmann, Albert 1984: Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Facebook 2017: ‘Sara’, published in the ‘European Rainbow Gathering 2017 Italy’ group. Facebook 20.8.2017. Accessed 3.9.2017. Fedele, Anna 2018: Translating Catholic Pilgrimage Sites into Energy Grammar: Contested Spiritual Practices in Chartres and Vézelay. In: Coleman, Simon and Eade, John (eds.), Pilgrimage and Political Economy: Translating the Sacred. Oxford, NY: Berghahn Books.

138  Let the Circle Be Open, but Unbroken Kohut, Mary 2007: “Welcome Home” A look into the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Published by the author. Lochtefeld, James 2002: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 2: N-Z, New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group, 482. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Rainbow, Earlies 2016: Barry ‘Plunker’ Adams, Medicine Story, Feather Sherman, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Vermont, 3.7.2016. Published by Jonathan Kalafer 7.7.2016. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W8kPyZ04Z0&t=1s. Accessed 27.9.2017. Rainbow Earlies 2 2017: Feather, Garrick Beck, Now, et al. Rainbow Earlies Share Hipstories at Gfunk, Round 2 [video], recorded at the US National Rainbow Gathering in Oregon, 3.7.2017; published by Angel Forest 13.8.2017. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=incsbPCrWYw. Accessed 1.10.2017. Schelly, Chelsea 2014: Crafting Collectivity: American Rainbow Gatherings as Alternative Community. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. St John, Graham 2013: Indian Spirit: Amerindians and the Techno-Tribes of Psytrance. In: Mackay, James and Stirrup, David (eds.), Tribal Fantasies: Native Americans in the European Imagination, 1900-Present. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 173–195. Thumb, Tom 2015: The Rainbow Musical [video]. Somewhereundertherainbow.org, 9.12.2015. Available at: http://somewhereundertherainbow.org/512/the-rainbowmusical/. Accessed 22.6.2018. Thumb, Tom 2014: Somewhere Under the Rainbow. Published by the author (Road Junky Books). Walker, Seth 2009: Broadening the Spectrum: The Religious Dimensions of the Rainbow Gatherings. MA thesis, University of South Florida. Welcomehome.org n.d.: Available at: https://www.welcomehome.org. Woodall, John David 2007: Following the Rainbow Trail: The Reproduction of an Alternative Intentional Community. MA thesis, University of Victoria.

6

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love Rainbow Folklore

Rainbow Gatherings have a history of nearly five decades, and as with any community, group or subculture with continuity and cohesion, they have developed their own material and customary traditions, as well as verbal ones: narrative traditions including stories, legends, myths and more, but also songs, jokes, and vocabulary. Other kinds of folklore like ritual customs, objects, and styles of construction have been described in the previous ethnographic chapters, so this chapter will focus on verbal traditions, and then discuss some general observations and a few specific details concerning prominent features of Rainbow’s material culture. Aspects of verbal and customary tradition have been touched upon in previous research on Rainbow Gatherings, but typically only in a partial sense: focusing on just a few folkloric genres or presenting folklore items as disconnected curiosities rather than as coherent parts of a cultural whole. Most of the literature on Rainbow includes a glossary of Rainbow vocabulary, and some mention the tradition of Rainbow songs, or the most prominent features of the big rituals, but the scope of these works has not extended far beyond description1. The same can be said about religion in the existing Rainbow research: some discussion on religion and religiosity exists, but it mostly remains descriptive and disconnected. Adam Berger’s 2006 PhD dissertation does ask direct questions about the religious tradition in Rainbow Gatherings and has produced the most comprehensive handling until now. Berger’s title is Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism, and he frames both Rainbow’s religious tradition and his own anthropological work as “postmodern”, which he describes as involving “a rejection of the correspondence theory of truth” and the acceptance that truth can be “relative, local, plural, indefinite, and interpretive”2 . Berger’s ethnography is commendable, and his findings about Rainbow’s religious tradition can be summed with the following paragraph from his conclusion chapter: Rainbows believe that their group is destined to bring about a new era of spiritual enlightenment. Sometimes this is described with reference to quite fanciful tales, sometimes in more mundane terms. Creating DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-6

140  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love temporary anarchist communities in the peripheral areas of the state, they seek to present alternatives to mainstream sensibility. This task is undertaken in a cacophony of specific ways, with Gatherers letting their personal ecstatic experiences guide them in building new life patterns. Playful though it is, the discursive work involved is considered to be important, spreading benevolent and healing energies out into a world dying because of the lifestyles of those who populate it. Rainbow considers its postmodern spirituality to be a tool for radical cultural renewal3. Journalism and media studies scholar Michael Niman dedicated a whole chapter of his book on Rainbow Gatherings on what he calls “fakelore”4, meaning the stories told among the Rainbow Family evoking the mythical origins of the Family. These stories are mainly based on reappropriated Native American lore, and as such have drawn their share of ire, criticism, and labels of inauthenticity. Adam Berger notes that the discussion on these “fakeloric” legends is all that Niman says about Rainbow’s religious tradition, focusing on the question of authenticity and problems of cultural appropriation5. As valid as Niman’s observations are, research into Rainbow Gatherings’ religious tradition and alternative-holistic spirituality in general needs to go beyond judging authenticity and the controversies of appropriation. Despite the now well-recognized problems of cultural appropriation and the fact that it can result in distortion, lack of control, and disrespect felt by subordinate traditional communities, reappropriated cultural content is everywhere, including commercial and popular forms of culture. It forms a prominent part of alternative-holistic religious traditions, although it is present in many others as well. Despite being problematic, appropriated cultural content is influential and significant for alternative-spiritual practitioners and needs to be taken as such also within research. The perspective of this research sees Rainbow culture as a specific formation at the intersection of Western counterculture and contemporary vernacular religion. It is a part of what is known as New Age, itself a transnational religious tradition, and Rainbow events involve an active migratory thread: there are Rainbow Gatherings on all the inhabited continents, and many in the Family travel extensively. Common sources for Rainbow’s religious influences have multiplied considerably, as they have in the broader field of New Age, during the soon 50-year lifespan of Rainbow Gatherings. This is due to the changes in cultural circumstances stemming from globalization, the political and religious developments of the last decades, and the onset of the digital age and especially the Internet. Globalization and the speed and ease of communication have brought massive amounts of cultural influences into common awareness. One of the biggest differences since Niman made his ethnography between 1986 and 1991, and what can also be read from Berger’s work, is

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 141 that although Native American traditions are still influential in Rainbow culture, they are not alone, nor they have such a central focus any more. Rather than the Amerindian culture losing its intrigue, other exotic elements have emerged to share the alternative-holistic interest. During the last decades, traditions from Central- and South American Indians and places like the Indian subcontinent, Hawaii, South-East Asia, and Oceania have also become popular sources of inspiration, imitation, and expropriation, flanked with numerous other influences. However, diminishing the whole phenomenon of alternative-holistic spirituality, or New Age, to being simply appropriative and inauthentic has been shown to be rash at best. Alternative-holistic religious traditions should rather be seen as examples of contemporary vernacular religion and approached accordingly. One good avenue to examine vernacular culture is through the content, context, and transmission of its traditional features and items. Hence, my ethnography includes plenty of Rainbow folklore.

Rainbow Language Vocabularies of Connection and Separation Rainbow Family has created its own vocabulary to describe concepts and perspectives that are characteristic of Rainbow life or the wider counterculture. Sociologist Chelsea Schelly writes about Rainbow language as a part of her research focusing on ways of building collectivity and presents two central trends in Rainbow’s colloquial as “vocabulary of connection” and “vocabulary of separation”6. Many of the vocabulary examples discussed by Schelly, from US Rainbows, are in identical use also among the European Rainbow Family, but local differences do exist. The vocabulary of connection consists of the expressions and manners of speech that create and reinforce intimacy, familiarity, and interconnection, thereby contributing to “the heightened sense of collective effervescence, experienced by many of those who gather”7. Rainbows commonly call each other “sister” and “brother”, “family” and “tribe”; they call the gatherings “home” and greet all arrivals with “welcome home”. There is no difference in the use of the familiar epithets between strangers or between people who know each other well, and for Schelly, this is fitting for a group that sees itself as one spiritual Family8. The vocabulary of separation involves those linguistic features that express and contribute to the awareness of the distinction between Rainbow and Babylon. It highlights the oppositional position that the Rainbow assumes as a counterculture. The term Babylon itself is a great example of the vocabulary of separation, and the term’s history is another example of cultural reappropriation and reinterpretation. In Rainbow parlance, as in much of Western counterculture, Babylon is an emic term connoting the oppressive and materialistic sides of modern Western society. In Rainbow Gatherings,

142  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love it is generally used in the meaning of “the outside world” and everything that is seen as typical of it: money and market economy, nation-states and their governments, and so on. The religious symbolism of Babylon in this connotation draws from historical and biblical sources. It refers to the historical period of ancient Judeans in Babylonian captivity, and two distinct biblical narratives: one about the Tower of Babel9, and another about the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation. In the Jewish vernacular, Babylon became a symbol for a big city, its decadence and corruption, as well as wrongful leadership and oppression, evoking the idea of resistance. The term was used as such in Judaism, and later in Rastafarianism. Why? Rastafarian tradition aligns with Jewish beliefs in many points: also the Rastafari claim to be descended from the children of Israel and see Old Testament figures as their forefathers. The term has been used in reference to ideas of obedience to God, oppression and resistance to it, as well as materialism and renouncing it, and its use in contemporary Western counterculture comes through its use in Rastafarian tradition, popularized in the West by its messengers in Reggae music. Other examples of the vocabulary of separation Schelly mentions are the typical expressions of time, and the use of Rainbow names. Both are used also in European Rainbows, but based on the ethnographies of US Gatherings, their use is perhaps more prevalent and varied in the US. The concept of “Rainbow time” is in common use among European gatherers, but there are fewer specific sub-terms linked to the concept than, according to the literature, there are in the US. As mentioned, the expression “Rainbow time” and its implications stem from the fact that few people in the Gatherings carry watches, and many prefer disconnecting from chronological time. “Rainbow time” is also used to indicate that things take their time and there should be no rush. Similar concepts exist at contemporary Pagan festivals (“Pagan Time”10) and Burning Man events (“Playa Time”11). Among the US Family, many other common expressions based on the organic concept of time exist, including “Rainbow noon” meaning the time when the sun is high in the sky, and “dark thirty” meaning any time after sunset12 . Rainbow names are alternative or additional monikers that can be self-chosen or given by other gatherers, often imaginative, and expressive of various spiritual or personal meanings. As Chelsea Schelly notes, Rainbow names are linked to the culture of freedom and anonymity in the Gatherings13. It is common to have long-time Rainbow friends without being aware of their life outside of the Gatherings and knowing them only by their Rainbow name. Rainbow names can be like spiritual names, expressing a change in identity, self-image, or lifestyle. In the US Gatherings, people refer to their original names sometimes as “slave names”. Whereas Schelly maintains that most people in US Gatherings introduce themselves with a Rainbow name, in Europe, it is not quite so prevalent.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 143 Rainbow Terminology The Rainbow Family in the US has social terms for people taking specific roles or expressing certain behaviours in the Gatherings. Some are used to describe a work role, such as “Water ogre” for someone tasked with keeping a kitchen supplied with drinking water or “Kitchen Mama” for a female kitchen focaliser. Others are pejorative with critical undertones. The term “Drainbow”, meaning a burdensome or non-participating gatherer is a good example. Many terms in Rainbow glossaries have a playfully reproachful tone, typically directed at people’s attitudes towards participation and their position in the community: a “Bliss Ninny” is someone who is seen as too “blissed out” to be helpful or being unproductive while pleading spiritual reasons; a “High Holy” is used for “elders who are or who see themselves as integrally involved in facilitating and focalising roles at the Gathering”14; and a “Weekend Warrior” (or Weekend Hippie/ Weekend Rainbow) is used for gatherers who attend the Gathering as a short break from their conventional lives but don’t actively contribute to the community15. In European Gatherings, similar nicknames exist. Epithets like “Baba” and “Sadhu” are often used jokingly for the expressively spiritual types, especially those who either dress for the part or emanate an aura of spiritual superiority. Tom Thumb describes the attitudes behind the terms in his Rainbow lexicon as follows: Baba – see Sadhu Sadhu – a kind of Hindu monk who has renounced the world. Sadhus belonging to a sect dedicated to the god, Shiva, tend to smoke a lot of charas, perhaps grow dreadlocks and camp out in mountain caves, by rivers and wander the land – superficially at least, not a thousand miles away from the Rainbow lifestyle. Hence a quick way for an imitative hippie to give himself a spiritual promotion16. Many European Rainbow expressions similarly focus on community relations and participation: “Tourist”, like “Weekend Hippie”, is used to describe gatherers who seem spectators more than full participants, and “Rainbow Police” for those who are seen as a bit too eager to reproach others when they do not conform to some Rainbow norm. Rainbow vocabulary has many expressions that are familiar in the wider alternative-holistic spiritual scene in general but have become an emblematic part of Rainbow life. Firstly, the concept of “energy” is used to describe various things from people and objects to situations and processes. It can refer to a character, feeling, or experience related to someone or something, but it can also be used to describe a force, an influence, an agency etc. Specific derivations include “spiritual energy”, “life energy”, and “energy fields”, “flows” or “emanations”, or the subtle energy of the body, nature, the planet, or the

144  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love universe. Energy is sometimes labelled: prana, chi, or orgone energy, male or female energy, sexual energy, and countless other designations17. Another common Rainbow expression is “connection”. It can refer to a relationship between people or things, a feeling, or an experience, but in Rainbow, it is also used in expressing a request or an offer for something. For example, “salt connection”, often heard during the Food Circle, is either a request or an offer for salt, distinguishable from the intonation and context. “Cigarette connection” is most likely a request, unless someone has decided to gift tobacco to anyone who wants. “Sabina connection!” indicates that someone is looking for Sabina. My first Rainbow experience involved travelling to Israel without knowing the exact location of the Gathering, so I followed my companions to the old Dolphinarium on the beach of Tel Aviv, a location frequented by hippies and alternative folks at the time. One of the girls, a Rainbow sister I had met on the boat, simply called out “Rainbow connection!” in a loud voice, and to my amazement, a young man immediately ran over smiling, greeted us as “family” and welcomed us to Israel, sharing the location of the Gathering18. Other examples of Rainbow slang are “shanti”, the Sanskrit term for peace and tranquillity, and “focus” as a request for silence and attention. It is common for people to call out “we love you/love you/loving you” as a response to someone speaking, working, or just passing by. A common expression linked to saying goodbye is “see you in five minutes”, anticipating meeting again in a future Gathering. As far as I am familiar with the different Rainbow Gatherings in Europe, there does not seem to be quite as much of established, collective Rainbow vocabulary as in the US, based on the existing ethnographic accounts of the US Gatherings. One factor could be that the Gathering tradition in Europe is younger, but the apparent difference is probably more due to the multilingual conditions in Europe. The lingua franca in most European Gatherings is English, but this does not mean that everybody speaks it well, or that everything gets translated. Rainbow Families in non-English-speaking countries operate in their local languages, creating their local forms of folklore, and especially vocabulary, but my ethnography is limited to the common expressions in English.

Rainbow Stories Native American Prophecies Rainbow culture tends to value archaic and exotic cultures in general, but certain veins of Native American tradition have received a particular focus: the prophetic narratives mentioning “Rainbow Warriors” or a “Rainbow Tribe”. Although rainbow – the one in the sky – is a common motif in Native American lore, as it is in mythology from all around the globe, there is a certain group of Native myths where the rainbow is connected to a

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 145 coming Golden Age of planetary peace, unification, and restoration. The global alternative-holistic spiritual traditions, in general, and the Rainbow Family of Living Light, in particular, have reappropriated these narratives as part of their own mythical origin stories, identifying themselves as the prophesied harbingers of a new age. There are many versions of these myths in circulation, and it is difficult to assess their authenticity without being well-versed in Native American mythology, so I am not making claims about their actual relations to Native lore. But, despite their contested origins, their attribution as ancient Amerindian mythology is significant to their status within alternativeholistic spiritualities. Hence, I discuss them as a part of Rainbow culture in the form they are presented in it. These narratives form a part of Rainbow tradition significant to many participants, and the Rainbow Familyaffiliated website Welcomehome.org hosts a repository of the material. Yet it is also important to point out that there are plenty of Rainbows who are not aware of them or take them to be allegorical. Below is a version of the “Whirling Rainbow prophecy” found in books and various online sites which attribute it to Hopi and Navajo tradition: There will come a day when people of all races, colours, and creeds will put aside their differences. They will come together in love, joining hands in unification, to heal the Earth and all Her children. They will move over the Earth like a great Whirling Rainbow bringing peace, understanding and healing everywhere they go. Many creatures thought to be extinct or mythical will resurface at this time; the great trees that perished will return almost overnight. All living things will flourish, drawing sustenance from the breast of our Mother, the Earth. The great spiritual Teachers who walked the Earth and taught the basics of the truths of the Whirling Rainbow Prophecy will return and walk amongst us once more, sharing their power and understanding with all. We will learn how to see and hear in a sacred manner. Men and women will be equals in the way Creator intended them to be; all children will be safe anywhere they want to go. Elders will be respected and valued for their contributions to life. Their wisdom will be sought out. The whole Human race will be called The People and there will be no more war, sickness or hunger forever19. Another, shorter version mentioning “Warriors of the Rainbow” is often seen in Rainbow Gatherings, on Gathering invitations, and affiliated websites, social media groups, and literature: When the earth is ravaged and the animals are dying, a new tribe of people shall come unto the earth from many colours, classes, creeds and who by their actions and deeds shall make the earth green again. They will be known as the Warriors of the Rainbow20.

146  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love The origins of the latter version are highly disputed. It seems to have been first published in the 1962 book Warriors of the Rainbow by William Willoya and Winson Brown, a book which has been called an Evangelical Christian religious tract and an attack on the Native culture by Rainbow researcher Michael Niman 21. The book attracted attention from the burgeoning countercultural and environmental movements in the 1960s and 1970s22 , a time when other accounts of Native lore became countercultural favourites, such as The Book of the Hopi by Frank Waters23, who claimed to be informed directly by “30 Hopi elders”. Waters’ book gained a cult following but has since been largely dismissed by Hopi researchers and denounced by the Hopi community24. The “Native American Prophecies” collected on the Welcomehome.org website have another disputed source: Neihardt’s Black Elk Speaks25 which, according to its author, is a recreation of an oral history presented to him by Black Elk, the famed Oglala Lakota (Sioux) holy man himself. In my field interviews and discussions, I came across only a few mentions of these “Native legends” except when talking with Feather Sherman, of the generation of early US Rainbows, and involved in transmitting the historical narratives known as Hipstories in US Gatherings. Online materials produced by the US Family feature the narratives as well. Although these narratives are familiar to many in the European Family, they don’t have the same central status. Other narratives with similar themes circulate at their side. My field example is a personal origin story that parallels with the themes of “ancient tribal wisdom” and “healing mission”, and is fairly typical for the more mystical-minded Rainbows: There are many solar systems and planets with life and beings like us. And we are light-beings, with the mission to heal. We saw that there is sickness on this planet and we could go to heal it up, like white blood cells, see? So we had an appointment, to come to Earth, through time and space. We were tribal brothers in previous lives, we were the tribes of old, but we got defeated. Closed in reservations, they killed the soul and sucked the energy out. But now we come integrated in the middle of Babylon, one here and one there. Now we make networks of light all over, even in the black eye of soul-eating capitalism. (…) It’s an exercise on the path of light. The Gatherings exist so that we can remember the old ways and reconnect with each other. See, we come from the stars, all of us, but we lost something on the way, we lost the memory of ourselves. (…) Here we re-learn through the rituals and circles and songs, and through meeting each other again. And we recognize each other, that’s why we feel at home, and we feel loved 26. What is noteworthy in this narrative is the planetary perspective that transcends ethnicities and nationalities in the way they are usually presented,

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 147 and creates a renewed division of us and them, where Rainbows are allied with ancient and tribal cultures and set apart from the rest of the people. Here, I need to make another disclaimer about the problematic aspects of cultural appropriation and how it too often remains without any critical attention in the Rainbow community27. As a researcher, I need to observe the realities and actual cultural influences of this group, but I do not want to leave the reader with the impression that I gloss over the problems involved. Indigenous cultures are not just a thing of the past, and existing minority cultures experience a very real lack of recognition of their rights, and of the struggle to preserve their cultural heritage. Unfortunately, alternativeholistic religiosity often involves a naïve and tone-deaf view of Native minorities and their sensibilities, and at its worst, ignores actual Native voices, leaving the perceived kinship quite illusory and one-sided. At the same time, there is another side to the appropriative and expropriative treatment of indigenous cultures among the Rainbows, which is relevant to the research. Typical conceptualizations of race, ethnicity, and tradition among participants challenge the mainstream constructions and establish an alternative understanding where what gatherers see as “tribal” has symbolic significance. Although the Family is diverse, and all gatherers are not involved in “playing Indian”28, Indigenous idioms are influential on the ideological level. In general, premodern and Indigenous societies are imagined as socially harmonious, environmentally sustainable, and spiritually advanced, and placed in contrast with modern, Western ones. These sentiments are prominent in idealistic frames where these perceptions of “tribal” societies largely stand for contemporary countercultural concerns29. In Rainbow culture, references to “archaic” and “tribal” cultures function as general legitimating statements, often related to the concept of “natural” (more on “natural” later). In the very least, attributes like “archaic” or “ancient” suggest that the cultural feature in question is very old and widely recognized. Fundamental practices such as the Circle and the Talking Stick are often legitimated by reference to their “tribal” roots30. Hipstories Stories related to the first Gatherings form another type of Rainbow narratives. These personal accounts are known among the US Family as Hipstories, and organized Hipstory-telling is common in US Gatherings. Stories about the early Rainbow Gatherings in Europe are rarer and told in private conversations rather than as organized storytelling. Hipstories told among the US Family, reflecting the countercultural reality of the 1960s and 1970s, often convey a sense of struggle against an oppressive state, contributing to and expressing the protest-movement aspect of Rainbow Gatherings. Notable themes in these accounts are the harassment from the officials and resisting it, overcoming oppression by non-violent means, joining forces with other countercultural factions, and

148  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love being supported by miraculous and supernatural events. These themes have been formative in the US Rainbow culture throughout the history, and similar themes are featured in the historical narratives of European Rainbow pioneers. Rainbow Stories of Miracles and Transformation Stories of miraculous or unusual occurrences and personal narratives of transformation are other typical topics of Rainbow stories. Many Rainbows tell stories of inexplicable or supernatural events happening in the Gatherings or connected to them. These occurrences are frequently attributed to the community and atmosphere in the Rainbow events, their perceived magical properties, or the “Rainbow spirit”. The “miracle story” narratives often utilize concepts like synchronicity31 or the providence of spirits or some other supernatural agents. “Miracle story” narratives might be accounts of relatively mundane events, like stories of “manifestation”, where the Rainbow community manages to provide exactly what is needed at just the right moment, sometimes involving surprisingly particular details. Or they can be stories of remarkable events involving themes like help received from an unexpected source (like the police), money or material things seemingly appearing from nowhere, or unexplainable changes in people, material objects, the weather, or other natural conditions. Personal transformation stories are also frequent. Rainbow participants talk about transformative experiences related to Rainbow Gatherings which can come close to accounts of religious conversion, and these narratives might have explicit spiritual themes and supernatural components or interpretations, but they do not have to. The stories typically describe the effect of participating in a Rainbow Gathering as an eye-opening event that has changed the person permanently. The change can be attributed to internal processes, social encounters, or spiritual experiences, and it typically involves a reassessment or reformation of one’s identity and attitudes towards life in general, and towards the modern, Western society in particular. Rainbow changed big things! With how I am with people and how I see myself. I think it would be a different life if I never went to Rainbow. So, yes. I have seen amazing things and been in amazing places with the Family in my life. (…) I think it is healing to many people just to come to Rainbow and be here, live here. It can be so difficult and lonely in your life and Rainbow is something different32 . I feel the Rainbow has made me a better person, and more brave, not so shy. Happier. It really gave me a big experience of beauty and family, so much heart energy33. I was an alcoholic before I went to the Gatherings34.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 149 Spiritual themes typically involve experiences of connection with nature or the cosmos, feelings of unity and harmony, and experiences of elevated and altered states of consciousness. Changes in states of consciousness might be due to mind-altering substances, used in a ritual setting or otherwise, but they might also be attributed to social and spiritual experiences. Many stories of personal transformation describe meaningful visions, portents, dreams, or experiences related to healing arts. Gathering practices such as meditation and various rituals are also mentioned as connected to transformative experiences. Typical social themes linked to transformation include experiencing human kindness, the help and appreciation of strangers, experiences of acceptance, support, and belonging, and of connection with the Family. Being among the Rainbow community is typically described as socially liberating and linked to criticism towards mainstream society and the forms of social interaction and collaboration it entails. Another impactful aspect of Rainbow’s social reality is the fact that the participants refrain from the use of electronic media during the event, and all interaction is immediate and personal. There is no recorded forms of media or entertainment, as no electric equipment is used, and no commercial or commodified forms of culture. Other influential experiences which often get mentioned in discussions and interviews are linked to witnessing the alternative community of Rainbow Gatherings, and its size, vitality, and efforts, as well as the differences between Rainbow and life outside. Different here is that you can listen to what your heart says, you can listen to the inner wisdom. You can be free and not afraid. Nobody wants to take anything from you35. The biggest difference? Here we are real. We do because we want. No leader is telling us. We decide for ourselves. Here, we do not vote, we don’t force others36. Rainbow jokes The US Rainbows are known among other things for their wild humour. Gatherings in the US have a custom of Toll Booths, where passers-by are demanded to share a cigarette, offer a puff from a joint, or tell a joke (“Smoke, toke, or a joke!”), but this custom has not migrated to Europe. Jokes are certainly told around the European Rainbows even without Toll Booths, and there are many specific Rainbow-jokes. Some of them are versions of older jokes on hippies in general, which in turn often are versions of older jokes, with the butt of a derogatory joke switched from other categories of people to hippies. Some are true in-group jokes which require familiarity with Rainbow vocabulary and stereotypes37. How can you tell a Rainbow hippie has been to your house? He’s still there. And what did he say when you told him to leave? “Namaste”. (”Nah, m’a stay”)

150  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love How many potheads does it take to watch a campfire go out? All of them. How can you tell Jesus was not born in a Rainbow Gathering? Even God couldn’t find three wise men or a virgin. How many hippies does it take to screw in a light bulb? Hippies don’t screw in light bulbs, they screw in sleeping bags. What do you call a Rainbow brother who broke up with their girlfriend? Homeless. What’s the difference between a hippie and a Rainbow hippie? A hippie will come to visit and stay forever. A Rainbow hippie will come to visit and stay forever, but they’ll wash your dishes. How can you tell Rainbow Family has been to your house? All the dishes are clean, you’re out of food, but they fed the whole neighbourhood. When Shit Happens, BURY IT! (Reference to a common advice at Shit-pits and the “Shit List of Religions”38) What should you do if you’re lost in the woods? Make a fire and a pot of coffee, and ten Rainbows will show up to tell you how you did it wrong. What do you get when you put 20 A-campers around a campfire? An almost full set of teeth. What kind of cigarettes do hippies smoke? Yours. How do you say “fuck you” in a Rainbow? Is this your first Rainbow?/ You have some serious healing to do./ Can I borrow your flashlight? Dance like no-one is washing! The jokes are often self-deprecating and play around with stereotypes about hippies and Rainbow Gatherings. Rainbow jokes typically focus on the differences between Rainbow culture, and that of the outside world, but interestingly, they also describe tensions and controversies related to Rainbow ideals such as participation, sharing, and gifting.

Rainbow Songs Although there is a lot of music in Rainbow Gatherings, involving many different genres, the Family has also its own collection of songs, known simply as Rainbow songs. There are Rainbow songs with several verses and catchy choruses, akin to contemporary folk-, pop-, and rock songs, but the songs forming the body of Rainbow’s musical tradition are typically short, hymn-like chants. These songs are sung repetitively over and over as the

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 151 collective vibe ebbs and flows, until someone shifts into another song. This kind of devotional singing is a part of many Rainbow rituals. Rainbow songs have spiritual lyrics, some inspired by different traditions from around the world, others created among the Rainbow Family, or versions of existing spiritual and popular music. Some of the chants have decades-long histories, but newer material enters the repertoire all the time as it gains popularity and recognition. Many Rainbow songs do have a composer, but information about the origins gets forgotten as the songs migrate, and the songs become part of the communal tradition, anonymous to the participants, and thus, contemporary folk songs. The songs also change during their migrations, and it is common to hear slightly different versions of Rainbow songs from someone who learned them in another country. Rainbow songs are typically in English, or a mixture of English and another language (or a phonetic corruption of one), like Sanskrit or Native American languages. The songs might get translated into other European languages, but the English versions remain in common use. Most of the songs are short, some only having as little as two verses, and together with the repetition, it makes them easy for people learn and join in. Written collections of Rainbow songs exist in hand-written and printed forms, as well as online. Rainbow songs come closer to religious scripture than anything else in Rainbow culture, as their lyrics typically speak about spiritual and social concepts valued among the Family, and they exemplify the various religious traditions from around the world which inspire and influence Rainbow’s religious tradition. Common themes and expressions in Rainbow songs include unity, harmony, love, healing, gratitude, interconnectedness with the Family and/or with nature, and various deities, most often being “Goddess” and “Mother Earth”. Many songs are slow and solemn, some are contemporary Pagan chants, others are more “New-Agey”, and others still resemble Christian hymns, Native American songs, or traditional Nyabinghi39 chants. Others take their beat from rock, folk, or reggae music. Here are some examples: Earth my body, water my blood / air my breath / and fire my spirit. We all come from the Goddess / and to her we shall return / like a drop of rain / flowing to the ocean Hoof and horn, hoof and horn / all that dies shall be reborn / corn and grain, corn and grain / all that falls shall rise again. (Original version by the feminist witch Z. Budapest) Mother Earth is a great big ship we are all sailing on / sailing on through space and time Touch the Earth and feel her worth / all join hands for a new rebirth / share your growing love and open up for the divine. Because Love / staying by mi side / why should I be afraid / why should I be afraid.

152  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love These songs are known as Circle Songs, sung in the rituals involving a Circle: We are circling, circling together / we are singing, singing our heartsong This is unity, this is family / this is celebration, this is sacred40. We are a Circle / we are a Circle / with no beginning / and never ending. (Original version by Rich Hamouris, member of the Pagan Church of All Worlds) May the Circle be open, but unbroken / may the love of the Goddess be ever in your heart Merry meet and merry part / and merry meet again. The following are Magic Hat songs: Deep inside my heart I’ve got this / everlasting love, it’s shining / like the sun, it radiates on everyone And the more that I give, the more I got to give / it’s the way that I live, it’s what I’m living for. Our magic is the give-away / our magic is the song / so give away your love today / and sing the whole day long Sing the whole day long / and sing the whole day long / sing the whole day long / and sing the whole day long. This Magic Hat song is a Rainbow version of the folk singer Malvina Reynolds’ song Love Is Something: Money’s like a kiss*, you’ve got to give it away / give it away, you got to give it away / money’s like a kiss, you’ve got to give it away / and it will come right back to you. It is like the magic penny / hold on tight and you won’t get any / lend it spend it give it away / and it will come right back to you. (*A hug / a smile / love) In addition to Rainbow songs, spiritual music of all kinds is popular in the Gatherings, with one tradition above others: the Indian musical tradition known as Bhajan. Bhajans are devotional songs from various traditions of Hinduism, based on the ragas41 of classical Indian music, with typically lyrical, spiritual texts42 . Chanting mantras and singing bhajans have been a part of alternative religious practices in the West for decades, and devotional songs from other traditions have become popular as well. Lately, certain ritual songs in Spanish originating from the transnational ritual tradition of Ayahuasca ceremonies have become a part of the common Rainbow song repertoire. Often, Rainbows develop new versions of traditional devotional songs and chants, mixing in various influences and creating hybrid forms which blur the lines between older traditions and Rainbow culture. A classic example would be a funky, upbeat version of the Hare Krishna Maha Mantra43, which is probably better known among the Family than any traditional rendition.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 153

Material Culture The Gatherings are very much about claiming space and making it into a place, and into a lifeworld, a social reality. Realizing and living the utopian alternative instead of pleading for one or negotiating it with the mainstream. Constructing a place through delimitation and designation of space is a central way of cultural meaning-making and communication. Placemaking involves establishing boundaries, structures, and objects which are connected to specific practices and activities, as well as to certain ideas, values, and behavioural norms. It is a creation of a cultural reality according to chosen aims and guidelines. In the Rainbow, these things are not dependent on or shaped by only the currents of mainstream culture and its commercialism. As individuals and as a group, people are encouraged to participate and create and to be active and responsible. The fact that a lot of the material culture is self-made, and serves self-determined purposes, is all part of the ethos of this counter-world. Material objects in the Rainbow are either brought in by participants or crafted on site from available materials, and everything must be dismantled and transported out at the end of the event. Many participants are critical of consumerism and commercialism, and disapprove of modern nonbiodegradable and disposable objects. These features, together with the appreciation of all things tribal, archaic, and mystical, as well as the ludic and jocular attitudes, shape the general look and feel of the material culture. Talking Stick The Talking Circle process is understood to have originated among various tribal cultures and to represent an ancient method of democratic group communication. The US Rainbow Family has a historical narrative of receiving the tradition of Talking Circles and the custom of the focal object from a Native American participant in the 1970s, sharing the tradition of his tribe as a gift to the Rainbow community44. According to the tale, a sacred feather was given to the Family to be used in councils when they struggled with discord, and the custom has been utilized ever since. The feather in question was an eagle feather, which was revered as a ritual object, carefully stored, and transported to subsequent Gatherings. The US Family still tends to use a feather for a focal object, although it can be replaced by some other suitable object, such as a stick or a bowl. In Europe, the Rainbows have come to use a decorated stick or a staff as the focal object of Talking Circles. The custom was in use since the first Rainbow events in Europe, and it has been reinforced and legitimated by similar historical speaker’s staff traditions worldwide and in Europe, such as the tingstav45 known in premodern Scandinavia46. Talking Circles and the Talking Stick (or another focal object) have become emblematic of the Rainbow, and there are individuals who treat the Stick as a sacred object. The Talking Stick is typically created anew for each

154  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love Gathering event, but there are also examples of participants keeping the Stick after a Gathering and bringing it along to a subsequent event. When I asked my interviewees about how they felt about the Talking Stick in the context of a Circle, the answers would often describe feelings of respect and reverence, or even sensing a power charge in the object. In addition to reverent attitudes, some approaches to the Talking Stick downplay its significance as an object. I have witnessed the Talking Stick being thrown to the Sacred Fire a few times. This was always done as a way of extreme public protest, typically expressing anger at individuals not respecting the guidelines of a Talking Circle. This act would not bear much significance beyond vandalism if the Talking Stick was not recognized as symbolic of the community and its culture. In this frame, I see the act as an iconoclastic protest aimed at the whole community. I have also heard stories of the Talking Stick being ceremonially burned at the end of a Gathering, to “release the energies”. One interviewee reflected the burning of the Stick as a way to “keep the Family from creating relics”, or from “creating a religion”47. Another commentator was critical of people getting distracted with “fucking golden calves” and losing the focus on what is relevant: the council process they are involved in48. Materials Related to the Main Fire Common behavioural norms and customs related to the Main Fire were described in the previous chapters, but it also frequently attracts further attention from certain gatherers. The Main Fire becomes a significant and representative object and location for those gatherers who are inclined towards dynamistic thinking, magic, and related ritual practices. I am aware of several gatherers who collect ashes from the Main Fire for various ritual Field Story: Italian Spring Gathering 2017, Laurito It is the night of the Full Moon celebration in a small Italian Gathering, and about 70 people are dancing around the Main Fire in the dark of the night. As the drumming pauses for a moment, a young man speaks up in the crowd. He is holding a sturdy, three-branched piece of wood above his head. “Tomorrow I will travel to Spain, to another Rainbow Gathering going on now. I wish to connect the Family here to the Family gathered in Spain, so I’m taking this stick with me from here. I ask you to put a lot of blessings and good energies into it!” He sends the stick to go around in the crowd as the drumming and dancing picks up again. I can see the stick being passed from one person to the next, getting kissed, held, touched, and raised towards the sky, until it comes back to the originator. A bit later someone else speaks up, to thank “the Family and the Universe”, and the crowd joins in with whoops of “Thank youuu”.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 155 purposes. The meaning arises from general ideas of matter being imbued with energy or power, the sacrality of the Main Fire, and the perceived effects of all the rituals conducted around it. Other things than the ashes can be used in a similar way, as in the following example from my field notes. The act described above is not a part of regular Rainbow tradition, but an example of individual input within the frame of the tradition. It is a creative, perhaps a novel gesture, but it manages to instantly get the understanding, support, and participation of most of the group. There were no questions asked from the originator, and people were free to take part or not. Those people who did not agree with the particular expression met it with tolerance. The act fits seamlessly into Rainbow tradition for the type of religiosity it represents, but also because it is an independent and creative expression in a participatory and collective frame. Rainbow Fashion Clothing and apparel are part of material culture, and of folklore, especially when clothing choices reflect aspects about the group identity. Expressing cultural values through clothing has also been a notable aspect of countercultures and utopias throughout history49. A look into the choices of appearance and self-representation through outfit in an average Rainbow Gathering would create a long list full of variety, with some specific countercultural and alternative-spiritual trends forming the biggest factions, and attitudes ranging from the dead serious to playfully whimsical and selfironic. A comprehensive account of Rainbow fashion would be impossible to give, but I can offer a general description of typical features. Most common looks would be best described with words like hippie, ethnic, colourful, earthy, and alternative. Various expressions connected with spirituality are also plentiful. Some styles are showing (or perhaps consciously communicating) the abandonment of vanity and fashion, determined instead by environmental ethics, practicality, or comfort, such as sensible outdoor clothing, favouring recycled items, or specific fits and materials. The weather permitting, a big part of the crowd is bound to display various stages of undress, exhibiting styles like the “sky-clad” (Neopagan term for naked), a version of the “20 ways to wear a scarf and nothing else”, and “shirtcocking” (a man wearing only a shirt). Many subcultural currents are visible, like the tie-dye swirls, fringes, and flowing fabrics of the classic hippies and bohemians. Or the contemporary hippie outfit, favouring skirts, baggy shalwars50 and Thai fisherman’s pants, topped off with T-shirts and tops bearing the faces of such cultural icons as Buddha, Shiva, or Che Guevara, or psychedelic patterns, ethnic scripture, and mystic symbols. Other popular countercultural uniforms include the amulet-adorned, all-white cotton simplicity and yoga pants of the spiritual types; the black and green militant aesthetic of punks and anarchists; and the cosmic day-glo attires and utility belts of the psytrance

156  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love enthusiasts. Costumes of various sorts are also popular, though sometimes it is impossible to tell whether a gatherer is sporting a costume for fun or just wearing their regular clothing. It is not uncommon to see people wearing outfits befitting fantastic worlds in steampunk, medieval, or fairytale realms. The observing eye will catch sights of the carefully crafted tatters of feral fairies, the jewellery-bedecked limbs of temple dancers, the mud-encrusted, moss-covered bodies of swamp creatures and Green Men, the hooded cloaks of wizards and elves, and the bare-chested leather pants combination shared by Plains Indians and the latter-day Jim Morrison. Identities are expressed through appearances evoking various forms of alterity and fantasy, communicated through images of marginality, ethnicity, and tribality, in the nondescript forms of hobos, gypsies, and shamans, likenesses of Conan the Barbarian and Captain Jack Sparrow, or perhaps animal onesies creating the image of a life-sized plushie toy. There is some playful but also more serious cross-dressing, with mostly males wearing feminine articles like long dresses or skirts. Tattoos and piercings are common, also in extreme forms, but there are also plenty of people who have none. Accessories include the ubiquitous Gathering-gear of cups, knives, and water bottles, and a jumble of miscellaneous hippie stuff: feathers, bells, shawls and ponchos, chains and belts, wooden staffs, juggling equipment, musical instruments, heads covered with scarves, turbans, flower garlands and woolly hats, sets of fairy- and butterfly wings, jingling anklets and prayer beads, soap-bubble kits and chillum pipes, bottles of oils for massage or perfume, and a plethora of curiosities pulled out of various bags, pockets, pouches, and bundles. Hairstyles range from long hair to shaved heads, with the majority being in various versions of unconventional. Dreadlocks are everywhere, and any form of “natural”, tousled, and unkempt hair is far more common than an actual haircut. And those sporting definite haircuts, the styles are mainly punky or the off-kilter of creative DIY hairdressers. Facial hair comes in all its possible forms and formlessnesses. Make-up is common, but not in its quotidian, beauty-make-up form. People adorn themselves with fantastical face- and body-paint done with colourful paints or perhaps mud and ashes, and various ethnic markings are popular. There are the tilaka-dots and bindis worn on foreheads in the fashion of the Indian subcontinent, markings resembling tribal war paint, and heavy eyeliner befitting both contemporary rockers and traditions where kohl is worn as magical protection. Various kinds of freaky and eccentric are the norm, and after some time in the forest, everybody acquires a kind of dusty and sooty veneer, with occasional twigs and leafs stuck on. To really stand out in a Rainbow crowd one needs only to have conventional mainstream style or designer clothes and be crispy clean. People with this look are usually rightfully recognized as newcomers and “tourists”, especially when the appearance is accompanied with the customary look of wide-eyed bewilderment.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 157 The question of how these people look outside of Gathering events is somewhat difficult to answer. I have a limited experience of meeting Rainbows in their environments outside of the Gatherings, and the meetings are often short or related to Gathering travel and hence, do not show the full picture. The Rainbows I know personally vary in their Babylon looks. Some look the same, being the colourful freaks of the concrete jungle. Others must accommodate to day jobs and office dress codes, or other requirements of their everyday interactions. This is characteristic of the differences existing among the Rainbow Family: for many, the Gathering is a big deviation from their usual lifestyles, but for others, not so much. A part of the Family lives Rainbow life as much as they can, perhaps passing through Babylon only when they really must. The “lifestyle Rainbows” are either nomadic, travelling from a Gathering to the next, or they live in Rainbow-like places such as intentional communities. Culture has been described as a “world-making activity”51, where people construct and maintain a meaning-filled environment, in material and immaterial ways. Folklorist and historian Simon J. Bronner sees tradition as “an act of creation in which people control cultural process to effect social ends”, and recognizes the connection to identity: “Folklorists certainly invoke their use of narratives and objects to show that people construct a universe of meanings and make them visible through cultural expressions, expressions that through performance and praxis mark identities for selves and others”52. Values, ideas, norms, and beliefs are reflected in the verbal lore and the ritual and customary traditions, but they are also communicated through cultural codes expressed in objects like clothing, accessories, and ritual paraphernalia, and through the material features of the camp. As pointed out by researchers of material culture, objects and other material aspects should be seen as deeply intertwined with practices and verbal traditions. And further, objects can be seen to activate and organize meanings, and to evoke practices and behaviours52 . Rainbow culture might not express its collective beliefs and philosophies extensively through verbal means and claims a freedom of subjective signification. At the same time, it does express and organize the collective culture through its material, customary, practical, and narrative traditions.

Notes 1 Niman 1997, Schelly 2014, Berger 2006, Woodall 2007, Walker 2009, Kohut 2007, McKinzie 2011, Veiz 2017. 2 Berger 2006, 93. Berger references Doherty, Graham, and Malek 1992: Postmodernism and the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan, 15, and Harris 1999: Theories of Culture in Postmodern Times. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 156. 3 Berger 2006, 269. 4 “Fakelore” is used to mean “fabricated” folklore presented as authentic. See Dorson 1976: Folklore and Fakelore. However, the question of authenticity should be seen as more complex than such binary divisions.

158  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 5 Berger 2006, 98–99, Niman 1997, 131–147. 6 Schelly 2014, 86–91. 7 Schelly 2014, 87. 8 Ibid. 9 Genesis 11:1–9. 10 Pike 2001. 11 Personal observation. 12 Schelly 2014, 90, Niman 1997, 244. 13 Schelly 2014, 89. 14 Schelly 2014, 145. 15 Schelly 2014, 141–148, Niman 1997, 239–247. 16 Thumb 2014, xi-xii. 17 Cf. Fedele 2018. 18 Cf. Thumb 2014, xii. 19 Syrigos 2014, McFadden 2017. 20 Welcomehome.org n.d. 21 Tarleton 1999, Niman 1997, 136–137. 22 Warriors of the Rainbow also inspired the founders of Greenpeace, leading to the naming of three of their ships as “Rainbow Warrior”. More on the connection of Greenpeace and Natives, see Brown 1989: The Greenpeace Story. 23 Waters 1963. 24 Geertz 1983. 25 Neihardt 1932. 26 Interview: Rain. 27 See Niman 1997, ch.7. 28 Deloria 1998. 29 Partridge 1999, 87–88, St John 2013, 2012, 249–252. 30 See St John, 2012b, 2013a, 176-180 and references cited therein. 31 A concept of “meaningful coincidences” introduced by Carl Jung and widely used in forms of alternative-holistic spiritualities and some forms of scientific theory in quantum physics. 32 Interview: Milena. 33 Interview: Estrela. 34 Conversation: Stefan. 35 Interview: Estrela. 36 Interview: Pato. 37 Some of the jokes are from a collection of Rainbow jokes from the US: http:// bliss-fire.com/RbJokes.htm. 38 “The Shit List” is an item of jocular folklore describing various religions and ideologies via versions of the phrase “Shit Happens”. It circulated first as photocopies (“xeroxlore”) and currently as internet memes. 39 Nyabinghi is one of the subgroups, or “Mansions” of Rastafari, with a rich rhythmical music tradition. 40 I have heard this one in the Gatherings for at least 15 years, but the song is also featured on Buffy Sainte-Marie’s 2015 album Power in the Blood. 41 Ragas are melodic frameworks for improvization in classical Indian musical tradition. 42 Lochtefeld 2002. 43 Hare Kṛṣṇa Hare Kṛṣṇa / Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa Hare Hare / Hare Rāma Hare Rāma / Rāma Rāma Hare Hare. 44 Interview: Feather. 45 Suhm 1826. 46 Cf. Thumb 2014, 107–110, Niman 1997, 42–43, Schelly 2014, 91–92. 47 Interview: T.P.

Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love 159 8 4 49 50 51 52

Interview: Tortuga. Campbell 2017, Galant 2017, Pollen 2017. The wide-legged, loose trousers worn in many South-Asian and Islamic countries. Morgan 2008. Morgan 2008.

References Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. Available at: http://hdl. handle.net/10023/2679. Bronner, Simon J. 2008: Understanding Material Culture (Review). Journal of Folklore Research Reviews. Available at: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/ index.php/jfrr/article/view/2582/2458 Accessed 12.4.2018. Campbell, J. M. 2017: Dress, Ideology, and Control: The Regulation of Clothing in Early Modern English Utopian Texts, 1516–1656. Utopian Studies 28(3), 398–427. Deloria, Philip Joseph 1998: Playing Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dorson, Richard M. 1976: Folklore and Fakelore: Essays Toward a Discipline of Folk Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fedele, Anna 2018: Translating Catholic Pilgrimage Sites into Energy Grammar: Contested Spiritual Practices in Chartres and Vézelay. In: Coleman, Simon and Eade, John (eds.), Pilgrimage and Political Economy: Translating the Sacred. Oxford, NY: Berghahn Books. Galant, J. 2017: Fashion Triumphant and the Mechanism of Tautology in Two Nineteenth-Century Dystopias. Utopian Studies 28(3), 428–450. Geertz, Armin W. 1983: Book of the Hopi: the Hopi’s Book? Anthropos. International Review of Ethnology and Linguistics 78(3/4), 547–556. Harris, Marvin 1999: Theories of Culture in Postmodern Times. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press Kohut, Mary 2007: “Welcome Home” A look into the Rainbow Family of Living Light. Published by the author. Lochtefeld, James 2002: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A-M. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group. McKinzie, Ashleigh 2011: Modern Day Utopia: An Examination of Internal Social Control Among the “Rainbow Family”. MA thesis, University of Arkansas. McFadden Steven 2017: Tales of the Whirling Rainbow: Myths & Mysteries for Our Times. Published by the author. Morgan, David 2008: The Materiality of Cultural Construction. Material Religion 4(2), 228–229. Neihardt, John G. 1932: Black Elk Speaks. New York, NY: William Morrow & Company. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Partridge, Cristopher 1999: Truth, Authority and Epistemological Individualism in New Age Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1), 77–95. Pike, Sarah M. 2001: Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Pollen, A. 2017: Utopian Bodies and Anti-fashion Futures: The Dress Theories and Practices of English Interwar Nudists. Utopian Studies 28(3), 451–481.

160  Deep Inside My Heart I Got This Everlasting Love Schelly, Chelsea 2014: Crafting Collectivity: American Rainbow Gatherings as Alternative Community. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. St John, Graham 2012: Tribalism, Experience, and Remixology in Global Psytrance Culture. In: Bender, C. and Taves, A. (eds.), What Matters? Ethnographies of Value in a Not So Secular Age. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. St John, Graham 2013: Indian Spirit: Amerindians and the Techno-Tribes of Psytrance. In: Mackay, James and Stirrup, David (eds.), Tribal Fantasies: Native Americans in the European Imagination, 1900–Present. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 173–195. Suhm, P.F. 1826: Historie af Danmark: t. 1340 til 1375. Copenhagen: Kongelig og universitetsbogtrykker. Syrigos, John 2014: The Warriors of the Rainbow Prophecy [online], ancient-origins. net, April 22. Available at: https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/warriorsrainbow-prophecy-001577. Accessed 23.2.2018. Tarleton, John 1999: Interview with Michael Niman [online], johntarleton.net, July. Available at: http://www.johntarleton.net/niman.html. Accessed 12.9.2018. Thumb, Tom 2014: Somewhere Under the Rainbow. Published by the author (Road Junky Books). Veiz, Brigitte 2017: Die Rainbow Family. Individuelle und kollektive Identitätskonstruktionen in einer postmodernen Neo-Hippie-Kultur. Giessen: Psychosozial Verlag. Walker, Seth 2009: Broadening the Spectrum: The Religious Dimensions of the Rainbow Gatherings. MA thesis, University of South Florida. Waters, Frank and Fredericks, Oswald White Bear 1963: Book of the Hopi. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Welcomehome.org n.d.: Available at: https://www.welcomehome.org. Woodall, John David 2007: Following the Rainbow Trail: The Reproduction of an Alternative Intentional Community. MA thesis, University of Victoria.

7

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Rainbow as Counterculture

Analytical Approaches: Counterculture and Folklore I approach my subject as a social scientist and a folklorist. These perspectives impact the theoretical viewpoints, as well as methodology. Rainbow is a distinctly countercultural formation, and the culture’s religious aspects are connected to this position: they reflect similar oppositional and critical stances. Rainbow’s religious tradition belongs to the global phenomenon of alternativeholistic spirituality, known also as “New Age” and “New Spirituality”. The alternative-holistic religious field rose in tandem with the 1960s counterculture, and is seen as an integrated part of it, as shown by labels such as “countercultural spirituality” and “countercultural zeitgeist”1. Rainbow Gatherings can be seen as a specific grass roots formation of contemporary countercultural and alternative-religious currents, juxtaposed and contrasted with the mainstream. I also see them as an “event-cultural phenotype”2 of alternative-holistic religiosity, moulded by the “event-centred” focus and the realities of the remote and rugged locations. In addition to being markedly countercultural, it is important to recognize Rainbow’s religious currents (and the whole field of alternative-holistic spirituality) as a vernacular, non-institutionalized form of religion. What these concepts have in common – counterculture and vernacular religion – is that they describe a subsection of culture or tradition with a distinct relationship to a dominant counterpart, and the nature of this relationship is central to the subsection in question, as it should be to attempts of understanding and analysing it3. In this chapter, I will construct an analysis of Rainbow Gatherings from the perspective of countercultural studies, and in the next chapter, I will discuss Rainbow’s religious tradition as vernacular religion, taking the approach of folklore studies. Countercultural Studies Life in a Rainbow Gathering is markedly different than in mainstream society, consciously and purposefully so. Rainbow offers a transient but concrete countercultural reality. The gatherers form a temporary society in the DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-7

162  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song woods, which for a month at a time operates with social institutions and guidelines of its own making, sidestepping many of the hallmarks of modern societal order: social classes and hierarchical structures, centralized and coercive power, systems of surveillance and sanctioning, and the consumerist, capitalist market economy. What seems remarkable initially is that somehow, it works. How does the Rainbow phenomenon relate to social scientific theory and how should its social processes be analysed? These questions reflect long-standing debates within social sciences, such as the relationships between religion, politics, and economy, and questions related to the models of religion used in research. A good starting point is the concept of counterculture and the most important theoretical statements related to it. The second chapter of this book recounts historical events preceding the conception of Rainbow Gatherings, the most prominent being the countercultural shift of the 1960s and early 1970s. Countercultures were recognized as a social phenomenon around that time and have since developed into a distinct topic within sociological research. The term was introduced by Talcott Parsons as “contraculture”4, although Parsons was focusing on social deviance in youth subcultures. Parsons stated that complex societies consist of dominant cultures, which are typically represented by the economic and political elites, as well as various distinct subcultures. Following Parsons, Milton Yinger picked up the concept, and defined the difference between subcultures and countercultures: subcultures exist within the wider cultural context, sharing many core values with the dominant culture, but involving some notable differences, usually based on social determinants like age, religion, race and ethnicity, social class, or sexual orientation5. Countercultures, however, are defined by the explicit oppositional stance they take: “I suggest the use of the term contraculture wherever the normative system of a group contains, as a primary element, a theme of conflict with the values of the total society”6. Initially, Yinger was using youth subcultures as an example of “contraculture”. When Yinger published on the topic of countercultures in 1977 – after the countercultural wave of 1960s had played out – he redefined it as “a set of norms and values that sharply contradict the dominant norms and values of the society of which that group is part”7. The associations with youth culture and delinquency were removed and replaced with the idea of cultural critique. Now he also explicitly connected countercultures with social change. Another relevant characteristic of countercultures is that they exist in the context of social movements, and by the time the movement aspect is over, the countercultural tenets have either become absorbed in the dominant culture, creating cultural transformation – or there is a return to the status quo8. The ideals and values of the 1960s counterculture went directly against many of the core values of the previous generation. Sociologist Ralph Larkin describes the Hippie ethos thus: Hippie culture was subversive of the dominant culture; if contemporary culture emphasized waste consumption, hippies lived with the

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 163 bare necessities, plus, maybe an electric guitar with an amp system. When the Vietnam War escalated, hippies emphasized living in peace and cooperation. If the dominant culture emphasized the work ethic, hippies were ostensively unemployed. If sobriety and emotional constraint were the dominant norms, hippies were publicly stoned on drugs such as marijuana and lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and danced in the streets. If the American culture was sexually repressive, hippies engaged in a variety of tabooed sexual behaviours, including promiscuity, group sex, public intercourse, homo-sexual coupling, and public nudity. Hippies were the precursors to what later came to be known in the English-speaking West as ‘the counterculture.’9 The counterculture of the 1960s left a lasting mark in the fabric of contemporary culture, initiating major changes throughout society. Larkin lists some of the most notable changes as: deep suspicion of social institutions, especially institutions of the state; the sexual revolution; the emergence of new thought forms; and the advent of the personal computer10. The results of these cultural innovations were manifold. New paradigms emerged in sciences, arts, politics, economics, religion, technology, and more. Norms and values shifted regarding the social status of minorities, environmental awareness, understanding of gender and sexuality, attitudes towards work, consumption, and material needs, as well as identity and individualism, among many others. Another notable change that Larkin mentions is the rise of consumer society11. Although this might appear counter-intuitive when contrasted with ideals such as environmental awareness, it has been shown that the thought forms favouring subjective experience, personal choice, and individual fulfilment that gained traction in the countercultural shift, completely align with the basic tenets underlying consumer culture12 . This example illustrates the complexity of cultural currents and their often contradictory impacts. The counterculture of the 1960s became the first example of such phenomena in social sciences, but examples of countercultural groups have later been identified in various social environments and historical periods13. Furthermore, a perspective into the dynamics between subcultures and the mainstream has contributed to the recognition of countercultures as veritable motors of cultural critique and change14.

Counter What? All countercultures set themselves against an idea of what constitutes mainstream culture. The idea of resistance is a driving force in countercultural traditions, and the oppositional positions need to be analysed to understand the culture in question. This chapter poses two main questions: what is Rainbow’s countercultural view of the dominant culture, and what are the alternatives proposed? In the case of Rainbow Gatherings, the point of the critique and

164  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song the resistance are aimed towards a specific view of the mainstream culture, which has its own name in the Rainbow vocabulary – Babylon, following the biblical connotations of a materialistic and oppressive dominant culture. For Rainbow participants, Babylon signifies various things, all of which are not clearly outlined. The term is sometimes used in sweeping generalizations, and it can cover ideological, emotional, material, and practical issues alike. In general, Babylon can be defined as those aspects of modern, Western culture that are seen as corrupt, oppressive, and essentially, alienated from a “natural” way of life. To give specific examples, Babylon stands for 1) centralized forms of coercive power and their execution, as manifested by states, governments, police, military, violent conflict, and divisive social hierarchies; 2) the globalizing consumer-capitalist market economy, large corporations, industrialism, wage labour, profit-oriented ideologies, commercialism, commodification, and marketing ethics; 3) religious institutions and their power in society; 4) attitudes towards the natural environment that subjugate it to the demands of the above, leading to overexploitation, loss of biodiversity, intensive farming, pollution, deforestation, and so forth; and 5) cities and the urban environment. Babylon often also stands for the attitudes and cultural features that are seen to support and perpetuate these problematic aspects of mainstream culture. In this sense, “Babylon mentality” can be defined as the unquestioning hegemony of the established forms of knowledge and cultural values. This involves science and mainstream religion as well as other forms of social and cultural normativity, and the institutions that reproduce them: the modern schooling system, the scientific community, religious and social institutions, and mainstream media. The image that countercultural actors have of dominant culture is also a reflection of how they define themselves and what they hope to represent: the critical voice, the counterforce, and the better alternative. Thus, Rainbow culture and the wider alternativeholistic frameworks are seen by the gatherers to represent an ideological alternative: the higher consciousness and the “New Paradigm”. As genderand cultural studies scholar Guy Redden points out: In asking what may be specific to New Age variants of self-help, two qualities stand out: first the contemporary New Age has a metaphysical, mystical bias; and second, it is, in a particular sense, countercultural. As Hanegraaff (1998) notes ‘all New Age trends, without exception, are intended as alternatives to currently dominant religious and cultural trends’ (p. 515, original emphasis). New Ageism doesn’t simply replicate liberal capitalist ideologies of self, but offers a libertarian politics in which the spiritual power of the individual is opposed to the putatively oppressive control of social institutions15. Western counterculture sprung up in the 1960s and is still influential, but there have been developments. Initially, the main focus was on war

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 165 and minority issues. The prolonged Vietnam War and the political rhetoric around it, as well as the resistance from the anti-war activists and the violent responses to the peace demonstrations in the US epitomized the problems seen with mainstream culture. The war in Vietnam was a violent conflict justified by questionable political and ideological reasons, and broadcast on television, provoking widespread criticism of civilian deaths, Western imperialism, state and corporate interests, and the conscription system seen as racially biased. This face of Babylon incited civil disobedience, mass protests and the growth of not only the anti-war movement, but also activism for free speech, civil rights, women’s rights, and minority rights. The first Gathering in Colorado in 1972, with its aim of ending the war by literally bringing people together reflects this era and its tensions. During the 1980s, the focus of Western counterculture shifted to growing environmental awareness and anti-nuclear armament activism. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND, whose logo became known as the peace sign), founded in 1958, went through a second wave of support in the early 1980s, as global tensions rose in what has been called the “Second Cold War”. During the 1990s, the political landscape changed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and as nuclear tensions eased, countercultural actors began to take more issue with the impacts of economic globalization and the large-scale inequalities it produced. The focus turned to opposing the rising power of transnational economical actors, and the movement against economic globalization solidified. Countercultural attention to global economics continues to this day and is one of the factors behind recent large-scale protests such as the Occupy and Indignados movements. The attention and aims of Western counterculture have changed along global politics, and the birth of the European Rainbow Family and developments in its culture parallel these changes. While the earlier face of mainstream “evil” was seen with the imperialist corporate states that fomented conflicts like the Vietnam War and the Cold War, the 1990s and 2000s have shifted the critical attention and resistance towards economic globalization and its impacts on human and planetary wellbeing. Now, Babylon is represented by the impersonal forces of the global market. Economic globalization and the actions of transnational corporations and economic institutions are seen behind many contemporary social injustices, structural violence, and armed conflicts, as well as environmental destruction. In a sense, the market has become the new war. The countercultural networks existing in Europe around the time of Rainbow’s European migration embraced the environmental and social themes of Rainbow culture, and the early European Rainbow Gatherings were focused on networking: bringing people from Western Europe together, vitalizing and expanding the existing countercultural networks, as well as creating and consolidating new ones. The European Rainbow Family participated in spreading countercultural awareness and alternative lifestyles during the 1980s and 1990s through their Gathering activities,

166  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song and they were pioneers in founding intentional communities as a concrete counteraction to mainstream culture. As stated by an active participant in the early years of European Rainbow Gatherings: “living in a community was in itself a political act”16. The intentional communities functioned as important hubs in the countercultural networks of the time, furthering the causes of environmentalism, pacifism, and egalitarian collectivism. The conflicts and shifting political tensions in Europe are also reflected in the history of the European Rainbow Family. In addition to founding intentional communities, the European Rainbow Family participated in grass-roots activism for peace and reconciliation. As mentioned, there were Rainbow-affiliated peace demonstrations during the Yugoslav Wars, and some Gathering locations were chosen in relation to political and geographical delineations between the West and the East. The 1990 European Gathering, for example, was organized in Austria, close to the border with Czechoslovakia, which had just gone through the Velvet Revolution17 that put an end to the Communist rule. This border was part of what had for decades been known as the Iron Curtain, and the camp was set on occupied military grounds. The 1994 European Gathering was held in Slovenia during the Bosnian War, with invitations extended to refugee camps, and organized peace demonstrations. As soon as it became possible, Rainbow Gatherings were held in excommunist and ex-socialist European countries. As explained in the chapter on European Rainbow history, 12 of the 20 annual European Rainbow Gatherings between 1990 and 2010 were held in countries that were part of either the former Eastern Bloc or socialist Yugoslavia. This reflects an ongoing Rainbow trend of disseminating the Gatherings to regions with a history of political and/or religious repression. Specific focus on peace continues in the form of themed Gathering events. In 2018, the German Rainbow Family hosted a Gathering themed “World Peace Rainbow Gathering”, and European Rainbow Families are involved in the Gathering tradition known as “Peace in the Middle East Rainbow Gatherings”. Environmental concerns have always been apparent in Rainbow culture. Although Rainbow Gatherings are not environmental protest events, some events have been purposefully placed to draw awareness to local environmental threats or to support ongoing environmental protests. More importantly, environmental sensitivities are embedded in the alternative traditions that are central to Rainbow culture, and the Gatherings provide an ample selection of environmental topics through their workshops. In addition, Rainbow events are thought to be organic, sustainable and to have a low impact on the surrounding nature. Environmental activism is still a central theme among the gatherers and at times, gets actualized through the Gatherings. As a recent example, the European Rainbow Gathering of 2019 was linked to environmental protests. The invitation to this Gathering, informed the Family about a possibility to support local demonstrations to protect the old-growth forest

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 167 in Northern Sweden, where international mining and forestry companies are threatening environmentally significant locations. The Gathering was hosted at a strategic location near a separate environmental activist camp, to enable mutual support and co-operation. Critique and resistance towards the economic mainstream are also embedded in Rainbow culture. The Gatherings have always been non-commercial and seeking alternatives to capitalism and market economy, but I suggest that the economic alternatives have become increasingly important as a countercultural topic in the last decades. The fact that the Family organizes its events autonomously, without official permits or external funding, is in itself a form of countercultural activism. The community produces these open, non-commercial events independently, bypassing government regulation as well as the usual demands of commercial event production. The whole existence of such autonomous events, their international population, and their activities form a veritable cultural counterforce to the commercially determined mainstream. The anarchist author Hakim Bey devised the concept of “Temporary Autonomous Zones” (TAZ), which he describes as a countercultural sociopolitical tactic. According to Bey, temporary autonomous zones are spaces and cultural realms that refuse official control structures to create a nonhierarchical reality where it is possible to liberate minds from control mechanisms and enable creativity as a vehicle of empowerment18. Bey’s concept has been implemented in the creation of arts events19, protests and autonomous social centres, and it has been evoked in countercultural studies, including previous studies of Rainbow Gatherings20. Among other things, the concept highlights the significance of cultural meaning-making through spatial means, and the impact of the social environment. Rainbows are pioneers of such independent lived utopias, but successors can be found among event-centred contemporary subcultures, such as various forms of cluband festival culture, and events aligned with alternative-holistic spirituality and environmentalist activism. Rainbow Gatherings are among the larger events within the New Age nebula, and possibly the biggest completely non-commercial and co-created events in the world. While world peace was the original slogan for the Rainbow Family, and although the collective ritual of silent meditation for world peace is still the explicit focal point for the annual National Rainbow Gatherings in the US, world peace has not played a similarly central and fundamental role in Rainbow’s European variants. It is a theme among others, although an important one. The collective silent meditation for world peace is a recurrent ritual feature in the European Gatherings, but the rite is often less prevalent and gathers less attention than the well-established European Rainbow tradition of Full Moon celebrations. Another aspect of Rainbow’s countercultural activity is their open and horizontal religious tradition that offers a clear alternative to institutional forms of religion and their dominant position in many mainstream societies.

168  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song As reflected in the emic distinction of spirituality vs. religion, institutionalized forms of religion are generally seen as patriarchal, controlling, and ideologically calcified. The Family claims to be open to all kinds of religious expressions and the culture supports absolute religious freedom, but a wide majority of gatherers represent forms of alternative-holistic religious traditions, and the collective rituals are heavily aligned with Neopagan forms of nature-centred religiosity. The Rainbow Family sees its Gatherings not only as expressions of opposition, but more significantly as examples for the world to follow in achieving a necessary cultural reformation. Among the various problematic aspects of mainstream culture, three powerful institutions stand out: the state, the market, and the “church” (in the meaning of institutional religious organizations, as in “church-state relations”). For the gatherers, these institutions represent Babylon, and are the first things that need to be replaced to build a healthy community. For Rainbows, a society needs to be able to care for all of its members, as well as for the natural environment. Mainstream institutions are seen as conditioned by the views of consumer-capitalist market economy and the political systems based on centralized power. Therefore, the alternatives need to be based on sharing and horizontality. The tactic for countering the mainstream mentality in practice is simple: bring people together in an egalitarian, non-violent, and non-commercial inclusive community and let them experience the lived alternative for themselves. The Family constructs actual utopian alternatives to demonstrate that viable alternatives exist, and to show their practical impacts. The Rainbow alternatives involve extended individual freedoms, open participation and horizontal involvement, and the sharing of resources and responsibilities. Different indigenous, “tribal”, “native”, and “natural” cultures are evoked throughout the Western counterculture as examples of peaceful, egalitarian, and environmentally sustainable ways of life. The alternative political, economic, and religious practices in Rainbow culture are also largely attributed to tribal and archaic cultures. As Garrick Beck, one of the original Rainbow pioneers in the US stated in an interview, this is seen as a cultural revival: “we saw ourselves not so much as innovators as we did messengers called upon to revive an old form of human congregation and communion”21. The discussion in this chapter is an elaboration of the idea of Rainbow as a counterculture, focusing on the cultural alternatives that Rainbow Gatherings offer to the prominent institutions of the state, the market, and institutional religion, or the “church”.

Rainbow: Society Against the Mainstream The oppositional stances in Rainbow culture, like the wider fields of New Age and Western counterculture it represents, involve a deep-seated mistrust and criticism of modern cultural and societal institutions, and

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 169 specifically those which involve questions of power, authority, and social inequality. The analysis of these significant features calls for a theoretical perspective which is compatible with the gift paradigm, respectful of the participants’ subjective significations, and able to tackle the issue head-on. Society Against the State The political system in the Rainbow reflects several aspects of the French anthropologist Pierre Clastres’ theories. Clastres, who made his field studies with the Guayaki, Guarani, and Chulupi tribes of Paraguay and the Yanomami in Venezuela, is known for his contributions to political anthropology and the account of stateless societies. In his understanding, societies that did not have a structure of hierarchical power relations were not, as was seen at the time, on a lower rung of the evolutional ladder of human societies. In Clastres’ view, the tribal societies had an understanding of equality and what we call democracy, and they intentionally avoided structures and concepts of authority and coercive power, which could develop into something like the state:22 Primitive society has always been considered a place of absolute difference in relation to western society, a strange and unthinkable space of absence – absence of all that constitutes the observers’ socio-cultural universe: a world without hierarchy, people who obey no one, a society indifferent to possession of wealth, chiefs who do not command, cultures without morals for they are unaware of sin, classless societies, societies without a State, etc. In short, what the writings of ancient travellers or modern scholars constantly cry out and yet never manage to say is that primitive society is, in its being, undivided 23. Clastres has been criticized for an over-simplified and idealistic view of “primitive” societies, portraying them as being without serious conflict. This has been deemed romantic and primitivistic, and there are certainly many other reservations in comparing native societies to contemporary ones, but Clastres’ specific notions that the emergence of the state is not necessarily an inevitable step in the development of a society, and that cultures might have built-in mechanisms to curb the centralization or accumulation of coercive power, do hold water. Anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, in his introduction to the 2010 edition of Clastres’ Archaeology of Violence, interprets the meaning of “society against the state” as “a modality of collective life based on the symbolic neutralization of political authority and the structural inhibition of ever-present tendencies to convert power, wealth and prestige into coercion, inequality and exploitation”24.

170  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Clastres also saw the emergence of state and the division of society into the rulers and the ruled as leading to other forms of division, including economic and social classes: Society’s major division, the division that is the basis for all the others (…) is the new vertical ordering of things between a base and a summit; it is the great political cleavage between those who hold the force, be it military or religious, and those subject to that force. The political relation of power precedes and founds the economic relation of exploitation. Alienation is political before it is economic; power precedes labour; the economic derives from the political; the emergence of the State determines the advent of classes25. Clastres has been influential in the academic discourses on society and violence, as well as on political and economic anthropology. In 1976, he wrote an introduction to the French edition of Marshall Sahlins’ Stone Age Economics, praising Sahlins as a pioneering critic of the prevailing economical and anthropological thinking26. There are of course notable differences between the Rainbow Family and the indigenous societies that Clastres worked with, such as the general cultural differences and the fact that Rainbow Gatherings are events and not permanent societies, so the comparison should be made only in a restricted sense. At the same time, Clastres’ observations provide an applicable theoretic frame, as I will show in the analysis. Chiefs without power According to Clastres’ theory, the accumulation and centralization of political power are averted through a specific mechanism rooted in the logics of gift exchange. The tribes he studied had chiefs, but they are described as having positions of social influence and prestige without actual coercive power. The chiefs were required to a) have the skills of a mediator or a peacemaker and to aid in conflict-solving; b) be generous with their possessions and not to reject the material demands of the community, and c) to be eloquent and skilled public speakers. Another feature is that d) the chiefs are often the only ones with the right to practice polygamy. b), c), and d) are forms of exchange within the community, but Clastres sees a) as being different in nature: not a form of exchange but strictly a political practice. Clastres remarks that maintaining peace and internal harmony is desirable for the chief, considering the fragile nature of his position. These “powerless leaders” would participate in the planning of the tribe’s economic and ceremonial activities but would not have actual authority over the decisions. Their final influence depends on the group’s willingness to listen 27. These three spheres of exchange are essential for Clastres’ theory: “Society is defined primarily by the three fundamental levels of the exchange of goods, women and words; and it is equally by direct reference to these three

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 171 types of “signs” that the political sphere of Indian societies is constituted”28. But the equation is not as simple as it would first seem – that the chief provides goods and oratorical skills and is repaid with social status and extra wives. Instead, Clastres shows how the chieftain’s position of power and its limitations are formed by specific exceptions in the circulation of goods and services: a rupture in the law of reciprocity. The chief does not have to reciprocate his privilege of multiple wives, and his contributions in the form of material goods and speech are likewise not returned 29. Reciprocity is a crucial element in the dynamic of gift-driven societies, and its lack has a profound impact. The three “signs” lose their exchange value and their communicative aspect, and instead reveal a connection to power, while simultaneously placing that power outside of the structure of society: Hence, a new relationship between the domain of power and the essence of the group now comes to light: power enjoys a privileged relationship toward those elements whose reciprocal movement founds the very structure of society. But this relationship, by denying these elements an exchange value at the group level, institutes the political sphere not only as external to the structure of the group, but further still, as negating that structure: power is contrary to the group, and the rejection of reciprocity, as the ontological dimension of the society, is the rejection of society itself30. The significance of this is on one hand in the disconnection of power from the possibility of amassing economical wealth, but on another hand in the logics of gift exchange: when one party does not reciprocate, they are cut out of the links and alliances formed by exchange. Clastres’ point was that stateless societies are not necessarily lacking, or yet to develop a structure like the state. He suggests that at least some stateless societies actively refuse such power structures, and hence named his book “Society Against the State”. This feature applies to Rainbow culture as well, and the Gatherings’ societal structures have other similar features. It seems that the culture is geared against social stratification, where groups or classes with different rights, obligations, or possibilities would be formed. The other two areas of parallel cultural ideas and their practical implementation in Rainbow Gatherings have to do with institutionalized power structures in economy and religion. Hence, I call Rainbow also a “society against the market” and a “society against the church” (again, meaning institutional religion). But let us first talk about the alternatives to the state. Alternative to the State: Politics that Diffuse Power Politics essentially means taking care of communal issues, something that every community must manage no matter how radical they are in their refusal of traditional politics. A central political topic is power and its execution,

172  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song and as described, the Rainbows resist centralized power in the form of leaders and the state. The state, here, should be taken in the meaning of an institution of centralized authority with coercive power and permanence. But the way that an alternative to the state is created is not an anarchistic free-for-all. Pierre Clastres puts it like this: “it is our view (…) that political power is universal, immanent to social reality (…); and that it manifests itself in two primary modes: coercive power, and non-coercive power”31. In the Rainbow case, collective governance is based on non-coercive forms of power, voluntariness, and participation. It involves a continuous negotiation between collective consensus decisions and the autonomy of individuals and workgroups. Clastres demonstrated the cultural mechanisms resisting the formation of a state in tribal societies. He showed that a tradition of leadership without coercive power was one successful way of diverting the accumulation and centralization of authority. In Clastres’ ethnography, the chieftains enjoyed social recognition and prestige but had no coercive power. Their authority materialized only through persuasive speech and in crises such as war. The chiefs had an obligation to act as mediators, to give generously, and to work for the well-being of the community. Clastres argued that speech and specifically conciliatory speech is one of the core means of diffusing power. Another feature of this chieftainship was its complete dependence on the consent and support of the community. Nobody had to listen to the chief if they did not feel that his ideas were worthwhile32 . Clastres also found links between the tribes’ religious and economic traditions and their political culture. He identified another kind of noncoercive but influential speech: religious or prophetic speech. Clastres argued that the tribes’ religious beliefs and practices supported the diffusion of power and the continuous refusal of structures like the state. The economic form was significant as well. The fact that the tribes lived in a subsistence economy – by choice – which did not produce much surplus, meant that there was very little extra wealth to be amassed in general, that labour remained directly connected to the collective material needs, and that power positions were effectively disconnected from economic gain. With all due respect to the considerable differences that exist between these communities – the tribal societies in Clastres’ ethnography and the contemporary Rainbow Gatherings – there are similarities in the ways that Rainbow Gatherings are instituted against the state33. No leaders but plenty of leadership Everyone in the Rainbow has the right to take initiative and express themselves as they please, as long as their actions do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of other participants. Rainbow’s political institution is a system of open councils and consensus decisions, aimed at providing all participants with the same possibilities of voicing their opinion, and equal access to

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 173 decision-making. The Councils, Talking Circles, and addressing the Circle at the Main Fire offer every gatherer an avenue to at least present their concerns to the community, and gauge the collective interest and support. Anybody can organize a themed Talking Circle, bringing together others interested in the issue and creating an opportunity for discussion and collaboration. Issues that are deemed essential and concerning the whole community are taken up in a Council and subjected to a consensus process, where they are discussed until an agreement is reached. The power to influence a collective decision is, in theory, only dependent on participation. The Rainbow has no instituted position of a chief without power, but concerning the egalitarian, democratic ideals of the 20th and 21st centuries, everyone is a chief without power. Only a minority of the participants in a Gathering take part in the decision-making Councils, and remaining outside of the political process is fully accepted. In a sense, not taking part in the collective decision-making is an expression of trust towards the consensus process and the capabilities of those who are involved. By keeping out of the Councils, you in effect give a situational, practical mandate for others to represent you, and when you do not want to be represented, you have the full possibility to participate. The same idea is behind the principle of “do-o-cracy”, which applies to all the collective work: people who are fulfilling a task for the benefit of the group are given substantial autonomy over the practical decisions involved. When anyone has a criticism to express, they are typically invited to participate in the task in question, to better understand the decisions taken, and to be able to employ their criticism within this frame. The “silent mandate” is visible in situations that pose a clear threat, either from the inside like in a case of an aggressive or threatening gatherer participant or from the outside, such as when the authorities show up in a Rainbow Gathering. Anyone who so wishes can take the initiative, communicate, and try different approaches, but only a few do. Most people do not want to get involved and accept the others’ attempts to handle the situation. Here we find another example of the “mandate by silence” and a clear parallel with Clastres’ chiefs with war-time authority. In general, the individuals that step up and take an active role in common issues, if they are seen doing a good job, are awarded the practical and situational entitlement to represent others. At the same time, there is critical attention to all use of power and to the ways of representing the collective. Questioning and challenging power use is frequent, and it shows that there are ongoing controversies connected to issues of authority in the Gatherings and that in practice, things are not as fair and harmonious as many Rainbows would describe. The polemic and the criticism function as parts of the regulative mechanisms in the power dynamics of the Rainbow community. Even if the Rainbow Family has no leaders, there is plenty of leadership and expressions of authority, manifested in typical Rainbow forms. In general, all power is non-coercive and dependent on the consent of the community, as it is with Clastres’ chiefs. The ideals of egalitarianism

174  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song and inclusivity together with their practical aspects are highly valued in Rainbow culture, and expressions of authoritarianism and selfishness are generally condemned. Discussions among the Family are often observant of internal power relations and seeking out ways to reveal, negotiate, and defuse inequalities within the community. The community scrutinizes power use continuously: is it self-serving or fair and subservient in its aims? Is it authoritarian or dialogical? Rainbow culture values individual freedom and autonomy highly, and only the collective decisions established through ritualized consensus are recognized as a form of higher authority. And finally, even respecting the consensus decisions is up to the people. There are no sanctions enforcing collective guidelines. Instead, the gatherers are expected to be voluntarily responsible and accountable. The freedom of individual autonomy is coupled with the responsibility of self-government. The Rainbow Family has established a non-coercive form of authority known as “focalizing”. A focalizer volunteers to organize a particular task to benefit the community, soliciting the help and resources that are needed. The job can be a part of the essential practical tasks of maintaining the camp, or providing various artistic, therapeutic, ritualistic, communicational or leisure activities and services. On one hand, focalizers and workers are given autonomy over the task they are concerned with, especially regarding practical details not regulated by Rainbow tradition. On the other hand, the layer of critical attention to the ways of using power is again present. The fact that focalizing and organizing workshops are open to all gatherers also dramatically enhances the creative potential and knowledge resources of the collective. Anyone can be a teacher, not just the ones with credentials, charisma, or the biggest smarty-pants. Being a focalizer is a form of leadership where authority is tied to the situation (accomplishing a task), based on practical merit (knowledge, skills, experience), and dependant on the others’ acceptance and support. The quality of leadership is assessed by its results: if someone is judged a poor focalizer, she or he will quickly lose others’ attention and cooperation. As with Pierre Clastres’ “powerless chiefs”, the final authority of someone in a leadership position depends on their ability to be convincing and to deliver acceptable results. Assuming a power position such as focalizing is supposed to serve the Family and its well-being above all. It is a part of the obligation to contribute, not a right. The Rainbow also has a tradition of self-policing through volunteer peacekeepers known as the Shanti Sena. Although the term Shanti Sena and the active promotion of the tradition are more established in the US than in Europe, it seems that the principles of voluntary peacekeeping are understood similarly, and they align with the general political tenets of the Rainbow. Everybody is supposed to act as a volunteer peacekeeper when a conflict arises and support nonviolent solutions to the situation. The Shanti Sena activity is based on communication instead of coercion, and the actions of peacekeeping volunteers are under the community’s scrutiny even more than other forms of power use.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 175 A lot of speaking and a bit of chanting Speech is an essential way of diffusing power, but at the same time, speech is a crucial way to claim and to use power. As in Clastres’ tribes where the chief is influential when he speaks, the way to use non-coercive power in the Rainbow is through persuasive speech. This explains the amount of talking and the nature of the communication involved in Rainbow’s political culture, from the Talking Circles and Councils to the announcements made at the Circle. A good majority of the speech addressed to the Circle at every Food Circle is non-coercive speech that aims to convince. Not authoritarian but motivational, informative, inspirational, or persuasive. Convincing speech, instead of coercive power, is another core practice of a society against the state. The Rainbow Council, as a political process, strives to be as open and democratic as possible, and the Family has developed specific Council practices aimed at safeguarding the openness and horizontality of political speech. The use of a focal object along with other council practices are devised to support minority voices and perspectives, and to avoid short-sightedness and limited perspectives, even if it is the majority view. Equal access is supposed to counter possible cultural and social biases, such as the tendency to pay more attention to those who are male, older, active, or charismatic and compelling speakers. Practical guidelines for council discussions have been created as checks and balances against people abusing the weak points of the consensus system. The time and place for decision-making Councils are limited to the actual Gatherings, and the daylight hours, to ensure equal accessibility and that participation does not turn into a test of endurance. The consensus system, where anyone can ask for more explanation and negotiation before agreeing to a suggestion is apt at recognizing and rejecting power cliques and self-serving power claims while supporting horizontal forms of power and initiatives showing an interest on others. Large Gatherings typically need to organize Talking Circles in a time and place separate from Food Circles as the number of people is far too big for everybody to participate, but many smaller Gatherings make a daily custom out of picking up the Talking Stick and sending it around the Circle. This kind of regular group communications combine the practical announcements and organizational topics with personal, ideological, and emotional issues, offering the gatherers a chance to express their concerns in a safe, tolerant, and attentive environment, directly enhancing the sense of community. In many cases, these routine Talking Circles are also where all the group decisions are made, and forming the consensus happens right there, with most people present, between invitations to workshops and calls for bringing firewood. This custom makes the community and its needs, from emotional and spiritual to practical ones, visible to all its members, emphasizing the horizontality and shared responsibility. This is a radical form of inclusive politics, and although it is often described as

176  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song a positive experience by the participants, it seems to work best when the Gathering community is small. Although anybody’s ideas can draw support when they speak convincingly, and an individual can have an actual impact, this influence does not translate to permanent status. A person with good ideas or active participation might gain social recognition, but beyond interpersonal affinities, this recognition does not award the person any more authority in the decisionmaking processes. Thus, power does not accumulate or remain with any individual or a group but is dependent on continuous constructive participation and repeated ability to convince others, and all ideas and decisions are eventually evaluated by their functionality and results. Authority is always subject to the consent of the community, and must be established anew, time and again, in each separate event. Social recognition develops among all human communities including the Rainbow, as demonstrated by Rainbow terms such as “Elders” or “Earlies”, and “Drainbows”. Long-term participants and active contributors become known and respected in the Family. Ashleigh McKinzie observes these layers of Rainbow’s social dynamics in her MA thesis34, rightly identifying the prestige of “elders” and active participants, as well as the disparagement towards unproductive ones, and the critical factor as being participation. She also analyses the mechanisms of social control that become apparent. But these features should not be cast against Rainbow’s claims of “no leaders” and “no rules” and declared a controversy35. The difference is with the nature of power and its enforcement. The methods of social control are feedback from peers and internalization of social norms by choice, instead of coercion or sanctions posited by an instituted central authority. And regarding the basis of social recognition beyond the impacts of sociability and charisma, they are with things that anyone can choose to maintain: commitment to reciprocity, non-violent and respectful behaviour, and constructive participation. Another important aspect of Rainbow’s politics is in the connections to the religious, or at the very least, to the ritual sphere. The central political practices are built around communal rituals that are held in high regard by the community, and which glorify open communication and horizontal decision-making. Besides, there are examples of specific beliefs regarding the forms of authority and political practices. The Talking Circles and Councils using a focal object such as the Talking Stick harness rituality in the service of egalitarian and inclusive communication. The Talking Stick process helps to ensure the attention and receptivity of the participants, and the custom is anchored with widely recognized cultural values through its attribution to archaic and “tribal” cultures. The ethnography describes participants’ experiences and appreciation for the practice of Talking Circles. The Talking Stick itself is often treated as a sacred object by gatherers, and participant narratives describe feelings towards the Talking Stick as respectful, empowered, inspired, humbled, etc. These experiences show how the horizontal political principles are often upheld more by the

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 177 subjective, affective experience conveyed by ritual participation, than by conscious ideological agreement. The political tradition employs various ritualistic elements beyond the Talking Stick. The Family has a custom of forming a Circle and chanting a collective Om before engaging in group communication or collaboration, and when ending it. When a discussion turns heated or argumentative, or the Circle loses its focus, the process can be paused for another Om. Chanting typically happens while holding hands, and it is thought to “harmonize” the energies in the Circle and bring people to a calm and open state of mind. The ethnography describes other deliberate methods that individual Rainbow Families in the US have developed to support fluent and civil political discussion. There are also allusions to an idea of a collective consciousness among the community. Although the idea might be comparable to a religious belief with some gatherers, it seems to be more akin to a metaphoric concept with others. In any case, the culture has plenty of expressions related to a collective form of consciousness that is seen to understand and manage the community better than an individual could. The Rainbow community is generally believed to function smoothly without too much need for organizing or coordination when the spiritual unity or “connection” is strong, and people follow their intuition. This feature is commonly called magic. What brings money to the Magic Hat? What makes the meals tasty and (relatively) timely? What stacks the piles of firewood? Rainbow magic. And authoritarianism will just ruin it. Corresponding to Clastres’ observations, these are examples of the religious sphere participating in the political one. Beliefs about communality on a spiritual level parallel the political ideas of horizontal power and its benefits to the community. Ritual practices function as a regulating method, but they also actively promote communality through strengthening inclusive communication and mutual sympathy. The general political ideology and the specific practices are legitimated through the ideologically significant symbolism of the “tribal” and the archaic. Headless politics, consensus, and do-o-cracy The traditional definition of a headless, or acephalous, society is one without social hierarchies or political leaders. Anthropologists Paul Borneman and Stefan Senders have analysed the political nature of the German mass festival known as the Love Parade, and they discuss an acephalous political form defined through its specific relationship to identity and authority, which parallels with the Rainbow. Borneman and Senders propose that instead of states, nations or classes, identification in an acephalous political culture is built on participation in a universal kind of communality and personal transformation. Another essential feature is that headless politics rejects the delegation of authority, locating authority instead in subjective,

178  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song inner religiosity. Headless politics appreciate individual autonomy and disperse power, placing authority in different nodes of a decentralized network, or with the totality of the community. In the Rainbow, case decisions are made either by do-o-cracy, meaning by the people doing the job, or through a complete consensus36. The functioning of a headless form of politics depends on the community members’ abilities of self-governance, and the strengths as well as many of the challenges of headless politics arise from this feature. Self-governance is an important factor in motivating voluntary participation, but it can become a vulnerability. The lack of coercive practices and sanctioning makes it possible to violate the shared guidelines and consensus decisions, even repeatedly, without major repercussions except for extreme cases of abuse or violence. Despite this, crime and violence are relatively rare in the Rainbow. Most gatherers heed the community’s guidelines and find them reasonable, and the culture has various kinds of internal social control. Many gatherers are quick to give individual feedback, clarifying Rainbow guidelines and their justifications, and asking the culprits to explain their thinking and actions37. In a case of more extreme or prolonged misbehaviour, a specific Circle can be called together to inform the community and ask for their feedback in the matter. In cases of unresolved violence or abuse, the perpetrator is typically asked to leave the event. Integrative feedback, direct intervention, public shaming, and ostracizing function as internal social control justified by tradition and administered by the community. Judging from the relatively small number of severe cases of crime and violence, they are effective. Whether these measures are always enough, just, or morally satisfactory for all the gatherers, is another question. The lack of coercive methods is also often blamed for ongoing problems with difficult individuals, including harassment as well as violence and threatening behaviour38. Although Rainbow participants are expected to be responsible and accountable of their own volition and not require government, oversight, or sanctions, it has proven to be a good idea to support the premises of transparency in some instances. When a collective task requires transparency and accountability, it is typically given to a designated focalizing group of two people or more. Traditionally the management of the Magic Hat is one of these tasks. Sometimes the job of a focalizer means finding an acceptable middle ground between following Rainbow tradition or established consensus decisions, and making independent judgments based on the practical understanding of the task at hand and personal insight. This means that although there are clear guidelines for political practices, the Gatherings’ politics can also be very flexible. The individual Gathering events manage their practical issues as the active volunteers see fit, be it following Rainbow guidelines to the fullest, or finding creative solutions that adhere more to the matters at hand. Many Gatherings do not hold daily open Councils, but rather deal with issues as

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 179 they appear, in the way that the people involved are comfortable with, as long as the broader community approves (as per “silent mandate”). In some cases, the principles of transparency, open discussion, and collective decisionmaking become realized in every respect only when people not only demand them but are ready to participate in their enactment, and the same applies to many other Rainbow guidelines. The following field story is from a Gathering in Guatemala, and it is purposefully placed here in between the political and economic parts of the analysis. It is an excellent example of the practicalities of decision-making in a small Rainbow Gathering, and the negotiation between tradition and the do-o-cratic autonomy of small groups and individuals. It also reflects the typical economic practices in Rainbow life and the specific experiences of having a position of responsibility and power. Field Story: Magic Hat Council in Sachichaj In 2012, I participated in the “Magic Hat Council” of a Rainbow Gathering in Guatemala. The Council group consisted of 6-7 volunteers and took care of the Magic Hat. We organized the collecting, counting, and keeping of the Magic Hat money, and kept track of the expenses. When I volunteered, I expected a straightforward task, but the Council ended up having many discussions about the job, its challenges, and about the emotional and moral aspects involved. Issues regarding money often draw heightened attention and criticism from the Rainbow community, as money is related to power and its possible misuse. The Magic Hat Council was concerned about transparency and trustworthiness, but also about the potential risks of being too indiscreet with the money. Someone from our group would address the Circle every few days to inform the Family that an open Council guarded the Magic Hat and that anyone was welcome to participate. We said that anyone was welcome to ask questions about the money and the Council’s decisions. After every meal, one or two members of the Council would partake in the Magic Hat procession and bring the Hat with its contents to a specific large stone close to the edge of the Main Meadow, where the rest of the Magic Hat Council would arrive. The stone had become a regular place for the Council to convene and count the money, and it was known in the camp as the Magic Stone. The Magic Hat Council in Sachichaj discussed the situation at hand, which involved some stories of people’s things getting stolen around the camp, and a general suspicion towards a group of local youth that kept hanging around at the edges of the camp without participating in the Gathering. The Council decided over some basic measures to keep things as transparent as possible while keeping the money and its Keeper safe. The Magic Hat Keeper is a volunteer who takes care of the collected cash, which can mean several kilograms of mostly coins, in currencies from various countries.

180  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song The money was not counted openly at the Main Circle, but on the “Magic Stone”, where it was easier to see who approached and gauge their reasons for the interest in the money. People with questions about the funds were asked to participate in the Council meetings rather than posing their issues at the Circle, to make the communication more guarded and personal. Against the tradition of many US Rainbow Gatherings, we chose not to announce the amounts of money collected openly to the Family. In addition, we kept the identity of the Magic Hat Keeper to the Council. The Council was prepared to explain the reasoning behind these decisions to anyone interested, but nobody questioned us. For some Council members, these precautions went against the ideal of transparency, and they called the measures mistrustful and typical of Babylon. After the money was counted and a part of it was doled out for the expenses of the next days’ shopping missions, the amounts were recorded in a ragged notebook. The rest of the money was given to the Magic Hat Keeper, and our Keeper, a Rainbow brother called Dragonfly, was growing weary of his task by the day. The Hat Keeper complained to the Council that he felt burdened by the responsibility and that he felt a “strange heavy energy” connected to his task. The general opinion was that the heavy energy came from the money itself and that the Hat Keeper’s job involved this spiritual challenge. One day Dragonfly told us that he had had a weird feeling in his camp and had decided to remove the bag of cash to another place during the night, and he’d rather not disclose where he had hidden it. “Maybe I’m paranoid, money can make anyone paranoid”, he said, “but I needed to move this energy from my camp”. He also said that he would be happy if we could find another volunteer to be the Hat Keeper. Part of the Council was not content with the Keeper’s decisions, but the Council was unable to agree on any better ideas. Some days later, the Keeper informed us that he had returned to his camp after nightfall and had heard footsteps rustling away as he approached his tent. Someone had been inside his tent and gone through his belongings! The dark energy had taken shape, and the Keeper’s unease now felt like an omen. But thanks to his concern, second sight, or paranoia, the money was safe. The intrusion was an ugly reminder about Rainbow’s vulnerabilities, but the Magic Hat Council received the whole experience as a justification for their decision to be a bit less than fully transparent.

The story reveals some typical tensions around money, and around outsiders and the potential threats they pose. Other examples I want to raise are the experiences related to power positions of the Council members and especially the Magic Hat Keeper. The Keeper was not happy with his position and what it entailed. He felt the responsibility as a lonely burden, that his job was an ungrateful one, and that the downsides included spiritual and emotional challenges and even threats of intrusion and violence involved in safekeeping the money. The Keeper did not experience his job as a position of authority, but as a difficult but important task in serving the Family.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 181 This parallels with Clastres’ observation of the tribal chiefs’ position: the chief’s position is demanding, and they often complained about their burden39. The whole Council engaged in continuing negotiations regarding the guidelines as well as the practical execution of the job and discussed the power issues it entailed. The argumentation involved emotional and spiritual aspects, and the negotiation produced a compromise that was seen as fitting to the situation. And markedly, the source of the unsettling feelings and events was attributed to the money itself. Society Against the Market Clastres connects stateless societies to certain economic features. The tribal societies he observed were living in a subsistence economy: a non-monetary system where the community supports itself on hunting, gathering, and subsistence agriculture, and any kind of material surplus of production remains minimal. When surplus is accumulated, it is redirected towards rituals, festivities etc. and consumed in a short amount of time. In a subsistence economy no wealth is deliberately amassed, which effectively means that power based on wealth cannot be built, but also that no capital can exist and hence, a market economy is not viable. According to Clastres, also this is a conscious choice rather than a lack or underdevelopment. He sees this as stemming from the conscious aim of a society in achieving a “mastery of the natural environment suited and relative to their needs”40. This implies an awareness of the dynamics of economic power translating into social authority, and perhaps, of poor environmental sustainability. The keyword is excess, and the point is being aware of the perils of badly managed excess and striving to keep it at a minimum, not an inability to produce. Clastres criticized the term “subsistence” as it suggests a kind of economy which merely allows the society to subsist, to survive on a minimum, when in fact the tribal societies he studied required people to work much less than what was usual in “developed”, state-controlled societies with a market economy, while living in relative abundance41. He also observed that these societies did produce surplus, which was typically consumed on festive occasions and to extend hospitality, thus benefiting the whole community and their established alliances, be it with the ancestors, the spirits, or the neighbouring tribes (cf. Bataille’s “accursed share”42). Another important economic feature is that the stateless societies were also societies without a market, living instead in a gift-economy, and according to Clastres these political and economic features are deeply intertwined and mutually dependent. Marcel Mauss had shown how gift exchange creates and reinforces social ties, and that gift economy was typical of clan-based societies without social classes43. Based on Mauss’ as well as Clastres’ observations described above, Marshall Sahlins examined the relationship of political and economic spheres in society further and formed a theory of kinship distance as a factor in social attitudes towards reciprocity. Sahlins created a “purely

182  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song formal typology of reciprocities”44, which differentiates three types of social attitudes towards reciprocity based on social distance. He named the different types generalized, balanced, and negative reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is an altruistic and disinterested form of giving which he called the “solidary extreme” of the scale. Generalized reciprocity is described ethnographically by sharing, hospitality, generosity, and help. The solidary extreme does involve an expectation of reciprocity, but it comes in an indefinite form, not stipulated by time, quantity, or quality45. At the middle of the scale he placed balanced reciprocity, referring to direct exchange in trade or as a part of the social obligations of gift exchange. Balanced reciprocity is less personal, and the expectation is “returns (counter-gifts) of commensurate worth or utility within a finite and narrow period”. The parties of balanced exchange are aware of each other’s social and economic interests. At the other end of the scale is negative reciprocity, a realm of explicit self-interest and maximizing personal profit. Negative reciprocity is “the attempt to get something for nothing with impunity”, and it can have a sociable form, like haggling or barter, or it can reach into theft46. Sahlins points out that the above are extremes and a mid-point on a scale of possible reciprocities: “Put another way, the spirit of exchange swings from disinterested concern for the other party through mutuality to selfinterest”47, and that kinship distance is an important factor in defining the form of reciprocity. Notable is also his remark that sometimes, the community is influential in defining this distance: “It is not only that kinship organizes communities, but communities kinship, so that a spatial, coresidential term affects the measure of kinship distance and thus the mode of exchange”48. In other words, living together can make people treat each other as kin, which is an interesting idea concerning the cohabitation in Rainbow events49. Sociologist Alain Caillé has also written about the impact of social distance to the logics of exchange and utility in social relations. He includes family relations and close friendships, perhaps also neighbours into the sphere of primary sociality, where people’s personality is more important than what they do, and an impersonal, contractual sphere of secondary sociality, where functional effectiveness or performance is primary50. The two spheres coexist, and we need to shift between them accordingly. My suggestion is that an awareness of these mechanisms can be harnessed into political and economic practices supporting social equality and interconnectedness, with the aim of preserving an un-stratified form of society. The Gift The gift theory originated by Marcel Mauss has been developed into a comprehensive theoretical framework of social action known as the gift paradigm. Mauss begins with the idea that exchange of gifts between

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 183 groups establishes compelling relationships with the potential of turning enemies to allies. He showed how exchange systems involved a “triple obligation” to give, receive, and reciprocate gifts, creating relations of interdependence and solidarity. Although Mauss focused on certain features of gift exchange to make his case, he built an argument for gift exchange as a “total phenomenon”, pervading all social domains, and as a formative aspect of human societies. Mauss’ original work was advanced by scholars who have shown the gift’s involvement in the political, economic, and religious spheres of society, among others. At the core of gift theory is reciprocity, explaining the impact of gifting on different kinds of social relationships. Mauss talked about gift exchange between groups and used a specific form of competitive gift exchange – the agonistic gift of potlatch – to illustrate his point, as well as the term “prestation” (benefit, service) to describe the sense of obligation and interest involved in gifting. Mauss pointed out that in non-market societies, the exchange of gifts and prestations is embedded in religious, political, and social networks and hence cannot be separated and made into an isolated economic field51. Later scholars have expanded Mauss’ work on exchange between groups into both a theory of social action and a holistic theory of society52. Alienable and inalienable things Mauss based his analysis on the traditional idea of a bond between an object and its owner. He observed that some things seemed to retain a relationship to their original owner even after being given to other people while other things did not and saw this difference as significant to the forms of exchange. The perceived bond between an object and a person produces what is known as the inalienability of an object, factoring in the difference between gifts and commodities, and explaining why some things are kept out of the usual spheres of exchange. Gift exchange (including prestations) creates lasting and compelling bonds between humans, but not all bonds are desirable. In these cases, the exchange needs to take a form in which the bonds can be negated. In commodity exchange - trading, bartering, or buying and selling with money - the “return gift” becomes a payment, which ensures that each party is free of obligations, and no connection remains. This means that things that are sold must be completely alienable from the seller and previous owners. Economic anthropologist Christopher Gregory writes about Mauss’ observations about inalienability and the difference between gift and commodity exchange: “commodity exchange establishes a relationship between the objects exchanged, whereas gift exchange establishes a relationship between the subjects. In other words, commodity exchange is a price-forming process, a system of purchase and sale. Gift exchange is not”. He adds: “What a gift transactor desires is the personal relationships that the exchange of gifts creates, and not the things themselves”53,54.

184  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Mauss makes an important remark concerning the link between the economic and the societal model, where he saw gift economy as a feature of clan-based societies, and commodity exchange as a feature of class-based societies. The point is the fact that even though clan-based societies might have hierarchical structures, they do not have social classes where one group benefits of the surplus produced by another group. Marshall Sahlins added to this notion by clarifying that the division of gift-exchange and commodity-exchange is not a dichotomy but rather a continuum, where gift exchange typically happens among kin, and commodity exchange becomes more usual as the “kinship distance” grows, becoming the norm among strangers. What Mauss also stressed was that one should not directly compare the gift ideologies of traditional non-market societies and those of highly commercialized ones, which is a valid point in analysing Rainbow culture. Anthropologist Jonathan Parry reminds us how Mauss wrote that the ideological notions of a disinterested “pure gift” as well as of a self-interested form of exchange, or utility, are modern constructions, and that in practice, a gift has both aspects: “In fact, of course, Mauss repeatedly stresses a combination of interest and disinterest, of freedom and constraint, in the gift”55,56. Anthropologist Annette Weiner elaborated on Mauss’ theory of gift exchange by focusing on the concept of inalienable possessions. Mauss described how the potlatch involves objects that are not exchanged like the others and called them sacra57. Weiner suggested that the sacra are withheld from usual exchange for their significance regarding the society’s identity58. Weiner is also credited for suggesting that gender and power should be important considerations in gift theory59. Anthropologist Maurice Godelier built on Annette Weiner’s work and the idea of inalienable possessions by showing how it relates to religious ideas, and how the gift is involved in the concepts of social class and hierarchy60. Gift and the sacred Where Mauss focused on gift exchange in societal relationships, Godelier expanded the idea to cover relations with the gods, formulating the religious implications of gift theory. Godelier’s contributions to gift theory involve arguments about the religious sphere and the sacred, and about identity. He explains that the full significance of the bonds created by gift exchange goes beyond individuals and family groups: “What is produced or reproduced through the establishment of these personal bonds is all or part of the social relations which constitute the foundations of the society and which endow it with a certain overall logic that is also the source of the social identity of the member groups and individuals”61. Godelier submits that because social relations in a society are formed by interpersonal bonds, and since these bonds are produced through the exchange of gifts, the reality of society’s social relations (from personal ones to the systems of

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 185 kinship, politics etc.) can be expressed and concretized by the practice of gift exchange, including the nature of the gifts and the trajectories of their circulation62: And because gift-giving as a real practice is an essential component of the production-reproduction of objective social relations and of subjective and intersubjective personal relations which are the mode of the former’s concrete existence, it is simultaneously part of both the form and the content of these relations. In this context, gift-giving and the gifts given both re-present, signify and totalize the social relations of which they are at once the instrument and the symbol63. Hence, gift-exchange forms what Mauss called a “total social fact”, something that has implications throughout all social domains – political, economic, legal, moral, kinship, religious and more. The “totality” means that the gift becomes symbolically highly significant, which was a crucial point in Mauss’ anthropological thinking64. The logic of gift exchange extends to the relations that humans have with the transcendent, thus becoming significant for religious traditions. Godelier bases his argument on the notion that in many forms of folk thought objects (and other things like places and natural phenomena) are given human attributes such as agency, a will, or a soul. In this way, objects are likened to persons, and thought to be able to act and have volition. The fact that systems of social relations adopt the form of intersubjective relations is extended to the whole of the cosmos: all that exist are persons, human or otherwise, and the relations between them. “The cosmos becomes the anthropomorphic extension of humans and their society”65. Gift-giving includes sacrifice and other forms of exchange with the spirits, gods, ancestral souls, or higher powers66,67. Godelier explains Annette Weiner’s analysis of inalienable possessions and points to the role of sacred things within the spheres of exchange: “in order for there to be movement, exchange, there had to be things that were kept out of exchange, stable points around which the rest – humans, goods, services – might revolve and circulate”68. The special significance of these things, the sacra, is derived from and communicated by the fact that they are not traded or gifted in the way that other things are. Godelier notes that a single object of exchange can change its status and be exchanged first as a commodity, then as a gift, and then become a “treasure”69. As pointed out by Godelier, the sacra are still a part of the exchange, but in a form that extends beyond living humans: “It is when the exchange object reaches this point, when it enters the domain, no longer of exchanges between the living, but between the living and their dead, and the living and their gods, that the object of trade becomes sacred”70,71. Both Godelier and Weiner credit the original idea of inalienable possessions to Mauss, who wrote about “immovable” and “movable” goods in

186  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song The Gift72 . Godelier also points out another crucial statement by Mauss that is central to his own theory: after discussing the three obligations of giving, receiving and reciprocating gifts, Mauss did mention a fourth one: the obligation to give gifts to the gods and their representatives, a notion that according to Godelier, never gained the attention it deserves73. Gifts to the gods can take the form of offerings and sacrifices, which are often destroyed in the process. The destruction of the offerings removes the possibility of further use or re-exchange, thus effectively removing them from circulation. Godelier stresses that the idea of gifts to the gods, spirits and the dead not only belongs to the framework of Mauss’ gift theory, it forms a relevant part of the meanings connected to the gift. What Godelier wants to add to Mauss’ theorizing is that in the whole scheme of exchange with the gods (spirits, ancestors, etc.), it should be noted that humans are seen to be indebted to the gods from the outset, as human life and what sustains it are originally gifts from the gods, or providence74. The word “gods” should here be taken to mean the transcendent other in a wider sense: deities, spirits, and higher powers in the many forms they take. Alain Caillé prefers the term “invisible”, which he then places within a larger framework of “the cosmos, the world and/or Nature”75. The gifts given to the transcendent other can also take many forms. They can be ritual objects or offerings, but also non-material: “The “thing” may also be a dance, a spell, a name, a human being, support in a dispute or a war, and so forth”76. Godelier names also knowledge and rituals themselves as gifts and relates this to identity: “These things that are kept – valuables, talismans, knowledge, rites – affirm deep-seated identities and their continuity over time”77. The gist of Godelier’s theoretical framing is in the union, difference, and interdependence of the alienable and inalienable spheres, and the idea that what is kept out of exchange is often kept only to be given in another way: later in time, to the next generation, or as an offering to the transcendent other. The ideas of obligation of reciprocity and of alienation through a payment are visible also in the logic of ritual exchange, in religious and magical frames. On the one hand, the transcendent other can be compelled to reciprocate when something is gifted to them. On the other hand, a payment can be made when something is received from the transcendent other, but a bond of debt and further influence is not desired. Hence, there are two kinds of offering rites: one conforming to the laws of gift exchange, and the other to those of commodity exchange. This is a great example of how humans are applying the logic of their bond-forming social tools to relationships with non-human counterparts78. Combining and summarizing the work of previous scholars on the gift, Alain Caillé has contributed to gift theory by clarifying the elements for an analytical model based on the alliances created in gift exchange: The gift establishes a triple alliance: horizontal, between warriors who lay down their arms and decide by exchanging gifts to pass from

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 187 war to peace; longitudinal, between generations, sealed by the gift of women (daughters, sisters) who pass from infertility and death to life; and vertical between humans and invisible entities. (…) A society can be defined by the conjunction of these three alliances, and thus by the integral of the gifts made or feasible between living members of that society, by those they make or receive from previous or future generations, as well as by those they make or receive from the invisible. (…) Gifts are symbols, symbols of this triple alliance79. The core of gift theory and its developments discussed above underlie the MAUSSian80 model of religion, which takes these three alliances, and the gifts and their movements as regards to them, as the basis of an analytical model of religion which is discussed in the next chapter. Alternative to the Market: Economics of De-commodification Economic issues have become a central concern for the contemporary Western counterculture. Economic globalization, commercialism, consumer capitalism, and their impacts are seen as detrimental to the wellbeing of the planet and its population, and as the driving forces behind environmental destruction, degradation of workers’ rights, various health risks, inequality, and social injustice. In Rainbow culture, as in most alternativeholistic religious traditions, critical perspectives take on emotional tones, get connected with spiritual and ideological principles, and address the level of the individual as well as the wider perspectives encompassing whole societies and the entire planet. When Rainbows express criticism of the mainstream, it is often aimed at the market economy and what are seen as its cultural impacts: commercialism, materialism and possession-based lifestyle, mindless consumption at the cost of the planet and our own health, identity-building at the terms of consumerism and marketing, as well as wage labour as a form of economic indenture. Often, money and the human relationship with it is seen as symptomatic of the “Babylon mentality”, where money has become more important than humanitarian values. Rainbow Gatherings are against the market as they are against the state, but like any community, they still need to handle economic issues in some manner. This part of the analysis discusses how the alternative to the market is established. Pierre Clastres noted that stateless societies typically live in a subsistence economy, but he demanded a revision of the understanding of the term, as mentioned. He explained how the stateless political form is in direct connection with the economic model. According to him, the formation of state and acceptance of coercive power is a prerequisite for economic production that is alienated from practical needs, and for accountable, commodified labour essential to a market society, and “primitive” societies actively refuse market economy, parallel to their refusal of the state81. In addition

188  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song to Clastres, the theories constituting the gift paradigm are instrumental to this part of my analysis82 . In Clastres’ and Marshall Sahlins’ analyses, and following Marcel Mauss’ observations on trade, some “primitive” and tribal cultures depreciate and delimit the sphere of commodity exchange and frame it in general alignment with the community’s norms and values83. How the economy is instituted in the culture of Rainbow Gatherings shares many similarities with these features. Sharing with Family, trading with the outside Rainbow Gatherings have rejected money, commodification, and the market as one of the primary guidelines since their beginnings. The alternative to a market society is constructed by combining different aspects of various economic models in a manner that seeks to benefit from their useful sides while keeping their unwanted sides in check. The community provides every member with what is thought to be the bare necessities: food, drinking water, medical and spiritual care, as well as a full membership in the community and access to its activities. The participants are expected to reciprocate by contributing back to the community in some manner, as a form of gift economy. Giving back to the community can happen in many ways. People volunteer their time, skills, knowledge, creativity, and manual labour, together with various forms of material contributions, as they see fit. Donating money to the collective reserve of Magic Hat is among the ways to contribute, as money is usually the only way to exchange with the outside and its market reality. Rainbow’s economy shares central features with a subsistence economy in that it provides for the basic needs of its members while operating without an internal market, and not amassing wealth or property. When the community produces a surplus, through Magic Hat or other contributions, it is spent to benefit the community, either directly or by channelling the surplus for the preparations of the next event. During the Gathering event, the Family creates a wealth of collective resources by pooling participant contributions. This common property is used for the benefit of the whole group, distributed through the Main Kitchen and the main storage for food and supplies, as well as through the numerous self-organized subcamps and communal projects that provide services for the community. The monetary part of the collective reserve is used for trading with the outside society, participating in market economy to restock the communal reserve and to pay for other expenses that the event creates. Additionally, many Gatherings have a time and a place for commodity exchange in a delimited form: Trading Circles, where exchanges and their conditions are negotiated according to the norms of trading rather than gifting. The ethical and moral sides of commodity exchange contradict general Rainbow norms: in the Trading Circles, haggling is usual, and participants are openly seeking personal profit. However, as necessities such as food are

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 189 received independently, nobody needs to participate in the trading unless they wish to. Typically, only a minority of the gatherers attend Trading Circles. The existence of the Trading Circles and especially the behaviours and attitudes involved have become a controversial topic in many Rainbow Gatherings. Some voices declare their existence in Gatherings as disappointing because the profit-making ethics of the market are seen as antithetical to Rainbow ideals and representing “Babylon mentality”. Many would like to see the traders rather participating in and supporting the community through selfless sharing. Perhaps the trading itself is less polemic than the perceived lack of adherence to communal norms and morals. However, there is another side to trading than profit, also in the Rainbow. I have personally participated in Trading Circles with my crafts, hoping to acquire items I missed, but also because the trader crowd can be fun. In the World Rainbow Gathering in Hungary 2014, and the European Gathering of 2015 in Lithuania, I went to the Trading Circle and set out to trade my items for coffee or perhaps chocolate. Spending time among the traders made it clear that not all are motivated by profit, and that the Trading Circle hosts a lot of non-commercial activities. A lot of friendly trades happen that run against the economic interests of one party, and trading is accompanied by plenty of social networking, teaching craft skills, reading oracle cards and rune stones, playing chess or backgammon, disseminating information about various topics, musical performances and jamming, and gifting wares and services for free. A lot of the commodity exchange of the Trading Circles is playful, mixed with gift exchange, and it offers an arena for meaningful social interaction. At the end of my trading day in Lithuania, I had exchanged two leather pouches for a self-made art print and some organic raw chocolate. I also had great fun hanging out at the Trading Circles – some of the Rainbow jokes in the ethnography are collected while hanging out with the trader crowd. Attending the Trading Circles showed that they are well accepted among a part of the gatherers, and they attract people also for social reasons, as marketplaces in general tend to do84. It also appeared that even in the Trading Circles, another logic was at work in which trades are constantly negated as market exchanges and reinserted into the communal morality of sharing. The traders include profit-oriented individuals, but also those that make fun of profit-orientation and play with commercial values. Sometimes trading becomes a game, where individuals find a pretty stone and start exchanging it for increasingly more valuable items, just to see how far they can get. Others go through furious haggling only to then give the item away for free, to the bewilderment of their counterpart and other “serious” traders. These expressions show a constant tendency to reinscribe trade and to contain it within the prevailing morality and playfulness. Despite the controversy and critical opinions, the Family has deemed it better to allow trading in a public and transparent form than to ban it outright and incite a secretive black market. The announcements made for

190  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Trading Circles are usually shared with the explicit guidelines concerning them: trading should only happen in the Trading Circles and always without money. Often it is also explained that the trading is not supposed to be motivated by profit, but rather by mutual benefit and recycling or redistribution of wares among the community. Contrary to the spatial delimitation of Trading Circles, I have seen “giveaways” and “free-markets”, where people give away items for free, being set up without any restrictions or polemic. These attitudes align with Marcel Mauss’ observations of the position of trade: commodity exchange needs to follow the moral and religious norms of the community, which is achieved by delimiting the trading in time and space, and with the help of a ritual frame85. The gift theory offers insights concerning the forms of exchange, different modes of reciprocity, and their links to social distance and related ethical norms. The spheres corresponding to Sahlins’ “typology of reciprocities”86 as well as Caillé’s “primary” and “secondary” socialities87 can be drawn on the Rainbow data, and they correlate well with the normative differences explained by these theories. In short, exchange with the in-group involves gifting and strong reciprocity, and exchange with the out-group involves trading and weak reciprocity. Referring to Sahlins, a Rainbow ideal would be that people treat other gatherers with selfless “generalized reciprocity” as they would do with family members. However, in practical reality, the norms of exchange within the Rainbow Family range between the selflessness of generalized reciprocity and the mutuality of “balanced reciprocity”. The self-interest and profit-oriented thinking of “negative reciprocity” that Sahlins called the “unsociable extreme”, while sometimes visible in the Trading Circles, represents the “Babylon mentality” and is mainly kept outside. Referring to Caillé, Rainbow culture seeks to stretch the sphere of anti-utilitarian “primary sociality”, where people’s personalities are more important than how useful they can be, to cover the entire community. The culture of the gift economy is actively and continuously sustained in Rainbow Gatherings through various kinds of cultural framing and reframing, to communicate and uphold the appropriate ethical, normative, and behavioural aspects of gift exchange. The following sections look at the central ways of cultural framing involved in de-marketizing the economy. Spatial framing An egalitarian society differs from the mainstream norms, and naturally, this is apparent to the members of the community. Writing about egalitarian communities, anthropologist David Riches states that this distinction becomes significant for the members’ identity, and it needs to be addressed somehow in the culture. The two different economic models – market vs. sharing – are guided by different principles and ideology, rendering them mutually incompatible. However, as completely self-sufficient or isolated lifestyles are extremely rare, contemporary egalitarian communities need

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 191 to find a way to manage themselves concerning the market-reality of the out-group, and the two economic models and their relationship need to be culturally conceptualized. According to Riches, this can be achieved through mechanisms of integration, separation, or through a bit of both88. Riches has studied contemporary egalitarian societies existing among and in relation with the surrounding industrial Western world, including traditional societies such as Canadian Inuits, and New Age communities like Glastonbury in England and Findhorn in Scotland. Riches is familiar with Rainbow Gatherings and discusses them in his work89. He has examined the relationships between egalitarian enclaves and their surrounding societies, coming to conclusions that align with those of the gift theory. The egalitarian communities recognize two distinct modes of sociality connected to sharing: one regarding the in-group, and the other regarding the out-group. Riches then suggests that the modes should be understood as having specific relations with space-time90. Riches explains that most egalitarian societies distinguish shared items from those that are not shared. A typical pattern is to share industrially produced objects and money much less extensively than home-cooked food and other self-produced items, and Riches explains this with the symbolic significance of industrial objects. Industrial objects and money are creations of the outside, connoting its values and morals, whereas e.g. selfmade food “symbolically anchors the notion of self”91. Hence, according to Riches, it makes sense that different moralities of sharing are connected to them in egalitarian communities. However, there are examples of egalitarian societies extending sharing also to money and industrial objects, in both traditional and New Age communities – and Rainbow Gatherings are one of them. Riches argues, referring i.a. to Rainbow Gatherings and their radical extent of sharing, that when there is a clear spatial distance between the two modes of sociality, there is less need to treat industrial objects and money differently in the economy, making it possible to share them more widely. This indicates that both the cultural self-distinction of an egalitarian group and a successful management of the two different modes of exchange can be achieved with various means. Simplified, the community either separates the “shareable” items from the “unshareable”, or they separate themselves, spatially, from the out-group92 . Riches’ analysis supports the observations about the spatial separation of the spheres of exchange in the culture of Rainbow Gatherings. Firstly, the Gatherings separate themselves physically from Babylon and its economic culture to uphold the alternative of gift-economy. The Gatherings exist at a distance from the mainstream, and although Rainbow distinguishes itself in countless other ways, the physical distance is one of the most tangible features. My field experiences and discussions with gatherers involve numerous examples of how the participants’ economic behaviour changes when entering or leaving the Gathering, from the realities of the market economy of the outside to the sensibilities of gifting and reciprocity within

192  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song the Rainbow, and vice versa. Many long-time participants have observed the impacts that having a Gathering too close to the nearest town can have, pointing at the lures of commercial culture. When shops and cafés are easy to reach, many participants leave the Gathering to indulge in commercial pleasures instead of contributing this time, effort, and money to the Family. Secondly, the Trading Circles are spatially delimited inside the event and distinguished from the rest of the camp as regards the morals and ethics involved. In a society that does not utilize coercive power, but rather asks the participants to voluntarily respect shared guidelines, alternative methods of meaning-making and cultural communication are vital. Here, the methods of distance, place-making, ritual, and custom function to communicate and maintain an alternative cultural system with related social, moral, and behavioural norms, and the example applies to many other features of the Rainbow: the sacralized and other designated spaces, camps with their own subcultures, and the Gathering as a whole. In addition to the pervasive symbolism conveyed by material culture, Riches’ work highlights the frameworks of exchange and their significance in cultural meaning-making and the formation and communication of identity. The perceived distinction between the in-group and the out-group is a central factor in the self-identification of egalitarian communities, in parallel to the identity-formation of other countercultural and subcultural groups. The distinction combines material as well as ethical and ideological aspects. Another relevant point in Riches’ research concerns the normative communication and meaning-making through spatial and temporal means. The distinction of market economy and gift economy and their delimitations in time and space are evident in the Gatherings, and essential methods of de-marketizing the economy. Ideological, emotional, and ritual framing There are clear examples of how the mainstream market economy is devalued in Rainbow culture, and connected to ideas of greed, oppression, and abuse, and to fears of poverty and lack. It is common to hear gatherers talk about market economy and mainstream attitudes to money in an extremely critical manner. Expressions like “illusion”, “Maya” (meaning illusion in Indian religions), and “brainwash” are usual, as is “slavery”. Some of my informants spoke of people being slaves to money, ranging from “slave mentality”, in the sense of not questioning the realities of Babylon and its market economy, to more literal meanings, in the sense of the extreme injustices produced by the contemporary world economy: (People are) so arrogant, they think they are the smartest, when they actually destroy the planet and other people. They do it and don’t understand how stupid and greedy it is.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 193 Here, I am not the slave for the money machine, you know for military, big business. We are stealing from the poor people just by living in Babylon. People on the other side (of the world) work like slaves for our luxury and we just take it and don’t care it’s stolen. We love it! Babylon just needs to learn that it is a shame to make someone a slave, even when it looks like normal; we all need to learn how we are part of it and stop it. Did you know there is more slaves in the world now than ever before? It’s true, check it. Millions of people are (economic) slaves, also in the rich countries.93 The best thing that Rainbow does is to wake up people who just run after the money illusion94. The practices of sharing collective resources, gift exchange and mutual reciprocity are connected to various ritualistic and behavioural customs in Rainbow culture. The collection of donations to the Magic Hat is ritualized into a cheerful celebration which happens as a part of the most central communal core ritual – the Food Circle. Magic Hat songs are joyful and jubilant, praising generous sharing, and connecting it to spiritual ideals such as trust, letting go of fears, compassion, and altruism. What is also interesting is that although the collection is a public event, it is done in a way where the donations remain anonymous, and focus is more on a supportive collective attitude than individuals or amounts. Thus, the gifts to the community are disconnected from social status. The same feature is visible in attitudes towards workers: participation in the collective upkeep of the Gathering is regarded highly, and it is customary to verbally encourage and give thanks to the people who are working for it, but it is often done in a way that focuses the praise on the collective effort and the work getting done, and not on the individuals doing it. John Woodall makes the same observation in his ethnography of the US Gatherings95. Similarly, if someone emphasizes their labour input or other contributions and tries to use it as a basis to assume status, they are typically ignored or ridiculed. In effect, commodification of labour and market-type exchange are negated in favour of social bonds96. The culture involves playful and positive general attitudes towards Rainbow’s own economic tradition, as well as certain religious connotations. Generous sharing and reciprocity are explicitly valued, but through expressions that focus on collective efforts and well-being, and the “joy of giving” or similar expressions. Many gatherers experience the Gatherings’ gift-economy as connected to emotional, social, and spiritual ideals and personal development towards them. Gifting and reciprocity become expressions of service, embracing the interdependence with the community becomes an expression of spiritual consistency, and exchange in this frame becomes an avenue for spiritual growth in addition to building social bonds.

194  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Rainbow’s economy is typically discussed through concepts of abundance and gratitude instead of wealth, lack, or potential deprivation. As with politics, it is considered better to trust in the power of the collective, the love, and the magic: trust that through the Family, the universe provides all that is needed, rather than show distrust by worrying too much about the numbers. In the carefree words of a favourite Magic Hat song: Our magic is the give-away / our magic is the song / so give away your love today / and sing the whole day long. On the other hand, certain practical mechanisms in the flow of “magic” and abundance become apparent with insider view and experience. Longtime Rainbow participant Tom Thumb has observed the mechanics of Magic Hat collection and noted a definite link between the performance of the collection procession and the amounts it produces: Rainbow finances depend on a strong, timely Magic Hat performance. One rain shower can send everybody running for shelter before the Hat even comes round and that’s half the day’s revenue lost. It’s also true that one brother mooching around the circle droning a dull tune on an out-of-tune guitar will raise far less than a team of musicians and dancers with stars in their eyes, their energy lifting everyone’s hearts to the sky and their hands to their pockets. Donating is often more about impulse than anything else and people tend to give more when they see others giving, too. At its best, the Magic Hat is kind of a spell, encouraging everyone to just give it all away, give it all away, to maintain the magic of the Rainbow and feed the five thousand97. Religious concepts, collective rituals, play, and celebration are used in defusing the market, just as they are used to defuse coercive power. Another method of de-marketization in Rainbow economy is the de-commodification of the exchange between the individual and the community. There is no explicit comparison of the value or worth of contributions, or any oversight. Nobody is counting the hours of work, just as nobody is counting the amounts of individual donations or the amounts of benefits received from the community. Anthropologist David Graeber notes that this was one of Mauss’ observations about the nature of gift economy: “a refusal to calculate exactly who had given what to whom”98. In the Rainbow, the obligation of reciprocity is clear, but participants have autonomy over the details and practicalities of their contributions. The various measures needed to circumscribe trade in Rainbow Gatherings do point at an ongoing tension between gifting and trading. All gatherers do not completely refrain from trading and minor forms of trade seem ever-present, even in the face of the non-commercial ideals. As

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 195 with the general issue of guidelines in the Rainbow, the reality is that many participants make their own final decisions that are somewhere between the Rainbow ideals and their personal preferences. Society Against the “Church” Here, we divert from the gift paradigm and its applications and take a detour into ideas regarding the countercultural aspects of alternativeholistic spirituality, and their tendency to reject traditional religious organizations. As mentioned earlier, the countercultural shift of the 1960s and 1970s involved changes in religiosity, where people’s alliances were increasingly withdrawn from institutionalized forms of religion and reconnected to an idea of individual religiosity and a personal quest for authenticity and meaning. Churches and other religious organizations lost much of their power and recognition in this relocation of religious authority and authenticity. In the countercultural view, the focus moved to subjective life, and the highest authority was given to the self. “The goal is not to defer to higher authority, but to have the courage to become one’s own authority”99. In their 2005 book, The Spiritual Revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality, Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead answer the question in their title by pointing at a profound shift in cultural values and mentality they call the “subjective turn”: “It is a turn away from life lived in terms of external or “objective” roles, duties and obligations, and a turn towards a life lived by reference to one’s own subjective experiences (relational as much as individualistic)”100. The subjective turn can be connected to the erosion or reform of other social and cultural institutions that used to be instrumental in the way people defined and identified themselves and their social roles, like traditional family, marriage, social class, sexual orientation, gender, occupation, nationality, and so forth. In their conclusion, Heelas and Woodhead gather scholars who have seen the difference between the two forms of religiosity or foretold the “subjective turn” in their work: Some hundred years ago, Durkheim drew a distinction between ‘a religion handed down by tradition’ and ‘a free, private, optional religion, fashioned according to one’s own needs and understanding’ (cited in Pickering, 1975, p. 96). Writing at much the same time, William James, Simmel, Troeltsch and others drew similar distinctions. They too thought that spiritualities of life were a growing force, so they would not be surprised by the extent to which the spiritual revolution has developed since their time, or about our predictions. Arguing that the sacred gravitates towards ultimate value to affirm, enhance, validate and express that value, they all reflected on the significance that was coming to be placed on subjective-life. As Simmel (1997) put it so

196  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song vividly, ‘This emotional reality – which we can only call life – makes itself increasingly felt in its formless strength… claiming inalienable rights as the true meaning or value of our existence’ (p. 24). And as it progresses, the turn to subjective life draws the sacred within101. In the perspective of subjectively ordered spirituality, organized religious institutions are seen as wielding power that finally does not benefit individual spiritual development or that of a better society. Communities in these spiritualities are formed on other basis than exclusive belonging and fully shared beliefs. Alternative to the “Church”: Non-institutionalized Religiosity Rainbow Gatherings’ religious tradition, like the whole culture, has a characteristically eclectic form. The group claims to be equally open to the adherents of all kinds of faiths, but in practice, most participants represent varieties of alternative-holistic spirituality. Alternative-holistic religious traditions typically involve a clear distinction between religious institutions and non-institutionalized forms of religion, based on their own understanding of authenticity and relevance. In short, religious institutions are typically framed as rigid, impersonal, controlling, and as such, outmoded. The whole concepts of dogmatic belief and external religious authority are often discarded outright, in favour of the authority of the self and subjective significations. Although the Rainbow Family cannot be treated as a religion in the Weberian substantive sense of the word102 , the Gatherings have developed their own tradition of ritual practices, where the daily communal rituals are not only popular but commonly experienced as meaningful and having spiritual as well as social value. The community produces its own sacred spaces, objects, and times that evoke widespread respect and reverence, and the Gathering events are often compared to pilgrimage and religious retreats by the participants. What, then, are the main factors that distinguish the collective spiritual tradition of the Gatherings from institutionalized forms of religion, and how does the Rainbow community uphold non-institutionalized forms of religion in their culture? A good place to start is the defining features of institutionalized religion. A religious institution such as the Catholic Church103 is a central authority with extensive regulatory power. It typically can define the accepted ways of belief and practice, monopolizing the conceptualizations of and approaches to the transcendent. The church is often the sole source of the formation and authority of religious professionals such as clergy. It also has the doctrinal authority and can decide over questions of orthodoxy in full detail and demand adherence to the official interpretations, showing the typical belief-centred nature of institutionalized religion. Institutional religion is typically well differentiated in time and space, and regarding

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 197 the social sphere: religiously significant times and places are defined and delimited by the central authority and belonging to the religion has clearly defined conditions. Belonging in a church is most often exclusive and linked to the aspects of belief and its formulaic expression. A typical doctrinal feature of institutionalized religion is a defined “god-type” deity or deities representing a radically transcendent other, instead of various “spirit-type” entities or an immanent type of transcendence104. By contrast, the religious tradition manifested in Rainbow Gatherings is decidedly non-institutional, and rather a form of vernacular religion. It is not differentiated, which is why it can be complicated to say what exactly is religious and what not, or who “belongs” to the tradition or not. The tradition does not demand or assume exclusive belonging at any level, and the whole concept of belonging is finally defined by each individual. The Rainbow Family accepts all religious identifications, although there is a general preference for elective self-identification over unquestioning “inherited” identification. Typically, gatherers do not claim fixed religious identities but instead talk about multiple chosen affiliations, subjective experiences, and developments in their personal spiritual path. According to the literature and participant interviews, the US Rainbow Family seems to be more explicitly into religious pluralism where denominational religious identities are openly represented. Some of the oldest “Kitchen Tribes” in the US Family are linked to confessional religiosity and consist of members of religious denominations. This is one of the more notable religious differences between the US and the European Rainbow cultures. The Family does not recognize any central religious authority, but instead encourages individual interpretations, which are perhaps the most accepted form of religious authority. In addition to the self, there naturally are other authoritative motifs in alternative-holistic religious traditions, such as appealing to ideas of sacralized nature, and the tropes of “ancient” and “tribal” traditions in their various, widely recognized appropriations. Media, religion, and folklore scholar Robert Glenn Howard has studied the aspects of authority in vernacular traditions and points out that “vernacular authority” is formed in interaction and communication with others in the tradition. It arises from the successful use of motifs recognized in the tradition as authoritative and legitimate, whatever they are. “Tribal” and “ancient” are good examples. In the case of a tradition that has apparent countercultural aspects, the authority of a motif can be established i.a. by specifically referring to positions opposing those of the mainstream culture. In the case of Rainbow Gatherings, as well as the broader alternative-holistic religious traditions, advocating the religious authority of the self instead of the authority of religious institutions, is an example of vernacular authority in a countercultural frame105. Rainbow’s religious tradition does not have a central authority and hence cannot include aspects of direct regulation. There are recognized Rainbow traditions, but absolute adherence to tradition is not demanded.

198  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song However, specifically with the collective ritual customs, adherence to tradition is remarkably prevalent, and mechanisms of social control are sometimes apparent. Obligation to tradition is mediated by the appreciation of individual input and creativity that is also part of the culture, but creative contributions in the collective rituals need to be recognized as generally appropriate and fitting, to garner support. If for example, a participant’s behaviour goes too much against the traditional form of the Food Circle ceremony, there can be vocal criticism or other displays of disapproval from the group. In other words, also the creative input needs to be within the frame of collective tradition, and although the frame can be loose in other contexts, expressions connected to the collective core rituals involve the least of creative freedom. Adherence to the collective tradition can be compelling without being sanctioned or regulated by a central authority, and it seems that the ideas of open and creative participation, even when they are not fully realized in practice, make the tradition more approachable and acceptable to the participants. There are no appointed ritual leaders in the communal core rituals, and instead, all participants have the same status and position as ritual actors. The rituals allow for a measure of individual initiative, but there is a clear form to the communal core rituals - although mainly implicit and learned by following others. The form can be flexible and accommodate some variance, at least on a temporary basis. The guiding principles of the ritual tradition are anchored on the idealization of organic communality, broad symbolism, and universal levels of social and corporeal experience, making the tradition a loose orthopraxy106 rather than an orthodoxy. This does not mean it would be experienced as any less coherent or meaningful by the participants, or less significant for the culture. There are no officially recognized spiritual teachers or clergy in the Rainbow, just as there is no official doctrine. Although individuals might claim a spiritually advanced position, and other individuals might choose to treat them as such, the culture does not support claims of authority over others. People are encouraged to express their views as subjective, to accept that everyone has their own convictions, and to remain respectful of diversity. Religious pluralism is seen as a positive feature, and as a strength of the Family. Authoritative behaviour or “guru-tripping” is called out. Rainbow culture is consciously refusing all forms of religious institutionalization, thus making it a “society against the church”. Rainbow values egalitarianism and horizontality, in religion as in economy and politics. Open rituality and indeterminacy of meaning Rainbow’s religious tradition needs to adapt to the fact that the gatherers come from various cultures and backgrounds, and although a big part of them share various general ideas, they disagree about many others. The collective practices must accommodate the differences while being relatable

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 199 and expressive as regards the general ideas, but not too explicitly “religious” or “culty”. The result, in Rainbow’s case, is a ritual tradition that can be described as a collection of broadly Neopagan practices in an underdefined form, representing the basic ideals of communality and environmental spirituality. The ritual tradition does have a relationship with the nebula of New Age ideas and beliefs, but the relationship is loose enough to be accommodating. When specific ideas or beliefs are expressed by individuals, they are typically not presented in a dogmatic or absolute sense, and people are usually aware of several different and even conflicting beliefs existing in the community. The collective rituals that have evolved within the events have retained the inclusive and eclectic philosophy, even when certain ritual elements which have been reappropriated from specific existing traditions have become central – like chanting the Om. The Omming and discussions about its meaning and use in ritual offer a good example of the ongoing subjective reinterpretation of religious features, and the experiences related to ritual efficacy. I have asked Rainbows about the meaning of Om and about the situations where it is chanted, and I received different answers. Gatherers told me various things, including the “original” meaning – that in Hinduism (and other related traditions) it is an ancient sacred syllable through which the Universe is created. However, others told me that even though Om is Sanskrit and “from India”, it has universal meaning and cosmic significance, or that the point is in chanting together in harmony and not in the traditional meaning of the concept. Some people said that they are not actually chanting “omm”, but rather singing a long vocal note and “harmonizing” with the group, “centering”, or “raising the vibration”. Others added that it is important to hold a silence after “Omming”, like it is customary to do in the Food Circle ceremony, to allow a moment for everyone’s own preferred kind of prayer or exaltation. Many stated that the main thing is that it works, and you can feel it. These are typical examples of various styles of reinterpreting a specific ritual feature and reframing it according to subjective views, and the comments highlight aspects of efficacy measured through things like embodiment, sensation, and subjective experience. Besides the communal rituals, the Gatherings include various kinds of individual and small-group rituals and other forms of devotional practice. As explained in the ethnography, there are three popular types of rituality in the Rainbow: the collective core rituals, ritual workshops, and the creative construction and use of communal shrines and altars. The types vary regarding their social dynamics as well as the dynamic between the adherence to tradition and the freedom of creativity, but as there is always space for creative expressions I call then examples of open rituality. The collective core rites follow Rainbow tradition the most, but the two other types have more leeway for creativity. Some ritual workshops follow a fixed form according to an established religious tradition or the ritual

200  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song facilitators’ guidelines, but others are co-created and decidedly open to participant input. The construction of communal shrines and altars involves the least amount of group communication or explicit mutual agreement. Participation in their construction and use is left entirely to the individual and involves a significant amount of personal freedom. In open rituality the activities, the placement and layout of the ritual locations, and their appearance and equipment are produced collectively. Gatherers publicly announce their intent to hold a ritual, or a wish to participate in one, initiating an open workshop-style ritual process. Typically, participants are welcome to devise and organize ritual events within the Gathering and to delineate them as they please, and criticism or polemic about religious practices is rare. The only openly expressed critique towards a specific ritual in a Rainbow Gathering I have seen personally happened when a gatherer who was a Christian priest wanted to hold a Lutheran church service in the 2010 European Gathering, but the landowner voiced his personal antagonism towards Christianity. “Those bastards have killed so many shamans and healers. I will not have this here!” the landowner exclaimed. The Rainbow community was more permissive and thought that it is not justified to forbid any tradition. The authoritative behaviour of the landowner was seen as problematic more than a Christian rite. The resolution followed the guidelines of spatial framing discussed in the previous section: the service was held, but outside of the landowners’ property. The example of the polemic over a Lutheran service illustrates not only the harsh attitudes towards institutionalized religion held among many in the Family but also the ideal of religious equality, and the use of spatial distance and place-making in allowing but delimiting specific practices that do not elicit full communal support. There is a parallel field story told by a participant of the European Rainbow Gathering in Slovakia in 2012. A group of Hare Krishna devotees107 took part and had their camp in the Gathering. Their traditional ritual practices, prasadam (food sanctified by Krishna) and kirtan (chanting of mantras and hymns), were generally well received and many gatherers attended them, but when the group expressed a wish to hold kirtan at the Main Fire, the Rainbow Family refused. The Main Fire was considered off limits to any form of denominational religion, and the controversy, as well as the solution to it, once again displays the spatial and territorial dynamics in Rainbow culture. The space around the Main Fire is the “inner sanctum” of the Rainbow: it represents the Family and its values of religious pluralism and diversity. The Krishna devotees were welcome to hold their services in a place that communicated the community’s internal horizontality: at their own camp. Another important feature of Rainbow rituality is the rituals’ experiential side combined with the subjective interpretation. The experiences of being in a Circle around a roaring fire, holding hands, chanting, singing, dancing, or drumming together, and being immersed in nature or in an

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 201 inclusive community can all be impressive and impactful in themselves. As ritual elements, they do not require the context of a shared, defined belief system to make them meaningful. This does not mean that participants would not contextualize or express their beliefs, but it does imply that the belief context can be subjective, loosely defined, and only partially shared with the group. The ethnography contains examples of such constructions, which can provide various types of religious contextualization: mythologization (“this is an ancient tribal rite”), interpretation of the symbolism (“the fire represents purification/rebirth/spirit”), ritual patterns or experiences (“when we hold hands it creates an energy flow”), thoughts about ritual efficacy (“holding hands the right way enhances the energy flow”), aims and purposes of the rite or of the whole Gathering (“our Circles are healing the Earth”), just to present some examples. The symbolically potent scenario of a circle of people around a fire in the wilderness seems to be able to accommodate various kinds of faith traditions, from world religions to individual spiritual or ideological bricolages. Nature religions from defined Pagan traditions to more undefined forms of sacralized nature, as well as various forms of institutionalized religious traditions or secular ideologies, can all be fitted in this basic ritual setting. The symbolism inherent in the scene acquires a more specific significance when it is contrasted with the domesticated and urban lifestyle of modern Westerners with backgrounds in traditional religious institutions. In comparison, the scene appears to the participants as “natural”, primal, and pagan, symbolizing central Rainbow ideals without requiring any more demonstrative features. Moreover, this non-descriptiveness is finally descriptive of the Rainbow: the Main Fire becomes an icon for the Rainbow Family and its values by virtue of not being something like a person of status or a defined sacred symbol. The participants’ beliefs can be a loose collection of different views, and while people have full freedom to express them, they don’t necessarily have much visibility in the communal culture. At the same time, the shared practices, although open enough to remain compatible with a wide range of individual worldviews, have a fixed form and they are prominent in the daily life in the event and general Rainbow culture. The ritual elements in Rainbow’s collective rituals involve symbolism which has the capacity of being expressive and influential despite not being conspicuous, highly defined, or necessarily discussed at all. In a sense its impact and acceptance might depend on the symbolism remaining “officially” indeterminate, so that it can be claimed to be open-ended, and that “it means different things to different people”108. A circle of people, a burning fire and nature are all potent symbolic elements, and in the Rainbow they are commonly seen as representing the central ideals and values of the Western counterculture and alternative-holistic religiosity: biocentric ethics, egalitarianism and interconnectedness, spirituality and transformation, as well as reconnection, harmony and well-being, but these meanings are typically expressed

202  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song as subjective views. There might be more unanimity and conformity within the individual interpretations than is admitted or realized by the gatherers. Play-type ritual, spirit-type religion Rainbow’s ritual tradition is open, horizontal and it represents “play-type” ritualism109. There are no ritual leaders or people with a special status, and participation is voluntary. The rituals proceed according to a non-verbal and organic group process, following Rainbow traditions but open to creativity and variation within a particular frame. The Food Circle ritual has an explicitly playful part rich with creative and interactive dance, song, jest, laughter and circulating kisses, where individuals have the space to initiate novel songs or games, and the group either accepts and follows, or doesn’t. More solemn creative participation is also possible, like offering gestures of blessing or purification to the people in the Circle, by smudging110, spritzing of scented water, or “sound healing” techniques such as ringing a bell or a small cymbal. The efficacy of the rite is assessed by experiential aspects, such as what is the vibe, what happens during the rite, and what it means to individual participants. In Roberte Hamayon’s words, Rainbow’s rituals are “play-type” rituals involving considerable freedom of variation and creativity, instead of “worship-type” following a fixed script as well as possible. “Play-type” ritual involves a horizontal relationship with a spirit-type transcendent other rather than a vertical relationship with a god-type one111. “Play-type” rituals call for a direct and immediate relationship with the sacred, instead of a mediated access through religious representatives like clergy, or the demands of orthodoxy. Ritual can also be an avenue to express critical or ironic views, also regarding the Rainbow itself. Some gatherers ridicule aspects of Rainbow culture, and the religious views and practices are among the targets. There are various incidental examples of playful or parodic ritual expression in my field journals, some of which mix “serious” attitudes with playful ones, and others that are plainly a form of mockery and a joke. The description of a Food Circle at the beginning of the 1st chapter mentions a “Unicorn Parade”, offering blessings in the form of “unicorn kisses” administered with plushy toys. Despite the playful aspects, these blessings were not mockery. The gesture was meant, and received, as caring. However, playful, ironic, provocative, and even subversive expressions are commonplace in the Rainbow, including religious contexts. Objects placed on communal altars often have a playful side to them, although it is impossible to know the subjective significations in each case. Among the more typical items, I have seen such altar adornments as superhero figurines, My Little Ponies and other toys, pictures of characters such as Popeye and the warrior princess Xena, a defunct mobile phone, candy, and a pair of lacy underpants, among countless other items that challenge established boundaries between ideas of the sacred and the profane.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 203 A gatherer from the US described a jocular rite known among the US Rainbow Family that parodies the core ritual feature of the Circle. The parody began with a running joke claiming that among the circle-loving Rainbow Family there exists a secretive group of dissidents known as “the Cult of the Triangle”. The joke inspired a parody ritual within the National Rainbow Gathering in the US which has been recreated in subsequent events. “The day for the Sacred Triangle is the 1st of July. We come together and sit in a giant triangle and serve coffee and triangular donuts. And folks, like, some drop acid and we Omm and have a lot of fun. For no purpose, just because”112 . The parody rite pokes fun at Rainbow’s religious tradition, and at taking it too seriously. It joins many other Rainbow expressions critical of “creating a religion”. The rite mocks the seriousness typical of institutional religion and subverts the regulation of a central religious authority which seeks to guard its hegemonic position with a humourless severity, quenching heresy and dissidence. Roberte Hamayon noted that an unamused and sombre attitude, or even an outright depreciation of games, play, humour, and laughter, has been a general quality of “all the centralizing powers”, especially in the Western Christian world: “Jesus Christ never laughed”, declared Saint John Chrysostom, an early Church Father113. At the same time, Hamayon states that games and play are common features of shamanic ritual, typically involving horizontal interaction with the transcendent other(s) that accepts a measure of indeterminacy114.

Conclusions from the Countercultural Analysis The Rainbow Family has a social ideal of no violence and no hierarchy. It manifests as a headless political tradition that can diffuse power and render it temporary and situational. The inevitable social hierarchies and power relations that form among people in any community remain under scrutiny, non-coercive, and disconnected from external and non-elective things like wealth, heritage, class, race, or gender. When social recognition forms between individuals, it is not seen as a basis for authority, and leadership is not carried over to subsequent events. Thus, power relations cannot get instituted in the culture as permanent power structures. Rainbow’s political tradition idealizes decentralized and subservient forms of power, horizontal decision-making, and is wary of conspicuous pursuit of power and authoritative behaviour. Ritualized political practices such as Talking Circles enact the horizontal and egalitarian ideals. The Family prides itself as a pioneering non-hierarchical inclusive society, and the practices of open Councils and consensus-driven decision-making are characteristic of the Rainbow culture. Rainbow’s methods of “de-marketizing” the economy and establishing an alternative follow the principles of gift theory: confining market-type exchange and establishing a viable alternative system for the circulation

204  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song of goods and services through gift-economy. Further, the culture of gifteconomy is upheld by reframing economic issues through various means. Most importantly, market exchanges are kept out of the Gathering, or bound into the constrained form of the Trading Circles, where the “negative reciprocity” (Sahlins) and “secondary sociality” (Caillé) involved are clearly separated from the general collective culture of solidarity and sharing. The needs for a market and for using money within the community are removed along with much of economic inequality by offering basic subsistence to everyone and establishing an all-encompassing sphere of gift exchange which accepts multiple ways of reciprocating. Rainbow’s economy does not support profiting at the expense of others. Labour is not traded as a commodity but gifted as another form of contribution. By allowing trading in a restricted form – without money, and in a specific time and space – the community assures that participants have the option of mutual commodity exchange without enabling profiteering or power gain. Rainbow has also found a way to reconcile the ideal of a money-less gift economy with the practical demands of having to interact with the market economy of the mainstream world, by treating money as another collective resource while limiting its use to trading with the outside. The differences between institutionalized religion and Rainbow Gatherings’ religious tradition become apparent in examining the power relationships between the individual and the collective, as well as between the individual and the transcendent other. All participants have the same right to make subjective interpretations and participate in the creation and execution of practices. The tradition is regulated only by the common opinion, which includes an appreciation of creativity and subjective signification. A vast majority of the rituals belong to “play-type” ritual, which does not follow a restrictive script but allows for indeterminacy, variation, creativity, and an immediate and personal relationship with the transcendent. The tradition does not recognize centralized religious authority, has no coercive regulation, clergy, or entitled ritual leaders. Furthermore, it is not clearly differentiated and does not expect exclusive belonging. The typical forms of explicit criticism towards religious expressions are aimed at attempts to frame a specific religious interpretation as superior. Even though the collective culture is saturated with Pagan influences, they are left relatively undefined. The refusal of centralized and coercive power structures such as the State goes hand in hand with the refusal of the Market and of the “Church”, making the Rainbow into a veritable “Society Against the Mainstream” – in paraphrasing Pierre Clastres. Rainbow’s crafted alternatives go against their mainstream counterparts in that they deliberately diffuse power and support horizontality. Stepping directly out of such conventions as representational politics, concentration and delegation of authority, institutionalized religion, and market economy, the Rainbow instead offers all participants a full membership in the community and an equal access to its

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 205 functions: political decision-making, economic exchange, as well as subjective authority and autonomy as a religious practitioner. By doing this, the Rainbow Family has created vital temporary intentional communities capable of sustaining themselves for weeks or even months on end, and of providing their members with a sense of purpose and belonging strong enough to produce life-changing experiences and a renewed identity. All three Rainbow institutions are based on the principles of horizontality, sharing and reciprocity: you are given an equal part of everything – political power, collective resources, and religious agency – and you should ensure the same for others. In turning away from mainstream institutions, Rainbows seek more meaningful, vital, and experiential models of knowledge, and to be fully participant, conscious creators of human life and human communities. In this, they join older cultural currents such as the romantics, the spiritualists, and the mystics – the countercultural actors of their own times.

Notes 1 Davis 2004, 174, Chryssides 2007, 22. 2 Phenotype is borrowed from biology, meaning “the observable properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment” (merriam-webster.com). 3 Cf. Mannheim 1936, 199, 208. 4 Parsons, 1951, 522. 5 Yinger 1960. 6 Yinger 1960, 629. 7 Yinger 1977, 833. 8 Larkin 2015, 74–75. 9 Larkin 2015, 73. 10 Larkin 2015, 75. 11 Larkin 2015, 75. 12 Gauthier & Martikainen 2013a&b, Heelas 2009, Possamai 2007, 151, Hanegraaff 2007, 47, Aupers & Houtman 2006. 13 See e.g. Halldorf 2010, Kolind 2011, Morant 2011, Viehe 2011. 14 See DeConick 2016, Boltanski & Chiapello 2007, Bowman 1995, Gerlach & Hine 1970. 15 Redden 2002, 36, Hanegraaff 1996. 16 Interview: U.F. 17 Velvet Revolution was a non-violent transition of power in what was then Czechoslovakia, occurring from 17 November to 29 December 1989. 18 Bey 1991. 19 Beale 2007, Temporary Autonomous Art n.d. 20 Misiroglu 2015, 101, Goffman & Joy 2007, 78, Sellars 2010, McCaffrey 2012, Berger 2006, 148, 232. 21 Beck 1991, 37. 22 Clastres 1977. 23 Clastres 2010, 259. 24 Viveiros de Castro 2010, 12. 25 Clastres 1977, 167–168. 26 Clastres 1976.

206  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 7 Clastres 1977, 5, 21–23, 27–28. 2 28 Clastres 1977, 28. 29 Clastres 1977, 29-32. 30 Clastres 1977, 32. 31 Clastres 1977, 14, original emphasis. 32 Clastres 1977, 21–23, 27–29, 182. 33 Clastres 1977, 160–161, 182–185. 34 McKinzie 2011. 35 McKinzie 2011, 42–43. 36 Borneman & Senders 2000. 37 See McKinzie 2011, 49–53. 38 McKinzie 2011. 39 Clastres 1977, 22–23. 40 Clastres 1977, 161, original emphasis. 41 Clastres 1977, 162–163, see also Sahlins 1974. 42 Bataille 1991. 43 Mauss 1990. 44 Sahlins 1974, 191. 45 Sahlins 1974, 194. 46 Sahlins 1974, 194–195. 47 Sahlins 1974, 193. 48 Sahlins 1974, 197. 49 Sahlins 1974, 191–196. 50 Caillé 2020. 51 Mauss 1990, Parry 1986, Gregory 2015. 52 E.g. Caillé 2000, 2009a. 53 Gregory 2015, Ch 1. 54 Mauss 1990, Godelier 1999, 43. 55 Parry 1986, 456. 56 Mauss 1990, Sahlins 1974, 85, 196–210, 231–263, Parry 1986. 57 Mauss 1990, 55. 58 Weiner 1985, 1992. 59 Mills 2004. 60 Godelier 1999. 61 Godelier 1999, 101–102. 62 Godelier 1999, 104. 63 Godelier 1999, 104–105, original emphasis. 64 Pireddu 2015, Tarot 1999. 65 Godelier 1999, 105. 66 Further discussion and empirical examples of personified objects as well as exchange in the frame of magical rituals can be found in my previous work, albeit in Finnish (Ratia 2009). 67 Godelier 1999, 105–106. 68 Godelier 1999, 166–167. 69 Godelier 1999, 168. 70 Godelier 1999, 169, original emphasis. 71 Cf. Caillé 2000. 72 Godelier 1999, 31–32, Weiner 1992, Mauss 1990, 9–10. 73 Godelier 1999, 29, Mauss 1990, 14–18. 74 Godelier 1999, 30. 75 Caillé 2000. 76 Godelier 1999, 102. 77 Godelier 1999, 33, italics in the original. 78 See also Godelier 1999, 105.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 207 9 7 80 81 82

Caillé 2020, translation by F. Gauthier. Mouvement Anti-Utilitariste dans les Sciences Sociales. Clastres 1977, 160–168. Clastres 1977, Sahlins 1974, Godelier 1999, Mauss 1990, Parry 1986, Gregory 2015, Weiner 1985, 1992, and references by Caillé. 83 Mauss 1990, Sahlins 1974, Clastres 1977. 84 Cf. Polanyi 1957. 85 Mauss 1990. 86 Sahlins 1974, 191–195. 87 Caillé 2020. 88 Riches 2005. 89 Riches 2005, 2010. 90 Riches 2005, 62–63. 91 Riches 2005, 74. 92 Riches 2005, 63, 74–75. 93 Conversation: Dragon. 94 Conversation: Bjorn. 95 Woodall 2007, 88. 96 Cf. Caillé 2007: ‘lien vs. bien’, meaning links vs. goods, Gregory 2015, Ch. 1. 97 Thumb 2014, 93, original emphasis. 98 Graeber 2000, Mauss 1990. 99 Heelas & Woodhead 2005, 4. 100 Heelas & Woodhead 2005, 2. 101 Heelas & Woodhead 2005, 148–149, Pickering 1975, Durkheim 1899, James 2002 (1902), Simmel 1997, Troeltsch 1931. 102 Cf. Gauthier 2016. 103 Naturally, not all forms of institutional religion are as hierarchical or authoritative as the Catholic Church, but the defining features still apply, to a degree. The chosen example reflects typical Rainbow understandings, where the reference points are most often mainstream religious institutions such as the Catholic Church, Protestant Church or Judaism. Here, the chosen top-down example serves to better illustrate the point. 104 Gauthier 2020, ch. 3. 105 Howard 2008, 2013. 106 Theologically, orthopraxy means “doing right”, but in Rainbow culture individual freedom and creativity mean that the frame of 'right' is loosely defined by tradition. 107 Most likely members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). 108 See Gauthier 2014, Berger 2006, 1, Wyler 2014. 109 Hamayon 2012, 2001. 110 Smudging is a traditional Native American method of using smoke from burning herbs to purify a space. 111 Hamayon 2012, Gauthier 2015, 2018. 112 Interview: Patches. 113 Hamayon 2012, 46. 114 Hamayon 2012, 4, 17, ch.2, ch.4, 2001.

References Aupers, Stef and Houtman, Dick 2006: Beyond the Spiritual Supermarket: The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion 21(2), 201–222.

208  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song Bataille, Georges 1991: The Accursed Share, Volume 1: Consumption. New York, NY: Zone Books. Beale, Scott 2007: Bad Day at Black Rock (Cacophony Society Zone Trip #4). Laughingsquid.com. 18.1.2007. Available at: https://laughingsquid.com/badday-at-black-rock-cacophony-society-zone-trip-4/. Accessed 22.8.2020. Beck, Garrick 1991: A Gathering For All People: 20 Years of Rainbow. High Times, July 1991. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle. net/10023/2679. Bey, Hakim (Peter Lamborn Wilson) 1991: T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. Williamsburg, VA: Autonomedia. Boltanski, Luc and Chiapello, Eve 2007 (2005): The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso. Borneman, J. and Senders, S. 2000: Politics Without a Head: Is the “Love Parade” a New Form of Political Identification? Cultural Anthropology 15(2), 294–317. Bowman, Marion 1995: The Noble Savage and the Global Village: Cultural Evolution in New Age and Neo-Pagan Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 10(2), 139–149. Caillé, Alain 2020: The Gift Paradigm: A Short Introduction to the Anti-utilitarian Movement in the Social Sciences. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press. Caillé, Alain 2013: Playing/Giving [online]. Revue du MAUSS 41, 241–264. Available at: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_RDM_041_0241–playgive. htm#re9no9. Accessed 16.12.2018. Caillé, Alain 2009a: Théorie Anti-utilitariste de l’action. Paris: La Découverte/ MAUSS. Caillé, Alain 2009b: Nouvelles thèses sur la Religion. Revue du MAUSS 22, 315–324. Caillé, Alain 2007: ‘Ce qu’on appelle si mal le don…’ Que le don est de l’ordre du don malgré tout [‘What we call, even badly, the gift…’ That the gift is of the order of the gift after all.]. Revue du MAUSS 30, 393–404. Caillé, Alain 2000: Anthropologie du don. Le Tiers Paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Chryssides, George 2007: Defining the New Age. In: Kemp D. and Lewis J. (eds.), Handbook of New Age. Leiden: Brill, 1–24. Clastres, Pierre 2010 (1980): Archaeology of Violence: War in Primitive Societies. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e)/Foreign Agents. Clastres, Pierre 1977 (1974): Society Against the State. New York, NY: Urizen Books. Clastres, Pierre 1976: Société contre l’État: la mystification de la doxa anthropologique ou l’abondance dans les sociétés « pré-capitalistes » [Society against the State: the mystification of anthropological doxa or abundance in “precapitalist” societies]. Introduction to: Sahlins, Marshall Âge de pierre, âge d’abondance. L’économie des sociétés primitives [Stone Age Economics], (original English edition 1972). Paris: Gallimard. Davis, Erik 2004 (1998): TechGnosis: Myth, Magic and Mysticism in the Age of Information. London: Serpent’s Tail. DeConick, April 2016: The Gnostic New Age: How a Countercultural Spirituality Revolutionized Religion from Antiquity to Today. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 209 Durkheim, Émile 1899: De la définition des phénomènes religieux. Année sociologique 2, 1–28. Gauthier, François 2020: Religion, Modernity, Globalisation: Nation-State to Market. London: Routledge. Gauthier, François 2018: “Our Play Pleases the Man, the Spirits of the Desert, and Whatever”: Enjoying Religion at Burning Man. In: Jespers, Frans, van Nieuwkerk, Karin and van der Velde, Paul (eds.), Enjoying Religion: Pleasure and Fun in Established and New Religious movements. Lanham, MD: Lexington Publishers, 103–126. Gauthier, François 2016: A Three-Tier, Three Level Model for the Study of Religion. In: Jödicke, A. and Lehmann, K. (eds.), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft. Standortbestimmungen mit Hilfe eines Mehr-EbenenModells von Religion. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 157–174. Gauthier, François 2015: (Ré)créer le monde à Burning Man. Jeu, don et créativité rituelle. Revue du MAUSS semestrielle 46, 220–250. Gauthier, François 2014: Intimate circles and mass meetings. The social forms of event-structured religion in the era of globalized markets and hyper-mediatization. Social Compass 61(2), 261–271. Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.) 2013a: Religion in Consumer Society. Brands, Consumers and Markets. Farnham: Ashgate. Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.) 2013b: Religion in the Neoliberal Age. Political Economy and Modes of Governance. Farnham: Ashgate. Gerlach, L.P. and Hine, V.H. 1970: People, Power, Change: Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merill. Goffman, Ken and Joy, Dan 2007: Counterculture Through the Ages: From Abraham to Acid House. New York, NY: Random House. Godelier, Maurice 1999: The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Graeber, David 2000: Give It Away. In These Times [online] 24(19), August 21. Available at: https://inthesetimes.com/issue/24/19/graeber2419.html. Accessed: 23.5.2019. Gregory, Chris 2015 [1982]: Gifts and Commodities [online]. Hau Books. Chapter 1 available at: http://haubooks.org/viewbook/gifts-and-commodities/08_ch01. Accessed 20.10.2018. Halldorf, J. 2010: Lewi Pethrus and the Creation of a Christian Counterculture. Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 32, 354–368. Hamayon, Roberte 2012: Why We Play: An Anthropological Study. Chicago, IL: Hau Books. Hanegraaff, Wouter 2007: The New Age Movement and Western Esotericism. In: Kemp, D. and Lewis, J. (eds.), Handbook of New Age. Leiden: Brill, 25–50. Hanegraaff, Wouter 1996: New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Leiden: Brill. Heelas, Paul 2009: Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism. Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley and Sons. Heelas, Paul and Woodhead, Linda 2005: The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion Is Giving Way to Spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell. Howard, Robert Glenn 2008: The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5), 490–513.

210  Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song James, William 2002 (1902): The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. London: Routledge. Kolind, T. 2011: Young People, Drinking and Social Class. Mainstream and Counterculture in the Everyday Practice of Danish Adolescents. Journal of Youth Studies 14, 295–314. Larkin, Ralph W. 2015: Counterculture: 1960s and Beyond [pdf]. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences vol 5, 2nd ed., 73–79. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304188975_Counterculture_ 1960s_and_Beyond. Accessed 26.11.2018. Mannheim, Karl 1936: Ideology and Utopia. New York, NY: Harvest Books. Mauss, Marcel 1990 [1950]: The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West. McCaffrey, Jessica 2012: Burning Man: Transforming Community through Countercultural Ritual Process. MA thesis, Concordia University. McKinzie, Ashleigh 2011: Modern day utopia: an examination of internal social control among the “Rainbow Family”. MA thesis, University of Arkansas. Mills, Barbara 2004: The Establishment and Defeat of Hierarchy: Inalienable Possessions and the History of Collective Prestige Structures in the Pueblo Southwest. American Anthropologist 106(2), 238–251. Misiroglu, Gina 2015: American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in U.S. History. London: Routledge. Morant, K.M. 2011: Language in Action: Funk Music as the Critical Voice of a Post–Civil Rights Movement Counterculture. Journal of Black Studies 42, 71–82. Parry, Jonathan 1986: The Gift, the Indian Gift and the ‘Indian Gift’. Man New Series 21(3), 453–473. Parsons, Talcott 1951: The Social System. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pickering, W.S.F. 1975: Durkheim on Religion. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pireddu, Nicoletta 2015: In the Beginning Was the Symbol. Revue du MAUSS permanente [online], May 1st. Available at: http://www.journaldumauss.net/./? In-the-Beginning-Was-the-Symbol. Accessed 8.9.2018. Polanyi, Karl 1957 (1944): The Great Transformation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Possamai, Adam 2007: Producing and Consuming New Age Spirituality: The Cultic Milieu and the Network Paradigm. In: Kemp, D. and Lewis, J. (eds.), Handbook of New Age. Leiden: Brill. Ratia, Katri 2009: Taikojen väkevät ainekset: Tutkielma väestä ja sen ilmenemisestä esineissä ja materiaaleissa vanhassa Pohjois-Suomalaisessa taikaperinteessä. [The Powerful Ingredients of Magic; A Study of Väki and its Manifestation in Objects and Materials within Old North-Finnish Magic Tradition.] MA thesis, University of Jyväskylä. Redden, Guy 2002: The New Agents: Personal Transfiguration and Radical Privatization in New Age. Journal of Consumer Culture 2(1), 33–52. Riches, David 2005: Space-Time, Ethnicity, and the Limits of Inuit and New Age Egalitarianism. In: Widlok, T. and Tadesse, W.G. (eds.), Property and Equality Vol 1: Ritualization, Sharing, Egalitarianism. New York, NY: Berghahn Books, 62–76. Sahlins, Marshall 1974 (1972): Stone Age Economics. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Our Magic Is the Give-Away, Our Magic Is the Song 211 Sellars, Simon 2010: Repopulating the Temporary Autonomous Zone. Journal for the Study of Radicalism 4(2), 83–108. Simmel, Georg 1997: Essays on Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Tarot, Camille 1999: De durkheim à Mauss, l’invention du symbolique: sociologie et science des religions. Paris: La Découverte/MAUSS. Temporary Autonomous Art n.d.: Available at: www.taaexhibitions.org. Thumb, Tom 2014: Somewhere Under the Rainbow. Published by the author (Road Junky Books). Troeltsch, Ernst 1931: The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches. London: Allen and Unwin. Viehe, F.W. 2011: The G’hals of New York and Other Cities at Work and Play: A Flourishing Feminine Counterculture in Mid-Nineteenth Century Urban America. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 6, 1–20. Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 2010: The Untimely, Again. In: Clastres, Pierre 2010 (1980), Archeology of Violence. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e)/Foreign Agents, 9–52. Weiner, Annette 1992: Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping-WhileGiving. Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Weiner, Annette 1985: Inalienable Wealth. American Ethnologist 12(2), 210–227. Woodall, John David 2007: Following the Rainbow Trail: The Reproduction of an Alternative Intentional Community. MA thesis, University of Victoria. Wyler, Grace 2014: The Dark Side of the Rainbow Gathering [online]. Vice.com, June 24. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/gq8dy4/the-dark-sideof-the-rainbow-gathering. Accessed 22.12.2017. Yinger, J.M. 1960: Contraculture and Subculture. American Sociological Review 25, 625–635. Yinger, J.M. 1977: Countercultures and Social Change (Presidential Address). American Sociological Review 42, 833–853.

8

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth Rainbow as Vernacular Religion

Vernacular Religion and Folklore Studies The study of alternative-holistic religious traditions, or New Age studies, has struggled not only to find a generally accepted definition of its subject but also to find suitable theoretical models. Many of the established theoretical paradigms in religious studies have been criticized for being based on world religions and institutionalized religion, which can be problematic when studying differing religious forms. An adequate theoretical model needs to be unbiased by comparison to institutional forms of religion and their typical features, and capable of revealing relevant aspects of weakly institutionalized religion without being obscured by value-laden or historically short-sighted perspectives. For example, if the conceptualization of New Age as “self-spirituality” leads to seeing it as self-centred or solipsistic, or if viewing it as a “spiritual marketplace” leads to ideas of superficiality or lack of commitment, the concepts might not be free from value judgements. Furthermore, if using such concepts obscures the kinds of communality or commitment that are involved, the models have become stunted as analytical tools1. I suggest that the non-institutional nature of New Age is pivotal for many of its characteristics, and theory as well as analysis need to stem from this consideration. Non-institutionalized forms of religion have been studied under the monikers of “folk”, “popular”, “lived”, and “vernacular” religion, which despite slight differences in definition, all cover approximately the same areas of religious phenomena and approach their subjects from roughly the same angle: focus is on the lived, everyday aspects or religion, on the experiences, interpretations and input of individuals and small groups, and attention is paid to the creative, experiential and practical side of religion 2 . The variety of terms arises partly from the fact that in sociology of religion the term “folk religion” has been viewed as problematic by some scholars, seen as carrying negative or demeaning connotations of vulgarity, simplicity, or “less-than”. Folklorist and religious studies scholar Leonard Primiano has suggested the term “vernacular” to avoid these negative connotations3. The field of folklore studies has strived for an objective DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-8

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 213 use of the term “folk”, and in contemporary folkloristics, the term does not involve value positions in either idealizing or disparaging sense. Instead, folklore studies aims for an unbiased investigation of the features of popular (“of the people”) culture – such as non-institutionalized religion – as it is lived, practised, and understood among the people. The “people” or “folk”, here, should be taken to mean any group, community, or network of people who are in mutual interaction, and creating their own, “unofficial” culture4. Folklorist Ülo Valk defines “folk” in the New Age frame thus: The individualistic world of New Age spirituality, which has brought the personal dimension of religious belief to the centre of attention, has also prepared the ground for a new conceptualization of the ‘folk’. Instead of indicating the social basis of belonging to a group, it is being used to refer to informal channels of communication and forms of expression – vernacular, unofficial, either free from institutional control or in dialogic relationship with authoritarian discourses5. In this view, “folk religion” implies coexistence and a relationship with another, clearly hegemonic form of “official” religion. To be precise, the Gatherings represent a node in the nebula of alternativeholistic spiritualities. The practitioners of alternative-holistic spiritualities do not form a single cohesive community in the sense that is meant with “folk” in folklore studies: people who are in mutual interaction and creating their own culture. Instead, the alternative-holistic nebula should be viewed as a network of overlapping vernacular traditions, as well as a network of overlapping practitioner communities, many of them ephemeral or virtual6. Many of these subgroups and networks can be seen as “folk”, and the Rainbow Family certainly so. They are brought physically together through their Gathering events, and the community produces its own physical and social environment with cultural perspectives, practices, and products, as integrated parts of Rainbow culture. A vernacular religious tradition is understood as a traditional system of practice, belief, and communication, involving traditional imagery and motifs as well as collective discursive practices7. Traditional motifs8 and models are seen in customs, rituals, and other symbolic representations, and used in narration both for entertainment and for discussing culturally, socially, or personally relevant issues9. Instead of firm belief in the various motifs in a folk tradition, their relevance is judged according to their usefulness and applicability. Hence, a folkloristic approach to vernacular religion involves an emphasis on various kinds of narratives and the multiple uses of legend and belief motifs10, as well as on rituals and other forms of religious practice. A vernacular tradition is created, maintained, and regulated collectively, and its dynamics and developments do not follow the same logic as institutional, scriptural, belief-based religions, which are regulated by a

214  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth central authority. Folklore studies accept that cultural motifs and concepts travel and get appropriated and reinterpreted in the process. Further, the aspects of practice, everyday life, personal experience, and subjective signification are vital in understanding the dynamics11. The notion of continuity between traditional folk religion and contemporary spirituality has been proposed by scholars of folklore and religion alike12 , and the notion seems to be struggling with challenges arising more from definition than compatibility, as the discussion on the term “folk” illustrates. The challenge lies in recognizing that a folk community of the past can be compared with a selected community in the present, provided that certain important changes are considered. Most notably, technological progress has irrevocably changed important aspects in the production, storage, and presentation of culture. In traditional folk cultures interaction is immediate, and the culture is oral and memory-resident, meaning dependent on memory only. As with cultural creation and transmission in general, this is no longer the case. Nowadays people are not only literate, but capable of producing various kinds of records. Cultural interaction in all levels involves recorded forms of expression and communication, in text, audio, and visual forms, and they are easily created, shared, and modified by members of almost any group, and thus an important part of contemporary folk traditions. Folklorists have examined recorded, textual, and mediated items as part of contemporary folklore already for decades13. Catholicism scholar Robert Orsi suggests that one factor in failing to recognize the continuum between older and contemporary forms of “popular” or “lived” religion lies with a certain notion of Western modernity. Orsi refers to the assumption of a sharp division between the premodern and the modern. Aspects of popular religion, especially when they were seen as “too” literal, anthropomorphic, or materialistic, were interpreted as remnants of premodern thinking, and as anomalies or “lesser forms of religion” which needed to be rather explained away than treated as important parts of religion and religiosity14. Orsi’s statement reflects another criticism of using inapplicable models in the study of vernacular religious traditions. Folkloristic Research Approach The study of vernacular or folk religion has been intimately tied to folklore studies in many academic settings, in addition to anthropological research15. The “folkloristic approach” to studying religion entails the following elements: 1) paying attention to the dynamic of “great” and “little” traditions, 2) considering the characteristics of weakly institutionalized religious traditions, 3) using a prototypic model of categorization of religious concepts and terms, and 4) awareness of folkloric genres.

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 215 The dynamic of “great” and “little” traditions Folklore studies has traditionally made a distinction between the public and “official” culture of urban, civilized centres, and the “unofficial” culture of rural communities, beginning with the terms “great tradition” and “little tradition” coined by Milton Singer and McKim Marriott16. These two different cultural realms, today better labelled as the dominant mainstream and the various local and subcultural currents, are recognized to be in mutual interaction, each influencing the other. The benefits, premises, and main principles of this perspective align with those of countercultural studies, discussed above. Low level of institutionalization When we view contemporary forms of spirituality as vernacular religion, the main characteristics are its weak institutionalization17 and the lack of a central authority. This implies certain typical features in the traditions’ cohesion, reproduction, transmission, and the relationship it has with local forms and subcultures. Aspects of authenticity, legitimation, authority, and power draw from traditions (both “great” mainstream ones, and “little” local/subcultural ones) but also from the individual and their experience. This means that for non-institutionalized religious forms there is a wider palette of possible sources available, both in relation to cultural influences, as well as in matters of authenticity and legitimation, resulting in rich and varied examples of reinterpretation, reappropriation, and remixing by the proponents. Relationships with authority and authenticity are more complex than in scriptural and regulated forms of religion. Some form of religious education or initiation is often involved in the status of a religious expert also in non-institutionalized religion, but the social recognition and legitimation of the position are different. Religious experts in vernacular religion are typically more dependent on personal properties like charisma and social skills than their counterparts in institutionalized forms of religion, where their status is upheld by the institution. At the same time, the freedom to draw interpretations and participate in religious creation is typically not limited to religious officials with specific credentials, but involves a wider access to the sacred, even down to individual practitioners. Vernacular traditions are thus characterized by increased horizontality. Authenticity and legitimation can be drawn from various sources, ranging from individual experience and interpretation to different levels of cultural production, which in addition to established religious authorities, can also be local and creative. The process of assigning validity to sources and influences reflects more than a linear adherence to a singular orthodoxy. Instead, it includes a complex combination of cultural ideas, forms of knowledge and performance ranging from collective tradition to local conditions and peculiarities, and to individual traits and subjective signification.

216  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth Prototypic and polysemous classification Due to the low level of institutionalization, vernacular religion follows its own laws of variation and transmission, it is mutable and fuzzy, and as such, does not adhere to the classic Aristotelian logics of categorization. Religious terminology, in general, varies between religious traditions and even between factions of the same religion, but concepts and terms in vernacular religion are typically more polysemous than those of institutionalized religion, as there is no central authority to define and maintain fixed meanings. Vernacular religious terms can have a diverse field of meaning. Older religious concepts were often drawn from personifications of or references to places, natural phenomena, and cultural concepts with multiple meanings and connotations. Both old and contemporary ones refer also to hardto-define experiences and connections such as physical, emotional, and affective states, perceived relationships and influences, or broad immaterial concepts. Further, New Age involves plenty of terminology borrowed from older religious traditions and reinterpreted, acquiring additional polysemy. As scholars of folklore studies have pointed out, the definitions, categorization, and theoretical models need to accommodate the trademark variance and fuzzy boundaries of folk concepts18. In this case, it means utilizing prototypic categories. Finnish folklorist and religious scholar Kaarina Koski, among others, has suggested using prototypic and polysemous models of categorization in the study of folk religious concepts, and particularly the idea of family resemblances from Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein proposed a model for category-formation where the members of a category are recognized through a series of overlapping similarities instead of a singular common feature. Members could thus belong to the same category when they share similarities with some of the other members but not necessarily with all of them, like family members19. Also inspired by Wittgenstein, the social anthropologist Rodney Needham contributed to the discussion on family resemblances and categorization, introducing the terms monothetic (single defining characteristic), and polythetic (various defining characteristics) within anthropology20. Polythetic categories, such as those based on family resemblance, can be modelled with prototypes, where a prototype or an ideal model is formed to represent typical members of a category. Prototypical models allow for the variety and mutability of vernacular phenomena by recognizing more-or-less typical members of a category, and revealing the layered nature and complex relationships of belief concepts. They acknowledge the fuzzy and fluid nature of human thinking and experience, and avoid the need for absolute and fixed religious essentials. According to Koski and Needham, polythetic categories handle the variation and indeterminacy typical to vernacular-religious concepts better, enabling comparison between various uses and interpretations of religious concepts, and supporting the analysis of lived religion 21.

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 217 Folkloric genres as research material Vernacular religious traditions need a different approach than institutional religious forms, and one avenue is via folklore. Folklore can be roughly divided into material, performative, and cultural/customary forms in addition to oral and written forms, and all of these have distinct sub-forms. Material culture includes things like vernacular art, architecture, textiles and adornments, self-made objects and modified mass-produced ones, and foodways (traditional eating habits and culinary practices). Customary folklore involves customs and rituals, and performative folklore covers all traditional forms of performing arts. My ethnography examines material, customary and verbal forms of Rainbow folklore, and my analysis aims at creating a coherent view of the underlying ideas and themes. The verbal forms of tradition are assessed with the help of the folkloristic genre theory, to recognize the nature of various narratives and critically review them as sources. Oral forms of folklore are at the core of the discipline, and the sub-forms, known as folkloric genres, are numerous and span from distinct forms of verbal art (jokes, riddles, word games, proverbs, poetry) to narrative genres (legends, historical narratives, folk tales, fairy tales, myths, and personal experience narratives), each with their own subgenres. “Oral forms” is slightly misleading today, as items of verbal folklore take written and mediated forms. Study of vernacular religion via folklore material has a long tradition, and folklorists have shown both the central position that certain narrative types have in this approach, and the importance of genre analysis22 . Genre analysis aims to categorize varieties of oral tradition based on factors like form, function, content, origin, and age of the items, showing how the genres have different cultural significance and information content, which is important for source criticism. For example, narratives with belief content vary regarding the aims of communication and their attitude towards the tradition: some are told as religious teachings, others focus on normative or social issues, and still others can be seen as entertainment, involving fantastic, ironic, or jocular elements. Some are subjective expressions, others represent collective tradition. Although all of the previous can be informative of the religious tradition, some genres offer more reliable or more literal information than others. Folklore items often have features of multiple genres, and the discussion on genre boundaries and their labels is ongoing 23. Rainbow Lore as Folkloric Material To relate Rainbow lore to folkloristic genre analysis, certain things need to be clarified about the contemporary understanding of narrative genres as categories. Narrative genres used to be discerned based on such things as whether the narrative was presented more as “fabulated” or factual, and

218  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth whether it was more profane or sacred, leading to distinct narrative categories. A traditional division involves five basic narrative genres (legend, myth, fairytale, history and sacred history), several subgenres, and their coordination as defined by Lauri Honko24. Nowadays, folklorists recognize that a narrator can consciously change their style of narration and contextualization, and thus the same narrative content can vary regarding how personal, realistic, dramatic, or detailed it is in the frame of the performance. The characteristics that are the basis for assessing whether a narrative is mythical, historical, fantastical, jocular, or supernatural, cannot be seen as fixed features. Hence, the focus of folkloristic research has shifted from categorizing texts to a more anthropological view of the narrators, the narrative performance with its aims and purposes, and from beliefs to the expressions of belief. The concept of folkloristic genre is presently viewed as a tool for studying the dialectic, traditional expressions of belief in everyday life25. Ülo Valk has written about the conceptual changes that folk religion and the folkloristic genres have undergone in the study of contemporary vernacular religion: Leonard Primiano’s concept of “vernacular religion” as subjectively lived and experienced religion 26 has resonated with contemporary Estonian scholarship, as it “highlights the power of the individual and communities of individuals to create and re-create their own religion”27. This “vernacular” approach also draws on folkloristic research on genres as expressive forms, rhetorical strategies and resources of tradition. Genre as a concept has ceased to be a mere nominalist label for the classification of folklore, as nowadays it is used to refer to different modalities of expression, channels of transmitting beliefs and the verbal environment in which the supernatural is constructed. Genres represent specific outlooks and orientations to social reality28. This understanding of genres has guided contemporary scholarship towards the lived world of social relations and dominant discourses, whether religious or secular29. Certain folkloric genres are considered especially good sources for studying a belief tradition, but they involve different source-critical considerations: legends30 (a narrative involving an extraordinary event), and myths (belief narrative recounting foundational events) typically have a straight-forward relationship to the belief tradition, and myths handle topics with pronounced cultural significance. Memorates31 (personal accounts of supernatural experiences) are also regarded as great sources for studying a belief tradition, as personal narratives contain implicit cultural elements and employ traditional forms. Genres known as belief stories (narratives told as true with belief content), belief tales (narratives with fantastic elements and belief content) as well as jokes with belief content also provide a view into

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 219 the cultural belief complex. It is also helpful to distinguish between individual and collective forms of tradition, to assess typicality and generality32 . Rainbow’s narrative tradition, from jokes and stories to myths and song lyrics, can be contrasted with folkloristic genres. The Hipstories are historical origin stories, and when they have supernatural elements, they are akin to historical legends. The “Native prophecies” are reappropriated myths, and the gatherers’ personal stories of miraculous events are comparable to memorates. Rainbow lore includes fantastical belief tales, and many narratives of personal transformation are belief stories. In addition to the narrative genres, the lyrics of ritual and devotional songs are informative of the religious tradition. The songs name and describe central aspects of the tradition, including actors, concepts, aims, values, places, themes, tensions, and countless other features. Jokes are also a good source for analysing cultural features, although the jokes in my material do not contain many religious references. Instead, they describe aspects of economic and social behaviours33. The folkloristic research approach is well suited for the study of alternativeholistic religious traditions, as it can grasp the nature of its subject where it differs from institutional forms of religion. The approach is geared for the typical and relevant features such as the centrality of the subjective perspective and the horizontality of non-institutionalized religion, by focusing on the level of individual practitioners. It mitigates the comparatively high level of variation and ambiguity present in the tradition by using applicable models of categorization as well as genre analysis as basis for source criticism and contextualization. It can perceive the relationships between sub-traditions and the dominant mainstream, and the inherent dynamics. In addition, the approach justifies the chosen methodology of participant observation and interviews, and the choice to include all relevant genres of Rainbow culture as research material. The best way to make sense of Rainbow culture is through the two main research approaches – as a counterculture cast against the backdrop of the Western mainstream and its institutions, and as vernacular religion, approached through the folklore34.

An Analytical Model of Religion Religion, famously, has countless definitions and the whole task of defining and modelling religion involves seemingly endless discussion and debate. The diversity and complex nature of religious phenomena are what make religious studies so varied and fascinating, but it is certainly important to be able to tell apart apples from orangutans, and use models befitting the research subject. Choosing a suitable definition is crucial in religious studies where the central definitions are mini/theories in themselves, shaping the research perspective and methodology. In this work, I use the MAUSSian model of religion, based on the gift paradigm as discussed in the previous chapter. Known as the “Triaxial model of religion and the gift”, the model approaches religion as a complex symbolic network where the dynamics of gift exchange form

220  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth the basis of examination and analysis. The model is rooted in the wealth of research on the gift theory by the members of MAUSS, and specifically the developments by Camille Tarot and Alain Caillé35. The Axes The three axes in the model relate to cardinal concepts within the religious tradition seen as a symbolic system. In the MAUSSian model, the key activity of gift exchange is cast against the realms of transcendence, social divisions, and time. The axes in the model represent symbolically significant frames of gift exchange, for mapping out and describing the meanings, purposes, and concerns involved in the religious tradition in question. The axes help to identify the relevant symbolic actors (self and others, in-groups and out-groups), the gifts and their movement, and the related interactions and attitudes. The model examines symbolic exchange regarding the continuums of the perceived transcendent, the social and the temporal realities. At the zero-coordinate lies the reference point of the self and the here-and-now. The transcendent axis The transcendent axis describes the notions of the “ultimate concern” and the “beyond”: the sacred, holy, or other-worldly, the invisible and ineffable, in the forms it takes in the religious tradition in question. The transcendent, here, should be understood as involving a double meaning: the inviolable core or foundation of the symbolic system in question, and what is beyond and outside of the system, the otherness36. Typical actors and elements on this axis are the transcendent Gods, deities, spirits, demons, energies, the “higher self” and the unconscious37, dressed up in the inherent conceptual and symbolic language of the religious tradition in question. The transcendent axis may involve elements of “radical transcendence”, which are separated and at a distance from the profane, like the Christian God and his heavenly realm. Depending on the tradition, it may also involve elements of “immanent transcendence” which are not completely removed from the mundane world, such as sacralized nature, or specific aspects of the self (“inner” or “true” self, unconscious)38. Things on this axis convert the characteristics of a distant and abstract divinity into something actual, present, and communicable with the help of symbolism. The social axis The social axis contains the groupings and divisions of “us and them”, possibly including also non-human animals and other living creatures, depending on the tradition. The axis spans from the self and the immediate in-group to the outer limits of “us” and beyond, pointing at the “others”

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 221 and out-groups. Typical elements on the social axis are biological in-groups (family, clan), the “co-religionnaires” or in-groups of the religious tradition (congregation, sangha, ummah), and other possible varieties and degrees of group membership (ethnic and national groups, the human race, planetary biosphere) and then the out-group(s), all with their possible distinctions and factions. The temporal axis The temporal axis contains the timescale relevant to the religious tradition in question. It reaches from the past, involving things like ancestors and origin myths, to the future and the developments there, such as raptures, “Golden Eras”, eschatologies and the descendants of the community. All of the axes thus cover both the core and the boundaries of the community, pointing at their exteriority. The Triaxial model combines the strengths of essential and functional definitions of religion without falling victim to their shortcomings. In addition, the model is presented as the “third paradigm”, bridging the gap between individualistic (“rational” choice, individual agency) and holistic (social obligation, collective rules and values) theories, combining both social determinacy and individual agency, or obligation and liberty, as factors of social action39. The gist of the model is in the dynamics of gift exchange that combine the individual position with the collective one. Gifts circulating on the axes embody and symbolize the relation in question, highlighting its focuses and tensions of allegiance and hostility via the “symbolic cycle” of giving, receiving, and giving back, contrasted with its opposite: taking, refusing, and keeping40. Gifting can happen between individuals, between groups, and between humans and non-human entities. The gifts given can take the form of material objects or of service, including symbolic gifts and the giving of things like attention, reverence, allegiance, or transformations such as healing. In some traditional cultures, also humans can be gifted as a part of marriage arrangements41. Sociologist Camille Tarot devised much of the Triaxial model: All the great religious systems seem to articulate more or less straightly (sic) three systems of the gift. A system of the vertical gift and circulation, between the world beyond (or the beyond world) and this one, that goes from the disturbing strangeness of alterities immanent to (…) Sapiens, to the pursuit of pure transcendence. A system of the horizontal gift, between peers, brothers, ‘co-tribals’ or ‘co-religionnaires,’ oscillating between the clan and humanity, because the religious plays a role in the creation of group identity. Finally - or first of all - a system of the longitudinal gift, according to the principle of transmission to the descendants, or of debts owed to group ancestors, or of faith, in short, of exchange between living and dead. It is by the way in which

222  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth each religious system unfolds or limits a certain axis, and, above all, interweaves axes, it is in the dimensions and in the relative importance that is attributed to each of them, that religious systems distinguish themselves probably most of all from one another. But with the gift we can at last grasp some of the dynamics, of the movement, of the action of religious systems, action that so often is kept out of range from the historical studies or of the sociology of religions42 . The triaxial model is meant to help asking the relevant questions and ensuring that no part of a religious tradition or its phenomena is disregarded. By no means does it offer any answers by itself. Another central feature is that the model conceives the relevant concepts as continuums, which creates the ability to perceive and locate movements, changes, and variance, in a form that involves both the core and the boundaries of the community. As sociologist of religion François Gauthier spells it out: This definition lets us appreciate how religion performs an irreducible function in the constitution of social bodies, as many theoretical efforts have hinted to. This is also why the religious is so intricately tied to the political, as both the religious and the political relate to the core as well as to the borders of an institutionalized social order43. Thus, in the triaxial model, also the sacred has a dual nature: it is defined both as the “inviolable core” and the “wholly other” and is located both in the zero-coordinates of the model, as well as on the outer edges of the axes44.

Triaxial Analysis of Rainbow Spirituality The Triaxial model offers a view into Rainbow Gatherings’ religious tradition through the dynamics and meanings of symbolic and concrete gift exchange: the gifts, their movement, and the alliances formed or the lack of them. It allows an examination of the links between the axes and their mutual relationships: what kind of exchange is prominent? Who or what represents the most important counterparts of exchange? What are the symbolic significations of the gifts? The main task is to recognize the relevant elements on the axes, beginning from the counterparts of exchange and the gifts given and received. Then, the circulation of the gifts on the axes and their meaning to the broader Rainbow culture can be analysed. I will look at each axis separately and provide examples of the gifts, their providers and receivers, as well as the dynamics of reciprocity. Often, a triaxial analysis begins with the transcendent axis, which is typically seen as the main religious axis, but as my material has revealed a heightened significance of the community in Rainbow culture, and

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 223 as vernacular religion in general deals with collective creation of tradition, I will begin my handling with the social axis. Furthermore, many features stemming from the activity on the social axis are relevant for understanding aspects of the two other axes. Thus, the axial analysis is divided into two chapters, where the social and temporal axes are discussed in this chapter, and the transcendent axis is discussed in the next one. The Horizontal Axis of Community Us and them The spectrum of “us and them” has a dual nature in Rainbow culture. On the one hand, there is a radically inclusive principle expressed in a Rainbow adage “everybody with a belly button is a Rainbow”. On the other hand, there is the pervasive division between Rainbow and Babylon. “Everybody is a Rainbow” expresses the inclusive and egalitarian ideals of the culture where all members are equal, and all humans are potential members. At the same time, the differences seen between Rainbow and Babylon are so significant that the division becomes culturally definitive: Rainbow sets itself in opposition with the mainstream and offers an alternative. Chelsea Schelly’s observation of divisive and unitive features in the vocabulary of US Rainbow Gatherings (“vocabulary of separation” and “vocabulary of connection”) illustrates this specific duality45. Terminology distinguishing “us” from “them” might be as ancient as human language, and it often indicates the basis of the distinction. The “vocabulary of separation”, which is in use in Rainbow parlance (as well as in much of the broader field of New Age), is a telling example: the term Babylon is an umbrella term representing the other within humanity. Parallel examples drawn from similar contemporary traditions reveal aspects of their central values: participants of Neopagan festivals call the outside world “Mundania”46, and participants of the Burning Man festival have named the outside “Default World”. Now, whereas “mundane” and “default” describe the outside as ordinary, unremarkable, and disenchanted, the term Babylon has a more critical tone. As explained, the meanings and connotations of the term Babylon are with concepts such as materialism, superficiality, oppression, and foolishness, often framed in the parlance of the alternative-holistic field as the “old paradigm”. Here is the main division: “we” are of the “new paradigm”, ushering in a new age, aware and critical of the problems of Babylon, and actively bringing about a transformation. “They” are the ones who, for various reasons, are not – but “they” have the possibility of becoming “us”! The distinctions between the in-group and the out-group are communicated and produced through verbal, material, and spatial means, as recounted in the ethnography.

224  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth One of the most common expressions in Rainbow’s “vocabulary of connection” is “family”. It is used to describe feelings and attitudes towards the Rainbow community, and the extreme sense of intimate communality: Sitting around a fire and singing and sharing the food in Rainbow way, it feels like making a bond with everybody in the family, touching hearts. And it’s so simple, and it just comes naturally out of the moment. It’s not like join(ing) a club or something, it’s that our heart remembers how we sang together, worked together and shared together. Then it’s not about what you think, (…) it’s just heart connection47. Here I feel like I’m home, really with my family. You know, you share with your family, no question. You give your love, all you can. And you are safe with family48. Rainbow Gatherings are like living in a big family, we do everything together and take care of everybody, and we live with the nature together, let nature heal us and connect again with reality, not television and internet things49. In addition to terms like “family” and “tribe”, the Rainbows call each other “sisters” and “brothers”. The familiar terms describe the core in-group consisting of other Gathering participants and the proper morals and norms connected to it: you treat Family as family. Who else belongs to the us-and-them divisions on the social axis? The Family present in an ongoing Gathering is the core in-group, and the wider Rainbow Family comes after that. In a sense, parallel factions of alternativeholistic spirituality and Western counterculture can be seen as the broader, outer circle of “us”, sharing much of the general aims and central values. In another sense, “natural” peoples bearing labels such as “tribal”, “pagan”, or “indigenous”, are commonly seen as at least an ideological continuation of “us”. These symbolical in-groups are clearly contrasted with the out-group of Babylon and the mainstream culture. Implicitly, the in-group can be extended to the planetary biosphere with all of its life forms. Rainbows often see themselves as representing an environmental and spiritual awareness encompassing all of nature, and the well-being of the whole of humanity. This view of holistic interconnectedness is common among the broader New Age and environmental activist communities. Concepts such as the Gaia Hypothesis50 and rituals like the “Council of all Beings”51 are based on this idea. In some views, the “us” can include mythical and extra-terrestrial beings, like in some of the mythological narratives recorded from gatherers describing ideas related to the origin and purpose of the Family: There are a lot of myths that talk about Rainbow people, legends telling about the Rainbow-people of the past, like the story of Seth, who was Cain and Abel’s third brother, a bridge-builder. Seth and his children were teachers and guides. The Rainbow Tribe rises and appears

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 225 always when there is confusion around a change, the turn from an era to the next, and you need the inner warriors. According to one prophecy, one time the Rainbow Warriors will choose if they will take part in a battle, and this means that there are a lot of them52 . The interviewee, Gianji, also spoke of the Circle rituals and the participants’ position in them: We are all at the same level in the circle – all the same importance, just children. Brother and sister, all equal. Stones, trees, and everything should be brothers in the same way – we should have respectful actions and awareness53. Gianji’s description includes “stones, trees, and everything” as “brothers” and a part of the Family. This is a widespread idea among gatherers, and parallel ideas are common among proponents of other nature-centred religious traditions54. Gianji’s second account is part of a subjective interpretation of the Circle ritual, where in addition to the belief content I pay attention to mentions of ritual actors and their position, as they too reflect ideas about social groupings and dynamics. Here, they provide information about who is thought to be in the in-group and how to treat them. Rain’s narrative includes a similar theme of “Rainbow people of the past”: There are many solar systems (…) with beings like us. And we are light-beings, with the mission to heal. We saw that there is sickness on this planet and we could go to heal it up, like white blood cells, see? We had an appointment, to come to Earth (…)55. Rain’s narrative names “light beings” whom the Rainbows join as universal healers and teachers, and a later part recognizes “tribal people” as another avatar of these benevolent higher beings. In a very similar vein as Gianji, he links the Rainbow Family to a class of mythical healers and teachers active throughout history. The cosmic and mythical elements in these narratives might sound extraordinary to someone not familiar with New Age lore, but actually both of the variants, “light beings” and Sethians, are not rare. The mythology of Seth dates to at least the 2nd century and has been part of the classic esoteric teachings of Judaism and Gnostic Christianity. “Light beings” is a much younger concept, but it has become a trope of many contemporary alternative-holistic traditions. “Light beings” are typically described as entities consisting of energy, originating from distant planets, or existing on higher dimensional planes, with a mission to help the humankind. The above narratives illustrate belief content regarding Rainbow Family’s origins and spiritual purpose, and they are not evoked here just for these features, but for the social references expressing ideas of alliance

226  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth and continuity, and the us/them divide. The theme linking the Rainbow Family to mythical or cosmic “helpers” is a common part of Rainbow’s collective tradition. Other Rainbow ethnographies mention beliefs viewing the Rainbow Family and their Gatherings as culturally significant, ranging from an idea of countercultural resistance and reformation to a planetary or cosmic role as heralds and healers56. As mentioned in the Hipstory chapter, the idea of a mythic association of Native cultures with Western countercultures, contemporary religiosity, and specifically the Hippies, is known at least from the 1960s57. The specific variants of “Sethians” and “light beings” are more uncommon, but far from unique. Thus, I take the above narratives as examples of typical Rainbow lore for their general themes but representing two specific variants for their details. The two layers of belief content are characteristic for a vernacular tradition: the general themes are common and representative of the collective tradition, but the details and specifics, while drawing from the broader field of alternative-holistic religious traditions, can be subjective or local. As is typical for vernacular culture, individuals have the space to compose and express their views, where their own experiences, interests, and knowledge might play a notable part, but the basic structures, motifs, themes, positions, and symbolism are recognized in the tradition and carry specific meanings in it. In the above examples, ideas and elements that are typical for alternative-holistic religious traditions are e.g. alienation/reconnection, centrality of transformation, truth found in hidden, “ancient” and alternative views, “higher beings”/higher forms of consciousness, and biocentric ethics. The specific labels of “Sethians” and “light beings” are variations of a general theme I call “historical/cosmic allies”, and while the variants might not be recognized by the majority of the Rainbow Family, the basic underlying themes are. Gifts and their circulation on the social axis The gifts circulating on the social axis are plentiful, and they come in many forms. The whole Gathering event is produced through gift exchange, and a notable part of it engages the social axis. The relationship between the individual and the Rainbow community is formed and mediated through these contributions, concrete as well as symbolical ones. As a rule, the community gifts participants with equal access to the collective resources, covering essential needs in material, social and religious senses: food and drinking water, the infrastructure and services of the camp, and an equal right to partake in the collective decision-making, religious practices, and other cultural creation. These things are also expected, or demanded58, by the participants. Everyone is part of the Family, equally entitled to get a welcome hug and a cup of tea, visit the Temple, sit at the Main Fire, address a Council, partake in a ritual or a workshop, fill their bottle at the water point, get a serving of dinner, or party at the Drum Circle. It

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 227 is unimaginable that the community would not provide the same essentials to every participant. In return, individual participants gift a part of their material and immaterial resources to the community. The collective resources are formed again in each different event by its population, and spent within it, except for possible Magic Hat surplus. Possible contributions depend on the individual resources among the current Gathering population. On the material side, the collective resources consist of items gifted by the participants: camp equipment, tools, building materials, kitchen equipment, arts and crafts supplies, children’s toys, books, games, musical instruments, foodstuffs, herbal medicaments, and countless other things. Collective resources are replenished with supplies bought with the Magic Hat money. On the immaterial side, Rainbows regularly spend time working for collective efforts, both for the maintenance of the camp and its facilities, and to provide content for the event. In these frameworks, the gifts given to the community include not only labour, but various skills, experience, knowledge, creativity, artistic talent, and assuming responsibility for organizational and communicational tasks. Also, the people who are supporting workers or ritual participants by playing music, meditating, or by their awareness and presence (“holding the space”) are seen to contribute to the Family. Other participants and the community tend to coalesce in the frame of the gift exchange. The gifts received from the community originate from other participants, but typically nobody knows from whom. Also, gifts and exchanges that happen between individuals in the Rainbow can be understood in a manner that is impossible to separate from the frame of the community. A service or an item can be gifted from an individual to another in a way that physically, remains between them, but is still understood to happen in the context of the community and its collective resources, values, and responsibilities. The reciprocation can thus happen elsewhere in the frame of the community. My neighbour gave me her book in one Gathering and told me that “you can put some extra energy in the Magic Hat if you want”, when I asked what I could do in exchange. Some gifts are produced and given by the various subgroups in the Gathering. The groupings can be momentary, temporary, or recurrent, but they are always voluntary. Different workgroups and subcamps routinely serve the whole community or chosen parts of it, in everyday maintenance tasks as well as more special purposes. Individuals and groups can then choose to reciprocate, either directly to these groupings, or via the larger community. I have seen gatherers to i.a. prepare a pot of tea to bring it to a specific workgroup, or donate a needed item to a chosen subcamp. As with gifts between individuals, the gifts given by groups might not be reciprocated by the receiver, but by the community. In general, the gifts circulating on the social axis are not seen foremost as individual gifts from a distinct person or group to another, but as arising

228  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth from a collective sense of duty and shared responsibility. Simultaneously, the autonomy regarding contributing and reciprocating makes it possible for the gatherers to express and follow personal preferences within the grand scheme of the collective exchange. The absent third party The circulation of gifts on the social axis forms the economy of the Gathering, but the economic exchange has clear ideological connotations participating in the religious tradition of the events. The connotations have been analysed through a concept relevant to the gift theory: the gifting implies an absent or invisible third party59. Firstly, contributing is seen to ultimately benefit also the giver themself. This includes the idea that sharing creates abundance, but there is more. Participating in the Gatherings and living among the Family is experienced as healing, and as an opportunity for personal growth and transformation. In another sense, when you serve and give to the community, you also provide for yourself. As one of my informants expressed: “I’m so thankful to myself, for bringing me home to Family, to heal and to be loved”60. In most of the gift exchange on the social axis, the implied third party is the Family. As described above, the exchange does not happen only between the giver and the receiver, because the community is seen as intimately involved. A gatherer receives from the community, and gives back to the community, even when the gifts move from an individual, or a group, to another. As described in the ethnography, working and contributing is idealized as natural and joyful, but also morally and ethically upright, and even a sign of spiritual progression. These aspects of gift exchange on the social axis reveal a significant conflation with the vertical, transcendent axis, and hence, a link between economic exchange and the sphere of religion. The absent third party becomes ideologically significant also with the gifts that the Family as a whole produces. When the Family holds a collective ritual, for example, this is seen as a gift for the participants of the rite, but on a symbolical level the ritual can be perceived as a gift to the extended in-groups as well. A gift of recognition and continuance for the “historical/mythical allies”, a gift of reverence to Mother Earth, or one of healing for the environment or the planet. The cultural reformation that the Gatherings advocate can be seen as a gift from the Rainbow to its participants, but the implied third party is the rest of humanity. The absent third party factors in the meaning-making concerning the wider purposes and aims of the Family and its Gatherings, and often comes up when discussing what the purpose of Rainbow is and what it means to the gatherers. It is very common to hear participants thank the Rainbow Family, Mother Earth, or the Universe for what has been received, be it food at the Food Circle, drinking water, beautiful music, support of the Heartsharing

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 229 Circle, or a life-changing experience. Although the individuals performing the service can be acknowledged, the entire community is included in the expression. The Family is seen as a part of nature, which is a part of the universe. An Italian participant in the neighbouring camp of the European Gathering in 2003 had a habit of amalgamating the words “you” and “universe” in his speech, expressing the idea that people represent the cosmos and are channels for its generosity: “Thank youniverse!”. Correspondingly, there is an idea that although participants primarily give back to the Gathering community, the Gatherings promote global well-being and participate in “healing the planet”. Participants express how through their Rainbow experiences, they learn things which ultimately benefit their communities outside of Rainbow. In addition, many ritual customs are interpreted to have a positive effect outside of the Gathering: regarding the Gathering location, the local community, the planet, or the whole cosmos. Singing, dancing, all this raises energies in people, personal spirits as ONE, in circles. Energies are amplified, charged, (it has an effect on) the energies of the surroundings. A place is changed by the Gathering, there is exchange. We are helped by the place, the place is healed by the Gathering. Scouts must feel this. The trees will tell if we are welcomed. We are a machine – the circle is a machine that does something. We give, help each other, yes, we are the something. You can actually measure the electromagnetic energy of the circle. (…) Loving and hating energies travel and act and are reflected, effective even throughout the universe61. And (Rainbow teaches) that all people are one family, and that all the political and religious division is pure bullshit manipulation, like Middle East, like America now, people are driven to separation and opposition, and they are being used. Here, we stop that62 . Certain ideologically significant gifts that are exchanged with the extended in-groups of the “historical/cosmic allies” or other ideological reference groups, are discussed in the following sections, where they join the symbolic system of gifts given and received across time, and gifts exchanged with the transcendent. Newcomers to the Rainbow are sometimes framed as a potential threat to Rainbow culture, the cohesion of the Family, and the smooth functioning of the Gatherings. The critical attitudes towards Rainbow’s online visibility and especially communication through social media platforms typically focuses on the idea that it will attract too many new participants, or people with problematic expectations or attitudes. The concern is not without reason – experiences of Gathering events where a large part of the population is not enculturated to Rainbow’s ways have shown that the sense of collective responsibility and shared resources suffers, and the

230  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth burden gets heavier on the participants who do share and contribute. The challenges concerning the socialization of the newcomers and sharing the work load were recognized already in the very first European Rainbow Gatherings, so it seems that only the aspect of online communication is new in this discussion. The newcomers are enculturated, taken into the Family, and bound to its culture, by gifting. Fresh participants are given all the same benefits and the same access and position as the others, from the minute they step into the Welcome Home. In a symbolic sense, the new participants are integrated into the group by making them directly indebted to the Family. Although poor reciprocation is tolerated as a sign of immaturity and incomplete integration, it is expected to be a temporary phase and a marginal feature in the community. In essence, the gatherers need to show that they recognize and honour the debt of the gifts received and the obligation to reciprocate, through active participation. Obligation of reciprocity The Family provides basic material, social, and spiritual well-being to every participant, without requiring guarantees of compensation. Nevertheless, there is an explicit expectation for reciprocity at the core of Rainbow’s culture, even among the claims of freedom and voluntarism. Recognizing the duty to reciprocate is seen as a reflection of a person’s self-responsibility, and something that should arise within the individual and be a joyful choice instead of being forced and sanctioned. This describes a general ideal of acculturation and socialization into “the Rainbow way”, where participants who avoid their share of the work are admonished as “Drainbows”, but even then, they are seen as immature instead of deviant or corrupt. The Rainbow is freedom. (…) In freedom some people become like babies, or no, like teenagers, when they feel the freedom to just be lazy. But I think it is part of learning, learning to be your own boss and teacher. Be responsible to yourself and follow your own heart! Some people take a while to learn63. Rainbow’s culture of reciprocity involves considerable individual freedom. Gatherers are expected to give back to the community, but they can choose what, when, how, how much, and to which part of the Gathering they contribute to. Rainbow culture prefers this open and organic system to coordinated organization and sanctioned participation. Open participation is seen as crucial, not only for the functioning of the community but also to the development of individual accountability and responsibility. It is also seen as enabling the magic, described in New Age maxims such as “follow your bliss”, which express an idea of a kind of cosmic guidance or providence,

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 231 where people’s innate passions, intuitions, and autonomous choices serve the collective needs better than attempts at rational organization. The culture of sharing, generosity, and reciprocity is explicit in the Rainbow. Giving, receiving, and giving back are all connected to spiritual ideals, and to positively framed ideas of communality and transformation, providing both individual growth and cultural reformation. Sharing is part of the Rainbow way, and seen to counter the profit orientation of Babylon. When gatherers express gratitude for what they have received and talk about giving back to the community or to the world, it is typically not verbalized as an obligation to reciprocate, but as a spiritual calling, a joy of sharing, or of giving others the same opportunity64. The culture of sharing is supported by the ritual tradition, and frequently reflected in the topics communicated at the Circle. All the most prominent forms of exchange between the community and the participants are ritualized, public, and culturally significant events in the Gatherings. The meals are provided as a part of the ceremonial Food Circle, contributions are celebrated at the Magic Hat collection, and collective communication focuses on things like the workshops, subcamps and their program, and volunteers needed for communal work tasks. At times, individual participants address the Circle asking for help in a personal matter. The ideals of participation and reciprocity are also directly evoked. It is common to hear focalisers approach the Circle with encouragement, requests, and downright pleas for people to volunteer, invoking ideas of collective responsibility, the abundance created by sharing, and gratitude for everything received from the community. The requests are typically playful and directed to the whole group, avoiding singling people out or assigning blame. The principle of reciprocity is visible also in Rainbow’s political culture. The practices connected with the Talking Circles and Councils where the circulating focal object provides each participant, in turn, with the complete attention and focus of the group, can also be interpreted as a form of ritualized exchange involving the obligation of mutual reciprocity: each listener gives their full attention to the speaker, and can expect to receive the same from everyone else when their turn to speak arrives. Egalitarian political ideals and their realization through the practices of participatory power and consensus-driven decisions could be analysed much further through the framework of gift and reciprocity, but this endeavour deserves its own, less limited, place and time. The Longitudinal Axis of Time The longitudinal axis spreads out in two directions from its origo-point: the past and the future. The axis portrays gift exchange through time and its counterparts, reflecting ideas about formative and conclusive events such as origin myths, eschatologies, and other significant episodes, but also events

232  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth in the course of an individual life. Gifts given through time reveal ideas about fundamental values and their transmission. Ideas about the past and future are involved in legitimating aspects of tradition and communicating ideological principles, and they become relevant in analysing the obligation of reciprocity and its cultural and social significance. Elements on the temporal axis The temporal axis has various spheres with different relevancy. The gift exchange happening closest to the present involves the economic exchange of an ongoing Gathering, which has been discussed in the previous section. For a Gathering participant, the timespan of that current Gathering can naturally be the most relevant time frame, and what is received in a Gathering is often reciprocated in the same event – at least in the material sense. However, all gifts are not directly repaid, and gift exchange on the temporal axis becomes relevant for the analysis when the reciprocation is delayed: a gift is returned in a later time, or the “debt” of a previous, unreturned gift is recognized. The extended timescales of the temporal axis are where the ideas and experiences of reciprocity reveal long-standing ideological themes and perceived social alliances. There are plenty of examples where an engaged, but fresh participant is not aware of Rainbow’s history or mythological lore, or finds it not relevant for their experience. The collective communication in a Gathering focuses mainly on the ongoing event, or the near past and future. The US Rainbow Family does have a fixed tradition of Hipstory narration in their events, in a conscious effort of informing participants about the history of the movement, but the historical aspects seem to be generally less visible in Rainbow culture outside of the US. Yet, gatherers who participate in Rainbow events repeatedly develop interests and awareness involving the past and the future, both regarding their personal relationship with the Rainbow community, and regarding the community’s relationship with the outside. The timeline of exchange and the obligation of reciprocity stretch accordingly, and occurrences in the past become related to current and future ones, in the frame of the Gathering events as well as outside of them. Individuals often frame their motivation to contribute as reciprocating a gift received in past Gatherings, as Tortuga does:” Welcome Home was so important for me in my first Gatherings, so I have this calling to make the Welcome a place of healing energy when I’m in a Gathering”.65 The gift received can be tangible, or something like assistance or attention received from a particular part or function of the Family, but it can also be more ephemeral. A central theme in the gatherer’s life stories is personal transformation. Rainbows often attribute transformative experiences to their participation in the Gatherings and connection with the Rainbow Family, framed either as a social or a spiritual experience, or a combination of the two. The narratives describe profound experiences of belonging, being

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 233 moved, finding meaning and purpose, and reforming identity. These experiences are often referred to when gatherers describe their relationship with the Rainbow, and explicitly connected to the motivation to keep participating and contributing, sometimes in substantial ways. Rainbows describe experiencing things in the Gatherings that have improved or even completely changed the course of their life. Rainbows see the Family as a long-lived countercultural actor among the modern Western societies, with connections to other sub- and countercultural factions and alternative-holistic religious traditions. In this view, the Family has received various gifts from its reference groups in the past, including the pioneers and participants of the early Rainbow Gatherings and other historical allies: activists, radicals, and teachers, in countercultural as well as alternative-holistic circles. Thus, there is an obligation to repay these allies, through continuing the mutual work for cultural reformation. This aspect of the historical perspective overlaps with and mirrors the more mythical versions of allies and ancestors. In a mythical sense, the reference groups are the “tribes of old”, indigenous and “natural” cultures of the past, and the mythical and cosmic predecessors that can be described as “Sethians”, “light beings” or other ally variants. The relevant meta-narrative regarding both the historical and the mythological timescales describes the Rainbow Family’s role in “healing the planet”: a necessary counterforce to Babylon, highlighting the Gatherings as critical protest events, and their culture as offering necessary alternatives to the mainstream. Some participant accounts reflect the Family’s historical developments and the importance of Rainbow’s critical and oppositional relationship with the mainstream society, expressing the significance of participating in a long-standing effort for cultural transformation. Exchanges with past allies represent gifts through time that are received by the community as a whole, but this level of exchange can have significance also on an individual level. The idea of participating in an essential and long-lived tradition connects the individual to the historical and mythical timescales through the community and the collective tradition. Hence, the gifts that participants give to the community, helping to further its causes in the present time as well as in the future, are at the same time ways to repay the gifts of the “historical and mythical allies” in the past. Gifts and their circulation on the temporal axis Gatherer narratives of personal transformation and affiliation can be seen as expressions of gifts given and received on all axes. The transformative experiences are described as moments of healing and connection, and although they are often seen as something received from the community, they can also be seen as originating from beyond it: older traditions, nature, or the cosmos. These gifts are often framed in participant narratives as motivating the person to reciprocate in subsequent Gatherings or outside of them, creating and

234  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth shaping a long-lasting relationship. Individual Rainbows and the Family as a whole are seen as contributing to the reformation of the mainstream culture through activism in social justice, environmental awareness, and nonviolence, of which the Rainbow events are just one example. Tribal and indigenous societies are seen to represent examples in egalitarianism, sustainability, spiritual awareness, pacifism, and other core Rainbow values, and these concepts are also gifts circulated on the temporal axis. They are seen to be valuable teachings from past generations including social, economic, political, and religious ideas and their practical applications, as well as more specific content such as music, oral traditions, rituals, customs, and material culture items, all seen as supporting positive transformations and well-being. The Family’s appreciation of “tribal” traditions is an explicit part of the culture, and they are being embraced by the Family in various material and immaterial forms. The gatherers enjoy countless items and customs that originate (or are believed to originate) from archaic, tribal, and exotic cultures: people live in teepees and yurts, build sacred fires and natural shrines, and chant ancient songs. Rainbows don traditional clothing from loincloths and shalwars to kaftans and djellabas66; play folk instruments such as koras, djembes, berimbaus and santurs67; eat chapatis with dhal and drink chai68, kombucha and chaga69 teas; do “shamanic” drum journeys, construct Medicine Wheels 70 and practice yoga, meditation, tantra and ayurveda71 – and much, much more. The appreciation is due to practical as well as ideological aspects: many of these items, practices and ideas are valued for their functional features, as many of them were developed among other communal, simple, religious, or outdoor lifestyles. For many Rainbows, these things are timeless, valuable, and in need of preserving. Especially various healing arts and spiritual practices that are seen to originate in premodern cultures are received as invaluable, time-tested wisdom that will soon be forgotten and lost unless it is revived. The Family thus repays the gifts from their “allies in the past” with recognition, reverence, and the gift of continuity, by performing the rituals and singing the songs, and by building their community based on the perceived ancient paragon. Correspondingly, if we look at the gifts afforded to the future, the theme of “healing the planet” stays in view. The Family is seen as being actively involved in the creation and realization of a better alternative, and it is doing this specifically by reviving and preserving the “ancient wisdom” of the various traditional items and practices and passing it all on to future generations. Golden Ages and cataclysms The extended spheres on the temporal axis are more implicit in the culture than the intermediate ones, but ideologically significant. Ideas of distant past and future can be explicit in mythological accounts, but they are more commonly implied to in customs and idiomatic expressions. There are

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 235 widespread tropes like “ancient wisdom” and other idealizing references to the past, where premodern cultures as well as historical and contemporary native peoples represent harmonious ways of life and “higher consciousness”. These expressions align with such cultural concepts as “Golden Age” and “Noble Savage” familiar from various religious and secular traditions72 in the West. “Noble Savage” refers to Western cultural primitivism where exotic and archaic ways of life are romanticized and idealized, and the idea of a “Golden Age” reflects the belief that the “primitive” past of humanity represented a happier, more wholesome time – or one that is expected in the future. Religious studies scholar Marion Bowman explains the thinking behind these cultural concepts and the forms they take in New Age and Neopaganisms as expressions of criticism towards modernity and the idea of progress73. References to future in Rainbow lore show a similar vein. Reflecting the primitivist themes and the idea of New Age in sensu stricto74, future is expected to bring a cultural shift, imagined specifically as a return to a more simple and “natural” way of life. In some narratives, the shift is a gradual and progressive one, but in others, it is described as a collapse of Western civilization. Rainbow Gatherings are generally experienced as transformative events and places of learning, but in a more radical frame of thought, this function is connected to the expectation of a dramatic societal change, an idea which has circulated the countercultural and alternative-holistic networks in various forms. Many in the Family talk about the possibility, or unavoidability, of a collapse of civilization as we know it. Some feel that a cataclysmic change is just around the corner, while others see that a shift is already happening. Gatherer narratives typically describe the change as drastic but necessary, and many involve the Rainbow Family as having an active role in the aftermath of the collapse. Below are interview quotes where a Golden Age is seen either in the past or in the future, or both. We learn this, to live in nature, make food, baskets, make nice in the nature. And we have to learn this because Babylon is falling, going to break. It has to break, has to happen. Could be soon – like this year or the beginning of the next. All 100% Babylon people are gonna totally freak out. It’s already happening. You live in the city, work, wife and kids, and then suddenly it’s gone – where (do) you now get water, or food? Electricity (is) not working, or no money market any more, what (do) you do? Who are they going to fall back on? Rainbow people. We are here for this job75. The Gatherings are for memory, remembering the old ways, connecting again with each other. We lost something on the way from the stars, here we re-learn through rituals, circles, songs, meeting each other, recognizing each other76. The process involving the Rainbow is already going on. The world now is not good for many people, and it will go back to natural state. People go

236  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth to Rainbow to learn, to realize this, there will come very difficult times of change but we have to remember that the best comes after this77. In other words, the near future might include a cataclysmic shift, but that will lead to a significantly better world, and “ancient wisdom” is crucial in getting there. According to Adam Berger, who made his ethnography of the US Rainbow Family around the turn of the millennium, the very same themes were present in participant narratives: (…) no explanation of the Rainbow Family can fail to mention the fact that Hipstory almost always mentions some grand, saving mission that empowers the movement. Rainbow is a spontaneous collection of old souls, coming together to prepare for Armageddon. Other stories suggest Rainbow is the spiritual descendant of the Native American Ghost Dances, an ecstatic reawakening meant to herald an era of peace and environmental harmony. Rainbow may even be construed as an anarchist commune, a collection of cultural insurgents focused on undoing the corrupt industrial capitalist system. Whatever the specific Hipstorical explanation, the Rainbow Family is always portrayed as destined to change history in some benevolent way. This is important to what it means to be Rainbow78. The above quote describes themes similar to my material. In a folkloristic sense, Berger’s ethnography involves parallel narrative variants, and being collected in the US close to 20 years ago, it shows the centrality, spread, and age of this motif. As stated before, instead of a firm belief in the various motifs in a folk tradition, their relevance is judged according to their usefulness and applicability. Hence, a folkloristic approach to vernacular religion involves an emphasis on various kinds of narratives and the multiple uses of legend and belief motifs79. The question of whether these narratives are always believed in “seriously” is difficult to answer, and for this research, not that central. The ideas discussed above certainly have at least some decades of age and are common, widespread, and representative of the underlying symbolical and metaphoric themes in Rainbow culture. The idea of a profound transformation, be it a literal new cultural era or something else, is an integral part of New Age-type religiosity and has far older roots manifested in the religious, esoteric, and utopian traditions which precede it. Future visions crystallizing Just as “New Age” initially literally signified, there is a widespread idea of a future era based on a new awareness, which perhaps needs to be ushered in before it’s too late. The term “New Age” is often replaced in

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 237 the emic discourse with the redeployment “New Paradigm”, presumably because of the inflation and negative connotations “New Age” has accumulated, but also to highlight the idea of a comprehensive ideological and cultural paradigm shift. Some gatherers model this future “Golden Age” on the Rainbow Gatherings and their culture: inclusive, non-commercial, and un-stratified societies living “in harmony with nature”. For others, a Rainbow-like existence is an interim phase while the better world of the future is emerging. Various ideas regarding the future of the Rainbow Family exist among the gatherers, but some of the most concrete notions are visions of permanent Rainbow-like communities. Most often, these are manifested as plans for, and realizations of, a Rainbow settlement in a natural environment. The Family has been active in founding intentional communities since its early years, and many gatherers are connected to various other projects involving cohabitation or collaboration. In addition to the different Rainbow-inspired communities around the world, the dream of permanent Rainbow life has inspired a specific concept among the global Rainbow Family in the last decade known as the Rainbow Crystal Lands: Rainbow Crystal Land (RCL) envisions a global self-sufficient network of open and ownerless lands housing sustainable communities of free and equal individuals living in peace and harmony with the earth. RCL is an organically living and growing common vision shared by thousands of people around the world; it is not an organization or a set of rules and there is no central leadership. Rather than cutting ourselves off completely, we stay connected in order to influence our surroundings, in anticipation of the day ‘capitalism’ becomes ‘shareism’ and all becomes one. We focus on creating the reality of our dreams rather than fighting against what we don’t like. We grow our own food and create our own energy; we maintain our health by drinking clean water, breathing fresh air and living in a holistic way where everything that enters our bodies is treated as medicine; our children grow up in communities where living is learning… We fulfil our basic needs by living in oneness with nature80. Verified information about all existing RCL projects and their actual situations is difficult to find, but there seem to be at least four functioning RCL communities at the moment of writing this, located in Europe, Central America, and South America. There is sporadic information about at least six other RCL projects that have either reformed into another kind of community or are looking for more participants to begin or continue their activity. Through these projects, Rainbow joins religious and countercultural actors across the globe and throughout history, as intentional and utopian communities have been one of the central methods of establishing and anchoring alternative lifestyles.

238  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth Ancient authenticity A symbolically significant idea of ancestors, precursors, and ideological allies of the Rainbow Family is reflected in the narrative motif I have named “historical/mythical allies”, which can mean tribal, archaic, and “natural” cultures on Earth, or ideas of mythical and cosmic versions of the same, as in Gianji’s and Rain’s stories. These mythical ancestors can take the form of specific Native American cultures, as in the origin myths told among the US Rainbow Family that Niman called “fakelore”81. These beliefs and significations are informative of the ideological and symbolic systems of Rainbow culture, as well as of the broader field of alternative-holistic religious traditions. Parallel to the idea of cultural criticism inherent in the concepts of “Golden Age” and “Noble Savage”, the terms alluding to a distant past, like “tribes of old” and “ancient wisdom”, are used in legitimating cultural concepts. The Councils, the Talking Stick, and the Sacred Fire are just a few examples of central, highly symbolic features in Rainbow culture that are attributed to tribal and archaic cultures and as such, framed as features of not only spiritual, but peaceful, egalitarian, and sustainable ways of life82 . References to actual tribes or the level of verifiable historical facts, in general, are rare, and as we have seen with the topic of “Native prophecies”, when such are mentioned, they can be misguided. As mentioned in the previous chapter, questions of authentication and legitimation in vernacular traditions can be resolved with other avenues than empirical facts. As folklorist Robert Glenn Howard wrote about “vernacular authority”: “the empirical and the authorizing aspects of any deployment of tradition are not necessarily related. From that acknowledgement, the researcher can approach any real-world discursive action recognizing that its empirical traditionality is often minor and sometimes irrelevant to its social value”83. “Vernacular authority” actualizes through communication and interaction with the community. In other words, vernacular authority is performed84. This observation prompts what Howard calls a discursive perspective to tradition: The sense of tradition as an authorizing force, however, is more sharply in focus when researchers approach folklore as performed expressive behaviour or ‘discourse’. Approached as discourse, the quality of being traditional is a perception among participants that their action is the result of social connections that have endured through space and across time85. Rainbow tropes such as “ancient wisdom” and “tribes of old” convey an idea of a long tradition with a widespread, implying historical continuity and consistency. When these ideas are accepted as true or even plausible, they become a compelling legitimation. In line with the horizontal nature

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 239 of vernacular traditions and the elevation of individual experience in contemporary spirituality, individual voices can have authority comparable to that of institutions – especially hegemonic mainstream institutions, but also the “intra-traditional” institutions of alternative-holistic spirituality itself. In countercultures which characteristically challenge the dominant culture, vernacular authority can be established specifically by referring to non-institutional and subjective views. Following Howard, competence in vernacular authority of the Rainbow kind means successfully invoking shared conceptions of authority, differing from those of the mainstream institutions and drawing from traditions recognized among the Rainbow community: authority of the self, sub- and countercultural concepts (“ancient”, “tribal”, “light beings” etc.), and Rainbow’s own institutions86. Adam Berger observed similar features in the US gatherers’ assertions of authenticity: “Perhaps the most compelling reason why gatherers choose to express their spirituality in what they perceive as ancient terms is the common idea that such traditions represent forms of belief untainted by the impurity of modern industrial capitalism, or Babylon”87.

Notes 1 Cf. Aupers & Houtman 2006, Redden 2016. 2 Some researchers differentiate between ‘folk’ and ‘vernacular’ religion. See Don Yoder on defining folk religion: Yoder 1974, 10–14, also Sutcliffe & Bowman 2000, Primiano 1995, 1997; Bowman & Valk 2012, McGuire 2008, Siikala 2012. 3 Primiano 1995, 38. 4 Virtanen 1988, 10, Dundes 1965, 2. 5 Valk 2014, 155. 6 Cf. Valk 2014, 155. 7 ‘Discursive practices’, as by Foucault, refers to knowledge formations, not language use. In a Foucaultian sense, ‘discursive practices’ involve ways of constituting knowledge, power relations, and forms of subjectivity. 8 A ‘motif’ is a dominant or recurring idea or a theme within culture. 9 Cf. Polanyi 1979, 211. 10 Koski 2011b, 83. 11 Valk 2014, Bowman & Valk 2012. 12 Enges, Hänninen & Hovi 2015, Valk 2014, 150–155, Fedele & Knibbe 2013, 4, Utriainen 2013, 243, Siikala 2012, 75–78, Orsi 2010, preface to 3rd ed., Draper & Baker 2011, Virtanen 1988. 13 Virtanen 1988. 14 Orsi 2010, preface to the 3rd ed. 15 Kamppinen & Hakamies, 2013, 3. 16 Marriott 1955. 17 Sutcliffe & Gilhus 2013, 9. 18 Koski 2008, 2011a&b, Saler 2000, Needham 1972. See also George Lakoff’s (1987) and Talmy Givón’s (1989) views on prototype theory and polysemous concepts. 19 Koski 2008, 2011a&b, Wittgenstein 2009.

240  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 0 Needham 1972. 2 21 Koski 2008, 2011a&b, Needham 1972. 22 Valk 2014, Kamppinen & Hakamies 2013, 3, Honko 1964, 2013a&b, Pentikäinen 1968. 23 Honko 2013a&b, 1964. 24 Honko 2013b, Dégh 2001, 80. 25 Bowman & Valk 2012. 26 Primiano 1995, 44. 27 Primiano 2012, 383 28 Bowman & Valk 2012, 8. 29 Valk 2014, 155. 30 A legend is a narrative genre that characteristically involves an extraordinary or miraculous event but is told as true. Typically, a legend involves localizing features. 31 A memorate is typically in first-person or second-person form, or tied to a local person, place, or feature. 32 Honko 1962, 125–129, 1964, 2013a&b, Pentikäinen 1968, Dégh & Vázsonyi 1974, Koski 2016, 131. 33 Honko 2013b. 34 Cf. Bowman 2014. 35 Tarot 2000, Caillé 2000, 2009a&b, Gauthier 2016. 36 Caillé 2009a, 86, cf. Anttonen 1996. 37 Gauthier 2016, 171, Tarot 2000, Caillé 2009a. 38 Streib & Hood 2013, 2015. 39 Caillé 2000, 2009. 40 Caillé 2000. 41 Parry 1986. 42 Tarot 2000, translation F. Gauthier. 43 Gauthier 2016, 167–168. 44 Tarot 2000, Gauthier 2016. 45 Schelly 2014, 87–91. 46 Pike 2001. 47 Interview: Gil. 48 Interview: Tortuga. 49 Interview: Estrela. 50 Lovelock 1972, Lovelock & Margulis 1974. 51 ‘Council of all beings’ is a ritual workshop aiming at identifying with the natural environment, developed by activists and scholars John Seed and Joanna Macy. Seed, Macy, Fleming & Naess 1988: Thinking Like a Mountain: Towards a Council of All Beings. 52 Interview: Gianji. 53 Interview: Gianji. 54 Taylor 2010. 55 Interview: Rain. 56 Berger 2006, 2. 57 Niman 1991, 131–147, Haley 2013, cf. Geertz 1994. 58 Caillé 2000. 59 Gauthier 2018. 60 Conversation: Luna. 61 Interview: Gianji. 62 Interview: Gil. 63 Interview: Davide. 64 Cf. Gauthier 2018, 116: ‘gift motive’. 65 Interview: Tortuga. 66 Kaftan and djellaba are loose robes from Arabic region and northern Africa.

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 241 67 Kora is a West-African string instrument, a djembe is a West-African goblet drum, a santur is a hammered dulcimer of Mesopotamian origin, and berimbau is a single-string percussion instrument from Brazil. 68 Chapatis are flatbread, dhal is lentil stew and chai is spiced tea, all from India. 69 Kombucha is tea fermented with Medusomyces gisevii mushroom, and chaga is tea made from Inonotus obliquus conk. 70 Medicine Wheels are ritualistic stone monuments originating from Native American cultures. 71 Tantra is a collection of esoteric teachings and ayurveda is a folk healing tradition, both from India. 72 Bowman 1995, referencing Piggott 1981, 16, Lovejoy & Boas 1965, 7–8. 73 Bowman 1995. 74 Hanegraaff 1996, 94–103. 75 Interview: Chaka. 76 Interview: Rain. 77 Interview: Songeur. 78 Berger 2006, 2. 79 Koski 2011b, 83. 80 The Alternative n.d. 81 Niman 1997, 131–147. 82 Partridge 1999, 87–88. 83 Howard 2013, 75. 84 Howard 2008, 492–497. 85 Howard 2013, 73. 86 Howard 2013. 87 Berger 2006, 187.

References Anttonen, Veikko 1996: Ihmisen ja maan rajat. ‘Pyhä’ kulttuurisena kategoriana. [The boundaries of man and the land. ‘Sacred’ as a cultural category]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Aupers, Stef and Houtman, Dick 2006: Beyond the Spiritual Supermarket: The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion 21(2), 201–222. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle.net/10023/ 2679. Bowman, Marion 1995: The Noble Savage and the Global Village: Cultural Evolution in New Age and Neo-Pagan Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 10(2), 139–149. Bowman, Marion and Valk, Ülo (eds.) 2012: Vernacular Religion in Everyday Life: Expressions of Belief. Sheffield, Oakville: Equinox. Caillé, Alain 2009a: Théorie anti-utilitariste de l’action. Paris: La Découverte/ MAUSS. Caillé, Alain 2000: Anthropologie du don. Le tiers paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Dégh, Linda 2001: Legend and Belief: Dialectics of a Folklore Genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dégh, Linda and Vázsonyi, Andrew 1974: The Memorate and the Proto-Memorate. The Journal of American Folklore 87(345), 225–239.

242  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth Draper, Scott and Baker, Joseph O. 2011: Angelic Belief as Americal Folk Religion. Sociological Forum 26(3), 623–643. Dundes, Alan 1965: The Study of Folklore. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Enges, P., Hänninen, K. and Hovi, T. (eds.) 2015: Kansanuskosta nykypäivän henkisyyteen [From Folk Religion to Contemporary Spirituality]. Turku: University of Turku. Fedele, Anna and Knibbe, Kim (eds.) 2013: Gender and Power in Contemporary Spirituality: Ethnographic Approaches. Routledge Studies in Religion series. London: Routledge. Gauthier, François 2018: “Our Play Pleases the Man, the Spirits of the Desert, and Whatever”: Enjoying Religion at Burning Man. In: Jespers, Frans, van Nieuwkerk, Karin and van der Velde, Paul (eds.), Enjoying Religion: Pleasure and Fun in Established and New Religious Movments. Lanham: Lexington publishers, 103–126. Gauthier, François 2016: A Three-Tier, Three Level Model for the Study of Religion. In: Jödicke, A. and Lehmann, K. (eds.), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft. Standortbestimmungen mit Hilfe eines Mehr-EbenenModells von Religion. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 157–174. Geertz, Armin W. 1994: The Invention of Prophecy: Continuity and Meaning in Hopi Indian Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Givón, Talmy 1989: Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Haley, Brian D. 2013: Unexpected Histories: Hippies, Hopis, and Ammon Hennacy [conference paper]. The 19th Annual Susan Sutton Smith Award for Academic Excellence Lecture, SUNY College at Oneonta, April 18, 2013. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272565914_Unexpected_Histories_ Hippies_Hopis_and_Ammon_Hennacy. Accessed 12.09.2018. Hanegraaff, Wouter 1996: New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. Leiden: Brill. Honko, Lauri 2013a (1991): The Folklore Process. In: Hakamies, P. and Honko, A. (eds.), Theoretical Milestones: Selected Writings of Lauri Honko. FF Communications 304, 29–54. Honko, Lauri 2013b (1989): Folkloristic Theories of Genre. In: Hakamies, P. and Honko, A. (eds.), Theoretical Milestones: Selected Writings of Lauri Honko. FF Communications 304, 55–77. Honko, Lauri 1964: Memorates and the Study of Folk Beliefs. Journal of the Folklore Institute 1(1/2), 5–19. Honko, Lauri 1962: Geisterglaube in Ingermanland. Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia. Howard, Robert Glenn 2013: Vernacular Authority: Critically Engaging ‘Tradition’. In: Howard, R.G. and Blank, T. (eds.), Tradition in the 21st Century: Locating the Role of the Past in the Present. Logan: Utah State University Press, 72–99. Howard, Robert Glenn 2008: The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5), 490–513. Kamppinen, Matti and Hakamies, Pekka 2013: The Theory of Culture of Folklorist Lauri Honko, 1932–2002: The Ecology of Tradition. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press. Koski, Kaarina 2016: The Legend Genre and Narrative Registers. In: Koski K., Frog M. and Savolainen U. (eds), Genre - text - interpretation: Multidisciplinary perspectives on folklore and beyond. Studia Fennica Folkloristica, vol. 22. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.

Mother Earth Gives Us Birth 243 Koski, Kaarina 2011a: Kuoleman voimat. Kirkonväki suomalaisessa uskomusperinteessä. [Powers of Death. Church-Väki in the Finnish Belief Tradition.]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Koski, Kaarina 2011b: Powers of Death: Church-väki in the Finnish Folk Belief Tradition. RMN Newsletter 2(1), 83–87. Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/folkloristiikka/English/RMN/RMNNewsletter_2_May_2011.pdf. Accessed 4.8.2018. Koski, Kaarina 2008: Conceptual Analysis and Variation in Belief Tradition: A Case of Death-Related Beings [pdf]. Folklore 38 [online]. Available at: http:// www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol38/koski.pdf. Accessed 2.11.2017. Lakoff, George 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lovejoy, A.O. and Boas, G. 1965: Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lovelock, J.E. 1972: Gaia as Seen Through the Atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment 6(8), 579–580. Lovelock, J.E. and Margulis, L. 1974: Atmospheric Homeostasis by and for the Biosphere: the Gaia Hypothesis. Tellus 26(1–2), Series A. Stockholm: International Meteorological Institute, 2–10. Marriott, McKim (ed.) 1955: Village India: Studies in the Little Community: Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McGuire, Meredith 2008: Lived Religion. Faith and Practice in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Needham, Rodney 1972: Belief, Language and Experience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Niman, Michael I. 1997: People of the Rainbow: A Nomadic Utopia. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press. Niman, Michael Ira 1991: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography from Within. PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY. Orsi, Robert 2010: Introduction to the Third Edition: History, Real Presence, and the Refusal to be Purified. In: Madonna of the 115th Street: Faith and Community in Italian Harlem 1880 – 1950. (1st ed. 1985) Yale University Press, ix–xxvi. Parry, Jonathan 1986: The Gift, the Indian Gift and the ‘Indian Gift’. Man New Series 21(3), 453–473. Partridge, Cristopher 1999: Truth, Authority and Epistemological Individualism in New Age Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1), 77–95. Pentikäinen, Juha 1968: Grenzprobleme zwischen Memorat und Sage [Boundary Problem Between Memorate and Legend]. Temenos 3, 141. Piggott, S. 1981: The Druids. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Pike, Sarah M. 2001: Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Polanyi, Livia 1979: So What’s the Point? Semiotica 25(3–4), 207–241. Primiano, Leonard 2012: Afterword: Manifestations of the Religious Vernacular: Ambiguity, Power, and Creativity. In: Bowman, Marion and Valk, Ülo (eds), Vernacular Religion in Everyday Life: Expressions of Belief. Sheffield, Bristol: Equinox, 382–394. Primiano, Leonard 1997: Folk Religion. In: Green, Thomas A. (ed.), Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Beliefs, Customs, Tales, Music and Art. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 710–717. Primiano, Leonard 1995: Vernacular Religion and the Search for Method in Religious Folklife. Western Folklore 54(1), 37–56.

244  Mother Earth Gives Us Birth Redden, Guy 2016: Revisiting the Spiritual Supermarket: Does the Commodification of Spirituality Necessarily Devalue It? Culture and Religion 17(2), 231–249. Saler, Benson 2000 (1993): Conceptualizing Religion: Immanent Anthropologists, Transcendent Natives, and Unbounded Categories. New York, NY, Oxford: Berghahn Books. Schelly, Chelsea 2014: Crafting Collectivity: American Rainbow Gatherings as Alternative Community. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Siikala, Anna-Leena 2012: Itämerensuomalaisten mytologia [Baltic-Finnic Mythology]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Streib, Heinz and Hood, Ralph W. 2013: Modeling the Religious Field: Religion, Spirituality, Mysticism, and Related World Views. Implicit Religion 16(2), 137–155. Streib, Heinz and Hood, Ralph W. 2015: Understanding Spirituality – Conceptual Considerations. In: Streib, H. and Hood, R. (eds.), Semantics and Psychology of Spirituality: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. London: Springer. Sutcliffe, Steven and Bowman, Marion (eds.) 2000: Beyond New Age: Exploring Alternative Spirituality. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sutcliffe, Steven J. and Gilhus, Ingvild S. (eds.) 2013: New Age Spirituality: Rethinking Religion. Durham: Acumen Publishing. Tarot, Camille 2000: Gift and Grace: A Family to be Recomposed? In: Vandevelde, A. (ed.), Gifts and Interests. Leuven: Peeters, 133–155. Taylor, Bron 2010: Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Utriainen, Terhi 2013: Doing Things With Angels: Agency, Alterity and Practices of Enchantment. In: Sutcliffe, S. and Gilhus, I. (eds.), New Age Spirituality: Rethinking Religion. Durham: Acumen Publishing, 242–255. Valk, Ülo 2014: Folkloristic Contributions Towards Religious Studies in Estonia: A Historical Outline. Temenos 50(1), 137–163. Virtanen, Leea 1988: Suomalainen kansanperinne [Finnish Folklore]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Wittgenstein, Ludwig 2009 (1953): Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Yoder, Don 1974: Toward a Definition of Folk Religion. Western Folklore 33(1), 2–15.

9

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred Rainbow and the Transcendent

After the theoretical basis, the chapter delves into the Triaxial analysis. The analysis starts with discussing three aspects of the transcendent, which are specific to Rainbow culture: nature, interconnectedness, and transformation. This is followed by an examination of the symbolic meanings of gift exchange relevant to the “transcendent axis” in the Gathering culture, by looking at the typical gifts given and received, and the perceived counterparts of the exchange. The chapter ends with a conclusion of the results of the Triaxial analysis.

Theoretical Frame Certain theoretical points are relevant for the analysis of the transcendent axis and need to be discussed before moving to the gifts and their circulation. Firstly, I define the concept of transcendence as it is used in this research, and secondly, I discuss three theoretical concepts and their relation to the transcendent: the self, the gift, and play. Finally, I present three expressions of transcendence that are characteristic of Rainbow’s collective tradition. I call these transcendent core concepts, because they function as cores in this prototypical modelling of Rainbow’s religious tradition and remain fairly underdefined as concepts. The concepts are represented by gifts circulating on the transcendent axis and occasionally appearing as counterparts of the exchange, and they have religious significance in various ways: they participate in the relationship between humans and the transcendent reality by representing or granting access to the sacred, the ultimate, or the ineffable.

Horizontal Transcendence The concept of transcendence and its manifestations in each culture are more complex than those of community, or of time, and hence a discussion of the concept of transcendence as it is used in this work is in order. In short, I follow the definition and conceptualization presented by professors of religious education and psychology, respectively, Heinz Streib and Ralph DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-9

246  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred W. Hood. Streib and Hood pair “two key concepts for religion”: transcendence and ultimate concern1, and further distinguish two different dimensions of transcendence: “vertical” and “horizontal”. “Horizontal” forms of transcendence are found to be typical in alternative-holistic religiosity in general, and they are prevalent in Rainbow’s religious tradition. Streib and Hood’s model of contemporary religiosity describes specific features of the “horizontal” form of transcendence. These involve a specific mode of religiosity based on the self “which features individual immediacy to the transcendent and allows for no authority other than the individual experience-based evidence”2 , and a low level of organization (or institutionalization). Streib and Hood include what are called “horizontal” aspects in the concept of transcendence, with secular or this-worldly concerns, thus covering what has also been called “implicit” and “invisible” religion, such as metaphors of wholeness, sanctity of life, humanity, or nature3. Note that this division of horizontal and vertical transcendence should not be confused with the axes in our main model but taken as a clarification of the general concept of transcendence in contemporary religiosity. Streib and Hood’s conceptualization of transcendence with its “horizontal” dimension aims to include the “spiritual but not religious” actors in theoretical modelling of religion and religiosity, as well as those transcendent experiences and “ultimate concerns” (Tillich) which do not involve the supernatural or other explicitly religious themes. One example of horizontal transcendence that Streib and Hood provide is “green spirituality”4, a term comparable to Bron Taylor’s “dark green religion”5. In their words: Vertical transcendence and ultimate concern is characterized (a) by the social reconstruction of experiences of ‘great’ transcendences in other-worldly symbols and (b) by a direction of ultimate concern to a supernatural world; the most common symbol here is the ‘heaven’ with God or gods or other divine beings. Horizontal transcendence and ultimate concern is characterized (a) by the social reconstruction of experiences of ‘great’ transcendences in this-worldly symbols, e.g. as ‘generalized entanglement’ or in metaphors of wholeness and (b) by a direction of ultimate concern to the sanctity and creative potential of life, including the individual person, humanity, or nature6. “Generalized entanglement” is a term borrowed from quantum theory, signifying the interconnectedness of sub-atomic particles. The term “great” transcendence, in turn, refers to those experiences that in themselves go beyond everyday reality, to differentiate from experiences that get interpreted in a religious frame: As suggested by Schütz and Luckmann7, and Luckmann8, ‘great’ transcendences occur in sleep and dream, in daydreaming and ecstasies, in crises and death, and finally in the theoretical orientation. (…) Which

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 247 experiences of transcendence are associated with religion, depends on the symbol system that is used to come to terms with and communicate these experiences. The religious symbolization depends on the religious character of the social construction of reality in which the individual is at home9. Thus, “vertical transcendence”, characteristic of the “god-type” religion, should be seen as a radical form where the transcendent other is cast far out on the transcendent axis, and its superhuman and supernatural aspects are highlighted. Horizontal transcendence is more this-worldly, closer to human existence and generally found to be “sharing the qualities of ‘interconnectedness’ and a search for ‘meaning’”10. These examples emphasize the compatibility of Streib’s and Hood’s conceptualization and terminology with the frame of my analysis11. Transcendent Self and Cosmic Community The transcendent axis of contemporary alternative-holistic spiritualities typically takes on certain key characteristics. Elements on the transcendent axis include the self and the community, both in a specific sense. The self’s transcendent aspects have been discussed in New Age studies and termed i.a. the “transcendent self”12 and “sacralized self”13. Throughout this book I have brought up theoretical concepts such as the “subjective turn” and “subjective-life spirituality”14, which point at macro-sociological trends in modern societies: the increased focus on subjective identities and the radicalization of personal experience. The subjective turn and centrality of the self have been approached in various ways among New Age scholars. Christopher Partridge states that although sacralization of the self is not novel or limited to New Age, the authority awarded to the self is a characteristic feature in it. He sees the focus on the self manifesting as what he calls “epistemology of experience”: an attitude marked by seeing the subjective experience as providing an “immediate and uncontaminated” access to the truth. Partridge does remind us that often the authority of the self is more of an ideal than a fact, with plenty of examples of authority bestowed on religious experts and established traditions in New Age15. Partridge also points out that when the self is elevated to divinity, it can be framed either as a subjectivistic position, or as operating as a part of a “vague form of pantheism”, where the divinity of the self is an emanation of some other form of divinity, greater or more extensive than the individual self. Like many others, he points out how the New Age focus on personal choice and fulfilment of the self aligns with the ethos of consumer culture and commodification16. Religious scholar Andrew Dawson calls the self’s authority a “cosmic aggrandizement of the self”, a development where the self becomes “the ultimate arbiter of religious authority and the primary agent of spiritual transformation”17. Dawson elaborates on the theme of the

248  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred self and consumption, offering the view that “new spirituality” involves a dual position: although it has elements that affirm the contemporary materialist and consumerist social dynamics, it claims at least a “discursive rejection of mainstream consumer society”. According to Dawson, this can be seen as a resignification, where “inner goods” are valued over external ones, creating a kind of “mystified consumption”, where practitioners see no problem in paying for items, courses, and other services providing spiritual well-being and development. Thus, they are rather accommodating than affirming the consumer-capitalist ethos18. Further, Adrian Ivakhiv discerns three different aspects of the “spiritualized self” in New Age discourse: The pervasive emphasis on self-development and personal growth, as well as more specific concerns about ‘clearing’ one’s ‘aura’ and the like, do suggest a bounded, essential self that must guard against the threat of depletion or impurity. At least as common is a multiple self, whose many subcomponents may include an ‘inner child’, a ‘wild man’ or ‘wild woman’ within, animal teachers and spirit guides, past incarnations and ancestral figures, and so on. (…) This is a self that seeks ‘openings’, if not to the larger human community, at least to the imagined community of nature or the cosmos, perceived as constituting a multitude of archetypes or entities. Finally, there is a cosmic self found in frequent references to a ‘higher self’ that is thought to be rooted in the cosmos and that provides the inner guidance for the development or ‘evolution’ of one’s spiritual growth. (In ‘earth spirituality’ variants of New Age thinking, this cosmic self tends to be presented as a depth self, rooted in the Earth, whereas millenarian and channelled writings emphasise ‘ascension’ towards a ‘light-body’.)19 In this sense, the self in alternative-holistic religious traditions is not simply self-absorbed or disconnected, but rather both undivided and multiple, and open to possibilities for development. Ivakhiv also describes the self as reaching towards the larger community of nature or the cosmos, and its perceived entities and archetypes. This converges with central qualities of the self as it appears in Rainbow culture: the self is not self-sufficient; it aims for communion with others and is fulfilled by it. Through the connection with others, the self has unlimited potential for transformation. The idea of the community gains transcendent qualities when humans are seen as an integral part of nature and the cosmos, as they are in Rainbow culture. On one hand, this view is based on the sacralization of human life, together with nature and the planetary biosphere. On the other hand, the idea connecting the Rainbow Family with its perceived allies and placing them in opposition with the mainstream world creates a division between those who honour the sanctity of life and fight the good fight, and those who don’t. The community is significant in the grand transformative effort

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 249 of personal and planetary healing, often with the implied attention and support of superhuman actors. Thus, the Rainbow Family and its extensions form a righteous “cosmic community” that is loved and revered. Aspects of communality and interdependence are so central in Rainbow’s religious tradition that nature and the community, interconnectedness with them, and transformation derived from this connection become aspects of transcendence. As Guy Redden has noted, some typical New Age ideas of the self are “integrally linked to a critique of modern powers – norms, institutions and knowledges – which supposedly suppress the hidden potential of the individual”20. The false self is formed in socialization to Babylon, and hence, breaking out from this mind-set through participating in the Gatherings is seen to support the discovery and rehabilitation of the “true” self: To be who we truly are, and (to) leave behind Babylon things and ideas. All is dropped, masks are dropped, (…) and then you are faced with who you really are. People have qualities, take temporary positions, do jobs, focalize. You took off your masks, titles, clothes, and as a naked child we find what’s our real quality, and find how we fit, what can we share. To focalize, cook, make announcements, inform, shopping mission, food carrying. Discovering who you really are21. The ideals of autonomy and authority of the self are reflected in the features of Rainbow culture: in the religious tradition that invites subjective interpretations and supports an open, immediate, and horizontal access to the transcendent; in the political culture that encourages decentralized and participatory forms of power, and autonomous management of labour and projects (do-o-cracy); and in the gift economy where people participate autonomously. The self is seen as inherently capable of not only a fair political perspective, constructive self-government, and responsible reciprocation, and it is able to reach and directly interact with the transcendent. Gift Exchange with the Transcendent Marcel Mauss called the gift a “total social fact”, meaning that gifts and the social bonds that they establish form the entire network of social relations that underlies a society and its culture, including religious forms. Hence, gifting and the bonds it creates are symbolically significant, and the nature of the gifts and their movement become informative of the characteristics of the society in question. Maurice Godelier focused on the significance of gift exchange with the transcendent other, building on observations of anthropomorphic tendencies in processes such as the personification of objects, as well as animistic and dynamistic thinking in many folk-religious traditions. Godelier suggested that vernacular conceptualization of the world imagined all of cosmos as corresponding to human society, making the

250  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred logics of gift exchange applicable to the relations with nonhuman entities, and that humans are seen as indebted to the transcendent from the outset: we owe our life to the gods22 . Annette Weiner’s and Maurice Godelier’s ideas regarding the sacra – objects that are not exchanged like the others – are also relevant to the analysis of Rainbow’s spiritual tradition. As Godelier explains, exchangeable objects “become sacred” when they are no longer part of the “exchanges between the living”23, but kept only to be gifted later to future generations, or to the transcendent. Offerings are objects and materials that are effectively removed from the circulation of gifts between peers and dedicated to the otherworld: spirits, ancestors, gods, etc., and as explained, aspects of the transcendent in Rainbow culture include the extended community. Sacralized things in the Rainbow include a Circle of people and the Main Fire, and to a lesser degree, the Talking Stick and the Magic Hat. They are never exchanged as commodities, but the aspects of setting aside and gifting are present: the sacralized objects are given to the community, and meant to serve collective ideals and purposes, evoking the idea of offerings. These objects are constructed from profane materials for sacralized use, and due to the ephemeral nature of the events, they typically return to a profane state afterwards. The Talking Stick is most often crafted anew for each Gathering event, and the Main Fire is sanctified for a month. The Magic Hat is a hat borrowed from a gatherer and returned to its owner immediately after use. Following this line of thought, the material and immaterial contributions gifted to the Family as well as money donated to the Magic Hat are offerings, and the sacralized objects are akin to Godelier’s and Weiner’s sacra. They are removed from the profane circulation of gifts and commodities and set aside for collective use. The Magic Hat, Sacred Fire and the Talking Stick can be seen as inalienable goods bound to the community and its higher purposes, representing its values and identity. This is another illustration of Rainbow’s gift culture and the various levels of meaning in the obligation of reciprocity. The gift exchange in the frame of the community has deep ideological connotations: all kinds of volunteering, donating, and contributing to the Gathering event have the significance of an offering or service. And vice versa: the exchange in the frame of the transcendent has profound links with the community. The Family and the planetary biosphere are part of the community and the horizontal axis, as well as aspects of transcendence and a part of the vertical axis, showing an alignment of the axes that is characteristic for the Rainbow Family. In addition, the US Family has some permanent objects that could be likened to sacra: Adam Berger describes encountering certain items in the US Gatherings that could be called cultural relics or legacy objects, such as a Tibetan prayer bell and cannabis pipes known as “chalices” (term borrowed from the Rastafari). One of them, a pipe known as the “Rainbow Chalice” is made of metal that is told to originate from a destroyed US tank, and to

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 251 have been gifted to the Family by members of the Viet-Cong. Another legend originates the pipe as a gift made by the Yippie activist Abbie Hoffman. The narratives framing these objects make them material representations of the countercultural history of the US Family, and central values of many of its members: recognition of historical allies, anti-establishment and antiwar sentiments, as well as cannabis as a sacrament. The objects have Family members as guardians who describe the task as a sacred duty. The caretaker of the Rainbow Chalice emphasized in an interview that the pipe does not belongs to her but the whole Family, and that other Rainbows approach her to partake in the collective sacrament of smoking with it24. This study uses the gift theory as a basis for the theoretical model and the analysis, but ultimately, the gift opens a wider door in the field of social sciences. The gift paradigm, as a theory of social action, combines the aspects of individual action (freedom, creativity) and social determinism (obligation, tradition), showing how individuals are linked by their social relationships, making them into social actors. It bridges the gap between individualistic and holistic paradigms, showing how they should be seen as complementary concepts instead of oppositional25. Play and Religion I have introduced Roberte Hamayon’s theory of play in human culture and in religion. In addition, classic works on play26 and the work of anthropologist and scholar of religion André Droogers have contributed to the understanding of play as it is applied in this study. Droogers defines play as “the human capacity to deal simultaneously and subjunctively with two or more ways of classifying reality”27. Play thus involves a simultaneous awareness of reality “as is” and an alternative to it: “as if” or “what if”, and crucially, an awareness of their mutual relationship28. Hamayon discusses several definitions including play as a “modality of action” and as “a fictional frame reflecting an empirical reality”29. These definitions of play point at what Hamayon summarizes to be the key elements of the play-frame: margin and metaphor. Play involves a margin between the representations of reality, and an amount of metaphoric relationality. Thus, play becomes a mode of thinking and acting that involves an idea of a subjunctive, potential way of how things could, should or will be. As Droogers states: “Play makes the alternatives apparent”30. Here is the gist of play in religion and of “play-type” ritual: whereas “worship-type” ritual aims at restricting indeterminacy, “play-type” ritual is subjunctive and open to the possibilities and creativity it entails. Religion and ritual become avenues for creativity, which is what finally sets apart “play-type” rituality and the horizontal, “spirit-type” religious traditions it is typical of. As Hamayon and Gauthier point out, play is a central element in the ritual dynamics of “spirit-type” religious traditions, and characteristic of the perceived power relationships between humans and the transcendent31.

252  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred “Play-type” rituals, such as the ones in Rainbow’s collective tradition, accept subjective signification and encourage individual access to and interaction with the transcendent, and they cater to the aspects of “horizontal transcendence” typical for contemporary alternative-holistic religious traditions. These features are essential for the functioning and coherence of Rainbow’s collective tradition, even if this thought might sound counterintuitive at first. Rainbow traditions need to accommodate individual differences of thinking and belief, but at the same time draw the adherents together at other levels. They need to be open, but still relatable and functional, offering avenues for constructing meaning, identity, authenticity, and a sense of relevance. Rainbow culture is playful in more explicit ways as well. Play and games are common Gathering activities, and non-agonistic, co-operative forms of play are more typical than agonistic, competitive ones32 . A playful attitude to life is celebrated, and humour and joking are abundant in the cultural expressions. Gatherers might remind each other not to take life or themselves too seriously, especially when faced with authoritative attitudes. Play and humour can be an effective antidote to power claims. According to the few North American Rainbow participants I have interviewed, the US Rainbow Family has a long tradition of Rainbow humour that takes also self-deprecating, ironic, and even blasphemous forms. The parody rite of the Sacred Triangle is a great example. Many Rainbow jokes express a discrepancy and a tension between Rainbow ideals and aspects of reality, reflecting the play-frame in their own way. I look at Rainbow’s religious tradition as an example of contemporary vernacular or folk religion. A vernacular tradition is not fixed, as it involves experiential and practical elements, subjective signification, and creative participation. These features require loosely defined concepts and ideas and hence, the language of the tradition can neither be absolutely defined. The coherence of a vernacular tradition and the cohesion of its adherents are established through collective practices that function without strictly defined terms or dogmatic ideas. In Rainbow’s case the tradition builds on shared experience and practice, and relatively indeterminate symbolism. Play works with indeterminacy, making it a resource instead of a threat. With Rainbow, as with some other contemporary vernacular traditions such as the Burning Man festival33, the relatively indeterminate symbolism also adds to the approachability of the religious form: the participants appreciate the explicit sense of open self-definition that is a typical feature of these cultures, as it marks non-institutionalized religious forms and the valuations of “spiritual but not religious” identification. As Gauthier writes of the Burning Man festival (BM): “A fundamental characteristic of BM is the indeterminacy of meaning that acts as a condition of possibility of communitization and meaning”34. Similar underdefined approaches seem to be common with many other contemporary alternative-holistic religious traditions and event-cultures.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 253 Also, the whole Gathering can be seen as a ritual event, and involving a play-frame. Participants often compare the Gatherings to religious retreats and pilgrimages, as it shares many of the key elements: travelling for a special purpose, separation from the everyday, living close to nature, and joining a spiritually oriented, inclusive temporary community. The detachment from mundane life and the radical differences of the Rainbow reality create a veritable counter-world and enable various other play-frames. The frame’s subjunctive view into various potential and possible ways of being becomes the setting for transformation and self-generation. Gatherers display and discuss personal processes that could be called identity-play, through taking novel social roles, expressing and exploring alternative sides of themselves, and learning new skills and ideas. Many do this with complete awareness. Just as Gauthier has observed about the Burning Man festival, part of the appeal of participation is the opportunity to play with identity and its representation35, and this is relevant also for the transformative potential of the Gathering events. The play-frame of the Gatherings involves subjunctive views into societal potentials and possibilities. Rainbow’s countercultural stance is reflected in the alternative political, economic, and religious forms it espouses. These forms are developed, and they thrive in this separated heterotopian reality. A ritual event can form a play-frame where ideas of a “better me”, “better us”, and a “better world” are actualized, communicated, and worked upon, also through non-verbal, symbolic and unconscious aspects. Participants’ Gathering experiences together with the awareness of a long-lived global countercultural tradition such as the Rainbow Family with its imagined and real allies can act as powerful subjunctive cues for transformation on personal and collective levels. The relationship of power and play – or obligation and liberty – is different in institutional and non-institutional forms or religion. Where religious institutions impose their power through regulation and dogmatic forms, religious traditions with a low level of institutionalization allow a wider range of play. In the Rainbow, play and playfulness are celebrated in the religious tradition, and power remains subservient and non-coercive. Rainbow’s example shows that non-institutional forms are not simply lacking the development into a religious institution, but the community might actively resist the institutionalization process and its trappings, consciously guarding the open and horizontal nature of the tradition. In Rainbow’s case, this has clear parallels with the political and economic culture. Religious traditions that actively resist institutionalization, what I have called a “society against the Church”, operate at least partially contrarily to institutional religious forms, requiring their own research perspective. The concept of play and its cultural functions as explained by Roberte Hamayon provide an entry into understanding the dynamics of non-institutional religious tradition, through the aspects of indeterminacy and its handling, multiple versions of reality and their relationships, as well as metaphoric and symbolic representation.

254  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred

Transcendent Concepts in Rainbow Spirituality The analysis built on the axial model should be taken as a prototype with multiple cores, as we are talking about a vernacular tradition which always includes variation. Instead of clearly defined and delimited concepts, the model involves a family-resemblance network of more or less typical features, and more or less widely shared ideas. As the Rainbow is a heterogeneous community regarding beliefs, I have searched for collective features of transcendent concepts under the surface of subjective significations. I looked at elements of the religious tradition that are repeated across the population, the history of the movement, in various cultural realms and products, and in both individual and collective forms of tradition. The most common and conspicuous religiously significant concepts in Rainbow culture are nature, transformation, and interconnectedness, which as emic expressions in the Rainbow parlance take forms like “Mother Earth”, “healing”, and “unity”, and variations of these. I present these three notions as the key transcendent concepts in Rainbow culture, as they have proven to be central to most gatherers’ religious experiences, practices, and beliefs. Nature Nature forms the first symbolic core of the prototype model of transcendence. In the Gatherings, signs of the centrality and reverence of nature are everywhere. Most prominently, nature is part and parcel of the collective religious expressions of the Family worldwide. Communications like Gathering invitations, information posters at Welcome Home camps, and the various Rainbow Guide leaflets inform the reader about practical environmental guidelines and the spiritual principles behind them, with expressions ranging from informative to sentimental: Le ‘Rainbow’ est un rassemblement dans la nature, pour la nature, notre nature. Nous cuisinons ensemble, chantons ensemble, mangeons ensemble en formant un cercle et en remerciant la terre et tous les éléments qui nous permettent d’être réunis et de partager notre énergie pour créer cette rencontre. [The ‘Rainbow’ is a gathering in nature, for nature, our nature. We cook together, sing together, eat together in a circle and thank the earth and all the elements that allow us to be together and share our energy to create this meeting.]36 We are all invited to Cilento where Pachamama awaits us in abundant generous nature. As always, she is ready to welcome us in her arms and offer us perfumes and colours to ward off37 the spirit. We are invited to whistle like little birds, to dance and to sing laughing and joking to lie down on the lawns and roll in the grass. To make love and dive into the river and quench our thirst at the source. We are invited to admire, respect, guard and enjoy all of its beauty… conscious and grateful for all this38.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 255 In the US, Rainbow events are often described as religious gatherings in the ‘Nature’s Cathedral’, especially when appealing to outsiders for tolerance and respect. In practice, the Family observes natural cycles such as moon phases, equinoxes, solstices, and astrological alignments, and often marks them with ritual recognition. As mentioned, Gathering events outside of the US are scheduled according to lunar cycles. The collective rituals and other prominent religious expressions in the Gatherings are similarly naturecentred, from the spatial and material aspects to the songs, chants, and ritual gestures. Nature is one of the most common themes in the Rainbow songs, and a common feature is likening people or the Family to nature: I am a walking tree; you are a walking tree (×2) My feet in the Earth, my head in the sky My heart joins together the two as one to be I find my joy in the simple things coming from the Earth I find my joy in the sun that shines and the water that sings to me Listen to the wind and listen to the water, hear what they say Singing heya heya heya heya heya heya ho (×4) Earth my body, water my blood / air my breath and fire my spirit In the Food Circle ceremony, the collective Omming and silent prayer are followed first by raising the hands towards the sky, after which the participants kneel and touch the ground, most with their hands and foreheads. Many kiss the ground or prostrate completely. In addition, the various religious practices happening in addition to the collective tradition offer plenty of examples where the sacralization of nature is even more explicit and include examples of “vertical” transcendence. Typical expressions accord with religious traditions bearing the labels of Neopaganism, Neoshamanism, Neodruidism, and various forms of Goddess worship. Among the rites performed and altars that are built, many are specifically dedicated to nature deities or spirits of rivers or other bodies of water, mountains, rocks, trees, or water sources. Many Rainbow stories describe communion with nature or miraculous events such as bringing about changes in the weather by ritual means. Rainbow’s parlance and customary culture are rife with examples of customs and verbalizations expressing the (re)sacralization of nature. Mother Earth is mentioned in casual conversations so often you would think it is some gatherer’s Rainbow name (which it also is, but that is beside the point). “Mama” is praised and evoked in Rainbow chants, mentioned in customary blessings and figures of speech, and discussed in workshops and Talking Circles. Mother Earth, also in her other epithets like Pachamama, Gaia or Mother Nature, is cherished with offerings and meditations, altars and artworks, and ecstatic dancing around the Main Fire. One common sacrificial custom is to spill a bit of tea or water to the earth before serving

256  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred or drinking it – a Rainbow version of the ancient rite of pouring of libations. Shrines, altars, and ritual objects in the Gatherings are also literally “down to earth”, in that they are constructed and decorated mainly with natural elements. Common gatherer experiences related to sacred nature include communion with nature, with a specific part of it, or with personifications or energies connected to nature. Other typical experiences include being inspired, elated, comforted, or healed by a direct connection with nature. People describe experiences of “grounding” and connection reached through meditation or physical contact with nature, like walking barefoot or lying down on the ground, sleeping under the stars or in connection with specific rituals: When you are barefoot in nature, earth energy flows through the body’s meridians. I had a vision in the Slovenian Gathering, on the Full Moon. I felt a connection with everybody there who had bare feet. We were communicating like trees with their networks in the earth39. A common characteristic in personal narratives involving nature experiences among Rainbow participants is that simply spending time in nature is seen as transformative, something which is mirrored i.a. in Bron Taylor’s study on radical environmentalists and their religiosity as well as Sarah Pike’s work on both environmentalists and Neopagans40. Other similarities are found in experiences of communion and bonding with nonhuman entities or the nature/cosmos as a whole, and the religious or ideological meanings connected with a vegan or vegetarian diet41. Many expressions for the reverence of nature are drawn from ideas of indigenous and archaic religious traditions, which in addition to being relatable are generally seen as biocentric forms of religion supporting a sustainable relationship between humans and nature42 . In the Rainbow, nature has a central ideological focus also in ways that are not explicitly religious, and thus compatible also with “secular” world views. “Natural” ways of life in their practical as well as philosophical aspects are a common topic in the collective workshops, from practical skills of living sustainably and “lightly on the earth” to radical ideological models: composting, natural materials and methods in construction, biodynamic farming and permaculture, phytotherapies (herbal healing) and other “natural” healing arts, dietary practices like veganism, fruitarianism (eating only fruits, nuts and seeds), and raw food diet, arts and crafts with natural materials, natural entheogens and related traditions, “Rewilding” and environmental activism. While many Rainbow participants’ understanding of nature might be based on factual and secular views, it seems that a majority idealizes, romanticizes, and “spiritualizes” nature, even up to a level where practical facts are downplayed. As described in the ethnography, there is a constant discrepancy between Rainbow’s nature-loving ideology and the actual

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 257 impacts that the Gatherings can have on nature, both directly and indirectly. These discrepancies between practical facts and ideological beliefs, and supra-rational tendencies in the understanding of nature, in general, are further evidence of nature as a religious or ideological concept43. The human-nature relationship and the nature-culture divide are classic themes in socioanthropological research. Anthropologist Tim Ingold reminds us that concepts like “nature” and “the environment” are artefacts of cultural construction, despite seemingly connoting the opposite of “culture” in everyday thinking44. Understanding of nature varies between cultures and throughout the times45. “Nature” becomes a term that expresses cultural values and norms and connotes underlying ideologies46. Regarding typical expressions in Rainbow culture, I would add “wild” to this. Ideas denoted with these terms communicate the very central ideas, norms, and values in Rainbow culture, and perhaps more broadly in alternative-holistic spiritualities – the separation and contraposition of “natural” regarding what is deemed culturally reprehensible – artificial, corrupt, materialistic, alienated etc. As these terms gain symbolic weight, they get somewhat separated from factual reality. The attribute “natural” gets attached to things that need to be seen in a specific perspective to appear sensible. “Natural” foods and remedies as well as services and products connected to “natural” lifestyles might involve industrial production, high level or processing and extensive commodification, such as is the case with homeopathy and many other therapies, “superfoods” and supplements, and countless forms of healing arts. Some emblematic “natural” items involve considerable challenges regarding ecological or human right issues, such as the production and international trade of semiprecious stones used in crystal healing, as well as some plant-based substances. The same applies to some aspects of Rainbow culture. Places that are commonly thought of as “wild” nature might be unbuilt, but they are certainly not untouched by humans. And since Rainbow events are temporary, and almost all of them happen in the warmer months or in warm regions, the experience of nature is unavoidably partial – at least from the collective perspective of the event community. And as a related observation, the same applies to the Rainbow community itself – it is a partial experience of community in the sense that these are temporary communities, lacking the longer-term aspects47. The discourses regarding the nature-culture divide and human-nature relationship have been supplemented with voices that go beyond these divides, looking at the continuities and aspects of in-between. Writers such as Timothy Morton and Donna Haraway48 suggest that modes of thinking where humans are seen as not separate from nature are present and becoming more influential in environmental thinking. Other prominent writers with this thought include Bruno Latour, Anna Tsing, and Tim Ingold49. Morton and others have contributed to what is known as “queer ecology”,

258  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred a school of thought questioning conceptual dichotomies in environmental thinking such as the one between humans and nature50. It seems that the understanding of nature in Rainbow culture finally involves both kinds of sentiments: those, where humans are seen as separate from the environment, and those, where they are parts of the same whole. In practice, these two perspectives are often mixed or exist simultaneously. Above, I mention gatherers’ experiences of unity with nature and of being embedded in it, implying a lack of separation. Below, I discuss interconnectedness as a transcendent concept, and one of the central forms of connection is between humans and nature. On the other hand, I discuss nature as a “transcendent other” and a counterpart of gift exchange, implying a separation between the gifter and the receiver. Similarly, I discuss the self as a transcendent concept, and present examples of gift exchange between a person and a component of their self. As with the self, the concept of nature and questions about its separateness are ambivalent. Perhaps this is simply due to the difference between the clarity of theoretical constructions and the messy reality of human thinking. In any case, it is a call for further analysis. Nature as a relatively indeterminate symbol Generally speaking, nature is a broad and universal concept, shown e.g. by studies of rituality in multi-religious urban environments where nature has been identified as having a “general basic symbolic dimension”, and forming a symbolic core of what has been named “basic sacrality”51. Nature offers a common ground, in a beautiful literal metaphor, for the religious as well as the atheist, for the mystic and the materialist, despite the wide variety of beliefs and attitudes that are connected to it. Religious traditions across time and the globe have handled nature in different ways, also among the “nature-religious”, who identify as Pagans or proponents of other forms of nature religion52 . As a symbol, nature is superbly capable of uniting people. Nature offers an example of the functioning and representativeness of what I call “relatively indeterminate symbolism”: a good “relatively indeterminate” symbol must be open but engaging. The openness and “fuzziness” of the concept like nature needs to combine with certain cultural expressiveness, and offer suitable metaphors to find meaning from, to relate to, and to identify with. It must be compatible with a variety of subjective significations while being able to create common ground. Interestingly, also this aligns with Roberte Hamayon’s conceptualization of play as involving the aspects of margin and of metaphor53. The leeway, or margin of indeterminacy is as crucial as the capacity for metaphoric reference. Play as it is understood in Hamayon’s theory seems to have multiple intersections with typical features of non-institutional religious traditions. “Relatively indeterminate” symbolism comes close to Lévi-Strauss’ concept of a “floating” or an “empty signifier”54, except that an empty signifier is considered to be void of meaning in itself. Tellingly, Lévi-Strauss coined the term in discussing mana.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 259 Nature cannot be considered a completely empty signifier, as it carries a certain universal significance as the original human environment, and widespread basic meanings as the antipode to culture55. Further, it has accumulated certain meanings in contemporary Western culture, and even more specific ones in the alternative-holistic counterculture – as explained above, the term is highly idealized and connected to a vision of harmony typical of alternative-holistic religious traditions. Nature functions as the antithesis of specific concepts such as urbanity, industrialism, consumercapitalism, oppression, and militarism56. In the Rainbow parlance, the antonym for nature – Babylon - is also used in a metaphoric meaning for the undesirable aspects of human nature, such as selfishness, arrogance, egoism, and fear. The relatively indeterminate features are necessary for symbolism in religious formations like the Rainbow, where shared practices overrule shared beliefs, the population is heterogeneous and eclectic, and individual interpretations are encouraged57. Transformation The second transcendent concept is transformation, something that has been deemed a “key idea” in New Age spiritualities58, or as Paul Heelas writes: New Age is a “lingua franca to do with the human (and planetary) condition and how it can be transformed”59. The individual self is the key agent of this transformation, but at least in the Rainbow version of alternativeholistic understanding, not alone in its task. The whole experience of attending a Gathering and participating in the community is typically experienced as transformative and compared to the transformative efficacy of pilgrimages, retreats, and other transformative events. The transformation is most often verbalized as “healing” or e.g. “evolution/development of consciousness”, “opening the heart”, “rising the vibration/energy”, or achieving “connection”, “unity”, or “harmony”. Gatherers talk about healing and development foremost on a personal level, but the idea is readily extended to other people, the (Western) society, the humanity, or the whole planet. “This is the healing of the West! We really need this in the West.”60. The transformation is seen to be an effect of participating in the Gathering, either through being close to nature or simply out of Babylon, partaking in the intensive, inclusive, and intimate social reality, or the spiritual content of Rainbow culture and especially the rituals. These are seen as channels and catalysts of healing and reconnection, a remedy to the alienation that is seen as a condition of the modern world and Western societies – which I discuss more below. Healing is present in gatherers’ communication so much that it stands out to observers who are not proponents of the “discourse of transformation”: At the average Rainbow Gathering it seems like every second person is a healer. Everyone seems to practice reiki, massage, aromatherapy or chakric healing. People are to be seen reading books on raw food diets,

260  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred Ayurveda and shamanism. At every food circle there can be heard drawn-out discussions about what kind of foods and in what combination are healthy to eat. And a sizeable number of the workshops are about how to heal others and stay healthy. Even the songs heard around the fire harp on the theme: (…) Until you feel the rising urge to yell: since when were we all so sick?61 The curriculum of the typical workshops in a Gathering is rife with healing arts, ranging from physical to psychological and spiritual avenues of recovery and improvement. The food served at the Food Circle, ideally, aims at providing healing elements: a locally sourced vegan diet, perhaps a wild salad including healing herbs served communally after a ritual of gratitude, blessing and awareness. People describe healing experiences ascribed to meditation, rituals, hugging, dancing, being naked, walking barefoot, singing, working, interacting with the community, living without the conditions and constraints of Babylon, and countless other things. The transformation is typically framed in a holistic way: physiological healing is linked to psychological and spiritual healing, and the individual transformation is seen as a prerequisite for wider social and cultural change62 . Personal narratives describing the life-changing impacts of participating in Rainbow Gatherings are a common topic in gatherer narratives. One emblematic theme in these personal narratives is the experience of arriving “home” for the first time: Arriving (into the Gathering), to see people around fires, I thought ‘people like me! There is so many more like me, it’s so beautiful!’ It was so intense, I could not believe it. [KR: Has the Rainbow changed something in your life or in you?] Of course, full change! Rainbow gave me a lot of confidence, (when I saw) that there are many like us. Maybe, I’m not crazy after all! I learn a lot. About working like a group, understanding that we are one. Now, I can’t be happy (looking) at others who are not63. The journey, effort to get in, wonderful landing, the meaning of being far away, (in the) middle of nature (…) Here, (we are) not afraid to not be enough, or as good as others any more. I see them [newcomers] in the Circle. And when two thousand people sing Mashallah [a Rainbow song] around you, and you also sing, and get naked on the fire, first time ever. It’s a big jump in consciousness64. Arriving “home” signals the emotional impact of entering a like-minded community, and the experience of belonging and having a purpose, often after a history of feeling like an outsider: Coming together as a family and seeing all the crazies – maybe we are not so crazy! Most people who come were always the freaks, the black sheep, here they are home. The outsiders, vegans, crazies, activists,

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 261 hippies. (…) We are the philosophers, the adopted children, the dreamers, and the other-way-thinkers65. The quotes above reflect the reversal of marginalized and stigmatized positions in mainstream culture into majority values among the Rainbow community, where the countercultural, radical gatherers are seen as cultural reformists and a source of positive transformation in the world. The aspect of transformation can also be seen in the ritual forms. The most explicit verbal expressions are found in the lyrics of Rainbow songs and chants, teeming with metaphors and descriptions of transformation, but the theme is visible also in the general symbolic system. One conveniently broad and indeterminate symbol of transformation with plenty of examples in religious traditions around the world is fire. The Rainbow has built its core rituals and sacred spaces around their version of the Sacred Fire, complete with ritualized behaviours regarding the building of the fire pit, the management of the fire, and proper conduct around it – even when the meanings of this fire are underdefined. Fire as a transformative element is mentioned in many Rainbow songs, among other metaphors of change: Fire sacred fire / burning through the night Come to me in the Dreamtime / bring me visions of light Circle round spiral down / to this heart open wide Healing light burning bright / dry these tears I cry I am burning up in fire / all that does not serve the truth in my life I am burning up in fire / all that does not serve divine flow in my life Simplifying my desires / I’m on my way home We are opening up in a sweet surrender / to the luminous love light of the one We are opening / we are opening We are rising up like a phoenix from the fire / brothers and sisters spread your wings and fly higher We are rising up / we are rising up Transformative experiences were discussed in the previous chapter describing the temporal axis, where they correspond with other typical dynamics and features on the axis of time. Interconnectedness The third concept referring to transcendence is interconnectedness. New Age studies have identified a particular “metaphysical holism” as a characteristic feature of the field66, contributing to terms like “holistic milieu”67, in an improvement to Campbell’s “cultic milieu”68, and the denominator “alternative-holistic” as used in this study. Through the research perspective focusing on practices and the practitioners, the subjective experience

262  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred of holism rises to the forefront, prompting me to define and name this transcendent concept as the affective aspect of holistic unity: the experience of interconnectedness. The connection in question is typically framed as reconnection, alluding to the idea of an original, “unified” state and subsequent alienation which can, and should, be overcome. For example, there is a widespread view that people in modern, Western societies are alienated in multiple ways from the “true” human condition: connected to different aspects of yourself, an interconnected part of nature, connected to the spiritual aspects of human life, and a member of an egalitarian, supportive community which holds spiritual values in high regard. And since the Rainbow Gatherings are seen as an example of a more “natural” and “original” lifestyle, reconnection to these aspects can happen through the Rainbow Family and Gathering experiences. Interconnectedness is verbalized in Rainbow Gatherings as “unity”, “oneness”, “connection”, “harmony”, “family”, “we are one”, and similar colloquialisms. Native expressions like “In Lak’ech” (Mayan for “I am another you”) and “Mitakuye Oyasin” (Lakota for “All are related”) are popular slogans, and the Circle can be seen as a practical metaphor for the interconnectedness of the community. Unity is another common theme in Rainbow chants, especially the ones sung in the Circle: We are one in harmony, singing in celebration / we are one in harmony, singing in love We are one, singing in celebration / we are one, singing in love. I am a circle, and I am healing you / you are a circle and you are healing me Unite us, and be as one / unite us, and be as one In a circle here we stand / all connected holding hands Together we have come to know / that we are all part of a whole (2×) When together or apart / we’re connected in our hearts (2×) In a circle here we stand / still connected holding hands There lies a beginning within each end / and the circle will turn again (2×) There’s time to meet and time to part / we’ll keep connected in our hearts (2×) The experiences of connection and unity culminate in the ritual Omming and joining hands in the Circle. The rite is often described as evoking deep emotions, a heightened state of mind or tranquillity. The rite is communal also on the symbolic level, and people’s behaviour and the general atmosphere while chanting the Om in unison are commonly seen as a reflection of the group’s togetherness: The OM is the most special moment. I OM in my own meditation every day, I try to connect with the light, the universe. This is what we do with the OM. Lose consciousness of your body, there is just the Circle,

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 263 the unity. Sometimes there is the powerful harmony, other times the mind keeps occupied. The (communal) OM is reflecting how the family is, how the moment is, the consciousness. After the OM, when kneeling to the ground and touching the ground, I put my hands to my face. Sometimes I see light and other stuff, the energy of the circle we have created. After that I put my hands and head to Mama (Mother Earth), connect to Mama. In the beginning of the Gathering, it’s more to say, ‘hello Mama, I am sorry’. Also departed family and friends are there in this moment69. There is another sense of interconnectedness influencing this concept of transcendence: the experience of being part of the living networks of the planet and its biosphere. Even without explicitly supernatural connotations, the experience is described as moving and transformative, and narratives of such experiences can be framed with terms resembling religious conversion. Spending time in nature, experiences of natural beauty and embodied interactions with nature such as drinking from natural water sources or sleeping under the sky are described as leading to a visceral understanding of the interconnectedness of the planetary biosphere, and a deeper concern over the destructive human-nature relationship attributed to Babylon. Silverbirch’s experience recounted above offers a beautiful example of personal narratives describing a tactile, intimate experience of connection between people, as well as between humans and nature. The theme of interconnectedness and its positive impacts are represented in the popular Rainbow customs involving bodily contact like hugging, “cuddle puddles” and the Angel Walk70. The Family is seen as a unified collective, possessing a high level of interconnectedness and interrelatedness, properties which are seen to bestow the community with extraordinary qualities. This is reflected in personal narratives highlighting connection and communality, and in the idea of a collective consciousness manifesting in the Circles. Another reflection of the heightened sense of transcendent interconnectedness is the concept of “Rainbow Spirit”, an ambiguous term which is often mentioned in discussions as a metaphor for the Rainbow Family, its unity, and its culture. The Rainbow Family is linked with the elements on the vertical axis: the self, nature and the cosmos, transformation, and interconnectedness. The community as participating in transcendence is reflected in Durkheim’s classic but simplified idea that the society worships itself in its religious representations71. Significant ritual objects and customs in the Rainbow refer to the community and its norms and values: the Main Fire, the Talking Stick, the Circle, the Magic Hat, and the customs of Omming and joining hands. The cultural focus on the community is clearly reflected in the horizontality of Rainbow’s politics, economy, and religious tradition. The experience of communal interconnectedness and its social and religious significance have been centrepieces of many influential theories in

264  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred social sciences. They are approached through concepts like Durkheim’s “collective effervescence” and Victor Turner’s “communitas”, which remain widely used in sociology of religion, and are successfully implemented in the study of contemporary forms of religiosity, as exemplified by several works on EDMC and the rave experience72 . The transcendent axis thus includes the self and the community in the forms they are understood in alternative-holistic religious traditions: the self as “the ultimate arbiter of religious authority and the primary agent of spiritual transformation”73, and the community as including the planetary biosphere or the cosmos. The self, the community, and the transcendent concepts of nature, interconnectedness, and transformation form a complex network of meaning with mutual overlap.

The Vertical Axis of Transcendence Collective and Individual Gifts in the Ritual Frame In Rainbow culture, individuals can be seen as representatives of the community and even of the transcendent in the exchange of gifts. All gifts can be seen to circulate in the frame of the community, but through the collective mission of “healing the planet” and the transformative experiences connected to the Gatherings, most gifts can also be seen to circulate in the frame of the transcendent. Individual acts and contributions produce and constitute the communal gifts, and in many cases trying to discern the individual positions from collective ones seems artificial. On the other hand, research is always an artificial endeavour in the sense that it superimposes a constructed layer of analysis on a selected view of empirical reality. The gift exchange on the vertical axis involves the collective acts and rites74. The initial gift has been received from the transcendent, creating an asymmetry prompting the community to give back. The primary gift is seen to be life itself, followed by gifts such as the legacies of the “historical and mythical allies” that support the Gatherings, and everything else that nature and the broader community provide. In rituals like the Full Moon celebration and the twice-daily Food Circle ceremonies, the community acts as a unified whole. The collective rituals can be perceived as gifts from the older traditions, benefiting the community through connecting the Family with planetary and cosmic energies as well as other similar actors and traditions, creating harmony and abundance, vitalizing the community, and advancing its purposes. What the collective gives back to the original provider, be it nature, the cosmos, or other entities, are the gifts of recognition and gratitude. When the gift is received from the “historical allies” such as tribal and exotic cultures, one important return gift is continuation: the tradition is kept, and the rituals are performed. Rituals can also act as channels of broader reciprocity when understood as beneficial to the broader community and

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 265 transcendent others. The central silent meditation ritual of the US Rainbow Family is explicitly aimed at bringing world peace, but the ritual tradition, in general, has similar meanings. By joining hands, singing and Omming in the Circle, people engage in a holistic process with multiple simultaneous functions. It is at the same time healing the planet, the location, and other participants, recognizing ancient traditions and continuing them, harmonizing “energies” and the collective consciousness, and raising individual “vibrations”. In addition, there can be various other personal interpretations and chosen focuses. Some rituals are connected to smaller groups within the Gathering: entheogenic rites, feminine spirituality but also “Men’s Circles”, specific offerings, ecstatic dancing, meditation, and countless other traditions of collective religious devotion and practice. Furthermore, many participants engage in individual and personalized forms of spiritual practice while in the Gathering. Subgroups often frame their rituals with a specific tradition or dedicate the rite to a more or less defined purpose: Enneagram and Family Constellations75 workshops aim at enhanced self-reflection and interpersonal communication; a Drum Journey is a way to interact with one’s personal spirit guides or components of the psyche; energy healing rituals are founded on various dynamistic ideas about beneficial energies and their manipulation. All these rites have their own focuses, dynamics, and ideas regarding the transcendent others, and hence, the gifts given and received may vary. Nevertheless, there is a general logic of the exchange: the rite connects participants to an aspect of the transcendent, helping them along on the path of transformation, and the participants give their time, presence, awareness, and appreciation, creating the ritual experience for themselves and others, acknowledging and continuing the tradition. The individual’s position in the gift exchange is seen in subjective perspectives such as personal life narratives and interviews. In these views, the gifting can be interpreted according to subjective concerns and purposes. In general, individual gifts are seen as joining the collective whole as bits and pieces that together form a sum bigger than its parts. Individuals might pitch in disconnected things: some decorative objects or altar goods, a piece of construction material, a handful of coins, few hours of labour, or a role in a ritual workshop. But the various contributions combine into comprehensive wholes: a shrine with a furbished altar, a communal camp structure, the wealth of the Magic Hat, an extensive work project, or an entire ritual performance. Collaboration and shared responsibility are seen as direct sources of abundance and well-being. The gatherers freely choose their preferred mode of ritual practice, and typically, forms of practice are seen as interchangeable, parallel ways. In addition, a ritual can be seen to involve individual and collective effects at the same time. People might choose independent practices, ritual workshops, or the collective forms of the Gathering, or all of them. Although there are various themes and aims to the rituals, there is also ample room

266  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred for subjective significations, individual input, and personal inclinations. The choice might be based on the content or purpose of the ritual, but it can be influenced by personal preferences in the style, intensity, duration or composition of the rite, its traditional sources, other participants, the possible ritual focalizer, or your current mood or intuition. Gifts Received The characteristic gift received is transformative. Mostly this is an individual transformation, but the concept is readily extended to ideas of cultural and planetary transformation. Rainbows describe being impacted by their Gathering experiences to an extent that amounts to permanent positive changes in their life, well-being, or identity. The transformation and its source can be framed as spiritual, but it can also be ascribed to the community, or to nature, also without any explicit supernatural connotation. Another way to interpret the gift of transformation is to attribute it to a transcendent aspect of the self: one’s “higher self” is the source of insight, healing, or harmony, but the process is catalysed by Gathering experiences. The transformation can be described as ultimate or foundational, such as becoming aware of the gift of life and the continuing sustenance and nourishment from an ultimate source, or essential social experiences framed as life changing. In addition to stories of overcoming alcoholism, I have heard statements such as “I would be dead if I hadn’t found the Rainbow Family”76. The healing transformation is typically associated with a horizontal form of transcendence found in the community, nature, or the “higher self” but can in individual cases be ascribed to some radical form of transcendence such as the Goddess or other deities. Community-related transformation is reflected in gatherer narratives describing the emotional impact of being accepted, supported, and understood somewhere, in contrast to the experiences of being excluded, misunderstood, or vulnerable among the mainstream society. Participants also form long-lasting friendships and romantic partnerships through the Gatherings. The transformation can also be ideological in nature. One European Rainbow pioneer told me that in the early years, Gathering participants were typically already living an alternative life and the Gatherings provided a like-minded community, but that many of the newcomers nowadays seem to get their first direct experience of alternative lifestyles through the Gatherings77. In this sense, the Gatherings have become initiatory. The difference between life in the Gatherings and life outside has also deepened during the digital age. Participating in a Rainbow event means living offline and unplugged, in addition to the previously existing differences: going through your days without buying or selling, seeing any form of advertising or mainstream media, or worrying about your economic precariousness, and without having to conform to the mainstream laws and

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 267 social norms. These aspects heighten the comparison between Gatherings and pilgrimages or retreats. The considerable differences between Rainbow life and the outside contribute to a change of ideological perspective that resembles a religious conversion, or a similar shift regarding social, political, or cultural values. Gifts Returned The gifts rendered to transcendent counterparts often have multiple meanings and can be seen to partake in various frames of gift exchange. As described, gatherers are giving back to the transcendent part of their selves: the “higher” or “true” self. In this understanding, participating in a Gathering provides spiritual benefits through the continuing opportunities for spiritual practice and personal growth. As a gift to yourself, participating in a Rainbow Gathering is an empowering opportunity to be among an inclusive community, learn new skills and ideas, receive emotional support, and strengthen one’s social networks. As discussed, life in a Gathering is filled with contributions and services to the community, but because the community has transcendent aspects, the gifts given to the community can often be seen as gifts to the transcendent other(s), in the forms of ancestors and the “historical/cosmic allies”, humanity and the planetary biosphere, or the cosmos. The existence of the Gatherings, what they represent, and what happens in the events are seen as promoting a global cultural transformation in spiritual and nonspiritual ways. Participating in a Gathering can be seen as giving back to nature through the attention to Mother Earth, but also through practical and concrete manners. Gatherers volunteer in cleaning projects where Rainbows pick up and recycle pre-existing trash found in the Gathering locations or participate in environmental activism through the Gathering networks. Giving back to nature can be also seen in the adoption of sustainable ways of living that the Gatherings espouse. Giving back can be seen as benefiting all of humanity and the future generations through the environmental awareness as well as through the social and political reforms and spiritual revitalization that the Gatherings represent to the participants, and which they hope to be an example and a forerunner to the rest of the world. Adam Berger found that many gatherers in the US “consider the final purpose of the Rainbow movement to be the achievement of world peace”78, but also elsewhere the Gathering communities see themselves as paragons of non-violent and inclusive societies upholding social and economic equality, religious and individual freedom, and a radical form of participatory democracy. Regarding gifts given to external and radical forms of transcendent counterparts, a central gift is that of recognition: acknowledging these concepts and entities and sustaining the tradition. This is reflected in all the “ancient” and “tribal” customs and rituals, in the sacralization of nature,

268  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred the shamanistic, dynamistic, and animistic religious currents, and many of the popular forms of vertical transcendence in Rainbow culture. Examples of such popular traditions are e.g. Pagan deities, Neo-Hinduistic attention to Shiva the Destroyer and his feminine counterpart Shakti Devi, or the various other personifications of the “female principle” or the Goddess. The gifts given in a ritual frame, implying recognition, take many forms both material and expressive: rituals, songs, offerings, shrine- and altar-building, spiritual service, and other expressions of observance, gratitude, and devotion. The recognition of the traditions provides them with validation and continuance, but through the material and expressive forms, the practitioners can attribute further meanings to their contributions.

Conclusions from the Triaxial Analysis Rainbow needs to be seen in the frame of the Western counterculture, where it joins other currents critical of the problematic aspects of the modern Western world. Many of these issues are increasingly recognized also among the mainstream: environmental destruction and the over-exploitation of natural resources, degradation of social ties and loss of communality, social injustices, threats to civil and human rights, and the hegemony of commercial values and materialist ideologies, just to name some of the most pressing ones. The countercultural concerns underlie and align with Rainbow’s religious tradition. The ethnography describes the central role of gift exchange in Rainbow’s economic model, and the Triaxial analysis shows the underlying religious and philosophical emphases through the symbolic significance of gifting. Both aspects illustrate the cultural significance of reciprocity. Radical reciprocity is the guiding principle of Rainbow culture’s morals, values, and communal ethos. It forms the basis for the political tradition of open councils and decentralized power, the collective economy, and the spiritual concern extended to the planetary biosphere. Overturning the ethics and the role of the individual in a market reality, the reciprocal dynamic of “give to others what has been given to you” (a maxim very close to the Biblical “Golden Rule” and other classic moral guidelines) reactualizes human and nonhuman relations as an interconnected and immediate network of personal relationships where the community has a central role. The Gatherings provide an environment for envisioning and experimentation, redrawing the boundaries between existing cultural concepts and creating playroom around traditional identity markers. Rainbows, as other countercultural and alternative-holistic actors, are questioning mainstream institutions of power and authority, in political, economic, and religious spheres, but also regarding forms of knowledge and identity. Traditional institutions are replaced with a culture where individual inputs and outtakes are supported. The alternatives that the Rainbow offers seem to align with anarcho-primitivist and Pagan sensibilities, where the radical

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 269 ideological forms include rejecting all but most crucial forms of technology, and generally questioning the idea of “progress” and the limits of modern, evidence-based knowledge. Conversely, glorification of premodern and indigenous societies is characteristic, and the sacralization of nature and ideas of reconnection with it are central. However, this depiction is simplified and not the whole picture. The majority of the Rainbow Family does not actually aspire to leave the modern world behind, but to improve it. Some gatherers identify as contemporary Pagans, but for the rest of them, Rainbow’s collective symbolism and practices, although saturated with Pagan influences, appear as loosely defined respect for nature which accommodates all kinds of world views. The significance of the created alternatives labelled “tribal”, “ancient”, and “natural”, is that they represent alternatives to modernity and its woes recounted above. Similarly, certain terms popular in related subcultures such as “pirate”, “gypsy”, and “nomad” communicate the position of a renegade, of a cultural margin outside of the mainstream, declaring and legitimating the oppositional ideologies79. The idea of a “tribal society”, as it is understood, encompasses the anti-State, anti-Market, and anti-“Church” attitudes typical of Rainbow, using exotic and premodern concepts to address endemic and modern challenges. They are a form of cultural critique. But this image is still incomplete. The recomposed “tribalism” and other concepts go beyond the symbolic, having clear practical applications. The social concept of the “tribe” is related to crafted cultural forms such as practices and modes of organization that make a difference. Rainbow’s material culture, sacralized objects, and designated spaces such as the Main Fire, the Circle and the Talking Stick are pertinent examples. They are not only symbolically meaningful, but they instrumentally drive practices and behaviours, and anchor the alternative cultural forms through non-verbal means. To the gatherers, the imaginaries of “tribal” and “archaic” authenticate and legitimate the proposed alternatives, and the related, reinterpreted and recomposed practices function as a practical blueprint for the better world. Rainbow events are finally not simply refuges from Babylon and the ills of the modern world, except temporarily. The Gatherings and related experiences provide a countercultural and ritualistic reference point that participates in the orientation and meaning-making required to navigate the post- or late modern waters. The lifeworld of the Gathering shows that another world is not only possible, but existing, at least in the temporary settings of the Gatherings. It provides a personal and tangible experience of those alternatives and their impacts. The Triaxial analysis reveals features that are typical for the broader alternative-holistic religious traditions, such as the heightened significance of the self and nature, and the valuation and perceived alliance with premodern cultures. It shows the dual relationship between the ingroup(s) and the outgroup, where Rainbow and other “natural” and “healing” communities

270  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred distinguish themselves from the outside, or Babylon, but there is a constant possibility for anyone to cross this boundary and become a Rainbow. The analysis shows also characteristics that are specific to Rainbow, such as how the community is pivotal in the networks of symbolic exchange. Common forms of devotion are linked with the contributions given to the community and vice versa, showing the proximity and occasional coalescence of the vertical and horizontal axes: the community not only represents aspects of the transcendent, but it can take on transcendent properties, or mediate access to it. The implied third parties of the symbolic gift exchange, and the pertinent elements on the temporal axis reveal ideological emphases and concerns on a higher level. They further underscore the centrality of the community, but they also show the general cultural and spiritual aims that the Rainbow Family has: transmitting “ancient wisdom”, i.e. invaluable cultural assets from the past to the future generations. The purpose is to further both individual well-being, and a global cultural reformation into a non-violent, non-hierarchical, and non-commercial society with spiritual awareness, and planet-wide ecological restitution. Also typical of alternative-holistic religious traditions, the concept of transcendence in Rainbow’s collective culture largely aligns with “horizontal transcendence” (Streib & Hood), involving many this-worldly aspects of the transcendent. The Triaxial analysis identifies three transcendent concepts specific to Rainbow: nature, transformation, and an idea of holistic and social interconnectedness. These transcendent core concepts are expressive enough to elicit reflection, identification, and other meaning-making processes, but open enough to converge different experiences. In addition, the culture supports subjective significations and their expression, and leaves religious concepts and ideas underdefined. This accommodates also vertical and radical forms of transcendence such as gods when gatherers evoke such ideas. Together, this makes possible that different religious understandings are symbolized and represented by the same collective features, such as the Sacred Fire and the shrines and altars, and approached through the same collective practices. These aspects are crucial in refusing institutionalizing developments and ensuring egalitarianism in a multi-religious society.

Notes 1 “For ‘transcendence’, we refer to the social-phenomenological tradition of Schütz and Luckmann (1989), Luckmann (1967), and Knoblauch. For ultimate concern, we refer to Tillich’s (1925, 1951, 1957) philosophy of religion” (Streib & Hood 2015, 10). 2 Streib & Hood 2015, 24. However, questions of authority in alternative-holistic religious traditions are more complex. Various forms of ‘external’ authority are apparent and influential in the Rainbow material, although adherence to them remains individually chosen.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 271 3 Streib & Hood 2013, 141–144, 2015, 5, 10–12, 356–357. 4 Streib & Hood 2015, 5. 5 Taylor 2010. 6 Streib & Hood 2015, 24. 7 Schütz & Luckmann 1989: Structures of the Life World Vol 2, 117–130. 8 Luckmann 1991 (1967), 164–182. 9 Streib & Hood 2015, 10, original emphasis. 10 Streib & Hood 2015, 357. 11 Streib & Hood 2015, Hood et al. 2009, 282, 286. 12 Dawson 2011 13 Partridge 1999. 14 Heelas 2009, 1996, Heelas & Woodhead 2005. 15 Partridge 1999, 79–87. 16 Cf. York 1995, 145, Redden 2005, Gauthier 2013, 2020, Gauthier & Martikainen 2018, 2013a&b. 17 Dawson 2011. 18 Partridge 1999, 79–82, Dawson 2011. 19 Ivakhiv 2003, 108–109, original emphases. 20 Redden 2011, 38–39. 21 Interview: Rain. 22 Mauss 1990, Godelier 1999, Pireddu 2015, Tarot 1999, Caillé 2000. 23 Godelier 1999, 196. 24 Berger 2006, 191–195, 217. 25 Caillé 2000, 2009, Gauthier 2015, 2016. 26 Huizinga 1950, Bateson 1985, Turner 1974. 27 Droogers 2012, 321, 2014, 8. 28 Gauthier 2018, 106. 29 Hamayon 2012, 8, 66. 30 Droogers 2014, 9. 31 Hamayon 2012, Gauthier 2018, 2015. 32 Cf. Hamayon 2012. 33 Gauthier 2018, 121. 34 Ibid., original emphasis. 35 Ibid., 118–119. 36 Rainbow Family France 2018a, excerpt from an invitation to a French Rainbow Gathering. 37 ‘Ward off’ is either a joke or a mistranslation here. 38 Rainbow Family France 2018b, excerpt from an invitation to an Italian Rainbow Gathering. 39 Interview: Silverbirch. 40 Taylor 2010, 97, Pike 2001, 2017a&b. 41 Taylor 2010, 94–96. 42 Pike 2001, Bowman 2000, Harvey 1997, Pearson, Roberts & Samuel 1998. 43 Levinovitz 2020. 44 Ingold 2000, 41, see also Latour 1993. 45 Szerszynski 2005, Greenough & Tsing 2003. 46 Levinovitz 2020. 47 Levinovitz 2020. 48 Morton 2007, Haraway 2016, 1991. 49 Latour 2017, 2004, Tsing 2015, Ingold 2000, also Ingold & Palsson 2013, cf. Harvey 2005. 50 Morton 2007, Sandilands 2016, Gandy 2012. 51 Post, Molendijk & Kroesen 2011, 7, Post 2011, 34. 52 Bowman 2000.

272  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 3 5 54 55 56

Hamayon 2012, 279–294. Lévi-Strauss 1950. Latour 1993. For a thorough discussion about the concept of nature and its developments, see Szerszynski 2005. 57 Cf. Bowman 2000, Pike 2001. 58 Redden 2011, 4. 59 Heelas 1996, 2. 60 Interview: Anika. 61 Thumb 2014, 172, original emphasis. 62 cf. Redden 2011, 2002. 63 Interview: Pato. 64 Interview: Rain. 65 Interview: Chaka. 66 Redden 2011, 4. 67 Heelas & Woodhead 2005, 5–6. 68 Campbell 1972. 69 Interview: Pato. 70 Cuddle puddle is a group of people cuddling en masse, usually to experience physical closeness or to express mutual friendship. Angel Walk is a ritualized group process, described in the ethnography. 71 Durkheim 1968. 72 Takahashi & Olaveson 2003, Olaveson 2001, 2004, St John 2001. 73 Dawson 2011, 310–311. 74 Parry 1986, Godelier 1999. 75 ‘Family constellations’ is an alternative therapeutic method drawing on elements of family systems therapy, existential phenomenology, and Zulu attitudes to family. See Hellinger, B. 2001: Love’s own truths: Bonding and balancing in close relationships. 76 Conversation: Stefan, conversation: David. 77 Interview: U.F. 78 Berger 2006, 23. 79 Cf. St John 2013, 2012.

References Bateson, Gregory 1985 (1972): Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Berger, Adam 2006: The Rainbow Family: An Ethnography of Spiritual Postmodernism. PhD Thesis, University of St Andrews. http://hdl.handle. net/10023/2679. Bowman, Marion 2000: Nature, the Natural and Pagan Identity. Bowman, Marion and Harvey, Graham (eds.), DISKUS 6 [special issue: Pagan Identities]. Caillé, Alain 2009: Théorie anti-utilitariste de l’action. Paris: La Découverte/ MAUSS. Caillé, Alain 2000: Anthropologie du don. Le tiers paradigme. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Campbell, Colin 1972: The Cult, The Cultic Milieu and Secularization. A Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain. London: SCM Press. Dawson, Andrew 2011: Consuming the Self: New Spirituality as “Mystified Consumption”. Social Compass 58(3), 309–315. Droogers, André 2014: Religion in Play: a Manifesto. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 273 Droogers, André 2012: Play and Power in Religion: Collected Essays. Religion and Reason vol. 50. Berlin: De Gruyter. Durkheim, Émile 1968 [1915]: The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: Allen & Unwin. Gandy, Matthew 2012: Queer Ecology: Nature, Sexuality, and Heterotopic Alliances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(4), 727–47. Gauthier, François 2020: Religion, Modernity, Globalisation: Nation-State to Market. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. Gauthier, François 2018: “Our Play Pleases the Man, the Spirits of the Desert, and Whatever”: Enjoying Religion at Burning Man. In: Jespers, Frans, van Nieuwkerk, Karin and van der Velde, Paul (eds.), Enjoying Religion: Pleasure and Fun in Established and New Religious Movments. Washington, DC: Lexington Publishers, 103–126. Gauthier, François 2016: A Three-Tier, Three Level Model for the Study of Religion. In: Jödicke, A. and Lehmann, K. (eds.), Einheit und Differenz in der Religionswissenschaft. Standortbestimmungen mit Hilfe eines Mehr-EbenenModells von Religion. Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 157–174. Gauthier, François 2015: (Ré)créer le monde à Burning Man. Jeu, don et créativité rituelle. Revue du MAUSS semestrielle 46, 220–250. Gauthier, François 2013: The Enchantments of Consumer Capitalism. Beyond Belief at the Burning Man Festival. In: Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society. Brands, Consumers, Markets. Farnham: Ashgate. Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.) 2018: The Marketization of Religion. Religion [Special Issue] 48(3). Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.) 2013a: Religion in Consumer Society. Brands, Consumers and Markets. Farnham: Ashgate. Gauthier, F. and Martikainen, T. (eds.) 2013b: Religion in the Neoliberal Age. Political Economy and Modes of Governance. Farnham: Ashgate. Godelier, Maurice 1999: The Enigma of the Gift. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Greenough, Paul and Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt (eds.) 2003: Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia. Durham: Duke University Press. Hamayon, Roberte 2012: Why We Play: An Anthropological Study. Chicago, IL: Hau Books. Haraway, Donna 2016: Staying With the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press. Haraway, Donna 1991: A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and SocialistFeminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In: Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge, 149–182. Harvey, Graham 2005: Animism: Respecting the Living World. London: Hurst & Co. Harvey, Graham 1997: Contemporary Paganism: Listening People, Speaking Earth. New York, NY: New York University Press. Heelas, Paul 2009: Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Heelas, Paul 1996: The New Age Movement. Oxford: Blackwell. Heelas, Paul and Woodhead, Linda 2005: The Spiritual Revolution: Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell.

274  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred Hood, R.W. Jr., Hill, P.C. and Spilka, B. 2009: The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Huizinga, Johan 1950: Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Ingold, Tim 2000: The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge/Psychology Press. Ingold, Tim and Pálsson, Gisli (eds.) 2013: Biosocial Becomings. Integrating Social and Biological Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ivakhiv, Adrian 2003: Nature and Self in New Age Pilgrimage. Culture and Religion 4(1), 93–118. Latour, Bruno 2017: Facing Gaia: Eight Lectures on the New Climactic Regime. Cambridge: Polity Press. Latour, Bruno 2004: Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences Into Democracy. London: Harvard University Press. Latour, Bruno 1993: We Have Never Been Modern. London: Harvard University Press. Levinovitz, Alan 2020: Natural: How Faith in Nature’s Goodness Leads to Harmful Fads, Unjust Laws, and Flawed Science. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Lévi-Strauss, Claude 1950: Introduction à l’oeuvre de Marcel Mauss. In: Mauss, M. Sociologie et Anthropologie. Paris, s.n.. Luckmann, Thomas 1991: Die unsichtbare Religion [Invisible Religion]. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. Luckmann, Thomas 1974 (1967): The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Mauss, Marcel 1990 [1950]: The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Cohen & West. Morton, Timothy 2007: Ecology: Without Nature. Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. Olaveson, Tim 2004: ‘Connectedness’ and the Rave Experience: Rave as New Religious Movement? In: St John, Graham (ed.), Rave Culture and Religion. London: Routledge, 83–104. Olaveson, Tim 2001: Collective Effervescence and Communitas: Processual Models of Ritual and Society in Emile Durkheim and Victor Turner. Dialectical Anthropology 26, 89–124. Parry, Jonathan 1986: The Gift, the Indian Gift and the ‘Indian Gift’. Man New Series 21(3), 453–473. Partridge, Cristopher 1999: Truth, Authority and Epistemological Individualism in New Age Thought. Journal of Contemporary Religion 14(1), 77–95. Pearson, J., Roberts, R. and Samuel, G. (eds.) 1998: Nature Religion Today: Paganism in the Modern World. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Pike, Sarah 2017a: For the Wild: Ritual and Commitment in Radical Eco-Activism. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Pike, Sarah 2017b: Gendering the Wild: Ritual Strategies of Intimacy and Opposition in Eco-Activism. Presentation at the University of Lausanne, 28.2.2017. Pike, Sarah M. 2001: Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community. Oakland, C: University of California Press. Pireddu, Nicoletta 2015: In the Beginning Was the Symbol. Revue du MAUSS permanente [online], May 1st. Available at: http://www.journaldumauss.net/./?Inthe-Beginning-Was-the-Symbol. Accessed 8.9.2018.

This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred 275 Post, Paul 2011: Fields of the Sacred: Reframing Identities of Sacred Places. In: Post, P., Molendijk, A.L. and Kroesen, J.E.A. (eds.), Sacred Places in Modern Western Culture. Leuven etc.: Peeters. Post, P., Molendijk, A.L. and Kroesen, J.E.A 2011: Introduction. Ritual Space in Modern Western Culture: Some Current Trends. In: Post, P., Molendijk, A.L. and Kroesen, J.E.A. (eds.), Sacred Places in Modern Western Culture. Leuven etc.: Peeters. Rainbow Family France 2018a: La rencontre dans les Pyrénées-Orientales se poursuit [online]. 10.7.2018. Available at: https://rainbowfamilyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/07/10/la-rencontre-dans-les-pyrenees-orientales-se-poursuit/. Accessed 12.3.2019. Rainbow Family France 2018b: Rassemblement Famille Italienne du 11 Août au 09 Septembre [online]. 10.8.2018. Available at: https://rainbowfamilyfrance. wordpress.com/2018/08/10/rassemblement-famille-italienne-du-11-aout-au-09septembre/. Accessed 12.3.2019. Redden, Guy 2011: Religion, Cultural Studies and New Age Sacralization of Everyday Life. European Journal of Cultural Studies 14(6), 649–663. Redden, Guy 2005: The New Age: Towards a Market Model. Journal of Contemporary Religion 20(2), 231–246. Redden, Guy 2002: The New Agents: Personal Transfiguration and Radical Privatization in New Age. Journal of Consumer Culture 2(1), 33–52. Sandilands, Catriona 2016: Queer Ecology. In: Adamson, J., Gleason, W. and Pellow, D. (eds.), Keywords for Environmental Studies. New York, NY: NYU Press. Schütz, A. and Luckmann, T. 1989: The Structures of the Life-World, Vol. 2. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. St John, Graham 2013: Indian Spirit: Amerindians and the Techno-Tribes of Psytrance. In: Mackay, James and Stirrup, David (eds.), Tribal Fantasies: Native Americans in the European Imagination, 1900-Present. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 173–195. St John, Graham 2012: Tribalism, Experience, and Remixology in Global Psytrance Culture. In: Bender, C. and Taves, A. (eds.), What Matters? Ethnographies of Value in a Not So Secular Age. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. St John, Graham 2001: Alternative Cultural Heterotopia and the Liminoid Body: Beyond Turner at ConFest. Australian Journal of Anthropology 12(1), 47–66. Streib, Heinz and Hood, Ralph W. 2013: Modeling the Religious Field: Religion, Spirituality, Mysticism, and Related World Views. Implicit Religion 16(2), 137–155. Streib, Heinz and Hood, Ralph W. 2015: Understanding Spirituality – Conceptual Considerations. In: Streib, H. and Hood, R. (eds.), Semantics and Psychology of Spirituality: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Cham: Springer. Szerszynski, Bronislaw 2005: Nature, Technology and the Sacred. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Takahashi, M. and Olaveson, T. 2003: Music, Dance and Raving Bodies: Raving as Spirituality in the Central Canadian Rave Scene. Journal of Ritual Studies 17(2), 72–96. Tarot, Camille 1999: De Durkheim à Mauss, l’invention du symbolique: sociologie et science des religions. Paris: La Découverte/MAUSS. Taylor, Bron 2010: Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

276  This Is Celebration, This Is Sacred Thumb, Tom 2014: Somewhere Under the Rainbow. Published by the author (Road Junky Books). Tillich, Paul 1987 (1925): Religionsphilosophie [Philosophy of Religion]. In: Main Works /Hauptwerke, Bd.4. Berlin, New York, NY: de Gruyter, Evang. Verlagswerk, 117–170. Tillich, Paul 1951: Systematic Theology, Vol. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tillich, Paul 1957. Dynamics of Faith. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Tsing, Anna Loewenhaupt 2015: The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Turner, Victor 1974: Liminal to Liminoid, in Play, Flow and Ritual: An Essay in Comparative Symbology. In: Norbeck, E. (ed.), The Anthropological Study of Human Play. Houston, TX: Rice University Studies 60, 53–92. York, Michael 1995: The Emerging Network: A Sociology of the New Age and Neo-Pagan Movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

10 See You in Five Minutes!

Meanwhile, Back in the Rainbow Gathering: What Do We Believe Eat? I began this book by describing Feather’s Hipstorical narrative and its listeners in the European Gathering of 2017. The narrative and the reactions to it brought me to some of the questions and arguments of my research, and now is the time to look back and recall the journey that has been done. What confounded me initially were some of the reactions to Feather’s story. It seemed that the details of the narrative that struck the European gatherers most were the facts that US Rainbows tolerate meat-eaters and drug users in their Gatherings, and even have the permanent feature of the A-Camp. Feather’s story included historical events, cultural influences, founders’ intentions, mythical origins, miraculous occurrences, and even cosmic visions, but the big questions were about drink and diet? After I began to read through the heap of research literature in preparation for this study, it quickly became clear that there is a broad consensus in the science of religion that a focus on practices instead of aspects of belief is completely typical of contemporary religiosity. Feather’s narrative showed that the history of Rainbow Gatherings contains all the makings of a full-fledged religious movement in the traditional sense, but despite that, the Rainbow has refused to become one, which was fascinating. The big questions arose from that intersection: if the Rainbow refuses development towards institutional religion and resists mainstream institutions such as the state and the market, what does it mean for the community, its culture, and its members? Thinking about it from this angle, it becomes obvious that what we do in the Gatherings is more significant than what anyone believes. Some of the most interesting aspects of our hippie utopia are the alternative practices that are in use instead of the mainstream models. And questions of food and drink are part of this. Traditionally, religion has been defined through belief, and religious communities through affiliation with faith-based organizations. And that is why many Rainbows are not comfortable calling Rainbow a religion. In this book, I have discussed Rainbow in the frame of vernacular religion. DOI: 10.4324/9781003333432-10

278  See You in Five Minutes! The study of vernacular religion concentrates on practices, everyday life, and the use of belief motifs, instead of sincere religious faith. Furthermore, the understanding of what exactly should be thought of as “religious” kind of belief is shifting as well. I have used the concept of “horizontal transcendence” that has been discussed by scholars of religion and theologians for two decades. Horizontal transcendence perceives forms of the sacred closer to the human realm, such as nature or our inner depths – instead of imagining the sacred solely as an absolute, eternal, metaphysical otherness and placing it beyond space and time and the reach of humans. Many theologians have also set practices and everyday life in the forefront of their idea of religion, with belief and conviction still present but detached from theistic beliefs. Jordan E. Miller, a scholar of religion and social movements, sees subjunctive thinking (imagining the world as it could/should be) and collective action to fulfil it (social and political activism) as things that imagine and strive for a better world and thus, inherently religious. Following this idea of the religious subjunctive, and Tillich’s definition of religion as “ultimate concern”, Miller has written about “political resistance as radical theological activity”, building a radical secular theology that he calls “resistance theology”1. In this view, radical democratic action is religious practice, and countercultural movements are religious phenomena, just without a theistic component. In his 2019 book, Miller argues that “religious practice and conviction work best without God”, and “religious community works best without God as its object”2 explaining that when the idea of an infinite and distant God is not occupying peoples’ minds, the subjunctive world-envisioning and world-building that is religion can better focus on the immediate concerns regarding the community and other this-worldly realities. Miller discusses critical social movements such as Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, interpreting them based on “resistance theology”3. Miller also reminds us that crafting and constructing are subjunctive acts, and together with ritual and its inherent subjunctivity, the religious community can be found with people working together in manifesting a utopia. “Subjunctivity is creative. Ritual works to create social solidarity”4. Miller presents another aspect of crafting, rituality, and symbolism that closely relates to the Rainbow: the city. The symbolic and cultural meanings of a city (which terms such as “Babylon” and “New Jerusalem” illustrate) are a classic topic in social sciences and widely discussed in religious studies as well5. Referring to the theologian and mystic Thomas Merton, philosopher Michel de Certeau, and the anthropologist and geographer David Harvey, Miller talks about the city as “a kind of material, enacted, lived subjunctivity (as opposed to an imaginative or cerebral subjunctivity) on a social and political scale”6. The city is an image of the world, modelled by humans, reflecting our worldviews. The city is “the source of the political”7, which is reflected in the etymology (polis –> politikos), and Miller argues that its subjunctivity makes the city also religious, drawing on the

See You in Five Minutes! 279 Tillichian idea of sacred, and the thinking of David Harvey. Commenting on sociologist Robert Park, who sees the city as “the world that man created”8, David Harvey writes: If Park is correct, the question of what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from the question of what kind of people we want to be, what kinds of social relations we seek, what relations to nature we cherish, what style of life we desire, what aesthetic values we hold. The right to the city is, therefore, far more than a right of individual or group access to the resources that the city embodies: it is a right to change and reinvent the city more after our hearts’ desire. It is, moreover, a collective rather than an individual right, since reinventing the city inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power over the processes of urbanization9. The fact that Rainbow Gatherings are temporary does not diminish from seeing them as cities in the meaning that Miller and his predecessors propose. The construction of this temporary city can be seen as a ritual practice. With its crafted material reality and practices, the Gathering is a symbolic expression and a material manifestation of a countercultural utopia, of the better world and the better people inhabiting it, and thus, a religious project in the view of radical “resistance theology”. This is how I think it is justified to study Rainbow in the frame of religion. And religion, like other traditions, is a creative project that constructs the future from the building blocks of the past10.

Building a Future from the Past I finished my fieldwork in Italy. Our Sacred Fire was burning on a hill in northern Lazio among various visible signs of the times past. The location has both ancient Etruscan ruins and an abandoned railway line from half a century ago. The area around the Gathering was dotted with old bridges, tunnels, and station buildings in a state of abandonment and decay. The ancient Etruscan civilizations had flourished for far longer than the mining industry boom due to the World Wars, but the scenery was marked significantly by the latter. I was sitting among the crowd around the Main Fire late one night. The stories told around me reflected the location and its history, and our place in this world and in the chain of generations. A man was talking about a previous Italian Gathering on these same hills. The Main Fire had had to be moved because it was placed right on a protected archaeological site: “We were too close to the ruins of the temple, but that is where our ancestors burned their sacred fires! Babylon messed up this land, and now they try to stop us from healing it”. In the vicinity, a giant railroad bridge crossed the river right by one of the bigger Etruscan ruins crowning a clifftop. “And think that they could build that bridge next to the temple, but we can’t celebrate there!” He sounded indignant. For this gatherer, the

280  See You in Five Minutes! railroad was a sign of exploitation and warmongering. “They pulled loads of iron from the mountains around here, and it was all for the guns and cannons. What madness!” The speaker meant the modern miners, but my researcher side was thinking that the ancient Etruscans were miners too, and had a theocratic state with a military tradition, but this was not one of the things reflected in the gatherers’ views of the past, or of the “tribal ancestors”. A woman had visited one of the broken-down station buildings along the line of removed train tracks and spoke of trees growing inside the ruins: “I love to see how nature takes it back. She is stronger than people realize. People are finally remembering that they are responsible to her, but it might already be too late”. She grew serious. “We are lucky that Mother Earth still tolerates us. She could wipe out humans just like that”. “And maybe she should”, a nihilistic voice muttered from the dark. I thought about the speakers’ concerns. These were the sentiments of people worried about the world, and us sitting around these fires, singing, speaking, and sharing food, we were part of a response to it. My researcher side was thinking about how these event-realities worked, these local centres in the increasingly global frame of shared social, cultural, and religious reality, where countercultural ideas get manifested, when I got nudged in the back. “Sister is there tea in that pot?” Someone from behind was holding out a cup made of a coconut shell and gesturing at the blackened pot sitting next to me. “Yeah? Is it vegan?” another voice asked from the darkness. “I guess so”, I said and took the offered cup as some other ones were passed from hand to hand towards me. I opened the lid, took the soup ladle inside, and splashed a bit of tea on the ground before filling the cups in front of me. “Pachamama”, I said quietly. I thought about the study claiming that a vegan diet could be the single biggest way to reduce a person’s environmental impact on the Earth11. If veganism and other environmental choices were becoming part of contemporary religious traditions, wasn’t that a great example of religion adapting to the changing times and concerns? And further: this vegan tea, in a dented communal pot, made as a gift, and shared as a blessing, all had religious aspects to them. Not just what we eat or how we sing and dance, but what and how we exchange, all have significance for the utopian temporary city on this hill.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Miller 2019, 7. Ibid., 34. Miller 2019, see also Rodkey & Miller 2019. Ibid., 78. See i.a. Rodwin & Hollister 1984, Smith & Reynolds 1987. Miller 2019, 80, Merton 1979, de Certeau 1988, Harvey 2008. Miller 2019, 101. Park 1967, 3. Harvey 2008, 23.

See You in Five Minutes! 281 10 “Accept, to begin, that tradition is the creation of the future out of the past. A continuous process situated in the nothingness of the present, linking the vanished with the unknown, tradition is stopped, parceled, and codified by thinkers who fix upon this aspect or that, in accord with their needs or preoccupations, and leave us with a scatter of apparently contradictory, yet cogent, definitions”. Glassie 1995, 395. 11 Poore & Nemecek 2018: Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers. Science 360 (6392), 987–992.

References de Certeau, Michel 1988: The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Glassie, Henry 1995: Tradition. Journal of American Folklore 108(430), 395–412. Harvey, David 2008: The Right to the City. New Left Review 53, 23–40. Merton, Thomas 1979: Love and Living. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Miller, Jordan E. 2019: Resisting Theology, Furious Hope. Secular Political Theology and Social Movements. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan. Park, Robert 1967: On Social Control and Collective Behaviour: Selected Papers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Rodkey, Christopher D. and Jordan E. Miller (eds.) 2019: The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Rodwin, L. and Hollister, R.M. (eds.) 1984: Cities of the Mind: Images and Themes of the City in the Social Sciences. Boston, MA: Springer. Smith, B.L. and Reynolds, H.B. (eds.) 1987: The City as a Sacred Center: Essays on Six Asian Contexts. Leiden: Brill.

Index

A-Camp 100–101 activism 14, 29, 32, 48, 59, 165–167, 234–235, 267, 278 Adams, Barry ‘Plunker’ 31–33, 35–37, 40 alternative-holistic spirituality see New Age Amsterdam Balloon Company 57 Angel Walk 118–119, 263 art 88, 98, 122, 128, 174, 189, 217, 227, 256 astrological events 62, 255 ayurveda 234, 260 Babylon 14, 141–142, 164–165, 168, 223, 259 Beck, Garrick 32–33, 35, 37, 40, 54, 109, 115, 123, 168 Bell, Catherine 8–9 Berger, Adam 17, 83, 85, 111, 114–115, 139–140, 236, 239, 250, 267 Bey, Hakim (Peter Lamborn Wilson) 167 Biodanza 1, 18n1 Bowman, Marion 235 Bronner, Simon J. 157 Brown, Vinson 146 Budapest, Zsuzsanna (Zsuzsanna Emese Mokcsay) 151 Buddhism 30–31, 109 Burning Man 10, 142, 223, 252–253 Cahill, Tim 39 Caillé, Alain 182, 186, 190, 220 Campbell, Colin 261 Capra, Fritjof 14 Carson, Rachel 30 chai kitchen 95–96, 99 Children’s Area 82, 93–94 Children’s Kitchen see Children’s Area

Christianity 31, 64–65, 99, 146, 200, 203; gnostic Christianity 225 Circle 47, 107–111, 118, 177, 201, 262–263; Circle songs 109, 152; Drum Circle 114–115; Food Circle 1–2, 108–113, 202; Talking Circle 115–118, 133, 153–154, 173, 175–176; Trading Circle 98, 188–190 Clastres, Pierre 169–175, 181, 187–188 Clean-up 132–133 ConFest 10 consensus decision 118, 125, 172–178 consumer culture 163–164, 168, 187, 247–248 Council see Circle, Talking Circle counterculture 33, 80, 187, 201; counterculture and New Age 161–165, 168–169 Coyote, Phil 35, 37–38 cultic milieu 261 cultural appropriation 103, 140, 147 dark green religion 246 Dawson, Andrew 247–248 de Certeau, Michel 278 deep ecology 30 drainbow 119–120, 143, 230 Droogers, André 12, 251 drum journey 234, 265 Durkheim, Émile 195, 263–264 embodiment 109, 199, 263 Emerson, Ralph Waldo 14 emic and etic 6, 18n14, 100, 141, 168, 237, 254 energy (spiritual) 91, 93, 110, 155, 180, 194, 201, 229, 256, 259, 263; energy healing 95, 140, 232, 265

Index 283 enneagram 112, 136n16, 265 entheogenic spirituality 7, 256, 265 Eranos conferences 48 esotericism 7, 14, 28, 48, 132, 236 ethics 39, 120, 155, 188–192, 201, 226, 228, 268 event-culture 12, 20n76, 252 experientiality 200, 202, 205, 212, 252 family constellations 265, 272n75 Fedele, Anna 9 feminine principle 91–92 Findhorn, Scotland 191 focalizer, focalizing 123, 174, 178 folk religion see vernacular religion folklore studies 12, 157, 161, 212–219, 236 framing: cultural 190, ritual 107, 190, 192, 264, 268; spatial 190–192, 200 Freetown Christiania, Denmark 53–55 Friistärne Uni (Free Star University) 49–50 Froebe-Kapteyn, Olga 48 Full Moon (celebration) 91–92, 129–132, 154 Gaia hypothesis 30–31, 224 García de León, Martin 73 Gauthier, François 222, 251–253 Geertz, Clifford 9 Geisendorfer, Paul 37–38 gender 93, 102, 117 Getz, Donald 9 gift, gift theory 182–187, 190–191; gift-economy 181, 184, 188, 190–194, 204; gift exchange 181–186, 189–190, 220–222, 249–250, 267–268; gift paradigm (theory of social action) 182, 188, 251; implied third party in gift exchange 228, 270 Glastonbury, England 10, 64–65, 191 god 36, 142–143, 150, 197, 202, 220, 246–247, 278 goddess 65, 91–92, 151–152, 255, 266, 268 Godelier, Maurice 184–186, 249–250 gods 184–186, 220, 246, 250, 270 Goodman, Yehuda C. 7 Goody, Jack 9 Graeber, David 194 Gräser, Gusto 49 Gräser, Karl 49 Gregory, Christopher 183 Grof, Stanislav 60

Hamayon, Roberte 12, 202–203, 251, 253, 258 Hanegraaff, Wouter 7, 164 Happening of the New Age (event) 49 Haraway, Donna 257 Harvey, David 278–279 healing 15, 42, 59, 73, 88, 91–93, 95, 234, 249, 259–260 Healing Area see Medical Area Healing Rainbow Gathering 42, 73 Heartfire see Main Fire heartsharing 116 heartsong 115 Heelas, Paul 5, 195, 259 Hesse, Herman 48 Hinduism 5, 109, 152, 199 holism 5, 224, 237, 260–262, 265, 270; holistic social theories 8, 183, 221, 251 homeopathy 257 Honko, Lauri 218 Hood, Ralph W. 245–247, 270 Howard, Robert Glenn 197, 238–239 Human Be-In 33 humour 99, 149, 203, 252 identity 9, 12, 142, 148, 155, 157, 177, 184, 186, 190, 192, 205, 221, 233, 252–253, 268 indeterminacy of meaning 198, 204, 216, 251–253, 258–259 Ingold, Tim 257 institutionalization of religion 6, 11–12, 161, 167–168, 171, 195–198, 200–204, 212–215, 246, 252–253 interconnectedness as a transcendental concept 261–264 International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) 31, 207n107 Ivakhiv, Adrian 7, 248 James, William 195 Judaism 99, 142, 225 Jung, Carl 48 Karlsøy, Norway 54–55 kitchen tribes 98–99, 197 Koski, Kaarina 216 Larkin, Ralph 162–163 Latour, Bruno 257 Lévi-Strauss, Claude 258 love 119–120, 144, 151–152, 194

284  Index Lucia, Amanda J. 103 Luckmann, Thomas 246 McKinzie, Ashleigh 176 Magic Hat 113–114, 116, 119, 179–181, 188, 193–194, 227, 231, 250; Magic Hat songs 152 Magliocco, Sabina 9 Main Circle 85–87, 99, 109 Main Fire/Sacred Fire 82–83, 85–87, 100, 115, 132, 154–155, 200, 250 Main Meadow see Main Circle Manitonquat/Medicine Story/Francis Story Talbot 55 Marriott, McKim 215 material culture 153–157; layout of Rainbow camp 81–83; Rainbow infrastructure 79–81 Mauss, Marcel 181–188, 190, 194, 249 McKenna, Terence 14 Medical Area 80, 95 Medicine Wheel 234 meditation 30, 42, 88, 91, 111–112, 234, 256, 265; silent meditation for world peace 36, 39, 56, 130–131, 167, 265 Merton, Thomas 278 Miller, Jordan E. 278–279 modernity and its critique 7, 14, 32, 59, 72, 103, 135, 139–140, 147–148, 162, 168, 201, 214, 234–235, 239, 249, 259, 262, 268–269 Monte Verità, Switzerland 48–49 Morton, Timothy 257 music 39, 49, 64, 88, 95, 113–114; bhajan 152; devotional Music Temple 90; Music Temple 97; Rainbow songs 109, 150–152, 255, 261–262; Singing Circle 115 nature and natural as transcendental concepts 88, 254–258 nature symbolism 258–259, 269; see also nature and natural as transcendental concepts Needham, Rodney 216 Neihardt, John G. 146 New Age: definition 5; study of 7–8, 212–213 Niman, Michael I. 18, 83, 115, 123, 140, 146, 238 nudity 14, 35, 155, 260

occultism 5, 7, 14, 30 Oedenkoven, Henry 49 Om, Omming 2, 31, 54, 108–111, 117, 177, 199, 255, 262–263, 265 Orsi, Robert 214 Ozora 62 paganisms 5–6, 14, 30, 54, 65, 88, 99, 103, 142, 235, 258, 269 Park, Robert 279 Parry, Jonathan 184 Parsons, Talcott 162 Partridge, Christopher 247 Peace in the Middle East Rainbow Gathering 42, 166 Pecl, Václav 60 Pike, Sarah 7, 256 play 12; play and religion 251–253; play and ritual 202–203 Post, Paul 9 Primiano, Leonard 212, 218 Rainbow Musical 122 Rainbow Oracle 28, 35–36 Rainbow time 17, 142 Rastafarianism 142, 250 Redden, Guy 164, 249 reiki 92, 97, 110, 259 religion 6, 277–280; the triaxial model of religion and the gift 219–222 resistance theology 278–279 Reuss, Theodor 48–49 Riches, David 190–192 ritual: open rituality 90, 198–200; ritual creativity 9, 11, 202, 204, 251; ritual subjunctivity 12, 251, 253, 278 Ruigoord, Netherlands 57 Ruz Buenfil, Alberto 50–51; Buenfil’s projects (Consejo de Visiones de Guardianes de la Tierra, Huehuecoyotl, Rainbow Caravan for Peace) 41 sacralized spaces 88–93; see also Main Fire Sahlins, Marshall 170, 181–182, 184, 190 Schelly, Chelsea 82, 141–142, 223 scout, scouting 65–66, 68–71, 127–128 Schütz, Alfred 246 shibari 2, 18n2

Index 285 secularization 7 Seed Camp 82, 129 seeker 7, 30 self: authority of 191, 195–197, 249, 264; self-spirituality 7, 11, 212; transcendent self 220, 246–249, 266 Seth 224–226, 233 shamanisms 7, 54, 112, 203, 234, 255, 260, 268 Shanti Sena 133, 174 Sherman, Feather 2–3, 146 Shit Pit 80, 121–122, 261–262 Silent Healing Area see sacralized spaces; Temple Simmel, Georg 195 Singer, Milton 215 spirits 111, 116, 148, 181, 185–186, 197, 202, 220, 250–251, 255 spirituality: definition 6; New Spirituality see New Age; spiritual but not religious (SBNR) 6, 246, 252; spiritual healing 42, 73, 88, 95, 260 St John, Graham 62, 114 Steiner, Rudolf 48 Streib, Heinz subcamps 83–101 subjective turn 195, 247 Sutcliffe, Steven 7 symbolism 14, 85, 92–93, 107–108, 147, 154, 177, 191–192, 201, 238, 246–247, 252, 278–279; symbolical gift exchange 185–187, 219–222, 228–229, 249, 261–262, 270 Table Mountain, Colorado 37–39 Talking Feather 117, 153 Talking Stick 54–55, 16, 153–154, 176, 250 Tarot, Camille 220–221 Tavory, Iddo 7 Taylor, Bron 246, 256 technology 121, 163, 269

Temple see sacralized spaces Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ) 167 Thoreau, Henry David 14 Thumb, Tom 123, 143, 194 Tillich, Paul 246, 278–279 Ting 54–56 transcendence: horizontal and vertical transcendence 245–247, 252, 255; the transcendent axis 220, 264–266; transcendental concepts 245, 249–250, 270 transformation as a transcendental concept 259–261 Troeltsch, Ernst 195 Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt 257 Turner, Victor 9, 264 Valk, Ülo 213, 218 van Gennep, Arnold 9 vernacular authority 197, 238–239 vernacular religion 12, 140–141, 161, 197, 212–219, 252, 277–278 Vision Council 116, 118, 125–127 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo 169 Vortex I 34–35 Waters, Frank 146 Weiner, Annette 184–185, 250 Welcome Home 83–84 White Jr, Lynn 31 Willoya, William 146 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 216 Woodall, John David 120, 193 Woodhead, Linda 9, 195 World Family Gathering 28, 34–35, 38–39 World Rainbow Gathering 42, 91, 189 Yinger, Milton 162 yoga 30, 34, 37, 42, 97, 110, 112, 131, 234