Florence Pasche

Panels > Religions Online > Florense Pasche. Some methodological reflections about the Study of Religions on the video-sharing websites (VSW)

Some methodological reflections about the study of religions on the video sharing websites (VSW)

YouTube, GoogleVideo, Dailymotion, and Revver are a few well known names among the dozens of video sharing websites (VSW) that have been created in the past few years. Religions are one among the many subjects, labels, tags and categories found on those websites. Recently, some religious groups have created their own VSW. These have a distinct religious coloration. GodTube, IslamicTube, YouTubeIslam, FaithTube and KrishnaTube are examples of what I will call “religious video sharing websites”. As for other studies on religions and the Internet, data may change very quickly and some of these websites may be closed whereas new ones may be created by the time this paper is published. My suggestion is that historians of religions may benefit from studying religions on the video sharing websites despite the fluctuations of the material.

This paper intends to discuss some of the methodological difficulties that are encountered while studying religions specifically on the VSW, religious and non-religious ones. After giving a definition of video sharing websites, I then will survey the problems encountered by the historian of religions who wishes to study this topic. I have also tried to give an experimental typology of the representation of religions on the VSW. Finally, I will give some general considerations on how the historian of religions might study this topic and how this material could be useful for the academic teaching and research on religions. This paper is only a sketch and should benefit from comments of more experimented researchers who have dealt with other type of websites. I have not given detailed example nor links or URL to specific videos. I rather encourage interested readers to look out for themselves by typing related keywords. In very specific cases however, I have given more detailed references.

Video sharing websites allow users to watch and share video clips. The “videos” can consist in filmed sequences or in simple montage of pictures and photos with or without sound. Anyone can post on the VSW, usually for free. I will deal here mainly with user generated video sharing websites. Individuals share their videos with other individuals. Many sites place restrictions on the file size, the format, the duration and, more interestingly, the subject of the videos.

Religions are an important topic on the VSW. Indeed, it has become so important that several religious groups have felt the need to set up their own websites in order to post videos with an explicitly religious content. One of the questions I have tried to answer is why some Muslim, Christian or Hindu groups felt the need to create their own VSW.

I cannot here enter the infinite debate of the definition of the controversial term “religion”. I use it in a very large and common sense as a classificatory category that may not adequately describe extra-European phenomenon labeled as “religion”. This is justified by the fact that users themselves and the managers of the video sharing websites do use this specific term. Whenever VSW users do use this term to label a video or to comment on it, then it becomes an emic category and the researcher must take it into account.

Several methodological difficulties arise in the study of religions on the video sharing websites. Most are similar to problems encountered in the study of religions and the Internet in general. I will survey some of the methodological points that I had to deal with when I began to study this topic. First, I also would like to point out that so far, I have adopted a totally non-intrusive external observer’s point of view in this study. I did not interfere or interact with the VSW users by posting a video, a comment or a video-response. I did not interview any user yet because I wanted to keep the invisibility and anonymousity granted to users who visit the websites just to watch video of other people and not to share their own. Adopting this silent observer’s position also has back draws (such as having to wait for interaction between users and not being able to test some claims by asking direct questions). However, at the beginning of this study, it also has greater benefits. Only in this way can I guarantee that religious, non-religious and atheist VSW users would not be affected in any way by their knowledge of being studied. In a second phase of study, I might create my own pseudonym and enter the discussions in order to ask specific questions, with or without revealing my true identity as an academic researcher. The position of the researcher was the first methodological question I had to face. Should I participate actively in the discussions? If yes, only with a pseudonym and a fake identity or should I reveal my purpose as an academic researcher? Is this also a form of participant observation? These questions might challenge our views on the position of the researcher facing the contemporary (cyber-)field as historians of religions or as anthropologists. And so will the following methodological points.

The main language of the websites is English. There might be however VSW in other languages, which I am not yet aware of. The main language of the videos and of the comments on the videos is English, even though many other languages are used (for example Swiss German dialects or Hindi). This represents a first limit for the researcher: there are parts of the material that s/he will be unable to understand and therefore to take account of. It is to be noticed that languages are sometimes used as markers of a cultural and linguistic, and maybe also religious, identity. A video might be in English and some of its comments might switch from English to Hindi. This poses users of non-Latin scripts a serious problem of transliteration. Languages other than English and supposedly known to fewer people [1] are sometimes used to comment videos with a religious content. In surveying the use of Hindi in commenting videos about Islam and Hinduism on YouTube, I have found that some users write in English as well as in Hindi, posting a comment in one language and another comment in the other language, or even changing language in the same comment. The choice of commenting in Hindi is then deliberate. I suggest that the language that is less known to other VSW users then works as a kind of “secret” language, creating connivance between users that know this language and excluding other users who do not know this language. This linguistic difference might create a sense of community among users of a particular area or religious affiliation. In this case, Hindi speaking users did comment on a debate about Islam and Hinduism. As for many comments in English on many other videos and subjects, some of the comments in Hindi were words of abuse directed towards other people that commented on the same video. What could be the purpose of insulting someone in a language that he supposedly does not understand? The message might rather be directed towards other users who support the same worldview, creating a sense common values (and practices?) between pseudonymous users.

Other difficulties may arise even if the video and the comments are posted in a language known to the researcher. The language is distorted, quasi-esoteric abbreviations are frequently used but never explicated, and there is a lack of grammar and a faulty sense of orthography. Finally, the situation of communication is somewhere on a continuum between text and speech [2] (more spontaneous). We could wonder if people would still argue on such religious matters, with crude words for some of them or with infinite patience for others, if they be in real (that is physical) presence of each other and not in cyberspace. Several hypotheses have been made about the relation between anonymity and use of hateful language [3].

A methodological difficulty arises from the inaccuracy of numbers of videos and of viewers. Numbers increase constantly and are inaccurate. Indeed, the same video sequence, or abbreviated versions of it, can appear several times on the websites under different names and with different tags and labels. Numbers found on the video sharing websites therefore should be considered as indicative and not accurate. We should not try to see in them a proportionality of the activity of different religions on the VSW as constituted or organized groups.

Along with the problems of numbers comes that of the infinite expansion of data. Video sharing websites host more and more videos that are archived and generally kept available. There will always be more material and it is a hard task for the researcher to handle it all. A serious and detailed study of the religions on the video sharing websites should therefore be restricted to the analysis of one website or to the representation of one specific religion on several websites.

In contrast with the ever increasing quantity of data, we face the problem of data being no more available. Some videos simply might be censored by the staff of the websites (such as GodTube that screen all contents before it is published on-line). The function “Flag as inappropriate” might also serve the purpose of having a video disappear. The administrators of the sites decide what is appropriate. Among things banned we find pornography, racism, apology of crime and videos that have a copyright. The website Dailymotion, which exists in several languages, does not have the same policies in all its linguistic or national versions. The list of what is inappropriate, or rather illegal, is much more detailed in the English versions of the “Legal” section than in the French web pages about the same issues. In both cases, users can report inappropriate (or illegal) content. The French site labels this “signaler un contenu odieux” whereas the English page calls this “prohibited content” and offers a detailed list of what is not to be posted on the site [4]. Hate and verbal violence are the real issues with videos that have a religious content. However, not all videos about or against religions display violent or hateful language. Another recurring feature is humor, but this also can lead to angry comments by users of other religions that may feel offended. The VSW managers have to moderate all this. We might wonder if this could be a job opportunity for historians of religions. Videos on religions, be it on the regular VSW or on their religious versions, rarely are just “informative” and free from bias. They make people think, laugh and, sometimes, hate.

Labels, tags and categories are another source of methodological concern. Users, in particular religious or atheist users of the video sharing websites may not label the video that they post in the same way as you would have done as a researcher. Some videos posted by anti-religious users bear titles that may be deemed offensive to religions (“stupid religion”, “crazy preacher”, “faith is dumb”, etc.). The academic study of religions should refrain from any judgment on the validity of the claims of the religions studied. It should never pass moral comments on the videos watched or on comments left by other users. The terminology used by the scholars is not the same as that used by religious users. They might label “ceremony” what we will call “ritual” or “Truth” what as researchers we classify as “myth”. This is really important while searching elements on the video sharing websites. A wrong or a too narrow keyword might yield no results. In general, the labeling of videos with a religious content is far from being systematic and scientific. The classification and labelization of the videos point to the world view of the users and to the way they consider their own and others’ religions.

Finally, a last point is that you may not be sure of who is behind a video or a comment. The use of pseudonym and the absence of image make it difficult to check who is expressing an opinion. Pseudonymity however is not equal to anonymity. So far, we do not have to face machines or cyber-beings discussing religions but human beings. Someone may have a double or multiple identities, creating as many pseudonyms as s/he wishes. On other websites, such as ones supposed to facilitate contacts, people happen to lie about their real identity: age, gender, marital status, job, income, even nationality. Would VSW users lie about their religious affiliation just to provoke a debate? How can we be sure about the real opinion of VSW users about religions? We cannot. But nevertheless, we can admit that religious or atheist convictions are something that matters to VSW users who express themselves about or against religions. Then it is part of an identity that is kept and proudly brandished on-line, whereas other aspects might be played down or not mentioned (just because it is irrelevant or because that would undermine the ideological claims of the users).

Religions take different forms in the videos posted on the VSW. I have tried to come up with a typology. These categories are not fixed and boundaries are permeable. It is not enough to suggest that the phenomenon of videos with a religious content is simply “religion on cyberspace” or “religion in cyberspace” [5:14]. The categories religion on-line and on-line religion cannot apply as such but each case presented in the typology here below could be classified in one or the other category of even in both of them at the same time. Religions can appear under those different forms:

(5) Personal testimony (conversion to a religion, healing, miracles, spiritual biography);

(6) Homage or tribute to someone special (religious teacher, martyr, saint, etc.);

Many ideas could be developed in the perspective of the study of religions. I will only share here two issues. The first is a question: why would religious groups create their own religious video sharing websites? The answer can be found in the “mission statement” of the websites, such as the one of GodTube:

‘GodTube utilizes Web based technology to connect Christians for the purpose of encouraging and advancing the Gospel worldwide.’ [6]

‘Sharing Video about Krishna and His pure devotee
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
Founder and Acharya of the Hare Krishna Movement.’ [7]

‘We at IslamicTube.Net aim to offer a new route by offering a unique service by which to make available Islamic material, allowing all to seek and learn about Islaam in its truthfulness minus the culture and bid'aa (innovations). We hope to make clear many of the misconceptions about Islaam which has become widespread amongst both the Muslims and Non-Muslims. We hope our website will wake up those dead hearts, call the people back to the Sunnah and back to Tawheed (believing and worshipping Allah in His Oneness)’. [8]

Creating a religious VSW can serve several purposes: proselytism, mission, creating and strengthening a sense of community among believing users, spreading information and didactic material. Another strong purpose might be to give an official and “clean” place of representation of a religion. In contrast with non-religious VSW such as YouTube or DailyMotion, there is a stronger moderation of the videos and of the comments on the religious video sharing websites. This results in fewer comments being posted and in a strong control of what is represented. A characteristic of the VSW is that they do not represent the official side of religions or this side only. Therefore “official” platforms for watching and exchanging videos might be needed for some communities that are conscious about their image in the cyber world. This is a challenge for movements that have not one central and decisive authority. Who claims to represent whom? Are the religious VSW approved by any kind of authority? And even if there is disapprobation, might this threaten the VSW? These are difficult questions that are to be kept in mind while studying the religious VSW.

The other issue on interpretation concerns the ritual aspects of the posting on the VSW. In some cases, the making and posting of videos share many features with what is commonly referred to as “ritual”. This is the case for users that regularly post videos, or post series of videos on the same subject (see for an example on YouTube the videos made by “CapnOAwesome”). Videos are made in a special location (always the same or sharing the same characteristics), made or posted at a special time (e.g. every Tuesday night, every 13^th of the month), the person on the video wears special clothing, s/he uses a special closing or opening formula or jingle. The other ritual aspect might be that rituals that are performed (outside of the cyberspace) are filmed, with or without participants and performers knowing that the video will be put on VSW, and then put online (e.g. Wiccan full moon rituals, weddings, baptism, salaat, aarti, etc.). One of the reasons why some of those videos are put online is that the ritual has “gone wrong” (e.g. a priest stumbling when he comes close to the altar or dropping the host in the plunging neckline of a lady attending the mass). The last ritual aspect is videos that give detailed instructions on who to perform a ritual, usually a personal ritual, alone or in groups, at home (e.g. many Wiccan rituals, how to pray salaat).

VSW might be an occasional and useful tool in the teaching of the study of religions in academic context. First, some videos might be descriptive and non-polemic enough to introduce students to a specific topic. Some documentaries directors or producers intentionally put part of their work on the VSW as a commercial advertisement (see for example videos by isoguruvinod on YouTube and his website [9]). The whole documentary can then be ordered directly from the producer. In other cases, other people place this type of work on-line, the violating the copyright. This still might be useful to discover recent documentaries that could illustrate some specific classes such as one on Indian traditions. There is no need however that the video be made by a professional. If any tourist happened to film a ritual during his vacations, this might be useful to illustrate some specific subject. In the same way, many rituals are filmed and then put on-line. Students might benefit from viewing these images with an adequate comment of the teacher. The first use is only illustrative.

A second way to use VSW in the teaching of the study of religions is to have advanced students analyze the content of a video and the comments of the videos. Historians of religions are well trained to work on texts. Maybe it is time to train them to analyze new medias that often are not limited to texts but include hypertext, images, videos and sound. The medium should be studied as well as the message.

There is still much to be done by historians of religions. As mentioned above, the vast amount of data makes it impossible to handle it all. Maybe a good way to start a detailed study on or with this material would be to concentrate on one polemic (for example creationism vs. evolutionism discussed by users expressing different religious or atheist point of views), or on one particularly defined trend of a religions, or on one specific religious VSW.

Representation of religions on the video sharing websites is a recent and major phenomenon. It should be taken seriously and studied thoroughly because it might influence the perceptions that VSW users have of their own culture and of other religions. However, we also should remember that not all the videos are about religions and that more often than not, the tag or label “religion” is mixed with other artificially created categories. Some websites claim to be explicitly religious, such as GodTube, KrishnaTube or IslamTube, but they are not as popular as the leading website YouTube. They do not feature as many videos and strongly moderate the content of the videos and the comments. My last suggestion is that those websites, because they allow everyone to post comments, to share and to view videos, are a new and significant place of encounter between religions, or rather between religious or atheist Internet users. There is no need to be neither a believer nor a specialist of the study of religions to post comments or to create and share a video.

Video sharing websites reflect our globalized world and its many tensions. They have an impact on the way in which religions are represented, at least in the cyberspace and in some parts of the world. VSW have created a new form of communication which is now used and imitated by different religious groups. Even though there are some methodological difficulties, it is worth trying to study it. This material is important and it is relevant to include it in the academic teaching of the study of religion.

[1] This means fewer people among the VSW users, not outside the cyberspace. This leads to an important and more general consideration: most Internet users are from countries that have easy and widespread access to the Internet. This is not restrictive, but users mainly are from Europe, North-America, Japan, and Australia… English tends to be the main language, but the situation is evolving. VSW users do not represent the world, but only the wealthier parts of the planet that can afford access to the Internet. There is also a gender issue that I did not discuss here.

[2] This point was brought up at the 2007 EASR meeting in Bremen by Jesper Petersen who has studied satanic message boards. This idea of a continuum between text and speech can also be applied to the VSW.

[3] Lange, Patricia G. Commenting on Comments: Investigating Responses to Antagonism on YouTube. Paper presented at: Society for Applied Anthropology Conference, Tampa, Florida. March 31, 2007.

[5] Karaflogka, Anastasia. E-religion. A Critical Appraisal of Religious Discourse on the World Wide Web. London : Equinox, 2006.

Panels > Religions Online > Florense Pasche. Some methodological reflections about the Study of Religions on the video-sharing websites (VSW)

	Home Call for papers Participants Panels Discussion Contacts Links
© Moscow Society for Study of Religion, 2007. © Composite authors, 2007.