Ingui-Freyr Text Sources

Up until recently, I had taken for granted the conflation of Ingui and Freyr. However, due to the important scholarship from Anglo-Saxon Heathens, I feel it necessary to explore references to Freyr and Ingui, explicitly the potential for distinction between Norse and Anglo-Saxon sources. This evidence list represents the best of my ability in this effort and will most likely be an ongoing study.

Norse

Gisli’s Saga (c. 1250 CE)

“there was to be a sacrifice to Frey” during “a feast at the end of autumn to celebrate the coming of Winter Nights.”

“when a chieftain named Þorgrímr Freysgoði died and was buried in a howe, a strange thing happened: no snow ever lodged on the south side of the howe, nor did it freeze.” (Reaves 11 citing Gisli’s Saga).

Gylfaginning | Prose Edda (c. 1220 CE)

“Njördr in Nóatún begot afterward two children: the son was called Freyr, and the daughter Freyja; they were fair of face and mighty. Freyr is the most renowned of the Æsir; he rules over the rain and the shining of the sun, and therewithal the fruit of the earth; and it is good to call on him for fruitful seasons and peace. He governs also the prosperity of men” (Gylfaginning 24, Brodeur tr.)

“For this reason Frey was without a weapon when he fought with Beli, killing him with a stag’s horn” (Gylfaginning 37, Byock tr.)

Grimnismal | Codex Regius (c.1270 CE)

“Alfheim the gods to Frey
gave in days of yore
for a tooth-gift.” (Grimnsimal 5, Thorpe tr.)

“Ivaldi’s sons in bygone days
went to create Skidbladnir,
the best of ships, for shining Freyr,
Njörd’s beneficient son.” (Grimnismal 43, Larrington tr.)

Hervarar Saga og Heiðreks (c. 1200 CE)

describes the practice of Sonarblót:

“King Heithrek worshipped Freyr, and he used to give Freyr the biggest boar he could find. They regarded it as so sacred that in all important cases they used to take the oath on its bristles. It was the custom to sacrifice the boar at the ‘sacrifice of the herd.’ On Yule eve, the ‘boar of the herd’ was led into the hall before the king. Then men laid their hands on his bristles and made solemn vows.” (ch. 10, Chadwick tr. as cited by Reaves 15)

Husdrapa (c. 985 CE)

“The battle-bold Freyr rideth
First on the golden-bristled
Barrow-boar to the bale-fire
Of Baldr, and leads the people.” (Hudraspa 7, Brodeur tr.)
Lokasenna | Codex Regius (c.1270 CE)

“Frey is best
of all the exalted gods
in the Æsir´s courts:
no maid he makes to weep,
no wife of man,
and from bonds looses all.” (Lokasenna 37, Thorpe tr.)

Reaves citing Ögmundar þáttr dytt (c. 1330 CE)

“The notion that Freyr’s  idols possessed procreative power is emphasized in a 14th century Icelandic story found in the Flateyjarbók.  Ögmundar þáttr dytts ok Gunnars helmings tells the tale of a young Norwegian named Gunnar, falsely accused of murder, who flees to Sweden where he encounters a young woman said to be the wife of the god Freyr. He joins the woman, probably a priestess, as she rides through the countryside in a wagon near the end of the year accompanied by a wooden idol representing the god. Caught in a snowstorm, Gunnar enters the wagon offending the god and a struggle ensues. Calling on the Christian god for support, Gunnar displaces the idol, causing Freyr to flee. Later, when the priestess turns up pregnant with Gunnar’s child, the people regard this as a sign of the god’s potency.” (Reaves 9)

Skaldskaparmal | Prose Edda (c. 1220 CE)

“It was a boar with bristles of gold […] To Frey [Brokk] gave the boar, remarking that night or day it could race across the sky and over sea better than any other mount. Furthermore, night would never be so murky nor the worlds of darkness so shadowy that the boar would not provide light wherever it went, so bright was the shining of its bristles.” (Skaldskaparmal 35, Byock tr.)

“the Aesir took their places on the thrones of fate. Odin, Thor, and Frey were to be the judges, thus settling the matter.” (Skaldskaparmal 35, Byock tr.)

“[Frey should be referred to] by calling him the son of Njord, the brother of Freyja, god of the Vanir, the descendant of the Vanir, and one of the Vanir, the god of  a good year, and the giver of wealth… He is called the foe of Beli… and the possessor of the boat Skidbladnir and the boar Gullinbursti” (“Kennings for the Gods,” Russell Poole tr. cited by Byock tr.)

Skirnismal | Codex Regius (c.1270 CE)

[Freyr speaking to Skirnir]
“The horse will I give thee | that goes through the dark
And magic flickering flames,
And the sword as well | that will fight of itself
If a worthy hero wields it.” (Skirnismal 9, Bellows tr.)

Voluspa (c. 800-1100 CE) | Codex Regius (c.1270 CE)

“Then is fulfilled Hlin’s
second sorrow,
when Óðinn goes
to fight with the wolf,
and Beli’s slayer [Freyr],
bright, against Surtr.
Then shall Frigg’s
sweet friend fall” (Voluspa 53, Dronke tr.)

Ynglinga saga | Prose Edda (c. 1220 CE)

“Odin placed Njord and Frey as priests of the sacrifices, and they became Diar of the Asaland people.  Njord’s daughter Freya was priestess of the sacrifices, and first taught the Asaland people the magic art, as it was in use and fashion among the Vanaland people.  While Njord was with the Vanaland people he had taken his own sister in marriage, for that was allowed by their law; and their children were Frey and Freya.  But among the Asaland people it was forbidden to intermarry with such near relations.” (Ynglinga 4, Laing tr.)

“Frey took the kingdom after Njord, and was called drot by the Swedes, and they paid taxes to him.  He was, like his father, fortunate in friends and in good seasons.  Frey built a great temple at Upsal, made it his chief seat, and gave it all his taxes, his land, and goods.  Then began the Upsal domains, which have remained ever since.  Then began in his days the Frode- peace; and then there were good seasons, in all the land, which the Swedes ascribed to Frey, so that he was more worshipped than the other gods, as the people became much richer in his days by reason of the peace and good seasons.  His wife was called Gerd, daughter of Gymis, and their son was called Fjolne.  Frey was called by another name, Yngve; and this name Yngve was considered long after in his race as a name of honour, so that his descendants have since been called Ynglinger.  Frey fell into a sickness; and as his illness took the upper hand, his men took the plan of letting few approach him.  In the meantime they raised a great mound, in which they placed a door with three holes in it.  Now when Frey died they bore him secretly into the mound, but told the Swedes he was alive; and they kept watch over him for three years.  They brought all the taxes into the mound, and through the one hole they put in the gold, through the other the silver, and through the third the copper money that was paid. Peace and good seasons continued.” (Ynglinga 11, Laing tr.)

“When it became known to the Swedes that Frey was dead, and yet peace and good seasons continued, they believed that it must be so as long as Frey remained in Sweden; and therefore they would not burn his remains, but called him the god of this world, and afterwards offered continually blood-sacrifices to him, principally for peace and good seasons.”  (Ynglinga 13, Laing tr.)

Saxo Grammaticus’s Gesta Danorum (c. 1185 CE)

Saxo was “disgusted by the effeminate gestures [..] and by the unmanly clatter of bells” performed by the “wives of Freyr” (Book 6, Elton tr.)

Anglo-Saxon

Beowulf (c. 700-1000 CE)

“Then the Danish prince, descendent of Ing”1 (Beowulf ll.1042, Heaney tr.)

Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem (c. 700-800 CE)

“Ing was first seen by men among the East-Danes,till, followed by his chariot,
he departed eastwards over the waves.
So the Heardingas named the hero.” (Rune Poem, Dickins tr.)

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England (731 CE)

“it was not lawful before for the high priest either to carry arms, or to ride on anything but a mare”2 (ch.13)

Secondary

“The Cult of Freyr and Freyja” William P. Reaves

“The Old Norse Halloween or Day of the Dead: Alfablot (Sacrifice to the Elves)” Maria Kvilhaug

On Freyr—the ‘Lord’ or ‘the Fertile One’? Some Comments on the Discussion of Etymology from the Historian of Religions’ Point of View” Olof Sundqvist


Endnotes

1. The Old English word is Ingwina, usually translated as “friend of Ing [Ingui]”
2. This is a reference to Coifi, high priest of Northumbria. The taboos described by Bede might reflect those of Ingui.


References Cited

Bede, and A.M Sellars, ed. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the England. 1907. London: George Bell and Sons.  Internet Sacred Text Archive. Web.

Bellows, Henry A, trans. The Poetic Edda. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1936. Internet Sacred Text Archive. Web.

Chadwick, Nora Kershaw. “The Saga of Hervör and Heithrek.” Stories and Ballads of the Far Past. Cambridge University Press, 1921. Germanic Mythology. Web.

Dickins, Bruce. Runic and Heroic Poems of the old Teutonic Peoples. Cambridge University Press, 1915. Arild Hauge. Web.

Dronke, Ursula, trans. “Voluspa 53.” The Poetic Edda. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1969. Germanic Mythology. Web.

Grammaticus, Saxo and Oliver Elton, trans. The First Nine Books of the Danish history of Saxo Grammaticus, 1894. American Library Association Online Archive.

Heaney, Seamus, trans. Beowulf: A New Verse Translation, 2000. Print.

Kvilhaug, Maria. “The Old Norse Halloween or Day of the Dead: Alfablót (Sacrifice to the Elves).” Freyia Völundarhúsins. WordPress. Web.

Larrington, Carolyne, trans. “Grimnismal 43.” The Poetic Edda. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Germanic Mythology. Web

Reaves, William P. “The Cult of Freyr and Freyja.” 2008. Germanic Mythology. Web

Regal, Martin S., trans. “Gisli Sursson’s Saga.” The Complete Sage of Icelanders: Including 49 Tales, vol. 2, edited by Viðar Hreinsson et.al., 1-48. Reykjavík: Leifur Eiríksson Publishing, 1997. Google Books. Web.

Sturlson, Snorri, and Samuel Laing, trans. “The Ynglinga Saga.” Heimskringla, or, The Chronicle of the Kings of Norway. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1844. Internet Sacred Text Archive. Web.

Sturlson, Snorri, and Arthur G. Brodeur, trans. The Prose Edda. New York: The American-Scandinavian Foundation, 1916. Internet Sacred Text Archive. Web.

Sturlson, Snorri, and Jesse L. Byock, trans. The Prose Edda: Norse Mythology. London: Penguin, 2005. Print.

Sturlson, Snorri, and Russel Poole, trans. “Kennings for the Gods.” The Prose Edda: Norse Mythology, edited by Jesse L. Byock. London: Penguin, 2005. Print.

Sundqvist, Olof. On Freyr—the ‘Lord’ or ‘the Fertile One’? Some Comments on the Discussion of Etymology from the Historian of Religions’ Point of View. Onoma (48), 2013. Academia. Web.

Thorpe, Benjamin, trans. The Saemundar Edda. London: Trübner & Co, 1866. Germanic Mythology. Web.

Advertisements

Some Theological Beliefs

1. The Gods are both immanent and transcendent.

The Gods are able to be present and physically manifest before us, just as they can influence, in a truly material sense, the weather, crops, etc. of our world. Nevertheless, They are also “cosmic” or at the very least immanent to worlds beyond our own. This seems evident to me in that They communicate through synchronicities, dreams, and other non literal ways.

2. The Gods are able to be present for worshipers at virtually any time and place.

Sometimes people take “not omnipotent, not omniscient and not omnipresent” to mean virtually human in scope of knowledge and presence. I prefer to think that the Gods are practically limitless in scope, that their limitations are few, and that they can be present and available and aware of practically anything if they are willing to. I am firmly against any notion of “God bothering,” or belief that we mortals cannot hope to make contact with Gods because of how insignificant we are compared to all that Gods are busy with. I understand that this doctrine makes sense for some people and explains the (typical) bereftness of direct communication with Gods. However, I think it greatly diminishes the Gods’ powers. These are extremely powerful Beings, and I prefer to assume that in as many ways as possible.

3. I operate under the default assumption that an attested God is a living Deity separate from other Deities

In general, I think it best to assume that if a God’s name is recorded, then that God is real. We don’t really lose anything by assuming otherwise. I also like to start from the assumption that Gods are separate beings, unless there is a lot of evidence that two Gods are the same. This becomes much muddier in the case of close cultural cognates (i.e. Greek and Roman, Norse and Anglo-Saxon), and admittedly I do syncretize Ingui and Freyr, but I think in general we have to be careful with our assumptions about Gods being the same, especially in the cases of association overlap and proto Indo-European roots.

4. The Gods don’t need us.

I don’t believe that the Gods need worship to survive. That would make Them beholden to us, and They most certainly are not.

Vanic Prayers

Hail Gerd, lady of the sacred enclosure, great and beautiful maiden of Jotunnheim, Daughter of Gymir and beloved of Freyr, She who is impervious to threats, we thank you for the boundaries that protect us and for the wisdom to choose those who enter.

Hail Nerthus, bog mother, lady of the veil, She whose sacredness demands peace, fertile mother of the Vanir, before whom all are unarmed, we thank you for the sustenance of fertile soil, the re-creative power of decay, and the mysteries of your embrace.

Hail Njord, God of chariots, He who calms both sea and fire, bringer of wealth and good seasons, descendant of the Vanir, father of Yngvi and Freya, He who knows well the shorelines and the cawing of gulls, we thank you for the gifts of travel and trade, and all the treasures and blessings of the sea.

Hail Yngvi-Frey, king of elves, lord of mounds, wielder of the stag horn, sacrificial boar, God of the world, the bringer of wealth and good harvests, possessor of Gullinbursti and Skiðblaðnir, He who brings peace and prosperity to all, we thank you for the peace and joy of our daily lives, and for all the successes we come to know.

Hail Freya, Vanadis, mistress of seiðr, possessor of the slain, She who would not be bartered, blótgyðja, wearer of Brisingamen, rider of Hildisvini, bearer of the falcon cloak, She of golden tears, we thank you for the power of self-knowledge and self-love,  and for the gifts of beauty and pleasure. 

Reconstructionist Traditions and the Question of Choosing

I spent a lot of time as an eclectic armchair pagan. I’ve been interested in Gods from many cultures. So why Heathenry— why this tradition? Heck, why any tradition? Here are some of my thoughts on polytheist reconstructionist traditions and the reasons I chose Heathenry.

 

Reconstructionist Traditions as a Construct

This idea of there being a hard-and-fast pantheon in part stems from essentialized notions of nationality and nativism. The very idea that cultures have a particular “intellectual history” is exemplary of Appadurai’s concept of ‘metonymic freezing,’ the notion that cultures are essentially inert and opposed to amalgamation (Appadurai 1988:36). Likewise, James Clifford argues that “natives,” in a sense, cannot truly exist because all peoples experience contact with other places and cultures (Clifford 1997:24).

This scholarship supports the reality that pantheons and “native traditions” are cultural constructs. The idea of a “reconstructionist tradition” is essentially inexact in that it implies complete group separation and purity. The reality is that any reconstructionist tradition is subject to syncretization whether we admit it or not. Basically, many of us have this false notion that a “pantheon” is more than an intellectual concept, that there is some hard boundary separating one group of Gods from another. This isn’t to say that we should be unrestrained in how we apply practice– like applying Heathen purity standards to Kemetic ritual. But, we should be careful to avoid ‘metonymic freezing’ in how we conceptualize reconstructionist traditions.

Basically, even though I identify as Heathen, I am not automatically cut off from Hellenism or Kemeticism or any other tradition. I in no way reject other Gods or limit myself to Heathen Gods.

So why choose?

Despite the in-exactitude of reconstructionist traditions, I think there is a lot of benefit to identifying with one or two.

While they idea of a community being necessity is often uncomfortable to those of us who were raised Christian, I have come to recognize that having a religious community is a valuable thing. Especially for us being a religious minority, it is great to have an outlet for 1. comparing scholarship and interpretation as well as 2. spiritual and religious support. Defaulting on the pagan community as a whole is ultimately unfulfilling because of how vastly contrarian different pagan groups can be. For me, I gain no spiritual value from interacting with Wiccans because they begin from a completely different premise about the nature of the Gods.

While one could be pan-reconstructionist in a sense that they dabble in every single revivalist movement, they ultimately lose a sense of cohesion and it is too difficult to construct a single polytheist community in a zone that is free from very different perspectives (i.e. Wiccans, pantheists, etc.). And if one dips toes in multiple groups, it is often difficult to forge a strong sense of community that isn’t quite disparate.

Why Heathenry?

I chose Heathenry for a few reasons.

1. I looked at my “pantheon” of Gods I was interested in worshiping and saw that most of Them were Norse.

2. As an eclectic, I was spending some time in every reconstructionist group. Heathenry is one of the largest and most active reconstructionist populations, so that contributed to the appeal.

3. I appreciated the worldview and religious concepts.

4. It felt “right.”

For some, these might not be valid reasons to commit to a tradition, but for me, they have been enough to really experience a sense of belonging and spiritual support.

In Conclusion

Reconstructionist traditions are a social construct. When we engage with one, we should remember not to limit ourselves. Polytheism is diverse and allows for multiplicity, so let’s embrace that. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t a lot of value in committing to a tradition as a kind of “home base” spiritual paradigm. In fact, it can be very helpful as long as we remember to be discerning.


References Cited

Appadurai, Arjun
1988 Putting Hierarchy in Its Place. Cultural Anthropology, Place and Voice in Anthropological Theory 3(1):36-49.

Clifford, James
1997 Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Harvard University Press.

No, Atheists Don’t Get a Say

I feel like this should be self-evident but apparently it’s not….

As if Heathenry doesn’t already have its work cut out for it with overcoming the problem of white supremacy, now our spaces are being invaded by atheists.  The participation of these so-called “atheo-pagans” is essentially a form of de-platforming. By entering our spaces, they imply that Heathenry is not inherently theistic. They reduce our religion to a form of viking re-enactment. This, in turn, actually exacerbates the problem of white supremacy in Heathenry because it construes the movement as a cultural phenomenon. Not to mention the reductionist practices that ‘cultural pagans’ follow. How the heck does one even practice ‘cultural paganism?’ I know that everything I do in my personal practice is steeped in theism.

There’s nothing wrong with being interested in paganism as a non-believer. But when you actively label yourself a member of the community then that is a huge problem.

As a marginalized religious group with so few members and a proportionally massive amount of social and theological tension, we cannot allow this disintegration from within. Atheists are inherently invalidating to our practices, and when we allow them to speak as Heathens, we lose so much of the reconstruction process.

I think that too many of us are timid about being “exclusionary” and gatekeepy. But there’s nothing wrong with policing completely reasonable borders. A theistic religion should only be practiced by theists. Anything else is complete nonsense.

 

 

Feminist Gods?: The Fallacy of Ascribing Ideologies to the Divine

I recently saw someone ask if x Goddess can be considered “feminist.”

To me, this question starts from a place of diminishing the Gods, Beings Who have existed since long before our human cultures and petty squabbles even began.

Ascribing any ideology to the Gods, noble or otherwise, is inherently reductive.

While we know that Dionysus is a patron of the marginalized, Bastet is known to care for those with mental illness, and Thor is a protector of ordinary people, we cannot summarize such roles in ideological terms.

It is only if we assume that Artemis, for example, is no more than a character, can we say that She is a “feminist” Goddess. If we look at Katniss Everdeen we might see some similar traits– hunting, female agency, etc. But the key to determining feminism is the relationship of a woman to a patriarchal social structure. It involves the assumption that a society essentializes gender differences.

But though the Gods might support universal balance in a way that appears structured and hierarchical, They are not subject to social structures or gender inequalities in the way we are. Doing so would reduce Zeus and Odin and any chief God simply to a patriarch and Goddesses to the role of the marginalized. And of course, we know that Gods are not inextricable from Their genders or Their typical imagery. Loki, for instance, is known for changing shapes and genders, even giving birth to Sleipnir in the form of a mare. Odin may appear as Allfather or as Geldnir (eunuch). Zeus has taken the shape of a golden shower, a swan, and white bull. The point is that the shapes the Gods take are malleable. They choose to appear to us in certain genders, but They are not bound to these forms. Most likely this has to do with our own comfort and mental limitations. Therefore, among other social constructs we experience, the Gods are not bound by gender inequality.

Our ideologies simply cannot apply to the Numinous, Who transcend our world by Their very nature.

The Exotic and the Familiar: Alterity in Religious Practice

I recently saw a Heathen do an AMA on reddit and a lot of people were asking him if, deep down, he was drawn to Heathenry because he wanted to be different.

Now, I wholly reject this notion that being Heathen is about being ‘youneek’ or edgy. However, this question does make me examine something about myself and how the logic of “difference” is relevant to my practice.

In my connection to both anthropology and Heathenry, I am engaging with an underlying desire for the “other.” This isn’t to say that my anthropological method or goal is about exoticization. Actually, anthropology is a very unveiling experience. It is about reconciling the “us” and the “other” more than not. It makes “the strange familiar and the familiar strange” (Spiro 1990 [1992]). And I think religion is much the same way.

In etic ethnography,1 the goal is to a. recognize the validity of cultural diversity and to b. become personally acquainted with these differences so that they seem familiar. A byproduct of this process is the loss of enchantment. According to the philosopher Charles Taylor, modern “Westerners” are seeking always seeking re-enchantment because our current social state has resulted in a loss of social enchantment (see Taylor 2008 on enchantment and disenchantment as a social force).2 When I reflect on this, I often consider the fact that  historic polytheists depicted the Gods in clothes endemic to their societies. Yet I, as a reconstructionist, continue to think of the Gods in terms of these now archaic clothes, rather than to imagine them in contemporary dress.

In both anthropology and religious thought, I manage the tensions between my experience of the familiar and the exotic. In my own religious life, I want to maintain a sense of the sacred as much as possible, and that means, by definition, demarcating it from the mundane. This is the essential paradox of religiosity; we tend to fall back on what is familiar, on what we have been socialized into, but at the same time, we need the alterity of the sacred in order to connect to it in a way that transcends the mundane. It is this paradox which keeps so many “converted”3  Pagans attached to the ideas from their religious upbringing. On the one hand, they remain attached to their past, while on the other hand they connect more to their new religion. None of us can ever really escape this paradox, but I think it’s helpful to reflect on it.

So, for me, those reddit questions are a guiltful reminder that the inherent otherness (based on my upbringing) of Pagan Gods is part of Their appeal, but just because I was drawn to Them in that way doesn’t make my practice superficial.

Curiosity about the other is often a means for further investigation, without which we would not achieve much mutual understanding. Though desire for otherness can be dangerous because of its potential to lead people into the pitfalls of orientalism, I think it’s unrealistic to pretend that people are never attracted to difference. As a “Westerner” in a post-colonial world, it’s almost impossible to begin from a place of de-exoticization. Beginning with the mentality of cultural relativism4 is really the best we can do.

I’m willing to accept the position that anthropology is problematic. However, I do think that as long as the anthropologist curbs their own ethnocentricities,5 follows ethical standards, and recognizes their potential to cause harm even in subtle ways, then anthropology can be a positive thing for a community. Though we must remain reflexive6 about our role in communities, especially marginalized ones, we have the power to work towards a more socially just society by revealing structural inequalities.

As far as my religion is concerned, I think living with this tension is an uncomfortable but unavoidable reality. We have to remember to be careful about it, especially if someone is looking at crossover practices.7 Otherwise, we must constantly manage our comfort with the familiar with our desire for enchantment.


1. etic means “outside of,” and ethnography is an anthropological study of human behavior; So, etic ethnography describes anthropological observation as conducted from the perspective of a cultural outsider.

2. Note that while Taylor’s philosophy discusses enchantment as a historically developed  phenomenon, I think his thoughts on the condition of enchantedness can also hold some bearing on the permeability of enchanted thinking within an individual in the present.  If anything, my entire discussion here might be a reflection on my attempt (as a modern American) to “re-enchant” my own thinking.

3. I actually hate the term “converted,” to describe someone’s transition to Paganism, as I think it has a deeply Judeo-Abrahamic connotation. However, I use it here for simplicity’s sake.

4. Cultural relativism is essentially the practice of accepting the validity of other cultures. It is about refraining from ethnocentricism, in which one measures the success, goodness, validity, etc. of other cultures using the framework of one’s own culture.

5. see ibid.

6. In anthropology, reflexivity is the practice of self-reflection and self-critique.

7. In Norse paganism, for instance, some spirit workers consider using Sami practices. This would typically be considered cultural appropriation.


References Cited

Spiro, Melford E.
1990[1992] On the Strange and the Familiar in Recent Anthropological
Thought. In Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. James E. Stigler, Richard A. Shweder, and Gilbert Herdt, eds. Pp. 47-62. Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Charles
2008 Buffered and Porous Selves. In The Immanent Frame. Social Science Research Council, September 2.