Reflections on the Distinction Between Closed and Open Practices
written by Jack Parsons, 22 July 2025Appropriation, in the negative sense, could be defined as “engaging with a piece of culture in a way that is exploitative and disrespectful”, especially individuals of the dominant culture taking from the marginalized. It does not constitute members of the marginalized taking from the dominant culture, which is assimilation. It is a broad definition to describe a broad grouping of phenomena which exist in different cultural, political, and socioeconomic contexts.
Appropriation is also not condemnation, an accusation; it is a call to examine yourself and your practice, to keep yourself in check, to address your privilege and engage respectfully with marginalized groups. Anyone can participate in appropriation, regardless of their demographic, because all of us are present in the power structures and hierarchies that exist within our society, whether that be racism, sexism, economic disparity, orientalism, or religious hegemony.
WHAT IS A CLOSED PRACTICE?
The general definition of a closed practice varies depending on who you ask. For the purposes of this writing, I will list multiple criteria that are sometimes listed and sometimes excluded from definitions of closed practices. People variously say that a closed practice is…⯎ 1. one in which you can only participate in if you are born into.
⯎ 2. one in which you can only participate in if you are initiated into.
⯎ 3. one that is restricted by race or culture.
Usually, posts outlining closed practices pay lip service to the idea that gatekept practices are done so out of a necessity of marginalized people to protect their culture and traditions. Generally listed are Indigenous American religions, Judaism, Voodoo and Hoodoo, and often Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto, which all constitute minority religious groups in the United States. On the other hand, what constitutes an open practice is rarely defined, though occasionally, posts will list various “open practices”, usually Ancient European polytheistic groups.
I believe that this lip service to marginalization is inadequate to describe what we mean by “closed” and “open” without making the political and social contexts, the dynamics between the oppressor and oppressed or colonizer and colonized, the centre of the definition. Certain aspects described above are common restrictions across the practices and traditions of marginalized groups, but we must centre the marginalization rather than its symptoms. Liz Bucar writes:
“An act of cultural borrowing is not wrong just because it transgresses a cultural boundary; for example, because an outsider borrows a cultural practice of an insider. It is wrong because of the way it interacts with existing oppression of specific groups in ways that further contribute to their oppression. Put differently, borrowing becomes stealing when a dominant or privileged group borrows from a marginalized one.” (Stealing My Religion)
ANALYSIS OF CRITERIA
To emphasize the importance of marginalization as the centrepoint, I would like to take a brief look at each of the common criteria listed for a closed practice.⯎ 1. one in which you can only participate if you are born into.
On its own, this is the least applicable criteria. I believe only a few religions in the world do not accept converts at all: the Druze, Mandaeans, and Yezidi. Parsi Zoroastrians do not generally accept converts, though other Zoroastrian groups and diaspora do. All four are minority religious groups who have experienced severe discrimination and persecution, and several (the Mandaeans and Yezidi) used to allow conversions, but were forced to stop to avoid further persecution from their respective governments.
⯎ 2. one in which you can only participate if you are initiated into.
To address this point, we must first define initiation. Do we mean a formal ceremony before you can call yourself a practitioner? A conversion process? The issue with initiation as a criteria is that it is, generally, described in broad enough terms to apply to nearly all religious contexts, from Catholicism to Wicca to Judaism. Indeed, Catholics either undergo an initiation through infant baptism or must undergo a conversion process including the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults to participate fully in the Catholic Church. Wiccans wishing to participate in specific traditions must be initiated into a coven, and Judaism requires formal conversions for goyishe adults. Additionally, coming of age ceremonies such as the bar or bat mitzvah could be considered an initiation process.
In the United States, we could make an argument for each of these three religions as minority groups, since Protestant Christianity is the dominant religion. However, this is not universally applicable to Catholicism: it is the dominant religion across most of Europe, Central and South America, and the Philippines. In these locations where Catholicism frequently maintains dominance and institutional power, the dynamics between it and other minority religions are much different, and can create an oppressor-oppressed dynamic. In other words, the position of religions in oppression dynamics is highly dependent on societal and political context and often intersects with other forms of systemic injustice.
Another issue is the context of the initiation process. For the prospective convert to an Indigenous American religion, the religion simply cannot be practiced without first involving yourself in the community. While information may be available to the public, proper training and experience may be required to utilize that information correctly. The same is true of specific practices such as Kabbalah-- you could find the Zohar online and read it right now, but in order to fully grasp it, you must be well versed in its cultural context and have deep religious knowledge of Judaism.
Both religious groups, Indigenous American religions and Judaism, are marginalized in the United States and have been subject to mass discrimination and systemic injustice. Conversion in Judaism has been increasingly made more difficult because of the necessity of weeding out bad actors or others looking to exploit the Jewish community to their own ends. Similarly, the restrictions around participation in Indigenous American religious practices have been greatly influenced by the effect of colonization in America on their communities.
Therefore, I question the usefulness of initiation as a criteria for a “closed practice”. If we centre the status of marginalization in our definition, then the presence of certain initiatory rites, guarded knowledge, or a conversion practice become potential symptoms of the long-term effects of marginalization on a community- ones which are not guaranteed, but are common, and can appear in other religious contexts- rather than a point of definition. Additionally, putting Catholicism, a dominant religion in a large portion of the world, but also a historically oppressed one in others, alongside Judaism, Wicca, or Indigenous American religions flattens the ability to perceive the unique struggles that each group faces: it directly contributes to the erasing of cultural nuance.
⯎ 3. one that is restricted by race or culture. I find the idea of certain religions being restricted by race as failing to recognize race as a social construct created by colonialism; a person identified as one race in their home country may be identified as an entirely different race within the sociopolitical climate of a different country. There are practices that have a strong tie to ancestry and inheritance, including passed down traditions and generational trauma, particularly from racially motivated systemic injustice such as slavery, colonialism, cultural genocide, or other forms of racial exploitation. Frequently, the inherited practices and history are interwoven, and in my opinion, it is less effective to call them closed by race than it is to say that the experience of marginalization that plays a role in these practices is not one that you have access to unless you are within its context, or a descendant of people who were, and can feel and experience its tangible effects.
As discussed above, minority religions will often require that you participate in their community and culture to participate in their religious practices. Culture and religion are inseparable and cannot be removed from each other, and it is the case for every religion that it cannot be understood without first engaging in dialogue with its respective cultures. In the case of marginalized religions, the stricter boundaries around group intimacy can serve as a defense mechanism against oppressor and colonizer forces. However, in most cases, genuine, consensual engagement in two-way dialogue with the culture is still possible, and frequently culture is more fluid than it is given credit for.
An example is in the participation of spouses or roommates into religious traditions, despite lack of initiation or background in those practices. It is not uncommon for partners to convert for the sake of religious approval and/or allowing their partner to fully raise children in their religion, despite lack of prior religious affiliation or belief. It is also not uncommon for participants of marginalized practices to share those practices and their culture with significant others or living partners whom they feel safe with. Culture, community, and the boundaries between insider and outsider are also constructed on a relational basis that is heavily based on the dynamics of the marginalized person(s) with potential sources of oppression.
FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRACTITIONER
Firstly, as I mentioned before, it is important for all of us to examine the power structures that we are a part of in our given societies, regardless of where we live, or our racial, ethnic, or religious identities. In order to be fully cognizant of how our practices can potentially contribute to oppression of the marginalized, we must become cognizant of the ways in which the marginalized are oppressed.Secondly, if ownership of religious practice and tradition is determined by group intimacy, then who counts as a group insider or outsider is relevant, and the difference is often muddy and unclear. It also stands that, because community is not homogenous, different people within a group may disagree on what is or isn’t a breach of intimacy, and what does or doesn’t count as appropriation. This can, inevitably, cause difficulty for the practitioner in determining what is or is not okay to participate in. My best advice is to, if possible, become involved in community and talk to multiple people, engage in intercultural dialogue and discuss your interest.
Note the word dialogue. It is deeply important that we do not allow the shutting down of two-way dialogue, that we talk with marginalized practices rather than about them: “When we have true respect for the Difference of other cultures, then we grant them the potential for challenging our own culture. Genuine dialogical engagement is at least a two-way thoroughfare.” … “Instead of speaking about them, one speaks to and with them.” … “Dialogical performance celebrates the paradox of ‘how the deeply different can be deeply known without becoming any less different.’” … “What it demands is not hypotheses, which may unnaturally close study down, obscuring the integrity of the other, but the ability to converse intimately.” (Conquergood, Performing as a Moral Act)
Thirdly, certain practices may be behind more doors than others, even within the same religion. Certain traditions, especially ones held and passed down by priesthood, elders, or other figures of authority, traditions passed down by family lineage, and traditions with a history of exploitation such as Jewish mysticism, may require further rites, ceremonies, involvements, or experience to participate in, even as a member of a given religion. Even if a practice is unavailable for you to practice, with genuine consensual dialogue comes the ability to learn without either exotifying, nor copping out of cross-cultural engagement.
Lastly, always try your best to keep an open mind to the opinions and beliefs of others. Religious traditions and practices are not monolithic, and indeed people and culture are messy and grey. But people also love to learn and share and pass on their beliefs in genuine dialogue-- real, genuine dialogue-- and that does not come from some intrinsic, mystical quality about you that makes you able to converse with people from other cultures more effectively. It only means “grasping a proverb, catching an allusion, seeing a joke--or, as I have suggested, reading a poem". (Geertz, From the Native’s Point of View)
the path forward seems to go back,
the direct path seems long,
true power seems weak,
true purity seems tarnished,
true steadfastness seems changeable,
true clarity seems obscure,
the greatest art seems unsophisticated,
the greatest love seems indifferent,
the greatest wisdom seems childish.
