On my desk I keep one reference work within easy reach: the New
Historical Atlas of Religion in America. It is not just
that I am fascinated by maps. When writing or teaching about religion,
I try to remember the dictum that I first learned from Jane Kamensky:
“events take place.” To bring place into my work, I need to remind
myself constantly of the where and when of American religious history.
But I also keep in mind Laurie Maffly-Kipp’s memorably titled essay
“If It’s South Dakota You Must Be Episcopalian.” In that essay
Maffly-Kipp reviews several atlases of American religion and makes a
number of telling critiques of the whole enterprise of mapping
religion, and indeed mapping in the humanities generally. Those
critiques can be lumped into two categories: sources and definitions.
First, sources: “We are still limited by data that is partial,
ambiguous, and clearly slanted toward things that can be counted and
people that traditionally have been seen as significant.” In other
words, our sources for making maps of religion aren’t very good, and
the best sources let us make maps of groups that we already know a lot
about. Second, definitions: Maffly-Kipp observes that our “our
dazzling new technologies and spatial theories” might only have
“brought us back to much more circumscribed definitions of religious
experience.” In other words, map-making requires us to use
denominational categories when the whole trend of religious history
and religious studies is towards more complex, layered understandings
of religion.
The scholars who created the leading atlases of American religion
often raised the same questions. When I look at the New Historical
Atlas or Bret Carroll's Routledge Historical Atlas of
Religion in America, I see their great ingenuity in dealing with
these questions within the limits of mapmaking in print.
But it seems to me that digital mapmaking permits us to escape some
of the constraints of maps in print atlases and monographs.
So my questions today are these: Can digital mapmaking let us make
maps which address these theoretical critiques? How can we take the
next step from the work of Gaustad and others, while taking into
account Maffly-Kipp's concerns?
I'll try to answer those questions by showing you two projects that I
have worked on. The first is a class I taught on mapping Boston's
religions from the American revolution to the 1880s. And—since I've
done more interesting work since I submitted my abstract a year ago—I
will also sketch out the sources and methods for digital maps of
religion on a much larger scale.
My general argument is that there are large sources of data on
American religion after the colonial period and before Word War II
which historians have not used to make maps. Scholars have not passed
over these sources because they are unaware of them, but because they
could not meaningfully represent them in print maps. The problem is
one of resolution. Print atlases could convey relatively few data
points. Furthermore, because atlases can contain only so many maps,
they have often been forced to set their chronological or geographic
scope very large. By using these more detailed sources we are able to
make maps which better approximate the sophisticated thinking about
religious categories that we expect from our prose. These richer maps
can tell us not just more, but more humanistic, things about religious
history. To take advantage of these more comprehensive sources we need
digital maps. To be sure, digital history has had more than its share
of hubris, more than we have time to repent of today. But digital maps
do offer the possibility for working at different scales, for
displaying change over time, for integrating maps with our sources,
and for crafting narratives with maps. While none of these advantages
entirely solves with the problem of mapping humanistically, they do
permit us to at least start to address these theoretical concerns.
My first work to show you is a deep map of the history of religion in
Boston. In the spring of 2014, I taught a course at Brandeis
University on mapping the religions of Boston in the nineteenth
century. In this project-based course, students did original research
to locate congregations in Boston and created a map of the religious
landscape of the city as it changed over time. Students looked at
nineteenth-century maps of Boston, city directories, and
denominational records to find the locations of about 235
congregations. They then developed a metadata schema to handle the
information they had researched. In other words, they had to design
the categories for their maps and figure out how to represent change
over time and ambiguity in the sources. Using Omeka and Neatline, students created records
for the congregations, including information such as the date a
congregation was formed and the date it disbanded, its street
location, denomination, and any other relevant information, including
citations. Many of the records included photographs or engravings of
the church buildings. Churches were pegged to a timeline, so that
changes in congregations could be shown dynamically. Students also
georectified original maps to put beneath their congregations to show
the changing landscape of the city. This was especially important for
Boston, since large parts of the city were reclaimed from the
harbor or the Back Bay during the middle of the nineteenth century.
Finally, students created exhibits (online essays, really) about
particular aspects of what they had learned from creating the map.
I wish to be cautious about about making historical claims from the
map. The students were all excellent, but the class was very small;
too small, probably, for the size of the project that we attempted. I
can't claim that we identified all the congregations in the Boston for
that eighty year period, which would have taken a team of graduate
students much longer than a semester.
But I can point out some of the methodological advantages of this kind
of deep mapping. First, by animating the map we were able to see
change over time. One
student who was interested in the Methodist congregations was
able to chart their spread throughout the city. Methodists, like
everybody else, started in the downtown section of the city. But as
new land opened because of the Back Bay landfill, churches moved to
the west. We identified photos of churches in the Back Bay where they
were literally the only buildings in sight. By observing movements
connected to photographs, we were able to discuss the significance of
landscape—an observation only available through this kind of deep
mapping.
Second, students learned from creating this map to think of religions
as being part of an ecosystem. The map led to useful questions about
how religious groups related to one another and to their environment.
Another
student wrote about the disputes between the “Bayer” (i.e.,
German) and the “Polander” (i.e., Polish) synagogues. She was able to
identify many of the homes of the Jews who made up the membership of
Congregation Ohabei Shalom. The split between these congregations over
matters of culture and ritual later influenced the settlement of Jews,
who lived in different neighborhoods of the city at different times.
A
third student examined racial segregation in housing and
churches along with interaction between black and white Baptist
churches on Beacon Hill and in the North End.
Finally students thought deeply about the categories we had to use. So
far from mapping obscuring the categories we used, it was the central
means of discussing them. One day we read Ralph Waldo Emerson's
“Divinity School Address,” with its call for his audience to be
“yourself a newborn bard of the Holy Ghost,—cast behind you all
conformity.” One student observed that
Emerson would not have found much use in our class project, because we
were mapping congregations rather than individuals, institutions
rather than prophets. Our map featured a city, when Emerson would have
called us to “nature.” It was a brilliant observation, because it used
our reading of Emerson’s text to interrogate the assumptions about
religion and society that underlay our class project: assumptions that
I had made, and also assumption inherent to mapmaking. But our
discussion also led us to conclude
that though Emerson had a point about individualism, many
people in Boston would not have so easily discarded the
congregations of which they were members.
While the map by no means fully resolves the critiques that I cited
earlier, it does start to address them. In particular, this map is
based on very different sources than the maps in Gaustad, Barlow, and
Dishno's New Historical Atlas of Religion. Where they used data
from the Census Bureau for the majority of their national maps, we
were able to use just about any kind of source and to capture many
more details about it within the Omeka records. And though our map
was still beholden to more or less the same denominational categories
as the New Historical Atlas, we were able to turn our attention
to ecosystems and interactions.
All of our methodological differences from the New Historical
Atlas depended on looking at a city rather than a nation. Is
there a way to extend these kind of methods to a larger scale?
Most of the maps in the Gaustad atlas depict a particular denomination
in a given year using aggregated data from the U.S. Census Bureau
about the number of congregations in a county. These maps are thus
able to give an overview of the regional prominence of particular
religious groups county by county. The map of Congregationalists in
the 1850 census is typical.
Thanks to the National Historic
Geographic Information System (NHGIS) at the University of
Minnesota, it is easy to reproduce any of the maps in the Gaustad
atlas which are based on the census. NHGIS has digitized the
aggregate-level census data and keyed it to shapefiles of
United States in each decade. We can use that data to create web (or
print, for that matter) maps which are visually similar to Gaustad's
and which depict the exact same data.
The mere translation of the Gaustad maps from print to digital gains
us nothing. Beyond the strong presence of Congregationalism in New
England and its spread to parts of Ohio and Illinois, we cannot learn
much from county-level maps. Were we to zoom into Massachusetts,
we would learn that each county has 25 churches or more (how many
more?) but we would not know where those churches were located, how
close they were to other Congregationalist churches (let alone
churches of other denominations) or how many congregants they had. The
problem is that the county is too coarse for meaningful maps.
But there is much more detailed information available to us. I mean
most obviously the records of many denominations, which often contain
detailed information about membership, and usually at a minimum
contain long lists of congregations. Often they even include
information about Canada. Once these lists are digitized and
geocoded, they can provide maps of much greater resolution than the
aggregate census data.
Leaving aside for a moment the ability to pan and zoom the map, to
access additional information by clicking on the congregations, and to link out to primary
source, how much more information does this map contain than the
equivalent map in the New Historical Atlas? The Atlas
has 137 counties with at least one Congregationalist church: it thus
makes 137 meaningful marks on the page. This map from denominational
records has 2,212 Congregationalist churches in the United States and
Canada. Also, the map is able to depict not just the existence
of a congregation, but also its size in members. This is a
32-fold increase in the amount of information conveyed in the map.
For comparison, that is the difference between
an 800 x 600 pixel CRT monitor and two 4K monitors.
This map really does let us see things that we could not in the map
based on aggregate census data. For one, we can see how New England's
cities were complex ecosystem of small and large Congregationalist
churches. Only a few miles separated the pastor-less sixteen members
of a church in North Chelsea from the 603 members of Park Street
Church. Second, there is a sharper line between the Massachusetts
border with New York than between churches in Michigan and Canada. And
third, we can see the effects of personality: Oberlin's eleven hundred
Congregationalists drawn by Charles Finney far outweigh the membership
of any other church west of Massachusetts.
Another use of these maps is the ability to set them in
motion over time. This effectively lets us make scores of maps where
before we only had one.
One other observation about sources. Denominational records for the
nineteenth century vary widely from denomination to denomination, and
can even vary in detail from year to year within the same
denomination. So another source of information available to historians
are the published census data up through 1926 (or for some
denominations, through 1936). You will recall that I criticized the
county-level data from the census as obscuring as much as it reveals.
In order to create those aggregate counts, the Census Bureau had to
keep track of data at the level of congregations. The published census
reports contain counts of churches and members in cities with more
than 25,000 people. Compared to the attention paid to cities like
Boston, few of us have done work on Council Bluffs, Iowa, or
Woonsocket, RI, but it is possible to know with some specificity about
those cities. For example, in the published 1926 census report there
are 292 cities containing records for 215 religions or denominations.
Though I have not yet tracked them down, it is also possible to access
the raw returns for the 1926 Census. For an extraordinary number of
congregations in the United States, there are census returns giving
addresses and often counts of members. The Census Bureau used these in
compiling their aggregate reports, but they can in turn be sources for
detailed maps.
In conclusion, the scholars who created print atlases did
extraordinary work, not least given the constraints of the medium of
print. But print could only show a limited amount of data. Given how
little data we’ve actually had to work with, it's not surprising that
the maps we have are open to criticisms. Some of these problems are
inherent in the nature of mapping—you'll never find Emerson's "newborn
bard of the Holy Ghost" on a map like this. But at least some of the
critiques can begin to be solved by producing far more detailed maps
of American religion, which in turn let us ask more complex questions
about ecosystems, interactions, and the layering of space and
identities.