Contemporary academics have, for some reason or another, decided to take a "northern-centric" approach to designating what constitutes a major world religion. Thus, religions of both the east and west, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism and sometimes Taoism and Shintoism are included in the "world religions" bracket, along with, of course, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, but those of the global south and developing nations are relegated to the sphere of "tribal" or "indigenous" religions. What does this really mean?
In a word: nothing. Designations of alternative versus mainstream or "world" religions are purely subjective and tell us little about a spiritual path itself.
These designations are merely academic conveniences, which, although ostensibly free of value judgments, nonetheless recognize the academic interest and import of certain religions over others. Just like Egypt has been excavated thousands of times over by budding archaeologists while many of the ancient South American cities remain buried, certain religions have caught the eye of scholars while others have remained relatively obscure or in the realm of the anthropologist, and untouched by scholars of religion.
But to say that anything other than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or Buddhism constitutes an alternative religion is to over simplify. There are several factors to be considered.
1. Geography and culture: Hinduism in India, it is safe to say, is fairly mainstream, and can hardly be considered alternative. And, in many multi-ethnic American neighborhoods, such as Chicago and Los Angeles, where large South Asian immigrant populations exist, Hinduism may still be considered by some to be a mainstream religious option. But, in the 1960s and 1970s, when Srila Prabhupada brought his native Indian Vaishnavism to the United States, what grew into the Krishna Consciousness or Hare Krishna (ISKCON) movement has become "alternative", despite its similarity to mainstream Hinduism as practiced in a few southern areas of India. Perhaps it is because many followers are converts; or perhaps it is because many followers are not of South Asian descent, but whatever the reason the Hare Krishna movement has been dubbed alternative, it can not be due to any inherent aspect of the religion itself.
2. Emic versus etic perspective (insider or group member versus outsider): A good example of this is the controversial and news-making subsect of the Mormon church, the Fundamental Latter Day Saints group headed by the media scapegoat darling Warren Jeffs. Clearly, the religion his group practices is a sub-sect of a more mainstream group (and a disdained one, at that) and has been accused by some of being a "cult". But what about children raised in a FLDS family? For these indigenous followers who have known no other religion, it is the others who are practicing the alternative religions, particularly in FLDS-majority regions such as Colorado City along the Utah-Arizona border. How can a religion which is in the majority of a given population be "alternative"? How can children, who have never known any other way of life, be accused of being a cult member?
3. Sub-sects: I'm sure this one will get me into a bit of trouble, but I'll remind both myself and my reader that I place no value on the truth claims of any religion over another, but dissect them for purely analytical purposes and for revelation on the human condition. Here's my novel claim: Many "alternative" religions, in fact, most alternative and new religious movements are sub-sects of mainstream religions; few are truly spawned in a cultural bubble free from the rites, texts and deities of other faiths. Jim Jones was a well respected Christian preacher and taught from the Christian Bible until the day he died. Raelians take as gospel both the old and new testaments and deify both Jesus Christ and the Hebrew Yaweh. Members of the California Heaven's Gate group were wearing matching sweat suits and Nikes on their way to a Christian heaven. Sub-sects of mainstream religions then, may also be considered "alternative", due to a heretical or innovative hermeneutical reading or interpretation of sacred texts.
4. History: History changes everything, particularly our perspective and understanding of religions. The once-persecuted Pauline Christians who read the gospel of Thomas alongside Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were scorned and ridiculed as crazed, delusional religious dissenters. Centuries later, (and after eliminating Thomas from the creed), politicians can't get elected unless they pledge allegiance to Paul's church. In other words, the exact same religion which once would get you stoned or run out of town, is now a prerequisite for the presidency. Time changes everything.
Considering these factors, I suggest that its merely our cultural schematics and intellectual laziness that allows us to sort some religious groups into the validated category of "mainstream" or "world religions" while others, particularly those of relatively new origin, novel hermeneutical readings and the global south, are, rudely, I believe, called "alternative", "tribal", "indigenous", or, worse yet (and just as useless), are, in a childish fit of name-calling and finger-pointing, called "cults".
The bottom line when it comes to examining religious paths for personal growth, I suggest, is to apply an economic-like method of gains and losses while looking for a personal fit. Find out what works, what doesn't work and what you like and don't like about a religion.
When categorizing faiths for academic inquiry, one needs to closely examine the connotation of, and reasons behind, providing greater value or inquiry to one path over another. Anything less is either frivolous ethnocentrism or an attempt to cater to the scholastic and linguistic status quo.
