“Weak Religiosity” Prototypes: How to See What is Absent?
https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2024-42-3-297-326
Abstract
Contemporary sociology of religion interprets the weak religiosity of the Orthodox Christians in Russia either as a “nominal” membership in Orthodox Church, or as a particular stage on a linear path to full churching. Both views oversimplify rich religious experience. The boundaries between the main oppositions (sacred‑profane, religious‑secular), on which the sociology of religion was based, are no longer obvious in the modern world. We are trying to discover new themes and analyze the contribution of both traditional church piety and new values of self‑realization, environmental friendliness, body, etc. The analysis is carried out within the framework of Q‑methodology: 30 respondents, analysis of prototypes of religiosity based on Q‑sorts of a set of 136 cards and in‑depth interviews. The “Weak Religiosity” Q‑set was developed based on the ideas of T. Luckmann’s “Invisible Religion” and represents 8 spheres. Each sphere is actualized through a set of statements that describe potential experiences of the transcendent at different levels or indicate the importance of this experience. Statements (136 in total) are formulated in the third person. The paper describes eight prototypes: 1) “classical” religiosity, 2) civic and political engagement, 3) relationships with other people, 4) spirituality, 5) body and a healthy lifestyle, 6) creativity and personal self‑realization, 7) self‑development and the common good, 8) work. We argue that these prototypes can be interpreted as specifically religious, irreducible to any non‑religious factor.
About the Authors
E. V. Prutskova
St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena V. Prutskova — Senior Research Fellow at the Sociology of Religion Research Laboratory, Associate Professor
Moscow
K. V. Markin
St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kirill V. Markin — Research Fellow at the Sociology of Religion Research Laboratory
Moscow
References
1. Вебер М. Протестантская этика и дух капитализма // Избранные произведения. М.: Прогресс, 1990. С. 44–271.
2. Дюркгейм Э. Элементарные формы религиозной жизни: тотемическая система в Австралии. М.: Элементарные формы, 2018.
3. Зоркая Н. Православие в безрелигиозном обществе // Вестник общественного мнения: Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. 2009. № 2(100). С. 65–85.
4. Казанова Х. Размышляя о постсекулярном: три значения «секулярного» и три возможности выхода за его пределы // Государство, религия, Церковь в России и за рубежом. 2018. Т. 36. № 4. С. 143–174.
5. Маркин К. Между верой и неверием: непрактикующие православные в контексте российской социологии религии // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2018. № 2. С. 274–290.
6. Маркин К. Реконструкция трех типов трансценденций в социологии религии Томаса Лукмана // Логос. 2023. Т. 33. № 6. С. 111–142.
7. Пруцкова Е., Маркин К., Врублевская П. Q-методология в изучении «слабой религиозности» // Научный результат. Социология и управление. 2020. Т. 6. № 3. С. 184–202.
8. Синелина Ю. О динамике религиозности россиян и некоторых методологических проблемах ее изучения (религиозное сознание и поведение православных и мусульман) // Социологические исследования. 2013. № 10. С. 104–115.
9. Смирнов М. Возможно ли отказаться от концепта религиозности при исследовании религии? // Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии. 2015. Т. 16. № 2. С. 145–153.
10. Филатов С., Лункин Р. Статистика российской религиозности: магия цифр и неоднозначная реальность // Социологические исследования. 2005. № 6. С. 35–45.
11. Фурман Д., Каариайнен К. Религиозность в России на рубеже XX–XXI столетий // Общественные науки и современность. 2007. № 2. С. 78–95.
12. Чеснокова В. Тесным путем: процесс воцерковления населения России в конце XX века. М.: Академический Проект, 2005.
13. Шюц А. Избранное: Мир, светящийся смыслом. М.: РОССПЭН, 2004.
14. Эрвье-Леже Д. В поисках определенности: парадоксы религиозности в обществах развитого модерна // Государство, религия, церковь в России и за рубежом. 2015. Т. 33. № 1. С. 256–268.
15. Эрвье-Леже Д. В поисках определенности: парадоксы религиозности в обществах развитого модерна.
16. Asad, T. (1993) Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Bartkowski, J., Swearingen, W. (1997) “God Meets Gaia in Austin, Texas: A Case Study of Environmentalism as Implicit Religion”, Review of Religious Research 38(4): 308–324.
18. Bellah, R. (1985) Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
19. Day, A. (2010) “Propositions and Performativity: Relocating Belief to the Social”, Culture and Religion 11(1): 9–30.
20. Denz, H. (2009) “Religion, Popular Piety, Patchwork Religion”, in G. Pickel, O. Müller (eds.) Church and Religion in Contemporary Europe, pp. 183–202. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
21. Fitzgerald, T. (2007) Discourse on Civility and Barbarity: a Critical History of Religion and Related Categories. New York: Oxford University Press.
22. Knoblauch, H. (2008) “Spirituality and Popular Religion in Europe”, Social Compass 55(2): 140–153.
23. Kontala, J. (2016) Emerging Non-Religious Worldview Prototypes: A Faith Q-Sort-Study on Finnish Group-Affiliates. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press.
24. Lassander, M., Nynäs, P. (2016) “Contemporary Fundamentalist Christianity in Finland: The Variety of Religious Subjectivities and Their Association with Values”, Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society 2(2): 154–184.
25. Lindbeck, G. A. (1984) The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
26. Luck mann, T. (1990) “Shrinking Transcendence, Expanding Religion?”, Sociological Analysis 51(2): 127–138.
27. Luckmann, T. (1967) The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
28. Luckmann, T. (1977) “Theories of Religion and Social Change”, The Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion 1: 1–28.
29. Luckmann, T. (2003) “Transformations of Religion and Morality in Modern Europe”, Social Compass 50(3): 275–285.
30. Pollack, D. (2003) “Was ist Religion? Versuch einer Definition”, in Säkularisierung — ein moderner Mythos? Studien zum religiösen Wandel in Deutschland, pp. 28–55. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
31. Ramlo, S. (2016) “Mixed Method Lessons Learned From 80 Years of Q Methodology”, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 10(1): 28–45.
32. Schütz, A., Luckmann, T. (1974) The Structures of the Life-World. London: Heinemann; Schütz, A., Luckmann, T. (1989) The Structures of the Life-World. Volume II / Translated by R. Zaner, D. Evanston. IL: Northwestern University Press.
33. Stephenson, W. (1935) “Correlating Persons Instead of Tests”, Journal of Personality 4(1): 17–24.
34. Stephenson, W. (1935) “Technique of Factor Analysis”, Nature 136: 297.
35. Vrublevskaya, P. (2022) “‘I Try Not to Save My Soul, but to Understand It’: Young Adults from Finland, Poland and Russia on a Spiritual Quest”, Approaching Religion 12(1): 149–164.
36. Watts, S., Stenner, P. (2012) Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
37. Wulff, D. (2019) “Prototypes of Faith: Findings with the Faith Q-Sort”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 58(3): 643–665.
Review
For citations:
Prutskova E.V., Markin K.V. “Weak Religiosity” Prototypes: How to See What is Absent? State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide. 2024;42(3):297-326. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2024-42-3-297-326
Views:
263
Email this article 