Expanding and shrinking transcendence
Anton van Harskamp
Blaise Pascal Instituut Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Statement for The Club of Amsterdam, 2004-06-23
As far as the state of religion in Western Europe is concerned, [in particular in The Netherlands,] I wish to
bring forward a twofold thesis. [Actually this thesis is a social-theoretical conjecture, but for the sake of the
argument I shall call it a thesis anyway.]
1. The first part of the thesis is this: in Western Europe we may observe an increase in interest in
religiosity, even an increase in behavioral, emotional and intellectual expressions of religious desire.
This is a statement, which flies in the face of those who argue that secularization - the continuing
loss of social significance of religion -is still an unquestionable fact in Western Europe.
2. The second part: we may also say, however, that in Western Europe the saliency of religiosity and
religion for individuals - as well as the impact of religion upon society - is declining. That's why we
may also assume that the process of secularization is still going strong.
First part of the thesis
1. Let me first try to give some indications for the first part of this thesis by posing three questions: a. What kind of religiosity is thriving today? Then: b. Why is it thriving? And c. Where can we find it?
a. The question about what kind of religiosity is thriving today, can be answered by pointing to the nowadays often observed transformation from religion to spirituality, in particular to self-spirituality.1
Religion on the one hand can be defined as an orientation towards a transcendent entity - often a God - as well as the obedience to a tradition which mediates the authority of this transcendent entity. Modern spirituality on the other hand can be defined as the emotive experience ['Erlebnis' in German] of the transcendent divine as being in the first place immanent in life. One may discern at least three basic themes in the varieties of this modern self-spirituality.
The first theme is that one feels that life lived out of the ego, let's say the life of the ordinary self, is life lived out of a lower self. At this level life is experienced as for instance mechanistic or distorted or malfunctional.
The second theme is that one seeks to find and to express the Higher or Deeper Self, a Self which at the same time is considered to be the point of contact with transcendence (and the latter can be a God or Goddess or for instance a spiritual Energy).
The third theme is that all practices, ideas and forms of behavior which have to lead from the lower Self to the Higher Self, are in one way or another supposed to be dynamic forms of seeking. The cry is not: hear yea, learn, and obey, but the cry is: practice, engage, experience, and find what works for you. And, also typical: this type of seeking spirituality as a form of religiosity is quintessentially personal and experiential, for one wishes not to be enshrined in fixed traditions, and one claims to abhor dogma, religious institutions, theology and - often, but not always - the obligatory authority of sacred texts.
b. The next question: why is this kind of self-spirituality thriving? The painstakingly complex and concentrated answer is: it is one of the possible responses to the problems which our individualizing culture lays upon us. Let me try to clarify this answer.2
Living in an individualizing culture implies that processes like societal differentiation and fragmentation of life worlds are steering us on the path to find the sources of energy and strength in our 'Selves'. We may even say that our culture enforces upon us the assignment to become a person who is mature, independent and autonomous, above all a person who is expressing her or his true, authentic self. Slogans like 'Be an original' or 'Be yourself' ['in uniform': some years ago an advertising poster of the Amsterdam Police Corps, clearly indicating that individualization does not rule out homogenization in at least clothing and other physical expressions] are not only advertising catchphrases, no, these slogans express the obligation to deal with the culturally ingrained and psychologically internalized pressure to strive for authenticity. The next step in the argument is that we rarely succeed in being autonomous and authentic. And this step is in its turn followed by the idea that the seeking form of spirituality is one of the ways to deal with the cultural mediated assignment to be autonomous and authentic. [By the way, it is not a coincidence that in contemporary forms of religious spirituality metaphors like road, voyage, pilgrimage, are abundant].
The point is that modern spirituality promises her modern 'devotees' that the true Self can be achieved. The Self for instance will be given by divine or quasi-divine mercy, or by connecting him- or herself with universal energy. And the uncertainty-inducing feelings, which are generated by the condition that one must express the very own Self, can be countered by the certainties of a religious group. And there is something else. One may say [as for instance the German sociologist Gerhard Schulze has said (and written)] that we live in a so-called 'Erlebnisgesellschaft'. That is a society in which the abundance of material goods and services, the plurality of values and philosophies of life, are inducing us to stress the great significance and meaning of emotive experiences (as being the perspective through which we perceive and assess the persons, things and events in our world). And the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor is one among many others who, thinking further [than Schulze,] observed that in a cultural climate in which emotive experiences are so important, religion and spirituality are practices in which a so to say deepened variety of emotive experiences are offered and undergone. [Which also is one of the reasons why religion and spirituality are still thriving; although according to Taylor in a new dimension, that is to say: new, compared with traditional religious practices; because a religious idea or religious practice is only assumed or appropriated whenever it stimulates my emotive experience and my very own experience alone.]
c. And then the question: where can we find this new spirituality? I like to use the metaphor of a field for the whole of new religions and new spirituality. Well, at the margins of the field we can find some tiny buildings. At one side we can detect a few buildings in which some centers, organizations, groups, and a single community, are housing; all of a New Age descent. At the other side there are a few somewhat bigger, but still small buildings, buildings in which some neo-evangelical church-like groups have there quarters. [For it is defensible to claim that in neo-evangelical groups a form of religiosity is practiced in which the Self also functions as contact point with the divine (for some observers even till the point of sacralization of the self), and in which emotive experience is also stressed, and, in which, strikingly enough an anti-institutional, anti-theological, even anti-religion sentiment is reigning, in short: enough to consider neo-evangelicalism as one of the varieties of new religiosity.] And when we would observe very strictly and precisely, we could perceive at the outer edges of the field some almost invisible cottages in which only a few people are living, those who are often disapprovingly called sectarians, or better: members of new religious movements (I will spend a few words on them if I've got time at the end of this introduction or during our discussion).
The central field, however, and the stands are really crowded with people, who are every now and then practicing what I call a 'free floating' [- that is non-institutionalized and non-organized -] spirituality and religiosity. These people mostly confess 'New Age in a minor key', which means that a lot of them believe in the existence of a Higher Power, that they have a very positive orientation on the Self, that they are in one way or another open for some holism and for spiritual connections with other people and nature, that they don't believe in the reality of evil, and that they expect that the world will change when spiritual transformations will take place. Most people on the field and on the stands are practicing this kind of religiosity, thereby at the one hand acting like many others, but at the other hand serving mainly themselves. However - I now leave the metaphor of the field - this 'free floating' spirituality is practiced more and more in a wide variety of cultural contexts.3
My overall idea is that the institutions and organizations of New Age hardly have adherents anymore, but that New Age spiritualities - as said, usually practiced in a minor key - are becoming main stream cultural phenomena. They are diffused in society and accepted in different contexts. For instance in the context of fantasy worlds, disseminated in books, TV-programs and movies (think of Harry Potter, the X-Files, The Matrix-series etc.). There also is the context of health provision, in particular in the form of alternative medicine, hospices, and a rising number of complementary, alternative health therapies. And spiritualities are of course embedded in commercial and mediated cultures, in particular in the world of consultancy and management training (a Dutch sociologist, Stef Aupers, recently mentioned the success of enterprises like MetaVisie, Baarn, with for instance the course 'Deep Soul Diving' for managers, further Being in Business, Rotterdam, Soulstation, near Amersfoort and Firmament, near Amsterdam4).
Second part of the thesis
2. Now, let's finally spend some words on the second part of my thesis. It seems quite simple: although the interest in religion, even the practicing of religious spiritualities are not diminishing or fading away, there is empirically based research, indicating that in Western European countries an ongoing fragmentation takes place of basic life philosophies and value orientations. With respect to religion and spirituality this means that there is less coherence between religious and moral en life orientations in someone's life. In other words: the significance of religion and spirituality for the making of his or her own life is diminishing, the impact of religiosity on other parts of one's life (work, school, sports, relations etc.) is not impressive anymore.5 A German sociologist of religion, assuming that value orientations actually are steering human behavior, recently explored how religion for many people becomes more and more a background-phenomenon. Religiosity is so to say only temporarily activated, or only at special occasions, at the usual 'rites de passage' in daily life for instance or when a crisis interrupts one's life and the need asserts itself for orientation or for a vision on the ultimate meaning of life.6 A Swedish sociologist demonstrates how among young people there is actually a rising interest in paranormal religion, also in forms of New Age-like spiritualities, but that religion only plays a peripheral role in their lives: the so-called ego involvement and the saliency for religion and religiosity are low, while one has to acknowledge that the interest in and even the seeking for religiosity is high.7 Apparently we're dealing with seekers who wish not to be finders, we're dealing in other words, with expanding and with shrinking transcendence.
And these latter words, ladies and gentlemen, form the title of this statement: in Western Europe we're living in the paradoxical situation that the desire for religion is growing, while the significance of religion is diminishing. Thank you for your attention.
New religious movements
3. And what does this all mean for the prospects in the near future of that kind of religious groups which in popular parlance are called 'sects', but which we can better call NRM's: New Religious Movements? (a word like 'sect' is often used as a term of depreciation; the term has a strong judgmental, negative connotation; there are more of that kind in words in the field of religion, 'fundamentalism' for instance).
Allow me a few comments on this question (which I myself did not make up).
To begin with, I have to say that it is by no means clear what comprises a sect or a cult. The definition
of a sect is always in the eye of the beholder (no religious group will designate itself as a 'sect'). But let me
forget the problems that pop up when one tries to define a sect and simply assume that a sect is a religious
group which:
a) aims at a direct personal fellowship - not available in traditional churches;
b) is formed on the basis of voluntary acts of entrance of its members - not usual in churches which are connected with state, nation or region;
c) has a strict and coherent organization;
d) knows charismatic or authoritarian religious leadership;
e) is high-demanding for its members (and has characteristics of a 'greedy institution' - Lewis Coser);
f) shows up a tension (in doctrine and behavior of its members) between it and its social-cultural environment
or between it and the local religious - or secular-humanist - establishment.8
Now, if we define a 'sect' in this way, we must realize that in Western Europe the number of groups as well as the number of devotees and adherents is very small indeed. For England for instance, we have to think of not more than 1000 groups. And as far as members are concerned, for a huge country like Germany, we have to think in terms of about 350 for Hare Krishna, 600 for the Unification Church, and even 20 for 'The Family', to mention only a few groups. Most groups do not exceed a number of 300 members (based on data of REMID, May 2003). Only 'scientology' may count a few thousands 'devotees' (although there are differences in the bonds and ties which people have with this religious - or, up to the beholder: this commercial, psycho-therapeutical - organization).
We also have to know that there is some research done - in particular in The Eighties of the last century - on motives of people to become a member of a NRM or to practice a form of 'free-floating' religiosity. These motives can be divided in two clusters.9 One cluster of motives belong to those who are seeking for foundations in life, for orientation (in 'philosophy of life'/levensbeschouwing) and above all for security, obviously for countering feelings of uncertainty. The other cluster refers to those who are seeking in the first place for 'Erlebnis', that is to say for mind-expanding or ego-transcending emotive experiences; we may assume: for countering feelings of weariness ('ennui') and meaninglessness (or: 'contingency of life').
If we return now for a moment to 'the field' I mentioned earlier, we may surmise that those who are living in the hardly visible buildings - let's say in those shacks where the 'sectarians' are housing - are mainly motivated by the first cluster of motives. While the 'free floating religionists', in a lesser degree also the neo-evangelicals, will be moved more by the second cluster of motives. Now then, if we follow the argument in the first two parts of this paper, we may understand that in particular religions or confessions or groups which are high demanding, will not be very attractive for those who are religious seekers. Moreover, the individualization of religious culture implies that new 'religionists' do no like strong 'authorities'. And as far as a possible tension is concerned between 'new religion' and the environment - see the just mentioned definition of a 'sect' - one has to assume that contemporary new, religious spirituality can be interpreted as a phenomenon which helps people to adapt to the environment or to cope with the pressures that modern life bestows on us. So, following the just given, macro-sociological interpretation of relatively new religious desires in Western Europe, one may surmise that there will be no tension between the new forms of religion and a world reigned by neo-capitalism. Further: in the contemporary individualizing climate, if I may quote the text of an invitation for this evening and against the suggestion in this text, there is 'no market for movements with a high sectarian quality'. That is to say: as far as Western Europe is concerned, and as far as we only consider the motions of religion among white, so called allochtonous people.
Notes
1. For the following argument: P. Heelas, 'The Spiritual Revolution: From "Religion" to "Spirituality"', in: L. Woodhead a.o. eds., Religions in the Modern World: Traditions and Transformations, London/New York Routledge 2002, 357-377.
2. Based on my own work.
3. The argument is from: P. Heelas/B. Seel, 'An Ageing New Age?', in: G. Davie a.o. eds., Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures, Aldershot, GB/Burlington, VT USA: Ashgate 2003, 229-247.
4. S. Aupers, In de ban van de moderniteit: De sacralisering van het zelf en de computertechnologie, Amsterdam: Aksant 2004, 57-76.
5. A.J.A. Felling, Het proces van individualisering in Nederland: Een kwarteeuw sociaal-culturele ontwikkeling, Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen 2004.
6. D. Pollack, Säkularisierung - ein moderner Mythos: Studien zum religiösen Wandel in Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2003, 86ff., 139ff.
7. U. Sjödin, 'The Paranormal in Swedish Religiosity', in: D. Gracie a.o. eds., o.c., 203-213.
8. Cf. M. Sedgwick, 'Establishment and Sects in the Islamic World', in: P.C. Lucas/T. Robbins eds., New Religious Movements in the 21st Century: Legal, Political, and Social Challenges in Global Perspective, New York/London: Routledge 2004, 283-312, here: 287f.
9. The following 'theory' about motives is based on: Pollack o.c., 142ff. An impressive theory for the classification of NRM's, based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, ranging from physiological needs to the needs of self-esteem, is delivered by Elizabeth Puttick, 'A New Typology of Religion Based on Needs and Values', in: Journal of Beliefs and Values 18 (1997) nr. 2, 133-145.