The New Spiritualities

Lorelei Franke-Woods

“The New Spiritualities, East and West: Colonial Legacies and the Global Spiritual Marketplace in Southeast Asia"

In North America, Europe and Australasia in recent years, there is a growing distinction between ‘Religion’ and ‘Spirituality’. In the West, many people no longer consider themselves religious, and this is shown by the greatly decreasing numbers of people who attend the mainline churches (Kosmin & Keysar, 2008). Many people in the West would consider themselves ‘spiritual’, with a new understanding of spirituality that exists outside the traditional and conventional religious establishments (Howell, 2006). This stems from a huge subjective turn in modern Western culture (Taylor, 1991, cited Howell, 2006). Howell (2006) argues that this is largely due to disenchantment and a global spiritual marketplace, resulting from international movement of people, media and communications. Interestingly, Howell also argues that this new Spirituality is mostly geographically confined, which seems partly to contradict the argument that there is a global spiritual marketplace!

This new spirituality is dominant with the American baby-boomers, who find late-modern pluralism challenging, and so have chosen to individualize religion. Bruce (2002, cited Howell, 2006) argues that this new Spirituality results from a “terminal decay of Religion”; while others suggest that Religion is taking individual and new and different forms. Campbell (1999, cited Howell, 2006) suggests that 2000 years of theodicy in the West has experienced an erosion by Eastern theodicy during the last 50 years.

This influence has also begun to emerge in South East Asia, with particular interest shown towards the situation in Indonesia, which has long been traditionally Islamic but also has experienced colonialism (Howell, 2006). In the past 20 years, this new Western Spirituality has been embraced by both Muslims and non-Muslims in Indonesia, causing problems with relationships within the state-recognized religions wherein lie structured patterns of socializing. Unlike the middle classes in North America and Europe who have become disenchanted, Howell (2006) argues, the Asian middle classes choose to take on ‘disciplines of instrumental rationality and contractual exchange’, while also continuing with the ‘magical cosmos of their natal cultures’.

References:
Howell, J.D. (2006). The New Spiritualities, East and West: Colonial Legacies and the Global Spiritual Marketplace in Southeast Asia. 2005 Penny Magee Memorial Lecture.
Kosmin, B.A. & Keysar, A. (2008). Catholics on the Move, Non-religious on the Rise. American Religious Identification Survey 2008. Retrieved 15th March, 2009, http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

“Religion is Socially Learned”

Zuckerman (2003) argues convincingly that religion is socially learned. Almost all children follow the religion of their parents and should they change, it is probable that it would be a denominational change rather than a change of religion. Likewise, a lack of religion in parents is likely to be passed on to their children. Agents of socialization, such as parents, teachers, relatives, friends, the media and entertainers, to name a few, can all influence our religious identities and religious behaviour. Zuckerman (2003) further argues that identifying with family and established social networks are stronger pulls than any ideology, although this could be disturbing to a very religious person if confronted with the suggestion that their devotion is ‘quite arbitrary’.

Geography and time are also important, as it would be highly unlikely that person who had been born into another culture would hold dear the same religious convictions and identity. Religion and its significance are learned from others near to us. Lewis (1971, cited Zuckerman, 2003) argues that religious experiences are also socially learned as they follow patterns that could be expected within that particular culture. However, Zuckerman acknowledges that while religious experiences can’t always be explained as social constructions and that something supernatural or otherworldly may occur, social learning is always a key ingredient and a leading factor.

When repeatedly asked about new religions, Zuckerman consistently stresses that their success rate is extremely low and that almost all are off-shots of other religions. They occur rarely and only when a right charismatic person is in the right place at the right time, such as Mohammad or Joseph Smith. To discern whether these people are indeed what their followers credit them for is not a matter of empirical evidence as Zuckerman would want, as that is not possible. Religion and science share a complex history and both have been measured in several ways but evidence of any association is weak (Sloan, Bagiella & Powell, 1999).

References:
Sloan, R.P., Bagiella, E., & Powell, T. (1999). "Religion, Spirituality and Medicine." The Lancet 353 664-667.
Zuckerman, P. (2003). Invitation to the Sociology of Religion. New York: Routledge. Chapter 3, pp. 47-60.

“Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism”

There has always been diversity of religions in our world and this diversity has often caused much pain and suffering. Religious diversity is an important component of cultural diversity, yet effort has been made to embrace cultural diversity, albeit in a superficial manner, according to Gross (1991), who suggests that most religions deal inadequately with religious diversity. Religion is the inheritance of the natal culture Zuckerman (2003) argues, and religion is socially learned within cultural communities.

The monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity have each excelled in hostility towards all other religions, often displaying xenophobia which has promoted an arrogant “us and them” mentality, and ethnocentrism, which Gross (1991) suggests can be the same as racism, ethnicity, and class and gender divisions. Gross (1991) further argues that monotheistic religions have claimed to be universally and uniquely relevant, while their claims of exclusive truth become obstacles to pluralism in the world. In contrast, because of their recognition of human diversity, Hinduism and Buddhism accept religious diversity as inevitable, necessary and beneficial. At one time Islam gave preferential treatment to “people of the Book”, Judaism declared that “the righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come” and Christianity and Judaism, talking of “multiple covenants”, made small concessions towards others, but Gross (1991) argues that these have been too minimalist. Gross (1991) argues that the genuine religious pluralism needed in today’s world must be aware of the real diversity in the religions, but that none are greater nor should everything be equalized. How to achieve this is complicated but not impossible, through openness, understanding and appreciation. Gross (1991) questions whether religious conviction depends on a feeling “that the religion is uniquely worthwhile”, and suggests that genuine pluralism offers far more but not through new religions or in “one universal syncretistic religion”.

References:
Gross, R.M. (1991). Religious Diversity: Some Implications for Monotheism” Cross Currents. Retrieved: March 3, 2009, http://www.crosscurrents.org/gross.htm
Zuckerman, P. (2003). Invitation to the Sociology of Religion. New York, Routledge Chapter 3, pp. 47-60.