THE CONSTRUCT OF INDIVIDUALISED RELIGIOSITY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION Khokhar,N. and Alexander,M.1 Griffith University, Queensland. Abstract This paper argues for the importance of examining how unofficial varieties of individualbased religiosity can contribute towards researchers’ understanding of religion; particularly their view of adolescent identity formation. Three interrelated arguments are used to support this claim. Firstly, that ‘individualized religiosity’ is an appropriate term that characterizes the spiritual views of a large segment of the Australian demographic. Secondly, that individualized religiosity is a concept whose tenets arecongruent with existing contemporary sociological explanations for the decline of traditional religious institutions in Australia; including postmodernism, secularism, and individualism. Finally, that the area of individualized religiosity has been a neglected area of inquiry for three reasons; difficulty in identification of subjects, problems with interpretation of data, and marginalization from dominant religious institutions. Recommendations for future studies are provided. Keywords: Religiosity, Religion, Australia, Identity, Adolescent, Individual. “He who swims in our sea has no shore but himself2”. Introduction While the need to understand the reasons as to how an individual’s particular religiosity is formed and maintained is recognized as important, researchers know little about those individuals, especially adolescents whose belief sets fall outside the defined boundaries of traditional religious systems and atheism. This paper offers an argument for an increased understanding, within a sociological framework, of the beliefs of this understudied section of the Australian population, who may be tentatively labelled as having developed what this paper shall refer to ‘Individualised Religiosity’. While this term builds upon the concept of ‘Invisible Religion’ as conceived by Luckmann (as cited in Weigert, 1974.p182-3); the alteration in wording is meant to emphasise two points. Firstly, the use of ‘individual’ rather than ‘invisible’ posits that non-institutional religion may manifest itself in perceptible forms 1 This paper has been a joint (80:20 Percent) effort of PhD candidate Mr.Nadeem Khokhar and his principal supervisor A/Prof. Malcolm Alexander, the latter kindly providing his guidance in the development of this work. 2 Abu Sulayman al-Sijistani, 10th Century Muslim philosopher and mystic, from Goodman, 2003; p.107. 1 at times (Besecke, 2005 ;p.187). For example, a football fan’s ecstasy at his/her team’s victory may be obvious to fellow spectators, even if they do notthemselves share it. Secondly, the term ‘religion’ is associated in many people’s minds (Hodge & McGrew, 2006; p.646) with adherence to some institution; something this paper wanted to move away from in order to focus on the key construct underpinning all religions: religiosity (Laermans, 2006; p. 481). Using existing literature and Australian census data this paper shall define ‘individual religiosity’, and suggest reasons both as to why it has been neglected as a field of research and why studying it may further our knowledge of adolescent identity construction. Finally, an argument is presented as to why individualised religiosity has been marginalised in the field of sociology.This paper does not seek to present a thorough exploration of this topic by any means, but will attempt to bring attention to the lack of research in the area and highlight ways of rectifying this situation by outlining potential areas of study. The Place of ‘Individualised Religiosity’ Among Religious Concepts Religion has a pervasive ability to affect the lives of all people either positively or negatively and should for this reason alone be of potential interest to the broader community (Francis, Robbins & Astley 2005; p. 11). The belief in some kind of connection to a transcendent being or higher power is very much still a part of the lives of many young people (Francis, Robin & Astley, 2005; p.11), though often this connection is not always visible (Barret, Pearson, Muller& Frank, 2007; p.1026). Such hidden belief has been encapsulated using the term ‘belief without belonging’ (Davie as cited in Kettle, 2005; p. 506); that is, many young people’s expressions of spirituality and religiosity may not be connected to an institutionalized form of religion such as found in within a church, synagogue, mosque or temple (Smith & Denton, 2005, as cited in Kelley, Athan & Miller, 2007; p.29). One consequence of this is the lamentation of religious leaders today regarding the lack of faith displayed among people; especially the younger generation of Australians (Rowbotham, 2006) but it might be more correct to say that many young people do recognise faith or personal spirituality3 of some kind or another, just unattached to institutionalised ‘faith communities’. This ‘lack of affiliation’ with some organised religion is only one attribute characteristic of the spirituality of most young people. The other key attribute is the development of individualized belief sets. Such ‘individualised religiosities’, despite 3 Spirituality has been defined as a ‘subjective experience of the sacred (Vaughan, 1991, as cited in Hale, 2004; p. 93), and unlike traditional religion, is not contingent on any structured institution to function as mediator in interpretation of the transcendent for the individual (Hale, 2004; p. 94). 2 theirunobtrusiveness relative to that exhibited by traditional religions, have the potential to shape the lives of many young people and therefore ought to be the target of academic inquiry. Lerner (2004, as cited in Kelley, Athan & Miller, 2007; p.4) reaches a similar conclusion regarding the difficulty in trying to understand what social contexts have the most impact on the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of young people, and concludes that this is due to the great complexity level of many people, groups and interactions affecting them. King & Boyatzis (2004, as cited in Kelley, Athan & Miller, 2007; p.3) reaffirms this by claiming not enough is known about the formation and maintenance of adolescent religiosity and spirituality4. For reasons to be discussed below, it is only a minority of young people for whom an association with traditional religion such a church or mosque becomes an enduring part of their life. Most young people, like the bulk of Australians, end up being categorized as ‘unbelievers’ (Pickering, 2010; p.6). This is despite the results of the Australian Census which indicate the high number of Australians who claim some connection to one or other Christian denominations (Frame, 2006 ;p.7). This apparent contradiction in the demographic portrait of religion is due largely to a failure to define what is meant by ‘religious’. A poor understanding of concepts leads to the construction of improper research instruments that lead to unclear results. Consequently, when age is taken into consideration in interpreting the figures, another researcher (Bouma, 2006; p78) notes only nine percent of Churchgoers (that is; of the predominant religious group in Australia-Christianity) were aged between twenty and twenty-nine, while the over sixties age group comprised thirty-four percent of attendees. Therefore, the religious activities of the older generations of Australians are more accounted for than the younger generations. One reason for such an oversight of the religious views of younger Australians is, this paper argues, that their views are characterized by the attributes of ‘individualised religiosity’. Attempts at defining the concept of Individualized Religiosity involves a discussion of what it entails. To clarify, the term ‘individualised religiosity’ implies two criteria. The first word, ‘individualised’, denotes here that a form of religiosity possesses a highly individuated construction. Individualisation, a major driver of social change, is a process marked by a shift from values based upon traditional institutions towards values constructed by the individual themselves (Halman, 1996; p. 196). 4 The second word, ‘religiosity’ Dowling & Lerner et al (2004; p.7) define ‘adolescent spirituality’ as consisting of a young person striving for some potential in life, belief in some transcendent power and treating others more than just as a means to some materialistic end. 3 signifiesa subjective element that exists necessarily prior to the existence of any given traditional religious institution (Martin, 2009; p.164).Both factors make individualized religiosity difficult to identify and categorise. This definition rules out individualized religiosity being categorized under the easily visible religious traditions such as Christianity or Buddhism, or placed under the label New Religious Movements which would imply the adherence to some group structure (Melton, 2004; p. 79); although it is this paper’s position that it is entirely possible that an individual may hold New Age Beliefs while being categorized as having Individualised Religiosity. While a New Religious Movement inherently contains some type of group activity, ‘New Age’ is a much broader concept which covers a wide variety of beliefs, superstitions and ideals that may or may not lead to the construction of a New Religious Movement with a shared doctrine among its members (Yates & Chandler, 2000, p.378). For example, astrology is a New Age belief that many individuals maintain, but only a group with a belief in astrology as an essential tenet of dogma could be called a New Religious Movement. Canetti-Nisim & Beit-Haallahmi (2007; p370) consider ‘New Age’ beliefs/behaviours as having blurry boundaries with no agreed-upon definition. To complicate things further, some researchers place traditional religions and New Age beliefs along the same continuum (Wuthnow, 1978; ibid), while other theorists assert an inverse relationship between the two; regular religions are hierarchical in nature, New Age beliefs are not (Sparks, 2001; ibid). However, this paper asserts that certain New Age belief systems, even without a rigid hierarchical structure may still be labeled. This paper is interested in what might be gained from examining the unlabeled varieties of these beliefs; that is, when they are individual-based, and not part of any greater group belief system. Accordingly, this rules out equating individualized religiosity with what is known as ‘civil religion’. The latter, according to the concept’s original foundation, defined it as a ‘collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sacred things and institutionalized in a collectivity’ (Bellah, 2005; p. 46). However by definition, there can be no ‘collective individualized’ religiosity. For example, an individual might find singing to be an act that they consider highly spiritual, though only when such an action is performed alongside others, such as singing the national anthem at school, will it assume thepolitical undertones necessary to be consider a civil religion (Crouter, 1990; p.154). The distinction between traditional, organised religion and non-traditional, individual spirituality is foundational to this paper’s argument and requires some explanation. Researchers Hodge & McGrew (2006; p.645/6) draw 4 conclusions from survey data of subjects’ responses that leads them to define ‘religion’ as consisting of ‘organised beliefs or doctrines’ and the ‘practice of spiritual rituals or worship’. In contrast, ‘spirituality’ is defined as ‘personally constructed belief’ in conjunction with ‘belief in some higher power’ (Hunt as cited in Hughes, 2006b; p.10). Similarly, a study by Engebreton (2010; p.58) recorded subjects’ making a clear distinction between religiosity and spirituality, with the former involving the individual committed to some existing religious tradition, and the latter involving the individual asserting a connection to some spiritual or transcendent realm, with or without the commitment to some established group tradition. Earlier researchers in this field sought to make concurrent statements. For example; Nelson, Everett, Mader & Hamby (1976;p.264) build upon Luckmann’s (1967 ) work to contrast doctrinal and non-doctrinal belief systems, and positthat the question researchers should be asking is not ‘how religious is a given individual?’, but rather ‘how is an individual religious?’ The first question seeks to measure the individual according to some pre-existing criteria, while the second examines the nature of the term ‘religious’ itself. It follows then that the second question would be of more import in examining the views of a person with a syncretic belief system in-line with the individualized religiosity central to this article. It took the theorist Simmel to break away from the traditional Durkheimian tradition of defining the religion in terms of ‘sacred versus profane’ and ‘immanence versus transcendence’ (Benedict, 2008; p.152) and introduce the typology of ‘religiosity versus religion’; a distinction fundamental to this paper’s position. One of Simmel’s key assertions was that non-institutionalised forms of religiosity may exist in the profane/immanent domain (Laerman, 2006; p.481). That is, while religion involves the separationandinstitutionalization of an already existing religiosity, this religiosity is the most essential concept to religion and may exist within individuals unattached to social structures (Laerman, 2006; p.481). It is this un-attached notion of religiosity as it is developed and maintained by the individual that this paper believes should be a focus for sociologists for three reasons. Firstly, religiosity exists prior to religion (Laerman’s, 2006; p.480) and will illuminate the individual’s role in any given social manifestation of religiosity found in traditional religions. Secondly, being unattached to social structures, individualized religiosity has been understudied relative to the more visible forms as the following section on religious data aims to show. Finally, without adhering to some traditional religious institution, the individual’s religiosity may develop unchecked into a wide variety of forms and intensities. 5 Reasons for Focusing on Individualised Religiosity There are grounds for seeking out adolescents in particular as the sub-demographic most appropriate for understanding complex interactions of religiosity and identity. Adolescence is a critical phase along the lifespan development continuum (Barret, Pearson, Muller & Frank, 2007; p.1025) and involves the individual resolving a number of personal dilemmas and consolidating facets of their identity, including religious identity (Kelley, Athan & Miller, 2007; p.28). Statistics show that Australian adolescents are less likely to develop and maintain a strong attachment to some traditional religion than older Australians, but will instead develop a more individualized spirituality (Frame, 2009). It follows that, conceptual frameworks designed to understand traditional conceptions of religiosity are not necessarily applicable towards understanding alternative religiosities. Individualised Religiosity is a neglected area within sociology of religion. Data collected from the 2006 Australian National Census are indicative of this when the results are interpreted in a discerning manner. Between the years of the 1996 and 2006 Census, within the age bracket of 0 to 24 years, the segment of Australians citing ‘No Religion’ rose by over sixteen percent and those ticking the ‘Religious Affiliation Not Stated’ rose by thirty-four percent (Hughes, 2008 ;p.2). The question is ‘how do subjects see themselves when they subscribe to such a certain census category?’ This paper argues that such categories do not adequately capture a nuanced description of these subjects’ views. A similar line of thinking is shared by Pickering (2010 ; p.6) who, citing figures provided by Frame (2009), notes that within the broader Australian community, while roughly sixteen percent of people are affiliated with some religious organization, and fifteen percent are confirmed atheists,approximately seventy percent of Australians maintain a belief in some type of transcendent reality or higher power and therefore are positioned somewhere between these two stronger positions along a belief continuum. Moreover, these figures become more pertinent to this paper’s argument for the focus on adolescent religiosity when three other considerations are made known. Firstly, number of Australians (between 1993 and 2009) claiming ‘no religion’ on census forms rose from twenty-seven percent to forty-three percent (Pickering, 2010;p.6). Secondly, adolescents are even more likely than the older generations to distance themselves from organized religion (Hughes, 2006; p. 4). And finally, within the category ‘no religion’, almost sixty-nine percent hold views ranging from ‘believe in God to a degree’ to ‘believe in 6 a higher power’ (Pickering, 2010; p.6). Bouma (1997;p.14) refers to this block of individuals as ‘The Nones’ and divides them into humanists, agnostics, rationalists, and atheists. However, the authors’ position is that these labels, while useful, are not representative of the plethora of individual positions possible under this label. The processes by which young people develop their beliefs and the resultant content of them are intimately related. The ‘Consumeristic Approach’ (Hughes, 2006; p. 4) is central to this claim. Here, individual freedom to choose places emphasis on the subject sampling the alternative beliefs that are available and then choosing the belief or beliefs that are most appropriate to their needs (Katerberg, 2008, p.27). The distinction between belief and beliefs is important. Whereas an individual who formally adheres to a more traditional religion such as Christianity will likely profess to holding to one central doctrine (Benedict, 2008; p.103), a practitioner of Individualised Religiosity may well combine several (Stevens-Arroyo, 1998; p.232). This distinction between a singular and a plurality of central tenet(s) also providesa strong difference as existing between the more organised types of New Religious Movements, and the focus of this paper. In order to function as a group, any New Religious Movement must maintain some agreed-to doctrine shared by its members. One such group would be the Scientology movement (Benedict, 2008;p. 583). Permitting an individual to assert private beliefs of a deviant nature to the group’s doctrine may weaken the in-group, out-group boundary and eventually jeopardise group solidarity (Phillips, 1996; p.114). Much of the violence associated with religion; whether mainstream or alternative, stems from a given group having their belief set, and hence their very social identity threatened (Ysseld & Matheson & Anisman, 2010;p.67). Unlike the processes associated with New Age group activity, Individualised Religiosity primarily involves the individual choosing their own belief set in a manner akin to the assemblage of a photographic montage. The notion of a ‘syncretic’ process, where pluralities of beliefs are fused into the one belief system is appropriate here (Benedict, 2008; p.576). Usually only group variants such as Druze (a combination of Ismali Islam, Gnosticism and Platonism), or Barghawata (a combination of different branches of Islam with heathen views) are categorized as syncretic religions. It is the individualized syncretic belief set that this paper asserts should be the focus of study; another reason for the use of ‘religiosity’ in the concept ‘individualised religiosity’. It follows that the final judge as to the usefulness of the individual’s assemblage of beliefs into a holistic package is the same individual who chooses them and abides by them (Giddens, 1991;p. 53). 7 The tendency of adolescents to be drawn away from traditional religious group membership towards Individualised Religiosity may be partly explained by the broader social theoriesof individualism (discussed in the subsequent section), postmodernism and secularization theory. The ‘postmodern’ self (Elliot, 2001 ;p.131), is the term used to describe the societal shift affecting an individual’s sense of self moving from a more continuous identity to one marked by fragmentation and flux. This ‘breakage’ may be simultaneously liberating and unsettling (Turkle, as cited Elliot, 2001; p. 133). Regardless, the result is a less communal and more individualistic ways of living that then causes the individual to begin to reject the comforting, more traditional theological (rational/intellectual) ways of exploring the transcendental in favour of raw, direct experiential knowledge (Pickering, 2010;p.6). Therefore the adolescent, already undertaking a phase in their life characterized by questioning, changing and consolidating their ‘sense of self’(Cook & Hughes, 2006;p.3), must also act within a broader culture that is itself characterised by discontinuity and fragmentation. Like postmodern theory, the secularization model seeks to explain the transformation of religious lives of individuals as a result of wider social phenomena resulting from the relinquishing of the church’s functions of social control, education and healthcare to the state’s specialized institutions (Bruce, as cited in Turner, 2010;p.125).The effect is thediminishmentof the place of the religious institution in an individual’s life. Whereas before an individual may have lived their entire lives maintaining consistent association with some religious institution; now the opposite is commonplace. The postmodern social context drives the individual to accept only a more individualized, and unsocialised (Elliot, 2001; p. 26 & Elliot, 2001b; p.148) set of spiritual beliefs.With institutionalized religion fairly compartmentalized, the focus is on individual choice; including what one may choose to believe. The Academic Neglect of Individualised Religiosity Individualised Religiosity has received little attention by sociologists for three main reasons; difficulty in subject identification stemming from an unclear concept, difficulty in assessment, and authoritative obstruction. Although persons maintaining an individualized religiosity may attend religious assemblies or groups for social or other reasons, by nature, their views are individually-based and so devoid of the many of the stronger group affiliations found in mainstream religions. While traditional religious groups, as well as New Religious Movements such as Scientology present some recognizable frontage(Benedict, 8 2008;p.520), Individualised Religiosity adherents are unable to do so, for in order for several individuals to produce such a front that is representative of themselves, they would have to develop an agreed-upon doctrine that they could all adhere to. The paradox is, that by doing so, each individual would have their own belief-set curtailed or altered where it was found to be incompatible with the group’s present belief-set, and so would result in the formation of perhaps a New Religious Movement, or even a cult5, but not a true encapsulation of individuals’ belief sets (emphasis on plural). Therefore, this absence of a group-front makes it harder to identify clear sample populations of individuals purporting highly-individualistic beliefs. The researcher who seeks out church attendees is more likely to locate potential subjects who adhere to the traditional views of the church, to a varying degree. Identifying individuals who follow a highly subjective spirituality is more likely to be a chance, case-bycase process, though how difficult this task may prove in reality is hard to speculate without further research. Once a number of willing subjects with Individualised Religiosity are identified, the researcher encounters another problem; assessment methods. When studying the views of a group of Australian Catholic students the researcher is able to draw upon an existing body of literature in order to compare and contrast his/her findings. However, with highly differentiated subjects, there is the issue of whom does the researcher compare their results with, with each subject asserting such an individualised belief set. For example; can an exChristian student with unofficial Buddhist leanings and a penchant for their own version of nature worship have her beliefs compared to a former atheist student professing a simultaneous love of both their own interpretation of the Gnostic Biblical traditions and the metaphysics of Spinoza? More research is needed in this area to determine if, and to what extent, comparisons might be made. From this researcher’s perspective, qualitative methodologies offer the best chance of capturing a sense of a highly subjective individual’s views. Finally, researchers with a leaning towards studying non-traditional forms of religiosity are up against the dominant social institutions6, including religious, which may 5 The distinction between the terms ‘New Religious Movement’ and cult is largely political. Though the terms are sometimes used synonymously, Melton (2004;p.74) notes that the NRM has been used to as a substitute for the more derogatory term ‘cult’. Their intention is to deconstruct the dominant culture’s marginalization of potential threats to the status quo (Gallagher, 2007/2008;p. 2010) 6 As of the writing of this paper, one of the author’s proposed research projects that aimed to examine individual belief systems in public schools was rejected by the educational ethics board. One of the reasons issued for the refusal: that chaplaincy services are already in school and this proposed research was not in-line with their existing policies. 9 feel threatened by the recognition of newer ways of thinking about religious identity. Bouma (2006;p. 63) notes that the Australian Census is one such body that reinforces social norms by maintaining a ‘tick one box only’ in the religious identity section of its national census form (ABS, 2005, ibid). Bouma also insists that ‘there is evidence to challenge these institutional assumptions (Bouma, 2006; p.63). However, while this paper’s interest in Individualised Religiosities may overlap with individuals who maintain what Bouma refers to as ‘Multiple Religious Identities’ (Bouma, 2006; p. 63); that is. those who interact with more than one religious group (Christian-Aboriginal Dreaming, Christian-Jew, for example), the authors of this paper are more interested in the beliefs of people who find it difficult to label their beliefs and have little or no religious group connections. Conclusion In arguing for the necessity of examining the concept of individualized religiosity the authors have made three central assertions. Firstly, that the concept of individualized religiosity is a suitable perspective for describing the spiritual qualities of a sizeable segment of the Australian population, whose idiosyncratic views are too often dismissed by researchers by placing them under the broad categories of ‘not religious’. This is especially true of adolescent religiosities. Secondly, that the construct of Individualised Religiosity supports existing sociological theories of identity formation, including individualism and postmodern identity theory. Describing an adolescent with difficult-to-categorise spirituality as ‘not religious’ may be convenient, but the term disallows the potentially important examination of the spiritual growth of young people in these times. Finally, the claim was made that this area of research has been neglected for a number of reasons, including; the difficulty researchers have in locating subjects maintaining highly personal spiritualties, problems stemming from poor methodology, and marginalization from dominant social institutions, including Church and government. While offering an alternative perspective to the study of adolescent religiosity, the use of the term Individualised Religiosity highlights potential areas of future research. Firstly, how might this definition be developed or altered in order to better encapsulate the sub-groups it is said to represent? Secondly, to what extent is one person’s with highly individualized religiosity able to ‘relate’ to another’s, and if so, are any informal associations possible? Any shift from individual beliefs to organised beliefs would herald the emergence of new forms of religion. Thirdly, the nature of the permanency of an individual asserting such a position needs to be examined. For example, would an adolescent with highly individualised beliefs more likely to be transiting between more traditional religious 10 beliefs, moving out away from traditional beliefs for good, or about to join a traditional religious tradition for the first time? Fourthly, a discussion of ways to better examine those individuals falling within this category needs to be encouraged. This position of this paper is that qualitative methodology is more able to construct a nuanced theoretical narrative surrounding the subject’s views. Finally, Individualised Religiosity offers another means of framing and interpreting the relationship between the subject’s belief set and their identity development. 11 References Barret, B.J., Pearson, J. Muller, C. & Frank, K.A. (2007). Adolescent Religiosity and School Contexts, Social Science Quarterly, 88(4), pp.1024-1039. Bellah, R.N. (2005). Civilian Religion in America. Daedalus, 134(4), pp.40-56. Benedict, G. (2008). The Watkins Dictionary of Religions and Secular Faiths. Watkins Publishing: London. Besecke, K. (2005). Seeing Invisible Religion: Religion as a Societal Conversation about Transcendent Meaning. Sociological Theory, 23(2), pp. 179-196. Bouma, G.D. (1997). Increasing Diversity In Religious Identification in Australia: Comparing 1947, 1991, and 1996 Census Reports, People and Place, 5(3), pp.12-18. Bouma, T. (2006). Church and State: Australia’s Imaginary Wall. UNSW Press: Sydney. Canetti-Nisim, D. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2007). The Effects of Authoritarianism, Religiosity, and “New Age” Beliefs on Support for Democracy: Unraveling the Strands. Review of Religious Research, 48(4), pp. 369-384. Cook, C. & Hughes, P. (2006). Youth Spirituality: How Young People Change. Pointers: Bulletin of The Christian Research Association, 16(3), pp.1-6. Crouter, R. (1990). Beyond Bellah: American Civil Religion and the Australian Experience. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 36(2), pp.154-165. Dowling, E.M., Gestsdottir, S., Anderson, P.M., Eye, A.V., Almerigi, J. & Lerner, R.M. (2004). Structural Relations among Spirituality, Religiosity and Thriving in Adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), pp.7-16 Frame, T. (2006). Church and State: Australia’s Imaginary Wall. UNSW Press: Sydney. Frame, T. (2009). Losing My Religion: Unbelief in Australia, UNSW Press. Francis, L.J., Robbins, M., Astley, J. (2005). Religion, Education and Adolescence. University of Wales Press: Cardiff. Kelley, B.S., Athan, A.M., & Miller.L.F. (2007). Openness and Spiritual Development in Adolescent Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 18, pp.3-35. Elliot, A. (2001). Self, Society and Everday Life’, Concepts of the Self, Cambridge. Polity Press, pp.22-45. Engebretson, K. (2010). Expressions of Religiosity and Spirituality Among Australian 14 Year Olds. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 7(1), pp.57-72 Gallagher, E.V. (2007/2008). “Cults” and “New Religious Movements”. History of Religions, 47(3), pp.205-220. Giddens, A. (1991). The Self: Ontological Security and Existential Anxiety, from Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Cambridge: Polity Press. 12 Goodman, L.E. (2003). Islamic Humanism, Oxford University Press: New York. Hale, S.H. (2004). Spirituality, Religion and Consciousness. Journal of Macro-Marketing, 24(2), pp.92-107. Halman, L. (1996). Individualism in Individualised Society? Results from the European Values Surveys. IJCS, 37(3-4), pp.195-214. Hodge, D.R., & McGrew, C.C. (2006). Spirituality, Religion, and the Interrelationship: A Nationally Representative Study. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(3), pp.637654. Hughes, P. (2006b). Predicting Religion: Christian Secular and Alternative Futures, PointersBulletin of the Christian Research Association, 16(2), pp.8-13. Hughes, P. (2008). Is Decline In Religion Inevitable? Pointers-Bulletin of the Christian Research Association, 18(2), pp.1-6. Hughes, P. (2006). Constructing Faith: A Report on Youth Spirituality. Christian Research Association Bulletin, 16(4), pp.6-10. Katerberg, W. (2008). What Would You Choose? Belief in a Cross Pressured Age. Fides et Historia, 40(2), pp.27-30. Laerman, R. (2006). The Ambivalence of Religiosity and Religion: A Reading of Georg Simmel. Social Compass, 53(4), pp.479-489. Luckmann, T. (1967). The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society. Macmillan: New York. Martin, C. (2009). Delimiting Religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 21, pp.157-176. Melton, J.G. (2004). Perspective: Toward a Definition of “New Religion”, Nova Religio, 8(11), pp.73-86. Nelson, H.M., & Everett, R.F., & Mader, P.D., & Hamby, W.C. (1976). A Text of Yinger’s Measure of Non-Doctrinal Religion. Implications for Invisible Religion as a Belief System. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15(3), pp.263-267. Phillips, T.L. (1996). Symbolic Boundaries and National Identity in Australia. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(1), pp.113-134 Pickering, C. (2010). Factors in Declining Church Attendance. Christian Research Association Bulletin, 20(2), pp.6-11. Rowbotham, J. (2006, September 28). Catholic Youth in Danger, warns Pell. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/catholic-youth-indanger-warns-pell/story-e6frg6nf-1111112278983 Stevens-Arroyo, A.M. (1998). Syncretic Sociology: Towards a Cross-Disciplinary Study of Religion. Sociology of Religion, 59(3), pp.217-236. Turner, B.S. (ed.) (2010). The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion. Blackwell Publishing: UK. 13 Weigert, A.J. (1974). Whose Invisible Religion? Luckmann Revisited. Sociological Analysis, 35(3), pp. 181-188. Yates, G.C.R., & Chandler, M. (2000). Where Have All the Skeptics Gone? Patterns of New Age Beliefs and Anti-Scientific Attitudes in Preservice Primary Teachers. Research in Science Education, 30(4), pp.377-387. Ysseld, R., &Matheson.& Anisman,H. (2010). Religiosity as Identity: Toward an Understanding of Religion from a Social Identity Perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), pp.60-71. 14
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz