The nonformative elements of religious life: questioning the ‘sociology of spirituality’ paradigm

Sociological assertions of religious vitality in Euro-American societies have developed a paradigm of spirituality in which, following earlier studies of the New Age, a distinction is drawn between external authority and self-authority. Methodologically and theoretically problematic, this paradigm diverts attention from people’s social practices and interactions, especially in relation to multiple religious authorities. Drawing upon ethnographic fieldwork with an English religious network, and building upon the work of Pierre Bourdieu, this paper considers situations in which multiple authorities tend to relativize each other. Conceptualizing this in terms of nonformativeness - the lack of authorities’ abilities formatively to shape religious identity, habitus, and competition over religious capital - a new understanding of individual secularization emerges that questions assertions of vitality.

Strategy in a religious network: A bourdieuian critique of the sociology of spirituality

Within the sociology of religion there has emerged a discourse on spirituality that views contemporary developments as involving the assertion of individuals’ self-authority. This perspective’s theoretical roots have been persistently criticised for their conceptualisation of agency; in contrast, this paper draws upon Bourdieu’s concept of strategy to examine action in an English religious network of the sort often classified ‘New Age’. In particular, one informant is discussed in order to provide focus for an understanding of what Lahire calls sociology at the level of the individual. Her actions, better explained as strategic improvisations than as choices made on the basis of self-authority, help to illuminate the peculiarities of this religious setting, which is characterised in terms of ‘nonformativeness’. By emphasising social contextualisation, this approach addresses people’s meaningful actions in a way that may be applied not only more widely within the religious field but also in other fields of action.

Civil society as a contested field of meanings

Purpose – During recent years, the concept of civil society, particularly global civil society, has come to the fore in both academia and policy circles. A key component of recent theoretical and policy research is the attempt to do international comparative research on the meaning of civil society. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the language and the terminology used to describe the agents of civil society are reflective of cultural and historical contexts of societies, have distinct meanings and cannot be used interchangeably.

Design/methodology/approach – In different national contexts, the key agents of civil society are referred to differently; nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy. In comparative studies, scholars often list these concepts to indicate that they recognise that the agents of civil society are referred to differently in different societies. The article offers a socio-historical analysis of each concept. It is concluded that teasing out the differences, as well as the similarities, between the nonprofit sector, voluntary and community sector, third sector and social economy, is crucial to robust comparative research on civil society.

Findings – This paper exposes a number of limitations of each of the terminologies used to describe civil society. They all present a much more limiting notion of civil society than that proposed by the founding fathers. None seem to capture the range of civil associations in any society. Yet, assumptions are made that the terminologies used have similar meanings rather than attempting to clarify and define exactly what is being written or described. This is exacerbated by the interchangeable usage of nonprofit/third sector/community and voluntary sector/social economy. In order to progress beyond culturally specific understandings of civil society, it is necessary to examine the terminology used and how it emanates from a specific cultural and political context. Having a clear understanding of the language used and what it signifies is crucial to robust cross-national comparative research.

Originality/value – This paper examines context specific understandings of civil society and the terminology used to define it; a question not previously addressed. It is hoped that this article will generate much needed further debate on cross-national meanings of civil society.