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.

The Creative Life of Law: Improvisation, Between Tradition and Suspicion

Originally applying solely to chefs, waiters, dishwashers and the like, New York City (NYC) regulations governing cabaret employees were altered in 1943 to include musicians and entertainers, who until the late 1960’s would be required to hold a NYC Cabaret Employee’s Identification Card. The introduction of these notorious “police cards” occurred roughly contemporaneously to the emergence in after-hours night clubs in Harlem of a new and supposedly “wild”, improvisatory brand of jazz: bebop. This article adds to the many rather practical theories on why these cards were introduced a more abstract discussion coined in terms of the relationship between suspicion and tradition and focusing on differing essences of law and improvisatory jazz. While law breathes tradition and is suspicious of improvisation and unpredictability, the converse is true of jazz. Allusion to tradition in jazz improvisation is often viewed as a betrayal of its creative and spontaneous nature. And yet it is only through its departure from the stable transmission of past meaning that improvisation gains meaning. Law, in contrast, while appearing to be entirely composed of tradition, to transmit some sort of determinate and fixed meaning, is constantly betraying itself. As no two legal actions can be exactly the same, judges must improvise on tradition and past precedent every time they are asked to decide a case. Law can thus neither dispense with nor be completely determined by tradition. The legal decision instead lies on the border between what it “is” and what it otherwise could be and every judicial act is, in some sense, a species of improvisation. This article uses the cabaret cards to explore this uncertain terrain between law and improvisation, between tradition and suspicion.