ISSSC Website
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLES:
Introduction
Secular Americans
Understanding American
"Nots"
Is Anyone
in Canada Secular?
Secularity in Great Britain
Läicité
and Secular Attitudes in France
Secularism: The Case of Denmark
Secularism in India
The Secular Israeli Jewish Identity
Secularism in Iran: a Hidden Agenda?
Contributors
|
Understanding American "Nots"
By
Frank Pasquale
There
is a good deal of talk about “nones” these days. This has become a
well-established category in survey research on religion (or its absence).
It refers to individuals who do not choose or volunteer a specific religious
affiliation or identification or who state “no religious preference” or “no
religion” when prompted. It is a function of survey method rather than a
self-description and encompasses a wide range of types, from “atheists or
agnostics” to the “unchurched religious.” In fact, most “nones” report
selected religious beliefs and behavior. As such, the category offers
suggestive or directional insights into the comparatively less religious,
but not specific data on those who are substantially or affirmatively
nonreligious in belief, behavior, or identity.
There has been less direct or
detailed attention focused on those who might be characterized as the
“quintessential seculars”—the substantially or affirmatively
non-transcendental, or “nots.” These are people who do not think or behave
as though there is an immaterial reality apart from, beyond, or interlaced
within material existence and its properties. Such individuals
• eschew theistic,
transcendental, or super-natural ideas or worldviews,
• do not identify with
“traditions” or institutions that embrace such worldviews, but
• may hold alternative
worldviews (e.g., naturalistic or non-transcendental), or
• may be profoundly indifferent
to “ultimate” or metaphysical questions or concerns, and
• substantially avoid public or
private behavior that reflects transcendental ideas (prayer, worship,
incantation or conjuring, interaction with spirits, and so on).
This
includes, but is by no means restricted to “atheists” or “agnostics.” There
is
a widespread
tendency to refer to “nots” as such, but many, perhaps most,
avoid these
terms as identity labels or self-descriptions since they are politically
charged,
ambiguous, incomplete, or misleading.
Most “nots” are unaffiliated with
organizations that embrace or advocate non-transcendental philosophies. They are
not conveniently assembled on the basis of their worldviews. Their numbers
are not great enough to make national surveys a particularly efficient method
for research. And so, we don’t really know that much about them. I have been
taking a close look in a limited geographical region—the American
Northwest—using a variety of methods, including participant observation,
in-depth interviews, meeting attendance, and survey research. Existing data
suggest that there are at least one-half million “nots” in Oregon and
Washington, alone.
Prevailing thought has tended to
collapse the “nots” into an indistinguishable mass. Upon closer inspection,
there is considerable diversity. Many use a variety of terms to describe
themselves, such as skeptic, unbeliever, nonbeliever, irreligious,
nonreligious, secular, humanist, agnostic, rationalist, freethinker,
atheist, naturalist, non-transcendentalist, empiricist, and the recently
coined “brights.” Others shy from pat labels, preferring rich descriptions
of their worldviews. One interviewee reacted to the term, “nonreligious,”
with some annoyance, averring that “this tells people what I’m not,
but not what I am.”
A small
minority of affiliated “nots” may be found in a variety of nonreligious
organizations that address a range of interests and sensibilities. The
majority tends to affiliate on the basis of specific interests and social
causes as concerned, rather than irreligious, citizens. Both exhibit
what I
call “social skepticism”—preoccupation with the destructive power of
uncritical group participation or blind group immersion. This is not mere
“individualism,” but rather, a conscious and deliberate effort to manage
when, where, and to what extent they contribute their support to the power
and activities of groups and institutions. While many affiliated “nots” tend
to focus greater attention on the role of “religion” in fostering “blind group
immersion” that can have destructive consequences, unaffiliated “nots” are often
equally critical of ideological or doctrinal “group-think”—whether religious or
irreligious.
I am finding that the
“religious-secular” frame fails to capture and reflect the range of
worldviews emerging in interviews. Apart from thoroughgoing “atheists,”
“freethinkers,” or “secular humanists,” among my interviewees have been:
• a nonreligious skeptic who
participates without belief with other women in “pagan-like” celebrations of
life and nature for the “color and connectivity” they offer,
• an intensely anti-religious
atheist who engages in group Buddhist meditation and yoga as “therapy” (sans
“transcendental beliefs”), and
• a skeptical and scientific
empiricist who uses samsara and karma “metaphorically”
(without belief in their ontological reality) to frame and guide his
approach to everyday life and ethical choices.
These are substantially and
affirmatively non-transcendental people. Too much information is lost when
they are shunted, survey-wise, into “religious” or
“non-religious,” “spiritual” or
“secular.” Many struggle to articulate experiences of awe,
“connection,” or “free-floating gratitude.” But they are reluctant to do so
in the language of “spiritual/ity” for fear of conveying supernatural or
transcendental meanings. We are in need of a new and more nuanced
vocabulary, both in the social sciences and the popular sphere, that better
reflects the many ways human beings grapple with the basic questions and
experience of human existence. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear
that there is a much richer mosaic of approaches to existential and
meta-physical wondering (and related behavior) than has been afforded by the
religious-secular frame—even among the “nots.” |