Putting an Umbrella Over a Bridge

Author’s cat demonstrating the utility of having an overarching framework for discussing topics pertinent to religious studies within interdisciplinary contexts. Trying to squeeze “(non)religious and/or (non)spiritual identifications, beliefs, and/or practices are important to [psychology topic] because…” into a 150-word abstract for a conference paper is cumbersome, at best.

By Alex Uzdavines

Alex Uzdavines was born in San Diego, CA and existed for a number of years before deciding to pursue Psychology after taking most of the coursework in it offered by the San Diego Community College District. He transferred to and earned his BA in Psychology and Social Behavior and MA in Demographic and Social Analysis from the University of California, Irvine. He is a Clinical Psychology graduate student in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, working under Professor Julie Exline. His primary research interests are in the psychology of (non)religion and (non)spirituality, with an emphasis on studying how (non)beliefs contribute to spiritual struggles and well-being.

Alex Uzdavines

Alex Uzdavines was born in San Diego, CA and existed for a number of years before deciding to pursue Psychology after taking most of the coursework in it offered by the San Diego Community College District. He transferred to and earned his BA in Psychology and Social Behavior and MA in Demographic and Social Analysis from the University of California, Irvine. He is a Clinical Psychology graduate student in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, working under Professor Julie Exline. His primary research interests are in the psychology of (non)religion and (non)spirituality, with an emphasis on studying how (non)beliefs contribute to spiritual struggles and well-being.

In response to:

Worldviews and Ways of Life

Ann Taves joins us to discuss her work arguing that we should study religions under the broader rubric of "worldviews" and "ways of life". This ambitious interdisciplinary project aims to place a micro-level analysis of individual worldviews into a broader evolutionary perspective.

A Response to “Worldviews and Ways of Life”

by Alex Uzdavines

Author’s cat demonstrating the utility of having an overarching framework for discussing topics pertinent to religious studies within interdisciplinary contexts.

Trying to squeeze “(non)religious and/or (non)spiritual identifications, beliefs, and/or practices are important to [psychology topic] because…” into a 150-word abstract for a conference paper is cumbersome, at best. That’s partly why I’m so excited about Dr. Ann Taves’ (among others) work on “Worldviews and Ways of Life”. After all, that frees up twelve words for the abstract!

Having access to a model that has some promise for bringing parity and parsimony to researching and talking about belief and unbelief[1] would also be pretty great, sure. What are even better are the parallels between Dr. Taves’ formulation of worldviews and ways of life and the ideas about global/situational meaning making currently used in psychology research (Park, 2010). In trying to bridge different disciplines within (non)religious studies, it’s helpful to start building where the gap is particularly narrow.

Even more helpful? Clarifying[2] what all these terms are before digging further into the response. From the podcast, my understanding is that a “worldview” is the holistic package of “identifications, beliefs, and/or practices” containing the answers to the Big Questions[3] (What’s the meaning of life? What’s good? Etc.) held by an entity. As Dr. Taves explained, “entity” can be an individual, a group, or a formal organization; the model can be used regardless of which layer of the biopsychosocial onion you happen to be interested in. Her example of analyzing Alcoholics Anonymous’ “spiritual” worldview in the latter half of the podcast was particularly good. My understanding of “Way of life” is still somewhat fuzzy, but I picked up that it’s effectively what it says on the label: a broad term used to sum up what a given entity is actually doing.

Bridging over to psychology, global meaning systems seems to map onto the “worldview” concept of being a catch-all term for the totality of identifications, beliefs, and/or behaviors fairly closely (Park, 2005). The major difference here seems to be that a global meaning system has an explicit purpose in being used to cope with a life stressor of some kind, whereas a “worldview” is more all-encompassing. This difference is mirrored when looking at situational meaning-making versus how Dr. Taves described an enacted worldview. The system by which people either assimilating a stressful life event (i.e. cope with an event without changing their global meaning model) is a reaction to an event that’s a specific way of enacting a worldview.

Where things diverge in an interesting way is at “accommodation”: needing to change the global meaning model in the face of the event as part of the coping process. Dr. Taves hits on the idea that people might have a specific context in which their worldview/way of life becomes somewhat self-contradictory. She uses the example of a chronic pain patient who very much has a pro-science secular-sounding worldview, but turns to “alternative” medical approaches to try and reduce their pain. In the podcast, this idea doesn’t get fleshed out very much,[4] but seems to be an area that the meaning-making approach can add something. The assimilation vs. accommodation model might provide a good start as a hypothesized mechanism for how worldviews change or get enacted differently in different contexts, both within and between entities.

Going back to the Alcoholics Anonymous example, Dr. Taves highlights how AA’s official worldview can be constructed as almost generically “spiritual” and tries to avoid being religious so that nonreligious people can also participate. In reality, however, this might not work out in practice. The examples Dr. Taves lists in the podcast could be construed as ways individuals and sub-groups of AA assimilate the “official” worldview into their own worldviews and ways of life. That is to say, they adapt AA’s worldview to fit their own rather than vice versa.

So, there’s the bridge; now for the umbrella. “Worldviews” seem to work rather well to side-step the belief vs. unbelief issue, at least for those of us in the applied and “outcomes on measures of health and well-being” end of religious studies. At least for right now, using the language of worldviews and ways of life would likely be just as much of a kludge solution as having roughly fourteen thousand[5] different sub-terms for “(non)religious and/or (non)spiritual identification, beliefs, and/or practices.” But in accepting that kludge as an umbrella rubric to contain both secular and nonsecular[6] studies[7] it’ll provide more room for arguing over minute phrasing differences in a wide variety of other areas.

Author’s cats moments before they began bickering over the importance of clearly articulating common verbiage prior to engaging in interdisciplinary discussions

References

Park, C. L. (2005). Religion as a Meaning-Making Framework in Coping with Life Stress. Journal of Social Issues, 61(4), 707–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00428.x

Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301

 

[1] My response builds, in part, on the response I wrote for the podcast “From Non-Religion to Unbelief? A developing field…” from Drs. Lois Lee and Christopher R. Cotter. If you’re interested in learning a bit more about unbelief research and how it applies to what Dr. Taves talked about, I’d strongly recommend Dr. Lee’s podcast as well.

[2] Hopefully, anyways.

[3] Feel free to use whatever Douglas Adams reference best floats your boat, here. My preference is to just think about towels.

[4] Which is fine, there’s a lot to cover!

[5] Roughly.

[6] From now on I’m going to refer to “religious studies” as “nonsecular studies” whenever I’m wanting to be snarky while talking to other people in the field. “The Psychology of Nonsecularity,” HAH! Oh man, that’s great….

[7] I’m 99% sure I’m stealing this gag from someone, but I can’t remember who.

Other EPISODES YOU MIGHT ENJOY

Death, Music, and Ritual: Contemporary Requiems in the Commemoration of Death and Violence

Podcast

Hoondert discusses the step away from the liturgy associated with requiems as way for today's individual to deal with death or violence in their own way. Still, It is clear that the ritual elements of the requiem remains, hence where this contemporary music fits into the sacral landscape is up for debate.
What is the Public Benefit of the Study of Religion?

Podcast

Does the public benefit from the social-scientific study of religion? Should it? How do we demonstrate benefit, measure it, communicate it? What are the practical and theoretical issues surrounding the idea of how the study of religion can operate in the, or perhaps as a, public good? For that matter, what do we mean by ‘public’ or ‘benefit’?
Lisbeth Mikaelsson on Religion and Gender

Podcast

From dress codes to notions of purity to questions of the legitimate of power the topic of gender is one few scholars can afford to ignore. With a whole range of issues to be investigated Lisbeth Mikaelsson gives us an introductory insight into the complex topic of religion and gender: the issues it raises, the way we go about it, who’s doing it and why.
Religious Studies as a Discipline

Podcast

Aaron Hughes (University of Rochester) has been a vocal critic of some of the theories and methods used by religious studies scholars working on Islam. In this podcast, he discusses his critique of the discipline and practice of religious studies he has made through works such as Situating Islam (Equinox, 2008), Theorizing Islam (Equinox, 2012), Abrahamic Religions (Oxford, 2012), The Study of Judaism (SUNY, 2013), and, most recently, Islam and the Tyranny of Authenticity (Equinox, 2015).
Roundtable: What is the Future of Religious Studies?

Podcast

After this week’s podcast, which involved eight scholars giving their views on the future of Religious Studies, there was really only one way we could create a suitably collective and varied response – six postgrads sitting around a table, accompanied by pink gin and our trusty dictaphone. Conversation ranges from the public perception of what Religious Studies does, ...
Religion as a Tactic of Governance

Podcast

Naomi Goldenberg argues that 'religion', as a separate sphere from governance, has been projected onto the past for strategic purposes. How does viewing religions as "restive once-and-future governments" help us understand the functioning of this category in contemporary discourse?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

The views expressed in podcasts, features and responses are the views of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Religious Studies Project or our sponsors. The Religious Studies Project is produced by the Religious Studies Project Association (SCIO), a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (charity number SC047750).