Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Religious, not spiritual
Unorthodoxy
By Patrick J. Deneen
Numbers reported recently by Charles M. Blow of the New York Times confirm what I hear often in my classes - more and more young people today affirm being "spiritual," but not "religious."
This is exactly what we do not need as a culture: based on contemporary evidence economic, environmental, and moral, what is needed is a different approach: "religious, not spiritual."
Tocqueville observed nearly 200 years ago that Americans - informed by a spirit of equality - would find "forms" to be unbearable. Forms - whether as "formalities," as boundaries, as rule-based distinctions, as disciplines - would be rejected as largely arbitrary limits upon the democratic freedom of individuals. He predicted that "formal" religion would decline in adherents, but that "exalted forms of spirituality" would spring up to take their place, ones that would be noteworthy for their expansiveness, their absence of boundedness, their resistance to limits or chastening, and would manifest themselves as a kind of fanaticism. Moreover, he noted that this kind of "spirituality" would not be in contradiction to modern forms of materialism, but would co-exist comfortably alongside materialism.
All this is to be expected. Americans dislike most "formalities." Most of our contributions in the culinary area have been to transform every food type into ones that can be eaten by hand, on the run. Increasingly the use of "Mr." or "Mrs." have disappeared from the vocabulary of our young. Etiquette more generally has ceased to be a subject worthy of inculcation. Architectural forms have increasingly sought to incorporate design features that reject classical formalism, lines and features that were meant to accentuate the reality of the natural world. In universities, formal curricular criteria have been abandoned for amorphous "distribution requirements," and at some institutions have been altogether eliminated. The family is regarded as a plastic institution, capable of being defined and redefined according to prevailing fashions. The "formalism" of the Constitution has been rejected in preference for the idea of a "living" document that is subject to evolutionary change. In all these instances, "forms" restrict our freedom, and as democrats, we naturally bridle against them.
Spirituality is another kind of reaction against "forms" - this time in the religious realm - but, as with these other kinds of "informalism," exists in order to overthrow the strictures and limitations that "forms" demand. As Blow reports, one woman arrived at spiritual "peace" by taking a vacation to Costa Rica, where she was able to overcome the "moral strictures" of her youth (assisted, apparently, by copious quantities of rum). Spirituality becomes the means to liberation, even dissipation.
Tocqueville argued that democracy would need forms, though it would be naturally inclined to seek their evisceration. Forms are necessary especially because democracy needs to inculcate the capacity for self-government, and self-government is achieved through an habituation in self-discipline that the forms provide. In so many areas of life today, it is obvious that our problems derive from our incapacity for self-governance, in the formal discipline of self. Our inability to chasten the appetites of undisciplined selves in realms ranging from our abuse of the environment (or, to use more precise language, nature), our utilitarian approach to sexuality (and the predictable pornification of society), and economics - in which the approach is to get yours before someone else does - are arguably all the result of our endemic resistance to forms and the restraints upon self-seeking that they foster.
What we need today is not a generation that is "spiritual, not religious." I would argue that what is needed is the studied capacity to be "religious, not spiritual," alongside a renewed emphasis upon all the various forms (table manners and courtship would be two good places to start, against the modern tendency to seek immediate satiation of appetites, whether through fast food or fast sex). What's needed is a new, if very different, policy of containment.
By Patrick J. Deneen |
February 23, 2010; 12:49 PM ET
| Category:
Unorthodoxy
Save & Share:
Previous: Faith-based aid conversion |
Next: Proselytism and religious identity theft
Posted by: elizdelphi | February 25, 2010 7:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why does spirituality threaten the "religious" so?
Haveaheart nailed it. Those favoring religion over spirituality fear for their loss of control over others and their livelihoods.
Posted by: coloradodog | February 25, 2010 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Young people in America have, since the 1960's, drifted away from organized religion in their teens and twenties. Most of them either go back to it, or exchange it for another Christian denomination (i.e. moving from a Methodist upbringing to a "non-denominational" mega-church; changing from Catholic to Episcopalian). Some of them, like me, find a new home in our "alternative" religion and are quite happy there.
Although, to partially agree with the original writer, I have noticed a drift away from the traditional Wicca of the '60's through '80's as the next generation comes in. They are less about the rituals and saying things certain ways, and more experimental. This is a good thing, because it keeps us old and middle-aged farts from getting too caught up in our old ways of thinking.
Posted by: Athena4 | February 25, 2010 2:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Religious hierarchies have never liked independent thinking. I find people who cling to religious dogma to be generally (but not always) dangerously limited and intolerant, while people who embrace spirituality of all persuasions tend to be tolerant and thoughtful.
Posted by: darkglobe5 | February 25, 2010 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Religion, not spirituality, is what guarantees attendance at church...hence Mr. Deenen's position.
There cannot be any other explanation for such blatant ignorance.
Posted by: haveaheart | February 25, 2010 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Clearly, Deneen is afraid christers will lose their "authority". Indeed they will, and the sooner the better.
Posted by: Schaum | February 25, 2010 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
MOST PEOPLE OF THE WORLD ARE GOOD PEOPLE AND BELIEVE IN A GOD. THEY MEET THE GOALS OF GOD AND WILL BE IN PEACE IN THEIR NEW LIFE AFTER DEATH. THOES THAT THINK THAT ONLY THEIR MEMBERS OF THEIR RELIGION WILL BE SAVE ARE WRONG. THE WAY RELIGIONS ARE RAN, YOU THINK THEY ARE A BUSSINESS. WHAT DOES GOD WANT?
Posted by: usapdx | February 25, 2010 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please review the background for this article. The statistical data look very sparse for making such "leaps".
e.g.
"Daily Prayer Among Young Adults,
by Decade
Among adults ages 18-
29 in the…
1980s 1990s 2000s
Pray daily 41 40 45
Pray less often 59 60 55
N 2,130 1,224 1,679
Source: General Social Surveys
Question wording: About how often do you pray?
[RESPONSE CATEGORIES INCLUDE: Several times a day, once a day, several times a week, once a week, lessthan once a week, never.]"
Posted by: YEAL9 | February 25, 2010 8:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What a hollow and disingenuous essay!
The ample references to Tocqueville and other fluff don't hide the obvious. The writer laments the decline of Christianity.
This is simply the natural decline of political and supremacist religions in a more scientific and rational world. People have drifted away from Christianity in Europe & America, and this is rapidly accelerating with the next generation.
A need for "spirituality" remains, and this is leading Americans to viable alternatives such as the unfairly maligned Hinduism. This amorphous spirituality is already manifesting itself with vegetarianism, environmentalism, nonviolent protest, yoga, meditation, and respect for nature.
The underlying theme is Unity (Om, Brahman), tolerance & pluralism.
Welcome to Hinduism.
Posted by: clearthinking1 | February 25, 2010 3:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Part of my sentence went away. That should read
Spiritual pursuits might not take place inside a building with a steeple on top; they might not take place inside a building at all.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | February 24, 2010 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I guess much depends on how you define the words "religious" and "spiritual."
For many "religious" implies the following of formal ritual that has, by too many rote repetitions, lost any real meaning for them. It's going through the motions, but walking in place.
"Spiritual" refers to those activities and ideas that make them feel connected to the rest of their world. Spiritual pursuits might not take place inside a building with a steeple on top; they might. The fact that there is no formal meeting place, no robed master/mistress of ceremonies, no prepared litany does not invalidate them.
Ideally, religion feeds spirituality. Too often, however, religion gets reduced to form without substance and stifles spirituality.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | February 24, 2010 11:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"What we need today is not a generation that is "spiritual, not religious." I would argue that what is needed is the studied capacity to be "religious, not spiritual,"..."
What we need today are people who can tell the difference between superstition and reality.
Posted by: PSolus | February 24, 2010 5:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
""Numbers reported recently by Charles M. Blow of the New York Times confirm what I hear often in my classes - more and more young people today affirm being "spiritual," but not "religious."
This is exactly what we do not need as a culture:""
Actually, I pretty much utterly disagree: people reject the soulless forms and formalities of dogma that "Religion" keeps insisting are the only possible *good,* but never delivers.
These are not *self-discipline,* they're just external loci of control demanding that everyone must internalize them, with obvious and consistent failure to provide the results promised. Quite the contrary, actually.
Manners and decorum are actually quite important, *but* the decline of these is not one based in rejecting religious authorities, but rather one which comes *from* increasingly-aggressive and divisive religious authorities.
Ones which say everyone else is 'other,' 'wrong,' 'enemy' and ....plenty of rude words and accusations, clearly.
Ones which say that others are not *worthy,* inherently, of respect. That respect is to be enforced, commanded, bought and apportioned *...imposed* ...by the 'righteous' upon the 'sinners,' ...not something which comes from, is learned by, and in full honest expression, is of...
Spirit.
Of society, civility, and yes, human respect in and for all of our diversity. It's hardly learned overnight, but when it's there, it's for real. The people who want to claim only their one way can 'save' us from a decline in their own hegemony... Well, they're the ones doing the shouting and demeaning, aren't they?
Posted by: APaganplace | February 24, 2010 4:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I really appreciate these thoughtful and multi-faceted essays by Deenan. It's surely true that our society has become generally much less formal and it's worth asking whether this is also a drift away from a self-control, dignity and reverence that is protective of some basic human values.