Secular but Not Superficial : an Overlooked Nonreligious
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Secular but not superficial : an vo erlooked nonreligious/ nonspiritual identity. Daniel G. Delaney University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons, Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons, Semantics and Pragmatics Commons, Social Psychology Commons, and the Sociology of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delaney, Daniel G., "Secular but not superficial : an vo erlooked nonreligious/nonspiritual identity." (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2578. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2578 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SECULAR BUT NOT SUPERFICIAL: AN OVERLOOKED NONRELIGIOUS / NONSPIRITUAL IDENTITY By Daniel G. Delaney B.A., University of Louisville, 1998 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Sociology Department of Sociology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2016 Copyright 2016 by Daniel G. Delaney All rights reserved SECULAR BUT NOT SUPERFICIAL: AN OVERLOOKED NONRELIGIOUS / NONSPIRITUAL IDENTITY By Daniel G. Delaney B.A., University of Louisville, 1998 A Thesis Approved on November 15, 2016 by the following Thesis Committee: _________________________________________ Thesis Director Patricia Gagné, PhD, Sociology Department _________________________________________ Second Committee Member Mark Austin, PhD, Sociology Department _________________________________________ Third Committee Member Mary Ann Stenger, PhD, Humanities Department ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my wife, Ginny, and my children, Phoenix, Sage, and Inanna, who spent so many days and nights without me so that I could bring this research to fruition. I love you all more than words can say. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, my deepest thanks go to Pat Gagné, my teacher, advisor, and friend. Since my first class with you eight years ago, you have pushed me harder than anyone ever has, forcing me to go beyond what I would ever think or write on my own. You’ve been more patient, understanding, forgiving, and flexible than anyone could ever ask. I don’t know how I would have made this journey without your encouragement and support. Second, to Mary Ann Stenger, who graciously agreed to be on my committee even after retirement. Thank you for these many years of friendship and encouragement, and for introducing me to the work of Elaine Pagels, one of my all-time favorite authors. Third, to Mark Austin, who stepped in at the last minute to complete my committee. Thank you for the many great after-class conversations, and for introducing me to that perennial truism: “People are stupid.” A special thank you to Karen McKinney. Your enthusiasm for, and encouragement of my work was invaluably heartening as I worked my way back into academia after an eight-year hiatus. Another special thank you to Jonetta Weber, who always took care me when I had missed those administrative deadlines. Many thanks to the other wonderful professors who have taught me so much over the past nine years—Bob Carini, Jon Rieger, Wayne Usui, Gul Marshall, and Natalie Polzer. Finally, to my parents. Thank you for your love, and for the sacrifices you made that allowed me to pursue academics. iv ABSTRACT SECULAR BUT NOT SUPERFICIAL: AN OVERLOOKED NONRELIGIOUS / NONSPIRITUAL IDENTITY Daniel G. Delaney November 15, 2016 Since Durkheim’s characterization of the sacred and profane as “antagonistic rivals,” the strict dichotomy has been framed in such a way that “being religious” evokes images of a life filled with profound meaning and value, while “being secular” evokes images of a meaningless, self-centered, superficial life, often characterized by materialistic consumerism and the cold, heartless environment of corporate greed. Consequently, to identify as “neither religious nor spiritual” runs the risk of being stigmatized as superficial, untrustworthy, and immoral. Conflicts and confusions encountered in the process of negotiating a nonreligious/nonspiritual identity, caused by the ambiguous nature of religious language, were explored through qualitative interviews with 14 ex-ministers and 1 atheist minister—individuals for whom supernaturalist religion had formed the central core of identity, but who have deconverted and no longer hold supernatural beliefs. The cognitive linguistics approach of Frame Semantics was applied to the process of “oppositional identity work” to examine why certain identity labels are avoided or embraced due to considerations of the cognitive frames evoked by those labels. v Through the constant comparative method of grounded theory, a host of useful theoretical concepts emerged from the data. Several impediments to the construction of a “secular but not superficial” identity were identified, and framework of new theoretical concepts developed to make sense of them: sense disparity, frame disparity, identity misfire, foiled identity, sense conflation, and conflated frames. Several consequences arising from these impediments were explored: (1) consequences of sense conflation and conflated frames for the study of religion; (2) consequences of conflated frames for religious terminology; and (3) consequences of the negation of conflated frames for those who identify as not religious, not spiritual, or not Christian. Additionally, four types of oppositional identity work were identified and analyzed: (1) avoidance identity work, (2) dissonant identity work, (3) adaptive identity work, and (4) alternative identity work. Finally, the concept of conflated frames was applied to suggest a new interpretation of the classic Weberian disenchantment narrative. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. v INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 Background: Trends, Identities, and Characterizations ......................................................... 3 The Religious-Secular Divide ............................................................................................... 6 Definitional Considerations ................................................................................................... 14 Figurative and Supernatural Senses of Religious Language .......................................... 15 “Nonsuperficiality” as a Placeholder Category .............................................................. 20 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 24 Prejudice and Negative Characterizations of Nonbelievers .................................................. 24 Individual and Collective Nonbeliever Identity .................................................................... 25 Measuring Nonreligious/Nonspiritual Identities with Surveys ............................................. 26 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 32 The Spectrum of Social Stigma ............................................................................................. 32 Frame Semantics, Grounded Theory, and Cognitive Frames ................................................ 33 Identity Frames and Characterization Frames ....................................................................... 36 Oppressive Identity Work and Oppositional Identity Work .................................................. 38 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 41 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 43 Grounded Theory .................................................................................................................. 43 Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 44 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 47 vii FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 49 Salient Characteristics of the Participants ............................................................................. 49 Deeply Religious Identities ............................................................................................. 49 Prior Supernatural Worldviews – Disparate GOD Frames ..............................................