When life itself becomes sacred for people, what is the meaning of dichotomies like sacred-profane and transcendent-immanent?
the scocial implications of transcendent praxis and spirituality
comments are welcome
Abstract
This research looks at the social and cultural implications of contemporary spirituality. Spirituality differs from religion by the stress laid on the subjective experiences of transcendence. This research focuses on how various senses of transcendent experiences are culturally linked together. Transcendent experiences allow the subject to integrate various differentiated private and public spheres of modern life. I argue for a multidimensional and multidisciplinary research of transcendent praxis because spirituality is communicated by general culture in such a way that it overlaps the boundaries between religious and non-religious communication. Transcendent experiences are not necessarily understood in a sacred versus a profane sense.
Op dit moment ben ik met heel veel vragen bezig rondom het spirituele circuit en de praktijken hierin, met verschillende theoretische invalshoeken. Wanneer ik Spiegelogie en het fanclubspel vergelijk met een aantal huidige uitspraken over het spirituele circuit, vraag ik me af of er tot de zelfde uitspraken worden gekomen na empirisch onderzoek naar de daadwerkelijk gemeenschappelijke praktijken zoals het fanclubspel, maar ook andere praktijken?
Is er alleen sprake van de combinatie van ‘gebaren van connectiviteit’ en een kosmologisch wereldbeeld tijdens het fanclubspel of ook bij andere gemeenschappelijke geritualiseerde praktijken in spirituele circuit? Hoe verhouden deze ‘gebaren van connectiviteit’ zich met de subjectivationthesis en het onderscheid tussen relational subjectivity en individuate subjectivity (Heelas en Woodhead 2005).
Tijdens het Fanclubspel lijkt het alsof er sprake is van tegelijk een zoektocht naar een dieper zelf, als een zoektocht naar een hoger zelf, lijkt er tegelijk sprake te zijn van immanentie en transcendentie en lijkt er tegelijk sprake te zijn van horizontale transcendentie en verticale transcendentie (Kunneman). Zijn deze termen te vergelijken en is er wel degelijk een verschil aan te wijzen tussen deze termen? Is er inderdaad sprake van beide transcendente ervaringen tegelijk (is dit mogelijk?) en wat kan dit voor nieuw licht werpen op andere praktijken in het spirituele circuit. Of wordt dit verschil bekeken vanuit een rituele setting en de liminale staat minder van belang, als een staat van tegelijk wel en niet, betwixt and between (immanent EN transcendent)?
Spiegelogie wordt door de deelnemers verschillend gerefereerd aan dan wel het spirituele, een godsbeeld (i.p.v alwetende god, een alcreërende god), New Age en een pseudo natuur/ psychologisch wetenschappelijk wereldbeeld. Waar komen de verschillen van referentie aan transcendente wereldbeelden vandaan en volgt hieruit verschillende keuzes voor praktijken in het mind-body-spirit circuit.
Verder heb ik een aantal ideeën over het gebruik van het rite the passage idee ten opzicht van het rite the marge idee of het liminoïde in een samenleving. Tijdens het fanclubspel lijkt er wel degelijk sprake te zijn van een overgang naar een nieuwe socio-mentale staat, zowel individueel als een overgang of verandering naar een meer ideale samenleving (Turner: limina en/ of ideologische/ normatieve communitas).
In het onderzoek naar het spirituele circuit is er voornamelijk aandacht voor de marge (hoewel subjectivationthesis goed tegenvoorbeeld is), daarom misschien uitspraken/ constateringen als dualisatie/ demonisatie van sociale instituten (Aupers en Houtman). In mijn ogen is er juist sprake van vorming van meer ideale, nieuwe sociale instituten. Hoewel de ervaring van deze dualisatie tussen het zelf een ‘traditionele’ instituten wel wordt uitgesproken in het “Handboek Spiegelogie” wordt tijdens het fanclubspel geoefend voorbij te gaan aan deze ervaring. Nogmaals missen we hier een belangrijk inzicht in de werking van het spirituele circuit zonder empirisch onderzoek naar de gemeenschappelijke praktijken, dus niet alleen het collectieve narratief, maar het hele complex van praktijken?
Het Fanclubspel wordt ook op werkvloer (van boven- en onderaf) en op scholen toegepast. Wanneer is er geen sprake meer van de marge? Kan het liminoïde weer overgaan in het liminale, tijdens gemeenschappelijke praktijken waar zowel het gemeenschappelijke als het subjectieve zelf centraal staat?
Immanent Frame blog van Craig Calhoun
- self transformation
- the transcendence of the self embodied in commitment and connection to others
- active participation in history, transformations in which we may participate
Compare the three dimensions of transcendence of Luckmann 1991 in: “Shrinking Transcendence, Expanding Religion”.
- the experiences of the “little” spatial and temporal transcendences of everyday life,
- the “intermediate” transcendences of fellow human beings,
- the “great” transcendences of life and death” (Luckmann 1990: 127)
A quote from a book on learning to relax.
“[I]f we believe that we are individuals whose thoughts and actions have repercussions for other people, then morality enthers the equation. None of us is truly happy if those closest to us are not. Our own goodness will be reflected back at us in the happiness of others. The goodness of others will inspire us further. We have a choice. We can opt for self-contained individualism, belief in a world seperated from mind and body, and our own insignificance, which makes us fearful of such a world. Or we can opt for an integrated perspective, the influence of mind and body in perfect balance with the world’s influence. Once we can see the world as our world, not theirs, and our selves as influential agents in the complex interplay of world, self and body, fear starts to drain away. Peace and harmony approach, like shy creatures to a hand that feeds them” ( George, M. 1998: 12,13).
George, M. (1998). Learn to Relax. Ease tension, conqer stress, free the self. London: Duncan Baird Publishers
During the conference “Gestures: religion qua preformance” of the NWO programme “The Future of the Religious Past” I had very interesting discussions. One question pups up imediatly: Is mystical experience possible without normative contraints, concepts and a concept of otherness (religious experience is in my eyes already intertwined with concepts)?
Here are some humble thoughts
First I Think that the concept of experience is in this question a bit confusing because in most theory experience is already internalised by the worldviews people have. So a better question in my eyes is: Can people have mystical feelings or feelings beyond themselves?
Second I think that this concept of otherness and how it is used has something to do with the processes of individualisation and the subjectivation of the self and how these processes are used in scientific theories. In this time where the focus is mostly on personalised identities it is not strange that one askes how selfconciencesness and identitymaking takes place. The basic assumption in this proces of identitymaking and selfconciencesness is that people has to reflect on themselves, by meeting others or creating otherness. [In] order to become aware of himself as much he must […] become an object to himself, or enter his own experience as an object, and by only by social means - only by taking that attitude of others towards himself- he is able to become an object to himself” (Mead 1959: 226).
Third I am still working on this concept of communitas and the differentation between spontaneous, ideological and normative communitas by Victor Turner. Communitas or proto-structure is “the liberation of human capacities of cognition, affect, volition, creativity, etc., from the normative constraints” (Turner 1982: 44).
“Spontaneous communitas is a direct, immediate and total confrontation of human identities. […] Subjectively there is in it a feeling of endless power, […] a flash of lucid mutual understanding on the existential level, when they feel that all problems, […] could be resolved, whether emotional or cognitive, if only the group which felt (in the first person) as ‘essentially us’ could sustain its intersubjective illumination. […] Individuals who interact with one another in the mode of spontaneous communitas become totally absorbed into a single synchronized fluid event.” (Turner 1982: 47-48)
Spontaneous communitas can transform to normative or ideological communitas but when and how there is really something going on like spontaneous communitas? Is this kind of communitas possible without ritualised acts towards it, without some direction (worldviews, concepts etc.)?
For analysing the Dutch practice I studied, I used the concept of flow. Turner already related this concept with liminality, communitas and the liminoid. But for feelings of flow there has to be according to Csikszentmihalyi some sort of focus or attention.
So: Can people have mystical feelings or feelings beyond themselfs?
I hope by doing more research on new ritualised practices to come closer to an answer.
In his analyses on ritual and ritualised practices Victor Turner made a distinction between the liminal and the liminoid of society, by pinpointing the difference between the meaning and separation of work and leisure/ play in societies. The liminal is part of society, an aspect of social or religious ritual, while the liminoid is a break from society, apart from work settings.
“The solitary artist creates the liminoid phenomena, the collectivity experiences collective liminal symbols” (Turner 1982: 52)
“One works at the liminal, one plays with the liminoid” (Turner 1982: 55).
But what if people in modern societies want to bring work and leisure more together by the means of for example practices from the spiritual circuit? When becomes the liminoid, liminal again during those practices?
Turner, V. (1982). From Ritual to Theatre. The human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications.
Voor de Club van Honderd van de educatieve omroep RVU sprak Bram van Splunteren met Willem de Ridder over Spiegelogie en The Secret. Op het eerste gezicht heeft Spiegelogie veel weg van de Secret, beide hebben als uitgangspunt dat je je eigen geluk creeert. Willem de Ridder gaat tijdens het interview in op de verschillen.
De aflevering werd afgelopen maandag 2 juni herhaald.
aflevering
uitgebreide versie van het interview
interview
Understanding the social significance of new spiritual practices with the help of the concept communitas
In an upcoming paper on Spiegelogie and the Fanclubspel, a new spiritual movement in the Netherlands, I want to elaborate more on the social significance of ritual like practices in the spiritual milieu with the help of the concept of communitas. I want to show that communitas as concept can help to analyse spiritual practices and their social significance. On the one hand, practices can be analysed as ritualised acts or even as rite the passage. Subjective lived life’s or life-if forms are learned and practiced and introduced in everyday live of its participants. On the other hand, the anti-structure of communitas can learn us about current social changes and some statements about the social significance of the spiritual milieu. Here are some statements about the social significance of the spiritual milieu:
1. According to Aupers and Houtman the underlying social process of the spiritual supermarket is a sacralisation of the self, with “alternative frames of interpretation, new vocabularies and symbols to interpret […] experiences” (Aupers and Houtman 2006 206, 208). This self spirituality or inner spirituality goes hand in hand with a clear cut dualistic worldview. The real or deeper self is seeing opposed to the ego or socialised self, the same as wellbeing opposed to being, resulting in a demonization of social institutions (Aupers and Houtman 2006: 207, 208).
2. Heelas and Woodhead speak of a subjective turn, “it is a turn away from life lived in terms of external or ‘objective’ roles, duties and obligations, and a turn towards life lived by reference to one’s own subjective experiences (relational as much as individualistic)” (Heelas and Woodhead 2005: 2). The direction that the underlying subjective turn may take as it extends out beyond its autonomous basis can vary between individuated subjectivism and relational subjectivism (Heelas and Woodhead 2005: 96). Findings from the Kendal project suggests that over half associate spirituality with relationality.
“What matters is growing oneself through the experiences of associational activities. Whether it be practitioners, one-to-one or group participants, the important thing is to share, express, care and to go beyond the “the distinct” as that is marked out by life-as roles, rules and conventions. The spiritual dimension is (basically) understood as the dimension at which all life connects, and where the individual realizes her or his true nature in relationship with the ‘whole’ ” (Heelas and Woodhead 2005: 98, 99).
With the help of the three stages of a rite the passage (separation, the liminal period of transition and the phase of incorporation) and the concept communitas the statements above become more transparent. The phase of separation and the phase in-between, the liminal phase where feelings of communitas can arise, are here the most apparent.
“Spontaneous communitas is a direct, immediate and total confrontation of human identities. […] Subjectively there is in it a feeling of endless power, […] a flash of lucid mutual understanding on the existential level, when they feel that all problems, […] could be resolved, whether emotional or cognitive, if only the group which felt (in the first person) as ‘essentially us’ could sustain its intersubjective illumination. […] Individuals who interact with one another in the mode of spontaneous communitas become totally absorbed into a single synchronized fluid event.” (Turner 1982: 47-48)
Tim Olaveson compares in his article Durkheims concept of collective effervescence and Victor Turners’s concept of communitas. By doing so he states according to Durkheim and Turner that ritual like practices have a dialectical relation with social structure. Society has to experience the transformative and re-creative character of the anti-structure to maintain wholeness.
“The experience of communitas is also an necessity for the proper functioning of social structure. Without it, structure can begin to stagnate and die, or become too partisan and individualistic. It must be periodically imbued with the anti-structural values of communitas, and made to serve the common good” (Olaveson 2001: 109).
“Similar to communitas, collective effervescence must exist in dialectical tension with social structure[….]. Collective effervescence increases the intimacy of human relationships, and makes them more human, as apposed to the partisan, self interested nature of material existence that can develop in social structure” (Olaveson 2001: 110).
Research on the Fanclubspel, a new spiritual game in the Netherlands opens up the possibility to understand the relation between individuated subjectivism and relational subjectivism. The use of the concept of communitas and the ritual cycle of segregation, the liminal phase and the phase of incorporation can increase the understanding of spiritual like practices. On the one hand the practitioners of the Fanclubspel want to accomplish there own goals, wishes and find answers for them self’s, from the search of material luck to emotional and spiritual wellness. On the other hand being part of a group, only if it is for the time being, is essential for the Fanclubspel. Meaning and identity come into being in the interplay with others. This interplay in a sacralised and ritualised form is tested, practised and learned during the Fanclubspel. Feelings of communitas are as much important as being authentic. Feelings of wholeness and unity are seen as source for being your self. Without experiencing the connection with everything and the different possibilities people show, one can’t be real subjective.
In the upcoming paper I will state that reintegrating the learned in every day life is an important aspect of the Fanclubspel. One of the learning aspects is to overcome the experienced dualisation between the self, others and society.
Aupers, S. and D. Houtman (2006). “Beyond the spiritual Supermarket. The Social and Public Significance of New Age Spirituality”. In: Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol. 21, p. 201-222.
Olaveson, T. (2001). “Collective Effervescence and Commuitas: Processual Models of Ritual and Societty in Emile Durkheim and Victor Turner”. In: Dialectual Anthropology, vol. 26, p. 89-124.
Heelas P. and L. Woodhead (2005) The Spiritual Revolution, why religion is giving way to spirituality. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Turner, V. (1982). From Ritual to Theatre. The human Seriousness of Play. New York: PAJ Publications.
I’ve got finally a reserachproposal comments are welcome
Beyond the subjective narratives and the sacralisation of the self in a Dutch case.
Abstract:
This particular research aims to increase the understanding of the socio-cultural importance and meaning of an individualised looking practice on the Dutch spiritual market. The main focus of this research is the relation between the socio-cultural practices and the spiritual conversion careers of the participants. With qualitative and quantative research on the personal stories of the participants and their socialised practices, this research will give a better understanding of the following question: In which ways represent the practitioners of Spiegelogie their spiritual conversion careers in relation to the experience of their identity and social identities?
Recent Comments