Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, No.3, pp.66-79
UDC: 
141.319.8:2-184

Religiosity as a criterion for analyzing the transformation of social rituals in contemporary people’s everyday life

Izluchenko T. V. 1 (Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation)
1 Siberian Federal University
Abstract: 

Introduction. The article investigates the problems of ritual transformation in the modern society as mechanisms of transferring knowledge about everyday life structure and expressing internal and external factors of societal development. The objective is to substantiate the effectiveness of the religiosity as a criterion for analyzing the transformations of social rituals of contemporary people’s everyday life.
Materials and Methods. The study of everyday life is based on the historical anthropological approaches (P. Berger, T. Lukmann, H. Garfinkel, S. N. Bogolyubova). Religiousness is considered within the framework of cognitive science (P. Boyer, T. Malevich). The structural-functional approach is applied to the treatment of social ritual (E. Durkheim).
Results. The author identifies the role of religiosity in the formation of everyday life structure and the development of social rituals. It was revealed that forms of religiosity in social rituals are determined by socio-cultural conditions and psychological attitudes. The analysis of everyday life as an ontological concept, including the interpretation of significant phenomena of social reality as elements, regularly performed social rituals and communicative space, within which the learning and transfer of knowledge take place, is carried out. The subordination of religious actions and social rituals of everyday life is characterized. Religious actions are indicated by special cases of social rituals, in which the religious component is fundamental. Social rituals are represented by mechanisms for transferring knowledge, skills and learning within the society through performativity and mimesis in order to maintain social integrity. The transformation of social rituals in the modern world under the influence of secularization is highlighted, which is expressed in the content and sequence of rituals actions, as well as in the structure of everyday life. It is proposed to investigate changes in social rituals through the criterion of religiosity as an element which constantly exists in everyday life and reflects the conditions of social reality.
Conclusions. In accordance with the stated objective, the religiosity of consciousness is designated as a productive criterion for analyzing the transformation of social rituals under the influence of socio-cultural conditions. Everyday life of modern people is filled with individual religious practices, which express subjective ideas about the relationship between «sacred» and «profane». It is noted that manifestations of religiosity reflect the essence of social rituals of everyday life.

Keywords: 

Everyday life; Religiosity; Rituals; Religious practices; Religious tradition; Religious communities; Historical anthropology

References: 
  1. Habermas J. Religion, Law and Politics. – On Political Justice in a Multicultural World-Society. Polis. Political Studies, 2010, no. 2, pp. 7–21. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=13075161
  2. Willard A. K., Cingl L. Testing theories of secularization and religious belief in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2017, vol. 38, issue 5, pp. 604–615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.01.002
  3. De A. Spatialisation of selves: Religion and liveable spaces among Hindus and Muslims in the walled city of Ahmedabad, India. City, Culture and Society, 2016, vol. 7, issue 3, pp. 149–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2016.06.002
  4. Chiodelli F. Religion and the city: A review on Muslim spatiality in Italian cities. Cities, 2015, vol. 44, pp. 19–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.12.004
  5. Gökarıksel B., Secor A. Post-secular geographies and the problem of pluralism: Religion and everyday life in Istanbul, Turkey. Political Geography, 2015, vol. 46, pp. 21–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2014.10.006
  6. Malevich T. V. Evolutionary Role of Religion: Between Adoptation and By-Product. St. Tikhons University Review. Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies, 2016, no. 4, pp. 84–104. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26552577  
  7. Dilley R. M. The problem of context in social and cultural anthropology. Language & Communication, 2002, vol. 22, issue 4, pp. 437–456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00019-8.
  8. Kornev V. V. Problem of Definition of a Category "Quotidian". Altai State University Journal, 2008, no. 2, pp. 85–90. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12957529  
  9. Markovtseva O. Yu.  Commonness as a Human Being Existence in the World. Bulletin of Orenburg State University, 2006, no. 6-1, pp. 111–117. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=12987083
  10. Bogolyubova S. N. Everyday life: the limits of identification interpretation. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 2011, no. 1, pp. 31–34. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=16214068
  11. Nikiforova S. V. Design Images of Everyday (from the Experience of the Reconstruction Traditional Everyday Yakuts). In the World of Science and Art: Philology, Art History and Cultural Studies, 2015, no. 46, pp. 16–23. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23098772
  12. Pushkareva N. L. The Scope and Methods of the Study of Everyday Life History. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie, 2004, no. 5, pp. 3–19. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17718409  
  13. Bannikova E. V. Conditions of daily life: the factors defining life. Bulletin of Orenburg State Pedagogical University, 2013, no. 3, pp. 53–58. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20252301
  14. Malevich T., Kozhevnikov D. Debates about Innate Religiosity in the Cognitive Science of Religion. State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide, 2016, no. 2, pp. 373–398. (In Russian) DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2016-34-2-373-398 . URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=26462960
  15. Sergienko R. A. Cognitive Approuach to Explain the Nature of Religion and Religious Conceptions. Bulletin of Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University, 2011, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 36–43. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17041653  
  16. Francken J. C., Slors M. Neuroscience and everyday life: Facing the translation problem. Brain and Cognition, 2018, vol. 120, pp. 67–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2017.09.004
  17. Eremin A., Osmachko S. The Education Activity of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Contemporary Transcultural Space of Russia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2017, vol. 237, pp. 1475–1481. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.232
  18. Northmore-Ball K., Evans G. Secularization versus religious revival in Eastern Europe: Church institutional resilience, state repression and divergent paths. Social Science Research, 2016, vol. 57, pp. 31–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.11.001
  19. Hanson G. H., Xiang Ch. Exporting Christianity: Governance and doctrine in the globalization of US denominations. Journal of International Economics, 2013, vol. 91, issue 2, pp. 301–320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2013.08.002
  20. Cruz A. G. B., Seo Y. Buchanan-Oliver M. Religion as a field of transcultural practices in multicultural marketplaces. Journal of Business Research, 2017, in Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.022
  21. Yilmaz O., Bahçekapili H. G. Supernatural and secular monitors promote human cooperation only if they remind of punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2016, vol. 37, issue 1, pp. 79–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.09.005
  22. Vial T. Harvey Whitehouse. Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity. Religion, 2004, vol. 34, issue 3, pp. 248–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.religion.2004.04.011
  23. Astakhova L. S. Universal characteristics of religious activity. Proceedings of Kazan University, 2007, no. 5, pp. 79–90. (In Russian) URL: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=11482057
  24. Graham J., Meindl P., Beall E., Johnson K. M., Zhang L. Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2016, vol. 8, pp. 125–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.007
  25. Liberman Z., Kinzler K. D., Woodwardc A. L. The early social significance of shared ritual actions. Cognition, 2018, vol. 171, pp. 42–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.10.018
  26. Mitkidis P., Ayal S., Shalvi S., Heimann K., Levy G., Kyselo M., Wallot S., Ariely D., Roepstorff A. The effects of extreme rituals on moral behavior: The performers-observers gap hypothesis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2017, vol. 59, pp. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.12.007
  27. Wen N. J., Herrmann P. A., Legare C. H. Ritual increases children’s affiliation with in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 2016, vol. 37, issue 1, pp. 54–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.08.002
  28. Kadar D. Z., Bax M. M. H. In-group ritual and relational work. Journal of Pragmatics, 2013, vol. 58, pp. 73–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.03.011
  29. Hubert E. Figuring identity in everyday life. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2016, vol. 44, part A, pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2016.07.015
  30. Hastings O. P. Not a lonely crowd? Social connectedness, religious service attendance, and the spiritual but not religious. Social Science Research, 2016, vol. 57, pp. 63–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.01.006
  31. Purzycki B. G., Henrich J., Apicella C., Atkinson Q. D., Baimel A., Cohen E., McNamara R. A., Willard A. K., Xygalatas D., Norenzayan A. The evolution of religion and morality: a synthesis of ethnographic and experimental evidence from eight societies. Religion, Brain and Behavior, 2018, vol. 8, issue 2, pp.  101–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1267027
Date of the publication 30.06.2018