TY - JOUR
T1 - Authority and liquid religion in cyber-space : the new territories of religious communication
AU - Possamai, Adam
AU - Turner, Bryan S.
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - The use of the Internet by religious people and groups began in the 1980s. Since that time, the way religion is discussed and practised on the Web has gone through a number of transformations. Karaflogka (2002) studied the various typologies of religious activities, but was forced to revise her analysis constantly in line with the continually changing nature of Web-based religious practice. These practices evolve constantly because cyber-space is no longer the preserve of the computer specialist and now supports an inclusive (at least for those who can access the hardware) social space. Karaflogka developed a valuable distinction between “religion on cyberspace” and “religion in cyberspace”: What I call “religion on cyberspace” is the information uploaded by any religion, church, individual or organisation, which also exists and can be reached in the off-line world. In this sense the Internet is used as a tool. “Religion in cyberspace”, which I call cyberreligion, is a religious, spiritual or metaphysical expression which is created and exists exclusively in cyberspace, where it enjoys a considerable degree of “virtual reality”. (Karaflogka 2002, p.285) Employing this distinction, it can be argued that in the early days of Internet communication when religions first emerged on the Internet, they were predominantly religions on cyber-space. However, with the democratisation of access to the Internet and the growth of its potential, religions in cyber-space are emerging and have the capacity to mobilise large sections of the population. Via cyber-space, the social observatory is exposed to both established and new religious groups that are promoting their beliefs and practices. This new territory is in principle globally accessible. Inscription of religion in cyber-space is constant and fluid, offering a space for religion to change through the on-line interaction of its practitioners. We might, following the work of Zygmunt Bauman (2000), coin a new expression to describe this fluid and effervescent religiosity: “liquid religion”. Cyber-territory is creating new boundaries across off-line territories, and connections between off- and on-line territories are constantly been developed. In the field of law (August 2002; Bettelheim 2006), the Internet is seen as an international space which disrespects local and national jurisdiction, and can undermine laws based on geographical boundaries. Some cyber-states (for example, Dominion of Melchizedek) are even emerging in the on-line world. Although they lack physical territory, they are nevertheless promoting the legitimacy of their claims to state recognition (Smith 2000). Religion has not been left untouched in this new territoriality. Campbell (2004) integrates this complex and diverse literature, arguing that the Internet has become a place where it is safe to experiment with religion in a self-directed and self-reflexive manner. This mode fits a new generation of people (such as the Net Gen or Generations X and Y) who are more oriented towards intimate relationships than towards formal hierarchy, and who tend to view dogmatic belief systems with suspicion or indifference. As opposed to older generations that remain loyal to more orthodox institutions and doctrinal beliefs (Roof 1999, p.52), younger generations are more interested in religious experience than in abstract theological reasoning. For them, the heart must win over the head. They want to know, but the forms of knowledge they prefer are not systematic or dogmatic, and the more that their preferred forms of knowledge are presented as narratives, the better they are absorbed. For Wenninger (2007), this new territory is a paragon example of globalising and decentralising space. Cyber-territory is a space in which information circulates freely, and knowledge and authority are deregulated; consequently it offers a type of nomadic knowledge à la Deleuze. This is a space of “unlimited” freedom where people can democratically express themselves without artificial constraint or hindrance. On-line participants can even pretend they are from another country, another planet, or that they are a different age or gender. Some have more than one cyber-name. Internet-actors can play with their identities, and this new freedom has the clear potential to question and possibly undermine off-line forms of authority. However, could cyber-territory be the carrier of new forms of authority as well? To answer this question, this article considers three case studies of forms of authority within new cyber-territories. We first deal with the example of a traditional religion, Islam, by exploring new social issues that this religious system encounters in cyber-space. Second, we turn to a social movement that is by definition less traditional and less established, namely neo-paganism; and finally, we examine the new phenomenon of hyper-real religion (Possamai 2005b, 2012) to discover whether, even in free-floating religions where in principle everything is permitted and where the individual has full autonomy to decide on the specific constructions of his/her religion, forms of authority and social/religious distinctions are paradoxically present. Our case studies were not randomly selected and cannot represent the whole field of religion in cyber-space. Our case study approach to social inquiry follows Flyvbjerg's (2001, pp.77–78) direction that [w]hen the objective is to achieve the greatest possible amount of information on a given problem or phenomenon, a representative case or a random sample may not be the most appropriate strategy. This is because the typical or average case is often not the richest in information. Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more information because they activate more actors and more basic mechanisms in the situation studied. The article attempts to underline the existence of certain practices, without making any claim about their representativeness within the field.
AB - The use of the Internet by religious people and groups began in the 1980s. Since that time, the way religion is discussed and practised on the Web has gone through a number of transformations. Karaflogka (2002) studied the various typologies of religious activities, but was forced to revise her analysis constantly in line with the continually changing nature of Web-based religious practice. These practices evolve constantly because cyber-space is no longer the preserve of the computer specialist and now supports an inclusive (at least for those who can access the hardware) social space. Karaflogka developed a valuable distinction between “religion on cyberspace” and “religion in cyberspace”: What I call “religion on cyberspace” is the information uploaded by any religion, church, individual or organisation, which also exists and can be reached in the off-line world. In this sense the Internet is used as a tool. “Religion in cyberspace”, which I call cyberreligion, is a religious, spiritual or metaphysical expression which is created and exists exclusively in cyberspace, where it enjoys a considerable degree of “virtual reality”. (Karaflogka 2002, p.285) Employing this distinction, it can be argued that in the early days of Internet communication when religions first emerged on the Internet, they were predominantly religions on cyber-space. However, with the democratisation of access to the Internet and the growth of its potential, religions in cyber-space are emerging and have the capacity to mobilise large sections of the population. Via cyber-space, the social observatory is exposed to both established and new religious groups that are promoting their beliefs and practices. This new territory is in principle globally accessible. Inscription of religion in cyber-space is constant and fluid, offering a space for religion to change through the on-line interaction of its practitioners. We might, following the work of Zygmunt Bauman (2000), coin a new expression to describe this fluid and effervescent religiosity: “liquid religion”. Cyber-territory is creating new boundaries across off-line territories, and connections between off- and on-line territories are constantly been developed. In the field of law (August 2002; Bettelheim 2006), the Internet is seen as an international space which disrespects local and national jurisdiction, and can undermine laws based on geographical boundaries. Some cyber-states (for example, Dominion of Melchizedek) are even emerging in the on-line world. Although they lack physical territory, they are nevertheless promoting the legitimacy of their claims to state recognition (Smith 2000). Religion has not been left untouched in this new territoriality. Campbell (2004) integrates this complex and diverse literature, arguing that the Internet has become a place where it is safe to experiment with religion in a self-directed and self-reflexive manner. This mode fits a new generation of people (such as the Net Gen or Generations X and Y) who are more oriented towards intimate relationships than towards formal hierarchy, and who tend to view dogmatic belief systems with suspicion or indifference. As opposed to older generations that remain loyal to more orthodox institutions and doctrinal beliefs (Roof 1999, p.52), younger generations are more interested in religious experience than in abstract theological reasoning. For them, the heart must win over the head. They want to know, but the forms of knowledge they prefer are not systematic or dogmatic, and the more that their preferred forms of knowledge are presented as narratives, the better they are absorbed. For Wenninger (2007), this new territory is a paragon example of globalising and decentralising space. Cyber-territory is a space in which information circulates freely, and knowledge and authority are deregulated; consequently it offers a type of nomadic knowledge à la Deleuze. This is a space of “unlimited” freedom where people can democratically express themselves without artificial constraint or hindrance. On-line participants can even pretend they are from another country, another planet, or that they are a different age or gender. Some have more than one cyber-name. Internet-actors can play with their identities, and this new freedom has the clear potential to question and possibly undermine off-line forms of authority. However, could cyber-territory be the carrier of new forms of authority as well? To answer this question, this article considers three case studies of forms of authority within new cyber-territories. We first deal with the example of a traditional religion, Islam, by exploring new social issues that this religious system encounters in cyber-space. Second, we turn to a social movement that is by definition less traditional and less established, namely neo-paganism; and finally, we examine the new phenomenon of hyper-real religion (Possamai 2005b, 2012) to discover whether, even in free-floating religions where in principle everything is permitted and where the individual has full autonomy to decide on the specific constructions of his/her religion, forms of authority and social/religious distinctions are paradoxically present. Our case studies were not randomly selected and cannot represent the whole field of religion in cyber-space. Our case study approach to social inquiry follows Flyvbjerg's (2001, pp.77–78) direction that [w]hen the objective is to achieve the greatest possible amount of information on a given problem or phenomenon, a representative case or a random sample may not be the most appropriate strategy. This is because the typical or average case is often not the richest in information. Atypical or extreme cases often reveal more information because they activate more actors and more basic mechanisms in the situation studied. The article attempts to underline the existence of certain practices, without making any claim about their representativeness within the field.
UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/556438
U2 - 10.1111/issj.12021
DO - 10.1111/issj.12021
M3 - Article
SN - 0020-8701
VL - 63
SP - 197
EP - 206
JO - International Social Science Journal
JF - International Social Science Journal
IS - 209-210
ER -