Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptualising Religious Indifferences in Relation to Religion and Nonreligion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Religious Indifference

Abstract

This introduction first, sketches the genesis of the notion ‘religious indifference’ from different theological debates. Second, we illustrate its use in the social scientific debate on secularisation and modernity, highlighting some of the difficulties with defining and identifying indifferent populations. On the base of a relational approach to nonreligion we further conceptualise religious indifference as lacking direct relationships with religion, but as positioned in relation to religious or more explicit nonreligious positions by relevant agents who render the lack of direct relationships to religion remarkable. This perspective underscores the concepts’ entanglement with the scientific study of non/religion. All this adds to conceptualising indifference as a symbolically powerful and contested concept. We discuss ways of distinguishing between different forms of indifference and conclude this introduction by summarising the contributions to this volume.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As we will also show below with indifference in general, there is no definite evaluation of the indifference displayed in this picture. While Kilinski II e.g. sees it as indicating a deplorable apathy towards human suffering the humanists argue ‘the myth is being stripped of its importance in favour of the lives and work of ordinary people. They are doing practical, renewing activities, whereas Icarus sought to alter nature for his own glory. Just as the three other characters are physically above Icarus, so Bruegel is elevating them morally above the mythical hero. And we think back to Jesus, Mary and Joseph in the [Bruegel’s] other two paintings (Census and Massacre). Surely, he is deliberately demythologising them as well’ (McClinton 2010, 14). Wyss by contrast comes up with very different interpretations.

  2. 2.

    The first, organised by Pascal Siegers, Linda Hennig, and Bruno Michon in Strasbourg in 2013, and the second organised by the editors in Frankfurt am Main in 2014.

  3. 3.

    One matter of conflict was a theatre built in Hamburg and the question whether an ‘adequately distanced’ way dealing with such distractions was possible. Lutheran Orthodoxy saw no evil in relating to that which had not explicitly been forbidden by God. Representatives of Calvinist Pietism by contrast argued that such distractions could only signify sin. In this context, the use of adiaphora importantly marks a realm of moral neutrality and thus of freedom for choice.

  4. 4.

    Indifferentism is distinguished from the neglect of religious practice on one hand and from state neutrality or indifference towards religion on the other.

  5. 5.

    Here, meant not as hostility to religion but as a consistent absence of any affiliation, practice, or belief.

  6. 6.

    To our knowledge the respective book is the only that has specifically dealt with indifference prior to this volume, with a different focus and approach, however. The authors define indifference in relation to the question of God’s existence. Furthermore, their focus is on histories of secularisation as well as different philosophical positions. In contrast, we opted for a wider definition of indifference, conceptualised as a contested category, and introduced a relational and field-theoretical approach.

  7. 7.

    Thanks to Rebecca Cato for bringing this to our attention.

  8. 8.

    For example, the humanists in Germany explicitly state that they want to give a voice to the 33% ‘unaffiliated’ Germans out of which 75% have, according to the humanists, a humanistic view of life.

  9. 9.

    Roughly one half of the German population agreed with a ‘humanistic view of life’ in a study commissioned by the Humanist Association of Germany (HVD).

  10. 10.

    This observation is based on a short field research in the European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics (EPPSP) by Cora Schuh and the related documentation of the European Humanist Federation.

  11. 11.

    Some of their public activities are organised in alliance with German Humanist Association (HVD).

  12. 12.

    When we in the following speak of religious indifference, we mean to cover both these terms.

  13. 13.

    This opposition may overlap but is not congruent with oppositions such as private and/or individual religiosity and public aspects of religiosity and/or religion in a society.

References

  • Allensbach, Institut für Demoskopie. 2004. Humanistischer Verband Deutschlands. Allensbacher Akzeptanzstudie zu Lebensauffasung, speziellen Angeboten, Engagement. http://www.hvd-bb.de/sites/hvd-berlin.de/files/Allensbacher-Akzeptanzstudie.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  • Bagg, Samuel, and David Voas. 2010. The Triumph of Indifference: Irreligion in British Society. In Atheism and Secularity: Global Expressions, ed. Phil Zuckerman, 91–111. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, Frederick George. 1996. The Civility of Indifference: On Domesticating Ethnicity. Ithaca/New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhargava, Rajeev. 2008. Political secularism. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, ed. John S. Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips, 637–655. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankholm, Joseph. 2017. The limits of religious indifference. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 242–261. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Sociology of Belief and Beliefs of Sociologists. Trans. Véronique Altglas and Matthew Wood. Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 23(1): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bréchon, Pierre. 2017. Measuring Religious Indifference in International Sociological Quantitative Surveys (EVS and ISSP). In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 148–175. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, S. 2002. God is dead. Secularisation in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullivant, Stephen. 2012. Not so Indifferent After All? Self-Conscious Atheism and the Secularisation Thesis. Approaching Religion 2(1): 100–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchardt, Marian. 2017. Is Religious Indifference Bad for Secularism? Lessons from Canada. In Religious Indifference: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularization and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 90–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candea, Matei, Joanna Cook, Cathrine Trundle, and Thomas Yarrow. 2015. Detachment: Essays on the Limits of Relational Thinking. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catto, Rebecca. 2017. Interfaith Dialogue and the Challenge of Indifference: Reflections from Fieldwork in the City of Peace and Reconciliation. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 72–89. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheyne, James Allan. 2010. The Rise of the Nones and The Growth of Religious Indifference. Skeptic 15(4): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commons Wikipedia. 2016. Von <a href=“//de.https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Bruegel_der_%C3%84ltere” class=“extiw” title=“de:Pieter Bruegel der Ältere”>Pieter Bruegel der Ältere</a> (1526/1530–1569) – 1., Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11974918. Accessed 24 June 2016.

  • Cotter, Christopher. 2017. A Discursive Approach to ‘Religious Indifference’: Critical Reflections from Edinburgh’s Southside. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 50–70. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominiczak, Andrzej. 2002. How to Grow an Elephant? In International Humanist and Ethical Union 1952-2002: Past, Present and Future, ed. Bert Gasenbeek and Babu Gogineni, 122–126. Utrecht: Tijdstroom.

    Google Scholar 

  • EKD. 2014. Engagement und Indifferenz. Kirchenmitgliedschaft als soziale Praxis. V. Ekd-Erhebung ueber Kirchenmitgliedschaft. Hannover: EKD.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Humanist Federation (EHF). 2011. Dialogue of the deaf with the European Parliament. http://humanistfederation.eu/news-fhe.php?pages=extraordinary-scenes-at-article-17-meeting-in-parliament. Accessed 23 June 2016.

  • Fox, James. 1910. Religious Indifferentism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Online available at: New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm. Accesses 24 June 2016.

  • Franzmann, Manuel. 2014. Materiale Analyse des säkularisierten Glaubens als Beitrag zu einem empirisch gesättigten Säkularisierungsbegriff. In Zwischen Säkularisierung und religiöser Vitalisierung. Religiosität in Deutschland und Polen im Vergleich, ed. Michael Hainz et al., 127–133. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gestrich, Andreas. 2003. Pietistisches Weltverständnis und Handeln in der Welt. In Geschichte des Pietismus. Bd. 4: Glaubenswelt und Lebenswelten, ed. Hartmut Lehmann, S. 556–583. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gierl, Martin. 1997. Pietismus und Aufklärung: theologische Polemik und die Kommunikationsreform der Wissenschaft am Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutkowski, Stacey. 2012. The British Secular Habitus and the War on Terror. Journal of Contemporary Religion 27(1): 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag, Anthony. 1912. Syllabus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Online at: New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm. Accessed 24 June 2016.

  • Herms, Eilert. 1998. Art. Adiaphora. In Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG) 1, ed. Hans Dieter Betz et al., 115–119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hpd. 1998. Der Humanisstische Pressedienst. http://hpd.de/ueber. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  • Kaufmann, Franz-Xaver. 1987. Religiöser Indifferentismus. Publication of Uni-Bielefeld. http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1775010&fileOId=2311719. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  • Kilinski, Karl II. 2004. Bruegel on Icarus: Inversions of the Fall. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 67(1): 91–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klug, Petra. 2017. Varieties of Nonreligion: Why Some People Criticize Religion, While Others Just Don’t Care. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 223–241. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, Ernst. 1998. Art. Adiaphoristischer Streit. In Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (RGG) 1, ed. Hans Dieter Betz et al., 119. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammerts, R., S. Hakvoort, and P. Derkx. 2004. Humanisme in Beeld. Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Lois. 2013. Western Europe. In The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, ed. St. Bullivant and M. Ruse, 587–600. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Religion, Difference and Indifference. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 107–127. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, John L. 2003. What is Field Theory? American Journal of Sociology 109(1): 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClinton, Brian. 2010. Humanist Masterpieces: 5. The Paintings of Pieter Bruegel, Humanism Ireland 121: 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulemann, Heiner. 2004. Enforced Secularisation - Spontaneous Revival? Religious Belief, Unbelief, Uncertainty and Indifference in East and West European Countries 1991–1998. European Sociological Review 20(1): 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, Olaf. 2003. Glaube versus Atheismus? Individuelle religiöse Orientierungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. In Atheismus und religiöse Indifferenz, ed. Christel Gärtner, Detlef Pollack, and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, 389–399. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, David. 2017. Genealogies of Indifference? New theoretical thoughts on the history and creation of narratives surrounding Christianity, Secularism and Indifference. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 32–49. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oevermann, Ulrich. 2003. Bedingungen der vollständigen Säkularisierung des Bewusstseins. In Atheismus und religiöse Indifferenz, ed. Christel Gärtner, Detlef Pollack, and Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, 339–387. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oevermann, Ulrich, and Manuel Franzmann. 2006. Strukturelle Religiosität auf dem Wege zur religiösen Indifferenz. In Religiosität in der säkularisierten Welt. Theoretische und empirische Beiträge zur Säkularisierungsdebatte in der Religionssoziologie, ed. Manuel Franzmann, Christel Gärtner, and Nicole Köck, 49–82. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johannes Paul II. 1999. Botschaft von Papst Johannes Paul II. An die Vollversammlung des päpstlichen Rates für die Kultur. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19991119_plenary-pc-culture_ge.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  • Pickel, Gerd. 2013. Konfessionslose – das ‘Residual’ des Christentums oder Stütze des neuen Atheismus?. TheoWeb Zeitschrift für Religionspädagogik 12(1): 12–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Atheismus und Agnostizismus. Bestandaufnahme und kirchliche Konsequenzen. In Unbekannt. Predigen im Kontext von Agnostizismus und Atheismus, ed. Ursula Roth, Jorg Seip, and Bernhard Spielberg, 41–42. München: Don Bosco Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, Detlef. 2013. Säkularisierungstheorie, Version. Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte. http://docupedia.de/zg/Saekularisierungstheorie. Accessed 24 June 2016.

  • Pollack, Detlef, Monika Wohlrab-Sahr, and Christel Gärtner, eds. 2003. Atheismus und religiöse Indifferenz. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poupard, Paul. 2004. Where Is Your God? Responding to the Challenge of Unbelief and Religious Indifference Today. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quack, Johannes. 2013. Was ist ‘Nichtreligion’? Feldtheoretische Argumente für ein relationales Verständnis eines eigenständigen Forschungsgebietes. In Säkularität in religionswissenschaftlicher Perspektive, ed. Peter Antes and Steffen Führding, 87–107. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Outline of a Relational Approach to ‘Nonreligion’. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 26(4–5): 439–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Bio- and Ethnographic Approaches to Indifference, Detachment, and Disengagement in the Study of Religion. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 198–222. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quack, Johannes, and Cora Schuh. 2016. Religiöse Indifferenz zwischen Religion und Nichtreligion. Euangel: Magazin für missionarische Pastoral 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remmel, Atko. 2017. Religion, Interrupted? Observations on Religious Indifference in Estonia. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 128–147. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, Terry. 2009. I’m a Confirmed Indifferent. National Secular Society. http://www.secularism.org.uk/terry-sanderson-and034im-a-confi.html. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  • Schimank, Uwe. 2009. Wie sich funktionale Differenzierung reproduziert: eine akteurtheoretische Erklärung. In Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie: Kontroversen und Perspektiven, ed. Paul Hill et al., 201–226. Frankfurt: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seewald, Peter, and X.V.I. Pope Benedict. 2010. Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs Of The Times. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegers, Pascal. 2017. Religious Indifference and Religious Rites of Passage. In Religious Indifferences: New Perspectives from Studies on Secularisation and Nonreligion, ed. Johannes Quack and Cora Schuh, 176–197. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, Georg. 1903. Die Grossstädte und das Geisterleben. In Die Grossstadt. Vorträge und Aufsätze zur Städteausstellung, ed. Th. Petermann, 185–206. Dresden: v. Zahn & Jaensch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, Sarah. 2014. ‘Multiculturalism’. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/multiculturalism/.

  • Stichweh, Rudolf. 1997a. Ambivalenz, Indifferenz und die Soziologie des Fremden. In Ambivalenz. Studien zum zum kulturtheoretischen und empirischen Gehalt einer Kategorie der Erschließung des Unbestimmten, ed. Luthe Heinz Otto and Rainer E. Wiedenmann, 165–183. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997b. The Stranger – On the Sociology of Indifference. Thesis Eleven 51(1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrier, Jean. 2012. “Auch in unserer Zeit werden Götter in den Massen geboren”. Emile Durkheims Erklärungsansätze zur Entstehung gesellschaftlicher Ideale in der Moderne. Berliner Journal für Soziologie 22(4): 497–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiefensee, Eberhard. 2011. Religiöse Indifferenz als interdisziplinäre Herausforderung. In Religion und Religiosität im vereinigten Deutschland. Zwanzig Jahre nach dem Umbruch, ed. Gerhard Pickel and Kornelia Sammet, 79–101. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe, Frédéric. 1999. ‘The Real is Relational’: An Epistemological Analysis of Pierre Bourdieu’s Generative Structuralism. Sociological Theory 17(1): 32–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voas, David. 2009. The Rise and Fall of Fuzzy Fidelity in Europe. European Sociological Review 25(2): 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1978 [1921–1922]. Economy and Society [Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft]. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005 [1904]. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism [Die Protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus]. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyss, Beat. 1988. Der Dolch am linken Bildrand. Zur Interpretation von Pieter Bruegels Landschaft mit dem Sturz des Ikarus. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 51(2): 222–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, CH-8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Johannes Quack

  2. Emmy Noether-Project “The Diversity of Nonreligion”, University of Zurich, Andreasstr. 15, CH-8050, Zurich, Switzerland

    Cora Schuh

Authors
  1. Johannes Quack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cora Schuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Quack .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Anthropology and Cultural Studies, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Johannes Quack

  2. Emmy Noether-Project “The Diversity of Nonreligion”, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Cora Schuh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quack, J., Schuh, C. (2017). Conceptualising Religious Indifferences in Relation to Religion and Nonreligion. In: Quack, J., Schuh, C. (eds) Religious Indifference. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48476-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48476-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48474-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48476-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation