Although Marx, Freud, and Weber had predicted religions would progressively disappear from society for the expansion of modern institutions, we watch not only religions that reject to away from society but also see the emergence of novel sensibility of religions and spirituality in late modernity. ‘Why should this be?’ ask Giddens who then finds Durkheim’s affirmation that religion has ‘some thing eternal’ namely ‘symbol of collective unity’ (Giddens, 1992: 207).

Will religion truly disappear due to massive spread of modernity? Were the question directed to Hefner, he would answer that the absent of religion in modern time is just temporary. Every society needs ‘collective moral consciousnesses’. Durkheim, as noted by Hefner, “believed that this lost of religion was but a temporary dysfunction of early modernization (see also Beckford, 1989: 25). No society can survive without a collective moral consciousness. The lost of social power of certain religions will be followed by the emergence of a new ‘civil religion’ replacing social role of the earliest. Such a civil religion is able to “provide coherence and stability even in the absence of a theistic canopy” (Hefner in Heelas, 1998: 150). Berger (1992) and Cox (1990) also predicted that the availability of spirituality in modern and even post-modern time is clearly potential (Hefner in Heelas, 1998: 150).  This because, as Mellor says, “societies have a sui generis reality that is collectively represented in religion”. Furthermore, “Religion is more than the mere cement of social solidarity”, it “continues act as an emergent, dynamic and creative force in societies” (Beckford and Wallis, 2006: xv).

According to Simmel, “changes in religious forms are part and parcel of the shifts taking place in modern societies as life becomes increasingly segmentalized.  Specifically religious concerns are differentiated from other aspects of life and will be more individualized;” no longer does kinship or neighbourhood determine religious preference and affiliation (Davie, 2007: 31).  The self and other autonomy religious/spiritual expression will have a wider room to appear. Heelas and Wooadhead (2005) note such a situation as ‘Spiritual Revolution’ and Spickard (in Backford and Walis, 2006: 176-177) call it as ‘religious individualism’. The mushrooming of spirituality in Western-modern society clearly reflects this trend.

In contemporary sociology of religion debate, the growing of new spirituality in modern time can be read either “as evidence both for and against secularisation”. Some scholars regard the phenomena as a proof of secularization in which organized religions are in decline in favour to spirituality. Others, however would argue that the new spirituality and other new religious movement appearing in the West is vivid evident that religious life, although in more personal form, is not in decline (Howell 2005).

Heelas and Woodhead (2005) further describe that Western trend of ‘spiritual revolution’ is resulted from modernization and secularization process. Due to the massive development of spiritualities amid the decline of organized religions, Heelas and Wooadhead propose ‘subjectivization thesis’, a theory noting the decrease of ‘life-as forms of the sacred’ and the rise of the ‘subjective-life of the sacred’.  In the context of secularization debate Heelas and Woodhead used the theory to explain the trend of religion in decline and spirituality in growth in one parallel process, namely ‘the massive subjective turn of modern culture’ –to use Charles Tylor’s words (1991: 26). The subjective turn is “a turn away from life as to subjective life.”  Life as means life in accordance to other external authorities – religion, community, state, and many more— such as life as dutiful wife, husband, father, teacher, etc. in order to gain conformity. Subjective life means life in own authenticity, “in deep connection with the unique experience of the self” and “with the inner depth of one’s unique life-in-relation.”  Implemented in spiritual/religious field, then, one is categorized as life-as religion when his/her religiosity as well religious expression is drifted by following the duties and instruction of religious authorities (leaders, dogma/tenets, institutions, and many other). In contrast, one is said subjective life spirituality when he/she lived in a deep connection with his/her own unique spirituality. The primary focus of life as-religion is congregation whereas the primary focus of the subjective life spirituality is holistic milieu (Heelas and Woodhead 2005: 3-4)

For the significant growing number of spirituality in the West, Heelas and Woodhead then propose the “formulation of Spiritual Revolution” as follow: (1) Life-as forms of the sacred, which emphasize a transcendent source of significance and authority to which individuals must conform at the expense of the cultivation of their unique subjective-lives, are most likely to be decline. In the West, the power of religious institution to direct their followers in order to live in conformity with religious principles tends to decline. (2) Subjective-life form of the sacred, which emphasize inner sources of significance and authority and the cultivation or sacralisation of unique subjective-lives, are most likely to be growing. The power of spiritual manifestations such as ‘body, mind and spirit’, ‘New Age’, ‘alternative’ or ‘holistic’ spirituality, yoga, reiki, meditation, tai chi, aromatherapy, paganism, reflexology, and many more tend to grow “in helping people to lives in accordance with the deepest, sacred dimension of their own unique lives.” In sum, spiritual revolution “come abut when subjective-life spirituality overtake life-as religion”; “when ‘holistic’ activities having to do with subjective-life spirituality attract more people than do ‘congregational’ activities having to do with life-as religion” (2005: 6-7).

How about subjective-life of religiousity/spirituality in eastern context, lets say Indonesia? In my humble opinion, it is developing and spreading as well. The foregoing explanation emphasizes that the trajectory of both religion and spirituality happen not only in the modernized countries but also in those modernizing. Continuity and change are part and parcel of religions. What people of religions should aware is understanding those patterns of changes in order to provide appropriate religious services. If not, I bet people would away from religions, searching for other ways that fit to their spiritual thirstiness.

Picture credit: http://www.lavillettina.com/studio.html

The Best Keyword for the article:

Related posts:

1. Between Islam, the market and spiritual revolution
2. Recreational-therapeutic Spirituality vs. Religious Moral
3. Muhammaddiyah, the Fatwa & Paradox of Modernity

Some people are worry about the burgeoning of spiritual centers in urban areas. They question why do people living in a modern city drifted by rationalism, individualism and secular point of view participate in spiritual groups considered as irrational and backwards? Does not it reflect the ambiguity or even paradox of modern people? While, may be it is true that modern people are full of paradoxes, or they are even have lost their modern orientations, but the trend is indeed a sign of natural cultural process.

Human beings, wherever and whenever, cannot be reduced into just technical parts of society. Man and woman posses mind, body, and spirit (soul). To some extent modern cultures have successfully provide minds and body’s needs but unable to feed spiritual thirstiness. A huge number of modern people are now living in anxious and continuously searching for medium to balance their life. Spiritual centers appearing in neo-Sufism, yoga, meditation, holism, reiki, Human Potential Movement, and many others, are sort of urban institution to furnish modern people.

It seems, however, that current urban spiritual centres are not merely for balancing modern life. Due to high demand of spiritual markets and the ability of urban people to purchase whatever spiritual cost, the centres develop programs that are suitable for the modern: instant, systematically programmed, easily to be performed, and commodified. The result is spiritual hybrid form greater emphasis on practical efficacy rather than piety and morals for social control. Participating in spiritual centres is narrowed just for recreational and therapeutic purposes. Spirituality is seen as a panacea of exhausted modern culture.

For many people, involving in spiritual centre will be more interesting and enjoyable than performing religion. For them, religion only teaches restrictions and rules; forbids people doing this and that in order to follow certain tenet. Will religious values as social control lost out and be replaced by pragmatic spiritual efficacies? Will spirituality successfully take over religion (Carrette and King, 2005)? As long as religious elites neglect this socio-religious and cultural shifts and are failed to provide appropriate spiritual canals for urban people, the fate of religions are really in “danger.”

The Best Keyword for the article:

Related posts:

1. Modernity, Religious Change and Spiritual Revolution
2. Between Islam, the market and spiritual revolution
3. Viva Religious Studies