7.3: Religious Identity

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Compare religious identity to national identity.
• Define primordialism and constructivism.
• Define religiosity and differentiate between the four "b's" (believing, belonging, behaving, and bonding).

Introduction

As mentioned in previous sections, individuals can have multiple identities. Just as a national identity is closely tied to a person's sense of belonging to a nation, a religious identity is how a person, or group of persons, thinks of themselves as belonging to and representing the values of a particular religion and/or religious sect. Yet while nations are a modern construction, religion is a far older concept.

Contrary to national identity coming only after the formation of a nation, some argue that religious identity may actually come before the development of religion. Émile Durkheim, for example, writes that religion is an eminently social thing. Rather than focusing on deities and/or supernatural elements, the formation of a religion centers on collective consciousness and community. The rituals and practices that people collectively participate in lead to a sense of unity, and this development of a unified identity is what then leads to organized religion (Wetherell and Mohanty, 2010).

Durkheim wrote about pre-modern societies, which were mostly clan or tribe-based. However, if religious identity is indeed ascribed, or collectivity-based, then it can also be free from geographical constraints. As the clan or tribe shifts from one territory to the next, the religious identity should continue as long as the community remains cohesive. Again, this is different from national identity, where lines drawn on a map strongly influence who develops a national identity. A religious identity can be detached from the land it originated, as we see historically through the growth of religions through proselytizing.

Religious Identity and Politics

How, then, does religious identity affect politics?

If religious identity precedes religion itself, many people consider it their "primordial identity." Originally coined to discuss ethnic identities, primordialism helps us understand the salience of religious identities in politics. Primordial identity means that individuals have only a single religious identity, and that this identity is fixed in the present and the future. Some contend that one’s religious identity is biologically determined; that is, a person is born into a religious identity. Others suggest that religious identity develops through socialization and education in childhood. Regardless of the exact timing, primordialists believe that once a person acquires an identity, it becomes immutable (Chandra, 2001).

This approach may describe the pre-modern world, but it falls short in the modern context where individuals often choose to join a community. Particularly in secular societies, religious identity is often a matter of choice; it is not determined by the clan, the tribe, or the nation a person is born into. Those subscribing to this choice-driven view consider religious identity a "constructivist identity." Constructivist identity means that individuals have multiple identities and that, as people change, so can the importance of a particular identity. Over time, individuals may even adopt a new identity altogether. Given the transitory nature of people in the modern world, there is a greater likelihood that an individual could acquire multiple religious identities in their lifetime. We see this, for example, with Protestant Christians in the United States who go "church shopping," meaning they visit different congregations before settling down on one church that best fits their needs.

This discussion of primordial versus constructivist identity helps us understand how religious identity plays a role in modern politics. When groups see their religious identity as primordial, as immutable, they are less willing to compromise politically on issues that violate their belief systems. Compromise will appear anathema to a community with a primordialist view of identity. This reasoning has been used, as one of many hypotheses, to explain why conflict may erupt between two or more religious groups.

Dimensions of Religious Identity

When measuring religious identity, we can rely on what has been referred to as the four 'b’s': believing, belonging, behaving, and bonding. 

Believing is religious belief or believing in certain religious propositions. It involves the way people conceptualize their relationship with supernatural forces. Most religions are theistic, which involve belief in a god (monotheism), gods (polytheism or henotheism), or some omnipresent force. Even among non-theistic traditions, such as Buddhism, adherents often profess a belief in a version of external transcendence, and that "there is some sort of spirit or life force" (Saroglou, 2011). Belonging is religious affiliation or belonging to a religious faith, a religious tradition, or a denomination/sect within a particular religion. Denomination is a term associated with Christianity--such as Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Latter-Day Saints (Mormons)--and often refers to a "religious community or (transhistorical) group with a common history and future" (Hoogendoorn, et. al., 2016). Behaving is religious commitment or behaving according to values privileged by religion. It involves norms and defining what is right and what is wrong. It can also provide an individual with a sense of purpose. Bonding is religious ritual or bonding by means of spiritual practices and rituals. It can include prayer, meditation, worship, religious ceremonies, and pilgrimages.

Given the complexity inherent in these four dimensions of religious identity, scholars in religion and politics prefer to use the term religiosity to describe "the strength of a person’s attachment to organized religion" (Macaluso and Wanat, 1979), which they then attempt to measure in various ways to reflect the four 'b's.' Macaluso and Wanat (1979, p. 160), for instance, measure religiosity "as the frequency of attendance at the place of worship." Leege and Kellstedt (1993), however, contend that using attendance at the place of worship as the only measure of religiosity is too simplistic, particularly because some religions and/or denominations emphasize individual devotion or non-collective traditions.

Religiosity, the strength of a person's commitment to religion, is important for understanding the intersection of religion and politics as it can influence how a person votes, how a person views certain policies, and whether a person supports a certain political party. At the state level, religious identity can also influence political regimes (e.g., theocracies), the acceptable range of government actions (e.g., if they must adhere to religiously-based moral codes), and the relationship between church and state (e.g., whether an official state religion exists). The comparative case study at the end of this chapter, comparing Israel and Iran, will examine some of these influences.