PHENOMENOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE RELIGIOUS NORMS OF RESPONSIBILITY IN PEOPLE WITH NORMATIVE AND DIFFUSIVE RELIGIOUSNESS

Authors

  • Aleksandr Yurievich Chernov Volgograd State University
  • Irina Sergeevna Bulanova Volgograd State University

Abstract

The paper phenomenologically analyzes religious norms of responsibility in people with different types of religiousness. Religious norms are considered as regulators of social, group and individual behavior based on counter-intuitive representations. The types of religious norms revealed in the course of the previous research allow studying the question of the structure and content of these types depending on the confessional identity and type of religiousness. This article is devoted to the phenomenological analysis of the religious norm of responsibility in people with different types of religiousness. The method of data collection met all criteria of validity of qualitative research. The main criterion for differentiation of respondents according to the type of religiousness was the parameters of churching. The method of data collection was group interviews. The main method of data analysis was phenomenological analysis, a heuristic approach.

As a result of the analysis, the structure of the religious norm of responsibility was revealed. It represents two main categories describing the representations of the religious norm of responsibility attribution: objective and subjective aspects. The objective aspect implies the representation of the social situation of responsibility, as well as representation of acceptance of the responsibility. The subjective aspect implies a locus of responsibility and its motivation. The subjective aspect of responsibility representation is dominant in believers with normative religiousness, while the objective aspect – in believers with diffusive religiousness. Normative religiosity shifts the locus of responsibility mainly “inward”, which occurs due to identification with the introjected counter-intuitive agent, the object of faith. Diffusive religiousness, on the contrary, implies an emphasis on the objective aspect of the responsibility representation. It allows one to reduce self-control, find an excuse for “irresponsibility”, choose between alternatives “for yourself or for the others”, “for events or for actions”.

Author Biographies

Aleksandr Yurievich Chernov, Volgograd State University

Doctor of Science (Psychology), Associate Professor, professor of Chair of Psychology

Irina Sergeevna Bulanova, Volgograd State University

PhD (Psychology), assistant professor of Chair of Psychology

References

1. Andreeva G.M. Psikhologiya sotsialnogo poznaniya [Psychology of social cognition]. Moscow, Aspekt-press Publ., 2004. 288 p.
2. Buaye P. Obyasnyaya religiyu: priroda religioznogo myshleniya [Et l'homme crea les dieux. Comment expliquer la religion Galimard]. Moscow, Alpina non-fikshn Publ., 2017. 496 p.
3. Pyysiäinen I. How religion works: toward a new cognitive science of religion. Boston, Brill Publ., 2001. 284 p.
4. Whitehouse H. Modes of religiosity: towards a cognitive explanation of the sociopolitical dynamics of religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 2002, no. 14, pp. 293–315.
5. Whitehouse H. Modes of religiosity. ATLA, 2008, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 108–112.
6. Chernov A.Yu. Qualitative research of kinds of religious norms. Vektor nauki Tolyattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika, psikhologiya, 2017, no. 3, pp. 88–92.
7. Bulanova I.S. Empirical study of religious norms of ordinary religious consciousness. Religiovedcheskie issledovaniya, 2017, no. 2, pp. 121–131.
8. Dementiy L.I. Otvetstvennost: tipologiya i lichnostnye osnovaniya [The responsibility: classification and personal basis]. Omsk, OmGU Publ., 2001. 192 p.
9. Kocharyan I.A. Two-vector approach to the conceptualization of problems of emotional intimacy and responsibility in interpersonal relationships. Visnik Kharkivskogo universitetu. Seriya psikhologiya, 2007, no. 793, pp. 217–222.
10. Frankl V. Spirituality, freedom and responsibility. Chelovek v poiskakh smysla: sbornik. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1990, pp. 93–130.
11. Auhagen A.E., Bierhoff H.W. Responsibility: The Many Faces of a Social Phenomenon. London, Routledge Publ., 2001. 202 p.
12. Lucas J.R. Responsibility. Contributors. Oxford, Clarendon Press Publ., 1995. 312 p.
13. Filosofskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar [Philosophic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Sovetskaya entsiklopediya Publ., 1989. 840 p.
14. Moustakas W.F. Heuristic research. Challengers of Humanistic Psychology. New York, McGrow Hill Publ., 1967, pp. 38–52.
15. Bezrogov V.G. Social space of personality Religious socialization and the exercise of the right to belief in intergenerational relations: the twentieth century and the perspective. Razvitie lichnosti, 2002, no. 4, pp. 115–136.
16. Chesnokova V.F. Tesnym putem: protsess votserkovleniya naseleniya Rossii v kontse XX veka [By a Narrow Way. The Process of Churching of the Population in Russia at the End of the 20th Century]. Moscow, Akademicheskiy Proekt Publ., 2005. 304 p.
17. Ellemers N., Spears R. Self and Social Identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 2002, no. 4, pp. 161–185.
18. Surina I.L. Tsennostnye orientatsii kak predmet sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya [Value orientations as a subject of sociological research]. Moscow, Golos Publ., 1996. 126 p.
19. Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar po psikhologii i pedagogike [Encyclopedic dictionary of psychology and pedagogy]. Saratov, Saratovskiy gosudarstvennyy sotsialno-ekonomicheskiy universitet Publ., 2013. 322 p.
20. Mischel W. Processes in delay of gratification. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, vol. 7, pp. 249–292.

Downloads

Issue

Section

Psychological Sciences