Fall 2024 · Vol. 53 No. 2 · pp. 154–167
Authority and Self-Spirituality Today
A sea change has occurred in Western culture’s view of authority. The development has variously been called “expressive individualism” (Bellah et al. 1985), “individualization” (Beck 2010), “subjective-life” (Heelas and Woodhead 2005), and “subjectivization” (Berger 1967). For philosopher Charles Taylor (1991, 26), it is a “massive subjective turn of modern culture.” Heelas and Woodhead believe that “the subjective turn has become the defining cultural development of modern Western culture” (2005, 5). This change has existed in various iterations over the past one hundred years or so, with roots in the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and Romanticism; more recently, it became widespread p. 155 among the baby boomers and was passed on to their children. This is a cultural internalization, as people understand themselves as autonomous humans with individual rights. The individual person is free to create their own identity, unhampered by the expectations of family, institutions, or society. When applied to religion, it has been called “a god of one’s own” (Beck 2010), a “congregation of one” (Arnett and Jensen 2002), and “religion of the heart” (Campbell 1991; Watts 2022), and is most commonly found among the “spiritual” but not religious. This sea change toward internality is widespread, shaping the culture and structure of late modernity. It is the modern zeitgeist.
Self-spirituality is not idiosyncratic, random, or unique to each individual. Rather, the sacred has relocated, finding other institutional homes that provide the plausibility structures to maintain it.
In this essay, I explicate how this change, which I describe as a move from an external to an internal locus of authority, is reshaping religion and spirituality in Western countries and beyond. I look at both the inner journey, which is the means by which one realizes one’s spiritual self, and finding the authentic self, the end or terminal goal of one’s quest. Regarding the former, our spirituality is no longer anchored in a congregation. Instead, the quest is internal, and each person is responsible for finding their own way toward wholeness. One’s journey is toward a new lifegoal or telos. One’s life purpose is no longer about fulfilling one’s (occupational) calling in the world, gaining prestige or wealth, or creating a better future for family or community. The goal of life has also moved inside. This telos, at least as it relates to religion and spirituality, is to find one’s authentic self. This “teleology of self-realization,” or personal quest for inner wholeness, culminates in discovering who one is meant to be (Watts 2018, 1026).
THE INTERNAL LOCUS OF AUTHORITY
One’s locus of authority is external if one’s behavior and beliefs are shaped from outside, largely by parental, religious, educational, or political authorities. Among the silent generation (those born before 1946), an external locus of authority was common. The hierarchical structure of workplaces during industrialization, the duty to country promoted by the world wars, and high religiosity, among other things, reinforced deference to external, institutional authority. Identity was mainly ascribed at birth, and it was fairly stable. One hundred years ago, Christendom was taken for granted by Canadians and Britons. They lived under a “sacred canopy” (Berger 1967): a society where deference to Christian norms was assumed. Post-Christendom, the canopy has been replaced by individual umbrellas. Deference to external authority was eroded, particularly with the baby boomer generation who were born between 1946 and 1964. The countercultural movement of the 1960s and 1970s, energized by Watergate, the Vietnam War, and rock ’n’ roll music, promoted a critical p. 156 attitude toward traditional authorities. Many rebelled against their parents, refused to climb the corporate ladder, and criticized religious and political leaders. Young people experimented with drugs, sex, and Eastern religions.
As external authority weakened, the result was a move toward an internal locus of authority. This authority comes from inside each person—that is, it is up to the individual person to choose their behaviors and beliefs. Indeed, each person has the right to decide who they are; they must discover their own identities. Beliefs, practices, and identities are more fluid and contested, as people rethink their beliefs in light of new attachments and changing priorities. For people living one hundred years ago or more, religious beliefs and practices were prescribed by religious authorities. Religious leaders were honored, and straying from their teachings was socially deviant and sanctioned accordingly. Children were expected to adopt the religious beliefs and identities of their parents, and they usually did.
I define “authority,” as Max Weber does, to mean legitimate power (Weber 1978). Legitimate power is accepted by the one under authority. In the past, religious leaders had authority over the beliefs and behaviors of the laity. Inevitably, some deviated from prescribed expectations, but the point here is that the social expectations were clearly prescribed. Now many affiliates reject the official teachings of their religious groups, and, therefore, beliefs within a church can vary considerably. Although there is no central institutional authority within evangelicalism, many raised as evangelicals feel free to depart from the beliefs and practices of their parents, pastors, or denominations. We have known that inward authority is typical of the “spiritual but not religious,” but what is less well known, or expected, is that it is also widespread in institutional religion, including evangelicalism (Hunter 1982; Watts 2022).
In reality, external and internal loci of authority exist along a continuum rather than in separate categories. The categories are not “either or” but “more or less.” As the person embraces internal authority, they view external authority as increasingly suspect. This trend is evident among evangelicals. On the one hand, it would be true that evangelicals are, on average, more religiously devout than mainline Protestants or Catholics, and that the more devout tend to have higher levels of external authority. For some evangelicals, the Bible is the external authority to which they submit. Of course, the Bible must be interpreted and applied, something that is often done by pastors, Christian authors/speakers, and other leaders. So it would not be true that pastors and leaders in evangelicalism have low authority, as long as their lay followers are convinced that they accurately teach the Bible. On the other hand, the zeitgeist of our modern p. 157 age infiltrates the evangelical subculture as well, pushing evangelicals toward internal authority.
The transition toward internal authority has been particularly hard on institutional authority. Leaders in politics, medicine, science, law, education, and especially religion, can no longer assume deferential submission. As Heelas and Woodhead (2005) note, all areas of modern society show signs of increased subjectivity and inward authority, such as, child-centered education, customer-centered stores and restaurants, patient-centered healthcare, and an emphasis on personal development at work. Woodhead states that “most British people place great value on the freedom of the individual and are decidedly liberal when it comes to matters of personal morality—they believe that it is up to individuals to decide for themselves how they live their own lives” (2016, 251). This liberal position is “the opposite of ‘paternalism,’ understood as the view that one should defer to higher authority, whether of parents, God, scriptures, managers, or whomever/whatever” (255). When individuals are their own authority, they are quite comfortable accepting and rejecting the views of experts and leaders based on their preferences, experiences, or personal whim. They take pieces that they like and leave the rest.
Consider a buffet, with dozens of items to choose from. There are succulent meats, rich desserts, fresh fruit, and exotic foods from around the world. Institutional religion, for the typical Western consumer, is something like the raw vegetables at the buffet (Clydesdale 2007). Vegetables, like religion, may be good for you, but, with limited time and stomach capacity, it would be silly to eat too many vegetables when there are so many more tantalizing options. Besides, your mother is not there to remind you to eat what is good for you. The sensible conclusion is to eat whatever you desire. Similarly, if religious leaders no longer have authority over you, and there are many more enjoyable ways to use your Sunday morning than going to church, one would be wise to consume religion sparingly. After all, it is up to you. You are your own authority.
It is easy to assume that the move to an internal locus of authority means that social or cultural influences have less effect, as people think for themselves instead of simply acquiescing to external authority. Yet, this assumption may not be true. A quick trip to a mall or school may reveal a group of teens, dressed similarly, with similar hairstyles, all texting on their iPhones. Clearly social conformity and peer pressure is still active. My argument is not that people today are more discerning and therefore resist getting on a bandwagon. Instead, society itself endorses the internal locus of authority. Thus, moderns are conforming when they embrace an internal authority. One wonders if persons are really more free or autonomous, or if they simply are under the influence of new powers. 1 p. 158
The inward turn is not about society’s power to influence behavior and beliefs but about legitimacy. Who or what has the legitimate right to decide what I should believe, do, or be? Under an internal locus of authority, the answer is me. The expectation is that I should define myself. I am told to be “true to myself,” not to be “what others tell me to be.”
| External loci of authority | Internal loci of authority |
|---|---|
| Institutional authority—from parents, priests, experts, etc. | Individual authority—personal experience and what resonates with one’s heart |
| Deference to institutions and leaders | Suspicion of institutions and leaders |
| Beliefs, behaviors, aspirations are prescribed | Beliefs, behaviors, aspirations are discovered and chosen |
| Identity is ascribed and stable | Identity is created and flexible |
To recap, Western culture is in the process of moving from external loci of authority toward internal loci of authority. This change has been glacial—gradual, quiet, under-the-radar—but extensive in impact. Most do not grasp its implications. Its effects include undermined institutional authority and increased tolerance for and affirmation of diversity in belief, practice, and identity. The modern zeitgeist avers that, regardless of class, race, gender, sexuality, or inherited religion, people should be free to make their own choices, at least as long as they are not seen as limiting other people’s freedom to define themselves. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of those with external loci of authority and those with internal loci of authority, although it is important to emphasize that these characteristics fall along a continuum, and few are likely to be pure externalists or internalists. Most people are located somewhere in between, and all the characteristics may not be equally evident.
Whence internal authority? Many forces have encouraged the move toward an internal locus of authority, and I will list only some here. First, levels of education have increased. Higher education has a critical edge, calling into question taken-for-granted norms and values. It also exposes p. 159 the young person to a wide swath of ideas and viewpoints. Students are encouraged to think for themselves and develop their own views. Second, Western societies are experiencing increased immigration, increasing the heterogeneity of the population and worldviews within it. Third, the internet provides instant access to a plethora of ideas through blogs, social media, podcasts, and so on. As spiritual influencers move online, religious and cultural authorities are leveled and diversified. These social changes, among others, point to an underlying reason for the inward turn: societal influences have become increasingly multivocal, particularly for evangelicals. The messages or social influences received by a person are diverse, disparate, even contradictory. The values and beliefs heard at school or in the media vary from what is heard at home or at church. Moreover, the messages within any given social sphere (like education or politics or religion) can be disparate. Gone are the days (more typical of decades prior to the 1960s) when the messages coming from home, school, television and radio, church, and other institutional authorities were generally consistent and mutually reinforcing. Gone, too, are the days when beliefs, values, aspirations, and even identities were negotiated within a rather homogeneous community, where key influencers reinforced shared norms and beliefs. Options for what a person could believe or become were limited. Now, options are increasingly open.
The Venn diagrams in Figure 1 illustrate this gradual change in the multivocality of social influences. The diagram on the left shows spheres of influence with greater overlap, representative of more traditional and more homogeneous societies. Clearly, as the nonoverlapping parts of the circles indicate, some messages within each sphere are unique, often not reinforced in other spheres. But there is a significant core where all the circles overlap. This represents those messages from all sources that are similar and mutually reinforcing. This core provides a foundation on which an individual can build their beliefs, behaviors, and identity, often consistent with social prescription. In a more heterogeneous society, as shown in the Venn diagram on the right, influences from the major spheres are more multivocal and less mutually reinforcing. Social cues are more diverse, often with little overlap. Thus, the expectations of external authority are unclear, leaving the individual without clarity on beliefs, behaviors, and identity. The result, then, is that individuals must be the authors of their own beliefs, behaviors, and identity. The perceived need to create oneself is, I suggest, a natural adaption to a heterogeneous society’s increased multivocality. Finally, even though the circles in the diagram on the right overlap less than those on the left, they do still overlap, indicating that certain messages are consistent across multiple institutional spheres. As I will argue below, part of this overlap reflects a cultural “script” about spirituality that is reinforced within Western culture and its institutions. p. 160
Figure 1: The multivocality of societal influences
The transition from internal to external loci of authority, then, is not driven by an increased narcissism or rebelliousness of individuals. It is not primarily a change at the individual level. Rather, people are adapting to a macrosocial reality. If society does not clearly prescribe beliefs, practices, and identities, then persons are left to come up with their own, pasting together what they can glean from what is available around them. Of course, there is no such thing as a society that does not prescribe or ascribe. Prescriptive influences that implicitly or explicitly communicate expectations and obligations always exist. The point is the prescriptions are not univocal. What a person hears from home can conflict with messages they get at school, in church, or in the media. These conflicting messages require a filtering process, one that is more up to the individual than it used to be.
People experience varying degrees of multivocality, depending on their primary and secondary socialization. Religious parents, in particular, seek to engage their children in settings that reinforce the beliefs, values, and practices they are trying to inculcate at home. They take their children to church activities, enroll them in religious schools, limit access to certain media, encourage them to make “good” friends while avoiding others, refuse to take them to parties, and so forth. In this way, spheres of influence are bounded and can be more mutually reinforcing. However, diverse ideas and influences are readily available, so it is hard to keep disparate voices out completely. In a globalized world, isolating children enough to monitor and control incoming messages is increasingly difficult. The ubiquity and accessibility of the internet and other media, along with increased diversity in our towns and cities, means that the “sacred canopy” is full of holes, and the external culture seeps in. In The Heretical Imperative, Berger observed that “modernity pluralizes both institutions and plausibility structures,” resulting in diverse influences. As a result, he states, humans p. 161 are forced to choose their own beliefs, values, and lifestyles subjectively (1979, 11). In the words of Galen Watts, “disenchantment of the outer world has always meant a simultaneous enchantment of the inner world” (2019, 1032; emph. in original).
SELF-SPIRITUALITY
Influenced by the glacial shift toward internal authority, religion also moved internally. 2 Heelas's term “self-spirituality” is useful because it indicates both the individual nature of the spiritual quest and its goal, the true self (1996). For Heelas, “self-spirituality is characterized, most fundamentally, by the belief that the sacred resides within rather than without the self; in short, it sacralizes the self” (cited in Watts 2018, 346).
However, simply because religion has taken the inward turn toward self-spiritualty does not mean it is devoid of any institutional supports. The view that such spirituality is free-floating, existing only in individual minds, is mistaken. Self-spirituality is not idiosyncratic, random, or unique to each individual. Rather, the sacred has relocated, finding other institutional homes that provide the “plausibility structures” to maintain it (Berger 1967). Self-spirituality’s institutional homes include what Heelas and Woodhead (2005) call the “holistic milieu” (including yoga studios, mediation groups, twelve-step programs, clinics that provide aromatherapy and alternative medicine, and so on, promoted by websites, advertising, books, blogs, and social media). Indeed, one can easily see the discourse of self-spirituality in the arts, healthcare, education, and particularly in popular culture and media. Self-spirituality’s institutional embeddedness provides it with coherence and structure. Thus, spirituality does not signal a loss of the sacred (as some accounts of secularization suggest) but rather a decline in institutional religious authority.
So, what are the common characteristics of self-spirituality? Is there coherence around both the final goal and the means to reach that goal? I look first at the “means” of self-spirituality and its attributes.
The spiritual person generally eschews institutional religious authority and embraces private spirituality. For the self-spiritual, spiritual needs cannot be fulfilled in a physical place, like a church building; such fulfilment requires a personal quest. The self-spiritual quest is characterized by various features. First, it is a private journey for which the individual is responsible. The journey usually requires spiritual practices—yoga, meditation, mindfulness, tai chi, homeopathy, reiki, and so on—that counter dis-ease in one’s subjective well-being and moves one toward wholeness. At best, institutional religion may be useful in this journey for a time, to the extent that the place of worship enhances the person’s private journey p. 162 toward wholeness. Once the religious group is no longer helpful, the seeker moves on, but the quest continues.
Second, for those on a self-spiritual quest, all major religions are basically the same at their core—a belief called “perennialism” (Heelas 1996). Beneath the layers of historically created divisions, the same metaphysical truth is foundational to all religions. Hiemstra, Dueck, and Blackaby found what they call the “Universal Gnostic Religious Ethic” common among emerging adults in Canada (2017). These young Canadians felt that all religions shared the same core ethic, which was to help one become a good person and create social harmony. In this way of thinking, the enlightened realize religions’ common core, and those who are not enlightened often create division, elevating their religion and rejecting others. Naturally, then, any religion is fine, as long as one does not hold exclusive beliefs. “Bricolage,” the practice of drawing from a variety of religions to create a spirituality of one’s own, is typical (Heelas 1996).
Third, this quest involves an inner epistemology. The way a person knows something is based largely on personal experience. Morality (what is right and wrong) and spirituality (how we know anything about God or the divine) is based on what is sensed internally. Truth is what resonates with the inner self or the heart. The rational mind, then, is not the ultimate source of authority in subjective areas like morals and spirituality. Rather, the heart allows access to what is “right for me.” Truth is reached when a person senses love, wholeness, unity, peace, or joy—those feelings that come from the heart. Intuition, the “inner voice,” guides our choices (Heelas 2008). The internal is the source of guidance for everyday decisions and choices. Indeed, one should not let society determine one’s beliefs, for society divides us from others, undermines a healthy and authentic self, and generally puts demands and expectations on us that compete with what our inner voice is telling us. Listening to the cacophony of external voices trying to tell us what to think and who we are can add to one’s dis-ease.
Fourth, a spiritual quest requires freedom from external restraints that can impede spiritual seekers as they travel their own path. Under external authority, freedom is understood to be the ability to make a choice between right and wrong, since right and wrong are defined by God, religious authorities, or societal norms. This understanding has been replaced by a broader privileging of individual freedom: one must be able to enjoy the personal liberty required for self-expression and self-direction. Thus, personal liberty and individual rights are sacralized. Impediments, whether real or perceived, on the road toward self-realization are negative, even evil. If societal norms or external authorities are keeping a person from being all they can be, they are impediments that the person must learn p. 163 to overcome. If someone is less than affirming of another’s chosen path (assuming that path does not harm others), then their influence is negative and bad. We should all empathize with the struggle to get past impediments and negativity to discover our beliefs and identity, so it is unkind in the extreme to be critical of another’s sense of self. One’s identity and views in private areas of morality and spirituality are to be “liked” on social media. Since people should have an internal locus of authority, and since they should decide for themselves what they think and who they are, how could anyone not affirm their identities and views? As an individual on a spiritual journey, I may encounter people who disagree with me, but they are obviously wrong—my heart tells me so.
Fifth, self-spirituality involves a relocation and reattribution of God (that is, the God of orthodox Christianity and other world religions), or what might be called the sacred or divine. The sacred is now immanent, relocated from the transcendent to the inside. God or the sacred is close and present. He (or she or it) pervades the natural world around us and our own bodies. Spiritual but not religious persons reject dualisms—God versus human, body verses mind, and so on—and thus tend toward monism. There is a unitary nature to self-spirituality in that it recognizes a life force that flows through all things. This relates to the internal locus of authority because the sacred is now inside and must be discovered and accessed through an internal quest. The person, then, is imbued with inner sacredness, and when they learn to discern their inner voice, they access the divine within. Further, the attributes of God or the sacred are good and positive. Those influences that are not good and affirming to the self—fear of the divine or feelings of guilt and judgment—are not from God. Negative feelings and self-doubt stem from the world around us. The sacred within fills us with wholeness, love, awe, beauty, and goodness. In this way, then, the immanent sacred, which is present in us, becomes undiscernible from our own inner sense, our true selves. The authentic self becomes sacred.
If the “means” by which we accomplish the spiritual is a private quest, then the “end” or telos is finding the authentic self. If the way we “know” what is right for us is internal, then the goal is also internal. The goal is to find that inner part that is authentically “me,” the real self. There are really two selves: “a ‘mundane,’ ‘conventional,’ ‘unnatural’ or ‘socialized’ self, demonized as the ‘false’ or ‘unreal’ product of society and its institutions,” contrasted “with a ‘higher,’ ‘deeper,’ ‘true,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic’ and ‘spiritual’ self” (Houtman and Aupers 2010, 6). The authentic self is hidden behind (or beyond) the mundane self, and must be discovered. Charles Taylor called this belief “expressivism,” where the “ultimate purpose of life is to fulfill one’s own nature” (1989, 347). One is told to p. 164 “be true to yourself” or to “be who you are,” however that is understood. The true self is hard to define because it is different for each person, as each person is an original. Again quoting Charles Taylor, this time from The Ethics of Authenticity, “Being true to myself means being true to my own originality . . . something only I can articulate and discover” (1991, 29). Self-spirituality has a unitary, monistic nature but also emphasizes individual uniqueness. Everyone is equal, and the same sacredness lives in all of us, but everyone is also unique. What is clear is that once one finds one’s authentic self, one finds wholeness and flourishes. While the precise end cannot be identified, there is a script or shared understanding of this telos. It is part of the zeitgeist in late modernity.
One aspect of this shared understanding of the late modern spiritual telos is that the authentic self is good. While historic Christianity sees the person as both good (made in the image of God) and bad (all are sinners), modern self-spirituality sees the self, at least the true self, as only good. It is good in the sense of it being innately virtuous. Love and acceptance are natural for the authentic self. It is in harmony with the world around it (monism) and full of compassion and kindness. The self is also good in the sense that it provides feelings of wholeness and well-being. Smith states that the central goal of life for the American youth he studied was “to be happy and to feel good about oneself” (Smith with Denton 2005, 163). Since the heart, not the head, has primacy in this inward journey, travelers can know that they are acting in accordance with the true self if they feel good. Being true to yourself just feels right.
A second aspect is that the authentic self is divine or sacred, and thus has divine characteristics. If God is immanent, then the true self is part of the sacred or the divine. When someone taps into their real self, they are tapping into the divine—the God within. Like God, the authentic self is preexistent. The inner self existed before culture or society began to distort it. It is innate and natural. It is also sacred in the sense that it has great potential and power. It is endowed with supernatural capacity. Not only does the inner voice guide us, but, once we become who we were intended to be, our innate potential is released. This great potential allows a person to have victory over suffering and weakness.
While the authentic self is full of goodness and power, the path to finding oneself is fraught with obstacles and hardship. Since internal authority is required to find the self, conformity to external authorities obstructs the search. Fears, insecurities, unkindness, and not reaching one’s potential indicate that the person is not being true to themselves. If someone is not acting virtuously, it is because they are not acting in accordance with their authentic self. Immoral behavior and vice are caused by a distorted self, one that has been misshapen by society. The distorted self means p. 165 the true self has not been realized, whether because the person has not embraced the inward journey or is not free to achieve or discover their self. While the orthodox Christian view is that vice is caused by inborn sin and requires the salvific work of God through Christ, self-spirituality would understand sin as sickness, and therefore the self as in need of healing (not redeeming). And this healing must be achieved on one’s own. Since the journey to wholeness is an inward journey, travelers are responsible for their own healing, even if they make use of guides along the way. Those who blame others for their problems are shirking their responsibility to find their authentic selves.
SELF-SPIRITUALITY AND EVANGELICALISM
The zeitgeist of our time, with its internal authority and journey toward inner wholeness, is so widespread within Western culture that few are unaffected by it, even if they are unaware of its subtle influence. Western culture is not neutral. What Heelas calls “subjective wellbeing culture” has a strong pull toward internality and away from institutional religion (2008, 62). Swimmers enjoying the water and waves in the ocean are often unaware of the power of the undertow—unaware, that is, until they look up and find themselves far from shore. Caught in the current, even strong swimmers tire of resisting it. Swimming against the current requires an exceptional swimmer; many do not even try, and those who do may not succeed.
Since evangelicals are engaged in the culture around them, they find themselves floating along with everyone else, even if they may be dragging their feet in the water to slow themselves down. The more sectarian take refuge in the backwater or a secluded cove where there is very little current because it is protected from the main flow. Yet this strategy is only partially successful because it is increasingly difficult, in our connected and globalized world, to isolate oneself. Efforts to stop the rush of water may keep out some influences but can never completely stop others. The zeitgeist of our time is reshaping evangelicals, including in ways that they do not perceive. Yet it is not just evangelicals who are ignorant of this under-the-surface gradual change. Most non-evangelicals are as well. The perceptive and historically informed may see it more clearly, but most see only the surface effects. Just as most of an iceberg is submerged under the water, so most only see a few consequences of the move to internal authority.
The research clearly indicates that evangelicals are not immune to the ethos of Western culture, even though they try to keep it at arm’s length. 3 Here is what evangelicals misdiagnose. First, they remain unaware of the unifying doctrine or zeitgeist that underlies the seemingly chaotic secular and spiritual fragments they observe. Just as surface waters can p. 166 hide a powerful undertow, evangelicals fail to see that a “doctrine of self-spirituality constitutes the common denominator of the wide range of beliefs, rituals, and practices found in the contemporary spiritual milieu” (Houtman and Aupers 2010, 6). To evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike, self-spirituality appears diverse, idiosyncratic, and antinomian on the surface, and they seem to be largely unaware of the unified ethos that drives it. Second, evangelical clergy and leaders tend to see changing beliefs and practices, not the source of these changes. As a result, they misdiagnose a deeper, internal change, and instead try to address only its symptoms. Partly because external authority is still their modus operandi, and partly because they insulate themselves from aspects of cultural change, they misdiagnose the prevailing milieu.
NOTES
- When we speak of internal authority, this authority is perceived to come from the self, from the individual’s own inner sense or intuition. My point is that one’s intuition is socially shaped. For example, one’s experiences become authoritative, but these experiences are bounded by social norms and are interpreted based on “schemas” available in society. One’s moral inner sense is authoritative, but the reason an ethical position “seems right” to a person is because it is associated with positive feelings that stem, at least partially, from reinforcement by people with whom the individual has close relationships and by “likes” on social media. Thus, the triumvirate of authorities—personal experience, algorithmic reinforcement, and the influence of warm relationships—are all social factors that shape internal authority, which is replacing institutional religious authority. Many Westerners view internal authority as free while external authority is viewed as oppressive.
- This section is heavily indebted to the work of Galen Watts and his masterful condensing of the literature on spirituality (2022).
- Chapters 2 through 6 in the book from which this essay is drawn examine in more detail this tension between conformity and nonconformity.
WORKS CITED
- Arnett, Jeffery Jensen, and Lene Arnett Jensen. 2002. A congregation of one: Individualized religious beliefs among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research 17 (5): 451–67.
- Beck, Ulrich. 2010. A god of one’s own. Cambridge and Malden, MA: Polity Press. p. 167
- Bellah, Robert N., with Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred canopy: Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor Books.
- ______. 1979. The heretical imperative: Contemporary possibilities of religious affirmation. New York: Doubleday.
- Campbell, Ted A. 1991. The religion of the heart: A study of European religious life in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
- Clydesdale, Tim. 2007. The first year out: Understanding American teens after high school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Heelas, Paul. 1996. The new age movement: The celebration of the self and the sacralization of modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
- ______. 2008. Spiritualities of life: New age romanticism and consumptive capitalism. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
- ______, and Linda Woodhead. 2005. The spiritual revolution: Why religion is giving way to spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Hiemstra, Rick, Lorianne Dueck, and Matthew Blackaby. 2017. YATR Literature Review: A preliminary report to project partners. Unpublished paper.
- Houtman, Dick, and Stef Aupers. 2010. Religions of modernity: Relocating the sacred to the self and the digital. In Religions of modernity: Relocating the sacred to the self and the digital, ed. Stef Aupers and Dick Houtman, 1–29. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
- Hunter, James Davison. 1982. “Subjectivization and the new evangelical theodicy.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 20(1): 39–47.
- Smith, Christian, with Melinda Lundquist Denton. 2005. Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
- Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- ______. 1991. The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Watts, Galen. 2018. “On the politics of self-spirituality: A Canadian case study.” Studies in Religion 47 (3): 345–72.
- ______. 2019. “Religion, science, and disenchantment in late modernity.” Zygon 54 (4): 1022–35.
- ______. 2022. The spiritual turn: The religion of the heart and the making of romantic liberal modernity. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
- Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press. (from the 4th German ed., 1956)
- Woodhead, Linda. 2016. “The rise of ‘no religion’ in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority.” Journal of the British Academy 4: 245–61.
