Search

This article attempts to fill a gap in currently available literature on the history of the study of religiosity fitting it into a more general context of the formation of a scientific approach to the study of religion. This is the first review covering the second half of the 19th and the first two decades of the 20th century. The first part of the article explores the term “religiosity”. The issue was brought up at the initial stage of the history of Religious Studies. Nevertheless, the term wasn't immediately accepted by the scientific community. Its meaning was clarified as opposed to the term “religion”. This opposition is rooted in the German philosophy of the 18–19th centuries and was manifested in the 1860-1870s debates about religiosity as a distinctive feature of a human being in anthropology and, since the late 19th century, in psychology. An understanding of religiosity as a subjective side of religion became dominant in 1910s and provided a basis for later typologies and classifications of religiosity. The second part aims to describe some early studies on religiosity. Attendance to worship services was measured through statistical surveys. Conversion studies focused on various religious practices and beliefs, as well as factors that made people convert. Teachers and priests organized surveys among students in the United States trying to respond to a religious crisis and low level of interest in religion among children and adolescents at the turn of the century. Some studies grouped believers based on the frequency of religious practices, thus creating the first typologies of religiosity. The author analyzes the works of Russian researchers, too. He concludes that the theoretical understanding of religiosity went hand in hand with international science, although the term itself was used less. The lack of empirical studies of religiosity in Russia in the studied period was due to the state policy and the attention of theorists to other issues in relation to projects for the future Russia.

Abstract: The article presents the author’s attempt to apply the ideas of Lev S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology to the analysis of the nature of religious consciousness. Cultural-historical psychology is offered as an adequate alternative to such fields as cognitive religious studies and evolutionary psychology of religion, because it does not ignore and does not reduce the social and cultural determinants of mental development. Based on the ideas of Lev S. Vygotsky and his studies of magical thinking and semiotic mediation of mental functions, the author from the psychological point of view considers religion as a special system of historically formed cultural (semiotic) means that contribute to mastering one’s own mental functions and behavior. It is suggested that these semiotic tools be referred to as religious or supernatural mental tools. The following groups of these tools are distinguished: 1) religious objects (natural or artificial); 2) religious actions (rituals); 3) religious images (objectified or subjective); 4) religious meanings (concepts). The nature of religious consciousness viewed through the lens of cultural-historical psychology by Lev S. Vygotsky is revealed by the author in a number of provisions: religious consciousness is a mental functional system resulting from the process of assimilation, mainly verbal semiotic means of a particular religious tradition; religious consciousness is constituted as dynamic systems of meaning that integrate the believer’s intellectual and affective processes; religious consciousness is social in origin and is formed in activity; semiotic mediation of mental functions and human behavior is the mechanism to form religious consciousness. Further work on the application of Lev S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology to the analysis of religious consciousness must include the development of experimental research methodology, the advancement of experimental hypotheses, and the consideration from the perspective of this approach of explanatory models and facts obtained in other approaches – cognitive religious studies and evolutionary psychology of religion.

This paper is devoted to the question, is it possible to increase knowledge in the field of theology like as it is possible in humanities in general. The main difficulties first of all consist in (1) confessional character of each theology, (2) in its plurality when each theology has its own concept system and original epistemological framework, (3) in the resulting incomparability of theologies. Discussing the presumably scientific character of theology, it could be useful to discern between premodern and modern understanding of the term “science”. The author argues, there do not exist insurmountable obstacles for theology to strengthen its argumentative basis, namely, theology possesses opportunity to get closer to the human sciences if it relies on empirical researches, for instance, of psychology of religion. This thesis is illustrated on two different examples from different regions and contexts: the theory of structure of religious experience by K. Girgensohn and W. Gruehn, and the theory of political aspect of religious conversion by I. Martín-Baró. The both theologies base their generalization on correct empirical research data, — like it occurs in philosophy of religion or even human sciences. The both cases demonstrate increase of knowledge: the first on from which elements does religious experience consist and how it is developing; the second on how religious conversion is tied to change of political views and social behavior of believers. Such contact of theology with empirical science of religion is in no way harmful for the both sides; it can be initiated in various traditions, which adopt the focus of broadly understood Western-born rationality.

The article presents an analysis of methodological problems in psychological studies of religiosity and offers a new comparative approach to qualitative research of religiosity as a component of human life. The authors demonstrate the possibility of combining ideas of religious philosophy (Christian and Islamic) with J. Lacan's psychoanalytic idea of a multidimensional subject in the psychological interpretation of biographical interviews of believers. The essence of the authors' approach to interpretation is repeated re-reading of the interview texts from the theological (close to the respondent's denomination), psychoanalytic and reflective positions, which provides methodological triangulation of qualitative analysis and creates opportunities for a richer understanding of the meanings of the stories. The analysis of two semi-structured interviews with Muslim and Orthodox women are presented. The authors discuss the possibilities of applying their methodological approach to the explorations of religious experience and the relationship between deep psychological and spiritual aspects of such experience.

This article deals with a complicated question about the emergence of the methodology of knowledge about religion (primarily of comparative religious studies or history of religion and of psychology of religion) in the continental thought of the latter half of the 19th — early 20th centuries. It is this material that allows one to trace methodological transformations that took place in the Protestant liberal theology and favoured the fi nal formation of the institutionalised schientifi c knowledge of religion. The first part of the article studies early ideas of the theologian and religious scholar C. P. Tiele which pertain to the correlation between theology and religious studies: theology has an artifi cial structure, it has lost its ideological positions and, consequently, it is subject to radical transformations and must fi nally give way to the unbiased empirical and comparative religious science that would formulate its universal laws. These views of Tiele were actively discussed in the Netherlands within the framework of adopting the Dutch Higher Education Act of 1876 and were partly taken into account there. The second part of the article deals with the development of experimental psychology of religion in Germany which was accompanied by a discussion between the philosophising theologian G. Wobbermin and one of the pioneering theologiansexperimenters W. Stählin (the latter was later supported by F. Traub). Stählin and Traub insist on complete independence of psychology of religion from theology and philosophy; its material should only be data of psychological experiments. It cannot be guided by either the generalising philosophical interest or objectives of theological systematisation. Besides, psychology of religion cannot by any means substantiate the veracity of religious experience, its only aim being to observe and describe it. In conclusion, one can see that the scientifi c knowledge of religion is to a large extent rooted in the theological soil due to the fi nal methodological fracture related to the secularisation and emancipation of humanities-related studies under the infl uence of the positivist ideal of science. This change of paradigm does not, of course, imply the rejection of the personal religiosity, nor the necessity of abandoning one’s theological career.

The article presents the situation with the position of religion in modern Russia, which is characterized by contradictions. On the one hand, secularization has led to a lack of reliability and meaning for many people, on the other – the increased impact on people of various religious structures that promise stability and adaptability in the modern world. Religiosity as an individual quality is the unsolved problem. In sociological and socio-psychological studies, the marker of religiosity can act as a subjective self-identification, and involvement in religious practices as an objective characteristic of life, which under certain conditions becomes a manifestation of addictive behavior. Psychological science and modern psychiatric research distinguish chemical and non-chemical addictions. The article presents the materials of a sociological study, which confirms the tendency to increase religiosity among employees of the internal affairs bodies. In the course of developing a socio-psychological mechanism for the formation of religious addiction, we used the analysis of philosophical and socio-psychological literature, which reveals the theoretical foundations of religious addiction and structural and dynamic modeling. As a result of the conducted scientific analysis, the concept of “religiosity” is operationalized and “internal” and “external” religiosity are distinguished. The definition of non-chemical addiction is given and its main forms are highlighted. The article presents a model for the formation of external religiosity as a variant of non-chemical addiction, the essence of which is the human need to satisfy the need for security. A person in search of relieving tension and anxiety, having certain individual and personal characteristics, chooses external religiosity as the first adaptive psychological protection. Further, a pathological connection with the religious essence is established, with the help of which the needs of the individual are met, since religion in this version is a means for solving their problems. Previously adaptive defense becomes an addictive behavior model. External religiosity as a variant of dependent behavior leads the individual to establish a self-supporting system, which can lead to alienation from society and complete loneliness in the real world as well as diminishing of personal responsibility.

The author outlines his concept of the historical development of psychology of religion in Russia and articulates the current tasks of this scientific field. He focuses on the recent formation of topical areas and methodological orientations in Russian psychology of religion and the processes of self-identification and consolidation of researchers that have launched as well. Two following two theses are put forward: the history of psychology of religion in Russia is (1) more determined by external factors than by internal ones and 2) is more relevant to the history of religious studies than to psychology. The historically conditioned and varying “scientific attitude toward religion” is proposed as a criterion for the periodization of the historical development of psychology of religion in Russia. According to this criterion, three developmental stages are distinguished: 1) Psychologization of religion (from 1860—1870 to 1918 — early 1920s); 2) Ideological struggle against religion (from the 1920s to 1991); 3) Dialogue with religion (from 1990 to the present). The author argues that now the fundamental historical task for Russian psychology of religion is to constitute its own identity within the Russian academic community, and, subsequently, in the world science. In addition, the particular tasks are formulated: to differentiate the psychology of religion from Christian psychology; to formulate consistent research programs; to make an inventory of productive ideas and concepts in Russian psychology in order to apply them to contemporary studies of the religious mind; to overcome isolation and to join the international scientific discourse; to design the public request for research in the psychology of religion; to continue further consolidation of Russian psychologists of religion; to promote the psychology of religion within the psychological academic community in Russia.

This article gives an overview of the development of psychology of religion in post-Soviet Russia from the 2000s to the present. The author evaluates this period as a stage of reviving of research in the fi eld in question. This trend is supposed to be associated with the infl uence of the personal factor and the objectively existing white spot in this fi eld rather than with a social request or the improvement in the fi nancialsituation of Russian science compared with the 1990s. There is positive dynamics in the nuber of defended academic theses in the fi eld of psychology of religion. The number of publications has also been increasing. The article outlines key thematic areas of research on psychology of religion, discusses the problem of developing methodological instruments, analyses the educational literature published in 2000‒2010 as well as signifi cant scientifi c events. The author of the article states that psychology of religion in Russia is currently going through the phase when the scientifi c community of psychologists and researchers of religion begins to identify itself and to consolidate its research eff orts. However, despite the clear though moderate growth, psychology of religion still remains in the shadow of institutionalised Christian psychology on the one hand and a range of other religious disciplines on the other hand.

This article analyses views of the psychologist V. I. Mamleev (1902‒1943) on the nature of religion. It scrutinises main elements of his doctrine, namely his criticism of foreign theories (S. Freud’s and L. Lévy-Bruhl’s), the distinction between religious ideology and religious psychology, conception of the unconscious and its influence on religious views, as well as the project of study of deconversion. The article also shows which of these topics were later employed by Soviet psychology of religion, and integrates the scholar into a certain tradition of the Soviet religious studies. The most prominent place in theoretical legacy of V. Mamleev is occupied by the criticism of Western approaches in religious studies, which he classifi es according to a range of grounds. The article pays special attention to this aspect and demonstrates which parts of this criticism may be regarded as reasonable (e.g. the erroneous character of some generalisations of psychoanalysts, non-historism of Lévy-Bruhl’s and Freud’s theories, etc.), and which are related to the scientist’s ideological background (e.g. the ideas of class-conditioned and idealistic character of foreign theories, their “bourgeois” fl avour). This distinction is signifi cant in the context of studies in the sphere of the humanities in the USSR in the 1920s. The article draws on rare and archival sources, which allows us to trace the evolution of Mamleev as a scholar. These range from studies in history and theory of law to the study of religious psychology. Besides, he was interested in both the processes characteristic of the religious consciousness and psychological features of the transition from faith to atheism, which is confi rmed by the plan of study of this phenomenon, discovered by the author of the article among Mamleev’s documents; this plan is analysed in the fi nal section of the article.

Following article suggests a conceptual analysis of polemics on the question of origin and nature of religion which took place on pages of «Young Guard» and «Under the banner of Marxism» between M. Pokrovsky and I. Skvortsov-Stepanov in 1922– 1923. In the first part of the article the author examines the political, intellectual and social-biographical contexts of the polemics. Second part is devoted to explication of the main points of conceptions of authors under discussion in religious studies: their understanding of science, their interpretations of «historical materialism», their understanding of mutual relations of practice of «struggle against religion», anti-religious propaganda and scientific studying of religion in the context of struggle of classes, their decisions of questions of origin of religion, basic moments of its history. The third part examines the polemics itself: its total movement, basic ideas, argumentation of participants, their systems of values, varieties of Marxist approach to the study of religion, understanding of history of religion, its relation to its economic basis, their attitude to ideas of A. Bogdanov, A. Lunacharsky and other thinkers. In conclusion the author make a number of preliminary findings for discussion on significance and meaning of the polemics in question, its «ethos», its place in the history of soviet «scientific atheism», its role in development of psychology of religion in Russia.

Since early 1990s sociologists of religion have been noticing in the USA and Europe an appearance of a group, self-identifying as spiritual, but not religious. The word spirituality has been gaining popularity on political, media, and scientifi c levels. Alongside this tendency the number of «spiritual but not religious» grows. First, this group was discovered among baby-boomers with higher level of individualism, aversion of religious institutes, reaching out for personal experience. Now these groups are discovered in different countries, Russia included. This paper reviews several surveys conveyed in the US, Great Britain, Austria. Surveys show that the group of spiritual but not religious is usually heterogeneous, with unifying feature for them would be not common notion of spirituality, but mostly general distrust of religion. But only a part of them can be called active «bricoleurs», that is, constructs own worldview, using elements of both Eastern and Western religions, as well as New Age and secular sources.

The article examines the role which a discussion around the book of the American philosopher and psychologist W. James «The Varieties of Religious Experience» played in the development of the Russian philosophy and psychology of religion. The author carries out an analytical review of the Russian reception of James’s philosophy and psychology of religion inasmuch as they are connected with the concept of religious experience. The main attention is paid to the reception of the ideas of the American philosopher in the beginning of the 20th century and to its continuation among Russian emigrants. The author presents short summaries of debates concerning James’s ideas in the principal Russian philosophical and theological periodicals: «Questions of Philosophy and Psychology», «Logos», «The Russian Thought», «Theological Review», «Faith and Reason» — and then points out those authors who presented their understanding of the ideas of the American philosopher outside these periodicals. Despite the fact that the reception as a whole had philosophical character (it was mostly representatives of theological academies who were ready to develop the psychology of religion «in James’s spirit»), one can say that in its framework the growth of the psychology of religion as a special field of research was outlined. And what is even more important — there emerged psychologism as a special form of cognitive interest in the field of religious studies. Not only philosophers and psychologists, but theologians as well learned to look on religion as a psychological phenomenon, «experience». And this concept step by step moved forward into the centre of the psychological study of religion as its own specifi c subject.

The paper is the first attempt to consider cultural and historical background of the new scientific direction of Christian psychology in the post-Soviet Russia. It shows the continuity of this trend with the works of the Tsar Russia period, and the connection with the works on the psychology of faith by foreign scientists. The reasons for reviving the interest in the psychological issues of spiritual development and religious outlook are described. Despite the fact that certain ideas and attitudes to the issues mentioned above appeared at the Soviet time, the possibility of the open movement arose only at the decline of Soviet ideology. The interest in the study of personality and individuality was increasing on a par with the issues of man’s inner world, which is unthinkable without spiritual and religious aspects of human mind. The main milestones of Moscow school of Christian psychology development are highlighted: Seminar on Christian Psychology and Anthropology at the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University (1990), Laboratory of Philosophical and Psychological Foundations of Human Development (actually Christian psychology laboratory) at the Psychological Institute of RAS, new specialty «Psychology of Religion» at the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University (early 1990s), the first Russian edition of textbook « Christian Psychology» for high schools (1995), «Chelpanovskye readings» in the Psychological Institute of RAO, which touched on Christian issues. Several departments of the Institute of Educational Innovations RAO start practicing Christian education and psychology. International conferences of the late 1990s - early 2000s on the psychology of religion and the implementation of other facts of the Christian ideas of psychology at educational and practical activities in Russia are mentioned.

The article is aimed at getting familiar with the Western researches of spiritual and religious coping. The main categories, conceptual models and results of the empirical studies in the current research field are overviewed. For the Russian psychological theory this direction of research could serve as an example of a methodologically mature field that could enrich the instruments of studies in the field of psychology of religion and psychology of coping behavior. For the psychological practice it serves as an example of scientifically based look upon the connection between spiritual and religious phenomena and their input in the process of overcoming critical situations. Conclusions are made; future research perspectives and the development of the current field in Russia are discussed.

The paper is dedicated to the analysis of ideas of Dr. Martha Anatolievna Popova, a famous Soviet specialist in religious studies. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that her theoretical ideas in a sense sum up other studies of Soviet researchers in this field. In the article we show that the goals and lines of investigation defined by Dr. Popova are relevant for contemporary researchers as well, and her theoretical and practical academic heritage related to the understanding of foreign studies in the fi eld is very important today. Dr. Popova’s studies on the history of Western psychology of religion are especially interesting because of her analysis of English and American works on psychology of religion and psychoanalytical theories of religion and culture. In the course of our study of Dr. Popova’s ideas, we found out that in her works she defi ned four general aspects of psychology of religion that are closely related to each other. The first of these aspects is the study of psychology of an individual believer, the study of particular groups and the development of methodology related to it. The second aspect is the specification and precise definition of the fundamental terms and concepts of Psychology of Religion. The third aspect is the practical application of results achieved during the first and second stages. These three problems cannot be solved without study of the theoretical ideas of previous researchers in the field of psychology of religion, or, to put it in other words, without the study of the history of psychology of religion, which is the fourth aspect of research in psychology of religion. In the article, we analyze the ideas of Dr. Popova using her works that are not widely known and this can help us to understand her theoretical ideas deeper than before.

This paper provides an analysis of contemporary Russian academic literature on spirituality. The authors single out key features of these texts, especially their approach to defi ning their subject. They formulate major semantic contexts within which spirituality is discussed by sociologists and psychologists, as well as practical implications of the term. The authors compare the academic usage of the term ‘spirituality’ with its usage in everyday language; the comparison is based on a mass survey conducted in 2006. In the literature that served as the material for the present study, we can observe political, cultural and religious aspects of spirituality. It can be viewed as a form of patriotism, as religious worldview, as overcoming the limitations of human nature, as erudition, as a means to fi ght the non-spiritual character of modern society, or as an aspiration towards the ideal. The overall fuzziness of the term is a consequence of its emotional and utopian connotations in the Russian language.

Dwelling on a number of theoretical considerations bearing on the problem of the function of religiosity in personal development, the author specifi es the disciplines related to the study of the problem and formulates working defi nitions of the concepts of development, religiosity and norm. The situation in Russian science today gives priority to psychology of development and religion studies, as the former possesses a serious methodological and methodical basis while the latter, disposing of a unique mass of empiric material, provides broader context for studying religiosity and secures the link between its psychological study and its historical, sociological, henomenological etc. analysis. This approach will also be productive for theology, since psychology can occupy a special place within the system of ecclesiastical sciences as an applied discipline; however, its confessional” character should then fi nd expression not in the search for a religious basis, but in the study of phenomena belonging to the religious milieu. It is also suggested that religiosity should be considered as a ynamic, non-linear process which can be observed here and now and whose direction and specifi c character in the future can be prognosticated, albeit with a certain amount of reservation. Religiosity and development are two interconnected processes in which the person chooses the elements needed in his personal life for the self-regulation of the cognitive, aff ective and behavioral components. For this reason it seems rather diffi cult to determine the function of religiosity in the development of a personality.

The psychological analysis of fanaticism is presented in the article. The fanaticism is considered as a destructive form of faith, such as superstition and prejudice. The differences between the fanaticism and superstition, as well as fanaticism and prejudice, are shown. The psychological preconditions of personality development, which can evoke the formation of fanaticism, are described. The link between the level of psychological health of personality and possibilities of the emerging of fanaticism are outlined.

This article presents a panoramic view of religious publications which appeared in Russia from 2000 to 2013. Aside from monographs and textbooks, publications dealing with religious studies and periodicals were also examined. The material was divided into the following categories: the history and the methodology of religious studies, the philosophy of religion, the sociology of religion, the psychology of religion, and the phenomenology of religion (publications dealing with the history of religion were not taken into account). This bibliographical collection may serve as an important incentive for further analysis of the contemporary content of and perspectives for religious studies as an academic discipline in Russia

The article discusses Pavel Florensky's views on the psychology of religion derived from both the earlier and later works of this author. Florensky's earlier notebooks as well as his letters were likewise examined. Special attention is given to a comparison of the ideas of Florensky and Jung. The author presumes that Florensky made a vast contribution to the development of the study of religion in Russia