PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH
A qualitative research on the role of Jewish- and Christian institutions within Dutchparticipation society
Yosha van Droffelaar – 10643788
Master thesis
Sociology: Social Problems and Social Policy
Thesis supervisor: Pamela J. Prickett
Second reader: Drs. Olga Sezneva
University of Amsterdam – 09/07/2018
Word count: 19269
Yosha1995@gmail.com
2
Abstract
This qualitative research focuses on how religious leaders –and participants within Judaism and Christianity understand the role of religious institutions within Dutch participation society. Although the concept of participation society is ambiguous in its nature, it is clear that this policy implementation requires citizens to be more self-sufficient, independent and responsible. It is in this specific policy context that Dutch media outlets indicate a comeback of the church. In this media discourse, religious institutions are seen as becoming increasingly relevant as they are jumping into the ‘gap’ the participation policy leaves behind. This thesis questions to what extent such expectations are realistic, and researches this issue from the point of view of religious leaders- and participants themselves. This thesis shows how the different position of both Judaism and Christianity is visible in their response to the supposed ‘gap’. In addition, it explores to what extent religious institutions function as a substitute to previous state arranged arrangements, and to what extent religious citizens find a soothing to existent uncertainties within their institution in the context of an increasingly secular society. The empirical interview data shows that religious leaders and – participants see their role as being critical, pragmatic and empowering. Respondents emphasize the importance of
religious institutions being critical of governmental language in the participation society and the citizen ideal it creates. Due to their self-evident sense of duty, religious institutions structurally empower vulnerable citizens and take care of people both inside- and outside of their community. The idea of religious institutions jumping into the ‘gap’ the participation policy leaves behind is unrealistic due to various reasons. Religious leaders- and participants refuse to view their institution as an all-decisive element but rather as an important and valuable factor in a bigger whole. They have a pragmatic and realistic approach and actively find ways to safeguard and manifest their religious identity within an increasingly secular and
3
individualized society. On a more profound level, the research sheds light on contradictions within our understanding of citizenship, religion and the public sphere. Although in theory religious institutions would be a suitable vehicle through which religious citizens participate to society and express their active citizenship, reality shows that religious leaders and
participants felt hostility from secular society and perceived their fellow non-religious Dutch citizens as unable to comprehend religiosity. The stark secularism that exists within our society contradicts the prevalent participation ideal in which we expect everyone to contribute, participate and be involved. This research underlines the necessity of a critical reflection on our understanding and appreciation of religiosity within the discourse of active citizenship.
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude for my supervisor Pamela J. Prickett for her guidance, feedback, positive energy and engagement throughout the entire process of this master thesis. I would also like to thank Drs. Olga Sezneva as the second reader, as I am grateful for her valuable comments on this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank the respondents of my research for their valuable time, knowledge and genuine involvement.
5 Contents
Introduction ... 6
1: Theoretical framework ... 10
1.1. The participation society... 10
1.2.. The public, the private, the secular & the religious ... 13
1.3. Religious institutions as mediating structures ... 15
1.4. Religious institutions in action: the United States as an example ... 18
1.5. Religiosity & active citizenship ... 23
1.6. The Dutch context ... 25
1.6.1. Secularization ... 26
1.6.2. Existent empirical research in the Netherlands ... 27
2. Research Design & Methodology ... 32
2.1. Sampling and gathering of data ... 34
2.2. Design of research tools... 37
2.3. Analytical approach ... 39
3. Analysis ... 42
3.1. Taking a critical stance: societal responsibility ... 42
3.2. A realistic approach: coping with religiosity in 2018 ... 47
3.3. Religious institutions as enabling and empowering ... 53
3.4. Religion & the public sphere ... 57
Conclusion ... 63
Appendix: ... 69
6
Introduction
‘’Citizens should expect less help from the government in the participation society. Churches eagerly regain their role as Good Samaritan’’ (Vriesema, 2014a). This was argued in an article by leading Dutch newspaper NRC in September 2014, which was titled ‘’The comeback of the church’’. Newspaper ‘Algemeen Dagblad’ wrote in the same year:
‘’Common ‘Rotterdammers’ desperately look for help in the Paulus church in the centre of Rotterdam, as they have nowhere left to go’’ (Algemeen Dagblad, 2014). Other newspapers such as ‘De Volkskrant’ and ‘De Groene Amsterdammer’ wrote about faith-based
organization ‘Leger des Heils’ and a neighbourhood pastorate filling in crucial gaps in the health care- and social sector (Bolwijn, 2015 ; Keken, 2017). Representatives of a national church community argue in NRC that the ‘gap’ the participation policy leaves behind is a unique chance for churches to be socially relevant again (Vriesema, 2014b). Such statements indicate a remarkable shift in our understanding of religious institutions within the specific context of the participation society. Not only are religious institutions portrayed as an essential determinant in the provision of various welfare services, religious institutions are also understood to be actively making use of the space this participation policy creates by manifesting their agency in the public sphere.
Participation is a buzz word that is present not only in news articles but also in contemporary policy debates and politics. Both right-wing and left-wing politics have embraced the concept, as participation seems to be the vehicle that allows citizens to be both solidary and self-reliant (Uitermark, 2015, p. 58). Especially this solidarity that forms the foundation on which the concept of participation is built seems to be the topic of an
interesting discussion regarding citizenship and the future of civil society. The circumstances in which this specific policy has come to being is that of a withdrawing government, which is
7
said to trigger civil initiative. On the contrary to this policy ideal, reality tells us that in most places, citizens are not participating in the development of such initiatives (ibid.). Existent examples of participation society are quite rare, but one may think of initiatives such as building a neighbourhood restaurant, the establishment of a health care cooperation or an elderly home for people with dementia, or the cooperative purchasing of solar panels (Movisie, 2017). It is clear that these civil initiatives are very diverse (ibid.). Although the ambiguous nature of the concept leaves a lot to the imagination, what is clear is that this participation policy asks a lot of its citizens. It is in the context of this participation development that Dutch media outlets indicate a comeback of the church (Engbersen & Daamen, 2018, pp. 5-6).
But to what extent are such high expectations realistic? It is argued religious institutions function as an adequate thermometer in signalling significant trends within the participation society due to their scope, place in community and societal impact (Haagse Hogeschool, 2015). This raises the question in what ways religious institutions cope with the reality of the participation society and how they understand their role in this context. This research aims to understand the tension that is present between existent expectations of religious institutions in the current policy landscape and their actual capacity and religious identity. To speak in the words of one of the respondents: ‘’Well the church involvement declines, but there still is this expectation existent in society, of churches, that they’ll continue manifesting this
involvement, but if you all walk away how can we accomplish this? So that is the
contradiction in this, the tension’’. This thesis is about religious institutions, their leaders and participants finding innovate ways to express their religious identity within an increasingly secular society. It explores to what extent the current context influences their ambitions, challenges and opportunities.
8
This brings us to the research question of this thesis: ‘How do religious leaders and – participants within religious institutions in Amsterdam understand their role within the participation society?’ This research focuses on institutions within Judaism and Christianity. The research shows how the different position of both of these religions is visible in their response to the supposed ‘gap’ caused by the participation society. On a more abstract level, the research touches upon contradictions and difficulties present within our understanding of citizenship, religion and the public sphere. This also relates to the translation of abstract participation policy on a more tangible and local level. Other relevant questions in this thesis are to what extent religious institutions indeed provide citizens with a substitute to previous arrangements of state subsidized formal institutions, and in what ways citizens find a soothing to existent uncertainties within religious institutions in the context of an increasingly secular world. In addition, it is about the changing needs of religious members and religious
institutions providing them with support and empowerment.
In order to address such questions, a theoretical framework is developed to guide this research. In this framework existent literature on the participation society is discussed, as well as its implications, characteristics and difficulties. As an example of what the societal role of religious institutions could entail empirical research on religious institutions in the United States and their mediating functions is included. In order to address the more profound issues present in this research topic, the theoretical framework contains theories on citizenship, religion and secularity, as well as our understanding of the public and the private. More concretely, findings from existent empirical research on religious institutions within the Netherlands and its participation policy are also discussed. Following the theoretical
framework is the methodology, in which the gathering-, sampling- and analysing of the data is discussed. In the analysis the results of the gathered data are discussed and connected to the theoretical framework. Finally, the conclusion evaluates the empirical findings in relation to
9
the research question as formulated in the introduction. This allows us to understand the findings in a bigger context, as well as its sociological relevance and limitations.
10
1: Theoretical framework
1.1. The participation society
Participation is a buzzword in the Netherlands but one that remains unclear. It makes sense there has been a good amount of academic work done on the topic, discussing important elements such as active citizenship, neoliberal communitarianism (Schinkel & Van Houdt, 2010) and the responsibilization of citizens. The Netherlands is an especially interesting case in this topic, as it is considered as somewhat of a ‘labatory’ in current debates on citizenship (Hurenkamp, Tonkens & Duyvendak, 2011, p. 206). It is seen as one of the most liberal and individualized countries in Europe, and concerns about the lack of moral values and a sense of community are therefore at the heart of Dutch citizenship debates (Ester, Halman & De Moor, 1993, p. 165, SCP 2000, p. 22). The WRR (2003) states that this image of an
over-emancipated nation incites the ongoing public- and political debate on a sense of duty and civic engagement. This idea of ‘’citizenship-to-the-rescue’’ (Hurenkamp et al., 2011, p. 207) is based on two classical understandings of its requirements. It consists of ‘’the reinstatement of a dutiful, communitarian and at the same time national republican idea of citizenship’’ (ibid.). Citizens must recognize their responsibilities and duties, which entails both self-sufficiency and loyalty (ibid.). This conceptualization of citizenship requires citizens to be highly independent while also identifying with the nationstate (ibid.).
Governments’ motive for this policy shift is that it represents a response towards a tendency already present within society itself. Within this perspective, not only are citizens required to do more, it is something they demand themselves (Tonkens, 2014, p. 85). Participation is understood to be the vehicle which allows citizens to be both solidary and self-sufficient (Uitermark, 2015, p. 58). Within scientific literature on this topic five
11
dimensions of the term participation society are prevalent. This includes a vivid civil society, reciprocity, having a say, independence [‘zelfredzaamheid’] and labour. All these dimensions are inherently connected and closely intertwined. It is therefore inaccurate to consider one dimension in particular without taking the other into account as well (Tonkens, 2014, p. 85).
Critics have pointed out that although participation indeed seems a virtuous case, in reality it seems that in lots of areas citizens do not develop civic initiative nor do they participate. It is argued that civil initiatives often originate in already existing hobby clubs, sport clubs, or groups of friends. Therefore, civil initiatives thrive where citizens are used to working together, as such initiatives are considered to be the next ambitious step. This capacity to organise cooperative, collective action is unequally distributed. Some groups and places are more prone to organise than others, and are likewise more able to realise such organisation (Uitermark, 2015, p. 58). Following this line of reasoning, it is argued the participation society inevitably strengthens existent inequalities within different
neighbourhoods and - areas. ‘’Stimulating civic participation is not innocent’’ (Tonkens, 2014, p. 88). While this policy does generate innovative and productive dynamics, it also establishes greater inequality within different neighbourhoods, groups, regions and cities. Active citizens are far from representing the norm (ibid.). Moreover, it is argued the participation society contributes to the reinforcement of a meritocratic society
[‘diplomademocratie’]. Those who are highly educated, and by default possess substantial political power, are given more opportunities to assert themselves in the public sphere and define the political agenda. The democratic deficit in the representation of those who are lower educated is then also strengthened (ibid., p. 89).
Critics have also argued that participation policies instrumentalise citizens and therefore deny their perhaps authentic motivation to volunteer, thus ‘’crowding out their citizenship’’(Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013, p. 416). Others state that participation policies
12
lead citizens to carry out the government’s political agenda, which is said to lead to a de-politicisation (Bruszt & Vedres, 2008, p. 142). The framing of the reform of welfare state and the language that is used is of great importance here. This reform of the welfare state is framed within a discourse of morality, whereas neoliberalism is connected to terms such as cold and calculating. This is interesting, considering that participation policies aiming to increase citizen responsibility are at the base of the neoliberal project (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013, p. 416).
Another fundamental criticism on the rise of participation policies argues that with this policy course, the governmental state cannot force its citizens to commit their leisure time to the support and care for others within their community (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013, p. 416). To guide citizens in making them do what government wants them to do, the concept of ‘feeling rules’ is relevant here (Hochschild, 2012). This relates to the emotional effect of the framing of government policies. The policy is framed in a certain manner that tells citizens that they should voluntary participate in communitarian work. The accompanying feeling rule is then that citizens should feel guilty about not doing so, while they should feel happy or worthy of citizenship when they do (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013, p. 416). Likewise,
empirical research has pointed out that the Dutch participation project has a strong element of ‘responsibility talk’, while the British policy course focuses on ‘empowerment talk’ (ibid., p. 419). While empowerment talk intends to enable citizens and civic organisations,
responsibility talk works through emphasizing the duty of citizens to support and aid their community members (ibid.). In addition, empirical opinion research in the Netherlands has pointed out that conveyed message aimed to place greater responsibility on citizens is not effective, due to its accusing tone (Dekker & Den Ridder, 2011, p. 21). This leads to the argument that the stress on responsibility and feelings of guilt does not correspond with the way in which citizens would like to be approached (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013, p. 424). ‘’In
13
this sense, responsibility talk by Dutch politicians stands the risk of suffering from performative failure: a mismatch between meaning production and its cultural context’’ (ibid.). The dominant discourse of contemporary Dutch citizenship thus emphasizes duties rather than rights, ‘’a code of conduct rather than a status or practice. What prevails is a submissive understanding of citizenship’’ (Hurenkamp et al, 2011, p. 208).
1.2.. The public, the private, the secular & the religious
The implicit understanding of citizenship in the contemporary Western world has been secular. This secular notion of citizenship is associated with a political secularism in which a division between the private and the public is translated in a division between the religious and the secular. Religion is then understood to exist in the private sphere (Calhoun,
Juergensmeyer, VanAntwerpen, 2011, p. 75). Hence, religion has to some extent been rejected from the public sphere (ibid.). Nevertheless, the privatization of religion has also contributed to the establishment of religious communities and minorities which may protect them from the prevailing discourse of secularization (Yuval-Davis, 2011, p. 122). It is clear that the position of religion within the public realm is intrinsically complex. Contemporary religion is apparent in spheres of which it is uncertain if they belong to the public realm, such as online networks, civic society and markets. Furthermore, through personalization,
digitalization and globalization the public domain is rapidly transforming as well (Van de Donk, Jonkers, Kronjee & Plum, 2006, p. 15). In the light of these transitions the imagined divide between the religious and the secular could be challenged (ibid.).
Formerly, the logic behind this aspired absence of religion in the public sphere is that religious diversity is prone to generating conflict and therefore undermining political cohesion (Calhoun, Juergensmeyer, VanAntwerpen, 2011, p. 75). Currently, the concern is
14
understood to be faith or religion in itself. The public realm is then situated within the imagined ideal of rationality. Consequently, religious arguments or ideas do not correspond with this imagined ideal (ibid.). However, this also hinders secularists from understanding religious discourse, which could be perceived as a certain form of exclusion (ibid., p. 76). Besides trends of secularization we are also witnessing trends of desecularization (Parker & Hoon, 2013), which could be seen as somewhat of a comfort to the ever rationalizing tendencies of neo-liberal globalization (Yuval-Davis, 2011, p. 114). Whether religion in the twenty-first century is in transformation or making a supposed ‘comeback’, what is obvious is that this trend has significant implications for the way religion manifests itself in the public domain and our comprehension of this recent discussion (Van de Donk et. Al, 2006, p. 14).
This limited interpretation of what is understood to be a legitimate form of participation within the public realm is especially apparent in Europe’s hesitation or reluctance towards it Muslims citizens (Calhoun, Juergensmeyer, VanAntwerpen, 2011, p. 76). Apart from the fear of Islam being a ‘foreign’ religion in itself, and its supposed
affiliation with terrorism, what is especially problematized is that many Muslim citizens are viewed as very actively religious (ibid., p. 76). ‘’The central tropes of this discourse-
modernity versus tradition; individualism versus the lack thereof; tolerance versus fundamentalism – frame an imagined modern self against an imagined traditional other’’ (Duyvendak, Mepschen & Tonkens, 2010, p. 970). Such unreflective shapes of secularism construct an imprecise image of a universal social order in which the role of religious
organizations and – beliefs is underrated (Calhoun, Juergensmeyer, VanAntwerpen, 2011, p. 76). Moreover, it encourages the conceptualization of cosmopolitism as being some sort of rational, superior liberation from narrow-minded cultures in which religion is salient (ibid.). It should be emphasized that secularism has been implicitly embedded within political theory, ‘’often as though it were simply the absence of religion rather than the presence of a particular
15
way of looking at the world—or, indeed, ideology’’ (ibid.). As argued by Calhoun et al. (2011, p. 76), it is imperative to acknowledge religion as a completely legitimate element of the public sphere. The moral commitments and cultural aspects that characterize religiosity must be viewed as imperative aspect of even the most rational and critical public discourse (ibid.).
1.3. Religious institutions as mediating structures
As argued by Djupe and Grant (2001, p. 303), a reasonable amount of literature has focused on the supposed connection between religious membership and political action. An argument within this perspective is that religious activity has ‘spill-over’ effects within the political realm, due to the similarity in nature of both religious- and political tasks (Peterson, 1992). Contrary to this argument, Djupe and Grant (2001) state that the connection between religious- and political participation is not so straightforward nor natural. Rather, the connection is more intentional, in the sense that a conscious effort to gain political benefits from their activity within the field of religion is necessary (Djupe & Grant, 2001 p. 303). At the same time they argue that ‘’church-gained skills can be and are mobilized into the public sphere on a regular basis when religious adherents see or are made to see the connection’’ (ibid.). This may also be true for other religions outside Christianity. While political participation may touch upon relevant issues in discussing Dutch participation, it does not cover the exact relationship that is central in this research, namely the connection between religious institutions and public- or civic participation.
As with any other institution, religious institutions function in such a way that they regulate, order and make sense of our relationships and activities. It is through the existence of institutions that we live together in a disciplined and cooperative manner (Hertzler, 1948,
16
pp. 2-3). Religious institutions especially, are the product of coincidental ways of history as well as deliberate political efforts (ibid.). Also, they serve as an important factor in the
transmission and conservation of cultural values. The idea that religion has a beneficial role in society at large is not new. A more traditional understanding of religion’s function for society states that it provides mankind with social well-being and fulfilment (ibid. p. 5). It has been said religion has an essential integrative aspect to it. Furthermore, it makes possible the establishment and institutionalization of different social – or cultural groups (ibid., pp. 6-7). Nevertheless, it may be clear that religious leaders throughout history have abused their power to start religious wars, crusades, slavery, persecution and so forth (Chaves, 2005, p. 20).
Religion in contemporary urban life is especially visible when looking at the increasingly diverse nature of urban populations. Within this contemporary neo-liberal context we see that governments are increasingly relying on faith-based organizations and religious institutions to fulfil tasks of social welfare. Knowing this, the institutionalization of religion could be understood as an increasingly important social fact (Torry, 2016, p. IX). To neglect this development then, is to neglect an ‘’increasingly significant reality’’ (ibid.).
Research reveals that numerous work has been done on mediating structures and – institutions. Such work focuses on institutions that mediate between the state and the individual (De Tocqueville, 2003 ; Berger & Neuhaus, 1977; Klimon, 1992). With the exception of research in the US, there has been little academic work written on the mediating functions of religious institutions and faith-based organizations (Torry, 2016, p. XXX). In an attempt to fill this gap, Torry (2016) has written a book on those institutions that mediate between religious institutions and other, secular institutions. As such mediating institutions are becoming increasingly important in our current policy landscape, the research within this field is essential (ibid., p. XXV). Following this, an investigation of those religious
17
institutions that could potentially mediate between the embodiment of their faith and their participatory role in the community proves to be a relevant field of study. Moreover, research shows that current faith-based organizations and religious institutions are more closely intertwined with other institutions than they have been for many years. This is especially the case with regard to local authorities, which increasingly view religious institutions as
associates in the facilitation of social – and individual welfare services (Dinham & Lowndes, 2009) and as fundamental partners in the settlement of social problems (Torry, 2014, p. X ; Berger, 1999, p. 3 ; Davie, 2002 ; Grant et al., 2003 ; Martin, 2005 ; Wuthnow, 2009).
The research of religious institutions – and organizations is also important in the sense that it contributes to opportunities for mutual trust, understanding and respect (Torry, 2016, p. 16). Such research facilitates our understanding of a post-modern society in which trends of secularization and desecularisation are emerging simultaneously (ibid., p. 17). Faith-based organizations often contribute to governmental tasks by providing solutions and assistance in issues that have been neglected, and in the provision of social welfare (ibid., p. 139).
Religious organizations undertake both religious - and mediating activities, in the sense that they serve to practice their faith, as well as connecting its members to its surrounding community (ibid., p. 143). What is evident here is that ‘’states in developed countries are increasingly turning to faith communities as delivery mechanisms for social welfare’’ (ibid., p. 153).
It must be noted here that this capacity of religious organizations must be funded on empirical practice (Chaves, 2005, p. 22). It may be true that religious values and religious leaders preach a certain virtuous citizenship, but this expectation should not lead to the conclusion that this leads people in their daily lives (ibid.). Therefore, the empirical research of religious institutions in relation to such political- and social advantages is extremely valuable. This field of study is necessary to gain a critical understanding and perhaps
18
appreciation of religion’s political – and social impact (ibid.). The empirical research of how religious leaders and participants understand their role within the participation society could contribute to this understanding.
1.4. Religious institutions in action: the United States as an example
Eventhough this research focuses on religious institutions in the Netherlands, religious life in the United States provides us with interesting and necessary examples of how religious institutions have been a benefit to civil society. The United States knows an especially rich tradition of religious institutions supporting, empowering and enabling citizens. Therefore, the literature on this topic could illuminate the various ways in which religious institutions make a structural difference in the lives of many individuals and even more, society as a whole.
Throughout history, religion has played a central role in American society. Today still, it could be argued religion is a crucial factor in the United States (Wuthnow, 2004, p. 5). Comparing to other western countries in Europe, the US still has a relatively high amount of churchgoers, church membership and belief in God (ibid.). It is estimated more than half of the American population is an active member at a local religious congregation (Finke & Stark 1986). Eventhough the vitality of American religion is sometimes understood as ‘’a mile wide but an inch deep’’ (Dinges, 1996, pp. 215-216), this does not dismiss the notion that
Americans have long been seen as a ‘’hyper-religious people’’ (ibid.). It is argued that churches and other places of worship are omnipresent in the United States, as are faith-based organizations and other church-related institutions (ibid.). An estimation states that there are over 350.000 local religious congregations in the United States (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002, p. 9). Therefore, ‘’they are thus the most common and widespread institution in our society’’ (ibid.).
19
Religious institutions function as charitable, health care and social agencies and are meaningful mediating structures in the independent sector of American society (Dinges, 1996, pp. 215-216). The power of these institutions is visible in their long history of mobilizing communities, groups and individuals for various moral causes (ibid.). American
congregations are seen as ‘’unique social institutions that serve as major social service providers’’ (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002, p. 11). More often than not, services that are commonly provided by the public sector in other western countries are provided by congregations in the United States. In this sense, religious institutions can be seen as ‘’vitalizing community units’’ (ibid.). Certain common or prevalent religious elements are said to be of great importance in the development of American institutional life and ‘’still provide a religious dimension for the whole fabric of American life, including the political sphere’’ (Bellah, 1967, p. 42).
The proliferation of these religious institutions was influenced by an official separation between state and church (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002, p. 10). As a result of this disestablishment, American congregations were finding new ways to become a more purposeful and meaningful element in their members’ lives. The result of this development was public involvement – and innovation. Congregations, Jews and Catholics developed services that were aimed at helping newcomers in America (ibid.). During the 19th century Protestants, Jews and Catholics also founded networks of social service organizations that provided various social necessities, in addition to autonomous agencies that emerged in local districts (Dell, 2004, pp. 101-102). The provision of health care is also central to the
importance of religious institutions. Throughout history, religious institutions, - traditions and – people have been concerned with providing health care. The earliest hospitals and clinics we know were located inside mosques, synagogues, churches or part of a monastery (ibid., p. 103). In addition, religious institutions have provided a central role in the caretaking of
20
mentally ill people. Religious facilities in the United States aimed at helping these people date back to the late 1700’s and early 1800’s (ibid., p. 104).
More recently, religious institutions and faith-based organisations are part of a larger debate regarding the future of American civil society (Wuthnow, 2004, pp. 1-2). This debate focuses on concerns about whether American citizens are willing to help and support each other, the role of compassion and trust in public life (ibid.). Within this discussion, religion is increasingly being understood as a means to solving community issues by public officials (ibid.). Literature reveals that ‘’American religion is playing a positive role in addressing the needs of lower-income families and that it is, more broadly, contributing to the strength of civil society’’ (ibid., pp. 2-3). Another ‘benefit’ of religion within civil society is its ability to provide spiritual subsistence, fellowship and to secure the physical – and mental well-being of those in need (Taylor & Chatters, 1988, p. 194). This is central to the concept of pastoral caretaking. Membership of the church is essential in facilitating the bond through which individuals offer acts of support. In addition, empirical evidence states that church members exchange emotional -, spiritual - as well as material assistance with each other. They also provide each other with advise and information and establish various programs aimed at providing food, clothes and the visiting of those who are ill (ibid.). The church is especially eminent in strengthening a positive image of the self, self-esteem and self-worth (ibid.).
The role that American religious institutions play in caretaking is described as ‘’the invisible hand’’ (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002, p. 5). Inspired by Adam Smith’s famous
conceptualization of the invisible hand, Cnaan & Boddie argue that ‘’we were amazed to discover that welfare and social care are also provided by an invisible hand: a caring hand driven by religious gatherings and theologies […] Partly religious, and uniquely American can describe the work of religious congregations in ameliorating the pain, suffering and poverty of millions’’ (ibid., pp. 8-9). Rabbis and ministers commonly work flexible, odd
21
hours, visit at homes and hospitals, and spend a lots of time with people during substantial crises, providing guidance and care in important life transitions such as childbirth, marriage, death and illness (Dell, 2004, pp. 85-86). This caring hand has been invisible not only to the government, but also to most of the public and the media (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002, pp. 8-9).
Furthermore, it is argued that church membership is a ‘’powerful prosocial experience’’ (ibid., p. 11), even more powerful than the content of religious beliefs itself. What is important is that the accompanying group dynamics of belonging to a ‘’moral community’’ (ibid.) causes people to care for each other even more so than one’s individual religious beliefs (ibid.). The authors argue that the remarkable accomplishments of
congregations in the provision of social service have gone unrecognized (ibid., p. 9). ‘’Congregations, made up of compassionate individuals, are now called upon to save the welfare system and to instill values of pride in the hearts of needy Americans, as well as to provide them with both skills and work opportunities’’ (ibid.).
With regard to the elderly community, Tobin, Ellor & Anderson-Ray (1986, p. VII) argue that religious institutions are of great value in ensuring the well-being of this specific group. Their research found that not only do church and synagogue provide solace and spiritual direction, they also facilitate ways to enable the aging population to make
meaningful and active contributions to their community. In this sense, these institutions have certain enabling functions that provide the elderly with a sense of continuity in their lives (ibid.). In addition, religious institutions have an important role in the sense that they establish a caring community, ‘’a commitment to human wholeness and spiritual well-being’’ (ibid., pp. 11-14). The authors state that church and synagogue are specifically accommodated to the needs of both individual and family, ‘’an opportunity to work with and for the elderly in developing programs that fill critical gaps in services’’ (ibid.). Relating to these enabling functions, Warner (1993, p. 1067) confirms that synagogues, mosques, churches and other
22
religious institutions function as ‘’human institutions dedicated to spiritual matters’’ (ibid.) and that they ‘’also inherently have access to the worldly’’ (ibid.). Such institutions combine the material and the symbolic, the structural and the cultural, social networks and a group morality (ibid.). Churches in the United States are able to empower vulnerable groups as they can provide access to social – and financial resources. As such, these institutions have been a legitimate and powerful vehicle of organisation and emancipation (ibid.). ‘’With appropriate complications and qualifications, religion in the United States is and has long been […] structurally adaptable, and empowering’’ (ibid., p. 1074), as argued by Warner.
As stated before, religion is central to the discussion of civic society in the United States. With regard to this discussion, Putnam (2000) argues that we are living in a time of declining civic vitality, civic participation and social capital. In contrary to this statement, others argue that rather than a decline of civic values, we are merely experiencing a reconstruction of civic life and its means of civic participation. Our current time is then understood as a society in which innovative volunteering organizations replace traditional ones. Although present in different forms than previously, it is considered a society in which levels of social capital, volunteering and civic engagement are high (Greeley, 1997 ; Skocpol, 1996; Verba, Schlozman & Brady, 1996). Empirical research by Becker & Dhingra (2001, pp. 318-319) finds that congregations cultivate those strong connections that Wuthnow (1998) argues are essential to a vital civic life. Congregations develop such social ties between their members, which leads to them increasingly participating in volunteering (Becker & Dhingra, 2001, pp. 318-319). In addition, the research finds that congregations build networks both outside and inside of the church, thus challenging the idea that religion in the United States is becoming increasingly privatized (ibid., p. 330). This idea of privatization refers, among other things, to religion’s declining civic and political influence (ibid., p. 318). It is clear that these
23
social institutions are in fact still central in encouraging individuals to volunteer (ibid., p. 330).
1.5. Religiosity & active citizenship
Within the participation discourse, active citizenship requires citizens to make numerous societal contributions (Fuller, Kershaw & Pulkingham, 2008, p. 163) through everyday ‘’acts of citizenship’’ (Isin & Turner, 2007, p. 16). As such, it could be argued that by emphasizing such (informal) acts of citizenship, it creates opportunities for reclaiming recognition and challenging marginalized representations (Fuller, Kershaw & Pulkingham, 2008, p. 163). This may be especially relevant with regard to religious citizens. Despite our dominant
understanding of modern citizenship being secular, religiosity may be an interesting and important vehicle through which religious citizens practice their ‘’acts of citizenship’’ within the active citizenship discourse (unpublished paper, 2018).
Furthermore, empirical research on this connection finds that ‘’the sacrifice, spirit of volunteerism, and altruism involved in organizational citizenship behaviour suggests that citizenship activities may constitute a value-based phenomenon linked to an individual’s religion. The possibility thus exists that below the surface of participation in citizenship activities we might find the undercurrent of the worker’s religious orientations’’ (Gyekye & Salminen, 2008, p. 87). The authors argue that they’ve perceived an authentic drive to
participate within religious citizens, which relates to an evident sense of obligation, dedication and commitment (ibid., p. 91).
Above connection shows we tend to underestimate the need for religion within contemporary society. It is apparent that ‘’religiosity is prevalent in the contemporary world […] that there is a need to acknowledge this religiosity, even in so-called secular
nation-24
states’’ (Parker & Hoon, 2013, p 157). With regard to this, it is crucial to appreciate new forms of belonging for religious citizens within larger structures, and especially to explore ‘’new ways for nation-states to acknowledge and value the religiosity (as well as non-religiosity) of their citizens’’ (ibid.). All in all, it could be argued the potential for religious citizenship within present-day civil societies should be explored further. Such religious citizenship then could be defined as ‘’the citizenship that religious persons can exercise in the civic sphere’’ (ibid., p. 162). Considering the emphasis on duty that is apparent in both
religious values and the active citizenship ideal, this may be particularly interesting in the context of the current participation policy.
Parker & Hoon (2013, p. 162) argue that the increasing functional differentiation and privatization of religion have led to a lack of space for religious citizens to manifest their citizenship within the public sphere. Following this, Western states need to revaluate the position of non-Christian religiosity, religious minority identities and their meaningful symbolic recognition (ibid., pp. 162-163). Such meaningful symbolic recognition involves improving the inclusivity and visibility of religious identities within mainstream discourse.
Despite the importance of such recognition, some issues with the concept of religious citizenship should be mentioned. This conceptualization is related to the discourse of religious tolerance, which is said to produce a certain discursive narrative of the civilized, privileged and secular mainstream versus the irrational, fundamentalist Other (Parker & Hoon, 2013, pp. 162-163). ‘’Tolerance is generally conferred by those who do not require it on those who do’’ (Brown, 2009 p. 186). In this sense, secularism is often understood as the neutral standard, something objective and not worth of mentioning (Parker & Hoon, 2013, p. 163). The conceptualization of tolerance is often appropriated to benefit those in power, which strengthens their power in defining the irrational, barbarous or religious Other (ibid.). This underlines the importance of acknowledging ‘’the potential of tolerance in religious
25
citizenship to become an instrument of power, and we need to pay attention to the process of negotiation and power play between the state and civil society when conceptualizing any kind of religious civic citizenship’’ (ibid.). In sum, while it is evident that tolerance may be
righteous ideal in itself, the presumption that religious elements could be excluded from the seemingly objective public realm is problematic and not sustainable (Calhoun,
Juergensmeyer, VanAntwerpen, 2011, p. 77).
Finally, governments should challenge the imaginative of religion as being threatening or backwards, but rather view it is a meaningful and potential valuable expression of social behaviour and civic engagement (Van de Donk et. Al, 2006, p. 332). Such an awareness should strive for the recognition of the actual presence of religious elements within society, as well as its significance for civic behaviour of citizens and their interaction. Moreover, this involves the realization that continuously diffuse and shifting boundaries between the public sphere and religion are inherent to their relationship. Governmental policies should aspire to stimulate and facilitate contributions to the public domain and – discourse that come from a religious perspective (ibid.).
1.6. The Dutch context
Eventhough the Netherlands is commonly understood as one of the most secularized countries in Europe, religious-based organizations and more general religion have been historically embedded in its structure of welfare provision and culture (Beaumont & Dias, 2008, p. 386). At the base of this historical tradition is the pillarisation: this entailed a variety of services and activities, ranging from trade unions to television – and radio broadcastings, that have been established in the tradition of specific church denominations (Protestant and Catholic). The politically inspired and non- religious pillars, such as the social democrats and liberals, were
26
present for the rest of the Dutch population (ibid.). This historically societal role of churches has been reduced in the context of a rising welfare state (Engbersen & Daamen, 2018, pp. 5-6). With the establishment of extended governmental welfare provisions the diaconal services of churches were replaced with enforceable laws (ibid.). More recently, we are experiencing a decline of this welfare state. The accompanying social infrastructure, once so self-evident, is then weakened or even vanishing. Issues such as taking care of each other, looking after each other, maintaining mutual contact and ‘cosiness’ are increasingly placed into the
responsibility of citizens and their own informal networks (ibid.)
1.6.1. Secularization
Before we can look more closely at this recent development, we have to discuss the place of Dutch secularization in this topic.
While we may still consider Dutch society as a secular society, this conceptualization has been scrutinized in the scientific realm (Van de Donk, Jonkers, Kronjee & Plum, 2006, pp. 29-30). As argued by Jos Becker, who has been responsible for journals published by the Dutch SCP (Social Cultural Planning agency), secularization is outdated (Smolenaars, 2006). Others confirm that today, only a minority still supports the view of an ongoing secularization (Fox, 2005, p. 291). While this conceptualization of an ongoing secularization may indeed be inaccurate, nevertheless it would be misleading to speak of a so-called comeback of religion (Van de Donk et. Al, 2006, p. 32). The use of the word ‘comeback’ implies that we’ve experienced a time where religion has been absent, and that we are now experiencing a rising presence of religion (ibid.). We should question this conceptualization because it obstructs the realization that religion has never really been absent altogether (Casanova, 2004). When moving beyond this binary, it is clear that it is more accurate to speak of a transformation or
27
metamorphosis of religion (Sengers, 2005; Borgman, 2006, p. 34). This discourse of
transformation allows us to comprehend that religion and religious consciousness themselves have changed and developed (Walf, 1983 & 2000). Again, this illustrates why speaking of a comeback of religion is problematic. Not only does this imply that religion has long been absent and has now ‘returned’, it also implies that this long-been-absent religion is still the same now as it was when it allegedly disappeared (Van de Donk et. Al, 2006, pp. 29-30). This represents religion as being a trans-historic and trans-cultural phenomenon, something static and immobile (Asad, 1993, p. 28 ; De Vries, 1999, pp. 1-3). This is not credible nor is it accurate (Van de Donk et. Al, 2006 pp. 29-30). Following this, both the conceptualization of a secularized society and the comeback of religion could be problematized and further
examined in the Dutch context (ibid., p.. 35). Both of these narratives refer to a development much more complex, as will be further discussed in this research. In order to do justice to this complexity, this research takes this notion of the transformation of religion as its point of departure.
1.6.2. Existent empirical research in the Netherlands
An empirical research that was conducted in 2014 by Platform31 in Rotterdam found that churches have important welfare functions and are capable of reaching groups that are often neglected by the formal welfare – and health care sector (Engbersen & Daamen, 2018, p. 12). The study shows that churches and religious organizations often have a direct connection with vulnerable groups and especially with more severe cases among them (ibid., p. 13). The study shows that active church membership is an important source for societal commitment (ibid.). More surprisingly, it also shows that churches are capable of mobilising people who have barely or no connection at all with the church (ibid.). Churches notice the decreasing welfare
28
state and the effect it has on them. It is argued they notice people are increasingly relying on them for material and immaterial help in the context of this welfare state reform. What is important here is that churches are only to some extent able to respond to such changing needs. Not only are they dealing with vulnerable people coping with increasingly complex issues, but also with an increasing lack of manpower (due to their ageing members) and financial resources (ibid.). The research also finds that the worlds of government funded organizations and churches are remarkably separate and that there are few connections between community teams, welfare organizations and religious organizations. It turns out welfare organizations commonly have limited knowledge of societal initiatives taking place in churches and other religious organizations and vice versa (ibid.). Relating to this the study also argues our knowledge on religious institutions is fragmented and prone to being outdated due to changing dynamics within the religious infrastructure (ibid., pp. 13-14). The Rotterdam study concludes with the statement that connections between the religious organizations and official welfare- and health care sector should be strengthened. Especially with regard to the desired participation society it is of great importance to be informed about each other’s activities. While it is necessary that there is a certain distance between government and religious organizations, such a distance should not lead to misunderstandings, indifference or unfamiliarity. Hence, here lies an important task to build bridges and resist outdated images or clichés in our knowledge on religious institutions (ibid. p. 14).
These results are in agreement with previous studies conducted in Amsterdam. In 1994, Oomen & Palm (1994) researched the societal role of churches in the Bijlmer area and found that the local government often has trouble relating to religious organizations. The authors speak of exclusionary cultures and argued that politicians, public officials and welfare workers often have a reluctance towards everything religious due to their secular background (ibid.). The research concludes with the statement that although the local government is aware
29
of the important societal functions of religious organizations, they do not translate such awareness into policy. With regard to policy of religious groups the authors advocate an active attitude which creates space for innovation. Both local government and welfare work should increasingly view religious groups- and organizations as partners in the solution of various societal issues (ibid.).
Very recently, Platform31 conducted an empirical study on the societal role of religious organizations in Amsterdam. The study entails interview data with Christians, Muslims and government officials. The results of this research are in agreement with previous findings in the Rotterdam study, namely that churches and religious organizations fulfil an important societal role and that their impact on society seems to be increasing (Engbersen & Daamen, 2018, p. 38). The authors emphasize that their conclusion should be formulated with caution, considering that the traditional churches are still dealing with a declining member base. While this is true, the authors also conclude with the statement that the societal
significance of religious institutions seems to be increasing. This is due to the decline of the welfare state and the emergence of highly diverse urban societies. Besides the quite recent establishment of various migrant churches, the more traditional churches are innovating as well. Among other things, this innovation refers to the founding of various religious living communities (ibid.).
The authors see an important challenge for the city of Amsterdam in establishing appropriate partnerships between religious organizations and the formal public sector (Engbersen & Daamen, 2018, p. 38). Furthermore, the researchers notice that the local government is increasingly interested in the societal role of religious organizations. Most government officials come from a generation who has struggled to break free from the church in its youth. As a consequence of this, they have become estranged from the church and everything related to this. While church and religion were previously associated with aversion
30
and reluctance rather than curiosity, the study finds this sentiment is shifting. Engbersen & Daamen argue that there is more appreciation and interest in the societal role of churches. This seems to be stimulated by current transitions in the social domain (ibid.). The study also finds that church practices are contrary to the bureaucratic efficiency often present in
professional authorities (ibid., p. 39). Something similar is argued in the work of Noordegraaf (2018, p. 22) who researched the diaconal work of the protestant church in Amsterdam. Noordegraaf argues that churches make us of an empowerment approach which is
communicative rather than instrumental in its nature. Such an approach incorporates people’s life stories and daily struggles, both positive and negative (ibid.). Empowerment then aims to increase people’s strength by involving them in activities that explore their own life
opportunities (ibid., p. 37).
During a seminar that took place in 2015, sociologist Femianne Bredewold argues that active solidarity is the answer to the participation society (De Haagse Hogeschool, 2015, p 4). She continues by stating that religious organizations could play an important role in
facilitating and stimulating such active solidarity (ibid.). Religious organizations often have a certain sense of duty which is embedded in their belief. Especially with regard to this sense of duty, their attention for vulnerability, care taking and life questions, they are likely to be of great importance (ibid.). The discussion also leads to the finding that not only are caregivers overburdened, volunteers in religious organizations are increasingly overburdened as well (ibid., p. 8). Another conclusion is that religious organizations often work together in expansive networks and are open for collaborations with other religious organizations, professional organizations and entrepreneurs (ibid.). Finally, religious organizations have an important signalling function regarding current issues in participation society. Religious organizations seem to be an adequate and important agent in understanding the current state of our participation society due to their scope, place in communities and societal role (ibid., p.
31
1). The seminar ends with the following recommendation regarding religious organizations in participation society: ‘’Focus on fulfilment, active solidarity, give space to those that are marginalized and provide vulnerable citizens with a voice’’ (ibid., p. 8).
These empirical findings give direction to what we may expect in this thesis research. It is clear that the study of religious organizations is especially relevant in the current
participation context. While research on churches and mosques in this contemporary context is quite prevalent, the same cannot be said with regard to synagogues. As the discussed literature shows, the knowledge of Jewish institutions in this participation context is
remarkably absent in empirical research. With regard to earlier statements that it is necessary to be informed about changing dynamics in religious infrastructure, the research on Dutch Jewish institutions proves to be a necessary field of study.
32
2. Research Design & Methodology
This research asks: How do religious leaders and participants understand the role of religious institutions in the participation society? Sub questions in this research will explore: to what extent do these religious institutions provide citizens with a substitute to previous
arrangements of state subsidized institutions, in what ways do citizens find a soothing to these uncertainties within religious institutions in the context of an increasingly secular and
neoliberal society, how religious institutions experience this supposed ‘gap’, in what ways these institutions notice a difference in the needs of their visitors, and what possibilities they see for their faith and institution within this specific societal context. The concept ‘substitute’, as mentioned above, refers to citizens increasingly relying on religious institutions in the context of decreasing government aids. This question then explores to what extent religious institutions may function as an alternative to governmental arrangements. The concept ‘soothing’, also mentioned above, refers to citizens finding solace and support within religious institutions. This refers especially to a neoliberal, rational and secular societal context which places the individual in somewhat of a cold, hardened or uncertain environment.
For this specific research question and sub questions an extensive qualitative approach is necessary. The topic of this research focuses on how individuals and institutionalized (religious) groups give meaning, experience and cope with this societal phenomenon, namely the participation society. The question is about people coping with uncertainty, providing support, may it be more practical or symbolic. It focuses on how institutions and individuals within these institutions deal with the implications of an abstract, governmental policy on a more tangible, local level. In addition, it focuses on how religious institutions may stimulate, obstruct or relate to the active citizenship of their members. In what way do these institutions
33
give meaning to the citizenship of their visitors? Such topics ask for an open, qualitative approach, in which processes of meaning are central. At the heart of qualitative research is the notion that people attribute meaning to their environment (Bryman, 2012, p. 398). These processes of meaning cannot be captured within numbers, closed, predefined categories or predictable trends. A qualitative approach is able to capture the historical structures that are relevant within this specific research topic in which the historical developments of religious institutionalization and - policy are central. In addition, a qualitative approach has a strong emphasis on description and context (ibid., pp. 400-401).
Within the research question, the concept of the participation society will be predefined, making use of extensive literature on this topic. Existent literature on Dutch participation policy and more broadly active citizenship provides this research with a necessary framework. Not only is it necessary to be informed about such content when
conducting research, this literature also makes clear what may be expected from the interview data and which questions and theoretical concepts are relevant. Religious institutions are limited to churches and synagogues. The focus on Judaism and Christianity is because both religions have a rich history of institutionalization within Amsterdam and the Netherlands as a whole. Nevertheless it may be clear that, due to its history, the position of both of these religions is absolutely incomparable. Islam has not been a part of this so-called Jewish-Christian tradition (Wallet, 2012, p. 105). Although Islam would be a very interesting case in this topic as well, it would further complicate the scope of the research by adding issues on migration and especially the discourse of Islamophobia.
The approach of this research is that the respondents themselves will conceptualise the relationship between the two concepts of participation and religion. After all, the research question is how religious leaders and – participations understand their own roll in a bigger context. Respondents were asked about relevant elements in the discourse of participation,
34
such as responsibility, a sense of duty, self-sufficiency and taking care of each other. The focus on this connection reveals how respondents understand the dynamics between citizenship and the duties and functions of their institution and faith. In order to fully
comprehend this connection, the tradition of the respondents’ faith and religious values are of great importance as well. Furthermore, this research aims to understand in what ways these religious institutions may be a valuable factor in recognizing societal trends and -issues and how they understand their own capacity in the supposed ‘gap’.
2.1. Sampling and gathering of data
The research population, in general terms, may consist of anyone who is part of the
organization of a Christian- or Jewish institution within the Amsterdam region. In the city of Amsterdam churches are present in the whole area. Again, in describing the research
population it is obvious that the Christian - and Jewish community in the Netherlands are inherently different in its nature. Due to the Holocaust only a small part of the Jewish community is still existent in the Netherlands today (Croes & Tammes, 2005). Relatively to other cities, Amsterdam has the largest Jewish community in the country. So despite the community being very small, Amsterdam would be the most logical choice in researching the Dutch Jewish community.
With regard to churches, I approached these institutions first via phone, and if this did not work via email. The churches that are part of the research population are located in various areas and neighbourhoods of Amsterdam. Most of the sampled churches have been established a long time ago and have experienced various historical – and societal
developments. One church is relatively new, and was established in 2004. Within the sampled churches different approaches to Christianity are represented. This relates to Protestant-,
35
Reformed-, Catholic-, Old-Catholic - and Lutheran churches. In total I interviewed 10 religious leaders- and participants within Christianity. Among other functions, the sample includes pastors, bishops, ministers, secretaries and deacons. Although there are still a lot more churches in Amsterdam, due to the limited time available for this research a limit of 10 was decided. More importantly, as the goal of this thesis is to research both Judaism and Christianity, it is necessary to keep both samples as even as possible.
With regard to synagogues, I most approached most of these institutions via email. This is because quite often synagogues do not have a phone number shown on their website. Sometimes there is no address provided either. Email is therefore the most obvious means of approach. Due to safety reasons the Jewish community is harder to get in contact with than most churches. Generally speaking, the Jewish community is less accessible and more cautious with the entrance of strangers. Commonly, Jewish institutions have some form of security and are not accessible unless you have an appointment. Again, this is in contrast with churches, which are commonly always open for passers-by or strangers. Such safety issues and especially the fact that the Jewish community is very small, have consequences for the sample size. In total I interviewed 7 religious leaders and – participants within Judaism. Among other functions, the sample includes rabbis, gabbai’s and chairmen. Most of the sampled synagogues are located in the south of Amsterdam, especially in the Buitenveldert area. The sample consists of two liberal synagogues and five orthodox synagogues of which one is specifically modern-orthodox.
In this research I used purposive sampling (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). The purposiveness is visible in the sense that the sampled organizations and respondents are selected because of their relevance in the research question (ibid.). During the interviews with members of synagogues I asked respondents if they know other people within other organizations or the general community that would be interested in an interview. As mentioned earlier, due to
36
safety issues in the Jewish community, this is especially relevant in the Jewish sample. I believe that it is very valuable to make use of the respondent’s network, and in the case of the Jewish community this would be an efficient way to collect respondents. Eventually, only one of my Jewish respondents was found via such snowball sampling (ibid., p. 424). In this case, it was a synagogue I was not able to get in contact with myself, and my respondent reached out for me and established the necessary contact between me and the ‘new’ respondent. This sampling technique ‘’is able simultaneously to capitalize on and reveal the connectedness of individuals in networks’’ (ibid.). Despite the respondents’ efforts, it turns out most of the respondents were not able to provide a ‘new’ respondent in the sample. However, it is clear that all my respondents were interested and curious about which other respondents were part of the research sample and what they had to say. Most of them are familiar with each other, which is especially apparent within the Jewish sample.
When sampling my research population, the guiding principle of this research is that these people do not represent an entire religion, its views or opinions. The respondents are respected as individuals being part of a complex, dynamic community and will not be considered as spokesmen of a self-evident homogeneous entity. I appreciate all of them not only for their participation in my research but especially for their genuine involvement, enthusiasm, interest and valuable knowledge.
37
Table: description of respondents
Respondents’ names Denomination Position in religious institution
Shem Orthodox Judaism Rabbi
Deborah Orthodox Judaism Various
secretary/administrative tasks, in charge of
Mikveh
Dalia Liberal Judaism Various secretary/ administrative tasks
Tirzah Liberal Judaism Rabbi
Isaac Orthodox Judaism Rabbi
Annemijn Protestant Communication adviser Arthur Protestant Project coordinator of
diaconate
Job Roman-Catholic Deacon
Arne Lutheran General secretary of
diaconate
Jaap Protestant Chairperson
neighborhood church counsil
Louis Roman-Catholic Pastor
Dirk Old-Catholic Bishop and pastor
Lex Jesuitical Rector
Sjors Reformed Pastor
Sam Orthodox Judaism Gabbai and Treasurer
Egbert Roman-Catholic Secretary of Caritas in diocese
Aharon Modern orthodox
Judaism
Chairman
2.2. Design of research tools
The empirical data is gathered via semi-structured qualitative interviews. With the exception of three interviews, I conducted all interviews within the religious institute itself, as this allows me as a researcher to experience the atmosphere and energy of these organizations. The interviews were recorded using my phone, and I made notes during the interview itself.
38
The duration of the interview varied between forty minutes and an hour and a half, but most of them were approximately one hour.
The interviews are semi-structured, meaning that they contain predefined questions but are also open for new questions, paths and topics that emerge during the interview itself. This approach to interviewing tends to be flexible, allowing the emphasis of the research to adjust as a result of surprising, significant issues (Bryman, 2012, p. 470). In addition, it is said semi-structured interviews allow the researcher ‘’to gain the research […] wanted without pigeon-holing the response’’ (ibid., p. 471).The interview questions are all open questions (see appendix), so that the respondent is stimulated to give an extensive, meaningful and detailed answer (ibid., p. 470).
As mentioned before, the interview questions are informed by the theoretical
framework. This is especially the case regarding the questions about the participation society. The interview questions are divided in three sections and consisted of twelve questions in total (see appendix). The first part consisted of general descriptive questions, asking about the respondent’s position in the organization and community, the approach of this institution in relation to its faith, the different services and activities they provide and a description of their members. The second part of the interview focuses on the participation society. Respondents were asked about relevant concepts in this context, such as responsibility, taking care of each other, a sense of duty, self-sufficiency and empowerment, social cohesion and support. When respondents were unsure how to apply such concepts examples from previous interviews were mentioned. The last part of the interview focuses on the idea of the gap. During the second question of this part, respondents were presented with a news article by Vriesema (2014b) in which it is stated churches actively make use of the gap the participation society leaves behind. Respondents were then asked to what extent they indeed experience such a
