Recent research by Anna Strhan and Rachael Shillitoe on the ‘stickiness of non-religion’ has got me thinking. We have reported the relevant article on Research for RE, and I also talked with Rachael about the findings at Culham St Gabriel’s January 20th In Conversation With event, as well as hearing both Anna and Rachael explain them during INFORM’s January 14th seminar on religious and non-religious transmission. [i] In this blog, I set out the research process and findings, discuss the value of the findings for Religion and Worldviews practice and conclude with a recommendation.
The research takes up the theme that ‘no religion’ is on the rise and aims to discover how this takes place. Previous data show how changes during adulthood matter less than transmission of religion or non-religion down generations: 45% of children raised Christian become non-religious, but 95% of those raised non-religious stay so. [ii] The question is how various influences (e.g., family or school) shape children’s non-religious identities. Anna’s and Rachael’s project gives us detail of this.
Studies were made in three English primary schools, in three different kinds of locality, which vary by the proportion of people identifying as not religious. The research methods were participant observation, paired interviews with children who had answered ‘no’ or ‘not sure’ to a worksheet question ‘do you believe in God?’, and interviews with parents and teachers.
What are the results? Different processes are revealed. Generally, in families, children may be affected by ‘active’ non-religious upbringing and influenced by signs of non-religiousness. Events in school RE and assembly can provoke children who do not yet ascribe an identity to themselves to realise that they are non-religious. Children are not passive in relation to what happens to them at home or school, though; they make decisions about who they are.
At home, or with friends, religion is not much discussed, if ever. Consequently, it is marginal to the children’s culture, and this, together with an absence of family religious practice, is part of what transmits non-religion to them. RE, on the other hand, can contribute to children’s more conscious formation of a non-religious identity. At one of the schools, children were asked to say whether they agreed or disagreed with some statements about forgiveness. They engaged eagerly, and though they had not been asked to state their religious or non-religious identities, discussion was provoked about who was or was not religious. In a lesson about creation stories, a child was moved to say that he believed in parts of Christianity and parts of science: God could have started off the Big Bang.
Children say that as they get older, their ability to make decisions about such matters increases, and that this individual choice is important to them. I wonder whether another of the research findings is related to this ‘individual choice’ one: that non-religion is dissimilar to any form of organised religion. It rejects organised religion’s elements but also its type of element (authoritative scripture, person, or even authority in general).
Is Humanism dissimilar to organised religion in this way? Humanism is internally diverse; but when (it seems to me) it appears as a form of organised non-religious worldview, it might be the easiest form of non-religion to manage, in curriculum terms. Working out how to process the more diffuse, individual expressions of non-religion is harder. If that much was already clear, Anna’s and Rachael’s research has highlighted further subtleties. It is hard to distinguish between subject and object in Religion and Worldviews (the children are part of the world studied). Reflexivity is profoundly present (the children become aware of who they are because they study the world). A further finding is that the 7-13 age range may well be a long process of identity-shaping, suggesting strong potential to interest children in the subject, provided teaching gives scope for personal reflection.
Lastly, I would ask if in envisioning a Religion and Worldviews curriculum, we yet give enough attention to religious and non-religious transmission, a key feature of lived worldview. I sense that Big Ideas is the most promising curriculum development model. Religious and non-religious transmission could be studied under Big Idea 1 (Continuity, Change and Diversity) and Big Idea 3 (The Good Life). The ‘Putting Big Ideas into Practice’ document touches on these possibilities, but they could and probably should be developed much more. [iii]
[i] https://researchforre.reonline.org.uk/research_report/the-stickiness-of-non-religion/ Anna Strhan and Rachael Shillitoe, The Stickiness of Non-Religion? Intergenerational Transmission and the Formation of NonReligious Identities in Childhood. Sociology (2019) 53(6) 1094–1110.
[ii] Linda Woodhead, The rise of ‘no religion’: Towards an explanation. Sociology of Religion (2017) 78(3) 247–262.
[iii] Barbara Wintersgill with Denise Cush and Dave Francis, “Putting Big Ideas into Practice,” online material available at https://www.reonline.org.uk/resources/putting-big-ideas-into-practice-in-religious-education/ downloaded on 7 April 2019.