Chapter 2: Recent Research on Deconversion

Abstract

Our book on Deconversion Revisited needs to include a review of extant research with a focus on contributions published after our first book on deconversion (Streib, Hood, Keller, Csöff, Silver, 2009) in which one chapter was also dedicated to the discussion of research before 2009 (for a review of the most recent contributions to deconversion research, see also Streib, 2021). In the last decade, research on religious change and deconversion has increasingly received attention with hundreds of publications that explicitly or implicitly focus on the topic. While explicitly interdisciplinary empirical research on deconversion still remains an exception (Currie, 2016;Gooren, 2016;Rambo & Bauman, 2017), the general appreciation of an interdisciplinary perspective is high. Within this wider context and research activity, our previous book (Streib et al., 2009) has received not only positive and thoughtful reviews (Gooren, 2011;McAdams, 2010;Nica, 2016), but the conceptual considerations about deconversion elaborated in our previous study have been critically discussed or integrated in research projects (see, for example, Fazzino, 2014;Marriott, 2015;Nica, 2019).Compared to the massive research literature on conversion, studies on deconversion are still considerably smaller in number and deconversion research is relatively young: The study of deconversion begins in the 1980s and 1990s. Early studies of deconversion have focused upon defectors from New Religious Movements (NRMs) (Hood, Hill, Spilka, 2018;Streib et al., 2009). Most studies of deconversion have been done by sociologists and psychologists using participant observation or descriptive research strategies. Further, Paloutzian, Rambo, and Richardson's (1999) conclusion about research on conversion appears valid also for research on deconversion before the turn of the century: Most studies are retrospective, cross-sectional, and constitute no systematic program of research. This has changed in the new century and more so in the last decade. Of course, our own research (Streib et al., 2009) has roots in the study of New Religious Movements too but was expanded to include deconversions from all kinds of mainstream religious traditions in the USA and Germany. In the light of this broader conceptual discussion contrasting the term with conversion, deconversion here is understood as a dynamic process that involves movement within the religious field (see Chapter 1 of this volume). Deconversion is a complex and personally consequential process, affecting the individual's morality, belief system, religious experiences, religious 1 Results presented below with reference to GSS and ALLBUS data are our own calculations unless specified otherwise.

A Faithful Journey. Following a Married Couple’s Religious Trajectory over the Adult Lifespan

“…There is extensive literature on people who "deconvert," i.e., who turn away from their religious tradition, and who either find another one or leave the religious field for good (see, for an overview, Steppacher et al 2022;Enstedt et al 2019a;Streib 2021). Enstedt and colleagues state in their introduction to their edited volume that while conversion (i.e., turning toward a new religion) is rather well-researched, the process of deconversion still needs more attention, especially regarding the aspect of what is carried along from one's former denomination, which is a crucial point since " [b]ehaviours rooted in moral codes and religious teachings (especially if they have been adopted at a young age) tend to colour the life of the individual even though he or she has taken a new path" (Enstedt et al 2019b, p. 3).…”