Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society

Abstract

RELIGIOUS FAITH HISTORICALLY has held a privileged status in American society, and individuals' religious identities were relatively stable and usually connected through individuals' biographies. In recent times, it has become more common for individuals both to adopt a series of involvements and affiliations that parallel serial occupation, community, and familial careers and to elect degrees of religious involvement (ranging from expression of no religious preference to intense involvement in totalistic religious communities) consistent with other role commitments. It has been these more fluid patterns of religious identification that have made disaffiliation of interest to scholars and churches alike.At least four apparently unrelated recent trends are central to growing scholarly interest in religious affiliation and disaffiliation processes. First, there is evidence that some Americans have been withdrawing from religious involvement. One manifestation of this trend has been a notable increase in the percentage of Americans reporting no religious preference. Should this increase continue and become intergenerational it would, of course, constitute a very significant form of disaffiliation. Another manifestation has been a tendency for youths to abandon religious affiliations upon reaching adulthood. If this pattern is not simply a temporary interruption of religious affiliation, it signals a major decline in American religiosity. If it is an interruption, it emphasizes the serial nature of contemporary religious David G. Bromley is a professor of sociology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. 164Counseling and Values / April 1991 / Vol. 35

Predictors of High-School Dropout Among Ultraorthodox Jewish Youth

“…Although the present study sheds new light on risk and protective factors in explaining high-school dropout among Ultraorthodox Jewish youth, in order to generalize the current study's finding to other religious closed communities, it would be important to investigate the role of conditional regard in other types of closed religious communities as well. Although every community has its own unique characteristic, some characteristics are common to religious communities as a whole, such as the significance of the community to its members, the importance of observing community and religious norms, and sanctions made by the community leaders and the community members when one is violating these norms (Bromley, 1991;Cates and Weber, 2013). We believe that expanding the research in this area would further our understanding of these unique characteristics, especially those related to violation of specific communities' norms.…”

Parents’ Associations, Support Group Interventions and Countering Violent Extremism: An Important Step Forward in Combating Violent Radicalization

“…In criminology, for example, extensive research over decades on the most important biographical factors predicting criminal activities – the so called “Central Eight” – has produced well-established knowledge on the negative effects of social support for crime and kinship ties into criminal milieus (Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith 2006; Mullins 2010). In addition, the importance of pro-social ties for desistance or deradicalization has been confirmed numerous times in various related fields, such as leaving violent youth gangs (for example, Deane, Bracken, and Morrissette 2007; Hastings, Dunbar, and Bania 2011; Huff 1998; Schneider 2001), “ordinary crime” (for example, Meisenhelder 1977; Sampson, Laub, and Wimer 2006; Vigil 1988, 2010), new religious movements (Bromley and Holstein 1991; Jacobs 1987) or terrorism (for example, Bjørgo and Horgan 2009; Fink and Haerne 2008; Horgan 2009).…”

Turning away from terrorism

“…Bushway et al, 2001;Laub & Sampson, 2001) and disaffiliation from NRMs (e.g. Aho, 1988;Bromley, 1991).…”

“…Jacobs's (1987) theory of disaffiliation followed a similar logic, with disaffiliation depicted as a two-step process in which individuals first sever ties to the group and then their emotional bond to the leader. Bromley (1991) likewise suggested disaffiliation is not simply triggered by loss of faith; rather, belief in the doctrine is often retained after individuals leave.…”

“…Lewis & Bromley, 1983;Bromley & Shupe, 1986). In a synthesis of existing research, Bromley (1991) suggested individuals move through a series of stages that largely mirror those in Ebaugh's model. In the disaffection stage, one is confronted with dissatisfaction, which is managed for a period of time through various means, including repression, avoidance, rationalization, and redefinition (Skonovd, 1983).…”