UC Santa BarbaraUC Santa Barbara Previously Published Works

TitleThe Limits of Religious Indifference

Permalinkhttps://escholarship.org/uc/item/88h6k1bf

AuthorBlankholm, Joseph

Publication Date2016-01-01 Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital LibraryUniversity of California

THELIMITSOFRELIGIOUSINDIFFERENCE

AffiliationandContactInformation:JosephBlankholmAssistantProfessorDepartmentofReligiousStudiesMailCode3130UniversityofCaliforniaSantaBarbara,CA931063130UnitedStateshttp://www.religion.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/joseph-blankholm/blankholm@religion.ucsb.edu+16122268712Keywords:religiousindifference,atheism,secularism,nonbelief,belief,knowledgeproduction,fiction,ethnography,criticaltheory

AbstractThisessayexploresreligiousindifferenceasanexampleofthatwhichstandsbeyondthescopeofsocialscientificknowledgeproduction.Inturn,itusesreligiousindifferencetoconsiderthesocialscientist’sroleinconstitutingthereligion-relatedfield.TheliterarycharacterBartlebyandtheethnographiccharacterGinoprovidetwocasestudiesforexaminingparticulartypesofreligiousindifferencethatcannotbeknowntotheresearcher.Asfictions,theyofferawaytoexplorethatwhichwouldotherwiseremainillegible,andtheyserveashumblingremindersoftheinescapablelimitsofinquiry.Tobetterunderstandtherolethatresearchersplayinconstitutingthereligion-relatedfield,thisessayreliesonotherethnographicexamplestocomparedifferingnotionsof“entanglement”andtheirimplicationsforthestudyofnonbelieversandthenonreligious.Theessayconcludesbyofferingresearchersachoice:topursuereligiousindifferenceortoleaveitalone.

CatchingMyselfEntangled

Oneofthecentralaimsofthisessayistoacknowledgethewaysinwhichmy

fellowresearchersandIparticipateintheconstructionofthereligion-relatedfield

(Quack2011,2014;QuackandSchuh2016–thisvolume).Makingmyselfthefirst

objectofstudyallowsmetopointtowhysocialscientistsfavorcertainmethodsand

Blankholm

2

waysofknowing,andinturn,allowsmetomarkthelimitsofourinquiry.Thisessay

stemsinpartfromtheethnographicresearchIhaveconductedamongorganized

nonbelieversandsecularactivistsintheUnitedStates.Surveyingthelandscapeof

America’snonbelieverorganizations,Ihaveattemptedtoshowwhoisresponsible

formakingtheAmericansecular(Blankholm2015).

WhenIfirstbeganconductingfieldworkamongnonbelieversintheUnited

States,Iwasthemostinformalofparticipantobservers.Livingamongacertainclass

ofyoungpeopleinNewYorkCity,almostanyconversationaboutmyprofessionasa

ReligiousStudiesgraduatestudentbecameadiscussionofreligionanditsoft-

perceivedopposite,atheism.Thankfully,InowhavestockresponsesthatIcanuse

tosteertheconversationawayfromatopicthatmostAmericansconsiderprivate

(Blankholm2010).ThoughIwouldeventuallyfocusmyresearchsolelyonthe

membersandleadersofnonbelieverorganizations,mypreliminaryfieldworkwas

moreexploratory.SeveralofthoseIintervieweddidnotjoingroups,either

intentionally,becausetheyfoundthemtoo“religious,”orwithoutintention,simply

uninterested.Someofthesenon-joinersconsideredthemselvesindifferentto

religion.Itdidnotmattermuchtothem,andtheyfounditstrangethatitwould

mattertome.

Inthoseearlyconversations,mygoalwastocapturehowpeopletalkabout

nonreligionineverydaylife(Bender2003).Lookingovermyfieldnotes,Ifindamix

ofthosewhowantedtodiscussreligionandthosewhodidnot.Accordingtoone

youngwomanwhowasborninChinaandhaslivedintheUnitedStatessinceshe

wasateenager,religionmakesnosensetoherbecauseTaoismisnotreallya

Blankholm

3

religion,andshedoesnotunderstandwhatthetermissupposedtomean(seealso

Fitzgerald2007).Inanotherinteraction,ayoungmantoldmehedoesnotthink

aboutreligionbecauseitisnotveryimportanttohim(seealsoWallis2014,84).

Strugglestonameanddescribeweresopersistentthattheybecamethecentral

questionofmyresearchevenafterIturnedmyfocustononbelievercommunities.

Conversationsoftencenteredontheinadequacyoflabelsfordescribingthevarious

waysinwhichpeopledoordonotbelieve,behave,orbelongreligiously.Thoughin

thoseearlystagesofmyresearchIdidnotaskthoseIspokewithhowtheyidentify

themselves,theyoftenaskedme,ortheyvolunteeredananswer,evenwhenself-

identificationmadethemuncomfortable.Somestruggledtofindtherightwords,asI

sometimesdowhensomeoneasksifIamreligious.Notevenmymostinterested

interlocutorsfounditveryeasytodeclarethemselvesinscribedwithinthebounds

ofaparticularterm.

Whyisitsohardtonameoneself?Perhapsresistancetolabelsorthe

challengeofdescriptionstemsfromavoluntaristdesiretoconstructandselect

one’sownbeliefs(Modern2011).Byrejectinghowtheyfitintoalargerhistoryor

setofinstitutions,thoseeschewingcommonlabelscanreasserttheirindividuality

(Bender2010).Perhapslabelsarealwaysnegotiatedrelationally,andsocial

encountersonlytemporarilyreifyrecognitionoridentity(Day2011).Alistof

optionsoranopen-endedquestionsetsinmotionaprocessofself-identification

thattheresearchercanobserveinthereflexivespeechoftheinformant(Dayand

Lee2014).Ididnotconductenoughinterviewsorparticipantobservationamong

thevaguelyorsomewhatnonreligiousinordertoclaimwithanyauthoritywhy

Blankholm

4

manyofthoseIspokewithfounddescriptionsodifficult.Theirstrugglesandmy

perceptionsofmyownledmetofocusmyresearchonthosewhojoinnonbeliever

communitiesandadoptself-consciousidentities.Thoughorganizednonbelieversdo

notalwaysagreeonlabels,atleasttheynamethemselves.

LeehasconfrontedthechallengesIsoughttoavoidbystudyinghowthose

whoidentifyas“notreligious”or“nonreligious”understand“religious”thingsand

theirrelationshiptothem(2012b;2014;seealsoDay2011).Shehassuggested

termsthatscholarsshouldadoptwhensituatingnonbelieversandthenonreligious

inthecontextofbroadconceptslikesecularism,secularity,andsecularization

(2012a;2014).“Nonreligion,”sheasserts,describes“anythingthatisidentifiedby

howitdiffersfromreligion,”includingNewAtheismandhumanistlife-cyclerituals

(2014,468-9).“Secularity”islinkedto“secularization”andis“aconceptused

analyticallytostudytherelativesignificanceofreligion”(469).Inbrief,“nonreligion”

describespositivemanifestations,affirmations,andavowalsframedin

contradistinctiontoreligion,andsecularitydescribesreligion’snegativedecline,

restriction,ormarginalization.

IhavenotadoptedLee’sdivisionsinmyownworkbecausethelandscapeof

organizednonbeliefintheUnitedStatesincludesavowedlyreligioushumanistswho

arenon-theisticandwhooftenconsiderthemselvessecular.Theseindividualsmight

joinahumanistcommunitylikeanEthicalCultureSocietyoraSocietyfor

HumanisticJudaism—groupsthatconsiderthemselvesreligious,butwhicharealso

membersofnationalorganizationsthatadvocatefornonbelievers,suchasthe

SecularCoalitionforAmericaandOpenlySecular.Describingallnonbelieversas

Blankholm

5

“nonreligious”wouldoverlookthemanyinstancesofsecular/religioushybridityin

theUnitedStatesandaffirmastrongboundarybetweensecularandreligiousthat

hasnotalwaysexistedandthatnotallnonbelieversshare.

Afterconductingsixty-fivein-depth,semi-structuredinterviewswiththe

leadersandactivistswhorunAmerica’smajornonbelieverorganizations,Ichose

“nonbelievers”asanefficaciousumbrellatermtodescribewhattheyhavein

common.SomereligioushumanistsIspokewithhaveobjectedtomyusingthisterm

byarguingthattheyare“believers”whoaffirmhumanismanditsethics.ThoughI

meananellipsisforalongerphrasedescribingthosewhodonotaffirmbeliefin

mostconceptionsofGodorthesupernatural,theyarerighttoobjectbecausethey

belongtoatraditionofnon-theisticreligioushumanismthatismorethanacentury

oldandgrowsoutofacombinationofUnitarianismandAugusteComte’sReligionof

Humanity(Olds1996).Theyhavebeliefsabouttheworldthatonecouldfairlylabel

religiousornonreligious.

Diggingintotheintellectualhistoryofnonbelieversrevealshundredsof

yearsofdebatesoverwhichpracticesandformsoforganizationaretooreligiousor

sufficientlysecular.Thosedebateshavegeneratedmuchofthecommon

nomenclaturethatscholarsadopt,includingtheterms“humanism”and“secularism”

(Blankholm2014andforthcoming).“Nonbelievers,”likeanysingleterm,cannotbe

neutralandisalwaysalreadypartofadiscursiveinheritance(Foucault2002

[1969]).Notevenaneologismlike“brights”isfreefromnegativeconnotations,

despiteitsbeinginventedtoavoidthem(Dennett2006,21).Scholarlytermsareno

lessoverdetermined,evenwhencontextualizedbyrigorousgenealogicalresearch

Blankholm

6

(Asad1993;2003;Day2011).ElsewhereIhavearguedthatAmericanresearchers,

religiousorganizations,andorganizednonbelieversaresodiscursivelyand

institutionallyentangledthatthedistinctionbetweenscholarandobjectofstudyis

moreofanefficaciousfictionthantheproductofwhatBourdieuhascalled

“epistemologicalvigilance”(Blankholm2015,forthcoming;Bourdieu1988[1984],

xiii;seealsoBender2012).

Lee’stermsarisefromherresearchintheBritishcontext,andtheyareno

lessaptthanmine.Sheidentifiesfivewaysinwhichpeopleemploytheterms“not

religious”and“nonreligious”toaffirmmeaningfulstanceswithrespecttoreligion

(2014,469-70).Someusethemassubstitutesforother“nonreligious”labelslike

“atheist”or“humanist,”eitherinterchangeablyorbecausetheywanttouseamore

sociallypoliteplaceholder(470-2).Othersconsiderthemselves“spiritual,”butnot

“religious,”anduse“notreligious”or“nonreligious”toemphasizethatdistinction

(472).Stillothersusethetermstoexpress“engagedindifferentism,”or“non-

nominalism”(472-476).Theengagedindifferent,asopposedtothemorepassively

indifferent,usegenericdescriptorstocommunicatealackof“culturalattachment”

toreligionandtounderscoreitsirrelevance(476).Non-nominalistswanttoavoid

labelsaltogetheranddosoforavarietyofreasons.Bydissectingthegenericlabels

ofthereligiousfield’ssurplus,Leeprovidesaprecisevocabularyofthemarginsand

enablessocialscientiststobetterlocatethelimitsoftheirinquiry.

ANotBeyondtheReligion-RelatedField

Blankholm

7

Intheremainderofthisessay,Iexploreaversionofthe“non-nominal,”

whichasLeeobserves,sometimesoverlapswith“engagedindifferentism”when

indifferenceentailsresistancetobeinginscribedwithinthereligion-relatedfield

(seeQuack2014andQuackandSchuh2016–thisvolume).The“non-nominal”I

examineisdifferentfromLee’s,thoughsimilar.Myappropriationdelimitsa

boundarybeyondwhichscholarlyinquirycannotproceed.InthetwocasestudiesI

consider,theintervieweeretreatsfromorrefusestheresearcher.Fromthe

perspectiveofthesocialscientist,thisformofthenon-nominalisthepurest

specimenof“religiousindifference.”Ifthenon-nominalistdoesnotnameoreven

describeherself,shedefactorefusesthedifferencesthataresearcherasserts.

Despitetheresearcher’sattemptstomaketheresearchsubjectrecognizea

differencebetweenreligionandnonreligion,theentirelyindifferentnon-nominalist

persistsinrecognizingnodifference.Insodoing,thenon-nominalistbecomesa

specialkindofotherfortheresearcher—aselfthatdoesnotresearch.

BorrowingfromTaylor(1993),the“non-nominal”isa“not”ofdenegation,

whichjoinsthedistancebetweennamerandnamed,eticandemic,distinctionand

indifference.Byproddingandpullingatthis“not,”wecannotundoit,thoughwecan

cometounderstandhowitonlytightensmorewhenweattempttodescribethat

whichturnsawayfromthedifferencesourdescriptionsrequire.AsIdemonstratein

thisessay’sfinalsection,recognizingthelimitsofourabilitytoproduceknowledge

helpsusbetterunderstandtheroleplayedbyindifferenceanditsillegibilityin

constitutingthereligion-relatedfield.Itmakesthisfieldmeaningfulbystanding

Blankholm

8

outsideofit.Forifthereligion-relatedfieldcontainedeverything,thenwhyqualify

itwithanadjective?Woulditnotbethefield,intoto?

IneachofthefollowingtwosectionsIpresentabriefstudyofafictional

characterinordertomarkoutthelimitbeyondwhichthenon-nominaliststands.

Duringmyyearsoffieldresearch,numerouspotentialinformantshavedeclinedto

beinterviewed,ignoredmycallsoremails,orevenrefusedtospeaktomeduringa

face-to-faceencounter.ThoughIhavekeptarecordofonlyahandfulofthese

occasions,Icannotgleanmuchfromthem,andIdonotknowwhattheseinformants

mighthavesaidhadwespoken.Inmostofthesecases,Icannotevencalltheirnon-

responsearefusalbecausedoingsoimpliesanintentionalattempttorejectorturn

away.Ofcourse,theirintentionsremainopaque.Despitemydesiretoknowtheir

sincerelyheldbeliefs,Iamleftguessingatthecontentsoftheirprivateminds(see

Keane2007).Tospeakoftheseinformants,Imustinventethnographiccharacters—

fictions—whocanparticipateinmydescriptionsinawaythattheyneveractually

did.Tounderscorethisguessworkandthefictionsitdemands,Inowanalyzetwo

fictionalcharacterswhoappeartorefuseparticipation.

ThefirstcharacterisBartleby,theliteraryinventionofHermanMelvilleand

thetitlecharacterofashortstoryhepublishedin1853(1949).Thesecond

characterisGino,anethnographicinventiondescribedbythesociologistsMichel

CallonandVololonaRabeharisoa(2004).Bychoosingtwoverydifferentsortsof

characters,Iwanttoemphasizethattheyarefictionsnotbecausetheywerenever

oncefleshandblood,butbecausewecannotknowthem.Drawingfromthe

descriptionstheirauthorsprovide,Iwillattempttoelicitfromthemtheirthoughts

Blankholm

9

concerningreligion.ThoughIwillfail—bothbecausetheyarefictionsandbecause

theydonotrespond—Iremaincertainthattheywillrevealmuchaboutthelimits

andnatureofourscholarlyexplorationofthereligion-relatedfield.

Bartleby:Iwouldprefernotto

InMelville’s“Bartleby,theScrivener:AStoryofWall-Street,”anunnamed

elderlylawyerrecallshisexperienceswithamysteriousmanwhomhedescribesas

“oneofthosebeingsofwhomnothingisascertainable,exceptfromtheoriginal

sources”(3).Afteranuptickinbusiness,thelawyerhiresathirdcopyist:Bartleby.

Thoughatfirstheseemslikeamodelemployee,working“silently,palely,

mechanically”totranscribedocumentsdayandnight(16),whenthelawyerasks

himtoproof-checkacopy,Bartlebyrespondswithhissingularrefrain:"Iwould

prefernotto"(18).Asthelawyerbeginstoobservehimmoreclosely,herealizes

thatBartlebyneverleavestheofficeandsubsistssolelyongingercakeshebuys

fromtheerrand-boy.WhenhetestsBartlebybyaskinghimtogotothepostoffice

aroundthecorner,herespondsinhisusualway:“Iwouldprefernotto.”Hethen

asksBartlebyifherefusestogo—“Youwillnot?”—andBartlebyclarifies:“Iprefer

not.”(27).Frustratedatfirst,thelawyereventuallyresignshimselftoBartleby’s

persistentnear-refusal.

StoppingbyhisofficeoneSundaymorningbeforechurch,thelawyerfinds

Bartlebyinside,half-dressed,afterhavingsleptonthecouch.Inanactofsympathy,

heallowshimtostay:“Whatmiserablefriendlessnessandlonelinessarehere

revealed!Hispovertyisgreat;buthissolitude,howhorrible!”(33).Soonafter,

Blankholm

10

Bartlebydeclinestodoanymorecopying,andwhenthelawyerfireshimandtells

himtoleave,heprefersnotto.Thoughhebeginstostandforhoursatatime“in

dead-wallreveries”(35),thelawyeragaingrowsanaffectionforhimandtolerates

hispresenceintheoffice.WhenBartlebybeginstomakevisitorsfeeluncomfortable,

thelawyerworriesforhisreputationandrentsnewofficesinordertoavoid

removinghim.ThenewtenanthasBartlebyarrested,andwhenthelawyervisits

himinjail,hebribesthe“grub-man”(65)tomakesurehereceivesenoughfood.

Despitehisefforts,whenhereturnstothejailtovisitBartlebyafewdayslater,he

findshimcurledupagainstthewallinthejailyard,deadfromstarvationafter

havingpreferrednottoeat.

WithBartleby,the“inscrutablescrivener,”(47)Melvillehascreateda

masterpieceofindifferenceandillegibility.Inhispreferenceto“not,”heisboth

passiveandopaque.Hisapparentwillisstubbornandunresponsivetothedemands

ofothers,andyetheisunimposingandleavesnotracebeyondthememoriesof

thosewhoknewhim.Asascrivener,hemerelycopiesandcreatesnotextofhisown,

butheprefersnottoevenpassivelyventriloquizewhenthelawyeraskshimtoread

aloudtocheckforerrors.Bartlebyneverrevealsanythingabouthispersonalhistory.

Hedoesnotrespondto“commonusage”and“commonsense”(21),andwhenthe

lawyerimploreshim“tobereasonable,”hegivesonlya“mildlycadaverousreply”:

“AtpresentIwouldprefernottobealittlereasonable”(39).The“unaccountable

Bartleby”(53)isbeyondthereachofknowing.

BecausethelawyerresentsthepityhefeelsforBartleby,herefusestoaccept

thatBartlebymightdesiretoremainunreachableornotdesireatall.Hecanonly

Blankholm

11

imaginethatBartlebypossessesasufferinginnerself:“Imightgivealmstohisbody;

buthisbodydidnotpainhim;itwashissoulthatsuffered,andhissoulIcouldnot

reach”(36).Thoughheoffershimmoneyandhelpfindinganewjob,Bartlebynever

accepts.Hehasbeenreducedtothefunctionofamachine,transcribingwithout

thought.Yetheappearstocontinuetowill,howeverpassively,evenagainstwhat

seemtobehisinterests.Thelawyer’sstrangediagnosisgivesinsightintowhatails

Bartleby:“[T]hescrivenerwasthevictimofinnateandincurabledisorder”(36).

Withoutanindefinitearticletoqualifyhisdisorder,Bartlebyisnotthevictimofa

disorder;heisthevictimofdisorderitself.Heprefersnottobeordered.

Ifreadasastoryofreligiousindifference,“Bartleby”anditstitlecharacter’s

seeminglywillfulpassivityrefigurethechallengesfacingsocialscientistsofthe

religion-relatedfield.FiredfromapreviousjobattheDeadLetterOfficeafteranew

bosswashired,Bartlebyresemblesthedemographicsurplusthatsurveyorsface

whenreligiousdefinitionsandperceptionsundergoashift.The“religiously

unaffiliated,”the“nones,”andthe“nonreligious”are“catch-all,residual”categories

(Bullivant2012,104;Pasquale2007)andsymptomsofasurveyinneedofrevision

(HoutandFischer2002,615-16;Day2013,107).Overtime,surveyquestions

becomeincreasinglylikedeadletters.Thosebeingsurveyeddonotacknowledge

themselvesastherecipientsandperhapsdonotevenrecognizethelanguageofthe

sender.Theyreturnthelettersunopened,respondingwithoutanswering.Inreplyto

socialscientists’attemptstomakethemintoobjectsofresearch,potential

respondentsofferonlyamildlycadaverous,“Iprefernotto.”

Blankholm

12

Researchersmightreasonablyask,“Prefernottowhat,exactly?”Theymust

parsereligionintobelief,behavior,andbelonginginordertoisolateanddisentangle

the“nots.”TowhichaspectofreligionwouldBartlebyprefernot?Whatifa

respondentislegiblewithinthesurveyor’scategoriesofbehaviorandbelonging,

butremainsinscrutableonquestionsofbelief?AndlikeBartleby’slawyer,

surveyorspresstheirinquiry:“Youprefernotto,oryouwillnot?”Thetwoverbsare

notthesame,andtheirdifferencematterswhentakingaccount(VoasandLing

2010).Afterdissectingthecontentsofthereligiouslyunaffiliated,thesecular,and

theotherwisereligiouslyindifferent,socialscientistscanreviseandrefinetheir

instrumentsandinterpellatetheiraddresseesmoresuccessfully(Althusser1971).

Theyreceivefewer“nots”inresponsebecausetheyhaveaskedquestionsthatmake

theirrespondentsmorelegible.

Asreligiouslyindifferent,Bartlebyaggravateswithhis“passiveresistance”

(24).His“nots”cannotbedisentangled.Liketheinformantwhorefusesorignores,

hedoesnotofferhispersonalhistory,andheleavesnosecondarytrace.

Researchersareleftinthepositionofthelawyer-narrator,relyingontheavailable

datatoconveywhateverlittletheycan.Researcherswhousemethodsdesignedto

findBartlebyandelicithisresponsearemoresuccessfulinmakingsenseofhim,but

theycannevercapturethatwhichtheydonotelicit(Day2011;Wallis2014).Even

whenproddedwithprecision,Bartlebyprefersnotto.Somesurveyquestionswill

gounanswered,andsomeinformantswillneverrespond.UnaccountableBartleby

loomsinadead-wallreverie.

Blankholm

13

Gino:‘I’amnotthe‘I’thatyouwant‘me’tobe

Inanarticleentitled,“Gino’sLessononHumanity:Genetics,Mutual

EntanglementsandtheSociologist’sRole,”CallonandRabeharisoainterprettheir

experienceinterviewingamanwhosuffersfromlimb-girdlemusculardystrophy

(LGMD)(2004).“Thesociologists,”astheyrefertothemselves,andasIwillreferto

themhereafter,arestudyingtheinfluenceofpatients’organizationsonmedical

researchandseekingfirst-handaccountsfromthoseinvolved(Callonand

Rabeharisoa2008).TheyvisitGinoathishomeontheislandofLaRéunion,a

Frenchcolonyroughly1,000kilometerseastofMadagascar.Gino’sbrother,Léon,is

thecharismaticvice-chairmanoftheRéunionIslandMuscularDystrophy

Association(ARM)andismunicipalcouncilorofavillageinanareacontaining

around30familiesaffectedbyLGMD.AccordingtoLéon,Ginois“prettyunsociable”

and“reallywithdrawn”(2),andthoughLéonhasintroducedthesociologiststo

otherpatients,hehasbeenunabletoconvincehisbrothertomeetthem.

WhentheyfinallydointerviewGino,heisaffable,butquietanddisengaged.

Thesociologistsreport,“Itwasdifficulttogetanythingoutofhimotherthanafew

mumbledandsometimesinaudiblewords”(3).Hismusculardystrophyisnotas

severeasLéon’s,butbadenoughthathewasdismissedfromhisjobasaweldertwo

yearsbefore.Thoughattimesresponsive,hemostlyallowshiswifeorbrotherto

speakforhim,eithernoddingorsmilinginagreement,orgivingnosignalatall.He

onlyjoinstheconversationinthreebriefexchanges,andeachinvolvesarefusal:of

treatmentforhimself,ofparticipationintheARM,andoftestingtoseewhetherhis

Blankholm

14

childrenhavethedisease.Atonepointduringtheconversation,heannouncestono

oneinparticular,“Ilikefootball”(4).

AttemptingtoaccountforGino’sreticentbehaviorandhisthreerefusals,the

sociologistsconstructacharacternamedGino,whomtheybuildaroundthebitsof

informationtheyalreadyhave.LikeBartleby,heis“oneofthosebeingsofwhom

nothingisascertainable,exceptfromtheoriginalsources”(Melville3),andlikethe

lawyer,thesociologistsstruggletomakesenseoftheirencounterwithamysterious

manwho“refusestohearandtounderstand”(CallonandRabeharisoa2004,10).By

narratingthemselvesas“thesociologists”andanalyzing“theinterviewsituationas

amodelofthepublicarenaonareducedscale”(6),they“suggestaninterpretation

thattakesthequestionofsociologicalinterventionismseriously,includingthe

effectsithaswhenitmakesreluctantactorstalkandimposesquestionsonthemin

whichtheyhaveverylittleinterest”(6).TheGinotheycreateandinterpretisnot

merelyrefusingorretreating,butactivelyadoptingawayofbeingthatthe

sociologistsforeclosebyinterviewinghim.Hissilencedoesnotreflect“stupidity”

(10),andhisrefusalofknowledgeisbetterunderstoodasarefusaltoentertheir

arena:“Heisopting,oratleastthatisourassumption,foranotherformofmorality

andintelligence”(15).LikeBartleby,Ginoisa“not,”andthelessonheteachesthe

sociologistsisequallyhelpfulforthestudyofreligiousindifference.

ThesociologistsapplytworelatedconceptstointerpretGino’srefusals:

entanglementandarticulation.“Entanglements”aretheattachmentstopeopleand

thingsthatconstituteaparticularactororobject(16).Gino,astheyimaginehim,

refusestobeentangledinwaysthatwillreshapehimandtransformhismoral

Blankholm

15

obligations.Thetechnicalapplicationofscientificdiscoveries“causesthe

proliferationofnewentitiesthatbringwiththemunexpectedwebsofrelationsand

potentialentanglements”(17;seealsoLatour1999).IfGinoacceptsthatthereare

thingscalled“genes,”thentheirexistencehasimplications.Thegeneticsciencethat

sayshischildrenmightbecarriersofhisdiseasewithoutevermanifesting

symptomscreatesamoralimperativeforhimtochangehisbehaviorbygetting

themtested.Hisacceptanceofgeneticsciencewouldtransformhisontologyand

repositionhisrolewithinit:“Thecollectiveisredistributed,reshaped;the

compassiontakesnewroutesthataremappedbygenetics”(17).Becauseheloves

hischildren,thisscientificknowledgethatGinohaslongavoidedhearing,andwhich

hisbrotherpresentsinfrontofthesociologists,createsanobligation.Fromthe

perspectiveofthosewhoalreadyacceptthisontology,“Eitherheunderstandsand

heismonstrous,orhedoesnotunderstandandisnothingbutanidiot”(18).Rather

thanaffirmtheirvisceralreactions,thesociologistsspeculatethatheisneither.Gino

appearstorefusetoacceptthisnewnetworkofattachmentsandthe

reconfigurationtheydemand.

Theconceptof“articulation”helpsthesociologistsexplainwhyGino’srefusal

ofnewentanglementsmanifestsasmonstrosityorignorance.Likethelawyerasking

afterthesufferingofBartleby’ssoul,theywonderaboutGino’sinnerlifeandthe

sortofwillhemightconceal:“Whydothesociologiststhatwearehavethefeeling

thatGino’shesitantwordsandsilenceareintendedtohidesomethingfromus?Is

therearealGinohidingfromus?”(19).Unlikethelawyer,theyobservethemselves

asking,andtheymaketheirassumptionsanobjectofinquiry.Theyscrutinizetheir

Blankholm

16

beliefthatGinoisasubjectwithprivateandpublicselves,andtheyacknowledge

thattheyhavejudgedhimfornotsummoninghisprivateselftoanswertheir

questionsandsubmithisopinionstopublicdebate.Intheactofinterviewing,they

defactodemandthathearticulatehisthoughtsforpublicpresentation.Because

“thereisnopublicspacethatdoesnotcarrywithitmoralnormativity”(22),he

musteditandaffecthisprivateselfinordertoarticulateit.Thesociologistsarean

“attentiveandsilent”audience,andtheirquestionsimposeanobligationonGinoto

correspondtoboththeirnormsofpublicarticulationandtheirnormsofmoral

judgment.

IfGinoarticulateshisrefusal,heismonstrousbecausehehasbecome

entangledintheontologyofthesociologistsandhisbrother.Hehassubmitted

himselftobecomingonewhoarticulatesaprivateselfinpublicstatements,which

aresubjecttopublicnormsanddebate.Ifherefusestoarticulate,heisignorant,and

inaway,stillmonstrousfromtheperspectiveofthosewhoknowandthusexpect

himtobehavedifferently.ThisisGino’sdoublebind,createdbythedemandthathe

doublehimself.Inthosethreemomentsofparticipation,whicharealsothe

momentsofhisthreerefusals,hebecomesaparticularkindofsubject:an

autonomousin-dividualwhois,ironically,dividedintoprivateandpublic,interior

andexterior(21).Intheinterpretationofthesociologists,Gino’srefusalsarenot

attemptsto“safeguardhisintimacyorprivatelife;”“Whatheisresistingisacertain

wayofsimultaneouslydefiningboththeprivateandthepublicspheres”(13;

emphasisinoriginal).

Blankholm

17

Ginoisthusasortofnon-nominalist.Articulatinghisinterioritywould

reshapehimintoanewkindofsubject,entangledinanewontology.Hisnon-

articulationdeclinesthedifferencesthesociologistsassert.Hecanremainignorant

onlyiftheychoosetoignorehim.Standingattheedge,heisalimitcaseof

indifference;heisa“not”thatcannotbedisentangled:

Intherangeofpossibleformsofencounterings-confrontations,Gino’sinterviewoccupiesasingular,extreme,position.Ginoacceptstheconfrontationbutreducesittoitssimplestexpression.Hissilenceisinterruptedonlybythepainfulconfessionofhiswilltoremainignorant.TheonlypointatwhichheacceptstheformofagencyproposedbyLéoniswhenhesaysthatherefusesit:‘I’don’twanttoknow,whichparadoxicallymeans:‘I’amnotthe‘I’thatyouwant‘me’tobe.(24)

ChastenedbyGino’slesson,thesociologistssuggestanewapproachthatattendsto

“thelimitsandconditionsofsociologicalinquiry”(24).Actorsbeingstudiedcan

refuse,canremainopaque,andcanchoosetheir“mutualentanglement”—all

withoutbeinginterpellatedas“free-willed,autonomousandresponsibleindividual

subject[s]”(6).Hislessonhelpsdescribethelimitapproachedbyscholarsof

religiousindifference.

Inthefollowingtwosections,Iborrowtheconceptsthesociologistsuseto

interpretGinoandapplythemtothestudyofreligiousindifference.Inthefirst,I

discusssomeofmyownethnographiccharactersandintroduceanotherkindof

entanglementdescribedbyBender(2010,5-18)inordertoexaminethesocial

scientist’sroleinconstructingthereligion-relatedfield.Howdosocialscientists

entanglethesubjectsoftheirresearch—andhowareresearchersandthosethey

studyalreadyentangled?Inthesecond,IborrowfromanessaybyBaudrillard

(1985)todemonstratehowasubjectcanperformasanobjectandembraceamore

Blankholm

18

passivekindofindifferencethanthatofGino.Intheessay’sconclusion,Isynthesize

theseexplorationsofentanglementandignorance,andIpresentresearcherswitha

choice.

CaughtintheActofMakingLabels

Sincetheearly2000s,allofthemajornonbelieverorganizationsinthe

UnitedStateshavegrowninmembership,budgets,andstaff.Forexample,duringan

interviewattheirheadquartersinMadison,WisconsininDecemberof2012,oneof

theleadersoftheFreedomFromReligionFoundationtoldmethatthegroup

considersitselftobe“thelargestexpresslyatheistandagnosticorganizationinthe

country.”Theycurrentlyhavearound20,000dues-payingmembers,whichis4

timestheamounttheyhadin2004.Likeothergroups,theirbudgethasgrownin

recentyears,andasofearly2016,theyemploymorethanhalfadozenattorneys.

Largerbudgetsandnewoutreachopportunitiesaffordedbytheinternet(Smithand

Cimino2012)havealsoenabledorganizationstofundinitiativesaimedatgrowing

membershipandencouragingmoreAmericanstoidentifywithlabelslikeatheist,

humanist,andfreethinker(CiminoandSmith2007).

AnumberofscholarshaveobservedthatAmerica’smajornonbeliever

organizationshaveplayedanimportantroleintheprocessofidentityformation

amongnonbelievers(CiminoandSmith2011;J.M.Smith2011,2013;LeDrew2013;

Guenther,Mulligan,andPapp2013;Kettell2014).Forexample,leadersfromthe

SecularCoalitionforAmerica(SCA),themovement’slargestlobbyingorganization,

toldmethatoneoftheirfoundinggoalswastounitegroupsthathadspentthe

Blankholm

19

previousdecadesfightingwithoneanother.Sinceitsfoundingin2002,SCAhas

growntoacoalitionof18organizationsandnowincludesallofthemajorgroupsin

thecountry(Blankholm2014;Guenther,Mulligan,andPapp2013).Theircurrent

president,DavidNiose,istheformerpresidentoftheAmericanHumanist

Association,andhewastheleadattorneyforalawsuitthatchallengedtheinclusion

of“underGod”inthePledgeofAllegiancebyarguingthathumanistsshouldbe

protectedasareligiousminority(Doev.Acton-BoxboroughSchoolDistrict2014).He

isalsoauthorofNonbelieverNation:TheRiseofSecularAmericans,inwhichhe

encouragesnonbelieversto“comeout”bypubliclyclaiminga“secular”identity

(2012).

Niose’sstrategyisnotuniqueamongsecularactivists.In2007,theRichard

DawkinsFoundationforReasonandScience(RDF)startedtheOutCampaign,which

modeleditseffortsonthegayrightsmovement.InApril2014,RDF,SCA,theSecular

StudentAlliance,andtheStiefelFreethoughtFoundationjoinedtogethertofound

OpenlySecular,acoalitionthatalsoencouragesnonbelieverstoadopta“secular”

identityandconsidersgayrightsactivismamodelforitsstrategy.Inthemonths

afteritsfounding,allofAmerica’smajornonbelievergroupssignedonaspartners.

Thoughintheirpublicrhetoric,organizationalleaderssometimescitedata

fromPewandotherpollingorganizationstotrumpettherisingnumbersof“secular”

Americans(Funk,Smith,andLugo2012;Blankholm2014),duringinterviewsand

conversations,theyweremoreguarded.Asoneleadercautionedwhenexplaining

hisorganization’sgoals,“The‘nones’aren’tnecessarilyatheists.”Severaltoldme

thattheyconsiderreligiousdisaffiliationanopportunity,butnotaguarantee.For

Blankholm

20

instance,Marcus,oneoftheleadersoftheHumanistCommunityatHarvard(HCH),

warnedagainstthesimplificationofpollingdata,andhisobservationsareworth

quotingatlength:

IthinkthatthemovementisinaninterestingpositionbecauseIseethistimeasoneofhugepotentialandquitesignificantdanger.We'relookingatademographiclandscapethat'sneverbeenbetterfornonreligiousorganizationsinthiscountry.Moreandmorepeopleareidentifyingasnonreligiousorfunctionallynonreligious.ArecentGalluppoll—GalluporPew,oneofthetwo—saidthat30%ofAmericanswerenonreligiousbyitsreckoning.Notbytheirowndefinition,butbytheirreckoningoftheirbehavior.NotyoungAmericans,allAmericans.That'samassivedemographicshift.Andthosepeople,inmyview,arepotentiallyourpeopleifweworkouthowtoreachthemandactivatethem,energizethem,excitethem.[…]Ithinkthere'sahugeopportunityrightnow,andmyconcerniswe'llmissitbecausewe'llfightwitheachother,whichalwayshappens.Wewon'ttakeseriouslythechallengesofactuallyorganizingpeople.We'lldowhat[theorganization]AmericanAtheiststendstodoandsay,"Oh,30%ofpeopleareatheists!We'redone.We'vewontheculturalwar."It'slike,“Well,that'sabsurd.”Theyalwaysusethefigureswrong.Theyneverusethemwithsufficientnuanceorcare.

Duringthesameinterview,MarcusquoteddirectlyfromPutnamandCampbell’s

AmericanGraceinordertoemphasizetheimportanceofcreating“morallyintense,

nonreligioussocialnetworks”(2010,361).Ihadreadthebooknotlongbeforeour

interview,andIrecognizedthepassageimmediately.TalkingtoMarcusand

listeningtothewaysinwhichheparsedcategoriesandobservedtheirefficacy

remindedmeofmyselfandmyfellowscholars.Intheemergingfieldofsecular

studies,wehavestruggledtofindlabelsanddescriptionsthatbothcapturewhatwe

findinthefieldandresonateproductivelywithscholarlytheoriesandmodels.

MarcusshowedmethatheandIwereentangled,notjustinourdiscourse,butin

ourveryendeavors.

DuringherfieldworkamongspiritualpractitionersinCambridge,

Blankholm

21

Massachusetts,Bender(2010)foundthatscholarswhostudyspiritualityaredeeply

entangledwiththosewhopracticeit(5-18).LikeMarcus,practitionersread

scholarlyresearchandappropriateitstheoriesandtechnicaltermsfortheirown

ends.TheconversationsthatBenderhadwithherinformantstookplaceinashared

discursivespacethatcouldnotbeeasilydividedintoeticandemic.Asaresearcher,

shefoundherself“caught…inawebofrelations”(15).Thismutualentanglement

shapestheconstructionofconceptslike“spirituality,”andBenderurgesscholarsto

includeentanglementsasobjectsoftheirresearch(2012,67).Duringmyfieldwork

amongtheleadersofAmericannonbelieverorganizations,Ialsofoundmyself

frequentlyentangledinthediscursivewebthatIsharewithmyinformants.Caught

togetherinthe“not”ofresearcherandresearched(Taylor1993),weeachplayour

partintheongoingreconstructionoftheAmericansecular.

Forinstance,oneleadernamedGreginvokedAlfredKorzybski’sdictumthat

“themapisnottheterritory”inordertomakeapointaboutlanguagethathe

emphasizedthroughoutourinterview(1958).ThoughhedidnotmentionKorzybski

byname,hisuseoftheanalogywasapt:“I’mnotanatheist,”hetoldme.“It’salittle

presumptuoustosayyou'reanything.Tosayyou'reanythingisn'ttotallytrue.You

getintotheoldWittgensteinianwordgamesagain.WhatdoyoumeanbyGod?Well,

everythingisGod.OK,thenI'llgoforthat.”InGreg’sperspective,wordslike“God”

and“religious”areanalogoustomapsthatrepresentterritory,butwhicharenotthe

territoryitself.Becausenowordcaneverperfectlycircumscribereality,wordsare

alwaysrepresentations,which,likemaps,simplifyinordertoachievecertainends.

JonathanZ.SmithhasmadeasimilarpointusingthesamephrasefromKorzybski

Blankholm

22

(1978).Smithobserves,asGregdoes,thatlifeoftendisruptsthemapthatreligion

(orscience)makesofit,andallmapsstrugglewithincongruity(289-309).When

talkingwithMarcusandwithGreg,Iamthrownbackuponmyowncaughtnessand

becomeawareofourmutualentanglements.IamalsoawareofthelimitsIface

whentryingtocreateareliablemapthatincludeseveryonefromreligious

humaniststoanti-religiousatheists.Isitpossibletocreateamapthatincludesthe

indifferent?

PairingBender’snotionofentanglementswiththatofthesociologists(Callon

andRabeharisoa)refiguresthemutualentanglementsofnonbelieversandthose

whostudythem.Forthesociologists,“entanglement”describesthethings,suchas

genes,thatresearchers,scientists,andotherswithauthoritycreateandproliferate.

Bender’snotionismoregroundedindiscourse,affordinglessontologicalrealityto

the“things”thatresearchersname.Thetwoarecloselyrelated,andtheyboth

denegatethedistinctionbetweeneticandemic(seeTaylor1994,595).The

sociologistsflattenthedistinctionbyviewinghumansubjectsandthingsasactorsin

anetworkofnodesreconstitutedbytheirchangingattachments.Bender“nots”the

distinctionbydemonstratinghowsocialscientistsandthesubjectsoftheirresearch

constitutetheirshareddiscourse,thougheachsidestilldependsonthedistanceand

differencesthatdistinguishthem.Theresearcherneedsanon-selftostudy,andin

thecaseofmyownwork,nonbelieversrelyontheauthorityofscholarstosupport

thewaystheyuselanguage,interpretdata,andmakearguments.Weconstituteeach

otherinbothsamenessanddifference.

Byconcerningthemselveswiththereligion-relatedfield,andespeciallyby

Blankholm

23

dissectingthecategories“notreligious”and“nonreligious”inordertoreviseand

refinesurveyinstruments,socialscientistsproducenewthings,orlabels,which

theyhopewillbetterentanglethosetheystudy.Researchersnavigateacomplicated

webofstatedandtacitentanglements.Thestatedentanglementsaretheidentities

thatindividualsaffirm,evennonreligiousones;thetacitentanglementsarethose

thatresearchersidentifydespitewhattheindividualaffirms.Fromtheflat

perspectiveofthesociologists,theseentanglementsareallequallyrealandequally

constructed,nomatterwhobroughtthemintobeing.FromBender’smore

discursiveperspective,researcherssharetheirlanguagewithnonbelieversandbear

theburdenofconstructingthedistanceanddifferenceneededtomaintainthe

boundarybetweenresearcherandresearched.

Regardlessoftheontologicalrealityoneattributestothethingsthat

researchersproduce,nonbelieversandsocialscientistsresembleoneanotherin

theirattemptstocreatecategoriesthatindividualswillrecognizeasauthentically

representativeoftheirinnerselves(Keane2007)andthusacceptabletoaffirm

publiclyviathemediaofsurveysandinterviews.AsDayhasshown(2011),thisis

notasimpleprocessofmatchingexternalandinternal,butacomplexdialoguethat

occurswithinnetworksofsocialrelations,oftenamongthosewithunequalaccess

topower.Nonbelieversandsocialscientistsarebothengagedinaworld-making

poetics—apoiēsis(Heidegger1977[1954])—buttheydifferintheirentangled

constitutionsbecausetheyareembeddedindifferentprojects.Nonbelieverswho

createnewsub-movementslikethebrightsorAtheism+areexperimentingwith

newcategoriesthattheyhopewillentanglemorepeople.Forthem,thefact/value

Blankholm

24

distinction—the“is”andthe“ought”—isfullyblurredbecausetheywanttomobilize

thosetheyentangleinapurpose-drivensocialmovement(Kettell2014).Theyare

lookingforthemosteffectivelabelforaccomplishingtheiractivistends.Andthough

researchersareostensiblyinvestedinaccuratedescriptionandmustperform

distanceanddifferencefromtheirobjectsofresearch,theymustalsoborrowfrom

thetermsandlabelsoftheirinformantsinordertocreatethefinelytuned

categoriesthataremorelikelytocapturethemandtheirprivatebeliefs(seeLatour

1993).Bartlebyishardtotalkto,butlearningtospeaklikehimisoneapproachto

gettinghimtorespond.

Socialscientistsareentangledinavastinternationalnetworkof

governments,universities,grant-makingfoundations,religiousandnonreligious

organizations,andotheractorsandinstitutionsthatbothsupportandappropriate

theresearchtheyproduce.Becauseoftheroletheyplay,andinordertoaffirmtheir

authority,theymustperformanontologicallyprecariousdistinctionbetweenfacts

andvalues,isandought,de-scriptionandpre-scription(Callon2007).Othernodes

intheirnetworkmakevalues-baseddecisionsinordertofundandotherwise

encouragecertainresearch,andthosewhoreadthatresearchappropriateitfora

varietyofnormativeends.Researchersmustproduceknowledgethatqualifiesas

objectiveaccordingtoagreed-uponstandards,andtheymustattendtothe

distinctionbetweenfactsandnorms.SociologistslikeSmithetal.(2013)andGorski

(2012),havearguedinrecentyearsthatsocialscientistsshouldembracetheirrole

inconstructingvaluesratherthancontinuetoperformthenecessarilyincomplete

actsofseparationthatmakethem“objective.”Putdifferently,theyarguethat

Blankholm

25

scholarsshouldbecomeignoranttothesedistinctionsinordertoaffirmanewkind

ofsociology,asGinoattemptedtoremainignorantinordertoaffirmanotherkindof

humanity.Thisisourentangled“not.”

Opacity,Transparency,andObjects

WiththehelpofBaudrillard,Iwanttodistinguishtheopaqueindifferenceof

BartlebyandGinofromadifferent,moretransparentsort.Inanessayon“the

masses”andpolling(1985),Baudrillarddevelopstwolinesofargument,bothof

whicharehelpfulforthinkingabouttheproblemsofentanglementandarticulation

astheyrelatetothereligiouslyindifferent.Inthefirst,heconsidersthe

consequencesofsuccessfulpolling,whichproduceahighfidelityrepresentationof

themassesfortheirownconsumption.Byrevisingcategorieswithmoreandmore

precision,researchers“overinform”theobjectsoftheirresearchandcreatea

tautologicalcircuit(580):

Throughthisfeedback,thisincessantanticipatedaccounting,thesociallosesitsownscene.Itnolongerenactsitself;ithasnomoretimetoenactitself;itnolongeroccupiesaparticularspace,publicorpolitical;itbecomesconfusedwithitsowncontrolscreen.

Thepollstercanobservechangesinthecompositionofthecategories,butifthe

categoriesthemselvesareperfectlyencompassing,thenthefieldiscomplete,and

themasseshavebeenreducedto“uselesshyperinformationwhichclaimsto

enlightenthem,whenallitdoesisclutterupthespaceoftherepresentableand

annulitselfinasilentequivalence”(580).Ifthecategoriesoftheresearcherandthe

objectofresearchareperfectlyaligned,theycannotproduceanythingotherthan

Blankholm

26

theexpectedresult.Misalignment—unexpectedresults—isthebasicconditionof

novelty.

Highfidelitypollinginwhichrespondentsfitwithresearchers’expectations

isonlypossiblewhenthemass,asBaudrillardalsocallsit,iscomplicit.Hethus

describesa“de-volition”ora“secretstrategy”inwhichthemassdesistsfromits

ownwill(584).ThisisBaudrillard’sperverseinversion:byabnegatingitswill,the

masshasunburdeneditselfofitstranscendence,andforits“greaterpleasure,”ithas

compelledthe“so-calledprivilegedclasses”towardits“secretends”(586).

Embracingpassivity,itnolongerneedstowillitselfandcanconformcompletely.By

playingalongwiththelanguagegameoftheresearcher,theobjectofstudydoesnot

havetodothedifficult,creativeworkofgeneratingaselfforpublicrepresentation.

Theobjectofresearchbecomesentirelyknowable,neverpreferringnotto.Inthe

process,theobjectofthemassbecomesinvisibleinplainsight:itistransparent.

Becausethewillisnormativelyprivileged,themass“isviolentlyreproachedwith

thismarkofstupidityandpassivity”bytheclassestowhichitdelegatesitswill

(586).Itisnotpossibletoknowifthemassismorethanitappearsbecauseit

dumblyoffersnomorethanwhatisexpected.Bybeingfullyknowable,themassis

supposedlyunderstood.Iftheresearcherdoesnotbecometoosuspiciousofits

transparency,themasscanbe,inasense,ignored.

Inasecond,relatedlineofargument,Baudrillardsuggeststhattheinherent

imperfectabilityofpollsmakesthemobjectsof“derisionandplay”(581).Theyare,

forthemasses,akindofspectacleorgame(581),andtheyholdupan“ironicmirror”

thatreflectsboththeirabilitytoinfluencetheoutcomeofthepollandthepoll’s

Blankholm

27

inabilitytoproduceanaccuratesimulation.Tacitly,themassdemandsthe

productionofspectaclesforitsconsumption.Itenliststheresearchertodothework

ofascertainingforitanunderstandingofitself,whichitthenmerelyaffirms.Rather

thanidentifyandpursueitswants,themassdelegatestootherswhotellitwhatto

desire.Themassdoesnot,forinstance,entertainitself,asbothsubjectandobjectof

theverbtoentertain.Itisentertained,passively,therebytaskingtheresearcherwith

itsentertainment.Theresearcherproducesanimageofthemass,astudy,that

supposedlydescribesit,butwhichcanonlyreproduceitsownlogicand

assumptions.Themassenjoysthepleasureofbeingspectatortoitssupposedself

throughtheactofpolling.Thecampaignsencouragingpeopletowrite“JediKnight”

astheirreligioninthelasttwoUKCensusesaresymptomsofthismirrored,ironic

engagement(Voas2014,117-18).Themassappreciatesthesesurveysfortheir

misrecognition.Intheirappearanceoftotalityandthroughtheirderisivesubversion,

surveysremindthemassoftheineffectualityofthestateandtheimperfectabilityof

therepresentativepowersofthemedia.Theresidualofpollingisthefunpart.

InBaudrillard’smodel,BartlebyandGinoarenotobjectsbecausetheyare

notcomplicit.The“object”isakindofindifferencethat“disappears”(583)inafield

becauseitalignsitswillsothoroughlywiththeexpectationsoftheresearcher.Its

legibilityissocompletethatitbecomestransparent;itgoes-alongtoget-along,and

itcamouflagesitselfintheprocess.BartlebyandGinoaredifferent.Non-tautological,

theystandinthegenerativespacebeyondthecircuit,towhichtheresearchermust

alwaysreact.Theystandintheopaquesurplusoftheresearcher’scategories

preciselybecausetheyrefusetoplayalong.Theyarelivingchallenges,butonlyalive

Blankholm

28

asfictionsthattheresearchercreatesinordertounderstandthatwhichremains

uninscribed.Thelawyer-narratorcannotgraspBartleby,sohetellsushisstory.The

sociologistscannotknowGino,sotheycredithimwithaffirminganotherkindof

humanity.Intheseactsofdefactorefusal,BartlebyandGinoaremoreavailablethan

objects,buttheyremaininscrutable.Theyareignorant,andtheyprefertobe

ignored.

PausingforReligiousIndifference

Inthisessay,Ihaveexploredreligiousindifferenceasawaytodelimitthe

religion-relatedfieldandconsidertheroleoftheresearcherinitsconstitution.In

Bartleby,Melvillecreatesaliterarycharacterwhoremainsunaccountable,

“preferringtonot”eventothepointofdeath.WithGino,thesociologistscreatean

ethnographiccharactertoteachusalessonaboutentanglementandarticulation

andexplainwhysomeinformantsshouldbeleftalone.Bender’snotionof

entanglementissomewhatdifferent,focusingonthewaysinwhichresearchersand

thosetheystudycanco-constitutediscourse,assumptions,andaims.Baudrillard

hashelpedtodemonstratethetautologicalcircuitsthatcomplexentanglementscan

produce.Caughtwithintheseloops,researchsubjectsbecometransparentobjects

whoplayalong,unliketherefusingBartlebyandGino.

Takentogether,theseopaque,defactorefusalsandtransparentactsofde-

volitionarethepersistentlyinscrutableartifactsofsocialscientificknowledge

production.Theyarelimitcases—extremesthatareunlikelytofindexactcorrelates

inpractice,thoughanysocialscientistwouldhavetoacknowledgethatnotevery

Blankholm

29

subjectagreestobecomeanobjectofstudyandthusremainsillegible.The

researchedaremorecommonlysomethinginbetween,sometimesaffirmingand

fittingsnuglywithintheresearchers’categoriesandassumptions,andatothertimes

strugglingtotranslatetheirself-understandingsintosomethinglegibleforstudy.

Religiousindifferenceinitsextreme—astherefusaltoacknowledgedifference—

marksthelimitbeyondwhichscholarlyinquiry,withitsneedfordistinctions,

cannotproceed.Italsotantalizesasasourceofnovelty;itofferstheunknown,and

perhaps,theunknowable.

ForgettingforamomentthatBartlebyandGinoarefictions,itcanbe

temptingtoaskwhatmotivatestheirignoranceandtheirseeminglywillfuldesireto

ignoreandtobeignored.Whymustaresearcherquestionthatherinformantshave

wills,thattheyhaveprivateselves,andthatuponrequest,theycouldpresentthese

selvespubliclyforconsumptionasdata?Itcanalsobetemptingtosuggestthatthe

challengesraisedbyreligiousindifferencearesurmountableandmerelyrequire

newcategoriesandrigorousmethodsthatcaninscribemorefullyandcreatebetter,

moreaccuraterepresentationsofthereal.Withintheassumptionsthatprevail

amongsocialscientists,thesearetherightquestionstoask.Andyet,whatIhave

triedtodescribeisamorebasicproblem.Religiousindifferencehasprovidedan

occasionforexploringtheassumptionsrequiredtoproducesocialscientific

knowledge.Thisproductionrequirescomplicityfromitsobjects—namely,thatthey

shouldbesubjectsofacertainsort,whoplayalong,butnottoomuch.Theyshould

giveusalittlebitofsurpriseandinventsomethingnew,butstillremainlegibleor

Blankholm

30

mostlyso.Silentlyloomingovereveryattempttodescribearetheindifferent,

opaque,andoftenignored.

InalecturethatPierreBourdieugaveattheFrenchAssociationforthe

SociologyofReligioninParisinDecemberof1982,hewarnedthoseinattendance

oftheneedtoseparatethemselvesfromthatwhichtheystudy:thereligiousfield

(Bourdieu2010).“[I]tisforeachsociologisttoask,”hetoldthem,“intheinterestof

theirownresearch,whenhespeaksaboutreligion,whetherhewantstounderstand

thestrugglesinwhichreligiousthingsareatstake,ortotakepartinthesestruggles”

(2).Thosewithaninterestinthereligiousfieldbelongtoit:“Interest,”accordingto

Bourdieu,“initstruesense,iswhatisimportanttome,whatmakesdifferencesfor

me(whichdonotexistforanindifferentobserverbecauseitisallthesametohim)”

(3).Ascientificsociologyofreligion—anobjectivesociology—requiresindifference

toreligion.Further,thisindifferencecannotbeanunstudiedone;itmustarisefrom

intention,asanaffectedstate,effectingan“epistemologicalbreak,[which]works

throughasocialbreak,whichitselfsupposesa(painful)objectivationofbondsand

attachments”(6).Evenseveringsocialtiesmightbeinsufficientbecause“words

borrowedfromreligiouslanguage”couldprovideanunconsciousvehiclefor

religiousassumptions.1Ascientificsociologyofreligioncanonlybeproducedbya

sociologistwhohasgonethroughaprocessofself-“objectivation,”severingher

relationshiptothereligiousfieldbyassuringthatitmakesnodifference.Religious

indifferenceisaspecialkindofindifferencebecause“religion”sooftenstandsinfor

“norms.”Interestinitisantitheticalto“objectivation.”

1Ibid.

Blankholm

31

This,too,shouldgiveuspause.Ifitisallthesametotheobserver,thenwhy

nameathingreligion?Wereturnagaintothisquestionofthefield,qualifiedbyan

adjectiveorintoto.Whatmakesthereligiousfieldreligiousifthereisnodifference,

andwhydoestheresearcherwanttoinscribecertainthingswithinitwhileleaving

otherthingsoutside?Thesamecouldandshouldbesaidofthereligion-relatedfield.

Ifindifferenceisreallytheaimofthesocialscientistofreligion,thenweoughtto

considerwhyitisthatwearesoconcernedwithinterpellatingsubjectsofresearch

andputtingthemintorelationwithreligion.Whatdifferencedoesitmaketous?

Doesitreallymakenone?Theproductionofsocialscientificknowledgerequires

fictions:characterslikeBartlebyandGino,ofcourse,butalsothefictional

distinctionsbetweenprivateandpublic,emicandetic,andfactsandnorms.

Whenpairedasaphrase,religiousandindifferencebecomeaterse,eloquent

reminderofboththetransparencyofentanglementandtheopacityofignorance.

Objectsweengageagreetobecomesubjectsforourstudiessothatwecanmake

themobjectsoncemoreandaggregatetheminnarrativesthatapparentlyhaveno

interestinthereligiousorreligion-relatedfields.Thoseobjectswhodonotagree,

weexclude,andtheyremainillegibleandunknown,insignificantbydefinition

becausetheyhavefailedtosignifyandwehavebeenunabletorelaytheirsignals.

Outliers,inscrutablescriveners,unaccountableBartlebys,theyarenottheI’sthat

wewishthemtobe,sowecontinueonwithoutthem,asiftheydonotexist.

Religiousindifferenceistheever-retreatinglimitbeyondinquiry.Asweimprove

ourmethodsandentangletheindifferentinthereligion-relatedfield,theyareno

longerindifferent,havingbeenbroughtintorelationwithreligionandaskedto

Blankholm

32

recognizethedifferencesthatwealsorecognize(apparentlydespiteour

indifference).

Religiousindifferenceisthusachallengetothescholarbecauseitasksherto

reflectonheraims.Ifreligiousindifferenceisathreattotheexpansionofthe

religiousorreligion-relatedfields,thenthescholarmustshinelightonthisdarkness.

Ifitisafragileoutsidedeservingofprotection,thenthescholarmustignoreitand

stopproducingdescriptionsthatdemanditsparticipationandaccountforitinan

ever-wideningfield—nolongerreligious,butalwaysstandinginrelation.Herewe

areattheheartofthething.Religiousindifferencedemandsofusthatweaskwhat

itiswearedoing,whywearedoingit,andwhatwillbedifferentoncewehavedone

it.Itisafictionthatthrustsusbackuponourfictions,callsourattentiontoour

entanglements,anddelimitstheboundaryofourinquiries.Itstandsoutside,daring

ustopursueitorignoreit.Doweinscribeit,ordoweallowittoremainindifferent?

Regardlessofwhetherwegivechase,weoughttopauseforamomenttowonder

whatweintendtodowithreligiousindifferenceoncewecatchit.Weshouldalso

worrymorethanalittleaboutwhatmighthappenifitcatchesus.

REFERENCES

Althusser,Louis.1971.IdeologyandIdeologicalStateApparatuses(NotestowardsanInvestigation).InLeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays.TranslatedbyBenBrewster,127-186.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.

Asad,Talal.1993.GenealogiesofReligion.Baltimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversity

Press.———.2003.FormationsoftheSecular.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Blankholm

33

Baudrillard,Jean.1985.TheMasses:TheImplosionoftheSocialintheMedia.TranslatedbyMarieMaclean.NewLiteraryHistory16:3(Spring1985):577-89.

Bender,Courtney.2003.Heaven’sKitchen:LivingReligionatGod’sLoveWeDeliver.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.———.2010.TheNewMetaphysicals:SpiritualityandtheAmericanReligious

Imagination.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.———.2012.ThingsinTheirEntanglements.InThePost-SecularinQuestion,edited

byPhilipS.Gorski,DavidKyumanKim,JohnTorpey,andJonathanVanAntwerpen,43-76.NewYork:NYUPress.

Blankholm,Joseph.’IStudyReligion,’or:HowtoStartanAwkwardConversation.The

ImmanentFrame,June15,2010.AccessedOctober21,2014.http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/06/15/i-study-religion-or-how-to-start-an-awkward-conversation/,

———.2014.ThePoliticalAdvantagesofaPolysemousSecular.JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion53:4(December2014):forthcoming.

———.2015.MakingtheAmericanSecular:AnEthnographicStudyofOrganizedNonbelieversandSecularActivistsintheUnitedStates.”PhDdiss.,ColumbiaUniversity.

———.Forthcoming.Secularism,Humanism,andSecularHumanism:TermsandInstitutions.InTheOxfordHandbookofSecularism,editedbyPhilZuckermanandJohnShook.NewYork:Oxford.

Bourdieu,Pierre.1988.HomoAcademicus.TranslatedbyPeterCollier.Stanford,CA:

StanfordUniversityPress.———.2010.SociologistsofBeliefandBeliefsofSociologists.Translatedby

VéroniqueAltglasandMatthewWood.NordicJournalofReligionandSociety23(1):1-7.

Bullivant,Stephen.2012.NotsoIndifferentAfterAll?Self-ConsciousAtheismandtheSecularisationThesis.ApproachingReligion2(1):100-106.

Callon,MichelandVololonaRabeharisoa.2004.Gino’sLessononHumanity:Genetics,

MutualEntanglements,andtheSociologist’sRole.EconomyandSociety33(1):1-27.

———.2008.TheGrowingEngagementofEmergentConcernedGroupsinPoliticalandEconomicLife:LessonsfromtheFrenchAssociationofNeuromuscularDiseasePatients.Science,Technology,andHumanValues33(2):230-261.

Cimino,Richard,andChristopherSmith.2007.SecularHumanismandAtheism

BeyondProgressiveSecularism.SociologyofReligion68(4):407–24.———.2011.TheNewAtheismandtheFormationoftheImaginedSecularist

Community.JournalofMediaandReligion10(1):24–38.

Blankholm

34

Day,Abby.2011.BelievinginBelonging:BeliefandSocialIdentityintheModernWorld.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Day,Abby.2013.Yes,butNotintheNorth:NuancesinReligionandLanguage

Cultures.StudiesinEthnicityandNationalism13(1):105-108.Day,AbbyandLoisLee.2014.MakingSenseofSurveysandCensuses:Issuesin

ReligiousSelf-identification.Religion44(3):345-356.Dennett,Daniel.2006.BreakingtheSpell:ReligionasaNaturalPhenomenon.New

York:Penguin.Derrida,Jacques.1982.MarginsofPhilosophy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.DoevActonBoxboroughReligionSchoolDistrict.468Mass.64.8N.E.3d737.2014

Mass.LEXIS300.LexisNexisAcademic.AccessedOctober14,2014.Fitzgerald,Timothy.2007.DiscourseonCivilityandBarbarity:ACriticalHistoryof

ReligionandRelatedCategories.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Foucault,Michel.2002.ArchaeologyofKnowledge.TranslatedbyA.M.SheridanSmith.

NewYork:Routledge.Funk,Cary,GregSmith,andLuisLugo.2012.“Nones”ontheRise:One-in-FiveAdults

HaveNoReligiousAffiliation.Washington,D.C.:PewResearchCenter’sForumonReligion&PublicLife.RetrievedNovember24,2012(http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Unaffiliated/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf).

Gorski,PhilipS.2012.RecoveredGoods:DurkheimianSociologyasVirtueEthics.In

ThePost-SecularinQuestion,editedbyPhilipS.,DavidKyumanKim,JohnTorpey,andJonathanVanAntwerpen,77-104.NewYork:NYUPress.

Guenther,KatjaM.,KerryMulligan,andCameronPapp.2013.FromtheOutsideIn:

CrossingBoundariestoBuildCollectiveIdentityintheNewAtheistMovement.SocialProblems60(4):457–75.

Heidegger,Martin.1977.TheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays.

TranslatedbyWilliamLovitt,3-35.GarlandPublishing,Inc.:NewYork.Hout,Michael,andClaudeS.Fischer.2002.WhyMoreAmericansHaveNoReligious

Preference:PoliticsandGenerations.AmericanSociologicalReview67(2):165.

Keane,Webb.2007.ChristianModerns:FreedomandFetishintheMissionEncounter.

Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Blankholm

35

Kettell,Steven.2014.DividedWeStand:ThePoliticsoftheAtheistMovementinthe

UnitedStates.JournalofContemporaryReligion29(3):377-391.Korzybski,Alfred.1958.ANon-AristotelianSystemandItsNecessityforRigourin

MathematicsandPhysics.ScienceandSanity,747-761.Brooklyn:InstituteofGeneralSemantics.

Latour,Bruno.1993.WeHaveNeverBeenModern.TranslatedbyCatherinePorter.

Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.———.1999Pandora’sHope:EssaysontheRealityofScienceStudies.Cambridge,MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.Lee,Lois.2012a.ResearchNote:TalkingaboutaRevolution:Terminologyforthe

NewFieldofNon-religionStudies.JournalofContemporaryReligion27(1):129-139.

———.2012b.BeingSecular:TowardsSeparateSociologiesofSecularity,NonreligionandEpistemologicalCulture.UnexaminedPhDthesis.Univ.ofCambridge.

———.2014.SecularorNonreligious?InvestigatingandInterpretingGeneric‘NotReligious’CategoriesandPopulations.Religion44(3):466-482.

LeDrew,Stephen.2013.DiscoveringAtheism:HeterogeneityinTrajectoriesto

AtheistIdentityandActivism.SociologyofReligion74(4):431-453.HermanMelville.1949.Bartleby,theScrivener:AStoryofWall-Street.InThe

CompleteStoriesofHermanMelville,editedbyJayLeyda,3-47.NewYork:RandomHouse.

Modern,JohnLardas.2011.SecularisminAntebellumAmerica.Chicago:Universityof

ChicagoPress.Niose,David.2012.NonbelieverNation:TheRiseofSecularAmericans.NewYork:

PalgraveMacmillan.Olds,Mason.1996.AmericanReligiousHumanism,Reviseded.Minneapolis:

FellowshipofReligiousHumanists.

Pasquale,FrankL.2007.EmpiricalStudyandNeglectofUnbeliefandIrreligion.InTheNewEncyclopediaofUnbelief,editedbyTomFlynn,760–766.Amherst,NY:PrometheusBooks.

Putnam,RobertD.andDavidE.Campbell.2010.AmericanGrace:HowReligion

DividesandUnitesUs.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.

Blankholm

36

Quack,Johannes.2011.DisenchantingIndia:OrganizedRationalismandCriticismofReligioninIndia.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

———.2014.OutlineofaRelationalApproachto‘Nonreligion.’MethodandTheoryintheStudyofReligion26:439-469.

Smith,Christian,BrandonVaidyanathan,NancyTatomAmmerman,JoséCasanova,

HilaryDavidson,ElaineHowardEcklund,JohnH.Evans,PhilipS.Gorski,MaryEllenKonieczny,JasonA.Springs,JennyTrinitapoli,andMeredithWhitnah.2013.RoundtableontheSociologyofReligion:Twenty-ThreeThesesontheStatusofReligioninAmericanSociology.JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion81(4):903-938.

Smith,ChristopherandRichardCimino.2012.AtheismsUnbound:TheRoleofthe

NewMediaintheFormationofaSecularistIdentity.SecularismandNonreligion1(1):17–31.

Smith,JesseM.2011.BecominganAtheistinAmerica:ConstructingIdentityand

MeaningfromtheRejectionofTheism.SociologyofReligion72(2):215–37.———.2013.CreatingaGodlessCommunity:TheCollectiveIdentityWorkof

ContemporaryAmericanAtheists.JournalfortheScientificStudyofReligion52(1):80–99.

Smith,JonathanZ.1978.MapisNotTerritory.InMapisNotTerritory:Studiesinthe

HistoryofReligions,289-398.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1978.TaylorCharles.2007.ASecularAge.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Taylor,MarkC.Nots.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1993.———.1994.DenegatingGod.CriticalInquiry20(4):592-610.Voas,David,andRodneyLing.2010.ReligioninBritainandtheUnitedStates.In

BritishSocialAttitudes:the26thReport,editedbyA.Park,J.Curtice,K.Thomson,M.Phillips,E.Clery,andS.Butt,65-87.London:Sage.

Voas,David.Afterword:SomeReflectionsonNumbersintheStudyofReligion.

Diskus16(2):116-124.Wallis,Simeon.Ticking‘NoReligion’:ACaseStudyAmongst“YoungNones.”Diskus

16(2):70-87.