Page 294 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

Conclusion: what is produced? 283

themselves in religious, spiritual, and social terms. The underlying logic of
this tends to be one of fitting these resources, symbols, claims, and values
into the broader context of a common culture to which they wish to relate
on some level. This aspired involvement is, of course, differentially realized
“on the ground,” in lived lives. Many of those we’ve interviewed seem to
inhabit particular locations, often defined by their religious and spiritual
ideas and commitments. There are two troubling questions that deserve
further exploration but are beyond the scope of this study.
The first of these unresolved questions is the one raised by the ongoing
scholarly and public discourse concerning “social capital” and participa-
tion in civil society including the whole question of civic engagement. For
our interviewees, it does seem that the media continue to present a broader
“common” context of ideas and values to which they must on some level
relate. To the extent that they are living in disparate communities of
commitment, as we noted above, what are the possibilities for them to
engage in that broader context socially and politically, rather than to
orient primarily to their “group”? This has large and profound implica-
tions for democracy and democratic participation in an era marked – as
we noted in Chapter 9 – by increasing interactions between media, reli-
gion, and politics.
The second unresolved question is related to the first, but is somewhat
more esoteric, rooted as it is in ongoing debates in social theory. It is the
persistent question of whether what seems to be (and is subjectively taken
to be) “empowerment” of these individuals to make sense of their own
lives and take autonomous control over the way that they integrate ideas
of religion, spirituality, culture, and values is, in fact, “empowering.” It
could be, as many have argued, that practices of audience meaning-making
in the media age are, on a fundamental level, a chimera. The resources,
16
after all, are derived from a media culture that operates under its own
logics, is economically situated in such a way that it must continue to
ensure its own legitimacy, and has therefore evolved into a context of
content and audience practice that establishes a sense of autonomy and
empowerment, but within a very narrow range of options for action in the
social sphere as a consequence.
The evidence from our explorations to address each of these residual
concerns is mixed. Many of our interviewees seemed to move from
meaning to action in their interactions with media culture. Many also
engaged at a broader social level to bring their ideas and values to the fore
in community and civic contexts. At the same time, many did neither of
these things. In many of the latter cases, there were concrete social and
economic reasons for their “retreat” from civic engagement and action.
One learning from the kinds of field research we’ve seen here is the
complex nature of contemporary life with its competing conditions,
demands, and pressures. There is little evidence here that the media are