Page 92 - Religion in the Media Age Media, Religion & Culture

Media and religion in transition 81

by Giddens. They are reflexive, self-conscious, and very much about
perfection, but they are also – more significantly – protean in that their
adaptability is both a characteristic that defines them and a self-conscious
or reflexive self-assessment.
We might argue that this group would also be the central category with
reference to religious exploration and meaning-making in media culture.
If, as we have been arguing, media culture might come to function as an
alternative to traditional religion in important ways, this would be the
group we would expect to be most actively involved. In fact, there is a
great deal of evidence of media culture moving in this direction. Many of
the recent waves of spiritually oriented entertainment television programs
have explored spiritualities such as those of most interest to these
“seekers.” The ensuing criticisms from conservative religious circles would
make such programs additionally salient for this group. And, the fact that
such resources are available in an open marketplace outside the control of
traditional institutions or authorities would also make them more attrac-
tive and salient.
Commodified media culture also provides a range of resources to these
various sensibilities in the new media and specialized “niche” media such
as magazine publishing. What remains to be seen is whether the provision
of material connects with these sensibilities in terms of consumption and
reception. A perhaps more interesting question, though, relates to the
“mainstreamers” discussed earlier. They should be attracted to many of
the same resources that define this group. The extent to which these media
are salient for which group becomes an important question.
Dogmatists. Whereas the group above would be likely to describe them-
selves as “spiritual but not religious,” this group would be likely to say the
opposite. In Roof’s classification, they are the most concerned with the
“external forms of religion” and are “rigidly religious.” He describes them
as supporting institutional religion, “encrusted institutions frozen in a
nostalgic past.” This group is perhaps best understood in contrast with the
three foregoing groups, who each articulated an approach to religion that
questions the prerogatives and powers of received authority. These people
are more interested in that authority, but, more precisely, in an imagined,
remembered past, for which they are nostalgic. Indirectly accepting the
critique that the institutions today struggle to remain relevant to lived
lives, they wish to return to a more stable, sensible past.
Roof describes the narratives of this group as “formulaic in character,
rather lifeless and closed.” Most were raised Catholic or in conservative
Protestant groups, and their social networks tend to revolve around their
places of worship. They also tend to be lower-educated and lower in
socioeconomic status.
It seems rather straightforward to suggest that the relationship of this
group to media culture would be rather strict and judgmental. It is hard to