Lois Lee

In Britain, most non-theists and atheists do not identify themselves as such in explicit terms, yet non-theistic cultural threads are interwoven through everyday discourses. This article calls for more extensive ethnographic engagement with these more diffuse—and therefore less visible and less commonly researched—forms of non-religious culture. Based on exploratory fieldwork conducted in South East England, it draws attention to one set of these indistinct non-religious forms: 'authentic' and 'inauthentic' ambivalent atheist and non-religious self-understandings and self-representations. It demonstrates how these identities may be subjectively meaningful and culturally significant and how they may be simultaneously empowering and disempowering. Scrutiny of ambivalent atheist identities points to complicated dynamics between non-religion and power and the value of attending to poorly or unmarked non-religious cultures through ethnographic work.

Censuses and surveys shape decisions, discourse and debates about people and their lived environments. The outcomes, in the case of a census, inform governments about resource distribution but also shape people's self-understanding about who they are and where they may be going. How people self-identify on censuses and surveys produces certain types of knowledge. This introduction emphasises the impact of those instruments on knowledge production and how numbers can be employed, often anecdotally, to further interests and claims. The way academics use and interpret such instruments has ethical and normative dimensions: numbers are not neutral but shape and are shaped by perceptions and identities. This introduction to a thematic issue of Religion introduces the contributing authors' diverse – historical, qualitative and quantitative – approaches that work together to produce their own kind of multi-disciplinary, academically located knowledge.

In research dealing with religious affiliation, generic nonreligious categories – ‘no religion’, ‘not religious’, ‘nonreligious’, ‘nones’ – are frequently used to measure secularity and secularisation processes. Analysis of these categories is, however, problematic because they have not received dedicated methodological attention. Using qualitative research conducted in the UK, this article investigates what nonreligious categories measure and, specifically, whether they indicate non-identification or disaffiliation as assumed or an alternative form of cultural affiliation. Findings suggest that generic nonreligious categories are sometimes used to express substantive positions and public identities, and that these are diverse. These findings flatten distinctions between religious and nonreligious categories as ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ respectively and indicate problems therefore in using nonreligious identification to measure secularity and secularisation. They suggest nonreligious identification is, however, a useful indicator of the advance of nonreligious cultures and the ‘nonreligionisation’ of societies.

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of nonreligiosity–that stuff which is defined by how it differs from religion (Lee 2012)–as a substantial or concrete phenomenon in human life and society, the presence of which might be documented and theorised (Lee and Bullivant 2010; Zuckerman 2010a, 2010b; Keysar and Kosmin 2007).

The recognition of non-religion as a significant social, cultural, and psychological phenomenon represents a sea change—or revolution—in social scientific thinking about religion and modernity. The speedy expansion of the field has, however, left its terminology lagging behind, with most scholars drawing on concepts familiar to the disciplinary or other cultural settings within which they work. The result is a terminology that is used inconsistently, imprecisely, and often illogically. This research note aims to draw attention to this situation and to suggest a working terminology. Focusing on core terms, I argue for: using ‘non-religion’ as the master concept for this new field of study, demoting ‘atheism’ from its illogically central role in the current discussion, untangling ‘secularism’ and ‘secularity’ from both these concepts. This will allow social scientists to be more precise in how they use the four concepts and better equip them for analysing the relationship between them.

Social theorists have tended to follow the anthropological understanding of myth, as a synonym for stories with fantastical (often supernatural) elements used to make explanations – and thus vulnerable to so-called rationalisation and secularisation in the same way that religion has been supposed to be. Recently, however, media communications scholarship has begun to claim myth for its own domain. This paper attempts to synthesise some of the insights of the two bodies of work, resulting in, I argue, a more concrete definition of myth itself, as a particular mode of communication that takes material form in the medium communicating it. Issues of myth and Modernisation can then be reviewed in this light, and the following hypotheses advanced for future empirical work: (i) that the impact of the Modern media on our ability to generate powerful myths should not be over-stated; (ii) that claims of ‘demythologisation’ are particularly unconvincing and should be replaced by study of mythic and mythological change; (iii) that these changes include the increased availability of myth forms and (iv) the decreasing availability of integrated sets of myths, or mythologies.

Traditionally, the “secular mindset” has been thought of as a nonentity, the absence of a substance (religion) rather than a substance itself. If it has been seen to exist at all, this existence has involved the sole characteristic of being “neutral” towards all religion. In recent years, however, many have argued that the secular perspective is normative rather than neutral – and the idea of secularism as a substantial social phenomenon is becoming increasingly popular. With little empirical research to refer to, however, this work has so far delivered only a simplistic, sometimes caricatured picture of the so-called “secular consciousness,” and one which emphasizes how the religious “other” is perceived. As well as a central role for the characteristic of rationalism, the secular consciousness is seen to be anti-religious, an advocate of the privatization of religion and a supporter also of the continued, arrogant dominance of secular views. This paper uses findings from the first ethnographic investigation of everyday European nonreligion, which, I argue, is a closely related concept to secularism – at least as it has been conceptualized in the literature in question. These data – from a study of individuals and communities from London and Cambridge in the UK – enrich and complicate existing understandings of the “secular consciousness” in a number of ways, suggesting that these conceptions are over-simplifications and cannot be assumed. These findings further the critique of “neutrality” as a description of what it means to be other than religious or spiritual, but suggests, more constructively, the possibility of treating both nonreligion and secularity as more positive and variegated social phenomena – and ones that might have roles to play as invested partners in the inter- and multicultural dialogue that many European Modernity are looking towards and relying upon.

... Essay. Where do atheists come from? This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier. Lois Lee and Stephen Bullivant. Available online 5 March 2010. ...

While religious rhetoric pervades everyday American culture and politics, the population of Americans who identify with no organized religion has actually quadrupled in just the last 25 years. Worldwide, the non-religious now make up the third largest “religious” category, following Christianity and Islam. In this episode, guest host Jacqui Frost interviews Dr. Lois Lee, whose new book Recognizing the Non-religious: Reimagining the Secular explores the variety of beliefs and identities found within this growing population. They discuss how atheism, the non-religious identity that receives by far the most media attention, is only one non-religious identity among many. Dr. Lee describes findings from her research on non-religious groups and individuals in Britain and the ways they think about, enact, and even wear their non-religion in daily life.

What does non-religion mean? In a new book Recognizing the Non-Religious: Reimagining the Secular (Oxford University Press, 2015), Lois Lee, one of the editors of Secularism and Non-Religion, interrogates the role of non-religion in society, to better understand how a seemingly neutral category tells us much about the contemporary world. Positioning the research against narratives that claim society as secularised, or as increasingly post-secular, Lee's work, along with other scholars in the Non-Religion and Secularity Research Network, shows how there are varieties of secularism and non-religion prevailing today. The book is programatic, setting out a framework for engaging with non-religion as a bodily practice, as sociality, as media and as the everyday.  Moreover it offers a methodological challenge to traditions of survey research in this area. In the final chapter the book also sketches the concept of existential cultures, showing the points of intersection in the practices of the secular and non-religious, with the theistic and spiritual. The book, because it reframes our understanding of modernity itself, should be essential reading across the social sciences.

Ambivalent atheism: Laurie Taylor talks to Lois Lee, Research Associate with the Institute of Advanced Studies at University College, London, and author of a study of non religious people. In the UK today a variety of identity labels exist which articulate non belief -atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, rationalist, free thinker and sceptic. Most of these terms are associated with organised and activist forms of non religion. But what of the ambivalent atheist, whose beliefs may be fuzzier, less clear cut? They're joined by the philosopher, Julian Baggini.

Ernie Rea and guests discuss the appeal and direction of "New Atheism".
Joining him are Professor Simon Blackburn, Vice President of the British Humanist Association; Mark Embleton, a psychologist and President of Atheism UK; and Lois Lee, founder of the Non-Religion and secularity research network.

"Modernity” is one of the master concepts of nineteenth and especially twentieth century thought and it has, impressively, entered the twenty-first century largely intact. It is telling of its forcefulness that the concept has survived – and, indeed, emerged hardly altered after – the heavy battering of blows dealt it by postcolonial and postmodern theories. Although no substantial reformulation has taken place, modernity has, however, been cast in newly relative terms. Its manifestation as a singular, uniform phenomenon has been replaced by a pluralized understanding in which there are as many modernities as there are experiences of it.

Thus, critiques have less overpowered modernity than they have led to an extension of its application; and yet we should not lose sight of the notable impact that this change has had. If “multiple modernities” theory is, in reality, just one argument concerning the ontology of modernity rather than a new consensus, still its emergence can be seen to amount to one of the biggest shifts in the theory of modernity in the history of that concept: whether one perceives modernity to be a multiple phenomenon or not, it is now beyond doubt that there are multiple theories concerning it. For Peter Berger, modernity is an assailant of sacred canopies, but we can now conceive of a period in which modernity was itself protected by a sacred canopy – and it is perhaps this canopy, rather than modernity itself, that has been altered and given rise to a new chapter in modernity theory.

This collection of essays – resulting from a conference of the same name – attempts to understand the two phases of modernity theory in light of one another – as collaborators rather than competitors. Rather than choosing between them – classical modernity or multiple modernities? – the collection explores three ways in which these two models can be combined. No attempt is made to present any coherent theoretical result of this exploration; rather, the collection capitalizes on the diversity of disciplines and interests that the IWM specializes in and supports. The methodology of the first section is conservative, involving a restitution of one of the cornerstone concepts of classical modernity: the richly theorized public space, usually conceived of as democratic. The methodology of the second section is more radical, with papers exploring religion and secularism, so long considered to have very particular relationships with modernity but which today are seen as two of the greatest taken-for-granteds of classical modernity theory. The final section introduces a concept novel to classical modernity and derived from postcolonial and feminist critiques: embodiment. This section explores the diversity of ways in which the study of the modern can be expanded by appropriating theories which have been styled as aspects of rival conceptions – arguably unnecessarily.

The present collection brings together a set of essays which shed light on recent research into non-religion, secularity and atheism—topics which have been emerging as important areas of current research in a number of different disciplines. The essays cover a wide span—in terms of the various stances they discuss (secular, atheist, non-religious), the settings in which these topics are relevant (families, wider society, politics, demography) and the different perspectives which relate to socialisation and social relations (belief acquisition, discrimination). Written by authors from a variety of national settings and academic disciplines, the collection presents a range of methodologies, combining theoretical approaches with quantitative and qualitative research findings. The authors address issues related to an important academic field which had been neglected for some time, but which has been made relevant by the increasing percentage of people professing a non-religious stance. This collection represents a major contribution to this area of academic research, not only because it puts the themes of non-religion and secularity firmly on the academic map, but also because it offers a variety of different viewpoints and aims to bring clarity into the use of concepts and terminology. The authors make important contributions to the emerging body of research in this area and point out areas where further research is needed. The first essay provides a thorough introduction to this field, taking stock of the work done so far, highlighting the overarching issues, and embedding the essays in the wider context of existing literature.

In recent years, the extent to which contemporary societies are secular has come under scrutiny. At the same time, many countries, especially in Europe, have increasingly large nonaffiliate, 'subjectively secular' populations, whilst nonreligious cultural movements like the New Atheism and the Sunday Assembly have come to prominence. Making sense of secularity, irreligion, and the relationship between them has therefore emerged as a crucial task for those seeking to understand contemporary societies and the nature of modern life.

Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in southeast England, Recognizing the Non-religious develops a new vocabulary, theory and methodology for thinking about the secular. It distinguishes between separate and incommensurable aspects of so-called secularity as insubstantial - involving merely the absence of religion - and substantial - involving beliefs, ritual practice, and identities that are alternative to religious ones. Recognizing the cultural forms that present themselves as non-religious therefore opens up new, more egalitarian and more theoretically coherent ways of thinking about people who are 'not religious'. It is also argued that recognizing the nonreligious allows us to reimagine the secular itself in new and productive ways.

This book is part of a fast-growing area of research that builds upon and contributes to theoretical debates concerning secularization, 'desecularization', religious change, postsecularity and postcolonial approaches to religion and secularism. As well as presenting new research, this book gathers insights from the wider studies of nonreligion, atheism, and secularism in order to consolidate a theoretical framework, conceptual foundation and agenda for future research.

Filling out all sorts of forms often and increasingly includes the disclosure of faith, under which the option ‘none’ frequently appears. Yet it is unclear how homogenous the beliefs of those who comprise the category are, while the term ‘nonreligious’ is often equated with established atheist views. Lois Lee explains that this lack of understanding means we not only fail to appreciate the beliefs of a substantive part of the population but we are also unable to consider their views in policy-making and in public life more broadly.