If an image had to be chosen to introduce the present contribution to this session dedicated to the study on implicit religion, it could be borrowed from the world of music, and hinted at in terms of variations on a given theme -- though the motif of the fugue might also seem relevant.

There is no doubt that the field of study inaugurated by Edward Bailey and his Network, nearly a quarter of a century ago, has proved its fruitfulness and continues to offer inspiration to an increasing number of scholars. For various reasons, however, including the author's own scholarly background and present research interests, the approach of this paper will be somehow different. More precisely, its aim is to show how several aspects and forms of what comes under the scope of implicit religion can also be observed and analyzed from a different perspective, that of postmodernity and its impact on the contemporary economy of religion.

Firstly, precision will be given on what is to be understood here by postmodernity, beyond fashionable clichés and trendy humbug. This paper will then attempt to draw some of the major characteristics of postmodern religiosity, and to illustrate them with a few examples. This will lead to a double conclusion

• first in suggesting that if we can fruitfully use a concept such as " implicit religion ", it is to a large extent due to the very impact of postmodernity itself on contemporary religious experience,
  
• and second, in proposing that this postmodern evolution of Western culture eventually contributes to blur the boundaries between explicit and implicit religion.

The idea of postmodernity (or postmodernism), as it is probably known, first appeared in the field of architecture, mostly after the Second World War, to designate new esthetic trends which were, in various respects, critically breaking away from the academic ideals of modernity. A rather well known example of this would be the new tendencies in Italian architecture following the Mussolinian Era. The notion has gradually found its way in the fields of art and literature, as well as in the social and human sciences where it has inspired a number of thinkers in various disciplines, notably philosophy ans sociology. The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard is among the first -- at least in the French speaking scholarly world which is more familiar to the author -- to have brought it up, basically to refer to what he saw as a deep transformation of Western society and culture in the post-WWII decades.

Quite early, this " hypothesis " has become the target of serious reservations and rather severe criticism in some intellectual milieux. One may think here, for example, of philosophers such as Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor, not to mention the more recent and quite polemic denunciation by scientists like Alan Sokal, a few years ago (although this last controversy turned out much like a very Parisian storm in an espresso cup...).

Apart from this -- at leat serious and scholarly -- criticism, there is no use to deny that the notion of postmodernity (or postmodernism) has also referred, in a totally unscientific way, to anything new, provocating or trendy, thus reducing itself to a mere uncritical and fashionable qualifyer. Needless to say, that is not the sense in which this paper understands it. Furthemore, and understandably enough, the consideration of the heuristic relevance and usefulness of such a notion does not necessarily entail that one promotes the phenomena or values it generates, nor that one is even enthusiastic about them -- although postmodernism certainly has its fans and promoters who have turned it into a " doctrine ", that is, something quite different from the analytical tool it can also be, and is intended to be in this paper.

What is at stake here, much more fundamentally, is an attempt to have a better and more accurate understanding of what is going on in our fast changing world. In that respect, the postmodern hypothesis could be summarized in this fashion: in the same way a wide set of transformations in all fields of culture has induced the idea of a passage from traditional to modern societies in the West, likewise, all sorts of evidence seem to suggest that Western societies, for the past decades, have undergone significant transformations that justify a recourse to the hypothesis of a major change, that of posmodernity. More precisely, these transformations can be interpreted in terms of a significant breaking away from modernity :

* first of all, breaking away from the great " founding myths " of modernity, notably the triumph and hegemony of Reason, the ineluctable march of Progress and History leading to a new " Golden Age ", the soteriological nature of Science and Technology;

* breaking away, also, from a set of values and ideals which have shaped modern society and fashioned Western culture since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, notably the ethics of work and duty, the prevalence of individualism, the role of the avant-gardes, democracy in its formal representative version, the Providence State, etc.

Now, theses changes are naturally seldom absolute and radical, and it is quite obvious that they did not appear suddenly out of nowhere. Posmodernity did not abolish modernity all of a sudden, no more than the emergence and development of modernity eliminate all traces of traditional (or premodern) civilization. In that respect, many authors who refer favourably to the core of the postmodern hypothesis would not hesitate to acknowledge that the term itself might be somehow misleading inasmuch as it might seem to suggest a clear-cut historical sequence, when it rather hints at new observable major tendencies.

Moreover, one must not lose sight of the fact that postmodernity is a product of modernity itself, though in the end the " product " appears in many ways to break away from the world which has produced it. In that sense, postmodernity could be seen as an overtaking of modernity, as well as its fulfillment.

Now, if this postmodern hypothesis has some relevance, it stands to reason that it will be of quite obvious interest to the study of religion in contemporary societies progressively shaped by the mutations of postmodernity. As we can hardly continue to study society and culture at large with conceptual tools fashioned by and inherited from modernity, likewise, we need to update our approach of religion as well and of its changing characteristics in present day culture.

1. Among the first and most striking features of this culture, one can quite probably observe the fact that the shaking of the hegemony of modern rationalism has opened -- or perhaps more exactly re-opened -- the way to the possibility of what one could see, in Weberian terms, as a " reenchantment " of the world beyond its modern disenchantment; a reenchantment for which present day culture offers enough evidence, for better or for worse.

This new postmodern openness and disposition to a reenchanted experience of life, and of the world, is no doubt quite different from what existed in traditional cultures. More precisely, it is rooted in what Jean-François Lyotard suggested to see as a general shaking, and even crumbling of the " great narratives " -- or founding myths -- of modernity (as has been rapidly mentioned), but also of the more traditional myths of organized religions, this favouring the appearance and emergence of new, smaller, and henceforth much more fragmented myths.

That does not mean that the old myths die or disappear entirely altogether. Lots of people today continue to read the Bible or to refer with unaltered enthusiasm to the progress of science. Yet things appear as if these myths had gradually lost their power to mobilize the faith of masses, to enroll and inspire their commitment. Our culture, in that respect -- as many authors have already suggested --, has turned into a huge supermarket of worldviews in which contemporary consumers are less and less looking for THE truth, unique and exclusive, and much more for one or several ways to express the meaning of their lives; ways among others, often compatible with others, and which can also be combined with others, as it will be made more explicit in a moment.

2. Now -- and that would of course be a major difference from modern or traditional religiosity --, the " micromyths " or mythical cristallizations which pop out of postmodern culture are most of the time short-lived, ephemeral, having in that respect little in common with ancient or even modern founding narratives which have existed over long periods of times, sometimes thousands of years, giving birth to strongly established religious traditions or to modern institutions (such as the Nation State or formal democracy). They can nonetheless have, for some time, a tremendous and very widespread impact on culture, notably due to the breathtaking progress of new communication technologies.

Let's think, for instance, of the immense emotion which has seized millions of people all over the world, two years ago, after the tragic death of Lady Di, consecrating her instantly as a mythical character of our times. Likewise, let's also think of the numerous myths which have developed around several deceased rock stars -- Elvis Presley, James Dean, Jim Morrisson, Kurt Cobain and many others. These micromyths, we know it, can gather thousands of fans and worshippers, whether it be in rock mega concerts or in Internet discussion groups; thousands of adepts who, as a longer analysis could show better, find in them much of what more traditional myths offered their followers in terms of meaning, identity, values, etc. These micromythical cristallizations will seemingly not live as long as ancient and traditional myths, though it is nevertheless quite fascinating to observe their capacity to inspire people, notably younger people who were not yet born when the myth appeared.

3. Many of the authors who have tried to develop the postmodern hypothesis into a real tool of analysis have also underlined the importance of its eclectic dimension, as if our contemporaries clearly wanted to chose their own beliefs and values rather than to have these beliefs and values imposed on them by dogmatic and authoritarian institutions, while also being able to pick and choose what fits them among existing systems of beliefs and values, leaving out what does not. And the fact is that a lot of new mythical cristallizations (this would also apply to rituals) present themselves as more or less elaborate syncretist collages, borrowing elements from all sorts or sources, including traditional myths, but without bothering much with their internal coherence, if one may say so. In other words, it is as if these elements were freed from the dogmatic institutions to which they originally belonged, which can less and less control them and prevent them from entering into all sorts of new and often stunning combinations.

We all know people who, in that way, " customize " their own beliefs. For example, they will still refer to the Christian tradition -- though ridden of its too dogmatic irritants (like the Trinity or Resurrection of the dead) --, but they will combine that with bits of Eastern spirituality (notably, their reinterpretation of the doctrine of reincarnation), flavours from astrology, a little zest of New Age. And, then, as time goes by, it is quite possible that they will leave out this zest of New Age but add a little pinch of neo-shamanism or a few drops of Celtic witchcraft. Postmodern religiosity, to quote the French translation of Reginald Bibby's Fragmented Gods, is more and more becoming a religion " à la carte ".

Syncretism has of course always been a widespread reality in the history of religions. Yet, unlike its more traditional variant, it has significantly become a conscious, usual and deliberate feature of postmodern religiosity.

4. Another capital aspect of postmodern religiosity would be what a number of authors have proposed to call its tribal -- or neo-tribal -- dimension. Neo-tribalism, more widely speaking, would be a quite typically postmodern way of " being-together ", different both from modern individualism and from traditional strong and formal communities; a mobile and not exclusive way of " belonging ", rooted in affective and often fluctuant affinities much more than in rational or traditional identities.

The type of religiosity which can be observed in numerous spheres of the rock culture, as already hinted at, is in all likelihood a good example of it. But one coud also find it in many other spheres of contemporary culture, from street gangs to New Age groups, from sport pubs to Trekkers' conventions, from Gothic lofts to gay circuit parties.

This feature of postmodern culture is notably interesting in that postmodern tribalism does not preclude the possibility of moving constantly from one tribe to another, of belonging simultaneously to more than one tribal constellation. For example, it is possible for someone, in the same week, to take part in a neo pagan circle, spend hours playing Dungeons and Dragons or chatting with X Files fans on the Web, and then blow out in a Saturday night rave, flowing effortless from one "scene" to another, entering each time in a specific mythological worldview, adapting oneself to a particular ritual setting. And this, it is important to be noted, without seeing any " contradiction " or having to " apostatize " in any way.

5. And this, actually, leads to yet another characteristic of postmodern religiosity -- the last one that is going to be considered here though such a listing could obviously be amplified and refined --, a characteristic which could be referred to as its lightness. "Lightness", a little in the way we speak of "light" cigarettes, "light" beers or cholesterol free food, but also in oppositionto the more solemn gravity -- not to say heaviness -- of more traditional religions or modern " secular " religions.

In that respect, it is conceivably significant that among the traditional religious forms which have had real success in the West for some decades, we find buddhism, notably in its Tibetan version. It is indeed likely that a number of features of Tibetan buddhism appear to many of our contemporaries to be more in phase with their own -- postmodern -- sensitivity; this hinting, for example, at the absence of dogmatic and moral stiffness (by comparison with other buddhist traditions but also with other major religions) as well as at the non negligible presence of humor in Tibetan spirituality.

This very lightness is seemingly not without connection with the generalized hedonism of postmodern culture. This is yet another point on which postmodern religiosity breaks away from more traditional religious experience, refusing to sacrifice the enjoyment of the here-and-now to the promise of any supernatural paradise or glorified future. For most of us, religionists, accustomed to the austere, ascetic and often sacrificial attitude of more traditional religion, this is possibly one of the most disturbing features of the impact of postmodernity on religion, and conceivably one of the most challenging.

This brief and, to a large extent, rather impressionist presentation would of course require a much deeper analysis and development. Yet, as such, it may alreardy shed some light on the double conclusion announced in the introduction of this paper.

• On the one hand, it helps understand why the notion of implicit religion has proven itself so fruitful in the field of contemporary religious studies. This does not suggest, of course, that implicit religion and what this paper has tried to introduce as postmodern religiosity are synomymous, if only because the notion of implicit religion quite certainly applies to typically modern phenomena, as has been exemplified by several researches of Edward Baily or other scholars of the Network (for example, deep commitment to the family, political or artistic involvement, etc.). Yet it is not difficult to see that the very impact of postmodernity on the general economy of religion in our time, given some of its major characteristics which have been rapidly recalled in this paper, has generated a huge amount of new phenomena, attitudes, practices and behaviors in which one can certainly disclose numerous varieties of implicit religion.
• 
  On the other hand, it is not really difficult either to see in what sense one can also speak of a postmodern blurring of boundaries between explicit and implicit religion. Again, this does not suggest that explicit religions are going to disappear as such from the landscape of postmodern culture, although they themselves are, in all likelihood, active laboratories of postmodern change. But the plethora of new, eclectic mythical and ritual cristallizations which emerge nowadays certainly challenge our conception of what religion is going to be like in the next century, and they might possibly lead us beyond the distinction between explicit and implicit religion.