ABSTRACT According to various authors, postmodernity can be seen as a major trend of Western cultures, breaking away from many of the ideals and values which shaped Western modernity. In thar respect, several aspects of what comes under the scope of "implcit religion" can also be analyzed from the perspective of postmodernity and of its impact on the contemporary economy of religion. This paper examines some of the main characteristics of postmodern religiosity (its openness to a new reenchantment of the world, its eclectic, light, neo-tribal and hedonistic atmosphere, etc.) and comes to the conclusion that the postmodern evolution of Western culture seemingly contributes to the blurring of bounderies between "explicit" and "implicit" religion.

Implicit Religion and Theory

The notion of implicit religion has had in the past, and still has in the present, a tremendous heuristic potential to help us unveil new religious forms in contemporary culture. And this, maybe, among other things, because its intuition is brilliantly simple : indeed, it seems to be rooted in the fact that virtually everybody has a spontaneous knowlewdge of what (explicit) religion is. Therefore, the task of those interested in implicit religion would seem to consist in finding, within social and cultural phenomena, enough fundamental similarities with the characteristics of explicit religion to consider these phenomena as religious themselves, albeit in an "implicit" way.

However, the use of the twin notions of explicit and implicit religion may present a few theoretical problems. First, and even though it is obviously not intended to be so, it might seem to offer a kind of "bonus" -- or higher status -- to the former, at least in that it might seem to suggest that explicit religion "goes by itself", is taken for granted, whereas the latter somehow always has to "prove itself", constantly having to present its credentials.

But, then, and strikingly enough, if one considers the fast changing reality of contemporary culture, one might come to the conclusion that, in several instances, what we call religion -- that is, explicit religion -- has often ceased to be really religious ; for all practical purposes, it has emptied itself of any genuine religious vitality -- although it may have kept an explicitely religious form, or appearance : a little like these shells we pick up on the beach and which have been deserted by the life that once inhabited them.

And, at the same time, we could observe, every day, a number of phenomena quite seemingly bubbling with authentic religious vitality yet condemned, if one may say so, to be considered as merely "implicitely" religious in comparison with formally "explicit" religious phenomena which, for their part, might very well be no longer religious at all, having turned -- say -- into fossilized religion, or mere cultural folklore.

And that is seemingly the main reason why, to guide us in our empirical enquiries, we need a more general, even more abstract definition of religion. Such a definition does not have to be unique and dogmatic, and the fact is that we find many in the toolbox of our discipline, according to various theoretical orientations. Furthermore, it can only be drawn -- be abstracted -- from a wide comparatist approach of historical religions and their fundamental characteristics -- and that is exactly what the science of religion has been doing for more than a century now. It is such a theoretical work of abstraction that can provide us with the tools we need in our empirical investigations, to unveil the religious dimension of society and culture, wherever it may be found -- that is, disregarding of what culture spontaneously considers as religious or not.

This is particularly important in the fast changing culture of our contemporary world. And this is what led to the more precise theme of this paper. Its main goal would be 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, and of its definition.

To this end, it will first clarify what is to be understood here by postmodernity. Then it will 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", today, 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 itself contributes to the blurring of boundaries between explicit and implicit religion -- thus, again, encouraging us to re-consider a definition of religion more in phase with contemporary culture.

The Postmodern Hypothesis

The idea of postmodernity -- or postmodernism -- is by no means a recent one. As it is possibly known, it first appeared in the field of architecture, mostly after the Second World War, to designate new æsthetic 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 quite typically modernist delirium of 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, sociology and, of course, religious studies .

The French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard is among the first -- at least in the French speaking scholarly world -- to have brought it up, basically to refer to what he saw as a deep transformation of Western society and culture in the post-war decades.

Now, there is no use to deny the fact that this "hypothesis" has sometimes become the target of serious reservations and rather severe criticism in some intellectual milieux. One may think here, for example, of the leading German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who continues to hold modernity as an unfinished -- not to say unending -- process, and who, among others, has often accused postmodernist thinkers with charges of neoconservatism .

Apart from this -- debatable but at least serious and scholarly -- criticism, there is no use either to deny that the notion of postmodernism sometimes refers, in a totally unscientific way, to almost anything new, provocative or trendy, thus reducing itself to a mere uncritical qualifyer and fashionable cliché. Needless to say, this is not the sense in which it is proposed here.

Furthermore, it should be clear that the consideration of the heuristic relevance and usefulness of such a notion does not necessarily entail that one promotes the phenomena or values that it generates, nor that one is even enthusiastic about the waves on which they seem to be surfing -- although postmodernism certainly has its fans and promoters who have turned it into some sort of doctrine, or ideology. But this is of course something quite different from the analytical tool that it can also be, and that it is intended to be in this paper. In other words, one does not have to consider onself as "postmodern" to accept the relevance of a postmodern analysis of culture. But this is of course not the point. 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 world.

In that respect, the postmodern hypothesis could be summarized in this fashion. We generally accept today the idea that a wide set of transformations in all fields of culture has induced a passage from traditional (or premodern) to modern societies in the West ; likewise, various evidence suggest that Western societies, for the past few decades, have undergone significant transformations that seem to justify a recourse to the hypothesis of a major change -- that of posmodernity. More precisely, if that change is considered to be a major one, it is mainly because these transformations can be interpreted in terms of a significant breaking away from modernity :

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

breaking away, also, from a set of values and ideals which have shaped modern society, and fashioned Western culture since the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Revolution Era, namely: the ethics of work and duty, the prevalence of individualism, of individual rights and freedom, the revolutionary -- or, at least, progressive and emancipatory -- 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. Postmodernity did not start on a particular Monday morning. It has not abolished modernity all of a sudden, no more than the emergence and development of modernity has eliminated all traces of traditional (or premodern) civilization even after many centuries.

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, at least inasmuch as it might seem to suggest a clear-cut historical sequence, when rather it hints at new observable major tendencies.

Moreover -- and this is quite important --, one must not lose sight of the fact that postmodernity is a product of modernity itself. And this explains, of course, that it could only have appeared in Western cultures which have already been shaped by several centuries of modern ideals and values. Yet, in the end, the "product" appears in many ways to break away from the civilization which has produced it. In that sense, postmodernity could be seen both as an overtaking of modernity and as its fulfillment.

A good example of this might be the impact of democracy on culture. Nobody will deny that the idea of democracy and of a democratization of culture stands as one of the most outstanding and significant ideals of modernity. But one can see that the progressive realization of this modern goal has deeply transformed the very idea of culture -- which, in traditional and modern times, was the prerogative and privilege of the elites and dominant classes. But nowadays, due to the very progress of democratization, culture has come to include almost anything.

A few years ago, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts hosted an important exposition dedicated to the world of... Snoopy. A quick glance at the contemporary Western world would easily produce many other examples of such cultural democratization. Only half a century ago, not to mention Victorian times, this would have been utterly impossible to imagine. At most, Snoopy would have been considered as a humble product of "popular culture", and would never have been introduced in the inner sanctum of fine arts, these very temples of "real" Culture that museums are -- or used to be.

But Snoopy or, for all that matters, any other Mickey Mouse, and whether we like it or not, have become part of postmodern culture as much as -- and often much more than -- Childe Harold of Young Werther! And, one could add, with an equal legitimacy -- if not with greater legitimacy -- in our societies where democracy has become an undebatable truth, since the craze they inspire is shared by a much greater number of our contemporaries.

In that sense, we see that postmodern culture is undoubtedly a product of modernity itself, that it is not thinkable outside of modernity and of its impact -- cultural, political, economical, etc. Yet, we see that it also deeply affects the core of modern values and ideals -- to the point of often breaking away from them.

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. And, as we can hardly continue to study society and culture at large with conceptual tools fashioned by -- and inherited from -- modernity, likewise, it seems reasonable to suggest that we need to update our approach to religion as well, and to consider its changing characteristics in present day, postmodern culture.

In other words, the assumption of this paper would be that religion, as an anthropological reality, is going to survive postmodernity -- as well as it has survived modernity ; but it is already undergoing a number of significant changes in an analogous way as -- for example -- Medieval Christianity has been deeply transformed by the ideals of modernity as they were cristallized in the Reformation, notably, and as they eventually pervaded all of Western Christianity, including Roman Catholicism itself.

Characteristics of Postmodern Religiosity

1. A reenchanted world

Among the first and most striking features of postmodern culture, one can quite probably observe a significant shaking of the hegemony of modern rationalism. In other words, Reason, in which the modern Age had put its enthusiastic hope, has, in the long run, forced us to witness some of its more blatant limits and dramatic. This is for example the case with the often debatable "progress" of science and technology, as well as through the often imperialistic attitude it has fed towards non Western cultures.

In that respect, one can observe that the postmodern world has not only rehabilitated the vital role of emotion and passion, but that it has also opened -- or 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, precisely due to the triumphalist pretensions of Modern Reason.

Present day culture, and for better or for worse, offers enough evidence of such a reenchantment. Let us simply consider the growing infatuation of an impressive number of our contemporaries for all sorts of religious, spiritual and supernatural phenomena, from astrology to Eastern spirituality, from New Age to neo-paganism, from UFO's to angels, from esoteric cults to miraculous therapies.

Now, 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 -- which also shared enchanted worldviews. More precisely, as has been rapidly mentioned, 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, but also of the more traditional myths of organized religions, which have widely adapted themselves to modernity. And this, in turn, has favoured the appearance and emergence of new, smaller, and henceforth much more fragmented myths.

That does not mean, of course, that the old -- traditional -- myths die or disappear entirely. 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 the masses, to enroll and inspire the commitment of millions. 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 seen as compatible with yet others, and which can also be combined with others, as it will be made more explicit in a moment.

2. Strong, short-lived micromyths

Now -- and that would of course be a major difference from modern or traditional religiosity --, it is true that these "micromyths" or mythical cristallizations which pop out of postmodern culture are most of the time short-lived, ephemeral. In that respect, they have 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, in the late Summer of 1997, after the tragic death of Lady Di, consecrating her instantly as a mythical character of our times. This emotion has certainly fainted a lot in a rather short time, but nobody can deny the fact that, for a few weeks, it generated a -- perhaps shallow, but nevertheless tremendous -- feeling of communion all over the world, with which traditional religions, nowadays, could hardly offer any significant competition.

Likewise, we can 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.

Again, these micromythical cristallizations will seemingly not live as long as ancient and traditional myths -- though it is nevertheless quite fascinating to observe the capacity of many of them to inspire people, notably younger people who were not yet born when the myth appeared.

3. Eclectic collages

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 choose 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 they see fit among existing systems of beliefs and values, leaving out what does not. This, again, can be seen as a paroxystic result of a major impact of consumeristic modernity on Western conscience.

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 doctrine of the Trinity or the Resurrection of the dead for instance; but they will combine that with bits of Eastern spirituality (notably, their reinterpretation of the Eastern doctrine of reincarnation), flavours from astrology, a little zest of New Age. And, then, as time goes by, they may as well add a little pinch of neo-shamanism to this belief cocktail, 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 is as if it had significantly become a conscious, usual and deliberately sought after feature of postmodern religiosity.

4. Neo-tribalism

Another capital aspect of this 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 non-exclusive way of "belonging" rooted in affective and often fluctuant affinities more than other obvious, explicit links of 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, within the same week, to take part in a neo-pagan circle, spend hours playing Dungeons and Dragons or chat with X Files fans on the Web, and then blow out in a Saturday night rave, flowing effortless from one scene to the next, entering each time 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. Lightness and hedonism

This point 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. This characteristic can 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 opposition to 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 -- a feature which, in comparison, is usually not widespread, these days, in the Vatican or among Afghan Talibans...

This very lightness is seemingly not without connection with the generalized hedonism of postmodern culture. This hedonism is itself a product of modernity, through the development of mass production and consumer society, and also through what I called a general democratization of culture. But, in the end, it bangs into some of the founding values of modernity and breaks away from them, notably those inspired by Protestant ethics.

This is indeed 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, which was not only present in traditional religions but also in several "secular" religions -- like communism, for example.

For a lot of religionists, accustomed as they are to the lofty, 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. Indeed, we probably all need a little challenging effort to get used to the idea that religion can also be... fun, and that fun might even become one of the important criteria to recognize true postmodern religion.

Conclusion

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 already shed some light on the double conclusion announced in its introduction.

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 synonymous, if only because the notion of implicit religion quite certainly also 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. -- which are not, in themselves, postmodern phenomena).

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 sketched here, practices and behaviours in which one can certainly disclose numerous varieties of implicit religion.

On the other hand, and finally, 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.

Indeed, even though this presentation has stressed the importance of new religious phenomena, it is quite obvious that traditional religions, if they are to survive, are also going to undergo the process of postmodernization, and that offers fascinating and challenging new grounds for enquiry. But, needless to say, the plethora of new, eclectic mythical and ritual cristallizations, which emerge nowadays, also challenge our conception of what religion is going to be like in the new century. And it is in that sense that they might lead us beyond the distinction between explicit and implicit religion, and perhaps closer to a more adequate definition of religion for our times.