Beyond the Believer-Citizen Dilemma in a Polity: a Membership Approach

The article discusses the priority of belonging to a particular community and identification with it. The authors believe that among the entire set of communities, membership in political groups should be a priority, and their membership in state political communities should be higher than territorial, ethnic, religious, linguistic and other differences. However, the devotion of religious believers to an international religious community that does not know official state borders can exceed their devotion to the state as the main political institution. Consequently, they can become a centrifugal force that threatens the solidarity of political unity. The authors define this conflict as the “believer-citizen” dilemma, which poses serious challenges in the field of nation building in China. Based on the concept of related identities, the article analyzes and explains the existing dilemma “believer – citizen” from the position of simultaneous inclusion in various social groups. The authors suggest that such an approach, involving the analysis of membership in several social groups, is useful for constructing solutions to this dilemma. In conclusion, the authors conclude that religion has many opportunities for the upbringing of civic virtues. Ethical principles such as kindness, tolerance, and empathy are widespread in various religions, and they have indeed become universally recognized human virtues. In this sense, believers can also be good citizens and at the same time fulfill their religious and civic duties, which will not contradict each other. For religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, an extreme form of religious identity can undermine their social life. How to create institutions based on honesty and justice, how to build reliable and correct strategies for constructing identities in order to promote self-identification from citizenships and reduce identification based on extreme religious movements, as well as how to use religious identity to create a civic identity on its basis – these are the biggest problems in state building.

believer-citizen dilemma, adhesive identities, multiple group memberships, spiritual capital, life capital

1. Habermas, J. (1994), “Struggles for Recognition in the Democratic Constitutional State”, in Gutmann, A. (ed.), Examing the Politics of Recognition, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, USA, pp. 107–148.

2. Michelman, F.I., (2001), “Morality, Identity and ‘Constitutional Patriotism’”, Ratio Juris, vol. 14, iss. 3, pp. 253–271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00181.

3. Fang, W. (2008), Disciplinary Institution and Social Identity, Renmin Univ. Press, Beijing, China.

4. Ammerman, N.T. (2003), “Religious Identities and Religious Institutions”, in Dillon, M. (ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. pp. 207–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807961.

5. Somers, M.R. (1994), “The Narrative Constitution of Identity”, Theory and Society, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 605–649. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992905.

6. Lichterman, P. (2008), “Religion and the Construction of Civic Identity”, American Sociological Review, vol. 73, iss. 1, pp. 83–104.

7. Yang, F., (1999), Chinese Christians in America: Conversion, Assimilation, and Adhesive Identities, Penn. State Univ. Press, Univ. Park, USA.

8. Fang, W. (2009), “Transition psychology: the membership approach”, Social Sciences in China, vol. 30, iss. 2, pp. 3–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02529200902981319.

9. Aronson, E., and Mills, J. (1959), “The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 59, pp. 177–181.

10. Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, USA.

11. Marshall, D.A. (2002), “Behavior, Belonging, and Belief: A Theory of Ritual Practice”, Sociological Theory, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 360–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00168.

12. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. (1986), “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, USA, pp. 7–24.

13. Chaiken, S., and Trope, Y. (ed.) (1999), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, Guilford, NY, USA.

14. Fang, W. (2005), “On the Symbolic Boundary of Groups”, Sociological Studies, no. 1, pp. 25–59.

15. Fiske, S., and Taylor, S.E. (2013), Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture, McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.

16. Taylor, S.E. (1998), The Social Being in Social Psychology, in Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (ed.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-Hill, NY, pp. 58–95.

17. Higgins, E.T., William, S.R. and Carl, R.J. (1977), “Category Accessibility and Impression Formation”, Journal of Experimental Social psychology, vol. 13, pp. 141–154.

18. Higgins, E.T. (1996), “Knowledge Activation: Accessibility, Applicability and Salience”, in Higgins, E.T. and Kruglanski, A.E. (ed.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, Guilford Press, NY, USA, pp. 133–168.

19. Festinger, L. (1954), “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes”, Human Relations, vol. 7, pp. 117–140.

20. Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

21. Iannaccone, L. R. (1994), “Why Strict Churches Are Strong”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 99, no. 5, pp. 1180–1211.

22. Verter, B. (2003), “Spiritual Capital: Theorizing Religion with Bourdieu against Bourdieu”, Sociological Theory, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 150–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00182.

23. Stark, R. and Finke, R. (2004), Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, Transl. by Fenggang, Y., Renmin Univ. Press, Beijing, China.

24. Potter, J. and Wetherell, M. (1987), Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour, Sage, London, UK.

25. Farr, R.M., and Moscovici, S. (ed.) (1984), Social Representation. Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, UK.

26. Moscovici, S. (2000), Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology, in Duveen, G. (ed.), Polity, Cambridge, UK.

27. Lamont, M., and Fournier, M. (ed.) (1992), Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA.

28. Lamont, M., and Molnar, V. (2002), “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 28, pp. 167–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107.

29. Emerson, M.O. and Hartman, D. (2006), “The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 32, pp. 127–144.

30. Turk, A.T. (2004), “Sociology of Terrorism”, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 30, pp. 271–286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110510.