| dc.description.abstract | Debates about the role of religion in society and the governance of religious diversity can, at
times, have the appearance of actors communicating at cross-purposes. Up until now, few
studies have focused on this aspect of communication about religion. This thesis addresses how
divergent understandings of religion can be an underlying factor in such debates. I have selected
the consultation process related to the Report from the Norwegian Faith and Worldviews
Commission in 2013 as a site for a study of this phenomenon. Applying a discursive approach,
based on Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell’s discursive analysis in social psychology
(DASP), I investigate the language use in the consultation statements that were submitted from a
broad range of stakeholders. The question I put to this documentary material is: How do actors in
the public debate articulate their positions on the governance and legislation of religion and how are these rhetorical
positions connected to understandings of religion?
The result of the discursive analysis confirms that Potter and Wetherell’s concept of interpretive
repertoires is useful for understanding how actors construct religion in their statements. The
DASP analysis reveals that the debate is rhetorically structured through two dominant
interpretive repertoires, namely ‘religion as values’ and ‘religion as rights’. The analysis
demonstrates that the use of different interpretive repertoires in the rhetorical constructions of
religion is connected to, but do not entirely determine, differing positions on a range of publicly
debated topics. This thesis identifies several such topics where the two main interpretive
repertoires are found, and rhetorically structure the debate: the role of religion in the public
sphere; the justification of the public funding of religious and worldview organisations; equal
treatment and differential treatment; legislation of religious and worldview organisations and the
role of the Church of Norway.
I found that when religion is articulated mainly as an individual right to religious freedom and
practice, emphasis is placed on equal rights for religious and worldview minorities, neutral public
institutions and a rejection of religion as a common good. Public funding of faith and worldview
organisations is either rejected or accepted justified in a juridical argument for the facilitation of
religious practice. In contrast, when religion is articulated as a value, it is understood as a
phenomenon that contributes to the common good in society and as an integrated part of life.
Public funding is supported in this understanding justified in an ideological argument of
promoting the social value of religion. The community role of religion is advanced as well as the
cultural dimension. Furthermore, in both the major interpretive repertoires, the constructions of
religion are found to be closely connected to expressed attitudes towards the majority church,
the Church of Norway. An acknowledgment of the existence of these interpretive repertoires
vi
and their use as discursive resources is helpful in order to understand debates over the role and
recognition of religion in the public sphere.
Broadening the discussion, I draw upon Nordic and European research on the role of religion in
the public sphere and on the governance and legislation of religious and worldview
organisations. I discuss how the results of the analysis support or complement theoretical
perspectives regarding vicarious religion and public utility, religion in public institutions, the
private-public divide and religious dialogue. Furthermore, I discuss how the concept of
interpretive repertoires offers an added perspective on how to compare Norwegian and
European development in the legitimacy of public funding and the balancing of conflicting
rights.
This thesis contributes to the field of religion in the public sphere by applying the analytic
perspective of interpretive repertoires to understand underlying factors in public debates related
to politics of religion. The finding of two dominant and structuring repertoires in the Norwegian
debate enables alternative understandings of contested issues in this field. Furthermore, these
interpretive repertoires were connected to substantial positions in a structuring, but not
determining manner, which adds to their analytical value. Finally, I have made a methodological
contribution in applying a discursive approach from the field of social psychology on public
documents in a sociology of religion project. | en_US |
