Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority

Heidi A. Campbell

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000073041
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Much speculation was raised in the 1990s, during the first decade of internet research, about the extent to which online platforms and digital culture might challenge traditional understandings of authority, especially in religious contexts. Digital Creatives and the Rethinking of Religious Authority explores the ways in which religiously-inspired digital media experts and influencers online challenge established religious leaders and those who seek to maintain institutional structures in a world where online and offline religious spaces are increasingly intertwined. In the twenty-first century, the question of how digital culture may be reshaping notions of whom or what constitutes authority is incredibly important. Questions asked include:

• 
  
  

• Who truly holds religious power and influence in an age of digital media? Is it recognized religious leaders and institutions? Or religious digital innovators? Or digital media users?
• What sources, processes and/or structures can and should be considered authoritative online, and offline?
• Who or what is really in control of religious technological innovation?

This book reflects on how digital media simultaneously challenges and empowers new and traditional forms of religious authority. It is a gripping read for those with an interest in communication, culture studies, media studies, religion/religious studies, sociology of religion, computer-mediated communication, and internet/digital culture studies.

Chapter 1

Investigating approaches to the study of authority

As stressed in the introduction, the concept of authority is at the center of discussions about how religious groups are shaped by within digital culture, as well as digital creatives influence or interact with traditional religious leader. Authority becomes a frame by which to consider the abilities of certain individuals or structure to gain or maintain influence over a certain group of people within digital spaces. However, the essential characteristics of authority are often not well defined. The term religious authority suffers from the same lack of clarity when used in studies of digital religion; it is used as an overarching term rather than a clearly defined category. At the heart of this book is the assertion that more detailed attention needs to be given not just to who can be seen as a religious authority but to what actually constitutes an “authority.” Before we can study how certain individuals establish themselves as an authority, or function in a way that garners them authority within a respective religious or media context, we need to further interrogate how authority is understood.

The aim of Chapter 1 is to investigate how the concept of authority is employed in current literature and research. This is done in order to map out where, when and how religious digital creatives (RDCs) can be seen as a new form of religious authority in an age of internet. Exploring in more detail the different ways authority is enacted in digital and religious cultures prepares us to discuss in more detail how RDCs gain public sway and affect the religious groups they are affiliated with in specific ways. We begin with an overview of the way the concepts of authority and religious authority have been approached in Religious Studies and Sociology of Religion. I argue this has strongly influenced the ways digital religion scholars have talked about the nature of authority.

This leads us to consider discussions of authority within the field of Media Studies, which has primarily taken one of three approaches, seeing authority in terms of roles, power or relationality. Each of these framings of authority helps us identify the dominant framings and aspects of authority different categories of RDCs draw on when describing their digital work and relationship to their offline faith communities.

However, these discussions are grounded in how authority has traditionally been conceived in the offline context and do not present the whole picture of how authority is negotiated in digital culture. This requires us to approach authority as it surfaces in the subfields of Internet and Digital Media Studies, which look at authority as an algorithm. Algorithmic authority follows a very different logic and shows the influence technological structures have had on understanding human relations and structures. Discussions of algorithmic authority also point to new classifications of what some suggest authority looks like within digital platforms and organizations. Discussing the emergence of media influencers, thought leaders and digital leaders as different manifestations of authority in algorithmic culture provides us with further insights into how technology creates new spaces of influence and the strategies used by different digital actors to leverage those opportunities. Considering how both traditional and digital logics inform different framings of authority is essential, because, as will be shown in the chapters ahead, RDCs engage in multiple forms of authority positioning, depending on their work and goals. We will see that RDCs draw simultaneously on established or traditional understandings of authority, as well as newer conceptions related to digital culture, in order to frame their work as having community influence or be seen as authoritative.

What is the root of authority?

As discussed in the introduction, authority is a complex term, often not well defined in studies of religion and the internet. It can be used to refer to a number of different contexts, from positions of influence to specific individuals’ or groups’ rights to hold power, or to those structures having control over a certain sphere of society. A key focus of this study is to interrogate and outline a specific understanding of the concept of authority and so provide a concrete framework for investigating and discussing the challenges and opportunities digital technologies present religious communities in relation to such notions of authority. Such a task must begin with interrogating the meaning of the concept of authority when the term is used.

At its most basic level, authority evokes ideas of dominance and control, involving who or what does or does not possess these traits. Discourse related to authority can involve discussion of issues such as boundary making and maintenance for specific groups, training and specialized knowledge that bestows on an individual recognized expertise or the extent to which certain individuals or groups have the ability to make choices. In other situations, authority represents voluntary submission or giving up autonomy in order to live within the rules and benefits of a certain system or situation. Choosing a particular group or association can mean accepting certain moral constraints and can come with certain behavioral expectations, yet this affiliation may also offer advantages. In yet other contexts, authority is set by external or previously established constraints, and individuals do not have the choice of whether to opt in or out—e.g., the way being born as a citizen of a specific country determines one’s nationality.

While authority is a characteristic often discussed in relation to how the internet affects relationships and structures within contemporary society, as I argue in previous works (Campbell, 2007, 2010), the way authority is defined in scholarly works is often not clearly contextualized. This is because what constitutes authority in new media or digital culture can be varied and context specific (Campbell, 2007; 2010). Within Internet Studies, the notion of authority has been approached in a variety of ways. These include discussing it in terms of: Organizational or community structures, systems or hierarchies, referencing leadership roles or positions of influence, an ideological notion such as moral or higher authority relative to issues of governance; as a general term synonymous with the term power and even to refer to nonhuman sources of authority such as documents, texts or historical events (Campbell, 2007). So when evoked, authority can mean different things to different researchers, and “there appears to be no unified understanding about what is meant when the concept of ‘authority’ is taken up in studies of the internet” (Campbell, 2007). This presents researchers of the internet and digital religion with a conundrum about how to frame such discussions. One approach is to turn to discussions within Religious Studies and Sociology of Religion to see how the term authority is approached.

Understanding authority in the context of religious authority

While authority is a complex term, it is often further complicated within studies of religion and digital media in trying to define or mark out what constitutes specifically “religious authority.” Use of the term religious authority often invokes a set of assumptions about how religious communities and structures function, assumptions that are often not clearly articulated or interrogated.

Scholars have tried to define religious authority in a way to distinguish it from the general conception of authority and make its meaning or the focus of study more precise. In Sociology of Religion, religious authority is often described as drawing on a particular form of legitimation, often linked to a unique or divine source. As Chavez (1994) stated, “The distinguishing feature of religious authority is that its authority is made legitimate by calling on some supernatural referent” whether that be a specific actor (i.e., god or spirit) or designated structure (p. 756). This understanding of religious authority seeks to distinguish itself by noting it is divinely inspired and given to specific sources within a specific religious context. In this way, religious authority depends on the community recognizing and supporting this spiritual sanctioning of designated religious authorities. This means the legitimation of authority for specific religions or groups, such as Christianity, may rely at least partially on recognizing the fact that a particular divine source plays a role in offering external validation. Whom or what is considered an authority is not solely a human designation. While this understanding of religious authority is helpful in understanding the rationale behind many established religious structures of legitimation, it does not truly help us unpack what is meant by religious authority and its full defining features.

The term religious authority, in general, has been used as a broad concept in much as the same way the term authority has been used in much scholarship. What is actually being referenced (an individual, structure or hierarchy) as authoritative may vary greatly when the term is evoked. Use of the term has varied from seeing religious authority as divine authority granted to religious structures (De Pillis, 1966) or appointed gatekeepers or representing the sentiments and decision-making of God on earth (Wiles, 1971). Religious authority has also been conceived as a trust-based relationship given to institutional professionals (Chavez, 2003) or self-appointed leaders (Barnes, 1978) by their followers, or authority representing systems of knowledge able to define what constitutes religious authenticity, especially in relation to religious identity and membership (Jensen, 2006). Furthermore, religious authority can be used to refer to different religious systems, beliefs, structures, appointed positions and even ideological positions, which may or may not be clearly distinguished by those studying such issues. Similar to what has been argued in the introduction, the concept of religious authority, especially as it is typically used in Religious Studies as an amorphous concept, brings us no closer to a clear understanding of what authority is or does.

This fluidity of the use of the term is mirrored in discussions of religious authority and digital media and the internet. Turner, a sociologist of religion, argued, “Multimedia entertainment and communication systems challenge both the print-based authority of secular governments and the traditional authority of the world religions,” especially in relation to who or what is recognized as qualified to validate communal “contents and meanings of knowledge and information” (Turner, 2007, p. 117). Scholars of Digital Religion Studies have used Turner’s notion of religious authority as tied to the structures of established religious traditions and groups as a way to discuss the variety of ways religious groups’ community boundaries are challenged by the internet. Baker similarly took a community or institutional approach when she discussed how the internet allows religious community members to make private institutional and theological discussions public (i.e., Barker, 2005). Others discuss the challenge the internet poses to religious authority in terms of the creation and privilege of alternative voices (inferred to be new forms of religious authority in established communities), as individuals seeking advice bypass official religious hierarchies (i.e., Herring, 2005; Piff & Warburg, 2005). From this brief review, we see references to religious authority typically indicate established religious structures or groups and how they respond to the new freedoms of communication offered by digital media, which allow members to bypass traditional gatekeepers or monitoring structures. So while evoking the term religious authority helps us focus attention on the specific concerns religious groups and structures may have about the internet, it does not help us further concretely clarify the features of what defines something or someone as authoritative in this digital context. Therefore, simply using the term religious authority as a way to define what authority is may in fact further obscure rather than clarify our understanding. This points to additional levels of complexity in relation to identifying the specific systems, power relations or sources the concept of authority potentially references. I argue for this study, which focuses on what constitutes religious authority in digital contexts and cultures; a more concrete approach is needed, especially in relation to how authority is performed in digital contexts.

Traditional approaches to authority in Media Studies: Authority as role, power or relational

It can be argued that within Communication and Media Studies, authority is typically approached in one of two ways—either seeing authority in terms of Max Weber’s three categories of leadership roles or in conversation with Michel Foucault’s discussion of power. Weber saw authority as role based, focused on leadership style and the ability to garner followers. Foucault saw authority as power based, focused on a structures’ ability to control others. These have also become the primary lenses used by scholars within Internet Studies to discuss individuals’ relationship to media technologies and the cultures they create.

Authority as relationship-based focuses on how actors situate themselves within specific social and media settings, as well as how they present themselves as having expertise and legitimacy. Unlike role- and power-based approaches to authority closely associated with the work of a specific scholar, authority as relational comes out of conceptual conversations about how authority is enacted. Both Weber and Foucault touched on notions of relationality in their approaches to authority. Weber made note of the relationship between different types of leaders and their followers, and Foucault highlighted the relationship individuals have to power structures. However, the relational model of authority differs from their approaches in that it places emphasis on the social negotiations between different actors, who enact a bonded relationship based on discourse.

In the sections that follow, I provide a brief overview of these two dominant and two more recent approaches to highlight how they each study authority, showing the specific factors each approach emphasizes when defining something or someone as authoritative. These lenses are engaged briefly in Chapters 4 through 6, and in detail in Chapter 7, as the basis of narrative frameworks each category of RDCs creates to define their understanding of authority, which, as we will see, engage one or more of these approaches.

Authority as role based

Arguably, the most common approach used to discuss authority within Media Studies and Digital Religion Studies is based on the work of Max Weber. As a sociologist, Weber paid close attention to how individual actions as well as large-scale social structures point to or affirm certain authority actors at work in society. In his work, Weber identified three types of authority that he saw as establishing certain actors as recognized sources of authority in society.

Scholars often highlight Weber’s three forms of “pure legitimate authority”—legal, traditional and charismatic—which he used to “classify the types of authority according to the kind of claim to legitimacy typically made by each” (Weber, 1947, pp. 325, 328). He defined legal authority as authority based on a belief in the “legality” of patterns and normative rule, where loyalty is given to a legally established impersonal order. Traditional authority is seen as established by a belief in the “sanctity of immemorial traditions” (Weber, 1947, p. 328), where obedience is given to the person who occupies this traditionally sanctioned position of authority. Charismatic authority is described as based on devotion to an individual who shows a particular characteristic, ideal or exemplary quality that motivates others to adhere to the normative patterns sanctioned by that individual. He identified individuals or groups utilizing these different leadership styles and sources of power to solidify their influence. Weber’s identification of specific authority roles that solidify the power for certain societal structures of authority is important. This not only because it gives scholars archetypes by which to identify different actors as authorities. It also draws attention to the fact that authority is established and maintained by leaders because followers buy in and affirm their leadership positions, consciously or unconsciously, by taking part in the social structures they create.

Weber’s classification of types of authority roles has frequently been used to differentiate the types of relationships that can exist between various leaders and their communities, both online and offline. His work is often used to highlight the importance of identifying and studying specific authority roles at work within internet contexts (i.e., Campbell, 2007), as well as a way to describe the difference and intersection between online and offline positions of authority (i.e., Kluver & Cheong, 2007). This characterization of authority as a distinctive role has by far been the most common way to discuss and investigate the question of authority within Digital Religion Studies. For example, Turner (2007) considered how traditional forms of religious authority are disrupted by networked forms of social engagement and communication, and how new forms of online authority may reflect traits of charismatic authority. Hoover (2016), in the introduction to his edited collection on media and religious authority, argued Weber’s approach offers scholars an important and useful way to distinguish between and discuss the different ways authority is conveyed, especially by key religious actors and organizations in media contexts. Horsfield (2016), in this same collection, went on to argue that Weber’s three types of legitimate authority have become a core way for scholars of media and religion to discuss authority. They use this approach to identify how different religious structures and leaders have responded to and utilized media in relation to the positions of authority they have established and seek to maintain in religious social-cultural contexts.

Weber’s approach to authority as distinctive roles that position specific actors and/or structures in places of influence and control culture helps scholars discuss how established religious authorities may respond to media innovations that challenge those positions or their social standing. Studying authority as a role has thus been central to discussion about the connection between online and offline forms of religious community, as well as how emerging charismatic authorities threaten traditional religious authorities. Focus is placed on how established offline and new online leaders garner attention from their followers and seek to build their authority in hybrid spaces where online and offline religious communities intersect. Weber’s approach also has proved useful for scholars seeking to identify specific strategies used by religious leaders to establish their right to rule or muster influence among their membership in these new contexts.

However, there are also limits to the usefulness of focusing on authority as a distinctive social-cultural role. This approach, and the ways it has been used, tends to either overemphasize the role of traditional or legal authority as the most powerful leadership positions or over speculate about the influence of charismatic leaders to undermine these positions. This points to two extremes noted by Cheong (2013), suggesting early research tended to speculate that only the power of either the logic of disjuncture and displacement or the logic of continuity and complementarity could be at work at any one time in a religious context. Furthermore, seeing authority as roles fails to account for informal authorities that exist within religious organizations with specialized expertise and knowledge, especially those related to digital technology and communication that can garner them influence online. As this study suggests, these informal leadership positions can trump the influence of the formal leader in certain contexts because of direct contact with other organizational and community members. Therefore, while authority as roles as expressed in the work of Weber provides one way to define who can be seen as an authority in online and offline contexts and how they garner these positions, it does not capture the full picture of how RDCs enact and engage authority.

Authority as power

Authority as power pays attention to how control is established in certain social settings, especially related to the social and cultural rules or structures put in place to give a certain group of individual’s power over anot...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Investigating approaches to the study of authority
• Chapter 2 Defining religious digital creatives
• Chapter 3 Christian digital creatives’ performance of authority: Enacting media-making narratives and a technological apologetic
• Chapter 4 Digital entrepreneurs: Internet-empowering visionary technology influencers
• Chapter 5 Digital spokespersons: The rise of institutional identity curators
• Chapter 6 Digital strategists: Acting as missional media negotiators
• Chapter 7 How Christian digital creatives understand and perform authority
• Chapter 8 How Christian digital creatives enact a technological apologetic
• Conclusion: Rethinking authority through the work of religious digital creatives
• Bibliography
• Index