A Typology of Orthodox Russians: Toward the Operationalization of a Generalized Descriptor of Religiosity

ABSTRACT

In the sociology of religion, there are many approaches to measuring religiosity. Most of the methodological literature focuses on operationalizing the concept—determining important aspects of religiosity and selecting the right indicators. At the same time, little attention has been given to the reverse operation—the construction of a common descriptor of religiosity. We consider three approaches to this problem: 1) using individual indicators; 2) constructing a general descriptor of religiosity on the basis of several indicators with the application of summation, averaging, and the principles of the strongest or weakest answer or factor analysis; and 3) constructing a typology based on several descriptors by identifying relatively homogeneous groups of religiosity using cluster analysis or latent class analysis. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are discussed. In the case of multiple social forms of religiosity, the latter approach is most productive. The article presents the typology of Orthodox Russians, built using hierarchical cluster analysis based on data gathered by the Orthodox Monitor all-Russian survey (2011). The typology is based on four indicators: faith in God, frequency of church attendance, frequency of attending religious services, and the frequency of making confession and taking communion. Nine groups were identified using our analysis.

KEYWORDS:

• Centrality of Religiosity Scale
• dimension of religiosity
• observancy
• O-Index
• Russian Orthodox Christianity
• Orthodox Monitor
• typology of religiosity

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities, grant number 16-23-41006.

Notes

¹ In this article, the Russian word pokazatel’ is translated as “descriptor.” In most cases, this word is translated as “indicator.” However, because the article makes a distinction between indikator (“indicator”) and pokazatel’ (“descriptor”), the translation attempts to be faithful to this distinction. That said, in many cases the word “descriptor” closely overlaps with “indicator.”—Translator.

² In total, seven questions are asked, since the measurement of private religious practice and religious experience suggests two indicators—for theistic and pantheistic content. The centrality descriptor takes into account the indicator by which the respondent scores the most points [Huber, 2009, pp. 37–38].

³ Nevertheless, in certain cases and with certain limitations, factor analysis can include latent variables using formative logic construction. For more detailed description of such models see Brown (2006, pp. 51–361).

⁴ Some religious scholars, psychologists, and sociologists will disagree with this, believing that religiosity is an integral part of the human condition, which can manifest itself in beliefs, practices, habits, etc.

⁵ Another important aspect of Lebedev’s and Sukhorukov’s criticism of the O-Index was the lack of formulating a number of questions, often combining several issues. However, we will not dwell on this part of their critique, since it only tangentially relates to the present article.

⁶ M. Weber and E. Troeltsch defined the sect as a maximally closed off and demanding form of the social organization of the religion of its members, while the church is characterized by greater inclusion and tolerance of insufficient religious practices and the lack of sanctity of its members [Troeltsch, 1994].

⁷ We excluded from our analysis all respondents who chose the “difficult to answer” response to any of the questions, as well as those who said they “do not believe in God, but do believe in other supernatural forces.” The question of faith in God was transcoded according to three variables: “I believe,” “I am not sure,” “I do not believe.” Questions about attending church and religious services were converted into four variables: 1) at least once a week; 2) at least once a month; 3) at least once a year; 4) less than once a year or never. For our communion question, we did not identify the category of “once a week,” since there were not enough such respondents.

⁸ It should be noted we have named the clusters conditionally. Some are named on the basis of the variables used for clustering, while others are named on the basis of our assumptions concerning the most likely reason for this particular set of characteristics. In particular, the “neophytes” group was named because we believe this is the most likely reason why some respondents regularly attend services but do not receive communion. Further research is required to test these hypotheses.

⁹ The ironic term zakhozhane is used in colloquial speech. It characterizes people who occasionally “visit” church, as opposed to the churchgoers who constitute the real church.