Cultivating a joined-up field of spirituality studies through theory and practice

The British Association for the Study of Spirituality (BASS) was planning to host its Sixth International Conference, Spirituality in Research, Professional Practice and Education, in the beautiful city of York, UK, in June 2020; it was to include a celebration of the tenth anniversary of the publication of the Journal for the Study of Spirituality (JSS). Sadly, the Covid-19 pandemic cut across those plans, like so many others around the globe, and the conference was rescheduled to take place in June this year. However, in December 2020, BASS formally changed its name to become the International Network for the Study of Spirituality (INSS) and, by January 2021, the continuing disruption of the pandemic and restrictions on travel meant that a face-to-face conference would remain impossible. The sixth BASS conference therefore became not only the first to be hosted by INSS but the first of the whole series to be held online (on 7/8 June 2021).

These changes required most members of the INSS Executive to embark on a steep learning curve as they came to terms with the simultaneous development of a new website, the use of online communication technologies, and programming an event to accommodate participation from across the world’s time-zones. BASS/INSS conferences, as the website notes,

are interdisciplinary and inter-professional, bringing together a broad range of researchers, scholars and practitioners from around the world who have interests in the theory and practice of spirituality. They are specifically designed to provide opportunities for hospitable conversations and the creation of syntheses across the international, academic and professional boundaries that often pose a challenge to the development of a ‘joined-up’ field of spirituality studies. (https://spiritualitystudiesnetwork.org/conferences)

Planning an online conference that would, as far as possible, preserve the hospitable and participatory ethos of past highly acclaimed face-to-face events was a daunting task. In addition to timetabling introductory sessions to the work of INSS, four keynote lectures, spaces for discussion and ‘social time’ – including a celebration of the (now 11th) anniversary of JSS, there were more than sixty presentations to be given over two days in six parallel sessions taking place in four different virtual ‘rooms’. Attempting to arrange presentations in themed groups of three, only to find that what looked like perfect combinations were unviable when time-zones were factored in, one planning group member likened the task to playing four-dimensional chess.

The day before the conference, with the programme finally published and 120 participants registered, the INSS Executive Committee staged a private ‘dress rehearsal’. It did not go well! In the face of various technical glitches and rising tensions, hope had to be placed in the old theatrical maxim that ‘a disastrous final rehearsal precedes an amazing premiere’ (Robinson 2020, online). Robinson points out that, when this maxim holds true, it is most likely to be ‘the result of a prepared production, committed artists, and a large-dose of adrenaline, not a deus ex machina’. He is probably right. When the metaphorical curtain went up, many ‘committed artists’ in the field of spirituality studies came on stage to give stimulating presentations of their work. The Executive Committee’s WhatsApp group (ably assisted by the ‘3Js support team’), operating ‘backstage’ to try to ensure that everything ran smoothly, was undoubtedly adrenaline-fuelled. And the very positive feedback from participants suggests that the first INSS conference did indeed premiere successfully!

Participants’ responses on evaluation forms to the question of how useful the conference had been to them reiterated the importance that INSS and JSS place on the need to take a global view of spirituality, both internationally and conceptually; and to remain open to new and emerging understandings. For example:

• I have learned many things. I have realized that in any part of the world we have similar questions, problems, and goals when we do research on spirituality.

• It has increased my awareness of the interdisciplinary nature of spirituality.

• It was interesting to observe the differences in the understanding of what the term ‘spirituality’ means to various groups/individuals.

• It has exposed me to a variety of ideas I was not completely familiar with and that broadening is useful.

• It really helped me see beyond a church or institutional worldview. The diversity of views was great.

• My knowledge, and deeper awareness, of spirituality has been greatly exercised … [the discussions] opened up such realms of possibilities for me.

Significantly, some responses drew attention to a problem with which BASS/INSS and this journal have struggled from their inception: an apparent difference between ‘doing’ spirituality and studying it. In response to a question about the usefulness of the conference ‘in understanding and developing your knowledge’, one participant noted that there had been ‘A lot about spirituality, of course given that it is about studying spirituality, but [nothing] that was really the thing itself.’ Another wrote that, although the conference ‘slightly moved my understanding forward I do not really feel that it is our knowledge that needs developing’. S/he added ‘The question you ask shows how intellectual and academic the bias of this group is. What is needed are more practical examples to change the world’.

No-one who has been involved in the development of BASS/INSS and JSS is likely to deny the need either for more practical examples of spirituality or for a change in humanity’s collective way of being in the world. However, both the Association/Network and the journal are founded on the premise that practice and theory are inextricably entwined. They recognize that, as Ammerman indicates, the term ‘spirituality’ is both emergent and contested; and that unpacking its cultural meanings and implications can lead to greater understanding of ‘self’, ‘other’ and how these concepts and associated practices are related in transpersonal and/or transcendental contexts. Ammerman’s research (2013, 272) found that one particular – and practical - idea underpins many different concepts of spirituality: it is ‘about living a virtuous life, one characterized by helping others, transcending one’s own selfish interests to seek what is right’. In his opening speech at the launch of BASS, the then Chair, John Swinton, suggested that reaching agreement on what spirituality ‘is’ is less important than understanding what it ‘does’. He points out that such understanding can be developed by considering what spirituality looks like as it is carried out within a particular area of practice, and then studying whether its presence makes any difference (Swinton 2020).

Practical examples of spirituality are vitally important in their own right. But knowledge derived from studies - whether in a personal, professional or global setting - in which appropriate methodological approaches have been applied and ‘findings’, whatever their nature, have been fully explored and presented, contributes to a constantly expanding intellectual and academic understanding of spirituality which is equally vital. This is especially evident when data derived from academic studies are used to inform and influence the kinds of policy decisions that have the power to ‘change the world’, locally, institutionally or globally.

In my own view, just as it is possible to undertake any task mindfully, including study (i.e. in full awareness of where one is and what one is doing without becoming overly-reactive or distracted by what is going on externally or internally), it is possible to study spirituality spiritually (Hunt 2021, 244-251). BASS conferences have deliberately contained elements designed to enhance this process. While these may have become diluted in the online environment of this year’s conference, both INSS and JSS continue to acknowledge the importance of working at the interface between theory and practice - and of remaining open to new understandings and insights that are generated in doing so.

The articles in this issue not only exemplify this approach in different contexts but they reflect the international, interdisciplinary, and methodological variety of studies in the field of spirituality. In the first article, ‘Spiritual care training needs in hospice palliative care settings in South Africa: Chorused national, provincial and local voices,’ Ronita Mahilall and Leslie Swartz highlight work in a part of the world that has so far been under-represented in JSS. Much has now been written and implemented in the Global North in the context of spiritual care, especially in terms of training, but this is not so in the Global South where a base on which to build spiritual care has yet to be properly established. Mahilall and Swartz draw attention to ‘fundamental challenges’ of providing services ‘in a low resourced, skills diverse, impoverished, and high-conflict country.’ Their research points to the need for ‘a national training curriculum in spiritual care for hospices providing palliative care’. Somewhat ironically, they identify two ‘key barriers’ to such development which are likely to be all-too-familiar to practitioners/researchers in the Global North – finance and human capital. The article concludes with an open invitation to contribute to ‘the building of truly international spiritual care practices in the field of palliative care’ which give ‘due attention both to universal concerns and to the diverse needs of different contexts.’

A widespread concern at the present time is with mental health and an increase in incidences of depression. Introducing their article ‘Spirituality as “detachment” and “comfort” in the context of depression’, Anne-Marie Snider, based in the USA, and Naomi Smith, in Australia, point out that arguments among researchers and practitioners ‘about the meanings of spirituality for individuals in a mental health context have oscillated between spirituality as a positive mediating factor for depression … and spirituality as a risk factor, or sign of mental illness’. Snider and Smith report on a small qualitative study designed to explore how individuals who had been diagnosed with depression conceptualised/understood spirituality themselves, and whether or not this understanding had any effect on their recovery. A significant finding was that ‘rather than having a reductive effect on depression, spirituality appears to be more of an active and social life-force, sometimes offering a new perspective on a person’s current situation, including their mental and physical health’.

New perspectives on a variety of situations are constantly evolving in contemporary society through the use of social media. Christian Stokke’s article ‘Exploring the transpersonal phenomena of spiritual love relations: A naturalistic observation study of soulmate experiences shared in a New Age Facebook group’ provides an interesting insight into the way in which ancient mythology has emerged and is expressed in the New Age beliefs of an online discussion group. From his own base in Norway, Stokke also highlights some of the methodological aspects of research using social media. Drawing on a convenience sample of 140 responses to a Facebook post, he explores individuals’ reported experiences of encounters and relationships with their ‘soulmates’ and suggests that the defining criteria of these ‘spiritual love relations include instant recognition, immediate bonding, and various psychic and energetic phenomena corresponding to spiritual awakening described in transpersonal psychology.’

As if in response to those who may find reports of soulmate experiences extraordinary, Nicole Lindsay, Natasha Tassell-Matamua, Deanna Haami, Felicity Ware, Hukarere Valentine and Pikihuia Pomare, point out that:

The human experience has long been intertwined with extraordinary mental and perceptual events that depart from dominant understandings of everyday reality. From out-of-body states to extrasensory experiences and encounters with non-human entities, stories that speak of such phenomena are entrenched within the narratives of all cultures around the world.

Within Western popular discourse, however, such phenomena are often labelled psychic, supernatural, mystical or paranormal and are designated as ‘Exceptional Experiences’ (EEs). Scales designed to measure these experiences are based almost exclusively on a Western perspective and this can result in linguistic and conceptual biases. In their article, ‘Construction of a “Beliefs about Exceptional Experiences Scale” (BEES): Implications of preliminary findings in Aotearoa New Zealand’, the authors explain how they have attempted to develop ‘a valid measure of belief in EEs [within] a diverse multicultural society’. Preliminary findings indicate that what is regarded as an ‘anomalous’ experience in one culture may be seen as ‘spiritual’ in another. In consequence, Lindsay and her colleagues point to the need for ‘academics and healthcare professionals to remain respectful of worldviews and belief systems that may differ from their own’, noting in particular that the perspectives and beliefs of Indigenous people should be ‘given equal credence when collaboratively designing public health or educational initiatives’.

Gianni Zappalà, who is based in Australia, also addresses the nature of worldviews. In his article, ‘Cultivating Spiritual Intelligence for a participatory worldview: The contribution of Archetypal Cosmology’, he argues that ‘We are in a collective liminal space between worldviews, on a trajectory from the dominant scientific materialism towards a participative worldview’. Archetypal Cosmology is a system ‘based on an enchanted cosmos in which the microcosm of the psyche is reflected in the macrocosm of the universe.’ Relating this to the concept of Spiritual Intelligence (SQ), Zappalà suggests that both are ‘multi-sensory ways of knowing that include the imaginal, symbolic, mythical and spiritual [which] may help bring about new modes of thinking to bridge the sciences and humanities.’ He concludes with the suggestion that it might be helpful to re-vision and to develop ‘our understanding of the acronym AI as connoting an Archetypal rather than Artificial Intelligence – one based on the human soul and its quest for meaning in a re-enchanted and spiritually intelligent cosmos’.

Another perspective on the question of what it means for humans to be ‘spiritually intelligent’ is explored in the Forum section of this issue which features an article by Hans Henning and Max Henning, both based in the USA. Entitled ‘Reflections on the nature of spirituality: Evolutionary context, biological mechanisms, and future directions’, it asks why spiritual traditions and practices are ubiquitous in human societies. Noting that ‘Existing theories on the nature of spirituality range from the suggestion that human minds are inherently predisposed to spirituality, to the idea that spirituality developed adaptively to offer moral guidance and to promote mutually beneficial, cooperative behaviours’, the Hennings look through the lenses of biological and cultural evolution to propose that ‘spirituality developed as a cultural adaptation to a characteristic feature of human mental experience – the duality, or differentiation, of mental subject and mental object’. Acknowledging the transformational potential of spirituality while deliberately using ‘language consistent with scientific knowledge’, they trace the development of spirituality ‘to evolutionary events at the core of human exceptionalism’.

Your views on any of the topics discussed in this issue, and/or on other relevant matters, are warmly invited. By ‘doing’ spirituality, studying it, and sharing what we find, perhaps we can cultivate a ‘joined-up’ field of spirituality studies with the potential to change the world.

Acknowledgements

As always, my thanks are due to all the contributors to this volume of JSS and to members of the Editorial Board. I am indebted, too, to the following colleagues who have generously given their time and expertise to act as Guest Reviewers: Bernadette Flanagan; Tove Giske; Jonathan Gosling; Carole Hillenbrand; Roderick Hunt; Li Li; Themesa Neckles; Andreas Sommer; and Jacqueline Watson.