Summary: Salient Aspects of Worldview for the Present Study

To focus the theoretical apparatus to what is relevant for the present study, I will review 1) quad- rants of worldview theory; 2) function of a worldview; 3) categorical versus dimensional approach; and 4) content of worldview

Quadrants of worldview theory: The present study will examine worldviews as meaning systems

that can be brought to consciousness. Since there are little established theories about what kinds of non-religious worldviews ought to exist out there, individual worldviews will be used as the basic units of observation. The personal worldviews should not be considered as frozen in time, but something that have the capacity to evolve throughout life. The analyses recognise this by not claiming that the worldview instantiation at the moment of assessment would be representative for the person’s whole worldview history. The data obtained from these instantiations will lead to gen- eralisations about socially shared elements. These generalisations will be called non-religious worldview prototypes.

Function of a worldview: Worldviews have both practical and existential functions. The practical

function is about navigating and getting along in everyday life. Since the present study is concerned about meaning-making rather than practical problem-solving and every day utility, the existential function of a worldview needs to guide the considerations regarding the salient content of the worldview to be assessed. Therefore, worldviews are considered as systems that provide meaning, rather than maps for practical solutions.

Content of a worldview: An approach that uses a list of existing worldview types to categorise the

worldview that is being investigated is particularly problematic when the theories are just being de- veloped. Another approach would be to focus on factual instantiations along the different dimen- sions of a worldview. Even with such an approach there are problems that the assessment needs to overcome. To deal with the multifaceted nature of the worldview, the research question needs to guide the assessment. The focus needs to be on differentiation from religion. Moreover, the as- sessment needs to be sensitive to the internal structure of the worldview, where beliefs can be held in different ways, and the beliefs can be hierarchically structured within the worldview. I will elabo- rate on this more when I discuss the methodology in the next chapter. All of this does not rule out the importance of worldview typologies, but the investigation needs to be agnostic about the out- comes at the outset and let the typology emerge in a posteriori fashion.

The assessment needs to consider not only cognitive aspects of the worldview as a system of be- liefs. It also needs to recognise experiential, emotional and evaluative aspects. The assessment 228 should therefore encompass features that are not directly related to the non-religious discourse, such as underlying moods and basic life orientations, to account for different perspectives. Evaluative aspects of the worldview will represent the cognitive part of values, to use the term of Rokeach, 229

Holm 1996: 2-3

228

Rokeach 1973: 6-7

whereas value as an etic term refers to values as mostly unconscious motivational structures, some- thing that the present study does not directly target.

Narratives: Personal life narratives and shared histories provide unifying structures that enable the

integration of the otherwise isolated experiences and beliefs into a coherent system. There is need for sensitivity to any emerging patterns in the personal life-narratives of the non-religious individu- als. The assessment needs to recognise prominent themes and possible counter-themes.

I will conclude this section by attempting to capture the above points in a definition of worldview for the context of this study.

3.3.1 Working Definition of Worldview

I will define worldview as referring primarily to an individual’s worldview. I will reserve the terms

worldview prototype and prototype when I specifically want to refer to a viewpoint shared by many

respondents of this study. However, since worldview is commonly used to refer to both an individ- ual’s worldview and to a socially shared perspective, it is at times linguistically convenient to use the term worldview even in reference to a shared perspective. In such cases, the context will make clear this to be the case, and the risk for confusion is minimal.

On the individual level a worldview may be structured by unconsciously held priorities such. To recognise that the assessed and observed worldview may only represent a tip of an ice-berg, I use worldview in reference to such beliefs and preferences that can be brought to conscious awareness. Furthermore, the processual nature of worldview development needs to be kept in mind: The as- sessment uses snapshots into the worldview of the respondent, as it manifests during the assess- ment.

In order to keep the definition concise, there is no need to address all the possible structural depart- ments of a worldview. My definition follows Peter Nynäs and Mika Lassander’s definition that gui- des the larger research project, Viewpoints to the World, of which the present study is a part of:

Worldview is a single, comprehensive, general and explanatory system of assigning meanings to an individual’s ideas and experiences. 230

Formulated in this way, the definition is context specific: suitable as a parent category for studying religious and non-religious worldviews. The existential function of the worldview is emphasised over the practical function. To emphasise existential over practical concerns, worldview is defined

“Worldview is employed...as broader concept than religion. It is used in reference to an interpretative framework that

230

people use to assign meaning to their experiences. Worldviews are comprehensive meaning systems that locate all expe- riences of the individual in a single general explanatory arrangement or strategy.” Nynäs and Lassander 2012: 5.

as a system of meanings, rather than as a collection of beliefs. This is in line with the Scandinavian tradition of worldview research, which often has taken place with the name lifeview, a term original- ly coined by Kierkegaard. Carl Reinhold Bråkenhielm emphasises that even a stipulatory defini231 _- tion should not depart too far from how the term is understood in everyday usage of the word. Fur- thermore, a distinction needs to be made between an individual’s personal worldview and world- view as a freely circulating system of ideas. I have suggested that in the present study, worldview primarily denote an individual’s viewpoint, whereas a shared viewpoint be referred to as prototype or worldview prototype. Bråkenhielm further argues, that instead of incorporating every belief an individual may have, the worldview domain should be reserved for those beliefs that are central for a general and all-embracing understanding of reality. This allows us to leave out such beliefs that are situational or marginal for the whole gestalt. Concerns for the criterion of centrality are ad232 _- dressed in the definition with words ‘comprehensive’ and ‘general’. Besides beliefs, the worldview should also include answers to questions about what is most important in life. This aspect is ad- dressed in the definition with ‘assigning meanings’. As a system of meanings, a worldview also de- scribes what goals and ideals are to be strived for. Finally, Bråkenhielm suggests that a worldview include a more experiential aspect, basic emotional posture , which is recognised in the definition 233 by assigning meanings not only to an individual’s ideas, but also to experiences.

With this definition, we can now turn to how non-religious worldviews are best investigated. This question leads us to consider how worldviews are expressed, and to the appropriate methodological solutions.


See Bråkenhielm 2001: 9-16 for the whole discussion about how to define lifeview, which for my purposes can stand

231

more or less synonymous to the kind of worldview-concept I am proposing

I may for instance believe that I need to catch a local commuter train no later than 6:10 PM to get home in time to

232

teach my daughter how to play a certain melody on piano, as we had agreed. I may be right about the belief about the train schedule, or update the information, without this having any effect on the totality of my worldview.

Anders Jeffner’s original Swedish term is grundhållning. See Jeffner 1976: 40-41