Month: July 2026

Posted on

The clash of religion and bureaucracy: State definitions and registration roadblocks

By Therese von Weissenberg

Every once in a while, when I need to add some enrichment, I entertain myself by creating fictional societies and/or religions and mashing them with their surroundings to see what interesting situations could hypothetically occur. And lately as I stalk the halls of the library while studying at midnight I have been considering how one would go about creating a religion that would be worthy of consideration to be registered as a religion but comes into conflict with the state’s bureaucratic definition of a religion.

During our Religion and Sociology lectures, more specifically the lecture on religion and state, the preparation for the lecture included section seven from chapter two of the “Act on the Freedom of Religion” according to Finnish law(453/2003), regarding the qualifications needed to register as a religious community. And for fun I went and read the rest of chapter two, just to see what it would take to get legally registered as a religious community. A lot of it simply has to do with bureaucratic rulings that apply in similar ways to many non-profit organisations, membership, payments, executive committee and so on. So for my challenge I told myself I could not get my made up religion rejected on any kind of basis that could apply to non-religious non-profit groups as well, the rejection had to be based on sincere religious elements that nonetheless create conflict with the state’s bureaucratic definition of religion. This restricts me to the two elements mentioned in section 7, creed and an element of something sacred.

I have decided to exploit a small little detail in section ten: community by-laws. The first thing the community by law needs me to clarify, is the name of the religious community. My conflict, found at last.

“The community by-laws shall state:

1) the name of the religious community and the municipality in Finland in which it has it’s registered office;”

My religion is according to our faith and creed one that has no name, and shall never be named, not even nicknamed, the fact that it is unnamed, and the continuous unnamedness of it is sacred, and violating that would be blaspheming. You may not refer to the religion by the same moniker on the same day. No official records or texts may write down something that might be used as a way to refer to the religion in a consistent way. This in accordance with our belief of the universe as an ever-changing entity and respect of that by acknowledging the impermanence of all things by refusing to name the religion.

By all other accounts my fellow members and I should qualify, we have submitted a creed, we have clarified what we hold as sacred, we have more than twenty members(twenty and a half!), we have clarified our charter, we seek no financial profit, we have an executive committee, we have a clear account of our membership registration, we’re champs at human rights, and all other community by-laws are stated.

But sections seven and ten put us in conflict. Our most sacred element is directly in conflict with the first part of section ten. Everything else is in order, but a small little detail balloons into the blockade that will keep us from recognition by the state.

Essi Mäkelä in her paper on the “‘Impartial Sources’ and the Registration of

Religious Communities in Finland” discusses certain cases that have been rejected from being registered as religious communities, inter alia, the La Sociedad del Amor de Dios, or SAD, a group based on the belief of god’s love, largely the Christian god, but can also be interpreted as a universal god found in many religions, like Islam, and while I will not comment on the results of the applications, nor the general ideology of the group, the rejections that were involved are more interesting when analysing the case of my religion. To summarize, the SAD were rejected because they failed to, in the eyes of the state’s board, properly connect their religious doctrine to a sacred text or set of written down directions. Despite citing various works, including the bible, freemasonry and ‘other’(not named) texts. Mäkelä reflects in the text that the SAD bases their faith on a specific set of verses in the bible but fails to name the specifics to the board.

So a, by the state, perceived ambiguity concerning the religious text led to up to three rejections. Even though the SAD by all other accounts apparently would have qualified. The need for clarity within the bureaucratic system of the state thus held the SAD back from acceptance.

Because states are bureaucratic legal entities, usually, they more or less need everything to be gently corseted into similar frameworks for the state to be able to properly process them. So a legal definition is needed to create any kind of functioning system between religions and the state. But any kind of definition brings with it the risk of exclusion. And legal definitions paired with a religious group’s ideals or rules that by virtue of sacredness become inflexible, like my group, bring with it the addition of technicalities becoming far bigger deals than anyone intended for, hindering the freedom part, of freedom or religion.

The SAD was willing to, for at least three times, revise their application. But in the case of my made-up religion, revision is not an option, the internal doctrine states we under no circumstances may name our religion.

The inevitable rejection thus would be born of a clash with a fundamental working of the bureaucratic state, since names play an important role in tracking and documentation among other things. The case of my religion reflects how limited definitions born from the technical needs within the state affect a topic like religion, where a multitude of deeply rooted beliefs or doctrine, when evolved outside of the state’s systems, highlight the weaknesses of rigid bureaucratic definitions.

References:

Act on the Freedom of Religion (Chapter 2). 453/2003; amendments up to 463/2017 included.https://www.finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/688468/mainPdf/main.pdf?timestamp=2003-06-05T21%3A00%3A00.000Z/https://www.finlex.fi/en/legislation/translations/2003/eng/453 .

Mäkelä, Essi Eleonoora. 2018. “‘Impartial Sources’ and the Registration of Religious Communities in Finland.” Journal for the Academic Study of Religion 31 (1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1558/jasr.35224.

Posted on

”Befria dig!!” – reaktionerna på traditionella fruar i sociala medier

av Janina Rågård

“Ta en paus, du behöver inte honom” är en kommentar jag nyligen snubblade över i Ballerina Farms kommentarsfält på TikTok. Kontot med över 10 miljoner följare drivs av mormonen Hannah Neeleman som bland annat blivit känd genom att publicera videor där hon lagar mat och tar hand om sina barn. Neeleman har under den senaste tiden blivit ett av de främsta ansiktena utåt för ”tradwife”-rörelsen, men vad är egentligen en tradwife? Termen tradwife härstammar från engelskans ”traditional wife” som generellt översätts till traditionell fru. Traditionella fruar har i allt högre grad uppmärksammats på sociala medier från och med 2018 då konservativa religiösa, inklusive Neeleman, började framhålla fördelarna med att vara hemmafruar (Young, 2025). I diskussioner om traditionella fruar tas bland annat religion, medier och politiska frågor upp, vilket gör ämnet till ett aktuellt exempel på hur religion och samhälle samverkar och uttrycks via sociala medier.

Vid en sökning på Instagram med sökordet #tradwife dyker det upp över 128 000 inlägg där kvinnor lagar mat och framhåller hur skönt det är att enbart behöva ta hand om hemmet. Traditionella fruar kopplas samman med kvinnor vars värderingar grundar sig i ”traditionella” familjedynamiker och könsroller, understryker Wikström (2024). I klarspråk innebär detta att kvinnan, precis som Neeleman, är hemma och lagar mat, tar hand om barnen och städar, medan mannen är familjens överhuvud och försörjare.

Enligt Wikström (2024) är det ”traditionella” inte gemensamt för alla traditionella fruar, men det finns flera gemensamma nämnare som går att identifiera. En gemensam faktor är enligt henne heterosexuella förhållanden där kvinnans roll är att ta hand om barnen och hemmet, medan mannen arbetar. De traditionella fruarna är därtill oftast religiösa och kan använda sig av bibelverser i sociala medier för att förstärka sitt budskap eller lyfta fram religionens betydelse. Traditionella fruar tenderar även att ha en negativ inställning till feminism, vilket kan märkas genom användningen av #ConservativeWomen och #FeminismSucks som ofta går att finna i samband med de traditionella fruarnas inlägg i sociala medier (Young, 2025).

De negativa reaktionerna som riktas mot traditionella fruar grundar sig i rörelsens syn på feminism och jämställdhet. Vi lever i den fjärde vågen av feminism, som på många sätt starkt kan kopplas till sociala medier där feministiska budskap, exempelvis MeToo-kampanjen, tydligt lyfts fram. De traditionella fruarna framhåller inte denna moderna feminism, utan snarare den feminism som var norm under 1950-talet, betonar Wikström (2024). De traditionella fruarna är på så sätt mer fokuserade på den ”traditionella” feminismen och vill avvika från den moderna. Därtill sprider de traditionella fruarna ofta högerextrema budskap och lever i ekonomisk utsatthet, eftersom de avstår från att arbeta. Dessa faktorer bidrar till att ytterligare kritik riktas mot dem.

Att Hannah Neeleman borde ta en paus för att hon inte behöver sin man är inte den enda uppseendeväckande kommentaren som går att finna i kommentarsfältet för kontot Ballerina Farm. Även ”Befria dig!!” och ”Är du lycklig?” är en av flera tusentals kommentarer som riktas mot Neeleman på hennes TikTok-konto. Efter att ha analyserat kontot insåg jag att kommentarerna har en tydlig gemensam nämnare. Kommentarerna grundar sig i ett antagande, nämligen att hon blivit tvingad att vara hemmafru. Dessa antaganden leder till kommentarer gällande den mängd barn hon har och att hon ska tänka på sin hälsa. Traditionella fruar betraktas dock inte vara tvingade att leva det liv de lever, vilket kritikerna i kommentarsfälten inte verkar vara medvetna om. Samtidigt är kritiken begriplig, eftersom moderna samhällsideal ofta betonar jämställdhet och det är svårt att veta hur kvinnan egentligen har det bakom kameran.

Även om rörelsen ständigt möter kritik i takt med att feminismen har vuxit under de senaste årtiondena, kan det vara något som vissa behöver påminna sig om: att feminism också innebär rätten att själv välja. Att inte hålla med om en kvinnas åsikter – i detta fall viljan att vara en traditionell hemmafru – förändrar inte det faktum att feminism handlar om friheten att själv få välja om man vill leva traditionellt eller inte. Samtidigt kan jag se det riskabla med denna rörelse, eftersom den påverkar unga och kan normalisera underordning samt ge en snäv bild av religiositet och dess syn på kvinnan. Efter att ha läst på om rörelsen och bekantat mig med de reaktioner som uppstår på sociala medier inser jag att tradwife-rörelsen är och kommer förbli ett värdeladdat fenomen.

 

Litteraturhänvisning:

Wikström, E., & Åbo Akademi, F. f. s. o. e. (2024). Hemma är alla karlar starka och alla kvinnor fagra: Hur tradwife-rörelsen framställs bland inläggen under #tradwife på Instagram.

Young, C. (2025). Single and psycho: How pop culture created the unstable single woman.

Posted on

Social Reinforcement In Religious Dietary Practises: A Perspective From Behavioural Psychology

By Julia Pitkänen

While going to lunch at the university, I have entered various discussions about religious dietary practices. These discussions have made me wonder how such restrictions become a stable part of everyday behaviours and how they differ from ordinary food preferences, especially in societies where the religious dietary restrictions are not part of the dominant cultural norm. From a psychological perspective, this raises an interesting question: How are dietary restrictions socially reinforced as behavioural norms, maintaining them even when the surrounding society follows different standards? In other words, what mechanisms aid in maintaining such practises beyond the individual’s own preferences? These questions are particularly relevant in multicultural and religiously diverse societies, where individuals sometimes act within differing or even conflicting social norms. In such contexts, everyday behaviours such as following a specific diet are not just a personal choice, but also connect to broader social belonging, identity, and group membership. As described by B.F Skinner, external reinforcement mechanisms shape individuals’ behaviours, with repeated social reinforcements strengthening and maintaining specific behaviours over time.

Behavioural theory, developed by B.F Skinner, depicts human behaviour as learned in continuous interaction with the environment. From this perspective, behaviours are not fixed, but are continuously shaped and maintained through social reinforcement, where communities and institutions provide cues for accepted behaviours. Skinner notes that in religious framing, certain behaviours maintain symbolic or moral significance, strengthening adherence. However, from a psychological perspective, religious behaviours are shaped through the same processes of reinforcement as other behaviours, where wanted actions are rewarded and unwanted ones discouraged through social consequences. For instance, religious dietary practises such as halal food rules can be reinforced through social approval, community meals, and a sense of belonging, while noncompliance can result in criticism, disapproval, and feelings of guilt. Through reinforcement, religious communities maintain their traditions even when they differ from the dominating cultural norms in society. Over time, the reinforced processes create stable behavioural patterns that become part of norms and traditions for the individual, which are further continually reinforced in past, present, and future social environments, shaping behaviour in religious and cultural contexts.

B.F. Skinner’s behaviour theory is a significant contribution to the psychology of religion, as it goes beyond explaining individuals’ religious practices and also depicts how religious behaviours are learned, maintained, and transmitted from social environments. Particularly relevant in increasingly multicultural societies where individuals come in contact with varying value systems and expected behaviours. In such environments, individuals have to continuously navigate and negotiate which behavioural norms to follow across different social contexts, such as limited food options for restricted diets. From Skinner’s perspective, religion functions as a guiding social force, where religious communities enforce certain behaviours through approval and increased belonging, while discouraging behaviours outside of the standard. While these behaviours may also bring the believers spiritual good or fulfil moral obligations, they are highlighted as mechanisms that enforce specific actions directing behaviour. Simultaneously, the religious systems benefit future-oriented decisions, while the mechanisms support individuals in making sacrifices in the present with planning, responsibility, and social cooperation.

One of the most interesting insights from this perspective is that the mechanisms for maintaining religious and secular behaviours are very similar. As individuals’ choices are negotiated within the surrounding social norms and reinforced through approval and shared expectations, similar patterns of behaviour can be seen whether the choices are motivated by religious reasoning or, for instance, ethics, health, or cultural traditions. This highlights the impact of the social environment on the individual’s psychology, personal choices and behaviours, illustrating how strongly the repeated interactions with the surrounding context shape personal preferences and everyday practises. As such, perhaps the dietary choices are not completely individual decisions, but also partly socially structured outcomes of interaction between the individual’s awareness and collective expectations.

From these perspectives, the initial observation of discussions surrounding religious dietary practises can be interpreted through the psychological lens that highlights the role of the social environment in reinforcing individuals’ behaviours. What may be seen as individuals’ own dietary choices, they are linked to broader social impacts, belonging, and norms. These notions are evident in both religious and secular aspects of behavioural reinforcement. While religious actions can be motivated by underlying moral or spiritual reasons, they rely on similar psychological processes as all other actions. In addition to dietary choices, the perspective can be elaborated on other everyday actions similarly, such as activities, clothing, and use of language, all developed within influences from family, society, and institutional norms. Can you recognise any dietary norms or everyday practices you have that have been shaped by the social environment you are a part of?

Sources

Kressel, Neil J. The Psychology of Religion: A Social Force. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623902

Brown, Daniel. “Islam in the Twenty-First Century.” In A New Introduction to Islam, 3rd ed., 335–351. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2017.