To understand the complex religious dynamics in a globalizing world, Arjun Appadurai's view on imagination as a social practice, Charles Taylor's view on social imaginaries, and John Dewey's view on moral imagination are discussed. Their views enable us to understand religious dynamics as a “space of contestation” in which secular and religious images and voices (sometimes embodied in the same person) interact, argue, and clash. Imagination can be used in violent ways in service of extremist world images that spread over the world by the intensive use of social media. This raises an urgent question for psychology of religion: what enables people psychologically to engage in religious pluralism, understood as negotiating and perhaps stimulating diversity in non-violent, constructive ways? It is argued that dialogical psychology helps us to understand the self as the anchor point and navigational system of the social imaginaries that are at play in religious dynamics.
AlmaH.A., & AnbeekC.W. (2013). Worldviewing competence for narrative interreligious dialogue: A humanist contribution to spiritual care. In ShipaniD.S. (Ed.), Multifaith voices in spiritual care (pp. 149–169). Ontario: Pandora Press.
2.
AndersonB. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.London: Verso.
3.
AppaduraiA. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
BanchoffT. (2008). Introduction: Religious pluralism in world affairs. In BanchoffT. (Ed.), Religious pluralism, globalization, and world politics (pp. 3–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BelzenJ.A. (2010). Towards cultural psychology of religion: Principles, approaches, applications.New York: Springer.
6.
BensonC. (2001). The cultural psychology of self: Place, morality and art in human worlds.London/New York: Routledge.
7.
Boer-DirksE. (1993). Nieuw licht op Zwarte Piet. Een kunsthistorisch antwoord op de vraag naar de herkomst van Zwarte Piet. Volkskundig Bulletin, 19, 1–35.
8.
BrienenR.P. (2014). Types and stereotypes: Zwarte Piet and his early modern sources. In EssedP., & HovingI. (Eds.), Dutch racism (pp. 179–200). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
9.
CastoriadisC. (1987). The imaginary institution of society.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
DamasioA. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain.Orlando: Harcourt.
11.
DeweyJ. (1934). A common faith.New Haven: Yale University Press.
12.
DeweyJ. (1981). Experience and nature (The later works 1925–1953: Vol.1). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1925)
13.
DeweyJ. (1989). Art as experience (The later works 1925–1953: Vol.10). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1934)
14.
DroogersA., & van HarskampA. (2014). Methods for the study of religious change: From religious studies to worldview studies.Sheffield: Equinox.
15.
FesmireS. (2003). John Dewey and moral imagination: Pragmatism in ethics.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16.
GaonkarD.P. (2002). Toward new imaginaries: An introduction. Public Culture, 14(1), 1–19.
17.
GergenK.J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
GoodmanL.E. (2014). Religious pluralism and values in the public sphere.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion.New York: Random House.
HermansH.J.M., & GieserT. (2012). Handbook of dialogical self theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
HermansH., & Hermans-KonopkaA. (2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a globalizing society.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
KimmerleH., & SchepenR. (2014). Filosofie van het verstaan: Een dialoog.Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant.
24.
KinnvallC., & Nesbitt-LarkingP. (2011). The political psychology of globalization: Muslims in the West.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
KruglanskiA.W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness.New York: Taylor & Francis.
26.
LichtermanP. (2009). Social capacity and the styles of group life: Some inconvenient wellsprings of democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(6), 846–866.
27.
MalyI.BlommaertJ., & Ben YakoubJ. (2014). Superdiversiteit en democratie.Berchem: Epo.
28.
MeadG.H. (1934). Mind, self and society—From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (Works of George Herbert Mead: Vol. 1; edited, with an introduction by C.W. Morris). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
NussbaumM.C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice.Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.
30.
SmithJ.L. (2014). The Dutch carnivalesque: Blackface, play, and Zwarte Piet. In EssedP., & HovingI., Dutch racism (pp. 219–238). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
31.
StraussC. (2006). The imaginary. Anthropological Theory, 6(3), 322–344.
32.
SzreterS. (2002). The state of social capital: Bringing back in power, politics and history. Theory and Society, 31(5), 573–621.
33.
TaylorC. (2004). Modern social imaginaries.Durham: Duke University Press.
34.
TaylorC. (2007). A secular age.Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.
35.
VandevoordtR.ClycqN., & VerschraegenG. (2015). Studying culture through social imaginaries. Manuscript submitted for publication.
36.
VertovecS. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054.
37.
ZockH. (2013). Religious voices in the dialogical self: Towards a conceptual-analytical framework on the basis of Hubert Hermans's dialogical self theory. In BuitelaarM., & ZockH. (Eds.), Religious voices in self-narratives: Making sense of life in times of transition (pp. 11–35). Berlin: De Gruyter.
