Brandon Vaidyanathan on Spiritual Innovation

‍Brandon Vaidyanathan, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology, The Catholic University of America

‍

Let’s unpack the two words here. “Spiritual” is a word that is often disparaged as being vague and wooly. But I think it’s a valuable term, and across its various meanings, points to a deeper sense of connection to either self, others, nature, or to a transcendent source many call God.

“Deeper” here echoes philosopher Charles Taylor’s concept of “strong evaluation”—a qualitative distinction of worth between things that we experience as somehow “higher” vs. “lower.” And this deeper sense of connection is oriented toward a sense of “fullness” or flourishing. 

“Innovation” implies something perceived as new within a particular context. But novelty alone isn’t enough. The sorts of things we call innovations tend to be:

• (a) new in some significant way—not necessarily disruptive, but more than a marginally perceptible change;
• (b) judged by some community as facilitating a deeper sense of connection or fullness (i.e., perceived as meaningfully “better” than the status quo in that context); and
• (c) diffused and adopted broadly enough beyond initial innovators to form shared, legitimized standards or practices.

I would define a spiritual innovation, then, as a significant change in belief, ritual, artefact, or social structure that some community (not just an isolated individual) recognizes as opening a fresh pathway to that sense of fuller connection, and that gains enough uptake to form tacit rules-of-use. The diffusion of a spiritual innovation creates implicit standards—how to chant well, or which prayer app protocols count as reverent.

The interpretive nature of some of these words (“significant,” “deeper,” “fuller,” “widely”) guarantees there will be disagreement on the threshold it would take for something to count as a spiritual innovation. Whose perception counts when judging something as a spiritual innovation? This question has no easy answers; it implies that spiritual innovations are always going to be contested and debated. And because “innovation” is still a problematic word in some traditions, calling a practice or group “innovative” can itself spark debate. That contestation is itself part of the phenomenon of spiritual innovation.

I see three main benefits of spiritual innovation. First, it is refreshing: it keeps the wellsprings open when older channels feel clogged. It enables traditions to prevent ossification and become living entities. Many spiritual entrepreneurs start tinkering because inherited forms no longer work for them or their peers, and embark upon a new adaptation of their spiritual tradition or practice—or even adopt new modalities and structures to improve its spiritual effectiveness. Second, diffusion builds new networks of solidarity, as more people come to adopt the innovation. Third, innovation can democratize access, allowing groups who were once left out from the spiritual benefits of a practice to more fully participate. 

Spiritual innovations also have pitfalls. For one, a spiritual innovation may fail in its spiritual efficacy—e.g., it may not reliably contribute to deepening the sense of connection or fullness it aimed to do, or may end up amplifying some spiritual objectives while compromising others, or may backfire when scaled beyond the initial context of innovation. Second, novelty can slip into spiritual consumerism—the endless chase for the next spiritual high, for dopamine without depth. This is one reason why the concept of “innovation” has historically been treated in religious contexts with derision, implying the unserious pursuit of newfangled fads. The bricolage and selective appropriation entailed in some spiritual innovations can reinforce problematic power dynamics. Another risk is that a spiritual innovation without roots in a community oriented to the common good may end up producing psychological and social harms. There’s no shortage of emergent spiritual practices and movements that start out with purportedly good intentions but end up becoming exploitative or abusive. 

‍

Read More Definitions of Spiritual Innovation

• Ristina Gooden, Spiritual innovation leader and scholar focused on Black women
• Sandy Hong, Spiritual innovation trainer and practitioner focused on the US and Korean diaspora 
• Edina Leković, Muslim thought leader and community builder
• Noosim Naimasiah, Pan-African scholar-activist
• Sid Schwarz, Jewish thought leader and convener of spiritual innovators
• Susumu Shimazono, Japanese sociologist of religion
• Cristine Takuá, Maxakali Indigenous philosopher and educator