Linda Vikdahl a, Arniika Kuusisto b,c and Arto Kallioniemi caSödertörn University, Huddinge, Sweden; bDepartment of Child and Youth Studies, StockholmUniversity, Stockholm, Sweden; cFaculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland

ABSTRACTThe religious landscape in the Nordic countries has changed inrecent decades. This article looks at what this means from theperspective of the religious socialisation experiences of Finnishand Swedish youth. Research has shown that the views andvalues of parents, family, friends, the youth culture and thosethat are prevalent in school and society as a whole are impor-tant for young people’s self-development. The intergenerationalsocialisation of religious traditions and values has diminished associeties have become more secularised. As this topic is scarcelyresearched, new studies are needed also on young people’sperspectives. This article aims to fill the research gap by inves-tigating the kind of impact that parents, school and friends haveon young people’s religious socialisation.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 February 2022Accepted 22 September 2023KEYWORDSChildren; youth; religioussocialisation; Nordiccountries; gender

IntroductionIn recent decades new ways of religious participation have emerged in the Nordiccountries that enable youth affiliated with faith communities to participate as civilsociety actors in the public sphere (Furseth 2017). It is therefore timely to reflecton what this means from the perspective of young people’s religious socialisation.The countries examined in this study, Sweden and Finland, are among the mostsecularised in the world. Secularisation is a complex concept. In short, the termgenerally refers to the process in which secular institutions take over socialresponsibilities previously held by religious organisations. The concept can alsorefer to the process of religion becoming less important for people and religionbeing displaced from the public sphere to the private (af Burén, 2015). Eventhough Sweden and Finland are very secularised, they are, influenced by bothimmigration and interest in new religious movements and spirituality, alsobecoming increasingly multi-religious. Due to religious and cultural diversityincreasing, religious plurality is in many areas such as schools also becoming more noticeable. The school is a place where young people come togetherregardless of their religious and cultural backgrounds and negotiate the identitiesand values they have been socialised in at home (Vikdahl and Liljestrand 2021).Schools in Sweden and Finland are also expected to communicate and respecthuman rights, such as religious freedom and the fundamental democratic valueson which these societies rest (Utbildningsdepartementet, 2010), thereby acting asimportant contexts for the support of Nordic worldviews, values and belongings.In this new and continuously changing situation, it is important to acquire moreknowledge and understanding about young people’s own experiences of reli-gious socialisation, religious and worldview diversities and the processes thatinfluence their values and perceptions.Religion as a notion is in this study left intentionally broad, in order not to excludeits complexities (see e.g., Pals, 2015) and not to exclude the youths own under-standings of how they perceive and define their spirituality and worldview. Asregards the related learning, many elements and influences are important for anindividual’s developing approach to religion. Personal encounters, impressions fromthe media and from other contexts all have an impact. A person’s beliefs, identity,and religiosity develop in relation to their surroundings. Childhood and adolescenceare particularly important periods in a person’s development, because this is whenthey are the most formable and impressionable.

The religious socialisation of families has weakened radically (Tervo-Niemelä2021). The recent study shows that Finnish parents want their children tochoose their individual life view instead of children inheriting the traditionalChristian view of life (Kirkon Nelivuotiskatstaus 2020). Discussions concerningreligion and religious matters are not very common at homes.(Spännäri, Kallatsa, and Tervo-Niemelä 2022). This rises the meaning of reflectionabout religious matters and issues in school.Three contexts, or three circumstances, are assumed to have particular sig-nificance for an individual’s self-development: family, friends and the norms ofsociety (Charon 2010, 73–77). The ideas of parents, the family, friends, theteenage culture, school and society are thus of great importance for an indivi-dual’s self-development and their approach to religion. In this article, ourresearch question is: Depending on young people’s age and gender, whatkind of impact do parents, school and friends have on their religioussocialisation?The article focuses on the religious socialisation experiences of childrenand young people between the ages of 9–16 in Sweden and Finland basedon two empirical case studies. The varied methodological choices contri-bute towards providing a broader view of young people’s religious socia-lisation. The study was a part of a broader international research projectcarried out in Estonia, Finland and Sweden entitled Cultural and ReligiousDiversity in Primary School (CARDIPS), with data from comprehensiveschools.2 L. VIKDAHL ET AL.

The socialisation process

According to George Herbert Mead (1863–1931), an individual develops in fourstages: the preparation stage, the play stage, the game stage and the referencegroup stage (Charon 2010, 73–77). The play stage and the game stage areparticularly relevant for this article, because they coincide with the ages of theyoung people included in the studies.The preparation stage occurs during the very first year of a person’s life. At thisstage, a person is unable to take account of the perspectives of others. Instead,the child mimics people, usually their parents, and tries to do what they do.In the next stage, the play stage, a person develops the ability to imagine theperspective of others. In this stage, they can take the ‘role of someone else’ andadapt their own behaviour according to that person’s expectations, i.e., a personempathises with another, looks at themselves from the other person’s perspectiveand allows that perspective to direct their action. For example, a child can perceivethat a parent wants them to remove their plate from the table after dinner and, asa result, the child removes the plate. Or a child can perceive that a friend wantsthem to be in a fantasy play and they therefore decide to join in. Also, significantothers become important during the play stage. These are people, or other socialobjects that make an impression on the child. This is often the child’s parents,although friends, cartoon characters, idols and so on can also function as significantothers. When a person is at the play stage, they have not yet developed the abilityto bring in several significant others at the same time. This has the consequencethat a child constantly changes perspective and ‘plays’. A child might, for example,take the role of in Nordic countries very famous classic children’s author AstridLindgren’s Pippi Longstocking book character, and allow ‘Pippi’s perspective’ todirect their actions, or on another occasion choose a different character to guidetheir actions. Children thus segregate their significant others as well as themselvesand can therefore be described as segmented.In the third stage, the game stage, a person can adopt the perspectives ofseveral significant others simultaneously and adjust their behaviour to differentexpectations. This stage is likened to a game situation, because a game pre-supposes that a person can ‘read the game’ and act according to its rules, i.e.,a person can understand their position in the social order and act in accordancewith it. Goffman describes the social order as rules on a game board, or on thefootball pitch. Some rules are common to all gamers, while others only apply tocertain positions and in certain situations (Manning 1992). The game assumesthat all gamers hold their positions, otherwise disorder occurs. If a personviolates the rules of the game, for example by dressing in a norm-breakingway, they risk discomfort and punishment (Trost and Levin 2010, 72–74).Also, during the game stage a person can have several generalised others.A person can combine different perspectives into a generalised other, which canbe likened to a common culture, and act according to a common approach. ForINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SPIRITUALITY 3example, a youth can say, ‘In our school we do this’, or ‘In our country we are notvery religious . . .’. However, sometimes the environment has different perspec-tives, which makes it impossible to perceive a generalised other. Mum and dadmight have one opinion and friends another, which makes it difficult, if notimpossible, for a young person to join the different perspectives together.A common way of resolving such a conflict is to redefine the situation, i.e.,interpret it in a new way and sort out the opinions of some people in favour ofthose of others. During adolescence, young people usually take more notice ofwhat their friends think than their parents’ opinions.In the fourth stage, the reference group stage, a person can have severalgeneralised others. Here, a person can interact with different groups andidentify with different cultures. If an individual interacts more successfullywith one group, it could function as their significant other.Even though the various ‘stage models’ describing individual developmenthave been criticised for giving a too simplistic impression of how the individualdevelopmental trajectories proceed – sometimes also taking steps back between‘stages’ and proceeding in a spiral rather than straightforward paths – the overallunderstanding of the general phases of development is still useful here. In theirclassic work, The Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckmann (1966) writeabout the primary socialisation in the home and the secondary socialisation insocietal institutions such as the school that both influence and direct the ways inwhich the individual constructs their views about reality through social interac-tion. Religious socialisation is also often influenced by a particular religious com-munity and its socialisation methods: shared values, identity, language, culture,networks of trust and social capital, all of which direct and support the religioussocialisation of the younger generation (see e.g., Kuusisto 2011).

Research on religious socialisation

Previous studies have shown that the family plays a key role when it comesto children’s religiosity and conceptions of religion (Gunnoe and Moore 2002;Hyde 1990; Kay and Francis 1996; Mason, Singleton, and Webber 2007; Smithand Lundquist Denton 2005). A young person is influenced by their parentswhen it comes to matters of religion, at least during childhood, beforefriends and other relationships gradually become increasingly important ininfluence. Research has already for long indicated that parents’ religiosity isimportant for a child’s relationship to God, or the absence of one (e.g., Day1975). A child’s religious ‘I’ is mainly influenced by their parents and by role-taking, i.e., by adopting the demonstrated practices the child experiencesthat it comes into contact with God (Vikdahl 2014). The British Youth onReligion (YOR) study (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014) is of interest inthis context, in that it focuses on processes that are important for youngpeople’s identity development in multicultural environments in the UK. One4 of their research questions was: How does a child develop their religiousidentity and what role do parents, friends, teachers and religious leaders playin this process? The study utilised questionnaires, interviews in groups andwith individual young people in three different multicultural areas in the UK.In total 10,500 people between the ages of 13 and 18 participated. Theanalysis shows that 62% of the young people involved the study believedthat the family was important for their own religious stance. Many statedthat the mother played a more important role than the father. Several of theinterviewees talked about events that illustrated that their religious approachwas influenced by their upbringing and whether or not they grew up ina religious family (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014.).During adolescence, a person may combine perspectives of different peopleinto a generalised other (Charon 2010, 73–77), which can be likened toa common culture or a common approach. This implies that teenage culture,societal expectations and school values become increasingly important forthem when relating to questions about religion. Swedish studies have shownthat there is a distance between pupils with a religious belief and those who donot express a religious identity (Vikdahl 2019, 2021). This distance is not auto-matically or only linked to any religious faith but is also linked to the choice oflifestyle (Vikdahl 2019, 2021; Zackariasson 2016). A ‘successful’ youth in theSwedish majority culture may be perceived to entail sexual experimentationand a certain limitlessness regarding alcohol use. However, such inclinationtowards hedonism may collide heavily with the values of moderation anddiligence emphasised in many religious traditions.Research has also shown that religious young people tend to socialise inreligiously homogeneous groups in their spare time (Madge, Hemming, andStenson 2014; Smith and Lundquist Denton 2005), although some studies showthe opposite (Baumann 1996). It has also been found that a positive develop-ment of religious identity can be nurtured by encounters with other youngpeople sharing the same faith (Niens et al. 2013).Another relevant fact in this context is that revealing religious identity can beuncomfortable for a young person in Sweden and Finland because they could bepositioned as odd or different in a negative way by others (Berglund 2012; BRÅand Forum för levande historia 2004; Gunnoe and Moore 2002; Hyde 1990; Kayand Francis 1996; Kittelmann Flensner 2015; Mason, Singleton, and Webber 2007;Smith and Lundquist Denton 2005; Vikdahl 2018, 2019; Zackariasson 2016).

Materials and methods

The here reported data were gathered as a part of an international mixedmethods research design project, carried out in Finland, Sweden and Estonia.The overall data included surveys with children and youth in age groups 9–10,12–13, and 15–16 in all three countries, individual or pair/small group interviews with the same ages, as well as complementary data from the educators (Swedenand Estonia) and from the older age groups of 16–19-year-old youth (Finland).The quantitative parts of the three-country survey have been analysed statisti-cally, to an extent together with complementary qualitative data extracts, withboth country specific and comparative or multi-case samples (Kuusisto, Poulterand Kallioniemi, 2017). The here presented qualitative content analysis focuseson the interview data from Finland and Sweden. Both the survey and theinterviews had a broader focus on the everyday of the children and youthboth at school and in their leisure time, particularly looking into how differentreligions or other worldviews are present in their daily life. For the presentanalysis, the interview data was analysed with a particular focus on the indivi-dual experiences of religious socialisation.As mentioned above, we have intentionally used a broad and open workingdefinition of ‘religion’ in order not to exclude the ways in which the youththemselves perceive and define their spirituality and worldview. This, however,naturally influences the operationalisation of the notion in the data gatheringand analysis, when it comes to validity related matters, as exactly do theparticipants describe in their accounts may vary from individual to individual.However, this in a way is exactly what the study wants to grasp, as rather thanaiming for a narrow definition of the notion, we did not want to exclude thecomplexities and the within-individual variation and change but rather to high-light it and the related learning processes. The interviews in both the Finnish and Swedish studies followed the thematicoutline of the surveys and aimed to deepen and ask further questions about thesame themes. The idea was to let the pupils direct the conversation to the topicsthey found most meaningful for them. All the interviews were recorded andtranscribed verbatim.The analyses were carried out by first coding the data through an initialreading of the interview transcriptions and making notes in the margins/mark-ing the key notions or topics related to religious socialisation. The data wasgradually organised, and the broader themes classified based on the codes andbroader, thematically interrelated code groups, once such became moreincreasingly evident through (re)readings of the data. Once the individualresearchers had gone through the analysis for each of the data sets separately,these themes were brought together for the broader two-sample analysis (seealso Patton, 1990, 381–383) As can be seen from Table 1, too, the sample sizeand age groups were similar in both settings, however, the Swedish interviewswere conducted in small groups rather than individually. This may to an extentinfluence what the children and youth have been comfortable in sharing in theinterviews in the presence of their peers. However, it may also have encouragedsome to raise matters that they have been reminded to mention as the settinghas been more interactive. Either way, we have been cognoscente of thisvariance between the samples throughout the analyses.

In the following, we will briefly further introduce the national samples.The Swedish study is based on qualitative interviews with 40 pupils fromYears 3, 6 and 9 at secondary school. As mentioned above, the participantsamples are divided into three groups according to age −9–10-year olds, 12–13-year olds and 15–16-year-olds.1 The interviews with the pupils were conductedin focus groups (Dahlin-Ivanhoff 2016; Krueger and Casey 2008) of two to sixpupils at a time in their school environment.2 In order to shed light on theyoung people’s stories, some teachers and principals were interviewed as well(Vikdahl 2018).The Finnish study makes was similarly collected from the children and youthin the age groups 9–10, 12–13, 15–16 (n = 38), however, in this sample, theinterviews were carried out with individual pupils. The interviews were carriedout in an empty classroom. The sampling was organised through an additionalquestion in the survey questionnaire, where the pupils could indicate theirwillingness to also take part in one-to-one interviews.The concept of religion was intentionally left undefined in the survey and theinterviews. This was done to put the focus on how the young people themselvesunderstood religion and the experiences connected to it (cf. Belzen 2009), ratherthan direct or limit their responses with prescribed framings. Likewise, whatshould be understood as religion was not predefined in the meetings with theyoung people. The participants themselves thus decided the definition whenanswering the questions based on their own religious perceptions. In practice,this meant that religion was treated as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon.

Results

Swedish sample

The Swedish study focuses on religious socialisation related to the youngpeople’s ages. One obvious finding was that the younger participants weremore positive to religion and religious diversity than the older ones andexpressed greater curiosity and enthusiasm. Also, they had a more easy-goingand uncomplicated approach to people’s different religious affiliations than theolder pupils. For example, several of them agreed with the claim that thedifference between religions was only about celebrating different religiousfestivities and said that they wanted to learn more about other people’sTable 1. The here analysed sample data.Age groups Sample size MethodSweden 9–10-year-olds12–13-year-olds15–16-year-oldsN=40 Interviews (in small groups of 2–6 pupils)Finland 9–10-year-olds12–13-year-olds15–16-year-oldsN=38 Interviews (individually)INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SPIRITUALITY 7 religions. Sonja3 had a constructive suggestion about how to learn more aboutother religions and festivities:● There are also churches and. . . what are they called, syn . . .● Synagogues?● Synagogues.● Yes, and mosques. And Buddhists. It’s the other religions, except perhapsIslam, that can go there. It’s only Christians who can go there . . . and onlythose who are Buddhist can go there . . . and those who are Muslims go toa mosque.● What do you think about that?● Mm . . . I want to learn more about the other religions as well.● Me too [another girl enters the conversation].● Me too [a third girl whispers].[. . .]● It would be cool if there was a big church that encompassed every religionand where people from all the different religions could celebrate the samething.● Would that be good?● Yes. You can have different religions, but we could all be in the samechurch.● Yes? Do you mean that there can be different religions in the same church?● Yes, a big church, with different rooms. One room for Judaism, anotherroom for Christianity, Islam and so on. Yes, so you could go to any room andsee what happened there.● Why would that be good?● To learn. And to see what they do there. (Vikdahl 2016, 156-157)The older pupils did not show the same interest in religious issues. When theywere asked if they talked about religion with each other, one pupil said, ‘it is notsomething you focus on’.One reason for the differences between the younger and older pupils’ inter-est in religion could be that most of the younger ones came from religioushomes and had religious parents, which was not the case with the older pupils.It is very likely that religious people are generally more interested in religionthan non-religious people, although this may also be due to their differentstages of maturity.The younger pupils had a relatively easy-going approach to religion andreligious diversity. From a child’s perspective, it is reasonable to be a Muslimin some circumstances and a Christian in others. As one of the girls put it, ‘Youdon’t have to have one religion all the time’ (Vikdahl 2016, 160–161).

Joseph gave an example of such a religious conversion. He declared duringthe interview that he had just left Christianity for Islam. When the other pupilstalked about changing religion, he interrupted and said:● I have thought . . .● Have you thought about changing religion?● . . . don’t know yet.● Let’s see, are you a Christian?● Yes.● Do you want to switch to Islam then?Perhaps (Vikdahl 2016, 181.).Some 20 minutes later, when the interview subject had changed, Joseph inter-rupted again and said:● I’ve just changed religion to Islam!● Just now? Why did you decide to change?● Oh, I feel that Christianity is boring!● That it’s boring?● Mm!● Why is it boring?● Well, all the time . . . in the class, we always work with . . .● You’re just kidding [another pupil in the group reacts].● Nooo! I just switched to Islam!● You’re joki . . .● Now it will be Islam! [Joseph in a determined voice]● But is it more exciting?● I think so.● What is so exciting about Islam?● Prophets! I like them.● Really? You like them?● You’ll have to change your name! [more pupils enter the conversation]● You’re joking!● You’ll have to change your name too![. . .]● Okay. I’ll change my name to . . . I’m called Abdul [Abdul sounds convinced].● Abdul! (Vikdahl 2016, 191–192.)It would seem that Abdul’s friendships were important for his religious conver-sion. Abdul belonged to a Christian family but his close friends in the class wereMuslims, which may have affected his decision to switch from Christianity toIslam. We do not know whether he retained his new religion after school, in his Christian home environment. He may have changed his religious view in themeeting with his parents and became Joseph again.Several of the younger pupils talked about circumstances that showed thattheir parents influenced their approach to religion and were therefore impor-tant significant others when it came to religion. Miriam said:

● In some families they think like this ‘We’re Buddhists’. If I was a Buddhistand had children, then my children must be Buddhists too. It shouldn’t belike that! You should be able to decide for yourself what you believe in! Orperhaps not believe in anything. You don’t have to be like your mum anddad.● Do you others think that you should believe like mum and dad?● Yes, I think so . . .● Yes.● Yes.● Mm.● When I was in Africa my aunts were, my grandmother’s . . .● Yes?● . . . my grandmother’s cousin. He’s got a lot of daughters . . . When I wasthere – they were all Muslims! [. . .] I asked some people . . . don’t you wantto belong to Christianity? But they said, ‘I want to follow my mother’.(Vikdahl 2016, 184-185) The older pupils were more likely to understand the religious norms that existed inthe Swedish culture. As already indicated, Sweden is a secularised country, and theanalysis shows that the older pupils’ statements were in line with a secularapproach. These young people repeatedly expressed that religion was an individualand private affair and a matter of choice. Even though several of them emphasisedthe right to choose whether to be religious or not, others indicated that there weresocial gains to be made by concealing their religious identity – if they had one. Forexample, as a religious person they risked being regarded as strange and someonewho was joked about. One of the teachers explained: ‘I think young people havea norm how to be and it is not cool to be religious’ (Vikdahl 2016, 84). Some of theinterviewed teachers told stories about how religious youths tried to tone downtheir religious identity in the hope of being accepted by their non-religious school-mates. Even though there was a positive attitude among the older pupils topeople’s different religious affiliations, living a religious lifestyle could prove diffi-cult. One of the teachers responded like this to the question: ‘Is it okay to showa religious identity at school?’● Yes and no. In one way it really is. We say that it’s okay, but don’t really thinkthat it is. Being religious doesn’t have any high status, it’s not okay in that way.I think that many keep it to themselves. It’s better to play football or hockey or to express a different cultural affiliation than a religious one. That’s typicallySwedish. So, I say that it’s not okay. It is questioned! But still – when you askpupils they say ‘well, everyone has the freedom to express their religion’,but . . . (Vikdahl 2016, 114-115)

The interviews gave examples of how pupils ended up in situations in which theirloyalty to their parents was put to test with help from their school, which may havemade it impossible for them to relate to a generalised other. For example, twoprincipals from different schools said that Muslim girls remained in the schoolcorridors after the school day. The principals found this problematic and offeredthem an activity that they knew that some of the girls’ parents would dislike. Theyran youth clubs in the afternoons, immediately after the school day. But the clubactivities partly depended on the pupils not being honest with their parents.Instead of saying they went to a youth club, which was voluntary, the girls saidthey went to an obligatory activity that was part of the school’s regular teachingprogramme.One of the principals saw the youth club as a free zone for the Muslim girls andwas aware that this could be perceived as provocative by the girls’ parents. She said:

● We sometimes help our Muslim girls to be a little freer. We say they havea school activity, but really they are at the youth club. There they can danceand maybe put on makeup. They can be teenage girls. Then, before goinghome they remove their makeup and put on their veils. I think that this a goodthing for them. They are given the opportunity to live a little, with no harmdone. [. . .] From a parent perspective it could of course be seen as a threat. ButI’ll deal with that if it comes to the crunch. But this is what many schools do.(Vikdahl 2016, 136)The principal said that the school staff sometimes lied to the parents on thegirls’ behalf by saying that their daughters were involved in school activitieswhen in actual fact they were at the youth club.

Finnish sample

The differences between ages and self-reported gender in approaches to reli-gion were also evident in the Finnish data (see also the statistical resultssupporting this in our Kuusisto, Kuusisto, and Kallioniemi 2016).The young people also illustrated the complexity and fluidity of religios-ity in their responses. The survey asked about the pupils’ own and theirparents’ religious or worldview memberships. To the question, ‘which of thefollowing do you identify with’, the respondents were able to choose morethan one religious or worldview perspective. The following two examplesillustrate the fluidity of the interview responses among the interviewees aged 12–13 in Year 6. A 12-year-old girl described the worldview in herfamily as follows:Well at our home no one believes in anything, that my mom well she does not believein God at all, not the Chinese or the Finnish one, and my dad was baptized [into theLutheran Church, probably as an infant] but he cancelled [sic] that and he doesn’tbelieve in anything either. (Kuusisto, and Kallioniemi 2016, 96)Furthermore, a boy of the same age said: ‘My Mom sort of also tries to somehowturn into . . . a Muslim so that she wouldn’t any longer be a Christian’ (Kuusisto,and Kallioniemi 2016, 96).An interviewee in the age group 15–16 described her own worldview as: ‘Ihave my own religion which no one else has’ (Kuusisto, and Kallioniemi 2016,97). This further illustrates the complex and mosaic nature of worldviews ofyoung people in the societally secular and multi-faith Nordic setting.Concerning the socialisation contexts in the Finnish setting, the exampleshere are also diverse. Some described a more religious home socialisation,whereas others said that religion did not have much of a role in their upbring-ing. The interview data also illustrated the importance of a mixed methodresearch design for providing a more multifaceted picture of the topic area, inthat interviews and open-ended survey responses often gave a much richer andmore accurate view of what the pupils thought. In one of the interviews, a 15-year-old boy, Ville, wrote that his parents were atheists but that he wasa Christian (Kuusisto, Poulter, and Kallioniemi 2017). When the interviewernoted that and asked him to say more about this, he said:Ville: Well, it’s just that my parents just don’t believe in God, I don’t know why.Interviewer: Yes . . . and is it so that you’ve been allowed to decide on whether youbelong to the church or not, or?Ville: Well, I do think my parents also belong to the church. . . at least I think so.Interviewer: Yes.Ville: But they do not. They are not Christians.Interviewer: Yes. But you do not think of yourself as an Atheist, then, or?Ville: No.Interviewer: OK. Could you tell me about how it . . . what kind of role does religion havein your everyday, or your life?Ville: Well, very big, yes. I read the Bible in the evenings, and I pray and all that(Kuusisto, Poulter, and Kallioniemi 2017, 117).Ville’s example here also illustrates the individualisation of religious worldviewsoften raised in the discussions related to socialisation – that rather than parents aiming to teach particular values or worldview to their children, they maydecide not to discuss their personal religious worldviews much with theirchildren in the fear of exposing ‘ready ideas’ to them. This also connects tothe discussion on religious or worldview education in the societal context atschools and preschools.

Conclusion

The Swedish study shows that the younger pupils were more positive toreligion and religious diversity than the older ones. This is in an interestcontrast with some of our previously reported statistical findings fromFinland (Kuusisto, and Kallioniemi 2016) as well as the classic contact hypoth-esis (Allport, 1950), which assumes more openness with increasing familiaritywith difference. However, we can assume the mechanism behind theseresults is simply different: One reason for this could be that many of theseyounger pupils came from religiously more active and involved homes, witha greater emphasis of religious socialisation practices. The same was not thecase anymore for the older teenagers, who did also say that their parentswere of great importance for their own approach to religion, however,perhaps the vastly secular societal hegemony and the thereby influencedpeer group attitudes had already had more influence on their views. Also, theyounger pupils had a more flexible approach to religion and people’s differ-ent religious affiliations, which is in line with the play stage.The older respondents, aged 13 and 15, were at the age that coincided withthe game stage. They did not show the same interest in religious issues yet weremature enough to understand the religious norms that existed in Swedishsociety. The analysis shows that the older respondents’ statements were morealigned with the secular societal hegemony. Some statements even indicatedthat there were social gains to be made if they concealed their religiousidentity – if they had one. In the game stage, people can combine differentperspectives into a generalised other. However, the study showed that therewere different approaches to religion that made it impossible for a person toperceive a generalised other, regardless of ability. The interviews also showedhow the pupils’ loyalty to their parents was put to test with the aid of theirschool.The differences between children and young people’s peer groupsillustrate that as young people they often feel more comfortable to‘come out religiously’ in some of their peer groups and at school.Religion may be perceived in many peer groups as something that is‘uncool’ and not so relevant. This phenomenon is often reflecting thebroader societal hegemony, which in both countries has been describedin previous research as a special interpretation of secular Lutheranism inthe Nordic countries (Kuusisto, Poulter, and Kallioniemi 2017). Accordingly, religion may be perceived as somewhat marginalised and isolated fromthe rest of the public sphere. This may encourage some children andyoung people to regard religion as uninteresting.Previous studies have found gender differences in experiences and practicesrelated to religion, examples of this have to an extent also been raised here.Perhaps what is perceived as the girls’ peer group culture allows more openlyexpressed interest in religion. However, the differences between individuals aremore likely to differ more than what such a small sample could indicate in anybroader level, so any generalisations should be made with caution (see alsoKuusisto 2011, for descriptions of similar processes and negotiations on valuesand identities).In addition, the place of domicile plays an important role in young people’ssocialisation processes. In both Finland and Sweden, the variety of faith com-munities is not evenly distributed in the cities but is concentrated in differentareas. Also, religious minorities are often both spread out across the country butalso have some tighter local clusters (see e.g., Kuusisto 2011). Thus, the abilitiesof young people to understand religious and ideological differences but also tofind like-minded peer groups can also notably vary. The socialisation processesof children and young people are complex and vary across contexts, each withtheir particular challenges and/or supporting factors.This study shows the many sides of the religious socialisation process.Nowadays young peoples’ religiosity is fluid and fragmented. Results of thisstudy shows young peoples’ religious socialisation at a microlevel and how theyinterpret living religion. In the study of lived religion, the study of individualsshould be based on the actions, experiences, and views of real people(Ammerman 2016). In this way, research opens the role of religion in the every-day experiences of young people and in their own interpretations.The study is based on interviews. Further research could use some autobibliographic methods, such as young people’s writings, to gain a more com-prehensive picture of the phenomenon being studied. It should also be in mindthat research on religious issues is very sensitive, and it can be difficult for youngpeople in particular to express their views on religion in interviews. Therefore,the picture provided by the study should be supplemented with different typesof research methods.

Notes

1. The project was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board according to Swedishlegislation (Regionala etikprövningsnämnen i Stockholm 2015/1618–31/5)

2. The interviews were conducted in 2016. The translations of the quotations fromSwedish into English were done by the authors, checked by professional translatorand edited with respect to confidentiality and readability.

3. The names of the people have been changed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by The Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies, Sweden.

Notes on contributors

Linda Vikdahl is an associate professor at Södertörn University, Sweden. With a PhD inReligious Studies, her main research areas are disability and religion, young people andreligion, religious diversity and newly resettled refugees and social participation. At present(2021-2022) she is principal investigator (PI) for the research project Stakeholders:Perspectives, Policies & Strategies – Social participation and mental health in laws and policydocuments concerning the establishment of newly arrived refugees at Red Cross University,Sweden (https://www.rkh.se/forskning/var-forskningsinriktning/resiliency-mental-health-and-social-participation-among-refugees/stakeholders-perspectives-policies–strategies/).

Arniika Kuusisto is a professor of Child and Youth Studies and heads the ECEC TeacherEducation and Research Unit at Stockholm University, Sweden. She is also an HonoraryResearch Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and ResearchDirector at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research interestsare children’s and youths’ values, worldviews and how these are negotiated across differentsocial contexts, including the societal educational arenas. At present (2018-2023), Kuusisto isPI for an ongoing Academy of Finland funded (Grant 315860) research project entitled‘Growing up radical? The role of educational institutions in guiding young people’s worldviewconstruction’ (https://www.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/growing-up-radical/people).

Arto Kallioniemi, ThD is a professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University ofHelsinki. He has specialised in religious and worldview education and is interested in issuesrelated to inter-worldview dialogues and human rights education. Kallioniemi holds theUNESCO Chair on Values, Dialogue and Human Rights.

ORCID

Linda Vikdahl http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0981-2430

Arniika Kuusisto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6085-576X

Arto Kallioniemi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1581-7617

References

Af Burén, A. 2015. Living Simultaneity: On Religion Among Semi-Secular Swedes. Huddinge:Södertörn University.Ammerman, N. 2016. “Lived Religion as an Emerging Field: An Assessment of Its Contours andFrontiers.” Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 29 (2): 83–99. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1890-7008-20-01

Baumann, G. 1996. Contesting Culture: Discourse of Identity in Multi-Ethnic London. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Belzen, J. 2009. “Studying the Specificity of Spirituality: Lessons from the Psychology ofReligion.” Mental Health, Religion and Culture 12 (3): 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670802456606.

Berger, P., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Penguin Books.Berglund, J. 2012. “Islam som resurs?.” In Religion som resurs? Existentiella frågor ochvärderingar i unga svenskars liv, edited by M. Lövheim and J. Bromander. Skellefteå: Artos.BRÅ and Forum för levande historia. 2004. Intolerans: Antisemitiska, homofobiska, islamofo-biska och invandrarfientliga tendenser bland unga. [Intolerance: Antisemitic, Homophobic,Islamophobic and Xenophobic tendencies amongst youth]. Stockholm: BRÅ and Forum förlevande historia.Charon, J. M. 2010. Symbolic Interactionism: An Introduction, an Interpretation, an Integration.Boston: Prentice Hall.Dahlin-Ivanhoff, S. 2016. “Fokusgruppsdiskussioner.” In Handbok i kvalitativa metoder, editedby G. Ahrne and P. Svensson, 81–92. Stockholm: Liber.Day, G. 1975. “Development of the God Concept: A Symbolic Interaction Approach.” Journalof Psychology 3 (3): 172–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164717500300304.

Furseth, I. 2017. “The Return of Religion in the Public Sphere?: The Public Role of Nordic FaithCommunities.” In Institutional Change in the Public Sphere: Views on the Nordic Model, editedby F. Engelstad, H. Larsen, J. Rogstad, K. Steen-Johnsen, D. Polkowska, A. S. Dauber-Griffin,and A. Leverton, 221–240. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110546330-012.

Gunnoe, M., and K. Moore. 2002. “Predictors of Religiosity Among Youth Aged 17-22:A Longitudinal Study of the National Survey of Children.” Journal for the Scientific Studyof Religion 41 (4): 613–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00141.

Hyde, K. 1990. Religion in Childhood and Adolescence: A Comprehensive Review of Research.Birmingham: Religious Education Press.Kay, W., and L. Francis. 1996. Drift from the Churches: Attitude Toward Christianity DuringChildhood and Adolescence. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Kirkon Nelivuotiskatstaus. 2020. “Uskonto arjessa ja juhlassa. Suomen evankelis-luterilainenkirkko vuosina 2016–2019.” https://julkaisut.evl.fi/catalog/Tutkimukset%20ja%20julkaisut/r/4238/viewmode=previewview

Kittelmann Flensner, K. 2015. Religious Education in Contemporary Pluralistic Sweden.Göteborg: Göteborgs universitet.Krueger, R., and M. Casey. 2008. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Kuusisto, A. 2011. Growing Up in Affiliation with a Religious Community: A Case Study ofFinnish Adventist Youth. Research on Religious and Spiritual Education, 3. Münster:Waxmann.Kuusisto, A., and A. Kallioniemi. 2016. “Finnish Youth’s Views on Religious and WorldviewMembership and Belonging.” Journal of Religious Education 64 (2): 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-017-0032-x.

Kuusisto, E., A. Kuusisto, and A. Kallioniemi. 2016. “How is Interreligious Sensitivity Related toFinnish pupils’ Religiousness Profiles?” British Journal of Religious Education 38 (1): 64–82.https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.984587.

Kuusisto, A., S. Poulter, and A. Kallioniemi. 2017. “Finnish Pupils’ Views on the Place of Religionin School.” Religious Education 112 (2): 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2016.1085237.Madge, N., P. Hemming, and K. Stenson. 2014. Youth on Religion: The Development,Negotiation and Impact of Faith and Non-Faith Identity. London: Routledge.

Manning, P. 1992. Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Mason, M., A. Singleton, and R. Webber. 2007. The Spirit of Generation Y: Young People’sSpirituality in a Changing Australia. Melbourne: John Garatt.Niens, U., A. Mawhinney, N. Richardson, and Y. Chiba. 2013. “Acculturation and Religion inSchools: The Views of Young People from Minority Belief Backgrounds.” British EducationalResearch Journal 39 (5): 907–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3016 .https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3016 .

Smith, C., and M. Lundquist Denton. 2005. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives ofAmerican Teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019518095X.001.0001.

Spännäri, J., L. Kallatsa, and K. Tervo-Niemelä. 2022. “Ei oo puhuttu.”: Uskonnosta puhuminenja puhumattomuus suomalaisissa perheissä.” Uskonto, Katsomus Ja Kasvatus 2 (1): 11–33.Accessed June 13, 2021. https://journal.fi/ukk/article/view/115213

Tervo-Niemelä, K. 2021. “Kodin perintöä seuraten ja muokaten – tapaustutkimus uskonnolli-sen yhteisön merkityksestä onnistuneessa uskonnollisessa perinteensiirrossa sukupolveltatoiselle.” In Uskonto – yhteisö – yksilö: Uskonnollinen kehitys moninaistuvassa yhteiskunnassa,edited by S.-M. Saarelainen, A. Kimanen, and T. Innanen, 27–41. Helsinki: Suomalainenteologinen kirjallisuusseura.Trost, J., and I. Levin. 2010. Att förstå vardagen med ett symboliskt interaktionistiskt perspektiv.Lund: Studentlitteratur AB.Utbildningsdepartementet. 2010. 800. “Skollagen.” https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800.

Vikdahl, L. 2014. Jag vill också vara en ängel: Om upplevelser av delaktighet i Svenska kyrkan hospersoner med utvecklingsstörning. Skellefteå: Artos.Vikdahl, L. 2016. “Transcriptions; Cultural and Religious Diversity in Primary school (CARDIPS).”Unpublished manuscript.Vikdahl, L. 2018. Det kommer inte på tal: En studie om religiös och kulturell mångfaldi grundskolan. Skellefteå: Artos.Vikdahl, L. 2019. “A Lot is at Stake. On the Possibilities for Religion-Related Dialogue ina School, in Sweden.” Religion and Education 46 (1): 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15507394.2019.1577713.

Vikdahl, L., and J. Liljestrand. 2021. “Conditions for Identity Development Among ReligiousImmigrant Youth.” Journal of Beliefs & Values 42 (3): 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2020.1836785.Zackariasson, M. 2016. Gemenskapen: Deltagande, identitet och religiositet bland ungai Equmenia. Stockholm: Molin Sorgenfrei Förlag.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SPIRITUALITY 17