Practical advantages of using selected descriptors of mary douglas’s typology (used to study religion) in interacting with the protestants of Ukraine

author: Ivan Kunderenko

Relevance of the research. Mary Douglas's theory of group/grid is a valuable tool in religious studies and sociology, as it helps analyse the impact of social structures on human behaviour. It explains the dynamics of community and the number of social roles, which affect interaction within the group and control over the individual. This theory allows us to predict group and individual behaviour and dynamics, and explains how belonging to a given cosmology affects decision-making. Its principles contribute to more effective interaction and communication with different communities.

Problem statement. Analysing religious communities through cultural paradigms is essential for understanding their interaction with the social environment. Mary Douglas's Group/Grid theory helps to explore the behavioural patterns, values, and rituals of groups, adapting these concepts to contemporary realities. Her interdisciplinary approach combines sociology, anthropology, and religious studies, especially for Protestant communities in Ukraine, where a historically marginalised approach needs to be changed. Douglas's theory contributes to assessing social norms, group dynamics, and decision-making, which is vital for creating a just society. Her ideas open up opportunities for practical recommendations and solutions to current problems, helping to predict and strengthen social interaction.

Analysis of recent research and publications. In our previous studies, we have argued for the need to move away from Niebuhr's static religious studies typology, although it remains popular in Ukraine, along with the typologies of M. Weber and E. Trotzsch. The Western tradition of religious studies is increasingly focused on dynamic models. Mary Douglas's cultural model is a dynamic model, but it is hardly studied in Ukraine, except for the English-language publication by N. Kryvda and S. Storozhuk. A number of foreign researchers adapt the Douglas model to different contexts: J. Meschalk uses it to reduce crime in the EU, R. Baskerville uses it for business development in a multicultural environment, J. Spickard analyzes the transformation of the model, and M. Thompson and his group criticize it for certain limitations. At the same time, they try to find correlations between the dynamic Douglas paradigm and static models. None of the researchers adapts these developments to the dialogue with the Protestant community in Ukraine, which makes our approach novel.

Research task. To explore the benefits of Mary Douglas' typology in interacting with Ukrainian Protestants, those advantages come as a gain of a deeper understanding of the social dynamics of the community and improving a dialogue with its members. Douglas's dynamic approach facilitates the analysis of the views and practices of religious groups, allowing for the consideration of their differences to create effective communication strategies. This will help build more constructive engagement and better adapt cultural and social ideas to the needs of the community.

Main material presentation. The author introduces the reader to M. Douglas's typology, which proposes to assess societies using a coordinate system, where the horizontal dimension determines the degree of control over the individual and the boundaries of the groupness, as well as how strongly the group guards its boundaries. The vertical dimension, on the other hand, measures the level of grid and social roles. The main key descriptors considered are: communication, blame, envy, economic growth/change, scarcity, risk, apathy, and conflict resolution. Each of these descriptors is accompanied by an application to Ukrainian Protestants and an explanation of the corresponding cosmology.

Conclusions. The application of Mary Douglas' paradigm to Protestant communities in Ukraine can transform the interaction between society and the religious community, provided that one avoids transferring one's own cosmology to others. Due to its interdisciplinarity, the paradigm effectively supports analysis through an emic approach, taking into account the influence of Durkheim's ideas. A particularly promising area is the study of “problematic” areas, such as missionary work, where communication difficulties are possible due to different cosmologies. This typology serves as a powerful tool for understanding the organization of Protestant communities in Ukraine and their impact on culture, values, and social development.

Keywords: dynamic typology; Protestants of Ukraine; cosmology; Cultural Anthropology of Religion.

References:

  1. Vseukrainskyi Soiuz Tserkov yevanhelskykh khrystyian-baptystiv (All-Ukrainian Union of Churches of Evangelical Christians-Baptists) ( d.). Vseukrainskyi Soiuz Tserkov Yevanhelskykh Khrystyian-Baptystiv. Dostupno : <https://baptyst.com/>. [13 Kviten 2025].
  2. Kunderenko, I 2021. ‘Protestantske seredovyshche Ukrainy: u poshukakh relihiieznavchykh typolohii (na prykladi VSTs YeKhB) (The Protestant Environment of Ukraine: in Search of Religious Typologies (on the Example of the WCC of the Baptist Church)’, Osvitnii dyskurs: zbirnyk naukovykh prats, № 30(1), s. 92–105. Dostupno : <https://www.journal-discourse.com/uk/kataloh-statei/2021/2021-r-301/protestantske-seredovyshche-ukrainy-u-poshukakh-relihiieznavchykh-typolohii-na-prykladi-vsts-yekhb>. [13 Kviten 2025].
  3. Kunderenko, IV 2020. ‘Dukhovna osvita u protestantskomu seredovyshchi ta relihiieznavchi typolohii (Spiritual Education in the Protestant Environment and Religious Typologies)’, Dukhovnist osobystosti: metodolohiia, teoriia i praktyka, № 98(5), s. 126–139. Dostupno : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349541470_DUHOVNA_OSVITA_U_PROTESTANTSKOMU_SEREDOVISI_TA_RELIGIEZNAVCI_TIPOLOGII>. [13 Kviten 2025].
  4. Ukrainska Tserkva Khrystyian Viry Yevanhelskoi (Ukrainian Church of Christians of the Evangelical Faith) ( d.). Ukrainska Tserkva Khrystyian Viry Yevanhelskoi. Dostupno : <https://www.chve.org.ua/>. [13 Kviten 2025].
  5. Baskerville, RF 2017. ‘Does the douglas cultural framework measure up? A review of its utility in business research’. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available from : <DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3162921>. [11April 2025].
  6. Bourdieu, P Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Journal of Economic Sociology, № 6 (3), pp. 25–48. Available from : <DOI: 10.17323/1726-3247-2005-3-25-48>. [11April 2025].
  7. Carson, DA 2012. Christ and culture revisited. Eerdmans Publishing Company, William
  8. Crouch, A, McLaren, B D, Horton, M, Sweet, LI & McManus, ER 2003. Church in emerging culture: five perspectives. Zondervan/Youth Specialties.
  9. Dobbin, F 1991. Cultural theory. by michael thompson, richard ellis, and aaron wildavsky. westview, 1990. Social Forces,70 (2), 549–551. Available from : <DOI: 10.1093/sf/70.2.549>. [11April 2025].
  10. Douglas, M 2012. In the active voice (routledge revivals),Taylor & Francis Group.
  11. Douglas, M & Douglas, PM 2013a. Natural symbols, Taylor & Francis Group.
  12. Douglas, M & Douglas, PM 2013b. Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo, Taylor & Francis Group.
  13. Douglas, M & Douglas, PM Risk and blame. Taylor & Francis Group.
  14. Douglas, PM & Douglas, MM 2002. Implicit meanings. Taylor & Francis Group.
  15. God, religious extremism and violence Cambridge University Press.
  16. Goff, P & Steensland, B 2013. New evangelical social engagement. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
  17. Hollinger, D Choosing the good. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
  18. Kingston, PW, Douglas, M & Wildavsky, A Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Contemporary Sociology,12(4), 414 p. Available from : <DOI: 10.2307/2067477>. [11 April 2025].
  19. Kryvda, N & Storozhuk, S Socio-cultural definition of intercultural dialogue in the concept of Mary Douglas. Idei, (1(19)-2(20), pp. 40–50. Available from : <DOI: 10.34017/1313-9703-2022-1(19)-2(20)-40-50>. [11April 2025].
  20. Maesschalck, J 2021. Using grid-group cultural theory to assess approaches to the prevention of corporate and occupational crime: the EU as a natural experiment. У: European White-Collar Crime. Bristol University Press. pp. 17–38. Available from : <DOI: 10.56687/9781529212358-004>. [11April 2025].
  21. Müller, F Design ethnography. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Available from : <DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-60396-0>. [11April 2025].
  22. Niebuhr, HR 1956. Christ and culture (torchbooks). Harper Perennial.
  23. Oyakawa, M Racial reconciliation as a suppressive frame in evangelical multiracial churches. Sociology of Religion, 80(4), pp. 496–517. Available from : <DOI: 10.1093/socrel/srz003>. [11April 2025].
  24. Scott, JC Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  25. Spickard, JV 1989. A guide to mary douglas's three versions of grid/group theory. Sociological Analysis, 50 (2), 151 p. Available from : <DOI: 10.2307/3710986>. [11April 2025].
  26. Thomas, C 2025. Ukraine Christian ministers speaking truth about Russia, Washington Times. Available from : <https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/3/ukraine-christian-ministers-speaking-truth-russia/>. [12April 2025].
  27. Troeltsch, E 1960. The social teaching of the Christian churches. New York: Harper.
  28. Verweij, M, Alexandrova, P, Jacobsen, H, Béziat, P, Branduse, D, Dege, Y, Hensing, J, Hollway, J, Kliem, L, Ponce, G, Reichelt, I & Wiegmann, M Four galore? The overlap between mary douglas’s grid-group typology and other highly cited social science classifications. Sociological Theory. 38(3), pp. 263–294. Available from : <DOI: 10.1177/0735275120946085>. [11April 2025].
  29. Weber, M 1985. Protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism (counterpoint),
  30. Yuzva, LL 2009. Envy: sociological indicators of exposure and study, Ukrainian society, 28(1), 80–86. Available from : <DOI: 10.15407/socium2009.01.080>. [12April 2025].
  31. Zinn, J 2010. Risk as discourse: interdisciplinary perspectives,Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 4(2), 106–124.