EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO SACRED SPACES: A CONTRIBUTION TO A NEGLECTED AREA IN PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

Year 2020, , 141 - 154, 29.06.2020

Fatumetul Zehra Guldas

https://doi.org/10.46790/erzisosbil.651736

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The study of religious symbols and elements in terms of attachment is one of the most important topics and objectives for the field of psychology of religion. Most of the existing studies on attachment theory included the topics of attachment to God, faith development, and spiritual life. However, attachment to sacred spaces, which are regarded as a religious symbol, has not been adequately addressed in the context of psychological attachment theory. Therefore, the present study aims to review the current studies on attachment approach to sacred spaces where studies on religious people with different religious beliefs continue to be carried out, and also to bring a broader understanding of whether attachment theory can be viewed as a comprehensive theory in terms of meaningful relations with places. It has been concluded that feeling connected to the sacred spaces preserves positive emotions and maintain proximity, and thus resembles safe attachment characteristics.

Keywords

Psychology of Religion, Attachment Theory, Sacred Spaces Attachment, Religiosity

EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO SACRED SPACES: A CONTRIBUTION TO A NEGLECTED AREA IN PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

Abstract

Dini sembollerin ve öğelerin bağlanma teorisi yönünden incelenmesi, din psikolojisi alanının en önemli konularından ve amaçlarından biridir. Bağlanma teorisi ile ilgili mevcut çalışmaların çoğu, Tanrı'ya bağlanma, inanç gelişimi ve manevi hayat konularını içermektedir. Bununla birlikte, dini bir sembol olarak kabul edilen kutsal mekânlara bağlanma, psikolojik bağlanma teorisi bağlamında yeterince ele alınmamıştır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, farklı dini inançlara sahip dindar insanlar üzerinde yapılan çalışmaların kutsal mekânlara bağlanma yaklaşımı hakkındaki mevcut çalışmaları gözden geçirmeyi ve kutsal mekânlarla anlamlı ilişkiler açısından bağlanma teorisinin kapsamlı bir teori olarak görülüp görülemeyeceği konusunda geniş bir anlayış getirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu makalede, kutsal mekânlara bağlı hissetmenin olumlu duyguları ve yakınlığı koruduğu ve böylece güvenli bağlanma özelliklerine benzediği sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

Kutsal Mekân, Yere Bağlılık, Öz kimlik, Psikoloji, Din

References

• COUNTED, V. (2016). Making sense of place attachment: Towards a holistic understanding of people-place relationships and experiences. Environment, Space, Place, 8(1), 7-32.
• COUNTED, V. (2018). The Circle of Place Spirituality (CoPS): Towards an attachment and exploration motivational systems approach in the psychology of religion. In: A. Village & Hood, R. W. (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 29, pp. 149-178). Leiden: Brill.
• ELON, A. (1989). Jerusalem: City of Mirrors, Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company
• GEERTZ, C. (1966). “Religion as a Cultural System”, In Banton, M. (Ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, New York: Praeger, 1-46.
• GEERTZ, C. (1968). Islam observed: religious development in Morocco and Indonesia. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• HAY, B. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 5-29.
• HAZLETON, L. (1986). Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Boston, MA: Atlantic Monthly Press.
• JANMAAT, M. (2017). Place attachment & belonging of Christian and Muslim students in Yogyakarta, Master thesis.
• KIRKPATRICK, L. A., & SHAVER, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315-334.
• MAZUMDAR, S. & MAZUMDAR, S. (1993). Sacred Space and Place Attachment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 231-242.
• MAZUMDAR, S. & MAZUMDAR, S. (2004). Religion and Place Attachment: A Study of Sacred Places, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 385-397.
• MAZUMDAR, S. (2005). Religious Place Attachment, Squatting and Qualitative Research: A Commentary, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 87-95.
• PARK, C. C. (1994). Sacred Worlds: An Introduction to Geography and Religion, New York and London: Routledge, 285.
• PROSHANSKY, H. M. (1978). The City and Self Identity, Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.
• RELPH, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
• ROMAN R. W. (2010). Space for God: Lived Religion at Work, Home and Play, Sociology of Religion, 71(3), 257-279.
• RUBACK, R. B., PANDEY, J., & KOHLI, N. (2008). Evaluations of a Sacred Place: Role and Religious Belief at the Magh Mela, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 174-184.
• SWAN, J. (1988). Sacred places in nature and transpersonal experiences. Revision, 10, 21-26.