How digitalisation has impacted religious organisations in Singapore

|By Mr Benjamin Low |

Religious communities around the world have been confronted with the advent of digital media platforms, a trend that began even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the adoption of these platforms, religious communities are no longer as bound to physical spaces as they used to be. How, then, has the adoption and usage of digital media platforms affected religious community and practice in Singapore? While the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the intensity of digitalisation among religious organisations, digitalisation is not equally distributed across religious activities and organisations.

In our survey of religious organisations – the pilot study of a series of studies conducted in conjunction with the NUS Asia Research Institute (ARI) that explores the evolving relationship between religious communities and digital media in Singapore – we examine and document digitalisation among local religious organisations. Underpinning our survey was the question of whether the COVID-19 pandemic provided the impetus for religious organisations to adopt digital media platforms in Singapore. To this end, we found that the COVID-19 pandemic increased the rate of adoption among religious organisations that had not yet adopted digital media platforms before the pandemic (mainly non-Muslim and non-Christian organisations) while, among those that already began using digital media platforms before the pandemic (mainly Christian and Muslim organisations), usage of digital media platforms increased.

Yet, while religious organisations reported using digital media platforms more in general, certain activities conducted by religious organisations have resisted going online more than others. Based on data gathered on the percentage of activities conducted online compared to offline, we found that synchronous activities (activities that require real-time interaction) were less likely than asynchronous activities (activities that do not require real-time interaction) to undergo digitalisation. Religious organisations reported the most instances of digitalising administrative tasks that did not require synchronous in-person participation. These administrative activities include the internal circulation of announcements, newsletters, and circulars, as well as the collection of offerings and donations and the dissemination of religious materials for self-study. On the other hand, synchronous activities that resisted digitalisation include the conduct of prayers and rituals, as well as meetings (study groups and committee meetings), and community-building activities.

Digitalisation and the blurring of boundaries between public and private spaces

The resistance of synchronous activities to digitalisation is noteworthy as, despite the availability of technology that can and has simulated meetings and worship sessions during the pandemic, respondents still reported conducting these activities mostly offline. While many respondents indicated an intention to further digitalise, it remains to be seen what the focus of their digitalisation efforts will be and which activities will be digitalised more than others. These will allow for a deeper understanding of the pathways through which digitalisation can affect religious community and practice. For instance, some religious organisations reported feeling ambivalent about their experience of digitalisation given how digitalisation has blurred the boundaries between public and private spaces – where anything said or done in private settings could potentially become public due to livestreaming or speech, text, or footage becoming available to unintended audiences.

On the one hand, digital media platforms afford more privacy as they do not have to take place in public spaces. On the other hand, the potentially public nature of online interactions could have far-reaching and long-lasting effects. As sociologist José van Dijck argues in Engineering Sociality in a Culture of Connectivity (2013), social media has “unquestionably altered the nature of private and public communication” (pp. 3-23). With the advent of digital media platforms and the increasing digitalisation of religious services, the lines between public and private spheres are blurring. This blurring of boundaries between private and public has legal implications, an instance of which pertains to what is considered public speech. If all private social interaction potentially reaches a public audience, what can be considered and liable as private or public utterance? More broadly, how has the potentially increased range of audiences afforded by digital media platform adoption changed the way members of religious communities relate to each other? How do the new ways of forming and sustaining relationships in religious communities afforded by technology affect the way religious beliefs are enacted?

Most existing laws pertaining to religious practice apply to religious activities conducted in public spaces as the premise was that religion had to be enacted in public spaces. Our findings suggest that it may still be some time before the changes in religious practice caused by digitalisation are substantial enough for a radical legal overhaul as “core” religious activities – that is, religious activities that set religions apart from each other such as worship activities – are the activities most resistant to digitalisation. In spite of the observed trend towards increased digitalisation, these findings belie a sense of attachment to physical space among religious practitioners in Singapore.

As such, further research should be conducted to understand the reasons why some organisations and activities are resistant to digitalisation. This would help us answer the important question of the role that doctrinal and theological factors play in the adoption or non-adoption of digital media platforms. Such research contributes to our understanding of the limits of digital and technological mediation in replacing real-time, physically-bounded interaction. As sociologist Craig Calhoun ponders in his classic piece, Community Without Propinquity Revisited (1998), what is community without the physical presence of others in the same space? Our results support the idea that the “magic” of physical interaction is still an important factor to consider when thinking about the relationship between religious practice and digitalisation. Perhaps the complexity and, indeed, “warmth” of real-time social interaction cannot be replaced by digitally-mediated interaction – at least not just yet.

By using religion as a case study through which we study the socio-legal effects of digitalisation on religious communities, our study speaks to scholarship on the evolving relationship between digital media and society. These findings regarding digitalisation as experienced by religious organisations bring to mind broader issues pertaining to digitalisation as experienced in society – issues that have to do with how technology is affecting the way we relate to each other as well as the limits of technology in replacing the physical, real-time interaction traditionally associated with community.