1 Introduction

In a recent survey among a representative sample of Swedish youth (N = 1316), 16–24 years, a striking result was that young people receive their information about religion from different sources and to a highly variated frequency. While youth connected to organized religions experience religious socialization at home, in church and among friends, new and indirect forms of religious socialization emerge as salient for the vast majority of young Swedes: the believers who do not involve in religious activities and the non-religious group. Mass media and school clearly stand out as the key ways of information about religion for these large categories of young Swedes. Mass media is here understood as television, newspapers and Internet (Lövheim 2012; Sjöborg 2012). From research on media and religion (Lövheim and Axner 2015) as well as studies in Religious Education (Sjöborg 2013a; Sjöborg 2015), there seems to be a risk that mass media and school provide young people with an image of religion which is one-sided, oversimplified or even prejudicial. Against this background this article finds it relevant to focus how upper secondary pupils in Sweden talk about religion in school and society.

2 Context

Sweden can be characterized as one of the most secularized countries in the world (Pettersson and Esmer 2005; Esmer and Pettersson 2007). Comparative value studies such as the World Values Survey (WVS) have demonstrated that contemporary Swedish culture scores exceptionally high on values such as trust in democracy, individual integrity, social equality, tolerance and gender equality. The well-known value map of the WVS (Esmer and Pettersson 2007; Welzel and Inglehart 2015) indicates that the situation is the opposite for what in these studies is coined traditional values: Swedish people score exceptionally low when asked if they find it important to obey authorities, if it is important to obey one’s parents or if they adhere to traditional family values. They furthermore demonstrate low regular participation when it comes to organized religion and are not so keen when it comes to what can be labelled traditional religious beliefs. It has even been argued that in Swedish society, values such as individual integrity and self-realization form the new sacred values (Pettersson 2006).

Sweden has a history of being a homogeneous Protestant country ever since the Reformation. Dominated by a Lutheran state church for several centuries, the modernization process of the 19th and 20th centuries gradually brought increased pluralism: the labour movement, the free churches movementFootnote 1 (i.e. baptists, pietistic protestants, pentecostals) and the temperance movement went hand in hand with increased industrialization and urbanization. Improved education and extended suffrage contributed to further social reforms. During the 20th century, the state church system was retained but it was gradually opened up. In 1951 it became allowed to leave the Church of Sweden without stating a reason or providing an alternative denomination, thus establishing a formal freedom of religion. In 1958 the role of the bishops of the Church of Sweden as inspectors of the secondary schools was taken away, and morning prayers in schools were abolished. The 1960s saw the introduction of a new non-confessional school subject of Religious Education, which replaced Christianity as a school subject (Gustafsson 2000). The Swedish development in terms of functional differentiation of the school system came several decades earlier than in some other Nordic countries such as Finland and Norway. In the year 2000 the state church system was officially replaced in favour of a system which grants the Church of Sweden the status of a folk church (meaning a people’s church). Even if 65 % of the population remain members, regular service attendance is much lower: 2 % attend weekly, 10 % monthly. 60 % of the new-born children of church members are baptized, 29 % of all 15-year old youth are confirmed (36 % of members), and almost 33 % of the marriages are carried out in the church order. 75 % of all Swedish funerals take place in the Church of Sweden (Church of Sweden 2015).

Regarding other religious organizations can be mentioned that apart from minor historic representations of Catholics and Jews, the only alternatives to Church of Sweden for long time were the so called free church movements. It was not until 1950s and onwards that Sweden accepted work force immigration and later also, from the 1970s and on, refugee immigration. Of Sweden’s population of 9.6 million people, 20 % have what in statistical terms is called “foreign background” (Statistics Sweden 2013). This rather doubtful term implies that the individual—or both parents—are born outside Sweden. Today, Islam represents the second largest religion in Sweden, with 100,000 practicing Muslims, and altogether 400,000 cultural Muslims. Jewish communities count some 10,000 members (altogether 20,000 cultural Jews). Among Christians, Catholics constitute some 90,000, and Eastern and Orthodox Christians of which the Syrian Orthodox are the largest group, count some 120,000 members. Different free churches count some 300,000 members (SST 2013). Membership numbers mentioned here are different kinds of estimations, since Swedish law prohibits registration of personal religious affiliation by means of census or the like. This is legitimated with reference to the freedom of religion which safeguards that the individual is protected against persecution on the ground of religious belief.

When public education was made compulsory in 1842 Swedish society was a rather homogeneous peasant country and the teaching of Christianity was related to the Lutheran Catechism. The monopoly situation of the church regarding worldviews gradually changed and a functional differentiation process affected many societal institutions, so also the education system (Bexell 2003; Bäckström 1999). In 1919, the content of the subject of Christianity changed from its Lutheran profile to a more general Christian one, focusing the ethical teachings of Jesus, an orientation which was considered to be useful in promoting societal values of solidarity. In the 1950s and 1960s the subject of Christianity started to include also orientation about other religions. Eventually the non-confessional subject of Religious Education (Religionskunskap) replaced Christianity as a subject in school, with a focus on providing an outside perspective on religions. Instead of instruction in a specific religious tradition, the new subject gave orientation about a range of religions, mainly focussing the so called world religions, but also ethical and existential issues. Using Grimmitt’s classic typology, this was a shift from teaching into a certain religious tradition, to learning about religion (Löfstedt 2011; Grimmit 1973). Notable in the establishment of religious education (RE) in Sweden has also been the status of the pupils’ existential questions and that the instruction should not only deliver orientation about different (world) religions. The pupils should also explore and develop their own worldview and engage in discussions on contemporary and sometimes controversial ethical issues (Löfstedt 2011; Hartman 2007). However, it has been argued that even though the emphasis on so called world religions is strong, the subject can still be seen as coloured by its cultural context in a culturally Protestant country (Berglund 2013).

3 Previous research

A recent survey among the upper secondary students in a nationally representative sample showed that religiosity, together with gender, study programme and parents’ educational level contributed to different attitudes towards religion and Religious Education (Sjöborg 2013b). Furthermore, it has been shown that also for attitudes to religious diversity and religion in society there are salient differences between religious and nonreligious students, controlling for socioeconomic background variables (Sjöborg 2013a). From a qualitative study (Von Brömssen 2009) carried out in one school in a multicultural urban setting, it seems that among students with foreign background, religion was seen as a resource for a person’s identity, even though pupils (in that study: 14–15 years of age) often tended to negotiate between different conceptions of what a ‘proper’ Muslim, Buddhist, etc. would be. The students born in Sweden of Swedish parents were, according to Von Brömssen, more inclined to take a position against religion: ‘as I am Swedish, I am not religious’. Her interviews demonstrate that religion in school is constructed as something clearly connected with ‘the Other.’ The Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Swedish Schools Inspectorate 2012) demonstrated that upper secondary RE teachers often give priority to facts on the expense of discussions. Their report also problematized that this may lead to that students do not reach the national goals for Religious Education, such as increased understanding and that they find the teaching of RE less engaging. These findings certainly call for a closer examination, and by using focus group interviews with 45 upper secondary students this article will answer the question: How do young Swedes talk about religion? How can concepts like othering, reflexivity and religious literacy be used to interpret these findings?

4 Methods

The focus group interviews were conducted with in all 45 pupils in upper secondary school in six municipalities in Sweden. The composition of interview groups catered for aspects such as gender, ethnicity, living region and study programme. The interview groups included different religious traditions and denominations both in majority and minority, such as active and less active Lutherans, Assyrian Orthodox, Catholics, Pentecostals, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and Jehova’s Witnesses. In the analysis I have chosen to look closer at and compare statements from students claiming a self-identification as believer or religious with statements from students claiming a self-identification as not practicing or non-religious. The interviews were conducted among upper secondary pupils who had taken part in a nationally representative class room survey (Sjöborg 2013a). In a number of participating schools, pupils were recruited in cooperation with the teachers. No compensation or gratification was offered. Interviews lasted for 45–60 min and took place in a room at the pupils’ schools. All interviews were conducted in Swedish. No teacher took part in the interviews. The interviews were carried out by the author or a student assistant by the use of an interview guide. Interpretations have been validated in the form of presentations at university seminars and academic conferences. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Full, anonymized transcripts are kept at Uppsala Religion and Society Research Centre, Uppsala University. The project, including survey and focus group interviews were subject to an ethical vetting process in accordance with Sweden’s Ethical Review Act.

5 Results

Reading through all interviews and identifying themes there emerges a striking common feature: The need to relate to the cultural norm of individual integrity and autonomy when talking about religion held strong. This was the case among both believers and non-religious students.

Of central interest for this article, based on the previous research mentioned above, was to compare statements from pupils who defined themselves as believers or religious, with statements from pupils who defined themselves as nonreligious. For the sake of simplicity, these two categories of pupils will be labelled religious and nonreligious in this text. The group interviews indicate that, when talking about religion and religion in school, the pupils stress central late modern values such as autonomy, individual freedom and reflexivity when they describe themselves and their view on religion (Witkowsky 2010; Sjöborg, 2012; Sjöborg 2013a, b). Depending on whether or not the pupils are religious this comes in different shapes: Pupils claiming not to be religious often refer to a scientific discourse for constructing autonomy. From the focus groups the following representative ways of stating this can be highlighted: ‘Religion is something that people used to believe in before, in the old days, when they did not know better. Now we understand more.’ ‘They can’t help it, they were raised that way’ ‘It can be good to know at least something about religion when you go to, like, Thailand’.

5.1 Religion as unmodern

This shows how religion is constructed as something connected with the Other. It is construed as something lacking reflexivity, as a contrast to Modernity. Modernity is in the interviews understood as something which represents a linear view of history where Enlightenment, Science, Development is understood as contributing to emancipation.

Uffe: Science hadn’t come that far a thousand years ago, so of course they believed in that then, what they (the church) came up with. They didn’t know better. We always need to have answers. And there they were. And then several hundred years later came more and more evidence against it.

Stina: Well like religion it is just old stuff, I think. Everything else keeps developing I mean so you can’t just follow the old ways all the time either.

Religion is far away from the informants: it is remote in time, in place and in mind. On the other hand there are also some examples in the interviews that suggest that even the scientific explanations are subject to reflexivity:

Måns: I think you end up in a coffin down in the ground somewhere.

Ida: But I think that’s scary, if you just think that is the end.

Måns: But then when it is the end, you… It is the end, it does end sometime.

Linda: But you don’t know that

Ida: No, I agree, you don’t know that

Måns: Well sure, unless you believe in a religion

Linda: Yeah but you don’t know. There is no evidence that is just ends

Måns: There is no evidence that you go to paradise either

Linda: No but then you can’t say you just lie there in a coffin

Måns: But you do

Linda: Yeah, but you can’t say that it ends then, that is the same thing.

Niklas: Depends on how you think

Linda: Then you think just like the people who are religious

Niklas: No

Linda: Yeah, you do

This quote illustrates what can be called a post-traditional terrain, with some degree of reflexivity. In order to be autonomous in late modern society, you have to question both religious traditions and a scientific tradition.

Among the girls who are nonreligious this autonomy also includes openness or reflexivity around search for meaning or ‘something behind everything’. This means that they are open for the possibility that a religion may provide tools for addressing existential questions for some people, even when they avoid defining themselves as religious in the interview.

A lot of what is said in the interviews refers to religious people from other countries than Sweden. Often, other religions than Christianity are taken as examples.

Isabelle: Well I think it’s really great to study RE because, like, if you are going to travel somewhere you know why they do the way they do, I mean in other countries, so I think it’s really great with RE./…/RE is important to understand them, because otherwise, like’shucks she’s stupid walking around like that’ or’why do they let themselves be humiliated by walking around in fully covered clothing’ (Greta: yeah) right, I mean she has a choice I mean those who wear a burqa (Greta: (interrupts) do you really think they have a choice?) Isabelle: Well some people don’t have a choice but when they come to Sweden they become a little more… (Greta: but I think) but on the other hand… (Greta: it doesn’t matter if they come to Sweden it is still just) yeah it’s awful”.

Titti: I think those who are religious are more, much more open towards new people. Because if you are religious, you think like God has created all people. It feels like those who have a faith go more for trust to other people in some way because otherwise you can feel a bit like, it’s all up to you, you know. I can’t really explain.

Religious people are in several interviews seen as narrow-minded and irrational. In some interviews the issue of honour killings are brought up, linked to Muslims. In connection to this one of the girls argues that situations which are honour-related also may occur among non-Muslim Swedes. She takes an example of a case where a girl in a small place in Sweden was raped and where the local community gathered around the perpetrator rather than around the victim. This particular case got nationwide media attention both in social media and in television (Nordmark and Johansson 2010). She reasoned that this case and the discussions around it were related to issues of honour, showing that an honour-related view on female sexuality in no way should be restricted to ‘other’ groups such as Muslims but rather that such attitudes may appear also in traditionally ethnic Swedish culture.

5.2 Culture and religion

Several informants see Christianity and the churches in Sweden not as religion, but rather as culture.

Johan: When I see a church I don’t think of religion. I basically see it as a place for wedding ceremony and funeral. But what I associate with religion is more like what’s it called… mosques, these with towers and stars and symbols all over. I can see a cross around someone’s neck, but I don’t think she’s a Christian or he’s a Christian, but I see it more like an [Annika: accessory] yeah.

Another informant develops this further and means that a reason for this may be that the church and its rituals is part of everyday life to many, and another (different) religious building draws more attention to it since it is not as common. In some places in Sweden, end of school year ceremonies still take place in churches, and this is mentioned in some of the interviews, as something which is not seen as religion but rather as a tradition, or part of the culture.

5.3 Religion as a choice

A central value which emerges from all interview groups is freedom of choice. Central in the pupils’ talk about religion is how the informants motivate and give arguments for the choices they have made:

Richard: The thing is, that if you only go for the money, you know, you as a person become more selfish and then society is deteriorating if everyone only thinks of themselves.

As was demonstrated earlier, the nonreligious pupils emphasized their freedom of choice and constructed religion as something which they saw as opposed to reflexivity and freedom of choice. Among the students that define themselves as believers or religious, autonomy was also a central theme. But for them, religion is seen as the instrument—or one of the instruments—that enable their autonomy. In one focus group where the majority of pupils were religious, they discussed different sources of influence for today’s people. The examples are the media which is said to influence what young people find important in life. Richard argues that mass media embrace the glamorous lives of celebrities and thereby puts a pressure on people in today’s society to strive for material wealth which he fears may lead to forgetting what ‘really matters’. To Richard, having a relationship with God gives a clearer guidance in life towards meaningful values and caring for others. At the same time he says that his faith guides him towards another kind of ethics than without it:

Richard: You have like a higher moral standard or well not really, but I feel that I have a high moral standard, more than I would have without my relationship with God. (…) how I function in everyday life, because without it I think that I would be different and perhaps not fit in society in the same way that I do today

For Richard religion provides guidance in a society which he finds is too concerned with money and selfishness. Choosing religion can be seen as an alternative to the other dominating commercial options on offer in society. Yamir, who is Sikh, discusses how he negotiates his religious identity in relation to society:

Yamir: In my religion, for instance, there are religious clothing, things and stuff that were before, and they want to have them now too, but it’s not possible.

Moderator: But don’t you think that one should wear those clothes?

Yamir: No, because in my religion, it is like we can’t cut our hair, we can’t smoke, we can’t drink, like that. We have to be in the temple every Sunday or whenever it is a main event you know. A lot of stuff. I have cut my hair, we can’t eat beef, I eat, we can’t smoke, I smoke, [Claudio: you drink] I drink, so …

Moderator: But it is still OK?

Yamir: According to me it is OK, because the god has said these things are not good. Then you must choose yourself. I have chosen to go for this because I think that if I follow the other stuff, then I don’t fit in society. I noticed now when I got a haircut. Personally I think that my friends at work respect me more than before. In a way it is some kind of bullying, well not maybe bullying but… One needs to be free, you know! You can’t just follow a religion born two thousand years ago. You can’t think it is the same world today as it was back then.

Yamir emphasizes that he is well aware of what his religion demands, but with respect for that certain central values in modern society stand in contrast with some of these religious values, he finds the need to adjust. Central to him during the entire interview is freedom, which to him is central in society but not as self-evident in his religion. Yamir stresses that ‘one needs to be free’, and find one’s own way after reflection and choosing one’s own path.

Richard rather sees religion as the right choice in a society ruled by commercialism. Even if Richard and Yamir take partly different stands, it is still salient that when talking about their relation to religion it is about active choices. Their relation to religion is characterized by a discourse tinted by late modern concepts and ways of thinking: that they both have actively reflected around their relationship with their religious traditions and explain the advantages with their choices.

5.4 Religion: something to tolerate?

Despite that many youth in these interviews reveal a negative, sceptical or stereotypical image of religion they also express some kind of tolerance against the ‘other’. In general they can be said to subscribe to one of the central aims of the subject of RE, in that they believe it is good to study RE in order to better understand ‘others’.

Religion is constructed as different, the other, and often examples are taken that either are far away in time or place, or that religion is connected to conflicts. However, in these discussions also a more nuanced image can be spotted:

Isabelle: But I think that there needs to be religion. People need something to lean on. Like you go to church because you need to hide or somewhere to like, you know, meet other people. Religion is a point of connection for a lot of people. Imagine, like yeah, religion does lead to wars, but imagine, war and like when things are messed up then people have somewhere to turn, it is like a huge family for a lot of people. For a lot of people it really is important to belong somewhere.

There is also quite some talk about increased understanding:

Titti: Well like it doesn’t end up like, because now it’s a lot like we and them, we all need to learn, how everyone thinks. Because you have to learn how they think, in order to understand, you know. (Jens: It gives more understanding) Yeah, that is important.

There is a certain discrepancy between what the students say about Religious Education and what they say about religion. Even though they stress how understanding is important they mostly talk about religion as something negative. My interpretation is that this discrepancy, or gap, indicates that the teachers have managed to convey why you should study RE, but still not succeeded in getting the students not to talk about religion in mostly negative and rather shallow terms. Interestingly students in particularly one group, who were rather positive in their talk about religion, mentioned that their teachers invited representatives of different faiths to the class. These class room interactions had involved a Muslim, Christians from different denominations, and someone from Hare Krishna. According to the students the meeting with religious people or people of faith was rewarding and better than only reading about the religion in a book. They found that things which may appear strange get a better explanation when a believing person illuminates them. This can be related to the above mentioned finding that Swedish young people today rarely get their information about religion from face to face contacts in religious organizations or family, but rather rely on indirect sources such as media and school. This shows how RE does have a key role in society in order to nuance images of religion and contribute to an increased understanding and ability to communicate about issues related to religion also between pupils who have different relations with religion and worldviews.

In one of the interviews there are statements about women wearing burqa. Again this is an example of the process of othering. The religious person is constructed as someone who is not Swedish. There are also signs of stereotypical descriptions of religions, especially concerning Islam. The notion that’ women are oppressed in Islam’ is a clear example of such stereotyping; in the group discussion no one contradicts the statement.

5.5 Mind the gap

It was interesting to note that some of the ethnically Swedish students did not connect churches with religion. They found the rituals carried out there as not being religious. They suggest an explanation to this, when saying that the churches are a natural part of their everyday life. This does not imply that they are religiously active and participate in services on a regular basis but rather that they by family are members of the Church of Sweden and they likely have been confirmed or attended a wedding or a funeral. This way of reasoning further underlines the image of that religion is something that Swedes normally don’t do. Religion is for someone else. If there is such a thing as religion, it must be for somebody else to occupy herself with. This is a way of constructing the ‘other’ as religious, and at the same time constructing the self as secular. This can be understood in terms of Said’s theory about orientalism (Said 1978; Von Brömssen 2003, 2009, 2012). With stereotypical descriptions of ‘us’ as nonreligious, modern, enlightened and reflective, and ‘them’ as religious, who don’t know better, unreflective, the pupils who see themselves as nonreligious link themselves to discursive patterns where religion is connected to the ‘others’ who then are subject to be ‘understood’ because religion is conceived as different and unmodern. At the same time, pupils who see themselves as religious stress their reflexivity, that they have chosen their faith, and that this choice enables them to be autonomous and reflective in relation to ‘them’ who are seen as caught up in a superficial and commercialized, mediatized society.

6 Concluding discussion

A general impression is also that the RE subject is seen as important and several of the students express a genuine interest in the school subject. In the light of their talk about religion this is highly interesting. The gap between the conception of the school subject and how they talk about religion suggests that the teachers have succeeded in conveying one of the central aims of the subject while failing in creating real understanding among the students.

There is a tendency among the pupils to talk about religion in a stereotypical way and placing qualities in the categories of religion and religious people, which they claim they do not have themselves. Using Said and von Brömssen can be said that they both construct themselves and the others by ascribing negative qualities on the others, and positive qualities to themselves.

The analysis illustrates that among these pupils religion is constructed as something which is distant in time or place, which is not associated with modernity, progress and science. In this way, my interpretation is, these pupils construct themselves as autonomous and reflexive (Giddens 1991). The pupils claiming to be religious talk of their beliefs as a contrast to the commercial and superficial ideas, which they feel impose restrictions and limitations in the majority society. These pupils construct religion as something that enables them to be autonomous. They stress their reflexivity and underline their freedom with regards to both (1) the demands to be and behave in a certain way in the majority society and (2) that they have not accepted any religious dogmas in an uncritical manner, that they appropriate their religious heritage. My interpretation is that in both categories, the pupils construct as different, the ‘other’ which they feel opposes modern central values. These’ others’ are seen as not as independent and free as themselves. This is true among both the religious and the nonreligious pupils in the interviews. From these interviews it can be seen that both these categories of pupils—religious and nonreligious—construct the ‘other’ by stressing their own agency and reflexivity.

The interviewed pupils live in a time when autonomy and freedom are seen as central values. They also live in a society, which from international comparison, can be said to be permeated by these values to the extent that their way of talking about RE and religion is coloured by this cultural context. Esmer and Pettersson (2007) even characterized individual integrity and autonomy as sacred values in the Swedish context, and proved that traditional religious values were rather invisible on a micro level. As mentioned above in previous Swedish, but also Nordic and UK research, media together with school provides young people with a large share of their information about religion (Lövheim et al. 2015; Klingenberg and Sjöborg 2015, Niemelä 2015; Witkowsky 2010).

The patterns discussed in this article can be compared with findings in the REDCo-project: Von der Lippe’s Norwegian study (2012), as well as the German case study by Knauth and Körs (2011) both bear witness that establishing genuine dialogue between people of different religious groups in RE can be less difficult than building bridges between secular and religious pupils. And while some similarities regarding the religious outlook of young people in the other Nordic countries can be noted, there are also differences. The Swedish results presented here contributes with a nuancing contrast both when it comes to the higher level of cultural and religious diversity and the models for Religious Education in school in these countries. Indeed Knauth and Körs (2011) contends from their European comparison that the way in which Religious Education is shaped according to national or regional traditions and structures has a great deal of impact on how young people come to understand religion.

These findings can be interpreted in the light of the analysis of the political ambition with the RE subject. As shown earlier, research reminds there are problems with attaining the high aims on intercultural understanding. For RE to better realise its high intentions, RE would have more to gain from making use of the said gap between nonreligious and religious pupils, treating it as a resource in a respectful and serious way. My findings suggest that the dialogue between the religious and the non-religious is much more difficult to achieve than the dialogue between different religions. If it is desirable to achieve the high aims of intercultural understanding, it is probably advisable to realise a forum where it could become possible for the pupils to reflect about ‘the other’ in oneself, for both categories of pupils. It is not possible to attain the high aims of Religious Education without offering pupils the opportunity not only to reflect on the worldviews that other people are a part of, but also to reflect on the perceptions that guide their own lives. This task might increase the possibility of realising the goal of intercultural understanding also for the wide majority of the pupils, namely the nonreligious