Religious upbringing in the family and individual autonomy of “Nones”: a comparative study of youth in Italy and Russia

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

PurposeThe study aims to examine the relationship between the Parental Religious Socialization Index (PRSI) and individual autonomy concerning religious freedom, comparing the role of family agency with that of broader social networks.Design/methodology/approachHow does religious upbringing shape the experiences of young Nones in societies with differing secularization paths, such as Italy and Russia? To explore this question, the PRSI is introduced and tested for validity on a sample of university students (N = 1810, including 645 Nones).FindingsThe findings suggest that country of origin plays a role in how Nones perceive the significance of the PRSI, with Russian Nones displaying slightly higher levels of endorsement. Regarding religious freedom, Italian Nones showed the strongest support for the freedom to choose one’s religious or non-religious identity and to speak openly about religious matters. In contrast, Russian Nones prioritized the values of human dignity, the search for individual truth and the pursuit of personal spiritual fulfillment. Additionally, for Russian Nones, the PRSI is associated with the support of the idea of human dignity as connected to religious freedom, and in the Italian case, the stronger association is found between the PRSI and frequency of worship. Social networks appear to play a more significant role than the child–parent relations in shaping more autonomous positions in religious matters in both samples. The results are discussed in comparison with groups adhering to majority religions.Research limitations/implicationsThe results highlight certain limitations, particularly the absence of longitudinal data to track long-term trends in religious socialization and the lack of control for parents’ religious backgrounds, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of intergenerational religious shifts. Another limitation is the overrepresentation of women (more than 70% of respondents), which may influence responses on topics such as gender and religious leadership.Practical implicationsThese findings have important implications for social institutions, particularly in creating pluralistic spaces that foster the development and respect of “diverse sensibilities” and encouraging dialogue between secular and religious worldviews (Breskaya et al., 2024). In particular, religious education classrooms – where social justice, morality, respect for difference, and religious equality are central aims – play a crucial role in equipping young people with “a language to articulate their perspectives or a grammar to enter into meaningful conversation with others” (Strhan and Shillitoe, 2022, p. 271).Social implicationsOur study suggests that at least two key factors are crucial in addressing the research question of this study: (1) the perceived importance of child-family communication and the specific ways in which secular or religious worldviews are transmitted at home, and (2) the role of the social milieu and broader social networks in filling gaps in the formation of individual choices and autonomy in matters of religion.Originality/valueCurrent studies on Nones highlight the need for a more detailed examination of their sociodemographic, political, economic and spiritual-religious characteristics. Our research suggests that it is particularly important to explore the extent to which Nones’ choices regarding (non)religion are deliberate and autonomous, as well as the kinds of experiences they bring to young people. Our findings raise important questions about what is actually transmitted through religious upbringing – is it primarily religious family identity, a break from previous religious affiliations, or the development of individual autonomy in shaping one’s spiritual experiences and worldview? Furthermore, what role does the family play in fostering individuals – whether spiritual, religious or secular – who value personal choice and autonomy?