Folk religion as the "life-world": revival of folk beliefs and renewal of religious categorization in contemporary China

The concept of folk religion has been historically formed. In the course of its spread to other parts of the world, Western Christianity encountered not only other major civilizational frameworks (e.g., Chinese Confucianism and Taoism) and religions outside of Europe (e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and so on), but also a large number of underlying folk beliefs in addition to the officially acknowledged ones. Folk religion, in contrast to institutional religion, is also known as the "diffused religion" (Yang 1967), a characterization employed to describe the Confucian characteristics of Chinese culture. With regard to folk religion, this article explores the cultural beliefs and practices of the Chinese masses in the context of Confucianism. As Yang argues, it is difficult to interpret the religious and cultural diversity of Chinese civil society in terms of institutional religion, and the understanding of folk religion in everyday life based on functionalism tends to ignore and separate the relationship between folk religion and institutional religion, failing to capture the exchange and interaction between elite and folk culture. The institutionalization of folk religion, as a sign of scientification and subjectification, does not fully reflect the life characteristics of folk religion. On the whole, folk religion is derived from the lifeworld (that is, the world of lived experiences by conscious beings) and has non-institutional, diverse, and complicated characteristics, reflecting lived attributes. Moreover, just as German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) critiqued positive science on the grounds of returning science to the life-world, the concept of the life-world may help us confirm the fundamental status of folk religion.

The paper reviews and reframes the concept of the life-world (Lebenswelt) from Husserl’s phenomenology as a basis to understand folk religion. It outlines three features of the life-world—pre-scientific character, subjectivity, and wholeness—and notes unresolved issues in Husserl’s account, especially the problem of intersubjectivity and the relation of transcendental and empirical aspects. It then discusses expansions by Schutz and Habermas, with Habermas’s communicative action bridging life-world and social world but risking relativizing the a priori dimension and under-attending to religion’s non-rational facets. The review contrasts Western monotheism-centered theories (e.g., Religious Market Theory, Stark and Finke) with East Asian practice, noting predictions of folk religion’s decline do not fit China’s post-Reform revival. It surveys modern Chinese history of anti-superstition campaigns and secularization (late Qing, Republican era, Cultural Revolution), the state-driven re-categorization of religion (religion/superstition/science triangle), and the persistence and resurgence of folk practices since the Reform Era. Empirical references include surveys showing low formal religious identity but widespread informal religiosity. The review synthesizes sinological and anthropological scholarship (Freedman, Goossaert, Palmer, Overmyer, Weller, Dean, Chau, Berling, Brook, Sun) on folk religion’s diffusion, ritual centrality, pragmatism/numinosity (ling), and “linked ecologies.” It traces the historical conceptualization of folk religion in China, its entanglement with Confucianism and other elite traditions, the role of Western missionaries/sinologists in shaping categories, and debates over syncretism versus recognizing folk religion’s distinctive plural and pragmatic character. It also reviews governance and policy perspectives on managing diffused folk religion and the evolving scholarly reassessment of folk religion’s legitimacy and social role.

This is a conceptual and theoretical analysis rather than an empirical field study. The authors: (1) develop a phenomenological and sociological framework using Husserl’s life-world and its extensions (Schutz, Habermas) to reinterpret folk religion; (2) conduct historical-genealogical review of religious categorization in modern China (religion/superstition/science triangle, anti-superstition movements, secularization); (3) synthesize existing case-based scholarship (e.g., ritual sites, local cults, sectarian movements, Mazu devotion, numinosity/ling) to illustrate claims; and (4) argue normatively for renewing religious categories beyond institutional, monotheism-centered models, positioning folk religion as foundational to Chinese social life and cultural pluralism.

- Institutional religion-centered categorization stigmatizes and misrepresents Chinese religious life; folk religion, rooted in the life-world, better accounts for everyday practices, diversity, and the sacred-secular blend. - The life-world perspective (pre-scientific, subjective, holistic) clarifies folk religion’s non-institutional, practical, and relational character and its role in providing meaning beyond positivist frameworks. - Folk religion’s pragmatism and emphasis on efficacy/numinosity (ling) are central criteria for participation and authority, contrasting with elite doctrinal standards emphasizing sheng. - Modern Chinese history produced a triadic regime of religion/superstition/science that marginalized folk religion; nonetheless, folk religion revived robustly in the Reform era and reshapes categorization. - Empirical context shows discrepancy between identity and practice: Dataway 2007 indicates 85% of Chinese 16+ hold supernatural beliefs or engage in religious activities; Gallup 2014 reports 61% strong atheists and 7% religious; WVS 2018 finds 13% say religion is important, yet broader measures of spirituality/customs/superstitions reveal widespread informal religiosity; one survey cited notes 87% nonreligious but at least 75% perform rituals. - Folk religion facilitates social integration, mediating elite and folk cultures, and supports pluralism by enabling coexistence and cross-fertilization among China’s institutional religions. - Under pluralism, folk religion both undergoes institutionalization (e.g., redemptive societies) and contributes to fragmentation/reconfiguration of institutional religions; it remains vital and adaptive. - Governance approaches inherited from managing institutional religion are insufficient for diffused folk religion; policy needs to recognize folk religion’s legitimacy and coordinating role. - A post-Eurocentric renewal of religious categories is needed; monotheism-derived assumptions about exclusivity, conversion, and membership cannot capture Chinese (and broader Asian) religious realities.

By reframing folk religion as the life-world, the paper addresses the core question of how to conceptualize Chinese religious life beyond institutional categories. It shows that folk religion underpins the cultural-religious everyday of most Chinese, explaining the observed mismatch between low formal religious identity and high levels of ritual practice. The life-world lens integrates historical trajectories of categorization, power, and science with the pragmatic, relational, and ritual-centered nature of folk practice, thereby accounting for the resilience and revival of folk religion in modernity. This reconceptualization has significance for theory (moving beyond Eurocentric, monotheism-based models), for empirical research (focusing on linked ecologies, ritual rationality, efficacy), and for policy (recognizing folk religion’s role in mediating elite–folk relations and promoting social integration and pluralism).

From a pluralist, life-world perspective, Chinese folk religion is foundational to understanding religious practice, social integration, and cultural diversity in contemporary China. It is not merely syncretism but a dynamic, pragmatic, and meaning-generative field that both shapes and is shaped by institutional traditions. In the new era, folk religion is simultaneously being institutionalized in some forms (e.g., redemptive societies) while also driving fragmentation and recombination within institutional religions. Its integrative capacities help reduce exclusivism, support communication among traditions, and renew religious categorization in a post-Eurocentric direction. The authors argue that bringing religion back from system to life—recognizing the sacred-secular continuum and everyday ritual rationality—better captures Chinese realities and offers resources for pluralistic coexistence under globalization. Future research should develop mid-level theories grounded in local knowledge, expand field-based studies of ritual ecologies and efficacy, and explore governance models suited to diffused religious forms.