ESTRUCTURA DE LA OPERACIÓN 1. Descripción General

Freethinkers is the most popular non-religious affiliation in all three prototypes. This is most visible with the Content Altruists: all 16 defining respondents were affiliated with Freethinkers. Four Con- tent Altruists held multiple affiliations: Freethinkers combined with Skepsis, Humanists and Protu, with one or two instantiations with each. It is similar with the Communally Irreligious prototype: 17 of the 20 defining respondents were affiliated with Freethinkers. In this prototype, seven respon- dents held multiple affiliations, whereas two had no affiliation. Ten respondents held a single affilia- tion. Skepsis became an important secondary affiliation in this prototype: six Communally Irreli- gious respondents were affiliated with Skepsis as well as with Freethinkers, whereas two respon- dents were affiliated with Freethinkers and Humanists and two with Freethinkers and Protu. The Experientially Spiritual prototype has seven Freethinkers out of the 11 defining respondents. Where the Experientially Spiritual respondents differ markedly from the other prototypes is with multiple affiliations: there was only one multiple affiliation amongst the defining respondents.

When the defining respondents’ interviews are analysed regarding the reasons for their chosen affil- iation, it turns out that both for the Content Altruists and for the Communally Irreligious, activistic motivation prevails: seven Content Altruists, one Experientially Spiritual and eight Communally Irreligious respondents motivated their chosen affiliation by activism, whereas group-support was mentioned as a reason for affiliation by only one Communally Irreligious and by none from the oth- er prototypes. The importance of group-support was mentioned in the interviews in contexts other than addressing the name of one’s chosen affiliation(s). It is therefore likely that for those who named the importance of group-support, it also influenced their decision to affiliate in the first place. It is more difficult to say why a particular non-religious organisation was preferred over an- other. Two Content Altruists, one Experientially Spiritual and two Communally Irreligious motivat- ed their affiliations with ideological reasons. Three Content Altruists affiliated accidentally, or for pragmatic reasons without particular preference. None of the Experientially Spiritual and the Com- munally Irreligious respondents fell under this category.

Redfield (Naugle 2002: 245-249); Koltko-Rivera 2004: 35; Manninen 1977: 16-17

14. Affiliations by prototype

Three features stand out in the investigation of affiliations and prototypes. The first one is the rela- tionship between multiple and single affiliations. Multiple affiliations is not popular amongst the Experientially Spiritual: nine respondents held a single affiliation, one held two and one held none. 12 out 16 Content Altruists held a single affiliation, and four held multiple affiliations. 10 out of 20 those affiliated with the Communally Irreligious had a single affiliation, two held none, and seven held multiple affiliations. Perhaps the individualistic orientation makes persons associated with the Experientially Spiritual prototype less likely to affiliate than persons associated with the other pro- totypes. The focus on societal action would explain why some Content Altruists want to affiliate with more than one organisation. Likewise, the importance of rejecting religion for the Communally

CA (N=16) ES (N=11) CI (N=20) Freethinkers 16 7 17 Skepsis 2 1 6 Humanists 1 1 2 Protu 2 2 2 Atheists - - - No reported affiliation - 1 2 Religious affiliation - 1 - Multiple affiliations 4 1 7 Single affiliation 12 9 10 Activism reasons 7 1 8 Group-support reasons - - 1 Ideological reasons 2 1 2 Incidental or without preference 3 - -

Irreligious would explain why some of them think it is important to be affiliated in several organisa- tions that advance the non-religious cause. The second feature that seems to follow the pattern of the first one is that just as the Experientially Spiritual affiliate less than the other prototypes, there were only a few cases where motivation for their affiliation was provided. It seems that compared to the other prototypes, affiliation is of less importance for them. The third feature is the fact that Skepsis emerges as the most important co-affiliation for the Communally Irreligious. This is under- standable, considering that the dominant reason for criticising or rejecting religion, given by per- sons associated with the Communally Irreligious, is religion’s falsity. I will elaborate on this topic later when I present the reasons for rejecting or approving religion by prototype. It is good to men- tion this already now, since out of the organisations, Skepsis is the one that most directly focuses on taking a critical look at false claims about reality. It therefore makes sense that a focus on religion’s falsity goes hand in hand with affiliating with an organisation that wants to advance critical investi- gation of false or dubious claims.

We can conclude by pointing out an anomaly: the above examination is about non-religious affilia- tions. Out of all respondents in this study, three were affiliated with a religious organisation. Two 515 of them are members of the Lutheran church, although, according to them, their membership was due to social and familial reasons and had nothing to do with their personal beliefs. I mention this 516 as a matter of curiosity. These “Lutheran” respondents do not define any of the prototypes. One defining respondent, however, is affiliated with a religious organisation that does not represent Abrahamic monotheism. From the interview it became clear that the affiliation is a matter of per517 _- sonal preference, rather than due to social factors. This respondent is associated with the Experien- tially Spiritual prototype. As we will see, what is an anomaly with affiliations becomes more prom- inent when we turn to the worldview narratives and identities.