Spatiality and Symbolic Characteristics: Dynamics of Collective Religious Rituals among Sunni Muslims and Russian Orthodox Christians in Kazakhstan during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The article’s purpose is to discuss on a cross-disciplinary plane whether the space’s changing dimension (in terms of social distancing), caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, could affect religious symbols’ characteristics and rituals, leading to new symbolical representation. This is analyzed by addressing the influence of the pandemic on conducting religious practices (Friday Prayer, Namaz, Ramadan, Qurban-ait (Eid al Adha), Sunday Sermon, Easter) among the Sunni Muslims and Russian Orthodox Church believers in Kazakhstan. Theoretically, it seeks to correlate inner dynamics of the typology, or ‘production of space’ vis-à-vis symbolic characteristics and elements of ritual. The proposed hypothesis is that (1) if there is a direct correlation between spatiality and symbols (that are ‘deployed’ in rituals), (2) then change of spatiality can affect the performance of symbol’s each characteristic, and the rituals. The following research methods have been used: online group interview in the religious focus groups differed in religious makeup (Sunni Islamic and Russian Orthodox Church) and thematic analysis. The empirical findings support the hypothesis and show that social distancing triggered the fluctuation and changes pertaining to the figurative quality and perceptibility of the symbol, following the modification of religious rituals and the appearance of a wide range of perceptions, respectively. Though the full-fledged symbolization of the changes of religious rituals due to the pandemic is not the case in today’s Kazakhstan, some elements of new evolving attitude are evident.

1. Introduction

The global COVID-19 pandemic impacted people’s everyday life and the traditional forms of communication. Lockdowns, social distancing, diminished social activities, and restrictions on using premises and holding in-person gatherings, festivals and celebrations, have shaped the new modus vivendi and modus operandi in the communities across the world. The new dimension of the space and spatiality, previously unknown or known little, affected the people, societies, institutions, norms, and created new practices. Being socially distanced in the ‘real’ life, people came closer through online communications. The elimination of physical barriers and limitations of face-to-face ‘live’ presence was followed by entering the enlarged virtual space where a person could find oneself at different spots simultaneously while observing more detailed and nuanced depiction of activities on the screen of the monitor. The space seemingly changed its configuration, influencing the modes of people’s behaviour. In other words, one could observe the changes taking place along environmental, cognitive, and relational lines.

As a result, the concept of space and spatiality acquires special meaning vis-à-vis different aspects of life. Religious institutions and practices are one of those spheres, which are deeply connected with and are strongly dependent on the social space.1 As any other institutions and practices under pandemic, they too are placed in the new frame of references where physical space shrunk, the previous forms of links among people transformed, and where the established ways of traditional practices and participation, or symbolic acts acquired new dimensions.

All religious communities and faith-based leaders and organizations, states, local and international institutions have responded to the pandemic-induced crisis. Internationally, interim guidance by World Health Organization (WHO) provided public health advice on religious and social gatherings in general, and, particularly during the Ramadan and Eid al Adha (WHO 2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b). The UN Secretary-General held online meetings with religious leaders on their role to promote public health measures and to limit the damage caused by COVID-19, including disinformation, xenophobia, racism and all forms of intolerance, violence against women and girls (UNSG 2020). On a practical plane, International Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) responded with the official statement saying that the ‘vaccination against COVID-19 is permissible according to Sharia law’ and ‘becomes mandatory if the government obligates it, because the government’s rulings are commended by upholding public interests’ (IIFA-OIC 2021, p. 4). Whereas the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia took an unprecedented step in reducing the number of Hajj pilgrims from about 2.5 million people participating annually prior to the pandemic to just 1000 pilgrims in 2020 amid strict health security measures and with zero positive cases (Jokhdar et al. 2021).

In Kazakhstan too there have been responses from both the government and the religious authorities—Spiritual Administration of the Muslims of Kazakhstan (SAMK/DUMK), and Metropolitan Area of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Republic of Kazakhstan (which subordinates to the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church). Both religious communities issued the respective statements in spring 2020 on the necessity to undertake preventive measures (SAMK 2020; Russian Orthodox Church 2020a), followed by various commentaries from within the religious field. The two key messages could be broadly mentioned: firstly, the need to follow sanitary requirements and maintaining social distancing during collective prayers, and secondly, the issue of performing these rituals online, which both religious communities saw as quite a difficult task. For example, as early as in April 2020, i.e., at initial stages of the pandemic, there were statements that online Friday prayers and 5-time namaz (prayers) were the change of the hukm (Islamic ruling), because they were held online and not in the mosques (Amankul 2020). Throughout 2020–2021 depending on the spread of coronavirus situation and government’s varying measures, the Friday prayers were either totally banned or allowed in the mosques’ courtyards subject to 50% capacity and for not more than 60 min (SAMK 2021), or subject to 25% capacity but not more than 150 people in rural areas only (Kazislam 2021). The Islamic community of Kazakhstan also adopted online services during Ramadan and Qurban-ayt (Eid al Adha) with the establishment of the special online platforms such as Qurban2020.kz and Qurban2021.kz respectively. The response on this issue from the Russian Orthodox Church was that while calling upon the believers ‘to refrain from their habitual way of participating in the liturgical life’, ‘this decision adopted as it was in an extraordinary historical situation, cannot become a new norm’ (Russian Orthodox Church 2020b).

How the religious communities of the country could or could not adjust to a changed situation is a matter of study. Kazakhstan is (Population of Kazakhstan 2021) secular multi-ethnic and multi-religious country of 19 million (comprising of more than 130 ethnic groups and 18 religious confessions) where ‘there are no conflicts on religious grounds’ (State Policy Realization Plan 2020), which could be viewed as a major achievement.

According to the results of two sociological surveys conducted in 2019 by the Committee for Religious Affairs of the Ministry of Information and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 92.8% of the population identified themselves as believers, the majority of the country’s population adheres to Islam (70.2%) and Orthodox Christianity (26%) (Sociological Surveys 2019).2 In 2021, the officially registered religious associations in the country as per religion and denomination were as follows: 2673 (Islam), 343 (Orthodox Christian Church), 86 (Catholic Church), 228 (Pentecostalism), 186 (Baptists), 4 (Mennonites), 107 (Presbyterianism), 42 (Seventh Day Adventists), 14 (Lutheranism), 11 (Methodism), 24 (New Apostolic Church), 2 (Mormons), 60 (Jehovah Witnesses), 12 (Society for Krishna Consciousness), 6 (Bahai), 7 (Judaism), 2 (Buddhism), and 1 (The Unification Movement) (Registered Religious Associations 2021).

These figures indicate an extremely diverse multi-religious environment, within which Sunni Islam and Orthodox Christianity (Russian Orthodox Church) are distinguished as the biggest religious communities by the number of followers and as a part of historical tradition and cultural identity. Therefore, these communities are a major focus of this research, and their perception of COVID-19-triggered changes could be representative of the situation in the religious field.3

The adjustment of religious communities towards the changes implies an important question to be addressed—is there a correlation between the change of space and the production of new symbols that lie at the heart of religious rituals? If social distancing causes new patterns of behaviour and practices, and changes the orientation of people in the space and time (from ‘normal’ experience to digital, from big to smaller group social gatherings, and from consequent to simultaneous online time), then could these changes lead towards new symbolism of the traditional practices and rituals which for centuries have been providing continuity of certain dogmatic norms?

These questions speak about certain turning points in the field that potentially may profoundly influence the ways how the believers perceive rituals, how religious practices are held, and how religious institutions function. All these require an in-depth reflection and empirical analysis with further theoretical implications. Following the pandemic, the academic community has already responded with a general structured outlook at the topics elaborated around five major research areas: epistemological, ideological, religious practice, religious organizations and institutions, and methodological (O’Baker et al. 2020, p. 361). From this perspective, the current paper discusses field of religious practices.

The concept of space and its theoretical understanding is one of the key philosophical as well as practical discourses that has raised questions since antiquity. In the twentieth century alone, there were several influential theories discussed in both natural (Einstein [1920] n.d.) and social (Braudel 1972; Lefebvre [1974] 1991) sciences, within the domains of theoretical physics, philosophy, sociology, semiotics by the classics and prominent theoreticians who significantly contributed towards respective fields.

According to H. Lefebvre’s philosophic approach, space deserves a special science that studies it, ‘a science of space’ (Lefebvre [1974] 1991, pp. 6–7). Almost in the same period in the 1970s, A. Gosztonyi identified 29 different concepts of space in natural and social sciences stating that no scientific discipline can do without these concepts (cit. in: Pries 2009, p. 590). L. Pries, in turn, discussed, through the transnationalization lenses, three dimensions of space—space of experience, absolutist, and relativist spaces (Pries 2009, pp. 590–91).

The scholarly conceptualization of the space and spatiality was a much-needed reflection on the concept that since 1980s onwards started crafting both the science and practice of what became known later as a digital era. The themes of space, spatiality, and religion in various combinations became a research focus with the turn of the new millennium: ritual transformations under social and spatial circumstances shift (Tong and Kong 2000); the symbolic interaction vis-à-vis identity in the global net (Robinson 2007) and particularly, religion in the cyberspace (O’Leary 1996); issues of religious spatiality (Hervieu-Léger 2002), and the links between space and religion in the context of the urban cityscapes, including material and immaterial (Burchardt and Westendorp 2018), and legal and governing dimensions (Burchardt 2019). The key message was to understand the links between physical and digital spaces and religious identity and practices, as well as values, motivations, norms, and visibility.

The global COVID-19 pandemic and the worldwide experience of living life and observing religious practices under lockdowns and restrictions became a significant trigger-factor and has already produced reflections on the new evolving forms. Generally, they could be described as the reflection on the massive presence of digital format in the spiritual sphere. They address, in particular, the issues of religious practices, such as Christian Easter (Fiałkowska et al. 2020), religious behaviour (Sulkowski and Ignatowski 2020; Parish 2020), the role of religious authority on the opening of the mosques (Al-Astewani 2021), and the barriers to Islamic education (Habibi et al. 2021) under the global pandemic. The need to assess the situation from within the field and to know the reaction of the religious communities triggered the research on how international religious leaders responded to new challenges (Goshen-Gottstein 2020). Perhaps one of the important aspects of these reflections is the questioning of the nature and character of the epidemics from the theological perspective and the inherent potential of the religions to answer these challenges. Already a bulk of literature has been produced throughout the pandemic itself, indicating various dimensions of the religion discussed and to be discussed from the following suggested thematic areas—as an ‘independent variable’, as shared and contested beliefs, as organizing and institutionalized practice, and from methodological perspectives (O’Baker et al. 2020, pp. 357–67). The above-mentioned COVID-19-related literature could be generally viewed as a specific marker showing the evolving intellectual discourse and immediate and grassroots responses of the religious and academic communities on the issues of religious beliefs, behaviour, rituals, education, ideology, dogmatism, and institutions.

Equally important is theoretical reflection on the role of symbols in the societies and cultures, particularly, religious symbols and symbolization (Tillich 1958), semiotics and ‘semiosphera’4 (Lotman 1999, [1984] 2005). The concept of symbol is used in this paper from semiotic perspective. Within three kinds of representations, or triad—likenesses, index/sign, and symbol, symbols are viewed as general signs, or ’signs which [are] at least potentially general’ (Peirce 1867, pp. 13–14), and as the ‘complex whole’ (Peirce 1894, p. 7). Symbols are intrinsically intertwined with rituals, which are symbolic acts that require interpretation (Schirch 2005, p. 16) and have transformative power (Driver 1991). Rituals, as ‘embodied, condensed, and prescribed enactment’, ‘contain and animate symbols’ (Grimes 2014, pp. 193, 319). Therefore, symbols, particularly religious, are religious multidimensional ‘complex whole’, of which rituals are a substantial part.

Against this background, the paper’s objective is to discuss whether the changing dimension of the space and spatiality (or social distancing) caused by the global pandemic, could affect religious symbols’ characteristics and lead to new symbolic representation in collective rituals. This will be analyzed by addressing the influence of the global COVID-19 pandemic on conducting religious practices (such as Friday Prayer, Namaz, Ramadan, Qurban-ait (Eid al Adha), Sunday Sermon, Easter) in Kazakhstan. The focus is on how social distancing affects the collective religious rites, how they adapt to the changing social environment and to evolving new forms of social interaction and communication; what are the perceptions of the changes and responses to these challenges by the Islamic and Russian Orthodox Church religious communities in the country. The practical framing of questions provides the possibility to address theoretical issues—the links among the space, symbol, and ritual. Thus, to avoid a mere description of the rituals’ character under the pandemic, on a theoretical plane, the article seeks to correlate the typology and ‘production of space’ (Lefebvre [1974] 1991) vis-à-vis symbolic characteristics—figurative quality, perceptibility, innate power, and acceptability (Tillich 1958) and to understand their inner dynamics. The proposed hypothesis is that (1) if there is a direct correlation between spatiality and symbols (that are applied in rituals), (2) then change of spatiality can affect the performance of the symbol’s each characteristic and this may also affect related rituals.

The following research methods have been applied in this paper: online focus group interviews having different religious makeup (Sunni Islamic and Russian Orthodox Church) and inductive thematic analysis of the results of the focus group interviews. The differing composition of the focus groups has been chosen to obtain a better picture of how the changes are perceived by these religious communities and how their perceptions and argumentations are articulated and justified. This could be instrumental to further comprehend the social cohesion issues in the society.5

2. Theoretical Approach (Space, Symbols, and Rituals)

The correlation between H. Lefebvre’s ‘production of space’ concept, symbol parts and characteristics approach by P. Tillich, and elements of ritual by R. Grimes deserves an expanded separate analysis. In the current paper only a brief theoretical summary is presented below.

In anticipation of the digital revolution that looked at the space from entirely different, virtual perspective, the French philosopher Henry Lefebvre in the 1970s introduced the ‘production of space’ theory, in which he crafted the following ‘conceptual triad’: (1) spatial practice (production and reproduction, particular locations, ‘everyday practice, daily routine’); (2) representations of space, ‘which are tied to the relations of production and to the ‘order’ which those relations impose, and hence to knowledge, to signs, to codes, and to ‘frontal’ relations’ (so called conceptualized space); (3) representational spaces (complex symbolisms, sometimes coded or not, linked to the social life, art; space as directly lived through its associated images and symbols) (Lefebvre [1974] 1991, pp. 14, 33, 38–39). Historically, he defined an abstract, absolute, relative, and concrete space. The distinction by Lefebvre of the types of spaces, their characteristics and fields could be correlated with the general institutional, relational, cognitive, and organic planes.

In Lefebvre’s typology the space is not simply constructed (or produced, as he writes), it is also ‘lived, conceived, and perceived’. In this construction process, therefore, space reproduces and maintains itself through signs and symbols as well and could not only be linked to them but be indicative of how symbols function. In other words, each type of space could be associated with particular symbols. Space is also crucial when it comes to ritual, which ‘is a means of being oriented in cosmos’ (Grimes 2014, p. 258). Space and ritual are deeply interconnected to such an extent that, if one looked from a ritual studies perspective, space could be represented as a cosmos, or ‘world as ritually and mythically constituted’, in which space is no longer abstract, and becomes qualitative, value-laden, can speak, and has meaning (Grimes 2014, p. 258). Therefore, elements of ritual, i.e., actions, actors, places, times, objects, languages, and groups (Grimes 2014, p. 235) are linked to space.

The characteristics of the symbol,6 the religious symbol in particular, elaborated in 1950s by Paul Tillich, could be instrumental in revealing the links between space, symbol, and ritual. These characteristics are figurative quality, perceptibility, innate power, and acceptability (Tillich 1958, pp. 3–5).

Similar to Lefebvre’s ‘lived, conceived, and perceived’ space, the symbol too could go along the same way—to survive and become a fully-fledged symbol, it needs to pass through various stages and acquire respective characteristics. Therefore, the typological regularity and dynamics of both space and the symbol provides the grounds to relate Lefebvre’s typology of space to Tillich’s characteristics of the symbol (and with Grimes’ elements of ritual in mind). This could help to find out which characteristic of symbol could be related to which type of space and to which element of ritual, and, subsequently, to envisage the trajectories of possible symbolic and ritual changes because of spatial changes. The proposed correlation is structured in

Table 1. Correlation between Lefebvre’s Types of Space, Tillich’s Characteristics of the Symbol, and Grimes’ Elements of Ritual.

Planes	Types of Space (Lefebvre)	Characteristics of Symbol (Tillich)	Elements of Ritual (Grimes)	Proto-Questions
Institutional	Representational spaces (system of non-verbal symbols and signs, symbolic works)	Acceptability	Objects	When?
Relational	Representations of space, conceptualized space (system of verbal signs) Social field Perceived	Innate power	Languages, groups	Which?
Cognitive	Spatial practice Mental field Conceived	Perceptibility	Actors, actions	How? Who?
Organic	Physical field Lived	Figurative quality	Places, times	What? Where?

Source: author, based on (Lefebvre [1974] 1991; Tillich 1958; Grimes 2014).

.

As table shows, on the organic plane, the corresponding elements are basic ones, i.e., figurative quality, or ‘the first and basic characteristic of the symbol’, ‘that which is symbolized in it’ (Tillich 1958, p. 3), which could be characteristic of the physical field or basic part of ‘lived’ space in a particular place and time.

On a cognitive plane, perceptibility, or ‘something which is intrinsically invisible, ideal, or transcendent is made perceptible in the symbol, … something imaginatively conceived’ (Tillich 1958, p. 3), relates to mental fields and thoughts, or spatial practice (here Tillich’s ‘imaginatively conceived’ and Lefebvre’s ‘conceived’ are in an absolute unison with each other). Perceptibility could be described as a realization of the symbol’s figurative quality in individual milieu through the act of conceiving and mental endeavours of actors and their actions.

On a relational plane, the third characteristic of the symbol, or its innate power, ‘distinguishes it from the mere sign which is impotent in itself’. According to Tillich, this characteristic is the most important one making the symbol what it is, i.e., an entity with power. Once symbol has its innate power, it can convey its meaning, once lost its inner power, it becomes sign (Tillich 1958, pp. 3–4). Therefore, the inner power of the symbol could be associated with its meaning, which is possible in social milieu, in society, social fields, and networks, i.e., in Lefebvre’s representations of space, or conceptualized space (system of verbal signs). Thus, meaning acquires significance (or innate power) through being exposed in the social “perceived” space, through relations, languages, and groups.

Once the meaning of the symbol is ’socially rooted and socially supported’, once the symbol is created as ‘a social act’ (Tillich 1958, p. 4), it is acceptable for all, and it becomes a truly full symbol, able to penetrate and circulate within societies, times, cultures, acceptable to all group members. It is on this cultural space (or institutional plane) where symbol becomes dominant, because ‘a cultural life exists only in symbols … cultural reality is in its essence symbolic reality’ (Tillich 1958, p. 10). Hence, acceptability of symbol by all group members, its ‘indoctrination’ in society(-ies) to such extent that it becomes truly organic, natural, shared by all, and a culturally ‘institutionalized’ symbol and symbolic object, correlates it with the cultural space, or Lefebvre’s representational spaces (system of non-verbal symbols and signs and symbolic works).

This correlation leads us to the following conclusions. The first one is that characteristics of the symbol have their own inner dynamics which are in direct correlation with the inner dynamics of the types of space and with the elements of ritual. This may presume that changes in space’s characteristics could affect the characteristics of symbol and ritual.

The other conclusion relates to functionality of the symbol’s inner dynamics. Similar to space, the production of which within different fields could yield different types, the symbol too undergoes various stages of its own ‘growth’. It should, first, have its own quality of existence and this could pose the ‘What?’ and ‘Where?’ questions to understand its basic qualities and its being (whereabouts). Then it needs to obtain its perceptibility, and to operate on a particular mental field of spatial practices and thoughts, which pose the ‘How?’ and ‘Who’ questions to comprehend who and how it enacts this ‘imaginatively conceived’ nature. Further, the symbol needs to be ‘matured’ in the social field and be perceived favourably by social group members in a conceptualized space, and this highlights the ‘Which?’ question to index or point out the proper ways of obtaining its innate power. Finally, after being supported and shared by all social group members, the symbol could operate on the institutional plane and obtain its abstract symbolization in representational space, which is cultural space; since this involves time7 then the key question associated with this stage is ‘When?’.

Therefore, the direct proportional linear space–symbol–ritual correlation could be functionally expressed through these respective proto questions. The identified questions as certain pointers are instrumental in linking space and symbols. They could be viewed as indicators, or markers, showing the influence that dynamics of either space or symbols and rituals could have on each other. Thus, if there are changes of spatiality, then this could trigger changes in symbols and rituals as well and vice versa. Therefore, the next key question is to find out whether this correlation does exist in practice. To do so, these abstract proto questions have been applied to the tasks of this paper.

3. Methodology

For the research, several qualitative methods have been used: online focused (group) interview, in-depth interview, and experts’ online survey.8 This paper discusses the focus group method that was used to identify how the theme is perceived by representatives of two religions. Thematic analysis method was applied to interpret the results of the focus groups’ interviews.

3.1. Focus Groups’ Participants

Two focus-group interviews with theologians and faculty members from two Almaty-based religious educational institutions—Sunni Islamic (4 participants) and Orthodox (3 participants)—were held online via ZOOM on 11 and 20 November 2020. The interview durations were 1 h 45 min and 1 h 30 min, respectively.

3.2. Methods Used

To test the hypothesis on existing links between space, symbols, and rituals, the theoretically identified key proto questions, i.e., What/Where, How/Who, Which, When, were formulated and applied for research purposes. What/Where proto question asks whether there are changes of religious practices due to social distancing. The How/Who proto question aims to reveal the perceptibility and perceptions of the changes; the Which—to trace the meaning of the changes in relation to groups; and the When—to show the symbolic acceptance or rejection of the changes (

Table 2. Sets of Questions.

#	Proto Question	Applied Question
1	What/Where? (Identification of quality/sign, i.e., changes)	Did existing major religious practices and rituals (Friday Prayer/Juma namaz, Hajj, Ramazan/Qurban-ayt (Eid al-Adha), Christmas, Easter, etc.) change due to social distancing? How did these changes manifest themselves?
2	How/Who? (Perceptibility of the quality/sign)	How do worshipers and believers view these changes? Could the ongoing changes (social distancing and minimization of interaction) have an impact on discussions among believers (and in society) about practicing religious rituals?
3	Which? (Meaning of the quality/sign in relation to groups)	Can we assume that changes that have taken place (are happening) for the better/for the worse, why?
4	When? (Symbolic acceptability/representation of the quality/sign)	Could the ongoing changes affect established religious rituals? Will the practice of religious rituals in Kazakhstan remain the same as it was before the pandemic, or could change occur? Which ones?

Source: author.

). Therefore, these seemingly obvious questions, each one linked to a respective space–symbol–ritual plane, are indicators allowing us to trace the influence that the dynamics of either space, symbols, or rituals could make on each other.

During the thematic analysis (inductive approach) the obtained extensive results of the interviews have been structured to make coding and, consequently, to generate and define themes as per symbol’s each characteristic. These themes became a quintessential indicator of what is the interrelationship between the space, symbol’s characteristics and elements of ritual.

3.3. Focus Groups’ Procedure Technique

Due to the pandemic, all focus group interviews took place online throughout November 2020, via ZOOM calls, and have been recorded. Online format of conducting interviews was a new one, and it proved to be equally significant in conducting discussions and yielding results. This qualitative method was based on the structured questionnaire (referred to applied questions in Table 2) of the interview programme/guide reflecting the target group’s professional and religious specificity.

To better understand the attitude of the participants on the issues relating to religious rituals and to lessen their possible anxiety over the online format, it was decided to conduct group interviews in religious focus group separately for Islamic and Russian Orthodox believers. However, as per the project schedule, it was planned that later joint discussions by the representatives of all groups would take place at the international conference.9

During discussions, the participants’ answers to some questions have been mixed and interpenetrated with other questions, hence, some questions and respective answers given below were combined. For the purpose of analysis, the answers of focus groups’ participants, given below, have been structured around the same pillar questions. This could better show how these groups perceive the same theme.

4. Results

The focus group discussions structured around the applied questions yielded the following results.

4.1. What/Where? Did Existing Major Religious Practices and Rituals (Friday Prayer/Juma Namaz, Hajj, Ramadan/Qurban-ayt (Eid al-Adha), Christmas, Easter, etc.) Change Due to Social Distancing? How Did These Changes Manifest Themselves?

The answers to this question generally showed the negative attitude by both Islamic and Orthodox theologians and teachers from religious educational institutions. From the Islamic focus group participant A. stressed that ‘the jamagat [Islamic community] decreased, social distancing negatively influenced traditional forms of gatherings… During the Friday prayers and Oraza [Ramadan] we prayed and fasted as previously, but our hearts were half broken we couldn’t do taravih prayer together. Thus, think all who relate to religion… This brought more harm rather than benefit to the community in general’. Participant S. highlighted that ‘there are both adaptable and non-adaptable aspects of religious rites, and Juma namaz [Friday prayer] is a non-adaptable aspect. It could be stopped only temporarily but not for long’. Another response from participant A. revealed that this pandemic ‘is not the first one in the 1400-year history of Islam, earlier, there have been cholera and plague, at those times the pilgrimage, taravih, Friday prayers all were suspended. During such times the Islamic scholars issued decrees to close the mosques; to pray, stay and fast at home. So, we are spiritually ready for this, some [thing] is missing perhaps, but lacking the alternative, we are getting accustomed to this’.

From the Orthodox focus group, participant P. also stressed the changes during the pandemic and their negative effects for the joint meetings of the believers: ‘Believers should gather together for the joint prayer, for a joint participation in the mysteries of the Church, for public prayer and service. It was unbearable for me, as a priest, to witness the empty church. When quarantine was started in the city, we were allowed to conduct divine services but without people. People who used to regularly attend services in the temple [church], felt difficulties, they were stressed and unsatisfied. I hope, this will not repeat again, we will be able to conduct worships for people, together with them’.

Participant I. showed the parallels between the current pandemic and the previous historical experiences of the Russian Orthodox Church during the 1920–1930s radical persecution by the Soviet state against religion. At that time ‘temples [churches] were closed… it was not permitted to conduct religious rites and ceremonies. Many priests lived in camps, were in prisons, however they managed to keep distant links through letters among themselves and with the congregation, whom they taught, because people couldn’t confess and purify and participate in rites. The Church has this experience of the spiritual distant communication. Though nowadays we see another case related to the health issues, yet I see many parallels between that time and how the “nurturing the flock by the teachers with their flock” takes place now’.

4.2. How/Who? How Do Worshipers and Believers View These Changes? Could the Ongoing Changes (Implementation of Social Distancing and Minimization of Interaction) Have an Impact on Discussions among Believers (and in Society) about the Practice of Religious Rituals?

The answers to these questions were interrelated, thus these questions were combined. The Islamic theologians’ group participants indicated the ‘functional’ practical part of the changes: ‘these changes are not a big problem, because previously there were such issues in the history of Islam (suspension of public collective prayers). If some people do not understand, then imams and teachers are there to help them and explain, both in mosques, and on YouTube, or on Muftiyat’s website’ (as per participant M.). Participant A. expressed that ‘community accepted this with understanding, people didn’t protest, though there were some disagreements on this, however 99% of the general public sympathized. Thanks to the good work, imams well conveyed this, and the community accepted this, even it was difficult’.

Participants M. and I. mentioned low possibility of discussions among believers, also linking this to the good work of imams and mosques: ‘I don’t think there will be disagreements. In each area the community members could approach mosque, take phone number, in internet there is special website of the Muftiyat’ (participant M.); ‘If there are some questions and issues, there is the Fetwa Department at the Muftiyat which during the pandemic responded immediately on each raised question’. At the same time, another aspect of discussions was taken by the participant S. who stressed that ‘Of course, there will be discussions, since we are accustomed to traditional way of life, and this is a new situation. This [situation] could influence each one differently. There could be disputes because one cannot adapt to isolation. However, I think, that within time this could be adapted to’.

The answers from the Orthodox theologians group revealed the possibilities of the discussions within many parts of the society. According to participant P., ‘There are discussion moments not only among teachers, but among parishioners of one temple. Someone is calm, understands the danger, calmly refers to restrictive measures, etc., while the other person is outraged by these restrictive measures, he does not fully understand the danger or even though he understands it but does not want to deprive himself of taking part in worship, religious rituals, and the sacraments. I think that the restrictions are necessary, but the state cannot always correctly monitor them. … Even I have a question why I cannot see the people in the temple, who are present at the service, but I can see a full market. Why should I see people in the temple wearing masks, and coming to a cafe without a mask? Such moments are the reasons for various discussions. For example, correctness and incorrectness, control and enforcement of these restrictions. Even within the family, between the older and younger generations, discussions can arise regarding the remote format. Our task is to work with people in a remote format, learning to explain to them, to console them that these are temporary measures’.

4.3. Which? Can We Assume That Changes Have Taken Place (Are Happening) for the Better/for the Worse, Why?

The answers to this question revealed that there could not be one-way approach. Among the positive effects highlighted by participants there were ethical attitudes, spread of religious preaching. Such inner ethical qualities of people as humanity, kindness, compassion, help, were also stressed: ‘Earlier society didn’t pay attention to them. Now people think about, understand each other, not feeling resentful if somebody couldn’t come. This influenced the whole society in all spheres. Most importantly is to respect people. Family relations have been strengthened in the society. … Not everything could be bad, i.e., there are also positive effects’ (participant A.). According to participant I., ‘Earlier only those were listening to the imam’s preaching who attended the mosque, read 30-min namaz. Nowadays the Mufti every Friday does preach online, and all could listen to it’.

Among the negative effects the religious teachers and theologians’ group participants indicated the loss of contacts, interactions among people, and lack of support: ‘The links among people became weakened. When one goes to the mosque, he sees people whom you don’t know, you speak with new people, you get information. We lost the contact; this is another side’ (participant S.). ‘Of course, there are negative effects. We were asked to stay at home, and many have weakened. Earlier, in these situations, someone could spiritually encourage and support’ (participant I.).

Orthodox participants replied in a similar way. On the one hand, there is a more categorical approach that ‘As a teacher of the history of religion, studying different religions, I cannot name you a single religion, not a single religious and philosophical movement that would suit the distance format. It is impossible to confess your faith remotely’ (participant P.). On the other hand, as participant I. mentioned, ‘I am a member of dozens of WhatsApp groups. There is a great request for communication with the clergy. If earlier I somehow did not pay attention to these social networks, at the moment when the temples were closed, I realized that it was necessary to communicate with people there. People have a huge number of questions that I did not have time to answer, and not all clergymen could take part there. Our churches in the Almaty region are conditionally open, because there are restrictions on the number. But nevertheless, many people cannot go to the temple, because they are afraid of crowds. The demand for remote communication with the clergy is very high’.

4.4. When? Could the Ongoing Changes Affect Established Religious Rituals? Will the Practice of Religious Rituals in Kazakhstan Remain the Same as It Was before the Pandemic, or Could Changes Occur? Which Ones?

Answers to these questions were the most categorically replied to. Participants from both religious groups clearly indicated that the current pandemic could not make significant effect on the essence of the religious rites. ‘I don’t think that [it] will influence religious rites. To make Hajj one need[s] to do this once in a life only. This [pandemic] influenced Friday prayers only, while fasting, sacrifice, 5-time namaz are personal. Only the juma namaz [Friday Prayer] which is collective, may be endangered, since we are losing during pandemic the feeling of brotherhood, the links with our congregation, whereas the other religious rites are individual worship, when people are personally responsible, and there are links between the God and the person only’ (participant A.). Participants I. and S. correlated equally: ‘These circumstances couldn’t affect our religion. Everything is regulated in our religion, and the Prophet’s hadith says that any place on the earth is a mosque. If there is no water, then one could carry out ablution by soil. This could not make harm on us’ (participant I.); ‘Yes, I agree, there is only a Friday prayer with congregation [that has been changed]. I don’t think this [pandemic] could affect any other ritual’.

Equally, for the Orthodox group participants the pandemic could not significantly change basic rituals, though it may affect slightly some of them, for example, kissing of the priest’s hand or icons. However, the basic rituals will continue to be the same: ‘That’s a very difficult question. Naturally, a pandemic can make its own adjustments to religious practices and people are ready for this. For example, if we talk about kissing icons and the hands of a priest, personally for me in this regard there are no special problems, I will calmly take this. You can pray without it. But there is still the sacrament of the church, which presupposes some kind of contact, which will be impossible to avoid, but it is not possible to abolish these practices in any way. These are the fundamental, dogmatic religious principles of Christianity. Such principles are everywhere, and in Islam and in other religions there are such points that cannot be changed. This is both a debatable and complex issue. But again, even in the context of a person’s performance and participation in various rituals, it is impossible to get used to anything. If a person wishes, then in principle, as a priest, I have no right to refuse those who wish to take part in this or that sacrament, this is my duty as a priest. Naturally, in the current conditions, I must do everything in my power to the maximum to protect his health and the health of others and mine’ (participant P.).

Thus, irrespective to religion, the focus group discussions revealed almost similar perspectives. To find out whether the theoretical hypothesis on how the change of social distancing (space) could influence the symbol’s characteristics and rituals is workable, empirical findings have been summarized and structured as per questions linked to the characteristics of the symbol. Therefore, summarized answers to these questions could be viewed as codes as well (they are italicized in the text below). Key findings are interpreted vis-à-vis the symbol’s key characteristics, i.e., figurative quality, perceptibility, innate power, acceptability, and corresponding elements of ritual.

Figurative Quality characteristic of the symbol became an important marker of the change of rituals in many ways (currently they are more individual and less social) due to the pandemic. Theologians and teachers from religious institutions, both Islamic and Russian Orthodox, observed these changes in many ways (in space/places and time) and found these changes as more harming. They were especially concerned with the practice of collective prayers (juma namaz and Sunday Services) where people could enhance their sense of belonging and which were forbidden under the pandemic. These collective rituals and their implied symbols for them were non-adaptable. However, at the absence of the alternative, they were becoming slightly accustomed to the situation with the hope to overcome it soon. Participants from both religious communities referred to the historical precedents in the history of Islam and Russian Orthodox Church drawing parallels and taking inspiration from the past to better understand the current circumstances. This could mean that, putting the current situation in a broader historical perspective, they are sure that irrespective of difficulties, collective rituals will return. It could be interpreted that collective rituals, as the essence and the triumph of the meaning of religion and as a social cohesion act, are an eternal category similar to religion itself, and from this perspective they could not be modified.

Perceptibility characteristic of the symbol and its correlation with the related second (How/Who?) question showed the wide range of perceptions of actors and their respective actions (from opposition, disagreement and concern, towards discussion, understanding, need for adjustment).

Islamic theologians and religious teachers generally spoke on the practical ways of adjustment of the congregation to the changes—the need to follow fatwas, to obtain help and explanations from imams and teachers, including through official websites of religious authorities. They stressed general understanding of the people (almost 99%) and slight disagreements of some. At the same time an opinion was expressed on the inevitability of discussions primarily because people cannot adapt to isolation. Thus, again, the social aspect of religion was highlighted, which has a profound consequence. Particularly, it is about the breakup of the ‘live’ social networks and chain, and the need to adjust to new situation that is seen as a difficult task for believers.

Russian Orthodox theologians expressed more concerns about the situation that both religious teachers and parishioners need to adapt to, including the ways in which the state conducts monitoring. In other words, this could signal that the issues of changing collective rituals under the pandemic acquired an additional—secular-religious—dimension and touched upon the ethical issues (such as correctness and incorrectness) as an important element of social justice, which has always been perceived by all religious traditions as relating to their domain.

Innate Power characteristic of the symbol indicated that groups articulated and perceived the dual effects, or binary opposition (there are both positive and negative effects).

All groups’ discussions on this question revealed that there could not be a one-way approach to viewing the effects of the pandemic on religious field and rituals. Almost all participants mentioned both positive and negative effects. Among the positive effects were an increased role of ethical issues in people’s behaviour (tolerance, respect, improved family relations), expansion of preaching beyond the religious premises and of missionary work, and ‘digitalization’ of religious services. According to all participants, the primary negative effects were the social ones, i.e., the loss of ‘live’ links, contacts, involvement in the ’true’ religious experience, and lack of consolation and support.

Acceptability characteristic of the symbol showed “no change” approach.

The answers to the When? question about the effects of the ongoing changes on the established religious rituals, and whether they will remain the same as before the pandemic, revealed an almost unanimous accord of the participants.

Results indicated that the pandemic could not significantly change the established rituals, most of which (4 out of 5 obligatory prescriptions as in the case of Islam) are individually based and personal; only one ritual, i.e., Friday collective prayer, is a social act that is temporarily put on hold and adjusts to the social distancing circumstances. The expressed idea that Islam itself is a flexible religion as far as adjustments to new situations is concerned is also worth mentioning, since it shows that, according to the theological perspective, there are almost no limitations for the religion to be maintained and observed, even under unfavourable circumstances, which are viewed as merely temporal episodes. Equally, the same answers from Russian Orthodox group also indicate that under no circumstances can profound dogmatic basic rituals of any religions be changed. These rituals could only be slightly adjusted to a certain extent by individual priests to prevent the spread of pandemics. Kissing the icons and the priest’s hand is very informative in this case.

However, when it comes to the profoundly basic rituals such as the Divine Eucharist, then it ‘cannot in any way be cancelled; for where there is no Eucharist there is no church life’ (Russian Orthodox Church 2020c). Though the participants did not name specifically this most important Church sacrament, they referred to it while saying that the fundamental, dogmatic religious principles of Christianity cannot be changed and that it was their duty to perform this while at the same time protecting the health of every partaker.

Holy Synod of Russian Orthodox Church officially stated that the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in churches did not stop even in the absence of most of the flock’ (Russian Orthodox Church 2020b) and provided special five-point detailed instructions on how to offer the Holy Mysteries of Christ (along with instructions on other sacraments): ‘the spoon should be wiped after each partaker with a handkerchief impregnated with spirits (with regular refreshing the impregnation) and then dipped in water to be utilized later according to the practice of washing the kerchiefs… Partakers should refrain from kissing the Cup’ (Russian Orthodox Church 2020c). Therefore, according to the participants and based on official Holy Synod documents, the corpus of basic dogmatic rituals cannot be subjected to change at all, especially ’the Divine Eucharist as the most important of them... We can never and in no way forget this norm’ (Russian Orthodox Church 2020b). Therefore, general symbolic act (object) of the Divine Eucharist was not changeable at all; rather, some adapted elements of this sacrament such as disinfecting spoon and kerchiefs were used in the new circumstances.

5. Discussions

The obtained empirical findings structured around four characteristics of the symbol and respective elements of ritual reveal an array of issues concerning symbolic and ritual representation. More broadly, they also address the fundamental questions regarding the theoretical domains of the sociology of religion, such as social and individual character of religion, secularization, religious authorities, digital dimension of religion, religious rituals, and religious meaning-making.

The social (collective) dimension of religion in the social cohesion process (Durkheim [1912] 2001) was significantly highlighted and became one of the main concerns, and perhaps, most sensitive issue for the participants. For religious groups the imposed changes are a sensitive theme, as they affect the very basis of their creeds and could be a source of anxiety and concern. Empirical findings speak about the significant role of collective rituals (that are perceived as a core by both religions) which are ‘the centrality of face-to-face and intimate gatherings typically associated with nearly all religious practices and traditions’ (O’Baker et al. 2020, p. 358).

Given the fact that the changes in religious rituals are viewed by religious participants as a quintessential basic element of religion, as a part of ritual practices and traditions, the issues of privatization of religiosity and secularization also came to the fore. While the Western developed countries’ experience may lead to ‘reasonably expect an acceleration of pre-existing trends toward religious privatization as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’ (O’Baker et al. 2020, pp. 363–64), the developing society case (as far as religious groups are concerned) shows that privatization of religiosity is still a rather long wish list.

Both the Sunni Islamic and Russian Orthodox participants seemed determined to continue collective rituals and to pursue in-person gatherings (subject to governmental regulations), while also stressing the ritual’s healing effect on the emotional and psychological well-beings. For them the modification in the rituals, especially collective ones, which lie at the heart of their creed, is a very sensitive issue. In other words, we could observe that the social solidarity issues are emphasized greatly and equally by representatives of both these religions, who see the collective rituals as an important factor of the continuation of the flow of religion, which supports the Durkheimian approach (Yerekesheva 2008). Changing social space threatens this flow, potentially jeopardizes the religious system, and, therefore, is looked upon with suspicion and anxiety at a minimum, and as a matter of social concern that needs to be addressed.

The adherence of the religious focus groups to the social dimension of religions in the society, even under the pandemic, may have implications on the secular–religious interaction and secularization. As evident from the Orthodox Church focus group, the ways how local authorities maintained a control over religious vis-a-vis non-religious groups’ gatherings, raised ethical issues of what was just and unjust (though participants from both faiths admitted the compelled and temporal character of these measures). As for the possibility of accelerated trends associated with secularization because of pandemic (O’Baker et al. 2020, pp. 363–64), the empirical findings indicate that currently this proposition is not the case in Kazakhstan. Perhaps, the theologians’ replies could not be very indicative of this, and further multidimensional study and a larger survey could help in clarifying this issue in greater detail. However, the given responses from the focus groups signal the opposite, i.e., dogmatically (profound dogmatic basic rituals of any religion could not change) and individually, no significant changes could be expected.

These responses could speak about the high role of religious institutions and the traditions of vertical hierarchal distribution of power, which is linked to the issue of religious authority, as well as, particularly, to traditional types (with elements of charismatic and legal types), and their organized domination (Weber [1946] 2014, p. 5). The empirical results demonstrate the critical role of authorities of both the religious communities in the country to be a bridge between religion and state in maintaining the situation under control and peacefully addressing the emerging discussions within the two communities.

The research results show that the relational aspect of religious authority based on Weberian notion of legitimacy and trust (Kramer and Schmidtke 2006, p. 2) is based on recognition of and is ascribed to institutions mainly, rather than to individuals. This again could speak to the significant role of established religious institutions and more social (collective), rather than individual aspects of religious lives, due to the tradition and history of the country and the Central Asian region in general.

The digital dimension of religion was a profound and almost an immediate effect of the pandemic on the religious rituals in the country. Unlike in the Western world where the issues of sacredness in the cyberspace, religious territoriality on the internet, and the consequent questions on the ‘Church-type’ and ‘sect-type’ religious spatiality in religious modernity became matters of concern as early as at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries (O’Leary 1996; Hervieu-Léger 2002), the digital transformation of religions and digital religiosity in Central Asia have been primarily induced by the pandemic. Focus group answers indicate the turn to digitalization of religion, a new character of this phenomenon that may have significant consequences. It seems that this aspect could become more prominent for them in the future since in both Islamic and Russian Orthodox religious communities there are views expressing the possibility/need to continue the use of this format in future as well.

The empirical results could be linked to another important theme directly associated with symbol and ritual—religious meaning making, that will ‘occur in the cognitive system and comprise continuous appraisals, evaluations, and reconstructions’, and has ‘perceptual, emotional, cognitive, behavioural, and/or non-conscious’ responses (Paloutzian and Park 2015, p. 172). These human responses as a meaning making process, made by rituals, influence the symbol. From a ritual studies perspective, ‘rituals make meaning through activating sets of symbols and thereby embedding values’ (Grimes 2014, p. 319). From semiotic perspective, meaning making relates to the symbol, which is made of thoughts involving concepts (Peirce 1894, §8). From whatever perspective, the empirical results show that under social distancing the religious meaning making through/by rituals was unfolded on the initial stage only, in the cognitive system and was not evaluated and conceptually reconstructed further. Perhaps it takes time to ‘digest’ the rapid transformations that both communities faced during the pandemic. The situation was also affected by rather insignificant spread in pre-pandemic times of digitalization processes, including online services, in both communities.

The consequences that occurred at the initial stages only could be indicative of the partial, rather than the whole picture of possible transformations, and as such, they could be considered as among the limitations of this study. The other limitation is the small size of the sample—only two focus-groups. However, as stated above, the research has applied other methods as well (in-depth interview and expert survey). The static rather than diachronic character of the research is also a limitation. The focus-group interviews were conducted in November 2020, in the midst of high pandemic alert and prior to the availability of the vaccination globally and locally. It could be beneficial to discuss the theme with the same focus-groups subsequently to trace the dynamics of the developments.

General results of the focus group interviews indicate that space-symbol-ritual correlation appear in practice (

Table 3. Symbol-Space-Ritual Correlation as per Qualitative Methods Results.

Axis Y—Space (Lefebvre)	Representational Spaces (Institutional, Cultural Plane)				When? No change
	Representations of Space (Social Field, Relational Plane)			Which? Dual effects Binary opposition
	Spatial Practice (Mental Field, Cognitive Plane)		How/Who? Wide range perceptions
	Concrete Space (Physical Field, Organic Plane)	What? Where? Change of rituals in many ways
		Figurative quality; Places, times	Perceptibility; Actors, actions	Innate power; Languages, groups	Acceptability; Objects
Axis X—Symbol’s Characteristics (Tillich) and Elements of Ritual (Grimes)

Source: author, based on (Lefebvre [1974] 1991; Tillich 1958; Grimes 2014).

).

On an initial concrete space (that deals with the environment and physical field where people live, or places and times), the change of space, i.e., social distancing, became a sign and significantly affected the symbol’s figurative quality. As a result, people experienced change of rituals in many practical ways as a ‘lived’ experience associated with particular place, and this considerably influenced their established ways of performing rituals (from physical to online participation). Therefore, changes affect a figurative quality of the symbol, which acquires a new dimension—from an already established and known sign to which people are accustomed, it transforms into an unstable and changeable one. Since this symbol’s characteristic and the elements of ritual have been mostly affected by the change of space (and less of time), hence they are depicted in Table 3 in a darker colour spectrum.

In spatial practice on the cognitive plane that involves thoughts and mental comprehension of the changes, the symbol’s perceptibility (by actors) is also affected, though to a lesser extent. The findings show a full spectrum of perceptions of the changes, ranging from opposition and disagreement towards discussion and understanding. This could mean that perceptibility here reflects various voices (of actors and their actions) that are not unified; perceptibility is not stable, it fluctuates, and this makes construction associated with spatial practice vulnerable to changes in either way. The wide array of perceptions lessens the dramatism and intensity of the effects of spatial changes, leaving room for accepting some of them (this is expressed through the lighter colour in the Table 3).

On relational plane of representations of space (and groups), innate power characteristic of the symbol indicates further crystallization—from previous many-voice multiplicity into the strict duality and ‘positive-negative’ binary oppositions. This opposition and duality restrict and frame the meaning, so it cannot reach its full innate power to be functional, to be unleashed on this relational space, so as to make its presence for all and everybody. It seems as if the social field here is polarized; hence, conceptualized space is not fully matured, and the society needs to find a way to overcome this duality to make meaning out of new changes. Representations of space here are even less affected; meaning making here is not complete, and social groups are still discussing the changes, as if ‘digesting’ information rather than reaching consensus collectively and attributing a particular meaning to the changes.

Therefore, results pertaining to the innate power of the symbol’s characteristic are of ambivalent, binary character, and they embrace both polarities as possibilities. The change of space that affected the ways rituals are held could be seen as an index having some ‘capacity for experience’ (Peirce 1894, §5), indicating that certain quality should be viewed within the broader context, be placed in it, and related to other social groups. In other words, they should be meaningful for all of them to form this capacity for experience and to obtain its innate power. The empirical results show that this meaning has not yet been shaped, it is just ‘meaning made initially’ (Paloutzian and Park 2015, pp. 173–74),10 and is still under elaboration on a way towards obtaining its symbolical innate power. Therefore, the question on which way both religious communities may choose could become prominent in future, subject to inner discussions that accompany any transformative processes.

Finally, on a plane of representational spaces, or cultural level, the effects of social distancing are even less distinguishable. There are no possibilities for a new symbol (implied in object) to emerge because it is not acceptable, it is not welcomed by interested religious groups. Moreover, the previous symbol (of established rituals) is given priority and is ‘protected’ with the ‘No change is expected’ attitude. It is even reinforced by expressions of possibility of increased religiosity in the future. Under these circumstances space here is not a truly representational space, and the acceptability characteristic of the symbol (and object) is not working; rather, it is dismissed and blocked. The fact that the symbol itself is deprived of the innate power at this cultural level indicates low or almost no chances to obtain the social support, to be socially rooted and culturally accepted by all social group members, at least in the current situation. This plane correlation’s projection is insignificant; hence, it is depicted in the lightest colour. The results show that the change of religious rituals following the social distancing could not obtain its full representation and symbolization, at least currently. Hypothetically, in future, digital rituals could accompany the established ones, and this requires its acceptability by religious authorization and further institutionalization on cultural level.

6. Conclusions

The paper’s hypothesis was that if there is a direct correlation between spatiality and symbols, then change of spatiality can affect the performance of the symbol’s characteristics and rituals. Theoretically, it was observed through proto questions that space typology (Lefebvre) could be correlated with the symbol’s characteristics (Tillich) and elements of ritual (Grimes). The identified proto questions acted like certain pointers, indicators, or markers which link space, symbols, and rituals together and show their interrelation dynamics. The proto questions were further applied to answer the objectives of this paper and to conduct the empirical research.

Based on the results, it could be summarized that change of spatiality (social distancing) affected the symbol’s characteristics (and through it, ritual) only initially, not fully and integrally. This change was taking place for almost 2 years and was basically perceived by two communities as temporal only, as an experience that already had historical precedents and that did not and could not profoundly change both religions’ ritual tenets. Such an approach, articulated by focus groups, became a certain ‘safety pillow’, an anchor that allowed them to view (emotionally and cognitively) the occurring changes in a broader perspective, and, through this, to counterbalance their anxieties. Social distancing mostly affected only the figurative quality and perceptibility (to a lesser extent). These characteristics of the symbol are at the forefront of the consequences caused by change of space. As the existence of binary opposition shows, hypothetically they have the potential to be transformed and to acquire a new dimension. However, to become truly meaningful they are subject to discussions within the religious communities and broadly in society, that only could be indicative of their innate power.

This links us to the ‘highest octave’ of symbolization of changing religious rituals under the pandemic, which is not the case in today’s Kazakhstan’s society. Representational space here is almost unaffected, and acceptability of changes of religious rituals is at a minimum, though some elements of new evolving attitude are evident (for example, views stating that online rituals could be held along with the traditional method). Even if to presume the possibility of speedy digitalization of the religious field, the collective rituals such as Friday prayer or Sunday Sermon, could be the least affected ones. Thus, not all but mainly two characteristics of the symbol reflect the change of the space (social distancing). To get full symbolic representation, the meaning of these changes should be elaborated and accepted by social groups, so to get innate power and be transformed into a symbol/symbolic object fully operational on a cultural level.

Therefore, empirical results showed that the pandemic-induced social distancing had an impact on the conduct of religious rituals; however, only initially. The research outputs correlate with the theoretical approach, i.e., revealing the potential interdependency dynamics between spatiality, symbol, and ritual. However, empirical results highlighted mainly two initial stages of these interdependencies (figurative quality and perceptibility of the symbol; places/times and actors/actions of the elements of the rituals on the organic and cognitive planes). As such, the results of the study could be limited due to the temporary nature of the pandemic and the specificity of the situation caused by it.

As for the theoretical approach, its reasoning could help to understand the dynamics of the symbol’s characteristics, i.e., where/at which places and locations the rituals and symbolic actions will take place and show their figurative qualities; how people or actors will perceive the changes; which way social groups will make meaning to provide the symbol’s inner power; and when the symbolic object will be acceptable for all. These are open questions which depend on various factors. Among them are the relatively stable character of religious symbols, a need for social cohesion, and a culture of debate within the religious communities and broader society that in turn also requires participation of the state in the meaning making process as a truly social act. Bearing in mind the multi-religious and multi-ethnic composition of Kazakhstan society, the variables could be interpenetrated and complex. Based on the empirical results, possible argumentations could be drawn along religious–secular lines, since the responses of both Islamic and Russian Orthodox Christianity communities show almost unanimous attitude of impossibility of change of core dogmatic rituals in general and accepting them as a temporal measure only.

The predominantly collective social character of religion, highlighted by participants, stands in a contrast to more individual-based approach in the Western societies (albeit with some reservations and bearing in mind the equal importance of collective rituals such as Sunday Sermon). In particular, the pandemic-triggered issue of Christian nationalism claiming individual liberty and saving the economy over protecting the vulnerable (Perry et al. 2020, p. 15) could be counterbalanced by the ideas that even within so-called individualized approach in Western societies one could not claim that it is ‘fully privatized’ and ‘purely individualistic’, as research on post-Christian spirituality suggests (Houtman and Aupers 2007, pp. 316–17).

Another issue deserving scholarly attention is the relation between ethnic and confessional factors in the meaning making process. Kazakhstan’s diverse multi-ethnic composition also allows us to fruitfully discuss this and other related themes. Finally, societal and geographic variations of social distancing, consecrated by traditions and accepted norms of behaviour is another productive theme bearing in mind the extensive geography and history of the country. These are some fields of research that could be pursued following theoretical study of the links between spatiality, symbol, and ritual.