Abstract: The subject of this work is methodological approaches to the study of religiosity in posttraditional conditions. Posttraditionality is a "fluid modernity", an "elusive world" is an era of mobile and indefinite cultural forms. In the conditions of posttraditionality, social reality is filled with a multitude of phenomena of indeterminate religiosity – quasi-religions, pseudo-religions, crypto-religions, etc., which cannot even be uniquely identified as religious within the framework of classical approaches, but to neglect their religious elements would mean incompleteness of their study. The purpose of this study is to propose a methodological approach to the study of religion and religiosity in a post–traditional society, which allows explicating its borderline, hidden and implicit forms. This goal requires and implies the formation of an appropriate understanding of religion and religiosity, this approach is foundational. The study proposes a methodological approach based on the synthesis of phenomenological, structural-analytical, hermeneutic approaches. Its basis is the distinction between religiosity as a function of internal experience and religion as institutionalized practices and ideas. Religiosity is a constant function of a person's connection with the subjective ultimate foundations of his existence, which serves as the foundation of a person's sense-setting and goal-setting, conditioning his self in those components that are connected with reality inaccessible to experience and reason. Religiosity expressed externally of a person collides with the totality of objective and objectified structures of reality, and the intentions of other people. The interaction of specific living conditions of people and their intentions generated by religiosity lead to the construction of practices that, through their habitualization, signification and institutionalization, form religion as a social institution.
The intended result of the proposed approach can be described as a project of "cartography" of infinitely diverse phenomena of the religious life of modernity in its hidden, shadow forms – where the religious is implicit, borderline – but at the same time functional from the point of view of ultimate goal-setting.

Abstract: The subject of this article the problem of correlation and demarcation between the two key notions of sociocultural discourse – the “culture” and “tradition”. Pluralism of the use of such universal terms for denoting the complex of reconstructed sociocultural content lead to a situation when it becomes difficult to demarcate them. Thus, for example, the “Christian tradition” and “Christian culture” are similar terms in many ways by expressing the assemblage of Christian social relations, as well as material and immaterial products of activity of the Christians. The problem is aggravated by an extensive history of the diverse use of both notions, which substantiates the necessity in their phenomenological analysis, separate from multiple contradictory variations of the definitions. On the other side, for identification of the problem of the immense amount of individual manifestations of both phenomena – culture and tradition, it is essential to combine the phenomenological approach with structuralistic holism, which allows speaking of culture and tradition apart of their particular manifestations. For overcoming the established pluralism in order to demarcate the notions, but preserve their content, the author uses the method that unites phenomenology and structuralism, meaning the phenomenological reductions and orientation towards holism – dominance of common over private. A hypothesis is advanced that culture is viewed as a “universe of sociality” – a system that includes the results of activity, perceptions, and relations, where the tradition is a dynamic structure of culture, or its function of self-reproduction. Tradition consists in the passed down through the generations structural relation between the elements of culture and its variable actualization that depends on the interpretation of the transmitted content. Besides the theoretical prospect, the hypothesis provided methodological tool for studying of the cultural elements with respect to traditionalism through analyzing their structural relation and actualization that allows demarcating the traditional and speculative elements of culture. 

Abstract: In this article the authors analyze the problem of common mind functioning in a post-traditional society. Common mind is a mode of mind specialized for a stable, slowly changing environment. This mode of mind uses intuition as its primary decision-making tool. Its intuition is based on precedents. A precedent in this context is a combination of a typical problem situation and its acceptable solution. There are different levels of precedents. We single out the following levels: individual psychological precedents, ontogenetic precedents, social psychological precedents and phylogenetic precedents. This classification is based on the speed of precedent formation. Such a two-layer structure of human precedent memory significantly enhances environmental adaptation: the biological layer provides adaptation to the most stable environmental conditions, whereas the psychological layer allows to adapt rapidly to emerging quick changes. Nowadays, however, social environment does not change at a relatively slow pace as it used to. Due to historic time acceleration, experience transition, selection and stereotyping are hindered. This deprives precedent-based common mind intuition of its regulative function as the gap between old precedents and new conditions widens. Adequate response strategies have no time to form in common mind: rapid changes of social environment make them outdated and inefficient before they are even ready to be adopted. We call such a drastically changing social environment “post-traditional”: it evolves so quickly that precise experience succession becomes impossible. Common mind displays inefficiency at creating adequate adaptation strategies in these new conditions. It leads to anthropogenic environmental risks. This is reflected in a “risk society” sociological concept.