Module 5 (Soc 4)

Article

You need ‘help for the journey’: Freedom and regulation in a ‘market-friendly’ megachurch

Jeaney Yip University of Sydney, Australia

Susan Ainsworth University of Melbourne, Australia

Abstract One of the dominant trends in contemporary religion is a focus on individual freedom, choice and autonomy, all central tenets of mainstream consumer society. Rather than indicating a lack of religious regulation, we show how they can be the means through which regulation operates. Drawing on the theory of governmentality, which focuses on how power operates in discourse, we present a case study of a highly successful megachurch and global leader in Christian music – Hillsong – and show how this religious producer constructs a subject position for the consumer that promotes freedom and choice but nevertheless has regulatory implications by limiting what is thinkable and possible. Our findings show how Hillsong uses music and offers a worship experience that encourages continued reliance on the Church supported by its selective interpretation of the Pentecostal tradition. We trace how Hillsong claims knowledge of the religious consumer, iden- tifying its central logic and contradictions. In doing so we show how religious regulation is taking new forms in contexts that may appear to be unregulated. We highlight the potential of this Foucauldian theory to not only enhance the understanding of current trends in religion but also to widen the repertoire used by critical marketing scholars to analyse how marketing discourse and practices are mobilized in specific contexts and with what effects.

Keywords Critical marketing, governmentality, megachurch, regulation, religion

Corresponding author:

Jeaney Yip, University of Sydney Business School, University of Sydney, Discipline of Marketing, Level 4, room 4205,

Abercrombie Building H70, Darlington, NSW 2006, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Marketing Theory 2020, Vol. 20(1) 103–121

ª The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1470593119856654

journals.sagepub.com/home/mtq

Introduction

‘ . . . our message isn’t “listen to this music because our music is great”, it’s more about helping people

on their journey’ Tim Whincop, Manager Hillsong Music Australia. (interview with The Music

Network 16 January 2017)

Religion has gained increased recognition in the last decade within marketing and the social

sciences. Once predicted to decline as societies modernized, it has ‘staged a comeback’ (Toft et al.,

2011), evident in increasing religiosity around the world (Ger, 2013). In addition, there have been

important changes in religion itself. At least in Western societies, religion is now more individua-

lized and self-reflexive, a matter of choice, rather than tradition or birth, with many beliefs systems

on offer (Ger, 2013; Rinallo et al., 2013; Woodhead and Heelas, 2000). Further, some religious

organizations embrace the strategies and techniques of marketing; others see this as a ‘contamina-

tion’ of religion by the profane.

While traditional forms of religious regulation may be breaking down, this does not mean

regulation has disappeared. Rather, it will take new and different forms (Gauthier, 2013), reflecting

the dominance of consumerism and capitalism. Recognizing these forms requires understanding

the symbiotic relationship between religion, culture, economics and politics which attracted the

attention of foundational social theorists (Ger, 2013: 501). Foucault is one such theorist who drew

heavily on religion to develop his theory of discourse, power, knowledge and the subject. Yet his

ideas have rarely been applied to study contemporary developments in religion.

In this article, we apply Foucault’s theory of governmentality (Beckett and Nayak, 2008;

Burchell et al., 1991; Dean, 1999; Skålén et al., 2008) to explore how regulation operates in a

highly successful Christian megachurch – Hillsong – with significant global reach because of its

music. Megachurches are large, fast-growing Protestant religious organizations, often Pentecostal

in practice and theology (Thumma and Travis, 2007), which typically embrace marketing, popular

culture, prosperity and consumption (Ostwalt, 2003). Because they are so aligned with mainstream

Western culture, the form religious regulation takes in this type of Christian church may be less

apparent. Yet by using a governmentality ‘lens’, we are able to ‘make the familiar strange’ and

show how regulation is implicit in the construction of the free religious consumer in its products

and services.

From this perspective, power takes ‘discursive shape’, bound up with the language used to

communicate and construct knowledge about a topic within which only a certain range of subject

positions ‘make sense’ (Foucault, 1988). The logic of a particular discourse gives rise to a ‘regime

of practices’ which are organized sets of ways of influencing the conduct of the governed (Dean,

1999: 18) with implications for how individuals are encouraged to think about, and act upon, their

selves (Beckett and Nayak, 2008; Burchell, 1993; du Gay, 1996; Firat and Dholakia, 2006;

Hackley, 2009).

Our findings show how individual freedom, choice, autonomy and worldly success, all sup-

portive of the market and consumption, have regulatory implications, making some practices, ways

of thinking and acting possible and preferable, while others are unthinkable. Overall, we argue

Hillsong’s approach constitutes a mode of governmentality based around a central consumer

orientation combined with a selective use of Pentecostal tradition and theology.

We make two main interrelated contributions: firstly, we show how religious regulation is

taking new forms in contexts that could appear ‘unregulated’. Specifically, rather than the opposite

of regulation, individual freedom, choice and autonomy can be essential to its operation. Secondly,

104 Marketing Theory 20(1)

we highlight the potential of governmentality to enhance understanding of how power operates in

discourse, specifically through the subject positions created by religious market producers who

target consumers and reflect broader cultural, economic and political developments.

This broader second contribution addresses calls for critical marketing scholarship to draw on a

far wider range of intellectual influences (Hackley, 2003) and engage to a greater extent with

contemporary social theory (Brownlie, 2006; Brownlie and Hewer, 2007; Morgan, 2003). To date,

critical marketing has been dominated by Critical Theory perspectives, associated with the

Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism (Saren et al., 2007), while Foucault has been far less influential.

However, the ways in which his ideas have been developed within political economy and cultural

studies provide additional ways critical marketing scholars can analyse how marketing knowledge

and technologies generate power effects. While we have studied these processes using a specific

case of religion, we suggest the governmentality framework has far wider applicability and utility,

consistent with the overall objectives of critical marketing to make visible, and question the basic

assumptions that underpin ‘the powerful subjectivizing processes of contemporary marketing

discourse’ (Brownlie and Hewer, 2007: 47).

We begin by reviewing literature about the relationship between religion and the market before

explaining the Foucauldian perspective we adopt. We then outline the research context and our

analytical approach. In our findings, we discuss the role of music and Pentecostalism in Hillsong’s

approach, then apply Dean’s (1999) governmentality framework to show how certain ways of

thinking and acting underpin the subject positions constructed by Hillsong. We conclude by

arguing that rather than individual freedom and choice being the opposite of religious regulation, in

this case they are central to its logic and suggest some other areas of contemporary social life to

which governmentality could be applied.

Religion, markets and marketing

Until recently, religion generated only sporadic critical interest within marketing and consumption

literature which Sandicki and Jafari (2013: 413) attribute to the lingering effects of the secular-

ization thesis. According to this idea, while religion may once have regulated daily life in Western

countries, its influence waned and fragmented with the rise of scientific rationality and greater

social and economic mobility generated by industrialization, trends predicted to accelerate with

increasing modernization and free markets. Not only has this thesis proved empirically false but

the separation between markets and religion was always more normative than descriptive, and even

less relevant in current contexts. Markets continue to be influenced by religion, for example, in the

promotion of consumption through religious holidays and its restriction due to particular rituals or

belief systems (Drenten and McManus, 2015; e.g. McAlexander et al., 2014). Religions themselves

can produce goods and services traded through market relations and some promote, rather than

constrain, the individual freedom, choice and consumption so central to markets and broader

Western culture.

Recognition of the ambiguous relationship between religion and markets has led to more

nuanced understandings of how they interact (Haddorf, 2000; Jafari and Süerdem, 2012; Karatas

and Sandikci, 2013; Sandicki and Ger, 2010; Sandicki and Jafari, 2013; Townley, 1998) in

‘symbiotic and conflictual, complementary and contested’ (Schmidt, 1995: 14) as well as para-

doxical ways (Jafari and Süerdem, 2012; Rinallo et al., 2016). These interactions manifest in ways

unique to the religious context and the individuals, groups and communities that create and

maintain their version of the belief system. Critical marketing scholars have shown how religious

Yip and Ainsworth 105

traditions less familiar to Western audiences such as Islam, imagined to be highly restrictive and

regulatory, are open to interpretation and drawn upon flexibly by consumers for specific purposes.

For example, in different ways, Jafari and Süerdem (2012), Moufahim (2013) and Karatas and

Sandikci (2013) all explore how individuals and groups interpret, and work with, shared local

understandings of religious-based restrictions on consumption, producing heterogeneous outcomes

reflecting the particular cultural context and activity being undertaken. Rather than the sacred,

secular and profane being sharply delineated, they exist in ‘symbiotic relationship’ (Jafari and

Süerdem, 2012), relational discourses (Townley, 1998) capable of being enacted, materialized and

operationalized by religious organizations in their processes, practices and artefacts in different

ways to accomplish various objectives.

These changes in the religious landscape, and ways of understanding them, reflect the rise of

marketing and consumption as dominant modes of life in the twentieth century (Schwarzkopf,

2015) with its focus on individual freedom and choice. Religion is taking more individualized and

self-reflexive forms (Beck, 2010; Ger, 2013), reflecting a shift in religious authority to the indi-

vidual. People are also presented with more choices, and elements of different religions and belief

systems can be combined in ways that suit self-development (Ger, 2013; Rinallo et al., 2013;

Woodhead and Heelas, 2000).

However, this has potentially led us to underestimate, and perhaps neglect, contemporary

religion’s regulatory effects (Gauthier et al., 2013). As Gauthier (2013) argues, a decline in tra-

ditional forms of religious regulatory mechanisms does not mean an absence of regulation per se.

Rather than deregulation, a shift away from hierarchical, central religious authority to focus on the

individual generates different patterns of regulation. He asserts ‘the contemporary religious

landscape reveals not so much a state of un-regulation as a coherent system in which the values,

ethics, worldviews, and eschatologies of consumerism are structural’ (p. 149).

Literature about the tensions and contradictions inherent in consumer freedom can help us to

understand the new forms religious regulation may be taking. In particular, Foucauldian-oriented

work on the discursive construction of markets, marketing and the consumer offers a way of

understanding the relationship between freedom and regulation. Further, it provides a way of

connecting subject positions targeted at individuals with broader cultural, economic and political

trends, showing how they constitute a coherent, self-reinforcing worldview.

Where the market has become the foundational institution and all items of culture con-

ceptualized and redefined as commodities (du Gay, 1996), individuals are expected to practice

freedom of choice, self-reliance and self-regulation. The citizen as choosing consumer has both the

power and burden of choice: ‘no choice but to choose’ (Giddens, 1991: 81; see also Rose 1989).

Further, they are expected to treat themselves as a project that could be improved to enhance its

worth (Giddens, 1991). Labelled ‘the enterprise self’ (du Gay, 1996), this ideal identity encourages

individuals to ‘become, as it were, entrepreneurs of themselves, shaping their own lives through the

choices they make among the forms of life available to them’ (Rose, 1989: 226). Whatever activity

or arena the individual is engaged in, they are expected to see themselves as seeking meaning,

fulfilment and self-improvement. The subject remains free; in fact, the discourses of the market

and marketing are predicated on that freedom (Rose, 1989).

However, while free and independent, this ideal self is dependent on others to remake itself in

pursuit of the enterprise ideal (Fairclough, 1995; Giddens, 1991). This includes expert knowledge,

such as modern psychology (see Cruikshank, 1993; Rose, 1989), as well as market intermediaries.

Within marketing, Beckett and Nayak (2008) have explored how the active, agentic customer

identity constructed by collaborative marketing ‘binds’ the consumer more tightly to producers.

106 Marketing Theory 20(1)

Rather than being independent, the individual is incorporated in ways that perpetuate their con-

tinued involvement. In a similar way, Caruana et al. (2008) have shown how constructions of ‘the

independent traveller’ in guidebooks foster individuals’ dependence on their expert advice to

achieve the sought-after travel experience and their own identity as ‘not a tourist’. Rather than

being totally self-reliant then, the individual requires the assistance of organizations, experts and

market intermediaries to cultivate and exercise their freedom and autonomy. In effect, this reliance

circumscribes the freedom it promotes. Even as it encourages individual independence and

authority, the subject position created for the consumer by the producer has regulatory implications

by ‘framing reality’ and the role and place of those who populate it.

While there is a strong Foucauldian influence throughout this body of work, Foucauldian theory

has rarely been used to analyse developments in contemporary religion, despite his use of the

history of Christianity to develop his theories of power, knowledge and the subject. Moreover, to

date, critical marketing has been dominated by Critical Theory traditions associated with the

Frankfurt School of Neo-Marxism (Saren et al., 2007). Yet, as Beckett and Nayak (2008: 299) have

argued, Foucauldian theory, specifically governmentality, can increase understanding one of the

critical marketing’s central concerns: the ‘antagonism between freedom and subjugation that lies at

the heart of producer-consumer relationships’. Accordingly, we explain both governmentality and

Foucault’s theory of power in more detail in the following section.

Governmentality

The concept of governmentality originally conceived by Foucault has been further developed by

Graeme Burchell, Colin Gordon, Nikolas Rose, Peter Miller, Mitchell Dean and others (see

Burchell et al., 1991). In this context, ‘government’ refers broadly to the ‘conduct of conduct’, not

the power of the State, and assumes a free subject who is ‘capable of thinking and acting other-

wise’. Governmentality denotes logics of government or a body of ‘knowledge, belief and opinion

in which we are immersed’ (Dean, 1999: 16) that limit the ways of being and acting that seem

possible and give rise to regimes of practices and technologies. These concepts of government and

governmentality are underpinned by Foucault’s theory of power which marked a shift away from

seeing power as a resource or held by a particular group or actor (‘sovereign power’). Instead,

power takes ‘discursive shape’ (see Skålén et al., 2008: 22) permeating the very ways we think

about and come to know the world, including how we think about ourselves and others: thus

knowledge, power and the subject cannot be separated.

In developing this theory, Foucault relied heavily on shared knowledge about Western Eur-

opean history including the role of Christianity in promoting the idea of a unique individual subject

that had intrinsic worth. In contrast to the repressive power of a sovereign ruler who treated people

as ‘resources’ or objects, in the enlightenment, a different conceptualization of the subject and

approach to power evolved, associated with Christian ‘pastoral care’. Foucault used the metaphor

of the Christian pastor to outline how power in contemporary society was now exercised by

knowledge of subjects’ inner desires and needs, by (secular) pastors who managed people through

‘constant kindness’, encouraging them to share in particular belief systems that would deliver

valued outcomes consistent with these beliefs, thus reinforcing its logic (Dean, 1999; Skålén et al.,

2008). In developing these ideas, much of the governmentality literature explores how different

types of liberal government operate ‘through the freedom or capacities of the governed’ (Dean,

1999: 15), encouraging self-regulation but in ways that support its basic logic through exercising

Yip and Ainsworth 107

choice, participating in ‘free’ consumption and labour markets, pursuing self-improvement and

aspiring to upwards social and economic mobility.

Of course, this does not determine consumers’ actual identities. Dean (1999: 32) writes:

The forms of identity promoted and presupposed by various practices and programmes should not be

confused with a real subject, subjectivity or subject position . . . Regimes of government do not

determine forms of subjectivity. They elicit, promote, facilitate, foster and attribute various capacities,

qualities and statuses to particular agents.

There were also shifts in Foucault’s theorization of power and subjectivity over the course of his

work: in his earlier period, he was more concerned with how discourses constructed particular,

consistent subject positions whereas at a later stage he focused more on how individual subjects

construct themselves (Dean, 1999; Skålén et al., 2008). Following Skålén et al. (2008) and Beckett

and Nayak (2008), we take the former as our focus. In other words, we are not studying identity as

experienced by the people it targets, but rather seeking to analyse discourse in order to deconstruct

its internal contradictions and render the subject positions created and its governmental logic more

visible and explicit. In addition, while Foucauldian and critical approaches drawing on Marxian

analyses and the Frankfurt School (Critical Theory) both seek to make power structures more

visible, there are important differences. While the latter seeks to propose alternatives to current

social systems and arrangements, those working from a Foucauldian perspective do not partly

‘because of the risk of being unable to see the potentially perverse power effects of this new

normativity’ (Skålén et al., 2008: 1).

In summary then, we focus on exploring how regulation operates through the promotion of

consumer freedom and choice. We use a case of the highly successful and market-oriented Hill-

song Church whose tenets are supportive of mainstream consumer culture and place no obvious

restrictions on the part of religious consumers and churchgoers. Accordingly, we seek to explore

the contradictions inherent in its construction of the subject position of the free religious consumer,

and by implication the Church, and how this encourages certain ways of thinking and behaving

while limiting others. Consistent with a governmentality tradition, we concentrate on analysing

Hillsong’s discursive practice to reveal its logic, contradictions and implications, focusing on the

subject positions designed to target individuals but which can never determine their actual

identities.

In the following section, we provide some background to the case, including the religious

tradition from which it draws, and explain our methodological framework before presenting

our analysis.

Hillsong: Pentecostal music megachurch

Background

Pentecostalism is a type of evangelical Christianity experiencing global growth. Often associated

with the Asuza Street Revival movement among the poor in the United States in the early twentieth

century, in Australia, it began as a nineteenth-century religious movement of the middle class

(Clifton, 2005). Based in an experiential paradigm of worship where music, oral testimony, nar-

rative and free expression play a central role, it is distinguished by its emphasis on the Holy Spirit

and manifestations of its power (Althouse, 2001; Riches, 2010). Pentecostal Christians expect to be

changed in worship by the Holy Spirit, evidenced by spontaneous ‘speaking in tongues’, and

108 Marketing Theory 20(1)

singing and dancing, thought to simulate bodily unity and ‘oneness’ with Christ. Music expresses

the belief system but rather than a ‘teaching tool’, it is a way of experiencing the power of the Spirit

through evoking feelings and (literally) moving people through free physical expression (Althouse,

2001; Moore, 2006).

Many megachurches belong to the Pentecostal movement and have pioneered new forms of

worship, with contemporary, secular-styled music (Ellingson, 2013; Roof, 1999; Snow et al.,

2010), new styles of architecture, congregational events and transnational networks. Their

‘growing influence . . . in the religious marketplace’ (Ellingson, 2013: 59) stems not only from

the size of their congregations but also from the diffusion of their practices and models facilitated

by overt marketing of ‘theologically and ecclesiologically neutral’ products and services

(Ellingson, 2013: 73).

Perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than in the Christian Music market. Secular-styled songs

have become increasingly popular and widespread among music designed to be sung in churches and

here, Hillsong is a market leader. Since its first album in 1988, Hillsong Music Australia has sold

more than 18 million albums worldwide with strong followings in the United States, the United

Kingdom, South Africa, South America, Europe and Asia (Tuskan, 2017), assisted by its inter-

nationalization and expansion strategy, consolidated in 2010 with distributor EMI Christian Music

Group. It topped the Billboard charts in 2013 in the Christian and Gospel music category with its

album Zion and single Oceans staying at the top of the Billboard charts for 45 consecutive weeks, a

first for a Christian song (Adams, 2013; Tuskan, 2017). It won the 2016 American Music Awards for

‘Favourite Contemporary Inspiration Artist’ for its Hillsong United band (the only Australian music

artist to do so) and a 2017 Grammy nomination for ‘Best contemporary Christian music album’.

Hillsong Church itself has a significant physical presence with over 35,000 attendees in

Australia (Riches and Wagner, 2012). It has expanded its church operations domestically (28

locations across all states) and internationally, with 64 centres in 18 countries across North and

South America, South East Asia, Western and Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, South Africa

and the middle East (http://hillsong.com/, accessed 5 July 2018). Yet the church has arguably had

the greatest influence through its music. One religious commentator remarked:

. . . whether you travel across the urban areas of Asia, Africa, North America or Australia, everywhere

you go, increasingly, the singing in the church – both the songs that are sung and the style of music – is

the same. It’s the McDonaldization of our world. And in every church you visit across the world, the

music is just the same. I’d describe it as the Hillsongization of music. (Raiter, 2008: 13)

Data collection and analysis

Our case study of Hillsong analyses its music in relation to its role in worship and a broader

ecology of texts and practices such as DVDs of performances, special events, books and so on that

together represent the Church’s views and encourage ongoing religious consumption (see Evans,

2006, 2017). We draw on different primary sources, including texts and participant observation of

worship by the first author, as well as secondary scholarly sources on Hillsong, Pentecostalism and

the evolution of Christian music in Australia (e.g. Clifton, 2005; Ellington, 2000; Evans, 2006,

2017; Moore, 2006; Riches, 2010; Riches & Wagner, 2012; Wade, 2016; Wagner, 2017). Both the

participant observation and secondary sources were important in understanding the role of music in

worship, how it relates to other products and services provided by the Church and Hillsong’s

blending of Pentecostal tradition with popular culture.

Yip and Ainsworth 109

Primary texts included 5 public interview transcripts of the senior pastors in 2004, 2005 and

2013, 10 books written by the senior pastors, music albums produced by Hillsong from 1992 –

2014, websites and social media posts of the church and church newsletters, as well as general

media coverage of Hillsong (see Table 1A in Appendix 1). Participant observation was undertaken

by the first author from 2004 to 2014. The first author’s various positions (researcher, Christian,

marketing academic) informed and influenced the collection and analysis of data at various stages

of the research. She has been immersed in the church environment for 25 years, and attended

churches of various denominations, including Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal and non-

denominational but is not currently a church member or involved in any church ministry. She was a

regular attendee at Hillsong from 2001 to 2008 during which time she volunteered in welcoming

new people and assisting with church communion, attended fortnightly group meetings and

completed a certificate in biblical studies offered by the Church. From 2009 to 2016, she attended

irregularly. Over these two periods, she has shifted from being an ‘insider’ to an outsider and the

emic and etic perspective on Hillsong offered in this case is informed by her immersive experience.

This aided in understanding Hillsong’s theology and practices but it also caused intellectual unease

at various times as she was critically reflecting on her own beliefs (Harper, 2003).

Our research is not theology-driven, but we recognize the need to understand Hillsong in

relation to the Pentecostal tradition; to do otherwise risks missing or misunderstanding the pres-

ence of religious discourse and practices in their approach (Althouse, 2001; Moore, 2006; Riches,

2010). Consistent with a Foucauldian tradition, we are not attempting to assess whether what

Hillsong does is right or wrong. Instead, we assume that different subject positions in discourse

enable certain possibilities of thought and action while constraining or restricting others. Our focus

is on how Hillsong as religious producer constructs a version of consumer identity in its texts, the

discursive contradictions in its logic and their disciplinary implications, rather than how religious

consumers experience the Church, its products and services.

To analyse the data, we applied the governmentality framework developed by Dean (1999) and

used by Skålén et al. (2008) in their monograph tracing shifts in marketing discourse in the

twentieth century. This approach to discourse analysis does not focus on micro-level linguistic

features or structures but instead involves analysing how a particular discourse or governmentality

attempts to govern the self. It involves interpreting texts and practices to address the following four

questions: Firstly, what is to be governed? (ontology); secondly, how does governing work?

(ascetics), that is, what are the technologies, practices and procedures that governing in this way

involves; thirdly, who does the subject become when governed in this way? (deontology); finally,

why govern in this way (teleology), in other words, what is its purpose? (Dean, 1999: 17; Skålén

et al., 2008: 33–35). After presenting our account of Hillsong in the following section, we apply

this framework as a lens to summarize and extend our analysis.

Findings

Music is the way consumers are initially drawn to Hillsong which then introduces them to other

products and services, and encourages ongoing dependence on the Church. In the following sec-

tions, we discuss the role of music in more detail followed by an analysis of how Hillsong

selectively interprets aspects of Pentecostal tradition with contemporary culture. Finally, we use

Dean’s (1999) governmentality framework to summarize and explore the logic and contradictions

of Hillsong’s approach.

110 Marketing Theory 20(1)

Music and the worship experience

Music is central to providing an entertaining, enjoyable worship experience that offers immediate

gratification and opens the door to further engagement with the Church. In worship itself, people

are offered the opportunity to experience heaven in the ‘here and now’. The Church is ‘a place so

irresistible that people can’t wait to get there [and] . . . no one ever wants to leave’ that exists to help

‘humanity to flourish’ (Bobbie Houston, 2001, Heaven is in this House, back cover). The con-

gregation is expected to respond to the music by dancing and singing, encouraged by frequent

references in the lyrics to the language of freedom (e.g. ‘release’, ‘liberty’, ‘leaving the past

behind’ and ‘flying’) and the pleasurable experience of individual liberation. For example, in the

song Break Free (Houston et al., 2006), the congregation is invited to ‘get up and dance’. The long

chorus and refrain ‘So won’t you break free, won’t you break free’ is sung repeatedly to generate a

collective emotional response and encourage freedom in physical expression:

I really have this belief that church should be enjoyed not endured. Sadly, I think it is possible for

church to be a very long hour. I want people to be able to be animated about their worship. (cited in

Australian Story, The Life of Brian, 1 August 2005)

The weekly service is dominated by music that is professionally staged, produced and per-

formed. Typically, two 20-minute sets consisting of songs of different tempos are interspersed with

a shorter sermon, announcements, altar call and offering. Potential songs are ‘market-tested’ with

congregations to assess their singability and popularity. Church leaders’ assessment of congrega-

tional reactions then informs the selection of songs for the annual album. Churchgoers are also

incorporated into the product itself: all Hillsong albums are recorded live (with some overdubbing

and after-production), then CDs and DVDs released of the performance. The annual album record-

ing is widely publicized so individuals know they can be part of it. Excerpts from the DVD are also

shown as ‘bookends’ to the church services, and in their replaying, show and reinforce how an

attendee of Hillsong appears and behaves. The launch of the new album is then timed to coincide

with Hillsong’s annual conference to boost sales.

Variety is built into the annual cycle of events and music production and there is a known season

encouraging continued consumption of Hillsong offerings. Like the popular music genre from

which it draws, most of the music is disposable, and superseded by the following years’ album. The

live-recorded music merchandise, as well as downloadable podcasts, provides a simulated col-

lective worship experience that can be played at the consumer’s convenience. There is heavy cross-

promotion of products and services. For example, in the period preceding the annual conference,

worship provides a platform for previewing and promoting each of the international speakers that

will appear. At the conference, an annual ‘theme’ or motif is announced which differentiates that

years’ offerings. More specialized ministries target different market segments, for example, there

is the women’s ministry (led by Bobbi Houston, wife of Brian Houston) which has an annual

themed ‘sisterhood’ conference, and a youth ministry particularly important for its music label,

currency and social media presence: it ‘grows’ both songwriters, musicians and performers.

In contrast to other churches, those attending Hillsong or consuming its products and services

do not become ‘members’. Hillsong imposes no obligations on those who attend but it also does not

accord them any of the rights that might accompany membership of a religious organization, such

as voting, participation in decision-making and even the collective power to dismiss a church

leader. They remain ‘free to come and go’ and select offerings that appeal and suit their purposes.

Thus, the subject position of the churchgoer constructed by Hillsong is that of religious consumer,

Yip and Ainsworth 111

at once involved in, but also separate from, the Church, encouraged to rely on Hillsong because

they understand the consumers’ needs and aspirations and can provide practical help in meeting

them. When asked by a reporter on why Hillsong is so successful, the senior pastor replied: ‘I think

the biggest issue is relevance, I really do . . . We are scratching people where they are itching’

(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043804401241.html, The Lord’s profits, accessed

19 November 2015).

Hillsong’s version of Pentecostalism

The practical help Hillsong offers to individuals to improve their lives is consistent with the

pragmatism of Pentecostal tradition: believers expect change to take place, both in worship and

the rest of their lives, because of the Holy Spirit (Riches, 2010). However, Hillsong emphasizes

some Pentecostal transformations and downplays others. Three in particular are central to the

construction of the subject position of the religious consumer, and by implication, the Church:

anointing (becoming consecrated or special), personal development and prosperity. With-

standing trial and suffering are largely absent, perhaps because this would introduce negativity

which Brian Houston has declared ‘an enemy to life’ (Clifton, 2005; Houston, 1999). Further, the

distinctly Pentecostal focus on the Holy Spirit and supernatural empowerment (manifested as

speaking in tongues) was purposefully dropped by Houston to increase Hillsong’s appeal, ren-

dering its music and worship experience more theologically neutral and transposable (Riches,

2010).

Individual, not supernatural, empowerment is at the centre of Hillsong’s message: the indi-

vidual has the power to change their own life, and therefore, change the world, and they are

‘anointed’ to do so. This self-sacralization is reflected in a book written by the senior pastor, Brian

Houston, in 2008 – For this I was Born: aligning your vision to God’s cause. The title is based on

the Bible verse from John 18:37 (NIV) that states:

‘You are King then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered ‘You are right in saying I am a King. In fact for this

reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth

listens to me’.

This verse recounts an exchange where Jesus declares his identity as the Messiah, just hours

before his crucifixion. Spoken to mark the end of Jesus’ life on earth, it declares his purpose as

bearing witness to the truth. The title of Houston’s book is, however, addressed to the individual

reader who are assured that they, ‘Messiah-like’, were born for a reason: to live positively and

inspire others, that they are special and ‘anointed’ by God:

Your life is a gift waiting to happen. Your story is destined by God to give answers, hope and strength

to others. You are saved, called, positioned and empowered by God. He has entrusted you and me with

this very time in history. When we live with purpose, his name will be great on the earth – For This You

Were Born. (Houston, 2008: 172)

This promise of empowerment does not require sacrifice or hardship on the part of the indi-

vidual: the ‘good life’ has already been paid for by the original sacrifice of Jesus and is available to

all who believe.

This positive teaching is reflected in many Church products that promote and legitimize

Christians’ aspiration to prosperity. Hillsong’s growth and market dominance have been attributed

112 Marketing Theory 20(1)

to this emphasis on prosperity (Evans, 2006) but it has also made them the target of criticism. They

directly address and reframe such critique, to advance their religious message:

How do you see prosperity? There are those who equate prosperity with guilt, perhaps due to their

upbringing or religious mind-sets, and then there are those to whom prosperity is all about ‘me’. When

godly purpose is attached to prosperity, guilt and greed are banished. I hear people talking about a

‘prosperity gospel’. There is no such thing. There is only one gospel – the gospel of Jesus Christ . . . . I

believe unashamedly that God wants people’s lives to move forward and enlarge in every area, but for a

greater purpose than ourselves. (Houston, 2008: 129–130)

Hillsong also promises more specific signs of personal development: that individuals will

personally ‘enlarge and expand’, ‘maximize their gift’, ‘develop leadership skills’, ‘build relation-

ships’ and ‘become successful’ (Houston, 2001b, 42–45). Further guidance on how to accomplish

this is outlined in a series of ‘self-help’ books written by Houston with titles such as: How to

Flourish in Life; How to Live a Blessed Life; How to Live in Health and Wholeness; How to Build

Great Relationships; How to Build a Life of Wisdom; How to Manage Your Life; How to be

Employed, Prosperous and Happy; and How to Empower the Women in Your Life. Throughout

Hillsong’s products and services, prosperity is framed as God entrusted, a way of supporting

believers on their chosen path:

Prosperity is a Bible word that encompasses much more than money and wealth. It is ‘help for the

journey’. This definition paints a picture that I really love. Each of us is on a life journey, and prosperity

is our supply pack for the long trek, as if God has packed sandwiches and a flask of coffee for our road

trip that ends in eternity! (Houston, 2008: 124)

The individual is free to interpret prosperity according to their own desires and goals, but the

Church does assume they will subscribe to a normative process of self-improvement, imagining the

narrative of their own future life as a journey, an upwards trajectory of success, facilitated by

Hillsong. This is reinforced in the stories told by Brian and Bobbi Houston:

When we started Hillsong Church in a humble warehouse on the northwest outskirts of Sydney, I

would look out my grimy office window and see undeveloped fields, weed-strewn paddocks

where a few horses grazed, and an occasional truck searching for one of the handful of other

warehouses nearby. A church full of people was a vision in my heart, but a far cry from the two

hundred or so lovable misfits who regularly filled our pews. From a young age, I knew I was

called to build the church. Yet the personal journey of leading Hillsong Church into the healthy,

thriving global community it is today has led me along a winding path of both criticism and

accolade. My wife, Bobbie, and I have experienced both the mountain peaks and the valley depths

in our endeavor to build the House of God, coupled with raising a family and maintaining a

healthy marriage. (Houston, 2015: 3)

This narrative of successful religious entrepreneurs provides a template for how the life of the

religious consumer can be improved. Clearly the current level of success is not the end goal and

being satisfied with the status quo does not appear thinkable. In sermons, blog posts or greetings,

the individual churchgoer is told by the senior pastor that ‘The best is yet to come’ (Houston, 2015:

1). It is a future-oriented, never-ending promise that cannot be exhausted or limited, manifested in

the material realm through increased prosperity.

Yip and Ainsworth 113

Hillsong as a form of governmentality

Having detailed the role of music in Hillsong and how they selectively draw on the Pentecostal

tradition, we now summarize and extend our analysis by applying Dean’s (1999) governmentality

framework.

What is to be governed? What or who is targeted by Hillsong’s approach to governing? The main

object is the religious consumer but this includes those who may never have attended a church,

consumed religious products and services or in other ways have been ‘turned off’ by ‘traditional’

Christian religion. This consumer is someone who inhabits a ‘normal’ (i.e. middle class) secular

world and has corresponding aspirations, needs and wants, for example, the desire for success and

affluence, enjoyment and feeling good about themselves.

Hillsong can help the religious consumer to fulfil all of these and more: it encourages the

consumer to have grander aspirations and bigger goals. Just as the mission of the Church is lim-

itless, to have a ‘global reach’, so too the individual should not limit or restrict their aspirations.

There is no boundary between the secular and the sacred, and no differentiation between spiritual

and material success or development. Prosperity is evidence of God’s blessing. The Church assists

with all of life (not just the soul): making money, relationships, personal development and a sense

of belonging to a ‘mega’ social movement.

Transformation begins with changing the individual’s mindset and then manifests outwardly.

The individual is recognized as unique but can also be part of a Church that is successful and

growing because it presents a better alternative to what is currently on offer. This Church is able to

be a constant companion to the individual, fitting their lifestyle, providing practical help and

reassuring them they should not feel bad for wanting material success: this Church is about making

people feel better, uplifted and helping people achieve what they want, as this is part of God’s plan.

How is government achieved? The technologies of government are the means through which

human conduct is influenced, which are both predicated on, and reinforce, the logic of the dis-

course concerned (Skålén et al., 2008: 111). In our case, government is achieved by offering a

church experience that is enjoyable, therapeutic and motivational, reassuring individuals they are

powerful, their material aspirations are worthy and they should aspire to more. It works by making

people ‘feel good’ and encouraging them to participate in a performance that stands apart from

everyday life but is also different from any church they have ever known. The size of the audience

is fundamental to producing the experience, heightening emotional contagion. People are guided in

how to behave and participate in the production of the music.

Help is also available in many different forms and the products and services of Hillsong are

flexible. Consumers can choose those that suit their needs (books, podcasts, DVDs, CDs, small

groups, specialist ministries and conferences) and the music is delivered in multiple formats, and

regularly renewed. Both the music and the worship experience are predicated on offering diversion

and variety to the consumer. Inspiration for aspiration to upwards mobility is provided by the story

of the Church itself: how one man’s vision (Senior Pastor Brian Houston) has resulted in world-

wide success.

Who do we become? This question addresses the types of subject positions provided for within

a discourse and regime of practices. The individual as religious consumer is at the heart of

Hillsong’s approach and assumed to be ‘sovereign’. Hillsong claims ‘true knowledge’ of what

114 Marketing Theory 20(1)

‘normal’ (i.e. middle class, affluent, western) people seek and need: to feel free and

empowered; to exercise choice; to be motivated, inspired, entertained, reassured and affirmed;

and to be supported in improving and changing their lives, including their material circum-

stances. This claim to knowledge underpins and justifies the approach of the Church and its

difference from ‘traditional Church’: people need to be built up, not criticized; they need to

realize their own power and ‘divine’ right; and they need help to realize their goals, not have

these imposed, told they are wrong or made to feel guilty because they want to be successful

and wealthy.

Those who attend Hillsong are simultaneously included in the church’s activities but considered

separate from them – customers who are the target of marketing products and services. Therefore,

the freedom and power ‘written into’ this central subject position is that of consumer choice.

Churchgoers engage with Hillsong as a brand, but they do not become members in the traditional

sense where they might be able to participate in decision-making.

Why? What is the logic for governing in this way? Following Skålén et al. (2008), we first

outline the implicit but central logic to Hillsong’s approach to governing and then

deconstruct it. The rationale for Hillsong’s approach is that churches should respond to, and

deliver, the needs and wants of people who live in a ‘normal’ (i.e. modern, consumption-

driven, affluent) society, not require them to adapt to, or restrict themselves by, religious

doctrine. Everyone is on their own journey of self-improvement and growth without limits

– the role of the Church is to assist in this process and invest it with a higher religious

purpose. People need to feel good about themselves and seek enjoyment and freedom. The

fact that ‘traditional churches’ do not realize this is one reason for their decline. Those that

criticize Hillsong’s approach are either old-fashioned, traditional churches or misinterpret

their mission.

In deconstructing this logic, we identify three major tensions or contradictions. Firstly, Brian

Houston claims they are successful because they are ‘scratching people where they’re itching’.

However, like managerial marketing more generally (Brownlie, 2006; Firat and Dholakia, 2006;

Hackley, 2009; Morgan, 2003; Skålén et al., 2008), Hillsong is not just responding to (pre-existing)

customer wants or needs, but participating in their formation. They actively seek to influence what

people think is possible and desirable, encouraging them to have grander goals and aspirations to

prosperity and success that they then target with their offerings. People are schooled to expect

entertainment and enjoyment, diversified offerings, shown how to behave like a Hillsong attendee

and participate in the production of music. All of this encourages ongoing dependence of the

consumer on Hillsong.

Secondly, while the Church does not dictate the content of the individual’s aspirations, it

assumes they seek personal development, prosperity and self-improvement. Further, it pre-

scribes that individual freedom, power and choice should be applied to a normative pursuit of

increasing success, without end. Thus the Church may construct the religious consumer as

free and empowered but at the same time limits the uses to which their freedom and

empowerment should be put: they are not free to remain in the same place or live with less

ambition and less material wealth but instead assumed to want to join the ‘road trip’ of

greater aspiration and increased prosperity.

Thirdly, Hillsong makes extensive use of the discursive foil of ‘traditional church’ in justifying

its approach. It characterizes traditional churches (and Hillsong’s critics) as wanting people to

suffer needlessly, requiring hardship and sacrifice, repressing normal human needs, restricting

Yip and Ainsworth 115

people’s freedom and potential and offering them a boring, negative experience that has to be

endured rather than enjoyed, all of which are in stark contrast to Hillsong. Negativity, including

critical reflection, has no place in the Church. But if Hillsong’s aim is to have ‘global reach’ and to

provide all the religious consumer needs (see Wade, 2016), it actively represses aspects of human

experience over the life course. In effect, the dualism it uses to construct its own identity in contrast

to traditional churches is inherently limiting. By allowing itself to only be a vehicle for promoting

positivity, prosperity, enjoyment, entertainment, success and progress, it cannot include that which

this represses: negativity or critique, poverty, modest living or restraint, suffering, obligation,

accepting limitations, failure and stasis or decline. Thus, it cannot assist with the whole of life or

human experience, nor extend itself to areas without a sufficient middle class who could realis-

tically aspire to upwards mobility.

Conclusions

In this study, we have focused on showing how the freedom inherent to the construction of

churchgoer as religious consumer has regulatory implications. To do this, we have traced how

Hillsong Church selectively interprets and blends aspects of Pentecostal tradition with popular

culture, particularly music and the worship experience to encourage ongoing dependence of the

individual on the Church. It claims knowledge of the religious consumer and, in doing so, promotes

and reinforces a subject position of the churchgoer as seeking personal development, success and

affluence. While predicated on consumer freedom, this subject position has regulatory implica-

tions because it encourages continued reliance on the Church, limits what is thinkable and

desirable and expects followers to subscribe to a normative ongoing ‘journey’ of self-improvement

and upwards mobility.

As Townley (1998) has noted, religious and secular discourses are capable of being combined

and mobilized in various ways by organizations and directed at diverse objectives. We argue the

implications of this discursive practice are only discernible by empirical study that gives due

weight to understanding the context and religious tradition of the organization concerned. In this

regard, it would be easy to underestimate the differences in religious forms and practices in

traditions more familiar to Western audiences, such as Christianity. Here we have shown how

Hillsong’s approach draws from a Pentecostal tradition but does so in a selective way that

resonates with contemporary secular culture. Our point is that without taking Pentecostalism into

account, it would be easy to miss the religious substance in Hillsong’s offerings and approach.

And while we have analysed how the religious producer constructs a subject position targeted at

the religious consumer, we have not attempted to explore how actual religious consumers use

Hillsong’s products and services to construct their own identities. Such a project would draw

more from Foucault’s later work on technologies of the self and constitutes an interesting area

for future research.

However, our study has extended current understanding of religion, markets and consumption

by applying a governmentality framework to analyse the regulatory implications of the subject

position constructed by a religious producer. In doing so, we have shown how the contradictions

and tensions inherent in consumer freedom so central to markets and marketing constitute a means

by which consumers become more tightly bound to producers and increased consumption in a

religious context. In our case, promoting pursuit of a ‘journey’ of self-improvement, success and

prosperity without end, is just as much an expression of power as requiring religious followers

avoid the consumption of certain goods, services and activities. Conceptualizing contemporary

116 Marketing Theory 20(1)

religion as a ‘marketplace’ where consumers have more freedom and choice is thus not an escape

from power and its regulatory effects, but rather another mode through which power operates.

While we have used governmentality to study religion, as a methodological framework, it has

further potential to be applied within critical marketing. One of its strengths is that it can render the

operation of power more visible as well as show how individual subject positions are connected to

broader economic, political and cultural developments. It is also an accessible approach to dis-

course analysis that does not require expertise in linguistics. Scholars could use it to explore how

marketing discourse, technologies and practices are mobilized in specific contexts to construct, and

claim knowledge of, the ‘consumer’, and the ways this may reinforce, or potentially challenge,

dominant ways of thinking and being in the world. It provides an additional way of defamiliarizing

marketing discourse and the subject position of the free consumer that has come to dominate so

much of contemporary social life. For example, it could be used to explore the marketization of

previously non-business domains, such as politics and citizenship (Morgan, 2003), health, edu-

cation and the not-for-profit sector, to show that what has become taken for granted as normal is an

effect of a particular discourse and so could be otherwise. This would assist critical marketing

scholarship to expand its repertoire and perspectives, beyond Critical Theory, to enable different

ways of exploring how marketing knowledge and technologies are performed, and with what

power effects (e.g. Brownlie and Hewer, 2007; Firat and Dholakia, 2006; Hackley, 2009; Morgan,

2003; Saren et al., 2007).

Appendix 1

Table 1A. List of primary texts.

Music year Title of album

2012 Cornerstone 2011 God is Able 2010 A Beautiful Exchange 2009 Faith þ Hope þ Love 2008 This is our God 2007 Saviour King 2006 Mighty to Save 2005 God He Reigns 2004 For All You’ve Done 2003 Hope 2002 Blessed 2001 You are My World 2000 For This Cause 1999 By Your Side 1998 Touching Heaven Changing Earth 1997 All Things are Possible 1996 God is in the House 1995 Friends in High Places 1994 People Just Like Us 1993 Stone’s Been Rolled Away 1992 The Power of Your Love

Yip and Ainsworth 117

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

Books

Houston B (2016) Daily readings from Live love lead. New York: Faith Words. Houston B (2015) Live love lead. New York: Faith Words. Houston B (2008) For this I was born: Aligning your vision to God’s cause. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Houston B (2005) How to live in Health and Wholeness. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership. Houston B (2002) How to live a Blessed Life. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership. Houston B (2003) How to Flourish in Life. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership. Houston B (2001a) Heaven is in this house. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership. Houston B (2001b) For this cause: Finding the meaning of life, and living a life of meaning. Castle Hill:

Maximised Leadership. Houston B (1999) You need more money. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership. No authors, The Church that I see (2003). Castle Hill: Hillsong Church.

Public interviews

Australian Story. Interview with Brian Houston. (2005) Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) Monday 1 August. Available at: www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2005/s1427560.htm (accessed 1 May 2008).

Australian Story. Interview with Bobbie Houston. (2005) ABC. Monday 1 August. Available at: www.abc.net.au/ austory/content/2005/s1427576.htm (accessed 1 May 2008).

Australian Story. The life of Brian. (2005) ABC. Monday 1 August. Available at: www.abc.net.au/austory/ content/2005/s1428533.htm (accessed 1 May 2008).

Interview with Hillsong founder Brian Houston, by Andrew Clark (2004) www.christiantoday.com/article/ interview.with.hillsong.founder.brian.houston/1257.htm (accessed 22 July 2009)

Album Recordings – DVD

Saviour King 2007 God He Reigns 2005 For All You’ve Dove 2004 Hope 2003 Shout to the Lord 2000 Hillsong Church Opening celebrations 2002

Miscellaneous Texts

Sixty e-newsletters in the period 2004–2009 Forty-six articles published in Australian newspapers in the period 2002–2009

118 Marketing Theory 20(1)

ORCID iD

Jeaney Yip https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5537-0736

References

Adams, C. (2013) URL (consulted 4 July 2016): https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/hillsong-

church-album-zion-cracks-us-billboard-chart-top-5/news-story/6d1cea3c3bc5ef098c1985f77f3f3ff7

Althouse, P. (2001) ‘Toward a Theological Understanding of the Pentecostal Appeal to Experience’,

Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38(4): 399–411.

Beck, U. (2010) A God of One’s Own: Religion’s Capacity for Peace and Potential for Violence. Cambridge:

Polity.

Beckett, A. and Nayak, A. (2008) ‘The Reflexive Consumer’, Marketing Theory 8(3): 299–317.

Brownlie, D. (2006) ‘Emancipation, Epiphany and Resistance: On the Underimagined and Overdetermined in

Critical Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management 22: 505–28.

Brownlie, D. and Hewer, P. (2007) ‘Concerning Marketing Critterati: Beyond Nuance, Estrangement and

Elitism’, in M. Saren, P. Maclaran, C. Goulding, R. Elliott, A. Shankar, and M. Catterall (eds.), Critical

Marketing: Defining the Field, pp. 44–62.

Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds) (1991) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Burchell, G. (1993) ‘Liberal government and techniques of the self’, Economy and Society 22 (3): 267–82.

Caruana, R., Crane, A. and Fitchett, J.A. (2008) ‘Paradoxes of Consumer Independence: A Critical Discourse

Analysis of the Independent Traveler’, Marketing Theory 8(3): 253–72.

Clifton, S.J. (2005) An Analysis of the Developing Ecclesiology of the Assemblies of God in Australia.

Australian Catholic University. Unpublished PhD thesis.

Cruikshank, B. (1993) ‘Revolutions Within: Self-government and Self-esteem’, Economy and Society 22(3):

327–44.

Dean, M. (1999) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: SAGE.

Drenten, J. and Mcmanus, K. (2015) ‘Religion-related Research in the Journal of Macromarketing, 1981-

2014’, Journal of Macromarketing 36(4): 377–87.

du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and Identity at Work. London: SAGE.

Ellingson, S. (2013) ‘Packaging Religious Experience, Selling Modular Religion: Explaining the Emergence

and Expansion of Megachurches’, in F. Gauthier and T. Martikainen (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society,

pp. 54–73. New York: Routledge.

Ellington, S.A. (2000) ‘The Costly Loss of Testimony’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 16(1): 48–59.

Evans, M. (2006) Open up the Doors: Music in the Modern Church. London: Equinox.

Evans, M. (2017) ‘Creating the Hillsong Sound: How one Church Changes Australian Christian Music’, in

T. Riches and T. Wagner (eds.), The Hillsong Movement Examined: You Call me out Upon the Waters,

pp. 63–81. Sydney: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Firat, A.F. and Dholakia, N. (2006) ‘Theoretical and Philosophical Implications of Postmodern Debates some

Challenges to Modern Marketing’, Marketing Theory 6(2): 123–62.

Foucault, M. (1988) ‘Technologies of the Self’. in L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, and P. Hutton (eds), Technologies

of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 16–49.

Gauthier, F., Woodhead, L. and Martikainen, T. (2013) ‘Introduction: Consumerism as the Ethos of

Consumer Society’, in F. Gauthier and T. Martikainen (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society, pp. 1–26.

New York: Routledge.

Gauthier, F. (2013) ‘The Enchantments of Consumer Capitalism: Beyond Belief at the Burning Man Festival’,

in F. Gauthier and T. Martikainen (eds.), Religion in Consumer Society, pp. 143–58. New York:

Routledge.

Yip and Ainsworth 119

Ger, G. (2013) ‘Islamic Marketing at the Nexus of Global-Markets-Religions-Politics and Implications for

Research’, Marketing Theory 13(4): 497–503.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late-Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Hackley, C. (2003) ‘We are All Customers Now’ . . . Rhetorical Strategies and Ideological Control in Mar-

keting Management Texts’, Journal of Management Studies 40(5): 1325–52.

Hackley, C. (2009) ‘Parallel Universes and Disciplinary Space: The Bifurcation of Managerialism and Social

Science in Marketing Studies’, Journal of Marketing Management 25(7-8): 643–59.

Haddorf, D.W. (2000) ‘Religion and the Market: Opposition, Absorption, or Ambiguity’, Review of Social

Economy 58(4): 483–504.

Harper, D. (2003) ‘Developing a Critically Reflexive Position Using Discourse Analysis’, in L. Finlay and B.

Gough (eds.), Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences, pp. 78–92.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Hillsong Church. URL: www.hillsong.com

Houston, B. (1999) You Need More Money. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership.

Houston, B. (2001) Heaven is in This House. Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership.

Houston, B. (2008) For This I was Born: Aligning Your Vision to God’s Cause. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Houston, B. (2015) Live, Love, Lead. New York: Faith Words.

Houston, J., Crocker, M. and Ligertwood, S. (2006) Break Free. On Saviour king [CD]. Sydney: Hillsong

Music Australia (2007).

Jafari, A. and Süerdem, A. (2012) ‘An Analysis of Material Consumption Culture in the Muslim World’,

Marketing Theory 12(1) 61–79.

Karatas, M. and Sandikci, Ö. (2013) ‘Religious Communities and the Marketplace: Learning and Performing

Consumption in an Islamic Network’, Marketing Theory 13(4): 465–84.

McAlexander, J.H., Leavenworth Dufault, B., Martin, D.M., et al. (2014) ‘The Marketization of Religion:

Field, Capital and Consumer Identity’, Journal of Consumer Research 41(3): 858–75.

Morgan, G. (2003) ‘Marketing and Critique: Prospects and Problems’, in M. Alvesson and H. Willmott (eds.),

Studying Management Critically, pp. 111–31. London: SAGE.

Moore, G. (2006) ‘Appreciating Worship in All its Variety’, Australian Journal of Liturgy 10(3): 79–90.

Moufahim, M. (2013) ‘Religious Gift Giving: An Ethnographic Account of a Muslim Pilgrimage’, Marketing

Theory 13(4): 421–441.

Ostwalt, C. (2003) Secular Steeples: Popular Culture and the Religious Imagination. Harrisburg: Trinity

Press International.

Raiter, M. (2008) ‘The Slow Death of Congregational Singing’, The Briefing. 355(April): 11–4.

Riches, T. (2010) Shout to the Lord? Music ad Change at Hillsong: 1996-2007. Australian Catholic Uni-

versity. Unpublished MPhil thesis.

Riches, T. and Wagner, T. (2012) ‘The Evolution of Hillsong Music’, Australian Journal of Communication

39(1): 17–36.

Rinallo, D., Scott, L.M. and Maclaran, P. (2013) Consumption and Spirituality. New York: Routledge.

Rinallo, D., Maclaran, P. and Stevens, L. (2016) ‘A Mixed Blessing: Market-Mediated Religious Authority in

Neopaganism’, Journal of Macromarketing 36(4): 425–442.

Roof, W.C. (1999) Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rose, N. (1989) Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Routledge.

Sandicki, Ö. and Ger, G. (2010) ‘Veiling in Style: How Does A Stigmatized Practice Become Fashionable’,

Journal of Consumer Research 37(1): 15–36.

Sandicki, Ö. and Jafari, A. (2013) ‘Islamic Encounters in Consumption and Marketing’, Marketing Theory

13(4): 411–20.

Saren, M., Maclaran, P., Goulding, C., et al. (2007) Critical Marketing: Defining the Field. Oxford:

Elsevier.

120 Marketing Theory 20(1)

Schmidt, L.E. (1995) Consumer Rites: The Buying and Selling of American Holidays. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Schwarzkopf, S. (2015) ‘Mobilizing the Depths of the Market: Motivation Research and the Making of the

Disembedded Consumer’, Marketing Theory 15(1): 39–57.

Skålén, P., Fougère, M. and Felleson, M. (2008) Marketing Discourse: a Critical Perspective. London and

New York: Routledge.

Snow, D.A., Bany, J.A., Peria, M., et al. (2010) ‘A Team Field Study of the Appeal of Megachurches:

Identifying, Framing and Solving Personal Issues’, Ethnography 11(1): 165–88.

Thumma, S. and Travis, D. (2007) Beyond Megachurch Myths. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Toft, M.D., Philpott, D. and Shah, T.S. (2011) ‘God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics.

New York: W W Norton.

Townley, B. (1998) ‘Beyond Good and Evil: Depth and Division in the Management of Human Resources’, in

A. McKinlay and K. Starkey (eds.), Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon

to Technologies of Self, pp. 191–210. London: SAGE.

Tuskan, P. (2017) Hillsong United: Crossing the Great Industry Divide. URL (consulted 25 November 2017):

https://themusicnetwork.com/news/hillsong-united-crossing-the-great-industry-divide

Wade, M. (2016) ‘Seeker-Friendly: The Hillsong Megachurch as an Enchanting Total Institution’, Journal of

Sociology, 52(4): 661–76.

Wagner, T. (2017) ‘The “Powerful” Hillsong Brand’, in T. Riches and T. Wagner (eds.), The Hillsong

Movement Examined: You Call me out Upon the Waters, pp. 253–70. Sydney: Palgrave Macmillan.

Woodhead, L. and Heelas, P. (2000) Religion in Modern Times: An Interpretive Anthology. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Jeaney Yip is a lecturer in marketing at the University of Sydney Business School. Her research is multi-

disciplinary and involves the study of discourse and identity in religion, consumer culture, gender and Asian

contexts. She has published in Journal of Macromarketing, Pacific Affairs, Social Compass and South East

Asia Research. Address: University of Sydney, Level 4, Abercrombie Building H70, Corner of Abercrombie

and Codrington Street, Darlington, NSW 2008, Australia. [email: [email protected]]

Susan Ainsworth is an associate professor in Organizational Studies in the University of Melbourne. She is

an expert in discourse analysis and her research centres around identity and inequality in relation to work,

organizations, institutions and markets. She is on the editorial boards of Organization Studies and Journal of

Management Studies and is an Associate Editor for Gender, Work and Organization. Address: Department of

Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Level 10, 198 Berkeley St, Melbourne, VIC 3010,

Australia. [email: [email protected]]

Yip and Ainsworth 121

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness false /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages false /ColorImageMinResolution 266 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 175 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 175 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 175 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50286 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (CGATS TR 001) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ENU <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> >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AllowImageBreaks true /AllowTableBreaks true /ExpandPage false /HonorBaseURL true /HonorRolloverEffect false /IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false /IncludeHeaderFooter false /MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] /MetadataAuthor () /MetadataKeywords () /MetadataSubject () /MetadataTitle () /MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] /MetricUnit /inch /MobileCompatible 0 /Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (8.0) ] /OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false /PageOrientation /Portrait /RemoveBackground false /ShrinkContent true /TreatColorsAs /MainMonitorColors /UseEmbeddedProfiles false /UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /BleedOffset [ 9 9 9 9 ] /ConvertColors /ConvertToRGB /DestinationProfileName (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /DestinationProfileSelector /UseName /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /ClipComplexRegions true /ConvertStrokesToOutlines false /ConvertTextToOutlines false /GradientResolution 300 /LineArtTextResolution 1200 /PresetName ([High Resolution]) /PresetSelector /HighResolution /RasterVectorBalance 1 >> /FormElements true /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MarksOffset 9 /MarksWeight 0.125000 /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PageMarksFile /RomanDefault /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] /SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [288 288] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice