Reconstructing Identity and Negotiating Meaning: De-institutionalized Pathways of Religious Identity in the Digital Age

Buddhism for China’s digital‑native youth now unfolds less in monasteries than on the endlessly scrolling timelines of Douyin, Bilibili, and WeChat, where Zen‑style décor ads, three‑second tea ceremonies, and pastel Amituofo memes appear as algorithmic coincidences. How, in the absence of ritual apprenticeship or clerical authority, do such fragmented, commercialised encounters coalesce into a felt conviction of “being Buddhist”? This paper answers by fusing the lived‑religion turn to everyday practice, Wellman’s networked individualism, and cultural‑schema theory with Mahāyāna categories of upāya (skillful means), pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), and anātman (non‑self). The resulting De‑Institutionalised Buddhist Identity Construction (DBIC) model specifies a four‑phase, recursive mechanism: (1) Ambient Contact delivers unsolicited Buddhist stimuli via platform algorithms and lifestyle branding; (2) Schema Resonance activates dormant scripts of karma, compassion, or serenity; (3) Peer Legitimation supplies micro‑affirmations through influencer cues and chat‑thread encouragement; and (4) Ritual Bricolage converts resonance into modular, self‑curated practices—five‑minute metta sessions, virtual incense burns, eco‑vegetarian “compassion meals.” Each practice leaves digital traces that intensify subsequent exposures, forming feedback loops that echo dependent‑origination logic. Five propositions render the model empirically testable, linking exposure patterns, network structure, bricolage diversity, and identity stability. By reframing narrative coherence as a functional rather than ontological yardstick—valid if it reduces dukkha and fosters altruism—the study challenges authenticity debates rooted in Western selfhood assumptions. It also coins algorithmic soteriology, suggesting recommender systems can, when aligned with upāya, serve as inadvertent pedagogues. Implications span temple strategy (from gatekeeping to curated digital pathways), mental‑health practice, and policy design that balances religious expression with protection against pseudo‑spiritual commodification. Although grounded in Chinese Buddhism, DBIC offers a transferable lens on post‑institutional religiosity across platformised faith traditions.