Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Sociology of Religion Sociology of religion is the study of the people, institutions, practices, and beliefs that are associated with and shaped by religion in society. Core questions within the sociology of religion – What do people believe? How is religion organized? What influence does religion have upon other aspects of social life? – were once intimately connected with the study of theological ethics. In fact, some of the earliest sociologists of religion – such as H. Richard Niebuhr and Ernst Troeltsch – are rightfully remembered as both ethicists and sociologists. The field as we find it today, however, is concentrated almost exclusively within the social science departments of the secular university, and sociologists generally approach their work from the standpoint of “methodological atheism” – in other words, without taking any official stance regarding the theological veracity of the religions that they study. Yet theological beliefs are always close to the center of sociological investigations, as the sociology of religion seeks to uncover the dynamic interplay between claims of truth and morality, hermeneutics, and the groups and institutions in which such practices of interpretation and meaning-making take shape. Methodologically, sociologists of religion use varied approaches in the practice of research, although identifying variables, observing and recording empirical facts, and developing and testing generalizable social theories are all core components of social science research. How scholars use these practices in their research is much more variable, however; sociologists of religion are just as likely to analyze large-scale public datasets with statistical methodology as they are to study a particular religious community as a participant observer. Yet throughout these disparate approaches to research, a common focus upon the relationship between religion and society animates both the earliest social theorists and current researchers alike. At its heart, R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 2 the sociology of religion maintains an abiding interest in how the properties of a meaningmaking system may influence – and be influenced by – the changing dynamics of social life. Classic Foundations and Their Legacies The discipline of sociology was born amidst the industrialization of Europe in the 19th century and the changing forms of social organization produced in its wake. In particular, the trio of social theorists generally credited as the founders of the discipline – Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim – were particularly interested in the dynamic relationship between religious ideology and material reality. Marx famously argued in the Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Influenced heavily by Feuerbach, Marx deemed religion a projection of the proletariat’s material suffering– “Man makes religion, religion does not make man”– with religion a key source of entrapment in workers’ oppressive material relations with the capitalist bourgeoisie. Marx’s focus upon materialism is generally contrasted with Weber’s (perhaps more enduring) emphasis upon meaning. For Weber, the ultimate question of social science is that of the human creature’s ability to construct a meaningful totality – for example, to understand an internal reality of suffering, or reconcile an external observation of theodicy. Of course, this is not to suggest that Weber was uninterested in material relationships. Rather, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber was fascinated by the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, arguing that the uncertainty surrounding salvation led early Calvinists in Europe to seek material success as a sign of their eternal election. In fact, a central claim in Weber’s writings is that various religions make the cosmos meaningful by legitimating their subjects’ R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 3 material positions in the world – or alternatively, by compensating them for their corresponding lack of prestige. Applying this perspective to the U.S. context in the early twentieth century, H. Richard Niebuhr observed in The Social Sources of Denominationalism that the status system of the American landscape had quite neatly reproduced itself in its churches – a hierarchy crowned by the superior wealth and status of Episcopalians, for instance, and marked by the “disinherited” Protestant sects at the bottom. Furthermore, the persistent color line of racial inequality rendered the body of Christ broken in the enduring legacy of sin. Present-day scholars question the degree to which the status divisions noted by Niebuhr still persist in American denominationalism, although the most important recent argument about the social structure of American denominationalism is the one articulated by Wuthnow in The Restructuring of American Religion. Observing that the post-War dividing lines among American Christians were not denominational, but ideological, Wuthnow concluded that modern denominational structure were less important than the emerging cross-denominational realignment along the theological axes of orthodoxy and liberalism. Moreover, increases in religious switching, intermarriage, and status gains made by religious conservatives had all but erased the enduring fault lines of status that had divided American Christians for much of the nation’s history. While Wuthnow’s central arguments about cross-denominational alliances have earned commonplace acceptance, his conclusions about the declining status differences among American Christians remains debated. Enduring racial segregation and the continued stratification within conservative Protestantism – in which members of conservative denominations consistently experience lower educational outcomes than their mainline Protestant peers – offer the chief challenges to this description of socioeconomic leveling within the American religious landscape. R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 4 Other theoretical emphases in the field trace their roots to Durkheim’s writings about collective meaning, practice, and ritual in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. While Weber focused upon the experience of meaning among individuals, Durkheim was primarily concerned with meaning as it was experienced in collective contexts of ritual, practice, and feeling that elevate religion to the status of “social fact” – in other words, an experience that shapes individuals through a power borne of its collective nature, which becomes something greater than a sum of its individual manifestations. Religion, in this conception, is always collective, and as such must be reinforced and reactivated by collective rituals that center around shared forms of symbolic meaning-making. Working largely within this paradigm in the mid-1960s, Peter Berger’s influential argument about secularization alleged that the modern condition of pluralism, rationalization, and scientific investigation would necessarily undermine the collective “plausibility structures” that reinforced religious belief and made possible faith in the supernatural. Describing the long arc of the “sacred canopy’s” dismemberment in Western history, Berger predicted that the disenchantment, rationalization, and voluntarism that increasingly characterized modern Christianity would ultimately render religion largely inconsequential in modern life. Carried within the seeds of the Reformation itself, Berger argued, the rationalization and codification of religious beliefs – a tendency noted and discussed by Weber as well – ultimately creates a conception of the world that leaves little room for magic or belief in a transcendent God. Moreover, a pluralistic environment creates denominations that “market” their religion to discriminating consumers, and in which religion would increasingly inform only private concerns that held little relevance for matters of larger public or collective importance. Although this “secularization paradigm” was the status quo at its time (and remained so at least until the R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 5 early 1990s), most current work in the sociology of religion begins with the premise that Berger was simply mistaken – at least, in terms of his predictions for the United States. Current Issues in the Field One challenge to the secularization paradigm appears in the resurgence of theologically orthodox religions both within the United States and abroad; thus, the question of how orthodox religions can co-exist with modernity frames most sociological analysis of conservative religion, as in Hunter’s early study of evangelicalism. American evangelicals are the preeminent example of a religious tradition that generally claims both orthodox and expressive religious beliefs while also presenting itself as a religious movement to be reckoned with in the public sphere. More recently, Christian Smith and colleagues have presented the most compelling challenge to the secularization paradigm by arguing that pluralism does not diminish religious vitality, but pradoxically invites certain religious groups to thrive through developing a “subcultural identity” that finds meaning and energy in defining themselves against the status quo. Contrary to Berger’s argument that pluralism weakens the ability of religions to make truth-claims, Smith’s work contends that the strength of conservative Protestantism lies in evangelicals’ sense of being both in the world and apart from it (an orientation toward public life that H. Richard Niebuhr would call “Christ transforming culture.”) Evangelicals’ interest in public issues of family, sexuality, and reproduction have further animated the subculture’s sense of being an embattled outsider in American culture, and fostered engagement with public life rather than the retreat to private life that Berger foretold. Yet other claims inherent in Berger’s writings have proven to be remarkably prescient – for instance, his prediction that religion in the modern world would not be imposed, but rather R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 6 “marketed” among denominations who would be compelled to expand their claim upon believers in a pluralistic religious marketplace. This economistic metaphor for religious life proves an apt – if perhaps disquieting – description of the social dynamics of religion in society, in which religious pluralism can be understood as the theological equivalent of deregulation. Indeed, the American experience of the disestablishment of religion suggests the existence of “religious markets” as proposed by Finke and Stark. Building upon the description of church and sect proposed by Troeltsch and the dynamic church-sect cycle observed by H. R. Niebuhr, Finke and Stark also help to explain the resurgence of orthodox religions in modern life: religions that “demand” more of their practitioners through theological orthodoxy turn out to be “stronger” in their ability to attract and retain committed members – a conclusion affirmed by similar work conducted by scholars such as Kelley and Iannaccone. Conversely, the more permissive, socially integrated bureaucratic denominations (in other words, mainline Protestants) can expect to “lose” market share in a religious economy because they offer potential members a less rewarding religious experience – an argument generally recognized as being compatible with Smith’s “subcultural identity” theory. The fate of mainline Protestantism in a religious marketplace that rewards orthodoxy, distinction, and a sense of embattlement remains debated. While few could question the longevity of mainliners’ historical commitments to issues of social justice, advocacy, and higher education, conservative religious groups – particularly those that are structured by conservative denominational affiliations – do retain more of their young people as members when they reach adulthood. Yet while anecdotal evidence may imply that mainline churches are losing members to more conservative denominations, little empirical evidence exists to support this conclusion. In fact, Hout, Greeley, and Wilde have demonstrated that the growing size of conservative R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 7 Protestant denominations relative to their mainline Protestant counterparts is largely explained by the difference in birthrates between each group: conservative Protestants tend to marry younger and have more children than their better-educated, later-marrying mainline Protestant counterparts. This “demographic imperative” of religious change thus owes less to theology than it does to demography. Switching from liberal traditions to conservative ones is negligible by comparison, and mostly offset by the individuals who switch denominations in the opposite direction. Alongside this focus upon institutional affiliations and religious traditions, sociologists of religion are increasingly interested in the expressions of religion that take place outside of these traditional, fixed categories of theological experience. Influenced by recent trends in religious studies by scholars such as Orsi and Hall, religious practice emerges as a legitimate source of study in and of itself – either in addition to or regardless of theological belief. Within this “Lived Religion” school of study, scholars focus upon the ways in which religious practitioners adopt and adapt religious rituals and symbols in ways that serve highly contextualized needs for identity-formation and self-expression. A particularly compelling example of this perspective appears in Ammerman’s analysis of “Golden Rule Christians.” Rather than developing a coherent theological system, Golden Rule Christians emphasize practices – most importantly, being caregivers for others in their ongoing relationships. After noting that these (mostly liberal Protestant) practitioners generally have a low view of Scripture, Ammerman observes that Golden Rule Christians do indeed seek out membership in churches, and describe spiritual experiences in which they wrestle with issues of God’s presence and transcendence. Yet focusing on what they actually do – claim church membership, seek religious education for their children, and prioritize caring and good deeds – R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 8 illuminates a set of findings that are profoundly misrepresented in a single-minded focus upon professed belief. Similarly, studies of congregational life take care to emphasize the range Christian practices that take shape in particular contexts and institutional settings, as well as the complex ways in which different communities negotiate both orthodoxy and pluralism. A robust literature also probes the relationship between religion and the practices of family life and formation – and the often fluid and variable relationship between the two. Finally, scholars of immigration have recently turned a special eye toward the range of ways in which immigrants interact with religious traditions in both their host and sending communities, as well as how new populations of immigrants, particularly those who practice non-Christian religions, may alter the religious landscape of the United States. Similarly, a related literature examines the relationship between religious ideals and economic advancement in the developing world, in many ways suggesting a full-circle return to the very questions that animated Weber’s examination of the relationships between theology, materialism, and the modern world, but with a new expression of contemporary social life – one that is developing outside of the West, and demonstrates new iterations of religious faith and practice – as its starting point. Suggested Further Reading Ammerman, N. T. (1997). Golden Rule Christianity: Lived Religion in the American Mainstream. Lived religion in America : toward a history of practice. D. D. Hall. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press: 196-216. Berger, P. L. (1967). The sacred canopy; elements of a sociological theory of religion. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday. R.P. Massengill Sociology of Religion 9 Durkheim, Émile. (1965). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York, Free Press. Finke, R. and R. Stark (1992). The churching of America, 1776-1990 : winners and losers in our religious economy. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. Hall, David D., ed. Lived Religion in America : Toward a History of Practice. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1997. Hout, M., A. Greeley, et al. (2001). "The demographic imperative in religious change in the United States." The American Journal of Sociology 107(2): 468. Hunter, J. D. (1983). American evangelicalism : conservative religion and the quandary of modernity. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press. Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). "Why Strict Churches Are Strong." American Journal of Sociology 99(5): 1180-1211. Kelley, D. M. (1972). Why conservative churches are growing. New York, Harper & Row. Niebuhr, H. R. (1954). The social sources of denominationalism. Hamden, Conn., Shoe String Press. Orsi, R. A. (1985). The Madonna of 115th Street : faith and community in Italian Harlem, 18801950. New Haven, Yale University Press. Smith, C. (1998). American evangelicalism : embattled and thriving. Chicago, Ill., University of Chicago Press. Weber, M. (1950).. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York,: Scribner's. Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion : society and faith since World War II. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Rebekah Peeeples Massengill