A Latin American Critical Sociology Perspective on Religion

Studying the interaction of modernity and religion has been at the heart of the sociology of religion. This chapter explores one of the most important explanations of this tension: secularization theory. Even when criticized, this theoretical perspective is present in debates and embedded in different methodologies in use to study religion. This chapter presents an alternative explanation of the Latin American religious landscape, inspired by the American-born religious-economy paradigm. Then the chapter considers the popular-religion approach, a model inspired by the Latin American cultural experience, which focuses on people’s practices. Finally, the chapter proposes a lived-religion approach to studying Latin American religiosity.

Rodney Stark, Subjective Religiousness and a Prolonged Farewell to Secularization Theory

In 1999, Rodney Stark announced that the secularization theory had died and should be buried in a graveyard of failed doctrines. He presented the rationale for this verdict in Secularization, R.I.P., which was supposed to show that the theory of secularization is not capable of correctly describing either the past or the current state of religiosity in European countries, and even more so in the rest of the world. While Stark’s findings have been accepted by many scholars, the current researches show that Stark was too hasty with his conclusion, and the theory of secularization still has significant descriptive and explanatory potential. Thus, the results of recent research by Ronald F. Inglehart show that, although religions continue to play an important role in the modern world, their importance is steadily declining even in countries and regions that were previously considered permanently religious (for example, in the United States or in South America). Accordingly, Inglehart speaks of “recent acceleration of secularization” as the reality in which most countries in the world live. In the situation of the ongoing discussion about how fully and accurately the secularization theory is able to describe the laws and mechanics of social changes, it also becomes relevant to consider the question of why the previous criticism of the theory, including that of Stark, was not very effective. It seems that in Stark’s case the following factors have played a negative role: an ideologized approach equating the theory of secularization with secularism, the interpretation of the subjective religiosity of some societies as an unchangeable constant, which, moreover, should be accepted as constant for all other societies, and an extremely simplified interpretation of fundamental principles of secularization theory, which, according to Stark, is no more than the prophecy about the end of religion. The incorrectness of some Stark’s critical ideas is demonstrated by a statistical analysis of long-term trends in the religiosity of Iceland, Great Britain, and the United States. The most telling example seems to be that of Iceland, whose religious landscape has changed dramatically over the past three decades and bears little resemblance to the image of rural religiosity of the 1980s that Stark drew in Secularization, R.I.P., and which he considered unchanged.

Secularization of Marriage Ritual Among the Ameru in Kenya

The Ameru are a Bantu group of people who inhabit Meru and Tharaka Nithi Counties of Kenya. This paper examines how the ritual of marriage was conducted in the traditional setup and the changes that it has undergone with the coming of European missionaries and the influence of the Western ways of life since 1912. In order to contextualize the discussion, the following questions are addressed. First, how was marriage practised among the indigenous Ameru? Second, what are the changes that have affected this ritual in contemporary society? The Secularization theory is adopted to explain the changes that have taken place in this important rite of passage. The findings of this study are based on research conducted in Meru and Tharaka Nithi counties in Kenya. The study reveals that the Ameru society is dynamic and marriage as observed in the contemporary society is no longer practised the way it was before they interacted with the European missionaries. The indigenous positive cultural values should be accommodated while adjusting to modernity.

Historicizing Secularity

Drawing upon the critique of secularization theory, especially its lack of historical depth, this article outlines a research agenda that focuses on a specific – but fundamental – aspect of secularization: it aims at the historicization of conceptual distinctions and institutional differentiations between the religious and the secular. The authors employ the heuristic concept of ‘secularity’ to refer to these demarcations, and argue that secularization studies should give due consideration to their historical predecessors in various world regions. This seems important against the background of enduring criticisms, which consider such distinctions and differentiations either as an exclusively Western achievement or as a colonial imposition on non-Western regions. Taking into account the development of different historical paths, the authors highlight the transcultural, but in its concrete shape nevertheless culturally specific emergence of distinctions and differentiations related to religion, and propose secularity as a tertium comparationis for comparative research in this field. The authors introduce two different religious and societal settings in the medieval period – Japanese Buddhism and Islam in the Middle East – in order to illustrate the divergent ideational and structural backgrounds to the development of relations between the religious and the secular.

Interreligious Dialogue as a Response to Processes of Secularization

This article proposes secularization theory as a tool to better understand the rationale of IRD-activities. To make this point, it starts with a review of present-day secularisation theories. On this basis, the article presents an analysis of the concept of the secular used in the context of the so-called ‘1893 – World’s Parliament of Religions’. In a final step, the author argues that IRD-activities have to be understood on the basis of an implicit juxtaposition of ‘the religious’ and ‘the secular’. They try to present a ‘religious voice’ as a response to a context perceived as being secular.

Secularization—Still Going Strong? What Remains When Cross-sectional Differences Are Eliminated from a Longitudinal Analysis

The tendency of decreasing religiosity is explained by the theory of secularization through differentiation and pluralization. Using the ess 2002–2016, the impacts of both on church attendance and self-ascribed religiosity are tested, controlling for determinants of religiosity—that is, for belonging (cohort and denomination) and choice (education, urban residence, marriage, parenthood, and employment)—with multi-level models separating between- from within-country effects. Without controls, time negatively affects religiosity: there is a secularization tendency. But controlling for cohort and denomination annihilates this effect and strongly reduces individual-level as well as country-level error variances. Effects of belonging are stronger than those of choice, cohort succession has a negative effect, and religiosity differs between denominations. Differentiation and pluralization have only a few effects between countries and only one within countries such that secularization theory is not confirmed.

Secularization Theory and Religion

What is the relationship between religion and human development? Using data from the pooled 1981–2014 World and European Values Surveys, we examine the effect of human development on a country's level of religious attendance and belief. Consistent with the idea that the primary causal mechanism underlying secularization theory has to do with the substitutability of secular and religious goods, we find that human development has a negative effect on religious attendance but no effect on religious belief. Our results indicate that as societies develop, we should not be surprised if religious belief remains high even as religious attendance declines. The negative effect of human development on religious attendance is driven primarily by a country's level of education and health. Our analysis suggests that it is important to think carefully about what one's theoretical model of the secularization process implies for different aspects of religion.

Secularization, Secularity, and Secularism in the New Millennium: Macro-theories and Research

In the second half of the 20th century, theories on secularization and secularism have been dominated by three approaches: secularization theory, individualization theory, and market theory. In the new millennium, approaches that both built on and revised these neoclassical approaches emerged: deprivation and insecurity theory, the theory of secular transition and intergenerational decline, theories of religious–secular competition, and theories focusing on the tipping point of the 1960s. These four new approaches have deepened our understanding of secularization, secularity, and secularism; however, they each have their own theoretical and empirical problems that need to be addressed by future research. It has become customary in sociology and the political sciences to distinguish three large types of macro-theory on secularization, secularity, and secularism, namely secularization theory, individualization theory, and market theory. Each of these types includes a large number of approaches, ideas, and research endeavors. These neoclassical theories were formulated in the last millennium and have been described, discussed, and criticized many times since. A brief overview of the three neoclassical theories is provided, but then four theoretical approaches are focused on that have been developed in the new millennium: deprivation and insecurity theory, the theory of secular transition and intergenerational decline, theories of religious–secular competition, and theories focusing on the tipping point of the 1960s. These approaches are in the process of being discussed and tested thoroughly.

Good on paper: sociological critique, pragmatism, and secularization theory

Recent years have seen numerous sociological disagreements devolve into heated debates, with scholars openly accusing their peers of being both empirically wrong and morally misguided. While social scientists routinely reflect on the ethical implications of certain research assumptions and data collection methods, the sociology of knowledge production has said little about how moral debates over scholarship shape subsequent research trajectories. Drawing on the new French pragmatic sociology, this article examines how sociologists respond to criticisms of the moral worth of their research. The article outlines three typical responses: (1) accepting the criticism and changing direction completely; (2) accepting the criticism but changing discursive framing to incorporate existing research without being subject to critique; and (3) navigating through the debate by devising new research directions that do not trigger such criticism. To demonstrate, the article looks at how sociologists of religion responded, in their published scholarship, to criticisms of secularization theory as depreciating religious people and spiritual experience. Across the responses, we show that sociologists have included moral considerations in their empirical investigations, and have switched among several diverse moral justifications to address—and also avoid—criticism. We conclude by demonstrating that this model can be extended to other domains of sociological inquiry, including the study of gender-based wage inequality and methodological nationalism. The article highlights the importance of mapping the moral frameworks sociologists use for the sociology of knowledge and the sociology of morality.