Steve Bruce argues in his book God is Dead: Secularization in the West secularization develops from social egalitarianism which must exist in order to mediate democracy. Religious diversity that is protected by the secular state produces an inevitable loss of authority for religion. Finally, such a loss of authority, and this is where Bruce makes his strongest claim, results in a loss of plausibility and hence interest of religion for the public. Thus, religious homogenization is what produces a stronger public interest and authority for religion to arbitrate social structures and knowledge. Bruce refers to Iran in which a forced secular culture was usurped by the Ayatollah in 1979 with a religious revolution. This was only possible the religious belief of the citizenship was very homogenous. Such a revolution to make religion the center of society would not be possible in the West which has built its societies on the notion of pluralism and equal regard for all religous belief. While secularization is not a theory that predicts the ultimate demise of religion, it does predict the loss of importance of religion for public discourse and eventually the implausibility of religion and the overall loss of interest in religion in the public.
Rodney Stark et. al. has argued the opposite case. From a market based supply-side theory of rational choice, Stark argues that religion not only develops, but progresses and increases in popularity the more diverse and unregulated the situation is. Therefore, heterogeneity produces a stronger and more vital kinds of religious expression and religious legitimacy in any society. For Stark, the United States is not the exception, but the rule. Religion has been a vital component to civil discourse since the beginning and has not only retained its social significance, but has become more vital in many spheres.
Bruce's work is more or less a direct rejoinder to Stark et. al. (and other scholars such as Martin, Berger (ironically), and Wuthnow tend to side more with Stark on the matter). Yet his evidential bases seem to be limited mostly to the UK and Europe. His theory works well in that local context, but as I read, I am wondering where the evidence is to support his rather strong causal claims between egalitarianism and secularization not only there, but in other geo-political regions. After all Peter Berger, on whose theory Bruce is heavily reliant, has also said in no uncertain terms that his initial theorizing on secularization was wrong. It is a strange kind of rheoric for Bruce to rely so heavily on the theory of someone who has now found his own theory inconclusive with regard to secularization. At this point, the evidence that Bruce needs to provide to make his claim seem plausible beyond Europe and the UK (the latter being undoubtedly the most secular nation in the world) is in want.
Related posts:
