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:
Even in the local context it's not clear-cut. Callum Brown (The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation, 1800-2000) is a direct challenge to Bruce's adaptation of the Secularisation Thesis – while not disputing the fact that Britain is secular it is more a paradigm shift rather than evolutionary model.
When you get your dissertation done, I hope you turn it into a book or otherwise make it available for us to read.
That's also what I think. It seems more reasonable to say that it is "differently religious" than "secular". Stark is also very clear that even if Europe and the UK is more and even progressively more secular, that this is an exception to the rule. So it boils down to whether the US or Europe (specifically the UK) is the exception since both sets of data reveal different patterns.
Drew,
I'm assuming you've come across the work of Grace Davie? I can't remember the title but she has written a book specifically about Europe being the exception (she doesn't include the US).
I have! But her thesis is tangential to what I am doing and so, I won't spend a whole lot of time with her. The book is Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging. She extends the thesis to Europe in general. Definitely must reads in the sociology of religion. I do have on order a volume she co-wrote with Berger and Effie Fokas which will do what I need to cover the comparative perspective: Religious America, Secular Europe?: A Theme and Variations.
My area of focus is American higher education and my rhetorical is to de-stabilize secularization theory in how we do the history of higher education in order to make way for stronger notions of sectarianism in religious higher education. It has, as in other places, simply been assumed without evidence. I am using Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris as a foil (interestingly none of whom reference any of this debate or much sociology in general which is enough to tell you that their arguments are strawman and not much more)!
I have! But her thesis is tangential to what I am doing and so, I won't spend a whole lot of time with her. The book is Religion in Britain Since 1945: Believing Without Belonging. She extends the thesis to Europe in general. Definitely must reads in the sociology of religion. I do have on order a volume she co-wrote with Berger and Effie Fokas which will do what I need to cover the comparative perspective: Religious America, Secular Europe?: A Theme and Variations.
My area of focus is American higher education and my rhetorical is to de-stabilize secularization theory in how we do the history of higher education in order to make way for stronger notions of sectarianism in religious higher education. It has, as in other places, simply been assumed without evidence. I am using Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris as a foil (interestingly none of whom reference any of this debate or much sociology in general which is enough to tell you that their arguments are strawman and not much more)!
My opinion is that the loss of authority for church was based on the fact that people started to have more and more access to information through the internet and the society developed with it. Information is a very dangerous tool because people started to ask more and more questions which had no answer. To amplify that, there were several scientifical experiments and historical research that proved that Jesus was a simple man with no "super-powers". Now for my final arguement: please read the salvation chapter from the bible and tell me what you understand. I think we could argue for hours about it and never come to an end because we are both correct with our personal interpretation. Too many incoherent arguements coming from church and question with no answer+multiple interpretations=bye bye church and religion.