See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312026749

Secularization

Chapter · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 8,837

1 author:

Effie Fokas
ELIAMEP
66 PUBLICATIONS 669 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Effie Fokas on 02 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SECULARIZATION

Secularization as a notion indicating the decline of religion has a long tradition as a

subject of study, with its earliest expressions to be found in 18th century philosophy.
In recent years, secularization is also the subject of intense scholarly debate. There is
debate around the term itself (how do we define secularization?) as well as around the
theory -- or thesis, depending on one’s point of view -- of secularization (is it really
happening and, if so, universally?). Both areas of scholarship flourish today and the
debates continue unresolved. An examination of the latter is instructive as regards the
trajectory/ies of secularization and of the sociological study thereof.

Defining secularization

The etymology of the term is worth considering. Secularization derives from the word
‘saeculum’, used in Latin Christendom to indicate profane time, as opposed to eternal,
‘higher’ time and synonymous with century, or age – markers of time outside the
sacred realm. In its earliest uses secularization meant the transfer of certain functions
from the church to the control of laypersons.

Sociologists of religion however are by no means bound by etymology. Some

scholars define secularization as the institutional differentiation of church and state;
others as the privatization of religious faith and practice; and yet others as the decline
and eventual disappearance all together of religious belief and practice. Notably, the
related terms of ‘secular’, ‘secularity’, and ‘secularism’ are likewise muddled and
debated concepts.

It is useful to distinguish the multiple meanings of the term before addressing their
potential relevance, as do theories of secularization. Secularization is understood to
mean any one, or a combination, of the following:

1. A decline of religious practice (e.g., church-going)

2. A decline of religious belief and practice
3. A decline of church/religious authority over belief and practice
4. Privatization, and perhaps marginalization or even complete absence of
religious belief and practice
5. Division between the spheres of influence of religious institutions and the state
(‘church-state separation’)
6. Absence or disappearance of religion from the public sphere

Theories of secularization

The sociological study of religion features many shades of a general thesis or theory
of secularization. That thesis assumes a decline of religion accompanying the spread
of modernity. Founding fathers of sociology, including Auguste Comte, Herbert
Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Georg Simmel and Sigmund
Freud, all took for granted this inverted relationship between religion and modernity.
In the 1960’s more empirically grounded studies were produced to support the
secularization thesis. One of the most influential articulations came from Peter Berger
in his 1967 The Sacred Canopy. Here he describes religion's role as a kind of 'canopy',
a social construction that projected a sacred cosmos and in so doing served to shelter
individuals and society from a seemingly meaningless existence. This canopy began
to fall apart with modernization, which brought secularization in a dialectical
relationship with pluralism. Put simply, modernization led to the increased exposure
to different religious creeds than one's own which, in turn, undermined exclusive truth
claims and, ultimately, faith itself. Other leading expressions of secularization theory
in that period came from Brian Wilson and Thomas Luckmann.

David Martin was amongst the first to critique the secularization thesis by introducing
critical nuance, first in 1969 with his The Sacred and the Secular, and then in 1978
with his General Theory of Secularization. Martin focuses on the distinctions within
Europe in terms of the pace and nature of secularization across different cultural
contexts. He describes a set of 'universal processes' of secularization that 'tend’ to
occur other things being equal. But given that things rarely are, Martin explores the
various factors influencing different secularization patterns.

It was not until the 1980’s that the theory of secularization was more broadly
contested, following a series of events that provoked its questioning. This includes the
Iranian revolution in 1979; the rise of the Solidarity movement in Poland and the
Catholic Church's role in the eventual fall of communism there; the role of
Catholicism in the Sandinista Revolution, and in other political conflicts throughout
Latin America; and the public re-emergence of Protestant fundamentalism as a force
in American politics. Increasingly scholars began to acknowledge that the theory was
generalised on the basis of European trends. Famously, Peter Berger professed that he
(and other secularizationist scholars) had been wrong: Europe was to be seen as an
exception to the secularization thesis (a concept elaborated by Grace Davie in her
2002 Europe: the Exceptional Case), and to what was otherwise, in Berger's words, a
'furiously religious world' (this in his co-edited text provocatively entitled The
Desecularization of the World).

Today, secularization theory remains a lively area of study, with social scientists
largely divided into two camps: those who would like to scrap secularization theory
altogether, and those who seek to preserve parts of it. Amongst the staunchest
remaining supporters of the secularization thesis are Karel Dobbelaere and Steve
Bruce; a main tool of this camp is the quantitative data produced by such surveys as
the World Values Survey and European Values Survey. Also based on data from the
World Values Survey is the ‘revised version’ of secularization theory propounded by
Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart whereby critical determinants of secularization are
the factors of human security and religious culture: human vulnerability leads to
increased levels of religiosity, as do national cultures in which the values of the mass
populations are infused with religion. In relatively secure societies, they argue, the
remnants of religion have not disappeared but the importance and vitality of religion
and its influence on peoples’ daily lives have gradually eroded. The United States,
from this perspective, is the exceptional case.

Meanwhile, the US case is central to one of the most powerful and sustained critiques
of secularization theory, the ‘supply-side’ perspective, voiced especially by Rodney
Stark, William Sims Bainbridge, Roger Finke, and Laurence Iannaccone. This
perspective applies Rational Choice Theory to the sociology of religion and posits
that religious pluralism does not lead to a decline of religion but quite the opposite:
religious competition invigorates the market as ‘consumers’ (individuals who, the
argument goes, are naturally religious) seek out religious options and make choices
that maximize ‘gain’ for them. Certainly the thesis is derived from and applies well to
the American case. But its proponents argue that it also applies to the European
situation: European secularization is due not to a lack of interest in religion on the part
of Europeans (low demand) but rather to deficiencies in religious supply due, in turn,
to Europe’s religious monopolies which have bred ‘lazy’ churches and, hence, empty
pews.

Several scholars in fact question the account of European secularity. Danièle Hervieu-
Léger for example argues that Christianity maintains a presence in Europe through a
'chain of memory', linking individuals to a community through memory of a shared
past, with religion deeply rooted in tradition lived in the present. Through a process of
'bricolage' (or 'tinkering'), individuals pick and choose aspects of their faith, and
religion is no longer simply embedded in culture. Grace Davie argues that people in
Europe believe, but in different ways which are not necessarily quantifiable through
religious affiliation; rather, many in Europe 'believe without belonging'. Many also
experience religion 'vicariously', not participating directly themselves but still
expecting their religious institutions to offer certain services (e.g., baptisms, funerals)
and to play certain roles.

Other critiques of secularization theory highlight its normative nature, indicating that
the theory has dominated the sociology of religion through the wishful thinking of
secular-minded scholars whose rationalism seeks a world free of religious myths and
mysticism. In other words, secularization theory has been criticised (e.g., by
sociologist of religion Jose Casanova) as not only descriptive but also normative
enlightenment thinking with elements of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Current developments in fact and theory

Regardless of academic debates, clearly a glance around the world today does not
offer a picture of a secular and secularizing world: the continued intensity of church-
going in the United States, the rapid growth of evangelical churches in Latin America,
the spread of new age spirituality through western Europe, the renewal of faith in
post-communist eastern Europe, and the rise in fundamentalist Islamist movements in
the Middle East and beyond suggest a ‘re-enchantment’ of the world in some cases,
and/or a ‘de-secularization’ of the observer’s lens. All of the above have led to
discussions of a ‘post-secular’ world, discussions taking place in many different
domains (political, media, education, etc), in various academic disciplines, and
involving a broad range of scholars including Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls, Charles
Taylor, Francis Fukuyama, and Talal Asad. A very popular resistance front is held –
via their bestseller books – by such authors as Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion),
and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell).

Just as the concept of ‘multiple modernities’ increasingly has been taking root in
modernization theory, so too secularization theory has been yielding to an
acknowledgement of multiple secularizations, recognising the different trends and
forms of secularization in various contexts, as well as counter-secularization in others.
Moving beyond what many consider not only a European but also Christian and in
fact Protestant bias in the secularization thesis, today scholars are exploring the
 characteristics of European Muslim, Jewish American and Christian Orthodox
secularizations.

Effie Fokas
London School of Economics

View publication stats