The New Sociology of Religion

Zdeněk Nešpor's review 'Three European Sociologies of Religion' introduces us to the work of several authors and their approaches to the sociology of religion. Let us briefl y review the key points he makes in connection with the sociology of religion. First, there is the question of to what extent the difference between American and European sociology is constitutive for the sociology of religion and which of their virtues could enrich the discipline in the future. Second, the question is raised as to whether the sociology of religion needs any so-called grand theories or not. Third, there is a hint of a question about methodology and the topics that the sociology of religion should concentrate on. I would like to supplement these thoughts with several comments, which I believe add to the integrity of the view of the topic.

Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 2017

This article argues that a significant shift is taking place in the sociological study of religion, and seeks to outline its main features. In order to do so it returns to Stephen Warner's classic article of 1993 which drew a contrast between 'old' and 'new' paradigms in the sociology of religion. It develops Warner's analysis by setting these paradigms in their European and American contexts respectively, and argues that there are signs of a third, 'emerging' paradigm which moves beyond these dichotomous alternatives. Not by coincidence, the emerging paradigm also moves beyond methodological nationalism, taking a more global view of religion. In addition, it breaks free from captivity to a single theoretical perspective (whether 'secularisation'/religious decline or 'rational choice'/religious vitality), and embraces broader theoretical, conceptual, and methodological possibilities.

Asian Journal of Social Sciences Humanities, 2013

The views of sociologists on the nature and social functions of religion do not show any evidence of consensus, but rather great disparity. There is a clear case of overcomplication and over-intellectualization of religious phenomena. Even when there is a voluntary declaration of intention to observe agnostic neutrality and academic morality, many scholars are guilty of value judgment and subjective intrusion into the essence of religion. The question that is begging for answer is: if religion is a social institution with practitioners and specialists, is it reasonable to define religion apart, or away from the known practices of the votaries? When scholars in exercise of academic freedom say things, or propound a theory that have no bearing with religion in the practical sense, is it mandatory that such views be taken serious? These are some of the questions that this paper will attempt to answer. The paper examines the theories of religion by leading theorists in sociology of religion and came up with the conclusion that theory is different from practice. It is the opinion of this paper that some of the theories are outdated and do not deserve serious consideration in 21 st century sociology. Religion as a social institution is dynamic, such that research findings of previous centuries, and epoch cannot remain valid forever. Social scientific study of religion is in dire need of contemporary theoretical analysis and that is the challenge before scholarship.

James Spickard's book is a most welcome contribution to the sociology of religion, West and East. It is an attempt to draw from non-Western sources in order to develop a sociology of religion (in fact, a sociology in general) that is freed from its inherited normativities and ethnocentricities and therefore better designed to grasp the connected and plural realities that make up our global condition today. Spickard critiques the Post-Reformation Christian and Modern inflexions of what he calls sociology of religion's 'default view', which overstates such aspects of religious life as 'creed, canon, cult and cathedral' (p.5). The main argument of the book is that conceptual tools and epistemologies are historically and culturally grounded, resulting in their ability to highlight certain aspects of social facts, as well as their 'inability' (p.245) to see other aspects. The book advances a hermeneutical pledge : that other cultural settings could have produced different sociologies of religion that would have brought other aspects to the fore. The originality of Spickard's endeavour is that he is not content in simply making this argument : he actually walks the walk and presents three different theoretical perspectives which he then applies to a set of phenomena : a Confucian, an Ibn Khaldûn, and a Navajo-inspired sociology. First, though, the author defines the 'default view' which he argues continues to underscore most work in the sociology of religion. An overview of American sociology textbooks reveals a very homogenous and conservative picture in which religion is a minor subject among a series of well-differentiated, instituted social spheres that include family, education, politics, work, justice and so on. Religion is portrayed as being highly belief-centred, and its organizational and moral/ethical (rules) dimensions are foremost of interest. While not accounting for the whole of American (and wider) sociology of religion, the portrait is one in which religion is primarily about beliefs and is embodied in religious organisations (rather than embodied social actors), one which has been largely promoted by both secularization theories as well as rational choice and market model sociologies.

The New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology …, 2010

Provides an account of Marx and Weber's Sociology of Religion as the fountations for sociology of religion today.

Annual Review of Sociology, 1999

The sociology of religion is experiencing a period of substantial organizational and intellectual growth. Recent theoretical and empirical papers on the sociology of religion appearing in top journals in sociology have generated both interest and controversy. We begin with a selective overview of research on religious beliefs and commitments. Second, we investigate the influence of religion on politics, the family, health and well-being, and on free space and social capital. Finally, we review rational choice theories in the sociology of religion and the controversies surrounding applications of these perspectives.

Nordic Journal of Religion and Society (2015), 28 (1): 21–36, 2015

For some decades, the academic concept of religion has been examined critically by a number of scholars. There have been some sociological responses to these criticisms against ‘religion’. This article argues that these sociological responses have missed important implications of these criticisms, which can be constructively incorporated into sociological discourse about religion. What can be meaningfully studied is the practice of classification carried out with the term ‘religion’ and norms and imperatives which govern and naturalise a specific discursive configuration of the religious-secular dichotomy. This approach indicates the vacuum in the sociological discourse of religion, which needs to be filled with empirical research, in order to map and theorize the ways in which people utilize the term ‘religion’ in a specific social context.

Religion will remain a vital arena of research among sociologists not only because religious dynamics are ubiquitous, but also—as revealed in essays in this special issue—because our research findings are so often distorted if religion is ignored. Noting the many ways scholars find their way to their research subjects, the future of published scholarship in the sociology of religion must depend less on faithful adherence to established concepts and debates, and more on welcoming and extending new questions and approaches to religion. Finally, editors and reviewers of developing and forthcoming scholarship should continue to affirm religion as a highly flexible arena of investigation, regardless of whether it fits a tight framing of whatever seems to constitute the “sociology of religion.”

Since the Age of Enlightenment, scholars have been continuously predicting the demise of religion. Yet, religion is still thriving and vibrant in most contemporary societies. Not only has religion “survived” in the “modern” world, it has also undergone significant changes, revivals and adaptations. The objective of this course is to study religion sociologically, which means that we will not focus so much on religious texts and teachings but rather on the way individuals experience religion in their daily lives. The course is divided into three sections. The first section consists in a theoretical endeavor to define religion. The founding fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx, devoted considerable amounts of time to writing about religion. Following their lead, we will analyze religion as a socially constituted reality that in turn influences the social world. A significant part of the course will be dedicated to unpacking the very category of “religion:” What is religion? When do you know when you see it? What is the meaning of religion in people’s lives? The second section will provide methodological tools to study religion in a sociological perspective: students will be introduced to the ethnographic method in social sciences and will learn the art and craft of performing participant observation in religious settings. The third section will focus on empirical work describing contemporary manifestations of religion and how it intersects with class, race, gender, immigration, civic life, and the state.

Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Legal Studies, 2022

The prime purpose of this article is to study religion from different paradigms or perspectives from a sociological viewpoint. Religion is defined as a social institution while economic reality, ideological support, and everyday interactions of people are also undertaken as core concepts. In fact, this article is an overview of the religion of three theoretical perspectives of sociology focusing on the work of Emile Durkheim, Robert K. Merton (the functionalist), Karl Marx, Max Weber, Friedrich Engels (the conflict), and Peter Berger (the interactionist). A brief discussion of each perspective is articulated clearly, followed by secondary sources including published books, book sections, blogs, research articles, and WebPages highlighting the foundations of the relevant theory. Afterward, the author reviews the discourses of the theorists regarding religion with its application to human society. Finally, the article provides a summary of these perspectives continuing to develop the ...

2012

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 2007

Department of Sociology Working Papers, Singapore: National University of Singapore 85: 1–33, 1987

A condensed version of the main points of this paper can be found on pages 14-19 of my book "Temiar Religion, 1964-2012". As a contribution to the study of religion, the paper discusses two different sets of questions: (1) Why do religions differ, and how do they function? (2) Why are people religious, and what are people up to when they engage in religious actions? More generally, the paper presents a semi-formal account of a theory of modes of coherence that links the structuring of Self/Other relations at the personal level to the character of politically maintained cultural regimes at the societal level. Four basic modes of coherence are recognised (the Transcendental, the Immanent, the Dialectical and the "Zen"), and the political consequences of each are explored in relation to the history, theology, mythology and social-interactional setting of a variety of religious traditions.

This course gives an overview of the most important themes in the sociology of religion. The course falls in three parts: The first part of the course is concerned with theorising religion sociologically. We raise sociological questions at the level of the individual (e.g., why are people religious in the first place?; why are women more religious than men?), at the level of the nation-state (e.g., why are some countries more religious than others?; how and why do state-religion relations differ cross-culturally?), and at the level of religious communities (e.g., how are religious communities maintained socially?) The second part of the course is concerned with the profound changes that have taken place in the religious field across the world during the 20 th and 21 st centuries. We explore the secularisation thesis, i.e. the idea that religion (necessarily) loses power, prestige, and plausibility as a result of modernisation, and evaluate alternatives to this master narrative (e.g., the subjectivisation thesis and the return-of-religion thesis). We compare the religious field in Europe (ongoing secularisation) with the United States (continued high levels of religion) and China (religious revival despite Communist oppression) and try to explain the differences between these cases. We also explore the rise of new, late modern 'religiosity styles', such as fundamentalism and new age spirituality. The third part of the course looks at the relation between religion and other aspects of civil society. In particular, we will discuss religion education and religion in popular culture.