Towards an Integrated Perspective of the Processes Related to the Descriptive Concept of Secularization

Sociology of Religion, Fall, 1999 by Karel Dobbelaere

Secularization is at first sight a controversial concept because of its distinct use in different disciplines, e.g., philosophy, social sciences, and theology (Lubbe 1975). Even in the social sciences, various levels of analysis of the religious situation result in different definitions and divergent evaluations of the situation. If the founding fathers rarely used the term, nonetheless concepts and views rented to theories of secularization were already present, e.g., generalization and differentiation (Durkheim 1964). Weber used the term (1920: 212) - but to typify the way in which, in the US, membership in distinguished clubs and fraternal societies replaced membership of sects, in guaranteeing moral rectitude and credit worthiness. Later generations of sociologists continued to employ the term, but attached different meanings to it (Shiner 1967). Not until the 1960s were several theories of secularization developed, most prominently by Berger, Luckmann, and Wilson. These theories subsequently led to discussions concerning their reliability and validity (e.g., Hammond 1985; Hadden 1987; Lechner 1991). In similar vein, others have suggested an alternative, i.e., rational choice theory, to explain the religious situation in the US which they considered to be radically different from that of Europe, where secularization theory emerged. Subsequently, they have applied their theory to explain both high and low rates of religious involvement in different countries (c.f., Stark and Bainbridge 1987). Finally, some sociologists have systematically analyzed the existing theories, since some discussions failed to scrutinize the ideas, levels of analysis, and arguments of those being criticized. Tschannen has suggested treating secularization theories as a paradigm (1992), and I have stressed the need to differentiate between levels of analysis: the macro or societal level, the meso or subsystem level, and the micro or individual level (1981), suggesting convergences and divergences between existing theories (1984).

Here, I offer the different "exemplars" which Tschannen distinguishes in the secularization paradigm, and I refer to authors who have written extensively about each exemplar, without suggesting, however, that these authors were the only ones to do so.(1) Some exemplars are re-named, and one is added. I order the exemplars according to the levels of analysis: institutional differentiation or segmentation (Luckmann 1967), autonomization (Berger 1967; Wilson 1969), rationalization (Berger 1967; Wilson 1982), societalization (Wilson 1976), disenchantment of the world (Weber 1920; Berger 1967), privatization (Berger 1967; Luckmann 1967), and generalization (Bellah 1967; Parsons 1967) are located on the societal level; pluralization (Martin 1978), relativization (Berger 1967), and this-worldliness (Luckmann 1990) are situated on the meso-level; and, finally, individualization (Bellah et al. 1985), bricolage (Luckmann 1979), unbelief (Berger 1967), and decline of church religiosity (Martin 1978) are located on the micro-level.

According to Tschannen, three exemplars are central to the secularization paradigm: differentiation, rationalization, and this-worldliness. The other exemplars are related to these. I start with the analytic distinction between system levels. Beginning with the macro level, it seems possible, using Luhmann's conceptual distinction between three types of differentiation - segmentary, social, and functional differentiations (1982: 262-265) to come to a better integrated perspective of the processes related to secularization. The so-called exemplars of Tschannen's paradigmatic solution are discussed by level of analysis.(2) Their functional relations are described, while distinguishing between processes and consequences. Special attention is given to the relationships between system levels.

THE SOCIETAL SYSTEM

Since modern societies are primarily differentiated along functional lines, subsystems developed different functional domains (economy, polity, science, family). Each subsystem's communication is based on its own medium (money, power, truth, love), and each has developed its own values (success, separation of powers, reliability and validity, primacy of love), and norms. Regarding religion, they claim autonomy and reject religiously prescribed rules, i.e., the autonomization of the subsystems - e.g., the emancipation of education from ecclesiastical authority, the separation of church and state, the rejection of church prescriptions about birth control and abortion, the decline of religious content in literature and arts, and the development of science as an autonomous secular perspective.

Diagnosing the loss of religion's influence in the so-called secular world, members of the religious subsystem were the first to talk about secularization. In this context Luhmann speaks about secularization in the sense of a specifically religious conception of society as the environment of the religious system (1977: 225-232). Churches, most importantly the Roman Catholic church, reacted with a counteroffensive, stimulating among other things the organization of Catholic Action in the first part of this century and, in more recent years, calling for a second evangelization of Europe. At the end of the last century, adapting to the modern world, a process of pillarization was also instituted to protect believers from the secular world. A Protestant and a Catholic pillar emerged in the Netherlands, and Catholic pillars were gradually established in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland. Pillars are organizational complexes that are religiously or ideologically legitimized, striving toward autarky or self-sufficiency.(3) The more services a pillar renders, the more self-sufficient it is (Coleman 1979; Dobbelaere 1988).(4) Pillarization is a form of segmental differentiation in a functionally differentiated society, which promotes social exclusiveness and an in-group mentality.