Religion and Secularization

Secularization, according to Peter Berger, is “the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols” (Dawson, 18). For example, the diminishment of the Christian Church’s authority in government affairs from the Medieval times until now can be seen as part of a process of secularization in the West. In this essay I will summarize and contrast Berger’s theory of secularization with one propounded by Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge.

Berger: Religion as a Shield for Society

According to Berger, religion was created (in a subconscious manner) in order to give meaning and security to particular social orders by locating standards and incentives for these social orders in the supernatural realm. Religious symbols, theologies, and practices reflect a “meaningful world order” (what Berger calls a nomos) that legitimizes the established social order and attempts to secure it from collapse or disruption at the hands of various socially threatening realities (ex., death, war, nightmares, etc. -- what Berger calls anomies (from anomaly)). The nomos, is viewed as an objective reality because of its supernatural character, and is thought to shield society from anomies. 

Towards Consumer-Oriented Religion

However, starting in the 17th century, religion became less relevant in regards to thought and economics. The consequence of this, according to Berger, has been two-fold. First, religion has become more privatized; that is, religious affiliation is determined more by personal preference than by social legitimation. Second, with the growth of religious freedom and cross-cultural interaction, religious traditions have had to wrestle with and respond to religious pluralism. As a consequence of privatization and pluralism, many religious groups have become more consumer-oriented, marketing themselves and accommodating to the preferences of the “secularized consciousness” (Dawson, 19). Hence, traditions or denominations concerned with the private life or with aligning themselves with the advances of science are more likely to succeed in “selling” themselves. On the other hand, some traditions may refuse to accommodate in any significant way, choosing instead to affirm more traditional world orders. Either way, Berger argues, the world orders offered by religion that were once intended to serve as shields against anomies, giving society an objective, supernatural framework around which it could orient itself, have become de-objectified; the nomos of any particular tradition is now viewed more as a subjective reality.

Stark and Bainbridge: Religion and Supernatural Compensators

Stark and Bainbridge’s theory of religion is predicated on different assumptions, leading to a very different view of the future of religion in society than Berger's. According to Stark and Bainbridge, religious groups can be understood as “human organizations primarily engaged in providing general compensators based on supernatural assumptions” (Dawson, 21). Religion, they argue, is sustained and pursued in virtue of its claim to provide compensation and rewards not otherwise available in non-supernaturalistic worldviews. More optimistic about the future of religion than Berger’s theory would lead us to be, Stark and Bainbridge maintain that 

“so long as humans seek certain rewards of great magnitude that remain unavailable through direct actions, they will be able to obtain credible compensators only from sources predicated on the supernatural” (Dawson, 21).

Why Secularization is Not the End of Religion

In light of this, Stark and Bainbridge argue that secularization should not be seen as a process by which general supernatural compensators become unnecessary, even if secularization does, in part, involve the process by which specific religious traditions lose their authority in society. On this theory, religious traditions that accommodate to certain cultural interests -- by diminishing their emphasis on the supernatural -- lose their value as compensators, while those that stick with compensators more firmly oriented around the supernatural do not. This explains why, according to Stark and Bainbridge, the 1960‘s and 1970‘s saw a decline in liberal Christian churches, while the religious right grew in size and influence. What’s more, studies have shown that a correlation exists between the presence of conventional religions and cult religions; where conventional traditions are either absent or weak, cult groups tend to be strong and present, and vice versa (Dawson, 23). On this view, accommodation to the secular consciousness as an attempt to be more marketable -- as Berger argues is happening -- is more harmful than good for the religious group that does it. 

In conclusion, Stark and Bainbridge’s theory of secularization leaves an indispensable role for religion to play in society (i.e., the provision of supernatural compensators), even though it also maintains that the authority exerted by religion in various social institutions has diminished. So, while religion may change over time, become more privatized and even de-objectified, as Berger argues, this does not predict the end of religion’s role in individual lives.
____________________________________________________________
References:

Dawson, Lorne L. Comprehending Cults: The Sociology of New Religious Movements. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.