7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
1/16
Wiley and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
http://www.jstor.org
From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
Author(s): Karel DobbelaereSource: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 39, No. 4, 50th Anniversary Issue:Moving Forward by Looking Back: A Half-Century of the SSSR, RRA, and Social ScientificResearch on Religion (Dec., 2000), pp. 433-447Published by: on behalf ofWiley Society for the Scientific Study of ReligionStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388078Accessed: 23-11-2015 03:45 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1388078http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1388078http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssrhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
2/16
From Religious Sociology
to
Sociology
of
Religion:
Towards Globalisation?
KAREL DOBBELAERE'
In Western
Europe,
r'eligiouis ociology" developed
after the Second WorldWar
and,
in
orderto
improve
ts
theorv
and
methods,
the Societe
International
de
Sociologie Religieuse (SISR)
was established in
1948. After
comparing
ts aims
w
ith those
of'the
American
associations,
the
aluthor
isculsses
he
reception
oqfreligiolus
ociology
bv the churches
n
Euirope.
The churches were interested
n the
descriptionan1d
nalyses
of'the
social
context in
w,hich
they were embedded,
but
theV ejected
he
analyses
of
'religion er
se. This
ambiguous
relationship
can also
be traced n thedevelopment
f'the
SISR,
whereover the
years
a
"soc
ology'
oJf'eligion
"
developed.
To
explain
this
change,
the auithor
tresses,
among
other
factors,
the
important
mpactof'the
nteractionsbetween
Eureopean
nd
Amner-icanociologists of'religionduring the conffrencesorganizedbyl rofessional associations. Theprof ssion
and
not
the churchesbecame the refrrence
oJ'a
new
gener-ation
fl'sociologists.Religion
ratherthan the
churches
became the f6cus
of'studl;
iwhich
estoredour
discipline
to mainstreanm
ociologi.
In a
concluding
section,
nelw
tasks
Jbr
heproJessional rganizations
re
suggested
and the need
for
intercontinental esearch
projects
s
str-essed.
After World
War
II,
a
new
branchof
sociology,
religious sociology ("sociologiereligieuse"),
developed
in
Western
Europe
and did so
rather
rapidly.
Its
roots
can be
tracedback
to
Le
Bras,
who
in
1931 initiated
he
study
of the
religious
life
in
France,responding
o the
appeal
of Mauss
to extend
the field
of
study
of
Durkheimand his
school
from the
non-Westernworld studied
by
anthropologists
and
ethnologiststo contemporarynon-primitivereligions (Le
Bras
1956, 587-
99). Le Bras stimulatedresearch nto the participation ates in religious practices--as they are
documented
n, among
other
sources,parochial
and
Episcopal
archives
and
thereportsof preachers
at the folk
missions, regularly
organized
n
Catholic
parishes.
He
established ypes
of -involvement
in
the CatholicChurch
and
sought
to
explain
differences
n
involvement.The developmentof the
subject
was also stimulated
by
the
discovery
of American
empiricism:
research
projects
were
promoted,surveysundertaken,
nd researchcenters established(Poulat 1990, 13, 23-24; Remy
1999, 101-5).
J. Leclercq,
a
professor
of moral
philosophy
who developed courses
in
sociology at the
Universitas
Lovaniensis,
was aware
of this
trend and
assembled in
Leuven
(Belgium)
sixteen
professors
and
researchers rom
Belgium, France,
and the Netherlands
o
exchange information
on the teachingof sociology at universitiesin theirrespectivecountriesandto discuss research
methods
n
religious
sociology.
These scholars elt
the
need for more
regular
contactswith others
engaged
n similar
esearch.
To this
end, they
foundedon 3
April
1948 the
Conference
nternationale
de
Sociologie Religieuse
(CISR),
that laterbecame the Societe Internationalede
Sociologie
des
Religions(SISR).
Still laterbecame
known n
English
as the Internationalocietyfor theSociology
of
Religion (ISSR). They
called for
a
second conference
in
Leuven on 28-30
April
1949.' This
year
the
society
is more than
fifty years
old
and
celebrated
this
anniversaryduring
its
25th
Conference
n
Leuven
(Belgium),
as
you
are
celebratingyour
50th
anniversary
now in
Boston.
Allow me
on
behalf
of the
SISR,
of
which the
president
of
SSSR
is a
member,
o
congratulate ou
on
this felicitous occasion.
Many
members
of the
SSSR,
the
RRA,
and
the
ASR
have
contributed
to
SISR
conferences,
and
such associations
are
not
confined
to
recent
years.
As
long ago
as 195
1,
the
acts
of
the thirdSISR
Conference
held
in
Breda
Holland),reportedpapers
written
by Fichter,
Nuesse, Francis,
and
Thomas. These mutual
exchanges
have
stimulated
he
development
of
the
sociology
of
religion
in
Europe,
and
they may
have influencedtrends
n
America's
sociology
of
religion.
Karel Dobbelaere
i.s
Profr'ssorEmeritus,Catholic
University;
f
Leuzven
nd the Universityof Antwerp,Departmentof
Sociologv,
Van
Evenlstraat
B,
B-3()()(,
Leuven,
Belgiuzm.
-mail:karel.dobbelaere
soc.Kuzleuzven.ac.be
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
3/16
434
JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OF RELIGION
The name of the SISR clearly expressed ts objectives. It was foundedto allow specialists in
religious sociology to meet internationally,o compare
he resultsof theirstudies, and to improve
theirmethodsof research.Such a sociology had to be at the service of the CatholicChurch. n the
termsof its founder:"Todaywe witness a lot of confusionin the minds of the people. It is difficult
to renderan exact account of the situationand of religious
life in particular.But those who have
the mission to evangelize should know before they
act and, for this reason, consider the real
situationwith the
help
of social methodsof
observation
which allow preciseresults o be attained"
(Leclercq
as cited
in
Dobbelaere
1989, 378).
In
1951
at the 3rdConference n Breda Netherlands),
divergencesemerged:
was
religious sociology
based on theology (e.g., Monzel, Geck, and Furfey)
or was
it an
empirical
science? And
if it
was
an
empirical science, what features of the Church
might be studied?According to De Volder,religious
sociology should be restricted o the social
forms of
religious
life
(organizations,religious
orders, etc.) and the relations between these
structures ndsecular
groups parishes,
ocial
classes,
etc.). Le Bras'sapproachwas clearlybroader.
He did not exclude,as did De Volder, he studyof objectivedata on religious life, suchas rituals,
law, ethics, and so on, nor the relationsbetween religious life and secular realities, such as
demography, conomy,
and
family (De
Volder
1951,
218-19;
Le Bras
1951, 18-19; 1955, 10-13;
1958, 41-44).
Le Bras's
position prevailed
in
the SISR,but the sociological approachremained
religiously committed:
not
only
was researchto be at the service of the Churchbut was to be
undertaken y Catholics,
whose schemesof
analysis
were
necessarily ributary
o
their ranscendent
faith
and
whose observations
houldbe
enlightenedby
their
religious
commitment
Labens 1960,
18-19; Lebret 1955, 206).
Although the
founder wanted
a
non-denominational
SISR,
as stated
in
resolution
4
of the
founding
charter,
he initial
statutes
were soon
changedagainst
his
explicit
will
under he
pressure
of thepresidentof KASKI(CatholicSocial-Ecclesiastical nstitute,Netherlands).The new statues
adopted
in
1951,
stated
in
Article
2
that the
aim
of the SISR was to establish contacts
between
Catholics
engaged
in
religious sociology (Dobbelaere1989, 378-79;
Poulat
1990, 20-21).
This
was
a
clear
consequence
of
the
epistemologicaloptions
of the membersof the
association,
and the
fact
that,
from
1951
onwards,
he conferenceswere attended
by many
clerics
who were involved
in
pastoral
work but
who
lacked
any sociological
background.
As
a
consequence,
and
this until
the
9th Conference
n
Montreal
Canada),
both
clerics,
who were interested
n
the results of the
studies,
and
researchers,
who
were
more interested
n
theoreticaland
methodologicalquestions,
participated
n
the
debates. Their
divergent expectations
emerged very clearly
at
the sessions:
clerics were
not interested
n
scientific
discussions,
which
they interrupted
with
questions
about
results,
and
scientists
interrupted
he
discussion
of resultswith
methodologicalquestions.
While
the clerics
wanted
results,
he
scientists
wanted
o
improve
heirresearch nstruments nd
to
discuss
theory.
No one
was
particularly appy
with the mixed attendance
at
the
biennial conferencesand
the
contradictory
emands
esulting
rom
t.
Because
so muchattention ocused on
methodological
and
theoretical
ssues,
the
clerics
who attended ost confidence
in
the results
that
were
presented
and
gradually
eased to attend he conferences.
A
new
generation
f
sociologists
was also
emerging
which
would lead
to
changes
in
the
organization.
But before
discussing this,
how do the aims of
the
SISR
compare
o those of the American
associations?
A
comparison
betweenthese associations
as far as theiraims are concernedallows for certain
conclusions.
RRA
and
SISR wanted to stimulateresearch
at
the service of
the Churchesand to
inform he Churches
of the
new
post-war
social and cultural limate
n
which
they
were
operating,
to help them to adapttheir evangelical strategiesto this new environment.As a professional
organization
of
sociologists,
SISR stressed the
importance
of
methodologically
sound
research,
but,
with their heoretical
nd
methodologicaldiscussions, hey
alienated
hose
clergy
who attended
the
meetings.
The
religiouspersonnel
were betterserved
by
a
membership
n
the
RRA,
and
if
they
were indeed interested
in
the
professional discussions they
could
moreover
attend the
SSSR
meetings. The SSSR and the SISR wanted additionally
o promote the study of religion,
which
had always been at the heartof sociological researchas attestedby the publicationsof Durkheim
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
4/16
GLOBALIZATIONOF
THE
SOCIOLOGYOF
RELIGION 435
and Weber.Finally, the aims of the AmericanCatholic Sociological Society (ACSS),
SISR, and
SSSR also reveal the difficulties religious
sociologists hadwithvalue free sociology functions
and dysfunctions are anything but
moral concepts and the so-called political, economic, and
family "man"of the fifties and sixties. The conception of humanbeings as role-players,adapting
to the values
and norms of the different sub-systems
in
which they are engaged
in, destroyed
notions
of
the unity
and the
oneness
of humanbeings and also theirmoralresponsibility
o fellow
humans,humanity,
ndGod. Some of these sociologistswanted o imbuesociologywith a religious
vision of humankind
nd,
n
this
way,
resolve
the
tensionexperiencedbetweenreligionand science.
One
may
wonderhow
they
would now react to the sociological view of Niklas Luhmann,
who
founded
his
systems theory
on communications, tating
that the
person is not
an
integralpart of
the social system
but
only
an
element of its environment.How
did
the
Churchesreact to
the
development
of a
religious sociology.
THE REACTIONS OF THE CHURCHES2
The Catholic Church
When
Leclercq
nformedRome
of
the
founding
of the
SISR
in
1949,
he
was warnedagainst
"social
research
n
the field
of
religion
which could be done
starting
rom
postulates
and
using
methods of the 'sociological science,'
as it is understood
generally" Leclercq
1958, 25). In fact,
Rome warnedspecifically againstpositivism
and the Durkheimian chool. At the 5th
Conference,
Leclercq
stated
forcefully
that
"religious
sociology"
did
not need
"speculative
sociology"
like
Durkheim's,
but
an
American-type ociology,
which
he characterized
s a
study
of facts. The
gist
of his argumentwas almost"Sayit with figures,"and this at about hesame timethatSorokinwas
warning ociologists
n his Fads andFoibles
of Sociologyagainst
a
quantitativeociology.However,
Leclercq
also saw
a
danger
n
the mere
study
of mere facts. Social
facts
did not exclude the need
for
principles,
and he warned
against
the
danger
that
statistical trends be taken as normative.
Sociologists
could offer
only insights
into
social
conditions of beliefs and
practices; hey
could
never
provide
norms.
Furthermore,
Leclercq
insisted
that
"religioussociology
could be pursued
only by religious minds,
and in
particular,
hat the
sociological study
of the Catholic
Church
should be done
by
Catholics
knowing
theology."Religion
cannotbe studiedfrom the
outside,
he
claimed,
without the risk
of
false
interpretationLeclercq 1955, 160-65; 1958, 23-26).
That
type
of
sociology
was
prevalent
n
the 1950s.
It
helped
the Church
n
its
pastoral
reflections
by giving
it
a
better
knowledge
of the field.
It also infused he Churchwith rational
echniques
of
management
and
planning,
which were
alreadyapplied
n
otherareasof
activity.
In Latin
America,Africa,
and
Asia
it
producedpertinent
nformation o
help
the social
development
of underdeveloped
egions,
while
at
the
same
time
maintaining
a
critical
view of the
actions
of the Church
Remy 1999,
101
6).
That
type
of research
received
a
positive
evaluationas
long
as it restricted tself to
describing
the
situation, eaving
the
interpretation
o the
religious
actors.Nor was
it
allowed to interferewith
the
teachings
and the
organization
of
the
Church-their
affirmed
supernatural
haracter
placed
them
beyond
all claims of
investigation
and
analysis.
The
strained elationsbetween
sociology
and
the
Churchcame to a
temporary
ruce
with the
Second
VaticanCouncil
(Remy 1999, 106-7). However,
the
hierarchy
esumed ts distance since
the decline of
religiosity
seemed
to be
linkedto
profound
ocial
processes,
which it was
incapable
of
curbing.
Rome
also felt
threatened
y
the tendencies
hat
emerged
n the
DutchPastoralCouncil
(1966-1970),
where the
impact
of
sociology
was
evident.
An
objectifiedbelief,
expressed
n
fixed
formulas
that were
imposed
from
above,
was
being replacedby
reflection on
beliefs,
thus
also
taking
the
subjectiveexperiences
of
the
people
into
account:belief should have
a
meaning
for the
concrete situations
n
life.
The
hierarchyshould rather olicit than impose, thus recognizing
the
responsibilityof the laity, even in mattersof policy (Laeyendecker1992, 105). All
this led to a
change
in attitudeof the Churchhierarchy owardssociology. On the other hand,emerging
new
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
5/16
436 JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY
OF RELIGION
movements within the Church, ike the charismatic
movement and the resurgence
of
popular
religion,which expresseda rather
oluntaristic
ttitude,
eemed to indicate he limits of the
impact
of
the
social
context. The
sociological
discourse lost
credibility
to the extent that it
seemed to
overestimate he effectsof the context(Remy 1999, 108-9).A new typeof relationshipdeveloped
between the Churchand
sociology:
a
mutual affirmationof
autonomy.However,
this was also
caused
by
the
professionalization
f
sociologists
interested
n
the field of
religion.
I
will return o
this later. Let us
first
proceed
with an
analysis
of the
relationships
between
sociology
and the
other Churches
The ProtestantChurches
Campiche(1999) calls
the
relationshipof Protestantism o
sociology ambiguous. Even
if
Lutheranismwas more
open
to
sociology
than
Calvinism,
"its
highly theologicalconception
of
the Churchon thewhole causes it to be rather eserved owards he social and humansciences in
ecclesiasticaland
religious
matters"
1999, 118).
However,
an
asynchronical hange
was detectable
in
the 1960s and 1970s varyingfromcountryto
country:
he
Germans,having money to do the
research,were the forerunners.
his
changewas to
a
large
extent
due
to the
impact
of the
Ecumenical
Assembly
of New Delhi
(1961),
which underscored
the
flagrant injustices
in
the
world,
the
secularizationof the so-called Christian
world,
and the de-christianization f
a
largepart
of its
population.
If I
understand
Campiche correctly,sociological research
was at that
time rather
utilitarian:
how
to
organize
the
Churchand how
to build
a link
between the members and the
institution
all of which
revealed
a
clear marketingattitude.The
questionasked
was: What
s the
direction of social
change
and
which historical
forms
of
the Church
might
be
changed? Only
much laterwerequestionsasked aboutbeliefs. However,theChurcheswere mostly interested n
sociological
research or clarifications
t
offered about the social situation.
Sociological studies, especially
those
with
a
rigorous
methodology,
nfluenced
the
attention
of the
Churches: hemes
like
the
equality
of men
andwomen,the impoverishment f
a
largepart
of the
population,
he
rethinking
of
spirituality,
nd
especially
concernsabout Protestant
dentity
were put on the
agenda.
Such
studies
also
had
an
impact on the ecumenical agenda:
things
ProtestantsndCatholics
oulddo together, uchas theregulation f religionbythestate
Campiche
1999, 128).
The
topics
are social rather han
theological,
and
Campiche
s
forced to conclude
that
"the
question
remainsof how to
implement
a
theory
which allows the
articulation
f a
diagnosis
with the
religious
norm"'
Campiche1999, 129).Indeed,
n
publicized
eactions o the
sociological
study Croireen Suisse(s), a German heologianformulated ines of pastoralactionbased on a
global theory of
religion
and
modernityrather
han in
direct referenceto the
sociological study
underreview.This
correctly uggests
to
Campiche
hat
he
study
was a
pretext
o formulate emarks
that are
rootedelsewhere.
A
Catholic
heologianreacting
o the same
study
took a critical
view
of
societal
evolution,
especially
the
process
of functional
differentiation,
o reaffirm
the critical
prophetic
function of
religion,
that
is,
as
Campicheemphasizes, to reaffirmthe
fundamentally
distinctive character f the
evangelical interpolation.
t
appears
hat
we were
still far
from
a
real
dialogue
between
sociology
and
theology
as
far
as the hard core of
religion was concerned.As
long
as
sociology confined itself to
an
auxilary unction
and left the interpretations f the facts to
the
clergy,
then
everything
n
the
garden ooked
lovely. Voye and Billiet (1999,
1
1),commenting
on
the
analysis
of
Remy
and
Campiche,put
it
this
way:
"Protestantism nd Catholicism
argely
follow the
same
hesitant
ourse,rapprochement ppears
ll
the
more
possible
if
sociology confines
itself to
an
ancillary
role
and limits itself to offering analyses of the 'social,' being
carefulnot to
make
a
similar
analysis of religion itself."This is what a new generationof
sociologists could no
longer accept.
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
6/16
GLOBALIZATION
OF THE SOCIOLOGY
OF RELIGION
437
The Church
of
England
Martin's
analysis
(1999)
of
the
relationship
between the
Church
of
England
reveals
only
a
slightly differentpattern: herenever was a strict institutional ink between sociology and the
Church,
onlylargely
nformal ies. Before
the SecondWorld
War,
"variety
f
normative
ociology
was
producedrelated
o the
idea
of a
Christian
ociety" (Martin
1999, 132).
Later
on,
one drew
on
sociological
expertise
for
debates on
the
natureof church
structures
and for
local
surveys
into
religiouspractice
or
community
"needs."More
recently,
some
sociologists
have been
called
in,
along
with
representativesof other
sciences,
to
participate
n
discussions
on
such
topics
as
the
ordination
of
women,
the natureof
the curriculum
n
the
numerous
religious
colleges,
the
search
for
a
"third
way"
between socialism and
liberalism,
and the
social and
religious
context of
British
involvement
n
Europe.
Martin
ees
the
participation
f
sociologists
in
these debates as
a
certain
recognitionof the
discipline.
However,he also shows thepersistent"academic-ecclesiastical"ensionswhen sociologists
engage
in
criticisms of
liturgical
reform
and the
"managerial"
rientations
of
the Church.
"One
majorsector of concern
where
sociology
is
not
only
of
relevance
but
brought
directly
nto
play
is
that of
social comment in
the
context of ethical
and
theological
thinking on
contemporary
dilemmas,"
which
according
o
Martin
"fits well the
popular
notion
that
sociology
is
really
a
sub-
branchof
welfare and
doing good."But
also
tensions reveal
themselves
here,
for
example,
about
"normative
onceptions of the 'nature'
of
genderorientation"
1999,
135-36).
Martin
concludes
(1999, 135) thatthe
gap
between "the
professional
clerics"and
academics
continues. Even if
the
former
have
a
"vague sense" about
the
eventual
usefulness of
sociology, they
often
content
themselves
with
ad hoc
information, gathered
n a
shoestring
budget";
hey
also have
"a
hesitancy
about
grand
heory."
n
this
way they
reflect the
general
character f
Englishsociety.Ontheother
hand, here s
also
an
attitude
present
hat
most of
"these
ssues
are
really
he
provinceof
psychology
rather han
sociology."
As in the
Catholic
Church,
his
is
linked o
a
voluntaristic
iew of
humankind
and
society,
which is
averse to contextual
hinking
and
immune
to its
impact,
except,as
revealed
by Campiche's
analysis
of
Protestantism,
n
a
prophetic
critique
on
the
way
society is
evolving.
The
Eastern Orthodox
Church
The
distrustof
the
Eastern
OrthodoxChurch
owards
sociology, and
sociology of
religion in
particular,s
even
more
radical han
n the
other
Churches.This
distrust s,
according o
Makrides
(1999),
linked to their
origins and to
the lack
of ties with
the
intellectual
traditionsof
Eastern
Europe.
Sociology
and
the
sociology
of
religion
are
considered to
be
an
importfrom
the
West,
originally
linked to
positivism. The
sociology
of
religion
that
developed
in
the Eastern
Socialist
countries was
a
rigid
ideological
approach
o
religion
that
was
destined
to
help
the
communist
states to
eradicate
religion.
At
the
end of
the
communist
regimes,
these
countriesdid not
have
at
their
disposal
any
sociology
that
embraced an
objective
approach
to
social
phenomena
and
especially
to
religion.
Furthermore,
he
Orthodox
Churches
ried to
re-establish
here
the
social
power
andthe
prestige
hey
had
ost.
This
preoccupation
et them
"take
a
conservative,
nationalistic
and
even
reactionary tance,"
which
hardly
avoredthe
promotionof
a
dispassionate
attention o
somewhat
critical
sociological
analyses
(Makrides
1999, 139-43). The
distrust
of
sociological
analysis
did not
stop
at
the
frontiers
of
the old
communist
bloc.
The
Greek
Orthodox
Church, ike
its sisterChurches, howedsome interestonly in surveysthatprovided nformation onsidered o
be
useful
to
the
Church n
helping
its
social
mission. Here one
finds
an
affinity withthe
situation
in
Western
Europe,
where the
social
involvement of
the
Churcheshas
always
offered
possible
encounterswith a
predominantly
escriptive
ociology.
In
Greece there
developedwhat
Makrides
calls a
"Christian
sociology"
taught
and
performed
by
theologians,
without any
academic
sociological
training,
going hand n
handwith
social ethicsand
pastoral tudies.
They
considered
"Orthodox
heologyas a
truly empirical
science
with its own
articulated
cientific
methodology,
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
7/16
438
JOURNALFOR
THE
SCIENTIFIC
TUDY OF
RELIGION
which is basically the
same as that of other
scientific
disciplines... [Such] Orthodox
Christian
sociology was basedon the ideas
found in theBible, in the
Patristic iterature, nd
in the worksof
otherOrthodox hinkers
aboutsociety,its problems
andthe necessary
remedies" Makrides
1999,
146-47).
If, in more recent
times, the
GreekOrthodoxChurch
has shownmore interest
n sociological
research for example,
aboutthereligiouspress,
the socio-religious
conditionof
Greekuniversity
students,and the social
conditionof Greek
clergy), it is because "the
Churchhas
no interestat all
in theoreticalresearch;
ather, t has an explicit
practical
nterest n the processes
within society
and intendsto transform
t completelyon the
basis of its own principles"
Makrides
1999, 150).
OutsideEasternEurope,
heconnectionbetween
sociologyand the respective
OrthodoxChurches
has been
much easier,
and studieswere commissioned
of independent
organizations*-owever,
such
studies "hadagain practical
mportance
or the Church"Makrides
1999, 153).
In his conclusions, Makrides 1999,
154) points outthat"if one
takes into
considerationhow
religionis viewed by the social sciences .. thegap dividingsociology of religionfrom its objectof
research, .g.,
ChristianOrthodoxy,s probably
unbridgeable,;'ociology
andOrthodoxy epresent
"two
quite
diverging
perspectives
on human society and nature
that cannot be reconciled."
"Nevertheless,
hese remarksdo
not signify the total
impossibilityof a collaboration
between
sociologists
and Orthodox hinkers
n
the
future.
But this can be successfully
accomplishedonly
by
understanding
nd
coming
to
termswith
the 'othemess' of the
two
respective
sides as well
as
by
avoiding
their biased
and
ideologically
-orientedconflation."
A Conclusion
After
having
reviewed the
same articles about
the relationships
of the various Christian
Churches
and
sociology, Voy6
and Billiet
rightfully
stress
three
permanent
eatures,which,
in
my
opinion,
aremost
forcefullypresent
n Orthodox
Christianity:1)
a
continuing
distrust f
sociology's
reductionist
vision
positivist
or
Marxist; 2)
a
certainrecourse
to
sociological
descriptions
and
analyses
of the social context
n
which
they
are
imbedded;
and
(3)
a
more or less
rigid rejection
of
analyses
of religion itself,
its institutions,
he
reception
of its
dogmas
and its
rites,
the
effects of
its
word.
In these areas,the
reservations
egarding
ociology unquestionably
have
a
long
life
(1999,
13; my translation
f the
original
French ext, p. 27).
It is
clear
that
with
the
professionalization
f
the sociology
of religion,
an
independent
cientific
approach
was
going
to
develop.
From
"Religiouis ociology"
to
"Sociology
of Religion"
This evolution
may clearly
be
seen
in
the
changes
that
took
place
in the
Conference
Internationale
e Sociologie religieuse which
became
he
SISR)
andalso in theAmericanCatholic
Sociological
Society,
which
changed
its name
to the Association
or
the
Sociology of Religion
(Reiss 1970;
see
also
1989, Sociological
Analysis [50]4,
Fiftieth
Anniversary
Special Issue).
I
confine
my analysis
to the
SISR and extend
the
commentary
advanced
n
a
previous
discussion
of
these
changes (Dobbelaere
1989).
The SISR
very
soon
became
an
international
ssociation.
At its
5th Conference
1956),
262
persons
attended
from 18 countries located
in
Europe,
North
and
South
America;
in
1970,
the
then
secretary-general
f the
association,
Cannon
JacquesVerscheure,
tated
in
the Bulletin
de
Liaison of the association hat366 personsfrom40 countrieswereregisteredwith the association
and received the
Bulletin.
They
were from
all
continents,
but
especially
from
Europe
and North
America:
respectively
60 and
26
percent.
These
figures
have
slightly
fluctuated
over the
years,
depending
on the
venue
of the conference.
In 1997 I
counted
that
20
percent
of the
membership
worked
in
Canada
and
the
USA,
65
percent
in
Europe,
and
15
percent
came
from the other
continents.If, in terms of percentages,
EasternEuropeanand Russian
members
remained
the
same (6 percent), he composition
changeddrastically:
fter he fall of the BerlinWall,
sociologists
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
8/16
GLOBALIZATIONOF
THE
SOCIOLOGYOF
RELIGION
439
from
Bulgaria,the
Czech
Republic,
Lithuania,Romania,
Russia,
Slovakia,
and
Ukraine oined
the
participants f
longerstanding
rom
Hungary,Poland,
and
Yugoslavia Croatia,
Slovenia,
and
Serbia)(Dobbelaere
1999, 90-91, 95).
Not only were the audiences international,but the invited papersat the conferencesalso
represented
an
international
pectrum.
From
the 2nd
Conference
on,
the international
haracter
was apparent: tudieswere
presented
rom
Belgium,
Germany,France,
Holland,
and
Spain.
At
the
3rd Conferencewe can add
Canada,Chili,
Columbia,Hungary,
taly,
he
United
States,
and Zaire.
Later
conferences
confirmed
his trend
and,
consequently,
extended
the
scope
of
the
association.
The
SISR
truly
lived
up
to
its
international
spirations.
This
was
of
course
largely
occasioned
by
the
rotating
ocations of the
conferences: he
twenty-five
conferences
organized
up
to the
present
took
place
in thirteen
different
countries,
ncluding
wo
in
Canada.
The association
also
sponsored
two
regional
conferences.,
one in
Japan
and one in Mexico.
The founder wanted
it
to
be
a
non-dominational
onference,
but under the
impact
of
the
Dutch it became"apastoralandconfessional, i.e., Catholic,organization"s assesseciby Le Bras
at the 6th
Conference
(1955,
9). However,
from the first
meetings,
references to
sociological
studies
on
Protestantismwere
made
in
reports
to the
conference,
a
fact that
was linked to
the
existence
of
religions
other han
Catholicism n
the
country
of
the
discussant.
At
the 5th
Conference
(1956),
for
the firsttime
a
non--Roman
Catholic
presented
a
paper: he
AnglicanRev. W.
Pickering
(Poulat
1990, 23).
At the 6th
Conference
(1959), the
president
of the SISR
officially
welcomed
participants
who
were
not
Catholic.At the
7th Conference
1962), researchersof
religions other
thanCatholicismwere included n
the
official
program
f the
conference.
However,
Canon
Boulard,
heading
a
small
group, protested
vehemently
in
the Executive
Committee at
the end of the
conferenceandeven
threatenedo
establishanother nternational
onference aithful o
the
"origins"
of the CISR. At the 9th Conference(1967), on the clergy,we find, for the first time, papers
explicitlydealing
with other
churches:
Anglican,Lutheran,
nd
other
Protestant
denominations.
The
studies
presented
n
the
Acts
of this
conference,published
orthe first ime
by
the
secretary-
general,
were
very particularistic.
Only
40
percent
of the
papers
had references o
studies outside
the
field of
religioussociology: these were
references
o
generalsociology
and
social
psychology,
sociology
of
stratification,
sociology
of the
professions,
and
sociology
of
organizations
and
bureaucracy.
Of
barely
a
dozen
names
cited
outside the
specific
field of
religious
sociology, only
Parsons and
Weber
were
referred o
in
more than two
papers.
Even
the selected
bibliography,
published
in
the Acts under the
general
title
"Clergy
in
Churchand
Society,"
was
restricted
o
socio-religious
studies
of
Catholic
clergy.
Consequently, eligious
sociology
was
self-centered,
auto-sufficient,
and
particularistic,mostly
at
the service of
one
Church,
and
"sociological"
only
in
its methods. The Catholic
Church
clearlywanted to control
the
output
of
religious
sociology:
publications
of
the SISR had to
be
published
with
an
imprimatur
nd a
nihil
obstat.
The SISR
was
able to defend itself
against
the Vatican
only by
stressing
its
methodologicalobjectives and the
services
it
could
provide
for the
Church.This
strained
elationship
between SISR and
Rome made
the presidentand the
secretary-general
propose
new statutes for
the SISR
in
1968,
and
they
suggested
in
the
Bulletitn
e liaison
asking
the
Holy
See for
its
approval.Many
members
objected
vehemently,
and
the Vatican
was never
contacted.It is clear that a
new
generationof
academics
could not
accept
the
"self'-imposed
limitations
of the
objectives
of SISR.
They
wanted to link
up
with
the mainstream f
sociology
and
the
sociological traditionof
Weberand
Durkheim.Drastic
changes
occurred
at
the end of
the
1960s.
Whatwas new in the proposed statutes?The purposeof SISR was no longerlimited to the
methodology
of
sociology;
almost
all
references o
religious
bodies were
eliminated,except that
the
membership
of
the Executive
Committee
should include at
least two Roman
Catholics and
two membersof
otherChristian
hurches.
The active
membership
of
the association
was reserved
for social
scientists "interested n the progressof religion,"although o allow clergy and
pastoral
workers
o participate, ny person
nterested n thesociology of
religionmightbecome an
"'affiliated
member."'
"preparatoryommittee"was
establishedto prepare or
each conference:until
that
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
9/16
440 JOURNAL
FORTHE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OF RELIGION
time some papershad been offeredby membersand
otherswere solicitedby the secretary-general.
It is clear that the secretary-general, atherEmile
Pin, recognized that changes had taken place,
partlyas a consequenceof the "globalization" f the
membership,which had broughtmany non-
Catholics believersandnon-believers into the association.This was also manifest nthe papers
presented. However, he still seemed to think that
"reverence" hould be paid to the "religious
past"
of
the association:
hence the
category
of "affiliatedmembers,"which allowed clergy to
participate; he requirement
hat
Catholicsand Christiansbe on the board;and the stipulation
hat
members
should be "interested
n
the
progress
of religion."
The
10th
Conferencewas held
in
Rome
(1969).
The
Acts containpapersoffering
a
criticism
of
"religioussociology,"
a
discussion of theoreticaland methodological ssues
in
the sociological
study
of
religion,
and
studies
on
sects, atheism,
and
irreligion.Almost
all
papers
had
references
o
mainstream ociology, Durkheim
and
his school
included.BryanWilson attended he conference
and was referred o
in
otherpapers,and other studies explicitly referred
o
recentworks of Berger
and Luckmann,who formulated he centralquestionsof the sociology of religion and criticized
"churchsociology."
At that
conference,Canon Jacques Verscheurewas designated as
the
new
secretary-general,
o
remain
n
office until 1985.
Together
with
thepresidentsBryanWilson(1971
1975) and David Martin 1975-1983), Verscheure,
n
his first years
in
office, had
a
major mpact
on
the association(Poulat 1990, 28-29).
As the GeneralAssembly of SISR
in
Rome decided
to abrogate"inthe new statutesandin
the activities"
all
denominational eferences,
a
revision
of the statutesof 1968 became essential.
In fact those statuteshad neverbeen put to the vote.
They were published nthe Bulletinde liaison
de
la
CISR 1968, 1) and,according
o
secretary-general
in
n
the next Bulletin
1968, 2), definitely
accepted, since
no
objections
had be formulated To mark the
openness
of SISR
it
was also
decided that the next conference (1970) shouldtakeplace in Opatija Yugoslavia).The central
theme
of
this
conference, "Religion
and
Religiosity,
Atheism and Non-belief
in
Industrialand
Urban Society,"
was
a
considerable
change from
the themes
of
former conferences. There the
General
Assembly accepted
new statutes. The most
importantchanges
were: the statement n
article
4
that
the purpose
of SISR was
"purely
scientific";abolishing the category
of
"affiliated
members,"
which excluded non-academic
persons3;
and
eliminating
the
clauses
that
"members
should be interested
in the
progress
of
religion"
and
that
"the
membership
of the Executive
Committee should include
at
least
two
Roman Catholics
and two members of other Christian
Church."
Consequently,
n
Opatija
he SISR
sought
to
shed the last
vestiges
of its
religious past.
In 1971 it also became officially
a
bilingual(English-French) ssociation,whereasbefore
it
been
rather
a
French-speaking
ssociation
(Poulat 1990, 17), although
n
previous
conferences
many
English papers
had been
presented.
Since
1971,
the
object
of
the SISR has not been further
hanged.
It
is
specified
in
articles 3
and
4
of the statutes that: the
SISR
shall be
a
scientific association whose
objects
shall be
to
advance
sociology
and relatedsciences
in
the
analysis
and
interpretation
f
religious
and related
phenomena.
To
fulfil
its
purpose,
he
organization
hall
give priority
o the two
following objectives:
"(a)
to
promote hroughout
he world relationsbetween
sociologists and,
more
generally,
between
specialists
of the various
disciplines
concerned
with the
object
of the
Association;(b)
to
organize
periodical
conferences."
The
English
name of the association made this
very
clear: InternationalConference
for the
Sociology ofReligion. However,
he
French
namewas
not
changed.
The
term
sociologie religieuse
expressed orsomeacontinuingnostalgia.However,perhapsmoreimportantwas thepresenceof
members
of the French
Groupe
de
Sociologie
des Religions (GSR),
createdwithin the CNRS
in
1954, who wanted
to
differentiate hemselves
from the
religious sociology
of
the
SISR.
Thus,
it
was not
because
of
any peculiarity
of the
French anguage
hat
the
term
sociologie religieuse
was
retained.
It was rather
hat
it clearly expressed
an
opposition
between
themselves
and the
SISR,
based on a distinctionmade
by the founderof the Groupe,
Le Bras a distinctionof aim:pastoral
versus scientific sociology; and one of level: sociographyversus sociology, the former ometimes
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
10/16
GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGY
OF RELIGION
441
identifiedwith flat book-keeping
Poulat1990, 18-19).The Englishnameexpressed he orientation
at which the SISR aimed;theFrench itle expressedthe "past":
pastoralsociography. t was only
at the occasion of the last change of statutes n Leuven at the
18th Conference (1985) that the
association became ConferenceIntemationalede Sociolgie des Religions. Finally, the original
name CISR (Conf6rence)was changed
n
1989 to SISR (Societe).
However,
the
major
aim
of
the last
change
of
statutes(1985)
was intendedto
promote
the
democratization
of the Society.
An
elected council was instituted.From now on the members
could elect,
for termsof
four
years,
heirrepresentatives n the ExecutiveCommittee, he president,
the vice-president who is
in fact the president lect), andthe secretary-general. he representatives
on the Executive
Committee,
but
not the other
officials,
were
eligible
to run for a
second
term of
office.
Before this
arrangement
was
instituted,
at
each conference;
a
nominating ommittee,
at the
discretionof the memberspresent
of the Executive
Committee,
lectedby simple majorityofficers
and members
for
theposts
that were vacant
on
the Executive Committee(Poulat 1990, 27).
A provisionof the 1968 statuteshadalready nstituted hepossibilityof preparingheplenary
sessions of
each
conference through
he
meeting
of
a
"preparatory
ommittee."
It
was President
Wilson
who
operationalized
his
provisionby assembling
n
Oxford
n
1974 a committee
o
prepare
the meetings
of
the 13th Conference
n
Lloret de
Mar
(1975). Since then,
all
SISR conferences
have been preparedby professional
sociologists teaching
at
universities
throughout
he
world,
thus guaranteeing
he
scientific character f
the conference.
The
impactof thefollowing professors
on
the association
was
consequently
very great:Wilson, Martin,Luckmann,Aquaviva, Gannon,
Guizzardi, Isambert, Laeyendecker,Remy, S6guy,
and
Dobbelaere.
Especially
the first
three,
through heir presence
and
writings, helped
a
younger generation
of sociologists of religion to
change
the content
and the
image
of
the
society.
Since
1985,
this task has been undertaken
y
the
Council.
How
ARE THESE CHANGES
TO BE
EXPLAINED?
Firstof all,
as has
already
been
mentioned,
churches
were not interested
n
theoretical
tudies,
and
they
had
started
organizing
heir own
bookkeeping.
In
Belgium,
for
example,
a
yearly
count
was
organized
of the number
of
people present
at the
weekend
services,
and of the numberof
baptisms,religious marriages,
and churchburials.
This
measureresulted
n
the discontinuation
f
many Socio-religious
research
nstitutes,
where
a
religioussociology
was
practiced.
The
sociology
of
religion developed
further
at
universitiesand scientific
research nstitutes.
Majorchanges
occurred
n the
1
960s, especially
at
the end of the
decade,
and the
early
1
970s.
This
was
a
special period:
cultural
change
was
rampant
nd had
a
major
effect
on Catholics.This
became
quite
obvious
in the
drastic
drop
of
Mass
attendance
on
Sundays.
Catholics were
up
against
a
major dentity crisis,
and this also had its
impact
on Catholic
sociologists. Moreover,
a
new
generation
of Catholicsociologists
took
over from
the
former
generation:
he
majority
were
lay persons,
who had received
graduate raining
n
sociology,
and their
primary
reference
group
was
no
longer
the Church. The former
generation, Leclercq, Boulard, Carrier,
De
Volder,
Duocastella, Goddijn, Pin,
Verscheure,
and
others,
were
priests
and
primarily heologians
and
philosophers.
The new
generation
was trained
n
sociology,
in
and outside Catholic
institutions,
and some
had studied
n
the United States.Their
major
reference
group
was
professionalsociologists.
This
becamevery clearin theirprevalentdualmembershipsn the SISR and the ResearchCommittee
for the
Sociology
of
Religion
of the International
Sociological
Association
(ISA). Cipriani,
Guizzardi, Isambert, Laeyendecker,
Maitre, Pace, Remy,
and Dobbelaere met
with
Barker,
Birnbaum,Beckford,
Luckmann,Mol, Wilson,
and other
sociologists
of
religion
at SISR and
ISA. Some
of the core membersof SISR even were
officers of the ISA researchcommittee
(for
example,Beckford,Cipriani, ndDobbelaere).Consequently,SAplayed for many
SISR
members
the same role that he AmericanSociologicalAssociation(ASA) played forACSS members Reiss
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
11/16
442
JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION
1970, 127-28). Many of these young sociologists also participated n conferences in the United
States, that is, the meetings
of
SSSR, ASR,
and
ASA,
where
they
became
acquainted
with the
work of Demerath,Glock, Hadden, Hammond,McGuire, Richardson,Robertson,Roof, Stark,
Wallace,and many others,some of whom also becamemembersof the SISR.
The second generationof the SISR would certainly
agree with RobertoCipriani,who wrote
to me on the occasion
of
the 25th
SISR
Conference
in
Leuven
and the
exhibition
retracing
he
50th anniversary
f the
society:
"Let
me
say
that
all
my
scientific
life has
received
a
fundamental
influence
from
our association (SISR)...
and from
my links
with
ISA, IIS, AISLF,ASR, SSSR,
ASA." Indeed,theAssociation International de Sociologues de Langue
Fran(aise
(AISLF) also
played an important ole for French-speaking ociologists
of religion, who met therewell-known
sociologists
like
Aron, Balandier,Bourdieu,
and
Touraine, ust
as
English-speakers
met
Merton,
Parsons,
and the
leading sociologists
of that ime. Many sociologists of religion
of the
SISR were
able to eat fromboth
linguistic"mangers."Consequently,
he second
generation
of
sociologists
of
religionof the SISR were first and foremost sociologists, whose primaryreferencewas and is
professionalsociology
and no
longer the churches.
The change n the SISR might
also
be explained
by the extensionof its sociological viewpoint.
From the sixties on, religious sociology became
a
"sociology
of Catholicism"as
in
the
ACSS
according o Reiss (1970, 126-27). Sociologists
started tudyingCatholic ife beyond the Church,
and the same was true
n
Protestantism.
n
the NetherlandsandBelgium,forexample,
a
sociology
of"pillarization" eveloped.Sociologists
of
politics
and
of religionstarted tudying heemergence
and developmentof, and changes in, Protestant
nd Catholicorganizations,and their impact on
the
political equilibrium
n
these countries
Billiet,
Dobbelaere,Huyse, Kruyt,Lijphart,Lorwin,
Thung, Thurlings,Remy,
Van
den Brande,Van Doom,
and Voye). This developmentwas not a
cause but a consequenceof the majorchangesin Catholicismand Protestantism.
The FrenchGSRalsoplayedanimportantole in enlarging he scope of studies n the sociology
of
religion,
and membersof this
laboratory
nfluenced
he
evolution
of the SISR
by serving
on the
"preparatoryommittees" hatarrangedts plenarysessions. In an indirectway, they also had an
effect
by refusing
to
readthe
acronym
of the
society
as
"sociologie
of
religion."
A
change
of the
Frenchname of the organizationwould only be possible
if
its intentions
o
change its
"aim
and
level" were
realized,
a
road
the
members
of the
GSR themselves
hadtaken.The title of
Groupe de
Sociologie
des
Religions "clearly
demonstrated ts resolve to take
all
religions
into account"
(Willaime 1999, 349).
The
legacy
of the
group
was the consolidation of the "sociology
of
Catholicism"
[Isambert,
Maitre
and
Poulat],
its
extension to
the
study
of
sects
and
messianic
religions [Desroche
and
Seguy],
theoreticalwork on the precursorsof the sociology of religion
[Desroche, and Isambert],and the introduction
of German sociology of religion into France
[Seguy]" (Willaime 1999, 349-50).
The
major
actors
n
transforming eligioussociology
into
sociology
of
religions
was
a
switch
in
reference
behavior,resulting
from the
identity
crises
of
both Catholicism and Protestantism,
and the
extensive
international ontacts afforded
by
social science itself.
Sociologists
of
religion
wanted
o
be
sociologists
and
ooked
for
professional upport.They
went to international
meetings,
studied the classics
in
the
field,
extended the
scope
of
their
study
to non-institutionalized nd
sectarian orms
of
religion,
and
promoted omparative
esearch.
f
they
had
a
religiousbackground,
they
did not limit the breathof theirstudiesto theirown
religion.
The
primarygoal
of theirstudies
became
insight, knowledge,
and
theory building,
rather han
service
to
religious
bodies.
This
became clear even in the venues of the meetingsof the SISR;since 1969, the SISRhas held its
conferences
in
universities nstead
of on
church
premises.
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
12/16
GLOBALIZATIONOF
THE
SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION
443
LATER DEVELOPMENTS
Consequencesof extending
the
ield
The extensionof
sociological
studiesto Judaism
n
the
GSR,
and
before
that
to
Protestantism,
in "an
area of
researchuntil then predominantly enteredon Catholicism,"not
only diversified
the
discipline,
but
it had an
"internal
ecularizing"
ffect that stimulated ts
renewal
(Azria 1999,
156). Studentsof Judaismhave asked whethercertain
analyticalcategories andconcepts used in
the
sociology
of
religion
and based on an
analysis
of
the Christian
"field,"
can
operate o explain
Jewish
reality,
and whether
epistemological
reflection on these
concepts
does not itself become
imperative Azria 1999, 160). Hames,
in
an articleon
sociology and
Islam,
referred o the same
problems (1999, 181-82).
In
fact,
if
we want to
develop
a
general sociology of "religions,"we
need
to de-christianizeor
de-particularize ur
concepts, including,
as
suggested
by
Azria
and
Hames, the definitionof "religion" tself.
Discussionof this definition s as old as the
discipline.However,during"theperiodof
religious
sociology"
this
discussion
faded
away: sociologists
were
studying
Christian
eligions.
In
Europe,
the discussion
re-emerged
with
the
broadening
of the field into
Judaismand
Islam.
and, more
recently,
t
becamemore animated
with
studies on New
Religious Movements
NRMs). However,
the definition
was not an issue for
those
working
with
a
functional
definition of
religion.
But
functionaldefinitions allow us to talk neitherabout
functionalalternatives or
religion
nor about
"surrogate eligions"(Robertson 1970, 39). Only
substantivedefinitions
of
religion
enable us to
study
ts "functional lternatives." his is the
option
of Yves
Lambert
1991)
for whom
the reference
to
the
"supernatural"
efines the
religious
in
the
symbolic
field
(1997, 63-64).
The search
o
resolve the
dilemma
between functionaland substantialdefinitionswas
intense
in
Europe (Williame
1995,114-25),
as was
discussion
of
the
subject (Brechon
1997, 250-52).
Hervieu-Leger
1997, 25;
see also
1993, 95-120)
wanted to "de-substantiate"
he definition of
religion
and
proposed
he
following working
definition:
religion
is
"a
particularmode
of
believing
(croire)
which
refers to a
tradition,
hat is to
say
to
an
authorized
memory,
as
the
legitimating
authority."
Willaime's solution to the dilemma resulted
in
a
definition that refers
t.o
Hervieu-
Leger's
notionof
a
"lineage,"
ut; o which he added he "charisma f the
founder"who
inaugurates
a
religion, since,
for
him,
"there
s
no
religion
without
a
master
in
religion"
(1995, 125).
Both
stated
that
they
did not offer
a
universal definition but
a
heuristic device that
opens
research
perspectives.
To the
contrary,
at the recent
colloquiumorganizedby
the Association
suisse des
sociologues
de la
religion (1999),
Huber
proposed
he
following
universal
definitionof
religiosity:
it is "a constructionof realitywhose semantic is defined by an instancewhich the individual
assesses as
ultimately
valid."
To what do these discussions lead us? It seems to me that this
universaldefinition
proposed
by
Huberrefers
to the notion of
meaningsystem
as
defined
by
Wuthnow
1976,
2-3,
58-6
1)
and
not to
religiosity.Religiosity
s rather
a
particular
meaningsystem, alongside
others
ike
Marxism,
science
as a
way
of
life, hedonism,nationalism,
and
other"isms."To
differentiate
hem,
I
would
stress that
religiosity
refersto
a
"meta-empirical
eality,"
or
example, deities, spirits,
the "sacred
law,"
a "Sourceof
creation,"
he
Almighty,
and so on.
If
a
religiosity
has
generated
"a
particular
lineage
of beliefs"
in a
community, unctioning
as "a
legitimating
reference for
those
beliefs,"
then we
may
call
it a
religion. However,
such
a
lineage may
or
may
not
have
originated
under
he
impactof a "charismatic ounder."
This
taxonomy
has
consequences
for our work. First of
all,
we should not limit
ourselves to
the
study
of the involvementand the normative
ntegration
of
individuals
n
religions
(churches,
sects,
or
NRMs)
but nclude
n
ourstudies
an
analysis
of the
person'sproper eligiosity
or
spirituality.
This
implies
the
operationalization
of
religiosity,
which means
extending
the
field
of
institutionalized eligion. Secondly,religious
eaders,confrontedwith a decline of the
involvement
of people in
religions, suggest that people lack meaning
systems. They may not have a
religious
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
13/16
444 JOURNALFOR
THE SCIENTIFIC TUDY OF
RELIGION
meaningsystem
but give
meaning to their
lives on the basis
of othermeaning
systems, such
as
hedonismor
materialism.
For that reason,
we shouldalso
include in our studies
the analysis
of
non-religious
meaningsystems
that people
are using. This
would allow for
a study of the use
of
differentmeaningsystems in the differentsub-systemsof the social system. Indeed,it is quite
possible that
even religious people
may be using
alternative
meaning systems
in some of the
social sub-systems.
The diversification
f the religious
scenehas brought
about
a second consequence.
The courts
have had to determine
questions
of public interest
for example,whether
a particular
movement
qualifies
as
a
religion)
or
with
respect
to purelycivil cases
(for example, in custody
cases when
one of the
parents
belongs to
a
"sectarian"
movement).Expert
witnesseswith
scholarlycredentials
have been
called
in
to
testify by the courts
themselves,and/or
also by one
or both parties to
a
dispute(Wilson
1998,
17-20
).
Sociologists
act in such trials
as interpreters
nd mediators.
In
such
cases,
Wilson
continues,
t is
imperative
hat he sociologist
gives impartial,
etached,neutral,
and objective testimony,maintaininga professional stance. To ensure this, he suggests that
professionalbodies
be called upon
to drawup a
list of approved
expert assessors
(1998, 23-27;
see
also Wilson 1999).
Conflicting
Paradigms:
A
Role
for
the
Professional
Associations
Different
approaches to
the field of religion
have been
developed among
others,
secularizationheory,
he "rational hoice"perspective,
lobalization
heory,
and
he
post-modernity
perspective.
I
suggest
that our professional
associations
that
organize
conferences
should not
confine theirorganizational
fforts
to a call for
papers.
They
should
play
an active role
in
explicitly
provokingdiscussionbetweencolleaguesrepresenting ifferentparadigms. uch
discussionsmight
advanceour critical
reflection
on these
approaches.
To be operational,
hey should
be plannedseveral
years
in advance
and be precededby
an
exchange
of
papers,
which afterwards
might
be
published.
Such
sessions should
not be limited to
the usualformat; hey
need
a
longer
time slot so thatthe audience
can hear
he
arguments
nd oin
the discussion. Secondly,
I want to
plead
at
the same
time for cross-national
research
that is
brought
n as
a
crucial test
for
hypotheses
deduced
from
conflicting
theories.
The SISR
Spin-off
as
ani
Example
of Globalizationi
The
SISR publishes
annually,
n the first number
of Social Compass,papers
presented
at its
conferences
and selected
by
an
editorial
board.
In
the even
years,
the
papers
of its
plenary
sessions
are
published,
which are
devoted to the
theme of the
conference;
and in odd
years,
a
selection
of
papers
from
the thematic sessions,
research
groups,
or sessions
of miscellaneous
papers
are
published.
As
far as
I
can see
this is
unique;
he
other societies
of
sociology
of
religion
do not do
that.
However,
he
scientific
publications
esulting
rom he conferences
arenot
exclusively
limited
to the
SISR issues
of Social
Compass.
The
thematicsessions
and the research
groups, organized
during
he biennial
conferences,
have
encouraged
pecialists
of differentcultural
pheres
o meet
and
to
publish
the
resultsof their
work
in
books
and
special
issues
of journals.
Such
publications
have stimulated
comparative
research.
A first
example
is a
study
of
religion
and health
"From
'Spiritual
Healing'
to
'Psycho-spiritual
Therapies,'
"
edited
by
Cohen and
Dericquebourg1998), inwhich differentauthorsanalyzedandcompared uch diverse"therapies"
as
CharismaticRenewal, Scientology,
Rebirth,Reiyukai,
Antoinism,
Christian
Science,
and
psychotherapy.
The
greatmajority
of these
papers
were
based on data from
France
and were
presented
n 1995
at the 23rd SISR
Conference.
They
were
the fruitof
a collaboration
hat
started
at the
21st
Conference
n 1991.
In
1999,
VanHove
published
a
special
issue
of Social
Compass
on
New Age, resulting
rom discussionsin thematic
sessionsorganized
at SISR conferences n
1995
and 1997. Here the movements
analyzed and
compared were from different
cultures.
The
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/23/2019 From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?
14/16
GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION
445
discussions centeredon questions like: may New Age be defined as a movement or is it partof a
wider phenomenon; s it historicallyunique; is there a common ideology.
They focused also on
questions
of
terminology
and
conceptualization.Here the SISR allowed
for a more global view of
the phenomenon.
The globalizationof the field, the second characteristic f this development,
was also present
in a publication dited by RolandCampiche 1997) on the social, cultural,and religious ife-world
of
young people
in
the
1980s,
a
project
hatwas
started
at
the
21st
Conference
n 1991. This study
is the resultof cooperation etween wenty-two ociologistsof different ultural ndreligious pheres
in
Europe,who joined
in a commoneffort
o analyze he search
or
meaning
by young people on the
basis of
survey
dataand
qualitative
tudies.
They
not
only
describedand analyzed he relationship
of
youth
towardsestablished
religious organizations, hurches,sects,
and NRMs but also pointed
out new forms
of
"meaning ystems"emerging
on the basis of extraordinaryvents. Globalization
went
even
further
n
a
book edited
by Roof, Jackson,
and
Roozen (1995).
The purposehere was to
explore as systematicallyas possiblethe impactof thepost-wargenerationon trends n what was
called
"establishment
eligion"
and on new
emergent
orms of religion
in
Australia, he United
States,
andsome
ten
European
ountries.
This
project,
nitiated
by
the
editors,
extended he
scope
of
scholarlyco-operation
across the oceans
and had
alreadybegun
at
the
SISR
conference
n
1987.
Without
denying
the
impact
of the
socio-cultural
differencesbetween the
countries,
some
general
trends
were detected:
a
general turningaway
from established
religion,
which, however,
did not
mean
the
rejection
of
religionaltogether.
n
their
conclusions,
he
editors
suggest
that
the
post-war
generation
was
"reshaping xisting patterns
of
faith
and
practice
n
importantways
in
the several
countries
we haveexamined"
Roof,
Jackson,
ndRoozen
1995,247).
Five
characteristics
n
particular
were common
o this
generation's eligiousstyle:
the
widespread
nd
cross-national iffusionof the
idea thatreligion
was
an
individual hoice rather
hana
"cultural
iven";
a
mixing
of codes
resulting
in a
personal"collage,"
rather han a
"something eceived";
he
attraction
o seeminglydifferent
directions,
ome to
NRMs,
others o
Evangelical
Christian
eligious
nvolvement;
he
highpremium
placed on religious experience
and
personal growth;
and the
general
anti-institutional nd anti-
hierarchical haracter
f this
generation's pirituality.
The
two characteristicsf
the
spin-off
of the
SISR,
cross-cultural
omparisons
nd
globalization,
are
a
new
trend
n the
field of
religious
research
hat
was not limited to the
SISR,
but which was
certainly
stimulated
by
its inter-continental
onstituency Dobbelaere
1999, 91, 95).
A
Trend owardsthe
Globalizationof
Some
Research
Projects
At
first,
cross-cultural
omparisons
were the fruit of scholars who used different data-sets
collected
for other
purposes
but
in which dataon
religion
were
available.
In
the
frame
of the
study
of
Beliefs
in
Government,promoted by
the
European
Science
Foundation, Jagodzinski
and
Dobbelaere
used data
rom the
European
Value
studies,
Eurobarometer
tudies,
and other
country
related
data-sets,
ike
election studies and social
surveys,
to
analyze
church
religiosity(Jagodzinsi
and Dobbelaere
1995a), religious cognitions
and beliefs
(Dobbelaere
and
Jagodzinski1995),
and
religious
and ethical
pluralism Jagodzinski
and Dobbelaere
1995b).
The
European
"Value
tudy,
with its successive
waves
in
1981, 1990,
and
1999,
was
a
major
s