Despite Rodney Stark‟s postulate “to carry the secularization doctrine to the graveyard of failed theories“ (Stark 1999:22) or David Martin‟s demand “towards eliminating the concept of secularization” (Martin 1965), the discourse on secularization seems to be as alive as ever. Indeed, from its beginnings to present the idea of secularization lies at the very core of sociological imagination. Hardly any other subject caused as much controversy among scholars as to if and how processes of secularization interrelate with the emergence of “modernity”. This has led to a multitude of publications over the last decades, all redefining, defending, refuting or even rejecting secularization theory altogether. One of the main difficulties resulting from this ever expanding literature on secularization is the diverse and often undifferentiated usage of categories such as “the secular”, “secularization” and “secularism”. Similar to other social-scientific macro concepts the term “secularization” is multidimensional. Depending on the context and academic discipline, it is applied very differently, thus leaving the door wide open for manifold possibilities of interpretations and meanings. This especially poses problems to any empirical researcher; as such an amorphous term with respectively different meanings and ambiguous possibilities of interpretation is hard to operationalize (Casanova 1994: 12). The aim of this paper is therefore, to critically review the main concepts of secularization theory. For this purpose, I will analytically distinguish between “the secular” as a theological category of Western Christendom, “secularization” as a historical process referring to state-church relations and “secularization” as an analytical conceptualization of modern world-historical processes. By doing so, I hope to identify some of the core problems that inevitably appear when trying to apply seemingly self-understanding concepts about the “secular” to other parts of the world.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. A short history of concepts
3. Secularization as a social-scientific concept
3.1 Secularization and functional differentiation
3.2 Secularization and the privatization of religion
3.3 Secularization and the decline of religious beliefs
4. Conclusion
5. References
Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this paper is to bring order to the messy discourse surrounding secularization theory by critically examining its core concepts. The research aims to dismantle the monolithic understanding of secularization by analytically distinguishing between three social-scientific levels of discourse: functional differentiation, the privatization of religion, and the decline of religious beliefs, while highlighting the historical uniqueness of Western secularization and the challenges of applying these concepts globally.
- The historical evolution of the "secular" as a theological category in Western Christendom.
- A critical comparison of Western secularization paths with non-Western contexts, specifically China.
- The analytical critique of the three pillars of secularization theory: differentiation, privatization, and decline.
- The role of Enlightenment thought and ideological project-based secularism.
- The paradox of the "secular" and "religious" as mutually conditioning historical constructs.
Excerpt from the Book
2. A short history of concepts
“Any discussion of the secular has to begin with the recognition that it emerged first as a theological category of Western Christendom” (Casanova 2011: 56)
In order to better understand the different positions and problems within the social-scientific debate on secularization it is inevitable to first delineate distinctive conceptions of what is usually referred to as the “secular” or “secularization”. Following, I will therefore give a short summary of the few key milestones in the history of these concepts.
Etymologically “secularization” and kindred terms (such as the secular and secularism) derives from the Latin noun saeculum, respectively from its adjective form secularis, which can be translated as being of a generation, or belonging to an age. Its first usage can be traced back to the Etruscans, before it eventually was adopted by the Romans, signifying a time period of 100 or 110 years, the longest normal duration for a human life. For instance, the lives of children born in the first year of a city’s existence were held to constitute its first saeculum. The end of a saeculum and the commencement of the next were then marked by religious celebrations, the so-called Ludi Saeculares (Secular Games), honoring the Gods of ancient Rome through sacrifices, the singing of hymns and theatrical shows. Hence, we can see that from its very outset the secular refers to both, “the natural conditions of life and the civil institution of ritual and calendar” (Calhoun et al. 2011: 11).
The concept of the secular eventually became a central category of Christian theological thought, creating a binary system which separated the religious-sacred-spiritual world of salvation from the secular-profane-temporal one. In an important way, it structured the entire spatial and temporal reality of medieval Christendom.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the persistence of secularization theory in sociology and sets the goal to analytically distinguish different meanings of the term to resolve interpretative ambiguities.
2. A short history of concepts: Traces the etymological and historical roots of the "secular" in Christian theology and its transformation into a tool for modern ideological and political projects.
3. Secularization as a social-scientific concept: Analyzes the transition of secularization from a vague premise of classical sociology to a formal research paradigm in the 1960s.
3.1 Secularization and functional differentiation: Examines the theory that modern societies differentiate into independent sub-systems, arguing that this process is less linear than classically assumed.
3.2 Secularization and the privatization of religion: Discusses the move of religion to the private sphere and critiques the public/private dichotomy as an ideological tool.
3.3 Secularization and the decline of religious beliefs: Investigates the empirical challenges in measuring religious decline and highlights the divergence between church membership, participation, and individual belief.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes the need to treat religion as an integral part of modern society rather than an "other" and advocates for a global, non-Eurocentric perspective.
5. References: Provides the bibliographic foundation for the critical examination of secularization theories.
Keywords
Secularization, Secularism, Modernity, Functional Differentiation, Privatization, Religion, Western Christendom, Social Science, Augustine, Jose Casanova, Church-State Relations, Enlightenment, Religiosity, Sociology, Transcendent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this paper?
The paper focuses on critically re-examining the core concepts of secularization theory to bring clarity to a confused and contradictory academic discourse.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The work covers the historical development of "the secular," the ideological use of secularism, and the three main sub-theories of secularization: functional differentiation, the privatization of religion, and the decline of religious belief.
What is the primary goal or research question?
The primary goal is to resolve the conceptual mess of secularization theory by differentiating its historical, analytical, and normative dimensions to enable more accurate global comparative studies.
Which scientific methods are utilized?
The paper employs a critical literature review and conceptual analysis, grounded in historical and sociological perspectives, to evaluate existing sub-theories.
What is covered in the main body?
The main body systematically explores the history of the concept, the validity of differentiation and privatization theses, and the empirical complexities regarding the decline of religious beliefs.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include secularization, functional differentiation, privatization, modernity, Western Christendom, and global comparative perspectives.
How does the author view the "Chinese case" regarding secularization?
The author uses the Chinese example to demonstrate that the Western binary of church and state is not universal, suggesting that Chinese society had a "secular" outlook throughout history that did not require a modern European-style secularization process.
Why does the author critique the "public/private" dichotomy?
The author argues that this dichotomy is not a neutral sociological tool but an ideological construct used by 19th-century liberals to marginalize the influence of religion in the public sphere.
What does "belonging without believing" mean in the context of this paper?
It refers to a specific European religious pattern where individuals retain formal membership in a national church despite having no active religious participation or specific personal convictions.
- Quote paper
- Matthias Deininger (Author), 2012, "Bringing order to the mess" - A critical re-examination of the core concepts of secularization theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/202798
