sociology of religion 7
SOC 420 Lesson 7: Course Conclusion
American religion merely appears to be uniform due to the nature of surveys on the topic. Most survey studies that include questions about religion only have space to ask about basic religious indicators such as church attendance and belief in God. This is understandable, as most surveys are focused on other topics such as crime or politics and space is at a premium. However, since Americans agree on basic religion indicators, American religion seems monolithic. In fact, under the surface American religion is startlingly complex and diverse. Americans may agree that God exists. They do not agree about what God is like, what God wants for the world, or how God feels about politics. Most Americans pray. They differ widely on to whom they pray, what they pray about, and whether or not they say grace. A vast majority of Americans are Christians, but attitudes amongst those Christians regarding the salvation of others, the role of religion in government, the reality of the paranormal, and their consumption of media are surprisingly diverse.
—Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, American Piety in the 21st Century, September 2006 (see report at this link).
Welcome to Lesson 7, our class conclusion! Thank you all for your hard work, excellent insights, and patience with these lessons! Hopefully they have been informative and contributed to your understanding of the sociology of religion! Since we have already covered a fair amount, this will be brief—and not “Frasier brief.” (Those of you familiar with that sitcom, even though a few years in the past, will understand my meaning there…) I will not introduce new material here, but we’ll take a look back at where we’ve been as well as a few words about where we’re going from here.
During this class, we’ve taken a look at what the sociology of religion is as well as several theoretical perspectives that come into play as we examine it. We have examined how we know what we know, as well as the importance of examining religion from a scientific perspective and Rational Choice theory. We have discussed religion as a group experience, paying special attention to group processes, socialization, the church-sect typology, religious conflict, and other key concepts; we have also examined how politics, fundamentalism, social class and economic concerns relate to religion. We have also read about the intersection of race and gender (including sexuality) with religion, and considered the present state and possible future of religion in America, including the development of the Protestant megachurch. We also paid close attention to the role of media in religion, as well as examining the modern marketplace of American religion and the trends these authors have detected over time. We also took a brief glimpse into other areas of interest, such as religion and science and metaphysics.
I won’t go into all the details, but I invite you to look back and brush up on any details in our text readings, lessons, and other required and recommended readings that you feel you need to understand better, follow up on, and/or learn more about. Finally, you all gave yourselves your own opportunity to see that pluralism in practice in the American religious marketplace in your own Meet the Believers exercise! Hopefully you found that an insightful and worthwhile experience that helped you see the concepts we’ve read about at work!
As we conclude this course, then, what I’d like to do is revisit Berger’s Heretical Imperative, where we have not only considered the place of the heretic in Berger’s argument but to some extent have taken the place of one. Though we vary as to our position on the spectrum of deduction (believers), induction (investigators), or reduction (skeptics) in terms of various religions, we have spent a little while practicing induction and investigating religion as a human phenomenon. Though we can’t confirm the veracity of Objective truth claims from a scientific standpoint—as said before, that’s the believer’s quest!—we can study what humans do with their religion subjectively and intersubjectively, how they construct meaning (again, subjectively and intersubjectively), and the social outcomes of their religious beliefs. That’s what we do in the sociology of religion.
So as we consider the modern marketplace of religion in America and its present character, it’s well worth taking a look back at this perspective. America remains a country that’s open to religion and largely friendly to it, for the most part, though it’s possible this may be shifting somewhat. A great deal of religious diversity exists in America, as well as religious practice. Although Americans clearly prefer some forms of religion to others, and some religions are not favored, they do their best to try to be tolerant to all the varieties of religion that exist. Some religions face challenges, such as Mormons, Muslims, and several other groups that face historical and modern misunderstandings. Likewise, Catholics and Jews also faced oppression in America prior to the 20th century, though suspicion of both religious groups decreased substantially during that century. So we see that, as indicated in previous lessons by the Pew Forum studies, the Baylor University research report, and studies of American religion in general, America remains a nation of believers, though of many different kinds of belief. The religious marketplace metaphor remains particularly appropriate in describing the different varieties of belief in America today.
However, this risks painting a rather simplistic picture of the reality of current American religious life. Remember first of all that there’s a rather substantial difference between belief—our convictions about God and religion—and religiosity, or how we practice that belief in private and in public. Believers seem to rate relatively high in terms of belief, but there may be a wide degree of variation in what they are actually doing in response to that belief. So even though Americans particularly value religious belief, and we continue to see high rates of religious belief and self-reported private religious practice, such as prayer, this does not necessarily translate into higher levels of outward religiosity, particularly in terms of church attendance. We know that church attendance in many mainline Protestant denominations has been gradually declining for several decades, and to a lesser extent, in Catholicism as well. Intriguingly in light of what Putnam and Campbell report about the “nones” and the “spiritual rather than religious” impulse, millennials in particular report high rates of belief but lower church attendance.
I don’t wish to take extensive issue with these findings, which I highly respect as the work of informed and more than capable colleagues; I simply wish to point out that we’re merely scratching the surface and that there are more questions to be asked and investigated. (This is where the rest of us come in on Assignment 7; more on that shortly.) For instance, the research methodologist in me, rearing its ugly head, can’t help but notice a potential difficulty: The practice of relying on self-reported data can be problematic, as study respondents may wish to represent themselves well even if they remain anonymous. These effects have been reported in past methodological studies of self-reporting, memory, and other subjective measures that have at times proven to be more of an indication of what the respondents wish were true rather than the actual reality of the situation. So analysts of American religion continue to find a pleasant picture of American religion, and there’s little doubt that this is what Americans wish to be—and are to some extent. But there are additional complexities in this picture that bear further investigation.
Another trend to watch, as indicated previously, is the “rise of the nones.” The Pew Forum, Johnstone, and American Grace all describe this movement at length, though unfortunately, the Christiano text largely bypasses this. This category may be a bit complex, since as some sociologists of religion have used the category, it may include non-denominational Protestants who deliberately choose to remain independent of a particular affiliation for various reasons of their own, as well as other individuals who simply resist joining any religious organization at all and/or who defy the traditional labels of “atheist” and “agnostic” for yet other reasons.
Religious scholars have seen pushback over the past several decades against “organized religion” and a continuance of individuals who seek spirituality of whatever form it may take. Americans are nothing if not inventive, and a fair amount of what we see in the “rise of the nones” may well be a subjective and small-scale intersubjective invention (social construction!) of more individualistic brands of belief, spirituality, and worship rather than perceived conformity to an existing religious organization. If so, the American religious marketplace is certainly in transition, though whether it’s in expansion mode (as it were) or as some fear perhaps even in collapse remains to be seen.
And so, with all that said, let’s “keep moving forward” (in the words of Disney’s Robinson family) and look for what else we can discover! Happily, you have a chance to do just that coming up. Looking forward to Assignment 7, past students have wanted a bit more information about what I’m looking for in the final paper. As you see from the syllabus, there are several different approaches you could take, but the gist is that I am, as your instructor, now turning you loose to tell what you’ve learned about the sociology of religion in this class, using the information you’ve already read—and at least two other well-researched, authoritative and credible sources that you haven’t been required to read. (The optional reading in the lesson links is fair game, fine! I do appreciate your independent research and it shows me you’re seriously going above and beyond!) Another hint: When using Google, you can restrict your search to college-related sites with the “site:edu” search term, although still beware of the occasional university-hosted student blog and so forth. So in short, please use credible, authoritative and especially well-researched information that will help you make your point!
Another thing to remember with Assignment 7, as indicated on Blackboard with the assignment prompt: You are welcome to use ideas from previous assignments from this class to help you write Assignment 7, BUT please, PLEASE keep in mind that I expect you to revise those ideas in light of what you’ve learned since you completed those earlier assignments. Points can be deducted if you choose to merely copy and paste large blocks of text, so feel free to clarify, expand, and/or go more into depth! Also, just to make sure it’s clear, if you are using any work at all from another class to help you write Assignment 7, you need to make sure you clear that with me first. I am generally OK with it, but please make sure you let me know first.
Also, another hint: As you write, I highly recommend that you stay focused on a specific issue, relate other relevant issues to it in an informed and logical way, AND remember, as always, that you are writing to tell me what you know. This does not mean you have to use a lot of “big words” or highly advanced terminology, especially when that terminology doesn’t fit or when it doesn’t communicate meaning. In fact, sometimes that’s used as a cover by people who are trying to “sound smart” even though they know no more than you do about what they’re writing about—or in the case of some Wikipedia authors and editors, maybe even less. See here for an alarming possibility, and only one reason I ask you to avoid this source—and, please make no mistake, also be cautious about many other Internet sources.
My beef as a whole with Wikipedia, BTW, is that it’s a dangerous combination of too easily available and too subject to change. This is particularly true when it’s entirely possible that some idiot can change truth to error in mere seconds without much accountability. It is true that Wikipedia has changed its processes over time so that individuals can be held accountable for what they write or edit, much of the edited information is recoverable, incorrect and/or irresponsible changes can now be undone, and “troll” users can be banned. Even more to the point, some universities and professional associations have asserted editorial control over various topics and areas of interest to them. None of this was the case when Wikipedia started. So certainly, the quality is improving. Still, since it’s the first place many students look to find information, I think it’s well worth getting into the habit of digging deeper. Moreover, the involvement of various experts notwithstanding, the general idea of people on all levels of expertise, including pretense or enmity, being able to comment on any given subject, should make us all think twice about “buying into” what’s said there. This is true of Wikipedia specifically and also of the entire Internet in general—as we learned during the 2016 election and the prevalence of “fake news.” The Internet is social construction, almost literally, and at times for the worse rather than the better.
In any case, back to the writing style of your papers. It is true that you want to explain to me what you know and what you’ve learned. This is especially true in Assignment 7. However, if it sounds like you’ve tried to swallow and then regurgitate the dictionary, or if you toss around a lot of ill-used jargon, that’s not going to help. Don’t try to use pseudo-intellectual smokescreens—just use whatever language clearly communicates the concepts you’re discussing. In short: Be yourselves. Be your best, grammatically correct, most informed, and insightful selves, to be sure, but be yourselves. Write like YOU—at your best. I particularly enjoy Rachel Toor’s sound advice about academic writing—an article I highly recommend to all of you.
And with that, thanks for all your hard work, and should you feel so motivated, feel free now that the term is over to find me on LinkedIn or Facebook, though due to my privacy settings, the latter might be harder. (As noted elsewhere, I do not use Twitter—it drives me insane, quite frankly.) But let me know if you would like to keep in touch, want a letter of recommendation, or have other questions of any kind! Thanks again in any case, and I’ll look forward to reading your Assignment 7! And thanks also for all your hard work! It’s been great working with all of you! Best wishes in the future!
5
