From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?

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/


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

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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



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



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.



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,



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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

Documents

From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?