F or decades commentators assumed that secularization was inevitable. By the
latter part of the 20th century, however, it was being argued that religion was changing rather than declining. Yet just as there are many ways of being religious, so there are many ways of not being religious. What is becoming abundantly clear is not only that religiosity but also that both secularity (as a description of individual orientations) and secularism (as a description of society) are far more complicated, even paradoxical, than had been recognized. While more than 80% of Danes are formally members of the established state religion, less than 5% attend church on a weekly basis—and there are fewer official members of the Church of England (26%) than non-members who feel they belong (29%). Depending on what is understood by the concept, between one and 46% of the population of the United States can be defined as “secular,” yet 67% of Americans who say they have no religion believe in the existence of God—and, at the same time, there are self-identifying Lutherans and Roman Catholics professing that they do not believe in God. This book presents a fascinating account of the inconsistent evidence as it valiantly struggles to chart the diversity to be found among the neglected variables of disbelief and unbelief. We have recently become familiar with the category “spiritual but not religious” without really knowing what this means to those who identify themselves as such. We are less familiar with the range of beliefs that include ideologically inspired atheism, agnosticism, apathy, indifference and what Voas calls the muddled middle between the religious and the secular. At the social level, comparative analyses reveal even more variation than we find at the individual level. One widely accepted definition of secularization has been “a process whereby religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social significance.”1 This can happen almost absent-mindedly, as in England. In countries such as Canada, Australia and most of Western Europe, individuals may engage in religious and/or spiritual practices, but this is as a private, leisure pursuit; institutionalised churches no longer play the central role they once did in education, welfare or politics, and secular values of maximization of profit or consumerism have been replacing concerns about salvation. But few processes are irreversible—and desecularization can also appear in a variety of forms, one
iii Secularism & Secularity
apparently being revivals of dormant Christian consciousness in parts of Europe
as a result of growing immigrant Muslim populations. Sometimes secularization has been the result of state-imposition. There is, however, a world of difference between Albania during the rule of Enver Hoxha when no religious observance whatsoever was permitted, and the laïcité of France where a variety of religious and secular worldviews may flourish. India’s secular position has been described as more of a political arrangement than a secular philosophy—and in Israel, an avowedly secular state, marriage and divorce are possible only within a recognised religion. Important issues are broached: To what extent, for example, does our unprecedented globalization result in the fear of loss of identity and, hence, the strengthening of national or local religions? Can secular (enlightenment) values be incorporated into the sort of theocratic regime that Iran has experienced since its 1979 revolution? When the 3Bs (belonging, belief and behavior) cease to be religious, does nothing—or anything—fill the gap? This book may not give us a definitive picture of what the situation is in the contemporary world but it offers us a much fuller one than most of us had before—and if it raises more questions than it answers, that is not a bad thing.
Dr. Eileen Barker
Professor Emeritus of Sociology with Special Reference to the Study of Religion London School of Economics
Endnotes 1. Bryan R. Wilson, 1966. Religion in Secular Society. London: Watts p. 14