From Religious Sociology to Sociology of Religion: Towards Globalisation?

Author(s): Karel Dobbelaere

Source: 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 Scientific
Research on Religion (Dec., 2000), pp. 433-447
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388078
Accessed: 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 content
in 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 support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

From Religious Sociology to Sociology of

Religion: Towards Globalisation?
KARELDOBBELAERE'

In WesternEurope, r'eligiouissociology" developed after the Second WorldWarand, in order to improveits

theorv and methods, the Societe Internationalde Sociologie Religieuse (SISR) was established in 1948. After
sociology
comparingits aims with those of'theAmericanassociations,the aluthordisculssesthe receptionoqfreligiolus
bv the churchesin Euirope.The churches were interestedin the descriptionan1danalyses of'the social context in
w,hich they wereembedded,but theVrejectedthe analyses of 'religionper se. Thisambiguousrelationshipcan also
be traced in the developmentof'theSISR,whereover the years a "sociology'oJf'eligion"developed. Toexplainthis
change, the auithorstresses, among otherfactors, the importantimpactof'theinteractionsbetweenEureopeanand
Amner-ican
sociologists of'religionduring the conffrences organizedbylprofessional associations. Theprof ssion
and not the churchesbecame the refrrenceoJ'anew gener-ationofl'sociologists.Religion ratherthan the churches
sociologi. In a concludingsection, nelw
became the f6cus of'studl; iwhichrestoredour discipline to mainstreanm
tasksJbrtheproJessionalorganizationsare suggestedand the needfor intercontinentalresearchprojectsis str-essed.

After WorldWarII, a new branchof sociology, religious sociology ("sociologie religieuse"),

developed in WesternEuropeand did so ratherrapidly.Its roots can be tracedback to Le Bras,
who in 1931 initiatedthe study of the religious life in France,respondingto the appealof Mauss
to extend the field of study of Durkheimand his school from the non-Westernworld studiedby
anthropologistsand ethnologists to contemporarynon-primitivereligions (Le Bras 1956, 58799). Le Bras stimulatedresearchinto the participationrates in religious practices--as they are
documentedin, amongothersources,parochialandEpiscopalarchivesandthe reportsof preachers
at the folk missions, regularlyorganizedin Catholicparishes.He establishedtypes of -involvement
in the CatholicChurchand soughtto explain differencesin involvement.The developmentof the
subject was also stimulatedby the discovery of American empiricism:researchprojects were
promoted,surveys undertaken,and 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

UniversitasLovaniensis, was aware of this trend and assembled in Leuven (Belgium) sixteen
professorsand researchersfrom Belgium, France,and the Netherlandsto exchange information
on the teaching of sociology at universities in their respective countriesand to discuss research
methodsin religious sociology. These scholarsfelt the need for moreregularcontactswith others
engagedin similarresearch.Tothisend,theyfoundedon 3 April 1948the ConferenceInternationale
de Sociologie Religieuse (CISR), that laterbecame the Societe Internationalede Sociologie des
Religions(SISR).Still laterbecameknownin Englishas the InternationalSociety for the Sociology
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
Conferencein Leuven (Belgium), as you are celebratingyour 50th anniversarynow in Boston.
Allow me on behalf of the SISR, of which the presidentof SSSR is a member,to congratulateyou
on this felicitous occasion. Many membersof the SSSR, the RRA, and theASR have contributed
to SISR conferences,and such associationsare not confinedto recentyears.As long ago as 1951,
the acts of the thirdSISR Conferenceheld in Breda(Holland),reportedpaperswrittenby Fichter,
Nuesse, Francis,and Thomas. These mutualexchanges have stimulatedthe developmentof the
sociology of religion in Europe,and they may have influencedtrendsin America's sociology of
religion.
Karel Dobbelaere i.sProfr'ssorEmeritus,Catholic University;of Leuzvenand the Universityof Antwerp,Departmentof
Sociologv, VanEvenlstraat2B, B-3()()(,Leuven,Belgiuzm.E-mail: karel.dobbelaereasoc.Kuzleuzven.ac.be

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

434

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

The name of the SISR clearly expressedits objectives. It was foundedto allow specialists in
religious sociology to meet internationally,to comparethe resultsof theirstudies,and to improve
theirmethodsof research.Such a sociology had to be at the service of the CatholicChurch.In the
termsof its founder:"Todaywe witness a lot of confusionin the mindsof the people. It is difficult
to renderan exact accountof 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 observationwhich allow preciseresultsto be attained"
(Leclercqas cited in Dobbelaere1989, 378). In 1951 at the 3rdConferencein Breda(Netherlands),
divergencesemerged:was religioussociology basedon theology (e.g., Monzel, Geck, andFurfey)
or was it an empiricalscience? And if it was an empiricalscience, what featuresof the Church
might be studied?According to De Volder,religious sociology should be restrictedto the social
forms of religious life (organizations,religious orders, etc.) and the relations between these
structuresandseculargroups(parishes,social classes, etc.). Le Bras'sapproachwas clearlybroader.
He did not exclude, as did De Volder,the study of objective dataon religious life, such as rituals,
law, ethics, and so on, nor the relations between religious life and secular realities, such as
demography,economy, 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
undertakenby Catholics,whose schemesof analysiswerenecessarilytributaryto theirtranscendent
faithandwhose observationsshouldbe enlightenedby theirreligious commitment(Labens 1960,
18-19; Lebret 1955, 206).
Although the founderwanted a non-denominationalSISR, as stated in resolution4 of the
foundingcharter,the initialstatuteswere soon changedagainsthis explicit will underthe pressure
of the presidentof KASKI(CatholicSocial-EcclesiasticalInstitute,Netherlands).The new statues
adoptedin 1951, stated in Article 2 that the aim of the SISR was to establish contactsbetween
Catholics engaged in religious sociology (Dobbelaere 1989, 378-79; Poulat 1990, 20-21). This
was a clearconsequenceof the epistemologicaloptionsof the membersof the association,and the
fact that,from 1951 onwards,the conferenceswere attendedby many clerics who were involved
in pastoralwork but who lacked any sociological background.As a consequence,and this until
the 9th Conferencein Montreal(Canada),both clerics, who were interestedin the results of the
studies, and researchers,who were more interestedin theoreticaland methodologicalquestions,
participatedin the debates. Their divergent expectations emerged very clearly at the sessions:
clerics were not interestedin scientific discussions, which they interruptedwith questionsabout
results,and scientists interruptedthe discussion of resultswith methodologicalquestions.While
the clericswantedresults,the scientistswantedto improvetheirresearchinstrumentsandto discuss
theory.No one was particularlyhappywith the mixed attendanceat the biennialconferencesand
the contradictorydemandsresultingfromit. Becauseso muchattentionfocused on methodological
and theoreticalissues, the clerics who attendedlost confidence in the resultsthatwere presented
andgraduallyceasedto attendthe conferences.A new generationof sociologistswas also emerging
which would lead to changes in the organization.But before discussing this, how do the aims of
the SISR compareto those of the Americanassociations?
A comparisonbetweenthese associationsas faras theiraims areconcernedallows for certain
conclusions. RRA and SISR wanted to stimulateresearchat the service of the Churchesand to
informthe Churchesof the new post-warsocial andculturalclimatein which they were operating,
to help them to adapt their evangelical strategies to this new environment.As a professional
organizationof sociologists, SISR stressedthe importanceof methodologicallysound research,
but,with theirtheoreticalandmethodologicaldiscussions,they alienatedthose clergywho attended
the meetings.The religiouspersonnelwere betterservedby a membershipin 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 additionallyto promotethe 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 had with value 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 conceptionof 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 theirmoralresponsibilityto fellow
humans,humanity,andGod. Some of these sociologistswantedto imbuesociology with a religious
vision of humankindand,in thisway,resolvethe tensionexperiencedbetweenreligionandscience.
One may wonder how they would now react to the sociological view of Niklas Luhmann,who
foundedhis systems theory on communications,statingthat the person is not an integralpartof
the social system but only an element of its environment.How did the Churchesreact to the
developmentof a religious sociology.
THE REACTIONS OF THE CHURCHES2

The Catholic Church

When LeclercqinformedRome of the foundingof the SISR in 1949, he was warnedagainst
"social researchin the field of religion which could be done startingfrom postulatesand using
methodsof the 'sociological science,' as it is understoodgenerally"(Leclercq 1958, 25). In fact,
Rome warnedspecifically againstpositivism and the Durkheimianschool. At the 5th Conference,
Leclercq stated forcefully that "religious sociology" did not need "speculativesociology" like
Durkheim's,but an American-typesociology, which he characterizedas a study of facts. The gist
of his argumentwas almost"Say it with figures,"andthis at aboutthe same time thatSorokinwas
warningsociologistsin his Fads andFoibles of Sociologyagainsta quantitativesociology.However,
Leclercqalso saw a dangerin 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;they could
never provide norms. Furthermore,Leclercq insisted that "religioussociology could be pursued
only by religious minds, and in particular,that the sociological study of the Catholic Church
should be done by Catholicsknowing theology."Religion cannotbe studiedfrom the outside, he
claimed, without the risk of false interpretation(Leclercq 1955, 160-65; 1958, 23-26). Thattype
of sociology was prevalentin the 1950s. It helped the Churchin its pastoralreflectionsby giving
it a betterknowledgeof the field. It also infusedthe Churchwith rationaltechniquesof management
and planning,which were alreadyappliedin otherareasof activity.In LatinAmerica,Africa, and
Asia it producedpertinentinformationto help the social developmentof underdevelopedregions,
while at the same time maintaininga criticalview of the actions of the Church(Remy 1999, 1016). Thattype of researchreceived a positive evaluationas long as it restricteditself to describing
the situation,leaving the interpretationto the religiousactors.Nor was it allowed to interferewith
the teachings and the organizationof the Church-their affirmedsupernaturalcharacterplaced
them beyond all claims of investigationand analysis.
The strainedrelationsbetween sociology and the Churchcame to a temporarytrucewith the
Second VaticanCouncil (Remy 1999, 106-7). However,the hierarchyresumedits distance since
the decline of religiosity seemed to be linkedto profoundsocial processes,which it was incapable
of curbing.Rome also felt threatenedby the tendenciesthatemergedin the DutchPastoralCouncil
(1966-1970), where the impactof sociology was evident.An objectifiedbelief, expressedin fixed
formulasthat were imposed from above, was being replacedby reflection on beliefs, thus also
takingthe subjectiveexperiencesof the people into account:belief shouldhave a meaningfor the
concrete situationsin life. The hierarchyshould rathersolicit than impose, thus recognizing the
responsibilityof the laity, even in mattersof policy (Laeyendecker1992, 105). All this led to a
change in attitudeof the Churchhierarchytowardssociology. On the otherhand, emergingnew

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

436

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

movements within the Church,like the charismaticmovement and the resurgenceof popular
religion,which expresseda rathervoluntaristicattitude,seemedto indicatethe limits of the impact
of the social context. The sociological discourse lost credibilityto the extent that it seemed to
overestimatethe effects of the context (Remy 1999, 108-9).A new type of relationshipdeveloped
between the Churchand sociology: a mutualaffirmationof autonomy.However, this was also
causedby the professionalizationof sociologists interestedin the field of religion. I will returnto
this later. Let us first proceed with an analysis of the relationshipsbetween sociology and the
otherChurches
The ProtestantChurches
Campiche (1999) calls the relationshipof Protestantismto sociology ambiguous. Even if
Lutheranismwas more open to sociology than Calvinism, "its highly theological conception of
the Churchon the whole causes it to be ratherreservedtowardsthe social and humansciences in
ecclesiasticalandreligiousmatters"(1999, 118).However,an asynchronicalchangewas detectable
in the 1960s and 1970s varying from countryto country:the Germans,having money to do the
Thischangewas to a largeextentdueto the impactof the Ecumenical
research,werethe forerunners.
Assembly of New Delhi (1961), which underscoredthe flagrant injustices in the world, the
secularizationof the so-called Christianworld, and the de-christianizationof a large part of its
population. If I understandCampiche correctly, sociological research was at that time rather
utilitarian:how to organize the Churchand how to build a link between the membersand the
institution all of which revealeda clearmarketingattitude.The questionaskedwas: Whatis the
direction of social change and which historical forms of the Churchmight be changed? Only
much laterwere questionsasked aboutbeliefs. However,the Churcheswere mostly interestedin
sociological researchfor clarificationsit offered aboutthe social situation.
Sociological studies, especially those with a rigorousmethodology,influencedthe attention
of the Churches:themes like the equalityof men and women, the impoverishmentof a largepart
of the population,the rethinkingof spirituality,and especially concernsaboutProtestantidentity
were put on the agenda. Such studies also had an impact on the ecumenical agenda: things
ProtestantsandCatholicscoulddo together,suchas the regulationof religionby the state(Campiche
1999, 128). The topics are social ratherthantheological, and Campicheis forcedto concludethat
"the questionremainsof how to implementa theorywhich allows the articulationof a diagnosis
with the religious'norm"'(Campiche1999, 129).Indeed,in publicizedreactionsto the sociological
study Croire en Suisse(s), a Germantheologian formulatedlines of pastoralaction based on a
global theory of religion and modernityratherthan in direct referenceto the sociological study
underreview.Thiscorrectlysuggeststo Campichethatthe studywas a pretextto formulateremarks
thatare rootedelsewhere.A Catholictheologianreactingto the same studytook a criticalview of
societal evolution, especially the process of functional differentiation,to reaffirmthe critical
propheticfunction of religion, that is, as Campiche emphasizes, to reaffirmthe fundamentally
distinctive characterof the evangelical interpolation.It appearsthatwe were still far from a real
dialogue between sociology and theology as far as the hardcore of religion was concerned.As
long as sociology confined itself to an auxilaryfunctionand left the interpretationsof the facts to
the clergy, then everythingin the gardenlooked lovely. Voye and Billiet (1999, 11), commenting
on the analysis of Remy and Campiche,put it this way: "Protestantismand Catholicismlargely
follow the samehesitantcourse,rapprochementappearsall the morepossible if sociology confines
itself to an ancillaryrole and limits itself to offering analyses of the 'social,' being carefulnot to
make a similaranalysis 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

437

The Churchof England

Martin'sanalysis (1999) of the relationshipbetween the Churchof Englandreveals only a
slightly different pattern:there never was a strict institutionallink between sociology and the
Church,only largelyinformalties. Beforethe SecondWorldWar,a "varietyof normativesociology
was producedrelatedto the idea of a Christiansociety"(Martin1999, 132). Lateron, one drew on
sociological expertise for debates on the natureof church structuresand for local surveys into
religious practiceor community"needs."More recently,some sociologists have been called in,
along with representativesof other sciences, to participatein discussions on such topics as the
ordinationof women, the natureof the curriculumin the numerousreligious colleges, the search
for a "thirdway"between socialism and liberalism,andthe social andreligious contextof British
involvementin Europe.Martinsees the participationof sociologists in these debatesas a certain
recognitionof the discipline.
However,he also shows the persistent"academic-ecclesiastical"tensions when sociologists
engage in criticisms of liturgicalreformand the "managerial"orientationsof the Church."One
majorsector of concernwhere sociology is not only of relevancebut broughtdirectlyinto play is
that of social comment in the context of ethical and theological thinking on contemporary
dilemmas,"which accordingto Martin"fitswell the popularnotion thatsociology is really a subbranchof welfare and doing good." But also tensions reveal themselves here, for example, about
"normativeconceptionsof the 'nature'of genderorientation"(1999, 135-36). Martinconcludes
(1999, 135) thatthe gap between "theprofessionalclerics"and academicscontinues.Even if the
former have a "vague sense" about the eventual usefulness of sociology, they often content
themselveswith ad hoc information,"gatheredon a shoestringbudget";they also have "ahesitancy
aboutgrandtheory."In this way they reflectthe generalcharacterof Englishsociety. On the other
hand,thereis also an attitudepresentthatmost of "theseissues arereallytheprovinceof psychology
ratherthansociology."As in the CatholicChurch,this is linkedto a voluntaristicview of humankind
and society, which is averse to contextualthinkingand immuneto its impact,except, as revealed
by Campiche'sanalysis of Protestantism,in a propheticcritiqueon the way society is evolving.
The Eastern OrthodoxChurch
The distrustof the EasternOrthodoxChurchtowardssociology, and sociology of religion in
particular,is even moreradicalthanin the otherChurches.This distrustis, accordingto Makrides
(1999), linked to their origins and to the lack of ties with the intellectualtraditionsof Eastern
Europe.Sociology and the sociology of religion are consideredto be an importfrom the West,
originally linked to positivism. The sociology of religion that developed in the EasternSocialist
countrieswas a rigid ideological approachto religion that was destined to help the communist
states to eradicatereligion.At the end of the communistregimes, these countriesdid not have at
their disposal any sociology that embraced an objective approachto social phenomena and
especially to religion. Furthermore,the OrthodoxChurchestried to re-establishthere the social
powerandthe prestigethey hadlost. This preoccupationlet them"takea conservative,nationalistic
and even reactionarystance,"which hardlyfavoredthe promotionof a dispassionateattentionto
somewhat critical sociological analyses (Makrides 1999, 139-43). The distrustof sociological
analysisdid not stop at the frontiersof the old communistbloc. The GreekOrthodoxChurch,like
its sisterChurches,showed some interestonly in surveysthatprovidedinformationconsideredto
be useful to the Churchin helping its social mission. Here one finds an affinitywith the situation
in WesternEurope,where the social involvement of the Churcheshas always offered possible
encounterswith a predominantlydescriptivesociology. InGreecetheredevelopedwhat Makrides
calls a "Christian sociology" taught and performed by theologians, without any academic
sociological training,going handin handwith social ethics and pastoralstudies.They considered
"Orthodoxtheology as a trulyempiricalscience with its own articulatedscientific methodology,

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

438

which is basically the same as that of other scientific disciplines... [Such] OrthodoxChristian
sociology was based on the ideas found in the Bible, in the Patristicliterature,and in the works of
otherOrthodoxthinkersaboutsociety, its problemsandthe necessaryremedies"(Makrides1999,
146-47).
If, in more recenttimes, the GreekOrthodoxChurchhas shown more interestin sociological
research(for example,aboutthe religiouspress, the socio-religiousconditionof Greekuniversity
students,and the social conditionof Greekclergy), it is because "theChurchhas no interestat all
in theoreticalresearch;rather,it has an explicit practicalinterestin the processes within society
and intendsto transformit completely on the basis of its own principles"(Makrides1999, 150).
OutsideEasternEurope,the connectionbetweensociology andthe respectiveOrthodoxChurches
has been much easier, and studies were commissionedof independentorganizations*-however,
such studies "hadagain practicalimportancefor the Church"(Makrides1999, 153).
In his conclusions, Makrides(1999, 154) points out that"if one takes into considerationhow
religion is viewed by the social sciences... the gap dividingsociology of religion from its objectof
research,e.g., ChristianOrthodoxy,is probablyunbridgeable,;'sociology andOrthodoxyrepresent
"two quite diverging perspectives on human society and nature that cannot be reconciled."
"Nevertheless,these remarksdo not signify the total impossibility of a collaborationbetween
sociologists and Orthodoxthinkersin the future.But this can be successfully accomplishedonly
by understandingand coming to termswith the 'othemess' of the two respectivesides as well as
by avoiding theirbiased and ideologically -orientedconflation."
A Conclusion
After having reviewed the same articles about the relationshipsof the various Christian
Churchesand sociology, Voy6and Billiet rightfullystressthreepermanentfeatures,which, in my
(1) a continuingdistrustof sociology's
opinion,aremostforcefullypresentin OrthodoxChristianity:
reductionistvision positivist or Marxist;(2) a certainrecourseto sociological descriptionsand
analysesof the social contextin which they are imbedded;and (3) a more or less rigid rejectionof
analysesof religion itself, its institutions,the receptionof its dogmasand its rites,the effects of its
word. In these areas,the reservationsregardingsociology unquestionablyhave a long life (1999,
13;my translationof the originalFrenchtext, p. 27). It is clearthatwith the professionalizationof
the sociology of religion, an independentscientific approachwas going to develop.
From "ReligiouisSociology" to "Sociologyof Religion"
This evolution may clearly be seen in the changes that took place in the Conference
Internationalede Sociologie religieuse(whichbecamethe SISR)andalso in theAmericanCatholic
Sociological Society, which changed its name to the Associationfor the Sociology of Religion
(Reiss 1970; see also 1989, Sociological Analysis [50]4, FiftiethAnniversarySpecial Issue). I
confine my analysis to the SISR and extend the commentaryI advancedin a previousdiscussion
of these changes (Dobbelaere 1989).
The SISR very soon became an internationalassociation.At its 5th Conference(1956), 262
persons attendedfrom 18 countries located in Europe,North and South America; in 1970, the
then secretary-generalof the association, CannonJacquesVerscheure,stated in the Bulletin de
Liaison of the associationthat366 personsfrom40 countrieswere registeredwith the association
and received the Bulletin. They were from all continents,but especially from Europeand North
America:respectively 60 and 26 percent.These figures have slightly fluctuatedover the years,
dependingon the venue of the conference.In 1997 I countedthat 20 percentof the membership
worked in Canadaand the USA, 65 percent in Europe, and 15 percent came from the other
continents. If, in terms of percentages,EasternEuropeanand Russian members remainedthe
same (6 percent),the compositionchangeddrastically:afterthe fall of the BerlinWall,sociologists

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

439

from Bulgaria,the Czech Republic, Lithuania,Romania,Russia, Slovakia, and Ukrainejoined

the participantsof longer standingfromHungary,Poland,andYugoslavia(Croatia,Slovenia, and
Serbia)(Dobbelaere 1999, 90-91, 95).
Not only were the audiences international,but the invited papers at the conferences also
representedan internationalspectrum.From the 2nd Conferenceon, the internationalcharacter
was apparent:studieswere presentedfromBelgium, Germany,France,Holland,and Spain.At the
3rdConferencewe can addCanada,Chili, Columbia,Hungary,Italy,the United States,andZaire.
Laterconferencesconfirmedthis trendand, consequently,extendedthe scope of the association.
The SISR truly lived up to its internationalaspirations.This was of course largely occasioned by
the rotatinglocationsof the conferences:the twenty-five conferencesorganizedup to the present
took place in thirteendifferentcountries,includingtwo in Canada.The associationalso sponsored
two regionalconferences., one in Japanand one in Mexico.
The founder wanted it to be a non-dominationalconference, but under the impact of the
Dutchit became "apastoraland confessional, i.e., Catholic,organization"as assesseciby Le Bras
at the 6th Conference (1955, 9). However, from the first meetings, references to sociological
studies on Protestantismwere made in reportsto the conference, a fact that was linked to the
existenceof religionsotherthanCatholicismin the countryof the discussant.At the 5th Conference
(1956), for the firsttime a non--RomanCatholicpresenteda paper:theAnglicanRev. W.Pickering
(Poulat 1990, 23). At the 6th Conference(1959), the presidentof the SISR officially welcomed
participantswho were not Catholic.At the 7th Conference(1962), researchersof religions other
thanCatholicismwere includedin the officialprogramof the conference.However,CanonBoulard,
heading a small group, protested vehemently in the Executive Committee at the end of the
conferenceandeven threatenedto establishanotherinternationalconferencefaithfulto the "origins"
of the CISR. At the 9th Conference (1967), on the clergy, we find, for the first time, papers
explicitly dealing with other churches:Anglican, Lutheran,and other Protestantdenominations.
The studiespresentedin theActs of this conference,publishedforthe firsttimeby the secretarygeneral,were very particularistic.Only 40 percentof the papershad referencesto studies outside
the field of religious sociology: these were referencesto generalsociology and social psychology,
sociology of stratification,sociology of the professions, and sociology of organizations and
bureaucracy.Of barelya dozen names cited outside the specific field of religious sociology, only
Parsons and Weberwere referredto in more than two papers. Even the selected bibliography,
published in the Acts underthe general title "Clergy in Churchand Society,"was restrictedto
socio-religious studies of Catholic clergy. Consequently,religious sociology was self-centered,
auto-sufficient,andparticularistic,mostly at the service of one Church,and"sociological"only in
its methods. The Catholic Churchclearly wanted to control the output of religious sociology:
publicationsof the SISR had to be publishedwith an imprimaturanda nihil obstat.The SISR was
able to defend itself against the Vaticanonly by stressing its methodologicalobjectives and the
services it could providefor the Church.This strainedrelationshipbetween SISR and Rome made
the president and the secretary-generalpropose new statutes for the SISR in 1968, and they
suggestedin the Bulletitnde liaison askingthe Holy See for its approval.Manymembersobjected
vehemently,and the Vaticanwas never contacted.It is clear that a new generationof academics
could not accept the "self'-imposed limitationsof the objectivesof SISR. They wantedto link up
with the mainstreamof sociology and the sociological traditionof Weberand Durkheim.Drastic
changes occurredat the end of the 1960s.
Whatwas new in the proposedstatutes?The purposeof SISR was no longer limited to the
methodologyof sociology; almost all referencesto religious bodies were eliminated,except that
the membershipof the Executive Committee should include at least two Roman Catholics and
two membersof otherChristianchurches.The active membershipof the associationwas reserved
for social scientists "interestedin the progressof religion,"althoughto allow clergy and pastoral
workersto participate,anypersoninterestedin the sociology of religionmightbecome an "'affiliated
A "preparatorycommittee"was establishedto preparefor each conference:until that
member."'

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

440

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

time some papershadbeen offeredby membersandotherswere solicitedby the secretary-general.

It is clear thatthe secretary-general,FatherEmile Pin, recognizedthat changes had takenplace,
partlyas a consequenceof the "globalization"of the membership,which had broughtmany nonCatholics believersandnon-believers intothe association.Thiswas also manifestin the papers
presented.However, he still seemed to think that "reverence"should be paid to the "religious
past" of the association: hence the category of "affiliatedmembers,"which allowed clergy to
participate;the requirementthatCatholicsand Christiansbe on the board;and the stipulationthat
membersshould be "interestedin the progressof religion."
The 10thConferencewas held in Rome (1969). The Acts containpapersoffering a criticism
of "religioussociology,"a discussionof theoreticaland methodologicalissues in the sociological
studyof religion,and studieson sects, atheism,and irreligion.Almost all papershad referencesto
mainstreamsociology, Durkheimand his school included.BryanWilson attendedthe conference
andwas referredto in otherpapers,and otherstudiesexplicitly referredto recentworks of Berger
and Luckmann,who formulatedthe centralquestionsof the sociology of religion and criticized
"churchsociology." At that conference, Canon Jacques Verscheurewas designatedas the new
to remainin office until 1985.Togetherwith thepresidentsBryanWilson(1971secretary-general,
1975) and David Martin(1975-1983), Verscheure,in his first years in office, had a majorimpact
on the association(Poulat 1990, 28-29).
As the GeneralAssembly of SISR in Rome decided to abrogate"in the new statutesand in
the activities"all denominationalreferences,a revision of the statutesof 1968 became essential.
In fact those statuteshadneverbeen putto the vote. They were publishedin the Bulletinde liaison
Pinin thenextBulletin(1968, 2), definitely
de la CISR(1968, 1) and,accordingto secretary-general
accepted, since no objections had be formulated!To mark the openness of SISR it was also
decided that the next conference (1970) should take place in Opatija(Yugoslavia).The central
theme of this conference, "Religion and Religiosity,Atheism and Non-belief in Industrialand
Urban Society," was a considerablechange from the themes of formerconferences. There the
GeneralAssembly accepted new statutes.The most importantchanges were: the statementin
article4 that the purposeof SISR was "purelyscientific";abolishing the category of "affiliated
members,"which excluded non-academicpersons3;and eliminatingthe clauses that "members
should be interested in the progress of religion" and that "the membershipof the Executive
Committee should include at least two Roman Catholics and two members of other Christian
Church."Consequently,in Opatijathe SISR sought to shed the last vestiges of its religious past.
In 1971 it also became officially a bilingual(English-French)association,whereasbefore it been
rathera French-speakingassociation (Poulat 1990, 17), althoughin previous conferences many
English papershad been presented.
Since 1971, the object of the SISR has not been furtherchanged. It is specified in articles3
and 4 of the statutesthat: the SISR shall be a scientific association whose objects shall be to
advance sociology and relatedsciences in the analysis and interpretationof religious and related
phenomena.To fulfil its purpose,the organizationshallgive priorityto thetwo followingobjectives:
"(a) to promotethroughoutthe worldrelationsbetween sociologists and,moregenerally,between
specialists of the variousdisciplines concernedwith the object of the Association;(b) to organize
periodicalconferences."
The English name of the association made this very clear: InternationalConferencefor the
Sociology ofReligion. However,the Frenchnamewas not changed.The termsociologie religieuse
expressedfor some a continuingnostalgia.However,perhapsmore importantwas the presenceof
membersof the FrenchGroupede Sociologie des Religions (GSR), createdwithin the CNRS in
1954, who wanted to differentiatethemselves from the religious sociology of the SISR. Thus, it
was not because of any peculiarityof the Frenchlanguagethatthe termsociologie religieusewas
retained.It was ratherthat it clearly expressedan oppositionbetween themselves and the SISR,
based on a distinctionmadeby the founderof the Groupe,Le Bras a distinctionof aim:pastoral
versus scientific sociology; andone of level: sociographyversus sociology, the formersometimes

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

441

identifiedwith flat book-keeping(Poulat1990, 18-19).The Englishnameexpressedthe orientation

at which the SISR aimed;the Frenchtitle expressedthe "past":pastoralsociography.It was only
at the occasion of the last change of statutesin Leuven at the 18th Conference(1985) that the
association became Conference Intemationalede Sociolgie des Religions. Finally, the original
name CISR (Conf6rence)was changedin 1989 to SISR (Societe).
However, the majoraim of the last change of statutes(1985) was intendedto promotethe
democratizationof the Society. An elected council was instituted.From now on the members
couldelect, for termsof fouryears,theirrepresentativeson the ExecutiveCommittee,thepresident,
The representatives
the vice-president(who is in fact thepresidentelect), andthe secretary-general.
on the ExecutiveCommittee,but not the otherofficials, were eligible to runfor a second termof
office. Before this arrangementwas instituted,at each conference;a nominatingcommittee,at the
discretionof the memberspresentof the ExecutiveCommittee,elected by simplemajorityofficers
and membersfor the posts thatwere vacant on the Executive Committee(Poulat 1990, 27).
A provisionof the 1968 statuteshadalreadyinstitutedthe possibility of preparingthe plenary
sessions of each conferencethroughthe meeting of a "preparatorycommittee."It was President
Wilsonwho operationalizedthisprovisionby assemblingin Oxfordin 1974a committeeto prepare
the meetings of the 13th Conferencein Lloret de Mar (1975). Since then, all SISR conferences
have been preparedby professional sociologists teaching at universities throughoutthe world,
thusguaranteeingthe scientificcharacterof the conference.The impactof the following professors
on the associationwas consequentlyvery great:Wilson, Martin,Luckmann,Aquaviva, Gannon,
Guizzardi, Isambert,Laeyendecker,Remy, S6guy, and Dobbelaere. Especially the first three,
throughtheir presence and writings, helped a younger generationof sociologists of religion to
change the contentand the image of the society. Since 1985, this taskhas been undertakenby the
Council.
How ARE

THESE CHANGES TO BE EXPLAINED?

Firstof all, as has alreadybeen mentioned,churcheswere not interestedin theoreticalstudies,

and they had startedorganizingtheirown bookkeeping.In Belgium, for example, a yearly count
was organizedof the numberof people present at the weekend services, and of the numberof
baptisms,religiousmarriages,and churchburials.This measureresultedin the discontinuationof
many Socio-religiousresearchinstitutes,wherea religioussociology was practiced.The sociology
of religion developed furtherat universitiesand scientific researchinstitutes.
Majorchangesoccurredin the 1960s, especially at the end of the decade,and the early 1970s.
This was a special period:culturalchange was rampantand had a majoreffect on Catholics.This
became quite obvious in the drastic drop of Mass attendanceon Sundays. Catholics were up
againsta majoridentitycrisis, and this also had its impacton Catholicsociologists. Moreover,a
new generationof Catholicsociologists took over from the formergeneration:the majoritywere
lay persons, who had received graduatetrainingin sociology, and theirprimaryreferencegroup
was no longer the Church. The former generation, Leclercq, Boulard, Carrier, De Volder,
Duocastella, Goddijn, Pin, Verscheure,and others, were priests and primarilytheologians and
philosophers.
The new generationwas trainedin sociology, in and outside Catholic institutions,and some
had studiedin the United States.Theirmajorreferencegroupwas professionalsociologists. This
became very clear in theirprevalentdual membershipsin the SISR and the ResearchCommittee
for the Sociology of Religion of the InternationalSociological 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,andDobbelaere).Consequently,ISAplayed for manySISRmembers
the samerole thattheAmericanSociologicalAssociation(ASA) playedforACSS members(Reiss

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

442

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

1970, 127-28). Many of these young sociologists also participatedin conferences in the United
States, that is, the meetings of SSSR, ASR, and ASA, where they became acquaintedwith the
work of Demerath,Glock, Hadden,Hammond,McGuire,Richardson,Robertson,Roof, Stark,
Wallace,and many others,some of whom also became membersof the SISR.
The second generationof the SISR would certainlyagree with RobertoCipriani,who wrote
to me on the occasion of the 25th SISR Conference in Leuven and the exhibition retracingthe
50th anniversaryof the society: "Letme say thatall my scientific life has received a fundamental
influence from our association (SISR)... and from my links with ISA, IIS, AISLF,ASR, SSSR,
ASA." Indeed,the Association International de Sociologues de Langue Fran(aise (AISLF) also
played an importantrole for French-speakingsociologists of religion,who met therewell-known
sociologists like Aron, Balandier,Bourdieu,and Touraine,just as English-speakersmet Merton,
Parsons,and the leadingsociologists of thattime. Many sociologists of religion of the SISR were
able to eat fromboth linguistic"mangers."Consequently,the second generationof sociologists of
religion of the SISR were first and foremost sociologists, whose primaryreferencewas and is
professionalsociology and no longer the churches.
The changein the SISRmightalso be explainedby the extensionof its sociological viewpoint.
From the sixties on, religious sociology became a "sociology of Catholicism"as in the ACSS
accordingto Reiss (1970, 126-27). Sociologists startedstudyingCatholiclife beyondthe Church,
andthe same was truein Protestantism.In the NetherlandsandBelgium, for example,a sociology
of"pillarization"developed.Sociologistsof politics andof religionstartedstudyingthe emergence
and developmentof, and changes in, Protestantand Catholic organizations,and their impacton
the political equilibriumin 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 majorchanges in Catholicismand Protestantism.
The FrenchGSR also playedan importantrole in enlargingthe scope of studiesin the sociology
of religion,and membersof this laboratoryinfluencedthe evolutionof the SISR by servingon the
"preparatorycommittees"thatarrangedits plenarysessions. In an indirectway, they also had an
effect by refusingto readthe acronymof the society as "sociologie of religion."A change of the
Frenchname of the organizationwould only be possible if its intentionsto change its "aim and
level" were realized,a roadthe membersof the GSR themselveshadtaken.The title of Groupe de
Sociologie des Religions "clearly demonstratedits 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 introductionof German sociology of religion into France
[Seguy]"(Willaime 1999, 349-50).
The majorfactorsin transformingreligioussociology into sociology of religionswas a switch
in referencebehavior,resultingfrom the identity crises of both Catholicismand Protestantism,
and the extensive internationalcontactsaffordedby social science itself. Sociologists of religion
wantedto be sociologists andlookedfor professionalsupport.Theywent to internationalmeetings,
studied the classics in the field, extended the scope of their study to non-institutionalizedand
sectarianformsof religion,andpromotedcomparativeresearch.If they hada religiousbackground,
they did not limit the breathof theirstudiesto theirown religion.The primarygoal of theirstudies
became insight, knowledge, and theory building, ratherthan service to religious bodies. This
became clear even in the venues of the meetings of the SISR; since 1969, the SISR has held its
conferences in universitiesinsteadof on churchpremises.

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

443

LATER DEVELOPMENTS

Consequencesof extendingthefield
The extensionof sociological studiesto Judaismin the GSR, andbeforethatto Protestantism,
in "an area of researchuntil then predominantlycenteredon Catholicism,"not only diversified
the discipline, but it had an "internalsecularizing"effect that stimulatedits renewal (Azria 1999,
156). Studentsof Judaismhave asked whethercertainanalyticalcategoriesand concepts used in
the sociology of religion and based on an analysis of the Christian"field,"can operateto explain
Jewish reality,and whetherepistemologicalreflection on these concepts does not itself become
imperative(Azria 1999, 160). Hames, in an articleon sociology and Islam, referredto the same
problems (1999, 181-82). In fact, if we want to develop a general sociology of "religions,"we
need to de-christianizeor de-particularizeour concepts, including, as suggested by Azria and
Hames, the definitionof "religion"itself.
Discussionof this definitionis as old as the discipline.However,during"theperiodof religious
sociology" this discussion fadedaway: sociologists were studyingChristianreligions. In Europe,
the discussion re-emergedwith the broadeningof the field into Judaismand Islam. and, more
recently,it becamemore animatedwith studieson New Religious Movements(NRMs). However,
the definition was not an issue for those working with a functional definition of religion. But
functionaldefinitionsallow us to talk neitheraboutfunctionalalternativesfor religion nor about
"surrogatereligions"(Robertson1970, 39). Only substantivedefinitionsof religion enable us to
This is the optionof Yves Lambert(1991) forwhomthe reference
studyits "functionalalternatives."
defines the religious in the symbolic field (1997, 63-64).
to the "supernatural"
The searchto resolve the dilemmabetween functionalandsubstantialdefinitionswas 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"the definition of
religionandproposedthe following workingdefinition:religionis "aparticularmode of believing
(croire) which refers to a tradition,that is to say to an authorizedmemory, as the legitimating
authority."Willaime's solution to the dilemma resulted in a definition that refers t.o HervieuLeger'snotionof a "lineage,"but;to whichhe addedthe "charismaof the founder"who inaugurates
a religion, since, for him, "thereis 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 colloquium organizedby the Association suisse des
sociologues de la religion(1999), Huberproposedthe following universaldefinitionof religiosity:
it is "a constructionof reality whose semantic is defined by an instance which the individual
assesses as ultimatelyvalid."
To what do these discussions lead us? It seems to me that this universaldefinitionproposed
by Huberrefers to the notion of meaningsystem as defined by Wuthnow(1976, 2-3, 58-6 1) and
not to religiosity.Religiosityis rathera particularmeaningsystem, alongsideotherslike Marxism,
science as a way of life, hedonism,nationalism,and other"isms."To differentiatethem, I would
stressthatreligiosity refersto a "meta-empiricalreality,"for example, deities, spirits,the "sacred
law,"a "Sourceof creation,"the Almighty,and so on. If a religiosity has generated"a particular
lineage of beliefs" in a community,functioningas "a legitimatingreferencefor those beliefs,"
then we may call it a religion. However,such a lineage may or may not have originatedunderthe
impactof a "charismaticfounder."
This taxonomyhas consequencesfor our work. Firstof all, we should not limit ourselves to
the study of the involvementand the normativeintegrationof individualsin religions (churches,
sects, orNRMs)butincludein ourstudiesananalysisof theperson'sproperreligiosityor spirituality.
This implies the operationalization of religiosity, which means extending the field of
institutionalizedreligion.Secondly,religiousleaders,confrontedwith a decline of the involvement
of people in religions, suggest thatpeople 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

444

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

meaning system but give meaning to their lives on the basis of othermeaning systems, such as
hedonism or materialism.For that reason, we should also include in our studies the analysis of
non-religiousmeaningsystems thatpeople are using. This would allow for a study of the use of
differentmeaning systems in the differentsub-systems of the social system. Indeed, it is quite
possible that even religious people may be using alternativemeaning systems in some of the
social sub-systems.
The diversificationof the religiousscene has broughtabouta second consequence.The courts
have had to determinequestionsof public interest(for example, whethera particularmovement
qualifies as a religion) or with respect to purely civil cases (for example, in custody cases when
one of the parentsbelongs to a "sectarian"movement).Expertwitnesses with scholarlycredentials
have been called in to testify by the courts themselves, and/oralso by one or both parties to a
dispute (Wilson 1998, 17-20 ). Sociologists act in such trials as interpretersand mediators.In
such cases, Wilsoncontinues,it is imperativethatthe sociologist gives impartial,detached,neutral,
and objective testimony, maintaining a professional stance. To ensure this, he suggests that
professionalbodies be called upon to drawup a list of approvedexpert assessors (1998, 23-27;
see also Wilson 1999).
ConflictingParadigms:A Rolefor the ProfessionalAssociations
Different approaches to the field of religion have been developed among others,
secularizationtheory,the "rationalchoice"perspective,globalizationtheory,andthepost-modernity
perspective. I suggest that our professional associations that organize conferences should not
confine theirorganizationaleffortsto a call for papers.They shouldplay an activerole in explicitly
provokingdiscussionbetweencolleaguesrepresentingdifferentparadigms.Suchdiscussionsmight
advanceour criticalreflectionon these approaches.
To be operational,they should be planned several years in advance and be precededby an
exchange of papers,which afterwardsmightbe published.Such sessions shouldnot be limitedto
the usual format;they need a longertime slot so thatthe audiencecan hearthe argumentsandjoin
the discussion. Secondly, I want to plead at the same time for cross-nationalresearchthat is
broughtin as a crucialtest for hypotheses deducedfrom conflicting theories.
The SISRSpin-offas aniExampleof Globalizationi
The SISR publishes annually,in the first numberof Social Compass,paperspresentedat its
conferencesand selectedby an editorialboard.In the even years,the papersof its plenarysessions
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;the othersocieties of sociology of religion do not do
that.However,the scientificpublicationsresultingfromthe conferencesarenot exclusively limited
to the SISR issues of Social Compass.The thematicsessions and the researchgroups,organized
duringthe biennialconferences,have encouragedspecialistsof differentculturalspheresto meet
and to publishthe resultsof theirwork in books and special issues of journals.
Such publicationshave stimulatedcomparativeresearch.A first example is a study of religion
and health "From 'Spiritual Healing' to 'Psycho-spiritualTherapies,'" edited by Cohen and
Dericquebourg(1998), in which differentauthorsanalyzedandcomparedsuch diverse"therapies"
as CharismaticRenewal, Scientology, Rebirth, Reiyukai, Antoinism, Christian Science, and
psychotherapy.The great majorityof these papers were based on data from France and were
presentedin 1995 at the 23rd SISR Conference.They were the fruitof a collaborationthatstarted
at the 21st Conferencein 1991. In 1999, VanHove publisheda special issue of Social Compasson
New Age, resultingfrom discussions in thematicsessions organizedat SISR conferencesin 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 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

445

discussions centeredon questions like: may New Age be defined as a movementor is it partof a
wider phenomenon;is it historicallyunique; is there a common ideology. They focused also on
questionsof terminologyandconceptualization.Herethe SISR allowed for a more global view of
the phenomenon.
The globalizationof the field, the second characteristicof this development,was also present
in a publicationeditedby RolandCampiche(1997) on the social, cultural,and religiouslife-world
of young people in the 1980s, a projectthatwas startedat the 21st Conferencein 1991. This study
is theresultof cooperationbetweentwenty-twosociologistsof differentculturalandreligiousspheres
in Europe,whojoined in a commoneffortto analyzethe searchfor meaningby youngpeople on the
basis of surveydataand qualitativestudies.They not only describedand analyzedthe relationship
of youth towardsestablishedreligiousorganizations,churches,sects, andNRMs but also pointed
out new formsof "meaningsystems"emergingon the basis of extraordinary
events. Globalization
went even furtherin a book editedby Roof, Jackson,and Roozen (1995). The purposeherewas to
explore as systematicallyas possible the impactof the post-wargenerationon trendsin what was
called "establishmentreligion"and on new emergentforms of religion in Australia,the United
States,andsome ten Europeancountries.Thisproject,initiatedby the editors,extendedthe scope of
scholarlyco-operationacross the oceans and had alreadybegun at the SISR conferencein 1987.
Withoutdenyingthe impactof the socio-culturaldifferencesbetweenthe countries,some general
trendswere detected:a generalturningaway from establishedreligion, which, however, did not
meanthe rejectionof religionaltogether.In theirconclusions,the editorssuggest thatthe post-war
generationwas "reshapingexisting patternsof faith and practicein importantways in the several
in particular
countrieswe haveexamined"(Roof,Jackson,andRoozen1995,247). Fivecharacteristics
were commonto this generation'sreligiousstyle:thewidespreadandcross-nationaldiffusionof the
ideathatreligionwas an individualchoice ratherthana "culturalgiven";a mixingof codes resulting
in a personal"collage,"ratherthan a "somethingreceived";the attractionto seemingly different
directions,some to NRMs,othersto EvangelicalChristianreligiousinvolvement;the highpremium
placed on religious experience and personalgrowth;and the general anti-institutionaland antihierarchicalcharacterof this generation'sspirituality.
of the spin-offof the SISR,cross-culturalcomparisonsandglobalization,
Thetwo characteristics
are a new trendin the field of religious researchthatwas not limited to the SISR, but which was
certainlystimulatedby its inter-continentalconstituency(Dobbelaere1999, 91, 95).
A Trendtowardsthe Globalizationof Some ResearchProjects
At first, cross-culturalcomparisonswere the fruit of scholars who used differentdata-sets
collected for otherpurposesbut in which dataon religionwere available.In the frameof the study
of Beliefs in Government,promoted by the European Science Foundation, Jagodzinski and
Dobbelaereused datafromthe EuropeanValuestudies,Eurobarometerstudies,andothercountry
relateddata-sets,like election studiesandsocial surveys,to analyzechurchreligiosity(Jagodzinsi
and Dobbelaere 1995a),religious cognitions andbeliefs (DobbelaereandJagodzinski1995), and
Study,
religious and ethical pluralism(Jagodzinskiand Dobbelaere 1995b). The European"Value
with its successive waves in 1981, 1990, and 1999, was a majorsurvey covering more and more
Europeancountriesin its successive waves, which not only includedquestionson churchpractice,
but also on beliefs and ethics, which allowed for internationalcomparisons(see, for example,
Harding,Phillips, and Fogarty 1986), includingNorthAmerica, since the questionnairewas also
appliedthere(see, for example, Halman1991; andEster,Halman,and de Moor 1993). It was also
the cradleof the WorldValue Study promotedby Ronald Inglehart.
More and more data on religion has become available, for example, the 1998 survey on
religion of the InternationalSocial SurveyProgramme.This globalizationof studieson1religion is
very importantsince it allows for cross-culturalcomparisons.However,up to now, religion was
usually a section in internationalresearchprojects. To my knowledge, the Europeanproject on

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

446

JOURNALFORTHE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

ReligiousandMoralPluralismis the firstglobalresearchprojectfocusingon religionandmorality.

It is an offshoot of the internationalresearchprojectBeliefs in Government(Jagodzinskiand
Dobbelaere 1995b), which began with the help of the EuropeanScience Foundationand was
carriedoutin 1998-1999withthe supportof nationalresearchfoundationsin ten Europeancountries.
Colleaguesattendingthe SISR conferencein Quebec(1995) were invitedby the promotersof the
researchproject-Eileen Barker,KarelDobbelaere,WolfgangJagodzinski,and LilianeVoye to
join, and, in researchseminars held in Koln and Leuven, colleagues discussed the theoretical
backgroundof the project,deduced hypotheses to be tested, and built a core questionnairethat
received its final touches at the SISR conferencein Toulouse(1997). The SISR was in this case a
resourceenablingcolleaguesto meet andto buildup the researchteam.One of my disappointments
with the projectis thatone nationalfoundationdid not see the importanceof a projecton religion
andethics andpreferredto fundpositive sciences, and,in an othercountry,the foundationwas not
interestedin internationalresearchsince the Ramp-projecthad an extensive core questionnaire,
which allowed for only a small batteryof country-specificquestions.The foundationpreferredto
fund nationalprojects.
A CONCLUSION IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION

I wonderif the existing societies for the sociology of religion shouldnotjoin in promotinga
global researchprojecton religion. I am not suggesting that survey researchon a global scale is
the neplus ultra. However,we need more global studies since we alreadyhave a largenumberof
local studies,regionalor national,and also religious specific studies.We have to universalizeour
approachwith studies covering the global circumstance,which will renderit less limited to a
particularreligion and allow for the opening up of the study of "religiosity."
Such a project should be theoreticallywell preparedand allow for the testing of several
theoreticalperspectives,such as rationalchoice theory and the secularizationtheory.To do this,
we shouldpreparesuch a global projectwith local qualitativeresearchthattakes seriouslythe reconceptualisationof religionand"religiosity"in thebroaderframeof the studyof meaningsystems.
Consequently,we still need both local and global research, or in other words, we need the
"glocalisation"of sociological researchon religion and religiosity.
NOTES

1
2
3

Throughoutthis articleI will use the acronymSISRwhen I referto this associationdisregardingits originalacronym
CISR;in Englishthe society is called InternationalSocietv/or the Sociology of Religion.
In this section I rely entirelyon Europeandata.
For many years sociologists had sought to restrictSISR membershipand conference attendanceto professional
sociologists and academicsin relatedsciences to focus the discussions on theory and methodology.By abrogating
the categoryof "affiliatedmembers,"clergy and pastoralworkerswere excluded from membership.

REFERENCES
Azria, Regine. 1999. Le Judaismeet la sociologie. In Sociology and religions. An ambiguouisrelationship/ Sociologie et
religions. des relationisambigiuis,edited by Liliane Voye and Jaak Billiet, 155-70. Leuven: Leuven University
Press, KADOC-studies23.
Brechon,Pierre. 1997. Variationsconclusives: de l'itinerairea la pratique.In Le religieulxdes sociologues: Trajectoir-es
personelles et debats scientiJiques, edited by Yves Lambert,Guy Michelat, and Albert Piette, 245-54. Paris:
L'Harmatan.
Campiche,Roland.1999. Larelationambiguedes protestantismesa la sociologie. InSociologvand religions:An anmbiguous
relationship/ Sociologie et religions. des relations ambigues,op. cit., 116-30.
, ed. 1997. Culturesjelnes et r-eligionsen1Elurope.Paris:Les 6ditionsdu Cerf.
Cohen, Martine,and Regis Dericquebourg,eds. 1998. De la "guerisonspirituelle"aux "th6rapiespsycho-spirituelles."
RecherchesSociologues 39(1): 1-80.
De Volder,Nabor. 1951. L'objetde la sociologie religieuse. Lumen Vitae1-2: 216-20.
Dobbelaere,Karel. 1989. CISR, an alternativeapproachto sociology of religion in Europe:ACSS and CISR compared.
Sociological Anali'sis(50)4: 377-87.

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

GLOBALIZATIONOF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

447

. 1999. The internationalsociety for the sociology of religion (SISR): The last decade of the 20th century.In
Sociology and religions: An ambiguousrelationship/ Sociologie et religions: des relationsambigues, op. cit., 90100.

Dobbelaere,Karel,and WolfgangJagodzinski.1995. Religious cognitions andbeliefs. In Theimpactof values, editedby

Jan W. van Deth and ElinorScarbrough,197-217. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Ester,Peter,Loek Halman,and Ruudde Moor,eds. 1993. Theindividualizingsociety: Valuechange in Europeand North
Amnerica.
Tilburg:TilburgUniversityPress.
Halman, Loek. 1991. Waardenin de Westersewereld: Een internationale exploratie van de waarden in de Westers
samenleving.Tilburg:TilburgUniversityPress.
Hames,Constant.1999. Islamet sociologie: une rencontrequi n'a pas eu lieu? In Sociology and religions:An ambiguous
relationship/Sociologie et religions: des relationsambigues,op. cit., 171-82.
Harding,Steve, David Phillips, and Michael Fogarty.1986. Contrastingvalues in WesternEurope: Unitv;diversiti, and
change. London:Macmillan.
Hervieu-Leger,Daniele. 1993. La religionpour memoire.Paris:Les Editionsdu Cerf.
. 1997. De l'utopiea la tradition:Retoursurune trajectoirede recherche.InLe religieuxdes sociologues: Trajectoires
personelles et debats scientifiques,op.cit, 21-31.
Jagodzinski,Wolfgang, and Karel Dobbelaere. 1995a. Secularizationand church religiosity, In The impact of values,
op.cit., 76-119.
. 1995b. Religious and ethical pluralism.In Theimpactof'values, op. cit., 218-49.
Labbens,Jean. 1960. La sociologie religieuse. Paris:Fayard.
Laeyendecker,Leo. 1992. Kerkelijke vernieuwingsbewegingen in de Katholieke Kerk. In Handboek Godsdienst in
Nederland,edited by H. Schaefferet al., 104-113. Amersfoort:Horstink.
Lambert,Yves. 1991. La "Tourde Babel"des definitionsde la religion. Social Compass38(1): 73-85.
. 1997. De Limerzeel au tournantaxial. In Le religieux des sociologues: Trajectoirespersonelles et debats
scientifiques,op.cit., 55-66.
Le Bras, Gabriel. 1951. Presentations.Lumen Vitae,nrs.1-2: 13-21.
. 1955. De Louvaina la Tourette.In Sociologie religieuse,sciences sociales, Acts of the IVthCISR conference,915. Paris:Les editions ouvrieres.
. 1956. Etudesde sociologie religieuse, Volume11.Paris:Presses Universitairesde France.
. 1958. Les etapes futures.In Vocationde la sociologie religieuse, sociologie des vocations. Paroisses urbaines,
paroisses rurales,Acts of the Vth CISR conference,2 volumes, 41-44. Toumai:Casterman.
Lebret,L. J. 1955. Sociologie religieuseet economie humaine.In Sociologie religieuse,sciences sociales, op. cit., 203-35.
Leclercq,Jacques. 1955. Sociologie religieuse et theologie. In Sociologie religieuse,sciences sociales, op. cit., 159-67.
. 1958. Les grandesetapes. In Vocationde la sociologie religieuse, sociologie des vocations.Paroisses urbaines,
paroisses rurales, op. cit., 18-29.
Makrides,Vasilios. 1999.Ambiguousreceptionandtroublesomerelationship:The sociology of religionin EasternOrthodox
Europe.In Sociology and religions: An ambiguousrelationship/ Sociologie et religions: des relationsambigues,),
op. cit., 139-54.
Martin,David. 1999. Sociology and the Churchof England.In Sociology and religions: An ambiguous relationship/
Sociologie et religionis:des relations ambiguis, op. cit., 131-38.
Poulat,Emile. 1990. La CISR de la fondationa la mutation:Reflectionssur une trajectoireet ses enjeux. Social Compass
(37)1: 11-33.
Reiss, Paul J. 1970. Science and religion in the evolution of a sociological association.Sociological Analysis (30)2: 11930.
Remy,Jean. 1999. L'EgliseCatholiqueet la sociologie. InSociology and religions:An ambiguousrelationship/Sociologie
et religions: des relationsambiguis, op. cit., 101- 115.
Robertson,Roland. 1970. TheSociological interpretationof'religion.New York:Schocken Books.
Roof, WadeC, JacksonW.Carroll,and DavidA. Roozen, eds. 1995. Thepost-war generationand establishmentreligion:
Cr-oss-culturalperspectives.
Boulder/SanFrancisco/Oxford:Westview Press.
Van Hove, Hildegard,ed. 1999. New Age: A debate.Social Compass(46)2:115-240.
Voye, Liliane, and Jaak Billiet. 1999. Introduction,sociology, and religions: Patternsof encounter.In Sociology and
religions:An ambiguousrelationship/ Sociologie et religions: des relationsambigues,op. cit., 9-22.
Willaime,Jean-Paul.1995. Sociologie de religions. Paris:Pressesuniversitairesde France,Que sais-je: n? 2961.
. 1999. French-languageSociology of Religion in Europesince the Second WorldWar.SchweizerischeZeitschrift
fairSoziologie / Revuesuisse de sociologie / Swiss Journal of'Sociology 25(2): 343-71.
Wilson, Bryan. 1998. The sociologist of religion as expert witness. SchweizerischeZeitschriftfir Soziologie / Revue
Suisse de Sociologie / Swiss Journal of Sociology 24(1): 17-27.
. 1999. Sects and sociology. In Sociology and religions: An ambiguousrelationship/ Sociologie et religions: des
relations ambigutes,op. cit., 194-203.
Wuthnow,Robert. 1976. Theconciseness re/ormation.Berkeley/LosAngeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress.

This content downloaded from 131.252.96.28 on Mon, 23 Nov 2015 03:45:51 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions