You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Secularisation is among the most contested concepts in the sociology of religion, and it bears directly on the AQA dialogue topics, because how we read the place of religion in modern society shapes our judgement about whether religion is reasonable, vital or in terminal decline. The word refers, broadly, to the declining social significance of religion — but almost everything beyond that bald definition is disputed. Scholars disagree about whether secularisation is genuinely occurring, how it should be measured, which societies it applies to, and whether it is an irreversible feature of modernity or a contingent and possibly temporary trend. This lesson sets out the classical secularisation thesis and its leading defenders, then examines the powerful counter-currents — desecularisation, "believing without belonging", and public religion — before weighing the evidence.
Key term: Secularisation — the process by which religion loses social significance: its authority over institutions, its grip on culture, and its hold on individual consciousness. It can be analysed at three distinct levels — society, institutions, and the individual — which is why disputes about it so often turn on which level is in view.
A recurrent source of confusion is that "secularisation" can mean three different things, and a thesis true at one level may be false at another. Institutional differentiation is the process by which spheres such as education, medicine, law and welfare separate out from religious control and acquire their own secular rationale. Declining belief and practice concerns whether individuals actually hold religious beliefs and attend worship. Privatisation is the retreat of religion from the public square into private life. The sharpest debates — Casanova's especially — arise from showing that these can come apart: a society can differentiate institutionally while individuals remain devout, or religion can re-enter public life without reversing institutional differentiation.
Max Weber (1864–1920) is a foundational figure, though he did not use "secularisation" as a master term. Weber argued that modernity is characterised by rationalisation — the spreading dominance of calculative, bureaucratic and instrumentally rational modes of thought across every sphere of life. The cultural consequence he named the "disenchantment of the world" (Entzauberung der Welt): the progressive stripping away of magical, mysterious and sacred dimensions as the world comes to be understood as in principle masterable by calculation. Weber did not celebrate this. He feared that rationalisation was building an "iron cage" of bureaucracy in which deeper meaning is squeezed out, yet he regarded the trend as broadly irreversible in the modern West.
Key term: Disenchantment (Weber) — the process by which the world is emptied of magical and spiritual significance as scientific and rational explanation displaces religious and supernatural understanding.
There is a deep irony in Weber's account that the best answers exploit. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) Weber argued that a specifically religious impulse — the ascetic, this-worldly discipline of Calvinism, with its anxious search for signs of election in diligent labour and sober reinvestment — helped to generate the rationalised, capitalist modernity that would in turn corrode religion itself. Religion, on this reading, dug its own grave: the Protestant sanctification of methodical work and rational mastery of the world produced the very "iron cage" of bureaucratic rationality in which the sacred is progressively squeezed out. Secularisation is thus not simply something done to religion from outside by science; it is in part an unintended consequence of religion's own development.
Lines of criticism. Weber's diagnosis is penetrating but arguably parochial, drawn primarily from Western Protestant experience. Across much of the world religion has not withered under modernisation but adapted, and in places flourished. Disenchantment may describe an elite intellectual culture more accurately than the lived experience of most people, much of which remains stubbornly "enchanted" — astrology, alternative therapies, ghosts, luck and the holistic spiritualities catalogued by Heelas and Woodhead all suggest that the magical and the numinous have migrated rather than disappeared.
Bryan Wilson (1926–2004) gave the secularisation thesis its classic sociological statement. In Religion in Secular Society (1966) he defined secularisation as "the process whereby religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social significance", and tied it to industrialisation, urbanisation and the growth of scientific knowledge. His indicators were institutional and behavioural:
Lines of criticism. Wilson's thesis fits the Western European data well, but two objections recur. The first is the American anomaly: the United States is among the most modern societies and yet long remained intensely religious. The second is that Wilson measured institutional religion and so may have understated the persistence of private or unconventional belief, the very point Davie would later press.
Steve Bruce (b. 1954) is the foremost living defender of the thesis. In God is Dead: Secularization in the West (2002) he argues that secularisation flows from a tightly linked cluster of modern processes:
Bruce adds a sharp claim about diversity: religious pluralism is itself secularising, because when many competing faiths coexist, each is relativised and the plausibility of any one having a monopoly on truth is eroded — a sociological reworking of Berger's "plausibility structure" argument.
| Driver | How it promotes secularisation |
|---|---|
| Individualism | Religion privatised; collective authority weakens |
| Societalisation | Community bonds dissolve; religion loses its social function |
| Rationalisation | Scientific reasoning displaces religious explanation |
| Religious diversity | Competing options relativise every single faith |
Lines of criticism. Bruce's account is comprehensive and well-evidenced for Western Europe, but it generalises uneasily to the United States, the Islamic world or sub-Saharan Africa, where modernisation and religious vitality coexist. The sharpest disagreement concerns his claim about diversity: the religious-economy school (Stark and Finke, below) argues the exact opposite — that competition between many faiths energises religious participation rather than relativising it — and points to highly pluralistic, highly religious America as proof. Critics also note that diversity plainly intensifies rather than dilutes faith in many immigrant contexts (a point developed in the migration lesson), where the mosque or temple becomes the anchor of a threatened identity. Bruce's defenders reply that the European data still favour him: pluralistic European societies are not, on the whole, more religious. The empirical clash is genuine and unresolved, which is precisely why it makes such fertile ground for evaluation.
Peter Berger (1929–2017) is pivotal because he changed his mind in public. In The Sacred Canopy (1967) he supported the thesis, arguing that religion functions as a "sacred canopy" — an overarching framework of meaning that shelters a society from chaos and the terror of meaninglessness — and that modern pluralism shatters this canopy by destroying the taken-for-granted "plausibility structures" on which belief depends. By the 1990s, however, Berger judged that the empirical predictions had failed. In the edited volume The Desecularization of the World (1999) he wrote that the world "is as furiously religious as it ever was, and in some places more so than ever", identifying secular Western Europe as the exception rather than the global rule.
Key term: Sacred canopy (Berger) — the overarching framework of religious meaning that orders social life and shields individuals from existential anxiety; modern pluralism is held to tear holes in it.
Significance. Berger's reversal is a model of intellectual honesty and a standing warning against ethnocentric generalisation: a thesis that looks self-evident from Manchester or Stockholm looks plainly false from Lagos, São Paulo or the American Bible Belt.
Grace Davie (b. 1946), in Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing without Belonging (1994), challenges the inference from falling attendance to falling faith. Many Britons, she argues, retain religious beliefs — in God, in an afterlife, in the efficacy of prayer — while detaching from regular churchgoing; belief persists even as belonging declines. She later develops the complementary notion of "vicarious religion": a small core of active members sustains the churches "on behalf of" a much larger population that endorses their existence and turns to them at moments of crisis or rite of passage (baptisms, weddings, funerals, national mourning) without routine participation.
Lines of criticism.
José Casanova (b. 1951), in Public Religions in the Modern World (1994), attacks the assumption that secularisation entails privatisation. Religion, he argues, has in many places been "deprivatised", re-entering public life as a political and moral force. His examples include the Catholic Church in the fall of Polish communism, liberation theology in Latin America, the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the American Christian Right, and the public arguments over Islam in Europe. Crucially, Casanova separates the three meanings of secularisation and argues that only institutional differentiation is a genuine and necessary feature of modernity; the decline of belief and the privatisation of religion are contingent and reversible. This is the most influential modern refinement of the debate, because it allows one to accept part of the thesis while rejecting the rest. The strategic value of Casanova's distinction is that it concedes the strongest, best-evidenced part of the classical thesis (institutional differentiation in the modern West is genuine and probably irreversible) while denying the two parts the data do not support (that belief must wither and that religion must retreat from public life). It thereby converts an all-or-nothing dispute into a precise question about which of three processes is occurring where — and that disaggregation is exactly the move the highest-scoring essays make.
A frontal assault on the whole secularisation paradigm comes from the American rational-choice or religious-economy school, above all Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (Acts of Faith, 2000). They reverse the classical thesis at three points.
First, on demand, they argue that the human appetite for religion is a relatively stable constant, because religion answers perennial questions about meaning, suffering and death that science cannot. What varies is not demand but supply — the vigour and competitiveness of religious "firms". Where a single established church enjoys a lazy monopoly (much of Europe), it under-serves the population and attendance falls; where there is a free and competitive religious marketplace (the United States), energetic denominations compete for adherents and overall participation stays high. On this supply-side account, European secularisation is not the death of religious demand but the predictable torpor of a state-subsidised monopoly.
Second, Stark attacks the founding myth of the thesis: the picture of a pious medieval "Age of Faith" from which modernity has fallen away. Drawing on records of low medieval church attendance, widespread ignorance of basic doctrine and pervasive folk superstition, Stark argues that ordinary medieval Europeans were never as devout as the thesis assumes — so the supposed long decline is partly an illusion produced by comparing a romanticised past with a measured present.
Third, they deny that science erodes faith in the way Wilson and Bruce suppose, pointing to the persistence of religious belief among highly educated populations and scientists.
Key term: Supply-side (religious-economy) theory — the rational-choice account (Stark and Finke) that religious participation depends chiefly on the competitiveness of the religious "market": pluralism stimulates religion, and monopoly (e.g. an established church) depresses it — the reverse of Bruce's claim.
Lines of criticism. Bruce has fought a sustained battle against this school. He argues that the European data simply do not fit: highly pluralistic European societies are often more secular, not less, contradicting the prediction that competition boosts participation. He also charges the model with importing an implausibly economistic picture of human beings as utility-maximising "consumers" of salvation, and with explaining away inconvenient evidence (the supposedly irreligious Middle Ages) rather than confronting it. The dispute between the European secularisation school (Bruce) and the American religious-economy school (Stark) is one of the defining controversies of the field, and a strong essay can stage it directly.
A further influential account reframes the whole debate in terms of security. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart (Sacred and Secular, 2004), drawing on the World Values Survey, argue that the key driver of religiosity is existential security. Where life is precarious — poverty, disease, disaster, weak welfare provision — people turn to religion for reassurance and meaning, and birth rates are high. Where societies become affluent and provide cradle-to-grave security (the social-democratic states of Western Europe), the felt need for religious reassurance declines, and so does religiosity.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.