Secularisation

SECULARISATION ESSAY. What is Secularisation? Weather secularisation can be defined accurately is problematic because of its sociological genealogy. Despite this fact, sociologists have encouraged reliance upon this model to provide answers to questions regarding the changing role of religion in society. If a religious yardstick was used to answer such enquiries the present situation would not exist. But this is not the case. Bryan Wilson defines secularisation as “the process whereby religious thinking, practices, and institutions lose their social significance.” Although Wilsons work is not the focus of this essay his definition provides a key idea of the term. This essay will be built on Wilsons premise, and by the conclusion the writer is confident Wilson’s definition, to be measured against two scholarly articles, will be deemed credible. However scholarly opinion may differ regarding secularisation generally there is unanimous agreement concerning its nature. With this in mind the nature of secularisation will feature in the first part of this paper. This will be done to create the awareness needed to identify secular traits within the two articles this essay will base its comparative analysis on, JCD Clarks Secularization and Modernisation: The failure of a grand narrative, and Grace Davies ‘An Ordinary God’: The paradox of Religion in Contemporary Britain’respectively. The second part of the paper will involve scrutinising Clark and Davies writings to reveal what arguments each author presents pertaining to secularisation, the evidence they provide, whether the evidence challenges existing ideas about the phenomenon, and how. The third and final part of this piece will revolve around the learning and ideas the writer has taken from exposure to the articles. Finally the writer will divulge which of the articles (in his mind) provides the most convincing presentation of secularisation. The nature of secularisation is seen through the decline of religious influence in societal thinking, practices, and attitudes. The result of this decline manifests itself in the populace (majority is what this group will be referred to in this essay) changing its form of religiosity. The Church (with the exception of the Church of England will be referred to as the institution) experiences a noticeable reduction in attendance, power and responsibility. Clark and Davies articles concur with this idea, however a paradox is observed in Davies work in the form of the increased (rather than decreased) participation of the Church of England in the political sphere. The relevance of this point will surface in a later part of this paper. Davie explains this change in religiosity with reference to the British as being characterised by ‘persisting in believing but...not practising their religion with any degree of regularity’. Clark attributes the change to a disconnection between the populace and the institution, alongside changes in social structure and culture. The reduction of the institutions power results from the ‘reassignment of administrative and charitable activities from churches to civil agencies was very much a product of the ‘victory of dissent’, seeking to break perceived monopolies of the established church. Based on Davie and Clarks contentions we conclude that the nature of secularisation does not cause an abandonment of religion practice as such, but rather a shift; firstly in religiosity and secondly in attitudes of the populace towards institutions, eventuating in a ‘nominal allegiance’. With this basic idea of the nature of secularisation now established the paper moves into its second phase of investigating the arguments made by Clark and Davie regarding secularisation and evidence presented to back these. Clark asserts that secularisation is a flawed concept, a claim epitomised by the words ‘the failure of the grand narrative’ in the title of his article. This trivial point aside, the first flaw of secularisation lies in its genealogy and construction. Clark introduces his readers to eight inconveniences this causes explaining each in depth, pointing out the deficiencies each presents. Three of these will be looked at in particular because they encapsulate the imperfections relating to secularisation which Clark seeks to highlight. The first flaw provides an example of secularisations vulnerability to partiality, the second exposes its limitations, while the third exposes why the model is unqualified to provide comprehensive information regarding religious change on a global scale. The first flaw is in its position ‘as an alternative to religion especially Christianity. What this suggests is that observations pertaining to religious change are likely to be assessed primarily through a sociological lens and interpreted in such manner. This situation would be of little concern if there were various models of secularisation present to facilitate comparative analysis and consideration of diverse conclusions. However this is not possible, because of its second flaw, the paradigms singular nature. As a consequence information regarding religiosity is limited in scope, accuracy and, misrepresentative of the greater population. Lastly secularisation only describes changes within industrial democracies, seldom if ever addressing differences between societies, and generally equating religious behaviour and religiosity together. This means for instance, the compilation of data to provide an indication of religious change globally, would be near impossible because of the limited space the paradigm functions within. Lastly it is important to realise that Religious behaviour and religiosity are two different things with clear distinctions between them. To answer the question of why secularisation only describes changes in industrial democracies Clark proffers that secularisation was constructed at a certain time to fit the liberal democracies of the western world. Because the western world is clearly not representative of the entire world the paradigms inability to recognise such important distinctions renders it untenable so it cannot be relied upon to provide comprehensive information regarding religious change. Because of these factors Clark discourages reliance upon it. Davies article acknowledges the presence of secularisation
She argues through the conditions presented in her piece that Britain was experiencing degrees of secularisation which would eventuate in a situation described as the European identity. She guides her readers to consider two sets of societal circumstances on the rise in Britain and parts of Europe during the 1980s, which in the first instance illustrates secularisation in operation however in the second presents another side to it. British and European persistence in belief, but decision to disassociate from institutions is the first. The Church of England’s increased participation in public debate and the origin of its authority to engage when it is not representative of the majority is the second. The practice of believing but not belonging is a condition which transpires because institutions are unable to encourage proactive leadership regarding shifts in religiosity. The sociologically based jurisdiction of secularisation makes it inept to react to religious change occurring in other societies as mentioned in Clark. In reaction the majority makes changes to their religiosity which manifests itself openly in a new form. Other shifts which occur in line with this change are the formation of new contexts characterised by uncommitted religious belief, while the increase in nominal allegiance becomes a more prevalent and visible form of religious attachment. Davie cites empirical data then makes comparisons with France to support her claims regarding increasing popularity of believing and not belonging. The data found firstly that while the religious behaviour of Britons had many similarities with those of Europeans their feel and their histories were very different. Points of interest to emerge from the data include; only 15 per cent of Britons (who declare themselves as god fearing people) claiming membership of a Christian church, membership of other principal denominations declining in contrast to minority groups, and activity in Europe suggesting traditional religiosity taking on a more peripheral position in society. In France characterised by high levels of nominal membership and low levels of practice, 80 per cent of French people still consider themselves as Catholics. These conditions are a result of secularisations short comings, underpinned by disengagement of denominational practice and for this reason a model Davie argues cannot be relied upon. The second issue Davie contends with, concerns the origin of the authority of the Church of England to engage in public debate. What perplexes Davie is how an institution with dwindling numbers and a membership which is not representative of the population as a whole obtains and then sustains political influence. This enquiry along with the origin of its authority is what this section of the paper will examine. Working women display higher religious commitment than non-workers well into middle age while the actively faithful are elderly (females) with conservative voting habits according to Davie. With this in mind Davie offers that whilst the traditional practice of religiosity loses favour with the majority, this conservative minority keeps the traditional practice (regular church attendance, involvement) of religiosity alive. This ensures the institution keeps it conservative form from within (in the form of aged female believers) and without (in the form of an established institution). This sets the scene from a political perspective to engage the institution, resulting in a relationship we will now review. Davie presents three key points which provide the Church of England with Authority to engage in politics. The first is the Church of England’s position as an institution of English society. The second is its parochial tradition and the last is that it epitomises English religious ideals. Despite a reduction in membership in the 1980s it continues to maintain a presence in every part of English society. The unconscious association the British have with the institution is presented as the reason for toleration of its political activity. While the aforementioned conditions mentioned by Davie lead to a less than serene state this should not be unexpected as such is the nature of secularisation. We observe that the religious minority no longer depend on the majority having made up for its severed relationship through the involvement and nurturing of political ties. In reviewing this relationship several points are worth noting. While the institution and state traditionally enjoyed relations with the majority, under the conditions of secularisation their partnership with each other has taken prominence. The political initiatives of the British government must ultimately be supported by the church, because it ensures the development of the church is continual. This relationship however makes the government susceptible to criticism as Davie records in the Church of England practice of pasturing and criticising the government. We thus conclude this section with the sense that the break down in the relationship between institutions and the majority leads to the state of believing but not belonging. This is marked by nominal allegiance, and uncommitted religious practice. The institution compensates for its failed relationship with the majority through involvement in politics. At this point of the paper we observe whether these arguments challenge existing ideas. The institutions involvement in political debate was unusual because it is not conventional in the secular setting. The nurturing of the relationship between the two entities at the expense of continued interaction with the believing majority also challenged existing ideas formed. The increase in minority groups and the steady increase in their membership was an area where the secular notion of decreased association had no application. The reasoning behind this, as stated earlier, is because secularisation cannot account for occurrences outside of western industrial democracies, and other societies. I loved engaging with both articles and learnt so much. Having no base knowledge from the start made learning about secularisation exciting because the concept was totally foreign. Three points stood out. The separation caused by a disconnection between the majority and the institution is the first. This appeared to be perpetuated by secularisation with no indication of a resolve in sight. This point and the institutions inability to cope with the movements in the behaviour caused shock. For organisations to stay effective it is good practice to stay current meaning observing patterns of belief in contemporary societies and evolving where necessary. Because secularisation makes this near impossible many aspects of church activity presented by Clark and Davies had been made redundant eventuating in the circumstances discussed already. The next piece of learning I took from the articles was the difficulty in defining the condition definitively. So many conditions stem from it, that it means many things. Within the context of this essay and as a result of the information presented however, it is hoped that the definition quoted by Wilson at the beginning of this paper of the process being marked by religious thinking, practices, and institutions losing social significance has been proven credible. The last piece of learning was regarding the inability of secularisation to appreciate that religiosity can continue persistently without conventional behaviour. Institutions believe the majority must maintain links with it to sustain a harmonious existence. This is a false belief and renders the sociological idea of church attendance being evidence for the truth of Christianity while non attendance is evidence for its untruth, as incorrect. The writer of this paper found JCD Clarks article as the more convincing of the two regarding secularisation. This is because he provided a comprehensive explanation of the eight conditions resulting from it. These provide an important starting point for individuals with no base knowledge. This created awareness that the society the writer is within is secular and the ability to identify shortcomings but also understand why these flaws exist. In conclusion it is agreed that secularisation is flawed. Clarks assessment (outlined in his abstract) however that to gain a better conception of religion, a broader more historical model able to accommodate persistent religiosity and changes in religious behaviour is needed is the direction which must be taken.

RELI221 RELIGION AND DISENCHANTMENT 2014
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON