Sunteți pe pagina 1din 21

Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

DOI 10.1007/s12108-007-9000-3

Sociology Dismissing Religion? The Presentation


of Religious Change in Introductory
Sociology Textbooks

Richard Featherstone & Katie L. Sorrell

Published online: 9 October 2007


# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract This paper explores whether the field of sociology harbors a dismissive
attitude towards religion. Specifically it examines whether introductory sociology
textbooks present the classic secularization theory over the more recent religious
economies explanation of religious change. The classical secularization thesis
suggests that religion is declining in importance in modern societies and may
disappear completely. The religious economies perspective proposes that religion has
actually become more influential and dynamic over time. While both theories are
well represented in the sociology of religion literature, we explore whether generalist
sociology textbooks reflect this reality. This article provides a content analysis of 31
introductory sociology textbooks published between 2003 and 2006. We assess the
presence and promotion of the above theories in these textbooks. Our analysis
reveals that 20 (65%) of the 31 textbooks in our study present only secularization
theory, while seven (23%) of the textbooks cover both secularization theory and
religious economies theory. We assess the ramifications of such a lopsided
arrangement and conclude by encouraging a more open dialogue on this issue.

Keywords Sociology . Religion . Religous change . Religous economies .


Secularization

Introduction

Scholars have complained that the field of sociology has a long history of attacking
religion and promoting the position that religion is of little significance in modern

R. Featherstone (*)
University of Northern Iowa, 356 Baker Hall, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0513, USA
e-mail: richard.featherstone@uni.edu

K. L. Sorrell
University of Wisconsin—Stout, Wisconsin, USA
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 79

societies. Lenski (1963) proposes that European sociology was antagonistic towards
religion “from its inception” and that it promoted the idea that religion was becoming
“a negligible force in the modern world” (Lenski 1963: 3). Hadden (1987: 592)
suggests “a very large proportion of both first- and second-generation [American]
sociologists were doubters or disbelievers.” He states that these sociologists believed
“religion had fallen on hard times and, quite possibly, it had weakened beyond the
point of resuscitation” (Hadden 1987: 594). In a recent book examining seculariza-
tion, Smith (2003) tested the position that sociology has long discounted religion as a
vital force in modern society. Analyzing the content of early American sociology
textbooks, he contends that the authors of these textbooks promoted the idea that
religion’s “influence and credibility in the modern world are for good reasons rapidly
declining” (Smith 2003: 139). Similarly, some historians have argued that during the
early twentieth century academic elites contributed to the marginalization of religion
within American higher education (Marsden 1994; Reuben 1996).
These allegations are not directed solely at the discipline’s past. Sociology
continues to be accused of harboring a negative attitude towards religion (Stark and
Finke 2000). Hamilton and Form (2003), for example, criticize the five bestselling
introductory sociology textbooks for advancing the idea of religious decline without
providing any evidence for it. Instead of viewing religion as a dynamic force in
modern societies, sociology has accepted the secularization hypothesis that religion
is declining as people become more technologically dependent and scientifically
minded (Jagodzinski and Greeley 1997). Stark and Finke (2000) suggest there are at
least two problems with this perspective. First, they argue that contemporary
research proves that religion is not becoming less important in modern society.
Second, they contend that sociology’s anticipation of religious decline is largely
based on an ideological inclination rather than empirical observation. Consequently
Stark and Finke (2000:54) warn that this long held, mistaken prejudice will
adversely influence the “tone of conversation, instruction, and research” of religious
topics within academia.
In sum, it has been suggested that sociology as a field of study dismisses religion
and advances a secularization theory which predicts religious decline in modern
societies. This article has been written in order to investigate this claim. To set the
context for our study and better educate the reader about this controversy we begin our
paper by describing the secularization thesis and its more recent challenger, the religious
economies perspective. The next section describes these two theories, summarizing both
their history and current standing within the sociology of religion subfield.

Two Theories of Religious Change

The secularization thesis is perhaps the original sociological explanation of religious


change. Max Weber is credited with coining the term “secularization” (Christiano et
al. 2002), but it was Emile Durkheim who famously suggested that religion is a
carryover from humanity’s primitive past. Durkheim proposed that as a society
becomes more rationalized and industrialized it loses its need for religious
explanations (Durkheim 1893, 1915). Moreover, as divergent religious systems vie
for control of a society, agnosticism begins to take root and collective religious
80 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

sentiments begin to falter as individuals experience doubts about their faith.


Durkheim predicted that over time modern societies would become more secular
and religious explanations would decline in power and influence. This was the basic
tenet of the secularization thesis. Today, secularization is a much more complex and
nuanced concept (Johnstone 2004); nonetheless, in its basic form the secularization
thesis is still defined as “the historical process whereby religion ‘becomes less’ and
is compartmentalized in people’s lives and broader society” (Monahan 2001: 197).
In its heyday, during the 1960s and 1970s, secularization was considered the most
important issue in the sociology of religion (Budd 1973), and the decline of religion
usually garnered considerable coverage in articles examining religion and modern
society. Many researchers of the time described religion as an institution with
decreasing importance in Europe and the USA (Berger 1967; Wilson 1966).1
Although the idea was considered pejorative by religiously active college students
(Perkins 1987), some textbook authors went so far as to predict the total
disappearance of religion altogether (Wallace 1966). According to secularization
theorists, religion as a social institution and as a collective human activity would
experience a precipitous decline within modernizing societies.
For decades the secularization paradigm held sway over an entire field of
scholarship. It was for all intents and purposes the only accepted paradigm in the
field. Referring to its years of dominance, Hadden (1987) suggests “secularization
was more than taken-for-granted; the idea of secularization became sacralized”
(588, emphasis in original). Demerath (2001: 211) calls secularization the “concept
that was once an unquestioned staple of scholarly work...” Berger (2001: 201) notes
that for academics it “attained the status of a taken-for-granted truth about which it
would be silly to argue.” In short, it was once accepted that religion would
eventually become an artifact of the past, like horse-drawn wagons and cooper
smiths. Ironically, however, it was secularization itself that was to experience hard times.
Unfortunately, for the secularization perspective, the empirical evidence did not
bear out its claim. In fact, research indicates that religion continues to be influential
both socially and individually (Hammond 1985; Iannaccone and Everton 2004;
Robertson and Chirico 1985; Warner 1993). At the aggregate level, many nations
exhibit consistent religious stability while others have experienced increases in
church membership and religious attendance rates. For example, Ireland and Poland,
have maintained relatively high levels of religious participation over the past century
(Mitchell 2004; Ramet 1998). Other countries, like Bulgaria and Hungary have
recently experienced greater levels of church attendance during a time of significant
modernization (Froese and Pfaff 2001). Even individuals considered irreligious in
highly secularized nations in Western Europe report feelings and beliefs that counter
the secularization perspective (Reif and Inglehart 1991). Research data also show
that Americans participate in religious services at a higher level today than they did
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Finke and Stark 2005). Paradoxically the
most modernized nation in the world has become, and remains, one of the most
religious societies on the planet.

1
Davie (2003) has pointed out that secularization is a largely Eurocentric perspective, since other nations
in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia do not fit the model and are largely ignored by the theory.
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 81

In recent decades social scientists specializing in religion have become perplexed


by these and other findings which suggest that religion is flourishing in the very
areas where it was believed to be the most vulnerable. This raised questions about
the validity of the secularization perspective and eventually encouraged the
development of a new theory of religious change. Interestingly, some of
secularization’s earliest proponents are among its strongest critics. For example,
one of the most famous early advocates of the secularization perspective, Peter
Berger, withdrew his previous predictions of religious decline. In 1997, during an
interview with The Christian Century, Berger (1997: 974) commented:

I think what I and most other sociologists of religion wrote in the 1960s about
secularization was a mistake. Our underlying argument was that secularization
and modernity go hand in hand. With more modernization comes more
secularization. It wasn’t a crazy theory. There was some evidence for it. But I
think it’s basically wrong. Most of the world today is certainly not secular. It’s
very religious.

Another well-known sociologist who switched sides was Rodney Stark. In fact,
Stark (1998: 394) admits in an earlier edition of his introductory sociology textbook
that he used to support the secularization thesis for awhile but later changed his
position.

I must confess that as a young sociologist I largely shared these [secularization]


views. But as I did research on religious groups, from Moonies to major
denominations, I found it very difficult to square these views with what I saw.
For millions of people faith was alive and well. Many sophisticated scholars
appeared to have no problem in reconciling science with a belief in the
supernatural. Could the secularization thesis be flawed? By 1980 I had con-
cluded that it was.

Today, Stark is one of the leading opponents of the standard secularization model.
Others soon followed the lead of Berger and Stark. By the late twentieth century the
tide of opinion began to turn as more and more sociology of religion researchers
became disenchanted with the theory of secularization (Greeley 1996).
While no specific date has been offered as to its emergence in the literature,
rudiments of a new theory were beginning to take shape in the 1980s. Often called
the religious economies model (Montgomery 2003), this theory has alternatively
been referred to as “the new paradigm in the sociology of religion” (Warner 1993),
“the rational choice approach to religion” (Roberts 2004), and the “market model of
religion” (Johnson 2003). For simplicity we title this perspective the religious
economies approach since this is how several of its original authors most commonly
refer to it (see Finke and Stark 1988; Stark and Iannaccone 1994).
One of the basic tenets of the religious economies approach is that barring
political interference a society will naturally possess many different religious options
from which its members can choose (Finke and Stark 1988). In a pluralistic setting,
organized religion is thought to flourish as multiple religious groups provide diverse
spiritual products and actively compete with one another for religious consumers. No
matter how energized and competitive a religious group might be, however, not all
82 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

religious messages are equally attractive to all people. While most religious groups
will be able to attract at least a modicum of followers, some groups are more
successful at attracting religious participants than other groups.
According to the religious economies theory most people are drawn to religious
groups that focus on otherworldly issues. Such organizations are thought to be more
successful at maintaining and acquiring adherents than religious groups that focus on
the affairs of this world (Stark and Finke 2000). This occurs because people are
naturally attracted to religious groups that focus on the issues of the sacred rather
than on the issues of the secular world. People are especially interested in religious
groups that can promise them spiritual returns on their earthly investments
(Iannaccone 1994). Strict religious organizations are able to promise their members
a significant level of spiritual rewards in exchange for accepting and following a
stringent code of conduct (Stark and Finke 2000). For example, conservative groups
like the Assemblies of God often connect a member’s adherence to the
organization’s lifestyle expectations to the assurance of eternal rewards (Iannaccone
1994). Liberal or mainline groups, such as the United Church of Christ, however
demand few requirements from their members and offer just as meager spiritual
assurances. Consequently, liberal and mainline denominations are expected to lose
membership over time while strict, sectarian groups are expected to grow.
This is not to suggest that mainline groups will totally disappear or that everyone
will eventually join a conservative church. Religious economies theory suggests that
conservative groups generally grow because they are better able to encourage
member loyalty and participation. In essence the high tension sects usually attract
and maintain members better than low tension religious denominations (Iannaccone
1994). What makes this especially complicated is that religious groups are
themselves in an ever changing process of transformation. Over time, most sectarian
groups transform into more mainstream denominations where members receive
fewer moral expectations and experience less tension with the outside world. As this
process occurs the group begins to lose members as the original message is
neglected and participants see a decreased return on their spiritual investments. Out
of this decline often arise new sectarian groups that attract the dissatisfied and
religiously disenfranchised members of modern society. These new groups
reemphasize traditional values and once again attract followers as they offer
religious answers and spiritual assurances that the mother denomination has set aside
(see Stark and Finke 2000 for a more complete explanation of these principles and
propositions). Ultimately, religious economies theory suggests a cycle of religious
change within a religiously deregulated society, but no overall decrease in religious
involvement is proposed.
This process of transformation is precisely what many researchers have found
taking place throughout our nation’s past (Iannaccone 1994; Kelley 1972; Roof and
McKinney 1987). While some religious denominations have lost adherents over
time, other religious groups have experienced a simultaneous increase in
membership (Finke and Stark 2005). Consequently, according to the religious
economies approach, religion is not experiencing a linear decline in the USA as
secularization predicts. Instead, participation in religion is largely shifting between
religious organizations based on how well these groups are able to meet the religious
needs and interests of the population.
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 83

While religious economies theorists do not predict that everyone will become
religiously active in a religiously diverse society, they do assume that the inherent
demand for organized religion is fairly robust within every population (Stark and
Finke 2000). The focus of the theory is on the supply side rather than on the demand
side of religion (Finke and Iannaccone 1993). Hence human involvement in
collective religion waxes and wanes based on the amount of preferred choices that
religious organizations are able to supply a particular community, not on a nation’s
level of modernization (Finke and Stark 2003). Contrary to the secularization thesis,
the religious economies model proposes that a community’s religious involvement is
dependent upon two factors. The first is the degree to which the religious
marketplace is unregulated, and the second is how competitive available religious
suppliers are at pursuing potential adherents. This is a much different approach than
the secularization theory which suggests that modernization and scientific
advancement reduce religious involvement and the influence of religious institutions.
Whatever its ultimate validity, in the past decade the religious economies theory
has transformed the sociology of religion literature. In 1993, The Churching of
America 1776–1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy, by Roger Finke
and Rodney Stark (1992), won the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion’s
Distinguished Book Award.2 In the same year, Stephen Warner wrote in the
American Journal of Sociology that the religious economies theory was establishing
itself as “the new paradigm” in the social scientific study of religion (Warner 1993:
1055). The perspective has since been heavily covered in numerous sociological
journals, and today the three most popular textbooks in the sociology of religion
include sections discussing this perspective (Johnstone 2004; McGuire 2002;
Roberts 2004).3 More specialized works highlighting contemporary research in the
sociology of religion often devote entire chapters to cover the differences between
secularization theory and religious economies theory (see for example, Christiano et
al. 2002; Demerath 2001; Groski 2003).
Without question, the religious economies approach has become a highly
acclaimed paradigm within the sociology of religion literature. It has even displaced
the secularization model as the leading explanation for religious change. Interest-
ingly, the theory has become so dominant that it has garnered its own set of
dedicated critics (see Blau et al. 1992; Bruce 2000; Chaves 1995; Lechner 1997). In
a recent chapter, Demerath (2001) complains that it is not even popular to question
the religious economies theory anymore. A brief review of the sociology of religion
literature demonstrates that the religious economies approach is not an obscure or
underreported perspective in its field. Most sociology of religion scholars now
consider it an equal alternative to the secularization perspective (Monahan 2001).
The question remains, however, whether the larger field of sociology presents this
reality.

2
An updated version of their book, The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in our
Religious Economy, was released in the summer of 2005.
3
Roberts (2004) actually devotes an entire chapter of his text to describing the differences between
secularization and what he calls the rational choice approach to religion.
84 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Data and Methods

Since academic fairness and accuracy are fundamental principles of sociology


(McKeachie 1999; Mills 1967), we believe it is important to explore whether
sociology describes religion appropriately. While there are perhaps many ways to
assess this issue, one approach is to review how recent introductory sociology
textbooks present religious change.4 A content analysis of such material is a
legitimate starting point since it has been said that the introductory sociology
textbook represents the essential core of sociological knowledge (Perrucci 1980;
Tischler 1988). As Keith and Ender (2004: 20) suggest, “the introductory textbook is
a window through which one can become acquainted with the essential subject
matter of our discipline.” As one of the most common educational materials students
are assigned in sociology courses, it represents a very public record of what the
general field of sociology believes to be true.
Given the broad influence and large audience of the introductory textbook, we
focus on how religious change is presented in introductory sociology texts.
Specifically, we examine whether introductory sociology textbooks provide a
discussion of the religious economies approach since this perspective predicts that
religion will continue to be an important, dynamic, and growing force in most
societies. We also analyze how much coverage the secularization thesis receives in
these textbooks since several scholars (Hadden 1987; Jagodzinski and Greeley 1997;
Stark and Finke 2000) have suggested that sociology, as a whole, favors this theory
even though it is less popular among sociology of religion specialists.
In order to determine whether sociology has a preference for the secularization
theory over the religious economies model, the authors conducted a content analysis
of contemporary, introductory sociology textbooks. We focus exclusively on general
coverage textbooks marketed for college students taking an introductory sociology
course. We limit our study to textbooks that are copyrighted since 2003 because we
are interested in resources that are likely to be used by students today.5 Examining
recently published textbooks is also important to our analysis since we want to allow
for the fact that textbooks are often slow at including newer research (Wright 1996).
Choosing textbooks published after 2002 reduces the possibility that religious
economies theory is simply too new of an idea for the authors to have included it in
their textbooks.
Introductory textbooks serve as an influential source of authority because a
significant percentage of college students are exposed to them when they take an
introductory sociology course to fulfil a general education requirement (Babchuk
and Keith 1995).6 We exclusively examine general sociology textbooks because
these readings garner many more students than textbooks designed for specialty

4
This was done in a limited way by Hamilton and Form (2003).
5
Whenever possible we use the most recently released edition we could acquire. However, due to the
dynamic nature of the textbook industry and the inherent deliberativeness of the journal review process we
cannot guarantee that all of the texts we use are the most current available as of this writing.
6
This is the case at the first author’s university where the sociology department typically fills nine
introductory sociology courses per semester.
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 85

courses in religion (see Spickard 1994 for an excellent discussion of this issue). We
also do not include textbooks written specifically for sociology of religion courses,
because we are interested in how religion is presented by the larger field of
sociology, not specialists.7 Moreover, our analysis does not include readers,
anthologies, or collections composed solely of historical writings since these are
commonly omitted in other sociology textbook reviews (Lewis and Humphrey 2005;
Wright 1995a) and often do not represent the state of the field today.
To create our population of textbooks we contacted all the major college-level
academic publishers to see which textbook offerings they provided for introductory
sociology. We also contacted colleagues who teach introductory sociology courses
and asked them which textbooks they use in their classes. Finally, we did a title
search for the term “Sociology” and “Society” among several major Internet sites
that sold college textbooks to see whether there were any other publishing houses
that offered an up-to-date introductory textbook. Altogether we found a total of 31
textbooks that met our criteria.8
Our qualitative method of analysis is consistent with similar studies that compare
textbooks in their coverage of a specific topic (see Drakeford et al. 2005; Wright
1995b). Once a population of texts was identified a content analysis was employed
on the chapters or sections covering the subject of religion. We searched for and read
the religion sections of each textbook. Interestingly, two textbooks had no chapter or
even a significant section on religion (McIntyre 2006; Newman 2004).
Two textbooks presented a chapter covering both families and religion (Anderson
and Taylor 2005; Lindsey and Beach 2003). Six textbooks combined the topics of
religion and education in the same chapter (Brinkerhoff et al. 2005; Henslin 2006;
Hughes and Kroehler 2005; Kendall 2004; Schaefer 2004; Thio 2005), while 21
textbooks dedicated an entire chapter to the issue of religion (all others).
After identifying the sections discussing religion, we read each part individually
and separately coded whether the secularization and/or the religious economies
models were presented. Since the religious economies approach does not always go
by that label, we identified passages that presented the theory regardless of
nomenclature. For each textbook, we compared the coverage of secularization with
the coverage of the religious economies approach. This coding approach is similar to
the one used by Lewis and Humphrey (2005) in their study of how introductory
sociology textbooks cover the topic of the environment. Using a technique similar to
the one offered by Schweingruber and Wohlstein (2005) we also coded whether the
textbook authors endorse or refute the religious economies model. Inter-reviewer

7
Of the undergraduate-level sociology of religion textbooks we did look at (Johnstone 2004; McGuire
2002; Roberts 2004), all of them described both secularization theory and religious economies theory.
Interestingly, these authors usually presented religious economies theory as the rational choice approach.
8
We are not suggesting that we have found every possible introductory textbook available on the market.
However, we are confident that our convenience sample includes all of the most popular textbooks on the
market today (Lewis and Humphrey 2005). As many instructors already realize, several of the larger
publishers offer both a full and abridged version of the same text. Because shortened textbooks do not
always contain exactly the same information as their parent textbook (Withrow et al. 2004), we analyze
both the shorter “essential” version and the more complete version separately in our analysis.
86 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Table 1 The presentation of secularization and religious economies theories in recent introductory
sociology textbooks

Neither theory offered Only secularization offered Both theories offered

Anderson and Taylor 2005 Anderson and Taylor 2004 Brinkerhoff et al. 2005
McIntyre 2006 Brym and Lie 2005 Charon 2004
Newman 2004 Curry et al. 2005 Farley 2003
Thio 2005 Eitzen and Zinn 2004 Giddens et al. 2003
Ferrante 2003 Hughes and Kroehler 2005
Henslin 2005 Stark 2004
Henslin 2006 Thompson and Hickey 2005
Ingram and Keller 2003
Kendall 2004
Kendall 2005
Kornblum 2005
Lindsey and Beach 2003
Macionis 2005
Neubeck and Glasberg 2005
Schaefer 2004
Schaefer 2005
Shepard 2005
Steele and Price 2004
Sullivan 2004
Tischler 2004

reliability was very high. All but two of the textbooks were coded in the same way,
establishing a 94% agreement level.9

Findings

Our analysis reveals that introductory sociology textbooks fall roughly within one of
three categories. It is worth mentioning at this point that none of the textbooks
presented the religious economies approach exclusively. In other words, if the
religious economies theory was mentioned so too was the secularization theory.
Table 1 shows the basic categorization for each textbook. Of the 31 textbooks
reviewed, four fail to discuss either the theory of secularization or the religious
economies approach. This is partly due to the fact that there is an overall lack of
coverage concerning religion by these authors. For example, McIntyre (2006) offers
no unified section on the topic of religion in her textbook on sociology. Newman’s
(2004) text is over 500 pages in length, yet he offers less than three pages on the
topic of religion, with no discussion of secularization or religious economies theory.

Ignoring Secularization and Religious Economies

Other authors discuss religion in more detail, but focus their attentions on topics
outside of religious change. Thio (2005) briefly mentions that some religious groups

9
The two textbooks in dispute were subsequently coded separately by an outside professor familiar with
the religious economies and secularization theories. The result of this third coding established how the two
textbooks were ultimately categorized.
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 87

are declining and that some are growing, but he avoids the subject of secularization
and never mentions contemporary research by religious economies theorists.
Anderson and Taylor (2005) leave out a discussion of secularization and religious
economies theory from their abridged “Essentials” textbook. This streamlined
version of their larger text provides a limited discussion of religion that avoids both
secularization theory and the religious economies model. This is an uncommon
approach for most introductory textbooks, however, for while religious economies
may not garner much coverage in sociology textbooks, secularization theory is pretty
much ubiquitous.

Presenting Secularization, Omitting Religious Economies

The second category of textbooks can be grouped together as those which discuss
the secularization theory, but leave out the religious economies approach. Twenty
textbooks are in this category; this represents nearly two thirds of the textbooks in
our analysis. All of the resources in this second category have the same thing in
common—they provide some level of discussion regarding secularization theory, but
they omit any reference to the religious economies theory. The overall depth to
which these textbooks discuss secularization moves along a continuum from two
sentences to four pages.
The textbook by Eitzen and Zinn (2004) provides an extreme example of
textbooks offering only a limited discussion of secularization. They write, “There is
evidence for the ‘secularization of religion’ by social class. Polling data reveals [sic]
that the more education and income one has, the less likely one is to find religion
important and to hold traditional religious beliefs” (503). This is the first and last
mention of secularization in their chapter on religion. Although Eitzen and Zinn
(2004) provide only a vague discussion of the secularization perspective there is no
discussion whatsoever of religious economies theory in their textbook.
The other textbooks in category two provide more discussion of secularization,
with some authors devoting several pages to the subject. Moreover, some of the
coverage appears to be more than just informative, it borders on direct advocacy for
the theory. Several examples are worth noting. In a section titled, “Secularism,”
Tischler (2004) advances the following position.

Many scholars have noted that modern society is becoming increasingly


secularized, that is less influenced by religion. Religious institutions are being
confined to ever-narrowing spheres of social influence, while people turn to
secular sources for moral guidance in their everyday lives (2004: 344, emphasis
in original).

Explaining how some secular political movements may perhaps take the place of
religion, he opines, “In this increasingly secular modern world, however, sacred
legitimacy appears to be unnecessary for establishing meaning and value in life”
(344). Confronted by research that suggests that sectarian groups are growing,
Tischler attributes the rise of these groups to the fact that some people need to
belong to groups that will determine moral choices for them (2004: 346). Religious
economies theory is never provided as an alternative position.
88 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

In a similar vein, Brym and Lie (2005) not only present secularization as a
reasonable theory, but spend a good deal of their text defending it from criticism.
Interestingly they note that the secularization thesis was

...undoubtedly the most widely accepted argument in the sociology of religion


until the 1990s. According to the secularization thesis, religious institutions,
actions, and consciousness are unlikely to disappear, but they are certainly on
the decline worldwide (Brym and Lie 2005: 440).

This is an amazing statement since the authors reveal that secularization is no


longer the most accepted theory in the sociology of religion. Nevertheless, the
authors do not follow this up by describing the approach that supplanted
secularization. Instead they make passing references to research that indicates
religion is doing well across the world and that fundamentalist religious
organizations have grown. But other than this, religious economies theory is not
presented; instead, secularization theory is defended and revised.
One of Brym and Lie’s arguments is that religiosity is negatively correlated with a
nation’s level of human development (2005: 441–442). In essence the more
advanced the nation–state the less religious it is; the only exception being the
USA. Yet the authors explain that while religion is alive and well in the USA,
frequent church attendance in this country has decreased over time. In fact, these
authors warn that the future of religion in this country does not look promising.
Young people “are unlikely ever to attend services as frequently as elderly people
today” (2005: 458). According to these authors, “The people who attend religious
services most often are those who were taught to be religious as children, who need
organized religion for political reasons or due to their advanced age, and who have
the most time to go to services” (Brym and Lie 2005: 459). This kind of pejorative
language does not indicate any value for religion or the people who participate in it.
Perhaps it is for this reason that the authors confidently conclude their chapter with a
revisionist’s perspective, “religion is increasingly restricted to the realm of spiritual;
it governs fewer aspects of people’s lives and is more a matter of personal choice
than it used to be” (Brym and Lie 2005: 460).
It is important to point out that while religious economies theory is not described
by any of the textbooks in category two, the classical secularization proposal is not
totally accepted by all of them. Sullivan (2004), for example, agrees that religion has
declined in modern society. “The growth of science and technology in the past few
centuries has also played an important role in the declining influence of religion”
(342). But Sullivan is not quite ready to dismiss religion completely. Later on he tells
the reader, “Despite the process of secularization, most sociologists agree that
religion, in one form or another, will continue to play an important part in society”
(342–343). Macionis (2005: 507) goes so far as to reassure his readers that there is a
consensus among sociologists that religion will not disappear one day. Likewise,
after describing the secularization thesis in length, Neubeck and Glasberg (2005)
write, “The secularization thesis posits a decline of the significance of religion in
people’s lives as science and technology become ever more important. However, the
hold that religion has over people does not appear to be dwindling, either in the
United States or worldwide” (535). And finally, Kornblum (2005: 489) warns his
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 89

readers, “People who are free to determine their own religious beliefs and practices
may attend church less often or not at all, but total secularization does not occur.”
Rather than just reassuring readers that religion will survive, some authors in this
group actually go so far as to suggest that religion is growing in importance in some
way. Henslin’s (2005) technique is to propose that religion is expanding at the
micro-level. “Although the secularization of its culture means that religion has
become less important in U.S. public life, personal religious involvement among
Americans has not diminished. Rather, it has increased” (539, emphasis in original).
Shepard (2005: 453) takes a broader approach. He concludes his chapter on religion
in this way,
Through secularization, the sacred and the profane are increasingly intermixed
in modern society. The existence of secularization does not mean, however, that
a society is not religious. Although many observers have noted a decline in the
role of religion in the United States, others contend that religion may be
stronger than supposed.
The paradox here is that while these authors are somewhat unsure about the
accuracy of the secularization thesis, they fail to provide its alternative. The authors
totally omit the religious economies perspective. Fortunately, some textbooks do a
better job of presenting a more fully informed explanation of religious change.

Covering Both Perspectives

Our third and final category is comprised of the textbooks which provide both the
secularization theory and the religious economies approach to religion. Of the 31
textbooks examined, only seven presented these two theories together. This
represents less than one fourth of the introductory textbooks in our analysis.
Rather than ignoring the issue of religious change or describing only a model of
religious decline, these textbooks present both secularization and religious
economies theories. Interestingly, while the textbooks in this third category cover
both perspectives, they clearly differ in the ways they present the theories. The
textbooks by Farley (2003) and Thompson and Hickey (2005) touch on both theories
briefly and offer no particular emphasis as to which of the two perspectives is better.
This may be due to the fact that both textbooks provide a somewhat undeveloped
presentation of religious economies theory.10 The other five textbooks in this group
are not as cursory in their coverage, nor do they present the theories in an equally
weighted fashion.
It is probably not surprising that the textbook by Rodney Stark (2004), one of the
founders of the religious economies approach, heavily criticizes the classical
secularization thesis. Stark’s textbook provides a very thorough description of this
debate. He expounds on secularization theory, critiques it, and then suggests how
religious economies theory provides a more adequate explanation of religious
change. Stark explains how religious economies theory actually improves the

10
The textbook by Thompson and Hickey (2005) barely made it into our third category (covering both
theories) because their discussion only made vague references to the religious economies theory (see pages
450 and 460–461 in their textbook).
90 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

secularization perspective. “A more comprehensive view of religious economies


suggests that secularization is a self-limiting process that leads not to irreligion but
to a shift in the sources of religion” (Stark 2004: 404, emphasis in original). While
heavily partisan, Stark’s textbook offers the reader a valuable insider’s look at the
debate; and though the view may be provided by a leading proponent of the religious
economies approach, it is still a much more detailed picture of religious change than
what most textbooks in this study provide.
Two other textbooks in this group provide a positive evaluation of the religious
economies approach (Brinkerhoff et al. 2005; Hughes and Kroehler 2005). While
these texts are careful to define and discuss the secularization thesis, it is apparent
that they do not support the theory. Brinkerhoff et al. (2005: 335) suggest,
It is true that science has given us physical rather than supernatural explanations
for more and more phenomena, but the rise over the last 30 years of
fundamentalist Christian, Jewish, and Muslim groups has demonstrated that
modernization and science do not necessarily undermine religious commitment....
If anything, religion plays a stronger role in American life now than in the past.

In place of secularization they offer the religious economies perspective to explain


religious transformation. In the summary section of their chapter the authors
conclude, “Despite earlier predictions, secularization has not increased significantly
in recent years in the United States. Rather, mainstream religious organizations
remain strong and fundamentalist groups are growing in popularity” (Brinkerhoff et al.
2005: 339).
A similar pro-religious economies approach is taken by Hughes and Kroehler
(2005). On page 374 of their textbook they write, “Some evidence seemingly
supports the secularization thesis.” They then provide data showing that Americans
typically exaggerate their church and synagogue attendance. But they follow this up
by noting, “Nevertheless, despite the apparently low turnouts for worship services,
very little sociological evidence supports the notion that secularization is taking
place in American life” (Hughes and Kroehler 2005: 375). They describe the
development of the “New Paradigm” in the 1990s and propose, “As long as there is
a free market in religion and people can change their religious attachments,
secularization initiates a process that revitalizes religion rather than promoting its
demise” (375). Later on in a section titled “The Religious Marketplace,” the authors
echo the tenets of the religious economies perspective, “Competition fosters
religious vitality, while monopoly breeds religious stagnation” (376). In the
concluding section, “The Chapter in Brief,” Hughes and Kroehler (2005: 404) once
again remind the reader, “little evidence supports the notion that secularization is
occurring in the United States.”
In contrast to the three textbooks which offer a favorable review of religious
economies, two textbooks describe the perspective and then critique it in detail.
Charon (2004) does a thorough job of presenting various aspects of the
secularization thesis. He then describes how religious economy theorists have
countered and expanded secularization’s ideas regarding religious change. He writes,
Sociologists who have written and researched religion in the United States are
critical of the secularization thesis....They argue that it is not religion that has
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 91

become less important, but that choice has become more central to religious
life; and for many people, choice brings ever greater commitment. Stark and
Finke (2000:42–43) consider religion to be like other areas of modern life:
informed consumers weighing costs and benefits, choosing to follow a religious
path because they determine this is best for them, committing themselves, and
persisting in religious belief not so much because it is simply foisted on them
but because they continue to recognize religion as important to them, even in a
modern society (271).

Interestingly, immediately after this section Charon offers a detailed rebuttal of


the religious economies approach. Noting that “those who hold onto the
secularization theory are not persuaded” by the new theorists, Charon (2004: 273)
gives secularization scholars the last word in his textbook. He explains that while
religious groups may be forming everywhere, “most are generally short-lived and
fickle....It is a tough road for organized religion to prevail in modern society...”
(273). He finishes the section with a quote by Steve Bruce who “maintains that
although we might talk about the existence of religious community, ‘modernization
has destroyed it’” (274). Religious economies theory is clearly presented in this text,
but Charon regards it with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Another textbook that presents and critiques religious economies theory is written
by Giddens et al. (2003). The authors begin their discussion by noting the
controversy that exists among social scientists.
The debate over secularization is one of the most complex areas in the
sociology of religion. In the most basic terms, there is a disagreement between
supporters of the secularization thesis—who agree with sociology’s founding
fathers and see religion as diminishing in power and importance in the modern
world—and opponents of the concept, who argue that religion remains a
significant force, albeit often in new and unfamiliar forms (535).
After this important qualifier the authors define and discuss secularization theory
in detail. They explain that it is a nuanced concept with multiple dimensions. They
offer arguments to support the theory and propose that “there can be no doubt at all
that the hold of religious ideas today is less than was generally the case in the
traditional world” (Giddens et al. 2003: 536).
After their discussion of secularization, Giddens et al. (2003) present a whole
subsection on the religious economies approach.
One of the most recent and influential approaches to the sociology of religion is
tailored to societies like the United States, which offer many different faiths
from which to pick and choose. Taking their cue from economic theory,
sociologists who favor the religious economy approach argue that religions can
be fruitfully understood as organizations in competition with one another for
followers (536, emphasis in original).
The authors do an excellent job of citing recent research in the area and
explaining the concepts behind the religious economies approach. But the authors
seem disturbed by the market language used by the theory and conclude their section
by criticizing it. “The religious economy approach overestimates the extent to which
92 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

people rationally pick and choose among different religions, as if they were
shopping around for a new car or a pair of shoes” (537). After admitting that religion
currently remains a vital force in modern society, Giddens et al. (2003) make a
startling statement in the conclusion of their chapter. “It might appear strange,
therefore, to suggest that the influence of religion in the modern world is actually
declining. However, sociologists generally agree that such a decline has taken place,
considered at least as a long-term trend” (563). Additionally, religious economies
theory is entirely omitted from their summary section, but Friedrich Nietzsche’s
pronouncement that “God is Dead” is presented without qualification.

Discussion and Conclusion

This paper has attempted to assess whether the field of sociology promotes a view of
religion that assumes its decline. While there are undoubtedly many possible ways to
test this hypothesis, we chose to examine the coverage of religious change in
introductory sociology textbooks. We found that about 77% of introductory
sociology textbooks either do not elaborate on religious change or present only the
secularization theory (this represents all textbooks from categories one and two
above). On the other hand, approximately 23% of the textbooks in this study discuss
both the secularization thesis and the religious economies approach (this represents
all textbooks within category three above). Statistically, this means that by a ratio of
more than three-to-one introductory sociology textbooks omit the sociological theory
that proposes religion is strong and stable within modern society.
This is a relevant finding because it suggests that general sociology is not in
accord with the contemporary research produced by scholars within the sociology of
religion area. As mentioned previously, within the social scientific study of religion
the religious economies model is arguably the dominant paradigm for explaining
religious change. All recent textbooks specializing in the sociology of religion cover
this theory. In contrast to the secularization thesis, this theory proposes that religion
is a strong and stable institution. It is therefore significant that such a large
percentage of general sociology textbooks do not mention religious economies
theory.
Possible reasons for this omission are worth considering. First, it may be that
many of the current introductory textbook authors are simply unaware of this theory.
As Wright (1996) and many other textbook reviewers have complained, introductory
textbooks are grossly behind the times when it comes to reporting current research.
Although 21 of the 31 textbooks in this study offered an entire chapter on religion, it
may be that the topic of religious change is unfamiliar to these authors. It is probably
fair to assume that few sociological writers have ever taken a graduate level course
in the sociology of religion. Hence, a general lack of familiarity with the topic is
probably a primary reason for why so many introductory sociology textbook authors
present an outdated explanation of religious change.
A second possibility for these textbooks’ misrepresentation of religion is related
to the nature of the textbook industry. Hamilton and Form (2003: 708) point out that
textbook writers possess “a heavy dependence on the handed-down categorical
usages and, obviously, the avoidance of complexity, nuance, and detail.” The
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 93

writer’s goal is often not so much to be academically precise as it is to provide clear,


simplistic concepts to unenthusiastic readers. In regard to the standard of simplicity,
secularization is probably superior to religious economies. Moreover, in fashioning a
textbook, writers often conform to the coverage provided by authors before them.
Graham (1988) suggests that textbook authors generally copy substance and style
from each other, hence if a perspective is not covered by established textbooks it is
unlikely to be incorporated by up-and-coming challengers. This unfortunate reality
provides little opportunity for newer theoretical developments, such as religious
economies, to appear in unspecialized textbooks.
A third reason for why religious economies theory is omitted by so many
introductory sociology textbooks is worth considering. In describing his view of the
fluctuations of the systems of truth, Sorokin (1937: 117) argues that most scientists
and scholars believe that faith is “doomed to die out” because they believe
empiricism has triumphed over religion. And since “many truths of faith are
regarded by science as mere superstition,” religion is not only expected to decline it
is anxiously anticipated (Sorokin 1937: 108). This animosity to religion, according
to Sorokin (1937: 114), is due to the social and natural scientist’s belief that religion
is a “waste of one’s good mind” and “mere delusion.” He goes on to warn that such
thinking has become dominant among academics and intellectuals of the present era.
Sorokin does not spare his own field of sociology from such criticisms. Which
leads one to wonder whether most sociologists writing introductory textbooks
simply possess a diminutive view of religion and accept the idea that religion will
decline in modern societies. A recent survey of 1,646 scholars at 21 top-tier research
universities by Elaine Howard Ecklund (2005) may support this position. Ecklund’s
findings indicate that social scientists are considerably less religious than the general
population. About half of the social scientists in the survey indicated they had not
attended religious services in the past year and about a third professed not to believe
in God.11 These behavioral and ideological results may reveal a considerable amount
of religious indifference among academics. If this is the case, then there could be
little inclination for likeminded sociologists to cover religious economies theory. The
theory may simply be skipped because it is perceived as incongruous and distasteful
to these authors’ personal perceptions of religious change.
Whether these textbook authors personally harbor antagonistic feelings towards
religion is beyond the scope of this study. In his own sociology textbook review,
Friedman (1991: 141) found that textbook writers favored radical and left
ideological positions, but he was “uncertain whether this was mainly because of
the social composition of the profession or the inherent nature of the subject matter
of sociology.” Motivation is a very difficult attribute to measure and can be left for
future research studies. What this analysis demonstrates is that secularization theory
is disproportionately presented among contemporary introductory sociology text-
books. This result has consequences. If Babchuk and Keith (1995) are correct that
the introductory textbook is a dominant voice for our field, then sociology is
presenting the message that religion is in decline.

11
Compare these results regarding academics to findings of the General Social Survey (2004) which
reports that twenty-three percent of Americans attend religious services less than once a year and only
three percent say they do not believe in God.
94 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Such a message is problematic in several ways. First, it represents an inaccurate


depiction of what empirical research tells us about the current state of religion. It is
simply incorrect. Second, it is insulting to religiously active people since
secularization implies that religious individuals are irrational and unsophisticated.
It perpetuates an offensive stereotype. Finally, it reinforces the perception that
sociology promotes an anti-clerical ideology. It casts social science against religion
and perpetuates the myth often presented by textbooks that sociology possesses a
superior level of knowledge (Friedman 1991). We believe these are valid concerns
worthy of further investigation.
Before we conclude, we must offer some caveats to our findings. First, it is
important to note that while a majority of textbooks present the secularization theory
exclusively, not all of the authors promote the idea that religion will continue to
decline. As noted in our analysis, several authors seem to be uncomfortable
concluding that religion will simply fade away. This is not surprising given the fact
that almost every introductory textbook makes reference to the events surrounding
September 11, 2001 and the influence of the Christian Evangelical movement on
American politics. The underlying message of these sections is that religious groups
have an increasingly global impact on culture, politics, and international security
concerns.
Despite these acknowledgments, however, most authors continue to forward
secularization in some way while failing to provide a very scholarly explanation for
why religion remains influential. Since the majority of these textbooks do not offer
the religious economies approach, they are limited in their ability to explain sectarian
growth. Often these textbooks discuss the decline of religion and then attempt to
explain away any evidence of religious growth by suggesting that these are merely
temporary reactions to secularization. The result is that the theory and the data
provided within these texts do not match up. Unfortunately, readers are left to sort
this inconsistency out for themselves. Still it would be incorrect to conclude that just
because an author omits religious economies theory he or she necessarily promotes
the idea that religion will continue to decline indefinitely.
A second caveat is also in order. We are not arguing that simply including
religious economies theory in the introductory textbook solves the problem. As
noted above, authors can cover religious economies theory only to condemn it and
support religious decline. We are also not proposing that religious economies theory
is obviously correct and should therefore totally displace secularization theory. What
we are suggesting is that introductory sociology textbooks act as a proxy for the field
of sociology, hence their authors should be careful to present religion in a balanced,
up-to-date, and research guided manner. Acknowledging both theories is at the
minimum a good starting point.
Finally, while we doubt that ignorance is the only reason for secularization’s
dominance within introductory textbooks, we acknowledge that the topic of religion
is not a major subject of discussion in sociology textbooks today (see Schweingruber
2005). It may be that just as it took time for religion specialists in sociology to
question the secularization theory and change their minds; it is taking time for
general sociologists to become aware of the mounting research and reconsider the
classical explanation of religious change. We hope this article contributes to this
development. Future studies addressing this topic as well as comparisons of
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 95

historical and contemporary sociological writings could help to provide greater


clarity on this issue. We encourage all sociologists as well as social scientists who
specialize in religion to begin a serious dialogue about whether religion is being
provided fair and accurate treatment in our discipline.

Acknowledgement We are grateful to Kevin Dougherty for helpful comments on an early version of
this manuscript.

References

Anderson, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2004). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Anderson, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2005). Sociology: The essentials (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Babchuk, N., & Keith, B. (1995). Introducing the discipline: The scholarly content of introductory texts.
Teaching Sociology, 23, 215–225.
Berger, P. (1967). The sacred canopy. New York: Doubleday.
Berger, P. (1997). Epistemological modesty: An interview with Peter Berger. The Christian Century, 114
(30), 972–975, 978.
Berger, P. (2001). Secularization and pluralism. In S. C. Monahan, W. A. Mirola, & M. O. Emerson (Eds.),
Sociology of religion: A reader (pp. 201–204). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Blau, J. R., Land, K. C., & Redding, K. (1992). The expansion of religious affiliation. Social Science
Research, 21, 329–352.
Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., Ortega, S. T., & Weitz, R. (2005). Essentials of sociology (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bruce, S. (2000). Choice and religion: A critique of rational choice theory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Brym, R. J., & Lie, J. (2005). Sociology: Your compass for a New World (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Budd, S. (1973). Sociologists and religion. London: Collier-Macmillan.
Charon, J. M. (2004). Ten questions: A sociological perspective (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Chaves, M. (1995). On the rational choice approach to religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 34, 98–104.
Christiano, K., Swatos, W. H., Jr., & Kivisto, P. (2002). Sociology of religion: Contemporary
developments. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Curry, T. J., Jiobu, R. M., & Schwirian, K. (2005). Sociology for the twenty-first century (4th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Davie, G. (2003). The evolution of the sociology of religion: Theme and variations. In M. Dillon (Ed.),
Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 61–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Demerath, N. J. III. (2001). Secularization extended: From religious ‘Myth’ to cultural commonplace. In
R. K. Fern (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to sociology of religion (pp. 211–28). Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
Drakeford, W., Leone, P. E., Hamlett, N., & Vickery, K. (2005). An examination of disability issues in
introductory juvenile and criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2),
280–291.
Durkheim, E. (1893). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life: A study in religious sociology. New York:
Macmillan.
Ecklund, E. H. (2005). Research@rice: Spirituality high among university Scientists. Rice University, Retrieved
August 23, 2006. (http://www.explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680).
Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. B. (2004). In conflict and order: Understanding society (10th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Farley, J. E. (2003). Sociology (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ferrante, J. (2003). Sociology: A global perspective (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Finke, R., & Iannaccone, L. R. (1993). Supply-side explanations for religious change. The Annals of the
American Academy, 527, 27–39.
96 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Finke, R., & Stark, R. (1988). Religious economies and sacred canopies: Religious mobilization in
American cities, 1906. American Sociological Review, 53, 41–49.
Finke, R., & Stark, R. (1992). The churching of America 1776–1990: Winners and losers in our religious
economy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2003). Dynamics of religious economies. In M. Dillon (Ed.), Handbook of the
sociology of religion (pp. 96–109). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Finke, R., & Stark, R. (2005). The churching of America 1776–2005: Winners and losers in our religious
economy (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Friedman, N. L. (1991). What do we really teach in introductory sociology textbooks? Three underlying
messages and their instructional implications. The American Sociologist, 22(2), 137–145.
Froese, P., & Pfaff, S. (2001). Replete and desolate markets: Poland, east Germany, and the New Religious
paradigm. Social Forces, 80, 481–507.
Giddens, A., Duneier, M., & Appelbaum, R. P. (2003). Introduction to sociology (4th ed.). New York:
Norton.
Graham, F. C. (1988). Some observations on sociology textbooks: An editorial perspective. Teaching
Sociology, 16, 356–365.
Greeley, A. (1996). The new American paradigm: A modest critique. Paper read at the Annual Meeting of
the German Sociological Association. Cologne, Germany.
Groski, P. S. (2003). Historicizing the secularization debate: An agenda for research. In M. Dillon (Ed.),
Handbook of the sociology of religion (pp. 110–122). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hadden, J. K. (1987). Toward desacralizing secularization theory. Social Forces, 65, 587–611.
Hamilton, R. F., & Form, W. H. (2003). Categorical usages and complex realities: Race, ethnicity, and
religion in the United States. Social Forces, 81, 693–714.
Hammond, P. E. (ed.) (1985). The sacred in a secular age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Henslin, J. M. (2005). Sociology: A down to Earth approach (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Henslin, J. M. (2006). Essentials of sociology: A down to Earth approach (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Hughes, M., & Kroehler, C. J. (2005). Sociology: The core (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1180–1211.
Iannaccone, L. R., & Everton, S. F. (2004). Never on sunny days: Lessons from weekly attendance counts.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 191–207.
Ingram, L., & Keller, A. (2003). Religion. In C. B. Tweedell (Ed.), Sociology: A Christian approach for
changing the World (pp. 195–213). Marion, IN: Triangle Publishing.
Jagodzinski, W., & Greeley, A. (1997). The demand for religion: Hard core atheism and ‘Supply Side’
theory. Andrew Greeley’s Web Page, Retrieved August 14, 2006. (http://www.agreeley.com/articles/
hardcore.html).
Johnson, D. P. (2003). From religious markets to religious communities: Contrasting implications for
applied research. Review of Religious Research, 44, 325–340.
Johnstone, R. L. (2004). Religion in society: A sociology of religion (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Keith, B., & Ender, M. G. (2004). The sociological core: Conceptual patterns and idiosyncrasies in the
structure and content of introductory sociology textbooks, 1940–2000. Teaching Sociology, 32, 19–36.
Kelley, D. (1972). Why conservative churches are growing. New York: Harper and Row.
Kendall, D. (2004). Sociology in our times: The essentials (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kendall, D. (2005). Sociology in our times (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Kornblum, W. (2005). Sociology in a changing World (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lechner, F. J. (1997). The ‘New Paradigm’ in the sociology of religion: Comment on Warner. American
Journal of Sociology, 103, 182–192.
Lenski, G. E. (1963). The religious factor: A sociological study of religion’s impact on politics, economics,
and Family life (Revised Ed.). Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Lewis, T. L., & Humphrey, C. R. (2005). Sociology and the environment: An analysis of coverage in
introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 33, 154–169.
Lindsey, L. L., & Beach, S. (2003). Sociology (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Macionis, J. J. (2005). Sociology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Marsden, G. (1994). The soul of the American university. New York: Oxford University Press.
McGuire, M. B. (2002). Religion: The social context (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
McIntyre, L. J. (2006). The practical skeptic: Core concepts in sociology (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKeachie, W. J. (1999). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and
university Teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98 97

Mills, C. W. (1967). The sociological imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, C. (2004). Is Northern Ireland abnormal? An extension of the sociological debate on religion in
modern Britain. Sociology, 38, 237–254.
Monahan, S. C. (2001). Introduction to the secularization debate. In S. C. Monahan, W. A. Mirola, & M.
O. Emerson (Eds.), Sociology of religion: A Reader (pp. 196–200). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Montgomery, J. D. (2003). A formalization and test of the religious economies model. American
Sociological Review, 68, 782–809.
Neubeck, K. J., & Glasberg, D. S. (2005). Sociology: Diversity, conflict, and change. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Newman, D. M. (2004). Sociology: Exploring the architecture of everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Pine Forge Press.
Perkins, R. (1987). Looking both ways: Exploring the interface between Christianity and sociology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Perrucci, R. (1980). Sociology and the introductory textbook. The American Sociologist, 5, 39–49.
Ramet, S. P. (1998). Nihil obstat: Religion, Politics, and social change in East-Central Europe and
Russia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Reif, K., & Inglehart, R. (eds.) (1991). Eurobarometer: The dynamics of european public opinion.
London: Macmillan.
Reuben, J. A. (1996). The making of the modern university. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberts, K. A. (2004). Religion in sociological perspective (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
Robertson, R., & Chirico, J. (1985). Humanity, globalization, and worldwide religious resurgence: A
theoretical exploration. Sociological Analysis, 46, 219–242.
Roof, W. C., & McKinney, W. (1987). American mainline religion: Its changing shape and future. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Schaefer, R. T. (2004). Sociology: A brief introduction (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schaefer, R. T. (2005). Sociology (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schweingruber, D. (2005). Looking for the core in the wrong place. Teaching Sociology, 33, 81–89.
Schweingruber, D., & Wohlstein, R. T. (2005). The madding crowd goes to school: Myths about crowds in
introductory sociology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 33, 136–153.
Shepard, J. M. (2005). Sociology (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Smith, C. (2003). Secularizing American higher education: The case of early sociology. In C. Smith (Ed.),
The secular revolution: Power, interests, and conflict in the secularization of American public life (pp.
97–159). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sorokin, P. A. (1937). Social and cultural dynamics: Volume two-fluctuation of systems of truth, ethics,
and law. New York: American Book Company.
Spickard, J. V. (1994). Texts and contexts: Recent trends in the sociology of religion as reflected in US
textbooks. Social Compass, 41, 313–328.
Stark, R. (1998). Sociology (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
Stark, R. (2004). Sociology (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stark, R., & Finke, R. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Stark, R., & Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). A supply-side reinterpretation of the ‘Secularization’ of Europe.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 230–252.
Steele, S. F., & Price, J. (2004). Applied sociology: Topics, terms, tools, and tasks. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Sullivan, T. J. (2004). Sociology: Concepts and applications in a diverse World (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Thio, A. (2005). Sociology: A brief introduction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Thompson, W. E., & Hickey, J. V. (2005). Society in focus: An introduction to sociology (5th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tischler, H. L. (1988). Textbooks are a reflection of the discipline. Teaching Sociology, 16(4), 370–372.
Tischler, H. L. (2004). Introduction to sociology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wallace, A. F. C. (1966). Religion: An anthropological view. New York: Random House.
Warner, R. S. (1993). Work in progress toward a new paradigm for the sociological study of religion in the
United States. American Journal of Sociology, 98(5), 1044–1093.
Wilson, B. (1966). Religion in secular society. London: C. A. Watts.
Withrow, B. L., Weible, K., & Bonnett, J. (2004). Aren’t they all the same? A comparative analysis of
introductory criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(1), 1–18.
98 Am Soc (2007) 38:78–98

Wright, R. A. (1995a). Was there a ‘Golden Past’ for the introductory sociology textbook? A citation
analysis of leading journals. The American Sociologist, 26(4), 41–48.
Wright, R. A. (1995b). Women as ‘Victims’ and as “Resisters:’ Depictions of the oppression of Women in
criminology textbooks. Teaching Sociology, 23, 111–121.
Wright, R. A. (1996). Do introductory criminology textbooks cite the most influential Criminologists?
Estimating the ‘Match’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. American Journal
of Criminal Justice, 20(2), 225–235.

S-ar putea să vă placă și