Dobbelaere, Karel. 2002. Secularization: An Analysis at Three Levels (Gods, Humans, and Religions). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Rating:
4
Summary:
The goal of this book is rather straightforward: Dobbelaere is arguing that the long-standing idea of secularization should be understood to be taking place at three levels – (1) societal secularization, (2) organizational or institutional secularization, and (3) individual secularization (p. 13). By making this argument, the author changes the definition of secularization from a “slow, unstoppable process of inevitable religious decline,” to a “tri-partite process of (1) societal change and differentiation, (2) institutional modernization, and (3) personal religious decline in the face of increased rationalization and pluralism.” The benefit of changing the concept of secularization from a single, all-encompassing notion to a three-part idea is that you can then analyze each of these levels separately and propose different causal mechanisms for the changes observed at each level (p. 18).
Most of the author’s arguments surrounding the three-fold understanding of secularization are covered in roughly the first half of the book, which is actually a reprint of a monograph the author originally published in 1981. The author has done some minor updating to the monograph, but it appears that he has done very little. Most of the new information is contained in the second half of the book and addresses some additional issues that have come to the foreground since the monograph’s original publication, including an attempt to integrate the three levels in the sense that he draws connections between them, and a very brief comment on Rational Choice Theory.
The author makes several very important points that are intimately related to his argument. For instance, though brief, there is an insightful analysis of the history of the term “secularization” that helps clarify its original meaning and how it arrived at having the meanings it does today (p. 23). The author also spends a substantial amount of time discussing the various definitions of religion (ultimately deciding on “collective beliefs related to supernature”) and examines how his definition excludes the idea of “civil religion,” a popular concept in some circles (p. 61).
Perhaps one of the more intriguing ideas is the author’s proposal of some causes of secularization at the three levels, “These studies indicate that urbanization, industrialization, rationalization, socialization, mobility, etc. induce declining involvement in religious bodies” (p. 142). The author argues that secularization is not some “mystical” force that acts of its own accord on society, institutions, and people, but that it is the result of active forces, “…secularization is not a mechanical evolutionary process, but one that depends on the cultural context in which it unfolds and on the persons, groups, and quasi-groups involved. Such a view of secularization is supported when one recognizes that the sub-processes of functional differentiation, functional rationalization and societalization are reversible. They are activated by persons, groups and quasi-groups who, manifestly or latently, secularize or sacralize society and its social institutions” (p. 157). This view of secularization addresses a prominent criticism that some societies seem to reverse secularization and grow more sectarian at times, a fact the original definition of secularization did not accommodate.
Review:
The book does build a solid case for understanding secularization at three levels. But, unfortunately for the reader, it does so in a very wordy and unclear way. I can usually tell if I’m not really paying attention to a book when I find myself pausing at a section that makes sense only to realize that the last time I paused was about 3 pages earlier – everything in between is usually a blur of socio-babble that made very little or no sense. That happened a lot in the first 150 pages of this book. The author has a proclivity to roam off into tangents that are only sometimes even indirectly related to the primary argument. Add to this the lack of summaries, introductions, and conclusions and the book becomes a very difficult read. It’s a mild form of self-torture, though I guess in some ways it is worth it… At least, I keep telling myself that.
The unclear writing is my biggest criticism of the book. But the second biggest criticism is probably more important in the long run. Despite clarifying the concept of secularization, the author makes little headway in formalizing a theory of secularization, even though he sees the need for it, “Finally, to make empirical falsification possible, secularization theory must be cast in terms of clear concepts, must operationalize these concepts in a valid way, and must propose testable hypotheses” (p. 103) Perhaps I should not have had the expectation that developing testable hypotheses was going to be the goal of this book, but I did have those expectations. And to find half way through that the author is just arriving at the idea that having testable hypotheses would be a good thing was a serious disappointment. Since many sociologists of religion view Professor Dobbelaere as one of the leading experts on secularization theory, I was left wondering why he didn’t formalized the theory into testable propositions and hypotheses in this book? If those behind the theory really want it to compete with the religious economies model, that is the next step. The sooner someone does that, the better for the discipline.
Another serious drawback to this book is that the original monograph, which makes up just over half of the book, relies almost entirely on theoretical treatises rather than empirical studies. It quotes from them at length (literally, some pages are just quotes from other works), but fails to introduce much empirical research on the questions at hand. It is only in the second part of the book that empirical studies begin to be referenced, but even then they are few and far between. If, as the author seems to be indicating, there is substantial evidence for secularization theory, I failed to see very many references to it in this book.
Despite the problems, there are some strong positives about this book. When decipherable, the author makes some very good points. For instance, the author argues on page 19 that professionalization is one process that has reduced the role of religion, “As a latent process, it is the unintended consequence of actions that promote… functional differentiation, to wit, the differentiation of sub-systems in society (e.g. economy, education, polity and law) on the basis of their specific functions, which are equally important for society. This is a consequence of, among other processes, professionalization. In the medical field, specialization and its professionalization have reduced the place of religion, but this was not because of any sort of manifest attack by that profession on religion” (p. 19). As I noted above in the summary, it is long overdue that someone propose what drives the process of secularization. While this work is more of a beginning in that direction, it does lay some important groundwork for future development.
Another important point the author makes regarding secularization is the fact that it is an outcome of the opposing forces in society, “…secularization on the societal and organizational level is not a mechanical process to be imputed to impersonal and abstract forces. It is, on the one hand, carried out by people and groups who manifestly want to laicize society and its sub-structures. But, on the other hand, studies on professionalization in the Belgian Catholic pillar and of pillarization in the Netherlands also make it clear that certain social categories, if not explicitly, are secularizing the Catholic and Christian pillars. Once we have accepted that societal and organizational secularization is the result of opposing interest groups, then the outcome is clearly a non-linear process” (p. 79). As the author notes, when two groups conflict over the direction of a society, an institution, or even individual adherents, the degree of secularization at each of those levels can change in either direction, increasing or decreasing. That is an important response to a common criticism of secularization theory.
I was impressed by the author’s very limited comments addressing the Rational Choice/Religious Economies Theory, which is often viewed as a direct criticism of secularization theory. Unfortunately, the author’s response consisted of just two pages, which seems to indicate more that the author doesn’t take the theory seriously than anything else. Since the Rational Choice camp has clearly targeted the secularization theory camp, I think an earnest and detailed rebuttal is in order. Two pages isn’t sufficient.
Overall, the main argument the author makes about secularization needing to be understood at three levels is an important one. It doesn’t require close to 150 pages to make that argument. Indeed, much of the wordy, tangential information should have been excised to make room for empirical studies that illustrate why secularization still deserves a seat at the theoretical table in the sociology of religion. The book makes some good points, but it’s a tough call whether it is worth wading through the wordiness to find them.
