Present Status of the Sociology of Religion

Author(s): J. Milton Yinger

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Religion, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 194-210
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1197813 .
Accessed: 10/11/2011 01:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

J. MILTON YINGER*

sociology of religion is a field of

great importance in which many
people have shown an active interest, an areaof study in whichmany of the
ingredientsfor sound scientific work are
available, and yet a discipline in which
relatively little of scientific sociological
importance is being produced. After
highly auspiciousbeginningsin the work
of such men as Robertson Smith, Max
Weber,Emile Durkheim, GeorgSimmel,
Ernst Troeltsch, and many others, it
has, in the judgment of the present
writer, failed to move very far in the
directionof greatertheoreticaladequacy.
It is the purpose of this paper to assess
some of the resources available to the
sociology of religion, to indicate a few of
the advances that have been made in
recent years, to try to explain some of
the weaknesses, and to indicate some of
the lines of development that seem to
offer promise for future research.There
will be no attempt, in this "stock-taking"
report, to analyze individual contributions to the sociology of religion except
as that is necessary to illustrate major
trends.
Unfortunately, there are still imporf IHE

* Milton
J.
Yinger has taught at Ohio Wesleyan
University and is now associate professor of sociology and anthropology at Oberlin College. He
received his training at DePauw University (A.B.),
Louisiana State University (A.M.), and the University of Wisconsin (Ph.D., in sociology). For two
summers he has served as dean of the International
Student Seminar, sponsored by the American
Friends Service Committee. Mr. Yinger is the author
of Religion in the Struggle for Power (I946). He has
contributed articles in the field of sociology and
social ethics to various journals. With George E.
Simpson he is now preparing a volume on prejudice
and race relations.
I94

tant disagreementsconcerningthe definition of the sociologyof religion.This may

be inevitable in a field which attracts the
attention of students from many different disciplines-theology, history, philosophy, sociology-and which involves
significant value perspectives. But such
disagreementblocks communicationand
advance in the field. Fully realizing that
definitions are not "right" or "wrong"
but are to be judged solely by their usefulness, and realizing that no one has a
"monopoly"on a term-others may with
equal right define sociology of religion
differently-I shall offermy definitionto
indicate the subject matter of this paper:
The sociology of religion is a branch of
scientific sociology. It is not a marginal
field between theology and sociology:
religion is the datum and sociology the
method of approach.It is nonvaluative,
objective, and abstract. It studies empirical phenomena to try to isolate generalizations concerningthe interconnections of religiousbehaviorwith other social behavior. If one defines sociology as
the scientificstudy of those influenceson
behavior which flow from human interaction (not using the narrower"cultural"
definition but including data that some
writers prefer to assign to another science, social psychology), then the sociology of religion is the scientific study
of all the ways in which the interaction of
men influences religion-influences its
origin, its doctrines, its practices, the
types of groups which embody it, the
kinds of leadership, etc. On the other
hand, it is also the study of the ways in
which religionentersinto humaninterac-

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

tion-how it influencesthe ways in which

individuals and groups behave toward
each other.
This definition may become clearerif
we indicate one or two things which the
sociology of religion is not. If the sociology of religion is a science, interested in
the typical and attempting to develop
generalizationsthat will enable it to predict, then it is not simply the "social
history" of religion-that is, the history
of the more purely secular aspects of
religiousgroupsor the history of the relationship between religious institutions
and other aspects of the social structure.
Indeed, it is not history at all. That is
not to say that church historians and
others concerned with describing the
place of religionin society have not made
valuable contributionsto the sociologyof
religion.They have added to our store of
data, have given us concepts of value,
and have frequently offeredinsights and
hypotheses that are well worth testing.
Nor is the sociology of religion the story
of the developmentof "the social gospel"
(a definition in harmony with the idea
that sociologyis the study of social problems). Some of the literature on "Christian sociology"gives the impression,seldom explicitlystated, that that definition
is used. Both the study of the "socialhistory" of religious groups and the study
of "the social gospel" give data which
may be of great value to the sociologist
of religion, but they raise differentkinds
of questions. While the student of the
"social gospel" may ask, "What have
religious groups done to interest themselves in slum conditions, race relations,
trade-unionactivities, child labor, etc.?"
the sociologistof religionwill ask, "What
do certain kinds of religious groups
typicallydo when social changeproduces
dislocationsor when the moral teachings
of religiontend to come into conflictwith

I95

some of the interests of powerful classes

in society?"The two questions may deal
with the same data. The student of the
social history of religionmay ask: "What
was the relation between the churchand
the secular political powers in the fifteenth century in Italy?" The sociologist
of religion asks: "Do these data tell us
anything of how certainkinds of religious
groups tend to relate themselves to the
political structuresand political changes
of their time?"
Needless to say, the sociology of religion gives a very incompletepicture of
the total meaningof religionin the life of
man. A complete picture would require
not only the additions of other objective or "external" studies, psychology
and history, for example, but also the
kinds of evaluative study that comefrom
theology and aesthetics. I have no desire
to quarrel with those who consider the
sociology of religion a very unimportant
aspect of the total view. The desirability
of science, after all, is a value stand itself and cannot be defendedon scientific
grounds.
I. THE REQUISITES FOR A SOUND
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

The sociology of religion requires a

group of integratedand testable propositions, harmoniouswith the larger theoretical schemesof generalsociology.This
demands that hypotheses be made entirely explicit and be posed in such a
way that they can be tested by a constant flow of reliableand valid empirical
work. Some of the ingredients for this
kind of study are at hand;but the systematic interrelation of all the component
parts is manifest in only a small minority
of the studies with which I am familiar.
In an analysis of the sociology of knowledge (a disciplinewhich overlapsmore or
less-depending on how one defines

I96

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

"knowledge"-with the sociology of religion) Robert Merton calls attention to

the contrast between the European and
the Americanstudies in the field. It is a
contrast well deservingstudy, because it
indicates clearly the need for bringing
theoretical and empiricalwork together.
European sociology of knowledge, Merton says, "belongs for the most part to
the camp of global theorists, in which the
breadth and significanceof the problem
justifies one's dedicationto it, sometimes
quite apart from the present possibility
of materially advancing beyond ingenious speculationsand impressionisticconclusions.By and large, the sociologistsof
knowledge have been among those raising high the banner which reads: 'We
don't know that what we say is true, but
it is at least significant.""Americanstudents have been more interested in canvassing mass opinions. They have been
concerned with getting representative
samples of opinion, recordedon objectified scales. Their motto might be: "We
don't know that what we say is particularly significant,but it is at least true."2
This differencein approachinfluences
the judgmentsof what are facts and data
that can be useful for scientific studywith the European scholar, in most instances, ready to accept a wider range of
material. If an author has high intellectual status, his impressions, Merton
points out, are often taken for facts. If
this is true in Mannheim's sociology of
knowledge, it is certainly no less true in
Joachim Wach's sociology of religion,
where generalizations are frequently
supportedby referenceto the writingsof
"the outstanding scholar" in the field.
The same "tolerance" for somewhat
questionable"facts" is also found in the
work of Max Weber,despite his brilliant
mastery of the logic of science. He built
his theories of the relationship between

religious ethics and economic behavior,

for example,partly on his judgment that
the nonreligiousfactors in China of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centurieswere
as favorable to the rise of capitalism as
were the nonreligiousfactors in western
Europe.This judgmentof an enormously
complex theoretical problem was based
on examination of the few score written
records-with very little possibility for
checking them for reliability and completeness. The present writer must confess-and thereby apply a little of sociology of knowledge to himself-that such
researchis insufficientlyempiricalfor his
Americantaste. Althoughhighly insightful and stimulating,this kind of sociology
of religion, trying to solve theoretical
problemsthat are too large at this stage
of development of the field, is almost
completely lacking in propositions that
can be put in the form of testable hypotheses. (Many Weberscholarswill disagree sharply with this-pointing to the
way in which he "thought away" variables. A discussionof this methodological
problemwould take us beyond the limits
of the present paper.)
Americansociologyof knowledge(and,
I continue to add, sociology of religion),
on the other hand, asks first whether or
not a given observationis true, and only
later, if at all, asks about its theoretical
significance.This "leads prematurelyto
a curbing of imaginative hypotheses."3
If this is true of the flood of opinion
studies, it is no less true of the great bulk
of the studies on city churches,sectarian
beliefsand practices,and churchhistories
which make up the raw material of a
sociologyof religionin the United States.
The need, of course, in both fields, is to
bring the theoretical and empirical emphases into close and fruitfulinteraction.
That has happened all too rarely in the
sociology of religion,and it may be help-

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

I97

ful to try to discover the reasons. These are the observations of one person only,
two factors seem to be involved.
completely unchecked by other rei. Competent research in the sociol- searchers. Elaborate theories in the soogy of religion demands a combination ciology of religion have been built on
of skills and interests that is not very historicalrecordstwo or three or twentycommon.In fact, there are some ways in five centuries old, where the problem of
which the necessary elements are mutu- checking reliability and particularlythe
ally contradictory.The researchermust, problem of checking completeness are
in the first place, have a thoroughlyade- overwhelming.That does not mean that
quate grasp of contemporarysociological highly significant hypotheses cannot
theory and research methods. He must grow from the examination of such mabe entirely objective in his handling of terial but only that definitiveconclusions
the data of religion; yet he must be are unwarranted.Basing conclusionson
strongly interested in the material and the religious beliefs of a time, for examdeeply acquainted with it. Among so- ple, on surviving written accounts or on
ciologists there are personswho consider inferences about nonwritten beliefs, is
themselves "religious," others who are highly inadequate.Documents that were
"antireligious,"and still others who are written at the time being studied often
largely indifferent to religion. Those in omit the most common facts, because
the first two groups very often lack the they are taken for granted; while those
objectivity, and those in the last group written later, which try to fill in the gaps,
lack the interest, in developing a sociol- contain the perspectives of the writer
ogy of religion. Those who undertake and of his time. We need not completely
studies in the sociology of religion with- agree with Voltaire-that history is a
out a mastery of sociologicaltheory and group of tricks we play on the dead-to
methodology, on the other hand, may recognize the difficulties in building a
make many useful and accurateobserva- scientific sociology of religion on historitions, but they will often fail to add to cal materials. Why some beliefs were
the sociology of religionas I have defined written down and others not is a
very
it, because they structuretheir problems important problem for the sociology of
in a different way. This difficulty some- religion; and, of those beliefs that were
times mars, for example, the excellent written, why some survived and others
work of Joachim Wach, Sociology of' did not is equally important. But
by the
Religion.
very nature of the case, these things can2. Despite the almost inexhaustible not be known for Greece of the
fourth
supply of data on primitive and civilized century B.C.or for Calvin's Geneva.
religions,on churchhistory, on sectarian
Many of the data available for use by
movements, and the vast supply of re- the sociologist of religion, moreover,are
ligious materials in written form-ser- lacking in comparability. This greatly
mons, official publications of church hindersa study that is trying to discover
bodies, etc.-there is really a scarcity of generalizations.A relatedproblemis that
empiricalmaterial out of which to fash- data which were gathered without the
ion adequate generalizations.It is very guidance of explicit scientific
concepts
difficult to judge the reliability of much are often of limited usefulnessfor scienof the data. Many of the accounts of the tific purposes.
Ideally, empirical matereligious practices of primitive people rials are gathered in direct reference to

I98

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

testable hypotheses. Very few of the

data with which sociologists of religion
have been working satisfy this requirement. (It is clear, of course, that there
are important scientific dangers involved
in this use of a hypothesis. These dangers, however, are scarcely to be avoided
by falling into raw empiricism or by using data that were gathered under the
"guidance" of some other hypothesisimplicit or explicit-than the one used
by the researcher. The danger is to be
met by making the hypothesis more explicit, more tentative, more completely
understood as a heuristic device.)
II. SOME RESEARCH AREAS IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

must be pointed out that under some

circumstances the correlation between
class status, for example, and religious
group association, is far from perfect.
There are some forcesthat tend to divide
people religiouslyaccordingto class, but
there are other forces that divide them
along other lines and still others that
tend to unite a differentiatedgroup into
one religious community. These forces
obscureone another.Womenin all classes
may share, for example, a similar status
in many respects; and this status may
give them a common religious tendency
that cuts across the different religious
tendencies they get from their different
class statuses. When one adds just a few
other differentiatingfactors such as rural
or urbanresidence,amount of education,
etc., one sees that any easy attempt to
classify religious groups solely on the
basis of class is bound to be inadequate.
Keeping in mind the need for avoiding
any oversimplified picture of the relationship between social differentiation
and religious differentiation, one can
nevertheless use this problem as an important approach to the sociology of
religion.

Without attempting to be exhaustive,

we can perhaps approach our topic most
successfully by indicating some of the
major theoretical problems faced by the
sociology of religion, noting some of the
hypotheses that have been suggested and
some of the data relating to those hypotheses. This listing should not be
looked upon as an analytically precise
classification, both because of its incompleteness and because of the overlapping
among various classes of problems.
[Hypothesis:]
Religiousbeliefsas wellas pracI. Problem: In what way is religious tices are profoundlyaffected by the special
differentiation related, as cause and/or problems inhering in the social and economic
effect, to social differentiation? It is well status of mill workers. Their religion is intiknown that in socially differentiated so- mately related to the everyday struggles and
vicissitudes of an insecure life, and proves usecieties, the various secular groups tend ful for interpretation and for succor. It "works"
to exhibit differences in doctrine, wor- and "changes things.". . . Attempt at sumship, and religious group structure. This mary of the satisfactions he [the millworker]
is perhaps the most thoroughly explored finds in his church points to economic influarea in the field of the sociology of reli- ences even more clearly. In general terms, he
derives two benefits: the organization of life,
gion. The membership of many religious and the transvaluation of life.... Less exgroups is drawn largely from individuals clusively than in rural areas, but more largely
of a particular social class or race or of a than in uptown districts, the church in the
mill village is a community center; in the comgiven educational status. The famous
absence of other social institutions, it
parative
distinction between church and sect, de- is
the focal point around which noneconomic
veloped by Troeltsch and Weber, is based life in the village largely revolves. Natural
largely on observation of this fact. Yet it leaders among the workers find in it almost

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

their only vehicle for expression of leadership.
... But the worker also looks to his church to
find transvaluation of life, which may take the
form of reassurance or of escape, or both. By
affirmation of values denied in the economic
world, the churchprovides comfort and ultimate
assurance; in its religious services it often affords
escape temporarily from the economic and social
situation in which workaday life must be spent.
The difficulties of life for the mill worker in this
world help to explain the noteworthy emphasis
on otherworldliness in his churches.4

I99

and the institutions in which it was embodied-with enthusiasm.

Religious institutions also reflect, of
course, the place of those who are low in
status and power. Winstanley says:
True religion and undefiled is this, to make
restitution of the Earth which hath been taken
and held from the common people.6 ...

At this

very day poor people are forced to work for 4d.

a day, and corn is dear. And the tithing-priest
stops their mouth, and tells them that "inward
satisfaction of mind" was meant by the declaration "The poor shall inherit the earth." I tell
you, the scripture is to be really and materially
fulfilled.... You jeer at the name Leveller. I
tell you Jesus Christ is the head Leveller.7

A central thesis of this study is that

social differentiationfindsits counterpart
(not without complicatingfactors)in religious differentiation. A long series of
studies gives indication of the fruitfulSectariangroups probably develop an
ness of this approachin the sociology of
escapist doctrine more often than a docreligion. Pre-Reformationsects, the Ref- trine which directly challengesthe secuormation itself, the rise of Quakerism lar
powers.One of the largest gaps in this
and Methodism,the denomination-form- area
of the sociology of religion is the
ing process in the United States and determination of the conditions under
Canada, and the religious groupings of which a religious
group will (a) accept
minority groups have been interpreted the secularorder,(b)"withdraw"fromsoas, in part, religious expressionsof secu- ciety by
devaluingit, and(c)challengeand
lar conflicts and social distinctions. This attack
the secularpower structure.Such
can be understoodpartly in terms of dif- variables as the
nature of the religious
ferent personality needs and tendencies tradition out of
which the sectarian
(see Problem 5 below), but in part it movement grows, the chance of success
reflects the way in which secular differ- in the secular
the presence or abences invade the religious sphere to get sence of more world,
secularinstitutions
strictly
support for secular battles. During the trying to change the status
quo, the
strikes of I877 the Congregationalistde- tendencies
of the leadership, the availclared:
ability of governmental channels for
Bringon then the troops-the armedpolice registeringprotests, etc., would have to
-in overwhelming numbers. Bring out the be considered.
Gatling guns. Let there be no fooling with
The opposite side of the hypothesis
blank cartridges. But let the mob know, everywe
have been discussing has been exwhere, that for it to stand one moment after
it has been ordered by proper authorities to amined much less often. How does redisperse, will be to be shot down in its tracks. ligious differentiation,once established,
... A little of the vigor of the first Napoleon affect social differentiation?
Does it tend
is the thing we need now. Compromise would
to
fix
social
or
does
it only
divisions,
simply sow the wind for "future whirlwind
reflect
them?
We
know
when
some
that,
reaping."s
of the social factors for the religious
It is unlikely that the workingmenin- division have disappeared, there tends
volved in trying to establish a trade- to be a reunion (e.g., the Methodist
union wouldlook upon such "religion"- movement, I840-I940). But what conse-

200

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

quences grow out of the lag? Does the akin to the first one, except that its focus
experience of being brought up in close is on social processinstead of social structouch with a "lower-class"church tend ture. Propositionsin the field rangefrom
to give one values, levels of aspiration, vast generalizations-"religion is the
and motives that fix one in lower-class opiate of the people," inhibiting social
status? It was once thought that the change, and its opposite, religionis "the
sect-to-churchtransition disproved this; clue to history," a force of central sigthat, as John Wesley declared, the vir- nificancein the directingof social change
tues that went alongwith religiousfervor -to modest monographs, seeking to
helped one to climb the classladder.Now establish the role of religion in one spesome evidence casts doubt on this idea; cific setting.
the transition from sect to church may
Hypothesis:The rise of Holiness and
be characteristicof the institution only Pentecostal churchesin the southeastern
and not be indicative of what is happen- United States "is largely the natural
ing to the status of individual members. product of the social disorganizationand
If churches become middle class in culturalconflictwhich have attended the
values, doctrine, and ritual, lower-class over-rapidurbanwardmigrationand conmembers tend to drop out and to look comitant urbanization of an intensely
for some other religious (or secular) ex- rural,and amongother things, religiously
pression more in keeping with their de- fundamentalistpopulation."9To put this
sires.8The effects of religiousdifferentia- in terms of a more general theoretical
tion on social differentiationare not be- proposition, one might say: When a reyond the reach of scientific research,but ligiously fundamentalistgroupliving in a
they would require the extensive longi- society of free religious choice and actudinal study (of a generation or more) tivity migrate from a fairly isolated, stafor which social science is as yet poorly ble, communal social structure into a
prepared.
mobile, associationalsituation, they will
Finally, it should be observed, with tend to join or create religious groups
regard to the hypothesis under discus- that help to re-establish a communal
sion, that the role of religion in reducing feeling, that declareunambiguousstandsocial differentiation-in unifying a so- ards of behavior, that bolster the feeling
ciety-has often been discussed. This is of importance-very often by an othercentral in the work of Durkheim and worldly emphasis. Variables to control:
receives an interesting formulation in Differing individual personality tendenWach'sstudy, wherehe distinguishesbe- cies, the degreeof communaland associatween situations wherereligionand natu- tional characterof the two settings (this
ral groupsare coterminousand situations is a continuum, not a dichotomy), the
where specifically religious groups have proportion of the population of a comdeveloped. Again, the need is for care- munity made up of migrants, the availful specification of the conditionsunder ability of alternative modes of adjustwhich the unifying influences of religion ment (e.g., trade-unions), etc. Holt's
are operative and those under which the study offers only very few data to test
differentiating influences are operative. the proposition, but it has at least the
2. Problem:How is religion related as merit of putting its
hypotheses in ways
cause and/or effect to the processes of that are capable of empiricaltesting and
social change? This question is closely shows full awarenessof the need for con-

PRESENTSTATUSOF THE SOCIOLOGY

OF RELIGION

20I

trolling several variables. Such research known hypothesis in the sociology of recan be cumulative.
ligion. It expresses Weber's belief that
Protestant asceticism, particularly Cal[Hypothesis:] In I876 Protestantism presented a massive, almost unbroken front in its vinism, was highly influential in the apdefense of the social status quo. Two decades pearanceof the capitalist spirit. His data
later social criticism had penetrated deeply into are not
only the writingsand activities of
each major church. Some of the most prominent
churchmenbut the high correlationbeProtestant leaders were calling for social
tween Calvinismand the particularkind
reform; Christian radicals, not unheard, were
demanding complete reorganization of society. of capitalism he is talking about. His
The immediate cause of this important change essay, as an emphasis on the interaction
lay neither in theological innovation nor in the betweenideas and "materialconditions,"
world "climate of opinion" but in the resistless
is in harmony with what most sociolointrusion of social crisis, and particularly in a
gists
today would consideradequate theseries of large-scale, violent labor conflicts.o1
ory. It is not, however, without serious
May's fine study is primarily historical errorsof which the sociologist of religion
in characterand should not be criticized needs to be fully aware. It shares, as we
for not being sociologicalwhen that was have seen, the difficulties of large-scale
not his intention. His hypotheses are par- historical sociology-the problemsof setially "unself-conscious" and are not lectivity of material, the difficulty of
related to larger theoretical problems. checkingreliability.Weber,in seeking to
His material, nevertheless, is of value to supplementone-sidedmaterialistictheothe sociologist of religion who is inter- ries, skipped over too lightly the way in
ested in social change. These methodo- which Calvin himself, trying to be effeclogical difficulties would need study: Is tive in semicommercialGeneva,was parhis samplingof religiousviews adequate, tially shaped by emergingcapitalism. A
both in coverage of written recordsand central problem in the sociology of
in distinguishingbetween religiousopin- knowledge and religion is that of the
ions that were written and the far larger "audience":the group to whom one adnumber that were only spoken, or per- dresses himself, in speaking or writing,
haps silently held? This is an inevitable influences, by its values and needs, the
problemfor a sociology of religionbased problems one sets for himself, the emon historical records. Has he fallen vic- phases, even the criteria of validity. In
tim to the "illustrative method"? His other words, spoken and written ideas
generalizationsseem to me to be highly that survive are not so "immanent" (a
probablebut, granted the methodology, very slippery concept in Weber's work)
far from proved.
as he indicated, for they go through a
Hypothesis: "The religious valuation processof winnowingstronglyinfluenced
of restless, continuous, systematic work by the "audience"involved. Weber also
in a worldlycalling, as the highest means failed to take sufficient theoretical acto asceticism, and at the same time the count of the importance of the great
surest and most evident proof of rebirth changesin Calvinismover a periodof two
and genuine faith, must have been the or three centuries. His own concept of
most powerful conceivable lever for the "selective affinity" puts a differentlight
expansion of that attitude toward life on the causal relationship of Calvinism
which we have here called the spirit of to the spirit of capitalism. This is not to
capitalism."" This is perhaps the best- deny, however, that religiousideas have

202

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

a measure of independent development

(their own inner dialectic, as Troeltsch
would say), and that, once established,
they influencethe activities of those who
hold them. Wherever Calvinism's emphasis on "this-worldlyasceticism"came
from, it seems highly likely that a child
brought up believing in it, socialized to
its values, would, if he as an adult became involved in capitalist economicactivities, approach them in a different
spirit from one whose value orientations
were of a differentorder, toward, for example, sharp denial of the importanceof
success in this world, or away from
asceticism. Weber's theory gets, therefore, when properly qualified,if not empirical proof, at least a measure of support from its harmony with other theoretical work that is capable of empirical
testing. Perhaps the major contribution
of Weber's hypothesis, however, is the
stimulation it gave to furtherwork. Controversy has surroundedit from the beginning-both becauseof value questions
involved and because of the great difficulties of empiricaltests. Some have accepted it with minor qualifications
(Troeltsch and Parsons), some have utterly disagreed (Robertson), some have
criticized it sharply but commendedits
insights (Tawney), and somehave agreed
with the idea that a religious force was
behind capitalism but declared that it
was other than Protestantism (Sombart
and Fanfani).
It is clear from these examples, and
many others that we might cite, that it
is very difficult to isolate a purely religious influencein social change, because
religious institutions and movements
contain many nonreligiouselements (see
Problem i), and secularinstitutions and
movements are often led by personswith
religiously derived interests and supported by persons with religiouslyinfluenced values.

3. Problem:What are the causes and/

or effects of various kinds of relationship
between religious institutions and the
state? There is a vast literature on the
question of "churchand state," most of
it historical in approach,and much of it
polemical.It may be that the problemis
too large for adequate scientific work.
Certainly full attention must be paid to
the many different kinds of religious
groupsand kinds of states involved-one
cannot talk about the relationship between church and state. The consequences of connection between church
and state in England (Established
church),Spain (Catholicchurch),Russia
(Re-establishedchurch),and Japan (prewar Shinto) are clearly of very different
orders.
Hypothesis:In a society with a highly
centralizedstate powerstructure,the religious groups tend to be subservient to
the state whether or not there exists a
formal institutional connection; or, in
timeswhen the state becomesthe central
locus of power (e.g., during a war),
church and state become highly interrelated. Whether or not a church is
"established"is less significant-in terms
of its place in society-than the structure of power of the society within
which it works. In societies where, from
a democraticpoint of view, it is most desirable to separatechurchand state, it is
least possible to do so. If I may inject a
value position, Protestants who fight the
use of public-schoolbusses to take children to parochialschools while they accept, and even encourage,the trend toward the nationalizationof Christianity
that is so characteristicof our time are
choking on a gnat and swallowing a
camel. (Incidentally, I'm against swallowing gnats.) Both in scientific and in
value terms, the significantrelationships
between church and state are not only
the formalones, the ones easily described

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

by institutional structure, but also the

pervasive, informal interaction. That is
not to say that the institutionalizationof
a church-state relationship does not affect it but only that the structural element is not the only factor involved.
There is great need for researchthat will
discover how certain kinds of states, existing in various social patterns, will interact with stated religious organizational patterns.
4. Problem:What are the kinds of relationship to be found between religion
and morals? This is an area where it is
peculiarlydifficultto state hypotheses in
a way that permits testing. Because of
the great importance of the problem,
however, continued effort to do so seems
appropriate. The problem first entered
the sociology of religion in connection
with theories of the origin of religion.
Several interpretations, all hypothetical
reconstructionsfrom too little data, vie
for acceptance. One group of writers
holds that in its earlierstages, and in its
origins, religion had no connection with
morals. The common element in several
different theories, among which I shall
not take time to drawdistinctions,is that
religion(in the first instance) is a product
of insecurity and fear. Buffeted by natural forces, plagued by illness, dismayed
by the fact of death, the human mind
created a "compensation ideology" to
reduce the insecurity. Am I powerlessto
assuremy food supply, to cure illness, to
avoid death? Then I shall (perhaps unconsciously-on this question one could
subdivide the theorists who make this
approach)posit the existence of a power
that can do these things; and I shall only
have to learn how to get and keep that
power on my side. Such a belief can reduce tensions, overcome fear, and even
pragmatically "prove" itself, because it
produces greater courage, co-ordination,
and patience. Onlylater, this theory goes

203

on to state, do moral elements become

associated with religion. The development of the Hebrew conception of God
from a tribal deity of vengeance and
wrath to a universal God of love is perhaps the classic illustration of this idea.
The precise ways in which the experiences of the Jews affectedthis development are questionsof great interest-but
of even greaterdifficulty.The hypothesis
that defeat, bondage, and culture contact were important factors is plausible.
At any rate, by the eighth century we
see an ethical God who cared not for
gifts but for repentance: "I hate, I
despiseyour feasts," says Yahweh, "and
I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me your
burnt offeringsand meal offerings,I will
not accept them: neither will I regard
the peace offeringsof your fat beasts ...
But let judgment roll down as waters,
and righteousnessas a mighty stream."
Anothertheory holds that religionand
morals must be seen as emerging together-that beliefs and cultic practices
are, in essence, the reflection of community solidarity and moral unity. Religion is a kind of projection,on a cosmic
screen,of the tribal organizationand the
moral order. Durkheim writes:
So everythingleadsus backto thissameidea:
before all, rites are means by which the social
group reaffirms itself periodically. From this,
we may be able to reconstruct hypothetically,
the way in which the totemic cult [which Durkheim considered the "elementary form of religious life"] should have risen originally. Men
who feel themselves united, partially by bonds
of blood, but still more by a community of
interest and tradition, assemble and become
conscious of their moral unity.12

Whatever

theory may,

ultimately,

seem most adequate to describe the origin of the relationship between religion
and morals, the effects of their relationship deserve careful study.
Hypothesis:In a highly dynamic so-

204

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

ciety, the belief that morality is a fixedI ster; and, on the other hand, one dare
pattern of behavior"revealed"to man as not question an inadequate moral code
one aspect of his religion, and in an im- because it seems to be an attack upon
portant sense, therefore, subservient to religiousabsolutes.In the modernworld,
his religion, is a belief that makes moralI where the need for continually revising
behavior less likely. The problem is some aspects of both morality and relistated in this way, not because there is gion is great, this rigidity weakens both.
much evidence to supportit, but because In the field of morals there has been a
an "outrageous hypothesis" may have great lag in developing a code of bevalue in reorientingthe approach to an havior that is appropriateto the urban,
area of high significance that has been mobile, secondary world in which so
largely neglected by sociologists of re- many of us live. To a significant degree
ligion. Most people would state the hy- we literally do not know how to behave.
pothesis oppositely: that a moral code We are equippedwith standards of mounsupportedby the sanctions of religion rality whichhelp us to adjust to the facewould be difficult to enforce, that the to-face contacts of a communalrelationmore strenuous demands of morality, at ship (the kind of setting in which our
any rate, would not be heeded were it moral code developed) but which leave
not for their religious color. I must con- us much less well instructed about the
fess to an almost complete lack of data moral problems that arise from the fact
to test the first (or second) hypothesis; that we deal with strangers more than
but it could be stated in such a way as to with friends, that we affect hundreds
be amenable to empirical study: Define whom we do not know for
every one that
morality operationally and objectively; we do know. A man may support the
then measure the relationship in the church,love his wife, befriendhis
neighbehavior of persons who have been bors, and then manufacture a
patent
matched for such variables as age, edu- drug which cheats millions and
perhaps
cation, income, etc., between "morality injures thousands. And our society does
score"and belief that the moral code is a not know whether to call him a smart
fixed part of revealed religion. If those businessmanor a scoundrel.To tell him
with the higher morality scores were to treat all men as his
neighborsis somethose who were least inclined to look what ambiguous advice at
best, and it
upon their moral code as a fixed item of fails to recognizethat neighborlymoraltheir religion, the hypothesis would be ity had a kind of
reciprocalenforcement
supported.
arrangement, growing from daily faceMy reasoning, if such it be, in sug- to-face contact. An effective moral code
gesting such a heretical hypothesis and for modern urban life would tell a man,
in believing that it might have some re- not how he
ought to act toward neighsearch value is somewhatas follows:The bors alone, but also how he
ought to act
idea that morality is a fixed item of re- toward
strangers, toward people whom
ligious belief attaches a static quality to he will never see or know about, but
morality and religionthat weakens them whom he will affect in this highly interboth, in a rapidly changing society. One dependent and specialized
society. It
dare not challenge outmoded religious would indicate the
important role of sobeliefs for fear of weakening the moral cial institutions and other social
mechacode which those beliefs supposedly bol- nisms in
affecting social interaction, in-

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGYOF RELIGION

205

stead of emphasizingthat a "rightheart" would lead one to say that the value of
alone is necessary to moral behavior.
religiondoes not necessarilyresidein the
The hypothesis also suggests that the preservationof modes of thought which
assumption that moral standards are dominatedthe lives of primitive and ansimply one phase of revealedreligionalso cient peoples. To be religious today, achas important consequencesfor religion, cording to this conception, does not
for such an assumptionhelps to prevent requirethat one think like an Australian
the continuing development of religious aborigine, or an ancient Greek, or a
thought which is necessary if religion is thirteenth-centurymonk, or even a Calto remainvital. There is a constant need vin or a Wesley-although most people
for the shuffling-off of accidental and assume that it does.
outworn religiousbeliefs and practicesAnotheraspect of my reasoningin posthe traditional elements-in order that ing the hypothesis stated above is conthe intrinsic elements may flourish. cerned with the way in which religious
Many Christians cling to magical and sanctions have been used by powerful
superstitiouselements in religionfor fear people to hold or increase their power.
that, if they are challenged,the edificeof The ruling classes of all societies have
moralitywhich they are supposedto sup- discovered that, when correctly used,
port will come tumbling down. If one religion can be a very effective weapon
starts from the premise that the body of for them. For, however and whenever it
specific religious beliefs that he happens occurred,once the idea that religionwas
to hold are true-purely and simply, involved, not only in man's relationship
without any possibility of challenge- to higher powers, but also in man's relathen the above argumentis entirelywith- tionship to his fellow-men, a doubleout force. If, however, one assumes that edged sword was forged that has not
the "truth" of religion is something for always served the masses of men well.
which man is continually striving, but Not only could supernatural sanctions
never attaining, that religion is to be be used to enforce the moral code, but
judged by its consequences,that it is in the same halo of sanctity could serve to
man, and not apart from him, that it give protection to any power structure,
reflects his fears and aspirations-then provided only that it had the power to
the problem we are discussing in this control the definitions of "the moral"
section becomes highly significant both and "the good." Thus "religion" can
in terms of values and in terms of a say that to buy and sell slaves is
part of
the good society; that the czarist regime
sociology of religion.
If one takes the latter view, he recog- of 1915 is sacrosanct; that the Italian
nizes that religion is an ancient phe- attack on Abyssiniais blessed;that child
nomenon which, because of the deeply labor in the mills is a brace to
character;
emotional qualities associated with it, that for the church to own 42
per cent
has been especiallyslow in casting off the of the land of
Hungary in I939, worked
elements that became associated with it by peasants who can never
hope to own
in its early days. The conception of re- an acre, was
necessary to the good life
ligion as an organic, changingthing (not (and that the Communists,who opposed
simply development from "inferior" such a pattern, attack, therefore, not
types to "my" religion, but continuous just a human power structurebut divine
development within every religion) law).

206

THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION

E. A. Ross once wrote that the wise other questionswe have raised. It is simmen of society disguised their sociology ply that emphasis is shifted from group
as ethics and then went further to dis- process and structure to personality
guise their ethics as religion, not leaving tendencies in stated situations.
to the "purblindmany" the complicated
Socialpsychologyis furnishingus with
task of figuringout what was best for all. more and more valid material, both emOne might with as much truth say that pirical studies and theoretical formulathe powerfulmen of society have often tions, on which to build analyses of redisguised (even from themselves) their ligious behavior. In addition, there is a
ambitions as ethics and their ethics as noticeable trend toward integration of
religion, thus to give a sacred face to research and theory in cultural anthrothat very secular struggle for income, pology, sociology, and social psychology
power, and prestige which characterizes that promises a much more adequate
most societies.Accordingto the hypothe- theoretical framework for religious
sis under discussion,the conception that studies. The wide swings from rationalmorality is simply one phase of revealed ism to romanticism, from instinctivism
religion makes this kind of thing more to environmentalism,have been greatly
possible. A more highly self-conscious, reduced,if not eliminated.In the writer's
flexible relationshipbetween religionand judgment, the broad outlines of an inmorals would reduce its likelihood.
tegrated approach are laid down in the
Becauseof the controversialand tenta- "field theory" of Kurt Lewin and J. F.
tive nature of these statements, it is per- Brown and in the interdisciplinaryand
haps well to state again that the writer cross-cultural studies of such men as
looks upon them only as a hypothesis- Ralph Linton and Clyde Kluckhohn. I
a preliminary guess at the truth. They cannot undertake an analysis of that
are perhaps useful in focusing research theory here more than to state that it
attention but are not tested theories.
seeks to understandbehavior as a result
It is quite likely that the opposite of interaction between individuals, with
hypothesis, stated briefly above-that myriadtendenciesbut no fixedresponses,
religious sanctions strengthen the moral and various kinds of sociocultural and
code-is also true under certain condi- physical situations. As GardnerMurphy
tions for certain individuals. It is the puts it:
task of the sociology of religion to deWe cannot define the situation operationally
scribe the conditions which tend to
except in reference to the specific organism
bring about the first relationship and which is involved; we cannot define the organthose that tend to encouragethe second. ism operationally, in such a way as to obtain
Some of the other hypotheses we have predictive power for behavior, except in reference to the situation. Each serves to define
mentioned may be useful in this regard. the
other; they are definable operationally while
5. Problem:What are the personality in the organism-situation field.13
functions of religion; in what various
ways does religion become connected Such an approach may prove to be a
with, express,and influencethe tensions, theoretical system within which more
fears, anxieties, hopes, and aspirationsof adequate studies in the personalityfuncindividuals?This is a social-psychological tions of religioncan be carriedon.
and not a general sociological question,
Hypothesis:The originsof religionand
but it is highly interrelatedwith several changes in religion can partly be under-

PRESENTSTATUSOF THE SOCIOLOGY

OF RELIGION

207

stood as efforts to adjust to fear and in- disorganization and personal confusion
security. A corollary:When a satisfactory inevitably arose. The average Indian,
"definition"of critical life-events is dis- with his culture discredited, his leaders
turbed or destroyed, many religious made helpless, his old mode of life made
movements will arise to try to re-estab- impossible, became thoroughly disorlish a sense of security (and, one might ganized. Efforts to "Christianize" him
add, many nonreligious movements, often produced a strange blend of pseusharing elements in common with reli- do-Christianity which reflected his pergion, will also arise to try to solve the sonal needs as well as the group struggle.
same problems). This hypothesis, ex- In some accounts, Hiawatha, the famous
pressed in many ways, has been stated Iroquois sachem, and Jesus become
over and over again. It is probably the blurred and blended into an Indian
explanation most frequently used by savior who will drive the white man from
anthropologists to account for the phe- the continent. The Ghost Dance among
nomena of primitive religions and is the Plains Indians can be read almost as
scarcely less frequently applied to con- a running psychoanalysis of their fears
temporary religious movements. It is and hatreds, clothed in religious terms.
difficultto frame this hypothesis in such The fact that some Indian tribes were
a way as to permit empiricaltesting, so much more susceptible to the cult of
that our knowledge in the field remains the Dance furnishes a kind of control
somewhat tentative; yet comparative groupfor testing the hypothesis that this
studies lend it a good deal of weight.
religious innovation is a product of the
Malinowski found that two closely fears, tensions, and frustrations of the
related tribes among the Trobriand Is- Indians. It appears, in fact, that the
landers had very differentapproachesto tribes whose cultures had been least distheir common task of fishing. One tribe rupted (e.g., the Pueblos) were indifferfished largely in inland waters and la- ent to the Ghost Dance, while those
goons; they were seldom unsuccessful whose cultural integration had been
and rarely endangered. They pursued most completelybroken (e.g., the Sioux)
their work with a matter-of-factness took it up with enormous enthusiasm.
that had little room for precautionary Before this simple comparisoncould be
ritual. The other tribe fished in the open held to be a proof of the hypothesis,
sea. Their catch was much less certain many other variables would have to be
and the hazardsfar greater.Aroundtheir controlled-for example, degree of conwork they had woven an elaborate web tact with the shamansor otherswho were
of rite and ceremony whose function it teachingthe new religious
ideas, response
was to rid them of insecurity, to placate of native leadership,
congeniality of difthe unknown forces that constantly ferent cultures for this kind of
religious
threatened their success. It seems a expression, etc. Tentatively,
however,
plausible explanation that their institu- the material at hand seems to support
tionalized religiousforms were related to the hypothesis.
their economic and personal fears and
I have time here only for a brieflisting
anxieties.
of some of the ways in which this hyWhen Europeans overran and de- pothesis has been examined with referstroyed much of the cultureof the Ameri- ence to ancient and moderngroups. It is
can Indians, enormousproblemsof social involved in Gilbert
Murray's classic

208

THE JOURNALOF RELIGION

analysis of the "failure of nerve" of the

post-Aristotelian Greeks. Erich Fromm

uses it to explain the rise and spread of
Lutheranism and Calvinism in early
moderntimes. Hadley Cantriland others
use it in their studies of the followersof
Father Divine. It has an importantplace
in Liston Pope's analysis of the religion
of southern mill villagers. It would be
interestingto compareand contrast some
of these religious movements with the
more secular movements of Garveyism,
communism,and perhaps one ought today to say Dianetics, to discover the
similaritiesand differencesin personality
tendencies found among the various
groups of searchersfor a formula.
A brief statement of Fromm'sanalysis
will indicate the way in which this hypothesis has been used to try to explain
even a major religiousdevelopment.The
impact of the social and economic
changes by the sixteenth century had
given individual freedom not only from
earlier economic and political forms but
also freedom from ties that had furnished a sense of security. As Fromm
says:
Life has ceasedto be lived in a closedworld
the center of which was man; the world has
become limitless and at the same time threatening. By losing his fixed place in a closed world
man loses the answer to the meaning of life;
the result is that doubt has befallen him concerning himself and the aim of life. He is
threatened by powerful supra-personal forces,
capital and the market. His relationship to his
fellow men, with everyone a potential competitor, has become hostile and estranged; he is free
-that is, he is alone, isolated, threatened from
all sides.... The new freedom is bound to
create a deep feeling of insecurity, powerlessness, doubt, aloneness, and anxiety. These
feelings must be alleviated if the individual is to
function successfully.l4

understood. They gave expression, not

only to the new feeling of freedom,but to
the accompanyingfeeling of anxiety and
powerlessness. "The compulsive quest
for certainty, as we find with Luther ...

is rooted in the need to conquerthe unbearabledoubt." His solution is to eliminate the isolated, individual self "by
becoming an instrument in the hands of
an overwhelminglystrong power outside
the individual. For Luther this power
was God and in unqualifiedsubmission
he sought certainty."
Calvin's theology exhibits a great deal
of this same spirit. He expressesvigorous
opposition to the authority of the
church and the blind acceptance of its
doctrines; yet his religion is rooted in
the powerlessnessof man. The doctrine
of predestinationexpressesthe feeling of
powerlessness and insignificance of the
individual, and at the same time serves
to quiet the doubts, for it is not difficult
to believe that one is among the chosen
-hence cannot do anything to endanger
his own salvation. Yet "the doubt remained in the background and had to
be silenced again and again by an evergrowing fanatic belief that the religious
communityto which one belongedrepresented that part of mankind which had
been chosen by God."'5
Fromm's analysis cannot be thought
of as conclusive, for in post factum explanations, no matter how brilliant, one
can never be certain that important
variables have not been overlooked.
Even if, however, it is looked upon only
as insightful speculation, it is a sharp
formulation of a hypothesis that may
be of great value when applied to contemporary religious developments. The
analysis of the personality factors in
communism and anticommunismmight

It is in this context, says Fromm, that

Lutheranism and Calvinism must be also well profit by use of these insights.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

III. CONCLUSION

There is not time to discuss other

equally significant problems in the sociology of religion.An adequatesociology
of religion must study types of religious
leadership-the processesof recruitment
and training, relationship to the institutional structures, strategies of social action, etc. It might study the way in which
specific religious doctrines (e.g., the concept of God) developed under varying
social conditions. It would be interested
in the phenomenon of religious toleration: underwhat kinds of conditionsdoes
it occur, or fail to occur-and with what
results?Amongthese, as amongthe questions we have discussed, there is a wide
range in the degree to which hypotheses
can be framed in a manner capable of
testing.
This brief review of some of the problems and some of the hypotheses that
have grownfrom study of those problems
in the sociology of religionmay give us a
general picture of the present status of
the field. It also indicates the steps necessary for continued improvement in our
understanding of religious phenomena:
Most studies demand a far more explicit
awareness of the problems of scientific
methodology;the integrationof the work
of those who have been primarily concernedwith theoreticalformulationsand
those largely interestedin gatheringdata
must be much more thorough; and the
sociology of religion must be related
more closely to larger theoretical
schemes,for example,personalitytheory,
the sociology of knowledge, theories of
culture and culture change, and the
sociology of conflict.
If one were to assess the resources
available to the sociology of religion to-

209

day, they might be listed somewhat as

follows:
i. Some ambitious and often useful
large-scale theoretical propositions.
These have perhaps been too ambitious,
based on too few data. We would be better served by "theories of the middle
range."
2. A great deal of church and other
religious history, often containing interpretative insights which, if rephrased,
could serve as hypotheses. We have
noted above the difficulties involved in
building an empiricalscience on historical materials.
3. A rather large accumulation of
facts in addition to churchhistory-data
on church membership, groups from
which membershipis drawn, denominational differences, recent social movements. Since much of this was gathered
without referenceto specific theoretical
problems, it is often less useful than it
might be.
4. Extensive anthropological material, often accompanied by theoretical
propositions and interpretations. These
have seldom been posed in testable hypotheses but are rich in guiding insights.
5. A few specifically sociological concepts and typologies that have proved
useful in interpreting limited ranges of
data.
6. An emerginggeneral theory of personality, society, and culture that, when
applied to the sociology of religion,
sharpens its hypotheses and assists in
organizingthe data.
7. And, finally, one must add, we have
some studies that make rather full use
of the above-and other-resources to
indicate the possibility, and indeed the
great importance, of a thoroughly adequate sociology of religion.

THE JOURNAL OF RELIGION

210

NOTES
I. Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social

Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, I949), p. I99.

2. Ibid., p. 200.
3. Ibid., p. 203.
4. Liston Pope, Millhands and Preachers (New
Haven: Yale University Press, I942), pp. 86-88.
5. Henry F. May, Protestant Churches and Industrial America (New York: Harper & Bros.,
I949), p. 93.
6. Quoted in David W. Petegorsky, Left-Wing
Democracyin the English Civil War (London: Victor
Gollancz,

I940),

p. I79.

7. Quoted in G. P. Gooch, English Democratic

Ideas in the SeventeenthCentury (2d ed.; Cambridge:
University Press, 1927), p. I87.
8. See, e.g., Pope's study, op. cit.

9. John B. Holt, "Holiness Religion: Cultural

Shock and Social Reorganization," American Sociological Review, V (October, 1940), 740.
io. May, op. cit., p. 91.
ii. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London: George Allen & Unwin, I930), p. I72.
12. lEmile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of
the Religious Life, trans. J. W. Swain (London:
George Alien & Unwin, 1915), p. 387.
I3. Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins
and Structure (New York: Harper & Bros., I947),
p. 89I.
I4. Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New
York: Rinehart & Co., I94I), pp. 62-63.
15. Ibid., pp. 88-89.