Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · 2000 · 82 citations · 1 references
ArtsReligionReligious StudiesHistory Of ReligionsReligious AnthropologySociology Of ReligionSacred PracticesSecularismInstitutional SecularizationMiddle-range TheorySacred MeaningSacred TypologiesSecularization Thesis
The study argues that social science research on religion has been constrained by a misleading premise. It proposes that research should focus on the sacred itself, treating religion as just one of many sources of the sacred. The authors define religion substantively and the sacred functionally, broaden conceptions of sacralization to reconcile secularization theories, and develop a typology based on compensatory/confirmatory and marginal/institutional distinctions. The study identifies four scenarios of the sacred—integrative, quest, collectivity, and counter‑culture—and offers three cautions for future research.
This paper contends that the social scientific study of religion has long labored under a chafing constraint and a misleading premise. It suggests that our primary focus should be on the sacred, and that religion is just one among many possible sources of the sacred. Defining religion “substantively” but the sacred “functionally” helps toresolve a long‐standing tension in the field. Broadened conceptions of the sacred and of “sacralization” help to defuse the conflict among the two very different versions of secularization theory: the “all‐or‐nothing” versus the “middle range.” Meanwhile, a conceptual typology of the sacred pivots around the intersections of two distinctions (compensatory vs. confirmatory and marginal vs. institutional). This generatesfour distinct scenarios: the sacred as integrative, the sacred as quest, the sacred as collectivity, and the sacred as counter‐culture. The paper concludes with three admonitions for research in the area.
1