Secularizing America
A review of The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the
Secularization of American Public Life, Edited by Christian Smith
University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003
reviewed by Lael Weinberger
Probably everyone with more than a passing interest in apologetics has given some
thought to the widespread secularization of the Western World, and why and how it
came about. For years, the sociologists in mainstream academia have been fairly
united in their opinion on the subject. In the recent book The Secular Revolution,
Christian Smith, sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
sounds a note of dissent, and presents a new scholarly approach to secularization
theory. He lays out a framework for reworking this field of sociology in his substantial
opening chapter, and then other sociologists apply this approach in a number of
case studies in American life.
The problem
Smith’s first chapter is the most important (and with a length of 96 pages,
is the largest in the book). Smith first reviews the standard account of secularization
theory, developed by founding fathers of sociology such as Max Weber and Emile Durkheim.
The traditional account views religion as declining proportionally to increases
in modernization. Smith counters that this analysis does not explain anything about
the ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘whom’ of secularization:
‘“Differentiation”, “modernization”, “rationalization”,
“pluralization”, and so on try to depict something that happened, but
they do very little to tell us who made it happen, why they made it happen, and
how they made it happen’ (p. 29).
The traditional secularization theorists give us an ‘assertion about, not
an explanation of secularization’ (p. 22). ‘Exactly why did urbanization
or technological developments have to undermine religious authority?’ (p.
23). Smith hits hard at the tendency of other secularization theorists to present
the decline of religion as ‘inevitable’ in modern society. ‘Rather
than all nodding our scholarly heads together in what could be premature analytical
closure, we need to go back and force ourselves to answer these questions again’
(p. 23).
New approach
To replace the old view, Smith suggests a framework of a revolution for understanding
secularization. This brings into the picture what is ‘fatally missing from
the traditional theoretical accounts of secularization’, namely, ‘agency,
interests, mobilization, alliances, resources, organizations, power, and strategy’
(p. 29). Secularization was not a deterministic process, but rather was the result
of power struggles and intentional planning which took place to effect a ‘regime
change’. Smith lists ten areas which could serve as a starting point for understanding
secularization, starting with determining who the activists were, and then studying
their motivation, ideologies, opportunities, and so on (pp. 30–32).
Smith hits hard at the tendency of other secularization theorists to present the
decline of religion as ‘inevitable’ in modern society.
Smith surveys the first few areas on his list at some length. Keep in mind, the
inquiry in this book is limited to secularization in America. European and Australasian
secularization obviously require their own analyses. Smith’s goal in the first
chapter is primarily to make the case for the new theoretical framework. The detailed
case studies in different areas of ‘public life’ comprise the rest of
the book, but we can get a good summary of them by looking at Smith’s chapter
one outline.
The activists
First, who were the activists? Smith argues that, ‘The people at the core
of these secularizing movements … knew what they were doing, and they wanted
to do it’ (p. 33). They were almost all ‘intellectual elites’
belonging to the ‘American knowledge class—the academic, scientific,
and literary intelligentsia of their day’ (p. 33).
Second, what motivated these activists? Smith argues that the secularizers were
intellectual heirs of the humanistic ‘enlightenment’, the anti-religious
line of the intellectual tradition, whose upward mobility in academia and the scientific
and literary fields was impeded by the Protestant establishment (pp. 37, 48–53).
Since the power of intellectuals is exerted through their authoritative status in
knowledge production, the secularists needed to unseat the religious mainstream
to be heard (p. 38). The secularists did this both to promote their ideologies and
to strengthen their own job security.
Secularization was not a deterministic process, but rather was the result of power
struggles and intentional planning which took place to effect a ‘regime change’.
Smith does not argue that all secularizers were personally antagonistic to religion,
but he does argue that all had an interest, for one reason or another, in disestablishing
religion’s authority in public life (p. 47–48). For example, Protestant
educational leaders themselves suggested reductions in Christian teaching, and even
Bible reading in some cases, in public schools (ch. 3). They had no problem with
Christian teaching; it was just that they feared Catholics would request to teach
Catholic doctrines!
Third, what was the cultural and ideological framework that the activists worked
in? Nineteenth-century American intellectuals tended to idolise their European counterparts,
so Smith argues that intellectual ‘peer pressure’ led them to accept
European ideologies (such as naturalism and social evolution).
Fourth, what political situations furthered the secularist agenda? A major factor
that Smith discusses was the divided Christian community. For example, the Protestant
mainstream had alienated potential allies in America’s rapidly increasing
Catholic population. And the ‘mainstream’ denominationalism—rife
with splits, new denominations, and internal friction—was unable to provide
a united front to oppose secularizers during the key era of conflicts (c. 1870–1940).
Finally, what resources did the secularizers have? Smith argues that a key here
were the funds donated by big business tycoons to create research universities.
By their emphasizing science education and research over older liberal arts subjects,
religion was increasingly marginalized. Of course, science education and research
are not anti-religious in themselves, but the point here is that theological professorships
lost funding, while science departments in the universities (subject to the secularizing
influences mentioned above) increased in funding.
Case studies
Each case study emphasizes points of Smith’s outline, but because the subject
matter of each chapter is rather specialized, I will not attempt a summary. For
example, the first chapter of the case studies (by Smith himself) is on the influence
of early American sociologists in secularizing the American university’s approach
to that subject matter. The subjects of the other studies are the destruction of
moral reform politics, the secularizing of the legal field and journalism, and even
psychology’s secularizing influence on religion itself. There are two chapters
on American public education, one studying the ‘progressive’ school
reformers, and another on the influential teachers’ union, the National Education
Association (NEA). Most of these chapters chronicle the period from 1870 to 1940
or some narrower time slot within that range, except for the last chapter, which
covers the secularizing of bioethics debates from the 1950s to the 1980s.
One case study, ‘The positivist attack on Baconian science and religious knowledge
in the 1870s’, should be of particular interest to readers of this journal.
This chapter, adapted from the author’s doctoral dissertation at Princeton,
focuses on a very specific confrontation: the positivist attack on the objective
meaning of language. This in turn led to a criticism of the authority of any religious
text (specifically, the Bible). Baconian science left a very permeable division
between science and other disciplines, but with the deconstruction of meaning in
words, scientists increasingly excluded the input of theology into science.1
Their argument basically amounted to an assertion that science provided a superior
epistemological (theory of knowledge) foundation to revelation. The chapter’s
author, Eva Garroutte, argues that this approach to the science-religion debate
resulted in great advances to the secularists by undermining the subtle, taken-for-granted
assumptions of the Christians (pp. 212–213). As in any case where the field
is extremely narrow, there is probably some inadvertent exaggeration of the overall
historical importance of the topic, but it is an interesting topic which is often
overlooked in studies of science and religion. It is also fascinating to read in
light of the fact that we have seen, over the past decade or so, some increased
interest in mounting an epistemological attack against secular naturalism.2
Apologetic value
In short, The Secular Revolution clears up some of the historical and sociological
bias against religion that is common in our highly secularized academia.
In short, The Secular Revolution clears up some of the historical and sociological
bias against religion that is common in our highly secularized academia.
In my view, the most important aspect of this book is not the individual case studies,
but rather, the theoretical direction of this book. By presenting a careful and
scholarly sociological framework to replace traditional secularization theory, The
Secular Revolution has (inadvertently) rendered a valuable service to Christian
apologetics. Traditional secularization theory has for too long been presenting
secularization as an inevitable process accompanying modernization, and as Smith
points out,
‘Consequently, the de facto contemporary situation of religion in
public life becomes regarded as natural and unavoidable, undermining any real sense
of available alternatives or responsible choice’ (p. 16).
By presenting a secular public sphere as normative, the old theory has been a form
of apologetics for secularism. Smith is aware of the tendency here: ‘ …
some able critics have suggested that academic secularization theory itself functions
as a pro-secular ideology veiled in scientific garb’ (p. 23).
The writers of The Secular Revolution do not show partisanship for religious
interests; on the contrary, some of them give the impression that the secularists
rightfully won out in certain cases. Still, the focus is on how the specific
arguments of certain secularizers won out in a specific time and place
over specific arguments of certain Christians. This is a victory for clear
historical understanding, which does not confuse the rightness of arguments in historical
confrontations with the ultimate rightness or wrongness of Christianity and secularism.
In short, The Secular Revolution clears up some of the historical and sociological
bias against religion that is common in our highly secularized academia.3
A technical presentation
Unfortunately, The Secular Revolution will probably have a much more limited
readership than its subject matter deserves. The technical terminology and length
will keep this book off the ‘best-seller’ list, and the case studies
are highly specific in the subject matter they cover.
For example, the chapter on psychology’s impact on religion focuses in on
one specific popular Christian journal (the liberal Christian Century),
analyzes its contents over 40 years, and chronicles the progress psychology had
made in watering down elements of biblical orthodoxy into a religiously-generated
psychological experience. Certainly, the theme of the chapter is very important,
but the reader will have to be very interested indeed to read through all the details
on the development of a journal.
Still, since we can always benefit from learning of the winning and losing strategies,
arguments, and tactics of the past, each chapter provides valuable insights relevant
beyond the subject areas specifically covered. Limited readership is the price that
is paid for a careful scholarly work written by and for the practitioners of an
academic discipline. And it is just such a book that is needed to begin a revolution
of sorts within sociology by overturning the entrenched old secularization theories.
Related articles
Further reading
Recommended Resources
References
- Nineteenth-century American Christians had integrated Baconian
views of science and rationality neatly into their understanding of the relationship
between science and religion, little realizing that Bacon’s basic philosophical
approach undermined the authority of Scripture. See Sarfati, J. and Wieland, C.,
Culture wars: Bacon vs. Ham, Part 1, Creation 25(1):46–48,
2002. Garroutte’s analysis bears out the fact that Baconianism effectively
crippled the Christian response to the secularists, because Christians were not
operating on a presuppositionally biblical foundation. Return to
text.
- See for example Plantinga, A., Warrant and Proper Function,
Oxford University Press, New York, ch. 12, 1993. Return to text.
- In this respect, this volume is complementary to several other
works, covering different time periods, which were recently reviewed in this
journal: for example, see Williams, A., The biblical origins
of science:
a review of For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark, Journal of Creation
18(2):49–52, 2004; also see Hardaway, B. and Sarfati, J.,
Countering Christophobia: a review of Christianity on Trial by Vincent
Carroll and David Shifflit, Journal of Creation 18(3):28–30,
2004. Return to text.
| Expand this site. Besides the 7,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach.  | | |
|
