Religion in Sociological Perspective Keith A. Roberts and David Yamane Supplementary Web Materials for Chapter 1

Transcription

1 Implications of One's Definition of Religion for Conducting for Research by Keith A. Roberts [Excerpted from Religion in Sociological Perspective 4 th edition] One's definition of religion is often related to one's research strategy. To begin with, some definitions are more conducive than others to certain types of research designs (as we have seen in discussing Geertz's definition). More important, the definition one uses affects the types of questions one asks in doing research. Perhaps the importance of the difference in definitional approaches will become clear if we view the ways in which religiosity has been "operationalized." When we operationalize a concept, we simply translate abstractions into specific questions or statements that can be measured or observed. Let us turn to the issue of how religiosity is operationalized for research purposes. Some survey research has attempted to study differences at the broadest levels of generalization. Large categories or groups have been compared and contrasted in terms of prevalent attitudes. Church members have been compared with nonmembers in terms of divorce rates, racial attitudes, and other factors. While some interesting differences have been discovered, the category "church member" is extremely broad, placing Episcopalians and members of snakehandling churches in the same general category. Furthermore, it makes church membership the sole criterion of religiosity. It ignores both those who may have an unconventional meaning system and those who may pray regularly but who never officially join a church. A number of survey studies have taken a similar approach by asking people about their religious affiliation. Again, some interesting correlations have been discovered. For example, Gerhard Lenski found that in Detroit, 54 percent of white Protestants, 30 percent of white Catholics, 13 percent of black Protestants, and 3 percent of Jews were Republicans (1963: 139). He also found that 11 percent of Jews, 34 percent of white Protestants, 38 percent of black Protestants, and 66 percent of white Catholics felt that divorce is always or usually wrong (1963: 166). These figures provide interesting correlations of social variables, but we must remember that such figures are crude. Such categories as "Jew" or "Protestant" include a broad range of theologies and religious organizations. Still other surveys have been more specific by assessing the differences between specific denominations. In these studies the extreme difference between Unitarians and Southern Baptists (both of which are Protestant groups) can be demonstrated. One may discover that Unitarians and Reform Jews are very similar in their views on certain questions, even though the national sample may show a wide difference on those issues between Protestants and Jews. Identifying the denominational affiliation of people provides more specific information than do the general categories of "church member" or "Protestant." But knowing the denomination of a respondent 1

2 still does not tell us much about that person's religious orientation. For one thing, there is a wide variation of theologies and world views within any denomination. Although Christianity has traditionally asserted that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man, 29 percent of the Congregationalists surveyed said that they do not believe that Jesus was any more the son of God than anyone else is a child of God. Some were not sure that person named Jesus ever existed! Furthermore, 3 percent questioned or rejected the existence of God, and another 16 percent accepted the idea of a higher power but rejected the idea of a personal God (Glock and Stark 1966: 5-7). This leads us to the second limitation of studies that make comparisons simply along denominational lines: they measure only one's affiliation with traditional forms of religion. Other belief systems that may provide individuals with a system of ethics and a sense of meaning in life are not viewed as religious. The definition of religion is narrow and is operationalized in traditional terms. The trend in survey research has been to develop more sophisticated instruments to assess individual variations in religiosity. The earliest of such measures were unidimensional, using a single criterion to determine one's religiosity. In some cases, it was frequency of attendance at religious rituals. The assumption was that people who attend services regularly are likely to be highly committed in other respects. Other surveys used a subjective measure; they simply asked respondents, "How important is your religion to you in everyday life?" Still others used a question about the frequency with which the individual prays ("frequent" being defined as daily). Finally, some surveys asked respondents about their beliefs to determine their orthodoxy. (In some surveys only literal interpretations of the Bible were assessed as "religious responses.") The problem with this unidimensional approach was the assumption that a single index would be an accurate predictor of other religious behavior. This assumption has not been supported by more recent research. For one thing, different churches emphasize different behaviors as signs of faithfulness. The Catholic Church has traditionally insisted that salvation requires attendance at a certain number of celebrations of the Mass per year. Some Protestant denominations have stressed that a tithe of one's income to the church (a tithe is normally 10 percent) is a mark of the true Christian. Others stress prayer and personal devotions. Such liberal denominations as the United Church of Christ have asserted that participation in social action (working for racial and economic justice or in movements concerned about world hunger or international peace) is the mark of the Christian. However, beyond group emphases, individuals within the same denomination may find different patterns most expressive of their faith. Hence, most survey instruments developed in the past decade have utilized several measures of religiosity (i.e., they are multidimensional). 2

3 The first major attempt to formulate and measure differences in religiosity was the work of Joseph Fichter in the early 1950s. He distinguished between Catholics based on frequency of attendance at Mass and on overall level of involvement in the life of the parish. He developed a fourfold typology that demonstrated differences between members within the same religious organization depending on their level of commitment (Fichter 1954). Other measures have been developed since then that have shown even more complex variations within denominations. For example, Lenski studied the differences between "associational" and "communal" involvement. Associational involvement refers to frequency of attendance at church services and participation in the workings of the institution. Communal involvement is a measure of how many of one's close friends and relatives were members of the same religious group. Lenski found that these two indices were not highly correlated and that they tended to have different influences on church members. In fact, communal involvement was a more important influence than was associational involvement in affecting everyday behavior and attitudes. Lenski also studied the difference between doctrinal orthodoxy and devotionalism as modes of religiosity. Doctrinal orthodoxy refers to agreement with the central beliefs set forth by that denomination. Devotionalism refers to a sense of personal contact with God. He measured this by asking about the frequency of prayer and by inquiring whether the respondents sought to determine God's will when they made important decisions. Lenski found that orthodoxy and devotionalism varied independently and that they influenced people differently in economic and political attitudes and in other arenas of everyday living (Lenski 1963). The most elaborate and influential multidimensional analysis is that developed by Charles Glock. His original formulation included four dimensions (1959), but he and Rodney Stark later published several revised versions, eventually specifying as many as eight dimensions (Glock and Stark 1965; Stark and Glock 1968). They sought to operationalize and assess experiential, ritualistic, devotional, belief, knowledge, consequential (or ethical), communal, and particularistic dimensions. The experiential dimension refers to a feeling of having communed with God, an experience one believes to have been a revelation from God, or a powerful experience that convinces one of his or her salvation. A report of some sort of personal experience one considers to be of divine origin or of supernatural dimension is an aspect of religiosity, but it may or may not be correlated with other dimensions. The ritualistic dimension involves frequency of participation in corporate worship services. The devotional aspect involves faithfulness in private devotions and regularity in private prayer. The belief dimension refers to the degree to which the person agrees with the beliefs of the group. This is the same as Lenski's criterion of doctrinal orthodoxy, although Glock and Stark have used somewhat different questions to measure it. The knowledge dimension has to do with the extent to which members even know 3

4 what the beliefs and doctrines of their group are. Several researchers have found that many church members are quite ignorant of the content of their religious scripture and of their church's official doctrines. Glock and Stark insist that people sometimes believe in doctrines which they do not understand. (For example, a substantial percentage of those who claimed to believe in the Ten Commandments did not know what they were. One wonders how central such a "belief" could possibly be to one's life.) The consequential dimension has to do with the extent to which explicitly religious commitments and behaviors affect attitudes and behavior in everyday life. The communal aspect refers to the number of one's friends that are of the same denomination. Particularism is a measure of the extent to which one believes that one's own faith offers the only hope of salvation. Measuring Religiosity Readers may find it fruitful to design questions that they think would measure the level of religious commitment of respondents. What kinds of questions should be asked? What sorts of beliefs or behaviors are indicative of religiosity? The following questions are among those that have been used by various sociologists to identify religious commitment. Which of these questions seem to you to best reflect religiosity? Some questions may seem unusual to you as measures of religion. Why do you suppose sociologists have felt that those questions measure religious commitment? Do you see any unwarranted assumptions about what is religious behavior in any of these questions? Would a highly religious person rank high on all of these, or is it possible to be highly religious and still have low scores in some areas? Are there some on which a person must have a positive score in order for you to consider them "highly religious"? 1. Which statement comes closest to expressing what you believe about God? I don't believe in God. I don't know whether there is a God, and I don't believe there is any way to find out. I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at other times. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. I know God really exists, and I have no doubts about it. Don't know. 2. If you do believe in God, do you believe that God is like a heavenly father who watches over you, or do you have some other belief? 3. What about the belief that the Devil actually exists? Are you absolutely sure or are you pretty sure that the Devil exists, or are you absolutely sure or pretty sure that the Devil does not exist? 4. The Bible tells of miracles, some credited to Christ and some to other prophets and apostles. Generally speaking, which of the following statements comes closest to what you believe about biblical miracles? I believe miracles actually happened the way the Bible says they did. I believe miracles happened, but can be explained by natural causes. I tend to doubt that the miracles ever happened. I do not believe that miracles ever happened. 4

5 5. How sure are you that there is a life beyond death? Are you absolutely sure or pretty sure there is a life beyond death, or are you absolutely or pretty sure there is no life beyond death? 6. Have you ever had the feeling that you were somehow in the presence of God? Definitely; I think so; no, l have not; I am not sure. 7. All in all, how important would you say that religion is to you? Extremely important, quite important, fairly important, not too important, or not important at all. 8. About how often do you attend worship services? 9. Do you believe that God answers people's prayers, or not? 10. How often do you pray:,several times a day, once a day, several times a week, once or twice a month, less than once a month, or never? 11. How often do you read the Bible at home? 12. How often, if at all, are table prayers or grace said before or after meals in your home? 13. Do you ever make a point of listening to or watching religious services on radio or television? Regularly, sometimes, seldom, never. 14. How much, on average, does your family contribute to church each week? 15. When you have a decision to make in your everyday life, do you ask yourself what God would want you to do? Often, sometimes, seldom, never. 16. If you are married, are you married to someone of the same religion? 17. How many of your close friends belong to the same religion you belong to? All of them, most of them, about half of them, less than half of them, only a few of them, or none of them. 18. On what church committees, boards, or organizations do you serve? 19. How frequently do you attend the meetings of these religious organizations? Frequently, occasionally, infrequently, never. 20. Are you, because of your religious commitment, a member of any service organizations, civic clubs, or benevolence societies? Name them. 21 Do you believe that in order to be saved, a person must be baptized? participate regularly in Holy Communion? be a member of your particular faith? pray regularly? tithe (give 10 percent of one's income to the church or the poor)? do good works for others? 22. Do you believe that persons would be prevented from salvation if they never heard of Jesus? break the Sabbath? take the name of the Lord in vain? discriminate against other races? are anti-semitic? 23. Are you able to recite the Ten Commandments? 5

6 70). 1 James Davidson and Dean Knudsen (1977) suggest an approach that overcomes many of the 24. Name the first book of the Bible. 25. Name two major prophets mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible. 26. Name the person who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. 27. One person wrote most of the books of the New Testament. Can you name that person? Religion in Sociological Perspective Multidimensional modes of analysis tend to measure religiosity in conventional terms. The way in which Glock and Stark operationalized the belief dimension will serve to illustrate. A person who is rated high in religious commitment indicates most of the following: 1. Certainty of the existence of God. 2. Belief in the divinity of Jesus. 3. Belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, actually walked on water, and will someday return. 4. Belief in miracles as reported in the Bible. 5. Belief in life after death. 6. Belief in the actual existence of the devil. 7. Belief that "a child is born into the world already guilty of sin (Stark and Glock, 1968: 22-44). Each of the other dimensions was also measured with rather traditional conceptions of religion. Using these criteria for assessing religiosity, many people who believe strongly in astrology or in some other nontraditional cosmology would be considered nonreligious. The effect of such operationalization is also to suggest that liberal denominations are less religious than conservative ones (McGuire 2002). This is questionable. On what grounds can a sociologist insist that a devout Quaker is ideologically less religious than a Southern Baptist? And when 94 percent of Congregationalists conform to the position of their church and reject a literal interpretation of original sin, how can a sociologist call them less religious than Catholics? Yet the above set of questions would lead to such conclusions. Certainly the Congregationalist and the Quaker do not think of themselves as less religious. Although Glock and Stark also discuss "ethicalism" as a possible alternative expression of religiosity, they assert: "Supernaturalism, in our judgment, is still the crucial variable in contemporary religious identity" (Stark and Glock 1968: shortcomings of the Glock and Stark model. Davidson and Knudsen insist that because the content of religious beliefs varies significantly from one group to another, questions about orthodoxy are 1 This is in contrast to a national survey in which 86 percent of American respondents agreed with the statement, "The best mark of a person's religiousness is the degree of one's concern for others" (Hadden 1969: 147). For a number of Americans, ethical behavior is the most important manifestation of religiosity. 6

7 inappropriate for measuring religiosity. They suggest an important distinction between "religious commitment" and "religious orientation." Specific beliefs, tendencies to particularism, ethical applications of beliefs in everyday life, communal involvement, and religious knowledge are elements of one's religious orientation. They vary among groups and indicate different styles of religiosity. Religious commitment (or extent of religiosity) is measured in terms of two components: religious consciousness and religious participation. Religious consciousness refers to a respondent's evaluation of the importance of religion in his or her life. That is, it is the extent to which religion is a part of a person's sense of identity intellectually, affectively, and behaviorally. It is operationalized through three questions: Religious Consciousness 1. According to whatever standards are important to you personally, how religious would you say you are? 2. Overall, would you say religion is a positive or a negative force in making your life worthwhile? 3. To what extent would you say religious faith helps you in making daily decisions you have to make in life? Religious participation refers to the respondent's involvement in explicitly religious behavior: ritual attendance, participation in other group-sponsored activities, and devotional behavior. Again, it is measured through responses to three questions: Religious Participation 1. How many worship activities do you attend in a typical month? 2. How many church organizations or activities do you participate in regularly? 3. Do you ever do any of the following: a. Pray privately outside church? b. Say grace before meals? c. Read the Bible outside of church? Pilot studies suggest that answers to religious consciousness and religious participation items are highly correlated. Together, Davidson and Knudsen suggest they measure the extent of a person's religiosity. Differentiating between religious orientation and religious commitment could serve to clear up much of the muddiness in recent survey studies. Certainly there is an important difference between the extent and the style of one's religiosity. Davidson and Knudsen's approach avoids the fallacy of defining some theologies as inherently more religious than others. The authors found little correlation between the various elements of a person's religious orientation, and conclude that people's religious orientations are 7

8 inclined to be highly inconsistent and do not represent integrated wholes. This confirms earlier studies that found the elements of religiosity to vary independently. Measuring Traditional Jewish Religiosity Many of the measures of religiosity in the previous measuring religiosity box assume a Christian orientation by the subjects. In a study of the Jewish population in the Boston area, Floyd Fowler developed questions to measure religiosity among that religious group. Students may be interested in comparing and contrasting the questions here with those in Box 1.1. Especially noticeable is the lack of questions about what one believes and the emphasis on behaviors. Do any of these items seem odd to you as measures of religiosity? If so, why? 1. Do you take part in a Passover Seder? 2. Do you keep kosher at home? 3. Do you recite a daily prayer or worship service either at home or at a synagogue? 4. Do you light Sabbath candles? 5. Do you have a Mezzuzah on your door? 6. Do you usually fast on Yom Kippur? 7. Do you observe special dietary rules for Passover? 8. Do you ever attend lectures or classes of Jewish interest? 9. Have you ever been to Israel? How many times? 10. Do you regularly read any newspapers or magazines of Jewish content? 11. Do you belong to a synagogue or temple? 12. Over the past twelve months approximately how much did you and other members of your family give altogether to various charities (not counting what you gave to a synagogue or temple)? 13. About how much of this was to Jewish causes (not counting what you gave to a synagogue or temple)? 14. Altogether, counting contributions and dues and so on, about how much have you and your family contributed to a temple or synagogue this past year? Source: Floyd J. Fowler. I975 Community Survey: A Study of the Jewish Population of Greater Boston. Boston: Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston. 1977: On the other hand, the lack of coherence between the elements of traditional religiosity may be evidence that traditional religion is inadequate to meet the meaning needs of modern people. Yinger (1969, 1977) has suggested that in rapidly changing societies, religion itself may be changing and may "look different." New forms of religion may be emerging forms that are not measured by traditional questions. Rather than starting with traditional concepts of religiosity and trying to assess its effect on everyday life, functional definitions begin with the consequential dimension. They ask what it is that really provides meaning and purpose in the lives of people, for that is where one finds religion. If a 8

9 traditional belief system does not affect a person's life, if it does not provide a coherent understanding of life's experiences, then it is not really that person's faith. If it is not one's real faith, then the question arises, What is? For those using a functional definition, it is inappropriate to try to assess levels of religiosity by asking only traditional questions. Using such a functional definition of religion, Yinger operationalizes his research in a very different way. Rather than asking about one's religion (a term that brings to mind traditional concepts of ritual, prayer, and orthodoxy for most people), Yinger asks his questions in a nontraditional way. Yinger proceeds by posing certain statements and asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement. The following statements illustrate (1977: 76): Suffering, injustice, and finally death are the lot of humanity; but they need not be negative experiences; their significance and effects can be shaped by our beliefs. Somehow, l cannot get very interested in the talk about "the basic human condition" and "humanity's ultimate problems." A person's most difficult and destructive experiences are often the source of increased understanding and powers of endurance. Despite the often chaotic conditions of human life, I believe that there is an order and pattern to existence that someday we will come to understand. Depending on how respondents answer these questions, Yinger feels one has an indication of the basic religiosity of the individual. He then seeks to determine what it is that serves as an ultimate concern for those religious persons by asking some open-ended questions: In your most reflective moments, when you are thinking beyond the immediate issues of the day however important beyond headlines, beyond the temporary, what do you consider the most important issue humanity has to face? Or, to put the question another way, what do you see as the basic, permanent question for humankind? (1969: 93) Because Yinger also believes that religion is essentially a group phenomenon, he also seeks to discover what groups the individual may be participating in that support the emphasis on this ultimate concern and that develop a strategy to address it. His follow-up question is this: Are you a participant or member of some group, whether large or small, for which the "basic, permanent question" and the beliefs connected with it are the focus of attention and the most important reasons for its existence? If so, please characterize the group briefly (1969: 93). As one can readily see, Yinger does not presuppose what religion will look like or what sort of beliefs one might have. He uses an inductive method; he seeks to discover what concerns people ultimately and what provides people with a sense of meaning and hope. Clearly, such an approach does 9

10 not make for neat correlations and computer-run multivariate analysis. At this point, at least, the method has not produced the sort of hard data that some sociologists prefer. The formulation of the questions will no doubt be continually modified and will undergo further sophistication as such research instruments are tested. One study has found that responses to Yinger's questions have elicited traditional religious answers (Roof et al. 1977). Persons who score high on traditional measures of religiosity are also the ones who score high on Yinger's measure. However, another study using Yinger's approach has reported that the procedure was helpful in discovering invisible or nonconventional religions in our midst (Nelsen, Everett, Mader, and Hamby 1976). For researchers who define religion strictly in terms of a supernatural dimension, or for researchers interested in the effects of traditional religious beliefs and institutions, Yinger's operationalized questions are less fruitful than those of Glock and Stark or Davidson and Knudsen. For those interested in religion at the individual level or for those interested in religion as an evolving cultural system, Yinger's approach can stimulate new areas of investigation. The discussion should make clear to readers that one's definition of religion is important to how one conducts research. Furthermore, readers may have a clearer idea of how one's definition of religion can cause individuals to disagree on whether a particular social phenomenon is essentially religious. Of course, in both cases Methodism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and Krishna Consciousness are all considered forms of religion. Substantial and functional definitional approaches differ primarily on the questions, "Where does one draw the line between religion and nonreligion?" and "How do you measure or discover religiosity?" References Davidson, James D., and Dean D. Knudsen "A New Approach to Religious Commitment." Sociological Focus (April): Fichter, Joseph Social Relations in the Urban Parish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fowler, Floyd J.. I975 Community Survey: A Study of the Jewish Population of Greater Boston.. Boston: Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston. 1977: Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper & Row. Glock, Charles Y "The Religious Revival in America." Pp in Religion and the Face of America. Edited by Jane Zahn. Berkeley: University of California Press. Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally. Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York: Harper & Row. Hadden, Jeffrey K The Gathering Storm in the Churches. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. 10

11 Lenski, Gerhard The Religious Factor, revised ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. McGuire, Meredith B Religion: The Social Context, 5 th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Religion in Sociological Perspective Nelsen, Hart M., Robert F. Everett, Paul Douglas Mader, and Warren C. Hamby "A Test of Yinger's Measure of Nondoctrinal Religion: Implications for Invisible Religion as a Belief System." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (September): Roof, Wade Clark, Christopher Kirk Hadaway, Myrna L. Hewitt, Douglas McGaw, and Richard Morse 1977 "Yinger's Measure of Non-Doctrinal Religion: A Northeastern Test." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (December): Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yinger, J. Milton "A Structural Examination of Religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Spring): Yinger, J. Milton The Scientific Study of Religion. New York: Macmillan. Yinger, J. Milton "A Comparative Study of the Substructure of Religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (March):