RELIGIOUS MARKET THEORY

The main advocates of this theory are Stark and Bainbridge. They see secularisation theory as Eurocentric and believe it puts forward a distorted view of the past and the future; there was no ‘golden age’ and we can’t predict when people will become atheists.

What is the theory based on?

People are naturally religious and religion meets human needs. So, the overall demands for religion is constant but demands for particular types vary.

It is human nature to seek rewards and avoid costs.

Stark and Bainbridge believe religion is attractive because is provides us with compensators. When real rewards become scarce and unobtainable, religion promises supernatural rewards. Non-religious ideologies cannot do this.

Stark and Bainbridge say there is a cycle of religious decline, revival and renewal. They describe a perpetual cycle throughout history. For example, when traditional churches declined, it left a gap for sects and cults to attract new members. So, they believe the secularisation theory is one sided: it only notes the decline in religion.

They argue churches operate like companies selling goods in a market. Competition leads to improvements in the quality if ‘religious goods’ on offer. If a churches product is more attractive, it will not decline.

America vs. EuropeThe demand for religion increased when there are different sorts to choose from because a consumer can find one to meet their needs. Whereas, monopoly (refer to Berger’s religious

diversity bit in secularisation) leads to decline as no competition means no incentive.

Religion thrives in the USA as there has never been monopoly which has encouraged the growth of a healthy religious market where religions grow or decline according to consumer demand. But, in Europe, most countries are dominated by a church which holds monopoly. Competition was held back which led to a lack of choice and religious decline.

Conclusion…

Stark and Bainbridge conclude that the main factor in influencing the level of religious participation is supply. Participation increases where there is an ample supply and choice.

Also, the comparison between USA and Europe suggests that the decline of religion is not a universal trend.

Supply-led Religion: Evidence

Hadden and Shupe argue the growth of televangelism in the USA shows the level of religious participation is supply-led. Commercial funding of religious broadcasts opened up competitions which led to evangelical churches thriving. The response to consumer demand was preaching a prosperity gospel.

Finke says the lifting of restrictions on Asian immigrants into American in the 1960s allowed Asian religions to set up permanently there. Therefore, Asian faiths became another option.

Supply-led Religion: Evidence

The growth of evangelical megachurches meant that with such large congregations (2,000+), they have lavish resources and can offer lots of activities to meet members needs. Miller compares them with hypermarkets.

Stark also notes Japans free market in religion stimulated participation. After WW2, religion was de-regulated, creating a new market.

Criticisms

Bruce rejects the view that diversity an competition increase the demand for religion. Statistics show diversity has been accompanied by decline in the USA.

Bruce says they misrepresent secularisation theory: it doesn’t say there was a ‘golden age’, it doesn’t say people will become atheists, it doesn’t suggest secularisation is universal.

Norris and Inglehart show high participation in Catholic countries where the church has near monopoly. But, in countries with religious pluralism (Holland, Australia etc.), religious participation is low.

Beckford says it is unsociological and assumes people are ‘naturally’ religious.

EXISTENTIAL SECURITY THEORY

Norris and Inglehart are the main advocates. They reject the market theory and argue no international studies of religion have found evidence of the link between religious choice and participation.

They argue the reason for variation in religiosity is different degrees of existential security (the feeling that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted). Religion meets a need for security, so in societies where people feel secure, religious demand is low.

Poor Societies: where people face life-threatening risks (e.g. disease), there are high levels of insecurity and therefore religion. Even in rich societies, the poorer people are still more religious as they face insecurity.

Rich Societies: a high standard of living provides less risk and a greater sense of security. This means lower levels of religion.

So, the demand for religion isn’t constant, but varies within and between societies. Norris and Inglehartnote that global population growth undermines the secularisation trend. While rich countries are becoming secular, the majority of the world is becoming more religious.

Europe vs. America

Norris and Inglehart aren’t surprised that Western Europe is becoming secular as these societies are amongst the most equal and secure in the world. Health care and pensions etc. reduce poverty and protect those at the bottom from insecurity.

The USA remains religious. They argue it’s due to it become the most unequal of the rich societies with ‘dog eat dog’ values. Poverty and insecurity leads to religion. However, it needs to be considered that America is religious by the standards of other rich nations; it is less religious than poor societies.

State Welfare and Religiosity

Gill and Lundegaarde’s study found that the more a country spends on welfare, the lower the level of religious participation. In the past, religion used to provide welfare for the poor (it still does in some societies), but from the 20th century onwards, the state in the West began to provide welfare so religion declines.

However, welfare doesn’t eliminate religion completely. They didn’t expect religion to disappear, as welfare can’t answer ‘ultimate’ questions.

The Case of Uruguay

Gill and Lundegaarde identify Uruguay, a small Latin American country, as having religious diversity but low levels of religious diversity. This contrasts the religious market theory. Uruguay’s neighbouringcountries have higher levels of participation, but Uruguay have more generous welfare provision. This supports the existential security theory.

Criticisms

Although Vasquez accepts this theory, he criticises it on two grounds:

They only use quantitative data about income levels

They only see religion as a negative response to deprivation