Johnson SD, Tamney and Powell - Innovation Theory and Religious Nones

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Innovation Theory and Religious Nones

Joseph B. Tamney; Shawn Powell; Stephen Johnson

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

, Vol. 28, No. 2. (Jun., 1989), pp. 216-229.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294%28198906%2928%3A2%3C216%3AITARN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

is currently published by Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/sssr.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.http://www.jstor.orgSun Jul 1 06:56:58 2007

-

-

Innovation Theory 

and

Religious Nones 

JOSEPH B. TAMNEY*SHAWN POWELL*STEPHEN JOHNSON*

Innovation theory is used in this study to understand the motivations of religious "nones," orpeople who express no religious preference. Predictions about religious nones were derived from ananalysis of data from the NORC General Social Surveys,

1973-1985.

This analysis explores why someAmericans have no religious preference and studies the conditions conducive to such innovation.Generally the results were as expected. Recommendations are made for improving the theoreticalframework. Future research should consider why so many Americans who are seemingly alienatedfrom religion retain religious identities and church affiliations.

Starting with the work of Vernon (1968)more than two decades ago, a great deal ofinformation has accumulated about people with no religious affiliation, people who arecalled religious "nones." In one recent, extraordinary example, Glenn (1987)studied theprevalence of religious nones using more than 100,000 cases. However, such studies ofreligious affiliation have tended to be atheoretical. In this paper we try to understandthe prevalence of religious nones using innovation theory.In a society where almost everyone has a religious identity, a religious none can beconsidered innovative. Although nones have long existed in the United States, it issignificant that most nones were not reared as such (Roof

&

McKinney, 1987: 166). Byand large, Americans are not socialized to be religious nones. Moreover, most Americanscontinue to assume that others have some religion; it is thus unusual to be a none, andthis status may evoke some negative sanctions. We suggest, therefore, that becominga none in the United States is similar to being innovative, and that innovation theoryis useful for understanding why people become nones.Wuthnow (1978: 18) has suggested four conditions necessary for the spread ofaninnovation

-

. .

.

fist, people have to be

exposed

to it.

.

. .

Second, successful innovations must be accorded

legitimacy.

They

will

flourish where they make sense, only where it seems reasonable to adopt them.There must be a climate of openness toward novelty and experimentation. Third, people must have

opportunities

to experiment with innovations.

.

.

.

Successful innovations require an audience thatcan change its loyalties, an audience that has freedom to experiment. And fourth, people have tobe

motivated

if they are to adopt an innovation. Some need or problem has to be experienced in theirpresent way of life, a problem for which the innovation offers a potential solution.

'Joseph B. Tamney and Stephen Johnson are Professors of Sociology at Ball State University, Muncie, IndianaShawn Powell is a former graduate student at the same institution.

6

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,

1989,28

(2): 216-229

216

217NNOVATION THEORY AND RELIGIOUS NONES

Wuthnow's first three conditions can be considered the basis of a general theory ofinnovation, including religious innovation. That is to say, innovation of any kind is morelikely a) among people likely to be exposed to new or minority ideas; b) among peopleliving in a cultural environment which legitimates, or at least tolerates, experimentation;and c) among people likely to have the opportunity to change beliefs or behaviors.Wuthnow's fourth condition, which concerns people's needs, can be specified only byusing a theory specific to a particular innovation. Thus, we discuss religious nones interms of a general theory of innovation and a specific theory about why people becomereligious nones.'

A GENERAL THEORY OF INNOVATION AND RELIGIOUS NONES 

Two of Wuthnow's conditions for religious innovation, exposure and opportunity,have been specified in studies of why Americans are attracted to eastern religion, whyIndonesians become Christians, and why people become religious nones. Studies of religiousnones have all been done in cultural contexts where being a none is rare, allowing theassumption that having no religious preference is akind of religious innovation. Thesestudies have found innovation to be related to: 1) ndicators of opportunity

-

being nevermarried (Wuthnow, 1978; Gallup, 1978); being mobile (Wuthnow, 1978; Hadaway

&

Roof, 1979; Tamney

&

Condran, 1980); and being without strong personal networks(Tamney

&

Condran, 1980);and

2)

indicators of exposure

-

being young (Wuthnow, 1978;Gallup, 1978; Roof

&

Hadaway, 1979); being educated (Wuthnow, 1978; Gallup, 1978;Roof

&

Hadaway, 1979; Tamney

&

Condran, 1980); and living in urban areas (Tamney

&

Condran, 1980).However, these social characteristics do not fit neatly together, oneto-one, with thetheoretical constructs. For example, urbanization is not an indicator only of exposure tonew ideas; urban residents also have more opportunity to adopt new practices (Fischer,1978).Community size, then, is an indicator of both exposure and opportunity. The sameis true of the education variable.

The college experience, particularly at the better schools, stimulates free inquiry, encourages thequestioning of dogma, and undermines the force of tradition and authority,

all

of which combine toshake fundamentalistic religious belief (Caplovitz

&

Sherrow, 1977:127).

In other words, the college environment increases the opportunity to experimentbecause students are exposed to a great variety of ideas. The theoretical categories helpus to consider the problem, but it is not possible to fit each of the empirical measuresinto just one category.Relatively little research has been devoted to the issue of legitimacy and religiousinnovation. Some relevant research concerns the relationship between religion and regionin the United States: For example, the west coast section of the United States isdistinguished by a high percentage of unchurched people (Stark

&

Bainbridge, 1985: 76).This could relate to opportunity. In the West a higher percentage of people than elsewhere

1. Very similar ideas have been developed by those studying diffusion (Bowers. 1937; Hagerstrand, 1968; Katz,1968; Rogers. 1983). Indeed. the term "innovation-diffusion theory" was once part of the title of this paper.

of 00

Leave a Comment