114 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

pose questions about existence, and, even more so, get involved in organizational
activities (Bibby and Brinkerhoff 1974).
Religion is a complex and multi-faceted phenomenon. It is naïve to assume that
one factor will explain all forms of religiosity. Indeed, the reasons that lead one
individual to join a religious movement may not be the same that encourage the same
individual to maintain their commitment over time (Beckford 1975). Moreover, there
are several forms of religious communities. Some stress their difference from society
and protest against what they perceive to be contemporary decay. Other religious
communities have a more harmonious relationship to society. Deprivation theory
might be more useful in explanations of revival movements that demand individual
or social change than in explanations of established faith communities. However, as
we pointed out above, even new religious movements do not primarily find their
recruits among the deprived.

7.2 Socialization theory: Long-term training teaches individuals

to be religious

The fundamental idea in all socialization theory is that we think or act the way we do
because we have been raised to do so during our upbringing. We speak of upbringing
here in a wide sense, since it refers to more than the verbal teaching given by parents
and teachers. Children also learn by watching what others do, not just by what they
say. Parents, teachers, and other adults in their lives are important role models. In
sociology, the concept of role implies the sum of expectations directed to a person in
a particular position. Today, this concept is part of everyday language. We speak of
gender roles, teacher roles, and so forth. Socialization is often defined as the process
whereby individuals gradually grow into societal roles and learn to comply with the
expectations that are directed to these roles. Roles may be more or less determinate
for behavior. They prescribe the various tasks an individual must do, and often the
ways in which each of them must be done. Roles offer some leeway as they relate to
role behavior; for example, in Islam, different imams will fill their role in various
ways, as long as they fulfill the most basic prescribed tasks. However, in all
sociological role theory and socialization theory there is a premise that the individual
largely thinks and acts in ways that are controlled by the expectations of others,
which they eventually internalize and make their own. Successful socialization will
result in individuals who form a social identity that creates commitment to specific
norms and world-views, for example, religious world-views.
It is common to distinguish between formal and informal socialization. The
decisive factor is whether the sanctions are formal or informal. Sanctions may be
positive or negative, and are given as rewards or punishment for behavior, depending
upon whether the prescribed norms are complied with or not. In situations where the
prescribed norms are adopted and internalized by the great majority, a sanction
system is hardly necessary. However, it is far more common that agents of
socialization, such as parents and schools, employ sanctions to make socialization
more efficient. The state and its representatives have strict formal sanctions, or
penalties, at their disposal; for example, people can be arrested, though not
 INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOSITY 115

arbitrarily in liberal and democratic societies. In some situations, the state has the
right to take the custody of children away from their parents. The state also rewards
certain initiatives and actions through monetary stimuli, or good grades, or public
praise from people of authority. In a family, socialization commonly takes place
through more informal sanctions, from a mother’s friendly nod to the clever child to a
hands-on feedback from a big brother to a troublesome little brother. The use of
negative sanctions is often called “disciplining,” while, if we discuss political
opinions, the use of strict sanctions in this case is often labeled “indoctrination.”
Socialization theory is relevant in a debate on religious growth. Several empirical
studies show that religious parents have a far greater chance of having religious
children than non-religious parents do. Of course, it is not difficult to find opposite
examples where children oppose and leave their parents’ religious faith and practice.
However, this seems to be more prevalent in the history of literature than in statistics.
The exceptions serve to remind us, though, that the human being is not a machine. A
number of negative sanctions will often not lead to the desired behavior, but to
rebellion, defiance, or spitefulness.
So far, the examples have centered on parents who are teaching their children. The
literature on socialization often distinguishes between primary and secondary
socialization. Primary socialization normally occurs during the first years of a child’s
life. This process points to the child’s adjustment to social life, whereby the child
develops from an instinctual being to a competent and disciplined social actor who
has learned to take the expectations of others into consideration. Primary
socialization includes, for example, the learning of language, the learning of
relatively controlled behavior, and the learning of the ability to give and receive trust.
This form of socialization takes place in primary groups, for example, a family. A
primary group is often defined as a group with close and diffuse relationships. The
group members know each other as whole persons, and their relationships are close
and emotional, although not necessarily free of conflicts. The concept of secondary
socialization is used to describe groups characterized by more targeted and limited
social relations in, for example, schools, the workplace, and volunteer organizations.
Secondary socialization often takes place in secondary groups, which provide more
limited knowledge and skills that are used to fulfill specific social roles. In these
groups, socialization is generally more formal, even if secondary groups also offer a
great deal of informal learning. Besides receiving instruction on how to do their job
according to the work description, the newcomer in the office also must learn, for
example, where to sit during the lunch break, in order to keep up with the role they
have been assigned.
In this area, there is a difference between sociology and at least some disciplines
within psychology. Some schools of psychology have emphasized the effects that
primary socialization have for our choices later in life. Parts of Sigmund Freud’s
theory of religion can serve as a good example (see Section 3.5). Several sociologists
will argue that socialization during the adult phase has a great effect. This view will
allow us to claim that not only do parents socialize their children, but children also
socialize their parents. For example, many religious parents have changed their views
on issues such as marriage and morality, especially cohabitation and homosexuality,
and the agents of socialization have often been their own children.
116 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

In the history of sociology, socialization and role theories tend to be related to

functionalism. Functionalist theory will argue that in order for society to achieve and
maintain order and harmony, new members must be socialized into certain roles (see
the discussion on Talcott Parsons, Section 3.7). Over time, concepts of roles and
socialization have gained more widespread support than functionalism, and they
have been adopted into general social psychology and sociology. (Socialization
theory is described in most introductions to sociological theory – a good general
introduction to socialization theory can be found in Giddens 1989.) However,
socialization theories have continued to cause controversy. An oft-quoted criticism
was offered by sociologist Dennis Wrong (1961), who opposed “the over-socialized
picture of mankind” presented by socialization theory. He claimed that the
descriptions of internalization of norms were too harmonious. They disregarded the
fact that a person might have inner conflicts during the socialization process.
Furthermore, the individual is more calculating and goal-oriented than socialization
theory suggests, which paints the picture of the individual as a being without
willpower. Wrong also criticized socialization theory for interpreting conformity as
internalization of norms and refusing to admit that conformity can be the result of
coercion or force. He also maintained that socialization theory tends to exaggerate the
idea that the individual seeks acceptance by others, and thus unilaterally considers
human action to be a result of the expectations of others. Even if a fundamental
notion in sociology is that the individual thinks and acts in the context of other
people, it is deterministic to assume that individual ideas and actions are fully
determined by the expectations of other individuals. A general weakness of
socialization theory is that it lends itself far better to explaining continuity than
change.
Socialization theory can still be relevant as an explanation of some forms of
religiosity. It is particularly useful in the situation where individuals have grown up
within established and taken-for-granted religious frameworks. In some cases, these
frameworks include entire societies, as in a unified religious culture. In other cases,
they are based on close networks and relationships that take place in a religious
subculture, often isolated from secular society. In the latter case, it is reasonable to
explain individual religiosity as a form of adaptation and learning.
Some theories supplement and expand socialization theory. Scholars who study
ethnicity, nationalism, and religion will tend to argue that if all of these elements
support a similar world-view, they constitute an extremely strong socialization factor
(see Chapters 9 and 10). Another socialization factor is the local community.
American sociologist of religion Wade Clark Roof conducted a study, Commitment
and Community (1978), which showed that people with strong ties to their local
communities had a higher religious commitment than people with looser communal
ties and a stronger national and international orientation. To be valid, such “localism
theory,” as it was called, assumes that the local community is relatively dominated by
religion. However, there are examples of members of small religious minorities who
virtually have to turn their backs on their local communities to maintain their
religious commitment, and who instead seek support in large gatherings that draw
people from a variety of areas.
In modern times, society no longer offers a total religious world-view. Some local
 INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOSITY 117

communities are able to stimulate religious socialization, as found in Roof’s (1978)

study. However, the family seems to constitute the most important religious vehicle
of socialization. Parents, grandparents, and siblings are, in some instances, religious
role models. Close family members tend to stay in touch, particularly when they live
close to each other, but this is often true even across relatively long distances. In this
way, the family of origin seems to continue to be important for the development of
religious commitment, even if social and geographic mobility will tend to weaken
this influence. In addition, choice of spouse seems to affect religious commitment.
For example, mixed-religion marriages tend to result in religious passivity. Religion
seems also to be a factor that has less importance in choice of spouse than it used to
have (McGuire 1997). This fact can be seen both as a cause and an expression of
secularization.
The validity of socialization theory tends to be questioned in a religiously diverse
society. Diversity implies the visibility of various forms of faiths and world-views in
the media and in everyday life. Some sociologists argue that diversity increases
individual reflection and choice awareness (see Giddens, Section 4.7). Thus,
diversity creates difficulties for maintaining a theory that argues that the individual
acts without reflection, but according to roles and socialization. Below we will
present a theory that claims that individuals are goal-oriented and act according to
their calculations of potential risks and rewards. This theory is applied to religious
commitment. Later, we will introduce a more inclusive perspective on religious
commitment, which retains the premise that the individual is goal-oriented, but
expands the notion of the types of goal the individual may have.

7.3 Rational choice theory: Calculated benefits lead to religion

Rational choice theory has been introduced as a new paradigm in the sociology of
religion (Warner 1993). Inspired by economic theory on how individuals act in the
economic market, it expands this notion to all aspects of life, such as friendship, love,
and religion. According to rational choice theory, social actors will always seek to
obtain their goals with the least amount of risk and cost involved. They will assess the
situation in a rational way and attempt to obtain the best possible overview of
alternative actions. They will tend to choose what maximizes their rewards and
minimizes their costs. Rational choice theory has found a growing amount of support
in the sociology of religion over the past twenty years, and the most influential
scholar within this tradition is American sociologist Rodney Stark.
Rational choice theory argues that individuals turn to religion because they see that
it gives them some sort of benefits or rewards. They will join the religious groups and
movements that will give them the most rewards. As a consequence, religious
movements that have a definite profile and offer a greater amount of rewards will
achieve more support than religious movements with a more diffuse profile and fewer
rewards (Iannaccone 1994). The introduction of rational choice theory into the
sociology of religion has led to heated debates, where sociological reasoning has
tended to be fused with views on church politics. Sociologists with ties to conservative
and Evangelical Christian communities tend to claim that strict, conservative faith