An Alternative View: Secularisation And Security

Why do Norris and Inglehart reject religious market theory?

On the grounds that it only applies to America and fails to explain the variations in religiosity between different societies.

What do Norris and Inglehart argue?

That the reason for variations in religiosity between societies is not different degrees of religious choice, but different degrees of existential security - ‘the feeling that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted‘.

What does religion meet a need for?

Security, and therefore societies where people already feel secure have a low level of demand for religion.

Since religion meets a need for security, what happens in poor societies?

Where people face life-threatening risk such as famine, disease and environmental disasters, there is high levels of insecurity and thus high levels of religiosity. Poor people who live in rich societies also face greater insecurity and are therefore more religious than tich people in those societies.

Since religion meets a need for security, what happens in rich societies?

Where people have a high standard of living and are less at risk, there is a greater sense of security, and thus lower levels of religiosity.

Like Stark and Bainbridge claim, is the demand for religion constant?

No, (like argued by Stark and Bainbridge) it varies both and within societies

Where is religious demand greatest?

From low-income groups, and societies because they are less secure. This explains why poor developing countries remain religious, while prosperous Western countries have become more secular.

What do Norris and Inglehart note?

That global population growth undermines the trend towards secularisation. Rich, secure, secular Western countries have low levels of population growth while poor, insecure, religious countries have high rates. As a result, while rich countries are becoming more secular, the majority of the world is becoming more religious.

In Western Europe, what is there a trend towards?

Increasing secularisation.

What do Norris and Inglehart note about the trend towards increasing secularisation in Western Europe?

That this is not surprising, because these societies are among the most equal and secure in the world, with well developed welfare states offering comprehensive health care, social services and pensions. This reduces poverty and protects those at the bottom from insecurity.

In comparison with Europe, what does the US remain?

More religious than Europe.

How is America’s higher religiosity explained?

It is the result of insecurity: Although America is religious by the standards of other rich nations, it is less religious than poor ones.

Who is Norris and Inglehart’s argument supported by?

Gill and Lundegaarde.

What did Gill and Lundegaarde find?

That the more a country spends of welfare, the lower the level of religious participation. Thus European countries, which spend more than the USA , are also more secular than the USA.

What do Gill and Lundegaarde note?

That in the past, religion used to provide welfare for the poor, and still does so in poorer countries. However, from the 20th century, the state in the West began to provide welfare and tis contributed to religion’s decline.

What do Gill and Lundegaarde not expect religion to do?

Disappear completely, because although welfare provision meets the need for security, it does not answer ‘ultimate‘ questions about the meaning of life, unlike religion. Thus although the availability of welfare reduces the need for religion, it does not eliminate that need completely.

What does Vasquez accept?

That Norris and Inglehart offer a valuable explanation on different levels of religious participation not only in Europe and the USA, but globally. However, he makes two criticisms.

What are the two criticisms of Vasquez?

1. They only use quantitative data about income levels: they don’t examine people’s own definitions of ‘existential security‘. He argues that qualitative research is also needed.

2. Norris and Inglehart only see religion as a negative response to deprivation. They ignore the positive reasons people have for religious participation and the appeal that some types of religion have for the wealthy.