Gen Kennedy - Article Review - Zuckerman, Stark & Finke, Besecke

Zuckerman, P., 2003, Invitation to the Sociology of Religion, Routledge, New York, ch.3, pp.47-60.

In the article Religion is Socially Learned, Phil Zuckerman makes a number of statements concerning the relationship between socialization and religious identity. While many of the observations Zuckerman makes are not highly contentious – such as the extremely strong correlation between the religious identities of parents and children – the conclusions he draws from such information may be seen as very controversial, particularly within religious communities. Zuckerman claims that an individual’s religion is all but determined by the religions of those closest to the person (specifically, parents, spouses and friends) and as such, commitment to any particular religion or God is entirely arbitrary, rather than a results of “inherent faith or soul-searching.” However, Zuckerman does concede that this conclusion also applies to atheism and agnosticism.

Zuckerman also acknowledges one of the criticisms of this style of argument, which cites religious experiences as an ‘unlearned’ aspect of religion. Zuckerman refutes this assertion, claiming that religions create the context and expectations for religious experiences, essentially providing followers with a “script”. This script prescribes the “degree, form, shape and substance” (Zuckerman, 2003) of the experience.

The final issue Zuckerman addresses is the creation of new religions and their founders, who, seemingly, could not have learnt their religious identities from any social agent. Zuckerman offers several defences and exceptions to this claim – firstly, that the very vast majority of religions fail to last one generation. Secondly, nearly all religions borrow and build upon pre-existing religions. Lastly, he points out that of the religions that do last, the first converts are nearly invariably family and friends of the founder. However, in the few cases that do not fit into any of these moulds, sociologists explain the new religion as a case of ‘right person, right place, right time’. While Zuckerman’s reliance on the concept of a religious experience “script” is somewhat excessive, overall he presents a convincing argument for the vast influence of society on religion.

Stark, R., and Finke, R., 2000, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, University of California Press, Berkley, ch.4, pp.83 – 113.

Stark notes that the foundations are a mix of cognitive and interactional elements and processes, and presents his theory regarding the foundations in a set of twenty-eight propositions. Stark states that humans look to rationalise most things in their lives, normally by weighing up the costs and rewards associated, and creating explanations regarding how best to achieve such rewards, even if this is in the distant future. Religions are a rare institution which can postpone rewards to an otherworldly context, (such as the afterlife) due to the fact that the source is not human, but supernatural. Accepting such explanations requires a significant amount of faith, given that it is impossible for living humans to discover “whether or not the rewards arrive as promised.” (Stark, 2000) Stark claims that when available means are not sufficient or workable, humans seek the supernatural to obtain rewards unobtainable from any other source.

Another major claim of Stark’s is that humans will seek to exchange, through prayer, with a god or gods in pursuit of rewards, with the terms of exchange being provided by the individual’s religion. In polytheistic religions, humans will attempt to exchange with gods who are more dependable, responsive and have a great scope. He also encounters a claim made by sociologists such as Sperber – that prayers and other rituals are not attempts at exchange – rather, they claim that the nonexistence of gods is self-evident. Such sociologists state that the real, and sole purpose is for social integration and symbolizing the unity of the group. (Stark, 2000)

Stark also looks at the agreements and desires between a religion and its followers, such as the desire to delay payment of religious costs, the requirement by a religion for extended and exclusive commitments, and the confidence individuals have that they will receive such rewards, and what factors increase their confidence. Due to the rational way Stark sees humans approach their religion, he claims that “people go about religion in the same way as they go about everything
else in their life.” (Stark, 2000)

Besecke, K., 2001, ‘Speaking of Meaning in Modernity: Reflexive Spirituality as a Cultural Resource’, Sociology of Religion, Fall 2001, bnet Australia.

In this article, Besecke asserts that there is a need in modern society for a language that people can use to relate to transcendent meanings, without sacrificing a commitment to rationality. Besecke refers to both this language and corresponding way of thinking as ‘Reflexive Spirituality’, characterised by pluralism and spiritual flexibility. Though it was previously thought of as an individual experience, Besecke believes Reflexive Spirituality is more effective when used as a language to communicate, discuss and “be engaged in critical assimilation” (Besecke, 2001) of spirituality.

There are four methods of ‘meaning-making’ in Reflexive Spirituality. The first is to gain meaning from religious symbols by way of metaphorical interpretation. Secondly and thirdly, the study of mysticism and pluralism. The final method is reflexivity, the ability to be objective and to examine and revise one’s own beliefs.

Besecke is reasonably balanced in her approach, stating that reflexive spirituality can be practised by those with beliefs in one religion, no religion, or many religions. It is also noted that while rationalization does have an effect on religion, it is also affected by religion and religious followers, making reflexive spirituality a resource that is used to test the limits of rationality against the transcendent. This provides ‘practioners’ with a way to build a rational argument about meanings which transcend rationality. (Besecke, 2001) Another creditable aspect of Besecke’s article is the distinction made between two sides of the religious sphere – the institutional (religions) and the individual (spirituality). However, Besecke claims that reflexive spirituality belongs in a third component, which covers the public, cultural dimension of the religious world. Besecke has proposed what would be, theoretically, a highly effective method of discussion.

Genevieve Kennedy