THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN MODERN SOCIETY: A RESPONSE TO HABITS OF THE HEART *RONALD W. FAGAN* Associate Professor of Sociology Pepperdine University The central theme of Habits of the Heart (Bellah et al., 1985) is that the American emphasis on utilitarian and expressive individualism (a consumer culture) has "cancerous" effects on our society by elevating individualism to a transcendent level thus diminishing our shared communal values and responsibilities and ultimately democratic freedom itself. We have lost a vocabulary for collective moral discourse. We need to rediscover our "biblical" and "republican" language. We need to connect self-interest with societal interest. Religion has traditionally played a significant role in American society from the colonists' motivation to come to the New World to the American Revolution and the formation of the United States. While evidencing a general distrust for government, we established a system of checks and balances, but there was still the realization that there is a need for "virtuous habits" (Berns, 1970:31) guided by religious values. There was also a similar concern about religion. While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious expression, it also prohibits making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." More than 90 percent of Americans claim identification with some religious faith, while more than 40 percent attend church. But the institutional expressions of religion have been declining (church attendance and membership) (Gallup, 1985; Princeton Religious Research Center, 1984). While the view of religion as functional has not declined, it has changed substantively (Greeley, 1972; Wuthnow, 1976a, 1976b). Traditional forms of religion must now compete for influence in a modern world characterized by rationality, cultural, and structural pluralism. Religion has been "deinstitutionalized." It has not so much been denied as disaffirmed (Hunter, 1983:14). People are turning to a wide range of philosophies not only because they have more exposure to them, but also because they feel that traditional religious explanations and institutions have lost some of their relevance for the world in which they live. The negative consequences of such a trend may be that with this multiplicity of meaning systems all world views become relative, less absolute. The result for some people may be a state of anomie. People respond to this condition in a number of different ways including denying the validity of all religious traditions, affirming most religious claims, adhering to one tradition and denying the validity of others, or developing their own religious belief system. The positive consequences are that affording people the opportunity to choose their own world view, rather than being obligated to accept a given theological tradition, may make it more meaningful in their lives. But, as Bellah and associates warn, this freedom has made many people's religious views become too privitized, too depoliticized--"where self and its feelings become our only moral guide." Does being "religious" necessarily correlate with a conviction of moral obligation toward other members of society? The Bible often emphasizes the need for a close relationship between religion and morality and social concern (ex. Mark 12:31; Luke 6:27-28; Matthew 25:40; I John 4:20). Probably the best example of compassion is the parable of the Good Samaritan where the priest and the Levite passed a man in need, but the Samaritan assisted him (Luke 10:30-35). There is at least the implication that the priest's and Levite's "religiousness" contributed to their failure to offer assistance. Just as in the parable, there have been numerous examples throughout history where religion has been used as a motivation for compassion as well as a justification for prejudice, discrimination, cruelty, rejection, and intolerance. While generalizations are difficult to make, the empirical evidence tends to support the conclusion that being religious is often associated with discrimination and prejudice and with no greater concern for those persons in need (Batson and Ventis, 1982: 252-299). But religion is not a unitary phenomena. People have different beliefs, levels of commitment, and participation in institutional religion. The research shows that infrequent church attendees and those people who are "extrinsically oriented" (one who supports religion for what he can get from it) tend to be more prejudiced, while frequent church attendees and those people who are "intrinsically oriented" (support religion for the sake of religion itself) tend to be less prejudiced (Allport, 1966; Gorsuch and Aleshire, 1974). Therefore, the empirical research tends to support Bellah and Associates' (1985) conclusions, though the explanations are more complex for all social classes. A person's expression of faith, institutional affiliation, and world view is significantly influenced by one's position in the socio-economic stratification system. Just as the lower classes tend to use religion to make sense of their deprivation and suffering (a theodicy of disprivilege), so too the more privileged classes tend to use religion to justify their deserved "right" to good fortune (Weber, 1958; Pope, 1942; Niebuhr, 1957; Lenski, 1963). Roberts (1984:325-372) points out that positive religious beliefs may unconsciously encourage prejudice and discrimination by, among other things, its meaning system. For example, Stark and Glock (1969) note that much of Christianity incorporates the concept of free-will individualism (e.g., the doctrines of sin and salvation are based on the assumption that individuals are free and responsible beings). This doctrine can provide justification for the view that the disadvantaged are probably receiving what they deserve, therefore we should not intervene because they must learn to be responsible for their own behavior. If we believe that religious values and institutions should influence society, what should be the institutional response to the problems posed by modernity? Though Bellah and Associates (1985) focus on religious noninvolvement, throughout our history religious groups have used various strategies to respond to their modern world including: (1) separationists (churches should confine themselves to the spiritual); (2) social activists (church and state should be separate, but churches should promote virtuous social causes); (3) accomodationists (religion should maintain at least a symbolic presence in public life to guide it morally); and (4) direct interventionists (the church should be directly involved in politics) (Reichley, 1985:3). While non-intervention has certain negative consequences (Nazi Germany being the most extreme example), religious involvement in the political process is not without its social costs. Often the result has been religious accommodation. This has usually involved secularization (demythologizing the supernatural elements, acknowledging other religious cosmologies, privitizing beliefs). The short-lived popularity of the liberal brand of Protestant theology in the 1960s is a good example of this process (Hunter, 1983; Bellah, 1970; Berger, 1967, 1969; Parsons, 1964; O'Dea, 1966; Bellah et al., 1985; Roof, 1978). Bellah and Associates' (1985) book paints a picture where the battle between modernity and religious values is always won by modernity. Hunter (1983), in his analysis of American evangelicalism, acknowledges the compromising effects of modernity on religious beliefs, but he shows that its influence has clear limits. Modernity also creates circumstances that "...evoke the bold reassertion of religious meanings" (p. 134). (He points to the evangelical liberal arts colleges, for example.) He feels that while the evangelicals' cognitive styles have changed, their doctrinal beliefs have remained relatively unchanged. It is also interesting to note that the most liberal branch of Protestantism (the branch that has become most secularized) has also been the one most involved in social causes. We also have numerous historical and current examples where religious fanaticism has deeply divided societies (Ireland, Iran, India, Lebanon). When religious influence is largely symbolic we often get a form of "civil religion" where religion is not used in the prophetic sense (to provide a common transcendent vision), but in the priestly sense to sanctify the status quo (Herberg, 1974; Wimberly et al., 1976; Wimberly and Christianson, 1981; Bellah, 1974, 1975; Mead, 1974; Marty, 1974). Even in a heterogeneous urban world, people are drawn to other people like themselves (Fischer, 1982). While Bellah and Associates argue against "life-style enclaves," research supports the findings that, among groups, "affective commitment" (relationship commitments to members of a group) often comes before "instrumental commitment" (cost/benefit analysis of groups) and, especially, "intellectual commitments" (commitment to the norms, values, and ideologies of the group) (Kanter, 1972; Roof, 1978; Lofland, 1972). There certainly are exceptions to this pattern (e.g., Paul's conversion was first ideological followed by affective bonding to the Christian community). The goal, therefore, should not be to break up these "enclaves," but to transform them--to give them a larger societal vision. While we may not have a language for "collective moral discourse" (as Bellah and Associates [1985] claim), we do still evidence some collective consciousness when the needs are clearly presented to us (an excellent current example is the public's response to the needs of the homeless). We are often much freer, though, with our money than with our time and energy. Going from a personal to a social concern or movement is a difficult and time-consuming process (see Spector and Kitsuse [1977] as well as the literature on resource mobilization--Zald and Ash, 1966; McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Zald and Berger, 1978). For example, one of the problems is that when groups grow in size, they become more bureaucratic and impersonal, therefore groups must strengthen instrumental commitments without undermining affective commitments. Groups must also be careful not to become co-opted in the political process. While most churches and other religious groups acknowledge that they must oppose social conditions and policies that are clearly immoral, there is much difference of opinion as to the specific role they should play. At one extreme, many religious leaders believe that churches should be primarily concerned with salvation--transforming the individual. At the other extreme, some religious leaders favor intense religious involvement in the political process, including direct participation. The approach taken is influenced by a group's history and current members' backgrounds, interests, and resources. Reichley (1985:359), in a thorough analysis of religion in American public life, concludes that from the standpoint of the public good, the most important service that religion can provide to a free society is to nurture moral values and participate in the formation of public policy (especially issues which have clear moral content). But he feels they should not become involved in the political process to the degree that they are perceived to be pleaders for ideological causes or appendages to transitory political factions. Tocqueville wrote that: "Religious nations are naturally strong on the very points on which democratic nations are most weak." Habits of the Heart argues that we need a true "civil religion," one where "...both politics and morality are open to transcendent judgment" (Bellah, 1974:271) (see Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 1963, "I Have a Dream" speech). As they point out, we have the resources in our own history, both as religious and political people, but we need to be selective. We, as a people, want religious freedom, we want religion to "set us free," but at times we want to be free from religion. References Allport, Gordon W. 1966 "The Religious Context of Prejudice," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Fall): 447-457. Batson, C. Daniel and W. Larry Ventis. 1982 The Religious Experience. New York: Oxford University Press. Bellah, Robert N. 1970 "Civil Religion in America." Pp. 168-215 in Beyond Belief: Essays in Religion in a Post Industrial World. New York: Harper and Row. 1974 "American Civil Religion in the 1970's." Pp. 225-272 in American Civil Religion. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (Eds.). New York: Harper and Row. 1975 The Broken Covenant: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial. New York: The Seabury Press. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985 Habits of the Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press (New York: Harper and Row). Berger, Peter L. 1967 The Sacred Canopy. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. 1969 A Rumor of Angels. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Berns, Walter. 1970 The First Amendment and the Future of American Democracy. New York: Basic Books. Fischer, Claude. 1982 To Dwell Among Friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gallup Report No. 236. 1985 Religion in America: 50 Years, 1935 - 1985. Gorsuch, Richard L. and Daniel Aleshire. 1974 "Christian Faith and Ethnic Prejudice: A Review and Interpretation of Research." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (September): 281-307. Greeley, Andrew M. 1972 The Denominational Society. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman. Herberg, Will. 1974 "America's Civil Religion: What It Is and Whence It Comes." Pp. 76-88 in American Civil Religion. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (Eds.). New York: Harper and Row. Hunter, James D. 1983 American Evangelicalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1972 Commitment and Community. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Lenski, Gerhard. 1963 The Religious Factor. Rev. Ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Lofland, John. 1977. Doomsday Cult. New York: Irvington. Marty, Martin E. 1974 "Two Kinds of Two Kinds of Civil Religion," Pp. 139-157 in Civil Religion in America. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (Eds.). New York: Harper and Row. McCarthy John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977 "Resource Mobilization in Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American Journal of Sociology (May): 1212-1239. Mead, Sydney E. 1974 "The Nation With the Soul of a Church." Pp. 45-74 in American Civil Religion. Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (Eds.). New York: Harper and Row. Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1957 The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Meridian Books. O'Dea, Thomas F. 1966 The Sociology of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Parsons, Talcott. 1964 "Christianity in Modern Industrial Society." Pp. 233-270 in Sociological Theory, Values, and Sociocultural Change. Edward Tiryakian. Glencoe, Illinois: Free-Press. Pope, Liston. 1942 Millhands and Preachers. New Haven: Yale University Press. Princeton Religious Research Center. 1984 Religion in America, 1984. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Religious Research Center. Reichley, James, A. 1984 Religion in American Public Life. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute. Roberts, Keith A. 1984 Religion in Sociological Perspective. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press. Roof, Wade C. 1978 Commitment and Community. New York: Elsevier. Spector, Malcolm and John I. Kitsuse. 1977 Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, California: Cummings. Stark, Rodney and Charles Y. Glock. 1968 American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1969 "Prejudice and the Churches." Pp. 70-95 in Prejudice U.S.A. Charles Y. Glock and Ellen Siegelman (Eds.). New York: Praeger. Weber, Max. 1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner's and Sons. Wimberly, Ronald C., Donald A. Clelland, and Thomas C. Hood. 1976 "The Civil Religious Dimension: Is It There?" Social Forces (June): 890-900. Wimberly, Ronald C. and James A. Christianson. 1981 "Civil Religion and Other Religious Identities." Sociological Analysis (Summer): 91-100. Wuthnow, Robert. 1976a The Consciousness Reformation. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1976b "Recent Patterns of Secularization: A Problem of Generations." American Sociological Review (October): 850-867. Zald, Mayer N. and Roberta Ash. 1966 "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay and Change." Social Forces (March): 327-341. Zald, Mayer N. and Michael A. Berger. 1978 "Social Movements in Organizations: Coup d'etat, Insurgency, and Mass Movements." American Journal of Sociology (January): 823-861.