Rational Choice Theory of Religion and Secularization

Rational choice theory is a theory that some early thinkers, especially classical economists and economic and social anthropologists, paid special attention to, and some of them elaborated the raw form of the rational choice idea. Explaining people's religious behaviors in the modern world based on the explanations of secularization theory held considerable importance in the sociology of religion. However, due to certain shortcomings, this theory cannot provide a comprehensive and complete explanation. Therefore, it seems that rational choice theory, as a new approach in the sociology of religion, can compensate for some of the deficiencies of secularization theory. By offering an explanation of religious pluralism in the modern world, this theory proposes another form of secularization that has manifested within religion itself. This increased the importance of presenting post-secular theories to enable a more comprehensive explanation of the state of religion in the modern world. Accordingly, the rational choice theory of religion shows that the role of religion in societies does not diminish, and religion tries to adapt itself to the requirements of modern society, using valid rational arguments based on the market and profit and loss in its reasoning.

1. Introduction:

Social phenomena are the result of human actions, and humans are agents whose actions are governed by values, beliefs, goals, meaning, commands and prohibitions, caution, and doubt. In other words, humans are knowledgeable and intentional beings¹ whose actions rely on reason and rational calculation. Accepting this claim leads to presuppositions in the social sciences that distinguish them from the natural sciences; this distinction is particularly evident in the cause of social orders and its qualitative difference from the cause of natural orders. Furthermore, the intentional nature of social phenomena opens the way for a mode of explanation in the social sciences that is not possible in the natural sciences (5, p. 63).

In fact, rational choice is a theory about human behavior, assuming that humans try to make the most profitable and efficient decisions given their resources and possibilities in their surrounding environment. Humans seek desirable outcomes in their behavior; these desired benefits and outcomes can be material or non-material, so receiving important rewards such as inner satisfaction, an increased sense of importance, etc., are considered by individuals in rational choice (17).

One of the most prominent recent advances in the social sciences is the emphasis on the above presuppositions in human behavior, which has led to the emergence of rational choice theory or methodology. The principles and foundations of the rational actor are the basis of much influential theorizing in the social sciences (30, p. 1 and 11, 3).

In rational choice theory², the emphasis is on determining the rational paths of action in its abstract form and then comparing the actual behavior of humans with that action. Rational choice theory often considers the impact of individuals' interactions on the entire social system (14, p. 83). This theory focuses on an agency that is capable of choosing among options consciously and in accordance with its own interests (15, p. 352).

In this theory, simplified assumptions about behavior are employed, the most important of which is the principle of rationality, according to which individuals are considered purposeful actors seeking to optimize³ their interests. According to this theory, individuals, considering a set of potential actions, choose the action that yields the best outcome for them (32, p. 294). Based on the axiom of rationality, assumptions are made that are generalizable to social action and structural and institutional levels. Turner⁴ lists the assumptions of rational choice theory as follows (31, p. 304):

a) Humans are purposeful and goal-seeking.

b) Humans possess a set of preferences or interests that are arranged hierarchically.

c) In selecting their behavioral paths, humans engage in rational calculation in the following ways:

1) The utility of different behavioral paths according to the hierarchy of preferences.

2) The costs of each option in terms of forgone benefits.

3. The best way to maximize⁵ benefits.

   In light of the above, the core of rational choice theory is to regard the human being as a rational actor who chooses, thinks in the best possible way, and calculates his or her own profit and loss in making a choice (2, p. 92). Over the past several years, rational choice theory concerning religion has provided new answers to existing questions about the persistence of religion, patterns of religious change, and explanations regarding the adherence to and growth of religions for which there is high demand. The main point of this theoretical approach to religion is that a religious act (religious choice) is not significantly different from other forms of rational choice (meaning that the decision-making process in which humans engage in their religious and spiritual lives is no different from the process an individual undertakes when choosing a car).

    Also, given the predominance of a certain intellectual outlook and approach to existence in the modern era, according to which natural phenomena and life experiences are interpreted and analyzed without reference to anything outside of nature and society—that is, the description and explanation of the universe are carried out solely by empirical and technical-rational criteria and standards—it seems that the rational choice approach to religion has taken shape in such a context (which promises secularization to the modern world). And as is evident from the definitions of secularization⁶ offered by experts (10, pp. 16, 12, 13, p. 25), the effort toward secularization occurs not only at the micro and macro levels of the social system, but this process is also pursued within religion itself. Since rational choice theory has played a highly effective role in the secularization of religion, examining the relationship between the process of secularization and the rational choice theory of religion can have an explanatory effect in clarifying the status of religion in the modern world. Therefore, our priority in this article is to examine the relationship between secularization, as the dominant approach toward religion in the modern world, and the rational choice theory of religion, as an influential factor in the secularization of religion. Thus, to achieve this, we will first address the rational choice theory of religion, and after a concise definition of the process of secularization, we will discuss the relationship between secularization and rational choice theory.

2. Rational Choice Theory of Religion⁷:

   According to this theory, human beings are exposed to various material and spiritual threats and fears throughout their lives; therefore, religion is considered a suitable refuge and sanctuary for them. Religion has the ability to transform these uncertainties and insecurities into existential peace and assurance. This existential peace and assurance, which is bestowed upon humans as a result of converting to religion, becomes a common good that cannot be attained individually (22, pp. 154-153).

   This theory argues that people live in the present world based on religious motivations (such as salvation) and yet must decide how to achieve their goals. In fact, the rational choice theory of religion considers religious behavior as a type of exchange relationship, such that individuals become religiously committed; if they continually pay their dues to God on time and according to religious laws, then, according to the formed religious commitment, God will grant them rewards. According to this theory, rational religious choice is the primary motivation for religious practice and the use of the supernatural to secure rewards (19).

   Stark⁸ (1994) offers three assumptions in this regard, based on which he can present a rational choice analysis of religion. First, humans seek what they consider rewards and avoid what they deem losses. Second, human action is contingent upon a set of information-processing systems whose function is to discover problems and attempt to solve them. Third, some desired rewards are limited and even scarce (30, pp. 1-4 and 29). It is from the third principle that Stark presents the rational choice analysis of religion. Limited and scarce rewards have alternatives that substitute for the desired rewards. Various alternatives have emerged in social life, but the most important type of alternative is related to religion.

    Stark introduces the two concepts of power and piety in this connection in order to present three propositions about religion. First, the power of an individual or a group has a negative relationship with the acceptance of scarce alternatives. Someone who has the power to provide a prosperous life in this world does not consider an alternative at the level of a prosperous life, but for someone who is poor, this may be the case. Second, the power of an individual or a group has a positive relationship with control over the religious organization and with the extraction of rewards from religious organizations. He has called this the churchly form of religion. Third, which is more important to Stark than the other two, is that every individual or group seeks alternatives for desirable rewards that do not exist in our world (30, pp: 1-4). Eternal life has been a desirable wish of human beings, and on the other hand, humanity knows that it will not attain everlasting life in this world. Therefore, humans resort to piety and self-restraint to guarantee the eternity of the afterlife for themselves (27, p: 43). Religion is, in fact, the provider of general alternatives for all rare or scarce rewards that are not available to everyone, or even if they are, they are exhaustible.

  One of the ways in which the propositions of rational choice can be applied to religion is through the examples and theorems of Stark and Finke⁹ (1992). For instance, they attempt to explain these propositions through rational choice theory. “Why strict churches are stronger” By introducing the principle of investment, they argue that when individuals invest in something specific, their effort to protect their capital increases (20, pp: 58-61). For example, if a person buys an expensive car, they are obliged to maintain it constantly or hire someone to look after it. Now, if we apply this principle to religion, when individuals are convinced that the strict church offers them the correct path to the truth, while its members are required to spend many hours in church, people are more eager to attend church and follow its strict commands because they consider it a kind of investment for their salvation. According to Hechter¹⁰ (22, p: 156 and 14, p: 196), communities that negate hierarchy do not make their members highly dependent on the group for food and housing and do not impose specific, long-lasting commitments. Conversely, communities such as religious groups that are capable of complete surveillance over their members' actions—for example, through communal living spaces and regular, ritualistic meetings that impose very high costs to prevent exit and make all rewards significantly collective by emphasizing communal ownership—have a greater probability of long-term survival. Also, (strict) religious groups have the ability to effectively monitor free riders and provide religious rewards for their members.

 It seems that the models of rational choice theory have a logical structure. These models are based on the presupposition that religious behavior is the result of the religious individual's action to solve the following problems:

    Choice in relation to action and the maximization of objects, considering the household economic model, leads to the conclusion that produced goods can be, like the products of a factory, both tangible and intangible; home repair is a tangible case, and rest is intangible. Religion is also one of the household commodities, where each individual can consider religious participation as a matter of their own choice (24). The issue of choice here concerns the amount of time and money spent on religious activities versus secular activities. Household commercial goods are the valued services and goods that families and individuals produce for their own consumption. Now, just as family needs such as the need for food, procreation, or entertainment are met, each requiring the expenditure of financial and time resources to purchase goods, the same process applies to religious needs. That is, individuals satisfy their religious actions according to their financial and time resources. Time resources can include the time for traveling to and from a religious place, time spent on worship and prayer, time for contemplation and reading scripture, or time for altruistic behavior or charity, etc. Financial resources can include the costs of grooming for religious ceremonies, transportation costs, purchasing scripture, sacrifices, etc. Religious goods may be collective, meaning they benefit the group, or private, meaning they benefit individual purchasers; ultimately, in this model, the agents of the religious institution who produce religious products are encouraged and motivated by the same things as secular agents.

    The economic presuppositions of the rational choice theory of religion have set the stage for the formation of discussions on religious economies and religious markets. In these discussions, all the activities of the church and clergy are considered as a religious market with its own specific constraints and possibilities. Furthermore, the competitiveness or pluralism of the religious market versus its monopolistic nature is raised in these discussions, and its impact on the level of individual religious participation is examined. We will delve further into these discussions below.

1-2 The Religious Market¹¹:

   Rational choice theory has provided a useful and suitable foundation for the theoretical and empirical study of religion. In the discussion of religious markets, the central assumptions of rational choice theory and market theory are considered, and then, based on these assumptions, models are developed for religion. For example, all the reactions of the church and clergy are considered as a religious market with its own specific constraints and possibilities. That is, this market, like an economic market, consists of two poles. On one side are the producers of religious goods and materials (i.e., the church institution and clergy), and on the other side are religious consumers positioned as buyers of the clergy's religious products (23). In other words, exactly like the structure of ordinary markets, it has two distinct facets: producer and consumer. Moreover, in this market, as in other markets, there is a tendency toward equilibrium, and on the other hand, the consumer's freedom to choose religious products places constraints on religious producers (the church and clergy). In this analysis, just like in an economic market, a seller (whether a seller of automobiles or a seller of God's mercy and forgiveness) cannot last long without the presence of buyers. Also, the customer prefers to shape the content of the religious good and, moreover, the structure of religious institutions based on their own demand.

  Another example is the use of economic concepts such as subsidy¹² and repression. These concepts are used in market and religious economy theories to explain how motivation and opportunity are created for the elimination or development of a religion. Subsidy rewards chosen religious groups, and repression punishes groups lacking license and legitimacy. Repression provides the clearest examples of changes in incentives and opportunities. Laws that impose restrictions on religious practices deprive religions lacking license and legitimacy from the state of opportunities. Repression changes the incentives of all religions, while also aiding the long-term growth of the religious economy (25).

   In comparison with overt repression of religion, the effects of subsidy¹³ regulations are far more negligible. Indeed, at first glance it appears that subsidies encourage religious activity by supporting religious institutions and reducing the cost of membership for the individual. But upon closer reflection, it becomes clear that subsidies weaken producers’ incentives to attract popular support and restrict competition by limiting subsidies to a few select religions.

  Opponents of the established church offer similar assessments of the clergy who receive salaries in contemporary Sweden; the state gives generous salaries to priests, and 95 percent of Sweden’s total population is registered as members of the Church of Sweden, yet reports indicate that only two percent of the population attends church every Sunday. When the Bishop of Stockholm was asked the reason for this discrepancy, he replied: “The established church is like the post office. People do not crowd into it during working hours… they are simply content that it is there in its usual place” (27, p. 164). When the state pays the priests’ salaries, they have little incentive to attract popular support and mobilize the people. In contrast, for priests who do not receive subsidies and are necessarily reliant on the voluntary contributions of the people, churches must raise membership commitments to a level that provides sufficient financial and time resources.

   Subsidies also alter the incentives of religious consumers. When the state allocates subsidies only to a few religions, this subsidy raises the cost of joining an alternative religion; akin to enrolling students in non-profit schools while parents, by choosing a non-profit school for their children, pay the full cost of tuition and forgo the privilege of free education; they contribute, in a way, by paying taxes to public schools. Similarly, allocating a subsidy to one religion increases the cost of converting to another religion. In other words, for the religious consumer, allocating a subsidy to one church weakens the incentive to convert to another church. (18)

   But religious markets can also explain the situation of religion and its institutions in another way. The degree to which religious markets are competitive or monopolistic can play an effective role in clarifying the situation of religion in the modern world. The more competitive and pluralistic the religious market, the more efficient religious institutions are. Another way of stating this proposition is that a competitive and pluralistic market organizes churches in which the ratio of return on investment is higher (28). Regardless of the amount of money, commitment, or time invested in a church, it seems that people are searching for a church in which they can achieve a high return on their investment. When competition is high, churches must either yield higher returns or face a decline in popular support.

  Therefore, efficiency here means the ratio of total output to total costs. Churches provide a wide range of social, spiritual, psychological, and even physical benefits for their members, such as the spiritual transcendence of social groups through worship and moral guidance. But churches also impose costs on their members, such as time, money, demands for rigid and elaborate behavior, or support for serious and strict beliefs through confession. More efficient churches facilitate a higher benefit-to-cost ratio; this simple ratio presents two options for increasing efficiency before religious institutions.

   First, they can increase the services they offer to members while reducing the obligations (costs) of membership. Reducing costs for members may initially increase the membership of a religious sect or group, but in the long run, this reduction in costs and religious obligations diminishes the religious group's ability to produce religious goods and, over time, leads to a significant decline in membership (20, 27, p. 185). This approach is therefore misleading. Nevertheless, the laxity of mainstream religions regarding membership criteria and standards ends with a severe reduction in their capacity to produce religious goods. Thus, even if religions find themselves in a competitive market, for their long-term survival they must stand firm on some of their fundamental principles, even if they face a loss of members for a short period.

   The more competitive and pluralistic the religious market, the higher the level of religious participation will be. This proposition originates from a sociological tradition with a long history, a tradition that believed the power of religion stemmed from its ability to monopolize all aspects of culture (32, p. 420). Berger, the most prominent proponent of this tradition, explains that the diversity of faiths destroys the sacred canopy and diminishes the self-evident plausibility of all religions (10, p. 120). This proposition stands in stark contrast to the argument that the vitality of any religious market depends on its ability to generate pluralistic competition (19). The line of reasoning above can be summarized as follows: a wide diversity of small religious groups, each adapting to the demands of specific market segments, can mobilize the population toward higher rates of membership and commitment. In religious markets, ethnicities, races, and social classes are the consumers of religion who demand their preferred faith, and many religious groups, alongside one another, seek to meet the demand of a much larger proportion of the population—a proportion far greater than when access was possible only to one or a few communities of believers (26).

    Given the discussions raised in this field and the research conducted by sociologists of religion, it appears that the religious markets debate is, to a large extent, in opposition to secularization theory, which has long been recognized as the dominant theory in the sociology of religion. However, before addressing how the rational choice theory of religion and religious markets relate to secularization theory, it is first necessary to provide a relatively comprehensive definition of the theory and process of secularization.

3. Secularization:

   Although secularization is referred to as the dominant paradigm in the study of the sociology of religion, this concept has also been subject to serious doubt and dispute. The term secularization, which was initially more of a legal concept, in the twentieth century came to signify a way of thinking according to which modern rational and scientific equivalents replaced religious thought and perception as the embodiment of tradition, itself representing its broader applications in the social, political, and cultural sciences (9, p. 32). In most definitions of secularization, the decline of religion stands out as the most central element, while the form and components of this decline have been less addressed. Shiner¹⁴, in his classification of definitions of secularization, clarifies the dimensions of this process:

1. Definitions related to the decline of religion: which refer to the diminishing status and credibility of former religious symbols, doctrines, and institutions, and the paving of the way for the realization of a religionless society.

2. Definitions related to greater conformity with this world: which refer to a this-worldly approach and the turning of human attention from supernatural factors to the necessities of worldly life.

3. Definitions related to the separation of religion and society: which refer to the privatization of religion and the consequent loss of religion's dominance over other spheres of social life.

4. Definitions related to the replacement of new religious forms for religious beliefs and symbols: which pay attention to the humanization of religions.

5. Definitions related to the desacralization of the world: which refer to the stripping away of the sacred aspects of the world.

6. Definitions concerning the movement from a sacred society toward a secular and profane society, which emphasize the liberation of society from any adherence to traditional values and practices and a strong focus on human rationality (8, pp. 289–290).

Here, two other well-known definitions are mentioned that can be helpful for us in later stages in understanding the levels of secularization. Peter Berger¹⁵, a Christian theologian, sociologist, and one of the renowned experts in secularization theory, defines secularization as “the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the authority of religious institutions and symbols” (10, p. 56). This definition has two main parts: the removal of sectors of society from the authority of religious institutions means that if the process of secularization occurs in a society, religious institutions lose their dominance over certain other institutions of society, and religion, as a superior institution (meta-institution), will no longer determine the norms of the institutions of economy, education, or other institutions, and will leave their functions and methods to themselves. But the second part of the definition, namely the removal of sectors of culture from the authority of religious symbols, means that if secularization is realized, the signs and symbols signifying religious ideas, values, and norms lose their cultural dominance and can no longer cover the entire culture. In this case, parts of people’s ideas, values, and behaviors become devoid of religious significations and sometimes even incompatible with religion. Thus, in Berger’s view, secularization, alongside its institutional aspect, also includes a cultural aspect.

Bryan Wilson¹⁶ also says in defining secularization: “The process by which religious institutions, thoughts, and practices lose their social significance.” Wilson defines the process of secularization as the gradual decline of the social significance of religion. It is always possible for religion in a society to lose its social significance and have no dominance over other social institutions, while at the same time being important in the private lives of the individuals of that society (7, p. 139 and 6, pp. 124–146 and 8, pp. 187–317 and 16, pp. 1–8 and 13, p. 2).

As is evident from the various definitions, secularization, according to Berger and some other experts who believe in the occurrence of the secularization process, proceeds at these levels:

a) At the institutional and social level, meaning religion loses its social influence over other institutions such as economy, politics, education, etc. (secularization at the macro level).

b) At the cultural or individual level, meaning the believability of religious teachings among individuals disappears and their heartfelt faith and belief weakens (secularization at the micro level) (7, p. 139 and 13, p. 3).

c) Another level of secularization that has been considered important in the work of sociologists is the secularization of religion itself. Since religion, in a situation of religious and cultural pluralism, cannot be imposed on individuals, and offering a commodity to consumers who are not compelled to consume it is almost impossible without considering their opinion about that commodity. Religious contents are also adapted to the taste of consumers in such a situation. Of course, this does not mean that consumer preferences necessarily and completely determine the core contents of religion, but rather the point is only the susceptibility of religion (or, more precisely, religious interpretations) to the needs of the time. This process can lead to the elimination of some religious teachings or at least their marginalization and the reduction of their importance (1, p. 73 and 7, p. 140). Therefore, intra-religious secularization can be defined as follows: change and transformation in religious interpretations and readings whose manifest and intended function is the preservation and strengthening of religion in the modern world.

Given the definitions that have been presented and the levels of the spread of secularization, the possibility of understanding the nature of the relationship between secularization and the rational choice theory of religion has gradually been provided. Especially at the last level of the secularization process, which encompasses religion itself and turns it into a commodity and provides the conditions for its consumption and exchange in the religious market. In the next section, we will further discuss the relationship between these two matters.

4. Secularization and Rational Choice

There are at least two approaches to secularization that can be illuminating for demonstrating the relationship with the rational choice theory of religion. The first approach is the demand for religion, whose basic assumption is that changes in religious ideas and behavior are explained by the social and cultural structure. It is these structural and cultural changes that make religion more or less acceptable or desirable. Proponents of this approach believe that the new social conditions in the modern world are such that the demand for religion is steadily declining. Peter Berger in his early theory and in the definition he provided for secularization, along with Wilson and Steve Bruce¹⁷, fall into this category (6, pp: 125–141 and 8, pp: 297–300 and 13, pp: 2-44)

In contrast to the first approach, a new perspective has been proposed that finds its roots in rational choice theory. The approach of Stark and Bainbridge¹⁸ and some other sociologists to this discussion has been formed on this basis. This group argues that the main determinants and factors for the vitality of religion are not located in the causes and reasons for changes in the demand for religion; rather, the determining factor here is the characteristics of the religious market that affect the supply of religious goods, hence this approach is called the supply-side of religious goods or religious economy. These theories pay more attention to the cycle of intra-religious developments. According to these theories, formal religious organizations, in order to maintain religious participation among the people, open their doors to some extent to the spirit of the age and, by showing flexibility in some beliefs and rulings, prepare themselves for survival in the new era (intra-religious secularization). Theorists of this approach believe that the demand for religion always exists; it is the supply of religious goods that changes. They point out that the process of secularization gradually brings formal religious organizations to a point where the religion supplied by them cannot meet the deep and spiritual needs of the people. It is at this time that religious revival movements (sects) or religious innovation (cults) flourish and supply more spiritual religious goods. Therefore, the process of secularization, from the perspective of these theorists, is a self-limiting process. Moreover, with the spread of sects and cults, the supply of religious goods ceases to be monopolistic, society turns into a market of competing religions, and competition among suppliers of religious goods increases religious vitality (8, pp: 306–310 and 21 and 16, p: 11).

This presupposition has become very widespread that many Northern European nations have become highly secularized — low church attendance and the declining influence of religious institutions and leaders — traditional approaches claimed that this decline in the demand for religion occurred because of modernity, which has led to modern rational and scientific approaches, and individuals' inclination toward the supernatural has decreased. Here, many proponents of rational choice theory disagree with this. They argue that the religious situation in Northern Europe is highly influenced by a supply problem rather than a lack of demand; and this lack of religious participation in Europe largely reflects the dominance of highly regulated religious economies run by state churches, which lack the ability to generate any kind of demand among individuals (20). In this regard, survey data show (27) that individuals who attend church very little (who constitute a very large majority) still consider themselves to be religious people, many of whom believe in God, and only a very small percentage of Europeans consider themselves atheists. This majority consistently criticizes state churches for their inability to provide appropriate answers to individuals' moral issues.

Therefore, analysts who believe in religious supply predict that a very powerful religious revival will occur in Northern Europe, provided that these religious economies are restructured and this vibrant pluralism is allowed to develop. The widespread religious revival that has already occurred in Russia, where a sudden restructuring of the religious economy took place and resulted in the emergence of millions of Christian converts from an atheistic background, itself confirms this claim. Or the formation of religious movements in Europe, with which many European countries are grappling; likewise, the growth of Protestant movements in Latin America confirms the claim that if the supply of religion is properly provided, the tendency toward religion will remain at a high level and consumption will increase. An example of this in Europe is a period of about 20 years ago when the organization of religious institutions was very low, but with the presence of Canadian and American missionaries, this organization increased dramatically, and religious gatherings increased by nearly 300 percent between 1980 and 1990 (23, 25).

Given that the second approach interprets secularization as developments within religion itself and the religious organization, considers it self-limiting, and believes that demand for religion always exists, we must consider the theorists of this approach as deniers of the process of secularization in the sense of the decline in the social and individual significance of religion.

6- Conclusion:

Before becoming the focus and center of attention for some social science thinkers in recent decades, rational choice theory was considered and contemplated by certain earlier experts, especially classical economists and economic and social anthropologists, and the raw form of the rational choice idea was processed by some of them. In social anthropology and sociology, the development of the rational choice idea must be sought in conjunction with the idea and thought of exchange. In sociology, too, after the development of Parsons' structural functionalism theory, in the theory constructed and elaborated by Homans and Blau under the title of exchange theory as a reaction to Parsons' grand theory, the idea of rational choice was gradually processed and received attention. In the picture that exchange theory presents of society, people engage in exchange activities to achieve maximum profit. What is important in exchange activities are the rational procedures and routines by which people make decisions about their actions.

Explaining people's religious behaviors in the modern world based on the explanations of secularization theory was of considerable importance in the sociology of religion. However, due to certain shortcomings, this theory cannot provide a comprehensive and complete explanation. Hence, rational choice theory gained decisive importance as a new approach in the sociology of religion that can compensate for some of the shortcomings of secularization theory, and as mentioned, supra-secular¹⁹ theories for explaining religion emerged relying on this theory.

Secularization theory explains the phenomenon of the reduction and decline of religion in contemporary society by arguing that modernity reduces the demand for traditional religious beliefs. This type of explanation seems to be limited in two ways; first, since this model only pays attention to the reduction in demand for religious goods, it naturally fails to explain the increase in religious activities. Second, such explanations only pay attention to the demand side for religious goods, whereas the roots of religious transformations are the causes and factors that exist on the supply side of these goods; and not only secularization theory but also other explanations made by historians and other social thinkers focusing on the demand side have this same defect and shortcoming. They may consider changes in demand to originate from the cultural reorganization of society, changes in the national spirit, and economic fluctuations, but in any case, they do not take into account the other side of the religious goods market.

    One of the main disagreements between proponents and opponents of the secularization process is that advocates of the traditional approach in secularization theories believe that cultural and religious diversity and pluralism, the emergence of the neutral state, and macro-level secularization lead to the privatization of religion, the individualization of religious understanding, the compartmentalization of life, relativism, and ultimately the rapid continuation of the process of individual secularization and the decline of religion's power in the social system. However, the other group, which constitutes the proponents of post-secular perspectives, believes that cultural diversity and pluralism and the formation of the neutral state heat up the competitive market of religions and lead to dynamism and the strengthening of religious participation.

    According to Habermas²⁰, in a democratic society, religion should not abandon its moral role by confining and occupying itself within the private sphere; rather, it must translate religious values into secular language, incorporate concepts such as agreement, understanding, and rational choice into its religious discourse, and place religious norms in the service of human values (29). Thus, the role of religion in societies does not diminish, and it strives to adapt itself to the exigencies of modern society and to use valid rational arguments based on the market and profit and loss in its reasoning. This is the prediction that the post-secularization theory²¹ made regarding the non-decline of religion.

    What seems more probable upon reflection on instances is that this matter depends on the social context of pluralism; if religious pluralism is accompanied by religious individualism, the first outcome, i.e., individual secularization, is closer to realization. The existence of a space with diverse ideas and values, without the individual's reliance on a specific religious group, first marginalizes what they themselves possess and then allows them to look from the outside and with a critical eye at what they and others have, and to engage in selection, eclecticism, or even innovation in a manner more independent than before. The result of this process is the personalization and individualization of religious understanding, which brings with it relativism and the reduction of the sanctity of religious ideas in the eyes of individuals.

    The advanced industrial countries of Northern and Western Europe are clear examples of this pluralism. However, if religious pluralism is accompanied by the existence of active and cohesive ethno-religious groups and communities, and a democratic spirit also prevails in society, the second outcome can be expected. Because the result of such a spirit is the formation of a religiously neutral government, the spread of a spirit of tolerance and forbearance, and the fading of religious ideologization. In this situation, a competitive market emerges among religions, groups, and various sects for recruitment and religious propagation, the result of which is the expansion of religious participation among the members of society. Perhaps an example of this kind of diversity and pluralism can be found in a society like India and its neutral state.

  Ultimately, the situation of religion in the Western world has certainly changed compared to the past. But this change does not mean the decline or

destruction of religion; and the rational choice theory of religion, by proposing discussions such as the religious market, the commodification of religion, and its alignment with

post-secular theories, seeks to explain these changes and offers plausible arguments in its own way regarding the situation of religion in

the Western world. The explanations of these two theories seem to be consistent with the dominance that materialism has found in Western societies.

.

---

.

Endnotes:

• Intentional 2- Rational choice theory         3- Optimize         4- Turner

5- Maximize          6- Secularization       7- Rational Choice Theory of Religion

8-Stark                    9- Finke                    10- Hechter         11- Religious Market

12- Subsidy            13- Regularity           14- Shiner           15- Berger

16- Wilson              17- Bruce                  18- Bainbrige      19- Post Secular

20- Habermas 21- Post Secularization

References:

1ـ Jalili, Hadi, (2004), Secularization, Tehran, Tarh-e No.

2ـ Craib, Ian, (2007), Modern Social Theory, translated by: Abbas Mokhber, Tehran, Agah.

3ـ Coleman, James, (1998), Foundations of Social Theory, translated by: Manouchehr Sabouri, Tehran, Ney Publishing.

5ـ Little, Daniel, (2007), Explanation in Social Sciences, translated by: Abdolkarim Soroush, Tehran, Serat.

6ـ Wilson, Bryan, (1995), The Separation of Religion and the World, translated by: Morteza Asadi, in Culture and Religion, Tehran, Tarh-e No, 124-146.

7ـ Willaime, Jean-Paul, (1998), Sociology of Religions, translated by: Abdolkarim Gavahi, Tehran, Tabyan Cultural and Publishing Institute.

8ـ Hamilton, Malcolm, (2002), Sociology of Religion, translated by: Mohsen Salasi, , Tehran, Tabyan Cultural and Publishing Institute.

9- Backford, James (2003), Social Theory & Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University press.

10- Berger, Peter, (1967), the Sacred Canopy, New York, Doubleday.

11-Boudon, R. (1998),“Limitations of rational choice theory”, The American Journal of Sociology; 104. 3.

12- Bruce, S. (1999), Choice and Religion: a Critique of Rational Choice Theory, Oxford, Oxford university Press.

13- Bruce, S. (2002), God is dead: Secularization in the west, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

14- Calhoun, Craige (2002), Contemporary Sociological Theory, Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

15- Collins, Randall (1997), Theoretical Sociology, New Delhi, Rawat Publications.

16- Dobbelaere, K. (1999), “Toward an Integrated Perspective of process Related to The Descriptive Concept of Secularization”, www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR.

17- Elster, J. (1989), the cement of society, Cambridge, New York, Victoria: Cambridge University Press.

18- Finke, Roger & Iannaccone, L. (1993), “Supply-Side Explanations for Religious Change”, Annals, AAPSS, 527:27-39.

19- Finke, Roger & Stark, R. (1988), “Religious Economies and Sacred Canopies: Religious Mobilization in American Cities, 1906”, American Sociological Review, 53: 41-49.

20- Finke, Roger & Stark, Rodney, (1992), The Churching of America 1776-1990: Winners and losers in Religious Economy, New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.

21- Hadden, J. (2004), “Paradigms in Conflict: Secularization and the Theory of Religious Economy”. http:// religious movements.Lib.virgina.edu/lectures/secular.

22- Hechter, Michael, (1997), “Religion and Rational Choice Theory”, In Lawrence(ed), Rational Choice Theory and Religion, New York & London, Routlege.

23- Iannaccone, L. (1995), Voodoo Economics? Reviewing the Rational choice approach to Religion, Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 34:76-89.

24- Iannaccone, L. (1997), “Introduction to the Economics of religion”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 1465-6-96.

25- Iannaccone, L. (1997), “Rational Choice: Framework for the Scientific Study of Religion”, In L.A. Young, Theory and Religion: Summary and Assessment, New York: Routledge.

26- Iannaccone, Laurence, (1991), “The Consequences of Religious Market Regulation: Adam Smith and Economics of Religion”, Rationality and Society, 3:156-177.

27- Lamont, Stewart, (1989), Church and State, Unensy Alliances, London, Brodley Head.

28- Lechner, Frank, (2006), “Rational Choice and Religious Economies”, In James Beckford & N.J.Demerath (eds.), Handbook of Sociology of Religion, London, Sage Publication.

29- Lehman, David, (2010), “Rational Choice and the Sociology of Religion”, In B.S. Turner, the New Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Religion, Singapore, Blackwell.

30- Stark, R. (1994), “Rational choice theories of religion”, The Agora Online (Newsletter of rationality and Society Section of the American Sociological Association and the Research Committee on Rational choice of International Sociological Association) 2(1):1-4.

31- Turner, Jonathan H. (1998), the Structure of Sociological Theory, USA, Wdsworth Publishing Company.

32- Wallace, Routh & Alison Wolf (1999), Contemporary Sociological Theory: Expanding the Classical Tradition, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Rational choice theory of religion and secularization

Abstract:

Rational choice theory was considered by many classical economists and eco- social anthropologists. Also many sociologist of religion try to explain religious behaviors based on secularization theory. But this theory could not give Comprehensive explanation around religion. So rational choice theory as new approach in sociology of religion seem to Completion secularization theory weakness. This theory argues about religious plurality in modern societies and show secularization in religion. These matter increase important offering post-secular theory about religion. Finally rational choice theory alongside of post secularization theory shows religion didn’t fade in modern societies, however it coordinates to social requirements.

Keywords: rational choice theory, rational choice of religion, secularization, religious market, post secularization.

.

---

.

PDF file of the article Rational Choice Theory of Religion and Secularization

.

---

.

Article Title: Rational Choice Theory of Religion and Secularization

Authors:

Dr. Majid Movahed (Professor, Department of Sociology)

Ehsan Hamidizadeh (PhD Graduate in Sociology)

Source: Journal of Religious Studies (Article 6, Volume 2, Issue 3, Summer and Autumn 2014, Pages 109-128)

.

---

.