Durkheim remarks, ‘religion is something eminently social’ (2001, p. 11). Consequently, talk of individual religiosity in isolation from the other dimensions which inform it can only ever be regarded as an abstraction by which religion’s subjective sphere is artificially isolated (‘bracketed’) for the purposes of analytical clarity. In actuality, an individual’s religious beliefs (along with the values and practices they inform and are informed by) are held, affirmed, challenged or modified relative to ongoing association with other human beings. From the formal interactions of religious ritual to informal encounters with friends and family (religious or otherwise), individual religiosity is informed by and expressed through associational activity. At the same time, associational modes of religious expression do not occur at random. The religious interaction of individuals, objects and events occurs at set times, with specific formats in given places because it is orchestrated by a particular constellation of organizational processes, ideational dynamics and social forces. Compare and contrast, for example, the Shabbat service of a Hasidic synagogue with that of a Liberal Jewish community. In each case, the physical use of sacred space, the oral and literary contents of the liturgical act and the distribution of ritual responsibilities will be different because they reflect varying institutional contexts and divergent theological construals – not least those treating the respective relations both of tradition and modernity and of men and women.
Institutional dimension
Large or small, new or established, mainstream or alternative, every religious group or movement embodies some form of institutional dynamic. Indeed, it is something of a sociological truism that no form of associational activity endures through time and space without assuming some degree of organizational formality. As Moburg notes:
Every religious organization has some degree of formalism or institutionalization. This is true even of groups that claim to be ‘merely a fellowship, not a denomination’, and of those so informally and loosely organized that they claim to lack organization altogether . . . This means that, like other institutions, it is subject to the play of social forces in both its formation and its operation. (1984, p. 6)
As an object of sociological scrutiny, the institutional dimension of religion has two important components: the organizational and the ideational.
The organizational dimension of religious institutions pertains to their concrete structures and formalized processes. From goal-setting through finance management to conflict resolution and identity maintenance, formalized organizational processes determine priorities, channel resources and entrench authority. For example, when engaging the organizational dimension of religious institutions, sociologists may focus upon variations in structural dynamics or the different ways in which particular groups and movements mobilize available resources. In the first instance, the different organizational structures in force can be examined to the end of determining the manner in which they facilitate or inhibit institutional adaptability in an increasingly fluid social landscape. For example, whereas established religious institutions enjoy a number of advantages which new religious movements do not, when it comes to institutional adaptability, traditional religions struggle in changing societal environments. This is the case because established organizations find it much harder to evolve and adopt novel structures as quickly and easily as newer groups who do not suffer under the inertial weight of inherited structures which are, by their nature, more resistant to rapid modification. In the second instance, different organizational structures can be compared relative to their efficiency in mobilizing available resources, as might be achieved through the motivation of existing members to make personal sacrifices (e.g. time, money, material things) for the greater good of the institution to which they belong.
At the same time, the institutional processes of religious groups and movements set priorities, allocate resources and confer different kinds of status relative to particular religious construals of the world. These construals constitute the ideational dimension of religion, which comprises an assortment of beliefs, theories and values. In combination, such beliefs, theories and values furnish a religious worldview, which, for example, treats issues such as the nature and activity of the sacred, the origins and purpose of the cosmos and the destiny and responsibilities of humankind. In effect, the ideational dimension constitutes what Kuhn describes as a ‘paradigm’; that is, an interconnecting set of presuppositions and values which entail a particular way of viewing and engaging the world (1962, pp. 43–51).
As a paradigm, the ideational dimension impresses itself upon institutional dynamics by influencing matters such as goal-setting, resource mobilization, structural administration and organizational behaviour. The ideational dimension, then, does not simply provide a symbolic description of the world, it actively orchestrates institutional practice within and towards the world. In Clifford Geertz’s terminology, the ideational dimension is both a ‘model of’ the world and a ‘model for’ the world’s engagement (1973, p. 93). Strained relations between the Roman Catholic Church and various national governments and international charities, for example, stem from Catholic institutional policies in respect of artificial contraception, same-sex adoption and sexual discrimination; policies directly informed by theological judgements in respect of sexual activity, expression and status. In effect, the ideational dimension of religious institutions may at times lead them to act in ways which are not, at least for those looking on, in the material best interests of the organization in question.
In tandem with established organizational dynamics, the ideational dimension influences the associational sphere through its practical and symbolic orchestration of interpersonal activities. As indicated above, this orchestration may be reflected through particular uses of sacred space, liturgical contents and ritual divisions of labour. In its turn, the associational dimension informs individual religiosity through, for example, its reinforcement of subjective representations of the sacred, personal moral judgements and private spiritual practices. Allowing for its idiosyncratic nature and irreducibly personal character, individual belief nevertheless involves the subjective appropriation of otherwise collective symbols, shared values and associational practices.
Macro-structural dimension
At its best, sociology explicates individual behaviour and institutional activity by conceptualizing their relationship with prevailing societal dynamics. Consequently, the raison d’être of the sociology of religion resides in its understanding the aforementioned dimensions of religion by examining their refraction of and influence upon prevailing social processes. As Maduro notes:
No religion exists in a vacuum. Every religion, any religion, no matter what we may understand by ‘religion’, is a situated reality – situated in a specific human context, a concrete and determined geographical space, historical moment, and social milieu. (1982, p. 41)
Sociology thereby engages the ‘situated reality’ of religion by identifying, exploring and seeking to explain its relationship with overarching societal structures and processes which both impact upon and are influenced by it.
In the first instance, sociology may concern itself with understanding the refraction of social and biological categories, such as class, race, age and sex, through the membership profiles of particular religious groups and movements. In Brazil, for example, census figures for male–female religious participation in Christianity are more or less equal for Roman Catholicism (49.5 per cent to 50.4 per cent respectively) and average out at approximately 44 per cent male to 56 per cent female for traditional Protestantism and most of neo-Pentecostalism. However, participation within the largest and fastest growing neo-Pentecostal group – the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God – exhibits a distinctly asymmetrical profile with 38 per cent male to 62 per cent female involvement. At the same time, there is also a clear asymmetry among those recorded by the census as ‘without religion’ (60 per cent male to 40 per cent female) (Campos, 2004, p. 134). In the same vein, new and alternative spiritualities across the industrialized world draw the bulk of
