122 Philip S. Gorski
varies not only in its quantity but also in its quality, thereby avoiding the anachro-
nisms that often plague the REM (e.g., equating seventeenth- and twentieth-century
church membership as operational equivalents that “mean” the same thing). Proper
interpretation of quantitative variation requires greater sensitivity toward contextual –
and sociological – nuance. And proper analysis of secularization processes requires
greater attention toward macro-societal transformations.
In closing, let me sum up what I mean by “historicization” and, thus, what I think
would be involved in “historicizing the secularization debate”: (a) adopting a longer-
range (and fully encompassing) historical perspective that extends well beyond the
modern era; (b) engaging in a more serious and sustained way with the relevant histor-
ical sources and literatures, so as to develop a clear sense of the temporal and spatial
contours of secularization in all its dimensions; (c) viewing secularization as a con-
tingent outcome of particular events involving particular actors; and (d) being more
sensitive to changes in the context and content of religious practice and belief.
I do not think historicization is a panacea, nor do I wish to denigrate nonhistorical
strategies of research. But I do think that the literature on secularization could stand
a dose of history, and that greater attention to the past might shed new light on the
present. Only by contextualizing the recent episodes of secularization will we be able
to assess their larger significance.