Social Forms of Religions in Contemporary Society 59
analytical category, but otherwise, to use Thomas Luckmann’s (1967) term, religion will
be “invisible.” Equally extreme, all religions may meld into one, generating a single
global religion like there is currently a single global economy. Judging by empirical
trends thus far, both these possibilities seem anywhere from extremely unlikely to
impossible. Distinctly religious forms, such as the ones just discussed, are if anything
on the increase and certainly not on the decline as some secularization perspectives of
the 1960s may have implied (e.g., Wilson 1969; Berger 1967; Luckmann 1967). There is
also no sign that the very diverse religious directions that we currently see in the world
are in any way heading toward convergence as one global religion; nor does any of the
currently formed religions seem to have the wherewithal to absorb all others within
itself. That may be the pious hope of many ardent Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, or
other missionizing religion, but little empirical evidence points in such a direction.
With the extreme possibilities set aside, there remains only the continuation of the
mixed and ambiguous situation that we currently have: A plurality of formed and iden-
tified religions in a context where the boundaries around the category are frequently
contested by insiders and outsiders; and in which a significant amount of social action
that can and does count as religion escapes consistent inclusion in one of these reli-
gions. If we accept that this possibility represents the fate of religion for the foreseeable
future, the question that then comes to the forefront asks which religions are favored
by the situation and what sort of broader social influence they can expect.
Given the historically somewhat arbitrary and accidental way in which the cur-
rent group of religions have formed and been identified, one answer to this question
is probably that contemporary global society very much favors those religions that
have the most widely recognized identity and the most elaborate forms: The so-called
world religions, first Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism; and then on a some-
what smaller scale, Sikhism, Judaism, and Jainism. These are certainly the ones that
are most consistently formally recognized and represented in state constitutions, legis-
lation, and government policy. They are the main players in interreligious events like
the formal interreligious dialogues and the recent World Parliament of Religions. And
most of them exhibit a high level of organization and self-identification on the part of
religious leaders and adherents. Their high level of public recognition also makes them
the most likely candidates for the state-religion form discussed above.
Beside this relatively small group, however, the late-twentieth-century world also
has been witness to the rise or continued elaboration of a wide variety of other religions
which benefit from varied degrees of internal formation and external recognition. This
group is quite large, but here are a few examples: Zoroastrianism, Umbanda, Daoism,
Vodoun, Shinto, Mormonism, Baha’i, Cao Dai, Yoruba/Santer ́ıa/Candomble, Rastafar- ́
ianism. And, finally, no observer can help marveling at the constant variety of new
religions that arise, sometimes to fade into oblivion, sometimes to grow and aspire
to recognized religion status. With all this formation and consolidation of religions
throughout the world, it seems safe to predict that religion and the religions will re-
main an effective social category. The remaining and concluding question, however, is
just how powerful the religions are or can become.
The frequency of the politicization of religion, especially in the form of religiopo-
litical movements around the world, gives us an indicator of how one might answer
this question. The dominant rationale of such movements, ranging from liberation
theological movements in Latin America and the Christian Right in the United States