62 Grace Davie
(Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Emile Durkheim), underlining their enduring legacy to the
sociology of religion – noting, however, that this legacy resonates differently. Not only
do fashions come and go, but crucially in this case, the availability of good translation is
a necessary preliminary for the great majority of readers. The lack of uniformity becomes
even more explicit as the sociology of religion moves forward: An entirely different
agenda emerges in Europe from that in the United States. The evolution in continental
(primarily Catholic) Europe concerns, very largely, the emergence of a fully fledged
sociology of religion from what has been calledsociologie religieuse, a metamorphosis
that took place in a part of the world heavily influenced by decline at least in the
formal indicators of religious activity. Unsurprisingly, such debates are less relevant
in the Anglo-Saxon world, where a very different way of working has evolved. These
contrasting evolutions form the substance of the second section of the chapter.
The third will continue the contrast, introducing the two competing theoretical
paradigms in the subdiscipline: secularization theory and rational choice theory. Both
are covered in some detail in later chapters (e.g., Chapters 8 and 9). The point to be made
in this chapter concerns the emergence of two contrasting theories at different times,
in different places, to answer different questions – their roots go back centuries rather
than decades (Warner 1997). This is far from being a coincidence; sociological thinking,
like the world that it tries to explain, is contingent. The fourth and final section will
suggest, however, that the time has come to move beyond these two paradigms (with
the implication that either one or the other is correct, but not both) to more sophis-
ticated tools of analysis, if we are to understand an increasingly global phenomenon.
It is unlikely that one conceptual frame will suffice to explain all cases. A series of sub-
stantive examples will be used to illustrate both commonality and difference in the
subject matter of sociology – across a range of global regions and in a wide variety of
contexts.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
In their sociological writing, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim were reacting to the economic
and social upheavals of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, prompted
more often than not by the devastating consequences that rapid industrialization had
inflicted on the European populations of which they were part. The study of religion
could hardly be avoided within this framework, for religion was seen as an integral part
of the society that appeared to be mutating beyond recognition. Each writer, however,
tackled the subject from a different perspective (Giddens 1971; Lowith 1982; O’Toole ̈
1984).
Karl Marx (1818–83) predates the others by at least a generation. There are two
essential elements in the Marxist perspective on religion: The first is descriptive, the
second evaluative. Marx described religion as a dependent variable; in other words, its
form and nature are dependent on social and above all economic relations, which form
the bedrock of social analysis. Nothing can be understood apart from the economic
order and the relationship of the capitalist/worker to the means of production. The
second aspect follows from this but contains an evaluative element. Religion is a form
of alienation; it is a symptom of social malformation which disguises the exploitative
relationships of capitalist society. Religion persuades people that such relationships are
natural and, therefore, acceptable. It follows that the real causes of social distress cannot