68 Grace Davie
operate in a European context – that is, one of low levels of religious activity. In many
ways, they face in two directions at once (Davie 2000). They are more influenced by
pluralism than most of their continental colleagues (hence a long-term preoccupation
with new religious movements rather than popular religion); this fits well with the
American literature. The parameters of religious activity in Britain are, however, very
different from those in the United States and here the work of American scholars has
proved less helpful. What is evident, however, is the inability of most (if not quite all)
British – and American – scholars to access the sociological literature in any language
other than their own. The question of translation continues to resonate. Most conti-
nental scholars can do better, leading to a noticeable imbalance in sociological writing.
Many of the latter, for example, make reference to the English-speaking literature in
their work; the reverse, however, is seldom the case until the pressure to provide an
English language edition becomes overwhelming.
THE TWO PARADIGMS: SECULARIZATION THEORY VERSUS
RATIONAL CHOICE
These differences in emphasis between European and American sociology continue into
the contemporary period, and with important theoretical consequences. Contrasting
religious situations have led not only to very different conceptual formulations but
also to a lively debate concerning the scope or range of each approach. In Europe,
for example, what has become know as the secularization thesis remains the domi-
nant paradigm (although markedly less so as time goes on); in North America, rational
choice theory has offered a convincing alternative. The substance of both these the-
ories, together with the polemics that surround them, will be considered in Part II of
this volume; there is no need to embark on that enterprise here. What is important in
terms of a chapter concerned with the different evolutions of the sociology of religion is
(a) the genesis of each theoretical outlook and (b) the scope and range of their possible
application. The two points are interrelated.
Warner’s (1993) article on a new paradigm^3 for the sociological study of religion in
the United States, for example, marks a watershed in American understandings of their
own society. From this point on, the secularization thesis, already critiqued by increas-
ing numbers of scholars on both sides of the Atlantic, has to justify its applicability to
the American situation; no longer can its scope be taken for granted.^4 Obviously the
process is a gradual one, and as Warner himself makes clear, his own article was part
of the process that he was trying to describe; in retrospect, however, no scholar can
afford to ignore this contribution to the literature, whether they agree with it or not.
Decisions have to be made regarding the appropriateness of secularization theory to
the American case (or indeed to any other), where once they were simply assumed.
Even more essential to a chapter concerned with sociological variations, however, is
the point introduced by Warner in the 1993 article, but considerably expanded in 1997
(^3) The terms “new paradigm” and “rational choice theory” are almost interchangeable. As Warner
himself makes clear, their meanings are close if not quite identical.
(^4) The continuing debates in theJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion, together with the col-
lection of papers brought together by Young (1997), provide ample proof of the tenacity with
which scholars, both European and American, adhere to either the secularization debate or
the new paradigm as their preferred mode of theorizing.