332 Fred Kniss
BIPOLAR CONCEPTIONS OF AMERICAN RELIGION
A number of political observers and social scientists have suggested that post-1950s
America has seen a cultural and/or religious polarization that has increased the level
of conflict in our public and private lives. Various ways of explaining this divide have
been put forward, but most share a unidimensional, bipolar conceptualization of the
conflict. For example, explanations of the decline of liberal Protestant denominations
have posited cultural polarization between “locals” and “cosmopolitans” (Roof 1978)
or between “traditional Christianity” and “scientific humanism” (Hoge and Roozen
1979).
Wuthnow (1988), in his influential work on religious restructuring, suggests that
American religion has been restructured into liberal and conservative camps, a divide
that increasingly occurs within denominations rather than between them. The effect
is that the general level of social conflict is raised. Increased conflict occurs within
denominations around liberal/conservative issues, and the restructuring also leads to
polarization in the larger culture. This occurs as individuals experience an attenuation
of denominational loyalty, transferring their commitment to “para-church” and other
special interest groups that are part of the liberal or conservative nexus and crosscut
denominational organizations.
Wuthnow (1988) refers primarily to religious liberalism and conservatism, but he
views these two camps as also sharing liberal or conservative views on moral, social, and
political issues. The ideological affinity within the two across issue domains contributes
to the macro-social polarization. Others concur with Wuthnow’s claim of a widening
“great divide” in American religion, but debate whether this divide occurs primarily
within or between denominations (cf. Roof and McKinney 1987; Olson and McKinney
1997).^1
But it is Hunter (1991, 1994) who has explored the recent polarization in American
culture most generally and before a larger public audience. He views the situation more
apocalyptically than most other analysts and has helped to bring the notion of a “cul-
ture war” into the American public consciousness. Like others, Hunter sees Americans
divided into two opposing camps, but the key distinction he draws between the two
camps is the issue of cultural or moral authority. The “orthodox” camp adheres to
“an external, definable, and transcendent authority” while the “progressive” camp fol-
lows “the prevailing assumptions of contemporary life” (Hunter 1991: 44–5). Hunter
analyzes this polarization across a range of cultural fields and suggests that it poses a
threat to the democratic order. Hirschman (1991), writing from the leftward end of the
political spectrum, makes a similar argument about the recent polarization of public
discourse, referring to the sides as “reactionary” and “progressive.” However, unlike the
other analysts noted here, he views the recent polarization as a normal part of the cycle
of public political discourse and concerns himself more with the form of the debate
than with its content.
A second related set of bipolar distinctions is found in the venerable literature on
the tension between individual and community. Marty’s (1970) notion of a split be-
tween “private” and “public” religion has been highly influential in both the sociology
(^1) There are others of course who question the restructuring thesis more fundamentally. For
example, Ammerman (2000) suggests that many congregations still retain and intentionally
construct strong denominational identities.