Civil Religion in America and in Global Context

Civil Religion

“…Mark Silk (2007), for example, presents evidence that approaches to pluralism in the United States are regional, with what it means to be 'pluralistic' differing greatly in both application and appreciation based on social context. While Bellah's original conception of civil religion posited certain understandings of the core elements of American national identity, contemporary work is more likely to point to divergent visions of national identity that are used as cultural resources in conflicts over meaning in a pluralistic society (Cristi and Dawson, 2007;Fenn, 2001;Lichterman, 2008;Long, 1974;Porterfield in Hammond et al, 1994;Williams, 1999). Richard Hecht (2007), in fact, suggests that we have seen a shift from what he terms 'passive pluralism,' the form of pluralism of the mid-twentieth-century United States documented by Will Herberg (1955Herberg ( /1983, to 'active pluralism,' where diverse groups seek full participation while maintaining their unique identities.…”

“…Generally speaking, theorists tend to posit poles that largely follow Martin Marty's (1974) discussion that contrasts American priestly civil religion, which suggests that America is a special, sacred nation, with American prophetic civil religion, which suggests that the nation must live up to certain standards or be held accountable. Cristi and Dawson (2007) see enough congruence among different models of civil religion, including Marty's, Wuthnow's (1988), Davis's (1998), and Angrosino's (2002), that they have collected the various models and discuss a 'priestly, orthodox, and conservative account of civil religion' that celebrates nationalism, capitalism, and the United States as a nation of divine providence set against a 'prophetic, progressive, and liberal vision' that demands the United States live up to sacred values lest it face judgment (275).…”

“…Williams (1996) suggests that religion in political mobilization can be viewed as 'ideology' (top-down) or 'culture' (bottom-up), and understanding civil religion as one or the other posits a specific understanding of the relationship of citizens to each other and to the state (see also Demerath, 2001;Cristi and Dawson, 2007). Demerath and Williams (1985) additionally point out that the original Rousseauian concept of civil religion was essentially tied to state power, suggesting that the Durkheimian notion of civil religion as an integrative aspect of a unified culture should not be taken as a given.…”

“…Merely saying a prayer in public without any sense of connecting the nation to the divine in some way does not qualify as what the current literature understands as civil religion. Additionally, purely sectarian religion doesn't qualify as civil religion (Cristi and Dawson, 2007;Demerath and Williams, 1985). Civil religion is more abstractly defined than most denominations, faiths, or creeds.…”

The trap of intellectual success: Robert N. Bellah, the American civil religion debate, and the sociology of knowledge

“…17 See http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/01/10/bellah.html (accessed on January 24, 2012). 18 See, among the most recent works citing BCR, Demerath 2003; Alexander 2006; Gentile 2006;Wolfe et al 2006;Cristi and Dawson 2007;Hecht 2007;Kao and Copulsky 2007;Flere and Lavric 2007;Alexander and Thompson 2008;Bankston and Caldas 2009;Hvithamar et al 2009;Roof 2009;Santiago 2009;Crook 2010. Yale sociologist Philip Gorski is presently writing a book on American civil society.…”