According to Linda Woodhead, the rise of the “nones” (those who do not identify with institutional and traditional religions or are atheists or agnostics) and the large value gap between churches and younger generations are connected to liberalization and pluralization (2016, 258). These factors also induce a transformation of religion in Western societies, largely in the emergence and growth of alternative and unconventional religious (“Spiritual”) traditions.

Liberalization refers to each individual benefiting from the right to decide what to do with his or her life, which is the opposite of needing to defer to a higher authority (parents, God, scriptures, managers, etc.). This freedom is considered a privilege forged by a succession of political struggles (e.g., freedom for all regardless of race, ethnicity, and, most recently, sex and gender). At 90%, the overwhelming majority, including both religious and irreligious people, affirm ethical liberalism (Woodhead 2016, 256).

Pluralization, moreover, refers to a large number of worldviews co-existing in a social setting and typically involves tolerance, epistemological modesty, and respect for “the other” and for “difference” (Woodhead 2016, 255).

Liberalization and pluralism apply to religion and have a significant impact on it. All religions should be treated equally as this is the objective of a pluralistic society. These are also individualistic cultures, where each person’s independence is upheld and the government stays out of their personal affairs unless there is a valid reason to do so. Democracies in Western Europe, Australasia, and North America are the most obvious examples, especially in these regions where the younger generation is increasingly tolerant of the “other”. For instance, in the United States among religiously unaffiliated people as well as evangelical Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, and Hindus (Benergee 2008) and among young people in English schools (Madge, Hemming, and Stenson 2014).

As a factor of secularization, pluralization engenders the decline of traditional religion (Christianity) and the rise of “religious nones” or the “religiously unaffiliated,” who, despite most affirming various religious or “spiritual” beliefs, refuse to participate in traditional religious institutions (Woodhead 2016).

This decline in traditional religion can be attributed to “marketplace” logic, in which religion becomes a commodity for “sale”. This marketplace contains religious products that gradually transform to fit “buyer demand.” Peter Berger (1929–2017) argued that this logic present in modern societies undermines formerly taken-for-granted cognitive frameworks and traditions. The result is that the “number of plausibility structures competing with each other” deprives their religious contents of a “taken-for-granted, objective reality in consciousness” (Berger 2011, 190). Woodhead agrees, saying that because of the religious diversity in the United Kingdom, it becomes difficult for any one religion to be an unquestioned part of the culture (2016, 254).

Various factors contribute to pluralization. In England, increased mobility, affluence, educational opportunity, and contact with a wider range of cultures and religions have broken down religious enclaves and subcultures, consequently undercutting former religious privilege (Woodhead 2016). Denominational identities cease to be as important as they once were, especially during times when they are often intermeshed with political parties. Former fractures and hostilities between religious majorities and minorities (whether Protestant, Catholic, intra-Protestant, or Christian/Jewish) have diminished. The claimed exclusive truth of particular religious denominations and groups has become harder to defend.

Further, pluralization, liberalization, and marketplace logic inspire many religious “nones” or “unaffiliated” to join or take part in unconventional forms of religion. J. D. C. Clark writes that individual emancipation may “encourage people to explore a variety of ‘new age’ religions rather than more familiar denominations” (2012, 176). Sociologist Rodney Stark maintains that “levels of subjective religiousness [in Britain] remain high” (1999, 254) and encourages scholars to ask why people “persist in believing but see no need to participate with even minimal regularity in their religious institution” (1999, 254). Subjective religiosity is what Grace Davie calls “believing without belonging” (1990, 2000).

References

Benergee, Neela. 2008. Survey Shows U.S. Religious Tolerance. Available.

Berger, Peter. 2011. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Open Road Media.

Clark, J. C. D. 2012. “Secularization and Modernization: The Failure of a ‘Grand Narrative’.” The Historical Journal 55(1):61-194.

Davie, Grace. 1990. “Believing without belonging: Is this the future of religion in Britain?” Compass 37:455-469.

Davie, Grace. 2000. Religion in Modern Europe: A Memory Mutates. Oxford University Press.

Madge, Nicola., Hemming, Peter., and Stenson, Kevin. 2014. Youth On Religion. The Development, Negotiation and Impact of Faith and Non-faith Identity. Routledge.

Stark, Rodney. 1999. “Secularization, R.I.P.” Sociology of Religion 60(3):249-273.

Woodhead, Linda. 2016. “The rise of ‘no religion’ in Britain: The emergence of a new cultural majority.” Journal of the British Academy 4:245-261.