Functional differentiation is defined as the fragmentation of modern society as new specialized roles and institutions emerge. These institutions have a specific function and relative independence from other social institutions, and control features and functions previously carried out by one institution.

Functional Differentiation and Religion

For both late twentieth-century (Luhmann 1985; Wilson 1982; Tschannen 1991; Casanova 1994; Chaves 1994; Willaim 1995) and twenty-first-century (Wohlrab-Sahra and Burchardtb 2012; Vanderstraeten 2015; Flatt 2023) theorists, functional differentiation has been debated and often tied to transformative effects on religion function and role with societies.

José Casanova, a prominent sociologist of religion and contributor to the secularization debates, writes that, most fundamentally, secularization is “a process of functional differentiation and emancipation of the secular spheres—primarily the state, the economy, and science, from the religious sphere” (1994, 19). 

Mark Chaves maintains that because of functional differentiation, religion has neither a privileged nor unprivileged position in society but is “one relativized sphere among other relativized spheres, whose elites jockey to increase or at least maintain their control over human actions, organizational resources, and other societal spheres” (1994, 751–752).

Bryan Wilson states that secularization is the process by which religion “has lost its presidency over other institutions” (1985, 15) and “ceases to be significant in the working of the social system” (1982, 150).

In Niklas Luhmann’s (1977) view, functional differentiation emerged from secularization theory, by which he refers to citizens having autonomy, allowing them to choose religious commitment, seek any occupation, and enjoy equality by having the same legal status regardless of occupation and religious affiliation.

“If the society introduces compulsory school education for everyone, if every person regardless of his being nobleman or commoner, being Christian, Jewish, or Moslem, being infant or adult, is subject to the same legal status, if ‘the public’ is provided with a political function as electorate, if every individual is acknowledged as choosing or not choosing a religious commitment; and if everybody can buy everything and pursue every occupation, given the necessary resources, then the whole system shifts in the direction of functional differentiation” (1977, 40)

These societies are divided into subsystems that each have relative independence and contain a specific function. They adopt their own spaces and territories, although this happens in an uncoordinated manner. Religion, being one subsystem, has had to “adapt to this order… At least it will be treated as such whether it finds this situation comfortable or not and whether or not it prefers to remain maladaptive to some extent” (quoted by Vanderstraeten 2015, 179).

He says further that religion “has gained recognized autonomy,” but this has come “at the cost of recognizing the autonomy of the other subsystems, i.e. secularization” (1985, 14).

Interdependence

Functional differentiation does not mean that religion and other differentiated social institutions have lost influence and relevance in the political, cultural, or private spheres.

Although functional differentiation produces greater autonomy and independence for social institutions, these institutions continue to be interdependent with others. It is impossible, for example, to separate religion from media, or politics from education, or family from economics, and so on. All of these have varying levels of interdependence between them.

Functional Differentiation and the Church

Functional differentiation deprives religion of its monopoly in important social domains (politics, education, military, healthcare, culture, etc.) and legitimizing the sociopolitical order. As such, religion exists as one of many subsystems, defined by its spiritual function.

This is a marked difference from the influence and power the Catholic Church enjoyed in medieval Western Europe, where it ensured that the world was interpreted almost entirely theologically. The Church pervaded the institutional life of this time while theology boasted the lofty position of being the “queen” of the sciences. All of these contributed to shaping medieval society and culture, and although secular cosmologies did exist, their sphere of influence was small.

Fast forward to the modern era, and functional differentiation has weakened the Church, causing a decline in its authority and marginalization by keeping it from legitimizing the dominant social and political order. The Church is only nominally involved in social institutions, in which it is more limited to being the provider of pastoral care and spiritual matters rather than dictating how these institutions should function. 

Employees in these institutions, moreover, are no longer vetted according to Church regulations and standards but rather tested according to secular ones. The Church is also answerable to the state, rather than its own determined and applied standards.

The late Peter Berger explains this idea in his book, Sacred Canopy (1967). The Church was formerly at the center of small, closely knit, family-based communities that all existed under a protective “sacred canopy” it provided them with.

Berger claims that this canopy has been fundamentally eroded as education, economic production, health care, and so on shifted away from ecclesiastical control and are now controlled by specialized secular institutions motivated by their own values and interests. These institutions contain members across various areas of secular expertise and specialization, such as doctors, social workers, scientists, teachers, and so on.

Functional Differentiation and Religion’s Transformation

Functional differentiation does not lead to religion’s demise or decline but instead to its transformation. 

It may require a redefinition of religion’s roles in education, culture, health, social aid and welfare, human rights, peace, and so on, in keeping with the more pluralistic context characteristic of high modernity (Casanova 1994).

Thomas Luckmann, in Invisible Religion (1967), says that religion remains important in modern society. It should not be defined parochially as only church-going behavior since there are many religious worldviews, all or most of which contribute to the creation of meaning, which is no doubt essential to what it means to be human.

Bryan Wilson believes that religion continues to maintain a grip on individual consciousness. Interest in it has not been “relinquished,” although that could be the case for some (1982, 150).

He further claims that functional differentiation causes the individual to shift back and forth between different institutional spheres, in each of which he has specialized roles. The individual will therefore construct his own personal identity that “becomes, essentially, a private phenomenon” (1967, 97). He must choose from an assortment of “ultimate” meanings and thus construct “not only his personal identity but also his individual system of ‘ultimate’ significance” (1967, 99). 

Talcott Parsons contends that functional differentiation gives rise to cultural differentiation, which inevitably leads to pluralism and privatization. The individual must make up his own mind about which religion and religious ideas he wants to choose and follow. As a result, the individual constructs his own interpretation of the world, which could take the form of personalized religion.

Further, this phenomenon and its fruits producereactionary responses from some fundamentalist religious groups that aim to maintain or reconquer religion’s hold on society. It is difficult for many of these individuals to accept that their particular religious tradition, which once held social and political dominance, has receded in its authority and control over broader society, which was formerly shaped according to their religious tradition’s values and principles.

References

Casanova, José. 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World. University of Chicago Press.

Flatt, Kevin N. 2023. “Secularization Theory’s Differentiation Problem: Revisiting the Historical Relationship between Differentiation and Religion.” Religions 14(7):1-23.

Lambert, Yves. 1999. “Religion in Modernity as a New Axial Age: Secularization or New Religious Forms?”Sociology of Religion 60(3):303-333.

Luhmann, Niklas. 1977. “Differentiation of Society.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 2(1):29-53.

Luhmann, Niklas. 1985. “Society, meaning, religion: Based on self-reference.” Sociological Analysis 46(1):5-20.

Vanderstraeten, Raf. 2015. “Inclusion ideals and inclusion problems: Parsons and Luhmann on religion and secularization.” Acta Sociologica 58(2):173-185.

Wilson, Bryan. 1982. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Oxford University Press.