R. Stephen Warner

Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm for the Sociological Study of Religion in the United States

This article reviews recent literature on U.S. religious institutions and argues that a new paradigm is emerging in that field, the crux of which is that organized religion thrives in the United States in an open market system, an observation anomalous to the older paradigms monopoly concept. The article has six sections: first, a brief survey of the paradigm crisis; second, a development of the concept of an open market in the historiography and sociology of U.S. religion; third, fourth, and fifth, arguments that U.S. religious institutions are constitutively pluralistic, structurally adaptable, and empowering; sixth, a consideration of recent religious individualism in the light of the new paradigm. A conclusion sketches some research implications.

Religion and Migration in the United States

The conference theme suggests that mobility through and beyond the city presents a particular challenge to religion. It is true that mobility depresses religious participation in the short run, but religious institutions in the United States—because of the recent “settlement” of that country and its sustained history of international and domestic migration—are well adapted to a mobile population and their typical forms are receptive to newcomers. In particular, the “congregational” pattern, which defines the local religious community socially rather than geographically, allows for mobility without wrenching deracination. Thus, religious institutions in the US tend to be “associational”, both supportive of and modeled on conjugal family patterns, and not plagued by a discontinuity between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft ideals. Despite “transnational” currents, todays immigrants to the US are recapitulating this history. Religion is salient to them, as one of the identities that they must negotiate in the acculturation process. Their religious institutions converge on the congregational model and serve as venues for the renegotiation of gender and generational relations.

A Paradigm Not a Theory: Reply to Lechner

Although Lechner raises some worthwhile points, the basic issue between us is simple.2I announced a new paradigm, but Lechner insists on reading my article as a proposal for a new theory. He applies himself to refuting what he imagines the new theory to be (rational choice) and does me the favor, from his point of view, of absolving me from its advocacy. I trust I will not be thought churlish if I decline the favor and protest that he has misread me. I meant what I said about “paradigms”.3

Sociological Theory and History of Sociology: Autonomy and Interdependence

tinction between the history and systematics of sociological theory, as I had done very briefly in print before in the introduction to my own explicitly theoretical treatment of the classics (1976). I am not a historian of sociology, although I have published pieces on Marx (1971), Weber (1970), and Parsons (1978; Cartwright and Warner, 1976), and I have been privileged to be a sometime member of George Stockings Chicago Group for the History of the Social Sciences since its inception six years ago. I speak as a social theorist, making no claim for the originality of what I take to be obvious points, which, however, seem to have been forgotten in the current debate. Above all, I rise to defend the reading of classic texts by present-day working sociologists, on the one hand, and the achievements of intellectual historians, on the other. Because of space limits, I will overstate my case and appear both more presentist than Seidman and more historicist than Jones.

Teaching theory in an empirically-oriented graduate program

The role of theory is to facilitate cognitive integration, both for sociology and for sociologists. Integration has a vertical dimension (abstract to concrete) and a horizontal one (across schools and substantive fields). Attention to these dimensions of integration competes for time in sociology courses, with the result that trade-offs are required. Teaching theory in an empirically oriented graduate degree program, the author has decided to stress horizontal integration over the upper level of vertical integration.

“Dare to be Different”: How Religious Groups Frame and Enact Appropriate Sexuality and Gender Norms Among Young Adults

Abstract Purpose The sexual lives of religious youth and young adults have been an increasing topic of interest since the rise of abstinence-only education and attendant programs in many religious institutions. But while we know a lot about individual-level rates of sexual behavior, far less is known about how religious organizations shape and mediate sexuality. We draw on data from observations with youth and young adult ministries and interviews with religious young adults and adult leaders from Muslim, Hindu, and Protestant Christian groups in order to examine how religious adults in positions of organizational authority work to manage the gender and sexual developments in the transition to adulthood among their youth. We find three distinct organizational styles across the various religious traditions: avoidance through gender segregation, self-restraint supplemented with peer surveillance, and a classed disengagement. In each of these organizational responses, gender and sexuality represent something that must be explained and controlled in the process of cultivating the proper adult religious disposition. The paper examines how religious congregations and other religious organizations oriented toward youth, work to manage the gender and sexual developments in their youth’s transitions to adulthood. The paper draws from a larger project that is studying the lived processes of religious transmission between generations. Methodology/approach Data were extracted from (a) ethnographic observations of youth programming at religious organizations; (b) ethnographicobservations with families during their religious observances; (c) interviews with adult leaders of youth ministry programs. The sample includes Protestant Christian, Muslim, and Hindu organizations and families. Findings The paper presents three organizational approaches toward managing sex and instilling appropriate gender ideas: (a) prescribed avoidance, in which young men and women are segregated in many religious and educational settings and encouraged to moderate any cross-gender contact in public; (b) self-restraint supplemented with peer surveillance, in which young people are repeatedly encouraged not only to learn to control themselves through internal moral codes but also to enlist their peers to monitor each other’s conduct and call them to account for violations of those codes; and (c) “classed” disengagement, in which organizations comprised of highly educated, middle-class families do little to address sex directly, but treat it as but one aspect of developing individual ethical principles that will assist their educational and class mobility. Research limitations/implications While the comparative sample in this paper is a strength, other religious traditions than the ones studied may have other practices. The ethnographic nature of the research provides in-depth understandings of the organizational practices, but cannot comment on how representative these practices are across regions, organizations, or faiths. Originality/value Most studies of religion and youth sex and sexuality either rely on individual-level data from surveys, or study the discourses and ideologies found in books, movies, and the like. They do not study the “mechanisms,” in either religious organizations or families, through which messages are communicated and enacted. Our examination of organizational and familial practices shows sex and gender communication in action. Further, most existing research has focused on Christians, wherein we have a comparative sample of Protestant Christians, Muslims, and Hindus.

New Wine in Old Wineskins: Evangelicals and Liberals in a Small-Town Church.

Exploring the roots of resurgent evangelicalism in the United States, Stephen Warner tells the story of one small-town church from 1959 to 1982, the Presbyterian Church of Mendocino, California. This book chronicles the actions of the men and women who struggled with and against one another to shape their church.