A history of the secularization issue

CHAPTER 2

THE EMERGENCE OF THE SECULARIZATION PARADIGM
So far, we have pursued a theoretical discussion concerning the reasons that sould induce us to consider secularization as a paradigm rather than as a theory. As noted in the preceding chapter, there are excellent methodological reasons to do so. But no matter how excellent these reasons are, they are by no means sufficient. To show that we must replace the vague and inappropriate expression "modern secularization theory" by the notion of "modern secularization paradigm", we must show that this paradigm in fact exists - that it is not just wishful thinking. To do this, we must undertake four steps. The first is to show that, at a certain point in time, "secularization" became an important issue, and that a certain consensus emerged around the meaning of this term. This will be the object of the present chapter. Second, in concordance with the Kuhnian approach, we must show that this paradigm has been put forward by a concrete scholarly community. This will be the object of chapter 3. Third, it must be shown that the paradigm became institutionalized through an intellectual revolution within that community. This point will be taken up only in chapter 10. Finally, we must show that this paradigm has a content. In other words, we must show that the scholarly community put forward a number of interrelated exemplars contained within a series of meta-theoretical assumptions, and that there is a degree of consensus between the different authors as to what these elements are. This point will be addressed in chapters 4 and 12.

In the present chapter, I will show that "secularization" became an important issue in the 1960s, and that this evolution coincides with the emergence of a consensus around the meaning of this term. In order to do this, I will use two main sources: a systematic analysis of textbooks, and a systematic analysis of the Acts of the most important European organization for the sociology of religion, the Conférence internationale de sociologie des religions (CISR).

The Rise of Interest in "Secularization" in the 1960s
Before turing to these systematic analyses, I would like to briefly present some of the other available evidence. Some scattered testimony alerting us to the transformations which occurred in the 60s can be found in the literature. Thus, Roland Robertson noticed a "rapid upsurge of interest in the theme of secularization during the 60s" (Robertson 1971, p. 308). Gustavo Guizzardi, in the introduction to the anthology on secularization he published with Sabino Acquaviva, states that he wants to offer a panorama of the problem "as it has been posed in its 'explosive' phase, which can be dated to the early 60s" (Acquaviva and Guizzardi 1973, p. 25). The same evolution has also been stressed for example by Roberto Cipriani (Cipriani 1981, pp. 141-42).

But in order to establish the increasing importance of this theme, we need more solid evidence. The first such piece of evidence is found in a recent research conducted by William Silverman (1989), who analyzed all the general review essays (that is, 20 essays) published in English in the field of sociology of religion between 1929 and 1988. A content analysis revealed the tendencies with regard to 27 different topics. The clearest trends can be summarized as follows: There is a marked decline in interest in topics closely related to Catholic sociology⁸. So for instance, "morals, ethical behavior and religion"; "the rural Church"; "studies of clergy"; "organizations: Churches as organizations [...]"; "family and religion: premarital sex [...]"; "Church research of the H. Paul Douglass type" all decline sharply. Contrariwise, there is a "fairly steady increase in interest" (1989, p. 4) in other topics, which are almost all related to the secularization paradigm⁹. "Secularization" as such, which had progressed steadliy from the period 29-45 (0%) to 51-59 (17%), and from this period to 62-76 (20%), has been subjected to a remarkable progression between the two periods 62-76 and 82-88 (where it reached 80%). Interest also rose in related subjects, including "functional theory of religion"¹⁰; "religion as a source of social integration"; "new religious movements"; "civil religion" and "modernization".

The next piece of evidence indicating an increase in interest in the theme of secularization is drawn from a systematic analysis of introductory textbooks to sociology. As Silverman remarks, textbooks are unlikely to reflect "the cutting edge of a field" (Silverman 1989, p. 1). For this reason, he himself preferred to analyze review essays. It is clear that the changes appearing in a field are likely to be reflected with considerable delay in textbooks written for undergraduates. Any evidence as to the presence of an interest in secularization in textbooks should therefore be regarded as a strong indicator of the existence of the paradigm.

I have analyzed fifty-four textbooks¹¹ for the period 1939-1984. In the twenty-seven textbooks appearing before 1969, there is not a single instance of a chapter, or even of a section, being entirely devoted to "secularization". Only two texts included the term "secularization" in their indexes. Mention of terms such as "secular society" or "secularity", however, was somewhat more frequent. Most of these referred to Howard Becker's sacred-secular dichotomy (see chap. 9). Although some other early texts made descriptive use of the term secularization, it is only in later texts that the term secularization increasingly came to be used with a meaning approaching that of the modern paradigm. But, to repeat, there is no systematic treatment of "secularization" before 1969. As we will see, the situation obtaining after this date offers a stark contrast.

Let us now turn to the twenty-two textbooks that have been published after 1969¹². (Unfortunately, at this point, we will sometimes have to anticipate somewhat on the following discussion, and refer to some of the exemplars of the paradigm, which will be presented systematically only in chapter 4. But this procedure should not prove to be too much of a problem, since the terminology used for the exemplars is largely self-explanatory.) We will first say a few words of the 10 texts in which "secularization" does not appear¹³. First, seven of these texts contain a chapter on religion, and all of them discuss the "protestant ethic thesis". Thus, they cannot be said to ignore religion completely. Differentiation and rationalization (the two most important exemplars in the paradigm; see chap. 4), however, play only a minor role in these texts: they appear only in the indexes of three of them¹⁴. Discussions of other topics related to the secularization paradigm are rare: civil religion is discussed only in TXT 1975c¹⁵ (p. 379), worldliness is discussed only in 1969b (p. 660; p. 678) and decline in practice and autonomization only in 1971c (p. 251; pp. 253-54). The only textbook that discusses in some detail the secularization paradigm is TXT 1976a, but this discussion takes place under titles such as "the growth of secularism", "secular determinants of religious thought", and "religious thought and the secular audience" (pp. 484-88), which brings us very close to "secularization" indeed. Few of these texts use words close to "secularization": apart from TXT 1976a, which we have just mentioned, only TXT 1973b uses "secular", and only TXT 1971d uses "secularized".

In short, what is striking in these texts is not only do they ignore the word "secularization" as such, but that they ignore the whole paradigm associated with it. But let us now turn to the 12 texts in which the word "secularization" is mentioned. Four of these texts use "secularization" only incidentally. In TXT 1969d, secularization is briefly described as the "accommodation [of religion] to non-religious values and pursuits", and also as "efforts on the part of organized religion to convey messages that are meaningful to the life of modern man" (p. 103). In TXT 1971a, secularization is taken in the sense of changes occurring in the function of the family, in line with Burgess¹⁶ (pp. 488-89), and also as used in the Middletown studies, as "secularization of marriage" (p. 489). In the chapter on social change included in TXT 1975b, the general trend of evolution is called "rationalization", but, authors remark rather vaguely, "we encounter a number of possible words to use, [...] for example, secularization, industrialization, urbanization" (p. 71). In the remainder of the text, two elements of the secularization paradigm are accepted, but the paradigm itself is not spelled out. Finally, in TXT 1984, secularization is used in the sense of the increasing worldliness of certain denominations (p. 359). So, in these texts, the use of the word secularization is rather incidental, and does not imply the totality of the secularization paradigm.

We are thus left with 8 texts, in which "secularization" is used much more systematically¹⁷. These 8 textbooks are, on the whole, more recent than the others. Among the 14 texts published before 1976, only 3 use "secularization" in a systematic way, whereas this is the case with 5 of the 8 texts published from 1976 on. Secondly, in all but one of these texts (TXT 1979b), there is a special section on secularization, which can range from two paragraphs (1976b, p. 496) to a whole chapter called "Secularization, religion and social control" (TXT 1976d, p. 199).

We can thus complete the conclusion drawn from the analysis of the 10 texts in which secularization never appeared. Not only is the secularization paradigm ignored when the word "secularization" is ignored but, conversely, in most cases where the word "secularization" is used, the whole paradigm comes with it. In other words, the secularization paradigm is generally not to be taken in small portions: it is either discarded entirely, or fully accepted.

We can conclude that the analysis of the texts adduces further evidence as to the sudden rise of "secularization" in the 60s. As we will see, a systematic analysis of the Acts of the Conférence internationale de sociologie des religions (CISR)¹⁸, the most important European organization in the sociology of religion, discloses a similar pattern.

Before 1967, "secularization" was never mentioned at the CISR, and the discussions concerning the position of religion in modern society went mainly under the heading of "dechristianization"¹⁹. The first paper referring "secularization" appeared in 1967. Leslie Paul discussed the crisis which appeared within the Anglican Church and gave birth to the "secularization movement"²⁰. At the end of his article, he criticized the concept of secularization, and clearly took sides in the "debate" between Harvey Cox and David Martin (on this "debate", see chap. 11). Two years later (in 1969), a first reference was made to the sociological debate about secularization by Karel Dobbelaere and Jan Lauwers. They stated that "the sociologist should not ask himself what relevance church and religion have for the individual. He must question their social relevance. In this sense, problems concerning the sociology of religion now have shifted from participation to secularization. It is comforting to state that many sociologists of religion have taken this direction, mainly under the impulse from Th. Luckmann and P. Berger" (CISR 1969, p. 123). Dobbelaere and Lauwers welcomed this evolution and considered it as a major improvement by comparison with the sociology of church involvement criticized in their article. Secularization theory was presented by Dobbelaere and Lauwers as the symbol of this new evolution of the discipline.

However, up to the 10^th CISR (1969), the word "secularization" never appeared in the title of a paper. At the 11^th CISR (1971), it appeared in three places. Indeed, the first massive use of the word "secularization" is found in this conference. At least seven papers, by Grumelli, Houtart, Creyf, Stryckman, Barett and Verryn, and Acquaviva and Rouleau, made use of the word. The first explicit attempt to construct a secularization theory was also found in this conference. Antonio Grumelli proposed a theory which explained secularization by a superiority of "values" on "structure", which in turn implied a better acceptance of social change²¹. At the same conference, François Houtart approached the secularization issue through an empirical research on the basis of which he planned to develop a complete secularization theory. Roger Creyf²² attacked Berger and Luckmann's theories, criticizing the "anthropological presuppositions" on which they were based. He wanted to promote a conception that should be closer to empirical evidence, and at the same time more dialectical. Paul Stryckman analyzed the process of democratization and administrative decentralization inside the canadian Catholic Church, and considered it as a phenomenon of "sécularisation intra-ecclésiale".
The Transition to the Paradigmatic Status
But the analysis of the Acts of the CISR reveals more than just an increase in interest for the theme of secularization. It also brings to light a qualitative evolution in the approach of sociologists using this concept. In the late 60s and early 70s, "secularization" was used very carelessly, whereas from the late 70s onwards, authors had a much better grasp of the concept.

In the 60s and early 70s, some articles left the reader with the feeling that the author had hastily added two lines on secularization at the beginning of his paper when it was almost ready to be printed, just in order to make sure that it would profit from being caught into the mainstream of a currently fashionable debate. A good example of this is provided by a paper by Barret and Verryn, which was read at the 11^th CISR (1971).

The authors show that religious affiliation and practice have increased all over Africa since independence, and that Christianity is fostered rather than hindered by urbanization. Which leads them to conclude: "There may be emerging a demonstration of how modern man can be urbanized, industrialized, and even secularised, and yet remain deeply religious" (CISR 1971, p. 268). The authors attach a great importance to the word "secularization": it is used in the very first sentence of the article, and the words "secularization" and "secular" appear four times in the first two paragraphs. But what do the authors mean when they say that in Africa, man is secularized, and at the same time truly religious? The evidence put forward in the paper shows but one thing: that religious commitment and practice have increased. There is no evidence of secularization provided in the paper, quite the contrary. The confusion probably arises from a misreading of Cox's best-seller (see chap. 11). In The Secular City (1965), Harvey Cox used the word "urbanization" in a very peculiar sense, to designate what sociologists usually call the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. And, in this same book, "urbanization" was presented as one of the main factors explaining secularization. This might explain why, noticing that an increased urbanization (in the usual sense of the word) fosters Christian religious affiliation, the authors concluded that religion and secularization (in reality: urbanization) were not antithetical.

Another example is provided by Rouleau's paper in CISR 1971, which starts with these words: "Secularization is a universal phenomenon", but which goes on to study the confessional dimension of Catholic hospitals in Canada without discussing secularization in any more detail. In other papers, the word "secularization" was used in a more precise sense, and with more care. However, the word was almost never used with precise reference to the sociological debate, or to a particular theoretical framework. In some instances, authors had a very narrow conception of secularization, as for example Duocastella in CISR 1973, for whom this concept apparently referred to changes in the division of labor and responsibilities between the ministry and the laics - although this point is not very clear (CISR 1973, pp. 193-94). Other examples are provided by David Starkey in CISR 1977, where "secularization" referred to the decline of symbolism (a decline which manifests itself most clearly through iconoclasm) during the Reformation, by Aranguren in CISR 1975 (pp. 16-17), and also by most of the papers we have already discussed: especially Paul in CISR 1967, Grumelli in CISR 1971, and Stryckman in CISR 1971.

The period opening with the 15^th conference (1979) appears to be characterized by a better assimilation and comprehension of the notion of secularization by the authors. This does not mean that they all understand it, nor that none of them understood it correctly in the previous period: but the trend seems to be toward a certain institutionalization of the concept of secularization, along the lines provided by the analyses of Peter Berger and Bryan Wilson (see chap. 12).

At the 15^th conference (1979), several papers showed a good grasp of the issue. We will briefly discuss four papers. Grassi et al. analyzed the paradox of the growing importance of religious ties for the greatest Italian political party in the midst of a world which was becoming ever more secularized. Secularization was circumscribed as "the loss of control in the process of socialization in the new generations in which the space before occupied by the parochial structures and by the powerful young Catholic associations, has become more and more narrow to the advantage of the State structures produced by the growth of the scholastic man" (CISR 1979, p. 32). Richard Fenn (himself a secularization theorist) was one of the first to propose a clear and operationally usable definition of secularization: "In the following discussion I will treat secularization as the outcome of a political process between classes and religious communities or organizations that enhances the integration of society. By secularization [...] I refer to the degree to which the meanings are subject to reduction or transformation in interaction with 'secular' authorities" (CISR 1979, p. 413). Yanagawa aimed at providing an answer to the question: is secularization theory applicable to Japan? To this effect, he directly discussed the theories of Bryan Wilson and Thomas Luckmann (see chap. 12). Finally, a paper by Dobbelaere also showed a good grasp of the secularization issue. After analyzing his empirical material, he concluded: "Whatever the meaning attached to the term secularization, our study documents such a process. We have shown that in Flanders, secularization has taken the form of declining church practice, ethical changes, differentiation and privatization that privatizes and marginalizes religion, and a rejection of religion as an 'overarching meaning system'" (CISR 1979, p. 288). Other examples showing a good grasp of secularization theory include the papers by Yanagawa in CISR 1983, by Lalive d'Epinay et al. in CISR 1981, and by Guizzardi and Pace in CISR 1981.

We can thus distinguish two phases in the recent history of the secularization controversy inside of the CISR: 1) a phase of debate, where there was no agreement on the definition of the word "secularization", although the main theories which would allow a consensus concerning the meaning of the word had already been produced and widely diffused; 2) a paradigmatic phase, characterized by a cooling down of the debate and some degree of consensus on the definition of secularization. This conclusion fits into Kuhn's analysis²³: in his words, the first phase is a revolutionary phase, and the second a period of return to normal science.

We can now consider that we have established beyond doubt that, sometime in the late 60s, "secularization" became recognized as an important topic in sociology of religion. It has not been established yet, however, that "secularization" is a paradigm. In order to do this, several steps must be taken: it must be shown that "secularization" is more than a blanket term, and that it also has a content, that is to say that we will have to put forward evidence supporting the idea that the other elements we defined as belonging to the paradigm exist and are really attached to it. But before doing this, another point needs to be established: it must be shown that the emergence of the term "secularization" is linked to a specific scientific community.

CHAPTER 3

THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY
The scholarly community will be analyzed through the use of several methods: first, an overview of the literature on secularization will yield a list of names and some clues as to the structure of this list, that is, to the position of the different sociologists on the theoretical level. This will then be completed by information obtained through the interviews I conducted with several sociologists of religion and through the use of the Social Science Citation Index. But let us turn, first, to the literature²⁴.

The lists of names appearing in this chapter will, at first, constitute an unfamiliar world for the readers not acquainted with the secularization issue. I will make no effort to present these sociologists: throughout the chapter, they will remain anonymous shadows. This procedure has been adopted on purpose: Rather than defining a scholarly community by starting from the analysis of a series of theories, my aim is to start with the community, and to present the corresponding theories only later on (see chap. 4 and 12).

Who are the "Secularization Theorists"?
The list of sociologists invited by the Vatican Secretariat for Non-Believers at the 1969 Symposium on Unbelief held at Rome (Caporale and Grumelli 1971) gives us a first indication. The chairman of the conference was Peter Berger. Sociologists invited to present lead papers were Thomas Luckmann, Robert Bellah, Charles Glock, and Antonio Grumelli (himself one of the organizers). The sociologists invited to write a postscript were Talcott Parsons, Bryan Wilson, and - again - Bellah. This instant picture of the field in 1969 is remarkably accurate: as we will see, in the following 20 years, there will not be many changes.

In 1973, Sabino Acquaviva and Gustavo Guizzardi published an anthology under the title La secolarizzazione. The list of papers translated into Italian on this occasion offers an overview of the field of secularization theory: authors are Larry Shiner, Bellah, Wilson, Berger, Luckmann, Acquaviva himself and David Martin on the sociological side. The anthology also includes some papers by theologians, most notably Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox, and John Robinson. Of particular interest to us is the fact that, in his introductory paper, Guizzardi brings out some of the articulations among these different theorists. First, the stress on the marginalization of religion (i.e., the autonomization of society; see chap. 4) is recognized as common, in different ways, to Wilson, Luckmann and Berger. Acquaviva's position in this respect is defined as "particular", since he is interested essentially in de-sacralization at the individual level (i.e., unbelief; see chap. 4). Second, although Bellah does not consider himself as a secularization theorist, his concern with civil religion is shown to be connected to Berger's analysis of the religious legitimation of the State (i.e., generalization; Acquaviva and Guizzardi 1973, p. 27). In the same manner - and although he does not either consider himself a secularization theorist - Luckmann's analysis of the privatization of religion is considered completely consonant with Berger's analysis of this same phenomenon (Acquaviva and Guizzardi 1973, pp. 28-29). Bellah is connected in still another way to this constellation, in that his article on Religious Evolution (Bellah [1963] 1970) reaches conclusions similar to Luckmann's on the subject of privatization (Acaquavica and Guizzardi 1973, p. 29). And, to close the circle, this analysis of privatization is congruent with the analysis in terms of civil religion, in the sense that both amount to a complete de-institutionalization of religion (1973, p. 30). The general conclusion that can be drawn from Guizzardi's presentation is that the different secularization theories are complimentary rather than contradictory.

The opposite conclusion was reached by Jan Lauwers (1973). But Lauwer's classification is very unclear. He classifies secularization theories in three groups: theories connected to the idea of pluralism (Herberg, Yinger), theories connected to the idea of privatization (Luckmann, Berger), and theories connected to the idea of rationalization (Wilson, Weber). However, in Lauwer's own presentation, pluralism also appears as a constitutive element in Luckmann and in Berger's theories, and Herberg and Yinger's theories, which are both put into the same category, differ radically in that the first concludes that secularization has happened, whereas the second reaches the opposite conclusion. In short, Lauwers arbitrarily chose one element which he found particularly salient in each of the theories (pluralism in Herberg's, but why not in Berger's?) while neglecting other factors that are common to some of the theories (for instance generalization, which is common to Weber's and to Herberg's, or differentiation, which is common to Wilson's and Luckmann's) in order to construct his typology.

Peter Glasner (1977) failed to acknowledge the break that occurred in the mid-60s. For this reason, his choice of authors was extremely large, ranging from the Lynds (Middletown; Glasner 1977, p. 15) to modern authors. But, as far as these modern authors are concerned, his choice was not very different from that of others. He calls Wilson the "main exponent of [the decline thesis] in Britain" (1977, p. 18). Parsons and Bellah are considered the main exponents of the "differentiation thesis" (1977, pp. 26-27) and "generalization thesis" (1977, pp. 35-37). Luckmann and Berger are considered representatives of the "cognitively based" secularization thesis (1977, pp. 50-56). The most recent of the other authors mentioned as secularization theorists are Yinger, Pfautz and Herberg (on Verweltlichung of religious organizations; 1977, pp. 23-25).

In other examples, the scholarly community was less precisely defined. We can regard it as axiomatic that some authors who appear to be more peripheral to this scholarly community will less clearly perceive its homogeneity. In other words, the scholarly community is to a large extent self-defined, that is, defined by its own members. Thus for example, the treatment of secularization by Barbara Hargrove - who taught at Yale Divinity School, and appears to have close ties with Bellah and Glock's "Religious Conscious team" (Hargrove 1979, p. viii) - in her textbook, The Sociology of Religion (1979), situates her at the periphery of the secularization paradigm. For one thing, she does not devote a special chapter to "secularization". Furthermore, although she does speak of secularization, and mentions rationalization (in the form of a transition from sacred to profane; 1979, p. 26), privatization (1979, p. 54) and differentiation (1979, p. 117), her global approach to secularization is still very much influenced by Becker's (1979, p. 54; see chap. 9), and she considers secularization essentially as a transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft (1979, p. 55). By the same token, she does not clearly identify the scholarly community: although she cites Wilson (1979, pp. 57-58), it is only on a peripheral matter, and Berger, whose Sacred Canopy is mentioned (1979, p. 18; p. 61) is not presented as a secularization theorist. Instead, proponents of secularization theory appear to be Cox (1979, p. 27; p. 125), Becker (1979, p. 54; pp. 121-22) and Parsons (1979, p. 55). Similarly, John Coleman, a Jesuit from the School of Theology at Berkeley, first discusses in some detail Wilson, Luckmann, Berger, Parsons, and Greeley, but later adds to this list Hudson Smith, Guy E. Swanson, Clifford Geertz, Roland Robertson, Robert Bellah, Gerhard Lenski, Thomas O'Dea, David Martin, Hans Mol and Charles Glock (Coleman 1978).

Having thus outlined the general characteristics of the field, we can mention somewhat more briefly some other recensions. In his 1973 textbook on the sociology of religion, Michael Hill devoted two chapters to secularization. Significant proponents of secularization theory appeared to be, in order of appearance: Wilson, Pfautz, Berger, Parsons, Bellah, Weber, Becker, and Luckmann (1973, pp. 229-60). The choice of authors made by Enrica Rosanna (1973) was somewhat untypical: in addition to Berger, Luckmann and Acquaviva, she included in her study Yinger, but not Wilson, nor Bellah. The sociologists identified as major proponents of secularization theory by Elio Roggero (1979) were Berger and Wilson. Other sociologists encompassed in the broader discussion of secularization theory were mainly Isambert, Luckmann, Herberg and Yinger, Parsons, and Bellah. In his 1984 article on secularization, Franco Ferrarotti, after briefly discussing Becker, devoted the rest of his analysis to Berger, whom he considered as having given "the most refined presentation of the concept of secularization" (Ferrarotti 1984, p. 14).

In 1981, Dobbelaere published a Trend Report which, as we will see, constitutes a very important point of reference inside of the community. We can classify the titles appearing in this report according to the number of times they were cited by Dobbelaere. The Invisible Religion (Luckmann) was cited 22 times, the Sacred Canopy (Berger) 21 times, A General Theory of Secularization (Martin) 21 times, and Wilson's theory (Religion in Secular Society + Aspects of Secularization in the West + Contemporary Transformations of Religion) 19 times. Authors less frequently cited but considered important were Fenn, Bellah, and Parsons.

Dobbelaere's trend report is particularly important because, as we will see, it is very widely known and acknowledged inside of the scholarly community - which led it to play an important role in the definition of the field, for one of the most efficient mechanisms in the definition of the field is the progressive emergence of a citation tradition. Thus, authors who review the literature on secularization very often refer to previous attempts of the same type. Thus for instance, in 1965, Hermann Lübbe wrote a history of the secularization issue. In 1967, Larry Shiner, in his review of the meanings of he concept, referred to Lübbe (Shiner 1967, p. 208). In 1973, in a similar attempt, Jan Lauwers referred to Lübbe (Lauwers 1973, p. 530) and, in the bibliography appearing at the end of this edition of Social Compass, to Shiner (1973, p. 604). In 1977, Glasner referred only to Shiner (Glasner 1977, p. 13; pp. 21-22; p. 41; p. 43; p. 45). But the citation tradition was taken up again in 1979 by Roggero, who referred to Glasner, to Lauwers, to Shiner, and to Lübbe. Finally, in 1981, Dobbelaere referred to Roggero (misspelled "Ruggiero"; Dobbelaere 1981, p. 183), to Glasner, to Lauwers, to Shiner, and to Lübbe.

By the same token, authors writing after 1981 very frequently referred to Dobbelaere's trend report. Thus, in his brief outline of secularization theory in his research on secularization in Iceland, Pétut Pétursson (1983) explicitly followed Dobbelaere: important theorists appeared to be Berger, Luckmann, Dobbelaere, and Martin. We need not continue this enumeration: after 1981, most of the sociologists venturing to write on the subject of secularization knew Dobbelaere's trend report, and their accounts fall into familiar grooves²⁵.

Thus, a substantial degree of agreement emerges from this overview. The large majority of recensions - even those that were written before 1981 - coincide with Dobbelaere's definition of the field. The main proponents of secularization theory appear to be Berger and Wilson and, in a somewhat peripheral position, Martin and Fenn. In spite of their own refusal to be considered secularization theorists, Luckmann, Bellah and Parsons are also very consistently considered as "part of the team". Several recensions appearing before Dobbelaere's report also included discussion of the works of Herberg and Yinger. There is, however, a very wide disagreement on the question of the compatibility of these theoretical approaches. Whereas certain authors uncover implicit links between the theories, others stress their separateness. But - and this is very important for our purpose - even when they do so, they still consider that these authors are all, in some way, "secularization theorists".

The conclusions reached so far concerning the identification of the sociologists thought to be important secularization theorists are largely supported by the twenty-one interviews. The first question I asked most of my respondents was: "what is secularization theory: which authors, which books would you cite as representing 'secularization theory'?" The names that came up most frequently were those of Berger, Wilson and, to a lesser extent, of Luckmann and Martin. Dobbelaere was also very often referred to as a "systematizer" of secularization theory.