Religion and authoritarianism

Last updated
Spanish Dictator Francisco Franco with Catholic Church dignitaries in 1946 Francisco Franco en la iglesia de Santa Maria durante la celebracion de la Salve (5 de 9) - Fondo Car-Kutxa Fototeka.jpg
Spanish Dictator Francisco Franco with Catholic Church dignitaries in 1946

Most measures of religiosity, such as church attendance and affiliation, are positively correlated with the authoritarian personality cluster, which includes submission to authority, conventionality, and intolerance of out-groups. [2] [3] [4] The correlation is especially strong between religious fundamentalism (defined as belief in an "inerrant set of religious teachings") and authoritarianism, both of which are characterized by low openness to experience, high rigidity, and low cognitive complexity. [2] In particular, authoritarianism "is positively associated with a religion that is conventional, unquestioned, and unreflective". [2] [3]

Contents

Background

United States president Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church has been described as following the "playbook of authoritarian-leaning leaders the world over". President Trump Visits St. John's Episcopal Church (49963649028).jpg
United States president Donald Trump's photo op at St. John's Church has been described as following the "playbook of authoritarian-leaning leaders the world over".

Hundreds of scientific articles have been published investigating the connections between religion and authoritarianism. There is a distinction between psychology, which treats authoritarianism as innate to the personality, and sociology, which considers authoritarianism a result of one's environment and posits that it may be influenced by factors such as religion. [6]

A longitudinal study of Americans born in the 1920s found that this effect held for traditional church-centered religion but not for those that are seeking non-institutional spirituality. The latter mode of religion is "characterized by an openness to new experiences and by creativity and experimentation, characteristics that are antithetical to the conventionality that adheres in authoritarianism". [2] [4]

Specific cases

Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have adopted different policies towards religion, from state atheism to drawing support from religion or co-opting religious leaders and institutions. [7] As part of civil society, organized religion serves as a mediator between the state and citizens, even under authoritarian governments. [8] In Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church enjoys a state monopoly and state subsidies, as well as a blasphemy law that protects it from criticism. [9] Authoritarian leaders may fear that religion will be the source of political opposition, instability, or outright rebellion. [10] Indeed, some scholars and political leaders, such as Václav Havel, have praised the role of religion in undermining authoritarian governments. [8] However, in other cases, religions have engaged in alliances with the state, and religious institutions are not necessarily pockets of dissent or incubators of democracy. [11] Unregistered or minority religions have been suppressed by state authoritarian regimes, such as house churches in China. [12] In 1999, Falun Gong practitioners launched widespread protests against the Chinese government, which led to the persecution of Falun Gong. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundamentalism</span> Unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs

Fundamentalism is a tendency among certain groups and individuals that is characterized by the application of a strict literal interpretation to scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, along with a strong belief in the importance of distinguishing one's ingroup and outgroup, which leads to an emphasis on some conception of "purity", and a desire to return to a previous ideal from which advocates believe members have strayed. The term is usually used in the context of religion to indicate an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Relationship between religion and science</span>

The relationship between religion and science involves discussions that interconnect the study of the natural world, history, philosophy, and theology. Even though the ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion", certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The pair-structured phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in the literature during the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries—partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization. Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New religious movement</span> Religious community or spiritual group of modern origin

A new religious movement (NRM), also known as alternative spirituality or a new religion, is a religious or spiritual group that has modern origins and is peripheral to its society's dominant religious culture. NRMs can be novel in origin or they can be part of a wider religion, in which case they are distinct from pre-existing denominations. Some NRMs deal with the challenges which the modernizing world poses to them by embracing individualism, while other NRMs deal with them by embracing tightly knit collective means. Scholars have estimated that NRMs number in the tens of thousands worldwide. Most NRMs only have a few members, some of them have thousands of members, and a few of them have more than a million members.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines religiosity as: "Religiousness; religious feeling or belief. [...] Affected or excessive religiousness". Different scholars have seen this concept as broadly about religious orientations and degrees of involvement or commitment. Religiosity is measured at the levels of individuals or groups and there is a lack of agreement on what criteria would constitute religiosity among scholars. Sociologists of religion have observed that an individual's experience, beliefs, sense of belonging, and behavior often are not congruent with their actual religious behavior, since there is much diversity in how one can be religious or not. Multiple problems exist in measuring religiosity. For instance, measures of variables such as church attendance produce different results when different methods are used - such as traditional surveys vs time-use surveys.

Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to the diverse contents of religious traditions as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. The various methods and frameworks can be summarized according to the classic distinction between the natural-scientific and human-scientific approaches. The first cluster amounts to objective, quantitative, and preferably experimental procedures for testing hypotheses about causal connections among the objects of one's study. In contrast, the human-scientific approach accesses the human world of experience using qualitative, phenomenological, and interpretive methods. This approach aims to discern meaningful, rather than causal, connections among the phenomena one seeks to understand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">State atheism</span> Official promotion of atheism by a government

State atheism or atheist state is the incorporation of hard atheism or non-theism into political regimes. It is considered the opposite of theocracy and may also refer to large-scale secularization attempts by governments. To some extent, it is a religion-state relationship that is usually ideologically linked to irreligion and the promotion of irreligion or atheism. State atheism may refer to a government's promotion of anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen. In some instances, religious symbols and public practices that were once held by religions were replaced with secularized versions of them. State atheism can also exist in a politically neutral fashion, in which case, it is considered non-secular.

Cult is a term, in most contexts pejorative, for a relatively small group which is typically led by a charismatic and self-appointed leader, who excessively controls its members, requiring unwavering devotion to a set of beliefs and practices which are considered deviant. This term is also used for a new religious movement or other social group which is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs and rituals, or its common interest in a particular person, object, or goal. This sense of the term is weakly defined – having divergent definitions both in popular culture and academia – and has also been an ongoing source of contention among scholars across several fields of study.

The anti-cult movement consists of various governmental and non-governmental organizations and individuals that seek to raise awareness of cults, uncover coercive practices used to attract and retain members, and help those who have become involved with harmful cult practices.

Freedom of religion in China may be referring to the following entities separated by the Taiwan Strait:

In psychology, the right-wing authoritarian (RWA) is a personality type that describes somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior. The prevalence of this personality type in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of personality.

Criticism of religion involves criticism of the validity, concept, or ideas of religion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociological classifications of religious movements</span> Classifications of religious movements

Various sociological classifications of religious movements have been proposed by scholars. In the sociology of religion, the most widely used classification is the church-sect typology. The typology is differently construed by different sociologists, and various distinctive features have been proposed to characterise churches and sects. On most accounts, the following features are deemed relevant:

Religious abuse is abuse administered through religion, including harassment or humiliation that may result in psychological trauma. Religious abuse may also include the misuse of religion for selfish, secular, or ideological ends, such as the abuse of a clerical position.

The Society for the Scientific Study of Religion was formed to advance research in the social scientific perspective on religious institutions and experiences. The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion is published by the society to provide a forum for empirical papers in the topic area.

Ralph Wilbur Hood Jr. is an American psychologist. He serves as Leroy A. Martin Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, where he specializes in the psychology of religion.

The intersections of morality and religion involve the relationship between religious views and morals. It is common for religions to have value frameworks regarding personal behavior meant to guide adherents in determining between right and wrong. These include the Triple Gems of Jainism, Islam's Sharia, Catholicism's Catechism, Buddhism's Noble Eightfold Path, and Zoroastrianism's "good thoughts, good words, and good deeds" concept, among others. Various sources - such as holy books, oral and written traditions, and religious leaders - may outline and interpret these frameworks. Some religious systems share tenets with secular value-frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, and utilitarianism.

Scholarly studies have investigated the effects of religion on health. The World Health Organization (WHO) discerns four dimensions of health, namely physical, social, mental, and spiritual health. Having a religious belief may have both positive and negative impacts on health and morbidity.

Most scientists agree that religiosity is not an independent personality trait, despite there being some commonality between their characteristics. Religiosity and personality traits both relate to one's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. However, unlike for personality, one's level of religiosity is often measured by the presence or lack of belief in and relationship with a higher power, certain lifestyles or behaviors adopted for a higher power, and a sense of belonging with other followers of one's religion. Additionally, personality traits tend to follow a normal distribution, such that the majority of individuals' scores for a personality trait will be concentrated towards the middle, rather than being extremely high or low. Distributions for religiosity, however, follow a non-normal distribution, such that there are more individuals who score particularly high or low on religiosity scales.

One of the most common ways that people cope with trauma is through the comfort found in religious or spiritual practices. Psychologists of religion have performed multiple studies to measure the positive and negative effects of this coping style. Leading researchers have split religious coping into two categories: positive religious coping and negative religious coping. Individuals who use positive religious coping are likely to seek spiritual support and look for meaning in a traumatic situation. Negative religious coping expresses conflict, question, and doubt regarding issues of God and faith.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Desecularization</span> Proliferation or growth of religion

In sociology, desecularization is the proliferation or growth of religion, usually after a period of prior secularization. The theory of desecularization is reactionary to the older theory known as the Secularization Thesis, which posited a gradual decline of religion to a point of extinction. In the last few decades, scholars have pointed to continued church attendance in Western countries, the rise in religious fundamentalism, and the prevalence of religious conflict as evidence of the continued relevance of religion in the modern world. A former proponent of the earlier secularization thesis, Peter L. Berger, has now expressed his support for the newer theory, stating that the world today "is as furiously religious as it ever was". The skeptic Michael Shermer wrote: "At the beginning of the twentieth century social scientists predicted that belief in God would decrease by the end of the century because of the secularization of society. In fact… the opposite has occurred… Never in history have so many, and such a high percentage of the population believed in God. Not only is God not dead, as Nietzsche proclaimed, but he has never been more alive."

References

  1. Casanova, Julian. The Faces of Terror. p. 108.{{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  2. 1 2 3 4 Wills, Matthew (25 July 2017). "What Links Religion and Authoritarianism?". JSTOR Daily. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
  3. 1 2 Leak, Gary K.; Randall, Brandy A. (1995). "Clarification of the Link between Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Religiousness: The Role of Religious Maturity". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 34 (2): 245–252. doi:10.2307/1386769. ISSN   0021-8294. JSTOR   1386769.
  4. 1 2 Wink, Paul; Dillon, Michele; Prettyman, Adrienne (2007). "Religiousness, Spiritual Seeking, and Authoritarianism: Findings from a Longitudinal Study". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 46 (3): 321–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00361.x . ISSN   0021-8294. JSTOR   4621983.
  5. Olson, Laura R. (5 June 2020). "Trump's use of religion follows playbook of authoritarian-leaning leaders the world over". The Conversation. Retrieved 27 August 2020.
  6. Burge, Ryan P. (2018). "Authority, Authoritarianism, and Religion". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.667. ISBN   978-0-19-022863-7.
  7. Koesel 2014, pp. 157, 159.
  8. 1 2 Koesel 2014, p. 177.
  9. Koesel 2014, p. 167.
  10. Koesel 2014, p. 159.
  11. Koesel 2014, p. 178.
  12. Koesel 2014, pp. 162–163.
  13. Koesel 2014, p. 174.

Bibliography

Koesel, Karrie J. (2014). Religion and Authoritarianism: Cooperation, Conflict, and the Consequences. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-1-107-03706-9.

Further reading