Pantallas

Sherkat (1997, p.66), a sociologist, outlines a ‘theory of religious choice which focuses on individual preferences’. He proposes that with consumption, preferences become stronger and compares this as similar to the human capital perspective put forward by Iannaccone (1990). However, Sherkat (1997, p.66) states that ‘individual preferences are not the only factors which motivate religious choices’ and that

‘presentations of rational models of religious behaviour fails to capture social

83

influences on religious choices’. According to Sherkat (1997, p.67) rational choice theory does not explain ‘where preferences for religious goods come from’ and to find out the answer to this scientists need to know ‘what is going on inside people [sic]

heads’. Sherkat (1997, p.67) believes that ‘… social influences on choice constrain individual options and create a gap between individual preferences and revealed choices’. According to Sherkat:

Social relations determine the choices individual’s [sic] can make, the

preferences individuals have, the types of religious goods offered, and changes in religious products over time. (Sherkat, 1997, p.68)

These ‘preferences’, according to Sherkat and emphasised by Bruce (1993) are learned through the experiences that an individual has had, and also through

‘socialization’. Therefore, according to Sherkat (1997, p.70) when it comes to

religious choices it is those childhood experiences that ‘shape what individuals desire’

when they become adults. Sherkat (1997, p.70) relates this to ‘Iannaccone’s (1990) human capital approach’ but explains how his view of ‘religious preferences’ differs;

in his opinion, it is not the ‘household production of religious values’ that is the

‘central stabilizing force’. Sherkat (1997, p.71) believes that it is more often the case that individuals ‘learn new religious preferences’ from others, and that those people we associate with often recommend a number of products that they have tried, and according to Sherkat, religion works in the same way. Sherkat (1997, p.71) includes a reference to ‘John Lofland and Rodney Stark (1965, p.871)’ that states ‘…final conversion amounts to the acceptance of the “opinions of one’s friends,” they are providing an example of learning new preferences’.

In previous research, Sherkat (1997, p.71) has shown that those children who were taught their ‘religious beliefs by their parents’, and were close to their parents are

‘more likely to accept their religious teachings’ and ultimately it is this religious preferences of an individual that informs their choice of religion in the future.

Continuing from this, according to Sherkat (1997, p.74) is the idea that people often make religious choices in order to please or displease others, and will often continue with their religious attendance in adult life in order to set a good example to their own children. When it comes to ‘social sanctions’ and the reactions of others we can ‘alter the choices we make, they do not change our preferences’.

84

These ‘sanction-based rational choice models’ explains Sherkat (1997, p.75) is why people belong to certain groups which can in turn enable individuals to gain ‘rewards or punishments’. For example, the person may not be interested in the teachings of the religion, but going to church on a Sunday may give them ‘friendships, access to mating markets, a place on the basketball team, confirmation of social legitimacy’.

Sherkat (1997, p76) mentions ‘religious monopolies’ as another example of where religious choices ‘are not necessarily made for religious reasons’ and where there may be no other choice for an individual but to join. He explains how choices can also be influenced when there are social ties connected to a particular religion, ‘… when family, religion, employment, ethnicity, neighbourhood, and the like are entangled’.

3.5 Family

Academics such as Crockett and Voas (2006), Voas (2010) and Guest (2010) have carried out studies to examine the influence that time and the family have on a

person’s religious life. Crockett and Voas (2006, p.578) using The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and The British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey studied religious transmission amongst Christians and concluded that ‘religiosity has almost halved in a single generation’. According to Crockett and Voas (2006, p.578) ‘the BSA and BHPS evidence suggest that the social forces that determine religiosity, and have caused decline, operate on children rather than adults’. Crockett and Voas (2006, p.579) explain how immigration and ethnic minorities are often ‘more religiously active than the national average’ but showed that there was still a ‘substantial generational decline’. Voas (2010, p.25) explores the idea that ‘Age’ is the most important factor when looking at religious difference and questions ‘why young people are different’. When seeking to explain these differences between the

generations Voas (2010, p.28) states that ‘For decade after decade in most developed countries, people have become less religious (at least in a conventional sense) than their parents’. He then goes on to with the explanation that even though some parents are still practising their religion their adult children are not. This according to Voas (2010, p.28) raises the issue of why these adults have not passed on this religious importance to their children and the ages at which this ‘religious socialisation’ is passed on. Voas (2010, p.28) then goes on to state that ‘… religious involvement may only stabilise when people reach their mid-20s …’ but continues to explain that this

85

does not mean that only young adults should be focused on, as this stability may coincide with a person leaving home and leading their own life away from their parents. Returning to the transmission of faith, Voas (2010, p.29) examines firstly the changes in ‘parental values’, showing that the most likely explanation is ‘… that parental values have become more liberal or relativistic, so that transmitting religion no longer seems critically important’ and that ‘… parents feel less need to socialise their children religiously’. Secondly, Voas (2010, p.30) looks at the ‘Change in young adults’ by examining what he calls ‘Compositional change’ where he talks of the effect that ‘higher education, employment for women and childbearing’ have on church attendance and ‘Contextual change’ which is a ‘shift in values, away from tradition and respect for authority’. Finally, Voas (2010, p.31) mentions ‘Other

factors’ that play a part in the transmission of religious ideas. He mentions Iannaccone (1991) and Stark and Finke (2000) who believe that the ‘supply of religion’ is

connected to ‘the level of religious involvement’ and other scholars of what he calls the ‘‘rational choice’ tradition’ who ‘emphasise the role of secular competition’.

Divorce is mentioned as having a disruptive effect on church attendance and

according to Voas (2010, p.31) ‘Geographical mobility’ is seen as having ‘positive or negative effects on churchgoing’, if a person moves to a new area, they may attend a church to become part of the community or they may leave their old ‘habits’ behind and make new choices.

In his research with children of the Clergy, Guest (2010) examines the effect that being brought up in a religious household has had on the individuals. He states that:

In response to a sociological drift towards emphasising the sovereign individual actor (e.g. Giddens 1991), other research has affirmed the

importance of the family as an enduring influence over the values individuals profess in adulthood (Bengtson et al. 2002). (Guest, 2010, p.176)

Referring to the work done by Pierre Bourdieu and his idea of ‘religious capital’

(knowledge that only the priesthood has), and Verter’s idea of ‘spiritual capital’

(knowledge that the priesthood and other religious officials may possess), Guest (2010, p.177) explains that: ‘It is important to note that a capital-based approach to understanding religious values is not unproblematic’ as some do not like to attribute economic terms to ‘explain religious phenomena’ and that ‘… the distinguishing

86

qualities of religion are not done justice by a set of metaphors based on material acquisition and exchange’. Guest (2010, p.178) along with Davis then apply this idea to families of the clergy as they wanted to find out how the values from their

childhood which they termed ‘spiritual capital’ had influenced their ‘professional and religious development’. From their research they found that 75% of the respondents claimed that they were Christians and at some point in their lives ‘almost three-quarters…had worked in the caring/nurture professions’. Guest (2010, p.180) concludes that ‘… religious institutions enjoy a kind of social influence beyond the professed beliefs and practices of their members, channelled through the families of their leaders’. Rather than these children turning away from the faith they grew up with, Guest (2010, p.180) suggests that a ‘transformation’ occurs and that the values learnt in childhood are put to use in a variety of ways in adulthood.