Existential security theory
- Created by: rebeccamellors
- Created on: 16-02-17 13:30
View mindmap
- Alternative View: secularisation & security
- Norris & Inglehart (2011) reject RMT due to only applying to America & failing to explain variations in religiosity between different societies
- Existential Security Theory
- Reasons for variations in religiosity is due to different degrees of existential security
- This means 'the feeling that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted'
- Religions meets a need for security, therefore societies where people already feel secure have low level of demand for religion
- Poor Societies - people face life threatening risks so have high levels of insecurity & high levels of religiosity
- Rich Societies - where people have high standratd of living & are at less risk have greater sense of security & low levels of religiosity
- Reasons for variations in religiosity is due to different degrees of existential security
- Europe vs America
- In Western Europe, the trend is towards increasing secularisation
- Norris & inglehart argue this isn't surprising as they are among the most equal & secure in the world
- Have well developed welfare states offering comprehensive health care, social services & pensions
- Reduces poverty & protects lower classes from poverty
- Have well developed welfare states offering comprehensive health care, social services & pensions
- Norris & inglehart argue this isn't surprising as they are among the most equal & secure in the world
- Comparison with Europe, the US remains much more religious
- Norris & Inglehart argue this is because America is also the most unequal of the rich societies
- 'Dog eat dog' values & inadequate welfare
- Creates high levels of poverty & insecurity which increases need for religion
- 'Dog eat dog' values & inadequate welfare
- Norris & Inglehart argue this is because America is also the most unequal of the rich societies
- In Western Europe, the trend is towards increasing secularisation
- State welfare & Religiosity
- Norris & Inglehart's argument is supported by Gill & Lundegaarder (2004)
- They found that the more a country spends on welfare, the lower the level of religious participation
- Gill & Lundegaarde note that in the past religion use to provide welfare for the poor & still does in poorer countries
- However, don't expect religion to decline completely because although welfare provision provides security it doesn't answer 'ultimate' questions
- Norris & Inglehart's argument is supported by Gill & Lundegaarder (2004)
- Evaluation
- Vasquez (2007) accepts that Norris & Inglehart offer a valuable explanation of different levels of religious participation globally
- However makes two criticisms:
- They only use quantitative data about income levels & they don't examine people's own definitions of 'existential security'
- Argues qualitative data is also needed
- They only see religion as a negative response to deprivation
- They ignoire the positive reasons people have for religious participation & the appeal some religions have for the wealthy
- They only use quantitative data about income levels & they don't examine people's own definitions of 'existential security'
- However makes two criticisms:
- Vasquez (2007) accepts that Norris & Inglehart offer a valuable explanation of different levels of religious participation globally
Comments
No comments have yet been made