Existencial security theory
- Created by: chicalatina
- Created on: 04-03-14 13:17
View mindmap
- Existencial security theory
- Norris and Inglehart
- Reject the RMTheory as it fails to explain the variations om religiosity in different societies.
- The reason for the variations is because of the different degrees of existential security.
- Religion meets a need for security, so societies with high level security hve low level demand for religion.
- E.g. 3rd world countries are more religious as they are less secure than Western countries. Shows the demand for religion is not constant.
- Also note that global population growth undermines the trend towards secularisation as richer countries have low levels of population than poorer ones.
- Thus, richer countries are more secular and poorer countries are more religious.
- The trend towards secularisation is increasing in Europe, as it is most equal and secure (developed welfare, reducing poverty.)
- In America is remains religious as it the most unequal of rich societies (inadequate welfare state, creating high level of poverty.)
- Gill and Lundegaarde
- Found that a country who spends more on welfare, the lower their level of religious participation.
- But they don't expect religion to disappear completely
- Because although welfare provisions meet the needs for security it doesn't answer life's 'ultimate' questions.
- Criticisms
- Vasquez - Norris and Inglehart only use quantitative data about income levels.
- They don't examine people's own definitions of 'existential security' so qualitaitve date is also needed.
- They also only see religion as a negative response to deprivation.
- They ignore positive reasons people have for religious participation and the appeal some religions have for the wealthy.
- Vasquez - Norris and Inglehart only use quantitative data about income levels.
- Norris and Inglehart
Similar Sociology resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made