Religious stratification

Religious Stratification is the division of a society into hierarchical layers on the premise of religious beliefs, affiliation, or faith practices.

According to Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore in their article "Some Principles of Stratification", “The reason why religion is necessary is apparently to be found in the fact that human society achieves its unity primarily through the possession by its members of certain ultimate values and ends in common.” Furthermore, Davis and Moore contend that it is “the role of religious belief and ritual to supply and reinforce this appearance of reality” that these “certain ultimate values” have. This is one possible explanation for why religion is one of the underlying factors which links various forms of inequality into a chain of stratification.

Critical Overview

Broadly defined, social stratification is constituted by the division of a society into hierarchical layers based upon wealth, power, and prestige. There are many categories of inequalities that together result in social stratification:

*Social Inequality
*Economic inequality
*Status Inequality
*Political Inequality
*Wealth inequality in the United States
*Racial Inequality
*Gender Inequality
*Social interpretations of race
*Ethnic Inequality

Each of the above mentioned categories are widely addressed in society at large. Many sociologists have extensively researched the causes and effects of such inequalities. Yet one form of stratification that is not so widely discussed is that of religious stratification. It is this form of stratification that when examined more closely is revealed to be a common denominator across the board for being a source of stratification. It many instances economic inequality, status inequality, political inequality, sex and gender inequality, and even racial and ethnic inequality can be intensified when the factor of religion is accounted for.

Religious Stratification in the United States

Sociologists Ralph E. Pyle and James D. Davidson (2003) argue that religious stratification emerged during America's colonial period, as a result of religious ethnocentrism, religious competition, and the fact that some religious groups had more resources than other. They show that Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were over-represented among the economic, political, and educational elites. Other Protestant groups, Catholics, Jews, and people with no religious preference ranked much lower in status.

The ranking of religious groups has changed in some ways over the course of U.S. history (Davidson 2007; Davidson and Pyle 2005; Pyle 2006, 1996; Pyle and Koch 2001). Most notably, Jews have risen into the upper stratum, while Catholics have climbed into the upper-middle stratum. However, religious stratification persists. For example, Anglicans (now Episcopalians), Congregationalists (now United Church of Christ), and Presbyterians remain in the upper stratum, and other Protestants groups such as Baptists (who ranked low in the colonial period) have not experienced much upward mobility.

Davidson (2007) links these developments to laws, ideologies, and customs. In the colonial period, religious stratification was justified by law (Congregationalists were the "established" church in New England colonies; Anglicans were the "established" church in southern colonies). The first and fourteenth amendments, along with civil rights laws, have knocked the legal foundation out from under religious stratification. The pro-Protestant ideology that emerged in the colonial period has been tempered somewhat by multi-culturalism, but it remains an integral part of American culture. Religious groups that have adapted most to this ideology have experienced more mobility than other groups. Colonial elites also have developed a number of customs (such as church-sponosred prep schools, private colleges and universities, and legacy admissions) that have perpetuated their prominence. Another custom has been the tendency to appoint other religious elites to political office (Davidson, Kraus, and Morrissey 2005). Jews and Catholics have developed customs of their own (such as parochial schools and ownership of their own businesses) that have contributed to improvements in their social status.

Contrary to Davis and Moore's argument that stratification is functional for society, Davidson (2007) argues that religious stratification destabilizes society. It produces social problems (such as religious hate crimes) that otherwise would not exist.

tratification as the Result of the Social Implications of Religion

According to Evelyn L. Lehrer in her article "Religion as a Determinant of Economic and Demographic Behavior", religion has a significant impact on marital stability, the choice of marital partner, fertility, women’s work at home and in the labor market, education, wages and wealth, and the timing of entry into first union and the choice of whether to cohabit. In her research there are many instances in which stratification is the byproduct of religious faith practices. Stratification based on religion is evident specifically in the realm of economics. One case in point is the presence of women in the work force. Lehrer explains “The Mormon and conservative Protestant faiths make a sharp distinction between male and female social and economic roles, encouraging the traditional division of labor within the household when young children are present” (713). Depending on the socioeconomic class of the family, the expectation of the woman to adhere to these traditional social roles could be a factor by which the economic advancement of the family is limited. Cited within Lehrer’s book are studies which examine levels of education, wages, and wealth among different religious faiths. Lehrer writes in her book, “A conservative Protestant upbringing may be associated with an authoritarian approach to knowledge and a rejection of critical inquiry and unconventional modes of thinking, implying lower levels of certain types of home investments in child quality” (716). This was derived from the work of Sherkat and Darnell published in 1999. Also based on the work of Sherkat and Darnell published in 1997, is Lehrer’s assertion that conservative Protestant parents “often discourage their children from taking college preparatory courses, out of a concern that such courses may be harmful to them” (716). Lehrer, as a result, contends that children raised by conservative Protestant parents “often acquire less human capital in their formative years and may thus be less able to benefit from college” (716). So, as the topic is quite well developed, educational inequality is well researched and there is much evidence concerning the impact that an individual’s level of education can have in terms of the hierarchy of stratification. It seems however that there can be seen another factor which should be allowed for in terms of determining the lines of stratification. Perhaps the significant impact that education plays in inequality can be even better understood when religion is controlled for.

Other works which have investigated religious stratification include that of Gaetano Mosca whose research was published in his The Ruling Class. Although this work was published in the late 1930’s the concept that is brought forth is interesting to note and is perhaps still quite relevant in contemporary times. Mosca states that “In societies in which religious beliefs are strong and ministers of the faith form a special class a priestly aristocracy almost always arises and gains possession of a more or less important share of the wealth and the political power.”

ee also

*Religious Persecution
*Religious discrimination
*Religious segregation
*Genetic association
*Social stratification

References

*Davidson, James D. and Ralph E. Pyle, 2005. "Social Class," pp. 185-205 in Helen Rose Ebaugh (editor), Handbook of Religion and Social Institutions.
*Davidson, James D., 2007. "Religious Stratification: Its Origins, Persistence, and Consequences," presidential address, Association for the Sociology of Religion (August).
*Davidson, James D., Rachel Kraus, Scott Morrissey, 2005. “Presidential Appointments and Religious Stratification in the United States, 1789-2003.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, (December): 485-495.
*Pyle, Ralph E. and Jerome R. Koch, 2001. "The Religious Affiliation of American Elites, 1930s to 1990s," Sociological Focus (May): 125-137.
*Pyle, Ralph E., 1996. Persistence and Change in the Protestant Establishment.
*Pyle, Ralph E. and James D. Davidson, 2003. "The Origins of Religious Stratification in Colonial America," Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, (March): 57-75.
*Weber: "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism - Class, Status, Party".
*Darnell, Alfred and Darren F. Sherkat. 1997. “The impact of Protestant fundamentalism on educational attainment.” " American Sociological Review 62" (April): 306-315.
*Davis, Kingsley and Wilbert E Moore, 1945. “Some Principles of Stratification,” "American Sociological Review 10"(April): 242-49.
*Mosca, Gaetano. Arthur Livingston, ed., "The Ruling Class", translated by Hannah D. Kahn (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1939), pp. 50-54,56-62,65-66.
*Sherkat, Darren F. and Alfred Darnell. 1999. “The effects of parents’ fundamentalism on children’s educational attainment: Examining differences by gender and children’s fundamentalism,” "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion" 38(1): 23-35.
*Granovetter: "The Strength of Weak Ties."
*Tim B. Heaton and Marie Cornwall. "Religious Group Variation in the Socioeconomic Status and Family Behavior of Women."
*Christian Smith and David Sikkink. "Social Predictors of Retention in and Switching From the Religious Faith of Family of Origin: Another Look Using Religious Tradition Self-Identification."