Debate actual da secularização: teorias adeptas versus teorias adversárias

Translated title of the contribution: Current debate on secularisation: adept theories versus opponent theories

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Downloads

Abstract

This article aims to organise the theories of secularisation differently, based on philosophical/sociological affiliations and levels of analysis. To do so, as method, the comparative content analysis of the theories and/or the most relevant works of the main authors is used. Theories can be divided into two main groups, adepts and opponents of secularisation. While the adepts appear as deepening and adjustments of classic theories to the contemporary reality, advocating mainly the individual religiosity, the opponents present different conceptions of classic theories of secularisation, defending the permanence of the institutional religiosity. In the first group are the post-classical theories and the theories of individualisation, while in the second group are presented the economic model, the theories of return and the historical-cultural theories. Weber and Durkheim, and the epistemological schools they represent, are the major influence on the various existing theories, some mainly descendants of the former, others of the latter. The economic model differs from the other theories because it is the only one that is not influenced by Weber and is influenced by Anglo-Saxon empiricism.
Translated title of the contributionCurrent debate on secularisation: adept theories versus opponent theories
Original languagePortuguese
Pages (from-to)326-355
Number of pages30
JournalHORIZONTE - Revista de Estudos de Teologia e Ciências da Religião
Volume16
Issue number49
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Secularisation
  • Adept theories
  • Opponent theories
  • Weber
  • Durkheim

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Current debate on secularisation: adept theories versus opponent theories'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this