I think what I and most other sociologists of religion wrote in the 1960s about secularization was a mistake. Our underlying argument was that secularization and modernity go hand in hand. With more modernization comes more secularization.
Even in a society as tightly controlled as Singapore’s, the market creates certain forces which perhaps in the long run may lead to democracy.
I’m sure Putnam is right that there’s been a decline in certain kinds of organizations like bowling leagues. But people participate in communities in other ways.
F. A. Hayek is probably the most prominent advocate of capitalism in the present period.
In all advanced industrial societies, education has become the single most important vehicle of upward mobility.
Our institute’s agenda is relatively simple. We study the relationship between social-economic change and culture. By culture we mean beliefs, values and lifestyles. We cover a broad range of issues, and we work very internationally.
When certain branches of the economy become obsolete, as in the case of the steel industry, not only do jobs disappear, which is obviously a terrible social hardship, but certain cultures also disappear.
The negative side to globalization is that it wipes out entire economic systems and in doing so wipes out the accompanying culture.
To be located in society means to be at the intersection point of specific social forces. Commonly one ignores these forces one also knows that there is not an awful lot that one can do about this.
One can’t understand the Christian Right and similar movements unless one sees them as reactive – they’re reacting to what they call secular humanism.
There is a continuum of values between the churches and the general community. What distinguishes the handling of these values in the churches is mainly the heavier dosage of religious vocabulary involved.
It has been true in Western societies and it seems to be true elsewhere that you do not find democratic systems apart from capitalism, or apart from a market economy, if you prefer that term.
In a market economy, however, the individual has some possibility of escaping from the power of the state.
If you say simply that pressures toward democracy are created by the market, I would say yes.
We also have a cultural phenomenon: the emergence of a global culture, or of cultural globalization.
If a socialist economy is opened up to increasing degrees of market forces, a point will be reached at which democratic governance becomes a possibility.
But we don’t have an example of a democratic society existing in a socialist economy – which is the only real alternative to capitalism in the modern world.
There is an intrinsic linkage between socialism and economic inefficiency.
So I think one can say on empirical grounds – not because of some philosophical principle – that you can’t have democracy unless you have a market economy.
India is the most religious country in the world, Sweden is the most secular country in the world, and America is a country of Indians ruled by Swedes.
Capitalism has been one of the most dynamic forces in human history, transforming one society after another, and today it has become established as an international system determining the economic fate of most of mankind.