Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:23:44.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Accommodating Religious Pluralism in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2014

Anne Mark Nielsen*
Affiliation:
Post doctoral fellow at Roskilde University, Denmark [annemarkn@gmail.com].
Get access

Abstract

This article discusses the room for accommodating religious diversity offered by the particular configuration of secularity existing in Denmark. Theoretically, the article adopts Jose Casanova and Mark Chaves’ proposals to separate analytically between the core elements of secularisation, and to leave open for empirical analyses the development and potential connections between these in different geographical and geo-political contexts.

From this perspective, the article discusses the conditions for accommodating religious diversity offered by the peculiar combination prevailing in Denmark of a low level of structural differentiation combined with a high level of rationalisation, generalisation, and privatisation of religion. The article argues that the legal inequality existing in Denmark between religious communities stemming from the existence of a state supported church (i.e. a low level of differentiation) matters less for the accommodation of religious diversity than do widely held and strongly embedded popular sentiments and imaginations of the public sphere as strictly secular (i.e. a high level of rationalisation, generalisation and privatisation of religion).

Résumé

Cet article étudie la manière dont la configuration particulière de sécularisme propre au Danemark accorde l’espace nécessaire à la diversité religieuse. Il adopte le cadre théorique proposé par José Casanova et Mark Chaves pour distinguer analytiquement les composants centraux de la sécularisation et garantir l’étude empirique de leurs développements et de leurs rapports dans différents contextes géographiques et géo-politiques. Dans cette perspective, l’article étudie les conditions requises pour établir la diversité religieuse au Danemark à travers la combinaison d’un faible niveau de différenciation structurelle, et d’un haut niveau de rationalisation, de généralisation et de privatisation de la religion. L’article suggère que l’inégalité légale existant au Danemark entre les communautés religieuses issue de la relation forte entre l’État et l’Église (ex. le faible niveau de différenciation) compte moins pour la diversité religieuse que les sentiments et imaginaires séculaires largement et fortement partagés dans la sphère publique (ex. haut niveau de rationalisation, généralisation et privatisation de la religion).

Zusammenfassung

Es geht in diesem Beitrag um die Art und Weise, wie Dänemarks säkulares System der religiösen Diversität den notwendigen Spielraum einräumt. Der theoretische Rahmen von José Casanova und Mark Chaves erlaubt es, die zentralen Elemente der Säkularisierung analytisch zu unterscheiden und die empirische Studie ihrer Entwicklungen und Verhältnisse in verschiedenen geographischen und geopolitischen Zusammenhängen zu ermöglichen. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt untersucht der Aufsatz, welche Voraussetzungen das dänische System basierend auf einem niedrigen Niveau struktureller Differenzierung und einem hohen Niveau an Rationalisierung, Verallgemeinerung und Privatisierung der Religion für die religiöse Diversität bietet. Es zeichnet sich ab, dass die legale Ungleichheit, die in Dänemark unter religiösen Gemeinschaften aufgrund der starken Beziehung zwischen Staat und Kirche (z.B. das geringe Niveau der Differenzierung) besteht, weniger Bedeutung für die religiöse Diversität hat, als die weitverbreiteten und stark geteilten Gefühle und säkularen Vorstellungen (z.B. ein hohes Niveau an Rationalisierung, Verallgemeinerung und Privatisierung der Religion).

Type
Exceptional Cases
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahlin, Lars, Borup, Jørn, Qvortrup Fibiger, Marianne, Kühle, Lene, Mortensen, Viggo and Pedersen, René Dybdal, 2012. “Religious Diversity and Pluralism: Empirical Data and Theoretical Reflections from the Danish Pluralism Project”, Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27 (3): 403-418.Google Scholar
Andreassen, Rikke, 2005. Mass media’s construction of gender, sexuality, race and nationality. An Analysis of the Danish Media’s Communication about Visible Minorities, Ph.D. Dissertation (Toronto, University of Toronto).Google Scholar
Banchoff, Thomas, 2007. ‘‘Introduction’’, in Banchoff, Thomas,ed., Democracy and the New Religious Pluralism (Oxford, Oxford University Press: 3-18).Google Scholar
Barbalet, Jack, Possamai, Adam and Turner, Bryan S., 2011. Religion and State: A Comparative Sociology (London and New York: Anthem Press).Google Scholar
Beckford, James A., 2003. Social Theory and Religion (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Berg, Clarissa and Hervik, Peter, 2007. “Muhammedkrisen”: En politisk magtkamp i dansk journalistik, AMID Working Paper Series, 62.Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L., ed., 1999. The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co).Google Scholar
Bowen, John R., 2007, “A Secular Age: The Scope and Uses of secularity”, blogspot on The Immanent Frame, (http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2007/11/19/the-scope-and-uses-of-secularity/).Google Scholar
Bruce, Steve, 2011. “Defining Religion: A Practical Response”, International Review of Sociology, 21 (1): 107-120.Google Scholar
Casanova, José, 1994. Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicagp, University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Casanova, José, 2006. “Rethinking Secularization: A Global Comparative Perspective”, The Hedgehog Review, special Issue: After Secularization: 1-16.Google Scholar
Chaves, Mark, 1994. “Secularization as Declining Religious Authority”, Social Forces, 72 (3): 749-774.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, Lisbet, 2010. “State, Church and Religion in Denmark: At the Beginning of the 21st Century”, in Christoffersen Lisbet, Kjell A. Modeer, Svend Andersen and Niels Valdemar Vinding, Law and Religion in the 21st Century: Nordic Perspectives (Copenhagen, Djoef: 145–161).Google Scholar
Davie, Grace, 1994. Religion in Britain since 1945: believing without belonging (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar
Dunayevskaya, Raya, Hudis, Peter and Anderson, Kevin B., eds., 2002. The Power of Negativity: Selected Writings on the Dialectic in Hegel and Marx, (Lanham/Oxford, Lexington Books, 2002).Google Scholar
Goldstein, Warren S. 2009. “Secularization Patterns in the Old Paradigm”, Sociology of Religion, 70 (2): 157-178.Google Scholar
Gorski, Philip S., 2000. “Historicizing the Secularization Debate: Church, State, and Society in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ca. 1300 to 1700”, American Sociological Review, 65 (1): 138-167.Google Scholar
Gorski, Philip S. and Ates Altinordu, , 2008. “After Secularization?”, Annual Review of Sociology, 34: 55-85.Google Scholar
Gorski, Philip S., Kim, David Kyuman, Torpey, John and Van Antwerpen, Jonathan, 2012. “The Post-Secular in Question: Religion in Contemporary Society” (New York/London, Social Science Research Council/ New York University Press).Google Scholar
Hadden, Jeffrey K., 1987. “Toward Desacralizing Secularization Theory”, Social Forces, 65 (3): 587-611.Google Scholar
Hervieu-Léger, Danièle, 2004. “Religion und Sozialer Zusammenhalt in Europa”, Transit: Europaische Revue, 26.Google Scholar
Hughey, Michael W., 1979. “The Idea of Secularization in the Works of Max Weber: A Theoretical Outline”, Qualitative Sociology, 2 (1): 85-111.Google Scholar
Hussain, Mustafa, Yilmaz, FerruhO’Connor, og Tim, 1997. “Medierne, Minoritieterne og Majoriteten – en undersøgelse af nyhedsmedier og den folkelige diskurs i Danmark” (Copenhagen, Nævnet for etnisk ligestilling).Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Brian A., 2012. “Muslims in Denmark: A Critical Evaluation of Estimations”, in Nielsen, Jorgen, ed., Islam in Denmark, (Plymouth, Lexington Books: 31-56).Google Scholar
Kühle, Lene, 2004, Out of Many, One. A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Religious Pluralism in Denmark from a Perspective of Power, Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of Theology, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Kærgård, Niels and Petersen, Jørn Henrik, 2012. “Folkekirken, Staten og Økonomien”, in Cristoffersen Lisbet, Hans Raun Iversen, Niels Kærgård and Margit Warburg, eds., Fremtidens danske religionsmodel (København, Forlaget Anis: 259–273).Google Scholar
Lechner, Frank. J., 2001. “The Case against Secularization: A Rebuttal”, Social Forces, 69 (4): 1103-1119.Google Scholar
Luchau, Peter, 2012. “Folkekirken i tal 2011”, in Religion i Danmark 2012: En E-Årbog fra Center for Samtidsreligion, 4. Årgang, (Århus, Institut for kultur og samfund, Faculty of Arts, Århus Universitet).Google Scholar
Madsen, Jacob G., 2000. Mediernes konstruktion af flygtninge- og indvandrerspørgsmålet, (Copenhagen,Magtudredningen).Google Scholar
Martin, David, 1965. “Towards Eliminating the Concept of Secularizationin Julius, Gould ed., Penguin Survey of the Social Sciences (Harmondworth, Penguin books, 1965).Google Scholar
Pierucci, Antônio Flávio, 2000. “Secularization in Max Weber: On Current Usefulness of Re-accessing that Old Meaning”, Brazilian Review of Social Sciences, special issue, 1, October: 133-146.Google Scholar
Riis, Ole, 2011. “Rejection of Religious Pluralism—The Danish Case”, Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 24 (1): 19-36.Google Scholar
Shiner, Larry, 1965. “Toward a Theology of Secularization”, Journal of Religion, 45 (4): 279-295.Google Scholar
Shiner, Larry, 1967. “The Concept of Secularization in Empirical Research”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6 (2): 202-220.Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney, 1985. “From Church-Sect to Religious Economies”, in Phillip, Hammond, ed., The Sacred in a Post-Secular Age (Berkeley, University of California Press: 139-149).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney, 1996. “Bringing theory back in”, in Lawrence, Young ed., Rational choice theories of religion (London, Routledge: 3-23).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, William Sims, 1985. The Future of Religion (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Bainbridge, William Sims, 1987. A theory of religion (New York, Peter Lang).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger, 1992. The Churching of America, 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy” (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger, 2000. “Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion” (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Stark, Rodney and Finke, Roger, 2005. “The Churching of America, 1776-2005: Winners and Losers in our Religious Economy”, second edition (New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press).Google Scholar
Swatos, William H. Jr. and Christiano, Kevin J., 1999. “Secularization Theory: The Course of a Concept”, Sociology of Religion, 60 (3): 209-228.Google Scholar
Tschannen, Olivier, 1991. “The Secularization Paradigm: A Systematization”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30 (4): 395-415.Google Scholar
Vejrup, Nielsen, Kühle, Marie and Kühle, Lene, Center for Samtidsreligion, 2011, “Religion and State in Denmark: Exception among Exceptions?”, Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 24 (2): 173-188.Google Scholar
Weber, Max, 1958. The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Parsons, Talcott (New York, Free Press).Google Scholar
Wilford, Justin, 2010. “Sacred archipelagos: geographies of secularization”, Progress in Human Geography, 34 (3): 328-348.Google Scholar
Wilson, Bryan, 1979. “The Return of the Sacred”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18 (3): 268-280.Google Scholar
Woodhead, Linda and Catto, Rebecca, eds., 2012. Religion and change in modern Britain (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Yamane, David. 1997. “Secularization on Trial: In Defense of a Neosecularization Paradigm”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36 (1): 109-122.Google Scholar