Explaining how religion and society transform each other, this book explores such movements as Holiness, Adventism, religious communes, Satanism, New Age and democratization. The Sociology of Religious Movements is the culmination of work begun in The Future of Religion (the 1986 award winner of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion) and A Theory of Religion (1993 award winner of the Pacific Sociological Association). Explaining religious schism, innovation, and conversion to show how religion and society transform each other, this book explores such movements Holiness, Adventism, religious communes, Children of God, Satanism, New York City Mission Society, New Age, Asian imports, and democratization.
There's always some pecular things with Stark and Bainbridge
like this
Stark and Bainbridge propose the religious market theory: People are naturally religious and religion meets human needs, therefore the demand for religion remains constant. It is in human nature to seek rewards and avoid costs, people make choices and they weigh up the benefits of different available options.
//////
some of their stuff is still controversial, like you have to just 'buy into their theories'
//////
What is the Stark and Bainbridge rational choice theory?
It is perhaps the most systematic recent attempt to provide a general theory of religion. The earliest statement of the rational choice approach was set out by Stark and Bainbridge. Religion, Stark and Bainbridge argue, is essentially an attempt to gratify desires or, as they put it, secure rewards.
////////
How do Stark and Bainbridge compare church operations to a market?
What did stark and Bainbridge state about religious competition? Churches operate like companies selling goods in a market.
//////
it's interesting how what some people consider irrational, is then defined by others as, a rational choice.
//////
"That is the basis for my whole sociology of religion: people are as thoughtful and rational about their religious choices as they are about other choices in life," Stark once said.
"If you assume that people make rational choices about religion, you start seeing how the world works a whole lot better."
/////
some have stated
'This model can explain the dominance of conservative churches over liberal ones, but it doesn't explain the appeal of conservative churches.'
/////
The Stark-Bainbridge Theory of Religion: A Critical Analysis and Counter Proposals
Roy Wallis and Steve Bruce Sociological Analysis Vol. 45, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 11-27 (17 pages)
That paper analyses the theory of religion and they basically say that it contains substantial internal difficulties and unwarrented assumptions.
And well, a lot of people like to be reductionist to fit things into cookie-cutter like patterns. It makes them feel calm and happy, and everyone else uneasy with the big dose of assumptions.
////////
oh wait here's the summary of that paper
Abstract
This paper analyses the Stark-Bainbridge theory of religion to show that it contains substantial internal difficulties and unwarranted assumptions. We show that it is not compatible with a closer evaluation of the evidence deployed in its defence, and that an alternative theory accounts for much of that evidence without reliance upon such assumptions. The difficulties of the Stark-Bainbridge theory stem from its reductionism, reducing religious belief to this-worldly considerations, and from the interpretive distance between Stark-Bainbridge and the actors whose beliefs and behaviour they seek to explain.
.........
Basically you read them for the history, and scowl at all the assumptions and sometimes they can predict a few things, and a lot of the time they assume a lot of weird shit
much like how religions assume a lot of weird shit