By Galen Watts, University of Waterloo, The Conversation
In 1961, less than one per cent of Canadians identified as having no religion. In 2021, 43 per cent of those between 15 and 35 considered themselves religiously unaffiliated.
Organized religion — and especially Christianity — is in decline. Secularization is advancing apace. Most sociologists of religion agree on this. What they disagree about, however, is why.
In an article published in the journal Sociology of Religion, my co-author, sociology professor Sam Reimer, and I try to provide an answer to this question. We argue that secularization is sensitive to what we call the “religious imaginary” — how religion is viewed in a society.
The standard account of secularization
The prevailing account of secularization focuses on rationalization (the rising authority of science and reason), individualization (increased individualism and materialism) and pluralism (diversity is believed to weaken religious authority), as well as what are called the three B’s — belief, behaviour and belonging.
From this perspective, religion has declined in Canada because religious beliefs have been supplanted by secular beliefs and practices. Religious behaviours like praying or reading scripture have been replaced with secular behaviours like spending time with friends or exercising. In addition, religious identities rooted in tradition have been replaced by secular identities grounded in personal choices.
The standard account of secularization has a lot going for it. However, it also misses something important: the fact that the meaning of “religion” and what it means to be “religious” has changed over time.
As a result, it struggles to explain why Canada went from being a more religious country than the United States in terms of behaviour and belonging prior to 1960, to being, by 2023, much more secular.
It’s simply not the case that Canada has experienced more rationalization, individualization or pluralism than the U.S. — so the answer must lie elsewhere.
The religious imaginary
By religious imaginary we mean the shared assumptions people have about what religion is and does. We argue that countries have distinct religious imaginaries, which play a critical role in shaping the population’s relationship to religion. In essence, to understand religious change, we should also bear in mind a fourth B: branding.
To understand branding’s role in shaping views of “religion” we drew from recent survey data on young Canadians’ shifting sentiments toward the term, as well as our own interview data with 50 Anglo-Canadians born between 1980-2000 who identify as “spiritual but not religious” — a phrase claimed by around 40 per cent of Canadians.
Our findings indicate that the decline of organized religion in Canada is caused by a significant shift in the country’s religious imaginary: while “religion” was once widely seen by Canadians in positive terms, among younger people especially, it is increasingly seen in a negative light.
Many of the Canadian millennials we spoke to tended to view the word “religion” as:
(1) anti-modern;
(2) conservative;
(3) American; and
(4) colonial.
Religion is anti-modern
Among our interviewees, “religion” was generally seen as a holdover of a primitive pre-modern past. Terms commonly invoked were “anti-intellectual,” “cultish,” “ignorant” and “superstition.” For many young Canadians, then, “religious” and “modern” are seen as antithetical.
The notion that “religion” is anti-modern can be traced back to the Enlightenment, and is of longstanding provenance. However, it is only until recently that it became widespread in Canadian society.
We argue this discourse is most prevalent in the secular university, and that the ubiquity of this discourse in Canada is closely related to the post-1960s expansion of higher education. Canadians aged 25-34 are the most educated generational cohort across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, and for many of them, religion feels at odds with the modern world.
Religion is conservative
It was common for interviewees to tell us they viewed the word “religion” as conservative, illiberal or at odds with social progress. Terms regularly invoked were, “repressive,” “conformist,” “dogmatic” and “intolerant.” Likewise, these young Canadians tended to view “religion” as a threat to individual freedom and personal authenticity.
This idea can be traced back to the 1960s, and was popularized by movements like second-wave feminism and gay liberation, which were motivated by ideals of freedom and authenticity. Crucially, the real social progress achieved by these movements was discursively dependent upon the symbolic pollution of the word “religion.” In other words, religious dogma was coded by progressive and liberal activists in the 1960s as the “bad guy” against which they were fighting.
It can be argued there is nothing inherently conservative about religion, and historically, faith communities have been at the forefront of fights for social justice. However, since the 1960s progressive Christians have found it increasingly difficult to reconcile their “religious” and “progressive” identities, because the symbolic association between “religion” and “conservativism” has become widely taken-for-granted.
Religion is American
Many of the young Canadians we interviewed associated “religion” with the United States, and with the American Christian Right, specifically. Terms regularly invoked were “Westboro Baptists,” “the South,” and “the Republican Party.”
This discourse has its origins in the 1970s and 80s. Whereas the U.S. saw the rise of an assertive and politically engaged Christian Right in this period, Canada began forging its identity as a multicultural nation.
So, while Americans today remain divided over whether the U.S. should be a Christian nation, a majority of Canadians today embrace a “post-Christian” multicultural national identity.
Interestingly, because of its association with the U.S., rejecting “religion” was understood by some as a form of patriotism. By identifying as “spiritual but not religious,” interviewees contrasted themselves with the “un-Canadian” and “religious” U.S. Christian Right.
Religion is colonial
Although less common than the other three, references to Canada’s residential school system were reliably invoked in interviews. In these instances, feelings of shame and regret were on display, along with visceral anger at Christian churches for maintaining the colonial system.
This discourse became prominent in the wake of the creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC’s final report publicized the hideous conditions and crimes against Indigenous students at residential schools. Few other events have been as damaging to the Christian brand in Canada.
In 1950, being religious was widely considered an essential part of being Canadian. Of course, there are many religious affiliates in Canada, and it would be a mistake to assume the religious imaginary we’ve sketched is the only one. However, our findings lend support to sociologist Joel Thiessen’s observation that being “religious” in Canada is increasingly socially unacceptable, especially among the young.
Galen Watts, Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
